Post/Author/DateTime	Post
malignor 11-23-06, 03:41 PM	EDITED PREFACE: I already conede that at high levels the caster could concievably replace the fighter. See below ("I concede") for my next question. I've seen it on many of the class-comparing discussions: The Cleric/Druid/Wizard can do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter. How? Isn't the fighter's job to be a 24/7 fighting machine whenever he has a sword/axe/whatever in his hand? Someone who can go toe-to-toe with enemies? The Cleric/Wizard can fight like a Warrior... after spending 2+ rounds buffing himself. In 2 rounds he can already be dead. In 2 rounds the combat can already be decided. The druid can be in animal form, but how much better is he than an equal level fighter? He's lacking the BAB, has fewer hitpoints, can't beat DR without wasting precious rounds on buffing... I can't help but feel that a most precious commodity, the ultimate deciding factor known as time is what gets sacrificed in an attempt to mimic the warrior (a fighter minus all its feats - as if the feats mean nothing). Time is one resource in combat that has immeasurable value. Wasting rounds to buff when they could be better spent seems a fatal tactic. A party NEEDS someone who can respond immediately with defensive or offensive force. That's what a melee character is there for. Without that immediate action/response, a party will not survive. - The fighter has feats the caster-mimic lacks. Feats don't get disrupted with a held action to strike like spells (a common tactic in my experience). - The fighter's equipment is more combat-oriented. Any reasonable caster-mimic would have more variation in equipment for their more omnidirectional role. - The fighter is ready to roll in round 1. Combat can be decided in one round with a well-placed strike, spell or similar. How many rounds does the caster-mimic need, and why does the enemy stand around and wait for you to prepare instead of crush you with its full strength while you sit and buff? - The fighter can do his job as long as he's alive. The caster mimic can only perform their mimic trick a certain number of times a day. I honestly want to know. EDIT: After reading the initial responses, I'd like to ask that you consider the context of the Fighter vs. Caster-mimic as a member of a party, complete with healer and spell support. Not as a solo gladiator. Also consider scenarios such as Core only, up to and including the Splat-crazy. EDIT2: The proverbial "holy grail" I'm attempting to find is some findings based on real games where a Player of a caster-mimic found that there are some things where the Barbarian of Fighter would have been far more suitable. I'm looking for a flaw, actually found, in a game, with what I call the caster-mimic (a caster mimicking a melee class). Examples of actual gameplay seem more valid than theory. EDIT3: New Question!!! See this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10730140#post10730140) in the same thread for the latest question/challenge.
Cael 11-23-06, 03:54 PM	I've seen it on many of the class-comparing discussions: The Cleric/Druid/Wizard can do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter. How? Isn't the fighter's job to be a 24/7 fighting machine whenever he has a sword/axe/whatever in his hand? Someone who can go toe-to-toe with enemies? The Cleric/Wizard can fight like a Warrior... after spending 2+ rounds buffing himself. In 2 rounds he can already be dead. In 2 rounds the combat can already be decided. The druid can be in animal form, but how much better is he than an equal level fighter? He's lacking the BAB, has fewer hitpoints, can't beat DR without wasting precious rounds on buffing... I can't help but feel that a most precious commodity, the ultimate deciding factor known as time is what gets sacrificed in an attempt to mimic the warrior (a fighter minus all its feats - as if the feats mean nothing). - The fighter has feats the caster-mimic lacks. Feats don't get disrupted with a held action to strike like spells (a common tactic in my experience). - The fighter's equipment is more combat-oriented. Any reasonable caster-mimic would have more variation in equipment for their more omnidirectional role. - The fighter is ready to roll in round 1. Combat can be decided in one round with a well-placed strike, spell or similar. How many rounds does the caster-mimic need, and why does the enemy stand around and wait for you to prepare instead of crush you with its full strength while you sit and buff? - The fighter can do his job as long as he's alive. The caster mimic can only perform their mimic trick a certain number of times a day. I honestly want to know. First off, the Cleric can Persist all his spells. That makes him 1 buffing sequence a day. 3 if he is paranoid or is having a bad day. Second, he can Quicken them to take up no actions (ar at least no actions that the Fighter can make use of) if Persistent Spells are banned. Third, the caster can still do a bunch of other things with the rest of their spells. Fourth, the Fighter's hp total, BAB, etc., is the same as the Cleric's after a Divine Power. On top of that, the Cleric's got a good Will save, the Fighter's greatest weakness, and his casting stat beefs this one up. Fifth, not all days have 20-gazillion encounters. For those with a lesser number, casters have the option to nova. Fighters do not. Sixth, a Druid's animal form can have a base Strength the Fighter can't even being to dream of, unless you cheese him out. But if you cheese him out, so can the Druid cheese himself out, and what you get is an angry Planar Shepherd on your rear. Seventh, equipment if a non-issue. If the caster is gimping himself to go the Fighter way, he will have Fighter eq. A Cleric would have 90% of Fighter eq in any case, what with Heavy Armour and the like. Eighth, any caster doing the Fighter schtick can last as long as they have hps too in that role. A Cleric, as mentioned, would have as many hps as the Fighter after a Divine Power. The difference is that a Cleric can also heal himself if those hps go down. The Fighter cannot. Oh, you can say that the Fighter can have healing potions, but guess what? So can the Cleric. In terms of staying power, that makes the Cleric last far longer than any Fighter can. If you fill the Cleric's spell slots with buffs and Heals, that is easily an additional 3000 hps over the Fighter per day, every day (Heal, Greater Heal, Mass Heal, Mass Greater Heal, you do the math...). Ninth, a Druid and/or Wizard, can have other utilities outside of combat. Sorcerers get Bluff as a class skill. Wizard and Druids just plain have more skill points than you, and the Druid get a very good selection of skills. The Cleric gets Diplomacy and a few Knowledge skills as class skills. What do Fighters get? Intimidate... Tenth, a Fighter will have to run up to an enemy or wait for him (we are talking melee specialist here), while a caster will just drop a nasty on him. If the Fighter uses a bow, he will have to spend a move action to draw his normal weapon when the enemy closes, provoking an AoO. Unless he spends a precious feat on it...
quenya 11-23-06, 03:55 PM	Hey nothing says that a cleric or druid has to use buff spells to be effective in melee. Certainly their effectiveness skyrockets when they do have a few rounds to prepare, but they can provide an immediate response. Once the whole party is into the battle in their own way. I know a group where the cleric of tempus(?) with the war domain took pride in being the first in, it was common for our wizard to scream flambe, wich was code to move out because here comes a fireball barrage. after the resulting 94 d6s get rolled the cleric had time enough to buff him self and finished all the damn dirty work.
Chimaera2000 11-23-06, 04:27 PM	I can point out a few reasons to begin with. I'm sure that others will point out other points besides mine, because there are many reasons why other casters can take the role of a fighter. I'll focus on the cleric and druid primarily; arcane spellcasters might be able to take the role of fighters at high levels (for example, using buffing or summoning spells), but clerics and druids can take to the "tanking" role more easily and at lower levels. First, despite the fighter's feats, a cleric and druid are as effective or more so with buffs. For example, a fighter achieves +2 to hit and +4 damage with Weapon Focus and Specialization; a cleric achieves +3 to hit and +3 damage with the humble 1st-level divine favor. Their base attack bonus and hit points are equivalent with divine power, and righteous might provides size, ability boosts, and damage reduction! Likewise, a druid that's wild shaped and boosted with spells like nature's favor will provide similar or greater numbers in combat to a fighter, due to animal's typically higher Strength scores; base attack bonus is less relevant when one is wild shaped into a polar bear. Likewise, these buffs can also be provided to the druid's animal companion, who also adds significantly to the druid's tanking ability. Now, of course, the obvious counterargument is "buffing takes time!" However, spellcasters have a variety of ways of getting around this. The classic example of this is the cleric's Divine Metamagic and Persistant Spell combination (Complete Divine), preferably combined with Nightsticks (Libris Mortis). No casting time will be required, as their self-buffs will last the entire day. Yes, they can be dispelled, but will you fight enemies that can cast dispel magic in every fight? Will they always succeed in dispelling all of your buffs if they do? The answer, of course, is no. At worst, your enemy has spent time dispelling your buffs and not casting direct-damage or battlefield control spells on the party. Even if one assumes a core-only game, extended or quickened spells can allow for buffs to be ready to go as soon as the dung hits the fan. The druid's wild shape also has a duration measured in hours as do spells such as magic vestement and greater magic fang or weapon. The spells just mentioned also refute the contention that a caster's equipment is more varied. So what if a divine caster has a periapt of wisdom when they have buffs that eliminate the need for high-enhancement arms and armor? Furthermore, spellcasters have access to item creation feats, which can roughly double the amount of equipment that you have availalble. As the Character Optimization boards' "XP is Like A River" thread also shows, XP loss is not necessarily a disadvantage, either! Divine spellcasters do have an "omnidirectional role," but their equipment choices do not suffer because of it. Indeed, this "omnidirectional role" of divine spellcasters is a strength, not a weakness. Fighters can fight effectively at low- to mid-levels, no doubt, but divine casters can fight effectively, have a more useful skill set, heal, buff, and use divinations at these levels as well. At higher levels, it's not even close, as divine casters can summon creatures that can outfight fighters, cast save-or-dies, and alter the conditions of any battle to their advantage. Fighters cannot even dream of matching the flexibility of a divine spellcaster. As the nail in the coffin, a fighter can't even fulfill his own role without the assistance of divine spellcasters. Fighters cannot "fight all day" because while spellcasters have a limited quantity of spells, fighter have another limited resource: hit points. A fighter can fight "as long as he's alive," but how long will that be without magical healing? Clerics and druids have far more staying power in this regard, as they can heal their own wounds. In a party without a fighter, a cleric or druid can function from battle to battle. One cannot say the same about a fighter in a party without a cleric or druid. Divine spellcasters can indeed perform the job of the fighter and do far more while they're at it.
Cael 11-23-06, 04:33 PM	First, despite the fighter's feats, a cleric and druid are as effective or more so with buffs. For example, a fighter achieves +2 to hit and +4 damage with Weapon Focus and Specialization; a cleric achieves +3 to hit and +3 damage with the humble 1st-level divine favor. Their base attack bonus and hit points are equivalent with divine power, and righteous might provides size, ability boosts, and damage reduction! Likewise, a druid that's wild shaped and boosted with spells like nature's favor will provide similar or greater numbers in combat to a fighter, due to animal's typically higher Strength scores; base attack bonus is less relevant when one is wild shaped into a polar bear. Likewise, these buffs can also be provided to the druid's animal companion, who also adds significantly to the druid's tanking ability. Actually, it is Bite of the Werebear that tops it for me. +16Str, +2Dex, +8Con, +7NAC, +enchancements to Bite attack, etc., is no joke...! The Fighter can only look at that on top of a Wildshape and cry...
Thunder Dragonbane 11-23-06, 04:52 PM	It seems to me that the last two are overlooking the fact that their uber casters are good on paper, maby even good once in a while in fact but the fighter is always a fighter. A Cleric is not a fighter, he is a priest that can fight. A Druid is possibly the most abused core class ever written, and is constantly on these boards. Yes casters can buff themselvs to invincability but I find that it takes to much time. unless every time combat starts, both sides wait untill the casters buff them selvs up, which is simply stupid.
Leo 11-23-06, 04:57 PM	The figher can take a bite fromt he werebear and also gain those buffs... Plus all those divine this and wildspahe that start wotking only in hight lvs. It's the fighter that protects the party in low levels. Then the fighter will prc in something shiny more quickly than the other guys because he has the feats to do so. Plus the fighter doesn't need to worry about losing it's abilities . The druid and cleric have to , your Dm is very nice follow codes of honor. Unless, of course your DM is nice enough to let your characters do whatever they want whitout penalizations. The figher isn't bound anyway for his actions. He hasn't selled his soul for power.
Cael 11-23-06, 04:58 PM	It seems to me that the last two are overlooking the fact that their uber casters are good on paper, maby even good once in a while in fact but the fighter is always a fighter. A Cleric is not a fighter, he is a priest that can fight. A Druid is possibly the most abused core class ever written, and is constantly on these boards. Yes casters can buff themselvs to invincability but I find that it takes to much time. unless every time combat starts, both sides wait untill the casters buff them selvs up, which is simply stupid. Right. I find it hilarious that you ignore everything and just stick to the assertion that the Fighter is ready 24/7. Hello! Druid Wildshape is 1 *hour*/level! Hello! Persistent Spell! Hello! Quicken Spell! Hello! A bit of logic, please! :rolleyes:
Cael 11-23-06, 04:58 PM	The figher can take a bite fromt he werebear and also gain those buffs... Plus all those divine this and wildspahe that start wotking only in hight lvs. It's the fighter that protects the party in low levels. Then the fighter will prc in something shiny more quickly than the other guys because he has the feats to do so. Plus the fighter doesn't need to worry about losing it's abilities . The druid and cleric have to , your Dm is very nice follow codes of honor. Unless, of course your DM is nice enough to let your characters do whatever they want whitout penalizations. The figher isn't bound anyway for his actions. He hasn't selled his soul for power. How? Fighters can cast spells now? When did that happen? Not even *the* fix for Fighters allowed that!
malignor 11-23-06, 05:04 PM	I concede Now on to the next question: What about lower or mid levels, when caster levels aren't high enough to access so many of these buffs and these metamagic schemes? Quicken Spell: 4 spell levels higher. This means for even 1st level quickened buffs, you'the caster is using up a 5th level spell slot. The Cleric/Druid/Wizard must be at least 9th level to even get quickened 1st level spells, and also that feat could be used for other things besides jacking up spell levels for low level spells. Hourly-length Buffs: Having played a fair number of mages myself, I can appreciate these. Right off, from level 1, these can increase one's chances for survival (at low level) or provide long term boosts of power (at high level). At lower levels, Extend Spell is a very useful feat, though that usefulness gets diminished somewhat after around level 12-16. Divine Metamagic/Persistent: First off, this is dependent on DM allowances for CDv and for the trick itself. It's wonderful for theoretical builds, but I honestly have yet to see any game where it's permitted. That alone diminishes the value of this trick, severely. Again, this can't be done very early. So what about low/mid levels?
Khael 11-23-06, 05:12 PM	The figher can take a bite fromt he werebear and also gain those buffs... Plus all those divine this and wildspahe that start wotking only in hight lvs. It's the fighter that protects the party in low levels. Then the fighter will prc in something shiny more quickly than the other guys because he has the feats to do so. Plus the fighter doesn't need to worry about losing it's abilities . The druid and cleric have to , your Dm is very nice follow codes of honor. Unless, of course your DM is nice enough to let your characters do whatever they want whitout penalizations. The figher isn't bound anyway for his actions. He hasn't selled his soul for power. He can be bitten by a werebear. He can (And by this does) give up almost epic levels in any character class since he now has an LA and animal HD to level in, meaning he lost out on those bonus feats, those saves, that BAB. Still want to get bitten just for those add-ons to stats? And 'all those divine this' include a level 1 spell. Early on, a cleric can start fighting like a fighter in other words. Sure the fighter protects early on, but if you're looking into shiny PrCs from the start, you're quite possibly also looking into the long haul levels-wise, and seeing early retirement in terms of use. And what code to uphold? Yes, they have a code but how is being a good melee tank breaking it, or are you using a pacifist deity? Edit: started writing before the above was posted...
ShubNiggurath 11-23-06, 05:12 PM	The only buff a druid will ever really need is wildshape, and from 8th level on, it is always on. Also remember that a druid has an animal companion too. Do you think that an 8th level fighter is stronger in combat than an 8th level brown bear wildshaped druid+his brown bear companion? Do you really want to try it? With a cleric it is even easier: thanks to persistant DMM he is always a fighter with spells. A fighter is useful only from levels 1 to 5/6. After that I prefer a divine caster as a tank, thanks. And even before that a divine caster is almost there. CoDzilla ftw. ------------------------- Real experience: I am playing in a group (low magic, high point-buy) campaign. We started with a barbarian, a rogue, a sorcerer and a druid (me) and at level 3. I was outdamaging the barbarian (thanks to summons + animal companion) from the very beginning. Now we are at level 7 and a ranger/rogue joined us, so the rogue changed character to a cleric/archer. We are trying to tone it down, because most of the encounters can be solo-ed by my druid's summons and the buffed cleric arrows. And, btw, the barbarian and the ranger/rogue have 80%+ of the group treasure in magic items/armors/weapons
saidin0111 11-23-06, 05:20 PM	if they're "fighting," are they doing what the party needs of them, or are they just trying to show up the fighter, I mean what about lobing spells instead of closing for melee, and did someone mention using quickened spells to use practicly no time to layer several buffs on themselves?, since when are you allowed to use multiple quickened spells in one round?, and since we are talking about members of a party, wouldn't it be better to buff the fighter who is 5-10 BAB ahead of the casters and likely starting with more STR as well, just unload with the non-self only buffs and now you have a fighting machine, or you can take down the BBEG with magic, while the fighter tears through the minions, don't forget that there are just about as many defenses against magic as there are against basic attacks, if not more, if one reads the characters with class articles, they will notice that for fighters, it notes that they are dependent upon other classes to survive, namely casters for healing and buffs, but seeing as how party success is the important thing and not my char. pwns more than your char. the casters should be happy to help the fighter out there, so long as he keeps them from being engaged by melee enemies, the party is all about support, from everyone for everyone, not well, the fighter supports everyone, the wiz supports himself, the cleric supports himself with a few healing spells to go around for anyone else, the druid supports herself (though that is one class that is supposed to be self-sufficient, along with the ranger), and the other characters mainly just support themselves to be better pwners than that stupid fighter that has no way to buff himself, how stupid, don't you know that you only buff yourself, this is the mentality that I see all around, and in such an atmosphere, the fighter is dreadfully far behind, but in a good "team playing" atmosphere, the fighter has their moments in the spotlight, too
Cael 11-23-06, 05:21 PM	I concede Now on to the next question: What about lower or mid levels, when caster levels aren't high enough to access so many of these buffs and these metamagic schemes? Well, Human Clerics can get DMM: Persistent at level 1. A Persisted Divine Favour would net him +1hnd. Which is better than a Fighter's +1 to-hit with Weapon Focus. At mid levels, Divine Power kicks in (level 7). All you need, really... Druids have the animal companion, which at level 1 is better than a Fighter (if chosen wisely). The Riding Dog, for example, has a Fighter's hp, BAB, etc., but better saves and gets to trip and stuff, plus has +4 natural armour bonus, something the Fighter cannot match. You can add barding to the little guy and watch him eat Fighters for breakfast. And then *you* wade into the fray with your 2d6+1 Club of Doom (better known as a Shillalegh) and flank the Fighter. At mid-levels, you get Wildshape (level 5) and it is practically game over. It becomes game over at level 8, when you get Large Wildshape. Arcane casters are more dicey, but summons should be good enough to tank for you while you cut down the opposition with spells. Alternatively, there is always the gish way, which makes you a Fighter with lots of spells at your fingertips. Better than a pure Fighter.
malignor 11-23-06, 05:23 PM	I was outdamaging the barbarian (thanks to summons + animal companion) from the very beginning. ... We are trying to tone it down, because most of the encounters can be solo-ed by my druid's summons and the buffed cleric arrows.Is your DM enforcing or taking advantage of the 1-round casting time for your summons (I love summons - hence my Alienist from back in the day... one of my favorite chars)?
Cael 11-23-06, 05:23 PM	if they're "fighting," are they doing what the party needs of them, or are they just trying to show up the fighter, I mean what about lobing spells instead of closing for melee, and did someone mention using quickened spells to use practicly no time to layer several buffs on themselves?, since when are you allowed to use multiple quickened spells in one round?, and since we are talking about members of a party, wouldn't it be better to buff the fighter who is 5-10 BAB ahead of the casters and likely starting with more STR as well, just unload with the non-self only buffs and now you have a fighting machine, or you can take down the BBEG with magic, while the fighter tears through the minions, don't forget that there are just about as many defenses against magic as there are against basic attacks, if not more, if one reads the characters with class articles, they will notice that for fighters, it notes that they are dependent upon other classes to survive, namely casters for healing and buffs, but seeing as how party success is the important thing and not my char. pwns more than your char. the casters should be happy to help the fighter out there, so long as he keeps them from being engaged by melee enemies, the party is all about support, from everyone for everyone, not well, the fighter supports everyone, the wiz supports himself, the cleric supports himself with a few healing spells to go around for anyone else, the druid supports herself (though that is one class that is supposed to be self-sufficient, along with the ranger), and the other characters mainly just support themselves to better pwners than that stupid fighter that has no way to buff himself, how stupid, don't you know that you only buff yourself, this is the mentality that I see all around, and in such an atmosphere, the fighter is dreadfully far behind, but in a good "team playing" atmosphere, the fighter has their moments in the spotlight, too You missed the point. The point is, would the party be better off if a Cleric *replaced* the Fighter (i.e., it is still a 4 PC party, only there are now 2 Clerics in the party, not one, and one of them is built to melee), not a Cleric trying to take over the Fighter's role, effectively making a 4 PC party into a 3 PC one.
Cael 11-23-06, 05:25 PM	Is your DM enforcing or taking advantage of the 1-round casting time for your summons (I love summons - hence my Alienist from back in the day... one of my favorite chars)? Doesn't matter, unless all your encounters start with the enemy right next to you. Sure, the bad guy can charge in, but he gets one hit before he is flanked three way to Sunday, that is, if the animal companion didn't intercept him to begin with...
malignor 11-23-06, 05:32 PM	Well, Human Clerics can get DMM: Persistent at level 1. A Persisted Divine Favour would net him +1hnd. Which is better than a Fighter's +1 to-hit with Weapon Focus. At mid levels, Divine Power kicks in (level 7). All you need, really...Again, this is more often theoretical than actual, since I have yet to find a DM who permits DMM: Persistent. What good is such a OMGH4X (and that's what DMM-P is, is a classic OMGH4X... I wonder what editor let that through) when you can't even use it in most games?Druids have the animal companion, which at level 1 is better than a Fighter (if chosen wisely). The Riding Dog, for example, has a Fighter's hp, BAB, etc., but better saves and gets to trip and stuff, plus has +4 natural armour bonus, something the Fighter cannot match. You can add barding to the little guy and watch him eat Fighters for breakfast. And then *you* wade into the fray with your 2d6+1 Club of Doom (better known as a Shillalegh) and flank the Fighter. At mid-levels, you get Wildshape (level 5) and it is practically game over. It becomes game over at level 8, when you get Large Wildshape.This sounds like something worth contending, as I think you may be right, but something tells me there's a bit of underestimation of the fighter on your part. For now I'll just say "hmmmm quite likely".Arcane casters are more dicey, but summons should be good enough to tank for you while you cut down the opposition with spells. Alternatively, there is always the gish way, which makes you a Fighter with lots of spells at your fingertips. Better than a pure Fighter.Well summons are tricky as you really need to get your butt covered (by, say, a fighter) so you don't get disrupted as you stand around for a round summoning. As for the Gish, that's another topic. One I love, since I'm experimenting with a Gish who's heavy into the Share Spells love (Ranger4/Sorc6/EldrKt1+, with Animal Companion and Familiar; and the Natural Bond feat so his ACmpn isn't so much of a redshirt).
saidin0111 11-23-06, 05:33 PM	You missed the point. The point is, would the party be better off if a Cleric *replaced* the Fighter (i.e., it is still a 4 PC party, only there are now 2 Clerics in the party, not one, and one of them is built to melee), not a Cleric trying to take over the Fighter's role, effectively making a 4 PC party into a 3 PC one. and that 2nd cleric would still be a much better contribution to their party if they slung spells or focused on summoning than if they became a melee specialist
saidin0111 11-23-06, 05:37 PM	Doesn't matter, unless all your encounters start with the enemy right next to you. Sure, the bad guy can charge in, but he gets one hit before he is flanked three way to Sunday, that is, if the animal companion didn't intercept him to begin with... and so all encounters begin on open fields during the day at maximum sight distance, and of course the enemies never bring a mix of different tactics with them, that would make the party rely on everyone, no, we couldn't have that, we'll just make it so we can do it with 2 clerics, a druid, and a wizard, yay open fields with short grass and mud
DarkRhystar 11-23-06, 05:43 PM	Again, this is more often theoretical than actual, since I have yet to find a DM who permits DMM: Persistent. What good is such a OMGH4X (and that's what DMM-P is, is a classic OMGH4X... I wonder what editor let that through) when you can't even use it in most games? What good is asking if the caster can outdo the Fighter at low levels and then changing the rules when someone gives a way of doing so? Honestly, set some ground rules first. :) It's not fair to say "X isn't a factor because some DMs don't allow it." That doesn't mean it doesn't work; it just means that some DMs alter the game.
Argaud 11-23-06, 05:45 PM	A well-built warrior cleric can fight at 80% of a fighter (or barbarian) effectiveness at high level (when he can quicken the good stuff) and that is often enough for the party needs. They also have great staying power (or tanking power, if you will) thanks to healing magics. Moreover, the clerics can heal, buff, blast a little and have useful skills. They are rightfully considered the mightiest class in the game. Clerics are good for everything. I have no freaking idea of why druids are held up there with the clerics, but druids are pretty cool too. Great skills, good buffing, decent blasting, shapeshifting (into mostly awkward, AC-challenged mediocre animal shapes, but hey, they were already good -before- the shapeshifting!). The animal companion isn’t anywhere as good as good as a cohort (much less another party member) but with a couple buffs and some healing help it becomes a decent meatwall, and sometimes it can eat an enemy minion or two, which helps. You can also ride it, folks respect a guy riding a T-Rax. A lot. There are some high-level spells in splatbooks that make casters extremely powerful in melee too. Most of the folks using them to say the casters are better than fighters tend to forget that buffed fighters are still better than casters. And in cheesy, anything goes games, fighters tend to have stupidly overpowered custom magical items and spend all the day polymorphed into war trolls, leonals, firbolg giants or pickyourtwinkycritter. Casters can have the items too, but since they usually mimic their best buffs, they don’t benefit much, and casters avoid Polymorph Any Objet cheese because it kills the high mental stats they need to nuke enemies.
Cael 11-23-06, 05:50 PM	and that 2nd cleric would still be a much better contribution to their party if they slung spells or focused on summoning than if they became a melee specialist Are you mad??!! Weren't we arguing why a Cleric can *replace* a Fighter?? Why are you trying to go in a totally different direction altogether? Edit: No, you are not mad. I just pegged on to what you are trying to do. You are trying to, via a series of misleading assumptions and questions, to change the rules of the argument, to make it so that a melee specialist is once again needed because there are only squishy casters around. Bad form, dude. Very bad form.
Cael 11-23-06, 05:53 PM	and so all encounters begin on open fields during the day at maximum sight distance, and of course the enemies never bring a mix of different tactics with them, that would make the party rely on everyone, no, we couldn't have that, we'll just make it so we can do it with 2 clerics, a druid, and a wizard, yay open fields with short grass and mud We don't need to have an open grass plain. All we need is for the enemy to take more than a 5ft step on Round 1. *You*, on the other hand, is arguing from a "all combats start within arm's reach". Which is more likely, I wonder? :rolleyes:
Cael 11-23-06, 05:54 PM	What good is asking if the caster can outdo the Fighter at low levels and then changing the rules when someone gives a way of doing so? Honestly, set some ground rules first. :) It's not fair to say "X isn't a factor because some DMs don't allow it." That doesn't mean it doesn't work; it just means that some DMs alter the game. Because they suddenly realise that they are beaten? Sort of like how some politicians "inhale but never swallow"? :innocent:
malignor 11-23-06, 06:00 PM	An interesting note I'd like to add. Suppose you have an all CoDzilla party. Some who played the role of tank. Suppose there was a villain who was aware of these fellows (escaped them last week). It would be somewhat easy to destroy these folks without the DM having to metagame. Step 1: hire a tough non-supernatural goon. Like maybe a Barbarian, or a Fighter. Preferrably something with good Natural Armor. Gear them up with sexy non-magical gear, like a Fighter with Improved Sunder and an Adamantine Falchion. Step 2: use Magic Jar on the willing scrapper Step 3: cast Antimagic Field and destroy the MJar receptable (ending the MJar spell) Step 4: the scrapper runs off to kill enemy party. This is not something theoretical. It's reasonable, plausable and something I'd honestly use.
Cael 11-23-06, 06:03 PM	A well-built warrior cleric can fight at 80% of a fighter (or barbarian) effectiveness at high level (when he can quicken the good stuff) and that is often enough for the party needs. They also have great staying power (or tanking power, if you will) thanks to healing magics. Moreover, the clerics can heal, buff, blast a little and have useful skills. They are rightfully considered the mightiest class in the game. Clarics are good for everything. I have no freaking idea of why druids are held up there with the clerics, but druids are pretty cool too. Great skills, good buffing, decent blasting, shapeshifting (into mostly awkward, AC-challenged mediocre animal shapes, but hey, they were already good -before- the shapeshifting!). The animal companion isn’t anywhere as good as good as a cohort (much less another party member) but with a couple buffs and some healing help it becomes a decent meatwall, and sometimes it can eat an enemy minion or two, which helps. You can also ride it, folks respect a guy riding a T-Rax. A lot. There are some high-level spells in splatbooks that make casters extremely powerful in melee too. Most of the folks using them to say the casters are better than fighters tend to forget that buffed fighters are still better than casters. And in cheesy, anything goes games, fighters tend to have stupidly overpowered custom magical items and spend all the day polymorphed into war trolls, leonals, firbolg giants or pickyourtwinkycritter. Casters can have the items too, but since they usually mimic their best buffs, they don’t benefit much, and casters avoid Polymorph Any Objet cheese because it kills the high mental stats they need to nuke enemies. I don't recall items coming into the mix... Suffice to say that anything a Fighter can buy, a caster can do better. Only a caster can have a +14 weapon/armour/shield pre-Epic, something a Fighter could never do.
Cael 11-23-06, 06:05 PM	An interesting note I'd like to add. Suppose you have an all CoDzilla party. Some who played the role of tank. Suppose there was a villain who was aware of these fellows. It would be somewhat easy to destroy these folks. Step 1: hire a tough non-supernatural goon. Like maybe a Barbarian, or a Fighter. Preferrably something with good Natural Armor. Gear them up with sexy non-magical gear, like a Fighter with Improved Sunder and an Adamantine Falchion. Step 2: use Magic Jar on the willing scrapper Step 3: cast Antimagic Field and destroy the MJar receptable (ending the MJar spell) Step 4: the scrapper runs off to kill enemy party. Hmm... So we have a guy that is geared up to be non-magical to kill magical stuff... Talk about your one trick ponies. By the same rote, the casters would see him coming a mile away via Divinations, have all their buffs ready in the form of Fly and Greater Invis, and just carpet bomb him with Shrink Item'd Boulders. Have a nice day. PS: Shrink Item'd Boulders is how contemptuous I find your Fighter. If he wasn't so obviously one-trick ponied, I'd be using bows/crossbows instead.
Argaud 11-23-06, 06:08 PM	Step 1: hire a tough non-supernatural goon. Like maybe a Barbarian, or a Fighter. Preferrably something with good Natural Armor. Gear them up with sexy non-magical gear, like a Fighter with Improved Sunder and an Adamantine Falchion. Step 2: use Magic Jar on the willing scrapper Step 3: cast Antimagic Field and destroy the MJar receptable (ending the MJar spell) Step 4: the scrapper runs off to kill enemy party. Easier to send the scrapper with a Torc of Anti-magic. The items to totally screw the warrior-caster already exist. The question is only if the DM is bastardy enough to use them.
malignor 11-23-06, 06:09 PM	and so all encounters begin on open fields during the day at maximum sight distance, and of course the enemies never bring a mix of different tactics with them, that would make the party rely on everyone, no, we couldn't have that, we'll just make it so we can do it with 2 clerics, a druid, and a wizard, yay open fields with short grass and mudIn a campaign, combats occur from different distances and circumstances. Sometimes the party gets to do the ambushing, sometimes the party gets amushed. Sometimes it's from long range, sometimes it's in your face. A party that wants to survive should honestly be able to handle... - various forms of terrain - ranged combat - "scramble" melee combat - being ambushed - ambushing tactics Failure in any of these can result in a dead party. No assumptions should be made as to "how combat will happen". Assume the worst for any party or build, because it's eventually going to happen.
malignor 11-23-06, 06:10 PM	Hmm... So we have a guy that is geared up to be non-magical to kill magical stuff... Talk about your one trick ponies. By the same rote, the casters would see him coming a mile away via Divinations, have all their buffs ready in the form of Fly and Greater Invis, and just carpet bomb him with Shrink Item'd Boulders. Have a nice day. PS: Shrink Item'd Boulders is how contemptuous I find your Fighter. If he wasn't so obviously one-trick ponied, I'd be using bows/crossbows instead.You seem to be taking this awful personally. You okay?
Argaud 11-23-06, 06:11 PM	A party that wants to survive should honestly be able to handle... <snip> Failure in any of these can result in a dead party. No assumptions should be made as to "how combat will happen". Assume the worst for any party or build, because it's eventually going to happen. Well said, sir.
Cael 11-23-06, 06:16 PM	You seem to be taking this awful personally. You okay? Not really. Idiots that think up of one-trick ponies specifically designed to kill a certain group, and then using it to claim that because of that one thing, the group it belongs to trumps the other, annoys me because of its disingenuity.
malignor 11-23-06, 06:21 PM	What good is asking if the caster can outdo the Fighter at low levels and then changing the rules when someone gives a way of doing so? Honestly, set some ground rules first. :) It's not fair to say "X isn't a factor because some DMs don't allow it." That doesn't mean it doesn't work; it just means that some DMs alter the game.Sorry. I should have mentioned such things. It's pretty tough to convey everything in the first post. I'm not trying to create a "thought experiment" with "rules" and such. I'm talking about the D&D campaigns you play, I play, the other fellow plays, etc. The games where every day is different, combat is varied. I also (as mentioned in my very first post) beg you to consider even the Core-only side, and/or where things like DMM-P is not a factor (something common in my experience). It's not about "changing the rules"... Since I've posted more than 3 times, and the things I've already mentioned it's a fair assumption that I already know about DMM-P, theoretical builds and so forth. Regurgitating what's been said dozens of times on other threads does nothing, or I wouldn't have started this thread to begin with. I guess what I'm hoping for is some evidence that there are cases where the fighter was replaced with a caster-mimic, and the player of that caster-mimic found some flaws in the application of the theory. NOTE: I edited my OP. See "EDIT2" on post#1. Hopefully this should clarify what I'm looking for.
ninjarabbit 11-23-06, 06:25 PM	The thing is that it's not just the casters can do the fighter's job better than the fighter but but rather almost every other class can do the fighter's job better than the fighter.
belthazzar1113 11-23-06, 06:35 PM	the idea of a caster replaceing a melle character or a fighter isn't a bad one. its possible for a cleric to persist divine power, bull strength, cats grace, bulls endurance, and have a few other buff spells to cast right before combat.... a wizard cna have tensors transformation, polymorph or bull strength and cats grace ect to shore them up, along with false life for some extra hp. its a fine idea untill you find someone that will dispell them like every warlock on the planet, or a binder or another cleric, druid or wizard... one good dispell magic and they are done. heaven forbid someone has a potion or token of dispell magic. or that they run into any kind of anti magic or disjoining trap. but the people who belive in this idea don't ever like to think about that or talk about that. they don't like to know that they spend every single turning attempt they have in a day to persist a few spells and a single good shot of dispell renders them squishy again. its like alot of things in dnd. you can push really high as long as your willing to have a glaring weakness. if your willing to spend all of a characters resources on a single thing you can get really amazing at that one single thing, but your going to suffer somewhere else. Vaster tanks spend huge amounts of spells and abilities to be able to be caster tanks and they make themselves horrible vunerable to a single dispell stripping so many of their resources away, but while its working its a decent trick. as long as they ahve a holy symbol, a spell book and arn't around anything that could dispell magic they are great and are fine to replace fighters. of course fighters don't have to worry about those vunerabilites but no one likes to talk about that. fighters have alot more tactical options being able to climb feat trees and get alot of things clerics and wizard just don't have access too but no one like to think about actually doing anything more than divine persistant wannabe fighter. *sigh* i hope the sarcastic tone was obvious. but here is one for you.... why would you build a character that spends 90% of their resources to be 70% as effective as a fighter? the numbers are made up, but the point is valid. you don't need a cleric to pretend to be a fighter if you just have a fighter. you don't need a wizard to pretend to be a fighter if you just have a fighter. then you actually have someone that doesn't have to worry so much about everything and getting the right spells up and making sure they don't run into a dispell... i think we all get the point. can it work? sure. should it be done? probly not.
saidin0111 11-23-06, 06:42 PM	We don't need to have an open grass plain. All we need is for the enemy to take more than a 5ft step on Round 1. *You*, on the other hand, is arguing from a "all combats start within arm's reach". Which is more likely, I wonder? :rolleyes: the statement was meant as an exageration and of course you argue from a standpoint of having some breathing room and not an entire empty bettlefield, I don't say that all combat will or should occur at close range, but it will happen from time to time and there are plenty of intelligent baddies out there that can use tactics very well, thus a wholly magic dependent party will eventually find themselves in a real jam, but with just a sprinkling of mundane in the party, that jam can really be minimized, of course I do kind of find the fighter debate amusing, as melee combat is not optimized fighting anyways, b/c at high levels there are a lot of things out there that will tear a party member to shreds in melee, no matter what class they are, oh and if you did have an open grass field, I would hope you would be blasting and not buffing up for melee I do have one set up for a fighter with only 5 levels of a PrC (Tempest) that is nice and can't really be copied by other classes, but this ivolves going past 20 lvls, I know, epic doesn't see much use in the forums, and maybe in play too, but it's no more cheese than CDv, the idea is to focus on TWF, Power Attack, and Imp. Crit. feat trees, I think it takes about 25 of fighter and 5 of tempest, also, get monkey grip, the finished product will dual wield falchions and have both of the epic extensions of the Imp. Crit. feat, causing saves on crits or instant death, and with the crit. range that the character should have, that will mean probably one save a round or close to it, sometimes multiple saves per round or die, if you have the kensai PrC open to you, including that in the build makes the number of crits just insane and leaves a lot of carnage in its wake, I believe the save vs. death is Fort. vs. damage or is based off of damage somehow, thus the dual monkey gripped falchions instead of rapiers
Calestin Kethal 11-23-06, 06:45 PM	Well, from personal experience I can vouch for a priestly type doing multiple roles well. In a recent campaign, we decided to have an exalted party a la BoED. We started at 8th level and finished at about 15th. I played a melee centric cleric/radiant servant of Pelor. In addition to myself, we had a favored soul of Pelor/risen martyr, VoP druid with a wolf animal companion, and a warforged warmage/exalted arcanist. Tanking responsibilities varied between myself, the favored soul, and the druid's animal companion. I usually only needed one round or two for buffs waking from a dead sleep, usually luminous armor and righteous might. (We had a lot of night ambushes). When not asleep, righteous might was usually enough. Magical full plate and a magical shield are handy like that. Admittedly, we didn't play the lower levels, but a large portion of my "go to" spells were 1st - 3rd level spells.
malignor 11-23-06, 06:48 PM	its a fine idea untill you find someone that will dispell them like every warlock on the planet, or a binder or another cleric, druid or wizard... one good dispell magic and they are done. heaven forbid someone has a potion or token of dispell magic. or that they run into any kind of anti magic or disjoining trap. but the people who belive in this idea don't ever like to think about that or talk about that. they don't like to know that they spend every single turning attempt they have in a day to persist a few spells and a single good shot of dispell renders them squishy again.A few things. - a potion cannot be used offensively, can it? - counterspelling DspMgc is always an option, and a caster-mimic with foresight (as in Wisdom > 6, not the spell) would likely get a ring of counterspelling and keep it charged with DspMgc whenever possible. This reduces the chances of Dispelling. - Dispelling the caster-mimic is certainly a valid tactic which will work reasonably well depending on how they're geared (CL booster items, etc). Spamming DspMgc is a great way to frag them with some level of consistency, and probably the best means against them (or the Antimagic-designed goon).
Cael 11-23-06, 06:50 PM	the statement was meant as an exageration and of course you argue from a standpoint of having some breathing room and not an entire empty bettlefield, I don't say that all combat will or should occur at close range, but it will happen from time to time and there are plenty of intelligent baddies out there that can use tactics very well, thus a wholly magic dependent party will eventually find themselves in a real jam, but with just a sprinkling of mundane in the party, that jam can really be minimized, of course I do kind of find the fighter debate amusing, as melee combat is not optimized fighting anyways, b/c at high levels there are a lot of things out there that will tear a party member to shreds in melee, no matter what class they are, oh and if you did have an open grass field, I would hope you would be blasting and not buffing up for melee I do have one set up for a fighter with only 5 levels of a PrC (Tempest) that is nice and can't really be copied by other classes, but this ivolves going past 20 lvls, I know, epic doesn't see much use in the forums, and maybe in play too, but it's no more cheese than CDv, the idea is to focus on TWF, Power Attack, and Imp. Crit. feat trees, I think it takes about 25 of fighter and 5 of tempest, also, get monkey grip, the finished product will dual wield falchions and have both of the epic extensions of the Imp. Crit. feat, causing saves on crits or instant death, and with the crit. range that the character should have, that will mean probably one save a round or close to it, sometimes multiple saves per round or die, if you have the kensai PrC open to you, including that in the build makes the number of crits just insane and leaves a lot of carnage in its wake, I believe the save vs. death is Fort. vs. damage or is based off of damage somehow, thus the dual monkey gripped falchions instead of rapiers It is per attack. TWF'ers are good in cumulative damage but not one big whack, which is what triggers save vs massive damage. Add in some DR, and TWF'ers tend to be nailed over. Tempest is a good class, but its capstone ability can only be used once a day. Great if you know you are in an arena fight, but pretty useless elsewhere.
Cael 11-23-06, 06:52 PM	A few things. - a potion cannot be used offensively, can it? - counterspelling DspMgc is always an option, and a caster-mimic with foresight (as in Wisdom > 6, not the spell) would likely get a ring of counterspelling and keep it charged with DspMgc whenever possible. This reduces the chances of Dispelling. - Dispelling the caster-mimic is certainly a valid tactic which will work reasonably well depending on how they're geared (CL booster items, etc). Spamming DspMgc is a great way to frag them with some level of consistency, and probably the best means against them (or the Antimagic-designed goon). While you are spamming Greater Dispel, the caster-mimic is fragging you with his greatsword (or his greatclub with Brambles on it), or with his spells. "Oh, you got rid of my Divine Power. I am so dead... Boo-hoo-hoo... Eat Destruction, idiot!"
malignor 11-23-06, 06:57 PM	Not really. Idiots that think up of one-trick ponies specifically designed to kill a certain group, and then using it to claim that because of that one thing, the group it belongs to trumps the other, annoys me because of its disingenuity."Not really" to taking it personally or to being okay? Anyway, as an experienced DM/GM of multiple game systems, I've developed a fondness for the genius archenemy who takes his time learning the capabilities of the party and plots ways to exploit their weaknesses. It's a sort of staple. I like to play enemies who prefer to live and fight another day, and come back knowing that much more about the party they faced (but likely the PCs learned a few tricks during the time too). It creates a more personal feel to a game, creating rivalry and makes things interesting. That being the case, the "one trick ponies" fit in my campaign nicely. The SSEG (super smart evil guy) finds a way to hire, train, manipulate and/or prepare for a confrontation between the specialist(s) and the party. It tends to keep the PCs on their toes and everybody has fun with it. So, though you think I'm being silly by inventing this sort of thing (the tailored counter to the PCs), it's not only valid, but reasonable if the party has an influencial and intelligent enemy with enough resources (and spying or scrying) to bring about the potential anti-party situation. Such a DM style has generally resulted in a more varied and more tightly-knit party. Both virtues, in my eyes. While you are spamming Greater Dispel, the caster-mimic is fragging you with his greatsword (or his greatclub with Brambles on it), or with his spells. "Oh, you got rid of my Divine Power. I am so dead... Boo-hoo-hoo... Eat Destruction, idiot!"The best way to spam DspMgc is with a bunch of enemies. Get 4 casters (of level appropriate to counter their numbers) to area dispel the party from behind an Illusory Wall, for example.
Cael 11-23-06, 07:07 PM	"Not really" to taking it personally or to being okay? Anyway, as an experienced DM/GM of multiple game systems, I've developed a fondness for the genius archenemy who takes his time learning the capabilities of the party and plots ways to exploit their weaknesses. It's a sort of staple. I like to play enemies who prefer to live and fight another day, and come back knowing that much more about the party they faced (but likely the PCs learned a few tricks during the time too). It creates a more personal feel to a game, creating rivalry and makes things interesting. That being the case, the "one trick ponies" fit in my campaign nicely. The SSEG (super smart evil guy) finds a way to hire, train, manipulate and/or prepare for a confrontation between the specialist(s) and the party. It tends to keep the PCs on their toes and everybody has fun with it. So, though you think I'm being silly by inventing this sort of thing (the tailored counter to the PCs), it's not only valid, but reasonable if the party has an influencial and intelligent enemy with enough resources (and spying or scrying) to bring about the potential anti-party situation. Such a DM style has generally resulted in a more varied and more tightly-knit party. Both virtues, in my eyes. The best way to spam DspMgc is with a bunch of enemies. Get 4 casters (of level appropriate to counter their numbers) to area dispel the party from behind an Illusory Wall, for example. Unfortunately for them, the party was ready for such a tactic, and the party's Rogue Use Magic Device a MDK on them first, which brought down the Illusionary Wall, and allowed the casters to subject your casters to a bunch of save or dies, which they all failed. Hey, if you can optimise someone to specifically take out the party, I can optimise my party with super percognition, too. Talk about a horse's butt way of arguing... :rolleyes:
saidin0111 11-23-06, 07:13 PM	It is per attack. TWF'ers are good in cumulative damage but not one big whack, which is what triggers save vs massive damage. Add in some DR, and TWF'ers tend to be nailed over. Tempest is a good class, but its capstone ability can only be used once a day. Great if you know you are in an arena fight, but pretty useless elsewhere. the massive damage saves are not what I'm talking about, it is a save caused by the feat, that any time the character scores a critical hit, the target must make a save or die, regardless of the damage, I just said that I think the save DC for the feat is based on how much damage is done
Kresalak 11-23-06, 07:19 PM	You mean the Epic feat Devastating Critical that has a save DC based on Str and level?
malignor 11-23-06, 07:25 PM	Ummm... you really are taking this personally. Saying I argue like a horse's butt, rolling your eyes at me, being generally adversarial as if to try and start a flame war ... maybe it would be wise to step back from the keyboard and get something to eat or get a good night's sleep? I really don't get what you may have against me, unless you prefer to visit threads looking for things that annoy you (which you'll find anywhere, if that's your intention). Perhaps you wish to get this thread locked or something? I really wish I could fix what's irritating you so much. Situation 1: SSEG escapes PCs, hires spies (while SSEG is disguised, spies don't know who they work for) to talk to party and find out who they are, to help them for awhile and then leave the party at the next town, then report their findings to the SSEG. The spies think they are collecting data for a great Bard, so the party can be immortalized in a battlesong. SSEG then scries on them every now & then, seeing how the party finds great challenges and great treasure, and the SSEG is motivated by both greed and revenge. So he arranges for a few assassination attempts, a few direct assaults and so on while he scries or spies. From this he learns what the PCs are capable of, the SSEG does some research and arranges an anti-party encounter. Situation 2: The PCs are assaulting an enemy stronghold, and that stronghold is comprised of Kobolds, whose favored class is Sorcerer. With so many spellcasters (a few dozen), there are ample Alarm spells and so forth to prewarn the PC's arrival. The Kobolds, being cunning and nasty as they are, send out some "redshirts" as fodder to see what the intruders are made of. Then, based on the experimental attack, they arrange appropriate ambushes and traps, such as a quartet of 5th level casters, hiding behind an (already existing) illusory wall, which is flush with the surrounding wall that surrounds a tall, spiralling staircase. The illusory wall (and ambush) occurs on the staircase at 80' above the ground. The staircase is 120' high. Immediately behind the Dispelling Kobolds (who, as a free action, fall prone after casting) are Kobold Archers with readied full volleys. 2 of the 4 casters continue magic assault from being prone (no penalty) and behind the Illusory wall. the other 2 stay back and buff the others, and escape to report if things go badly. How far fetched does that seem now?
Erato 11-23-06, 07:26 PM	... one good dispell magic and they are done. heaven forbid someone has a potion or token of dispell magic. or that they run into any kind of anti magic or disjoining trap. but the people who belive in this idea don't ever like to think about that or talk about that. they don't like to know that they spend every single turning attempt they have in a day to persist a few spells and a single good shot of dispell renders them squishy again. Dispelling normally takes a standard action (the most important action). Besides, not all of them would succeed. First of, an enemy caster would have to guess how many buffs affects you, and if they are worth it to dispel. The caster would either use an area dispel, in which case you would only (potentially) lose 1 of your buffs. Or he goes for a targeted dispel, in which case he has to make checks against every single buff (and most likely, at least some of them would make it). Either way, this effectively prevents him from using his turn to dominate the fighter and turn him loose on the party, turn the wizard to stone, or cast things like disintegrate, mass suggestion, a sudden empowered chain lightning or something worse on the party. As it has been pointed out, many fights only last a few rounds, so anything that doesn’t incapacitate or at least bring your foe closer to negative hp, is rarely the most effective move. I have often seen DMs use dispelling for the same reason they sunder spellbooks. That would be, a :censored: metagame action :mad: , that doesn’t increase the survival chance of the NPC the least, but hampers the mage later on.:rant: That being said, in some situations, dispelling is indeed a logical (and frustrating :D ) move for an enemy caster, and things like antimagic fields completely puts the casters out of action (unless, of course, they have a decent BAB, d8 hitdies and a full plate).
Cael 11-23-06, 07:28 PM	the massive damage saves are not what I'm talking about, it is a save caused by the feat, that any time the character scores a critical hit, the target must make a save or die, regardless of the damage, I just said that I think the save DC for the feat is based on how much damage is done If you are talking Devasting Critical, I suggest you take a look at what a caster can do Epic before you go around prancing. A fighter getting to melee a caster in Epic play... :rant: The mind boggles...
saidin0111 11-23-06, 07:47 PM	yes, devastating crit. that's the feat If you are talking Devasting Critical, I suggest you take a look at what a caster can do Epic before you go around prancing. A fighter getting to melee a caster in Epic play... :rant: The mind boggles... with the right equipment, of course he can, and what, are you going to Hell Ball him, a fighter worth his salt will have a wide range of immunities enchanting his armor and items, thus negating some of the biggest threats to his survival, plus if we are talking in terms of a party, doesn't a caster have bigger issues to worry about than a fighter, like other spellcasters?, which gives him the opportunity to close (after massacring the few strong melee minions with waves of devastating crit.) and then see how good that caster's fort saves are, of course the enemy caster might be dead by then, but the fighter did his job well in any case, so, he can hardly be useless in terms of other characters as melee combatants
Jo_Pistachio 11-23-06, 07:53 PM	An interesting note I'd like to add. Suppose you have an all CoDzilla party. Some who played the role of tank. Suppose there was a villain who was aware of these fellows (escaped them last week). It would be somewhat easy to destroy these folks without the DM having to metagame. Step 1: hire a tough non-supernatural goon. Like maybe a Barbarian, or a Fighter. Preferrably something with good Natural Armor. Gear them up with sexy non-magical gear, like a Fighter with Improved Sunder and an Adamantine Falchion. Step 2: use Magic Jar on the willing scrapper Step 3: cast Antimagic Field and destroy the MJar receptable (ending the MJar spell) Step 4: the scrapper runs off to kill enemy party. This is not something theoretical. It's reasonable, plausable and something I'd honestly use. CoDzilla screw with the ground he's about to be standing on. Or summons stuff. Summons don't blink out as easily from an AMF. A nice big wall of elementals ought to learn Mr. scrappy. I don't get why AMF is always pulled out for the pro fighters. It will only limit most casters and won't slow down a druid at all. A caster without conjurations and illusions are screwed however... That and CoDzilla has diplomacy as a class skill. An only druid/cleric party, you still have a talker. Probably the divine metamagic guy.
Cael 11-23-06, 07:53 PM	Cael really did a good job responding to everything relevant. By this point all that's left is poking fun, as you haven't shown anything except stubborness. If he showed stubborness, I wouldn't have minded as much. But no, he has to move the darned goalposts, make up stupid "I can make a Fighter with all sorts of custom stuff that is dedicated to wipe your Cleric out" and then claim that actually meant anything. By the dint of the same rules, I can make an omniscient Wizard and just pwn his Fighter before it gets off the ground. I mean, seriously. The absurdity of his post is bloody staggering. Not to mention it has gone away from "can a caster replace the Fighter" as his own thread title indicated, to "lets try to bash the Cleric and make the Fighter shine by making up the most impossible of scenarios and set the most absurd goalposts". Talk about not wanting to actually listen, and just wanting his own way...!
Cael 11-23-06, 07:55 PM	yes, devastating crit. that's the feat with the right equipment, of course he can, and what, are you going to Hell Ball him, a fighter worth his salt will have a wide range of immunities enchanting his armor and items, thus negating some of the biggest threats to his survival, plus if we are talking in terms of a party, doesn't a caster have bigger issues to worry about than a fighter, like other spellcasters?, which gives him the opportunity to close (after massacring the few strong melee minions with waves of devastating crit.) and then see how good that caster's fort saves are, of course the enemy caster might be dead by then, but the fighter did his job well in any case, so, he can hardly be useless in terms of other characters as melee combatants Hell Ball? What are you? Stupid? I'd just Rock to Lava the ground he is standing on and then Prismatic Sphere his butt in there. :rolleyes:
DragonChild_ 11-23-06, 07:58 PM	Remember that if you're playing with epic rules, you can have an epic spell that deals you a tiny bit of damage, and gives you a HUGE bonus to stats permanently. And due to the epic spellcasting rules, you can make this practically free. Yeah, smart people just don't touch epic, because it is totally unworkable without houserules.
Kresalak 11-23-06, 08:27 PM	Literally, by the rules, you can make any Epic Spell, no matter how much you add to it, have a Spellcraft DC of 0. Epic is totally unworkable. The game ends at 20th level when you have one last grand fight against the BBEG and fail, die saving the world, or retire. You could also go on to play a game of managing your own kingdoms and such, but that would quickly degenerate into you playing new heroes brought up in that kingdom because it would be more fun.
belthazzar1113 11-23-06, 08:29 PM	- a potion cannot be used offensively, can it? - counterspelling DspMgc is always an option, and a caster-mimic with foresight (as in Wisdom > 6, not the spell) would likely get a ring of counterspelling and keep it charged with DspMgc whenever possible. This reduces the chances of Dispelling. - Dispelling the caster-mimic is certainly a valid tactic which will work reasonably well depending on how they're geared (CL booster items, etc). Spamming DspMgc is a great way to frag them with some level of consistency, and probably the best means against them (or the Antimagic-designed goon). potions can't be used offensivly persay, but they can be used in a roundabout manner. You can make a potion of fireball if you want... but when you drink it a fireball goes off at your location. most peoiple don't want this to happen. but i have seen fire immune characters get potions of fireball for a fast easy personal AE attack. counterspelling dispell magic isn't really an option. your trying to mimic a fighter and fighters don't sit there with a ready action to make sure they can still be fighters. a ring of counterspelling on dispell magic would be nice if that didn't burn one of your ring slots and cost a bundle... that and if it wasn't subject to dispelling. and as far as "whoever is dispelling will be getting beat down" let me tell you what happened in our game for this. we had a cleric with divine persistant spells. he thought it would rock and was doing dinvine persistant divine power, bull strength and bears endurance, he would throw on two buff spells per combat and he was the man. then a snarky little dude in a cape showed up in front of us (we were level 8) and challenged the cleric to single combat, winner gets to keep their peice of the artifact we were trying to reassemble (this was one of those put the ledgendary artifact back together games) we get into it and he casts his two buff spells while the party is discussing it. he agrees and the round went something like this. round one, roll init, he goes first. his eyes glow for a moment and your sheild other and vestments of faith and magic weapon are dispelled. "ok i charge to hit him, i roll a..." then the dm interupts him "you are now able to tell for certain that your persistant divine power, bulls strength and bears enduarnce have also left you. So make your rolls unenchanted" and the cleric ended up crapping himself and losing because he was down just about half his spells and didn't have anything left to counter the guy when he started fighting. He was a warlock who had always on detect magic, saw the cleric was enchanted out the wingwang and spent some time over top of him stripping his buffs. SLA don't have verbal or somatic components and the cleric was riding on a wagon so he didn't really notice the spells leaving him (failed a wisdom check rolled in secret) and the warlock can fly, invisible and dispell all day long till he gets every last spell off the cleric. thats what happened to him. and almost every warlock i know takes invis or flight, and at least one of the dispells. and they are just one class, binders, incarnates, other wizards, clerics, they can all strip down these buffs, and most will have access to at will or will have detect magic almost always on. People say that dispelling doesn't come up, but think of how many traps in dungeons all involve some sort of magic protection or countermagic to avoid the trap being circumvented by a simple spell. even one of those has a chance to strip away half your resources for the day and tehre isn't anything you can do about it. And had there been more than a single opponent it would have been easy for that warlock to hit the clerics items before combat to strip down whatever boost items he might have. I don't know about other games but my casters researched a magic item supression spell that lasts for an hour per level. a specilized version of dispell magic with an extended duration. thats gotten decent use. but yeah, this crap really doesn't matter. people try it and sometimes it works, sometimes they get owned, and sometimes they realize they are blowing a boatload of resources that would be better psent elsewhere.
Boshi 11-23-06, 08:35 PM	The problem isn't so much that a cleric can trump a fighter (which a cleric usually can) as that a party of two clerics and two druids can overcome 90% of challenges with equal or greater ease than an iconic fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party can. And that's a real problem since it upsets one of the fundamental ideas of D&D of having people be dependent on the other three basic archetypes. Sure, you can come up with an encounter to hobble an all-CODzilla party but you can do that even with anything short of Pun-Pun and in virtually any encounter I could think of, the all-CODzilla party would equal or exceed the performance of the iconic party. Even in the anti-magic fest example, I'd give the all-CODzilla party an edge since they'd have six people who could melee decently (four characters with medium Bab plus two powerful animal compansions) vs. the iconic party who'd only have three thanks to the wizzie being useless in an anti-magic field.
Seerow 11-23-06, 08:39 PM	Balthazar, for that example: My counter to that is he challenges the Fighter instead. He dispels the Fighter's item of flight, and casts dispel every time the Fighter grabs a potion and quaffs it. He then EBs the Fighter into oblivion. See how great things are when they're biased specifically against the Character in question?
Cael 11-23-06, 09:06 PM	we had a cleric with divine persistant spells. he thought it would rock and was doing dinvine persistant divine power, bull strength and bears endurance, he would throw on two buff spells per combat and he was the man. then a snarky little dude in a cape showed up in front of us (we were level 8) and challenged the cleric to single combat, winner gets to keep their peice of the artifact we were trying to reassemble (this was one of those put the ledgendary artifact back together games) we get into it and he casts his two buff spells while the party is discussing it. he agrees and the round went something like this. round one, roll init, he goes first. his eyes glow for a moment and your sheild other and vestments of faith and magic weapon are dispelled. "ok i charge to hit him, i roll a..." then the dm interupts him "you are now able to tell for certain that your persistant divine power, bulls strength and bears enduarnce have also left you. So make your rolls unenchanted" and the cleric ended up crapping himself and losing because he was down just about half his spells and didn't have anything left to counter the guy when he started fighting. He was a warlock who had always on detect magic, saw the cleric was enchanted out the wingwang and spent some time over top of him stripping his buffs. SLA don't have verbal or somatic components and the cleric was riding on a wagon so he didn't really notice the spells leaving him (failed a wisdom check rolled in secret) and the warlock can fly, invisible and dispell all day long till he gets every last spell off the cleric. Didn't realise the spells dropping from him is a DM house rule. Try again. If someone attacked me with a diepel magic, I'd know about it the same reason I know I just got hit by a Fireball. So your Cleric got whacked not by Warlock but by DM fiat. By the same notion, I can have a big Gelatinous Cube dropping from the sky and turning that Warlock into a skeleton in seconds. How? Because I am DM. :rolleyes:
malignor 11-23-06, 09:48 PM	CoDzilla screw with the ground he's about to be standing on. Or summons stuff. Summons don't blink out as easily from an AMF. A nice big wall of elementals ought to learn Mr. scrappy. I don't get why AMF is always pulled out for the pro fighters. It will only limit most casters and won't slow down a druid at all. A caster without conjurations and illusions are screwed however... That and CoDzilla has diplomacy as a class skill. An only druid/cleric party, you still have a talker. Probably the divine metamagic guy.I guess between the elementals and the animal companion, the combat ability is (even in situations where I claim the fighter would shine, like an AMF scenario) comparable and potentially better than the fighter. If there's one thing I'll acknowledge, it's the power of the Druid's Animal Companion, which is almost unreasnonable when added to the already powerful Druid package. I'd pretty much agree that a Druid (with companion) can frontline with the best. Color me convinced in that one.
malignor 11-23-06, 09:58 PM	If he showed stubborness, I wouldn't have minded as much. But no, he has to move the darned goalposts, make up stupid "I can make a Fighter with all sorts of custom stuff that is dedicated to wipe your Cleric out" and then claim that actually meant anything. By the dint of the same rules, I can make an omniscient Wizard and just pwn his Fighter before it gets off the ground. I mean, seriously. The absurdity of his post is bloody staggering. Not to mention it has gone away from "can a caster replace the Fighter" as his own thread title indicated, to "lets try to bash the Cleric and make the Fighter shine by making up the most impossible of scenarios and set the most absurd goalposts". Talk about not wanting to actually listen, and just wanting his own way...!My point was: there exists situations where a party with caster-tanks would fall, where a mixed party (with proper tank classes) would fare better. YET I doubt there are situations where a party with proper tanks would fall, yet the caster-tanking party would win. For example, an entire party of, say 4 CoDzilla classes (2 of which tank), a Rogue and a Wizard. Compare them to a party of 2 CoDzillas, 1 Barbarian, 1 Fighter, a Rogue and a Wizard. Perhaps the only exception would be all Druids, thanks to those pesky companions which, when flanking with their master, can match a fighter-type. I see the light in regard to Druids. I claim that the second party has fewer weaknesses than the no-melee party, given that the foes are sufficiently prepared. That is to say that the chance of a TPK is lessened. The AMF situation (a specialized anti-party encounter, which is not so uncommon if you have a good DM playing smart badguys) and the pre-warned Kobold situation (which I screwed up on the levels with - they should be level 6 for 3rd level spells - oops!) are to clarify that. To which you reply by saying I'm switching the goalposts, arguing like a horse's backside and initiating childish behaviour (which I had fun with). If you can read between the lines well enough to jump to the conclusions you claim, you should at least be able to see the intended point. Here comes your bus, old chum...
Clawhound 11-23-06, 10:11 PM	You know, fighters have Handle Animal and can have trained animals which can do the same things as animal companions. (I'm just saying. And no, they can't heal them which is a right PITA.)
Cael 11-23-06, 10:15 PM	My point was: there exists situations where a party with caster-tanks would fall, where a mixed party (with proper tank classes) would fare better. YET I doubt there are situations where a party with proper tanks would fall, yet the caster-tanking party would win. For example, an entire party of, say 4 CoDzilla classes (2 of which tank), a Rogue and a Wizard. Compare them to a party of 2 CoDzillas, 1 Barbarian, 1 Fighter, a Rogue and a Wizard. Perhaps the only exception would be all Druids, thanks to those pesky companions which, when flanking with their master, can match a fighter-type. I see the light in regard to Druids. I claim that the second party has fewer weaknesses than the no-melee party, given that the foes are sufficiently prepared. That is to say that the chance of a TPK is lessened. The AMF situation (a specialized anti-party encounter, which is not so uncommon if you have a good DM playing smart badguys) and the pre-warned Kobold situation (which I screwed up on the levels with - they should be level 6 for 3rd level spells - oops!) are to clarify that. To which you reply by saying I'm switching the goalposts, arguing like a horse's backside and initiating childish behaviour (which I had fun with). If you can read between the lines well enough to jump to the conclusions you claim, you should at least be able to see the intended point. Here comes your bus, old chum... Caster casts Rock to Lava at the feet of your AMF Fighter, or lob a few Orb spells in while flying around, or carpet bomb your butt with Shrink Items. Your Kobolds are so intent on Dispelling my buffs they never saw the Implosion or Fireball coming their way. That said, I had the foresight to have Brooches of Counterspelling lining my robes or welded to my armour. You move, busboy.
Jo_Pistachio 11-23-06, 10:20 PM	You know, fighters have Handle Animal and can have trained animals which can do the same things as animal companions. (I'm just saying. And no, they can't heal them which is a right PITA.) Those cost money, need to be trained over time, are a lot weaker at later levels when AMFs roll about, and are not empathetically linked. Nor is he sharing that bite of the wereboar spell with you. Plus the evasion, shared saves and other nifty tricks your pet can't do. So yes you can have an animal. You can't have one like my animal companion.
Nephlite 11-23-06, 10:34 PM	and the cleric ended up crapping himself and losing because he was down just about half his spells and didn't have anything left to counter the guy when he started fighting. He was a warlock who had always on detect magic, saw the cleric was enchanted out the wingwang and spent some time over top of him stripping his buffs. SLA don't have verbal or somatic components and the cleric was riding on a wagon so he didn't really notice the spells leaving him (failed a wisdom check rolled in secret) and the warlock can fly, invisible and dispell all day long till he gets every last spell off the cleric. DM fiat: you can't hide the effects of dispel magic. If it efects you it effects you and you feel it. DM cheated. And Warlocks inviocationms do have somatic, they get arcane spell failure (including the Eldritch Blast), it is directly listed on the class feature page. Your rules-Fu has failed, grasshopper. I don't know about other games but my casters researched a magic item supression spell that lasts for an hour per level. a specilized version of dispell magic with an extended duration. thats gotten decent use. Custom spells don't count.
Clawhound 11-23-06, 10:50 PM	in practice, I find animal companions very limiting. Their low AC makes them far more vulnerable to damage than a comparable level fighter (although barding can help). They are challenging in a dungeon environment. They have consequences in a social environment. They are poor in a confined environment. They may not do well in specific environments, like deserts, boats, or glaciers. Generally speaking, animals in a more realistic game are often quite a pain in the patuckus. The smaller ones tend to work better than the larger ones in these environments, but they lack the punching power. The animal companion is also bound up in the Handle Animal skill, but almost no-one seems to bother with that linking. Replacing an animal companion usually takes weeks of training for it to do what the characters expect it to do. It is not an easily replaceable resource. The biggest, meanest animal companions know very few tricks. So yeah, if you make animal companions cohorts, they are quite powerful. If you make them follow the animal handling rules, they become far more limited.
Clawhound 11-23-06, 11:02 PM	Those cost money, need to be trained over time, are a lot weaker at later levels when AMFs roll about, and are not empathetically linked. Nor is he sharing that bite of the wereboar spell with you. Plus the evasion, shared saves and other nifty tricks your pet can't do. So yes you can have an animal. You can't have one like my animal companion. Animal companions are a choice between power and perks. You can get the most powerful critter, but it knows very few tricks and doesn't get any of the cool perks like evasion. It can share spells, though. You can keep a lower HD critter which gets all the perks and tricks, and is arguably far more flexible in and out of combat, but its a lesser creature with less punching power, and so takes more spells to make into a viable combat monster, and so takes more resources. You also need to keep the healing on hand to keep them from dying during combat, which sucks down spell slots. You can compromise, but the result is a critter which doesn't have the same raw power that you need for your CR challenges. When you start hitting the opponents with +20 to +28 BAB's, those animals go down fast. Fighter with far superior AC and combat expertise have a hard time staying up in those fights.
Boshi 11-23-06, 11:09 PM	I claim that the second party has fewer weaknesses than the no-melee party Well your six-man parties were somewhat random and discount the ability of CODzilla to replace rogues and wizards as well as fighters. What situation can a party of two druids and two clerics not handle that the iconic four-man party of rogue/cleric/wizard/fighter can handle? Except for a thing or two that requires a wizard-only ulitity spell I can't think of a single one. I definately can't think of a single combat encounter where the CODzilla party wouldn't do at least as well as the iconic party.
DarkRhystar 11-23-06, 11:16 PM	To which you reply by saying I'm switching the goalposts, arguing like a horse's backside and initiating childish behaviour (which I had fun with). Good on you for remaining civil after being insulted. Anywho, though I'm not directly advocating for one side atm... I am curious as what classes you remain to be convinced of. A list would do well enough if you please. :)
Novabomb 11-23-06, 11:35 PM	I would just like to point out that im currently in a game where the DM allows divine metamagic. So your comment on not hearing about such games in invalid now. My dm decided to give a feat to the fighter at every lvl just try to entice more ppl into fighter, and our cleric is still just as effective as our fighter as a tank (at lvl4).
Thunder Dragonbane 11-23-06, 11:52 PM	Right. I find it hilarious that you ignore everything and just stick to the assertion that the Fighter is ready 24/7. Hello! Druid Wildshape is 1 *hour*/level! Hello! Persistent Spell! Hello! Quicken Spell! Hello! A bit of logic, please! :rolleyes: All of which are high level abilities. Roll your damn eyes as much as you want. I am stating common sense.
Seerow 11-24-06, 12:05 AM	Wildshape is a 5th level ability. That's mid level. Becomes litterally all day (as opposed to just most of the actual adventuring day) by level 8. Divine Persistant is a FIRST level ability for a human. 3rd for anyone else. That's low level. Divine Favor is enough to put you on par with the Fighter at this level, and keeps pace until mid levels, right when you get Divine Power. From there it's just gravy. Quicken Spell is the only really high level ability mentioned.
malignor 11-24-06, 12:05 AM	Good on you for remaining civil after being insulted. Anywho, though I'm not directly advocating for one side atm... I am curious as what classes you remain to be convinced of. A list would do well enough if you please. :)- Clerics, minus DMM-P - Wizards
Seerow 11-24-06, 12:07 AM	1) Clerics minus DMM-P have to wait until later levels. That's not denied. In fact, minus DMM-P, I personally prefer the Favored Soul. 2) What about Wizards do you need to be convinced of? That they can out melee a Fighter?
malignor 11-24-06, 12:15 AM	That they can replace the fighter... - as consistently as the fighter ("reliably" over a day or period of days) - under as various combat situations as the fighter (terrain, etc) - with the immediate response time that the fighter can deliver combat (such as being ambushed) - with the tactical variety of the fighter - with the staying power of the fighter
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 12:19 AM	Animal companions are a choice between power and perks. You can get the most powerful critter, but it knows very few tricks and doesn't get any of the cool perks like evasion. It can share spells, though. You can keep a lower HD critter which gets all the perks and tricks, and is arguably far more flexible in and out of combat, but its a lesser creature with less punching power, and so takes more spells to make into a viable combat monster, and so takes more resources. You also need to keep the healing on hand to keep them from dying during combat, which sucks down spell slots. You can compromise, but the result is a critter which doesn't have the same raw power that you need for your CR challenges. When you start hitting the opponents with +20 to +28 BAB's, those animals go down fast. Fighter with far superior AC and combat expertise have a hard time staying up in those fights. Actually, a wolf with an extra 12 hit dice is more powerful than any wolf you can simply find. You can get leadership to get a better one, but believe me when I say a druid with an owlbear companion, an animal companion and wildshaping themselves is something to be reckoned with. Especially when they have acorn proficient squirrel followers. But for you getting something as powerful as a 14 hit die wolf as good as mine, good luck. I hope you get a good deal on it. Getting one with evasion, linked empathy and so forth... Yeah, you get right on that. You're forgetting that a Druids animal companion advances in hit dice as the druid advances. If you take a feat, you can even take a second tier companion at no loss in it's level. I can also equip him with amulets of natural armour, bracers of armour, rings of protection and so forth if I want him to have a high AC. His AC is only low if I let it get low.
Seerow 11-24-06, 12:19 AM	Wait, you're implying that the Fighter has means to deal with difficult terrains and has tactical variety? Okay, now that I'm done laughing at your joke, will you please give me a real argument to stand on?
Clawhound 11-24-06, 12:36 AM	My question is not what iconic party can do as well as a CoDzilla party, it's whether any party of any composition can do as well as a CoDzilla party. Is there anything a fighter can do that a cleric /druid can't? - Use any martial weapon that the party finds. (Not unique to the fighter, but the cleric and druid can't do that. If you are playing commercial modules, you will find a significan chunk of martial gear. No 50% loss for selling gear.) - Use any armor found in the adventure. (Doesn't affect cleric so much, but does affect druid greatly. Again, a 50% loss in selling the equipment.) - Do any deed and not worry about alignment issues. - No change in character ability as the party changes planes (though that's both good and bad). - Use weapon focus (two handed sword), quickdraw, two weapon fighting, blind fighting, combat expertise, power attack, improved initiative, improved unarmed attack (as a 2nd weapon), weapon focus (unarmed attack), and combat reflexes in the surprise round. (Once you start counting, it's amazing just how many feats are being used, at one time, by a fighter in any given round.) A cleric or druid can do some of this, but never all of this at once before 21st level. - Does not detect under a detect alignment spell because he does not have an aura. - Vow of Poverty without losing his main abilities. (Cleric's holy symbol counts as a magic item and is not allowed. Stupid, but true.) I'm sure that I can think of more. Some of these are minor. The ability to use any equipment found, however, it quite handy. (This is one reason that I never build fighters with weapon focus.)
Thunder Dragonbane 11-24-06, 12:47 AM	Wildshape is a 5th level ability. That's mid level. Becomes litterally all day (as opposed to just most of the actual adventuring day) by level 8. Divine Persistant is a FIRST level ability for a human. 3rd for anyone else. That's low level. Divine Favor is enough to put you on par with the Fighter at this level, and keeps pace until mid levels, right when you get Divine Power. From there it's just gravy. Quicken Spell is the only really high level ability mentioned. 1) I know about wildshape, being that way. But it does not really get disgustingly powerful in my experiance untill 10th lvl. 2) Devine Persistant: Don't know this one at all, what book is it from? It does not seem like core PHB, which is what the OP was talking about. And The only book that I really use. It is probably from the book of extended cheese or some such poory edited WotC garbage. 3) Quicken, which takes a feat slot that casters don't have many of, adds 4 caster levels to any spell. Making a 1st lvl into a 4th lvl spell that seems rather powerfull to me. But you already said that.
Seerow 11-24-06, 12:52 AM	- Use any martial weapon that the party finds. (Not unique to the fighter, but the cleric and druid can't do that. If you are playing commercial modules, you will find a significan chunk of martial gear. No 50% loss for selling gear.) For a Barbarian, sure. For the Fighter? Most people try to claim that the Weapon Focus tree is the Fighter's saving grace. - Do any deed and not worry about alignment issues. Clerics of a cause can generally ignore alignment issues. But then, I never liked people looking at that as a disadvantage anyway. I like playing Paladins and Crusaders and such -because- of the higher moral standards they adhere to. Besides, even if you don't have any class features tied to it, is your Lawful Good Fighter -really- going to go slaughtering babies to make a quick buck? - Use weapon focus (two handed sword), quickdraw, two weapon fighting, blind fighting, combat expertise, power attack, improved initiative, improved unarmed attack (as a 2nd weapon), weapon focus (unarmed attack), and combat reflexes in the surprise round. (Once you start counting, it's amazing just how many feats are being used, at one time, by a fighter in any given round.) A cleric or druid can do some of this, but never all of this at once before 21st level. Isn't the Fighter flatfooted and thus anable to make AoOs(and use Combat Reflexes) during that surprise round? And here's the better question. Who -wants- to use all of that at once, ever? Weapon Focus unarmed strike? Two Weapon Fighting? C'mon., The ability to use any equipment found, however, it quite handy. (This is one reason that I never build fighters with weapon focus.) Makes you automatically that much smarter than many other pro-fighters around.
Seerow 11-24-06, 12:54 AM	1) I know about wildshape, being that way. But it does not really get disgustingly powerful in my experiance untill 10th lvl. It may not get disgustingly powerful, but it's still enough to make him competitive, which is all that matters. 2) Devine Persistant: Don't know this one at all, what book is it from? It does not seem like core PHB, which is what the OP was talking about. And The only book that I really use. It is probably from the book of extended cheese or some such poory edited WotC garbage. If WotC's books are such garbage why are you playing their game? And the OP never said Core Only. In fact, on the contrary he stated he wanted to see examples of how other classes stood up from everything between Core Only and anything goes. 3) Quicken, which takes a feat slot that casters don't have many of, adds 4 caster levels to any spell. Making a 1st lvl into a 4th lvl spell that seems rather powerfull to me. But you already said that. My, not only can you not read nor type, you can't add either? (psst 1+4=5 ^_^)
Clawhound 11-24-06, 12:57 AM	Actually, a wolf with an extra 12 hit dice is more powerful than any wolf you can simply find. You can get leadership to get a better one, but believe me when I say a druid with an owlbear companion, an animal companion and wildshaping themselves is something to be reckoned with. Especially when they have acorn proficient squirrel followers. But for you getting something as powerful as a 14 hit die wolf as good as mine, good luck. I hope you get a good deal on it. Getting one with evasion, linked empathy and so forth... Yeah, you get right on that. You're forgetting that a Druids animal companion advances in hit dice as the druid advances. If you take a feat, you can even take a second tier companion at no loss in it's level. I can also equip him with amulets of natural armour, bracers of armour, rings of protection and so forth if I want him to have a high AC. His AC is only low if I let it get low. I'm not forgetting. An animal, by itself, with many HD, still has a low AC. Those go fast. To give the creature a higher AC means that the druid must equip the animal with equipment, and that costs gold. That's less gold for the druid. That eats gold fast. Add as second companion, and you are crippling yourself. In other words, that power doesn't come cheap. As for pimping out your animal companion, those are very subjective rules. No DM is guaranteed to accept that interpretation of equipment. In your example, wolves have no fingers, and so can't use rings. Likewise, a DM may not accept that a wolf has arm slots for bracers. If you load wolves down with armor, they have no armor proficiency, and so take attack penalties for wearing armor. The better the armor, the worse their penalties. I'm not saying that your companions are not useful nor powerful. I am merely pointing out that they come with some hefty downsides, especially once you consider the abilities of the CR appropriate challenges that you will face, the finite wealth of a character, and the fair interpretations of the DM.
Clawhound 11-24-06, 01:03 AM	Hey, you asked for things that a fighter can do that a cleric can't, and I said what some where. I never said they were optimal things. I never said that they gave the fighter power. Heck, I don't even claim that what they could do was unique. Just that vis-a-vis fighters vs. clerics/druids, these things are differences.
Seerow 11-24-06, 01:06 AM	I'm not forgetting. An animal, by itself, with many HD, still has a low AC. Those go fast. To give the creature a higher AC means that the druid must equip the animal with equipment, and that costs gold. That's less gold for the druid. That eats gold fast. Add as second companion, and you are crippling yourself. In other words, that power doesn't come cheap. I agree with adding a second. But in a party with a Cleric, just grab a Pearl of Power and give it to the Cleric in exchange for him casting GMV on your barding, +9-13 AC for a couple thousand GP. As for pimping out your animal companion, those are very subjective rules. No DM is guaranteed to accept that interpretation of equipment. In your example, wolves have no fingers, and so can't use rings. Likewise, a DM may not accept that a wolf has arm slots for bracers. If you load wolves down with armor, they have no armor proficiency, and so take attack penalties for wearing armor. The better the armor, the worse their penalties. That's why I prefer a Riding Dog. If he's trained for war he should be considered proficient with armor, and trips the same as the Wolf while being better in general. None of this "-6 to every attack your companion makes forever" bs. The magic item rules however are vague, I'd be willing to say it's a pretty even split as to whether it's allowed or not. But even without it, you get shared buffs which up AC pretty well. The Animal Companion should have a decent natural armor to start with, Barkskin gives a good buff on top of this, or later on something like Bite of the Werebear which makes both you and your companion absolute monsters, while givine what, +7 or 8 AC on top of it? An animal companion with nothing more than Barding should easily have AC closely matching the Fighter's if his owner is using him properly. If the DM allows for extra equipment...
Seerow 11-24-06, 01:07 AM	Hey, you asked for things that a fighter can do that a cleric can't, and I said what some where. I never said they were optimal things. I never said that they gave the fighter power. Heck, I don't even claim that what they could do was unique. Just that vis-a-vis fighters vs. clerics/druids, these things are differences. Fair enough, I misinterpreted. But in that case, the Druid does far better with VoP than the Fighter. (Unless you're going to claim a bit of holly and other similar plants violates VoP?)
Krevon 11-24-06, 02:14 AM	Wow, an honest question almost turning into a flame war. I'm not surprised to see several familiar names making dead arguments again and again. So far the only thing I'd like to respond to are the statments made about dispell magic. This isn't universal or anything, but when I play a casting class, I always have dispell and greater dispell magic prepared. I've found it to be one of the best utility spells available. I also use it against enemy casters and get rid of thier buffs so I expect it would happen to me as well. I'd also like to make an observation that I've made over the years of playing and DMing. Group dynamics and cohesivness people as well as the characters on paper really make or break a group. If six people had the numerically best chracter, regardles of what we debae here, and nonoe of it meshed...the gme would soon end. I said that to say this, to the people who go out of thier way to disprove and be caustic with their tones......play the game and have fun. I someone askes your help, give them the best choices for the class. not your rehtoric on why it sucks.
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 03:00 AM	Wow, an honest question almost turning into a flame war. **Snipped** I someone askes your help, give them the best choices for the class. not your rehtoric on why it sucks.The OP was not phrased as an honest question, more an honest challenge to show how various casters could sing "Everything you could do, I could do better..." and be completely correct. Since Core Druids with an animal companion apparently trumps Core Fighters at literally everything, we've found one conclusion here. (If you don't agree on that, it's actually easy to show, a Druid pushes the upper power limits, no question) DMM: (Persistent Spell) Clerics apparently were also conceded by the OP I personally think that's there is a problem with Persistent Spell, but that's far from the universal opinion. As a longtime Wizard junkie, I can say 3.5 Wizards are quite powerful, versatile, and fun. At low levels, they simply can't tank, and can't act as the melee presence. A high level (15, maybe 13) they can do just about anything, but that hardly replaces a fighter. A well built Gish should beat a fighter at whatever the Gish is built for, but that is usually a more narrow focus than the fighter, so I can't agree that a Wizard invalidates a Fighter until very high levels. A Cleric (Core Cleric, for simplicity) seems to be the final point of argument. Simply, a Core Cleric also replaces a Core Fighter from levels 1-20, for everything that matters. At level 10 on, this isn't close, the spells are simply too good. Simply, the Cleric has AC, can soak damage, and keep up in melee with the Fighter. If (very) low level melee presence is needed, I suggest a Dwarf Cleric with War and Strength domains (unless you have someone who can cast enlarge person), he'll be a hair back in melee damage when not enlarged, and better in so many, many ways. There is room for argument on this, but for party optimization, it's not even close. Antimagic, when used by an opponent that can benefit it (Dragons are nasty, for example) can hose spellcasters, but they generally hose a Fighter just as well. A Fighter can't handle Giants and the like at CR in an Antimagic Field, the Antimagic argument against casters always bugs me. A humanoid near CR using Antimagic Shell will get ripped apart by a CoDzilla party, it is not even funny. CoDzilla is just that good. A 2 Druid, 2 Cleric party is just frightening, from level 1-20, there really isn't anything they can't handle. For versatility, I'd say 3 CoDzillas (1 Druid, 1 Cleric, 1 Either) and a Beguiler can handle literally any reasonably optimized party could, and crush challenges many decent parties would struggle with. A Fighter adds nothing of value by supplanting either party by replacing a member, and weakens both. A low level Barbarian *might*, at level 2 he could do crazy damage in a rage, that might make a difference, and sheer hps (esp. in rage) has value that is hard to strictly measure. A Fighter really can't say the same, a CoDzilla has better melee presence. So, my call, Druid or Cleric (CoDzilla...*ROAR*) can replace Fighter, CORE or otherwise, and straight benefit the party, while Wizard can not at low levels. (before 10, say) Yeesh...sorry for the length, got worked up there. Returning to your regularly scheduled flamewar.....:D
Boshi 11-24-06, 03:06 AM	My question is not what iconic party can do as well as a CoDzilla party, it's whether any party of any composition can do as well as a CoDzilla party. Do as well at what? If you put a party of all melee classes in an anti-magic field then obviously they're better than just about everything (but not much better than CODzilla thanks to animal companions). Also you're missing my main point, which is that D&D is based on characters relying on each other and needing classes that can fill the four iconic roles. If a party of straight CODzillas can fill all of the iconic roles and do it BETTER than the classic iconic party then there's a real problem. CODzilla takes on of the founding principles of D&D (classing being reliant on each other) and rips its heart out. Vow of Poverty without losing his main abilities. (Cleric's holy symbol counts as a magic item and is not allowed. Stupid, but true.) Um, you think that a fighter with a Vow of Poverty is anywhere near as good as druid with Vow of Poverty? All of which are high level abilities. Druids can beat fighters at melee from the get-go (hello Mr. Riding Dog!), clerics take a little longer but for most levels clerics can reliably out-melee fighters.
levitation 11-24-06, 03:34 AM	if you are going in terms of dealing damage then show me a way that a druid or cleric by 15 level can deal 100-200 damage to a single target
Imban 11-24-06, 03:54 AM	Is this a serious question? Harm. But we're not going in terms of dealing damage. Dealing damage is a somewhat silly goal at high levels and level 10-15 powerbuild fighters should be doing more damage than that anyway.
levitation 11-24-06, 04:02 AM	Is this a serious question? Harm. But we're not going in terms of dealing damage. Dealing damage is a somewhat silly goal at high levels and level 10-15 powerbuild fighters should be doing more damage than that anyway. exactly and all it matters is who gets to first, fighter can do massive damage to the cleric before he casts it or the cleric can cast it before the fighter can attack him, but harm is a touch spell, so a fighter could just leap attack all out and slaughter the cleric...
Cold Napalm 11-24-06, 04:06 AM	Well since my class specialization is the gish, I can say for a fact...clearly...that a wizard can't surpass the fighter till...umm...level 1. Then they have to wait till level 15+ or so. The reason? Mage armor + shield + decent dex = 21+ ac...no level 1 fighter is getting anywhere near that...and at level 1 if you get hit, you die anyways :P . As for dispel magic...well thats just dumb. I'm sorry but every gish I have ever used either has a ring of counter spell with dispel magic/greater, a ring of spell battle and/or spellbane weapon with dispel magic/greater on it. If you are running an enchantmen heavy build and you don't protect it, your just a bad player.
levitation 11-24-06, 04:24 AM	Well since my class specialization is the gish, I can say for a fact...clearly...that a wizard can't surpass the fighter till...umm...level 1. Then they have to wait till level 15+ or so. The reason? Mage armor + shield + decent dex = 21+ ac...no level 1 fighter is getting anywhere near that...and at level 1 if you get hit, you die anyways :P . As for dispel magic...well thats just dumb. I'm sorry but every gish I have ever used either has a ring of counter spell with dispel magic/greater, a ring of spell battle and/or spellbane weapon with dispel magic/greater on it. If you are running an enchantmen heavy build and you don't protect it, your just a bad player. full plate+tower shield= 23 Ac not at first level though, with dex 3 or 4 chain shirt or breast plate and tower Ac 22, the fighter just got near that...:D
Ramacass 11-24-06, 04:30 AM	Let me start by saying that I play well thought out cleric-come-fighter and she kicks but. However people exagerate just how much "better" they are than fighters. First point Persistant spell with divine metamagic is SUPER cheese. It looks good on paper but has anyone ever played with a DM that let them use it or is anyone a DM that uses it. Quicken spell with divine metamagic is useful but costly. An average cleric with a cha of 12 has 4 turn undead attempts per day you need six to use one use of a quickened spell with two "extra turning" feats(4 feats total) you could use it twice per day and give up your turn undead class ability. It's a bit of a strech that your character will be able to walk around with a sack full of night sticks, as a DM I wouldn't allow it.There arn't too many games with unlimited acess to splat books. If all splat books are used then the fighter has some nifty options too-the mage slayer feat for example will give the fighter a major advantage against a spellcaster. Oh yeah and wildshape is overrated
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 04:53 AM	Let me start by saying that I play well thought out cleric-come-fighter and she kicks but. However people exagerate just how much "better" they are than fighters. First point Persistant spell with divine metamagic is SUPER cheese. It looks good on paper but has anyone ever played with a DM that let them use it or is anyone a DM that uses it. Quicken spell with divine metamagic is useful but costly. An average cleric with a cha of 12 has 4 turn undead attempts per day you need six to use one use of a quickened spell with two "extra turning" feats(4 feats total) you could use it twice per day and give up your turn undead class ability. It's a bit of a strech that your character will be able to walk around with a sack full of night sticks, as a DM I wouldn't allow it.There arn't too many games with unlimited acess to splat books. If all splat books are used then the fighter has some nifty options too-the mage slayer feat for example will give the fighter a major advantage against a spellcaster.I agree with most of this, I think Persistent Spell is just flawed and potentially unbalancing. From what I read, you're saying you play a cleric in place of fighter, and perform quite well. A cleric doesn't have to outperform a fighter a by much in melee, only by a small margin. The cleric has better saves, buffs, summons, save-or-dies, turn undead, and spontaneous heals. (not always respected, 3d8 +6 at level 6 spontaneously is a valuable feature). A fighter can't do much else, unless he's ranged, and fighter archer vs. cleric archer is actually worse for the fighter than melee builds, seriously. So the question is: do you think your cleric outperforms a fighter of that level? If so, that's anecdotal evidence in favor of Cleric >> Fighter, end statement. Oh yeah and wildshape is overratedBlasphemy. :eek: Seriously though, it's not 24/7 raw power (although it is) it's versatility as well. Flight, scouting/stealth, speed, underwater travel, pounce, even Core it's very powerful on its own. I didn't mean to say a Gish was useless or couldn't trump a fighter. Just that the variation and often complexity makes comparison to fighter far more difficult than Cleric20 or Druid20. I don't see Gish Vs. Fighter accomplishing any result. Also, duels at level 1, 15, or 20 is about the worst way to evaluate class effectiveness, it's what the contribution to the party that matters. If any class at all levels can outperform the Fighter in everything he actually tries to do in the campaign, and brings much more to the table, there's a serious balance issue somewhere. I think Druid hopelessly embarrasses the Fighter, and Cleric isn't that far behind. (even Ignoring DMM (Persist), for the moment)
Brendan Candries 11-24-06, 09:00 AM	[QUOTE=Cold Napalm;10724065]Well since my class specialization is the gish, I can say for a fact...clearly...that a wizard can't surpass the fighter till...umm...level 1. Then they have to wait till level 15+ or so. [QUOTE] mmm dex 14 would be decent so that's ac 20 for 1 minute per shield spell (an action to cast) ac 16 outside. mage armor lasts 1 hour. after 2/3 encounters spread over the day he's at 12 ac without spells. wizard uses a simple weapon with a str of 10 bab 0, fighter uses a martial weapon with str/dex of 16 and bab 1 and a bonus feat. wizard has 6 hps (14 con) fighter has 12 hps. so far for theoryd&d
Krevon 11-24-06, 09:05 AM	Is this a serious question? Harm. But we're not going in terms of dealing damage. Dealing damage is a somewhat silly goal at high levels and level 10-15 powerbuild fighters should be doing more damage than that anyway. Why would you go away from that? Thats what he does. Thats been the thing that gets me so far. People want to say a caster can do it better but when they can't out damage the fighter in melee the spells ar supposed to put the cleric over. But if you use spell slots for self buff or maybe even party buff if your feeling generous, where are your damage spells?
malignor 11-24-06, 09:11 AM	One little thing, Seerow. Isn't the Fighter flatfooted and thus anable to make AoOs(and use Combat Reflexes) during that surprise round?Combat Reflexes [General] Benefit You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
malignor 11-24-06, 09:15 AM	Here's an interesting little side question. Everyone talks about damage output. Can the cleric put out as much damage as an equivalent fighter over the span of, say, 10 rounds? Like, who can dish out a total of 5000 hp of damage first?
Argaud 11-24-06, 09:25 AM	Here's an interesting little side question. Everyone talks about damage output. Can the cleric put out as much damage as an equivalent fighter over the span of, say, 10 rounds? Like, who can dish out a total of 5000 hp of damage first? In 10 rounds probably the cleric, at least once he can quicken all the good buffs. Once the cleric has divine might, righteous might and divine favor going, and assuming he has access to a decent martial weapon, he should be able to do more damage than a non-buffed fighter (assuming that rare beast exist). In 5 rounds the fighter comes ahead, though. And most battles do not take more than 5 rounds. Obviously the key word is 'non-buffed fighter'. I have never seen any of those in any party. Ever.
Argaud 11-24-06, 09:39 AM	As for pimping out your animal companion, those are very subjective rules. No DM is guaranteed to accept that interpretation of equipment. In your example, wolves have no fingers, and so can't use rings. Likewise, a DM may not accept that a wolf has arm slots for bracers. I agree about the fingers, but since unicorns can use bracers in their forelegs (check the MM!) I'd say wolves can too. :D If you load wolves down with armor, they have no armor proficiency, and so take attack penalties for wearing armor. The better the armor, the worse their penalties. Leather armor won't give them any penalty. Or more likely, magical mithril chain shirt. It is moderately pricey, but easily afordable from mid-level up. It can give up to +9 AC for the animal if the team cleric can spare a magical vestment spell. That helps to cover a bit the horrible AC most animals have.
malignor 11-24-06, 11:18 AM	The OP was not phrased as an honest question, more an honest challenge to show how various casters could sing "Everything you could do, I could do better..." and be completely correct. Since Core Druids with an animal companion apparently trumps Core Fighters at literally everything, we've found one conclusion here. (If you don't agree on that, it's actually easy to show, a Druid pushes the upper power limits, no question) DMM: (Persistent Spell) Clerics apparently were also conceded by the OP I personally think that's there is a problem with Persistent Spell, but that's far from the universal opinion. As a longtime Wizard junkie, I can say 3.5 Wizards are quite powerful, versatile, and fun. At low levels, they simply can't tank, and can't act as the melee presence. A high level (15, maybe 13) they can do just about anything, but that hardly replaces a fighter. A well built Gish should beat a fighter at whatever the Gish is built for, but that is usually a more narrow focus than the fighter, so I can't agree that a Wizard invalidates a Fighter until very high levels. A Cleric (Core Cleric, for simplicity) seems to be the final point of argument. Simply, a Core Cleric also replaces a Core Fighter from levels 1-20, for everything that matters. At level 10 on, this isn't close, the spells are simply too good. Simply, the Cleric has AC, can soak damage, and keep up in melee with the Fighter. If (very) low level melee presence is needed, I suggest a Dwarf Cleric with War and Strength domains (unless you have someone who can cast enlarge person), he'll be a hair back in melee damage when not enlarged, and better in so many, many ways. There is room for argument on this, but for party optimization, it's not even close. Antimagic, when used by an opponent that can benefit it (Dragons are nasty, for example) can hose spellcasters, but they generally hose a Fighter just as well. A Fighter can't handle Giants and the like at CR in an Antimagic Field, the Antimagic argument against casters always bugs me. A humanoid near CR using Antimagic Shell will get ripped apart by a CoDzilla party, it is not even funny. CoDzilla is just that good. A 2 Druid, 2 Cleric party is just frightening, from level 1-20, there really isn't anything they can't handle. For versatility, I'd say 3 CoDzillas (1 Druid, 1 Cleric, 1 Either) and a Beguiler can handle literally any reasonably optimized party could, and crush challenges many decent parties would struggle with. A Fighter adds nothing of value by supplanting either party by replacing a member, and weakens both. A low level Barbarian *might*, at level 2 he could do crazy damage in a rage, that might make a difference, and sheer hps (esp. in rage) has value that is hard to strictly measure. A Fighter really can't say the same, a CoDzilla has better melee presence. So, my call, Druid or Cleric (CoDzilla...*ROAR*) can replace Fighter, CORE or otherwise, and straight benefit the party, while Wizard can not at low levels. (before 10, say) Yeesh...sorry for the length, got worked up there. Returning to your regularly scheduled flamewar.....:DWell written. Worth seeing twice.
Clawhound 11-24-06, 11:24 AM	First off, I do concede that clerics and druids can be built to get better bonuses than a fighter and still have full spellcasting. The cleric uses DMM and Persistent Spell. The druid is just the druid. I merely point out that there are considerations to using these tactics. DMs are not bound to take certain interpretations of the rules. (What you would rule does not matter in another person's game.) Equipment costs money. Etc. I've been of the mind, for a while, that fighters are not about damage. When I hear someone say, "this class can outfight a fighter", they mean do lots of damage fast. I see that as a nonsensical statement, as the fighter isn't about damage. A fighter is about having a character able to go into the most hazardous part of the game over and over and survive. A fighter is about having a character that interacts inherently differently on the combat board. A fighter is about having a character who can anchor you in an emergency while you form a new plan. A fighter is about about styles of fighting or niches that are too expensive for other characters to pursue or aren't worth the tradeoff to the non-fighter character. A fighter is about a fantasy character that does not cast spells. A fighter is about a man in a metal suit with a pointy stick facing the most dangerous creatures in the world. A fighter is about being prepared for odd contingencies. I don't ask you to agree. That's just my POV, imperfect as it may be. I think that's how the game writers wanted the class to be. As it stands, a good offense is generally worth more than all the fighter's tricks, which is the ultimate issue that really gives the fighter grief. So it's not that casters do a fighter's job better, it's that casters completely bypass the fighter's job by pumping out damage fast enough that the downsides of their tactics don't become liabilities.
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 11:50 AM	First off, I do concede that clerics and druids can be built to get better bonuses than a fighter and still have full spellcasting. The cleric uses DMM and Persistent Spell. The druid is just the druid. I merely point out that there are considerations to using these tactics. DMs are not bound to take certain interpretations of the rules. (What you would rule does not matter in another person's game.) Equipment costs money. Etc. I've been of the mind, for a while, that fighters are not about damage. When I hear someone say, "this class can outfight a fighter", they mean do lots of damage fast. I see that as a nonsensical statement, as the fighter isn't about damage. A fighter is about having a character able to go into the most hazardous part of the game over and over and survive. A fighter is about having a character that interacts inherently differently on the combat board. A fighter is about having a character who can anchor you in an emergency while you form a new plan. A fighter is about about styles of fighting or niches that are too expensive for other characters to pursue or aren't worth the tradeoff to the non-fighter character. A fighter is about a fantasy character that does not cast spells. A fighter is about a man in a metal suit with a pointy stick facing the most dangerous creatures in the world. A fighter is about being prepared for odd contingencies. I don't ask you to agree. That's just my POV, imperfect as it may be. I think that's how the game writers wanted the class to be. As it stands, a good offense is generally worth more than all the fighter's tricks, which is the ultimate issue that really gives the fighter grief. The problem with claiming niches is that a fighter is only ever a +4 ahead of someone with the same stats and equipment. A tripper fighter? He has a +4 and won't provoke. Most likely a tripping weapon too. A druid/cleric? The are large to huge and can get a higher strength score through buffing. That eliminates the tripping advantage for the fighter except the not provoking. The difference being, neither the guisarme/armour spike wielding cleric nor the huge wildshaped druid care, since you can't reach them anyway. And really, what niches does a fighter fill that a large size won't equal anyway? He can do it in a narrow corridor. Wooo. That may come up plenty of times, but a large or larger earth elemental won't care, a cleric won't care much, since nothing that he will be fighting in that corridor will be too large to grapple based off of a high strength and full BAB and so forth. So what niche is he filling that a cleric or druid won't?
Clawhound 11-24-06, 01:15 PM	In terms of niches, I was thinking more broad niches, like the ranged tree, mounted combat, unarmed, etc. These are generally not worth the time for a caster as there are more rewarding feats or tactics for them to take. I'm not saying that a cleric or druid can't fill these niches, I'm saying that they have no incentive to fill those niches. They get no synergy. They are almost always better off going size/strength/damage. In fact, those are the three key elements that matter most. Just following those things cranks out an amazingly effective melee character. Thus, CoDzilla. (In other words, "HEY DUDE, I'm agreeing with you about the large tactic. It trumps everything.") That much said, fighters do have options. They are usually non-magical options, so are easy to overlook or under-appreciate. Fighters start the game with martial reach weapons. They don't need size to give them reach. Likewise, the fighter is mostly not fighting clerics and druids, he's mostly fighting monsters. Reach weapons are enough to get him through 1-10, and a 1st level growth spell/potion gets him to the huge reach range and his new large size synergizes with any Improved X feats that he took. Additionally, he will have ranged weapons, like javelins or composite bows. Add the improved feats into that, and you have the reason why the fighter generally does fairly well in levels 1-10, and can keep doing well in a cooperative party that knows how to leverage his non-magic assets. If you put the fighter in a game where he gets no support, or just assess him as a stand-alone characters, he pales against other characters. I acknowledge that other classes can do these things, too. I think that's good. If these are good abilities for other classes, they must also be good abilities for the fighter. Party of my job here is exploring not only why CoDzilla does so well, but why fighters are fairly competitive for the early levels, but then peter out. Fighters aren't casters. They can solve many of the same problems that casters do, but they solve them in a much different way. I think those solutions work great until a certain level, and then those solutions cease being relevant.
levitation 11-24-06, 01:29 PM	Here's an interesting little side question. Everyone talks about damage output. Can the cleric put out as much damage as an equivalent fighter over the span of, say, 10 rounds? Like, who can dish out a total of 5000 hp of damage first? and what has 5000 hp, the most ive seen is a dragon with 1,500 some and heck a well made fighter can take that out with 1 hit, if youre going with week cr monsters then you better hope you have great cleave, which the fighter will probable have. so if a fighter that leap attacking new targets, which he will probably kill with one hit even thought the movement is unlikely, a pure fighter could do 1,500 dm, a prestige class fighter about 3,000 dm and a not to maxed/dm allows ambigious rules fighter can 10,500 dm in 10 rounds
Imban 11-24-06, 02:17 PM	Why would you go away from that? Thats what he does. Thats been the thing that gets me so far. People want to say a caster can do it better but when they can't out damage the fighter in melee the spells ar supposed to put the cleric over. But if you use spell slots for self buff or maybe even party buff if your feeling generous, where are your damage spells? Generally, you don't use every single spell slot you have on self-buffing. If you have any left for save-or-die (or save-or-be-screwed) spells, you can, you know, put them there. A fighter-type built in one of the ways that lets you do utterly immense damage does outdamage any caster pretending to be a fighter. But at that point, his job isn't tanking for the party. He's not designed for it at all, and a lot of those builds are only slightly less squishy than casters if they're ambushed. He's playing the Save or Die game with the primary casters, only he's rolling versus their armor class and miss chance instead of save and spell resistance. The problem is that in most cases, a caster can decide to play the Save or Die game as well or better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the standard combat game better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the battlefield control game better than the fighter who's specialized in that.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-24-06, 02:20 PM	It may not get disgustingly powerful, but it's still enough to make him competitive, which is all that matters. If WotC's books are such garbage why are you playing their game? And the OP never said Core Only. In fact, on the contrary he stated he wanted to see examples of how other classes stood up from everything between Core Only and anything goes. My, not only can you not read nor type, you can't add either? (psst 1+4=5 ^_^) Well excuse the typo. Everyone does them sometimes, even you. Have you ever read their books? There is not a single one that is edited corectly Or do you just assume that their typos are gold and they are right? There is errata on every book WotC has ever printed. I find this laughable. Frankly if I was a part of their editing staff I would hide in shame. As for why I play the game, I have been playing sense 1985 and the older editions of the game simply don't have many players anymore. I simply do not use WotC books because of the editing issues. When I spend money I want complete books, not garbage that has not been edited.
Seerow 11-24-06, 02:25 PM	Oh, I see, you're one of those types who thinks older versions of D&D are perfect and all this new stuff is trash from a money hungry corporation, but you play because nobody agrees with you. You can disagree with the editing, but given your proneness to typos, you really have little place to talk about such a thing. If you can read your own posts and ignore typos, you can read a book and ignore their typos. Yes, you should expect a bit more from something you pay for, but you still shouldn't expect it to be perfect. And every book ever released by Wizards has an erata? That's news to me. Last I heard they were still waiting for errata for books from a year ago.
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 02:26 PM	First off, I do concede that clerics and druids can be built to get better bonuses than a fighter and still have full spellcasting. The cleric uses DMM and Persistent Spell. The druid is just the druid. I merely point out that there are considerations to using these tactics. DMs are not bound to take certain interpretations of the rules. (What you would rule does not matter in another person's game.) Equipment costs money. Etc. I've been of the mind, for a while, that fighters are not about damage. When I hear someone say, "this class can outfight a fighter", they mean do lots of damage fast. I see that as a nonsensical statement, as the fighter isn't about damage.I strongly agree with you, but I see that as what a Fighter *Should* be capable of, not what they actually do. The Barbarian is all about melee damage (and a few tricks) and does it well at low levels, needing PrCs to keep up with spellcasters at high levels, if they can at all. The Fighter needs to primarily be versatile in melee, and that is where he fails. His bonus feats just aren't keeping up in versatility OR power in melee (and in ranged combat Druids and Clerics will excel, an optimized Cleric Archer is just sick) And that is simply, a bad thing. I would like to see a Fighter filling niches spellcasters can not, but it doesn't work out. Many see the Tome of Battle as what the Fighter *Should* have been, and say it closes the gap significantly. Others complain it makes melee tanks too powerful, I say about time. Grappling: No, Druids and Clerics will be better without even planning for it. Battlefield control: I'd like to see Fighters do this, but spells do that so much better. Tank: With AC and Hps a bit behind the Fighter, CoDZilla adds a long duration buff or two, and gobs of healing, sorry, Fighters aren't better meatshields. Then replace the horrible Will save with a *Great* one, and it's not close. Simply, they can focus on one or more niches....then hear CoDZilla chuckle as they get outperformed. Hmm....Battlefield control...that might be the exception. Core the Fighter is hopelessly outclassed, but with reach, Combat Reflexes, Mageslayer, Large and in Charge (the last is awesome, but DM's may not allow it) he just *Might* find a Niche at hosing spellcasters and locking down enemies....maybe.
levitation 11-24-06, 02:26 PM	Generally, you don't use every single spell slot you have on self-buffing. If you have any left for save-or-die (or save-or-be-screwed) spells, you can, you know, put them there. A fighter-type built in one of the ways that lets you do utterly immense damage does outdamage any caster pretending to be a fighter. But at that point, his job isn't tanking for the party. He's not designed for it at all, and a lot of those builds are only slightly less squishy than casters if they're ambushed. He's playing the Save or Die game with the primary casters, only he's rolling versus their armor class and miss chance instead of save and spell resistance. The problem is that in most cases, a caster can decide to play the Save or Die game as well or better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the standard combat game better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the battlefield control game better than the fighter who's specialized in that. damage dealer fighters are decently protected they have a good ac ofcourse not as good as the tank but its decent, mages armor has limitations and dont alot of save-or-die spells have fort saves, which are very common with a lot of monsters and fighters?
Imban 11-24-06, 02:33 PM	There are save-or-die spells on practically every save, with Reflex being the least common. Being paralyzed or otherwise useless for longer than the battle will go on is pretty much dead. And no, the damage dealer fighters I'm talking about - and the ones you're talking about, since I believe you mentioned Shock Trooper earlier - have crappy and low ACs and pretty much rely on hitting something for hundreds of damage right away. The ones who run up to an enemy and deal 60 damage on a normal slash are the tanks.
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 02:38 PM	The problem is that in most cases, a caster can decide to play the Save or Die game as well or better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the standard combat game better than the fighter who's specialized in that, or play the battlefield control game better than the fighter who's specialized in that.You put it better than I was able to. And these casters do this by waking up in the morning, and putting ~10% of their spell slots towards this. (and the Druid may not even need to do that much) An optimization exercise for max damage dealing isn't going to let the Fighter shine, and doesn't really have much bearing at all on the OP. Focusing on niches (IMHO) is a much better area of discussion, that the Fighter can't excel at chosen niches is my biggest criticism of the class.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-24-06, 02:40 PM	Oh, I see, you're one of those types who thinks older versions of D&D are perfect and all this new stuff is trash from a money hungry corporation, but you play because nobody agrees with you. You can disagree with the editing, but given your proneness to typos, you really have little place to talk about such a thing. If you can read your own posts and ignore typos, you can read a book and ignore their typos. Yes, you should expect a bit more from something you pay for, but you still shouldn't expect it to be perfect. And every book ever released by Wizards has an erata? That's news to me. Last I heard they were still waiting for errata for books from a year ago. Never said they were perfect, but they at least were edited. Dragon magizine form what little I have read has almost no editing issues, Why should the game the magizine is based on have issues with every thing it prints? Oh, I stand corrected. They are in need of errata. Which is even worse, isn't it?
levitation 11-24-06, 02:57 PM	There are save-or-die spells on practically every save, with Reflex being the least common. Being paralyzed or otherwise useless for longer than the battle will go on is pretty much dead. And no, the damage dealer fighters I'm talking about - and the ones you're talking about, since I believe you mentioned Shock Trooper earlier - have crappy and low ACs and pretty much rely on hitting something for hundreds of damage right away. The ones who run up to an enemy and deal 60 damage on a normal slash are the tanks. and after the dealing hundreds of damage to the enemy, its probably gonna die, there are moderations to how much power attack to use, you arent going all out on a beholder as the have little hp (yes the beholder would own the fighter) but you would go all out on a dragon... you have to have some idea of tactics and using you strategy, infact I find that combat expertise and imp combat expertise can help the leap attacker out, combine war chanters inspire recless ness and imp comat expertise and you are just fine in ac with a good power attack for massive damage...
Clawhound 11-24-06, 03:33 PM	At this point, I wonder something. Can three casters cover all the bases in such as way that a fighter can't provide a meaningful contribution? In a four person party, we have four characters, each of whom has finite abilities and choices. Any one of them could cover any role for the party, but can three of them cover all of the roles so that a fourth character, a fighter, can find no role at all? The follow-on question is: can the fourth character, a fighter, be competent in the fourth role? No best, just competent. Assuming three casters and one fighter, if the casters each take an optimal path to power, will any of them fill any of the fighter's role, or do they have more optimal paths to follow? Do casters make better casters than they make better fighters?
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 03:46 PM	At this point, I wonder something. Can three casters cover all the bases in such as way that a fighter can't provide a meaningful contribution? In a four person party, we have four players, each of whom has finite abilities and choices. Any one of them could cover any role for the party, but can three of them cover all of the roles so that a fourth character, a fighter, can find no role at all? The follow-on question is: can the fourth character, a fighter, be competent in the fourth role? No best, just competent. Assuming three casters and one fighter, if the casters each take an optimal path to power, will any of them fill any of the fighter's role, or do they have more optimal paths to follow? Do casters make better casters than they make better fighters? Ted the shovel wielding level 4 commoner is still going to be better than nothing at all, assuming he does not demand spells cast on him, that he does not draw too much attention, and so long as he does not slow others down. (by having a horse I guess.) Any body is better than none. Same goes for the fighter. A 4 person party with a fighter is always going to be better than the same with a 3 person party. The problem comes when its the same 3 people and another cleric, instead of the fighter. So yes, a fighter is merely competent at what he does best. I think that given what you want however, anything is competent.
Argaud 11-24-06, 03:48 PM	and after the dealing hundreds of damage to the enemy, its probably gonna die, there are moderations to how much power attack to use, you arent going all out on a beholder as the have little hp (yes the beholder would own the fighter) but you would go all out on a dragon... you have to have some idea of tactics and using you strategy, infact I find that combat expertise and imp combat expertise can help the leap attacker out, combine war chanters inspire recless ness and imp comat expertise and you are just fine in ac with a good power attack for massive damage... What helps the leap attacked are things like Karmic Strike or Robiliar Gambit. Yes, their armor is crap, so they get hit... and then they hit back, causing ridiculously massive damage because they are still power-attacking for their full bab and yet keep their full bab to attack too. Just as if they were still charging. It is trully a nasty, nasty combo. Whatever said fighters were grounded in reality needs to double check stuff like this. I find it as fantastic as casting fireballs. And the ability of fighters with Supremacy to shot bows when grappled too. :cool:
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 03:56 PM	At this point, I wonder something. Can three casters cover all the bases in such as way that a fighter can't provide a meaningful contribution? In a four person party, we have four players, each of whom has finite abilities and choices. Any one of them could cover any role for the party, but can three of them cover all of the roles so that a fourth character, a fighter, can find no role at all? The follow-on question is: can the fourth character, a fighter, be competent in the fourth role? No best, just competent. Assuming three casters and one fighter, if the casters each take an optimal path to power, will any of them fill any of the fighter's role, or do they have more optimal paths to follow? Do casters make better casters than they make better fighters?I don't agree with the basis of this argument. A commoner could find a role in a party, passing out scrolls/potions, watching guard, providing flaning bonuses/aid other action, that's not particularly relevant. Many classes are strictly hands down better than the commoner, (most, actually) and the Fighter equals or exceed the Warrior in every way. Would a party turn down a WarriorX, where X is the average party level, before a tough battle? Not if they're smart. The comparison needs to be can a Fighter do ANYTHING better than certain classes. (in this case, CoDZilla) If a party made of say, a Cleric, a Druid, a Rogue, and a Wizard... Can a Fighter replace a swap with any of the four and improve the party? Generally, no, a Fighter would be a very bad trade, at any level. A Warrior is by no means unplayable, it even could be fun. There's someone out there hands down better though, which will annoy some players and/or parties dealing with a sub-optimal member. IMHO, ditto for the Fighter.
Clawhound 11-24-06, 04:42 PM	Any body is better than none. Same goes for the fighter. A 4 person party with a fighter is always going to be better than the same with a 3 person party. The problem comes when its the same 3 people and another cleric, instead of the fighter. I asked that question because that's the relevant question to the fourth player in a party. Can my character make a unique contribution to the party? Will my character pull his fair weight in the adventure? Will there be situations where my character will shine? Will my character provide something that the other players see as valuable? The crux of the game really is what you want to play. A cleric may do a role better, but if the player is interested in playing something else, than that player gets to play something else. There are more forces at work than optimization. The DM and the party is not forcing everyone to choose an optimized cleric. If three casters can't make the fighter irrelevant as a pick, then the fighter remains viable as a character pick and can provide something unique to the party. It's not whether a spellcaster can do something better than a fighter, it's whether the player can create a fighter than can do something better or more unique than the created spellcasters in his game. The fighter isn't competing against all possible spellcsaters, he's only competing against the spellcasters in his game. In that respect, it's usually easy for a fighter to find a combat role and fill it. Maybe that's a reason why fighters often work in a actual games. The fighter fills a gap in the party and the players find that valuable.
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 04:48 PM	I asked that question because that's the relevant question to the fourth player in a party. Can my character make a unique contribution to the party? Will my character pull his fair weight in the adventure? Will there be situations where my character will shine? Will my character provide something that the other players see as valuable? If three casters can't make the fighter irrelevant as a pick, then the fighter remains viable as a character pick and can provide something unique to the party. (The crux of the game really is what you want to play. A cleric may do a role better, but if the player is interested in playing something else, than that player gets to play something else. There are more forces at work than optimization.) It's not whether a spellcaster can do something better than a fighter, it's whether the player can create a fighter than can do something better or more unique than the created spellcasters in his game. The fighter isn't competing against all possible spellcsaters, he's only competing against the spellcasters in his game. In that respect, it's usually easy for a fighter to find a combat role and fill it. Maybe that's a reason why fighters often work in a actual games. The fighter fills a gap in the party and the players find that valuable. The problem with that question is that it is stilted. The answer, no matter the party and the class will always be yes. A party will always be better off with a fourth, even if the fourth rather sucks. I agree that this may be why he works in games. Because it's better that he be there than no one at all. You still have to ask yourself if you could get out of the same situations with other classes. Instead of asking what you are asking, ask if you would take a party, and replace another character with the fighter. Would you in most situations? I rarely would. If I had my ideal party of rogue, wizard, druid, cleric, I would not replace a single one with a fighter. Of course I would let one join me. I would let an angry pitchfork armed peasant join. Do you know why? You never know when one will come in handy. Does that make him good? Not really. Even if he never shines, he provides another body the enemy must mow through, and another attack every round. If I'm lucky I can convince it to at least become a barbarian or something. Doubt most peasants have high casting stats, but you never know.
Clawhound 11-24-06, 05:07 PM	Instead of asking what you are asking, ask if you would take a party, and replace another character with the fighter. Would you in most situations? That's a question that has no basis in the actual game as played, unless I'm playing some computerized version of D&D where I get to choose the party. You don't get to make that decision about my character. I don't get to make that about YOUR character. If I am a DM, I don't make that decision about any character picked by my players. The players may certainly negociate out who plays what, but no one is required to make any certain choice. Now, I will answer your question. Let's assume that I've been playing a redundant cleric in the party for two years. Would I swap that cleric with a fighter so that I can test out the new PHB2 feats and options? You betcha. Would I try a swordsage? You betcha. Would I try a Vow of Poverty monk? Sure. Would I try a scout or a psion or a warlock? Sure. I think that those are more worthwhile picks because they are more optimal to my current interests. You can always make your party choose optimal characters, but how long before the players are burnt out on playing all the same classes all the time? How long before they want to change the pace or try something different? Those are the dynamics that I actually see in-game. Bored players kill games, which is the ultimate nerf, ain't it?
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 05:16 PM	If three casters can't make the fighter irrelevant as a pick, then the fighter remains viable as a character pick and can provide something unique to the party. It's not whether a spellcaster can do something better than a fighter, it's whether the player can create a fighter than can do something better or more unique than the created spellcasters in his game. The fighter isn't competing against all possible spellcsaters, he's only competing against the spellcasters in his game. In that respect, it's usually easy for a fighter to find a combat role and fill it.I honestly feel both I and Jo_Pistachio each did a fair job of refuting your argument, trying to point out it was invalid. It appears you ignored both of us, and restated your opinion, and asking questions that mostly distract from the issue. Yes a Fighter can help a party, yes a Fighter can contribute. So what? So can a Warrior. Neither can contribute in any specific area particularly well, and their focus is narrow. A mildly optimized 4 person party is Druid, Cleric Archer, Beguiler, and either another Druid or a Tank-focused Cleric. Each can be optimized further, and all can vary their focus. All of these contribute on many levels to the party success, and a Fighter will weaken it by replacing any of them.I asked that question because that's the relevant question to the fourth player in a party. Can my character make a unique contribution to the party? Will my character pull his fair weight in the adventure? Will there be situations where my character will shine? Will my character provide something that the other players see as valuable? The crux of the game really is what you want to play. A cleric may do a role better, but if the player is interested in playing something else, than that player gets to play something else. There are more forces at work than optimization. The DM and the party is not forcing everyone to choose an optimized cleric. Maybe that's a reason why fighters often work in a actual games. The fighter fills a gap in the party and the players find that valuable.Questions: Unique contribution? Poorly defined, Druid trumps fighter, period. "Fair" weight? Again, undefined. If the DM really likes to challenge the party, the Fighter can definitely hold them back by not playing a more optimal class. Will character shine? Unlikely, unless serious effort is made in a specific area. (Or the DM forces focus on the Fighter, which isn't a bad idea.) If a player wants to play a non magical Warrior concept, he certainly can. I'd avoid Fighter though, and look elsewhere as a base, unless I had a Great plan for those bonus feats. Typically, as player, I try not to overshadow other characters. (which means I avoid druids, they fill far too many roles VERY well) As a cleric, I'd focus on spellcasting and buffs/healing say, and avoid offensive melee presence. Not because I can't outperform the melee types with minimal effort, but because I want to help others shine, as well. As a wizard, I intentionally focus on the classic spellslinger archetype, and avoid melee like the plague. Not so much because I can't make a Gish that can handle melee and spellcasting (I could) or because I couldn't prep a wizard to survive melee (I can) but because I focus on being the best Save-or-Die, battlefield control, debuff, and on occasion AoE damage in the party. In many situations, these characters would be the most valuable in the party, in others, they basically support the most valuable, and that's how it should be. The problem is, a CoDZilla can wake up that morning, realize the next adventure arc will be melee/combat heavy, and outperform the Fighter in every way, while simultaneously filling other niches the Fighter can't touch. In a powergaming enviroment where the DM likes to seriously challenge the party, combat-heavy or otherwise, I'd beg someone not to go Fighter. Versatility and Power, Fighter doesn't stack up, and doesn't excel in any niche.
True Archon 11-24-06, 05:20 PM	Question: Can spellcasters always fill the role of a fighter? Answer: No. Reason: There are too many variables, on both sides of the debate, involved for there to be any other final, definitive answer.
Clawhound 11-24-06, 05:46 PM	In a powergaming enviroment where the DM likes to seriously challenge the party, combat-heavy or otherwise, I'd beg someone not to go Fighter. Versatility and Power, Fighter doesn't stack up, and doesn't excel in any niche. I saw you as simply restating your opinions. So, we talked past each other. No problem. As for a power game, you are correct. I argue from a fairly bland point-buy or elite-array point of view. Once you go power-game, both druids and clerics explode in capabilities. Fighters lose their advantage of non-MAD scores fast. Even though power-gaming is a popular style of play, I think it does get away from default design assumptions and does greatly alter how the game plays. It is essentially its own game. So we've been talking about two different games, which explains why we see such different things from the same data. In a default-power game, a fighter does just fine. Crank up the difficulty, and the fighter's steady-output power level doesn't crank up with with the difficulty. BINGO! We have an explanation that fits the game as played. The fighter is tuned to a default level game and has nothing to break it out of that power-curve. Oh wow, that's why folks complain that a fighter can't nova. You need nova ability to handle high-power games. In non-power gaming, the game itself actually has a great deal of flex, so if you don't optimize, your characters are still relevant. The default power level leaves room for role-playing choices, design errors, random equipment, and inexperienced players. There's much less need to nova. The Nova Paradigm: The usefulness of a class in a power-game environment is direction proportional to its ability to nova. The liability of a class in a power-game environment is directly proportional to its lack of nova capability.
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 06:06 PM	As for a power game, you are correct. I argue from a fairly bland point-buy or elite-array point of view. Once you go power-game, both druids and clerics explode in capabilities. Fighters lose their advantage of non-MAD scores fast. Even though power-gaming is a popular style of play, I think it does get away from default design assumptions and does greatly alter how the game plays. It is essentially its own game. So we've been talking about two different games, which explains why we see such different things from the same data.A power game (Note: all I really mean by "power" is more focus on optimization, which does not necessarily mean more hack & slash) isn't really the issue. Basically, the Fighter does one thing....Fight. (Go figure) The problem he is not the best at it, not even close. A person who chooses to go Fighter to be the stereotypical melee "tank" could look to his left, see a Cleric tanking even better, while casting healing and divinations in downtime. He's also turning undead and pounding out battlefield control/damage/save or die spells when they can't get close to the enemy, and buffing both himself and the Fighter. This isn't even necessarily an optimized Cleric, Core or not, makes little difference. This could be one of the best examples of bad class balance, and no one playing the above Fighter will be likely be happy in the situation, regardless of powerlevel or roleplaying emphasis. (or lack thereof) Barbarians have gobs of Hps, Hit hard, and an unnamed movement bonus. (Not the best class, but these are at least Good Things) Spellcasters have variety and power, and many options. Skillmonkeys vary in effectiveness by campaign, DM, and even campaign arc, but can often do many things pure spellcasters cannot do easily or well. Fighters are one of the top 5 melee classes in Core DnD. They also get....oh right, that was the whole problem to begin with.... Fighter can be fun to play, so can Aristocrats or Experts.
Argaud 11-24-06, 06:15 PM	As for a power game, you are correct. I argue from a fairly bland point-buy or elite-array point of view. Once you go power-game, both druids and clerics explode in capabilities. Fighters lose their advantage of non-MAD scores fast. Even though power-gaming is a popular style of play, I think it does get away from default design assumptions and does greatly alter how the game plays. Although all this is true, I think you are severely underestimating the possibility of twinking up a fighter by using certain questionable rules interpretations, straight-by-the-book custom magical items and some abusive buffing by the other party members. Polymorph Any Object, for instance, is ridiculously overpowered when used on a fighter or barbarian. With just that one buff they will paste into nothingness any druid or cleric that is suicidal enough to try to go into melee with them. And Polymorph Any Object easily lasts a week without using Persistence or any metamagic. The buff is pretty useless for clerics and druids, because the good shapes would reduce their wisdom score too much.
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 06:26 PM	Although all this is true, I think you are severely underestimating the possibility of twinking up a fighter by using certain questionable rules interpretations, straight-by-the-book custom magical items and some abusive buffing by the other party members. Polymorph Any Object, for instance, is ridiculously overpowered when used on a fighter or barbarian. With just that one buff they will paste into nothingness any druid or cleric that is suicidal enough to try to go into melee with them. And Polymorph Any Object easily lasts a week without using Persistence or any metamagic. The buff is pretty useless for clerics and druids, because the good shapes would reduce their wisdom score too much. It can equivalently break a cleric or druid, since they can turn into a rock, then turn into something with a very high casting stat, then use normal wildshape or polymorph. Like an anthropomorphic bat, then wildshape into a larger, scarier creature. And polymorph any object cast in a pattern can be permanent. For instance fighter into halfling. Halfling into a kobold. Kobold into a dragon with same int score. Dragon into more powerful, larger dragon. Repeat until top age category is achieved. Permanently. Difference here is a druid having this done has it done on himself and his companion, they both have a huge buff capacity. A cleric uses his new form and casts persisted buffs. And we wind up back where we started. An adult dragon with feats compared to two adult dragons with druidic buffs and a persisted buffed dragon with divine magic. Just have to make sure you never get dispelled. At least, I think you can do that. Too tired to check, too broken to have ever done it.
Thomas_Covenant 11-24-06, 06:34 PM	And Polymorph Any Object easily lasts a week without using Persistence or any metamagic. The buff is pretty useless for clerics and druids, because the good shapes would reduce their wisdom score too much.Err...no, PaO will help Clerics about the same as Fighters. It replaces Int (which honestly, is downright bizarre) but Cha and Wis are completely untouched. This effectively weakens Druids by making their wild shape less impressive. (At first glance, sounds great.) PaO, however, is bordering on unbalancing, the duration can easily be *Permanent* and specifically is based only on caster level, target's HD/CL is irrelevant. (Sun Giant is popular, or Planetar if you work around the "Outsider" type) Clerics benefit from PaO as well as Fighters do, and still have their "Personal" range buff spells, some of which stack with everything, so you haven't solved much. Any buff from magic items or the party Wizard can also be used on CoDzilla, so this also solves nothing. Looks like Jo_Pistachio is beating me to the punch again....as much as I hate the word "broken" with a passion, PaO comes very, very close....
Argaud 11-24-06, 06:42 PM	Err...no, PaO will help Clerics about the same as Fighters. It replaces Int (which honestly, is downright bizarre) but Cha and Wis are completely untouched. Zounds! You are right. This effectively weakens Druids by making their wild shape less impressive. (At first glance, sounds great.) PaO, however, is bordering on unbalancing, the duration can easily be *Permanent* and specifically is based only on caster level, target's HD/CL is irrelevant. That is not unbalanced. That is grabing balance by the neck and doing horrible, medieval things with it in a dark room. (Sun Giant is popular, or Planetar if you work around the "Outsider" type) 15 HD or less, since it is based on Polymorph, but still enough to do a lot. Horned Devil, Leonal, War Troll, Firbolg Giant, etc, etc. They make the Dire Tiger look feeble.
malignor 11-24-06, 10:55 PM	Allright... This is getting good! Okay. Next question. This is alot like Clawhound's question. Suppose you have a Cleric/Druid/Wizard. Suppose there are 2 possible paths for them: - 1 is optimization for the class itself. That is to say, using the Cleric as the example, the cleric becomes the best cleric it can be, acknowledging that the tank role is already fulfilled by someone else. So the cleric will likely not have to tank, and should just look at class abilities and focus on them to become the best Cleric (healer, diviner, undead destroyer, etc.) possible. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best cleric possible. - 2 is the tank-optimized version of the same character. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best tank possible. Which path would you say leads to the more powerful character? Which do you think is the more attractive character to add to a party? Which do you think is the more satisfying path to play, in general? This is essentially a question about opportunity cost - what you're giving up by turning a caster into a tank... are you 'wasting' a perfectly good class?
Jo_Pistachio 11-24-06, 11:36 PM	Allright... This is getting good! Okay. Next question. This is alot like Clawhound's question. Suppose you have a Cleric/Druid/Wizard. Suppose there are 2 possible paths for them: - 1 is optimization for the class itself. That is to say, using the Cleric as the example, the cleric becomes the best cleric it can be, acknowledging that the tank role is already fulfilled by someone else. So the cleric will likely not have to tank, and should just look at class abilities and focus on them to become the best Cleric (healer, diviner, undead destroyer, etc.) possible. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best cleric possible. - 2 is the tank-optimized version of the same character. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best tank possible. Which path would you say leads to the more powerful character? Which do you think is the more attractive character to add to a party? Which do you think is the more satisfying path to play, in general? This is essentially a question about opportunity cost - what you're giving up by turning a caster into a tank... are you 'wasting' a perfectly good class? Bad example. A cleric give up no healing, no undead slaying abilities and only a little divine casting to become a melee character. That is why a cleric is a broken class. In other words, what cost is there to the melee cleric build? As for most satisfying, all of that depends entirely on how you roleplay it. Also, a devoted healer diviner undead slayer is very boring, as he rarely has a chance to do much. Undead only come up every so often, healing is important but not fun, divine casting is all that is left. A melee build still does it fine. Same goes for druids. They don't really need to worry about opportunity cost, since all they need to spend is wildshape uses, and frankly, what else are they using them for? They already "spent" the cost of wildshape by being a druid. There are great benefits as a result. The benefits outwiegh the nearly nonexistant costs in this case. Wizards need to spend the most, and struggle most in overcoming a fighter in the melee aspect. They can do it but are definitely nerfing themselves.
Argaud 11-25-06, 01:12 AM	- 1 is optimization for the class itself. That is to say, using the Cleric as the example, the cleric becomes the best cleric it can be, acknowledging that the tank role is already fulfilled by someone else. So the cleric will likely not have to tank, and should just look at class abilities and focus on them to become the best Cleric (healer, diviner, undead destroyer, etc.) possible. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best cleric possible. Small cleric (for better AC, harder target) or human (for the extra feat) low str, modest dex. Maximize wis. If there are points to get 18, go for it, otherwise 16. Decide if you want Cha and be a good undead-destroyer or not. If not, get good int to exploit the good skill list. Metamagic is were the power is. Get extend, quicken and persistant (if allowed). Then whatever will make your spells better. Pick your domains to grab the best wizard spells and the best metamagic feats. (You know them: travel, planning, etc). Buy gear to make you a better caster. Metamagic rods, Prayer Beads, scrolls of usefull but rarely used spells, etc. - 2 is the tank-optimized version of the same character. Feats, equipment, spell selection, skill allocation, stat distribution... all geared toward being the best tank possible. You need decent str, dex and con, so wis is going to be 14 unless there are many points to spare, and Int and Cha is likely low. If you are going melee, you shouldn't be a small race. Probably dwarf (best warriors) or human (extra feat) are the best, but if you want an archer, elf is the race you want (free bow proficiencies). You need -some- combat feats to be good, so many metamagic is out. But Quicken is mandatory to ensure buffing during combat. Concentrate in buffing and healing because your wisdom is not going to be good enough to achive high DCs in killing spells (although you can get lucky now and then). You need good combat gear, too, which will hurt your casting a bit more. Domains should give you good buffs and combat feats. Strength, Destruction and War are the classical ones, but I am sure there are even better ones out there. Which path would you say leads to the more powerful character? Which do you think is the more attractive character to add to a party? Which do you think is the more satisfying path to play, in general? Probably the pure caster is more powerful on the long run, but both characters can be very fun to play. What the player wants and enjoys should be the key to what he plays, not 'party needs' or 'powergaming needs'.
magmer2 11-25-06, 03:34 AM	The two things that a fighter can do that other classes can't are bull rushing with the driving attack feat and shooting a longbow in a grapple. The fighter also might be able to hedge the cleric out of the top melee spot with crushing strike driving attack and weapon supremacy on a spike chain along with tripping and a luckstone. The player would be trading like +2 to hit for gate and heal but I guess it's something. Also with PaO the fighter moves up to the third best melee class, behind favored soul and cleric and ahead of barbarian and druid until it gets shape change at least, so I guess it balances out slightly.
Thomas_Covenant 11-25-06, 05:30 AM	The two things that a fighter can do that other classes can't are bull rushing with the driving attack feat and shooting a longbow in a grapple. The fighter also might be able to hedge the cleric out of the top melee spot with crushing strike driving attack and weapon supremacy on a spike chain along with tripping and a luckstone. The player would be trading like +2 to hit for gate and heal but I guess it's something.Druid (Raw size and Str) crushes Fighter in bull rush, Cleric might require two buffs, but probably only one if it cares about melee. I'm not familiar with the driving attack feat (Combat Brute for CW kinda does that, and it's a decent feat, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about...) Shooting a Longbow in a grapple. Uhm...I don't know what feat allows shooting a longbow in a grapple, but a Fighter normally can't do this. You lost me here. Once the Fighter gets into weapon supremacy, he sizes up even worse. The spellcasters now have access to quickened non-Core spells, Weapon Supremacy is fine, but it won't close the gap in melee. I'm not fond of trip monkeys, and Barbarians tend to crush Fighters because of rage...realize trip ignores BAB, and is purely Str based. I will cede it MAY be possible for a battlefield control Fighter (Improved Trip, Large and in Charge, Knockdown, Mage Slayer, Combat Reflexes) to actually play a role a spellcaster can't outright trump, but I'm not convinced. The "Gatling Chain-Gun Tripper" build on the CO boards is Fighter 20 I think, it could be good for ideas. Its not easy for a Fighter to truly excel at battlefield control, and many spells are brutally effective at it, so it would require an exceptional build, but it just may be possible.Also with PaO the fighter moves up to the third best melee class, behind favored soul and cleric and ahead of barbarian and druid until it gets shape change at least, so I guess it balances out slightly.Except this should mean both the Druid and animal companion can have PaO, and still buff with spells. Fighter vs. Barbarian is completely outside the topic of this thread, but a raging Sun Giant is fairly scary.
Ramacass 11-25-06, 07:49 AM	My, not only can you not read nor type, you can't add either? (psst 1+4=5 ^_^) This is a bit harsh isn't it Seerow. And by the way I believe you meant to use a correlative conjunction, it should have been either "Not only can you not read or type" or "not only can you neither read nor type" How about we stick to rational arguments and leave off the nit picking others spelling and grammar
Argaud 11-25-06, 08:37 AM	Shooting a Longbow in a grapple. Uhm...I don't know what feat allows shooting a longbow in a grapple, but a Fighter normally can't do this. Weapon Supremacy allows the fighter to use the weapon in a grapple. Including ranged weapons. I'm not fond of trip monkeys, and Barbarians tend to crush Fighters because of rage...realize trip ignores BAB, and is purely Str based. Crushes? I think not: At level 20 a raging barbarian can have +5 to hit +6 to damage with his favorite two-handed weapon (+ weapon focus). He has also +4 to tip, bull rush, grapple, sunder, disarm, etc. He also has a –2 to AC, but 60 hp more than the fighter and double the base skill points, and +8 to will saves, DR 5/-, improved uncanny dodge, +10 to move and trap sense +6. And 6 or 7 more feats. At level 20 the fighter has +4 to hit and +6 to damage with his favorite weapon, which he can use in a grapple, he can take a 10 once per round and add +5 to one of his attacks, he also has a +1 unnamed bonus to AC with that weapon in his hands, +4 to resist disarms. Fighters can use heavy armor and tower shields. They also have 6 more feats than the barbarian, which can be used to gain a variety of combat options or tactical advantages. Notice that at levels 12-19 the barbarian is just +4 to hit and +4 to damage. Putting him behind the fighter, who is +4/+6 from level 12, gaining supremacy at level 18. Moreover, many of the barbarian advantages no longer matter at level 20. Almost nobody can grapple at level 20, for instance (the little guys have rings of freedom of movement or spells, the big guys are gargantuan or bigger). +10 move means little when everybody flies all the time (the movement is only for land speed). Traps becomes mostly irrelevant after level 10. Etc, etc. But this argument belongs to another thread. Its not easy for a Fighter to truly excel at battlefield control, and many spells are brutally effective at it, so it would require an exceptional build, but it just may be possible.Except this should mean both the Druid and animal companion can have PaO, and still buff with spells. Lacking Divine Might and Righteous Might, the druid is hardly as good in battle as the PAO fighter or cleric. 4 points of str, one size and some bab behind the cleric. Less bab than the fighter and no feats, etc.
Clawhound 11-25-06, 08:40 AM	Back to the question at in the title bar... A cleric is structurally geared to be a healer. No matter how you tweak you cleric (short of rebuking undead), the cleric heals. You can fully customize the cleric for the tank role, and he's still 100% prepped for the healer role. The fact that the healer role directly helps the tank role provides synergy. Twice the clerics mean twice the healing, twice the number of spells prepared against potential issues, and two characters that can be tweaked out to tank. One can be the "healer" while the other tanks, or uses Shield Other. Since the game itself is generally built around 3/4 BAB, 3/4 BAB does well enough. Buffs through spells get around strength and con MAD issues. Druids replace their physical abilities with Wildshape. Their physical stats are dump stats. Their wildshape gives them large abilities (bonuses, reach, etc, + better movement). They add a few animals. They become their own small army. In addition to that, they can always summon more meatshields. Is that a fair summary of the basic divine tank?
Thomas_Covenant 11-25-06, 10:56 AM	Weapon Supremacy allows the fighter to use the weapon in a grapple. Including ranged weapons.My bad. Not fully up on the PHBII stuff, missed that. Anyone know what the Uber bull rush was? Combat Brute? Other? But this argument belongs to another thread.Yeah, my mistake on bringing Barbarian vs. Fighter into it, I deleted other references just before posting, missed one critical one. Those two can't really say either is better, some situations AC is king, others AC is meaningless, HP is all. There's much more, but those two alone make will result in no clear winner. And again, the OP is Fighter vs. spellcasters, not Barbarians. Lacking Divine Might and Righteous Might, the druid is hardly as good in battle as the PAO fighter or cleric. 4 points of str, one size and some bab behind the cleric. Less bab than the fighter and no feats, etc.I'd like to get away from PaO, there's reasons WotC gave up in disgrace on getting a coherent, balanced version of the polymorph chain into existence: They repeatedly failed to do so, horribly. The animal companion remains the Druids trump card, as it can also be PaO'ed into a Sun Giant, say. Even the simple 10 min/level buffs (Barkskin) can make a difference here, as well. The Druid is both scary powerful, and ridiculously versatile. Every time a build starts to outdo the Druid, the animal companion seems to be what bails him out. (Like at low levels, where no money, no wild shape, and junk armor choices would make him outclassed by the Cleric, otherwise.)
Seerow 11-25-06, 11:06 AM	Lacking Divine Might and Righteous Might, the druid is hardly as good in battle as the PAO fighter or cleric. 4 points of str, one size and some bab behind the cleric. Less bab than the fighter and no feats, etc. The Druid is still Shapechanged into a Choker for a free standard action every round, then Wildshaped into his Elemental of Choice for free feats, then Wildshaped into his animal of choice for a superior combat form. These all last all day. So at high levels when the Fighter has his POA (From the Wizard! The Fighter should really be charged for a Pearl of Power for that, as anytime I beg buffs off a party member on a regular basis, I make it a point to get them one of appropriate level. But that may just be me), the Druid has an extra standard action and feats on top of anything else he would normally have. Oh, and our Animal Companion gets a PAO from the Wizard, as mentioned above, and retains the whole speil of the Druid singing "anything you can do~" Yes, the Wildshape/Polymorph rules are broken/silly enough to allow for this. Now if we could stop discussing such cheese....
Jo_Pistachio 11-25-06, 11:57 AM	Polymorph any object druids=3 horned devils. Or however many natures allies you had. All standing near eachother, all gaining +16 from a buff spell to strength. All with a large bonus to natural armour. All with just as many buffs as the caster cares to cast, since the horned devils will be doing fine at tearing things to pieces while you cast buffs. I fail to see a fighter doing that.
Seerow 11-25-06, 12:04 PM	well, I was avoiding bringing any summons in. Using PAO on a Summon is almost a waste, because PAO has that nice long duration... while the summons will be gone shortly. There's also the problem of a Druid not having PAO on his spell list. Though +16 Strength, +8 Natural Armor, etc from Bite of the Werebear is always nice.
magmer2 11-25-06, 12:05 PM	Druid (Raw size and Str) crushes Fighter in bull rush, Cleric might require two buffs, but probably only one if it cares about melee. I'm not familiar with the driving attack feat (Combat Brute for CW kinda does that, and it's a decent feat, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about...) Driving attack allows the fighter to use his damage mod instead of his strength to determine the check. So a fighter would have ~+37 on the roll.
Jo_Pistachio 11-25-06, 12:06 PM	well, I was avoiding bringing any summons in. Using PAO on a Summon is almost a waste, because PAO has that nice long duration... while the summons will be gone shortly. There's also the problem of a Druid not having PAO on his spell list. Though +16 Strength, +8 Natural Armor, etc from Bite of the Werebear is always nice. I don't mean his summoned natures allies. His animal companions I mean. A couple of those horned devils with bite of the werebear... That's like strength 49 or so?
Seerow 11-25-06, 12:17 PM	But a Druid only has one animal companion, unless I missed something? I guess he could take Leadership and Natural Companion(or whatever that one was called), but those are both Feats and the Fighter could do the same.
Jo_Pistachio 11-25-06, 12:23 PM	But a Druid only has one animal companion, unless I missed something? I guess he could take Leadership and Natural Companion(or whatever that one was called), but those are both Feats and the Fighter could do the same. Yeah, just not paying attention to what I'm typing right now. I guess it is two horned devils. Keep forgetting that they don't get familiars, since I like mystic theurges. :)
Cael 11-25-06, 10:49 PM	in practice, I find animal companions very limiting. Their low AC makes them far more vulnerable to damage than a comparable level fighter (although barding can help). They are challenging in a dungeon environment. They have consequences in a social environment. They are poor in a confined environment. They may not do well in specific environments, like deserts, boats, or glaciers. Generally speaking, animals in a more realistic game are often quite a pain in the patuckus. The smaller ones tend to work better than the larger ones in these environments, but they lack the punching power. The animal companion is also bound up in the Handle Animal skill, but almost no-one seems to bother with that linking. Replacing an animal companion usually takes weeks of training for it to do what the characters expect it to do. It is not an easily replaceable resource. The biggest, meanest animal companions know very few tricks. So yeah, if you make animal companions cohorts, they are quite powerful. If you make them follow the animal handling rules, they become far more limited. My AC 37 Brown Bear conpanion disagrees. He has the highest AC out of our level 14 group. Animal Companions get bonus skills as the Druid goes up in level. It does not have to be trained. It is part of the class feature.
Krevon 11-26-06, 01:59 AM	True on the animal manuvers part...but where does the 37 AC come from?
Seerow 11-26-06, 02:08 AM	Brownbear has 15 AC naturally. 10+4(natural)+1(dex) Shared Bite of the Werebear brings the dex bonus up by 1, the Natural Armor up by 7. Making that 10+11(natural)+2(dex)=23 Pay out a few grand for Full Plate Barding, and your bear is at 10+11(natural)+1(dex)+8(Armor)=30 You can get another 5 AC by handing a Pearl of Power to your friendly Cleric (he should have CL20 with his day long buffs at this point.). That gets you up to 35. The last two? Dunno. Maybe a ring of protection or some such that the DM let the animal wear. Maybe he got an animated shield to work with it (which could concievably bring the bear up to 42). If Bite of the Werebear isn't a long enough duration for you, Barkskin can do the same for AC, last pretty much all day, and gives +5 instead of +7, bringing us back down to 33 or 38/40. With the Animated Shield AND a ring of protection, the bear could be up to 45. But at this point you're getting into a very significant investment, where with just the barding it's fairly minimal (by level 14 2k is pennies)
Jo_Pistachio 11-26-06, 02:11 AM	5 natural, +1 dex, -1 size, +4 as an animal companion, + 5 amulet of natural armour, +4 full plate barding. 37 AC exactly.
Seerow 11-26-06, 02:12 AM	Ah, how did I forget the animal companion bonus? Though I have to wonder why you paid for a +5 amulet of natural armor when Barkskin could last concievably all day with just two castings(even without CL boosting you're looking at almost 3 hours per casting. With a bit of boosting you're looking at 4 hours per cast, and can extend it with a lesser rod), and protect both you and your companion.
Argaud 11-26-06, 02:25 AM	5 natural, +1 dex, -1 size, +4 as an animal companion, + 5 amulet of natural armour, +4 full plate barding. 37 AC exactly. Full plate requires heavy armor porficiency to be good, which the the bear does not have. That means massive penalties to hit unless I am missremembering. Still, if you want him just to stand there and block the way, not bad. Although very expensive. Isn't that 66,000 gold in gear? A fighter should have around that AC too, if he is a meleer. A cleric is probably very close too.
Seerow 11-26-06, 02:32 AM	It's really only 2000 gold in gear. Maybe 11,000 after a Pearl of Power to compensate the Cleric for Magic Vestment. The Enhancement bonus comes from Magic Vestment, and Natural Armor comes off Barkskin. As for armor proficiency, the Bear gets feats from the bonus hit dice, or a nice DM will let something like heavy armor count as tricks. Or hell, even allow for wartraining the bear, which would give proficiency. And yes, the Fighter can be close, but he's spending a lot more gold to get there.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 02:43 AM	Driving attack allows the fighter to use his damage mod instead of his strength to determine the check. So a fighter would have ~+37 on the roll.See, this is where a a few Fighter build just *Might* be able to have a useful niche spellcasters don't really fill. Battlefield control is very valuable, something too many melee types ignore. If he has the right tricks, he could move dangerous opponents around and lock them in place (Improved Trip, Large and Charge, StandStill, add Mage Slayer for fun.) The thing is, I'd like to see the Fighter do these kinds of things well WITHOUT going into several books and very careful builds. It's honestly the niche I feel the Fighter should have dominated, but typically spells rule battlefield control.
OneWinged4ngel 11-26-06, 02:54 AM	See, this is where a a few Fighter build just *Might* be able to have a useful niche spellcasters don't really fill. Battlefield control is very valuable, something too many melee types ignore. If he has the right tricks, he could move dangerous opponents around and lock them in place (Improved Trip, Large and Charge, StandStill, add Mage Slayer for fun.) The thing is, I'd like to see the Fighter do these kinds of things well WITHOUT going into several books and very careful builds. It's honestly the niche I feel the Fighter should have dominated, but typically spells rule battlefield control. The problem is, all of the battle control tactics in the D&D combat system start to become invalidated at higher levels. While Trip, Bull Rush, and the like are all great things at lower levels... they simply don't *work* on higher level enemies. For example, you cannot trip someone who is flying. You have trouble bullrushing someone ten times your size who'll hit you with extended reach. Etc. Meanwhile, casters completely own at battlefield control. And, well, frankly magic is versatile and powerful enough to cover most every role. Further, many aspects of magic in D&D contribute to a lack of a need for a tank. From a caster having a variety of protective spells to make him a real hard target to things like the ease of getting a spell off (a mere standard action for most, and a swift action for some, and all if quickened.) Getting off a spell is more difficult than setting up a full attack, regardless of its complexity. Getting out of an enemy's reach and blasting is (usually) as simple as a five foot step and blast. Interruption is difficult because it requires a ready action. Imagine if the mage took a full round (or even multiple rounds) to get off a spell effect? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if a mage was a soft target and if he got hit he'd go down, rather than being at least as well defended from attacks as his comrades? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if a mage couldn't get his spells off his spells easily with an enemy harrying him? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if the Fighter had the ability to control enemies at higher levels, and thus "tank" them? Then maybe he could be a decent tank at higher levels. Imagine if the Fighter had the ability to counter enemy tactics and generally make himself hard to kill? Then maybe he could be a decent tank at higher levels. Imagine if the Fighter wasn't shredded by superior melee combat monsters based on the advice in the MM that a melee monster is 1/3-2/3 its HD CR or it's superior reach and combat abilities? Then maybe the Fighter could be a decent tank at high levels. At upper levels, Fighters aren't very good at battlefield control and the whole "tanking" role. So they turn to trying to dish out damage with charge builds or dishing it out with archery... but just find they fall behind casters there.
Seerow 11-26-06, 02:57 AM	You have trouble bullrushing someone ten times your size who'll hit you with extended reach. Etc. Which is where Driving Attack comes in. Trust me, I looked at it for a bit, even counting size modifiers, it's hard to match a +37-40 opposed strength check. I mean, you look at the Druid as something like a Giant Crocodile, to be huge with a 26 strength. Make it 42 strength with Bite of the Werebear. Even with that, you're at +24 (+8 Size, +16 strength), compared to the Fighter at +40. Driving Attack is a very effective bullrush, if nothing else.
OneWinged4ngel 11-26-06, 03:03 AM	See, this is where a a few Fighter build just *Might* be able to have a useful niche spellcasters don't really fill. Battlefield control is very valuable, something too many melee types ignore. If he has the right tricks, he could move dangerous opponents around and lock them in place (Improved Trip, Large and Charge, StandStill, add Mage Slayer for fun.) The thing is, I'd like to see the Fighter do these kinds of things well WITHOUT going into several books and very careful builds. It's honestly the niche I feel the Fighter should have dominated, but typically spells rule battlefield control. The problem is, all of the battle control tactics in the basic D&D combat system start to become invalidated at higher levels. While Trip, Bull Rush, and the like are all great things at lower levels... they simply don't *work* on higher level enemies. For example, you cannot trip someone who is flying. You have trouble bullrushing someone ten times your size who'll hit you with extended reach. Etc. Meanwhile, casters completely own at battlefield control. And, well, frankly magic is versatile and powerful enough to cover most every role. Further, many aspects of magic in D&D contribute to a lack of a need for a tank. From a caster having a variety of protective spells to make him a real hard target to things like the ease of getting a spell off (a mere standard action for most, and a swift action for some, and all if quickened.) Getting off a spell is more difficult than setting up a full attack, regardless of its complexity. Getting out of an enemy's reach and blasting is (usually) as simple as a five foot step and blast. Interruption is difficult because it requires a ready action. Imagine if the mage took a full round (or even multiple rounds) to get off a spell effect? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if a mage was a soft target and if he got hit he'd go down, rather than being at least as well defended from attacks as his comrades? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if a mage couldn't get his spells off his spells easily with an enemy harrying him? Then there would be a need for a tank. Imagine if the Fighter had the ability to control enemies at higher levels, and thus "tank" them? Then maybe he could be a decent tank at higher levels. Imagine if the Fighter had the ability to counter enemy tactics and generally make himself hard to kill? Then maybe he could be a decent tank at higher levels. Imagine if the Fighter wasn't shredded by superior melee combat monsters based on the advice in the MM that a melee monster is 1/3-2/3 its HD CR or it's superior reach and combat abilities? Then maybe the Fighter could be a decent tank at high levels. At upper levels, Fighters aren't very good at battlefield control and the whole "tanking" role. So they turn to trying to dish out damage with charge builds or dishing it out with archery... but just find they fall behind casters there. They just... lose the role. Pretty much everything begins to lose their role, because casters can emulate just about everything. They're just too darn versatile. Honestly, it would be a lot easier if caster were limited to certain schools, and thus roles and options, such as the Beguiler or Warmage. When one guy can be the one-man party, things fall apart. Also, I'd love to see higher level options for Fighters in the combat system. Imagine, for example, the ability to climb up on Huge monsters, grab onto their back or something, and start hacking at them. This might be a viable and properly flavorful way for a fighter to use a maneuver in higher level combat, where trips and such just don't cut it.
Seerow 11-26-06, 03:07 AM	lol edit becomes a double post.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 03:14 AM	The problem is, all of the battle control tactics in the D&D combat system start to become invalidated at higher levels. While Trip, Bull Rush, and the like are all great things at lower levels... they simply don't *work* on higher level enemies. For example, you cannot trip someone who is flying. You have trouble bullrushing someone ten times your size who'll hit you with extended reach. Etc.Preaching to the choir, brother. :cool: Yes, spellcasters easily dominate battlefield control, along with most everything else. COULD a Fighter do effective battlefield control, at least in certain roles? Maybe...just maybe. Large and In Charge (Draconomicon), Mage Slayer, Reach + Combat Reflexes, and a decent two-handed weapon may well consistently lock spellcasters in place, while denying them anything but quickened spells. If you can add an Uber bull rush to that, this may open a role a Fighter could excel at. Again, above is the kind of tactic I think a Fighter SHOULD be good at, but they often struggle to make top 5 Core classes actually doing it, and have almost no versatility outside of combat.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 08:35 AM	I've put the problem this way for years. A fighter can move OR use his whoop-ass attack, while a caster can move AND use his whoop-ass attack. As for tanking, the most effective tanking spells show up early one: displacement, shield other, and stoneskin. Combine that with a high AC, and you have quite the tank.All the spells that help the full BAB classes also help all the other classes as well. (This is one reason that I don't that don't buy the more extreme positions that fighter's are useless or a bad pick. No sane party wouldn't NOT use these increadibly useful tanking spells whether your tank was a druid or a fighter.)
Argaud 11-26-06, 09:04 AM	It's really only 2000 gold in gear. Maybe 11,000 after a Pearl of Power to compensate the Cleric for Magic Vestment. The Enhancement bonus comes from Magic Vestment, and Natural Armor comes off Barkskin. As for armor proficiency, the Bear gets feats from the bonus hit dice, or a nice DM will let something like heavy armor count as tricks. Or hell, even allow for wartraining the bear, which would give proficiency. And yes, the Fighter can be close, but he's spending a lot more gold to get there. At level 14 barkskin gives +4 and magic vestment gives +3. A large full plate barding costs ~6,000 gp, though. On the other hand a brown bear receives a +4 to AC for the druid's level, and +2 to Dex (but nerfed by the plate). So AC can be 19 (base + druid's bonus) +11 (armor) +4 (barkskin) = 34. I guess it can be 37+ with a floating shield (nerfing his attack even more, since it is not proficient either) or maybe some other buff. Then you have a critter that can't hit the broad side of a barn because of the massive non-proficiency penalty, that is large but has no reach and can't get through any DR in the rare times it hits anything. With int 2 it is also too dumb to use any good tactic, and a retarded ogre can outsmart it. It also has 85 hp, which isn't much for a level 14. I think the bear needs much better gear and support magic to be good.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-26-06, 11:27 AM	At level 14 barkskin gives +4 and magic vestment gives +3. A large full plate barding costs ~6,000 gp, though. On the other hand a brown bear receives a +4 to AC for the druid's level, and +2 to Dex (but nerfed by the plate). So AC can be 19 (base + druid's bonus) +11 (armor) +4 (barkskin) = 34. I guess it can be 37+ with a floating shield (nerfing his attack even more, since it is not proficient either) or maybe some other buff. Then you have a critter that can't hit the broad side of a barn because of the massive non-proficiency penalty, that is large but has no reach and can't get through any DR in the rare times it hits anything. With int 2 it is also too dumb to use any good tactic, and a retarded ogre can outsmart it. It also has 85 hp, which isn't much for a level 14. I think the bear needs much better gear and support magic to be good. If the druids animal companion is built anything like the Paladins mount it will have bonus HD, bonus INT scores, & bonus feats because of the HD. Yes it would still be behind a lvl 14 fighter but unfortionatly not by much. And most people on these boards are of the oppionion that the bear would be ahead.
ninjarabbit 11-26-06, 11:49 AM	Swap the full plate barding with mithral chain shirt barding and maybe an animated mithral shield with it and the bear will be fine
Clawhound 11-26-06, 12:26 PM	If the druids animal companion is built anything like the Paladins mount it will have bonus HD, bonus INT scores, & bonus feats because of the HD. Yes it would still be behind a lvl 14 fighter but unfortionatly not by much. And most people on these boards are of the oppionion that the bear would be ahead. Personally, I think that Power Attack and Combat Expertise/Improved Combat Expertise are the most important feats for a fighter. (Why does combat expertise require Int? I have no clue. The fighter class is the only class besides spellcasters where they need ability scores to get their basic class abilities.) Much of the issue comes from the design of animals. They are designed to hit hard and die quick (powerful advantage with a powerful drawback). The druid needed to be careful how he used them in combat. They were powerful, but easily lost. Once you resolve the "dying quick" part, you are left with only the powerful advantage. The second thing that an animal does is give a druid another action. The druid gets an attack action or spellcasting action and another attack action due to the animal companion. Merely doing this makes animals extremely cheap for the advantage that they give. This, by itself, makes animal companions arguably overpowered. (Extra actions are extremely regulated in the game and got heavily nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5.) The animal does what you want. There is no uncertainty. The result is a character who can bring another "character" with him, and that character can be equipped at an extremely low price, and that character doesn't want a share, and can be replaced quickly if it dies. The main remaining mitigations on this is that animals don't get all the perks if they start off with more HD. There's a trade-off going on. The animals also suck down gold from the druid. The animals lack DR bypassing weaponry. (This doesn't hurt single-attack animals too much, but multiattack creatures really get nerfed by this.) Presumably, this is not enough of a tradeoff. When the druid's animal companion not only makes the fighter look bad, but makes the barbarian look bad, you have a serious problem. This is one reason why the druid is a poster child for "overpowered". A new class could take animal companion, medium armor, and a few animal spells as an entire class, let alone having spells and wildshape to go with it. Likewise, a new class could take wildshape or alter form as a class ability, and with a few spells, build an entire class on that. Add in full spellcasting, and the druid gets three classes worth of abilities in one class. This is yet another reason why I don't fully buy the fact that fighters are weak. C'mon dudes, look at the competition. Most classes look weak against that. Of course, once you hit the levels where the fighters get nerfed by "flying opponents" and forcecages, animals get nerfed by these things too. In a bizarre irony, the party is left with the exact same problems that a fighter would have in the same situation. The animal companion sucks down resources, has no innate abilities, only fights, has no ranged attack, is dependent on casters for effective equipment, magic, and healing, and so on. In short, you've traded one problem for the exact same problem.
Jo_Pistachio 11-26-06, 12:38 PM	One down, 9 to go. :D Edit: Next up, why the mute bard with no hands is definitely better than any fighter!
Nephlite 11-26-06, 12:39 PM	Of course, once you hit the levels where the fighters get nerfed by "flying opponents" and forcecages, animals get nerfed by these things too. In a bizarre irony, the party is left with the exact same problems that a fighter would have in the same situation. The animal companion sucks down resources, has no innate abilities, only fights, has no ranged attack, is dependent on casters for effective equipment, magic, and healing, and so on. In short, you've traded one problem for the exact same problem. True but than yoiu've got 5 party members: 3 + Druid and Animal Companion Comparedto the teanm with a fighter who has 4 patty members: 3 + Fighter. So you got a Druid out of this deal.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 01:17 PM	Of course, once you hit the levels where the fighters get nerfed by "flying opponents" and forcecages, animals get nerfed by these things too. In a bizarre irony, the party is left with the exact same problems that a fighter would have in the same situation. The animal companion sucks down resources, has no innate abilities, only fights, has no ranged attack, is dependent on casters for effective equipment, magic, and healing, and so on. In short, you've traded one problem for the exact same problem.Your post was well reasoned, and made a lot of great points, but this last I don't agree with. An animal companion falls back a bit while the Fighter is becoming useless, but so what? The Druids wildshape is now 24/7, Large size, and his spells are now only a bit behind the wizard/sorceror. (with more slots than the wizard, which always bugged me.) The AC doesn't take a share of the exp, comes back in 24 hours if killed, and takes far less equipment for his role than another PC. Bears are the simple strong choice (not necessarily the best) for size, Str, and Improved Grab. A couple low level short duration buffs go a long way on the AC, and if the Druid spends ONE high level spell (say, Animal Growth?! Dear Lord...) the AC is a factor every opponent must take into account, even if they don't fear it. Simply, the AC with one good buff is more effective than the Fighter, and possibly better even without. And a Druid without an AC around in wildshape is still one of the best characters around, you have more than two, for the price of one. This may be why the OP conceded Druid >> Fighter fairly early. Not because the Fighter is too weak (though I contend it is), but because the Druid is simply too strong.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 02:05 PM	My crusade is not that fighter's are UBER BEST. Nor that they can match the overpowered casters. My crusade is mostly against anyone who says "fighters can't <insert something>." I also like to crunch out numbers to see how assertions compare to actual CR appropriate threats. Now that it's mentioned, a brown bear 6d8+24 (51 hp), AC 15 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural), 2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4), and has improved grab, low-light vision, and scent. Crank in the level 14 druid improvements, and it gets +4 HD ([4.5 hp + 4 hp] * 4 = +36 hp, or 87 hp. +4 natural armor and +2 dex puts it to AC 20. 4 HD gives it another +2 BAB and +2 strength another +1, increasing to hit by +3, or +14. He also gains evasion and devotion. So in total, the bear now has 87 HP, AC 20, +14 claws (1d8+9), and +9 bit (2d6+4). Put on a mithril shirt from the above calculations, and you hit +34. Our bear is now the equivalent of a Level 10 fighter. Yes, you read right. That bear is only CL-4. A mature adult black dragon (CR14) has a +28 to hit, giving the bear a right pathetic AC for the challenge. The dragon has an AC 28. This means that the bear misses half the time. Assuming magic fang on each natural weapon, the bear increases to +17/+17/+12. Meanwhile, the bear has a grapple +18 vs. a grapple of +38. The bear needs lots of magic to make it do good here. How does a Level 14 fighter do? He has +14 BAB, +4 strength. That's +18 even before we start tossing in magic. His hit points are estimated at (5.5+2 con)x14 + 4.5 (1st level) = 110 hp. So with no equipment, the fighter starts out better than the bear (who already has a few magic buffs) and has more hit points. His ranged attack is +14 (assuming lousy dex). The bear's ranged attack is +Null. The fighter can take blind fighting, matching the bear's scent. With improved grapple, his grapple is +22, which beats the bear, but still isn't enough against a dragon. On the other hand, using improved combat expertise, the fighter could have an AC up to AC 50 (and a touch AC of 30). Merely by changing to a two-handed weapon, he could face a lesser AC opponent with a +28 to damage. Again, the bear can't do that. I don't know about you, but this all calculates out with the fighter looking better than the bear by a firm margin. On top of that, this design for the fighter is LOUSY.
Belgian Waffle 11-26-06, 02:32 PM	Well, if the Druid is level 14, why don't we give him a more powerful animal companion? Like one of the level 10 or 13 ones. Like a Dire Bear.
Jo_Pistachio 11-26-06, 02:33 PM	My crusade is not that fighter's are UBER BEST. Nor that they can match the overpowered casters. My crusade is mostly against anyone who says "fighters can't <insert something>." I also like to crunch out numbers to see how assertions compare to actual CR appropriate threats. Now that it's mentioned, a brown bear 6d8+24 (51 hp), AC 15 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural), 2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4), and has improved grab, low-light vision, and scent. Crank in the level 14 druid improvements, and it gets +4 HD ([4.5 hp + 4 hp] * 4 = +36 hp, or 87 hp. +4 natural armor and +2 dex puts it to AC 20. 4 HD gives it another +2 BAB and +2 strength another +1, increasing to hit by +3, or +14. He also gains evasion and devotion. So in total, the bear now has 87 HP, AC 20, +14 claws (1d8+9), and +9 bit (2d6+4). Put on a mithril shirt from the above calculations, and you hit +34. Our bear is now the equivalent of a Level 10 fighter. Yes, you read right. That bear is only CL-4. A mature adult black dragon (CR14) has a +28 to hit, giving the bear a right pathetic AC for the challenge. The dragon has an AC 28. This means that the bear misses half the time. Assuming magic fang on each natural weapon, the bear increases to +17/+17/+12. Meanwhile, the bear has a grapple +18 vs. a grapple of +38. The bear needs lots of magic to make it do good here. How does a Level 14 fighter do? He has +14 BAB, +4 strength. That's +18 even before we start tossing in magic. His hit points are estimated at (5.5+2 con)x14 + 4.5 (1st level) = 110 hp. So with no equipment, the fighter starts out better than the bear (who already has a few magic buffs) and has more hit points. His ranged attack is +14 (assuming lousy dex). The bear's ranged attack is +Null. The fighter can take blind fighting, matching the bear's scent. With improved grapple, his grapple is +22, which beats the bear, but still isn't enough against a dragon. On the other hand, using improved combat expertise, the fighter could have an AC up to AC 50 (and a touch AC of 30). Merely by changing to a two-handed weapon, he could face a lesser AC opponent with a +28 to damage. Again, the bear can't do that. I don't know about you, but this all calculates out with the fighter looking better than the bear by a firm margin. On top of that, this design for the fighter is LOUSY. Forgot to add the wildshaped druid helping the animal companion. The wildshaped, buff casting druid helping the animal companion.
Cael 11-26-06, 02:36 PM	True on the animal manuvers part...but where does the 37 AC come from? Well, for the *normal* Brown Bear (this is pre-errata, btw., since we don't play with errata): It starts with +5 Natural AC and +1 Dex. 7 virtual Druid levels gave him +4 to Natural AC, +1 Dex. You bung on a Mithral Chain Shirt +3, Amulet of Natural Armour +2, Ring of Protection +2 for another +11. Add in Animal Growth for another +4. -2 for size (Huge). That is 34AC. You can add in a few other things for comic relief, but usually Haste and Cat's Grace can round off the 37AC. But, for this particular Brown Bear, this where it gets hinky: It started life as a Chimp (stats of Baboon). We called it "Chuck"... It died and got reincarnated as a Brown Bear. DM said before the Reincarnation that he would allow it at the previous Druid level, since the rules were not clear on it. I had to roll on the table he made up, though, which was slightly biased against poor Chuck, and he had to lose 2 Con for the Reincarnate (even though animal companions, etc. aren't supposed to lose Con or levels when they get Ress'ed). The character was also an Arcane Heirophant with 9 virtual levels of Druid and Wizard equivalent. That made Chuck: - starts with +5 Natural AC and +1 Dex. - +6 Natural AC, +2 Dex from Druid levels. - Bracers of Armour +3, Amulet of Natural Armour +2, Ring of Protection +2. - Fortify/Augment Familiar (the one with the hours duration) for another +2 unnamed bonus to AC. - Animal Growth for +4 Natural Armour. Total: 37AC. He is sub-optimal (I would like a magical Mithral Chain Shirt for him plus a few other stuff) because the DM don't have the Ye Olde Magic Shoppe thing where you can get what you want for money (we are sitting on over 40k gold with nothing to spend it on). He does have an Int of 10, and a Ring of Spell Storing that has Haste in it. That was a left over from his Chimp days, where he was too fragile in a fight, and his only task was to activate the Ring and let the rest of us beat things down.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 02:44 PM	At 14th level, Bear is not likely the best choice, and even earlier, one of its best tricks was Improved Grab to hose humanoids and spellcaster BBEG's. A Bear matches up poorly against a Dragon, and Dragons are intentionally overpowered for their CR. Greater Magic Fang lasts 14 hours now, Druids 3rd level slots aren't their best, he might cast it more than once. At 14th level, a Druid is just stupid to not memorize Animal Growth at least once. Animal Growth massively ups all the stats, it's kinda crazy. If he really wants a monster, Barkskin+ multiple Greater Magic Fang + Animal Growth + Bite of the Werebear is a crazy stat buff. But the Druid may not truly bother, he's a force in wild shape, and should easily outmelee the Fighter 24/7, without effort. Plus his spells alone at 14th make him top-tier, spells rule high level play. You might prove a Fighter can easily outperform an AC at level 10+, without the short-duration buffs. This is NOT something the Fighter can brag about. If the AC is not as good as the Fighter, the AC doesn't drain exp from the party, and though it sounds bad, if it dies it's easily replaced at no cost. The problem with Fighters, and the point of this thread is they can't contribute anything in combat as a Druid + Animal Companion, a decent Core Cleric, or (at high levels only) a Wizard can't do better. And they contribute nothing outside of combat, while spellcasters have lots of abilities.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 03:15 PM	Wow. I'm always amazed at what you can wangle out of the rules. You'll notice that I avoided all the buffing spells on both sides. That's a less-than-direct comparison. I'm less good at twinking that. I also avoided things that change depending on DM rulings. By the way, that equipment is worth: - Mithral Chain Shirt 13,300 gp (9,000 magic + 4400 mithril chain shirt for a large creature) - Ring of Protection +2, 8,000 gp - Amulet of Natural Armor +2, 8,000 gp Just those three things are worth 27,000 gp, or 1/6th the druid's wealth. That makes the bear nearly a major wondrous item. A 14th level fighter, using 1/3 his wealth (50,000 gp) of protection, achieves +4 Full Plate (17,000) +4 Shield (16,000) +2 Amulet of Natural Armor (8,000) +2 Ring of Protection (8,000) +1 Dex = 33 AC without buffs. (maximum 50) The fighter can stand up to a mature red dragon and only get hit on a 20. If you want to look at that 27,000 gp as a magic item, the fighter can also buy an obsidian steed, thereby gaining overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. That counters flying, force cage, and is danged useful to boot. If the fighter really wanted to blow his wad, he could spend 1/3 of his wealth on a cloak of displacement, which totally rocks. (Yes, one of those really is worth 1/3 of your wealth, and is cheap at the price.) That's the real choice. Is the bear worth as much as the unique abilities of a magical item? In my opinion, the druid is far better off with a cloak of displacement than an animal companion if he wants to tank for the party.
Eela6 11-26-06, 03:24 PM	I'd have to say that the Wizard is much better off trying to do Arcane Caster things (see battlefield control/utility) than attempting to be a tank. He can certainly be one - in fact, a properly-built Wizard can be one of the best Melee classes in the game. But Wizard spells are simply so powerful there's no real reason - when you could be firing a Twinned Split Ray Empowered Maximized Chained Enervation instead and dealing 16 or so negative levels to a number of enemies equal to your caster level. However, with a Cleric or Druid, it barely costs you anything to do so. Most of your buffs last all day [Wildshape, anybody] - and due to Spontaneous Channeling and such, you can have your cake and eat it too, fufilling your traditional function and fighting extremely well. People are quick to point the finger at Persistent Spell, but it's hardly necessary. Take a look at Han in my signature - he's *extremely* powerful and doesn't touch most of the combinations we are quick to call broken.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 03:38 PM	The problem with Fighters, and the point of this thread is they can't contribute anything in combat as a Druid + Animal Companion, a decent Core Cleric, or (at high levels only) a Wizard can't do better. And they contribute nothing outside of combat, while spellcasters have lots of abilities. I was merely pointing out that a fighter is considerably more effective than the bear, even with the druid pumping up the bear, and then demonstrating with numbers why I thought that. They weren't perfect numbers for the bear, but neither were the fighter's. They were ballparked just well enough to demonstrate the unique issues that each would face. If you are asserting that the fighter can't contribute to combat (which is silly), then the bear can't contribute to combat either (which is silly), as its numbers are similar or less than the fighter's.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 03:42 PM	People are quick to point the finger at Persistent Spell, but it's hardly necessary. Take a look at Han in my signature - he's *extremely* powerful and doesn't touch most of the combinations we are quick to call broken. Congrats on the win! Great design.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 03:49 PM	You'll notice that I avoided all the buffing spells on both sides. That's a less-than-direct comparison. I'm less good at twinking that. I also avoided things that change depending on DM rulings. *Snip* That's the real choice. Is the bear worth as much as the unique abilities of a magical item? In my opinion, the druid is far better off with a cloak of displacement than an animal companion if he wants to tank for the party.But long duration buff are a no brainer. Greater Magic Fang is +3 for 14 hours. (3rd level spell) Barkskin is a +5 enhancement bonus to Natural AC for 2 hours, 20 minutes. (2nd level spell) Note: Pearl of Power: 4,000 gps. A Druid will under no circumstance buy an amulet of natural armor, EVER. Animal Growth is automatic, not for the Animal Companion, but because its multi target, and a Druid summons hordes of animals *Spontaneously*. That's the main use, the question will it be worth using it on the AC in this fight? Sadly, IF you can prove the Fighter overpowers the AC, no one cares at all. At these levels, the Druid *Without* the AC can slap him around 24/7 in melee, and fill several other niches without much effort.If you are asserting that the fighter can't contribute to combat (which is silly), then the bear can't contribute to combat either (which is silly), as its numbers are similar or less than the fighter's.If the bear is proven substandard, it's a HP sponge that doesn't suck exp from the party, and consumes minimal resources, meaning as few or many as the Druid wants to. The Fighter HAS to prove his worth, otherwise he's draining exp and treasure from the other members, the AC does not. Hang on....didn't we decide Druid >>>> Fighter, no exception, pages ago?
Eela6 11-26-06, 03:49 PM	Congrats on the win! Great design. Thank you. The other designs [especially Badass Mario] were extremely great as well - I'd recommend that others check them out. In any case, strip the Prestige Classes from Han (they're really just gravy to give him some extra immunities), and you've got an example of a Cleric filling three roles - Rogue, Ranged Fighter, and Support - without giving up any Cleric abilities [except for Turn Undead - his Charisma is really abysmal]. As far as the "Fighter cannot contribute, but Bear can", the Dichotomy is that the Bear is a free set of actions - in essence, the Fighter has given up some combat effectiveness for the ability to have a Druid Cohort of equal level - which *stacks* with the leadership feat. Not bad, nu?
Cael 11-26-06, 04:01 PM	Wow. I'm always amazed at what you can wangle out of the rules. You'll notice that I avoided all the buffing spells on both sides. That's a less-than-direct comparison. I'm less good at twinking that. I also avoided things that change depending on DM rulings. By the way, that equipment is worth: - Mithral Chain Shirt 13,300 gp (9,000 magic + 4400 mithril chain shirt for a large creature) - Ring of Protection +2, 8,000 gp - Amulet of Natural Armor +2, 8,000 gp Just those three things are worth 27,000 gp, or 1/6th the druid's wealth. That makes the bear nearly a major wondrous item. A 14th level fighter, using 1/3 his wealth (50,000 gp) of protection, achieves +4 Full Plate (17,000) +4 Shield (16,000) +2 Amulet of Natural Armor (8,000) +2 Ring of Protection (8,000) +1 Dex = 33 AC without buffs. (maximum 50) The fighter can stand up to a mature red dragon and only get hit on a 20. If you want to look at that 27,000 gp as a magic item, the fighter can also buy an obsidian steed, thereby gaining overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. That counters flying, force cage, and is danged useful to boot. If the fighter really wanted to blow his wad, he could spend 1/3 of his wealth on a cloak of displacement, which totally rocks. (Yes, one of those really is worth 1/3 of your wealth, and is cheap at the price.) That's the real choice. Is the bear worth as much as the unique abilities of a magical item? In my opinion, the druid is far better off with a cloak of displacement than an animal companion if he wants to tank for the party. Which part of "no Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" did you not understand? The "N" or the "O"? The bear basically got all the old magical stuff we no longer needed. Since we can't buy wonderous figurines of uber-kill, which also means the Fighter cannot buy *any* of his wonderful +4 items, guess what? Your Fighter just got munched on. And by the way, the steed doesn't allow the Fighter to by-pass Force Cage. Read the spell description carefully.
Cael 11-26-06, 04:12 PM	Thank you. The other designs [especially Badass Mario] were extremely great as well - I'd recommend that others check them out. In any case, strip the Prestige Classes from Han (they're really just gravy to give him some extra immunities), and you've got an example of a Cleric filling three roles - Rogue, Ranged Fighter, and Support - without giving up any Cleric abilities [except for Turn Undead - his Charisma is really abysmal]. As far as the "Fighter cannot contribute, but Bear can", the Dichotomy is that the Bear is a free set of actions - in essence, the Fighter has given up some combat effectiveness for the ability to have a Druid Cohort of equal level - which *stacks* with the leadership feat. Not bad, nu? A question on the Leadership stacking. How does it work, specifically? I mean the animal companion has HD, which makes it ECL = HD, doesn't it? Adding to that, we have the limit of Leadership of a cohort of Druid ECL-2. Wouldn't that make for very few actual class levels?
Clawhound 11-26-06, 05:01 PM	The Fighter HAS to prove his worth, otherwise he's draining exp and treasure from the other members, the AC does not. Hang on....didn't we decide Druid >>>> Fighter, no exception, pages ago? Yes. Druid >>>> Every Other Class As to the fighter can prove is worth, I have seen myriads of fighter builds on this board that show that a fighter can more than fill the tank role, both offensively and defensively. NOT as well as the druid, but more than credibly enough to do the job. A fighter drains xp and treasure from the party? What a bizarre interpretation. That's wacko, excuse my English. Structurally, the fighter can't not be able unless the player is attempting to sabotage the character. The numbers just come out that way. Please, less powerful than the druid <> a drain on the party.
Argaud 11-26-06, 05:21 PM	If the druids animal companion is built anything like the Paladins mount it will have bonus HD, bonus INT scores, & bonus feats because of the HD. Yes it would still be behind a lvl 14 fighter but unfortionatly not by much. And most people on these boards are of the oppionion that the bear would be ahead. But it is not. The paladin's companions is somewhat better, and giving the paladin is well designed to be a mounted meleer, it synergizes much better than the druid with his companion. Being able to summon magical beasts instead of mere animals also helps: beter hp, better bab, etc, etc. (Then again the druid is good even without the companion). If the druid animal companion dies, it takes him months to try a new one. The paladin's is back in a month, fully trained, and although usually fairly dumb, it is not an Int 2 critter. Swap the full plate barding with mithral chain shirt barding and maybe an animated mithral shield with it and the bear will be fine Yes, much better. No ACP from mithril. Although it loses some AC and it is a bit more expensive. Hmm... reading the other posts, makes me wonder if a bear can wear a magical ring. It has no fingers. I know there is a place where it is stated the gear can wear an animal , but I can't find it now, anyone remembers?
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 05:23 PM	A fighter drains xp and treasure from the party? What a bizarre interpretation. That's wacko, excuse my English. Structurally, the fighter can't not be able unless the player is attempting to sabotage the character. The numbers just come out that way. Please, less powerful than the druid <> a drain on the party.Didn't mean it quite that way, every player siphons exp and treasure, the question is: Are they worth keeping? A Rogue for example, even if he was somehow utterly useless in combat, if he has half a brain adds critical additions to the party. Search (Trapfinding, hidden doors, hidden treasure) Scouting (Listen/Spot, and sometimes non-magical Hide/Move Silently IS the only way to go), and whatever skills the party is weak in make a difference. Sneak Attack is NOT a Rogue's Pride and Joy, Skills are. They defy numerical analysis comparison, as there's too many variables, but they are at least "important". What does a Fighter add that a Cleric can not? (forgetting Druid, hopefully for the remainder of this thread) If you have two Clerics in a party, would you have any reason to swap one out with a Fighter? If you have a three person party, would you ditch the only Cleric for a Fighter? Resounding NO, if you want to succeed. We agree Druid is no contest, I think Cleric isn't either. The Cleric can also do anything a Fighter can, and is best or near best at so many others it's hard to keep track. A Fighter can do *something*, so can a Warrior, so can a Commoner. He can't do *anything* particularly WELL, that someone else can't easily do better, is the issue. He's one of the top five Core melee tanks at low levels, and brings nothing else. That's honestly straight awful.
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 05:29 PM	If the druid animal companion dies, it takes him months to try a new one. Nope. 24 hours in prayer/meditation. Extra Tricks are nice, but the one "bonus" the AC gets should be "attack non-standard opponent" The rest isn't absolutely required, but can be a plus. Hmm... reading the other posts, makes me wonder if a bear can wear a magical ring. It has no fingers. I know there is a place where it is stated the gear can wear an animal , but I can't find it now, anyone remembers?The Draconomicon explained this the most thoroughly, and was bordering on ridiculously generous. Rings for Dragons fit on claws, Bears should be no different. Dragons wearing boots, cloaks, and like stretch it a bit, but it's allowed.
Argaud 11-26-06, 05:53 PM	Nope. 24 hours in prayer/meditation. Extra Tricks are nice, but the one "bonus" the AC gets should be "attack non-standard opponent" The rest isn't absolutely required, but can be a plus. The Draconomicon explained this the most thoroughly, and was bordering on ridiculously generous. Rings for Dragons fit on claws, Bears should be no different. Dragons wearing boots, cloaks, and like stretch it a bit, but it's allowed. Dragons actually have the claws at the end of fingers, with an opposed thumb to boot. So I can see rings working on them. Wearing boots, though... yeah. Bit too much :) 24/hours to summon the new bear. I week to teach it each trick. (I misstyped 'train' as 'try', so probably you just missunderstood).
Eela6 11-26-06, 05:54 PM	A question on the Leadership stacking. How does it work, specifically? I mean the animal companion has HD, which makes it ECL = HD, doesn't it? Adding to that, we have the limit of Leadership of a cohort of Druid ECL-2. Wouldn't that make for very few actual class levels?\ You misunderstand. I meant to say, "look at it from another angle - portray the Bear as the actual Fighter/PC, taking the party slot. He's almost as good as a Fighter, yet he gets a Cohort equal to the party's level. Not so bad of a fighter now, eh?" (As for it stacking with Leadership, a Druid could possibly take Leadership and grab a cohort as well as his animal companion - or a Cohort that was a Druid, which had it's own Animal Companion.)
Thomas_Covenant 11-26-06, 06:20 PM	24/hours to summon the new bear. I week to teach it each trick. (I misstyped 'train' as 'try', so probably you just missunderstood).Except the "Bonus" tricks from progression are free and instant. If you want an AC trained for Combat Riding, that's a chore. You *Need* the "Attack non-standard opponent" one, and every animal companion has at least one free trick, this is it. If it's just a meat shield/tank, this gets you by. EDIT: one free trick is base "Attack" command "Attack nonstandard" is a second trick, which is a significant objective, my bad.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 06:41 PM	The fighter can already have a bear. He gets animal handling a skill. Unfortunately, that skill takes so long to use that it's generally not worth it. It also doesn't synergize with the fighter's abilities very well. It's a poorly developed skill. I disagree that fighter can't do anything particularly well. Every time that I hear that, i look at actual numbers, and the fighter fare relatively well (just raw BAB and strength gets him there). The problem is that a cleric starts near that, uses a few spells to equal that, then goes on to have full spellcasting. It also helps the party that two pots of healing are better than one. In addition, their buffs synergize with themselves as well as a fighter. Etc. Fighters are generally great in the early levels, as their feats really do make a huge difference in a fight, and the casters just have few spells. The problem kicks in when casters have the critical mass of magic to overcome their attribute allocation, and can keep those spells up for long durations.
Jo_Pistachio 11-26-06, 06:44 PM	The fighter can already have a bear. He gets animal handling a skill. Unfortunately, that skill takes so long to use that it's generally not worth it. It also doesn't synergize with the fighter's abilities very well. It's a poorly developed skill. I disagree that fighter can't do anything particularly well. Every time that I hear that, i look at actual numbers, and the fighter fare relatively well (just raw BAB and strength gets him there). The problem is that a cleric starts near that, uses a few spells to equal that, then goes on to have full spellcasting. It also helps the party that two pots of healing are better than one. In addition, their buffs synergize with themselves as well as a fighter. Etc. Fighters are generally great in the early levels, as their feats really do make a huge difference in a fight, and the casters just have few spells. The problem kicks in when casters have the critical mass of magic to overcome their attribute allocation, and can keep those spells up for long durations. This happens at level 9 IMO. You can start with all day buffs with the right feats and equipment.
Cael 11-26-06, 06:57 PM	Hmm... reading the other posts, makes me wonder if a bear can wear a magical ring. It has no fingers. I know there is a place where it is stated the gear can wear an animal , but I can't find it now, anyone remembers? Someone who does not know the anatomy of a bear, then. What an animal can wear is in the DMG, at the beginning of the magical items section, I think.
Cael 11-26-06, 06:59 PM	24/hours to summon the new bear. I week to teach it each trick. (I misstyped 'train' as 'try', so probably you just missunderstood). No misunderstanding. Just you trying to make things sound worse than they are for everyone except the sainted Fighter. Why don't you just admit that you use the fix for Fighters and that is why they are so uber, with all the right equipment at their fingertips 24/7 at will?
Argaud 11-26-06, 07:22 PM	No misunderstanding. Just you trying to make things sound worse than they are for everyone except the sainted Fighter. Why don't you just admit that you use the fix for Fighters and that is why they are so uber, with all the right equipment at their fingertips 24/7 at will? I don't think fighters are uber. But I get tired of people trying to twink up builds so they are more powerful that they really are, or out of raw ignorance. Fighters perform perfectly well against most enemies at all CRs. Which is the true test of balance. They aren't supposed to compete or duel against other party members. They tend to do poorly against fully buffed characters or 'nova' casters, but when they compete in their terrain they are usually superior.
Cael 11-26-06, 07:26 PM	I don't think fighters are uber. But I get tired of people trying to twink up builds so they are more powerful that they really are, or out of raw ignorance. Fighters perform perfectly well against most enemies at all CRs. Which is the true test of balance. They aren't supposed to compete or duel against other party members. They tend to do poorly against fully buffed characters or 'nova' casters, but when they compete in their terrain they are usually superior. Kind of silly, since high CR caster types can nova with the best of them, and that don't include high CR caster PC classes.
Argaud 11-26-06, 07:43 PM	Kind of silly, since high CR caster types can nova with the best of them, and that don't include high CR caster PC classes. Not really, NPCs can't afford tomes and +ability gear with their pitful NPC wealth to get into near-impossible DCs for their spells. Fighters beat them pretty easily, as do most other classes. If some times one gets lucky and nails a character with a save/die spell because the character rolls unusually low in the save... well, it happens. Time to pool cash for the resurrection/clone/whatever. It will very, very rarely nail all the party, which likely a trully optimized party casters could do if winning the initiative. If it does, either the players had a hell of bad luck or the DM made a mistake. An optimized caster can easily use timestop + buff casting to stratosphere + disjunction + quickened Wail of the Banshee and slaughter the party. But you already knew that. The DM can always kill the party. All it takes is being bastardly enough.
Cael 11-26-06, 07:51 PM	Not really, NPCs can't afford tomes and +ability gear with their pitful NPC wealth to get into near-impossible DCs for their spells. Fighters beat them pretty easily, as do most other classes. If some times one gets lucky and nails a character with a save/die spell because the character rolls unusually low in the save... well, it happens. Time to pool cash for the resurrection/clone/whatever. It will very, very rarely nail all the party, which likely a trully optimized party casters could do if winning the initiative. If it does, either the players had a hell of bad luck or the DM made a mistake. An optimized caster can easily use timestop + buff casting to stratosphere + disjunction + quickened Wail of the Banshee and slaughter the party. But you already knew that. The DM can always kill the party. All it takes is being bastardly enough. They don't need uber eq with their natural +uberGods to stats.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 09:34 PM	No misunderstanding. Just you trying to make things sound worse than they are for everyone except the sainted Fighter. Why don't you just admit that you use the fix for Fighters and that is why they are so uber, with all the right equipment at their fingertips 24/7 at will? Go review Handle Animal and Druid Animal Companion. You get a bonus trick(s) for your animal companion. That greatly helps in replacing the companion. Druid gives you 3 extra tricks for a brown bear at 14th level, but you still need one more trick (1 week of training) to get "attack anything," which is so very vital at higher levels. Fighting (DC 20): An animal trained to engage in combat knows the tricks attack, down, and stay. Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks. This means that you can't easily replace a "best" critter with another "best" critter. A dire bear would take four weeks to replace.
Nephlite 11-26-06, 09:51 PM	Go review Handle Animal and Druid Animal Companion. You get a bonus trick(s) for your animal companion. That greatly helps in replacing the companion. Druid gives you 3 extra tricks for a brown bear at 14th level, but you still need one more trick (1 week of training) to get "attack anything," which is so very vital at higher levels. Fighting (DC 20): An animal trained to engage in combat knows the tricks attack, down, and stay. Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks. This means that you can't easily replace a "best" critter with another "best" critter. A dire bear would take four weeks to replace. Fighting + fight anything is 2 tricks. You just said we get 3 extra. What am I supposed to spend on? The extras take no time. The normals tied to Int bonus do.
Clawhound 11-26-06, 11:00 PM	Basic Fighting is three tricks, and fight anything adds another trick. That's four tricks.
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 02:16 AM	Basic Fighting is three tricks, and fight anything adds another trick. That's four tricks.You were right earlier on that "attack anything" was two tricks, and it can be a pain without both. "Attack" is always the first trick for any AC that will enter combat, say...EVER. "Attack nonstandard" is likely the second. Basic Fighting is quite unnecessary. A druid can always use a move action for "down" or "stay" without training. As he can't call back his AC except during his turn, "down" or "stay" usually means the Druid wants no fight to occur, so he won't miss the lost action at all. I was wrong earlier, there can be a serious nuisance if the Druid does not have time to train AND only is allowed one bonus trick. The "attack anything" makes a difference, the move action to direct is painful in combat, often. Of course, the (suboptimal) example bear had tricks to burn, so it makes no difference. Net result: 1 week max. Anyway, we're getting into details of the Druid class here...while interesting, it's approaching nothing related to the OP.
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 02:56 AM	I disagree that fighter can't do anything particularly well. Every time that I hear that, i look at actual numbers, and the fighter fare relatively well (just raw BAB and strength gets him there). The problem is that a cleric starts near that, uses a few spells to equal that, then goes on to have full spellcasting. It also helps the party that two pots of healing are better than one. In addition, their buffs synergize with themselves as well as a fighter. Etc. Fighters are generally great in the early levels, as their feats really do make a huge difference in a fight, and the casters just have few spells. The problem kicks in when casters have the critical mass of magic to overcome their attribute allocation, and can keep those spells up for long durations.I mostly agree with Clawhound here, but I've experienced this happening much earlier in levels. BAB is at most 2 points though, at 9th the Cleric is superior in every way. Plus Cleric is a SAD character, even more than the Fighter, and can choose to put his third stat as Str if he realizes the party is melee-light, he really doesn't miss it somewhere else. Fighters perform perfectly well against most enemies at all CRs. Which is the true test of balance. They aren't supposed to compete or duel against other party members. They tend to do poorly against fully buffed characters or 'nova' casters, but when they compete in their terrain they are usually superior. Not really, NPCs can't afford tomes and +ability gear with their pitful NPC wealth to get into near-impossible DCs for their spells. Fighters beat them pretty easily, as do most other classes. If some times one gets lucky and nails a character with a save/die spell because the character rolls unusually low in the save... well, it happens. Time to pool cash for the resurrection/clone/whatever. It will very, very rarely nail all the party, which likely a trully optimized party casters could do if winning the initiative. If it does, either the players had a hell of bad luck or the DM made a mistake.Fighters have glaring weaknesses (will save, mobility, flexibility). They rely on Buffs from party members (which is called teamwork, true) but can't provide any. (bad) They can beat up on eq-poor, unoptimized NPC's, as long as an enemy spellcaster doesn't get the drop on them. That's flat out *Mediocre*. NPC's are consistently weak for their CR, with the exception of optimized spellcasters. Fighters can't defend against/remove status effects, and gets hosed by many encounters (ranged combat, Will save-or-die). Fighters turning on the party, or a Fear effect causing them to flee a pitched battle, to get killed solo while still afraid by another encounter. This happens *OFTEN* , and is so bad serious melee bruisers go to great lengths to shore up their Will save, it's that big an issue. If this happens to the party Cleric, the party will pitch in for a rez. His melee presence, buffing, and healing alone are just that critical. Plus, he can't be really blamed, as is Will save is maxxed by default. Either he rolled VERY low, or the DM was unfair, it happens. Fighters fail Will saves at CR, it's a running joke. The party may pay for a rez "cause he's a PC", but may also get bitter. Or they may wish for someone tougher and more versatile to tank, say, a Cleric. "Fighters perform perfectly well against most enemies at all CRs." is a statement I find to be patently false. They suffer in many combats, particularly at high level.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-27-06, 08:11 AM	Only casters get good will saves, and most of them do not have other good saves. They can still have failed saves just like the non-casters. But I guess you do not consider this a issue for the casters? The game is about teamwork. Everyone works together for the games goal, whatever that is for you. It is not a computer game get over it.
Argaud 11-27-06, 08:13 AM	Fighters can't defend against/remove status effects, and gets hosed by many encounters (ranged combat, Will save-or-die). Fighters turning on the party, or a Fear effect causing them to flee a pitched battle, to get killed solo while still afraid by another encounter. This happens *OFTEN* , and is so bad serious melee bruisers go to great lengths to shore up their Will save, it's that big an issue. There are many ways to avoid that kind of situation, and the fighter should certainly use his wealth and feats to protect himself. So should the rogue, for that matter. Steadfast determination, iron will, shape soulmeld (planar ward), rods of absortion, ring of spellturning, etc, etc. A fighter that is regularly turned against the party deserves a good smacking. If he wants, and he is not an ass, his will save will be considerably higher than the wizard's. "Fighters perform perfectly well against most enemies at all CRs." is a statement I find to be patently false. They suffer in many combats, particularly at high level. I dare say you have never seen a correctly built high level fighter, then. About the only monster I think a fighter can't deal with at level 20 is the Tarasque, and even the Tarrasque would fall to an optimized archer - although it would take about a hundred arrows to bring it down.
Cael 11-27-06, 04:10 PM	Go review Handle Animal and Druid Animal Companion. You get a bonus trick(s) for your animal companion. That greatly helps in replacing the companion. Druid gives you 3 extra tricks for a brown bear at 14th level, but you still need one more trick (1 week of training) to get "attack anything," which is so very vital at higher levels. Fighting (DC 20): An animal trained to engage in combat knows the tricks attack, down, and stay. Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks. This means that you can't easily replace a "best" critter with another "best" critter. A dire bear would take four weeks to replace. Oh for...! Dude, seriously...! I don't want to sound insulting, but there seems to be no other way to say this: "Go back to primary school." Seriously. You need lessons in basic English and logic, man. I am not saying this in a nasty way. I am actually trying to help you get ahead in life. Look, the packages were put in as a shortcut. It is even explicitly stated as such. They are related commands that makes it easier (less rolls) and takes up a shorter time to do. You do *not* have to take them. All I need is Attack x2 and Down. I do not need the entire Fighting package to make my Animal Companion fight. All I need are the relevant commands. I'm sorry, man, if I come across as nasty, but I am just so dumbstruck at the sheer robot-like following of your statement. There appears to be no sentient thought processes behind it...
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 04:33 PM	Only casters get good will saves, and most of them do not have other good saves. They can still have failed saves just like the non-casters. But I guess you do not consider this a issue for the casters? The game is about teamwork. Everyone works together for the games goal, whatever that is for you. It is not a computer game get over it.No, I consider CoDzilla to have Great Fort and Will saves, as they're both good saves for them, and the two stats they care about *AT ALL* boost them. Reflex is consistently less critical (majority save or 1/2) and Fighters rarely beat casters in Reflex, by more than 1, anyway. Your second paragraph is unclear. I can't tell if you're setting up a Straw Man, invoking the Stormwind fallacy, or making statements at random. (Maybe all three?)
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 04:48 PM	There are many ways to avoid that kind of situation, and the fighter should certainly use his wealth and feats to protect himself. So should the rogue, for that matter. Steadfast determination, iron will, shape soulmeld (planar ward), rods of absortion, ring of spellturning, etc, etc. A fighter that is regularly turned against the party deserves a good smacking. If he wants, and he is not an ass, his will save will be considerably higher than the wizard's.Using Feats to boost weak saves isn't a bad strategy. Since the Fighter has ONLY the advantage of feats over other classes, every one spent on personal defense is one that isn't spent on say, battlefield control, or damage. Plus, he's using three feats to match CoDzilla in Will saves, hope he brings at least one VERY potent tactic a Cleric can't easily match.I dare say you have never seen a correctly built high level fighter, then. About the only monster I think a fighter can't deal with at level 20 is the Tarasque, and even the Tarrasque would fall to an optimized archer - although it would take about a hundred arrows to bring it down.Apparently I haven't. Fighters at high levels have glaring holes, against many opponents, I just can't see how this isn't self-evident. They often cover for many with magic items, but so does every other class. Other classes usually have abilities that mean some of those holes are well covered, meaning they spend less percentage of resources to cover them. Again, Fighter is behind the power curve, which is the whole point. Side Note: Cael, I feel your pain, but at least don't lash out at Clawhound too hard. At least his arguments are usually coherent, even if I often disagree with them. If his posts were the standard, we might actually reach a conclusion. Sadly, the standard is much, much lower of late....:weep:
Cael 11-27-06, 05:02 PM	Fighters at high levels have glaring holes, against many opponents, I just can't see how this isn't self-evident. They often cover for many with magic items, but so does every other class. Other classes usually have abilities that mean some of those holes are well covered, meaning they spend less percentage of resources to cover them. Again, Fighter is behind the power curve, which is the whole point. Side Note: Cael, I feel your pain, but at least don't lash out at Clawhound too hard. At least his arguments are usually coherent, even if I often disagree with them. If his posts were the standard, we might actually reach a conclusion. Sadly, the standard is much, much lower of late....:weep: I don't know. Sometimes, people that don't think, but just ape what the next guy is doing, really frustrates me... By the way, did Argaud ever stat out how he is going to punch through the Big-T's DR x/Epic *and* do enough damage vs its Regeneration 50 to make it stick with an archer? The last I looked, his archers all use the "more strikes for more damage" route, rather than the "less strikes but massive damage each" route... Personally, I think he is talking out of his horse... again...
levitation 11-27-06, 05:05 PM	Fighters at high levels have glaring holes, against many opponents, I just can't see how this isn't self-evident. They often cover for many with magic items, but so does every other class. Other classes usually have abilities that mean some of those holes are well covered, meaning they spend less percentage of resources to cover them. Again, Fighter is behind the power curve, which is the whole point. [ yes fighters have glaring holes, alot of classes do, it makes them fun to play and you can use feats to cover up those holes, needless to say,a well balanced fighter wont be as powerfull as a charger fighter, it all about how you like it, with a party of people who dont power game, a well balanced fighter does great, I've seen it, in a power gamers society, you have to pull out the uber build to gain some respect, atleast I havent seen casters deal 1000 damage albeit high levels, but a few fighter builds can manage that, sure using many straight damage spells is not a very good decision by a caster but still 1000-2000 points of damage dished out for theoretically every few rounds for an infinite number of encounters with enough hp can and should deserve some respect...
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 05:17 PM	By the way, did Argaud ever stat out how he is going to punch through the Big-T's DR x/Epic *and* do enough damage vs its Regeneration 50 to make it stick with an archer? The last I looked, his archers all use the "more strikes for more damage" route, rather than the "less strikes but massive damage each" route... Personally, I think he is talking out of his horse... again...If I was an archer nearing Epic, I'd consider an assortment of +1 Bane Bows at ~9,000 gps each Then I'd beg Greater Magic Weapon (or Chained, Extended Greater Magic Weapon) and go to town. Hmm...isn't there a Bane spell out there somewhere? (Even cheaper) Of course, if I wanted to be an archer, I'd be a spellcaster.:rolleyes:
Cael 11-27-06, 05:19 PM	If I was an archer nearing Epic, I'd consider an assortment of +1 Bane Bows at ~9,000 gps each Then I'd beg Greater Magic Weapon (or Chained, Extended Greater Magic Weapon) and go to town. Hmm...isn't there a Bane spell out there somewhere? (Even cheaper) Of course, if I wanted to be an archer, I'd be a spellcaster.:rolleyes: LoL! I can so smell the sarcasm in the morning... :D
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 05:43 PM	yes fighters have glaring holes, alot of classes do, it makes them fun to play and you can use feats to cover up those holes, needless to say,a well balanced fighter wont be as powerfull as a charger fighter, it all about how you like it, with a party of people who dont power game, a well balanced fighter does great, I've seen it, in a power gamers society, you have to pull out the uber build to gain some respect, atleast I havent seen casters deal 1000 damage albeit high levels, but a few fighter builds can manage that, sure using many straight damage spells is not a very good decision by a caster but still 1000-2000 points of damage dished out for theoretically every few rounds for an infinite number of encounters with enough hp can and should deserve some respect...Eyes....bleeding.... Ok, for the love of all that is holy, PLEASE insert an occasion period or sentence break in there. My grammar isn't stellar, and I'm accused of run-on sentences, but this is brutal... Trying to sift through your statement.... A)Fighters have glaring holes....this is in no way a positive. Glaring holes do not "fun to play" make, Stormwind fallacy. B)Feats to cover up holes. This is also a negative, see my earlier comment on feats for Will save. C)A well-balanced Fighter isn't as good a charger as a charger Fighter. Great. A focused build is better at its focus than a non-focused build. Yes, I know. D)Fighters do fine in non-"power game". Yep. I'm sure Warriors would too, that doesn't mean Fighters do WELL. E)Now I'm getting lost. Don't obsess over damage though, battlefield control, save-or-die, buffs and debuffs are all typically better than damage spells at high levels than damage spells. Opinion of myself, CharOp boards, and my personal experience playing wizards and DM'ing spellcasters. F)Fighters can do more damage. (I think you said) No, they honestly can't, typically. In fact, they're often among the worst at doing damage, especially at high levels. Even though I recommend spellcasters not focus for damage, if a spellcaster goes "NOVA" in a damage situation, it's brutal. And CoDzilla can outdamage a Fighter from 1-20, if they care to. G)Fighter can go through an infinite number of encounters. Yeah, if none of them can hit his AC, and have no special attacks.... So can a Cleric, except his AC, stats, damage and well...EVERYTHING will be better, 24/7. Oh, and he heals spontaneously, so how is this Fighter outlasting a Cleric, exactly? Summary: Uhh.....NO....yep, I'm saying NO to your post. Also, if you don't spend a little time to make your posts more readable, I won't waste mine sifting another one. LoL! I can so smell the sarcasm in the morning... :D Sarcasm intended.:cool:
Clawhound 11-27-06, 05:55 PM	Oh for...! Dude, seriously...! I don't want to sound insulting, but there seems to be no other way to say this: "Go back to primary school." Seriously. You need lessons in basic English and logic, man. I am not saying this in a nasty way. I am actually trying to help you get ahead in life. Look, the packages were put in as a shortcut. It is even explicitly stated as such. They are related commands that makes it easier (less rolls) and takes up a shorter time to do. You do *not* have to take them. All I need is Attack x2 and Down. I do not need the entire Fighting package to make my Animal Companion fight. All I need are the relevant commands. I'm sorry, man, if I come across as nasty, but I am just so dumbstruck at the sheer robot-like following of your statement. There appears to be no sentient thought processes behind it... No need to bite my head off, dude. My logic is that the "fighting" package is the guideline for the minimal number of tricks necessary for an attack animal. That's not brain dead or unreasonable. The writers put that package in exactly for that purpose; so that I, as a DM, can make a quick ruling. Believe you me, in my game, if you did not teach your attack bear to stay, any "creature" that wanders by will get challenged by the bear, and that creature may be a monster or an innocent person. Either way, you would find the result sub-optimal. Note that "creature" include "other party members."
TheCobra 11-27-06, 06:01 PM	Druids really are amazing, especially with all the news spells in the mix. Not only can they fight as well as fighters in animal form, their spells do as much damage as wizard spells, if not a bit more. (Deadfall and [i]bombardment[/] come to mind.) The only problem is getting items to work while wildshaped. Druids with Vow of Poverty are truly men to be feared.
Clawhound 11-27-06, 06:12 PM	I'm starting to think that "warrior" in the fighter thread is like saying "nazi" in a thread. Let's try adapting a quote (with apologies): D)Clerics do fine in non-"power game". Yep. I'm sure Adepts would too, that doesn't mean Clerics do WELL. Adepts <> Cleric, just like Warrior <> Fighter. Can we keep the NPC classes out of this? You've listed some very good criticisms of the fighter class, and I'd rather see you talk about those.
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 06:19 PM	My logic is that the "fighting" package is the guideline for the minimal number of tricks necessary for an attack animal. That's not brain dead or unreasonable. The writers put that package in exactly for that purpose; so that I, as a DM, can make a quick ruling. Believe you me, in my game, if you did not teach your attack bear to stay, any "creature" that wanders by will get challenged by the bear, and that creature may be a monster or an innocent person. Either way, you would find the result sub-optimal. Note that "creature" include "other party members."A Druid can tell an untrained animal companion to stay (or any trick) with an animal companion with a MOVE action and a Handle Animal check, that he consistently makes. "Attack" and "Attack Any" could be painful to waste a move action on. "Stay" or "Down" , no, the Druid will almost never miss it. Example: A)Commoner freaks at sight of bear, foolishly throwing weapon at it. B)Bear decides to attack. C)Druid commands "Down" Trained=free action, Untrained=move action. The Druid still can't give a free action command unless its the Druid's turn, so it hardly matters. "Stay" is even less likely to be a combat or round-round-command, so that's even less likely. Arrghhh....I'm discussing minutiae(sp?) of Druids again, someone stop me. Seriously, Druids >>> Fighters, that's may not even be a true criticism of Fighters, Druids are that Uber. Let's get back to the meaningless ontopic arguments, as opposed to the meaningless offtopic ones. Hey, wait......:rolleyes:
Jo_Pistachio 11-27-06, 06:20 PM	I'm starting to think that "warrior" in the fighter thread is like saying "nazi" in a thread. Let's try adapting a quote (with apologies): Adepts <> Cleric, just like Warrior <> Fighter. Can we keep the NPC classes out of this? You've listed some very good criticisms of the fighter class, but this is just cheap. Fighters have 11 more feats than a warrior. Most people fail to care. Especially when 10 of them go into an extra attack, +4/+6 and supremacy, and a will save better than suck. Over the warrior, you have that and one feat. Again, most people don't appreciate the difference much. And adepts on the other hand lacks turning, armour, a good hit die, a medium base attack, fortitude, top tier spells, spontaneous turning, weapons, domains and divine metamagic. They also have a worse spell progression. (the BAB of casters.) It's not really something they can catch up on. They don't even have the proper buffs to pretend to be a cleric, since they don't have divine might. Adepts, even compared to warriors, suck.
Cael 11-27-06, 06:29 PM	No need to bite my head off, dude. My logic is that the "fighting" package is the guideline for the minimal number of tricks necessary for an attack animal. That's not brain dead or unreasonable. The writers put that package in exactly for that purpose; so that I, as a DM, can make a quick ruling. Believe you me, in my game, if you did not teach your attack bear to stay, any "creature" that wanders by will get challenged by the bear, and that creature may be a monster or an innocent person. Either way, you would find the result sub-optimal. Note that "creature" include "other party members." Your logic is flawed. That package represents what the writers think are standard for a *normal* beast of burden. An animal companion is not normal, even though it has a few normal characteristics. As for DM to make quick rulings, no logical, *thinking* DM would do what you suggest. He/She would look at what the commands are individually and act accordingly. What you are suggesting is that your average dog will attack everything that moves on sight unless there is someone there to command it to stop. Yeah right. Stop trying to disguise extremes and idiocy as logic, please. It only works on the stupid, so unless you think everyone else here is dumber than dirt, stop trying to insult them.
Cael 11-27-06, 06:30 PM	A Druid can tell an untrained animal companion to stay (or any trick) with an animal companion with a MOVE action and a Handle Animal check, that he consistently makes. "Attack" and "Attack Any" could be painful to waste a move action on. "Stay" or "Down" , no, the Druid will almost never miss it. Example: A)Commoner freaks at sight of bear, foolishly throwing weapon at it. B)Bear decides to attack. C)Druid commands "Down" Trained=free action, Untrained=move action. The Druid still can't give a free action command unless its the Druid's turn, so it hardly matters. "Stay" is even less likely to be a combat or round-round-command, so that's even less likely. Arrghhh....I'm discussing minutiae(sp?) of Druids again, someone stop me. Seriously, Druids >>> Fighters, that's may not even be a true criticism of Fighters, Druids are that Uber. Let's get back to the meaningless ontopic arguments, as opposed to the meaningless offtopic ones. Hey, wait......:rolleyes: Not tear him a new one, huh? I suggest that it is time for you to rethink that stance ;)
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 06:32 PM	I'm starting to think that "warrior" in the fighter thread is like saying "nazi" in a thread. Let's try adapting a quote (with apologies): Adepts <> Cleric, just like Warrior <> Fighter. Can we keep the NPC classes out of this? You've listed some very good criticisms of the fighter class, and I'd rather see you talk about those.Fair enough, the argument was based on: A) The Warrior, hands down, SUCKS. B) If an argument in favor of a Fighter works equally well for a Warrior, it supports the Fighter not at all. Oh, and Fighter >> Warrior, Cleric <> Adept. Adept has a mixed spell list, hard to evaluate. (Polymorph, Lightning Bolt, Healing) Warrior is EXACTLY a Fighter with less hps, and no bonus feats. Ok....so a less confrontational response..... D)Fighters do fine in non-"power game". Unsupported, vague, anecdotal evidence. Meh, I liked my first counter-statement better.....
Thomas_Covenant 11-27-06, 06:34 PM	Not tear him a new one, huh? I suggest that it is time for you to rethink that stance ;)Honestly, I thought the only antagonistic portion was the final third, which was directed jokingly at myself....
Cael 11-27-06, 06:43 PM	Honestly, I thought the only antagonistic portion was the final third, which was directed jokingly at myself.... I was referring to his total lack of logic, and his aggression in propagating that lack of logic. He is not being antagonistic. Merely willfully misguided.
Argaud 11-27-06, 07:50 PM	By the way, did Argaud ever stat out how he is going to punch through the Big-T's DR x/Epic *and* do enough damage vs its Regeneration 50 to make it stick with an archer? The last I looked, his archers all use the "more strikes for more damage" route, rather than the "less strikes but massive damage each" route... Personally, I think he is talking out of his horse... again... As opposed to other people that I could name, I can back up my statements with numbers: How to kill the Big-T with 40 arrows. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10754292&postcount=248)
Throg 11-27-06, 08:25 PM	As opposed to other people that I could name, I can back up my statements with numbers: How to kill the Big-T with 40 arrows. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10754292&postcount=248) Looking at that, it would take much more then 40 arrows. 7 rounds of 10 attacks would be 70 arrows. You also didn't factor in the Regeneration. You'd have to take off 40 damage each round, so it'd be only 90~ damage each round, adding an extra 3 rounds, and going up to needing 100 arrows. 90*10rounds = 900dmg. If you don't manage to get it to 898dmg, it'll take another round of attacking before you could get off the Wish ring. I think your math is off too, the +33's would only hit 90% of the time, against the AC of 35, it'd miss on a 1 or 2.
bigwil 11-27-06, 08:31 PM	I think your math is off too, the +33's would only hit 90% of the time, against the AC of 35, it'd miss on a 1 or 2. 2 + 33 = 35. A 2 would hit.
Throg 11-27-06, 08:32 PM	2 + 33 = 35. A 2 would hit. well damn, I think I'm just tired... It was the evil wizard giving the Tarrasque a +1 ring of Pro, I swear.
ramhammer 11-27-06, 08:36 PM	From what I browsed you all made great points. The Druid is a core class monster. The Cleric can become a tank and a wizard can dorp big bombs. But at the end of the day when spells slots are used and special ablities drained. A fighter with 1hp still does the same damage he did at full hp. No class is without flaws and this is the reason most of us play with a party. And in every campain I have ever played in we had a Fighter or wish we had one.
TheCobra 11-27-06, 08:45 PM	But at the end of the day when spells slots are used and special ablities drained. The druid's still a bear at the end of the day, because his wild shape lasts forever. A fighter with 1hp still does the same damage he did at full hp. The same is true of a druid in dire bear form. Of course, any PCs who keeps on fighting at just 1hp is asking for trouble. You do it when you have to, but being one hit away from death is Bad Thing. A fighter with 1hp is about as useful as a wizard with no spells left.
Argaud 11-27-06, 08:53 PM	Looking at that, it would take much more then 40 arrows. 7 rounds of 10 attacks would be 70 arrows. You also didn't factor in the Regeneration. You'd have to take off 40 damage each round, so it'd be only 90~ damage each round, adding an extra 3 rounds, and going up to needing 100 arrows. 90*10rounds = 900dmg. If you don't manage to get it to 898dmg, it'll take another round of attacking before you could get off the Wish ring. I think your math is off too, the +33's would only hit 90% of the time, against the AC of 35, it'd miss on a 1 or 2. The bow splits each arrow (as the ranger spell Arrowsplit) so it uses 6 arrows each round, but 12 can hit (actually 11 of them hit 95% of the time, because 33+2=35, which is the Tarrasque armor, the first 11 arrows miss only on a 1, and the last one always hits). But you are right I forgot the regen. It actually takes 56 arrows. And yeah, a smart archer will shot 20 more to make sure the Big-T is deep into negatives before casting the wish.
Throg 11-27-06, 09:01 PM	The bow splits each arrow (as the ranger spell Arrowsplit) so it uses 6 arrows each round, but 12 can hit (actually 11 of them hit 95% of the time, because 33+2=35, which is the Tarrasque armor, the first 11 arrows miss only on a 1, and the last one always hits). But you are right I forgot the regen. It actually takes 56 arrows. And yeah, a smart archer will shot 20 more to make sure the Big-T is deep into negatives before casting the wish. heh, someone else pointed out my bad math, for some reason I thought 33+2 was 34, probably just my mind isn't able to focus at the moment. Or I'm an evil DM and the wizard that woke Big-T gave him a ring of protection +1, just to screw your archer of a probably minuscule DPR(Damage per Round) amount. But as a few others pointed out, a smart DM doesn't have the tarrasque being completely stupid. If someone is shooting at them from 150ft away, and hurting it, it will charge (using it's 1 rush/minute) and jump at him, with an overall +67(+48 from it's increased movement) and jump at you. If you want to make sure this doesn't happen, you'd have to move back to beyond 300ft, since that's the charge range from Rush, decreasing your chance to hit, and overall damage. Not sure if it'd only be back to the second range, incurring only a -2 to hit.. I'd have to take a look at the exact build anyways, since the post only lists the general abilities.
Cael 11-27-06, 09:04 PM	As opposed to other people that I could name, I can back up my statements with numbers: How to kill the Big-T with 40 arrows. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10754292&postcount=248) Just to be absolutely clear. His numbers *may* be correct, but his math is absolutely wrong. I'd go so far as to challenge him to have any math professor check out both our calculations.
Clawhound 11-27-06, 10:15 PM	Your logic is flawed. That package represents what the writers think are standard for a *normal* beast of burden. An animal companion is not normal, even though it has a few normal characteristics. As for DM to make quick rulings, no logical, *thinking* DM would do what you suggest. He/She would look at what the commands are individually and act accordingly. What you are suggesting is that your average dog will attack everything that moves on sight unless there is someone there to command it to stop. Yeah right. Stop trying to disguise extremes and idiocy as logic, please. It only works on the stupid, so unless you think everyone else here is dumber than dirt, stop trying to insult them. *LAUGH* I certainly suggest that a dog trained to attack anything (even undead) would need to be taught to stay. That', and "stay" lists the consequences of what happens when it isn't taught.
Cael 11-27-06, 10:21 PM	*LAUGH* I certainly suggest that a dog trained to attack anything (even undead) would need to be taught to stay. That', and "stay" lists the consequences of what happens when it isn't taught. Being taught to attack *on command* is not *attack anything that moves*. Sorry, your logic-fu needs a bit of work.
tyrecian 11-27-06, 10:34 PM	First of all, I would like to introduce by saying that i recently played a cleric in a campaign (TPK at 8th, Illithid + Vrock) and really liked the idea of what is being discussed. We dont own the Complete Arcane, wherein Persistent spell lies (got complete Divine, but ouch, wasnt in there =P) So i was unable to use it. Then on top of that, you cant have it at lvl 1, you are required to take Extend spell, then persistent (which is +6 levels) so i dont understand how anyone is getting uber at lvl1... I am unsure how it is even being used? but it might have something to do with turning abilities? I dunno, dont have that book. So i went the way of creationist. I built cure wands and buff wands and instead of buffing with my spells i was more of a scroll from the Haversack guy. Yes i got some licks in, even killed one big baddie with my longsword (bleh i hate heironeous), but truth be told, i was never viable as a warrior to replace my front line barbarian. While i could buff myself to be pretty fat, my main attribute was Wisdom, and so my strength was negligable. At low levels the barbarians wasnt, so i used BStrength on him instead. While endurance could buff our HP to 2x our level, i found that Shield Other'ing my tanks was a nice way of reducing their damage and healing myself. Saved u smany times, but I had to stay out of combat. So at low levels i was pretty much toast in melee, unless something happenned where i was forced in (like our pally dieing, or then our monk, or even our barb) and since i had a high AC, i could somewhat hold my own with the mystic thurge using my wands to do my backup job. I was prime healer, so my job was to heal the party, which was usually runnin' around getting hurt, so i didnt have time to melee. If i were to wade into combat most likely before my Divine Power wore off, someone would be dead... So i never got the chance really to go toe to toe with any crazies unless it was like i said, when the chips were down. Eventually the monk and barb went down due to low AC and an inability to stay near me (20' move on me in full plate v/s happy prancing low ac). So we acquired a fighter. High AC, main attributes were con adn strength, so he had 81 Hps at 8th level (very nice, as i was running 54 w/ +2 con bonus (bad rolls) so he was hitting 97 compared to my 70 with Bear's endurance). I had a better AC as i used a magic large shield and he used a buckler with his dwarven war axe. Still he was doing more damage with a 2 handed (d10) war axe and power attack (oh yeah 2x) and with my Shield of Faith on him, and expertise he could get a really high AC in times of need. Its arguable that a CoDzilla (i dont knwo what that means, but i am guessing) group could do as much and stay the course, but honestly i never could (even DP'ed) pump out the damage that he could. The druid we had was specialized in summoning and was uber wild shape happy. There was certainly no shortage of damage coming out of that happy bastard, but his AC was nowhere near ours. He even spent all his loot on wildshape armor, but alas he never really could keep it up to compete with the fighter. When it came to pure melee, the druid and his companion were often a little screwed at those levels. With me healing it could be argued that we were alright, but on a dungeon crawl i was using lots of heals to keep them up. We relied heavily on the multi-feated fighter to dish out damage and be a versatile AC'ed AGGRO machine. He was used mainly as a taunter. Sure he didnt hit every round, nor did he get the number of attacks that the druid got (animal companion and summoned bear, plus druid rolled 11 20s in one fight!!!!!!), but his staying power was a lot more. Perhaps it was the Shield Other on the Dwarven Fighter that reduced his damage by half (but i also would get pretty beat up) or maybe just the high AC (between 27 and 30 depending on his expertising) but he was the focal point of our groups attacks. The druid was versatile and could drop in animals, but they often would get owned fairly fast (well, not NA IV, i must admit, whose bear was the bomb) in combat and be really just a distraction. Without persistent, Divine Favor, and Divine Power arent as rad, mainly because they are round per, and often you have to justify using them in tight situations where they represent heals. Mainly as long as the fighter was up, our group was OK... Course in the TPK it was the rogue/ranger/fighter who ate it first, then the Mystic Thurge got his brain eaten (mind Flayer) then the Vrock made short work of me and the druid, even though i was running a magic circle against evil, hehe. The dwarf, sturdy to the end was the last char to stand, and to his credit he tried to flee, but was caught and eaten. I am not going to even enter this argument. If i had access to all these high powerred combos (like the ability to run DPower at 7th level, which i dont even understand how) i would prolly suggest that these priest/war builds are soundin' pretty darn UBER. I mean you might not have the BaB, but it sounds like you are enchanted to be a warrior sans feats. Still there would have to be a healer, and prolly a damage char, so 2 clerics and a druid fighting together would be pretty ruthless, i imagine. But that doesnt mean that the fighter isnt also worthy to stand the line. Feat trees (or even random feats strewn together) can be very powerful. A fighter with a rogue can be a deadly nuke, slowly moving through combat zones picking off chars while a glass cannon hits the uber boss in the rear. Fighters are armorred beasts with huge amounts of HP that slog it out with the best of em. Nah they dont have the strength of the druid Bear form, its true, but they have better AC, hit more reliably (often when buffed) and can power attack for immense damage. OFten our fighter would head straight for the big nasty and the druid would clean up the yard trash. It was hard work slogging through all those HP's the fighter had... as i said earlier he definately had more than me, and the HP from Divine Power are Temp Hp, meaning you cant heal those back, so those arent so hot. The other drawback of these priests that fight is that they are fighting. It is a pain in the rear to ready a weapon without quickdraw (move action, no AoP), but to try and cast, you have to either sheath your weapon (standard action) or drop it so hands are free (if shield wearing)... with a 2 handed weapon you could cast, but then casting provokes AoP, so you would have to make a concentration check.... One more round you arent attacking that you might take damage for. There were plenty of encounters where i was healing EVERY round, and AC was no deterrent to these mobs (even when the fighter was using a ring of spell storing to shield himself, he was getting hit in the mid 30s) so i was healing him every round and that even sharing damage. I would have been dead as dead, or healing myself every round with no time to attack if i had been meleeing. Or he would have been dead. Either way, it would have been bad for me, and devestating for the party. So the fighter definately has a place in the party, imo. While these badass war clerics look great on paper, the reality is that they essentially require just as much backup as a fighter or a paladin. Yes they might be as badass as a fighter fully buffed, but they cant do it alone. The argument that they can heal themselves falls apart when they are flanked and getting ripped apart... The party is the important key here... You need the whole party helping out. I have seen the best laid plans of druids fail as they were taken down so fast by massive damage they couldnt get a heal off... and the cleric too far to run to them... So the argument is really moot. Whether the Fighter or the Cleric is better (druid cant even compare, although they deal FAR more damage, like a ranger they cant compete with the ACs of the other 2) is immaterial because the fighter or the cleric is playing the role (in this instance that everyone is arguing about) of TANK. I would argue that a fighter deals more damage than a cleric in tank role (feats) and so outshines them in pure melee. While a Cleric tank is obviously more versatile in terms of spells, but cnat ever really get the crazy damage of a melee (although brambles is UBER). Paladins combine the two, making up for much of lack with Zeal and Divine Sacrifice (UBER DAMAGE and incredible battlefield maneuverability) but obviously cant compete with the pure cleric. So yeah, if you are gonna tank, Clerics with all this crazy addendum stuff apparently is hte way to go, so long as you have a healer and realize that a couple of dispels might end your hack and slashing for a day (as well as anything like disarm, sunder, etc.), as well as the fact that you are always going to be slower than a fighter (as his options are always damage, while a cleric enjoys the spell option...), yet still putting out OK tank damage. Just make sure (as with any group) you have a healer backing you up. Not a druid really (unless they are spont healer), you will need a cleric most likely... maybe it would be possible in a tank group with a really good wizzie to be a healer cleric that was always in melee, with a paladin and a fighter to boot.. maybe, but i think you would then spend more time needed as a healer. Once again, too long a post, but still necessary to throw out there.
Cael 11-27-06, 10:42 PM	It doesn't sound as though the casters knew what they were about. First, if you are a Human Cleric with the Planning and Undeath Domains, you get Extend Spell and Extra Turning feats for free. That nets you 7+Cha Turns a day. With your feats, you choose Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic: Persistent. You then burn 7 Turn attempts to Persist a spell of your choice (at level 1, this is usually Divine Favour). This is a function of Divine Metamagic. Second, if you want to go melee, I suggest that you use a two-handed weapon, instead of a shield. This allows you to cast spells and use your weapon without having to drop, sheath or draw a weapon for spellcasting (you still need a hand free). Third, Quicken Spell is a poor man's Persistent Spell. If you can't get Divine Metamagic, start preparing Quickened buffs. Lastly, you still need Power Attack to be respectable in combat. I suggest that even your Cleric learn it. I know my friend's crazy 40+ Str Shifter Cleric of Doom has it... Non-errata'd Weretouched Master is nasty...!
Seerow 11-27-06, 10:45 PM	We dont own the Complete Arcane, wherein Persistent spell lies (got complete Divine, but ouch, wasnt in there =P) So i was unable to use it. Then on top of that, you cant have it at lvl 1, you are required to take Extend spell, then persistent (which is +6 levels) so i dont understand how anyone is getting uber at lvl1... I am unsure how it is even being used? but it might have something to do with turning abilities? I dunno, dont have that book. Complete Divine has Divine Metamagic. It lets you use Turning Attempts instead of the Spell Slot adjustment. You take the Planning and Undeath Domains, for Extend Spell and Extra Turning as bonus feats. You take Persist Spell as your normal feat, Divine Metamagic Persist as your human bonus feat. You now have 5+cha turn attempts. One persisted spell needs 7 turn attempts, so 14 Charisma gets you a persisted spell. There you go, first level cleric with persisted Divine Power.
Cael 11-27-06, 10:51 PM	Complete Divine has Divine Metamagic. It lets you use Turning Attempts instead of the Spell Slot adjustment. You take the Planning and Undeath Domains, for Extend Spell and Extra Turning as bonus feats. You take Persist Spell as your normal feat, Divine Metamagic Persist as your human bonus feat. You now have 5+cha turn attempts. One persisted spell needs 7 turn attempts, so 14 Charisma gets you a persisted spell. There you go, first level cleric with persisted Divine Power. Umm, 7+Cha, wasn't it? 3+Cha base, +4 for Extra Turning?
Seerow 11-27-06, 10:57 PM	Is it? I may be wrong, I thought you got 1 turning attempt +1 per cha base. But that's from the top of my head, I could be wrong.
Krevon 11-27-06, 10:58 PM	Complete Divine has Divine Metamagic. It lets you use Turning Attempts instead of the Spell Slot adjustment. You take the Planning and Undeath Domains, for Extend Spell and Extra Turning as bonus feats. You take Persist Spell as your normal feat, Divine Metamagic Persist as your human bonus feat. You now have 5+cha turn attempts. One persisted spell needs 7 turn attempts, so 14 Charisma gets you a persisted spell. There you go, first level cleric with persisted Divine Power. Whould you still use it in a setting like Forgotten Realms where you can't be raised without a patron diety? Of course ya know if you're iffy about it you could always get as powerful as possible and then petition Ao for god hood for all those that come behind you.lol
Seerow 11-27-06, 11:09 PM	Whould you still use it in a setting like Forgotten Realms where you can't be raised without a patron diety? Of course ya know if you're iffy about it you could always get as powerful as possible and then petition Ao for god hood for all those that come behind you.lol Oh, I've done it. If you have AIM IM me sometime, and I'll tell you all about my crazy DM and the **** we've pulled off in his world. (Which is set in Forgotten Realms, but with all his own weird **** added) Now, in a normal game? Undeath and Planning aren't exactly hard to see fitting together in theme. I'm not as familliar with FR deities as I should be though, so I won't say too much more than that. But I see a lot of deities of death portrayed as a patient deity willing to wait to take all those who come to them. That sounds like planning to me, and you have the God of Death to answer to to be revived.
Krevon 11-27-06, 11:19 PM	Oh, I've done it. If you have AIM IM me sometime, and I'll tell you all about my crazy DM and the **** we've pulled off in his world. (Which is set in Forgotten Realms, but with all his own weird **** added) Now, in a normal game? Undeath and Planning aren't exactly hard to see fitting together in theme. I'm not as familliar with FR deities as I should be though, so I won't say too much more than that. But I see a lot of deities of death portrayed as a patient deity willing to wait to take all those who come to them. That sounds like planning to me, and you have the God of Death to answer to to be revived. Sorry all I have is yahoo. The second part to it, I've done in a game.....Ao was impressed but said no. *sigh*
Seerow 11-27-06, 11:29 PM	Well the long and short of it is one of my best friend's first character (from before I met him) became an Elder Forgotten God, banished from the realm by Ao himself because he was too powerful. Currently, I'm an 8th level character probably very much capable of slaying gods in traditional D&D (Just as a taste, I can cast, if I novad, roughly 156 spells in a single round. Without serious optimization of any sort). Fighters typically carry around legendary swords with powers that make any normal D&D character look on in awe (We're talking stuff like one character used his sword to Summon death himself). Yes the DM is crazy, and yes a good deal of it is nothing more than a power grab. No (before someone claims it) I don't let this experience really alter my perceptions of D&D. It's fun. But I love to bring it up when people mention that houserules should be taken into consideration. Because if we bring in someone elses houserules, I bring in these =D
Thomas_Covenant 11-28-06, 04:01 AM	First of all, I would like to introduce by saying that i recently played a cleric in a campaign (TPK at 8th, Illithid + Vrock) and really liked the idea of what is being discussed. *Big Snip*Anecdotal evidence is questionable at best, but I'll try to refute an honest example. Horribly suboptimal tactics aside, would a melee Cleric have been far better for the party than the melee Fighter you added? I can't imagine a Cleric being "toast" in melee, their 2nd stat is Constitution, and they typically have both great HP's and AC's. (Heavy Armor + Shield, even before buffs) The barbarian had low strength :confused: and he and the monk kept getting beaten down, badly. (Monks are not melee tanks, they have a strange focus) You spent your time "too busy", running around healing them and others. You haven't described this Fighter other than "AC and hps" I wouldn't mind hearing a couple feats that made the difference. The Druid sounds brain-dead to me, a third level animal companion (Riding Dog) should have 23 AC, no magic items or buffs. Druids and their animals can get high AC in every fight, even just from Core stuff. Barding is the idea here, even barding for a bear is what, 4 times the cost? Clerics should have nearly identical AC's prebuffed, and lose 1 hp per level (2 at first)While these badass war clerics look great on paper, the reality is that they essentially require just as much backup as a fighter or a paladin.There's truth to that, no doubt. Except two clerics acting in tandem provide their OWN backup, while helping the other as needed. "Go Team CLERIC" I honestly think a Dwarven cleric (for fairness, whatever race the Fighter was) built for melee would have added gobs to your party's survival, while not detracting from damage dealing. (And I mean even Core Cleric20 build, no DMM(Persist), no uber optimization, just cleric who ordered stats Wis, Con, Str, and remembered he would be in melee as needed.)
Cael 11-28-06, 02:30 PM	Is it? I may be wrong, I thought you got 1 turning attempt +1 per cha base. But that's from the top of my head, I could be wrong. Oh, in that case, most definitely :) It definitely starts at 3+Cha. I thought they errata'd Extra Turning because of all the DMM cheese we've seen :D
Clawhound 11-28-06, 03:19 PM	TC, I think that you've hit on something. Given an example of where fighters do well, I usually see follow-up commentary about how the players were not playing optimally, making mistakes, etc. In every case, y'know what, these games really ARE suboptimal. The playstyle of the party, and the competence of the players, contribution to the balance of any particulary game. These players are playing D&D far more like the designers expected the players to play, and so the game behaves more like the designers expected. Thus, fighter winds up a perfectly valid pick. His disadvantages are no worse than the cleric's (who doesn't have DMM or persistant spell), or the wizard, who just wants to chuck fireballs. You can tell those folks until you are blue in the face that fighters are weak, because their experience in their "average level" playstyle shows them different. They honestly don't know how to optimize, and they honestly don't know how to get the most out of their party. Even more so, they've learned how to work around the fighter's weaknesses, so they have a very good idea of what you can do with a fighter. Telling them that a fighter is weak, when they've anchored their playstyle to a fighter, just seems absurd. I don't think folks are bad for playing that way. That's "average" and to be expected. That's what average means. That's the kind of game that many of us (including me) quite prefer. We just aren't power-gamers. Given a game where the casters totally trump the fighter-types, I think most groups would get unhappy and DM's would bring nerf-bats out. A happy group is usually far more stable and fun than an unhappy group. (If you gloss over the human dynamics of who games and why, you can easily come up with terrific character results that cause more problems than they solve.) Likewise, playing an optimal game is good, too. It's just a playstyle difference. No harm. No foul. There's no right or wrong in that. However, there are results difference in that playstyle that matter. Your "weak and strong" looks different than theirs. Just that, by itself, explains why this argument just keeps going on.
DaidojiTaidoru 11-28-06, 03:30 PM	Likewise, playing an optimal game is good, too. It's just a playstyle difference. No harm. No foul. There's no right or wrong in that. However, there are results difference in that playstyle that matter. Your "weak and strong" looks different than theirs. Just that, by itself, explains why this argument just keeps going on. Personally I only think the argument has lasted because the class in question has the grave misfortune to be labled Fighter. This arguement wouldn't be happening if something else had been given the aclaimed title of fighter and the current fighter class had been named the more correct "Two level dip for feats," or "4 level dip for prestige class requirements." The problem is that people now seem to think that this class actually is supposed to sucessfully fight over 20 levels because of the name.
Jo_Pistachio 11-28-06, 03:31 PM	TC, I think that you've hit on something. Given an example of where fighters do well, I usually see follow-up commentary about how the players were not playing optimally, making mistakes, etc. In every case, y'know what, these games really ARE suboptimal. The playstyle of the party, and the competence of the players, contribution to the balance of any particulary game. These players are playing D&D far more like the designers expected the players to play, and so the game behaves more like the designers expected. Thus, fighter winds up a perfectly valid pick. His disadvantages are no worse than the cleric's (who doesn't have DMM or persistant spell), or the wizard, who just wants to chuck fireballs. You can tell those folks until you are blue in the face that fighters are weak, because their experience in their "average level" playstyle shows them different. They honestly don't know how to optimize, and they honestly don't know how to get the most out of their party. Even more so, they've learned how to work around the fighter's weaknesses, so they have a very good idea of what you can do with a fighter. Telling them that a fighter is weak, when they've anchored their playstyle to a fighter, just seems absurd. I don't think folks are bad for playing that way. That's "average" and to be expected. That's what average means. That's the kind of game that many of us (including me) quite prefer. We just aren't power-gamers. Given a game where the casters totally trump the fighter-types, I think most groups would get unhappy and DM's would bring nerf-bats out. A happy group is usually far more stable and fun than an unhappy group. (If you gloss over the human dynamics of who games and why, you can easily come up with terrific character results that cause more problems than they solve.) Likewise, playing an optimal game is good, too. It's just a playstyle difference. No harm. No foul. There's no right or wrong in that. However, there are results difference in that playstyle that matter. Your "weak and strong" looks different than theirs. Just that, by itself, explains why this argument just keeps going on. I totaly agree with this. As I said earlier, to one pro fighter, the campaigns I play in are far and beyond what he apparantly does as far as power goes. In the one, in 3 sessions, we lost a barbarian, a monk, 2 fighters, a ninja, a warmage and a psion. At level 7, we fought 2 young adult red dragons, an illithid with class levels, an umberhulk, a sorcerer, a high level monk, a mid level barbarian, and so on. I disagree however, that they have learned to get around fighter weaknesses. Plop one of those fighter players down in one of my sessions and he will be praying to god that we get to the next puzzle alive. The fighter could do those, if he did not dump int, and no one else gets it first. Likely, he'll be rolling up a new character faster than you can say "It's a dragon!" In our group, it's the opposite of casters getting nerfed. The casters trump the fighters, and the fighters die off and are replaced with things closer to casters, or that are casters. The DM can't pull the nerf bat either, since that would mean TPK every session. Not to say this is right, and yours is wrong, however, for balance reasons, I think it is better to check from the perspective of the high powered campaigns. The low power ones, the maximum potential of classes will never show. The high powered characters on the other hand are displaying the limits of the class.
levitation 11-28-06, 04:18 PM	Personally I only think the argument has lasted because the class in question has the grave misfortune to be labled Fighter. This arguement wouldn't be happening if something else had been given the aclaimed title of fighter and the current fighter class had been named the more correct "Two level dip for feats," or "4 level dip for prestige class requirements." The problem is that people now seem to think that this class actually is supposed to sucessfully fight over 20 levels because of the name. the thing about pure fighters is that unless people like fighters then they are going to multiclass after 8 or 10 levels, why? because you cant resist some class abilities, like exotic weapon masters uncanny blow...it pretty coll, cant get it as a fighter so you multiclass, and this makes it better. Over all fighters that take a few other levels in other meele classes are a bit better and taking a good prestige class will make them stronger then the pure fighter, that is because feats cannot emulate the really good class abilities, like supreme power attack and stuff...
Cael 11-28-06, 04:38 PM	I totaly agree with this. As I said earlier, to one pro fighter, the campaigns I play in are far and beyond what he apparantly does as far as power goes. In the one, in 3 sessions, we lost a barbarian, a monk, 2 fighters, a ninja, a warmage and a psion. At level 7, we fought 2 young adult red dragons, an illithid with class levels, an umberhulk, a sorcerer, a high level monk, a mid level barbarian, and so on. I disagree however, that they have learned to get around fighter weaknesses. Plop one of those fighter players down in one of my sessions and he will be praying to god that we get to the next puzzle alive. The fighter could do those, if he did not dump int, and no one else gets it first. Likely, he'll be rolling up a new character faster than you can say "It's a dragon!" In our group, it's the opposite of casters getting nerfed. The casters trump the fighters, and the fighters die off and are replaced with things closer to casters, or that are casters. The DM can't pull the nerf bat either, since that would mean TPK every session. Not to say this is right, and yours is wrong, however, for balance reasons, I think it is better to check from the perspective of the high powered campaigns. The low power ones, the maximum potential of classes will never show. The high powered characters on the other hand are displaying the limits of the class. To be honest, my group does the same thing. We ran into an Erynes, an Ice Devil, a Barbed Devil, 4 Chain Devils and 6 Bearded Devils at level 10. There were extenuating circumstances (like the summoning chamber the Devils were in has an exploit in it that allowed people with the right password to control them one at a time), but we tend to play sweeping, epic (as opposed to Epic) heroic fantasy, not the muck in the ground pretending that you were living in the 10th Century about to go on the Crusades, with your front teeth missing due to lack of sanitation, and a limp because the cure for polio hasn't been discovered yet. With heroic fantasy, you have the Midgaard Dwarves doing their thing, big dragons and demons to slay, kingdoms to save, and the fair princess to rescue from a horrible fate. You run from continent to continet, across various cultures, and face adverse hardships, some far beyond your ECL, some so pitifully simple that a wave of the hand negated it. It is galloping on horses across a snow-covered highland pine forest, and charging across the wide expanse of a tundra, with the armies of the king behind you, and the armies of the foe in front. That is fantasy. If I want to rake in the mud and work hard to survive on crusts of bread, I'd go to Africa...
TheCobra 11-28-06, 04:46 PM	That is fantasy. If I want to rake in the mud and work hard to survive on crusts of bread, I'd go to Africa... Did you play a commoner campaign or something, Cael? Had a few unfortunate encounters with cats? You sound very bitter. :D
Cael 11-28-06, 05:19 PM	Did you play a commoner campaign or something, Cael? Had a few unfortunate encounters with cats? You sound very bitter. :D Que??? Bitter? I don't know. I might sound bitter if you were on drugs, but other than that, I really don't see it...
Thomas_Covenant 11-28-06, 10:55 PM	the thing about pure fighters is that unless people like fighters then they are going to multiclass after 8 or 10 levels, why? because you cant resist some class abilities, like exotic weapon masters uncanny blow...it pretty coll, cant get it as a fighter so you multiclass, and this makes it better. Over all fighters that take a few other levels in other meele classes are a bit better and taking a good prestige class will make them stronger then the pure fighter, that is because feats cannot emulate the really good class abilities, like supreme power attack and stuff...Emphasis mine. I can't resist pointing out the irony that your entire post is outright STATING the Fighter gets better by multiclassing or PrC'ing out. "...feats cannot emulate the really good class abilities..." Yes, that's much of the problem, I agree, but you haven't been. (so far)
Argaud 11-28-06, 11:38 PM	Personally I only think the argument has lasted because the class in question has the grave misfortune to be labled Fighter. This arguement wouldn't be happening if something else had been given the aclaimed title of fighter and the current fighter class had been named the more correct "Two level dip for feats," or "4 level dip for prestige class requirements." The problem is that people now seem to think that this class actually is supposed to sucessfully fight over 20 levels because of the name. The fighter is, indeed, idea to dip in for feats needed to quickly grab PrCs. He is also good to combine with other classes and generate quite powerful characters. This is not a flaw. 3 feats in 4 levels is good. There are many other classes and PrCs that are front-loaded and great for dips. Most aren't flawed either. The fighter, and for that matter, most 'pure' classes, are inferior to multi-class combos and many PrCs. This is not a secret. And even the most fanatical pro-fighter is going to find hard to find a reason to take the 19th and 20th level of fighter considering the options. Weapon Supremacy, Driving Attack and a couple other feats give the player a reason to get to 18. But 20? For just another feat? Probably not. That does not mean the fighter can't perform at level 20, though. The fighter can beat most enemies level 1-20 -even- when alone. There are a few exceptions here and there, but the same happens with all the classes. Even the cleric has a few (but so few!) weak points. Likewise a well-built fighter can contribuite most parties that aren't formed by Pun-Pun copycats and his buddies. I have to admit that the fighter does it better now than a year ago, though. PH2 and ToB introduce good stuff for the warrior types. Power creep makes me edgy, but I feel there was a certain lack of high level feats before, so I am allowing many of them in the games I DM. (Spells too, but not all at once). All those who still think fighters suck, but don't know the books yet, maybe should take a look to the feat sections.
Seerow 11-28-06, 11:40 PM	Driving Attack and most similar feats only require Fighter4 iirc. It should just take Melee Weapon Mastery. Only Supremacy, GWF, GWS require more.
Clawhound 11-28-06, 11:41 PM	<Redundant post. Nothing to say here.>