Why would you -want- to play a Fighter type?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Let's define the "Fighter" archetype here in the context of 3.x and Pathfinder. It's one that relies on physical prowess (STR, DEX, and CON mostly) with the occasional emphasis on mental abilities (knowledges, social grace). It is not one that relies on innate magic or magic-like abilities.

Considering all the options available to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder, and keeping in mind that these are games about magic (the wearing and wielding of items, and using magical abilities from race/class/items, and facing magical foes and magical locations), why would anyone volunteer to not have something like magic?

Aside from an antimagic-heavy or wild magic-heavy area (or a GM who hates magic), I can see no reason to avoid magic or something like it for any character.

There are magical takes on front-liners (gishes) and magical takes on skill types (the Factotum, Unseen Seer, and Arcane Trickster to name a few). There are classes that even blend the progressions of multiple casting classes/sources (Mystic Theurge, Cerebremancer, Ultimate Magus)!

Perhaps the biggest reprieve the mundane side of 3.x and Pathfinder has gotten is the Tome of Battle. I love this book (and revised its disciplines here (http://antioch.snow-fall.com/files/members/Endarire/DnD/Greg%20Campbell%5C%27s%20Revised%20D%26D%203.5%20M artial%20Disciplines%20for%20Public%20Distribution %2012%2014%2012.zip), even adding some new ones), yet most the maneuvers and stances boil down to 'Buff me', 'Attack foe(s) for damage/status effect(s)', 'Interrupt an enemy', 'Move someone somewhere', and Iron Heart Surge.

Sure, mundanes can swing their weapons repeatedly and (aside from certain abilities usable X/day or Y/rounds) technically never run out of swings, but they have hit points. And they can fail saves to incapacitate them. Mundan abilities (like maneuvers and stances) are useful and powerful, situation depending, yet none of these seems as much fun (or captivating to my imagination) as a Wizard who can do all this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#fourthLevelSorcererWizard Spells) and more. A Wizard can use his spells fewer times per day than the 'never runs out of stamina Fighter-type' but, at least in theory, the two have a similar stamina by about character level 7.

This also gets into another argument: Spells are fun! While I've played D&D for over a decade (since Baldur's Gate in 2E), I've been one to find the magical solutions more... interesting. Want to teleport across the world? A Wizard can do it. Want to change planes? A Wizard can do it. Want to become your favorite creature for awhile via polymorph and co? A Wizard can do it. Want to unlock anything, ever in 6 seconds or less, size permitting? A Wizard can do it. Want to have an army of minions and charmed friends? A Wizard can do it. Oh yes, and at the right level, a Wizard can do all these and more in a single day! Then, the next day, he can do other stuff with those same spell slots. How cool is that? (Cool enough to italicize.) And this doesn't touch upon other casters, like Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks.

One other argument is the connation of 'magic.' The term 'magic' implies that it does things better than without magic. (See every non-sarcastic, non-ironic instance of the phrase 'works like magic!') Want to dig a mine? You could hire a bunch of workers you'd have to care for, or animate of a bunch of Skeletons and Zombies. Or just skip the 'others as laborers' route entirely and use stone shape, transmute rock to mud, disintegrate, or a variety of other spells.

If we're talking real life Earth here, I can see the benefits (including the spiffy image) of being the agile athlete or the bodybuilder over an intellectual (and hey, I attend Zumba classes at my gym weekly to become fitter!), but in a world where magic does everything better than mundanes*, the best role I can see for the Fighter archetype is in keeping the casters alive long enough to become powerhouses. Oh, and perhaps to get a spiffy retirement as a Skeleton or something.

*Logical contradictions aside, of course.

[Kesnit]

1) The magic-system is a bookkeeping nightmare, especially for casters with huge spell lists that they have to prepare from. And then have to look up the spells when they want to cast to make sure they are doing it right.

2) Because I don't want to be a mage! I WANT to be someone who gets up and fights. Although I admit to preferring Rogue-type characters.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because some of us have more fun playing Roland or Beowulf than Merlin.

Seriously, screw Merlin.

[underlaud]

I want to crush someone to paste with my two handed hammer. (On a side note I like just about every type of char, just depends on my mood. Also having played dnd for 12+ years, playign the same thing over and over gets old.)

[xkaliburr]

In one hand, you can be the all powerful know it all who shapes worlds, on the other, you can be the scrappy underdog taking on the evil necromancer who just summoned an army of zombies with nothing but your wits and your sword, and your massive grapefruits.

Seriously, from a storytelling aspect (which essentially is what RPG's are, collaborative storytelling), what is more compelling, the guy who can manipulate all elements doing whatever he feels like doing, or the guy brave enough to fight him with only an axe?

[vasharanpaladin]

In one hand, you can be the all powerful know it all who shapes worlds, on the other, you can be the scrappy underdog taking on the evil necromancer who just summoned an army of zombies with nothing but your wits and your sword, and your massive grapefruits.

Seriously, from a storytelling aspect (which essentially is what RPG's are, collaborative storytelling), what is more compelling, the guy who can manipulate all elements doing whatever he feels like doing, or the guy brave enough to fight him with only an axe?

This, with the added caveat that the idea of "magic" espoused by the named editions is infinitely better suited to NPC's than player hands. :smallannoyed:

[Humble Master]

I like both martials and spellcasters and I switch between the two. Sometimes, I just want to be a bad A swinging steel and decapitating people left and right. Sure the class Fighter is boring because all you do is attack and full attack, but have you played Warblade? You get flavorful, varied abilities that can do a lot of things. Sure, a Wizard/Cleric/Druid can still do it better but sometimes it just feels good to be the big manly man in the thick of it.

[joca4christ]

I tend to like fighter types. My first character was a paladin. And I'd really like to play a barbarian some day.

Why? I agree with some of the above posters. Magic users take paperwork and detail. Having to either have a flawless memory to retain what each spell does, how it works, what the range is, blah blah blah, or having to keep up with paperwork, or be constantly flipping through the book(s) just doesn't appeal to me.

Plus, I second what else was said. It seems more dramatic for the guy with the greatsword to attempt to overcome the magical odds...even if he has no chance of winning (apart from really luck rolls and strategic playing).

[nyjastul69]

My experience is that many people don't like the bookkeeping an minutiae of spell casters. Some love casters, and some don't. I have a close friend whose played for over thirty years and just simply likes characters that whack things over the head with a stick. He doesn't ever get bored with the archetype. Some also like playing 'against the odds' so to speak. Fighters suck? I'll show you. For my part I get bored with characters rather quickly. I get frustrated playing the same character throughout an entire campaign, let alone the same type of character through multiple campaigns. I guess that's why I usually prefer GMing. Different strokes for different folks.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

Considering all the options available to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder, and keeping in mind that these are games about magic (the wearing and wielding of items, and using magical abilities from race/class/items, and facing magical foes and magical locations), why would anyone volunteer to not have something like magic?

To answer the question in the simplest possible way, roleplaying.

Yes, magic-users are more powerful, and so from an optimization viewpoint are better, but what if the character archetype the character wants to play is distinctly non-magical? As other posters have mentioned, some players would rather play someone along the lines of Conan or Beowulf than Gandalf or Merlin.

When I choose to play a fighter (or rogue/thief, or ranger/hunter), the character I am envisioning in my mind possesses the skill and strength to overcome odds without magic.

[Barsoom]

Why would you -want- to play a Fighter type?Why!? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. THAT IS GOOD!

[ArqArturo]

1.- It's much more heroic to charge into battle with nothing but your trusty weapon and wits, than hang in the back and unleash all manner of hell.

2.- Sometimes you want to smoosh something with your bare, all-magical hands.

3.- You may one day control the world, but right not, my greatsword, my 18 Strength, and my power attack say otherwise.

[lycantrope]

Because a good dm won't punish someone for taking a class, and will adjust encounters so that everyone feels like they are contributing.

[Averis Vol]

Mages are boring. They're sniveling cowards who hide in their books while other people do things that matter. Unless I'm playing a particularly high op game, I generally have nothing to fear from a caster of any kind as they're frail, limited in their selection (and woe to the mage who picks the wrong spells for the day), and are the least heroic things to ever be printed.

As much as casters are lorded about for their superiority, theres too many ways to invalidate them (Warriors too, but at least i can enjoy being a warrior). Another thing is I have some friends who only play casters, because they come from the MMO world where no one plays a class unless its the strongest so they can more effectively win the game. but DnD isn't a game you win. It's a collaborative story with conflict, and when push comes to shove, conflict is where heroes shine.

[ArqArturo]

As much as casters are lorded about for their superiority, theres too many ways to invalidate them (Warriors too, but at least i can enjoy being a warrior). Another thing is I have some friends who only play casters, because they come from the MMO world where no one plays a class unless its the strongest so they can more effectively win the game. but DnD isn't a game you win. It's a collaborative story with conflict, and when push comes to shove, conflict is where heroes shine.

Funny enough, this is also a reason why I love playing either Evokers or Warmages. Yes, your illusions and debuffs are great, but you know what? My pain-dealing spells are real.

[Dimers]

IRL, I am a brainy, canny guy who changes things by re-thinking them, a process not unlike magic. That's emotionally rewarding. It's spiffy that I can do it at all, the results are pleasing to me, I get lauds from people I help, solving puzzles is neato, my mother is glad that I'm finally using my university degree :smallwink:, yada yada.

Using my big thinky brain to change the world in amazing ways is for me slightly less emotionally rewarding than lifting heavy objects and putting them down again. I'm also a fan of hitting balls with racquets, smashing stuff with sledgehammers until it is thoroughly broken, and grappling pseudo-combat both on the land and in water.

To be completely clear, OP, I'm saying that human beings (the critters doing all the play-acting involved here) tend to have positive emotions associated with physical things aside from nutrition and reproduction. The last seventy or so years of study in psychology shows very clearly that thinking about (including play-acting about) an experience is mentally quite similar to experiencing it, which provides emotional reinforcement.

[erikun]

One reason, as some others have said, is that people don't want to mess with the bookkeeping and the little fiddly bits involved in maintaining a spellcaster. They want someone who can clearly do something, and do it well.

Mundanes can work all day with their abilities, as their attack rolls and skill points don't run out. Spellcasters, despite popular claims, run out of spells. It doesn't happen often with the heavily structured world of 4-encounters-per-day of D&D, but it can easily happen when pushed beyond that. It seems kind of silly to just say "Oh, can't unlock this door because I don't have the spell. Looks like the princess will need to be rescued tomorrow."

Mundane fighters can keep opponents occupied, present a real threat to anything within sword range, and keep their squishy spellcasting allies safe. Well, in better RPG systems they do.

And of course, some people may just prefer to play a knight in full plate, wielding a shining sword and shield bearing their crest of arms. They may want to play a strong northern berserker, able to tear stone and metal apart with their bare hands. They may want to play something other than Wizard #3759, built with basically the same encounter-win selection of spells and campaign-win selection of feats.

[Doorhandle]

IRL, I am a brainy, canny guy who changes things by re-thinking them, a process not unlike magic. That's emotionally rewarding. It's spiffy that I can do it at all, the results are pleasing to me, I get lauds from people I help, solving puzzles is neato, my mother is glad that I'm finally using my university degree :smallwink:, yada yada.

Using my big thinky brain to change the world in amazing ways is for me slightly less emotionally rewarding than lifting heavy objects and putting them down again. I'm also a fan of hitting balls with racquets, smashing stuff with sledgehammers until it is thoroughly broken, and grappling pseudo-combat both on the land and in water.

To be completely clear, OP, I'm saying that human beings (the critters doing all the play-acting involved here) tend to have positive emotions associated with physical things aside from nutrition and reproduction. The last seventy or so years of study in psychology shows very clearly that thinking about (including play-acting about) an experience is mentally quite similar to experiencing it, which provides emotional reinforcement.


Well, you can easily use your huge muscles to change the world with correct application. Consider Hercules rerouting a river to clear the Augean stables: that sort of thing is what a barbarian may want to try, but the system that's semirealistic like D&D won't let him. Basically, all the mundane have is a hammer, but it forces them to think outside the box to find new ways of using it.

There is also the appeal, however limited, of the vicreality of the magicless way. It's pretty cool to fireball a shark, it's even cooler to suplex it.

Likewise, there is some appeal in being a MUNDANE mundane and still succeeding against supernatural forces. Conceder the game Dark Souls: much of it's appeal is that the characters cannot really perform many feats outside the range of human possibly(except p[perhaps tote about those ridiculous huge swords.) but still take down massive monsters due to skill and avoidance. Even the mages and priest must rely on dodging, avoidance, and the mundane methods of murder more often than not. Some want to play Beowulf; others Aragorn.

[Dimers]

There is also the appeal, however limited, of the vicreality of the magicless way. It's pretty cool to fireball a shark, it's even cooler to suplex it.

That's what I'm saying. Emotional reward from imagining bodily actions. WHOOMPH, slam, @#$& you shark! "Visceral" is a good word for it ... comes from "viscera", a.k.a. guts.

[RedF0x11]

Have you ever seen Samurai Jack? :smallwink: I would happily agree that magic is more powerful, the spells more impressive and the optimization all the more unstoppable; however if you take the time to sit down and create a solidly awesome melee fighter who can hold his own with a moderately optimized wizard in a straight up fight ( maybe lightning mace style, whirlwind attack, and a bastard sword enchanted with the aptitude (perhaps with the extended critical feat) you have a quite fast and deadly build (in theory I must say, never tried this one out, and I am new to the whole game of optimizing) yes it burns feats, but a fighter doesn't exactly lack them.
TL;DR is that if you take the time you can make some interesting and fun characters as warrior types that a magic user will never use, and the chance to roleplay more interesting people (like a fighter who thinks all casting is based of some kind elaborate slight of hand tricks, or heck a rogue who pretends to be a wizard through slight of hand (and a lot of alchemy)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Just to see how badly I can break the game without spells.

There was that exploding dice build... mostly used Warblade as an excuse to get into Bloodstorm Blade, and a couple levels into Hulking Hurler. Basically, he threw a rock. At everything within range. And generally killed them all. The cheese build involved venerable dragonwrought kobold for early Epic feat access so his range was 'line of sight'. All opponents in line of sight drop in the first round.

Rocks fall, everyone dies.

[shortround]

The druid I'm playing right now is pretty fun, but even when I go out of my way to not play effectively, I still contribute more than all of the martials on my team and that just feels goofy to me. I understand why that's appealing, but I guess I just like saying "I full-attack it" more.

[Jon_Dahl]

Fighter is my favourite class and it's simply because it's so appealing to defeat things in a raw, manual manner and being able to take lots of punishment. It's much more personal and gritty than hiding behind spells.

Wizards and all other types do not inspire in the same way as fighter.

[JennTora]

I dream of worlds of magic every day and have always wished they could be real. Not for power or wealth, but simply because I find magic to be beautiful, even the parts of it that are arguably hideous. How could I ever play as someone with no magic at all?

But the vanilla fighter doesn't strike me as Beowulf anyway, He's more Jackie Chan outside his movies.

[BWR]

Because it's fun.

[Warlawk]

Considering all the options available to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder, and keeping in mind that these are games about magic (the wearing and wielding of items, and using magical abilities from race/class/items, and facing magical foes and magical locations), why would anyone volunteer to not have something like magic?

Because I enjoy the RP of someone who can do amazing things without the crutch of magic.

Also, because I've been gaming for 25+ years starting with redbox basic D&D. I play with a pretty low optimization group and I don't want to break the game.

[Krazzman]

Low Optimization in the group and a problem with casters?

I tend to like Melee or Rogueish characters. Yes I am playing a Sorcerer at level 11 in one campaign but
a) this is PF which makes this something totally different as I actuall yhave quite many spells
b) experience. Being "new" to magic as wanted isn't really possible and I have to say I don't see it being worldbreakingly
c) THe Barbarian and Paladin are more effective thorugh us 3 casters but would still be quite effective without us.

While yes, the barbarian would've most likely died without me DDing us away from harm or the Clerics healing... and would do a lot less damage without my haste... the main contribution comes from her.

Additional: IN our 3.5 games we start at level 1. Every time. My group is really low op. In the Totemist Campaign one plays a Dwarf Fighter with Power Attack, Weapon Focus and Cleave. Not even one single ACF. Despite UA, Dungeonscape and so on available (sadly no RoS).
The Cleric is going for Blasting things with fire. Although she asked me to help her be effective... I doubt I did a really good job. But so far she is able to convert her spells into Charm Person or Burning hands. At will (at the cost of a Turn Undead or Turn Elemental) and next level will be able to hurl little balls of fire across the battlefield all day long.

If I play a Fighter I would look into a really good trick to make him effective or would go Gishing directly. I actually hate prepared Casting too so this is quite problematic as I dislike the 3.5 Sorcerer after playing a Pathfinder one.

It comes all down to group dynamic.

[Endarire]

While typing the original post, I figured (and the posters here in general agree) that the most resounding answer is, "I want to." A character is usually a projection of your ideal self, and people play games because they want to. Even if it defies logic, people still have emotional attachments to who and what they want to be.

One reason magic appealed to me so is the brutality of the system and my expected apathy of the GM. I truly expected I would live and die by my wits and rolls, meaning I wanted every advantage. That, to me, meant Wizardry. Besides Wizards (and magic) being cool, 'survival of the fittest via magic' also heavily influenced the way I handled the system.

[hymer]

A character is usually a projection of your ideal self

"But Mom, I can't come down to dinner right now. Someone on the internet is wrong!"

[Zombimode]

A character is usually a projection of your ideal self, and people play games because they want to. Even if it defies logic, people still have emotional attachments to who and what they want to be.

"No, Sir, thats not condescending in the slightest."

[danzibr]

Having a gigantic sword gets you lots of style points.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/275/d/7/gigantic_sword_____by_missnellie-d5gncr1.jpg

[Arkusus]

Tier 1 classes are prettymuch the top magic classes. Tier 2 classes are the slightly less awesome magic classes. Tier 3 is where all the other 'not-stupid' magic classes go. Tier 3 is also the tier where the 'super-effective' fighter classes go. (like Warblade)

So basically, from a optimized build standpoint, a well built martial class (I'm not getting into super-multi-dip building for sanity's sake) will be as good as run of the mill (but well built) magic class.


Why would you pick a melee class over a clearly superior class?

Like half the posts before me have said, "Because it's fun".


Don't get me wrong, I totally get the appeal of shooting a fireball into a crowd of monsters, or turning myself into a 12 headed hydra, or using Magic Jar to possess the most powerful monster in the group.

But, some people just like making their half-giant with monkey-grip, ambidexterity, and exotic weapon feats dual wield their two Huge category bastard swords, and chop up the bad guys. Maybe it's not the best way to do it, but man can it be therapeutic.

[Amphetryon]

1) Because it fits the Character concept in my* head.

2) Because I want to play a Character who is good at something I am not, and while I may be bookish, and/or have common sense, and/or be persuasive, I'm not particularly strong or adept at physical combat.

3) Because I find the melee (or ranged) combat system more rewarding than casting a bunch of SoD/S's and hoping that the enemy doesn't save and cause my spells to go for naught, or casting BFC and letting someone else clean up the mess, or buffing some other PC or summons that goes to hit the thing.

4) Because ignoring the Psychic Warrior, the Warblade, the Crusader, and the Hexblade/Duskblade for the purposes of this discussion feels disingenuous.

5) Because your reasons for playing D&D, and the environment in which you play, are not my reasons or environment.

*Use of first-person pronouns throughout this post applies to anyone who wishes to play the Fighter archetype.

[White_Drake]

Robert E. Howard

[Kalmageddon]

Flavour is the only reason.
And this is exactly why I dislike 3.x/Pathfinder style of magic.
To me it can only work if either it's restricted in a low-magic setting or it has some Lovecraftian-like sanity loss mechanic or, on the opposite side, if magic is an everyday thing like in Eberron, where literally everyone can have access to magic, therefore making it more like technology and thus more easy to counter.

In my opinion magic should be something almost useless in combat, with long, ritual-like casting times that allows you to curse someone, divine the future, resurrect deads and other cool stuff without making more traditional ways of solving problems obsolete.

[Runestar]

Fighter types are actually pretty good at dealing damage. There's something very fun about being able to just wade up to someone and whack the crap out of things. :smallamused:

[DigoDragon]

When I run campaigns, the party is often beset by very long and complex dungeons. Running out of spells is quite common for the spellcasters and setting up camp in the dark recesses of the labyrinth is not unheard of.
Thus, my party sees benefit in at least some fighter-type training for survival (even at higher levels).

At least, that's how I see it.

I think the players just enjoy smashing my BBEG's skull in with a warhammer. Fun! :smallbiggrin:
Particularly for my wife. She's VERY good at optimizing fighters to dish out tons of damage and still survive against high-level spells.

[Gigas Breaker]

It's because I'm a man's man. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Hunter Noventa]

Having a gigantic sword gets you lots of style points.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/275/d/7/gigantic_sword_____by_missnellie-d5gncr1.jpg

Why does that pirate have the Zankantou?

Regarding the topic at hand, sometimes being able to charge in, blades whirling, is a lot more satisfying than casting spells.

How 'fun' it is to be the fighter depends on your group. If you're in a group full of Heavy Optimizers, you might want to avoid it, but in a group of medium optimizers, you can do what you want more effectively.

my group runs the gamut of course, so the level of optimization is usually determined by the campaign. Like the first Pathfinder campaign we had, my fighter was the most intimidating person in the world by the end of it, because she was a sixteen-year old girl who stood up to the Dragon Emperor (who was both a dragon, and an emperor) and helped kick his ass, among other things.

It's all about how you and your group play the game.

[joca4christ]

Robert E. Howard

This. Above all else, this. I mean, come on! What nerd/geek/fantasy lover doesn't secretly desire to be Conan the Barbarian?

[Eldariel]

On a conceptual level, it's much more badass to be a mundane badass in a world of magic than the other way around. It's more challenging. People have these reality-warping powers and you play the guy who's still good/smart/badass enough to match any of the mages across adventuring while also able to beat them to bloody pulp. Sure, his talents are different but when it comes to combat or skills, he can always pull his weight.

This is why I started off with Fighter-types in most D&D-systems (until I noticed many people shared this idea and switched to the easymode Wizards instead). After my introduction to fantasy through books I always figured magic is just overpowering and seeing non-caster classes who are supposedly equal to mages made me really happy in-so-far as to the idea of both casters and non-casters being useful in spite of the natural edge casters have in terms of things they can do (made up for by non-casters competence on their chosen field of ability). So that's why I want to play one. The ideal is a human warrior who's resourceful and skilled enough to not need magic (aside from one-two magic items, the necessary evil; but they can be crafted by master smiths so mages are not needed).


Also, with how I was introduced to D&D in particular, I learned magic is always unreliable. Wild magic, dead magic, there are places in the world that interfere with how magic works. This is a natural "now is your turn to shine"-moment where magi have to make do with their martial abilities or unreliable magic while relying on warriors to do the brunt of the work. I've always found it fairly logical; after all, magic is something that can be turned off or simply not exist in some places. This increases the value of mundane prowess. Casters have to play around it while mundanes can go through it.

In short, the second big reason is that I expect mundane power to be more reliable than magical power and less likely to be corrupted/stolen/lost/inaccessible. That's why I expect to play the Fighter when everyone else plays the Mages (in practice it seems to be the opposite; I encounter less people wanting to play Mages than Fighters so I end up playing Mages).

[Telonius]

Sometimes people like playing the Badass Normal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal). (Warning: TVTropes link).

[Blackhawk748]

There is something to be said about the joy of just beating a monster repeatedly with your weapon. On another note, being a Ranger (i tend to play mine without spells, yes i know im crazy :smallbiggrin:) is freakin awesome, running across rooftops shooting people, riding your giant wolf into battle, you just feel like a complete badass.

[Shining Wrath]

Why play a fighter type? Because.
Because Aragorn son of Arathorn.
Because Conan.
Because Fafhrd.
Because Galahad and Lancelot.

Those who understand need no further explanation, and for those who don't, none will suffice.


Why!? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. THAT IS GOOD!

Also this. Except it's not GOOD, it is The Best Thing in Life.

Oh, and after looking at the Badass Normal page: Because Samwise Gamgee is the greatest hero in all fantasy literature, and second place doesn't deserve a mention.

[IronFist]

Sometimes people like playing the Badass Normal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal). (Warning: TVTropes link).

WHY DID YOU LINK?!

There goes my morning!

[Kudaku]

If you're in a street race you're going to want a sports car.
If you're in the woods you're going to want an ATV.
If you're on the golf course then you're going to want a cart.

There's a game and a time for any class. The tricky part is to figure out what game calls for what class before the game begins.

[FullStop]

Because then you're Batman. Who doesn't want to be Batman?

[Norin]

If you're in a street race you're going to want a sports car to be a tier 1 caster.
If you're in the woods you're going to want an ATV to be a tier 1 caster.
If you're on the golf course then you're going to want a cart to be a tier 1 caster.

There's a game and a time for any class. The tricky part is to figure out what game calls for what class before the game begins.

I fixed that for you. Tier 1 casters can do whatever they want in any kind of situations. True story. There is no room for fighters in D&D.

:smalltongue:

[cerin616]

honestly, e6 is the way to go if you want to have balanced melee and magic in the same game. It lets the fighter feel big and strong and manly (or the warblade like a straight up sword god) while the mage has about the same depending on what he focuses in. The rogue still is important as a skill monkey (if you actually want to be sneaky) and as a party face.

Once you get into the high level play, wizards are the best of the best, and are most likely to get your party killed b ecause every encounter needs to be something to "challenge the wizard" so for the fighters to be good, the person playing the mage has to agree to tone it down a level, and play "fair"

[Psyren]

As others have said, because I feel like it. Sometimes I don't want to do all the talking or figure out the runes or prepare spells every morning or worry over the ones I selected. Sometimes I just want to smash face.

And when you're introducing a new or inexperienced player to tabletop, Fighter lets you skip an entire chapter of rules they don't need to know right away.

[Gigas Breaker]

I just love Tome of Battle so much. I don't think I'll ever get bored with it.

[Delwugor]

I fixed that for you. Tier 1 casters can do whatever they want in any kind of situations. True story. There is no room for fighters in D&D.

:smalltongue:

My namesake had this discussion with your Tier 1 caster. I'm sorry but you need a new character for the next session.

[Morty]

I've come to a conclusion that magic, in itself, is boring. You wave your hand, say a few funny words and bam! Magic happens. It's just something magicians do. But when a magic-less person wrestles a giant and comes out victorious... it's not something magic-less people are supposed to be able to do. So it's much more impressive.

[Eldariel]

honestly, e6 is the way to go if you want to have balanced melee and magic in the same game. It lets the fighter feel big and strong and manly (or the warblade like a straight up sword god) while the mage has about the same depending on what he focuses in. The rogue still is important as a skill monkey (if you actually want to be sneaky) and as a party face.

Once you get into the high level play, wizards are the best of the best, and are most likely to get your party killed b ecause every encounter needs to be something to "challenge the wizard" so for the fighters to be good, the person playing the mage has to agree to tone it down a level, and play "fair"

E6 is an artificial, gutted system that cuts away most of the game. While it certainly has its place, I don't think it's an acceptable "fix" for melee/caster discrepancy as much as good for players who like low level play. I prefer having martials capable of contributing on higher levels too.

Of course, I have to unfortunately optimize quite a bit and bring the whole christmas tree to even play the same game as a Wizard who isn't really trying, which is certainly a flaw in the system. But I firmly believe E6 doesn't work as a catchall answer; for one, I hate low level play and level 6 only begins to be acceptable. I like my PRC capstones and infinite level ceiling, thank you very much.

That's not to say I don't play E6 but there's time and place for it and having it as the be-all end-all answer for mundanes isn't acceptable IMHO.

[Psyren]

I just love Tome of Battle so much. I don't think I'll ever get bored with it.

FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!

[cerin616]

E6 is an artificial, gutted system that cuts away most of the game. While it certainly has its place, I don't think it's an acceptable "fix" for melee/caster discrepancy as much as good for players who like low level play. I prefer having martials capable of contributing on higher levels too.

Of course, I have to unfortunately optimize quite a bit and bring the whole christmas tree to even play the same game as a Wizard who isn't really trying, which is certainly a flaw in the system. But I firmly believe E6 doesn't work as a catchall answer; for one, I hate low level play and level 6 only begins to be acceptable. I like my PRC capstones and infinite level ceiling, thank you very much.

That's not to say I don't play E6 but there's time and place for it and having it as the be-all end-all answer for mundanes isn't acceptable IMHO.

Im not saying that it is a catchall answer, and half of the time I would prefer playing a level 20 warblade with a level 20 wizard and just get outshined half the time.
Im just saying that, in e6, things are generally more balanced as the power levels start to be similar. I would never say, as a DM, or even as a player, to force it onto other players because someone wants it more "balanced"

[DeltaEmil]

The reason why I like to play fighter types instead of spellcasters in D&D 3.x (not that I want to play it any longer) is because D&D 3.x's spellcasting system is a bug, not a feature.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Why does that pirate have the Zankantou?

Well, a ship-cleaving sword would be just as useful to a pirate as it is to a giant robot pilot.

Also on topic: giant ship-cleaving swords.

More actually on topic, the OP's argument seems to be that he views D&D as a competition that he has to play to win and use every advantage thereunto. It saddens me deeply when people think this, even though that's kind of how the game got started. It's just so much more fun when you all, players and DMs, work together to have fun instead of screwing each other over in a contest for more treasure (besides, there's a whole line of card games for that...)

[ArqArturo]

Having a gigantic sword gets you lots of style points.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/275/d/7/gigantic_sword_____by_missnellie-d5gncr1.jpg

Not enough Dakka.


actually[/I] on topic, the OP's argument seems to be that he views D&D as a competition that he has to play to win and use every advantage thereunto. It saddens me deeply when people think this, even though that's kind of how the game got started. It's just so much more fun when you all, players and DMs, work together to have fun instead of screwing each other over in a contest for more treasure (besides, there's a whole line of card games for that...)

Card games like Munchkin, which are essentially that.

[FullStop]

Well, a ship-cleaving sword would be just as useful to a pirate as it is to a giant robot pilot.

Also on topic: giant ship-cleaving swords.

More actually on topic, the OP's argument seems to be that he views D&D as a competition that he has to play to win and use every advantage thereunto. It saddens me deeply when people think this, even though that's kind of how the game got started. It's just so much more fun when you all, players and DMs, work together to have fun instead of screwing each other over in a contest for more treasure (besides, there's a whole line of card games for that...)
Our table seems to compete more on who can pull the most cinematically ridiculous bullproduct. As a party, in the middle of a war, we hijacked an egyptian superweapon-vessel-flying barge. Because it was a sweeter ride than our current flying ship.

[JennTora]

Fleshing out what I wrote last night: I also like being able to alter the world and shape the future in a game. Wizards just have more power to do that. I've heard that that sort of worldshapin was the design goal of Gramarie as well, but I haven't had the chance to try Gramarie...

Anyway there's nothing wrong with wanting to be Beowulf Hercules Gilgamesh Conan XXII instead of Merlin Gandalf Dumbledore Sparrowhawk XXXIII. It's just my personal preference.

[Dimers]

While typing the original post, I figured (and the posters here in general agree) that the most resounding answer is, "I want to."

I was trying to explain WHY people "want to". There's a real-world emotional response -- meaning actual electrochemical changes in the brain of the person playing -- that comes with imagining various events. Different imagined events provoke good responses in different people, and certainly this applies to magic as well. But because people have bodies, living in and interacting with a physical world, it's quite common to get a strong emotional response from imagining physical, bodily things.


A character is usually a projection of your ideal self ...

Oh, god, I hope not! That would mean my ideal is functional but deeply flawed. :smalltongue:

[Hunter Noventa]

Not enough Dakka.

Sanger Zonvolt has no need for Dakka. (http://youtu.be/kGpmEO60wWU?t=2m39s)

And Munchkin is tons of fun. Where else can you have a Bananaphana-bobaser-maser-laser? But competition is the point of those games. it's not the point of D+D, unless you're explicitly doing that sort of campaign.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I actually wonder if Endarire's impression of D&D was colored by the central conceit of this and many other optimization-centric D&D boards, which is "Wizard/Cleric/Druid power is maximum, there is nothing they can't do (if played with unlimited metagame knowledge and at level 20), therefore there is no reason to play anything else". I mean, if all you care about is your imaginary characters' ability to effortlessly deal with any problem, why not just write fanfiction?

[Eldariel]

I actually wonder if Endarire's impression of D&D was colored by the central conceit of this and many other optimization-centric D&D boards, which is "Wizard/Cleric/Druid power is maximum, there is nothing they can't do (if played with unlimited metagame knowledge and at level 20), therefore there is no reason to play anything else". I mean, if all you care about is your imaginary characters' ability to effortlessly deal with any problem, why not just write fanfiction?

How does this add up? How does "Wizard CoDZilla being the strongest" imply "There's no reason to play anything else"? How does the statement imply only caring about fictional character's ability to deal with any problem? Also, isn't fanfiction writing about characters with easy access to solving every problem bad fan fiction to start with? What exactly is this conceit, and how does it differ from reality? How does a Wizard CoDzilla require metagame knowledge to play on a high power level? Aren't these classes among the best-equipped to acquire knowledge in-game with in-class Knowledge-skills, Divination-spells and good mental stats, and consequentally benefit the least of metagame knowledge to start with? What kind of metagame knowledge are we talking about here? Also, isn't it fairly rare to talk about classes' abilities on level 20?

This post seems to me like it's laden with hidden opinions; could you open up your mind here a bit? I'd imagine a paragraph's worth of explanation on every concept used here would enable me to understand your viewpoint.

[Frozen_Feet]

A character is usually a projection of your ideal self, and people play games because they want to.

Not actually true in my experience. The most common character, especially encountered with new and young players, is essentially a sociopathic murderhobo. This is more a result of these players lacking empathy towards fictional characters. Videogame cruelty, where the player destroys and tortures everything in sight, is another example of this phenomenom. You could say it's wish-fulfillment, but its nature is different from what you claim. The player might aim for an idealized portrayal, but actually just ends up playing themselves with all caring and social contracts nulled.

More sophisticated "ideal selves" are actually pretty rare. And then there are people like me, who make a point to play themselves and exaggerate our flaws, which is essentially the opposite.

But to answer the actual question: because I wanted to play a knight, pirate or cowboy, rather than necromancer, priest or superman. Or, because I hate the way magic is portrayed in a system/setting. :smalltongue:

Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of magic as a GM tool, but for player characters, those confronting the oddity, I prefer "mundane" characters. Because it creates contrast and allows for better immersion. My experience, and experience of most people, is in the realm of mundane, after all. As a logical end-result, we play mundane people much more convincingly than superhumans.

[Norin]

For me it's a matter of what class is most versatile and has the most options. Both in and out of combat, even during downtime.

Not necessarily a question of raw power.

A mundane fighter just comes up short in every way.

Incidentally most casters has versatility and a horde of options in most situations. Of course the raw power is a bonus, but not a requirement.

Even a none optimized skill monkey offers more versatilty and fun options even without the power.

Hitting things hard over and over through session after session just get old really fast.

[Nerd-o-rama]

How does this add up?

I don't always split up quotes, but when I do, it's because every sentence is a question and most of them are non-rhetorical.


How does "Wizard CoDZilla being the strongest" imply "There's no reason to play anything else"?

Well, other than the OP, there's a distinct level of conceit throughout internet D&D fandom that "anything your CharOp can do, mine can do better". A lot of people (usually the ones who actually come up with CharOp builds in the first place) don't actually take this seriously, but a lot more do. I can't name names partly due to forum rules and partly due to trying to ignore this segment of D&D culture, but even just the general zeitgeist of the 3.5 forum here is "if you play someone below Tier 3, you are playing the game suboptimally and therefore wrong." I'm surprised there are as many responses in this thread disagreeing with the OP as there are, actually, and I may have misjudged this forum as a whole due to a few loud, popular Theoretical Optimizers.


How does the statement imply only caring about fictional character's ability to deal with any problem? Also, isn't fanfiction writing about characters with easy access to solving every problem bad fan fiction to start with?

The fanfiction bit was tongue-in-cheek and a nod to the fact that pretty much 90% all fanfiction that isn't just porn seems to be about either an author insert or a canon character being *~SO MUCH COOLER~* than every other character/the original author, and how they can beat the problems they're presented with *~SO EFFORTLESSLY~*. This is how I read a lot of Wizard optimization/fanboying on the internet as well. "Haha, you have to actually deal hitpoint damage? My level 20 Wizard can just have his invincible Astral Projection kill it with no save or attack roll thanks to splatbook spell X and feat chain Y. Or just cast Wish if he feels lazy."


What exactly is this conceit, and how does it differ from reality? How does a Wizard CoDzilla require metagame knowledge to play on a high power level? Aren't these classes among the best-equipped to acquire knowledge in-game with in-class Knowledge-skills, Divination-spells and good mental stats, and consequentally benefit the least of metagame knowledge to start with? What kind of metagame knowledge are we talking about here?

The entire assumption of the "Batman Wizard" - as exaggerated throughout the internet - is that you always prepare the perfect divinations to focus on the most imminent threat at all times and, even though you're spending so many slots per day on that plus protection spells to render yourself untouchable, you always have enough spells left over to effortlessly annihilate anything else (including GM-controlled wizards and their arbitrarily large amounts of resources, somehow), probably by chain-Gating Solars. Because your Wizard has 30 Intelligence and is therefore Just That Damn Smart.


Also, isn't it fairly rare to talk about classes' abilities on level 20?

What forums do you visit?


This post seems to me like it's laden with hidden opinions; could you open up your mind here a bit? I'd imagine a paragraph's worth of explanation on every concept used here would enable me to understand your viewpoint.

tl;dr I'm getting really tired of Wizard players/theoretical optimizers acting like they and their characters are invincible, untouchable badasses that need fear nothing except maybe an unlucky caster level check vs. another identically-built Wizard (which they already scryed three years ago and killed/Dominated before they became a threat. Because 30 Int lets you do that). The OP of this thread seemed symptomatic of that kind of thinking - specifically of the thinking that "that's how you're supposed to play D&D - and got my back up as I felt condescended toward.

[Blackhawk748]

My solution to an annoying/overpowered character is, ironically, not a mage at all, unless you count Assassins as mages. Basically i level the assassin to the same level as who he is going to kill, and then have him snipe the target with his upgraded Sniper Crossbow. Does he kill the target? not usually. Did i want him to? No. Killing them solves nothing, almost killing them with a single shot knocks them off their "i-am-all-powerful-and-all-should-bow-to-me' pedestal. I think i may have actually shaken one guy to his core when i did this to his perma-buffed- Psion, except that time i was a player and getting sick of him effortlessly killing everything and then expecting us to kill the boss at the dungeon end without him. All i need to say is that poison is greatly underestimated.

[Norin]

This thread also reminds me of a thread I made not too long after first started reading this forum:

Why play anything else? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267020)

[Nerd-o-rama]

My solution to an annoying/overpowered character is, ironically, not a mage at all, unless you count Assassins as mages. Basically i level the assassin to the same level as who he is going to kill, and then have him snipe the target with his upgraded Sniper Crossbow. Does he kill the target? not usually. Did i want him to? No. Killing them solves nothing, almost killing them with a single shot knocks them off their "i-am-all-powerful-and-all-should-bow-to-me' pedestal. I think i may have actually shaken one guy to his core when i did this to his perma-buffed- Psion, except that time i was a player and getting sick of him effortlessly killing everything and then expecting us to kill the boss at the dungeon end without him. All i need to say is that poison is greatly underestimated.

Eh, the problem with hitting Tier 1 casters isn't their AC (or making them blow fort saves to the poison or death attack or whatever), it's getting through their miss chance and spell-based DR (or for 17+ Wizards, finding them instead of just dealing with their Astral Projection). I'm guessing that assassin invested in pierce magical concealment, a Greater Dispelling weapon, and some kind of exotic bolts, though, so good on him.


This thread also reminds me of a thread I made not too long after first started reading this forum:

Why play anything else? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267020)

This is exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about.

[Blackhawk748]

Eh, the problem with hitting Tier 1 casters isn't their AC (or making them blow fort saves to the poison or death attack or whatever), it's getting through their miss chance and spell-based DR (or for 17+ Wizards, finding them instead of just dealing with their Astral Projection). I'm guessing that assassin invested in pierce magical concealment, a Greater Dispelling weapon, and some kind of exotic bolts, though, so good on him.

Oh he was pretty badass, i actually use him as the model for any Assassin my parties run into as he was pretty good at killing mages. his gear was something like this: True Seeing Goggles, Sniper Shot Bracers, Splitting Distance Snipers Reapeating Crossbow, a necklace that had a continuous version of the spell that lets him Death Attack at any range, Shadow Walkers boots (lets me use the Shadow Dancer shadow walk for like 300 ft per day) and a Cloak of Shadows (total Concealment in any shadows) and an earring that let him speak telepathically to his party. Also he used a lot of Black Lotus Extract. Oh boy was he fun, and my party loved having a sniper pick off the bruiser in the opening round.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Sniping with the equivalent of a fully automatic weapon? That's some Simo Hayha **** right there.

Too bad it kind of requires a questionable custeom item, but as someone who's trying to play an Avenger right now, I definitely understand why...

[dascarletm]

It's like when I play any of the elder scrolls games (though the power of magic vs not is vastly different than DnD). Even if a mage was more powerful then ye old sword and board I'd still sword and board. When I defeat a dragon, or the legions of Oblivion ect. It is way cooler to just be a dude with a sword then some guy who did it with magic. (IMO of course).

[Blackhawk748]

Sniping with the equivalent of a fully automatic weapon? That's some Simo Hayha **** right there.

Too bad it kind of requires a questionable custeom item, but as someone who's trying to play an Avenger right now, I definitely understand why...

Its questionable-ish i mean a Sniper's Crossbow is just designed to shoot farther than other crossbows and repeating ones are designed to.... well repeat. My Dm agreed that i could have it for like 100gp more than the more expensive one, and i had to make it myself, i didnt mind though as i made it collapsible. Oh it also effectively had an infinite clip. there is crossbow in AeG that allows you to store bolts in an extra-dimensional space and it will just load them for you. I didnt put any different ones in there i just stuffed it full of mundane bolts, it cost me a pretty penny but never needing to reload a lever action (yes mine was a lever action) sniper crossbow was just to cool.

Oh and dont worry everybody else had something about as awesome. Except the Evoker, he was happy just cackling madly and blowing things up. He was a fun guy.

[Shining Wrath]

I fixed that for you. Tier 1 casters can do whatever they want in any kind of situations. True story. There is no room for fighters in D&D.

:smalltongue:

Anti-magic field + grappling monster.

[Xervous]

Having played oblivion and dark souls extensively, I just feel the need to pop in here to clarify a thing or two...

In dark souls, magic is (typically) a binary thing. Either the opponent dodges it or they don't, with the emphasis here being that the mage's opponent has to do all the work once the spell is coming out. Many players regard such mages as lazy players (at best). Now take a look at how magic in DnD is implemented: Wizard casts a spell, then his victims roll dice and announce their fate. With the dice literally being out of the wizard's hands (and often behind the DM's screen), the player may feel less invested in the outcome than say a warrior who is mercilessly pounding someone with his sword and rolling all the dice in plain view of EVERYONE.

Ironically, magic in oblivion exhibits many features that magic in DnD does. Blasting tends to fall off later in the game unless you invest heavily into optimization (oblivion: custom spells.). Combat bypass spells are simply more effective overall, and immunities are often a deciding factor in lategame fights, and custom magic items are silly. But as mentioned before, magic is more "out of your hands" (or staff, or wand) than, say, a sword that you happen to be gleefully cutting bandits to ribbons with.


Feckles... (not a typo), I can never conclude my thoughts properly.

[Norin]

Anti-magic field + grappling monster.

Initiate of mystra, etc.

You knowing was just being silly though?

[Eldariel]

Well, other than the OP, there's a distinct level of conceit throughout internet D&D fandom that "anything your CharOp can do, mine can do better". A lot of people (usually the ones who actually come up with CharOp builds in the first place) don't actually take this seriously, but a lot more do. I can't name names partly due to forum rules and partly due to trying to ignore this segment of D&D culture, but even just the general zeitgeist of the 3.5 forum here is "if you play someone below Tier 3, you are playing the game suboptimally and therefore wrong." I'm surprised there are as many responses in this thread disagreeing with the OP as there are, actually, and I may have misjudged this forum as a whole due to a few loud, popular Theoretical Optimizers.

I think this has to be a misunderstanding on the grand level. People who talk about TO talk about TO and that's it. There are very few individuals who suggest that Tier 1 games are the only way. Indeed, most optimizers I've heard of prefer Tier 3-4 for most games; outliers always exist but they seem fairly rare on this topic.

Most of the time when optimized Level 20 Wizards come up, at least from what I've read (mind, I might be just as biased as you are, or even more so, and thus blocking out stuff as noise), it's as an answer to a question or in one of those "Are Tier 1s really Tier 1s"/"Level 20 Wizards vs. X!"/"How to deal with XYZ?" threads where the OP itself brings the level 20 Wizard with heavy optimization into the thread and the rest is just discussion treating said topic.


The fanfiction bit was tongue-in-cheek and a nod to the fact that pretty much 90% all fanfiction that isn't just porn seems to be about either an author insert or a canon character being *~SO MUCH COOLER~* than every other character/the original author, and how they can beat the problems they're presented with *~SO EFFORTLESSLY~*. This is how I read a lot of Wizard optimization/fanboying on the internet as well. "Haha, you have to actually deal hitpoint damage? My level 20 Wizard can just have his invincible Astral Projection kill it with no save or attack roll thanks to splatbook spell X and feat chain Y. Or just cast Wish if he feels lazy."

Ah. I usually read such posts as simple explanations into why level 20 Wizards are considered ridiculous and why whatever plan brought up to kill one is usually insufficient or just bad (since the "Wizard-killer" thread happens like once a week, usually by posters who don't even know the difficulties related to said Wizards should there be any in the campaign world). Not necessarily even as suggestions that the DM should include level 20 casters in the world but just as the hypothetical as to what flaws Wizard Killing Plan Y has if it's supposed to target high level casters.


The entire assumption of the "Batman Wizard" - as exaggerated throughout the internet - is that you always prepare the perfect divinations to focus on the most imminent threat at all times and, even though you're spending so many slots per day on that plus protection spells to render yourself untouchable, you always have enough spells left over to effortlessly annihilate anything else (including GM-controlled wizards and their arbitrarily large amounts of resources, somehow), probably by chain-Gating Solars. Because your Wizard has 30 Intelligence and is therefore Just That Damn Smart.

This has to be misuse of terminology. "Batman Wizard" is just a Wizard with a good generalized spell list and special tools depending on what you know you'll face (Logic Ninja specifically blacklisted spells he considered cheesy, like Polymorphs and Planar Bindings); the whole "Divine the whole future with Spontaneous Divination and Contact Other Plane every day and prepare for those threats" has really very little to do with it.

I'm playing a simple Batman Wizard in PF Society and doing very well for myself; the moniker simply refers to the way you pick your spells (mostly general purpose to be able to drop powerful effects regardless of what you face, with few slots for specialized to effects). He's currently level 3 Elf Conjurer with just Glitterdust/Web/Glitterdust/Color Spray/Grease/Enlarge Person/Charm Person/Mage Armor setup (cantrips are Detect Magic, Daze, Prestidigitation and Resistance) and I've yet to see an encounter over 7 scenarios where he wouldn't have a huge contribution to make, and I've yet to be out of spells (once I used all though). And the level 2 spell selection is such 'cause he hadn't had time to scribe any others yet.

That would be a Batman. I do not think your complaints were aimed at such. But yeah, high optimization Wizards are a different matter.


What forums do you visit?

I'll admit I haven't recently read this forum that much but at least about a year ago when I was more active, it was rare enough for high level casters to even be brought up unless the OP specifically asks about them.


tl;dr I'm getting really tired of Wizard players/theoretical optimizers acting like they and their characters are invincible, untouchable badasses that need fear nothing except maybe an unlucky caster level check vs. another identically-built Wizard (which they already scryed three years ago and killed/Dominated before they became a threat. Because 30 Int lets you do that). The OP of this thread seemed symptomatic of that kind of thinking - specifically of the thinking that "that's how you're supposed to play D&D - and got my back up as I felt condescended toward.

But isn't that basically the truth in high optimization games? I mean, I've run those occasionally and if you play a level 20 game pulling all the stops, only Dragons, strong Outsiders, Liches & similar powerful Undead, high-level Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid casters & Deities can truly kill each other specifically due to all the spells you listed.

If all that's game, well, the number of ridiculous spells makes it very hard for someone who can't Plane Shift, Teleport, Wish, Gate and Contingency to do much. If we remove Chain-Gating from the equation (since let's face it, PCs have no chance if every NPC has infinite wishes way before they're even born) by DM fiat of some kind (let's say "Gated creatures cannot be compelled to use abilities that would cost XP or GP as spells" or "Gated creatures have no obligations to the caster"), well, not much changes.

I mean, it doesn't really look pretentious to me; it's one way to play and without houserules, it's how high optimization high level games go. It's not the only way to play, certainly, but if you truly want high level and high power, you've got your Tier 1 casters.

In short, I don't think it's an act. It's a viable way of playing the game, and something DMs have to keep in mind or houserule/gentleman's agreement out when talking about near-epic games. It's a bit unclear to me what your frustration is actually aimed at; the rules or the players?

[JaronK]

At least for my part, I find playing Tier 1s to just be too easy at higher levels. I've had multiple DMs tell me they wanted me to make a really powerful character for their game... and within about 8 sessions they say they're burnt out because they can't even figure out how to challenge that character. It's just not as much fun.

So instead I often play something mundane, which lets the DMs tell the stories they wanted to tell. My current character is a super dwarfy dwarf... a Dwarf Fighter 1/Dwarf Paragon 3/Crusader 2 who wields a Dwarf War Axe and Heavy Shield. This character is for a game that replaced the one where I was a Binder 1/Archivist 3/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Anima Mage 8, which was just too strong for the game.

Remember, the point of the game isn't to win. The point is to be part of a fun story and to have creative input into that story. Lord of the Rings would have been a really terrible story if Gandalf had cast Disjunction on the ring and just walked away.

JaronK

[Xervous]

Remember, the point of the game isn't to win. The point is to be part of a fun story and to have creative input into that story. Lord of the Rings would have been a really terrible story if Gandalf had cast Disjunction on the ring and just walked away.

JaronK

Ironically, even if disjoining such an artifact had wiped out Gandalf's casting, it would mean jack if he got on the boat in Grey Havens (which is just as likely).

[Gettles]

I just wish that they would have allowed fighters of a certain level (lets say 10) to simply cut loose and drop any attempt at being "realistic." At level 20 the response to "the wizard is a dragon flying out of the range of your sword" shouldn't be "get a bow and arrow and hope to get over his DR." It should be either "jump up and chokeslam him down to Earth" or "throw a house at him"

[dascarletm]

I just wish that they would have allowed fighters of a certain level (lets say 10) to simply cut loose and drop any attempt at being "realistic." At level 20 the response to "the wizard is a dragon flying out of the range of your sword" shouldn't be "get a bow and arrow and hope to get over his DR." It should be either "jump up and chokeslam him down to Earth" or "throw a house at him"

yes. "Oh you magic'd into a dragon? Doesn't matter eat FIST! nerd..."
:smalltongue:

[Norin]

This is where tob comes into the equation? :smallredface:

[Dimers]

Most of the time when optimized Level 20 Wizards come up, at least from what I've read (mind, I might be just as biased as you are, or even more so, and thus blocking out stuff as noise), it's as an answer to a question or in one of those "Are Tier 1s really Tier 1s"/"Level 20 Wizards vs. X!"/"How to deal with XYZ?" threads where the OP itself brings the level 20 Wizard with heavy optimization into the thread and the rest is just discussion treating said topic.

It's not just Nerd-o-rama's view. This forum really does say "Just do [Tier1 thing]" a lot and really does frequently bring up 20-level builds whenever someone hasn't specified a lower level (occasionally even when they HAVE). I've gotten used to it and don't notice anymore, but now that it's brought to my attention ... yeah.

[JaronK]

It's not just Nerd-o-rama's view. This forum really does say "Just do [Tier1 thing]" a lot and really does frequently bring up 20-level builds whenever someone hasn't specified a lower level (occasionally even when they HAVE). I've gotten used to it and don't notice anymore, but now that it's brought to my attention ... yeah.

Note that a 20 level build is exactly the appropriate and correct thing when someone hasn't specified a level, because you can readjust any such build down to the level someone wants.

If I give you a 20 level build and you wanted level 10, just look at the build and pick 10 levels from it. If I gave you a 10th level build and you wanted 20, I have given incomplete information.

JaronK

[Eldariel]

It's not just Nerd-o-rama's view. This forum really does say "Just do [Tier1 thing]" a lot and really does frequently bring up 20-level builds whenever someone hasn't specified a lower level (occasionally even when they HAVE). I've gotten used to it and don't notice anymore, but now that it's brought to my attention ... yeah.

Are you sure that's the idea behind the 20-level builds? I always post 20 level builds whenever someone asks for a build simply because they can take whatever level they're playing on and pick it up from there; the game has 20 levels covered by the normal rules so providing a build applicable for any level is the easiest solution.

After all, just because the build has 20 levels doesn't mean you need to be level 20 to play it. Most builds function just fine from 1 to 20, though some of course better than others.

EDIT: Shoulda guessed someone would beat me to it.

[XionUnborn01]

My two favorite classes are easily fighter and cleric, and i've run a high level game with them multiclassed.

that being said, I've always felt like magic is basically 'easy mode'

want to damage that guy? okay, stand 100 feet away and shoot this ball of light.
want to attack that flying demon? okay, stand here and shoot this ball of light or just use this magic to become better than a fighter and fly up there.
want to screw up your dm's storyline and make the npc a slave? sure just cast this spell.

I would rather have to work for a victory than look at some spell that someone else thought of and just spam that until i win. mundane fighting uses a lot more tactics than magic because you have to actually move around to fight effectively instead of having 100ft+ ranges with your magic.

[Psyren]

I just wish that they would have allowed fighters of a certain level (lets say 10) to simply cut loose and drop any attempt at being "realistic." At level 20 the response to "the wizard is a dragon flying out of the range of your sword" shouldn't be "get a bow and arrow and hope to get over his DR." It should be either "jump up and chokeslam him down to Earth" or "throw a house at him"

Ironically, a Fighter 20 can do both of these things :smalltongue:



The entire assumption of the "Batman Wizard" - as exaggerated throughout the internet - is that you always prepare the perfect divinations to focus on the most imminent threat at all times and, even though you're spending so many slots per day on that plus protection spells to render yourself untouchable, you always have enough spells left over to effortlessly annihilate anything else (including GM-controlled wizards and their arbitrarily large amounts of resources, somehow), probably by chain-Gating Solars. Because your Wizard has 30 Intelligence and is therefore Just That Damn Smart.

I sympathize, and this is the kind of thing that just never happens at real gaming tables. "I can use CoP to perfectly prepare my spell list" or "I'll just make Easy Bake Wizard" is a pretty big red flag that you're better off just not playing with that person.

Everyone has a line they'll draw; I would wager nobody would play a game with Pun-Pun, because it would be pointless. Find out where your limit is and set it.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I sympathize, and this is the kind of thing that just never happens at real gaming tables.

Which is actually why it makes me so mad to read it so often on the internet instead of practical optimization (which is there, and usually well-documented in Handbook-style posts, but comparatively rare).


Are you sure that's the idea behind the 20-level builds? I always post 20 level builds whenever someone asks for a build simply because they can take whatever level they're playing on and pick it up from there; the game has 20 levels covered by the normal rules so providing a build applicable for any level is the easiest solution.

After all, just because the build has 20 levels doesn't mean you need to be level 20 to play it. Most builds function just fine from 1 to 20, though some of course better than others.

EDIT: Shoulda guessed someone would beat me to it.

Maybe your builds are better, but the functional majority of what I read in any kind of CharOp discussion is functionally useless at lower levels because it relies on multiclass and feat chain combos that take 10-15 levels to set up. This is less true of pure wizards, though if you start a game at level 1, you're going to spend at least one fifth of your career hiding behind "useless" tier 3-5 meatshields. Or the Druid and his animal companion. Effing Druids.

As for your earlier responses that I'm too lazy to multiquote...I get it. Yeah, no one really plays like this, I just get disgusted with the attitude in online discussions, hand-in-hand with the "RAW only, Death of the DM" shtick that makes unstoppable uberwizards seem feasible. I'm also well aware that it's an abuse of the term "Batman Wizard" in the same way that "Batman can beat anyone with preparation" is an abuse of the actual character of Batman (to say nothing of "Batman can breathe in space"). And...well, this is honestly just me blowing up about something that's been bothering me for a while among D&D fans on the internet, is what I'm trying to come out and admit.

That, and high optimization games are silly and boring from anything but a "holy crap look what I can abuse game rules to do today" sort of morbid curiosity. But that's just like, my opinion man.

[Gigas Breaker]

I always plan out twenty levels for my characters. However, whether the campaign starts at level one or six or ten will change how I build significantly.

[Eldariel]

Maybe your builds are better, but the functional majority of what I read in any kind of CharOp discussion is functionally useless at lower levels because it relies on multiclass and feat chain combos that take 10-15 levels to set up. This is less true of pure wizards, though if you start a game at level 1, you're going to spend at least one fifth of your career hiding behind "useless" tier 3-5 meatshields. Or the Druid and his animal companion. Effing Druids.

As for your earlier responses that I'm too lazy to multiquote...I get it. Yeah, no one really plays like this, I just get disgusted with the attitude in online discussions, hand-in-hand with the "RAW only, Death of the DM" shtick that makes unstoppable uberwizards seem feasible. I'm also well aware that it's an abuse of the term "Batman Wizard" in the same way that "Batman can beat anyone with preparation" is an abuse of the actual character of Batman (to say nothing of "Batman can breathe in space"). And...well, this is honestly just me blowing up about something that's been bothering me for a while among D&D fans on the internet, is what I'm trying to come out and admit.

That, and high optimization games are silly and boring from anything but a "holy crap look what I can abuse game rules to do today" sort of morbid curiosity. But that's just like, my opinion man.

I've played and DMed high optimization games. They can be a lot of fun if players know what they're doing. It's simply a paradigm shift, as always, and requires everyone (though of course, most of the burden is on the DM) to be on board and willing to put enough time into it. Hell, some games were organized on the old 339 (and BrilliantGameologists) with everyone free to let loose and play everything they want to. Turns out when every character in the game world plays on that level, the game still functions just fine and challenges are as challenging as ever, just even more-so since enemies are very, very hard to kill in any kind of a permanent fashion and there are lots of powerful beings in the world.

I'm just trying to suggest some tolerance here. Some people play in one way, others in others. That's fine, isn't it? Some players play games where a single turn can take 30 minutes and fights are over in 1-2 rounds with nobody dying on either side, well, isn't that their choice (that would be my standard description of a high optimization high level game if players aren't superexperienced)? The games are different and divination tag, creative ways to overcome various protections and so on are the baseline for getting things done (of course, things vary greatly between various builds; Dweomerkeeper and Erudite function on completely different paradigms here). The PbP on Minmaxboards has a lot of high powered games and people certainly seem to be enjoying themselves there. Nobody else loses anything and the players and the DM are probably enjoying it if they're doing it.

When clashes occur, the participants can talk it out and figure what kind of a game they want to play. That should be fine too. I've played games predominantly on each tier level; from tier 1 to tier 6. I couldn't pick a favorite. They're all different but tasty in their own way. Problems occur when the game isn't done properly; when the DM can't run a game on that level or players have different expectations or whatever. I don't really see a problem here, at all.

[Daruwind]

Well, Im missing here one good reason for playing non-god-like-classes. Good tactician/party leader/whatever can make great use of every resource available to him. And makes good optimalization too. Having four archmages is great unless somebody brings up antimagic field or something like four enemy archmages plus one epic warrior. Because magic is all-mighty, yet it´s true even for defeating our brave adventurers. You see, you could be the biggest mage in history, but if you are after defeating legions of demons, gods and dragons without spell and there are one more doors between your life and death, then you are done. It doesn´t matter how much divination,scrying... you have. Somebody might have more. :smallamused:

Surely more casters = more firepower, surely classes are not balanced... but who cares? This game is about fun. If you try to run a race in arming,then you will lost as DM can twist rules, build pun-puns quicker,better and you know DM has all the voodoo at his side..oh magic. :)


I've played and DMed high optimization games. They can be a lot of fun if players know what they're doing. It's simply a paradigm shift, as always, and requires everyone (though of course, most of the burden is on the DM) to be on board and willing to put enough time into it. Hell, some games were organized on the old 339 (and BrilliantGameologists) with everyone free to let loose and play everything they want to. Turns out when every character in the game world plays on that level, the game still functions just fine and challenges are as challenging as ever, just even more-so since enemies are very, very hard to kill in any kind of a permanent fashion and there are lots of powerful beings in the world.

I'm just trying to suggest some tolerance here. Some people play in one way, others in others. That's fine, isn't it? Some players play games where a single turn can take 30 minutes and fights are over in 1-2 rounds with nobody dying on either side, well, isn't that their choice (that would be my standard description of a high optimization high level game if players aren't superexperienced)? The games are different and divination tag, creative ways to overcome various protections and so on are the baseline for getting things done (of course, things vary greatly between various builds; Dweomerkeeper and Erudite function on completely different paradigms here). The PbP on Minmaxboards has a lot of high powered games and people certainly seem to be enjoying themselves there. Nobody else loses anything and the players and the DM are probably enjoying it if they're doing it.

When clashes occur, the participants can talk it out and figure what kind of a game they want to play. That should be fine too. I've played games predominantly on each tier level; from tier 1 to tier 6. I couldn't pick a favorite. They're all different but tasty in their own way. Problems occur when the game isn't done properly; when the DM can't run a game on that level or players have different expectations or whatever. I don't really see a problem here, at all.

Exactly as Eldariel is saying. :smalltongue:

[JennTora]

Remember, the point of the game isn't to win. The point is to be part of a fun story and to have creative input into that story. Lord of the Rings would have been a really terrible story if Gandalf had cast Disjunction on the ring and just walked away.

JaronK

I doubt disjunction would even work on the one ring. It had so much of Sauron's life force in it that it would be like disjoining a god.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Some very good points.

The even shorter version is I'm just tired of being talked down to for wanting to play a Paladin or a Knight or a Duskblade or whatever. It's not exactly eating away at my soul or anything, but I wanted to speak out about it instead of just ignoring the Roleplaying Games section for once. I've said my piece on the matter and am absolutely willing to agree to disagree; given that I just want people to stop picking on my own preferred style of play, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't.

[Dimers]

Note that a 20 level build is exactly the appropriate and correct thing when someone hasn't specified a level, because you can readjust any such build down to the level someone wants.

What would be even more appropriate and correct is asking what level the person has in mind. Providing specifically for an actual need is more work, yes, not something one can do in a few seconds, and perhaps it's asking too much of Random Strangers On The Internet to provide that. But if I answer a question at all, I'm going to answer it as well as I can for the situation.

Regardless, seeing lots of level 20 builds in response to a nonspecific question can give someone the impression that the respondants think only in extreme and/or power-oriented ways. -- EDIT: thus the concept that they emphasize Tier 1 and magic and winning D&D.

[killem2]

Because a good dm won't punish someone for taking a class, and will adjust encounters so that everyone feels like they are contributing.

Shazzam! :smallsmile: Correct-a-mundo!

[JaronK]

What would be even more appropriate and correct is asking what level the person has in mind.

When people ask for a 10th level build, I find that's exactly what they get. When they don't state a level, we give them a more general answer. That's reasonable.

It seems to me the problem is the person who's asking the question and not specifying all the information.


Regardless, seeing lots of level 20 builds in response to a nonspecific question can give someone the impression that the respondants think only in extreme and/or power-oriented ways. -- EDIT: thus the concept that they emphasize Tier 1 and magic and winning D&D.

That makes absolutely no sense. If I provide a 20th level build for a two weapon fighting Fighter, am I giving the impression that I think only in extreme power oriented ways? Am I emphasizing tier 1?

Here, check out my awesome endorsement of Tier 1 and magic and winning!

Dwarven Fighter 20
Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Dwarven War Axe), Improved Initiative, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, Monkey Grip, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Critical (Dwarven War Axe), Weapon Specialization (Dwarven War Axe), Slashing Weapon Mastery, Weapon Supremacy (Dwarven War Axe).

He fights with two Dwarven War Axes. And they're really big. Sweet.

JaronK

[Shining Wrath]

How does this add up? How does "Wizard CoDZilla being the strongest" imply "There's no reason to play anything else"? How does the statement imply only caring about fictional character's ability to deal with any problem? Also, isn't fanfiction writing about characters with easy access to solving every problem bad fan fiction to start with? What exactly is this conceit, and how does it differ from reality? How does a Wizard CoDzilla require metagame knowledge to play on a high power level? Aren't these classes among the best-equipped to acquire knowledge in-game with in-class Knowledge-skills, Divination-spells and good mental stats, and consequentally benefit the least of metagame knowledge to start with? What kind of metagame knowledge are we talking about here? Also, isn't it fairly rare to talk about classes' abilities on level 20?

This post seems to me like it's laden with hidden opinions; could you open up your mind here a bit? I'd imagine a paragraph's worth of explanation on every concept used here would enable me to understand your viewpoint.

And that's the ultimate fallacy of "Tier 1 >> greater than Tier 3". Divination. If you are up against intelligent, level appropriate foes, they know about divination, they can do their own divination, and they can attempt to block or even feed bad information to your divination.

Tell me WizCodZilla has to choose a good, solid set of spells and then walk into the dungeon without knowing EXACTLY what's in there, and having meat shields / rogues along with you becomes much more attractive.

Why wouldn't an elder wyrm be able to defeat the divinations of a mere mortal, given genius intellect and vast power and decades / centuries to prepare?

Why wouldn't the evil emperor of Evilemp be able to use the vast wealth extracted from his suffering peasants to hire 7x24 casters blocking divination?

Once you say divination is fallible, Tier 1 is still > Tier 3, but not so much so that the Tier 3 guys are useless.


I doubt disjunction would even work on the one ring. It had so much of Sauron's life force in it that it would be like disjoining a god.

OK, so Gandalf uses divination, finds Chuck Norris, and has Chuck round-kick the One Ring into Mount Doom with 100% accuracy. Which is pretty much what the Tier I guys would do; they'd use their fancy divination and figure out how to reach Mt. Doom without being noticed (Greater Invisibility + Teleport) and just drop it in.

Which is why any DM worth his salt ensures that by the time WizCodZilla is level 20 every foe they face takes measures to defeat divination. Otherwise the stories are BORING.


Initiate of mystra, etc.

You knowing was just being silly though?

I DID notice the blue.

[Eldariel]

The even shorter version is I'm just tired of being talked down to for wanting to play a Paladin or a Knight or a Duskblade or whatever. It's not exactly eating away at my soul or anything, but I wanted to speak out about it instead of just ignoring the Roleplaying Games section for once. I've said my piece on the matter and am absolutely willing to agree to disagree; given that I just want people to stop picking on my own preferred style of play, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't.

Fair enough. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any playstyle I've encountered thus far, as long as all participants are on the same page as to what they're doing. IMHO the forum functions quite well as long as the OP is clear on what they're doing but again, I'm no god so I can't monitor every post.


And that's the ultimate fallacy of "Tier 1 >> greater than Tier 3". Divination. If you are up against intelligent, level appropriate foes, they know about divination, they can do their own divination, and they can attempt to block or even feed bad information to your divination.

Tell me WizCodZilla has to choose a good, solid set of spells and then walk into the dungeon without knowing EXACTLY what's in there, and having meat shields / rogues along with you becomes much more attractive.

Why wouldn't an elder wyrm be able to defeat the divinations of a mere mortal, given genius intellect and vast power and decades / centuries to prepare?

Why wouldn't the evil emperor of Evilemp be able to use the vast wealth extracted from his suffering peasants to hire 7x24 casters blocking divination?

Once you say divination is fallible, Tier 1 is still > Tier 3, but not so much so that the Tier 3 guys are useless.

Of course Divination is fallible. Hell, most divination-spells have a built-in fail chance of some kind. However, a person with Divination still has more information than one without; it's a tool those who can't speak with deities don't have. You don't have perfect information (though Contact Other Plane is very hard to defend against; if you can overcome its inner uncertainty, it's a very strong tool even against hard-to-divine targets) but you've got good information, if you have the time and the resources.

That's not always the case; you don't always know what you're looking for, you don't always have the time/slots to divine, you don't always get reliable answers, etc. However, sometimes you do get what you want and then you're more informed. When you don't, you're still fine.

Like I mentioned earlier, I've played 7 essentially random scenarios of PF Society with a level 1-3 Wizard and never had any trouble contributing in any encounter ranging from having to escort a sleepwalker who falls to chasms and stuff (was keeping a Scroll of Featherfalling in my hands during that quest) to persuading a defector to rejoin the organization (Charm Person certainly helped) and fighting everything from Archers to Wizards to Maguses to Lemures to Zombie Dragons, Elementals, Swarms, you name it. It's not that hard to prepare spells that guarantee you'll be extremely useful throughout against basically anything, and open slots/pearls of power/wands/scrolls close out the circle.

This doesn't require a single Divination and it's not rocket science. Also, spells that create underlings allow you to have a walking army by midlevels if you're a Wizard (Animate Dead, Dominate, Simulacrum, Planar Binding just to name a few). Which is kinda stupid-strong far as adventuring party goes.

And of course allies are always useful; you'd just rather have a bunch of Druids/Clerics than Fighters/Rogues most of the time, if you think purely about the power. Of course, party is party and game is game; it's just easier to run if everyone has a similar level of ability so everyone can play the same game.


OK, so Gandalf uses divination, finds Chuck Norris, and has Chuck round-kick the One Ring into Mount Doom with 100% accuracy. Which is pretty much what the Tier I guys would do; they'd use their fancy divination and figure out how to reach Mt. Doom without being noticed (Greater Invisibility + Teleport) and just drop it in.

Which is why any DM worth his salt ensures that by the time WizCodZilla is level 20 every foe they face takes measures to defeat divination. Otherwise the stories are BORING.

Of course. But you can't defeat Divination entirely. And you shouldn't; that's not interesting, that's a waste of time. You can restrict it or misdirect it though. Bastion of the Broken Souls is a great example of this done sorta well (Vow of the Unborn keeps gods silent about the target so you can use them but in roundabout ways and at other stuff instead of the main prize).

Point being, scenarios where divination does nothing are very conceited. In high optimization games, party should be constantly under divinations too; same rules always go both ways and high optimization party is at much more risk than low optimization party. That's fine, that's what they chose when they chose to play a high optimization high level game.

But it's not a fallacy. There's nothing fallacious about the power of divination. It's a very real thing. It can and should be counteracted by powerful enemies but this doesn't disable it completely. Again, you can play with it or restrict it or remove it somehow; all of those are fine options. But it is a very real advantage Tier 1s have over their adversary; in effect a minigame most people don't even get to play (much like being the President in Battlestar: Galactica Boardgame and playing with the Quarum cards). You get more information that way and it's almost always advantageous to have more information over, y'know, not having said info.

Tier 1s definitely have the non-combat game on a whole different level from the other classes, which is one of the biggest reasons they're Tier 1 in the first place. They have superb minion creation, they have divination, they have transportation, etc. Don't underestimate its effect and remember it can benefit or hurt the whole party equally.

[Xervous]

I doubt disjunction would even work on the one ring. It had so much of Sauron's life force in it that it would be like disjoining a god.

If you want to get into technicalities, Sauron surely wasn't epic and the ring was most likely a pimped out item familiar or some good old soulbox sort o thing.

[Epiphanis]

Fighters give a party endurance. If you look at spells, expendables, and daily-use abilities as the fuel that keeps a party moving, fighters increase the party's fuel efficiency. Yes, they need healing and buffs, but fewer and further between than any other class. A cleric or druid with three or four buffs can do as well or better than a fighter without anything, but when they run out or are dispelled you are better off with a fighter. Ideally, the fighter allows the spellcasters to preserve their big gun spells for when they are really needed, but most DMs throw fewer more powerful encounters that don't sufficiently deplete the casters to allow the fighter to shine. The Fifteen Minute Workday makes the nonspellcasters seem less valuable than they really are if the default DM playstyle didn't favor the casters.

[JaronK]

Fighters give a party endurance. If you look at spells, expendables, and daily-use abilities as the fuel that keeps a party moving, fighters increase the party's fuel efficiency. Yes, they need healing and buffs, but fewer and further between than any other class.

Well, no. A Crusader can keep going without heals indefinitely. DMM Clerics can do so as well. So can Binders, Dread Necromancers, and a host of others.


A cleric or druid with three or four buffs can do as well or better than a fighter without anything, but when they run out or are dispelled you are better off with a fighter.

In low op games you're better off with the Druid's animal companion. I also find that a swarm of undead or similar is also better than many Fighters for a long haul... a single Necrosis Carnex will keep all your minions healed.

The last caster I played with only used about three spells per day, if that, beyond the 5 long duration buffs he used per day. And those were days full of encounters. But undead minions handled the grunt work, and ultra long duration buffs with really high caster levels ensured that he rarely needed to cast much. Of course, that character was dramatically overpowered.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Well, no. A Crusader can keep going without heals indefinitely. DMM Clerics can do so as well. So can Binders, Dread Necromancers, and a host of others.

No, he's right. The class that functions adequately without buffs (and furthermore, engages the foes so the casters have time to buff, if caught off guard) does increase efficiency.

As for your examples: Crusader and Binder healing are infinite, but (other than SoRV, a 9th-level strike) are weak and thus of limited use in a pitched battle. Having all the healing in the world doesn't matter if you can't outpace incoming damage with it. Crusader healing also relies on hitting. Dread Necro "healing" has very specific and unlikely requirements from the party, and similarly does not scale very well.

DMM clerics can and should be subject to regular dispel attempts by competent DMs.

[Epiphanis]

Animal companions only outperform at low levels, and people forget how limited control over them is... they are NPCs, even with Speak With Animals up you cant control them like they are your characters.

Half to all buffs disappear with dispels. If you were fool enough to Persistent Spell them a huge chunk of your power could disappear in your first encounter.

Summoned critters can be eliminated with shocking speed, and undead and dominated minions can turn from asset to liability in three rounds by an opponent who is prepared for them.

Fighters are reliable.

[Pigkappa]

why would anyone volunteer to not have something like magic?


In my case, because I am in a group with decently competent people and wanted to see if I could make a character as useful as their casters without magic.

This is why I'm playing a fighter now and the challenge is quite fun (I've had to do some math ending up with a Ranger/Barbarian/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter/ExoticWeaponMaster to keep up decently; there's only one cleric level and no focus on Cleric spells)

[Thrudd]

Well, Im missing here one good reason for playing non-god-like-classes. Good tactician/party leader/whatever can make great use of every resource available to him. And makes good optimalization too. Having four archmages is great unless somebody brings up antimagic field or something like four enemy archmages plus one epic warrior.

Here's the good reason: those four archmages had to start out as four 1st level wizards, and good luck surviving without any fighters helping you at first level ;). So for every 20th level archmage, there's a 20th level fighter who helped him or her get there (and is probably ruling a kingdom with an army to command).

[Dimers]

It seems to me the problem is the person who's asking the question and not specifying all the information.

Always an issue in situations where someone's asking for info or advice. I'm a librarian -- I know all too well. Reference librarians get training in how to get people to ask what they REALLY want to know.


If I provide a 20th level build for a two weapon fighting Fighter, am I giving the impression that I think only in extreme power oriented ways? Am I emphasizing tier 1?

Here, check out my awesome endorsement of Tier 1 and magic and winning!

Heh. :smallsmile: What I'm saying is that in a typical response on this forum -- let's say for a nonspecific post for a melee tank -- you'll see vastly more RKV warblade, Clericzilla, duskblade, King of Smack, spirit lion totem dips and so forth than you'll see "just playing a fighter is fine at any level" or specific fighter20 builds. If the OP doesn't come out and say "I'd like my build to suck," they get very high-powered suggestions. Even if they DO actively say "I'm in a low-op group" there are frequently responses that say "Just take the powerful build and don't use everything" and/or "ugh, why" (basically).

You, JaronK, seem to convey an awareness of differing goals quite well in your initial responses. This is not widely true on the forum IME. And you flavor your responses well, often putting them into tangible scenarios or settings and never just saying what abilities the build grants; that's even more rare here. Looking at the forum in general, there's a strong tendency to suggest MOAR POWR automatically, which, yes, can easily give the impression that the forum is powerhungry. And frequently the desire to build a better XYZ (e.g. one that functions in a way that supports the fluff and fulfills a party role, unlike mundane classes) is answered by using magic, even in service to a nonmagical concept.

Going back to Nerd-o-rama's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15782227#post15782227) that provoked Eldariel's response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15782775#post15782775) that provoked mine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15783022#post15783022), I'm supporting the position he put forth, in the same way he did -- namely, with the admission that it's rhetorically overstated. It's not true of every forum respondant and it's not true in the extreme of ANY forum respondant. But it's a general impression I get that is apparently shared by others.

[Blackhawk748]

I agree that Crusaders have "infinite" healing, and Dread Necros healing is great out of combat, but thats about it.

Are Fighters self sufficient? No. I do believe that there is a feat in which you can expend your Psi focus to heal a bit, and im pretty sure there is a feat that gives you one, so technically Fighters can pull this trick too, its just not very time efficient.

Another thing, my group tends to play around t 3-4, occasionally scraping the bottom of t2, and we finish combat faster than t1 groups. Im not 100% sure if this is true, but from what ive seen the average combat for a t 1 group is about 3-6 rounds. The average combat length for our group? About 1-3. We do almost entirely direct damage and very rarely buff ourselves before a fight, and as such our enemies dont either, it basically turns into a "High Noon" scenario. Id say our record for combat length was against a boss i created named Malakoth. He was a 8 headed hydra half farspawn lich cleric 5, he was a fusion of two bosses they had fought earlier in the campaign and as such had two standard actions a round, one only for casting and one for normal use. He wound up using all of his spells to heal himself just so he could keep trying to kill the party. The fight lasted around 10-12 rounds id say. Btw he was about a CR 16 or so and the party was lvl 9, he even had Displacement running and used Ethereal Jaunt to move around. (most of my bosses just try to out-nuke the party, they obviously lose but its a cinematic fight)

[molten_dragon]

Greetings, all!

Let's define the "Fighter" archetype here in the context of 3.x and Pathfinder. It's one that relies on physical prowess (STR, DEX, and CON mostly) with the occasional emphasis on mental abilities (knowledges, social grace). It is not one that relies on innate magic or magic-like abilities.

Considering all the options available to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder, and keeping in mind that these are games about magic (the wearing and wielding of items, and using magical abilities from race/class/items, and facing magical foes and magical locations), why would anyone volunteer to not have something like magic?

Most caster classes require a pretty hefty amount of bookkeeping to play well and not bog the game down. Sometimes I don't want to think that much. Sometimes I just want to hit stuff with a sword until it dies.

[JaronK]

No, he's right. The class that functions adequately without buffs (and furthermore, engages the foes so the casters have time to buff, if caught off guard) does increase efficiency.

But Fighters don't function adequately without buffs. So they don't fit the definition here.


As for your examples: Crusader and Binder healing are infinite, but (other than SoRV, a 9th-level strike) are weak and thus of limited use in a pitched battle.

But as downtime heals, they put you back to full. It's not in combat healing that matters (that's generally a poor idea unless, like the Crusader, you can also hurt people while you do it).


Having all the healing in the world doesn't matter if you can't outpace incoming damage with it. Crusader healing also relies on hitting.

If the Crusader's going down from damage, the Fighter's long since dead anyway. So that's hardly relevant.


Dread Necro "healing" has very specific and unlikely requirements from the party, and similarly does not scale very well.

Again, they have endless downtime healing, which is the point. They can also heal their own minions and use those in the role that the Fighter is being held up as a paragon of (namely, thing to delay the big guys). And those guys they have? They usually have WAY more hp and immunities than the Fighter.


DMM clerics can and should be subject to regular dispel attempts by competent DMs.

It gets very metagamey when that happens, and remember that dispels only succeed if the caster level check wins. If it doesn't it's a waste. The last caster I played (in a high op game) had a caster level of 21 at level 12, and that was with low wealth. And if it does land... hey, that could have been a Glitterdust or other devastating spell. Instead, it was a dispel. Plus, a simple Spellblade or similar trick can protect against such dispels with ease.

Trying to argue that the Fighter is somehow actually a powerful class, or even particularly useful at high levels compared to casters in a party, is basically a non starter unless sufficient DM fudging is fixing the problem. But that doesn't make the class pointless... it just means that at high levels, you mostly have to pick one or the other (high powered classes or lower ones) to avoid intraparty problems. Personally, I like the higher challenge of playing a weaker class, though Fighters in particular tend to bore me from a challenge point of view.

JaronK

[White_Drake]

Animal companions only outperform at low levels, and people forget how limited control over them is... they are NPCs, even with Speak With Animals up you cant control them like they are your characters.

Half to all buffs disappear with dispels. If you were fool enough to Persistent Spell them a huge chunk of your power could disappear in your first encounter.

Summoned critters can be eliminated with shocking speed, and undead and dominated minions can turn from asset to liability in three rounds by an opponent who is prepared for them.

Fighters are reliable.

Generally though, all you need to do is say "go kill that guy," and normal dog-trainers can do that just fine without druidic powers.

[137beth]

I doubt disjunction would even work on the one ring. It had so much of Sauron's life force in it that it would be like disjoining a god.

I'd assume it would follow the rules for Major Artifacts.

Now, whether or not a normal 9th level spell should be allowed to destroy artifacts is another matter entirely (I think it shouldn't).
But even if it can't...LotR is a very low-level world by D&D standards. I mean, a single 9th level wizard...or any wizard with a scroll, for that matter, could teleport themselves and Frodo straight to Mt. Doom. It wouldn't have as much control over Frodo as it did in the end, since he wouldn't have been wearing it for a long time, so he would have a much easier time dropping it in. Done.

[Epiphanis]

Generally though, all you need to do is say "go kill that guy," and normal dog-trainers can do that just fine without druidic powers.

Yes, that you can do. It's the trickier instructions that are hard but often fudged. Aminals am dumm.

[Norin]

Always an issue in situations where someone's asking for info or advice. I'm a librarian -- I know all too well. Reference librarians get training in how to get people to ask what they REALLY want to know.


"Hey, could you help me find a book about history please? Thanks."


You, JaronK, seem to convey an awareness of differing goals quite well in your initial responses. This is not widely true on the forum IME. And you flavor your responses well, often putting them into tangible scenarios or settings and never just saying what abilities the build grants; that's even more rare here. Looking at the forum in general, there's a strong tendency to suggest MOAR POWR automatically, which, yes, can easily give the impression that the forum is powerhungry. And frequently the desire to build a better XYZ (e.g. one that functions in a way that supports the fluff and fulfills a party role, unlike mundane classes) is answered by using magic, even in service to a nonmagical concept.


I think when people give advice on builds they tend to offer their opinion of a build or combo that they know is good. They do not want to downplay their advice to fit a possible lower op group. If they do, they look like they do not know what they are talking about among the big optimizers.

I catch myself doing the same thing. If i give advice on something that is not utterly optimized, i tend to excuse myself and say "It's not optimized, but it seems to work well with your character concept."

This is done to avoid endless replies asking why the advice was given when combo X, and loophole Y combined with shenanigan A and early entry 1 and 2 is THAT much better, and the advice i was giving was bad.

A recent thread comes to mind where some person wanted to play a certain type of character concept. Said person has a build of sorts in mind because it fits the fluff of the character. This person asked for further advice on what other things he/she could add to give the character even more toys that fit the theme well.

This person was hammered with replies along the lines of: "Why would you go for X, when Y is better in every way?" The thread starter tried to explain over and over that this was not a thread asking for how to be powerful, but kept being told how bad/suboptimal the build idea was and that he/she should rather do this and that.

The advice given was probably given with good intent, but it just baffled me to see how some people just ignored the intent of the thread and kept trying to optimize a build that was not in line with what the thread starter wanted to play at all. He/she just wanted more abilities/prc's that fit the character fluff.

...well that was a rather long rant. But i hope i got my point across. Not everyone wants to be optimized. Some people like to play with flavour and fluff rather than crunching numbers to rip the world apart. I hope there is room for such things on gitp among all the TO builds and crazy optimizing.

(I love some silly TO things now and then too, don't get me wrong. There is a time and place for all options.)

[JennTora]

I'd assume it would follow the rules for Major Artifacts.

Now, whether or not a normal 9th level spell should be allowed to destroy artifacts is another matter entirely (I think it shouldn't).
But even if it can't...LotR is a very low-level world by D&D standards. I mean, a single 9th level wizard...or any wizard with a scroll, for that matter, could teleport themselves and Frodo straight to Mt. Doom. It wouldn't have as much control over Frodo as it did in the end, since he wouldn't have been wearing it for a long time, so he would have a much easier time dropping it in. Done.

Don't think of the one ring like a normal d&d artifact. Take the Daedric artifacts from elder scrolls since I'm more familiar with them. Each daedric artifact has a measure of a daedric prince's power. A very small amount. Even if Sauron is only half as powerful as a Daedra Lord, he put nearly all of his power into the one ring, to the point that his body disappeared when it was seperated from him, that he died when it was destroyed. It's more an Avatar of Sauron in jewelry form than an artifact.

It also has plot armor.

Isn't there a pretty good risk of arriving somewhere else with a bunch of damage if you haven't been to your target place.

"Hey, this isn't mount doom. This is a giant spider's nest. Crap, run!!!"

Now a 15th level wizard with greater teleport, all i could say to that would be "One does simply teleport into mordor."

Now as to whether or not disjunction should work on artifacts, I would agree, if not for the fact of my friend telling me an awesome story about a campaign where a wizard stopped the BBEG ftom getting an artifact at the last second by disjoining it as BBEG tried to grab it. The wizard lost all his magic, but the day was saved.

[Psyren]

But Fighters don't function adequately without buffs. So they don't fit the definition here.

Not all buffs come from the casters; Some come from WBL. In fact, these are generally more effective since they must be dispelled one at a time, and can only be suppressed.



But as downtime heals, they put you back to full. It's not in combat healing that matters (that's generally a poor idea unless, like the Crusader, you can also hurt people while you do it).

Planning for in-combat healing is poor, but damage spikes, DM crits and bad saving throws do happen despite precautions. When they do, in-combat healing needs to be strong enough to negate them.



If the Crusader's going down from damage, the Fighter's long since dead anyway. So that's hardly relevant.

No one is saying the Fighter is equal to the Crusader. Epiphanis' point was that having a melee type extends the party's resources further than they would normally go, and your arguments regarding Crusader healing actually support that since he is, you know, a fighter type.



Again, they have endless downtime healing, which is the point. They can also heal their own minions and use those in the role that the Fighter is being held up as a paragon of (namely, thing to delay the big guys). And those guys they have? They usually have WAY more hp and immunities than the Fighter.

They have plenty of disadvantages too; for example, the fighter can act with total autonomy; a level 1 spell protects the Fighter from dominate, but minions can still be turned/rebuked; he isn't perma-staggered etc. A good DM will exploit these weaknesses (eventually) just like anyone who is faced with a powerful necromancer would.



It gets very metagamey when that happens,

Not really. If you persist a bunch of buffs every day, you're going to light up like a christmas tree to any baddie using arcane sight or similar. If that doesn't scream to the enemy spellcaster "dispel me!" then he's too stupid/genre blind for his job.



and remember that dispels only succeed if the caster level check wins. If it doesn't it's a waste. The last caster I played (in a high op game) had a caster level of 21 at level 12, and that was with low wealth.

Everything you can do to raise CL is available to the DM as well, and more besides. Again, it's your DM's job to challenge you.



And if it does land... hey, that could have been a Glitterdust or other devastating spell. Instead, it was a dispel. Plus, a simple Spellblade or similar trick can protect against such dispels with ease.

Spellblades themselves can be suppressed. They only protect the wielder, never themselves.



Trying to argue that the Fighter is somehow actually a powerful class,

No one is doing that :smallannoyed: don't be ridiculous. We're arguing that it, and classes of its archetype, have a place at the table.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The One Ring's pretty clearly a Major Artifact, and Gandalf is pretty clearly not a 17th-level Wizard or equivalent (if anything he's a disguised Planetar when you look at the lore). LotR, as much as it inspired D&D, doesn't map to it all that well, and you can only really look at how D&D models it, not the other way around: the One Ring pretty clearly helped inspire the Artifact and Intelligent Item rules, Gandalf helped inspire the original Magic-User rules, but Wizards have evolved from that original template several times over and gotten much more over-the-top at high levels.

I remember when stopping time was the most reliably impressive thing 9th-level spells did.


No one is doing that :smallannoyed: don't be ridiculous. We're arguing that it, and classes of its archetype, have a place at the table.

Precisely.

[Shining Wrath]

Fair enough. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any playstyle I've encountered thus far, as long as all participants are on the same page as to what they're doing. IMHO the forum functions quite well as long as the OP is clear on what they're doing but again, I'm no god so I can't monitor every post.



Of course Divination is fallible. Hell, most divination-spells have a built-in fail chance of some kind. However, a person with Divination still has more information than one without; it's a tool those who can't speak with deities don't have. You don't have perfect information (though Contact Other Plane is very hard to defend against; if you can overcome its inner uncertainty, it's a very strong tool even against hard-to-divine targets) but you've got good information, if you have the time and the resources.

That's not always the case; you don't always know what you're looking for, you don't always have the time/slots to divine, you don't always get reliable answers, etc. However, sometimes you do get what you want and then you're more informed. When you don't, you're still fine.

Like I mentioned earlier, I've played 7 essentially random scenarios of PF Society with a level 1-3 Wizard and never had any trouble contributing in any encounter ranging from having to escort a sleepwalker who falls to chasms and stuff (was keeping a Scroll of Featherfalling in my hands during that quest) to persuading a defector to rejoin the organization (Charm Person certainly helped) and fighting everything from Archers to Wizards to Maguses to Lemures to Zombie Dragons, Elementals, Swarms, you name it. It's not that hard to prepare spells that guarantee you'll be extremely useful throughout against basically anything, and open slots/pearls of power/wands/scrolls close out the circle.

This doesn't require a single Divination and it's not rocket science. Also, spells that create underlings allow you to have a walking army by midlevels if you're a Wizard (Animate Dead, Dominate, Simulacrum, Planar Binding just to name a few). Which is kinda stupid-strong far as adventuring party goes.

And of course allies are always useful; you'd just rather have a bunch of Druids/Clerics than Fighters/Rogues most of the time, if you think purely about the power. Of course, party is party and game is game; it's just easier to run if everyone has a similar level of ability so everyone can play the same game.



Of course. But you can't defeat Divination entirely. And you shouldn't; that's not interesting, that's a waste of time. You can restrict it or misdirect it though. Bastion of the Broken Souls is a great example of this done sorta well (Vow of the Unborn keeps gods silent about the target so you can use them but in roundabout ways and at other stuff instead of the main prize).

Point being, scenarios where divination does nothing are very conceited. In high optimization games, party should be constantly under divinations too; same rules always go both ways and high optimization party is at much more risk than low optimization party. That's fine, that's what they chose when they chose to play a high optimization high level game.

But it's not a fallacy. There's nothing fallacious about the power of divination. It's a very real thing. It can and should be counteracted by powerful enemies but this doesn't disable it completely. Again, you can play with it or restrict it or remove it somehow; all of those are fine options. But it is a very real advantage Tier 1s have over their adversary; in effect a minigame most people don't even get to play (much like being the President in Battlestar: Galactica Boardgame and playing with the Quarum cards). You get more information that way and it's almost always advantageous to have more information over, y'know, not having said info.

Tier 1s definitely have the non-combat game on a whole different level from the other classes, which is one of the biggest reasons they're Tier 1 in the first place. They have superb minion creation, they have divination, they have transportation, etc. Don't underestimate its effect and remember it can benefit or hurt the whole party equally.

OK, I have no argument with all that. My argument was with the idea that a Tier I character has no need for the rest of the party because whatever they can do, (s)he can do better. Always, every time, every dungeon. Because they know what's coming and so their spell load for the day is optimal and so every encounter is *solved* - not contributed to, but *solved* by one or two perfectly chosen spells.

If they know *some* of what's coming and their spell load is good-but-not-perfect, they are still far more flexible than a fighter. But the chances that in a given adventure they'll be very glad the fighter is with them go up quite a bit.

I don't disagree with the idea that magic is very flexible. I disagree with the idea that one person can have enough spells prepared to handle everything easily.

[Blackhawk748]

OK, I have no argument with all that. My argument was with the idea that a Tier I character has no need for the rest of the party because whatever they can do, (s)he can do better. Always, every time, every dungeon. Because they know what's coming and so their spell load for the day is optimal and so every encounter is *solved* - not contributed to, but *solved* by one or two perfectly chosen spells.

If they know *some* of what's coming and their spell load is good-but-not-perfect, they are still far more flexible than a fighter. But the chances that in a given adventure they'll be very glad the fighter is with them go up quite a bit.

I don't disagree with the idea that magic is very flexible. I disagree with the idea that one person can have enough spells prepared to handle everything easily.

This is why the fighter exists. Will he kill the Dragon at the end of the dungeon? No. Will he keep all the mooks away from the Mage so that the Mage can do it? Ya, thats his job.

I've honestly never understood how, even with perfect Divination, how a Wizard can just solo a dungeuon. He doesnt have enough spell slots, even less now because hes prbly tossed out 3-5 Divinations. I mean he only has so much firepower. Hell T1 mages use up more spells in an encounter that a T2 Sorcerer* I mean isnt the Wizard just one lousy Initiative roll away from getting ganked by a swarm of mooks? I mean even if the Fighter rolled bad on his Initiative he's still standing in between the Mooks and the Mage

*this is just based on what i've seen, as i've said before my party doesnt buff and we just get into a rocket tag fight with direct damage so our fights end anywhere from round 1 to round 3.

[Dimers]

Everything you can do to raise CL is available to the DM as well, and more besides. Again, it's your DM's job to challenge you.

Nitpick: He was talking about dispelling here, which has an absolute cap. Doesn't matter if the dispeller is 47 CL higher than you, if he's using regular or greater dispel magic.

[Norin]

Argh, I wanted to post a motivational poster here now... But I can not find it. :smallfrown:

It's a pic of a wizard casting a huge fire spell while an army watches.

Fighters -Because the wizard needs an audience when he's killing gods.

I found it fitting for the topic and where the discussion is going now. :smalltongue:

[Shining Wrath]

Argh, I wanted to post a motivational poster here now... But I can not find it. :smallfrown:

It's a pic of a wizard casting a huge fire spell while an army watches.

Fighters -Because the wizard needs an audience when he's killing gods.

I found it fitting for the topic and where the discussion is going now. :smalltongue:

Bad example. Gods have high spell resistance

[Blackhawk748]

Bad example. Gods have high spell resistance

Which is why Fighters kill gods :smallwink: lol

[Psyren]

Nitpick: He was talking about dispelling here, which has an absolute cap. Doesn't matter if the dispeller is 47 CL higher than you, if he's using regular or greater dispel magic.

If he's getting his CL to 40 or more then clearly we're at or near epic and I can pull out disjunctions. Which will naturally be used on the most brightly shining threat in the room.

[ericgrau]

I've played a lot of them and enjoy them. I usually pick up magic items for toys to play with. I might do things like tripping or some other shtick too.

[JaronK]

No one is doing that :smallannoyed: don't be ridiculous. We're arguing that it, and classes of its archetype, have a place at the table.

The initial assertion I was arguing against: "Fighters give a party endurance. If you look at spells, expendables, and daily-use abilities as the fuel that keeps a party moving, fighters increase the party's fuel efficiency. Yes, they need healing and buffs, but fewer and further between than any other class. A cleric or druid with three or four buffs can do as well or better than a fighter without anything, but when they run out or are dispelled you are better off with a fighter."

Claiming that you're "better off with a Fighter" as compared to a Druid or Cleric who lost three or four buffs due to duration or dispels is indeed trying to claim that Fighters are somehow actually stronger and improve "the party's fuel efficiency". They don't, and that's what I was stating. And note that's the class, not the archetype. Some classes really do improve long term party efficiency in games where you can't recharge much between fights... Crusaders (same archetype), Binders, Dread Necromancers, Druids, Clerics, Wizards, and so on can keep going all day long without support of once a day abilities (the latter two generally by using Animate Dead and similar spells that create long term options without need for more spells). Fighters don't do that. They spend resources very quickly, usually by losing HP and needing spell buffs to be truly effective. So that's what I was responding to.

With that said, the game was designed originally such that you would burn through your resources each day trying to fight. You're supposed to run low on hitpoints after a few encounters. You're supposed to have burned through your blast spells. Your Cleric is supposed to be down to the last few cures as you heroically pull out everything you have left to overcome that least even CR challenge of the day. And sometimes you can't do it, and you fail, and the character dies. The Monk, the Fighter, the Ninja, the Healer, the Warmage, the Barbarian... these are at the power level this game was designed for. So if you play with classes of that power level, you're playing the original game.

Turns out a lot of people prefer a higher power level than that. And it turns out a lot of the classes were made a lot more powerful than the designers ever realized... and people got used to the idea that your characters were supposed to survive through the entire campaign and pull off insane feats like destroying whole armies with ease. Many of those people can't imagine the grim, gritty, and yet comical original style of this game, where a single trap could kill off half the party and fighting an even CR challenge could be a real threat if you've fought a few battles today already.

JaronK

[Psyren]

A fighter is indeed a better fighter than an unbuffed cleric or wizard. (Druids are another matter, but their class is a clear design failure of 3.5 anyway.) The goal then for the DM, if he wants a fight to be challenging that is, is to counter and/or remove the impermanent buffs relied on by the cleric or wizard. Not only does this fit with the logic of the game (dispels harm buffed casters more than item-using fighters), it also fits with the logic of the universe the game is set in. (You save your dispels and counterspells for the magic user swathed in protections.) Even if you can't immediately recognize all the auras an individual has up, logically, he would not have those spells active if they weren't beneficial in some way.

But you can't dispel cover, nor can you target one character easily while his meatshield friend is barreling down your throat in melee range. By relying on the fighter, the casters make it much more difficult for their costly buffs to be targeted. And since there are plenty of other valuable buffs to persist besides the ones that let you usurp the melee's job, you're better off persisting those, resorting to melee only if circumstances go south and the primary melee goes down.

[ericgrau]

Ya foes should dispel.

It's also usually better to buff the full BAB and high hp guy. Even the personal buffs aren't often worth the round, and then only compensate for medium BAB. Not bonus feats, class features and so on. The hour/levels that affect anyone are better.

Persist does screw that up, but even then you only hit par or slightly above for the NPC warrior class. Even in high optimization, any shocktrooper or heck melee weapon mastery build comes out ahead. Full BAB + high hp + melee class features/feats still makes the best shell for your magical effects. And the best effects to persist are actually the multi-target auras.

The best spells in general tend to be the battlefield control ones where you divide the enemies and the damage dealers pick them off before they can escape. The best "Batman" caster is an overglorified support role for the beatsticks. He does have more fun options and utility, but the most optimal thing to do is to hand them off not hoard them or try to one up his allies. And then it's sunshine and rainbows and everyone can have fun with magic regardless of which class you think deserves more of the credit.

In practice my games are usually part way in between. When I'm a powerful caster everyone thinks I'm playing support, and since I really am I see no reason to argue using interwebz quotations and try to take extra credit. When I'm a fighter type I can only count on partial support because other people aren't me, but other casters don't try/know-how to fully dominate either. So I get some special magic items as a safety net. If I can beg for a few more buffs I do so.

[JaronK]

As an example, my last caster character was mostly running around with a pair of Skeletal Dire Bears (later he switched to a Skeletal Magebreed Dire Tiger and a Zombie Great Wyrm Red Dragon, but we'll leave that for later). His buff set included Extended Holy Defense (+10 Deflection Bonus to AC), Extended Greater Magic Weapon (on the bear claw), Extended Mule's Enlightenment (+6 will saves, gain one feat, +20 to one skill), and Extended Favorable Sacrifice (DR 20/Magic, Acid/Cold/Elec/Fire/Sonic Resist 20, SR 31). His persisted spells (extended) were Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Lesser Mass Vigor, Consumptive Field, and Delay Death.

This was an Archivist 3/Binder 1/Anima Mage 8/Tainted Sorcerer 1. Optimized, certainly, but only the Favorable Sacrifice spell is unusual as far as buffs go. Everything else could be done by any Cleric with DMM Persist.

Now, the bears do that whole "barreling down on the enemy so he can't hit you" thing. And if someone tries to dispel him? Well he has a caster level of 21. It's far better that they try to dispel him than that they just try to kill anyone else in the party, because someone who can successfully dispel (DC 32, so it requires Greater Dispel Magic just to have a chance, and they need a CL of 16 just to hit a quarter of those buffs) would annihilate the Fighter in one shot if they aimed in that direction with a similar spell (seriously, how many 12th level Fighters have you made that can handle a 6th level Sor/Wiz spell at CL 16+ with ease?). And what's worse... Greater Dispel Magic targeted on one caster, or CL 16 Disintegrate targeting any party member?

By relying on the undead, the caster gets the job done even better than normal... and if the meat shield undead goes down, just raise another one with Animate Dead. The whole idea that casters need meat shields other than the ones they can create just doesn't hold up. The idea that targeted dispels are some huge threat that's worse than simply being taken out by a save or suck

Let's face it, at high levels the Fighter isn't playing the same game as a T1 caster unless the T1 caster isn't putting in nearly as much effort.

So no, T1 casters at higher levels do not need a meat shield. But my point is that that's okay... the problem is just as much the silly caster who can do all that and thus be too strong for the story as it is the Fighter. And there's nothing wrong with a party choosing to play the game as it was originally designed, with lower power levels, more character death, and generally more challenge per fight against even CR enemies. It just means you should have any persistent buff casters running around with them, because god mode shouldn't be played along with regular mode.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Your entire scenario is a problem with the DM, not the system. 3rd-party spells. Taint. I'm guessing one of the reasons Binder is there is for Tenebrous' Rebuke, which requires a favorable ruling to use it with DMM at all.

It's no wonder at all you can squash the melee's role if the DM is asleep at the wheel.

[JaronK]

Your entire scenario is a problem with the DM, not the system. 3rd-party spells. Taint. I'm guessing one of the reasons Binder is there is for Tenebrous' Rebuke, which requires a favorable ruling to use it with DMM at all.

It's no wonder at all you can squash the melee's role if the DM is asleep at the wheel.

The third party spell (Mule's Enlightenment) actually does nothing for this scenario... the big one for tanking was Animate Dead. Binder is not there for Tenebrous Rebuke... it's Anima Mage that allows for the free Persistent spell (DMM doesn't work when you have only one rebuke per five rounds). DMM was not even being used with this character.

So no, there's no favorable ruling there, and the only thing Taint was doing for this scenario was allowing for castings of Favorable Sacrifice without cost. The overall scenario works just fine without any of that.

Here, the same character minus everything you just stated:

Binder 1/Archivist 3/Anima Mage 9. Still casts all the same spells except Mule's Enlightenment and Favorable Sacrifice. Does anything about that scenario now change significantly, or do a pair of Dire Bears do better than most Fighters? Is it still harder to dispel his buffs than to just kill one party member?

JaronK

[RustyArmor]

Some people just enjoy them, they kick butt in combat as much as some say they totally suck because wiz/clr get cheesy spells but it really depends on the player. I have DMed for players that take average fighter types that kick ass, and wizards that were diverse but not hair pulling so. Then I also DMed for fighters that can liquidfy a foe with so much damage per round my jaw drop and wizards with spell combos that made evil dudes that were feared in the land into helpless kittens. I have also played games where fighters took a back seat as wizards made foes helpless in 2-3 rounds, and also played games where fighters kicked so much butt that wizards sat down and had tea.

There will never be a winner in the "Mages are to god like whoa is me" vs. "Fighters are slaughtering machines that don't have spell limits". And no amount of arguing is going to change a persons opinion. It all really comes down to how your player base is.

[Auramis]

Picture inside that summarizes my feelings on spells and fighter types:
http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=846943&bbat=96752&inline

[Psyren]

What is the source on Favorable Sacrifice and Holy Defense?

I forget how many free persists AM gives you but once dispelled, they're done.

Those buffs do matter, because your caster level is dependent primarily on Consumptive Field, which itself depends on how many deaths it can fuel you with - unless your DM is letting you boil anthills, there should be plenty of opportunity to keep you from maxing it out prior to casting your other buffs.

As for the bears, dispelling them is much easier than dispelling the fighter, who is wearing magic items (must be dispelled individually, and only for 1d4 rounds each) and he is still pretty lethal even without them.

[Gettles]

This is why the fighter exists. Will he kill the Dragon at the end of the dungeon? No. Will he keep all the mooks away from the Mage so that the Mage can do it? Ya, thats his job.


That is a problem. This whole idea that the wizard is the important person who accomplishes things, and the fighter is just a bodyguard. The wizard's disposable henchman who dies so the real hero of the story can kill the boss.

The wizardhttp://www.toonopedia.com/drstrnge.jpg

The Fighterhttp://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz966nQXsd1qg7etho1_400.png

[Psyren]

This is why the fighter exists. Will he kill the Dragon at the end of the dungeon? No. Will he keep all the mooks away from the Mage so that the Mage can do it? Ya, thats his job.

It could (and arguably should) easily be the other way around. The Fighter kills the dragon, the wizard/cleric buff him up so he can do it.

PF has moved in this direction - nerfing Polymorph, nerfing Divine Power, nerfing CoDzilla etc.

[Auramis]

The Fighterhttp://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz966nQXsd1qg7etho1_400.png

Aww, sandbag. I miss him... I wonder where my Gamecube is...

[Auramis]

It could (and arguably should) easily be the other way around. The Fighter kills the dragon, the wizard/cleric buff him up so he can do it.

That's what my brother's using our wizard/druid/arcane heirophant for. Our "wizard" is a DMPC, so you can imagine how I, as the paladin type, feel when he does something amazing, but he only ever does something that's over the top when he feels he has to. Our wizard actually spends more time preparing buffing spells and the like so that we, the PCs, can shine.

Our wizard's the type of person who believes that the archtype wizard of know-it-alls in towers poisons the mind of wizards and makes them arrogant. He prefers teaching and acting as a voice of reason to encourage us forward instead.

[JaronK]

What is the source on Favorable Sacrifice and Holy Defense?

You seem to be missing the part where the tanking occurred regardless of the buffs, because the tanking was done by the animated undead. The only buff that mattered for tanking was the Greater Magic Weapon.

But I totally don't remember the source. Not that it matters, because neither of those have anything to do with the fact that it's Animate Dead giving you the tanking.


I forget how many free persists AM gives you but once dispelled, they're done.

Again, if an enemy is even capable of dispelling thus buffs, he could have killed you too. If you can trick the enemy into doing something as phenomenally stupid as casting Greater Dispel Magic instead of Disintegrate, then the buffs saved your life.


Those buffs do matter, because your caster level is dependent primarily on Consumptive Field, which itself depends on how many deaths it can fuel you with - unless your DM is letting you boil anthills, there should be plenty of opportunity to keep you from maxing it out prior to casting your other buffs.

They don't matter for purposes of tanking, while the role that Fighters were claimed to have was ability to get in the face of enemies so they don't kill the caster. And since Extended Persisted Consumptive Field lasts 48 hours, it's really not hard to get up to full power.


As for the bears, dispelling them is much easier than dispelling the fighter, who is wearing magic items (must be dispelled individually, and only for 1d4 rounds each) and he is still pretty lethal even without them.

The bears still delay you just fine if you try to dispel them. That was the point, right? To delay the enemy until the caster lands a kill shot? The fact that one of their claws now doesn't get +5 to hit and to damage is rather unimportant... why is this enemy caster using Greater Dispel Magic on the bear in the first place? Why isn't his just one shot killing the Fighter if he has enough power to do that? And do you really think the bears aren't lethal without that one buff?

Again: it's harder to dispel those buffs than to kill the person the buffs are on. If your enemy is wasting actions dispelling your buffs, you win.

And again, the Bears weren't even the nastiest thing that character raised. That honor goes to the Zombie Great Wyrm Red Dragon (also, he had Corpse Crafter, and raised it in a desecrated area next to an evil altar). I wasn't using that because the bears where what he used from level 7 to level 11, which was the majority of the time played... and because it's much easier to get dire bears than a dragon (which he, of course, took out with one shot, at level 12... damn casters).

JaronK

[Karnith]

But I totally don't remember the source.
Favorable Sacrifice is in the Miniature's Handbook and was reprinted in the Spell Compendium, though I can't place Holy Defense.

[Psyren]

Again, if an enemy is even capable of dispelling thus buffs, he could have killed you too. If you can trick the enemy into doing something as phenomenally stupid as casting Greater Dispel Magic instead of Disintegrate, then the buffs saved your life.

You can fight more than one enemy at a time in D&D. Just about every spellcaster in the game gets dispel; the bad guy's bard could dispel your pets. The same can't really be said for disintegrate. So stripping their buffs need not weaken the encounter at all.

Besides, even without dispel, there's still Command Undead or Rebuke to appropriate your pets, and suddenly they're a liability. Doing that to the Fighter is much harder; a level 1 spell can block it, or he can use a Spellblade, soulmeld etc.



They don't matter for purposes of tanking, while the role that Fighters were claimed to have was ability to get in the face of enemies so they don't kill the caster. And since Extended Persisted Consumptive Field lasts 48 hours, it's really not hard to get up to full power.

Again, the DM's role is to challenge you, and letting you power up your CL buff for two days straight unmolested (much less letting you keep it on even longer) strikes me as simply not caring about the balance of his game to begin with. And if the casters are effectively colluding with the DM, then of course the melee will be screwed over.

[JaronK]

Ah, Holy Defense is Kalamar. Feel free to drop that in favor of your favorite hour/lvl buff. But again, irrelevant to the fact that animated undead can just handle the "I get in the way" role when playing that way.

And again, the dragon that character was using by the end did the job WAY better than any normal Fighter of similar level.

None of this is to say you shouldn't play Fighters, but rather that they don't really have much of a place alongside Tier 1 casters played creatively and to full effect... which may mean it's the casters that should be dropped so you can play a more Lord of the Rings style game (as opposed to Green Lanterns style).

JaronK

[Jerthanis]

I would want to play a Fighter type to represent a character who grew up learning such skills, and not magical skills. Perhaps the child of a Paladin, trained from youth to fill their parents' shoes, only to fail to contain the moral fortitude.

I'd play a cleric to represent a character who is religious or philosophical, a Wizard to represent a character who is inquisitive and studious, and a rogue or the like to represent a character with a bad upbringing or special training in covert ops.

The fact that Magic is Just Better (TM) and is often just a lot more fun to play, as it has more options, is a problem in 3.5, but has never been such a problem for me that it's rendered the game inoperable.

[Incanur]

I can see that argument for an optimized melee character in an 3.5 D&D optimized party, but even then you're probably better off overall with a gish, melee cleric, or druid except in an antimagic field or at the lower levels. (By optimized melee, I mean something like barbarian 1-2/warblade x with pounce, whirling frenzy, and all that nonsense.) At the lower levels, you're generally better off with the druid. At high-end but not theoretical optimization, a dweomkeeper cleric significantly reduces the danger of dispels. Such a character might not do quite as much damage as a optmized melee - though they might, thanks to draconic polymorph and other broken spells - but they'll definitely have much better AC, saves, mobility, and versatility. Remember, while pure melees buff super well they don't contribute buffs of their own like casters do and they don't have as many tricks.

To respond to the broader question, the aesthetics of warrior character appeal to many over those of the mage or preist. Countless fantasy universes feature mighty heroes who triumph through strength and prowess. Despite the conceptual limitations of the warrior archetype compared with the wizard, it's not necessarily impossible to balance warriors and mages in gamist terms. I recommend one or more the following:

1. Great heroes have superhuman physical stats. Think Rama, Beowulf, Ariosto's Orlando, or Mugen and Jin. If you want warriors to compete with wizards who to can annihilate armies, human-level abilities usually aren't going to cut it. But see below. This principle creates a comic-book feel that some gamers dislike.

2. Casting spells requires concentration and leaves the mage vulnerable. Taken to extremes, this principle can allow earth-shaking casters who nonetheless need warriors to guard them.

3. Great heroes have awesome weapons and/or armor. In anime, for example, it's common to see bushi who can cut through damn near anything.

4. Maigic is unpredictable. Making casters less reliable increases the relative value of stalwart warriors who can consistently and quickly dispatch foes.

5. Heroes have skills. If magic provides lots of noncombat utility, martial characters need access to the same.

6. Heroes have indomitable will. No mage should expect to overpower a martial character's mind. See comics for endless examples of this.

7. Prowess means speed and precision. Warriors don't just deal out deadly blows and endure punishment, they dodge and defend themselves masterfully.

It's honestly hard make warriors as pathetic as the core 3.5 D&D fighter. As a minimum fix within the system logic, I'd gestalt the fighter and rogue, add a good will save, and higher base abilities. I don't care much for the aesthetics, but in gamist terms Tome of Battle does a decent job of addressing the fundamental weaknesses of the fighter.

[PersonMan]

Half to all buffs disappear with dispels.


If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.


For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.

Oh, what's that Mr Fighter? Your magic weapon is being dispelled? Have fun with your new nonmagical sword against DR 15/magic!

---

Yes, self buffers can get dispelled, but so can normal melee folks. If you're going to start Dispel Magic fights, don't forget that the ones without defenses against it (a large CL, for starters) will often greatly suffer from it as well.

In fact, since you need to get a +4 magic weapon to even get above the +10 cap for Dispel Magic, for quite some time there will be a more than 50% chance that your sword is a lot less useful.

EDIT: Drat. Skip the last page seeing that this isn't mentioned and it turns out it is.

[Eldariel]

As a caster, I love Chain Spelled (Greater) Dispel Magic to nuke all the magic items the target has and then targeted dispel on the target itself. While the targeted dispel might not hit all the target's buffs, all the magic items are probably gonna be out of commission for the rest of the fight.

Now, guess which this is more effective against; the caster or the warrior? In short, on an encounter-scope (something most enemies should think by, since they're kinda fighting for their lives and all; exception to superfanatic/controlled mooks fighting to weaken the enemy before the BBEG engages himself), Dispelling is probably more efficient against the guy who can't fly or teleport without his magic items and if his tools are disabled, cannot restore them until they naturally fix themselves.


Dispelling is cool and I don't think it optional to have Dispelling as one tool on your caster (for one, many enemy casters can be immortal without spells).


It could (and arguably should) easily be the other way around. The Fighter kills the dragon, the wizard/cleric buff him up so he can do it.

PF has moved in this direction - nerfing Polymorph, nerfing Divine Power, nerfing CoDzilla etc.

Polymorph was a buff that could be cast on the warrior and actually be effective there so nerfing it is not so huge. Of course, it was still fundamentally an overpowered Wizard spell so axing it is quite understandable but it's definitely the one that made "buff Fighter, let him kill Dragon" powerful.

Either way, the real question in these power discussions (that we honestly shouldn't need to be having; everybody participating probably knows all this already so I'm not sure where the disconnect is) is whether a party slot is better filled by X or Y; whether Fighter is enough better at his job to warrant missing out on an extra Cleric's/Druid's worth of spells. Even with no feats or anything to that effect, I find a Cleric or a Druid more than competent enough as frontliner with minions to perform the role of a frontliner sufficient well compared to the Shock Trooper/Leap Attack/AoO Tripper/Zhentarim Intimidator Fighter/Barbarian, that it's always more powerful to have the extra level 9 casting than few points of BAB and feats.

In an all Tier 1 party, you can probably outsource all frontlining to spell-produced minions anyways. On low levels you'll lack the ability to do so easily (outside Druids), but a Cleric is only 1 BAB behind Barbarian for the first 4 levels (by level 5, we're already looking at Animate Dead from Clerics as an option) which isn't that huge a drawback and warrior-types really take off around level 6 with the tacticals anyways. Also, Clerics do have access to Devotions, Domain powers & feats which help them keep up with non-casters fighting-wise even early on.

Though of course, nobody's arguing that far as damage goes Whirling Frenzy Barbarian with Extra Rage is unequaled for the first 3 levels. He is as vulnerable to Color Spray as any though (one advantage of using divine casters in the warrior slots, your party will have globally good Will-saves), and while his damage does scale, his options do not. He cannot, for example, create disposable minions with his class abilities so he'll always have to pull his weight alone. Which is fine, minion-heavy parties are a mechanical nightmare to put on the grid and use. One cannot argue the efficiency or safety of such an approach though.

[ShurikVch]

Why play a fighter type? Because.
Because Aragorn son of Arathorn. Aragorn is nil without Galadriel and Gandalf. Aragorn have hard time to solo trolls, Gandalf solo the Durin's Bane. Who is Tier 1 and who is NPC?

Because Galahad and Lancelot.
Which Galahad and which Lancelot? Galahad Threepwood?
Maybe, those Galahad and Lancelot? http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z8/aaronrules_album/Galahad.jpg http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/134858/2732147-orig_42124_1_1278722200.jpg
Or are you about "Holy Grail" Galahad and Lancelot. Then, IIRR, Galahad was thrown into the Gorge of Eternal Peril and Lancelot was arrested by police for the murder of the historian.
Or that Lancelot? http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121211184808/typemoon/images/0/0b/Zero_berserker.png


Oh, and after looking at the Badass Normal page: Because Samwise Gamgee is the greatest hero in all fantasy literature, and second place doesn't deserve a mention. Are you serious? Sam Gamgee can't overcame even Gollum, and Gollum, IIRR, was weak enough to not be a threat to average human. Sam is strict noncombatant and just not deserve to be mentioned in this thread. And even in list of cool noncombatants he is far far behind, say, Nodwik http://www.files.fortressofdoors.com/images/nodwick.jpg

[Incanur]

Are you serious? Sam Gamgee can't overcame even Gollum, and Gollum, IIRR, was weak enough to not be a threat to average human. Sam is strict noncombatant and just not deserve to be mentioned in this thread.

Gollum never had much trouble getting by eating orcs, which are plenty of a threat to the average human. With or without the One Ring, Gollum wandered across Middle-earth successfully, including very dangerous places. And Sam could have killed him various times if he'd wanted to. You're lowballing Sam something fierce. Toward the end he was a solid warrior in his own right. His best martial feat was against Shelob, a majorly tough customer.

[Blackhawk748]

That is a problem. This whole idea that the wizard is the important person who accomplishes things, and the fighter is just a bodyguard. The wizard's disposable henchman who dies so the real hero of the story can kill the boss.[/SPOILER]

I didnt mean it like that. I mean as a guy who plays Fighters a lot, i have killed a few dragons, however i was taking about lvl 20 and only if there is mooks, if theres no mooks kick the crap out of that Dragon by all means. I realize that i did not make that clear, but that was my intention.

I mean the mage is your giant cannon, so the fighter should keep the little buggers off him so he can be the giant cannon. Also tripping a Colossal Dragon is a pain, i know ive tried :smallbiggrin: lol

[ShurikVch]

Gollum never had much trouble getting by eating orcs, which are plenty of a threat to the average human. With or without the One Ring, Gollum wandered across Middle-earth successfully, including very dangerous places. And Sam could have killed him various times if he'd wanted to. You're lowballing Sam something fierce. Toward the end he was a solid warrior in his own right. His best martial feat was against Shelob, a majorly tough customer.
1) Orc of Arda (Middle-earth) notably less impressive than their D&D standard counterparts. Killing one is not such big deal even for hobbit. On the other hand Gollum clearly feared orcs, which suggest killing them always was sneak attacks and never more than 1vs1.
2) Yes, Gollum somewhat impressive, he is practically babysat them all the way from Fellowship and to Shelob cave. But it's obvious he didn't have raw fighting ability or something to substitute for lack of it (such as magic)
3) Gollum is clearly insane and prone to mood swings. Any time he was at Sam's mercy he was in non-fighting mood. (Even epic fighter can be easy deal if under effect of Insanity) When Gollum mean buisness, whole squad of Sams can't stop him.
4) Sam can be a warrior toward the end, but please, tell me: can he beat two goblins at once? No? Then he is pretty low-level warrior...
5) Fight with Shelob was in Sam's favor from very begin. His itty-bitty magical trinket blinded the monster, and blinded creatures are as good as helpless. (Imagine the fight against non-adapted drow in broad daylight. And Shelob's mental abilities are way below average drow warrior) Also, the most severe wound was more self-induced by Shelob than inflicted by Sam. (And even if you still score it for him, I point this wound not, in fact, killed or incapacitated Shelob)

[atomicwaffle]

i like having a character thats absurdly useful.

Currently rocking a L3 cleric (chaotic good Kord, strength, luck) L3 wizard (transmutation removing abjuration and illusion) L1 Mystic Theurge.

I can heal, i can cast spells, i can whack things with a greatsword. I can Knock, I can fly (swift), more flying later. I'm not the best member of the party, but i can almost ALWAYS find a way to be useful.

Having said that, my beef is with people who are never useful. This applies to both wizards and warriors. Being that for the sake of being that, and not going "what could my party benefit from that i'd want to play?"

If i see another chaotic neutral dwarf fighter im going to scream...

[LordBlades]

i like having a character thats absurdly useful.

Currently rocking a L3 cleric (chaotic good Kord, strength, luck) L3 wizard (transmutation removing abjuration and illusion) L1 Mystic Theurge.

I can heal, i can cast spells, i can whack things with a greatsword. I can Knock, I can fly (swift), more flying later. I'm not the best member of the party, but i can almost ALWAYS find a way to be useful.

Having said that, my beef is with people who are never useful. This applies to both wizards and warriors. Being that for the sake of being that, and not going "what could my party benefit from that i'd want to play?"

If i see another chaotic neutral dwarf fighter im going to scream...
Some ppl are just like that. They have this totally awesome character concept they want to play and therefore the party has to accomodate them, both RP and mechanics-wise.

[Reltzik]

By level 10 or so, an arcane caster will pwnzer a fighter type. (Usually. Some builds can give them trouble.)

At level 1, the fighter type will pwnzer the arcane caster. (Usually. Some save-or-suck spells might stop them, but getting them off before being 1-shot can be tricky, and saves aren't so one-sided at lower levels.)

The changeover happens somewhere around level 5-6.

Most games start at level 1. The typical game peters out around level 5-6. I've almost never had a game progress past level 10.

[BWR]

Lvl 1: Sleep or Color Spray. Save or suck. The fighter probably has a decent chance of resisting the following coup de grace, though.

[DeltaEmil]

Lvl 1: Sleep or Color Spray. Save or suck. The fighter probably has a decent chance of resisting the following coup de grace, though.Then again, with being knocked unconscious by color spray, the spellcaster has at least 2 rounds to kill the fighter. Since a coup de grace is an automatic critical hit, the spellcaster will deal enough hit point damage to kill the fighter. Since the hit is automatic, the spellcaster can take a high-crit weapon like a spear, a greataxe, a scythe, a glaive, a ranseur, or whatever to administer the deadly blow, and gets to ignore the nonproficiency penalty to attack rolls with these weapons.

[Psyren]

Polymorph was a buff that could be cast on the warrior and actually be effective there so nerfing it is not so huge. Of course, it was still fundamentally an overpowered Wizard spell so axing it is quite understandable but it's definitely the one that made "buff Fighter, let him kill Dragon" powerful.

You can still polymorph (and even Greater Polymorph) the fighter in PF. And in fact, he gets much more benefit out of it than the wizard would polymorphing himself, which was the whole point of the changes.



Either way, the real question in these power discussions (that we honestly shouldn't need to be having; everybody participating probably knows all this already so I'm not sure where the disconnect is) is whether a party slot is better filled by X or Y; whether Fighter is enough better at his job to warrant missing out on an extra Cleric's/Druid's worth of spells.

That's not at all the real question :smallsigh: Obviously 4x Druids would be more powerful than 2x Druids + 2 Fighters. That's not the point and never was. If all your group cares about is power, then nobody should be playing pure melee - at a minimum you should be going for Magi and Alchemists and Synthesists as your melee.

The point is that people who want to play Fighters or other low-tier melee, either want simiplicity, a change of pace, or have specific character concept in mind. Power/versatility is not their primary concern.

[magwaaf]

Because some of us have more fun playing Roland or Beowulf than Merlin.

Seriously, screw Merlin.

exactly. i build my characters for flavor and who they are, not "well as much as id like to play a raging barbarian death machine, magic is just better numbers". it just is a meh way to play

[Incanur]

It's far from the topic at hand, but I'll reiterate that Sam deserves more respect. "The Scouring of the Shire" makes it clear that Hobbits, particularly veteran fighters, more than hold their own against orcs and humans. Sam's choice to spare Gollum forms a key part of the plot and cannot be ascribed to Gollum's supposed insanity.

[Malroth]

Lancelot Roland and Bewolf aren't accurately portraied by the PHB melee classes. The PHB melee classes only accurately portray "Generic Mook#5". Really, What sort of "highly trained veteran warrior" Can't even Spot somebody across the room or dodge Alchemist Fire

[Reltzik]

Lvl 1: Sleep or Color Spray. Save or suck. The fighter probably has a decent chance of resisting the following coup de grace, though.

Win initiative, win it all. Unless the fighter saves versus the spell. Or survives versus the coup de grace. Or uses line of sight intelligently. Or....

Yeah, the wizard has a CHANCE, but it's not a great one.

Also, the wizard can do that ONCE PER DAY. (Well, 4 times per day, but we'll assume the wizard's memorized more than the one spell.) Keep the fighter's HP up and he can go FOREVER.

[limejuicepowder]

Lancelot Roland and Bewolf aren't accurately portraied by the PHB melee classes. The PHB melee classes only accurately portray "Generic Mook#5". Really, What sort of "highly trained veteran warrior" Can't even Spot somebody across the room or dodge Alchemist Fire

Agreed, though the spot thing is more a function of that skill being completely broken. The fact that spot isn't a fighter skill is largely secondary. As for dodging alchemist's fire, this is one of my biggest beefs with DnD: AC is entirely dependent on armor, shields, and magic, and doesn't rise naturally. Thus the only difference defensively between a 1st level fighter and the 20th level fighter is the gear they wear......very very lame.

[Incanur]

Win initiative, win it all. Unless the fighter saves versus the spell. Or survives versus the coup de grace. Or uses line of sight intelligently. Or....

Yeah, the wizard has a CHANCE, but it's not a great one.

At level 1-2, failing your save against color spray is all but certain death in a duel. The fighter has no meaningful chance of surviving. Furthermore, most any fighter built to fight will have a terrible Will save at these levels. If you put points in Wis, that's fewer in Str, Con, and Dex. As you're saving against DC 14-16, you'd need 18 Wis to even make it close to a coin toss.

[PersonMan]

Keep the fighter's HP up and he can go FOREVER.

That's like saying "Keep the wizard's spell slots up and he can go FOREVER". Exactly like it.

"If we keep this resource up via some outside intervention, they can function all the time!" doesn't say anything.

EDIT: How is a level 1 Fighter surviving 1d2 x 4 x 2d4 damage? That's on average 20 damage from the first, then another 20 if he has bad luck.

Unless your build is '18 Con, Dwarf, 2xToughness', that kills you on the first hit.

Then you're stunned and he gets more CdGs...

[RFLS]

Win initiative, win it all. Unless the fighter saves versus the spell. Or survives versus the coup de grace. Or uses line of sight intelligently. Or....

Yeah, the wizard has a CHANCE, but it's not a great one.

Also, the wizard can do that ONCE PER DAY. (Well, 4 times per day, but we'll assume the wizard's memorized more than the one spell.) Keep the fighter's HP up and he can go FOREVER.

I think it's been demonstrated, repeatedly and unequivocally, that with very moderate character optimization on both sides, a wizard will always win a duel with a fighter, at any level.

[MeiLeTeng]

Win initiative, win it all. Unless the fighter saves versus the spell. Or survives versus the coup de grace. Or uses line of sight intelligently. Or....

Yeah, the wizard has a CHANCE, but it's not a great one.

Also, the wizard can do that ONCE PER DAY. (Well, 4 times per day, but we'll assume the wizard's memorized more than the one spell.) Keep the fighter's HP up and he can go FOREVER.

HP is just as much of a limited resource as spells. So you're being pretty disingenuous here.

The real issue with these "class vs class at x level" discussions is that it always boils down into one of two ways:

A mock arena fight, and whoever loses just claims that it's because the numbers were different from what one would expect and that in THEIR games it doesn't happen like that.

Or, it just ends with one person going "Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man." End of conversation.

Suffice to say at a level where no one has 20HP yet, and saves are all still abysmal discussing which class would beat which is nearly pointless because the random roll is going to influence the numbers more than the characters actual stats.

[Grayson01]

Did you read the ending of the books? Sam became a complete BA Brawler who was cleaning house of the Goblins and Orcs as he was going to solo his way to Mt. Doom! In all honestly if Sam would have had the ring form day one, I really think he could have done what Frodo the Nine Fingered Failur could not, I.E. Simply drop a dam ring in the Lava! He might have been a weekling at the start but slay his beloved Frodo and unleash the BA with in!


Are you serious? Sam Gamgee can't overcame even Gollum, and Gollum, IIRR, was weak enough to not be a threat to average human. Sam is strict noncombatant and just not deserve to be mentioned in this thread. And even in list of cool noncombatants he is far far behind, say, Nodwik http://www.files.fortressofdoors.com/images/nodwick.jpg

[Eldariel]

You can still polymorph (and even Greater Polymorph) the fighter in PF. And in fact, he gets much more benefit out of it than the wizard would polymorphing himself, which was the whole point of the changes.

At the same time, polymorphing a Fighter is no longer as powerful as it used to be.


That's not at all the real question :smallsigh: Obviously 4x Druids would be more powerful than 2x Druids + 2 Fighters. That's not the point and never was. If all your group cares about is power, then nobody should be playing pure melee - at a minimum you should be going for Magi and Alchemists and Synthesists as your melee.

The point is that people who want to play Fighters or other low-tier melee, either want simiplicity, a change of pace, or have specific character concept in mind. Power/versatility is not their primary concern.

Then we are all in agreement, are we not? Casters fill the role of Fighter equally well, or better than a Fighter but Fighters can still contribute as ever, just not on the same level as Tier 1s.

There are games where a Fighter is probably underpowered and out-of-place, and the player should strive to pick something else, and there are masses of games out there where a Fighter has no problems.

[Reltzik]

Well, comparing HP to spell slots isn't exactly oranges and oranges. They're both expendable resources, but there's three key differences:

1: It's a bit easier to restore HP. Potions of CLW are priced such that a 1st level fighter might well buy one for starting gear. (Not the most likely choice, but not unheard of.) They're common loot in 1st level dungeons. And most parties have a healer along. For the most part, spell slots are only restored with a night's rest. There are some exceptions, but they're mid-to-high level.

2: There's no such thing as a misallocated hit point. HP is HP, period. But the wizard who prepared Sleep before going into a dungeon of nothing but undead might as well not have the slot at all.

3: A fighter can do his thing without burning through HP. A wizard can't do his thing without burning through spell slots. That means it's actually possible for a fighter's HP to hold out through half a dozen encounters if the dice are lucky. Not so with the wizard's spell slots.

For that matter, the arena duel (or any duel) is also pretty misleading, because that's not the typical dungeon. The typical dungeon is 4-20 encounters, most of them your EL, taken in discrete packages, and fought as a party. That's three goblin warriors. Now, it's not unreasonable for the fighter to be able to solo such an encounter, and either lose no hit points or lose only a few. He can probably go through 4-6 encounters like this one before having to break out a potion or call it quits. The wizard isn't going to be so lucky. Most likely he'll have to burn through a spell slot (let's say sleep). Hopefully ALL the goblins fail their saves. If so, the wizard's burnt a spell slot. If not, the wizard's burnt a spell slot and is in a little bit of trouble still. After just two encounters like this, he's expended his resources for the day and has to sleep. Not just break out a potion. Definitely sleep.

But even that's less than typical, because you're going through the dungeon as a party. It's not a choice of fighter or wizard, because you can have both, and a rogue, and a cleric. (Or some less generic mix.) The question isn't so much "what's better at beating the dungeon, a fighter or a wizard", but "two wizards, two fighters, or a fighter and a wizard?" (Expand for all possible selection of classes across n-players).

In this light, the fighter does have a purpose at lower levels: Dominate a typical, at-level combat without spell-slinging opponents (which is at least half the encounters in the typical low-level dungeon) and let the casters conserve their expendable resources for the nastier encounters. (Hopefully the blasted blasters actually SAVE their resources for the nastier encounters, rather than just emptying everything they have at the first target they see.)

It is true that at later levels, you encounter more caster enemies (or monsters with spell-like abilities, etc) and the fighter's utility starts to go down. But there's a nice solution to this. Wait until your beloved fighter finally dies, and then reroll as something more effective for higher levels. But at lower levels, a fighter can be a very effective member of the team.

[Eldan]

I wouldn't want to play a fighter even if they were a thousand times more powerful than wizards. Magic is fun. Magic is exciting. Magic is interesting. It's unlike what we have in our world. You can explore it, research it and, at least in D&D, it offers creative solutions to all kinds of problems that mundanes can't hope to match.

So no. In pretty much every game I've played, I grab the mage, or the closest to the archetype the game has. The trickster, the tinker, the engineer, the jedi, whatever.

Hitting things with sticks just always bored me.

[Blackhawk748]

I wouldn't want to play a fighter even if they were a thousand times more powerful than wizards. Magic is fun. Magic is exciting. Magic is interesting. It's unlike what we have in our world. You can explore it, research it and, at least in D&D, it offers creative solutions to all kinds of problems that mundanes can't hope to match.

So no. In pretty much every game I've played, I grab the mage, or the closest to the archetype the game has. The trickster, the tinker, the engineer, the jedi, whatever.

Hitting things with sticks just always bored me.

And thats your play style man, Honestly i wouldnt want to play a Fighter without a mage as backup. It has nothing to do with buffs, it has to do with the fact that hes the guy with the "Rocket Launcher" and can give me a hand in taking sown big things, like trolls. I stand in front of the troll hacking at it, he hits it in the head with a Scorching Ray, the rouge drops onto its back and stabs it between its shoulder blades, and the cleric had cast bless on us all earlier. See it all works out for everyone.

[Psyren]

At the same time, polymorphing a Fighter is no longer as powerful as it used to be.

So what? It's still worthwhile.

"I'm not as powerful as Zeus anymore" is not the same thing as "I'm not powerful."




Then we are all in agreement, are we not? Casters fill the role of Fighter equally well, or better than a Fighter but Fighters can still contribute as ever, just not on the same level as Tier 1s.

There are games where a Fighter is probably underpowered and out-of-place, and the player should strive to pick something else, and there are masses of games out there where a Fighter has no problems.

I certainly agree with this. My objection was to the false dichotomy of "should we take another druid or a fighter?" Real groups/players don't think like that. They either ask "what do I feel like playing in this campaign?" or "what role do you guys need filled?" And pick a class that answers those questions.

[Eldariel]

So what? It's still worthwhile.

"I'm not as powerful as Zeus anymore" is not the same thing as "I'm not powerful."

Certainly, but since the amount of power you get from the spell is so much lower now, the likelihood of it being a more powerful option than casting another level 4 spell instead is lower. Nowadays it's mostly +4 bonus to a physical, -1 penalty to another, some AC and possible Size increase; useful, but as it often denies the option of using a weapon and might not synergize that well with the Fighter's build, it's not nearly as automatic an upgrade as the 3.5 Polymorph's options.

Of course if you can cast it pre-combat or persist it, it's still nice but I don't think it's usually the best a level 4 slot + standard action can contribute in combat most of the time anymore so as a Wizard, I'd be more inclined to prepare another spell that does more, such as Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Confusion, Greater Invisibility, Resilient Sphere, Enervation or some such.


I certainly agree with this. My objection was to the false dichotomy of "should we take another druid or a fighter?" Real groups/players don't think like that. They either ask "what do I feel like playing in this campaign?" or "what role do you guys need filled?" And pick a class that answers those questions.

I'm certain there are groups that don't, and groups that do think like that. It would be an extremely unlikely event for every D&D group to think the same on this matter.

That said, if I were DMing a game and the group already had a bunch of experienced players playing Artificer/Druid/Wizard, I'd strongly suggest a 4th man against playing a Fighter in spite of a frontliner fitting well into the team line-up simply because the amount of work the other players would have to do to make sure the Fighter can contribute reasonably would IMHO be too much to ask from them, and they probably aren't looking for a Tier 5 game anyways if they created a party like that.

In this case, I'd allow the 4th person to play a Fighter if he absolutely insisted on it but I'd warn him beforehand that I'm still going to treat it as a Tier 1 campaign and assume the teleportation/divination/minionmancy/mind control/combat power it entails. If he still wants to play a Fighter it's a go but he will probably feel fairly useless even if the casters extend buffs on him and he gets all the crafted gear he wants, since he can only really contribute in encounters and those are going to be a lesser part of a Tier 1 game.

On the flipside, I'd also make sure the party of Rogue/Barbarian/Adept is okay with the 4th man playing a Druid and either ask the Druid to tone down or play something like a Spirit Shaman with Wild Cohort instead, if that works for him. All this as a DM, mind; as player I at most discuss with the other people about the archetype they want to play (should they choose to talk with me about it any rate) and give them suggestions based on the average party powerlevel and the archetype they're going for.


I feel this is a completely reasonable way of handling things and I haven't had many problems yet (turns out people tend to be more interested in the archetype they want to play than the actual class, at least in my experience). While this is only my way and certainly not the only right way, nor above criticism, I find it works. Of course, more experienced the player the less I'll have to hold their hands.

[Psyren]

Certainly, but since the amount of power you get from the spell is so much lower now, the likelihood of it being a more powerful option than casting another level 4 spell instead is lower. Nowadays it's mostly +4 bonus to a physical, -1 penalty to another, some AC and possible Size increase; useful, but as it often denies the option of using a weapon and might not synergize that well with the Fighter's build, it's not nearly as automatic an upgrade as the 3.5 Polymorph's options.

Of course if you can cast it pre-combat or persist it, it's still nice but I don't think it's usually the best a level 4 slot + standard action can contribute in combat most of the time anymore so as a Wizard, I'd be more inclined to prepare another spell that does more, such as Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Confusion, Greater Invisibility, Resilient Sphere, Enervation or some such.

You also get the creature's appearance, all of its natural attacks, various movement modes and senses based on the ones it has, and immunity to later polymorph/size effects like reduce person, baleful polymorph or fleshcurdle. So there are plenty of reasons to still use it.

Furthermore, if the Fighter's gear is that good, you can still use the "Alter Self" function to avoid it being melded in. It still functions as a non-illusory disguise that buffs senses, movement etc.

But you're correct, there are certainly instances where a 3.5 wizard would have prepared Polymorph, where the PF one would not. However, I consider that to be a feature, not a bug. The fact that Polymorph is no longer an auto-prepare for every wizard ever is a good thing; it enables greater strategy on the part of the players, and less headaches for the DM since they know exactly what the maximum benefits of the spell are instead of having to scrutinize every monster entry from every obscure book the players might access. I've seen whole books banned because some monsters in it could cause problems when polymorphed or shapechanged into. Nerfing the spell was necessary.

Also, some of the other spells on your list (like Black Tentacles) were also nerfed, making the choice even more interesting.



I'm certain there are groups that don't, and groups that do think like that. It would be an extremely unlikely event for every D&D group to think the same on this matter.

If groups are thinking purely in terms of maximum power they can achieve, then the melee is pretty likely to be marginalized no matter what you do. I would argue that such groups are better off with another system entirely.


That said, if I were DMing a game and the group already had a bunch of experienced players playing Artificer/Druid/Wizard, I'd strongly suggest a 4th man against playing a Fighter in spite of a frontliner fitting well into the team line-up simply because the amount of work the other players would have to do to make sure the Fighter can contribute reasonably would IMHO be too much to ask from them, and they probably aren't looking for a Tier 5 game anyways if they created a party like that.

Agreed.



On the flipside, I'd also make sure the party of Rogue/Barbarian/Adept is okay with the 4th man playing a Druid and either ask the Druid to tone down or play something like a Spirit Shaman with Wild Cohort instead, if that works for him. All this as a DM, mind; as player I at most discuss with the other people about the archetype they want to play (should they choose to talk with me about it any rate) and give them suggestions based on the average party powerlevel and the archetype they're going for.

I would only ask the Druid player to "tone it down" if he had a history of optimizing to the nines every time. I've seen plenty of less experienced players happily playing clerics, using their standard actions to Bless and Channel and then take out a crossbow when buffs and heals weren't needed. Tiers are a starting point, but should not be the only consideration when deciding who to "pull aside" in this manner.

[Eldariel]

You also get the creature's appearance, all of its natural attacks, various movement modes and senses based on the ones it has, and immunity to later polymorph/size effects like reduce person, baleful polymorph or fleshcurdle. So there are plenty of reasons to still use it.

Furthermore, if the Fighter's gear is that good, you can still use the "Alter Self" function to avoid it being melded in. It still functions as a non-illusory disguise that buffs senses, movement etc.

But you're correct, there are certainly instances where a 3.5 wizard would have prepared Polymorph, where the PF one would not. However, I consider that to be a feature, not a bug. The fact that Polymorph is no longer an auto-prepare for every wizard ever is a good thing; it enables greater strategy on the part of the players, and less headaches for the DM since they know exactly what the maximum benefits of the spell are instead of having to scrutinize every monster entry from every obscure book the players might access. I've seen whole books banned because some monsters in it could cause problems when polymorphed or shapechanged into. Nerfing the spell was necessary.

I agree, it's an improvement globally. I just don't think it's one that improves Non-caster warrior-types all that directly since in a mixed party, the spell was often most useful cast on Warriors anyways. Now there are different considerations though admittedly it's still useful; I'm just less inclined to turn someone into Remorhaz since that's less likely to be an improvement on their stats (well, it can't even turn you Huge anymore).

Alter Self function is useful in general but pretty weak for combat; basically +2 Strength or Dex which is decidedly not worth a Standard Action and a 4th level slot. The Disguise-bonuses are better and more useful but that's mostly an out-of-combat benefit.


Also, some of the other spells on your list (like Black Tentacles) were also nerfed, making the choice even more interesting.

Yeah, it's certainly a step in the right direction if not a whole leap.


If groups are thinking purely in terms of maximum power they can achieve, then the melee is pretty likely to be marginalized no matter what you do. I would argue that such groups are better off with another system entirely.

Well, I find D&D functions pretty darn well for high magic high power games due to the wealth of options available to casters. If that's their thing, isn't that just fine? I mean, it's not Exalted but not everyone likes that style either.

It might also be they just want a high power game rather than precisely going for max power options; in such an event wanting a Druid over a Fighter seems perfectly legitimate.


I would only ask the Druid player to "tone it down" if he had a history of optimizing to the nines every time. I've seen plenty of less experienced players happily playing clerics, using their standard actions to Bless and Channel and then take out a crossbow when buffs and heals weren't needed. Tiers are a starting point, but should not be the only consideration when deciding who to "pull aside" in this manner.

Well, Druids are a bit more dangerous balance-wise since combat animal companion alone has a huge threat of obsoleting other players (and many, if not all, and picking strong (overpowered is another thing, of course) Wildshape forms isn't very hard.

I find it comes down to experience, really. With new player you never know what he'll do but with an experienced player, you can kinda estimate what kinds of choices he makes based on his concept and work from there.

[gooddragon1]

1) The magic-system is a bookkeeping nightmare, especially for casters with huge spell lists that they have to prepare from. And then have to look up the spells when they want to cast to make sure they are doing it right.

2) Because I don't want to be a mage! I WANT to be someone who gets up and fights. Although I admit to preferring Rogue-type characters.

Thank you for this. Now I don't need to type it.

Also, I'd like to play scout = free bonus damage + freedom of movement.

[Psyren]

I agree, it's an improvement globally. I just don't think it's one that improves Non-caster warrior-types all that directly since in a mixed party, the spell was often most useful cast on Warriors anyways. Now there are different considerations though admittedly it's still useful; I'm just less inclined to turn someone into Remorhaz since that's less likely to be an improvement on their stats (well, it can't even turn you Huge anymore).

Agreed; all I'm saying is there aren't many (any?) other 4th level spells that can give the fighter 60ft. perfect flight, earth glide, scent, pounce, or climb/swim speeds. There's a lot of utility here.


Well, I find D&D functions pretty darn well for high magic high power games due to the wealth of options available to casters. If that's their thing, isn't that just fine? I mean, it's not Exalted but not everyone likes that style either.

It might also be they just want a high power game rather than precisely going for max power options; in such an event wanting a Druid over a Fighter seems perfectly legitimate.

You're right of course, those who want high-powered or op-heavy games should have them. I merely meant that those same people shouldn't then complain about balance. (Not at all saying you are one of them, of course.)



Well, Druids are a bit more dangerous balance-wise since combat animal companion alone has a huge threat of obsoleting other players (and many, if not all, and picking strong (overpowered is another thing, of course) Wildshape forms isn't very hard.

One of the main problems with the animal companion is that few groups adjudicate it properly. The companion is meant to be controlled by the DM, with input/tricks/HA checks by the player to make it perform as intended in combat. Further, some commands should be beyond it no matter how much the player optimizes their HA skill. It is a capable meatshield obviously, but letting the player direct its every move without any of these balancing factors plays a key role in it outfighting the fighter.

Wild Shape I agree was always broken. PF has made it much less so, at least.



I find it comes down to experience, really. With new player you never know what he'll do but with an experienced player, you can kinda estimate what kinds of choices he makes based on his concept and work from there.

I find this amusing :smallsmile: while its true that weaker players are harder to predict, preparing for the strongest options possible and then toning it down if a nuclear response isn't warranted is an acceptable way to DM. After all, it's not like the players know every toy on your evil necromancer's spell list.

[Eldariel]

One of the main problems with the animal companion is that few groups adjudicate it properly. The companion is meant to be controlled by the DM, with input/tricks/HA checks by the player to make it perform as intended in combat. Further, some commands should be beyond it no matter how much the player optimizes their HA skill. It is a capable meatshield obviously, but letting the player direct its every move without any of these balancing factors plays a key role in it outfighting the fighter.

Wild Shape I agree was always broken. PF has made it much less so, at least.

I find AC is problematic even if it only has the "Guard/Stay/Attack Anything"-routine available, power-wise since it's like an on-power follower, which I think is a bit much. Whether or not it's actually stronger than a Fighter, that it's even a question is a huge issue. Usually if an animal has a trick (say, Dog's Tracking), that's also easy to add so you can bring out nearly full potential from the creature with relative ease.

At the same time, of course, having it be useful would be really annoying. PF's raw number increases to martial classes actually do help here in that they tend to actually be better fighters than ACs even if not optimized. Still, AC is a vast advantage over classes that can only cast or fight (or hell, classes that don't even have the option).


I find this amusing :smallsmile: while its true that weaker players are harder to predict, preparing for the strongest options possible and then toning it down if a nuclear response isn't warranted is an acceptable way to DM. After all, it's not like the players know every toy on your evil necromancer's spell list.

I feel like restricting classes in such a way that the party is sort of even is usually the safest path unless the players themselves express interest or desire to the contrary (majority of them).

[SaintRidley]

Why play a fighter type? Because.
Because Aragorn son of Arathorn.
Because Conan.
Because Fafhrd.
Because Galahad and Lancelot.

Those who understand need no further explanation, and for those who don't, none will suffice.


To sum it up:

Because Sparhawk.

[karnan19]

Because a large population of D&D players are not optimizers, some folks just want to be the "Conan" of their party, and there is nothing wrong with that. if you want to fight with melee and still optimize as much as possible, you can pick up the tome of battle.

[Eldariel]

Because a large population of D&D players are not optimizers, some folks just want to be the "Conan" of their party, and there is nothing wrong with that. if you want to fight with melee and still optimize as much as possible, you can pick up the tome of battle.

If you want to melee and optimize as much as possible, you need spells. ToB merely means you don't need to optimize at all to be badass; it raises the base power level for non-casters, so to speak.

[gooddragon1]

If you want to melee and optimize as much as possible, you need spells. ToB merely means you don't need to optimize at all to be badass; it raises the base power level for non-casters, so to speak.

Casters have a (generally reliable) solution to combat, it's called summon monster/nature's ally.

[Eldariel]

Casters have a (generally reliable) solution to combat, it's called summon monster/nature's ally.

1) Most of 'em are really weak far as actual combat goes. Best summons are usually for the SLAs. SNA less so and they get better in numbers (heya, Malconvoker), of course.
2) Best warrior is always the one with a ton of buffs. That goes for any warrior, a monster or a humanoid. Some of the good ones are personal so helps to be able to cast 'em yourself.

[Amphetryon]

Because a large population of D&D players are not optimizers, some folks just want to be the "Conan" of their party, and there is nothing wrong with that. if you want to fight with melee and still optimize as much as possible, you can pick up the tome of battle.

Generally speaking, for pure melee, the optimization ceiling is higher if you're not using Tome of Battle much; Tome of Battle's strengths are a considerably lower optimization floor than Barbarian/Fighter/Monk, and more varied and interesting things to do besides "hit the thing with the thing."

[Valanarch]

Why play a fighter type? Because.
Because Aragorn son of Arathorn.
Because Conan.
Because Fafhrd.
Because Galahad and Lancelot.

Those who understand need no further explanation, and for those who don't, none will suffice.

Here's my question. Why would you play a basic fighter over a character like a duskblade?

[MeiLeTeng]

Here's my question. Why would you play a basic fighter over a character like a duskblade?

Some people have a very specific image of what a melee fighter is in their mind, and for many of them any use of magic is incompatible with that image?

[Valanarch]

Some people have a very specific image of what a melee fighter is in their mind, and for many of them any use of magic is incompatible with that image?

But how is channeling Vampiric Touch into your weapon any more magical than swinging with your flaming burst icy burst shocking burst +4 greatsword?

[Auramis]

But how is channeling Vampiric Touch into your weapon any more magical than swinging with your flaming burst icy burst shocking burst +4 greatsword?

Because some Dungeon Masters might not allow someone to get those kinds of weapons easily. That weapon would cost up to 98,000 gold (+7), according to the DMG. Not every game gets into such high powered levels.

When magic is harder to access, it can be easier and, at times, more inspiring to play non-magical characters.

[Ravens_cry]

But how is channeling Vampiric Touch into your weapon any more magical than swinging with your flaming burst icy burst shocking burst +4 greatsword?
Well, it's the difference between being a magic user and having a magic item.
For the latter, the magical power is external, and, for the former, it is internal.
One is Excalibur; the other is Merlin.

[Valanarch]

Well, it's the difference between being a magic user and having a magic item.
For the latter, the magical power is external, and, for the former, it is internal.
One is Excalibur; the other is Merlin.

Actually, I think Duskblade is closer to what you get if you combine Aragorn with Gandalf. If the whole point of playing a fighter over a wizard is because it is more fun for some people to go charging into melee and that it is more epic to stab the dragon to death than to blow it up, then why not choose the class which can do both?

[Auramis]

Actually, I think Duskblade is closer to what you get if you combine Aragorn with Gandalf. If the whole point of playing a fighter over a wizard is because it is more fun for some people to go charging into melee and that it is more epic to stab the dragon to death than to blow it up, then why not choose the class which can do both?

Because, simply put, some people don't WANT to cast spells. It's not a matter of what's more efficient or more powerful, it's a matter of what's more fun. Some people have more fun being a fighter without magic over anyone that does have it.

[Flickerdart]

Because a large population of D&D players are not optimizers, some folks just want to be the "Conan" of their party, and there is nothing wrong with that. if you want to fight with melee and still optimize as much as possible, you can pick up the tome of battle.
Fighter is possibly the worst class to represent Conan, a man skilled in the arts of cunning and statecraft as well as war.

[Psyren]

In summary, we know magic is more powerful (at least in 3.x.) Some of us don't care if we are less powerful than our absolute maximum potential in every campaign.

[Auramis]

In summary, we know magic is more powerful (at least in 3.x.) Some of us don't care if we are less powerful than our absolute maximum potential in every campaign.

Precisely.

That's how I go about it when I play something like non-spellcasting paladin, knights, fighters, non-spellcasting rangers, and so on. I really only play divine casters when I do play them, granted, but I generally have more fun with the fighting than casting spells.

[Valanarch]

Because, simply put, some people don't WANT to cast spells. It's not a matter of what's more efficient or more powerful, it's a matter of what's more fun. Some people have more fun being a fighter without magic over anyone that does have it.

You are still using your magic items either way, so you are still dependant on magic. And I just don't understand how you can have fun playing a basic fighter, but you can't have fun playing a basic fighter that can buff himself.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually, I think Duskblade is closer to what you get if you combine Aragorn with Gandalf. If the whole point of playing a fighter over a wizard is because it is more fun for some people to go charging into melee and that it is more epic to stab the dragon to death than to blow it up, then why not choose the class which can do both?

You are still using your magic items either way, so you are still dependant on magic. And I just don't understand how you can have fun playing a basic fighter, but you can't have fun playing a basic fighter that can buff himself.
What you want to play is what you want to play.
The idea that is wrong somehow is more than a bit condescending.

[Flickerdart]

What you want to play is what you want to play.
The idea that is wrong somehow is more than a bit condescending.
Why would you want to play?

[Valanarch]

What you want to play is what you want to play.
The idea that is wrong somehow is more than a bit condescending.

I admit, that it could seem that way. But people say that the Samurai from CW doesn't work all the time. If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.

[LordBlades]

You are still using your magic items either way, so you are still dependant on magic. And I just don't understand how you can have fun playing a basic fighter, but you can't have fun playing a basic fighter that can buff himself.

This. Sadly D&D just doesn't work for mundane fighter-types. D&D is all about how much caster support you can muster (party members and buy it with GP in the form of magic items and spellcasting services). You might pretend that it works and ignore the fact that some bits your character needs to function are magical, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

Incorporeal creatures, which appear as low as CR 3 (Allip, Shadow, ghost of anything CR 1 etc.)? No chance to do anything to them unless you have a magic weapon, which only a caster can make.

Ability Drain?(once again present since CR 3 with allip) Not even the most bad-ass fighter can shrug it off on his own. You need a caster or an item made by a caster to get rid of it.

Invisibility (appearing as low as CR 2 with Imp and Quasit)? No way around it. spot&listen cross-class and no wisdom focus for most martial characters means you're flailing blindly trying to get lucky and hit the enemy unless a caster dispels it or you get access to See Invisibility from a friendly caster.

The list can go on, but even the numbers you need (attack from magic weapons, AC from magic armor, saves, belt of giant str etc.), all is made by casters.
So yeah, mundane fighters past very low levels are only as strong as the caster support they can gather.

[SciChronic]

Some people play character that aim for a certain theme. And magically buffing yourself doesnt always fall in line with it. For example if i wanted to recreate batman or captain america, they wouldn't use spells. Magic items on the other hand... (batmans grappling hook and cap's shield are clearly magical)

[Auramis]

You are still using your magic items either way, so you are still dependant on magic. And I just don't understand how you can have fun playing a basic fighter, but you can't have fun playing a basic fighter that can buff himself.

I never said that I don't have fun playing a magical fighter. It just depends on my mood on which is more fun. As I did say, paladin is on my list, and I've played them with spells, without spells, and prestige. It just depends on how I'm feeling on whether I want to focus on the magic or not.

It's kind of like watching movies. Sometimes, you want to watch a medieval themed drama with lots of war and action one day, and another day you want to watch Batman.


I admit, that it could seem that way. But people say that the Samurai from CW doesn't work all the time. If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.

As I stated above, it's a matter of taste and mood.

[Psyren]

You are still using your magic items either way, so you are still dependant on magic.

Well of course you are - but merely using a magic sword/enchanted armor, and actually breakdancing/spouting gibberish/flinging poop are two totally different paradigms.

It's not just feel either - the systems themselves are different. Relying on mundane skill + magic items, vs. relying on less skill + magical buffs + magic items, presents fewer vulnerabilities when something that can remove your buffs comes along.

Where the fighter unfortunately falls flat is that it doesn't take all that much skill to do what he can do (full BAB + feats.) A Warblade vs. a Duskblade however is a totally different scenario.

[Ravens_cry]

I admit, that it could seem that way. But people say that the Samurai from CW doesn't work all the time. If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.
Except, if you want to play the other class. Why is immaterial. The fact remains this is your choice in the end.
Furthermore, sometimes you don't want epic. Sometimes the smaller, more personal stories are what you want.
Maybe you aren't trying to save the world. Maybe you are just trying to carve out your own little place in it.
No, I am not saying this way is better, but sometimes this is what you want.
Maybe you just want to be Joe Wood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign).

[Norin]

I admit, that it could seem that way. But people say that the Samurai from CW doesn't work all the time. If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.

I'm into cars as much as RPG's. A bit strange, yes, but ill use an example from the car enthusiats world here:

"Why would you want to pay X amount of money for an old unreliable car that would cost you Y amount of hours/parts trying to make it work, when you can pay the same or less for a more recent model that requires next to no maintenance and is better in every way?"

The answer is the same - "Because i like that old classic car, and because i want to."

You can not discuss objectivity or reason with subject opinions and matters of taste, can you?

If said person likes what he's doing, even if it's not optimal, why try to convince him to do it any other way?

[LordBlades]

If said person likes what he's doing, even if it's not optimal, why try to convince him to do it any other way?

Sometimes his fun might impact your fun, and then I think it's the right thing to talk him out of it. Like bringing a fighter in a tier 1 party.

But as long as it bothers nobody else then yeah, I do think everyone should be allowed to play whatever they feel like.

[Shining Wrath]

Aragorn is nil without Galadriel and Gandalf. Aragorn have hard time to solo trolls, Gandalf solo the Durin's Bane. Who is Tier 1 and who is NPC?

Which Galahad and which Lancelot? Galahad Threepwood?
Maybe, those Galahad and Lancelot? http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z8/aaronrules_album/Galahad.jpg http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/134858/2732147-orig_42124_1_1278722200.jpg
Or are you about "Holy Grail" Galahad and Lancelot. Then, IIRR, Galahad was thrown into the Gorge of Eternal Peril and Lancelot was arrested by police for the murder of the historian.
Or that Lancelot? http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121211184808/typemoon/images/0/0b/Zero_berserker.png

Are you serious? Sam Gamgee can't overcame even Gollum, and Gollum, IIRR, was weak enough to not be a threat to average human. Sam is strict noncombatant and just not deserve to be mentioned in this thread. And even in list of cool noncombatants he is far far behind, say, Nodwik http://www.files.fortressofdoors.com/images/nodwick.jpg

Greatest does not equal most powerful. That's the point about Samwise: I can't be Aragorn, or Legolas, or even Gimli, but I can be Samwise. If you don't get the appeal of Sam the Gardner saving the whole freaking world when Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond couldn't, you miss the whole point of the LotR, most of fantasy literature, and a lot of the real world as well.

[Shining Wrath]

Here's my question. Why would you play a basic fighter over a character like a duskblade?

What is Dungeons and Dragons? It is a Fantasy Role Playing Game.

What is the key word there? ROLE. And the second is like unto it: PLAYING.

If I feel like being a big guy who is suspicious of magic but willing to use a magic sword, then that is what I'll play.

Right now I'm playing a Warforged Warblade. But if my Warblade goes down the scheduled replacement is a Human Sorcerer with a Fey bloodline who will play the role of the "young girl who has powers she can't explain" that has never been done in fantasy or anime before. :smallcool:

[Calimehter]

If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.

So, if Pun-Pun does all the things your chosen class does and does them better in every way and a lot more epically, then there is really no reason to play anything else??

That which does things better and more epically does not necessarily do them in the same way as a less optimized choice. Sometimes its the *way* things are done that matters, not the final outcome. The way of the sword is what the fighter-type is looking for, and it matters not to that player that you can also channel spells through your sword if you take a different class, or how much better spellcasters can be with the right spells, because that's not what he/she's looking for.

[JaronK]

I admit, that it could seem that way. But people say that the Samurai from CW doesn't work all the time. If there is a class that does the same thing as your class, only its better in every way and it does the things a lot more epicly, than there is really no reason to play the worse class.

That's different though, because the CW Samurai doesn't even feel like a samurai. You have to wield a Katana and Wakasashi dual wielded... which samurai didn't do. Most of your abilities are completely useless (like your capstone that's only effective against enemies with less HD than you, and only really good against enemies with IIRC 8HD or less) or just not good ideas (TWF without bonus damage). In general, it's not even fun to play.

Meanwhile the Warblade actually FEELS like a samurai, and that's why people suggest it... it's more fun.

But even though a Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage is a better blaster than a Warmage, it's still okay to play a Warmage, because that still at least feels like a blow-stuff-up mage, which is what people want.

So there's a difference there.

JaronK

[Flickerdart]

A warblade doesn't actually make a very good samurai if you care about historical accuracy, as samurai were (among other things) archers, and warblades aren't proficient with bows.

[Icewraith]

If you really, REALLY care about historical accuracy there's always multiclassing, being an elf, or taking Weapon Proficiency: Longbow (or rule zero).

[JaronK]

A warblade doesn't actually make a very good samurai if you care about historical accuracy, as samurai were (among other things) archers, and warblades aren't proficient with bows.

Warblades make great archers, actually. You just need to dip one other class (I recommend Targeteer Variant Fighter, but OA Samurai also works). Blood in the Water is a pretty solid stance for bow use (especially Crossbows for obvious reasons), and maneuvers like White Raven Tactics are still effective when using a bow.

CW Samurai don't make good samurai even if you multiclass... that class really gives nothing good for a samurai idea.

I'd recommend using a Greatbow for samurai, unless you're doing mounted archery (which is of course still appropriate) in which case a Compound Shortbow should be sufficient.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Multiclassing/dipping on a warblade to make a true samurai is perfectly acceptable to me. For one, you've already shown by using Warblade that the name of the class doesn't matter, so "Warblade/Fighter" shouldn't be any less of a Samurai than "Warblade." And for two, ToB classes explicitly keep up their training even while multiclassing, hence the 1/2 IL mechanic, so it's not like you really ever stop being a Warblade just because you're not taking Warblade levels. To top it all off, Warblade would still make up the majority of such a build, leaving little functional difference between W and W/f and I think Warblade as Samurai makes perfect sense from 3 angles.

[Blackhawk748]

As many people will say, the CW Samurai is just bad. Not sub optimal, just lousy, as a fighter can do virtually everything it can do better, now thats not stopping anyone from playing one, i just always warn them and point them in the direction of OA, and if they still wanna play one i let them. So far no one has, but that doesnt mean i wouldnt let them.

[Thorgal]

I wouldn't consider taking down an entire battalion alone mundane.Sure,magic is more potent and powerful.But a high level dnd fighter himself is out of reality too.

[JaronK]

Sadly, a high level Fighter may have serious trouble actually taking down a battalion. Remember, that's a heck of a lot of troops, and enemy archers still hit you on a natural 20. A Fighter charging in against a battalion would likely be heavily injured from arrow volleys alone.

But they really SHOULD be able to do that.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Sadly, a high level Fighter may have serious trouble actually taking down a battalion. Remember, that's a heck of a lot of troops, and enemy archers still hit you on a natural 20. A Fighter charging in against a battalion would likely be heavily injured from arrow volleys alone.

But they really SHOULD be able to do that.

JaronK

While this is true, any amount of DR can reduce damage to zero, and between the weakness of 3.5 archery and the WBL a Fighter 20 will have, he could very well be able to charge a battalion and live. It just won't be really due to his own class features.

A Barbarian (particularly a high DR variant, such as the Invulnerable Rager from PF) could come much closer to doing this independent of wealth. Though unfortunately, archery got buffed in PF as well.

[TuggyNE]

While this is true, any amount of DR can reduce damage to zero, and between the weakness of 3.5 archery and the WBL a Fighter 20 will have, he could very well be able to charge a battalion and live. It just won't be really due to his own class features.

Gotta admit, I'm not sure how you'd get enough DR for that; seems like you'd need at least DR 8/whatever, and maybe more like DR 10. And /magic probably isn't enough. So uh... how do you accomplish this?

[Eldariel]

Gotta admit, I'm not sure how you'd get enough DR for that; seems like you'd need at least DR 8/whatever, and maybe more like DR 10. And /magic probably isn't enough. So uh... how do you accomplish this?

Well, I would imagine vs. normal troops DR/Magic would be plenty. But if not, there's always Starmantle Cloak [BoED], Angel/Demonskin Armors [MiC] and all that. Or some source of Stoneskin I guess. There are ways.

[Psyren]

Gotta admit, I'm not sure how you'd get enough DR for that; seems like you'd need at least DR 8/whatever, and maybe more like DR 10. And /magic probably isn't enough. So uh... how do you accomplish this?

Not sure what you mean; a longbow does 1d8, so DR 10/- will completely negate all of that no matter how many thousands of people are firing at you. Even if they get composite bows and magic arrows, all you have to do is add in some good AC, fast healing and miss chance (all of which are obtainable with WBL) to negate even more.

[JaronK]

If, however, that entire battalion has a single Dragonfire Inspiration Bard with some War Drums (which I'd consider standard equipment for an army, personally), that DR won't be enough. You'd need to throw in Fire Resist as well.

But because this is all gear based, a Commoner could take care of that Battalion as easily as a Fighter. That's... kinda sad.

JaronK

[TuggyNE]

Well, I would imagine vs. normal troops DR/Magic would be plenty. But if not, there's always Starmantle Cloak [BoED], Angel/Demonskin Armors [MiC] and all that. Or some source of Stoneskin I guess. There are ways.

I'd forgotten about Starmantle Cloak and didn't know of the angelskin/demonskin. Thanks. (Stoneskin is too limited.)


Not sure what you mean; a longbow does 1d8, so DR 10/- will completely negate all of that no matter how many thousands of people are firing at you. Even if they get composite bows and magic arrows, all you have to do is add in some good AC, fast healing and miss chance (all of which are obtainable with WBL) to negate even more.

DR 10/- works fine, yes. How do you get that, was the question.

Basically, I was saying that I'm really not sure how to go about optimizing DR on a Fighter.

[Blackhawk748]

Dude a commoner would get pwned. The fighter has the HP to keep going when it gets through his defenses, that and he can actual hit something. Honestly if you actually roll, you dont get hit a lot. When its moments like this i use a dice roller and count the twenties, and it is usually below the average.


DR 10/- works fine, yes. How do you get that, was the question.

Basically, I was saying that I'm really not sure how to go about optimizing DR on a Fighter.

Theres the Hammer, Spear, and Axe bane properties each one dives you Dr 3/Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing. Their kinda nice honestly, then theres Adamatine armor, thats the ones i can think of

[Grayson01]

How long do you think it would take (in Rounds) for a 20th level fighter to kill the entire Battalion? I am assuming he has Power attack, Cleave, and Greater Cleave so with say a Great Spear {10 ft Reach 2d6 x3} (Just cause).

A standred modern Battalion has between 300 ane 1200 troops lets say it's the higher of the two.

[Eldariel]

Dude a commoner would get pwned. The fighter has the HP to keep going when it gets through his defenses, that and he can actual hit something. Honestly if you actually roll, you dont get hit a lot. When its moments like this i use a dice roller and count the twenties, and it is usually below the average.

...you're telling me average rolls from dice are below average? That sounds like a fairly poor argument on a conceptual level. Sounds like random low roll or poorly coded dice roller (as it turns out, some of them use fairly poor scripts as a consequence of it being hard for computers to get truly random source numbers; input log, clock, etc. can lead to not-very-random results), instead.

I'll guarantee you properly rolling the results a bunch of time will get you very close to the average and with the amount of dice we're talking about here, it should get pretty close most of the time.


If, however, that entire battalion has a single Dragonfire Inspiration Bard with some War Drums (which I'd consider standard equipment for an army, personally), that DR won't be enough. You'd need to throw in Fire Resist as well.

But because this is all gear based, a Commoner could take care of that Battalion as easily as a Fighter. That's... kinda sad.

JaronK

A whole different encounter. But yes, I don't disagree; Warblade actually has some semblance of a chance without magic items so that's already much more interesting (a few strikes that give DR and then the 5/- stance would give him decent protection if he has them).

[Rogue Shadows]

I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.

[Hytheter]

How long do you think it would take (in Rounds) for a 20th level fighter to kill the entire Battalion? I am assuming he has Power attack, Cleave, and Greater Cleave so with say a Great Spear {10 ft Reach 2d6 x3} (Just cause).

A standred modern Battalion has between 300 ane 1200 troops lets say it's the higher of the two.

Great Spear? How about Spiked Chain? If the army is surrounding you, you can potentially kill 24 soldiers in a single attack thanks to great cleave. Remember, you can't use reach against adjecent foes unless the weapon is explicitly stated to do so.

[Flickerdart]

An army that continues to close to melee range after scores of them are slain in seconds isn't an army, it's a mob.

[Hytheter]

An army that continues to close to melee range after scores of them are slain in seconds isn't an army, it's a mob.

True, but after the first attack you can probably chase them, and they'll be running away or trying to figure out what to do about you. Enemy archers/ranged attackers will pose a problem, but being in the thick of it alleviates the issue.

[Incanur]

If you use the variant rule that a rolled 20 counts as 30, then the fighter is in much better shape. With automatic hits regardless of AC, then you've got 4.5 damage per archer per round. 1,000 archers means 225 damage per round, assuming that so many archers could target a single person. While the fighter definitely needs help, automatically hitting with a 20 at any range regardless of penalties gets pretty silly. 1,000 commoners with slings deal 125 damage per round at 500ft.

[LordBlades]

Dude a commoner would get pwned. The fighter has the HP to keep going when it gets through his defenses, that and he can actual hit something. Honestly if you actually roll, you dont get hit a lot. When its moments like this i use a dice roller and count the twenties, and it is usually below the average.



Theres the Hammer, Spear, and Axe bane properties each one dives you Dr 3/Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing. Their kinda nice honestly, then theres Adamatine armor, thats the ones i can think of

As a funny sidenote: I find it rather funny that a mineral warrior commoner 19 has a headstart in this challenge compared to human fighter 20.

[TuggyNE]

Theres the Hammer, Spear, and Axe bane properties each one dives you Dr 3/Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing. Their kinda nice honestly, then theres Adamatine armor, thats the ones i can think of

That gets you up to 3/-. How about the other 5 or 7? (DR does not stack.)

[LordBlades]

That gets you up to 3/-. How about the other 5 or 7? (DR does not stack.)

Stonemeld armor (ECS pag 266) grants DR 5/-, better but still not enough though.

[Nerd-o-rama]

If you use the variant rule that a rolled 20 counts as 30, then the fighter is in much better shape. With automatic hits regardless of AC, then you've got 4.5 damage per archer per round. 1,000 archers means 225 damage per round, assuming that so many archers could target a single person. While the fighter definitely needs help, automatically hitting with a 20 at any range regardless of penalties gets pretty silly. 1,000 commoners with slings deal 125 damage per round at 500ft.

4.5 damage per 20 archers per round, but your multiplied figures are right. At some point you have to just rule zero the fact that X many arrows can't physically target the same square at the same time. Considering you've already fiated a thousand peasants armed with longbows all having line of sight on a single Fighter 20 standing in the open, we're well out of the realm of things that can come up without the DM fiating something.

Plus it's simple enough to get a huge number of miss chances through WBL or a casting dip, especially against ranged attacks, and each one cuts average damage by 20 or 50%.

[Psyren]

DR 5/- is plenty once you factor in miss chances, fast healing/regen, high AC etc. Thanks to miss chance, even natural 20s are able to fail, thus what little damage manages to get through will be quickly recovered.

High AC of course prevents the crits from being confirmed, thus making sure that even the natural 20s have a greater than 50% chance of doing no damage at all.

DR 10/- is possible for Barbarian 20, not sure about Fighter 20.

[Dramiscius]

It's kinda funny how people are unable to wrap their heads around the concept that not everyone enjoys the same things.

[Shining Wrath]

A warblade doesn't actually make a very good samurai if you care about historical accuracy, as samurai were (among other things) archers, and warblades aren't proficient with bows.

Quibble: Warblades are proficient with all simple and martial weapons. But what I think you meant is correct: none of the ToB maneuvers are designed for archers.

[Gigas Breaker]

Quibble: Warblades are proficient with all simple and martial weapons. But what I think you meant is correct: none of the ToB maneuvers are designed for archers.

Simple and martial melee weapons.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's kinda funny how people are unable to wrap their heads around the concept that not everyone enjoys the same things.

It's the internet. That ceased being funny around 15 years ago and is now more or less just an accepted fact.

[ramrod]

At lower levels playing a Mage is friggin boring that's why. Unless you know that your campaign is going for a fair while or starts quite high, most mage classes tend to sit and do very little in my experience.

This is note timely truemamdmis am exaggeration, but other classes do steal the limelight until level 10ish...

[Xervous]

At lower levels playing a Mage is friggin boring that's why. Unless you know that your campaign is going for a fair while or starts quite high, most mage classes tend to sit and do very little in my experience.

This is note timely truemamdmis am exaggeration, but other classes do steal the limelight until level 10ish...

This is, of course, if you simply wish to play a mage. Roleplaying one, however, can be totally different and potentially a lot of fun from the early levels.

[ramrod]

This is, of course, if you simply wish to play a mage. Roleplaying one, however, can be totally different and potentially a lot of fun from the early levels.

Agreed. I love playing spellcasters. However, many new players do not see it because by comparison other classes seem to be running all over the show, blatting off spells, hitting, being hit. Whereas the part SC will sit at the back and toss 1-2 spells per encounter. Top that off with the fact that newer players tend to pick the wrong spells entirely (not taking haste or grease? Yo' crazy?) can make for boring play.

[dascarletm]

Top that off with the fact that newer players tend to pick the wrong spells entirely (not taking haste or grease? Yo' crazy?) can make for boring play.

Wrong spells?

The first 3rd lvl spell you get needs to be fireball! It's the flashiest, and the ladies love flashy spells. It's the Ferrari of 3rd level spells.
The second needs to be phantom steed! It's the fastest, and ladies love fast things. It's the other Lamborghini of 3rd level spells.

[Grifthin]

You play fighters because sometimes you need to punch a mountain...





into space.

[LordBlades]

Wrong spells?

The first 3rd lvl spell you get needs to be fireball! It's the flashiest, and the ladies love flashy spells. It's the Ferrari of 3rd level spells.
The second needs to be phantom steed! It's the fastest, and ladies love fast things. It's the other Lamborghini of 3rd level spells.

The difference is that if a wizard at some point realizes fireball sucks, he's only some GP and 8 hours away from getting a spell that doesn't suck. Clerics/Druids even less.

If a fighter realizes his Greater Weapon Specialization sucks, he's only one character away from getting a feat chain that doesn't suck.

[Flickerdart]

You play fighters because sometimes you need to punch a mountain...





into space.
Too bad that between size buffs, Strength buffs, and shapechanging magic, spellcasters are better at this.

[rexreg]

bookwork
after playing a wiz/cleric/mystic theurge/(homebrew that allowed caster advancement in both primary classes), i was thoroughly sick of bookwork.

playing a fighter w/ a huge 2-handed sword was refreshing

[rockdeworld]

While on the 10th page the time for serious responses is probably long past, I just want to point out that the following are two fighter types with terrible classes who are probably amazing fun to play.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8441606&postcount=106
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580412&postcount=115
And one that isn't by Akal Saris :smallwink:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10609622&postcount=104