PDA

View Full Version : Rising to a Bear’s challenge and adding to the eternal fighter/caster balance debate…



Pages : [1] 2

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-02, 01:53 PM
Hi everyone,

this is my first post in these forums, so please forgive in case I transgress any rules, ignore the great many threads out there which I have not read yet, etc. Also forgive any spelling errors I make since English is not my native language, and also the length of the post (so you may wish to get a snack …;-).). However, the issue of D&D3.5 core game balance and what has been written so far about it in these forums have been increasingly fascinating for me, so all of this got a bit longer than originally intended…

Now on with the post:

One of the prevailing themes in this d20 forum seems to be that even in core D&D3.5, the fighter, or even all non-full-spellcasting classes, are vastly inferior to the Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard from around mid-levels to level 20. This goes so far as the opinion, that by the time the characters hit the maximum non-epic level 20, the fighter can no longer meaningfully contribute to combat situations and typical CR 20 combat challenges.

Specifically, in several threads, Bears with Lasers (henceforth I join in the nice boards abbreviation BWL ;-) ) has posted the challenge whether please someone could show him a situation in which a Fighter would be able to somehow contribute to a fight vs a Balor (a CR 20 monster) or a dragon, let alone face it by him- or herself (let’s assume a male fighter in the following discussion).
I must say that I greatly respect the stuff BWL has posted so far and I truly believe that he has some of the greatest insights in the game of the regular posters, in particular the ways casters with arcane or divine magic can really be very powerful with their spell tactics. In this case, though, I’d love to rise to his challenge…at least to fighting a balor. I’ll think something up vs a dragon at a later time…

Let me, without (much) further ado, present, a fighter build that I would consider worthy of facing a balor, being actually (most of the time) able to kill it in one and a half rounds (by himself) without the balor being able to do much about it. This should prove three (core) game mechanics in my eyes:

- a fighter CAN contribute to a group in fights at very high level play (20 and before)
- at 20th level, the fighter is even quite well balanced for combat situations with AND even vs full casters (although I admit that the possibilities of a full caster situations outside of combat like research, diplomacy, travel, exploration etc. make them more powerful there. However, this is balanced vs the lower levels where the fighter is much more powerful in combat).
- I’ll conclude with some suggestions of why the typical CoDzilla strategy for full casters is only an emergency solution to very specific situations and why it can be superior for those casters to buff the fighter instead of range attacking themselves, certainly superior to wading into melee CoDzilla-style themselves first.

In general, I guess my opinion is that ALL character classes of D&D get extremely powerful by level 20. Also, I guess it is extremely difficult to DM a level 17-20 game, since ALL character classes have so much stuff available. After the following fighter build, I’ll then also try to say something about the balance of lvl 20 characters in general (and yes, I believe that full casters are slightly more powerful, but this mainly stems from the general possibilities they have, not from combat situations where the fighter – also – excels).

THE FIGHTER BUILD
*****
This core build is simple (for a level 20 build): Human Fighter 20 (32-point buy). STR 18, DEX 30, CON 14, INT 14, WIS 20, CHR 8. (Note: STR, DEX, WIS are raised to this level through the usual magic items, plus level up from a start level of 14. It could easily be higher in case of an elf and starting level of 20, but for this purpose I like to make a more flexible fighter, say with potential for extra skill points for cross-class tumble and spot skills, as well as an extra feat)
FEATS: Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot, Manyshot, Improved Critical-Comp.Longbow, Weapon Focus-Comp.Longbow, WeaponSpecialisation-Comp.Longbow (these are the key feats for the 1.5-round kill. The remaining 11 feats of his 19 total depend on the flavour of the character, but for high-level purposes they could nicely go, for instance, to: Power Attack (typical must-have), Blind-Fighting (the most powerful defense vs crippling blinding attacks without saves), Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Stunning Fist (those three are nice when being captive/without equipment and almost, with a monk’s belt, put the fighter on par with the monk in closed unarmed combat) Leadership (for various resources if the fighter has to go alone on adventures/a fight etc), Iron Will (brings Will saves up to making most of the saves vs 9th level spells (see below)), Alertness (with cross-class skill ranks, this brings spot to a nice +17, +19 if elf as a race is chosen), Dodge, Expertise, (these two push AC beyond 40 for many purposes), Improved Sunder (or Improved Disarm, depending on the taste. Improved Disarm helps vs. the likely Balor’s telekinesis attempts in case it uses it vs the comp. Longbow).
ITEMS: Boots of Speed, Potion of Invisibility, Longbow +10 eq. (+5 enhance, distance, seeking, bane-evil outsiders, holy), 20 Cold Iron Slaying arrows (not greater slaying arrows, since a Balor will save equally well vs DC 20 or 23 Fortitude), LuckBlade (can come with a wish left, but is not necessary), Bracers of Archery (Greater), Gloves of Dexterity +6, Tomes of +5 DEX and +4 STR. Again, these are needed for the 1.5 round-kill. There can be plenty more items for such a fighter (his resources of 750,000 gold are not used up yet). For instance, choose from: monk’s belt, Cloak of Resistance +5, Ring of Protection +5, Ring of Freedom of Movement, Periapt of WIS +6, Ring of Free Action, Buckler +1 with Spell Turning, Mace of Smiting (x4 critical vs Outsiders!), Gem of Seeing, Helm of Teleportation, Rod of Cancellation (vs Wall of Force or Force Cage; it does not get destroyed from these), Horn of Blasting for flavour ,etc. Note that this guy gets along without armour since for many of the dangerous ray spells, touch attacks are common (and he will not get weighed down by armour in case his STR gets some hits). Vs non-spell-casters, a 25,000 gp+some Mithral Full Plate+5 could still be a nice backup.

Now, this build adds up to the following statistics:
AC (touch, if fighting defensively, buckler adds another 2 in no-touch situations): 36
(+10 DEX, +5 Deflection/Ring of Protection, +6 via Monk’s Belt (+1 AC, +5 WIS bonus), +1 Dodge, +3 fighting defensively as Tumble cross-class has been raised to 5, +1 from haste with boots of speed as free action at the start of each combat. Flat-footed it is still an impressive touch AC of 21)
Hit Points: 164
Saves: Fort +18, Refl +22, Will +19 (note that an elf would have will+21 vs enchantment spells like Domination etc. already)
Initiative: +14 (DEX and Improved Initiative feat)
Attacks with Longbow:
4 as a standard action (due to manyshot feat) and 6 as full attack (Rapid shot, Haste from boots of speed)
The attack bonus total is: +41 (+20 base, +10 DEX, +2 competence/Bracers of Archery, +5 bow enhancement, +2 bow bane, +1 Haste from boots of speed, +1 Weapon Focus)
The attack boni with manyshot: +33 (-8 for 4 attacks). The attack boni with full attack: +39/+39/+39/+34/+29/+24
The damage per attack (assuming no critical hit or fumble): 1d8 (arrow) + 4d6 (bane, holy) + 14 (STR +4, +5 enhance, +2 bane, +2 weapon specialisation, +1 competence/bracers of archery).
Now, the range increment of this bow is 110 ft, + 55 ft from Far shot and doubled by distance magic ability of the bow to a total of 330ft.
*****

The devastating attack in the fight vs a balor plays out as follows:
The Fighter drinks the potion of invisibility and gets to around 300 ft away from the balor. He may either have located the balor due to a hint/contact other plane/randommajordiviniationspell from his fellow adventuring group (they may even be with him!), or with his cohort resources from the leadership feat, or simply because the balor is a mighty monster terrorising the landscape and about to attack a large city with its army (in this case the fighter may stand on a tower overlooking the army of the balor, and he may be sworn to protect the city).
At this range, all of the nice true seeing and detection abilities of the balor (as well as most of his offensive spell-like abilities) will not work. So our fighter gets a surprise round.
This surprise he uses with activating his boots as a free action and using a manyshot. Since the balor is flat-footed (AC 28), the fighter will hit it except on a fumble. This will result in 4 times the above damage per arrow, or 4d8 +16d6 + 64 damage, on average 138 points of damage.
Then, initiative is rolled. The fighter should win, since he has a +14 as opposed to the +11 of the Balor and, in the case of a tie, would win due to his higher DEX Bonus. More importantly, thanks to his luck blade, he can reroll any one roll per day. This should mean that he wins initiative around 84% of the time (don’t know the exact math, pls correct me if I’m wrong).
Then, the full attack hits…assuming he does not hit the AC 28 with his sixth shot, this still amounts to another 5d8 +20d6 + 78 damage, or on average 166 damage.
This is a total of 304 points of damage in 1.5 rounds (surprise round plus first round). Enough to make a bad day for an evil CR 20 dragon (if it were the subject of the attack and the bane bow was geared to dragons), but certainly enough to send the balor back to hell…ah, and of course due to the slaying arrows the balor had to avoid rolling a “1” 9 times…(not to mention the looming massive damage saves in case of a critical hit of an arrow. The Bow Crit range is 19-20).

(…)

Now, I concede that this situation may be “unfair” for the Balor. But it is not too easy to find a way to avoid such a threat from a lvl 20 fighter, as a CR 20 monster, lvl 20 non-caster or even lvl 20 caster. The Balor may have used some continous project image or illusion effect from an item (from its own “treasure”) to foil such assassination attempts. Or, a previously cast unholy aura (for other purposes) would provide it with a +4 AC, somewhat diminishing the damage taken from this attack. Or, it may also have a means of re-rolling its initiative roll or foreseeing with powerful divination of its demon prince or whatever to warn it of an imminent attack. Additionally, since the Balor has an INT 24 and WIS 24 vs. the fighter’s INT 14 and WIS 20 it is likely that the Balor has superior strategy & tactics, which really necessitates the whole 4-head archetypical 20th level group to work together (where the Wizard and the Cleric should have INT and WIS scores of 30, respectively). After all, a DM also at high level play should challenge his or her players, even if the monsters (as I believe have shown for the fighter, but others, such as BWL for full casters, or even rogues) are technically much less powerful on average than any single player character of the same level as the challenge rating.

Still, in any case, I would hardly call the fighter useless.

In various posts (BWL and others) there is a persistent notion that a single-class fighter should get into close melee with a balor or other CR 20 monster and should be able to excel there (since the fighter should excel at all combat). Now, this I believe is wrong. All character classes at lvl 20 are able to either get into close combat or use ranged attacks (excepting the monk, maybe, but the monk has the fastest movement). At such high levels, most characters have formidable ranged attacks available and should more often use those to avoid getting hit themselves. Why should the fighter (one of the few classes with longbow proficiency) be the only one to be so stupid as to engage a CR 20 monster in melee? (its vorpal blade alone should caution against trading full attacks vs the balor!). And even IF the fighter would be forced to do so (say, because the balor surprised him instead), he would be by far better equipped to withstand such an attack than all other classes (maybe excepting the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger), due to his many combat feats and in the above example, defensive/expertise touch AC of 41 (total AC 43 with buckler). But if melee is something the player of the above fighter also likes, it is quite easy to trade 8 levels of fighter (and 4 of the 19 feats) in the core rules with 8 levels of the melee fighting duelist prestige class. In the above example fighter, this would add +4 to initiative (raising the modifier to a staggering +18!) and +10 AC to the touch AC (to a total of 51 with full expertise. This is hard to hit even for the balor).
In a situation of mutual surprise, the fighter could quickdraw the bow and hit home with his full round attack of 166 damage; still nothing too shabby, in particular if he is still outside the range of a balor`s charge (180ft), putting him outside of most of the balor’s spell-like attacks sans insanity (DC 25 I recall, likely saved, in particular because the balor only gets 1 chance at most to use this) with quickened telekinesis trying to disarm him (an opposed check which he likely wins…).
Similarly, the major advantages of spellcasters and magic over the non-casting classes can almost all be quite easily balanced by 1) magic items, which benefit the non-caster classes more than the caster classes, since the latter already have magic at their disposal. This is also the reason why the game designers used so few magic items able to copy feats or other class abilities. And 2) by group play and buffs.

In the above example fighter, the saves are even without outside buffs already so high that most of the times, the fighter would probably escape even the balor 9th-level effects like the DC 27 Implosion or Dominate Monster. Similary, the touch AC is high enough to make it a bit troublesome even for optimised casters to overcome the fighter’s defenses with the feared ray spells or disintigrates (definitely the AC 51 of a 20th level fighter/duelist should only be hit with a “20” by full casters). Some magic may be difficult to overcome, but, for instance, power words fail to touch the fighter due to his large hit point total, and other threats too tough to overcome (or too surprising) may be avoided by an item that grants magic travel like a helm of teleportation.
In many “fighter vs full caster” fights this would then easily result in a draw (the side feeling it is about to lose teleports away to safety). Note also that a fighter winning initiative vs a full spell caster who is unable to use his time stop in that case would be a severe threat (even a contingency windwall vs the 166 points of arrow damage may be overcome, and be quite too specific for any caster. Most casters more likely have a contingency teleport able to counter all kinds of suprising attack/lost initiative, but this would again result in a draw).

Now, add to the above fighter buff spells from the full casters in an adventuring group. For instance, greater heroism adds the nicely stackable +4 morale bonus to skill checks, saves and attacks. A 20th level bard could easily provide the fighter with a +4 morale bonus as well with bardic music (non-dispellable!). And if a 20th level cleric simply uses Imbue with Spell ability and a Divine Favor (a stackable +6 luck bonus to attack AND damage) for the above fighter, that fighter could even attack 2 balors and hardly feel threatened. (truth to tell, the 2nd balor would use its teleport asap to get the hell away from such a threat. Flying out of range is not helping, at 360ft/round, risking flat-footed AC for several rounds before getting outside the terrible bow’s range. Even concealment does not help vs the seeking ability).

In general, I would consider such buffing the fighter a better option for the CoDzilla casters. As mentioned above, getting into close combat with a balor or dragon or other CR 20 monster often is not such a good idea. And both the Cleric and Druid have great range and summoning spells. So why run needless risks? CoDzilla tactics were also advocated since allegedly the best buff spells are for the casters only.
For the Druid I don’t know the spells well enough to make a full assessment here, but fighting as a wild-shaped HD 15 animal vs a HD 20 Balor in close combat certainly does not sound like a good idea to me, anyhow, even WITH buffs. The option to wildshape into a HD 16 Huge Elemental will not make such big difference here…Now, shapechange is a different matter, but if the druid turns into a balor himself, he would be a balor without its spell-like abilities and otherwise with a 50:50% chance to win in close combat- of course, he will not have the vorpal longsword, either…;-).
But, at least for the Cleric, barring the divine power spell, buffs beat CoDzilla tactics, especially if the Cleric has to move to the Balor to get even a chance at a full attack. Because, with divine power in melee instead of using one of the buffs below on the fighter, a cleric is essentially a fighter without bonus feats in close combat. Very scary idea.
Good Cleric buff spells and highly useful also at lvl 20 are, for instance:
- using the above mentioned combo of divine favor and imbue with spell ability
- all the attribute buff spells (note that magic items do not in the above example make enhancement boni completely unnecessary, and the situation of a character having +4/+6 stat boosting items for ALL stats should be rare)
- Freedom of Movement (for all who do not have such a magic item)
- Greater Magic Weapon (up to +5)
- Death Ward
- Disrupting Weapon (vs Undead)
- Spell Resistance (grants 32 Spell resistance for 20 Minutes. The example balor will therefore only get past this resistance in 40% of all times. Highly useful)
- Holy Aura (grants +4 AC of resistance bonus which may not stack. But the SR 25 vs evil creatures comes in handy)
- Protection from Spells (gives +8 enhancement vs Spells, so it should add another +3 at the very least)

Hope all this provides some futher input into the – it seems – eternal discussion of balance in DD3.5 (core). In any case, trying a strong direct attack spell or summoning spell is probably the best tactics for a Cleric or Druid (and definitely Sorcerer or Wizard), anyway, and buffing the fighter then is the 2nd best tactics, rather than trying to beat the fighter at his own game and go CoDzilla into melee (this is doomed to fail, as pointed out above).

Now I admit there is ONE feature of the cleric that appears to be broken/unbalanced vs the fighter: the divine power spell, especially if it is quickenend from lvl 15 or so.
The problem is that one can use the above build and equipment exactly as written and only replace “fighter” with “cleric”. The cleric, if using up all of his feats (including getting quicken spell) could easily emulate the above fighter AND still be able to cast 1-9th level spells (for instance, quickened divine favour in the surprise round for +6 luck bonus easily exceeds the weapon specialisation of the fighter). With the War domain (for bow proficiency and weapon focus) and the luck domain (for another re-roll per day) the “archer cleric” would be definitely superior to the fighter. This is a situation rightfully criticised by BWL and others, since the 1-9th level spells plus turn undead are better than the 11 (12 with martial weapons proficiency) additional feats of the fighter (most of the time, but not in all cases. For instance, the cleric would have difficulty adding the mightily useful duelist prestige class for the staggering initiative modifiers and AC without giving up some archery-related feats and 6th-9th level spells to qualify).

However, I would like to add some further defence of the WoTC game designers here. When looking at the cleric, there ARE drawbacks that somehow make a direct comparison a bit more tolerable for the fighter. The fighter has NO drawbacks or dangers where he could lose class abilities. The cleric does.
Not only does he or she have a restriction in relearning the spells per day which has to be done THE SAME one full hour every day, or the cleric won’t regain spells (that is a big vulnerability in high-level play, similar to the other’s own re-learning requirements, plus a wizard’s spellbook, a sorcerer’s inability to use the quicken spell feat and having the most limited spell list, and the druid’s generally weakest spell lists of the four along with a duty to defend nature).
In addition, the cleric has to obey his or her deity (or set of beliefs) AND likely also his or her church (a membership of a church is what sets the cleric apart from favoured souls in non-core play, after all), or he or she will lose all spellcasting powers (in OOTS/Belkar-speak: “say goodbye cleric, say hello to the subpar warrior-without-bonus-feats…;-) “). This is the avenue where a gamemaster can easily reign in a too powerful/rampant cleric without being “unfair” at all. It’s all in the rules: big powers always come at a cost.
Now finally add to this that the major class ability of the cleric (magic) is also highly vulnerable in high-level play (vs antimagic, abjurations, counterspells or dispel magics), whereas the fighter’s feats, as extraordinary abilities, are nigh untouchable (as are all the rogue, ranger, monk, paladin and barbarian non-spell abilities, for that matter).
In total, I guess the cleric (as well as other full caster classes) IS more powerful at high levels and level 20. But not by a big margin (and not by a bigger margin than the fighter or other non-casting classes were in lower levels, a range where most players seem to play). As such, nerfing or limiting spellcasting classes beyond that which is already in the rules (but is often overlooked) should not be necessary in most circumstances.
As a matter of fact, there is one class that has full spell casting to 20th level strength, but a great many other abilities that could also equate or even surpass the fighter in some situations: the similiarly (mistakenly) underrated bard. But that would be something for a different post…;-)

Enjoy the game everyone! I truly believe the balance in the core SRD/D&D3.5 is much better than many believe.

Were-Sandwich
2007-03-02, 02:02 PM
Wow. Wall of text. I'll admit I stopped reading after the fight bit, but I think this looks sound. Ranged fighters get round the one thing big onsters like dragons and balors have going for them: Flight.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-02, 02:04 PM
Um, archers can contribute at high levels by neatly sidestepping the Mobility Problem (the Fighter's biggest), yes. They're still relatively easy to disable compared to spellcasters, but they can contribute most of the time.
That's an archer character, though; the problem is Meatshields/Melee Guys being unworkable. If you've made an archer, you're a great fifth party member, but you're not the party tank--and the inability of the melee classes to actually fill the melee role is what's been criticized.

(Incidentally, meet my friend Wind Wall.)

As to your cleric's "drawbacks", they're either negligible or roleplay restrictions. Roleplay Restrictions do NOT a balance factor make! The cleric's god can arbitrarily take away his powers, but it's hard to justify it when it's a god of Buffin' Up and Whacking Things and the cleric's been buffing up and whacking things.

The cleric's vulnerability to Dispel Magic is much, MUCH less than the Fighter's vulnerability to, well, anyone who can cast Dispel Magic (becuase they can cast other things as well, which will be much more devastating to the fighter than Dispel is to the cleric with its 45% chance of removing a buff from an equal-level caster--presuming your target didn't buff up with various Caster Level boosters like the Bead of Karma).

I'll discuss your misanalysis of Buffed Up CoDzilla In Melee when I get back from class.

You might also want to break down your point-buy and GP Spent--while it might be tenable to buy two tomes, three +6 stat boosters, two good weapons, great armor, etc. etc. at level 20, it's much, much harder at level, say, 10, or even 15 (level 20 gets a huge GP boost). Clerics and wizards and druids can certainly bring the house down at ECL 10 and seamlessly merge into destroying Tokyo and breathing atomic fire all over the place at ECL 20. If your archer is easy to disable until he gets his fifteen items, that's probably a bad sign.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-02, 02:19 PM
Leadership is irrelevant, it's a feat only available by DM fiat meant for campaigns with a lack of players.

Strength in high levels can not be balanced by weakness in low levels. Even if the game is played from low to high level we are talking about events which can be a year or more apart.

Having appropriate bane arrows and starting the encounter at range with a surprise round stacks the deck.

Chrisros
2007-03-02, 02:22 PM
Very interesting, thoughtful contribution. Thanks!

Of course, as a subscriber to the "Casters dominate" school of thought, I choose to make only one observation in criticism:

The fighter build you detail above owns Balors. What if he has to fight something else tomorrow? A powerful caster simply choose different spells. This guy is just less effective.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-02, 02:25 PM
Hi BWL,

glad you reacted so quickly (after all, many of your posts have inspired this one).
And immediately you brought up some good points.

- yes, in mid-levels full spell casters likely are quite ahead since a fighter may not be able to "buy" (or gain from treasure) items that may be necessary. Additionally, treasure is sometimes random in nature, whereas spellcasters can choose quite a few of their decisive spells. I'll try to think about this point later
- now the ability to counter magic/dispel magic in my opinion hurts classes whose power stems from magic, not the non-casting classes. You are right that many of the buffs of the fighter or his magic items can be blocked by a simple dispel magic. However, in order to cast a dispel magic (even a quickened one) you have to go first. Against the above fighter, this is a challenge.


Probably a major point: I simply do not quite understand why any core class is expected to be a "meat shield"? Now, there is the Dwarven defender prestige class, which is obviously meant to use that tactics, which is often so inferior that this whole prestige class was brought up with extra specialised powers to make it somewhat worthwile ("hold that corridor for me, will ya?"). However, as I pointed out above, going into melee against a fearsome monster with many nosave-die-effects (like a vorpal blade) is crazy. Still, the fighter is probably the best of all classes to survive such a situation. But he should never actively seek such a situation in the first place.

So I guess the main point where we differ is not whether a fighter as a class can somehow contribute meaningfully at 20th level, but whether there should be any "meatshield" tactics, for any class.

Anyhow, have to rush off myself. Will likely view the forum again tomorrow. Looking forward to your posts!

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-02, 02:29 PM
Oops, already more answers. So just a quick reaction here as well_

- Pinkysbrain: I guess leadership can be quite powerful, but you are right, it's highly campaign-specific. BWL also argued that the drawbacks of a cleric are campagin/roleplaying-specific. Here I would disagree, since it IS part of the rules. And any opponent worth its salt at 20th level (in particular a balor!) is likely to try to exploit the weakness of a cleric in that particular hour of the day...
- chrisros: thanks! For Flexibility of the fighter: now, that's the task of the remaining 11 feats. I inserted some above (including melee feats) which I believe will cover most fighting situations. A Full caster, on the other hand (if he is not spontanous caster), will often have situations he is not prepared for.

Anyhow, have to rush now. thanks!

-Giacomo

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-02, 02:38 PM
It's not even that you might not have access to items--I'm a big believer in Wealth-By-Level and reasonable access to any item in the book. It's just that level 20 specifically is a huge jump in gold: try affording that even on a level 17 or 18 budget!

Part of the reason why being a meatshield is such a big deal is that it's traditional (Tank/Healer/Skill-and-trap guy/Mage set-up). Part of the reason is that for many people/classes, it's the primary option: if you aren't specifically set up for archery--which classes like the Barbarian and Paladin and Rogue (due to difficulty of deliver sneak attacks with archery) pretty much never are--then melee is your default. Part of the reason is that until higher levels, having people between the enemies and the squishies IS useful. Part of it is that generally, melee guys can do a lot more damage. There are a number of reasons, both mechanical and archetypical; and then there's, well, that not everybody wants to play an archer.

As to dispel magic, you missed what I was saying. My point was that an enemy who can cast Dispel Magic can also cast Slow, and one who can cast Greater Dispel Magic can also cast, say, Repulsion. Anyone who can dispel effectively can do other things, too; those other things would do more to a fighter than dispel would do to a caster.

Counterspin
2007-03-02, 02:58 PM
1) Clerics are not required to worship deities, by the RAW.

2) I don't think you get the wisdom to ac class ability of the monk from the monk's belt. The SRD is unclear though, so you may be right, I've always presumed you only get the level-tied bonus AC.

3) It just seems that all the work you've done indicates the balance you're arguing against. You built a fighter for this challenge, when a wizard would simply change his spell selection. That is the root of the wizard's power, the huge flexibility unlimited even by the laws of physics!

Krellen
2007-03-02, 03:10 PM
I would argue that this fighter build is well-suited for most challenges, actually. Might need arrows of a different material, but otherwise he's good to go.

cupkeyk
2007-03-02, 03:12 PM
Very interesting, thoughtful contribution. Thanks!

Of course, as a subscriber to the "Casters dominate" school of thought, I choose to make only one observation in criticism:

The fighter build you detail above owns Balors. What if he has to fight something else tomorrow? A powerful caster simply choose different spells. This guy is just less effective.

Bring Different Arrows. Ranged fighters have the benefit of flexibility vis-a-vis melee fighters.

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 03:22 PM
How does he see Mr. Balor from max range? You have +17 to your Spot. He has +38. That means that he can see you before you can see him, even with invisibility. Unfortunately you will never have the surprise round against the Balor.

Indon
2007-03-02, 03:45 PM
How does he see Mr. Balor from max range? You have +17 to your Spot. He has +38. That means that he can see you before you can see him, even with invisibility. Unfortunately you will never have the surprise round against the Balor.

Aside from the silliness of the spot ability outside of opposed spot/hide checks, the fighter can attempt to Hide and Move Silently while hunting, and will probably do pretty well considering his dex. Meanwhile, the Balor is probably not hiding.

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 04:00 PM
Aside from the silliness of the spot ability outside of opposed spot/hide checks, the fighter can attempt to Hide and Move Silently while hunting, and will probably do pretty well considering his dex. Meanwhile, the Balor is probably not hiding.

I doubt the fighter can beat a +38 spot or listen check. The entire fight depends entirely on the fighter getting the surprise round AND the first round. If the Balor either negates the surprise round or gets to act in it, that is one dead fighter.

Tweekinator
2007-03-02, 04:02 PM
Well, since Hide and Move Silently are cross class skills for Fighter, even if he invests everything he can into them, he'll still be boned.

Indon
2007-03-02, 04:05 PM
Well, since Hide and Move Silently are cross class skills for Fighter, even if he invests everything he can into them, he'll still be boned.

There mere fact that he'll be trying to hide (since it's presumed he's aware of the Balor's location in the premise) and the Balor isn't (unless the Balor has a reason to hide. What does a Balor hide from?) would amount in +1d20 in his favor. And then his Dex bonus, and the character had a good bit of dex. Not much of an armor check penalty, either.

So even without ranks, yes, trying to hide would make a big difference.

Tweekinator
2007-03-02, 04:10 PM
Wouldn't the Balor also get a d20?

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 04:11 PM
There mere fact that he'll be trying to hide (since it's presumed he's aware of the Balor's location in the premise) and the Balor isn't (unless the Balor has a reason to hide. What does a Balor hide from?) would amount in +1d20 in his favor. And then his Dex bonus, and the character had a good bit of dex. Not much of an armor check penalty, either.

So even without ranks, yes, trying to hide would make a big difference.
I disagree. You have +20 maximum to Hide or Move Silently (remember, only 4 skill points per level, half of which would have to go to one of these). That means on average he has a 30 to his Hide skill; the balor has +38 to Spot. This means only on a 20 does the fighter get to close.

When you have to rely on "if it was this way" or "if it was that way" or any other assumptions in one side's favor, the argument is probably already lost.

Indon
2007-03-02, 04:16 PM
I doubt the fighter can beat a +38 spot or listen check. The entire fight depends entirely on the fighter getting the surprise round AND the first round. If the Balor either negates the surprise round or gets to act in it, that is one dead fighter.

The fighter doesn't have to beat a +38 spot check. He has to make a +17 spot check against someone who is not trying to hide, while he himself can hide and take 20 (or, just keep rolling) on Spot.

Meaning that the fighter can see the Balor at 370 feet, just by taking his time. The Balor can see the fighter at that distance easily, if he was looking and the fighter wasn't hiding. But if he's not looking for anything, he suffers a -5, and then he has to beat the fighter's hide check. The Fighter has a +10 Dex, meaning the Balor would have to reactively notice the Fighter with a 14 if the Fighter had no hide ranks.

Oh, and if the Fighter's invisible he gets a +20 to his Hide check. Meaning at the fighters' attack range of 330 feet (well outside True Seeing range), the Balor'd need to roll a 30 on a d20, at least, if he were invisible.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-02, 04:16 PM
1) Clerics are not required to worship deities, by the RAW.

2) I don't think you get the wisdom to ac class ability of the monk from the monk's belt. The SRD is unclear though, so you may be right, I've always presumed you only get the level-tied bonus AC.
The rule is perfectly clear. The belt gives you the AC bonus of a 5th-level monk. Look up the monk class; check under "AC bonus" in the text of the class features--the Monk AC bonus is Wisdom+X.

He'd be better off with something like the Celestial Armor from the DMG than with the Monk's Belt, though.


3) It just seems that all the work you've done indicates the balance you're arguing against. You built a fighter for this challenge, when a wizard would simply change his spell selection. That is the root of the wizard's power, the huge flexibility unlimited even by the laws of physics!
Well, it's an archer with a high AB and damage. He'd be pretty effective against many enemies, because he doesn't have to get close to them, doesn't have mobility issues, and has thrown a large amount of gold/feats/stat points into fixing his biggest weak point (will save), although I'm having trouble seeing how he's starting with, what, 14 STR, 16 DEX, 14 WIS, and a decent CON (and then 13 INT for Combat Expertise, too?).

Barring enemy casters with Wind Wall, archers are the most effective Fighters, even moreso than battlefield controllers. "Guy with a sword" is way, way, way too big an archetype to leave useless, though.

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 04:27 PM
The fighter doesn't have to beat a +38 spot check. He has to make a +17 spot check against someone who is not trying to hide, while he himself can hide and take 20 (or, just keep rolling) on Spot.

Meaning that the fighter can see the Balor at 370 feet, just by taking his time. The Balor can see the fighter at that distance easily, if he was looking and the fighter wasn't hiding. But if he's not looking for anything, he suffers a -5, and then he has to beat the fighter's hide check. The Fighter has a +10 Dex, meaning the Balor would have to reactively notice the Fighter with a 14 if the Fighter had no hide ranks.

Oh, and if the Fighter's invisible he gets a +20 to his Hide check. Meaning at the fighters' attack range of 330 feet (well outside True Seeing range), the Balor'd need to roll a 30 on a d20, at least, if he were invisible.

How would the fighter know the exact square in which the balor is standing, enabling him to sit there making spot checks until he sees it? Even if the Balor fails due to invisibility, the Balor still succeeds on Listen. As soon as he's aware of where the fighter is its curtain and this could potentially happen at distances greater than 380 feet.

Indon
2007-03-02, 04:38 PM
Spot says that Spot checks can be called for to begin encounters. Listen doesn't. And the Spot DC's I'd put forth were actually in error; as far as I can tell from double-checking, they would require the fighter to roll a 0 on his check.

Same with Listen; If the fighter rolls a 1 on his Move Silently when he moves to a new area to search (Edit:Provided the Fighter has zero ranks, at 370 feet), the Balor has to make a 15.

Mind also that I'm not applying the Balor's -4 to hide, because the Balor isn't trying to hide and it's not really in the rules to apply hide penalties when a hide roll isn't being made... hunh. Re-reading the Spot skill, it implies that unless the Balor were hiding a spot check wouldn't really even be required, unless he were concealed in some other way.

Edit: And Tweekinator; The Balor only gets a d20 to help him hide from the fighter if he is actually hiding.

Ramza00
2007-03-02, 04:50 PM
Bears, what would you think of a spiked chain fighter with the winged creature template, that utilizes the new Cityscape Fighter substitution option? (the one that allows you to bull rush creatures into walls, large objects, and hint hint *wink* the ground if you are already flying). Combine with a spiked chain...

At fighter 2 the damage is 2d6+2*Str. At fighter 6 it is 8d6 +3*Str

More info here if you haven't heard of this new combo...
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791388

Does this change your mind about fighters/melee?

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 04:51 PM
Spot says that Spot checks can be called for to begin encounters. Listen doesn't. And the Spot DC's I'd put forth were actually in error; as far as I can tell from double-checking, they would require the fighter to roll a 0 on his check.

Same with Listen; If the fighter rolls a 1 on his Move Silently when he moves to a new area to search (Edit:Provided the Fighter has zero ranks, at 370 feet), the Balor has to make a 15.

Mind also that I'm not applying the Balor's -4 to hide, because the Balor isn't trying to hide and it's not really in the rules to apply hide penalties when a hide roll isn't being made... hunh. Re-reading the Spot skill, it implies that unless the Balor were hiding a spot check wouldn't really even be required, unless he were concealed in some other way.

Edit: And Tweekinator; The Balor only gets a d20 to help him hide from the fighter if he is actually hiding.

Listen checks are made as a reaction. You can completely disregard the die rolls because they average to the same number for both cases. +38 to a skill is d20 +38, just the same as the fighter's.
Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins.

That suggests that you get to make spot checks as soon as its possible to notice the opponent.

You can't just continually stack the deck in favor of one side and say its a valid comparison.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-02, 04:52 PM
What kind of flight does Winged give? What's its LA?

Using the Dungeonscape bull-rush substitition feature to get a bullrush into the ground on every hit is... well, cheese. Major cheese. But really, it amounts to damage output and fighters could already *do* that; this just makes them better at it. So are you recommending Winged to fix mobility problems, or what?

Counterspin
2007-03-02, 04:54 PM
Bears : I had always assumed that the monk ability which gives the bonus AC had a name, which is why I misread it. Presuming it has a name, it's weird that the name does not appear in the item section. Since it is entirely unique amongst class abilities I've always interepreted it differently, but you're clearly right.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-02, 04:55 PM
you're clearly right.

Yeah, I get that a lot. ;)

Indon
2007-03-02, 04:55 PM
Listen checks are made as a reaction. You can completely disregard the die rolls because they average to the same number for both cases. +38 to a skill is d20 +38, just the same as the fighter's.
Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins.

That suggests that you get to make spot checks as soon as its possible to notice the opponent.

You can't just continually stack the deck in favor of one side and say its a valid comparison.

Man, it's an encounter. Encounters are almost universally in the PC's favor, if only in the form of intelligence regarding the nature of the opponent (which in this case, it is specified that the fighter has, including the opponents' location. The Spot checks are for the Fighter to pinpoint a target he _already knows is there_)

Piccamo
2007-03-02, 04:59 PM
Man, it's an encounter. Encounters are almost universally in the PC's favor, if only in the form of intelligence regarding the nature of the opponent (which in this case, it is specified that the fighter has, including the opponents' location. The Spot checks are for the Fighter to pinpoint a target he _already knows is there_)
Yeah, encounters are almost universally in the PC's favor...does that mean the Balor should lay down and take a nap as well? If you want an acid test of the encounter you can't stack things in favor of one side or the other. The balor isn't trying to pinpoint something he knows is there, but he does get to be reactive. He's not a rock sitting there waiting for an ambush by a bunch of adventurers.

Ramza00
2007-03-02, 05:01 PM
What kind of flight does Winged give? What's its LA?

Using the Dungeonscape bull-rush substitition feature to get a bullrush into the ground on every hit is... well, cheese. Major cheese. But really, it amounts to damage output and fighters could already *do* that; this just makes them better at it. So are you recommending Winged to fix mobility problems, or what?
Winged Creature Template is in savage species +2LA. Gives +4 Dex, +2 Wis, a fly speed based off your land speed+20. And a maneuverability based off your dex (need 17 dex after the +4 to get perfect maneuverability). “Winged” is an inherited template that can be added to any animal, giant, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, or vermin.

You could instead use the Raptoran race to get permanent flight without a LA. Or you can go the magic items route.

Winged is to fix mobility options, and to allow you to bull rush them in the ground every round. (since you don't need a wall anymore if you are just using the ground)

And yes it may be cheese, but at such a level where you are fighting balors what is a pure fighter or similar build going to do to contribute?

Jasdoif
2007-03-02, 05:01 PM
Manyshot has a stated range limit of 30 feet, which is well within the Balor's true seeing range.

Indon
2007-03-02, 05:02 PM
Yeah, encounters are almost universally in the PC's favor...does that mean the Balor should lay down and take a nap as well? If you want an acid test of the encounter you can't stack things in favor of one side or the other. The balor isn't trying to pinpoint something he knows is there, but he does get to be reactive. He's not a rock sitting there waiting for an ambush by a bunch of adventurers.

But he's probably not hiding, either. It's debatable if the fighter even needs to _make_ a Spot check to begin the encounter.

Edit: Hmm. Manyshot has a range. Definitely important to know.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-02, 05:05 PM
Here's the issue: you've built a good archer-type fighter. Good job. Unfortunately, it is one of the few fighter-builds that actually function well.

Meanwhile, nearly any wizard/sorceror/cleric/druid build can do well, even if played ineptly.

Krellen
2007-03-02, 05:11 PM
Meanwhile, nearly any wizard/sorceror/cleric/druid build can do well, even if played ineptly.
Doesn't the melee fighter - the "tank" - serve an important purpose in a group with ineptly played casters, though? Especially since these casters aren't locking down enemies, the melee tank is a good source of damage output for the group, and his propinquity to the inept casters gives them some cover they would otherwise lack.

barawn
2007-03-02, 05:14 PM
Meanwhile, nearly any wizard/sorceror/cleric/druid build can do well, even if played ineptly.

Oh, I challenge you on that one. I'm pretty sure that a wizard who's only got memorized copies of Detect Magic will do very, very poorly in combat.

You apparently don't have sufficient imagination on 'ineptness'. :smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis
2007-03-02, 05:15 PM
Oh, I challenge you on that one. I'm pretty sure that a wizard who's only got memorized copies of Detect Magic will do very, very poorly in combat.

You apparently don't have sufficient imagination on 'ineptness'. :smallbiggrin:

There's a distinct difference between "ineptitude" and "idiocy."

barawn
2007-03-02, 06:12 PM
There's a distinct difference between "ineptitude" and "idiocy."

Maybe he really, really likes detecting magic.

ken-do-nim
2007-03-02, 06:43 PM
First I just want to point out something that I as a DM have screwed up upon occasion:



Attacks with Longbow:
4 as a standard action (due to manyshot feat) and 6 as full attack (Rapid shot, Haste from boots of speed)


Um, your surprise round involved shooting the balor with manyshot from 300 something feet away. Manyshot only works within 30 feet.

As to the whole class balance debate, I've decided that the voice of experience is far more important than these theoretical discussions. I've never played at 20th level in 3.5 and I'd give more weight to those who have.

Nekoshodan
2007-03-02, 11:11 PM
This is a very interesting thread. Sir Giacomo has created a fighter that emulates a caster's ability to do mass damage at range. In more limited form, but not susceptible to most resistances and more repeatable, to the extent of his ammunition.

This fighter has put up a good fight on this front, but I believe that BWL is correct insofar as the direction he is looking. I believe that on any given battle a fresh caster is more likely to outperform a fighter.

Of course, that's what I've never liked about casters. You can only really shine for 1, maybe 2 encounters. When you're out of powerful spells, you're out of luck. A fighter on the other hand, never runs out of swings. Sir Giacomo's fighter traded some of that drawback to get some of that burst power, as he might run out of arrows.

The caster will outperform the fighter on the presumption of fighting an encounter, then resting. Then finding one more encounter, and another chance to rest. Being more powerful in this circumstance does not make casters overpowered or fighting classes underpowered. They just have strengths for different aspects of a campaign.


This also encourages a strategy Sir Giacomo mentioned, buffing the fighter. As many effective(maybe not extraordinary, but effective) buffs do not take the same spell slots as the caster's trump spells, the caster may choose to buff the fighter to save his payload for the next encounter, or if he has already used his big tricks that day.

Miles Invictus
2007-03-02, 11:39 PM
Of course, that's what I've never liked about casters. You can only really shine for 1, maybe 2 encounters. When you're out of powerful spells, you're out of luck. A fighter on the other hand, never runs out of swings. Sir Giacomo's fighter traded some of that drawback to get some of that burst power, as he might run out of arrows.

The caster will outperform the fighter on the presumption of fighting an encounter, then resting. Then finding one more encounter, and another chance to rest. Being more powerful in this circumstance does not make casters overpowered or fighting classes underpowered. They just have strengths for different aspects of a campaign.

Not really looking to take part in the great caster vs. warrior debate, but I have to point something out: the primary resource of a warrior is not attacks, but hit points. A warrior's role typically places him in dangerous situations; he is more likely to sustain damage than a caster. He still has finite resources, they are simply of a different type than the caster uses.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-03, 12:03 AM
Also, a high-level caster can last through four--or even five, six, seven--encounters without much of a problem.

Nekoshodan
2007-03-03, 12:19 AM
7 encounters? I suppose that depends upon the difficulty. ya, a lvl 20 fighter can go through quite a few hobgoblin encounters without difficulty too.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I'm pretty sure even a lvl 20 caster falls short of 14-21 high level spells per day, and that's only 2-3 spells per encounter.

Ramza00
2007-03-03, 12:39 AM
Also, a high-level caster can last through four--or even five, six, seven--encounters without much of a problem.
So no comments about the winged bullrusher warrior?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-03, 12:50 AM
Well, what about him? Winged is a great template for flying maneuverability, which is a big help. Dungeoncrasher adds damage, but when your enemies are also flying, you can't bullrush them into the floor, so it eventually stops. Winged is inherited, so you have to start with it; at the low levels, it might kill you (1 HD vs. 3), but eventually, it's great if it's allowed. It takes care of mobility, somewhat; being a Raptoran gives less-good but LA-free flight, too. Flight is good for a warrior, damage is good for a warrior. That's one way of getting both.

I guess I'm not really seeing what's special about him. He flies and does a lot of damage--a Shock Troopering Raptoran does the same.

Rigeld2
2007-03-03, 01:42 AM
I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I'm pretty sure even a lvl 20 caster falls short of 14-21 high level spells per day, and that's only 2-3 spells per encounter.
Think so? Defining high level as 7+, lets look at it.

29 INT is trivial to get at level 20. That gives us 1 7th, 1 8th, and 1 9th. A Specialist Wizard gets 5 per day of the 3 different spell levels, so thats 18 so far. Multiple Pearls of Power are possible, but we'll assume just one for now, giving us 19 high level spells per day. Hmm... a little short of 21, but I'm sure I'm missing something.

That doesnt count things that I guarantee would be used, like staves of 1-5/day effects, multiple Pearls of Power (and I know I'm forgetting a way to raise int.. +5 tome, +6 circlet... getting it up to 36 would get another of each level, but only 34 is needed to get 21) and also ignores the fact that lower level spells continue to be useful, even after you get 9th level spells. So something like a Ring of Wizardry for 4th level spells gets you 11 4th level spells per day by itself.

Quietus
2007-03-03, 03:01 AM
I fail to see the point in all this. The ranged fighter needs to win initiative. Yay. Guess what? The melee fighter has to deal with lack of mobility, and the caster has to deal with a lack of hit points.

Sure, the Wizard might be able to do something to more immediately annoy the balor, or be in a position to attack it better. On the other hand, the moment that balor Quickened Teleports on him and full attacks, the wizard is dust. The Fighter might yet survive it, through combination of hp and AC.

As for CoDzilla, you still need to get the time to buff up to be useful, and then you become as useful as a fighter, with the ability to cast spells. You've still got to cast your spells, then close to melee - and any casting allows them to hear you. In order to assume that you've fully buffed to be CoDzilla, you have to make the same assumptions you're arguing against; That you have optimal situation, and the balor doesn't.

Besides that, all that balor's gotta do is hit that cleric with a single dispel magic, and where's your CoDzilla now? Every turn your cleric spends rebuffing is a round the balor can use. Same for any turn spent healing. And what're you going to do, run?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-03, 03:32 AM
I fail to see the point in all this. The ranged fighter needs to win initiative. Yay. Guess what? The melee fighter has to deal with lack of mobility, and the caster has to deal with a lack of hit points.
The caster has like 32746527645243 ways to compensate for a lack of hit points.


Sure, the Wizard might be able to do something to more immediately annoy the balor, or be in a position to attack it better. On the other hand, the moment that balor Quickened Teleports on him and full attacks, the wizard is dust. The Fighter might yet survive it, through combination of hp and AC.
The Balor doesn't have Quickened Teleport. Sorry.


As for CoDzilla, you still need to get the time to buff up to be useful, and then you become as useful as a fighter, with the ability to cast spells. You've still got to cast your spells, then close to melee - and any casting allows them to hear you. In order to assume that you've fully buffed to be CoDzilla, you have to make the same assumptions you're arguing against; That you have optimal situation, and the balor doesn't.
For CoDzilla, you need one round. That's it. If you get a surprise round, you're set; if not, you buff and close in the first round. And then hit the Balor with a Dimensional Anchor.


Besides that, all that balor's gotta do is hit that cleric with a single dispel magic, and where's your CoDzilla now? Every turn your cleric spends rebuffing is a round the balor can use. Same for any turn spent healing. And what're you going to do, run?
The Balor has a CL 20 Greater Dispel Magic. The cleric has a CL of 24 or 25 for his buffs (bead of karma). The Balor has a what % chance of dispelling each of the cleric's three buffs? Not very good. And that's assuming he wants to waste a turn on that.

Quietus
2007-03-03, 04:14 AM
The caster has like 32746527645243 ways to compensate for a lack of hit points.

Oh? And how many ways to deal with a balor? What, Dismissal? Best of luck, bud, that's close range. If you wanna get that close to a balor, you deserve the implosion it's firing your way.



The Balor doesn't have Quickened Teleport. Sorry.

It does if we're assuming that everyone has a brain. If the casters have enough of a brain to optimize, the DM can, presumably, have enough of a brain to give the balor Quickened Spell-like Ability.



For CoDzilla, you need one round. That's it. If you get a surprise round, you're set; if not, you buff and close in the first round. And then hit the Balor with a Dimensional Anchor.

And then what? Melee the balor? A popular retort for a fighter is "What happens when the balor flies out of your range?". That applies equally well here. Entanglement by its whip would be annoying, and it's still packing enough damage to make the cleric wish it wasn't, you know, right next to the flaming body of a balor.



The Balor has a CL 20 Greater Dispel Magic. The cleric has a CL of 24 or 25 for his buffs (bead of karma). The Balor has a what % chance of dispelling each of the cleric's three buffs? Not very good. And that's assuming he wants to waste a turn on that.[/quote]

I don't see why he wouldn't, when the cleric can't reach him. I don't know where the bead of karma is (I looked in the DMG, either it's in a separate sourcebook or I'm blind), but I don't see why the balor couldn't have a few orange ioun stones whirling around his head. After all, a CR20 monster's gonna have SOME treasure, right?

As a DM, if I'm dealing with a bunch of optimizing munchkin players, I'm GOING to optimize the monsters, particularly smart ones that SHOULD be able to be prepared for some eventualities. That means if my players have a habit of getting a caster level well over their own, and they're hunting a balor, it's gonna have ioun stones. Or something equivalent to a bead of karma, once I figure out what book that's in. They'll take full advantage of the fact that most things can't fly to get them, and they'll know well enough to know that if something's casting arcane magic at them, it should PROBABLY throw an implosion in that direction. Hell, while we're at it, let's throw one at the cleric too... no reason not to. Might roll low, after all. Then use its fire storm ability for kicks before closing for melee - even if it ends up dying, it'll cause enough pain to the cleric before it goes that the death throes will wreck them.

Favored feats to gain against superoptimizers : increased spell resistance, quicken spell like ability. I see no reason not to switch out QSA (telekinesis) for teleport, and why use weapon focus when you can up that SR to 30? Or improved two-weapon (hell, even use two-weapon) for 32 or 34?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-03, 04:18 AM
Now, add to the above fighter buff spells from the full casters in an adventuring group. For instance, greater heroism adds the nicely stackable +4 morale bonus to skill checks, saves and attacks. A 20th level bard could easily provide the fighter with a +4 morale bonus as well with bardic music (non-dispellable!). And if a 20th level cleric simply uses Imbue with Spell ability and a Divine Favor (a stackable +6 luck bonus to attack AND damage) for the above fighter, that fighter could even attack 2 balors and hardly feel threatened. (truth to tell, the 2nd balor would use its teleport asap to get the hell away from such a threat. Flying out of range is not helping, at 360ft/round, risking flat-footed AC for several rounds before getting outside the terrible bow’s range. Even concealment does not help vs the seeking ability).
Greater Heroism/Bardic Music is rendered null by Mind Blank, which had damn well better be on any fighter. Imbue with Spell Ability and Divine Favor is possible, but a fairly ineffecient use of spell slots. Divine Favor caps at +3, not +6; it was errataed.


In general, I would consider such buffing the fighter a better option for the CoDzilla casters. As mentioned above, getting into close combat with a balor or dragon or other CR 20 monster often is not such a good idea. And both the Cleric and Druid have great range and summoning spells. So why run needless risks? CoDzilla tactics were also advocated since allegedly the best buff spells are for the casters only.
They are. Righteous Might, Divine Power... Miracle to emulate other spells... and, of course, against some enemies it's better to use spells. They can do this.


For the Druid I don’t know the spells well enough to make a full assessment here, but fighting as a wild-shaped HD 15 animal vs a HD 20 Balor in close combat certainly does not sound like a good idea to me, anyhow, even WITH buffs. The option to wildshape into a HD 16 Huge Elemental will not make such big difference here…Now, shapechange is a different matter, but if the druid turns into a balor himself, he would be a balor without its spell-like abilities and otherwise with a 50:50% chance to win in close combat- of course, he will not have the vorpal longsword, either…;-).
Wild Shape doesn't cap at 15 HD. Wild Shape into a Dire Tiger, which gets the Pounce ability, for example, can let the Druid deliver a full attack. And then his Animal Growthed Dire Tiger animal companion deliver another one. Ouch.
As for Shapechange, with the Bead of Karma, he can get up to 24 or 25 HD forms... which includes a force dragon.


But, at least for the Cleric, barring the divine power spell, buffs beat CoDzilla tactics, especially if the Cleric has to move to the Balor to get even a chance at a full attack. Because, with divine power in melee instead of using one of the buffs below on the fighter, a cleric is essentially a fighter without bonus feats in close combat. Very scary idea.
Good Cleric buff spells and highly useful also at lvl 20 are, for instance:
- using the above mentioned combo of divine favor and imbue with spell ability
That's a fairly good idea. He may as well Divine Favor himself as doing that for a fighter, though--or both; IWSA is cast in the beginning of the day.

all the attribute buff spells (note that magic items do not in the above example make enhancement boni completely unnecessary, and the situation of a character having +4/+6 stat boosting items for ALL stats should be rare)
The only ones worth casting would be the ones to primary stats... which the fighter should have items from. These stop being worth the slot after level 4 or 5.


Freedom of Movement (for all who do not have such a magic item)
This is one of the first priorities magic-item-wise. It might be worth the casting (against a Balor, probably not), but that'd generally be with a Rod of Extend Spell (or just Extended), giving it a duration of hours.


- Greater Magic Weapon (up to +5)
- Death Ward
- Disrupting Weapon (vs Undead)
- Spell Resistance (grants 32 Spell resistance for 20 Minutes. The example balor will therefore only get past this resistance in 40% of all times. Highly useful)
- Holy Aura (grants +4 AC of resistance bonus which may not stack. But the SR 25 vs evil creatures comes in handy)
- Protection from Spells (gives +8 enhancement vs Spells, so it should add another +3 at the very least)

GMW is cast in the morning, on everyone who fights with a weapon (between the cleric and the wizard), most likely. Death Ward's a maybe, but it would be for the rogue (weak Fort saves) rather than the Fighter, most likely--and doesn't really help against a Balor. Disrupting Weapon is useless, since, basically, no undead you fight at a high level will have HD < your CL. Holy Aura is useless because it doesn't stack with the cloak of resistance everyone should have, and SR 25 vs. CL 20 is NOT worth a standard action.
Spell Resistance is a good one.

However, the Cleric has better options than buffing the fighter. Rushing in to melee the flying, teleporting Balor isn't the best option, either... throwing a Dimensional Anchor at it is. Then the wizard can wipe it out. If he doesn't, the cleric can buff up and melee it.


Hope all this provides some futher input into the – it seems – eternal discussion of balance in DD3.5 (core). In any case, trying a strong direct attack spell or summoning spell is probably the best tactics for a Cleric or Druid (and definitely Sorcerer or Wizard), anyway, and buffing the fighter then is the 2nd best tactics, rather than trying to beat the fighter at his own game and go CoDzilla into melee (this is doomed to fail, as pointed out above).
It's actually not doomed to fail. With Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might, the cleric has more reach, more DR, a higher AB, and a higher damage than the Fighter. He's also got more options, like Heal, Harm, and even Miracle where need be. The cleric's going to do better in melee. The Druid will *definitely* do better. He's got Wildshape forms like the Dire Tiger, the Roc, the Treant, and the Tendriculos, and Shapechange for complete win.


Now I admit there is ONE feature of the cleric that appears to be broken/unbalanced vs the fighter: the divine power spell, especially if it is quickenend from lvl 15 or so.
The problem is that one can use the above build and equipment exactly as written and only replace “fighter” with “cleric”. The cleric, if using up all of his feats (including getting quicken spell) could easily emulate the above fighter AND still be able to cast 1-9th level spells (for instance, quickened divine favour in the surprise round for +6 luck bonus easily exceeds the weapon specialisation of the fighter). With the War domain (for bow proficiency and weapon focus) and the luck domain (for another re-roll per day) the “archer cleric” would be definitely superior to the fighter.
Yep. The cleric archer (best in noncore, with the Elf domain and Zen Archery for free Point Blank Shot and a focus on WIS, but perfectly viable in core) is better than a fighter archer. Similarily, the cleric melee guy is better than a fighter melee guy.


This is a situation rightfully criticised by BWL and others, since the 1-9th level spells plus turn undead are better than the 11 (12 with martial weapons proficiency) additional feats of the fighter (most of the time, but not in all cases. For instance, the cleric would have difficulty adding the mightily useful duelist prestige class for the staggering initiative modifiers and AC without giving up some archery-related feats and 6th-9th level spells to qualify).
The cleric doesn'tneed Duelist for anything. Cleric 20 is perfectly fine, AC-wise, and Init-wise with a high DEX (archer cleric) and Imp. Init.


However, I would like to add some further defence of the WoTC game designers here. When looking at the cleric, there ARE drawbacks that somehow make a direct comparison a bit more tolerable for the fighter. The fighter has NO drawbacks or dangers where he could lose class abilities. The cleric does.
And yet, clerics manage to go through games without ever once being denied access to their spells. It's not hard to play a cleric in accord with his deity/alignment.


Not only does he or she have a restriction in relearning the spells per day which has to be done THE SAME one full hour every day, or the cleric won’t regain spells (that is a big vulnerability in high-level play, similar to the other’s own re-learning requirements, plus a wizard’s spellbook, a sorcerer’s inability to use the quicken spell feat and having the most limited spell list, and the druid’s generally weakest spell lists of the four along with a duty to defend nature).
In addition, the cleric has to obey his or her deity (or set of beliefs) AND likely also his or her church (a membership of a church is what sets the cleric apart from favoured souls in non-core play, after all), or he or she will lose all spellcasting powers (in OOTS/Belkar-speak: “say goodbye cleric, say hello to the subpar warrior-without-bonus-feats…;-) “). This is the avenue where a gamemaster can easily reign in a too powerful/rampant cleric without being “unfair” at all. It’s all in the rules: big powers always come at a cost.
Um, no; "you lose all your spells" isn't a good way to rein a cleric in. It's DM Fiat for Being Too Good, and could just as easily be applied to anyone, especially if the cleric is a cleric of a warlike deity. During that one hour when the cleric needs to pray... he can probably do it. Inside a Magnificent Mansion, no less. It's not really a significant vulnerability.


Now finally add to this that the major class ability of the cleric (magic) is also highly vulnerable in high-level play (vs antimagic, abjurations, counterspells or dispel magics), whereas the fighter’s feats, as extraordinary abilities, are nigh untouchable (as are all the rogue, ranger, monk, paladin and barbarian non-spell abilities, for that matter).
In total, I guess the cleric (as well as other full caster classes) IS more powerful at high levels and level 20. But not by a big margin (and not by a bigger margin than the fighter or other non-casting classes were in lower levels, a range where most players seem to play).
Uh... AMF is very rarely useable in such a way as to inconvenience PCs; they have to be on a flying enemy for that. (Dead magic zones are another matter, but they're really just a Spellcasters Lose button that's only in the game because normally Spellcasters Win. And... *how* often do they show up, exactly?) Dispel Magic, counterspelling, etc. is availible to enemies... but any enemy who can do that, can do much more effective things. That's the problem: the enemy could cast Dispel Magic... or Slow, which hurts the fighter worse than Dispel does the cleric (and hits multiple targets as well), Greater Dispel Magic or Disintegrate/Repulsion/etc.
The cleric's very significantly stronger.


As such, nerfing or limiting spellcasting classes beyond that which is already in the rules (but is often overlooked) should not be necessary in most circumstances.
As a matter of fact, there is one class that has full spell casting to 20th level strength, but a great many other abilities that could also equate or even surpass the fighter in some situations: the similiarly (mistakenly) underrated bard. But that would be something for a different post…;-)

Enjoy the game everyone! I truly believe the balance in the core SRD/D&D3.5 is much better than many believe.
Sorry, but it really isn't. Nerfing or limited spellcasting classes beyond the rules *is* necessary. Fighters *do*--Archers Boosting Their Wisdom as a specific build aside--have lots of problems contributing at high levels, in their common and archetypical role as Melee Guy. Buffing the fighter is a significantly worse option than buffing yourself, as much better self-buffs are availible--and when melee isn't the right option, if you have a second cleric or a druid instead of a fighter, they have fallback options; a non-archery-focused fighter doesn't.

Quietus
2007-03-03, 04:47 AM
The caster has like 32746527645243 ways to compensate for a lack of hit points.

Oh? And how many ways to deal with a balor? What, Dismissal? Best of luck, bud, that's close range. If you wanna get that close to a balor, you deserve the implosion it's firing your way.



The Balor doesn't have Quickened Teleport. Sorry.

It does if we're assuming that everyone has a brain. If the casters have enough of a brain to optimize, the DM can, presumably, have enough of a brain to give the balor Quickened Spell-like Ability.



For CoDzilla, you need one round. That's it. If you get a surprise round, you're set; if not, you buff and close in the first round. And then hit the Balor with a Dimensional Anchor.

And then what? Melee the balor? A popular retort for a fighter is "What happens when the balor flies out of your range?". That applies equally well here. Entanglement by its whip would be annoying, and it's still packing enough damage to make the cleric wish it wasn't, you know, right next to the flaming body of a balor.



The Balor has a CL 20 Greater Dispel Magic. The cleric has a CL of 24 or 25 for his buffs (bead of karma). The Balor has a what % chance of dispelling each of the cleric's three buffs? Not very good. And that's assuming he wants to waste a turn on that.[/quote]

I don't see why he wouldn't, when the cleric can't reach him. I don't know where the bead of karma is (I looked in the DMG, either it's in a separate sourcebook or I'm blind), but I don't see why the balor couldn't have a few orange ioun stones whirling around his head. After all, a CR20 monster's gonna have SOME treasure, right?

As a DM, if I'm dealing with a bunch of optimizing munchkin players, I'm GOING to optimize the monsters, particularly smart ones that SHOULD be able to be prepared for some eventualities. That means if my players have a habit of getting a caster level well over their own, and they're hunting a balor, it's gonna have ioun stones. Or something equivalent to a bead of karma, once I figure out what book that's in. They'll take full advantage of the fact that most things can't fly to get them, and they'll know well enough to know that if something's casting arcane magic at them, it should PROBABLY throw an implosion in that direction. Hell, while we're at it, let's throw one at the cleric too... no reason not to. Might roll low, after all. Then use its fire storm ability for kicks before closing for melee - even if it ends up dying, it'll cause enough pain to the cleric before it goes that the death throes will wreck them.

Favored feats to gain against superoptimizers : increased spell resistance, quicken spell like ability. I see no reason not to switch out QSA (telekinesis) for teleport, and why use weapon focus when you can up that SR to 30? Or improved two-weapon (hell, even use two-weapon) for 32 or 34?

Ramza00
2007-03-03, 06:28 AM
Beads of Karma
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#strandofPrayerBeads

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 07:48 AM
OK, hi everyone,

only off for a night (European timezone...) and already quite a few posts here, with many interesting comments.

Probably BWL's last post contains the most stuff that I'd like to reply to, but ahead of that, just some remarks on comments done earlier:

- YES, I made a mistake with the manyshot. Manyshot only works up to 30ft. This makes it still a quite powerful close-ranged option, but then the fighter will have to suffer at least one powerful spell-like attack by the balor (or other CR 20 monster) per round. Hey, if - as seems to be the case- there are still many wishing the fighter to be the one crazy hero among all classes to go VERY close to such a monster, even that may be a viable tactics.
- if anything, I'd say this makes buffing the fighter by full casters for such a powerful attack on the balor more important. Adding +4 morale bonus to damage because a lvl 20 bard already sung about his heroics beforehand (inspire courage) and the aforementioned combo of imbue with spell ability from the local high priest of the endangered town (+6 luck to damage; it IS still this way in the SRD 3.5, but as BWL says, it may have been errataed) would then mean 1 arrow in the surprise round, 6 hits in the main round (just assuming this time the last arrow hits with all the buffs) with 1d8+4d6+24 each, or a grand total of 7d8+30d6+168 or on average 295, again killing the balor at 300ft even without manyshot .:smallcool: This is way superior to ANY CoDzilla spell/attack tactics by a full caster at lvl 20, since it very likely kills the balor.
- there seemed to have been some confusion as to why the fighter gets a surprise round AND the initiative. It's because of the range. Indon has already done the math up there outlining that even with a +38 on spot check, the balor likely has no chance of detecting an invisible fighter 300 ft away (who may have a cross-class rank of 10 in Hide, plus DEX+10 for an own modifier of +40). So that's the surprise round. As for the initiative, I tried to put the figure in the original post, it's at 84%. As I said above, the Balor MAY have treasure like a luck blade or something (even then he likely loses initiative; plus a truly core maxed elven fighter/duelist would have something in the area of +21 on initiative rolls). However, the whole point of the post has been to show that the fighter CAN contribute at 20th level and is a force to be reckoned with, balanced with other classes for combat.


Now, on to some short replies to BWL's comments, and after that some general ideas of mine on the three points of the discussion that I originally raised: 1) can the fighter contribute at high-level combat play? 2) is he even balanced in combat vs the full casters? and 3) if 2) is not true, then are even CoDzilla tactics (a sub-category/tactics of full casters) superior to fighters?



Greater Heroism/Bardic Music is rendered null by Mind Blank, which had damn well better be on any fighter. Imbue with Spell Ability and Divine Favor is possible, but a fairly ineffecient use of spell slots. Divine Favor caps at +3, not +6; it was errataed.


About Divine Favor: see above.
Mind Blank: a great buff, thanks for the hint! Now in that particular situation above the morale bonus by the bard would raise the Will Save of the fighter to +23 (+25 if an elf). Add to that Spell Protection (another 8th level spell) and the fighter is virtually (as in 95%) immune to such attacks from the balor, making a mind blank unnecceary. The mind blank lasts longer, though. Hmmm...
I guess it depends on the situation. In the situation above, mind blank would probably not be necessary. In the ensuing revenge spree of the other demons after the balor kill? Probably!



They are. Righteous Might, Divine Power... Miracle to emulate other spells... and, of course, against some enemies it's better to use spells. They can do this.


Rightous Might: this spell lets you grow to large size, making you more easy to detect. So it's not a good archery spell, but a good spell for melee emergency.
Divine Power: I admitted already in the first post that's a tough nut. But more about this below
Miracle: the very nature of the spell argues for doing something in favour of several combatants, not only the cleric him- or herself.Apart from that, it costs XP and suffers from the same risks as a wish (if you want too much), with the added twist that your deity/belief principles have to be 100% in line with it (and after all, it amounts to basically saying to the DM: "er...could you please help me kill this balor". DM: "Yes. You win." Fun, eh? :smallsmile: )



Wild Shape doesn't cap at 15 HD. Wild Shape into a Dire Tiger, which gets the Pounce ability, for example, can let the Druid deliver a full attack. And then his Animal Growthed Dire Tiger animal companion deliver another one. Ouch.
As for Shapechange, with the Bead of Karma, he can get up to 24 or 25 HD forms... which includes a force dragon.


Hmmm. Now I thought that from my reading of the druid class ability as well as the polymorph spell, on which it is based, the HD caps at 15. Anyhow, a dire tiger is a VERY bad idea to shape into (or run around all the time shaped). Because its DEX modifier is only +2. Even with an improved initiative feat, the Druid then only has a modifier of +6, making the balor go first and out of charging (80ft) range of both Druid and his animal companion kitten.
Now, even IF the tiger gets close to the balor, it and its companion only have meagre 3-5 attacks with limited damage added (OK, you could buff before, but that costs time..., time better spent to buff the fighter, if a druid has any spells that could help).
Now for the boosted shapechange...I guess a force dragon is non-core (never heard of it), but still, whenever you get into close combat with the balor (say, as an ancient wyrm black dragon) and trade full attacks, there is that vorpal sword danger that you do not risk if you stay out of range - like any sane hero of that level should do (otherwise, why have they survived so long to lvl 20?), be it with a bow or spell or bardic fascinate or whatever.



That's a fairly good idea. He may as well Divine Favor himself as doing that for a fighter, though--or both; IWSA is cast in the beginning of the day.
The only ones worth casting would be the ones to primary stats... which the fighter should have items from. These stop being worth the slot after level 4 or 5.
This is one of the first priorities magic-item-wise. It might be worth the casting (against a Balor, probably not), but that'd generally be with a Rod of Extend Spell (or just Extended), giving it a duration of hours.
GMW is cast in the morning, on everyone who fights with a weapon (between the cleric and the wizard), most likely. Death Ward's a maybe, but it would be for the rogue (weak Fort saves) rather than the Fighter, most likely--and doesn't really help against a Balor. Disrupting Weapon is useless, since, basically, no undead you fight at a high level will have HD < your CL. Holy Aura is useless because it doesn't stack with the cloak of resistance everyone should have, and SR 25 vs. CL 20 is NOT worth a standard action.
Spell Resistance is a good one.


I stacked together BWL's comments on the buff spells. I guess he's right most of the time. Yep, the holy aura is not THAT good (more for mid-high levels). Buffing the attributes: in my example fighter build, the monk's belt was too alluring, so the spot for the belt of giant strength was off. So, this fighter still benefits from a bull's strength, or even a bear's endurance (because CON is not so crucial for an archer).
Still, it has to be said that vs the Cleric-only mighty buffs (Divine Power, Divine Might), there are buffs (Spell Resistance, Protection from Spells, Divine Favor) that are good buffs for others. So a Cleric has several viable options to choose from.



However, the Cleric has better options than buffing the fighter. Rushing in to melee the flying, teleporting Balor isn't the best option, either... throwing a Dimensional Anchor at it is. Then the wizard can wipe it out. If he doesn't, the cleric can buff up and melee it.


In total there are three basic combat options for a cleric. We both say that the first preference should be range attack themselves (and the Dimensional Anchor is a key attack, forcing the balor to use up a greater dispel magic or stay in combat. However, it may be stopped by a Globe of Invulnerability in case the Balor has access to a device with that 6th level spell in his treasure).
However, where we differ is the 2nd and 3rd best tactic. I'd say the 2nd best tactic is to buff the fighter (or withdraw if possible) and only the 3rd best (I'd say emergency situation) is viable for CoDzilla tactics.
The basic reason is that in general, ranged tactics are by far superior to melee tactics. And as my above example with the death-wishing dire tiger druid (taking a poor animal with him to boost...this should make him lose his druid powers...:smallsmile: ) illustrates, even if somehow a druid or cleric manage to get on even terms with the mighty balor in close combat, they risk way more than my example fighter build.



It's actually not doomed to fail. With Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might, the cleric has more reach, more DR, a higher AB, and a higher damage than the Fighter. He's also got more options, like Heal, Harm, and even Miracle where need be. The cleric's going to do better in melee. The Druid will *definitely* do better. He's got Wildshape forms like the Dire Tiger, the Roc, the Treant, and the Tendriculos, and Shapechange for complete win.


It is not doomed to fail. But it's not highly likely to win, or it’s not better than casting miracle spells from afar, or buffing a fighter like the archer above who can kill the balor in 1.5 rounds almost guaranteed. And turning into a creature like the Roc with only 2 attacks, again only initiative modifier of +2 in close combat with a balor is a joke, right? At least take the CR20-25 dragon to fight the balor, but you still will have to survive several vorpal hits before you MAY vanquish the balor or give it a chance that it escapes.




Yep. The cleric archer (best in noncore, with the Elf domain and Zen Archery for free Point Blank Shot and a focus on WIS, but perfectly viable in core) is better than a fighter archer. Similarily, the cleric melee guy is better than a fighter melee guy.


Great idea! Forgot about the Zen archery feat. Now the cleric melee guy being better than the fighter melee guy is a nice challenge. I'll think on it. Does the Divine Might/Divine Power-combo beat 11 more feats? I doubt it, I'd say (of course I know that the 1-9th level spells of the cleric are a different thing altogether, but if the contest is pure melee, I guess the cleric loses, even IF I simply use the 11 remaining feats of the above fighter for filling the necessary melee tasks. But as I said, I'll think on it).



The cleric doesn'tneed Duelist for anything. Cleric 20 is perfectly fine, AC-wise, and Init-wise with a high DEX (archer cleric) and Imp. Init.


Hum, another +4 to initiative and +10 to AC without armour (and touch AC) is very powerful and something that the cleric would miss, in particular in close combat (or defense vs ray spells). But let's henceforth focus on pure figher vs pure cleric (since the cleric has great prestige class options of his own non-core).



And yet, clerics manage to go through games without ever once being denied access to their spells. It's not hard to play a cleric in accord with his deity/alignment.


OK, I have to admit I find it hard to imagine a DM mastering a campagin with a player playing a cleric from level 1-20 without even ONCE making him feel the disadvantages that come with his powers. Everyone sees it justified for the Paladin (cf. the Miko discussion), so why is the cleric sacrosanct?



Um, no; "you lose all your spells" isn't a good way to rein a cleric in. It's DM Fiat for Being Too Good, and could just as easily be applied to anyone, especially if the cleric is a cleric of a warlike deity. During that one hour when the cleric needs to pray... he can probably do it. Inside a Magnificent Mansion, no less. It's not really a significant vulnerability.


I admit that the button "you lose all your class abilities because of xy" is not a good DM idea. But SOME problems should arise. Magnificent Mansion is a great spell, but not a cleric spell. And it may even be argued that a plane shift can be used to enter that mansion (but I may be wrong, there's likely already an FAQ or WotC ruling on it).



Uh... AMF is very rarely useable in such a way as to inconvenience PCs; they have to be on a flying enemy for that. (Dead magic zones are another matter, but they're really just a Spellcasters Lose button that's only in the game because normally Spellcasters Win. And... *how* often do they show up, exactly?) Dispel Magic, counterspelling, etc. is availible to enemies... but any enemy who can do that, can do much more effective things. That's the problem: the enemy could cast Dispel Magic... or Slow, which hurts the fighter worse than Dispel does the cleric (and hits multiple targets as well), Greater Dispel Magic or Disintegrate/Repulsion/etc.
The cleric's very significantly stronger.


IF (and that's a grand IF) Spellcasters are known to have "win button" spells, you can be sure that a prepared enemy will try to counterspell that instead of casting something on a meleeing fighter. Now, once again, dispel magics, antimagics, monsters immune to magic etc. are a GREATER threat to spellcasters, not to non-spellcasters. A dispel magic cast on the above fighter (who, by distancing him to 320 ft could move out of dispel magic range, but let's assume he can be targeted) you would first have to know IF there is any magic on him at all or you're casting blindly (OK, a quickend detect magic helps). But OK, let’s assume the balor knows the fighter is powerful and, as such, likely buffed. The +4 morale bonus of the bard don't go away since that is a supernatural ability). The +6 luck bonus of the high priest could go (50% chance), the invisibility of the potion is already gone after the attacks, and that's it. The balor COULD target the magic of the bow (this time with a 75% chance since the bow counts as a 15th level creator weapon due to the +5 enhance bonus), but this would only suppress its power for 1d4 rounds, and it happens AFTER (in the example above) it has been killed.
It is quite simple: if your major class ability (magic) can be countered, you are more vulnerable. If your major class ability (feats, sneaks, monk evasion etc) cannot be countered, you are less vulnerable. Since magic is fairly common, in particular at high levels, so are the magic means to counter magic. It’s rather simple.



Sorry, but it really isn't. Nerfing or limited spellcasting classes beyond the rules *is* necessary. Fighters *do*--Archers Boosting Their Wisdom as a specific build aside--have lots of problems contributing at high levels, in their common and archetypical role as Melee Guy. Buffing the fighter is a significantly worse option than buffing yourself, as much better self-buffs are availible--and when melee isn't the right option, if you have a second cleric or a druid instead of a fighter, they have fallback options; a non-archery-focused fighter doesn't.


Now, commenting this last remark means coming to the end of my replying post. I still believe that the fighter is balanced vs the full caster classes in core.
The basic problem seems to be that BWL and others like to see the fighter to be better at melee than all other classes or it is not a worthy classe balanced vs full casters.
Now, if I'd try to limit a Sorcerer to a pure close-range combat guy (a viable character concept!) and base my assessment of the whole class on this performance, this would appear mistaken, doesn't it?
This is what seems to happen in the fighter analyses made so far. All classes (excepting the monk, as said before) have melee AND range capability. The fighter is incredibly powerful at range with a longbow and he does not even use up 50% of his feats and treasure to do it. The rest can go to versatile stuff like blind-fighting, leadership, or power attack with mace of smiting (end ot the iron golem threat) in close combat tactics.
Protection vs Arrows like a Wind wall is quite effective, but a wind wall can be walked through, continuing to attack the caster. A Wall of Force is better, but shuts down the combat (except for dimdoors or teleports). Similarly, however, a typical "caster win button technique" of time stop with megabuffs and gate to summon horrors from beyond vs a foe can easily be countered with a contingency teleport.
The game has always a counterstrategy for powerful tactics, which is what makes it balanced (including the fighter).

So, coming back to issue no. 1) above: YES, I think the fighter CAN contribute at high levels.
Concerning 2) YES, I think the fighter is balanced in combat. DMs should always read the fine print in the rules as to the vulnerabilites/drawbacks of the full caster classes. The fact that spellusers still can be dominant in the game due to the sheer versatility in out of combat situations (travel, research, interaction) means they are more powerful in high levels, but this is counterbalanced by the fighter being way more powerful in combat at low levels (when the casters really need his protection).
Concerning 3) NO, CoDzilla tactics are not superior to buffing the fighter. They take too high risks in almost all circumstances if they choose that road vs opponents of the level/CR.

Now, currently I see some open issues:
- is it possible for a fighter to join in the CoDzilla melee frenzy and be better at it then they are? My hunch is: yes, I think he can even do that. PROBABLY, though, there are 3 other non-pure-casting classes that may steal the show of melee from both the fighter and the CoDilla: 1) the barbarian (sheer resilience and damage output) 2) the rogue (sneakiness and extra damage) and 3) the paladin (vs evil foes like the balor with a smite evil smash)
- BWL brought up the important notion that equipment levels jump from 19th to 20th level; and that the full casters are quite ahead at 17th level (when they get 9th level spells) and even at 9th/10th level (when the cleric gets quickened divine favour; basically the threshold of all the 5th level goodies). It would be interesting to see how much equipment really contributes to non-casters being able to contribute to fights.

I'll try to look into that. Thanks for all the comments!

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 09:04 AM
[QUOTE=Bears With Lasers;2125504]
He'd be pretty effective against many enemies, because he doesn't have to get close to them, doesn't have mobility issues, and has thrown a large amount of gold/feats/stat points into fixing his biggest weak point (will save), although I'm having trouble seeing how he's starting with, what, 14 STR, 16 DEX, 14 WIS, and a decent CON (and then 13 INT for Combat Expertise, too?).
[QUOTE]

Just noticed this one. It's a 32-point buy build, so at 1st level he has a 14 in all stats except in CHR, where he has a 10 (not, 8, just noticed that I made a mistake there...).
It's not a "large amount of gold/feats/stat points" to push up the will saves, or any saves, for that matter. This is high-level play. Putting 1 feat (iron will), a +6 stat WIS boost and +5 Resistance cloak (61.000 total) plus a luck blade (22,060 gold without a wish), as well as only 6 starting points to boost saves is quite reasonable, even for mid-high levels (say from 13-15 or so).

By the way, the celestial armour brought up by BWL is a great idea! (it also only costs 22,400 gp). It also helps with mobility with its fly spell 1/day (as BWL said, a big disadvantage of any non-casting class except monk and maybe barbarian). However, it does not add to touch AC. So vs ray attacks it's not so good. Plus, the monk's belt improves the unarmed attacks of the fighter and even makes him deal real damage (optional 1d8, as opposed to 1d3 subdual damage).

- Giacomo

ken-do-nim
2007-03-03, 09:24 AM
Just to burst some bubbles, you can not give the fighter imbue with spell ability and divine favor.

Imbue with spell ability:


Only cleric spells from the schools of abjuration, divination, and conjuration (healing) can be transferred.


Divine favor is evocation.

I personally (will) use the spell to give the party ranger 'find traps' since there isn't a rogue.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 09:57 AM
Ah, thanks ken-do-nim, I missed that one. So, without the luck bonus of +6, the fighter would no longer be able to kill the balor in 1.5 rounds from sheer damage alone. Still, the morale buff remains valid. Meanwhile, the balor would have to avoid rolling a "1" 7 times (from the slaying arrows), plus any massive damage arrow that might have hit him from a 19-20 crit (likely always confirmed). It still looks like a quite probable combat result to me.

- Giacomo

PS: just noticed that if the fighter had a wish left in his luck blade, he could wish for the divine favor spell. It's a bit cheesy, but if the fighter knows that particular wish will be decisive between likely or safe defeat of the balor, he might use it.

Starbuck_II
2007-03-03, 10:49 AM
Now on with the post:




Now, shapechange is a different matter, but if the druid turns into a balor himself, he would be a balor without its spell-like abilities and otherwise with a 50:50% chance to win in close combat- of course, he will not have the vorpal longsword, either…;-).

Sorry, Shapechange gives you a free vorpol sword. It is one way to get lots of cash once you get it. Shapechange Balor, drop weapon, sell. Use next shapechamge slot, sdrop, repeat.


But, at least for the Cleric, barring the divine power spell, buffs beat CoDzilla tactics, especially if the Cleric has to move to the Balor to get even a chance at a full attack. Because, with divine power in melee instead of using one of the buffs below on the fighter, a cleric is essentially a fighter without bonus feats in close combat. Very scary idea.
Good Cleric buff spells and highly useful also at lvl 20 are, for instance:
- using the above mentioned combo of divine favor and imbue with spell ability
- all the attribute buff spells (note that magic items do not in the above example make enhancement boni completely unnecessary, and the situation of a character having +4/+6 stat boosting items for ALL stats should be rare)
- Freedom of Movement (for all who do not have such a magic item)
- Greater Magic Weapon (up to +5)
- Death Ward
- Disrupting Weapon (vs Undead)
- Spell Resistance (grants 32 Spell resistance for 20 Minutes. The example balor will therefore only get past this resistance in 40% of all times. Highly useful)
- Holy Aura (grants +4 AC of resistance bonus which may not stack. But the SR 25 vs evil creatures comes in handy)
- Protection from Spells (gives +8 enhancement vs Spells, so it should add another +3 at the very least)



However, I would like to add some further defence of the WoTC game designers here. When looking at the cleric, there ARE drawbacks that somehow make a direct comparison a bit more tolerable for the fighter. The fighter has NO drawbacks or dangers where he could lose class abilities. The cleric does.
Not only does he or she have a restriction in relearning the spells per day which has to be done THE SAME one full hour every day, or the cleric won’t regain spells (that is a big vulnerability in high-level play, similar to the other’s own re-learning requirements, plus a wizard’s spellbook, a sorcerer’s inability to use the quicken spell feat and having the most limited spell list, and the druid’s generally weakest spell lists of the four along with a duty to defend nature).

Actually, if you read closely, you get a chance to still relearn it later that day. It says at the earliest moment you are not interupted so you never actually lose the chance. Clerics so rule.



Now finally add to this that the major class ability of the cleric (magic) is also highly vulnerable in high-level play (vs antimagic, abjurations, counterspells or dispel magics), whereas the fighter’s feats, as extraordinary abilities, are nigh untouchable (as are all the rogue, ranger, monk, paladin and barbarian non-spell abilities, for that matter).

Fighter relies on magic items that are not extraordinary. Clerics can get Beads of Karma to buff hr/level spells with caster level above Dispel magics limit.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 11:20 AM
Hi again,

now I had some time to think about one of the remaining challenges: for the fighter to be better in a melee situation than the CoDzilla. Probably, due to the druid's rather limited shapechange/wildshape capabilities into anything able to own a balor in melee, this challenge narrows down to the fighter vs cleric who has the quickened divine power/righous might combo.

Now taken at face value, as outlined in the first post for archery, a cleric should be able to emulate anything the fighter can do- except for the number of feats. Could feats help in this situation?
Here's (even nicely roleplayable) solution I came up with:

The above example fighter remains the same with the archery gadgets plus the bardic inspire courage (this time, he may greatly appreciate a bear's endurance and bull's strength, though, or he could simply drink potions of those), but it is important now to fix the remaining feats, some skills and equipment. Probably, for this excercise, it suffices to have the following feats IN ADDITION to the archery feats (which a cleric cannot copy since all of his or her feats are spent already, so he or she cannot copy BOTH the fighter's melee AND ranged combat strength):
Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Spc: Greatsword, Improved Critical: Greatsword, Skill Focus (Intimidate). Equipment: add a +5 holy, bane evil outsider cold iron greatsword (costs another 129,000 gold. If it seems to expensive, it's quite easy to make it only +3, reducing the price to a moderate 73,000 gp- that won't change the situation much).
This leaves some equipment and 6 feats to spare.

Now once again, the fighter downs a potion of invisibility and gets to 125 ft range (has to watch his step here!). He could, especially in the presence of an enemy army camp, use a hat of disguise and also get about as close to avoid the true seeing ability. Even better, he could simply get disguised non-magically by the rogue. Definitely, he beats a mightous right cleric at the "get within 125 ft" game!
At 125 ft he charges his double move of the 120 ft (due to his haste effect) to get to within 5 ft of the poor balor. He gets his charge attack with the two-handed sword, power attacked for maximum effectiveness...
Attack: +20 (base) + 4 (STR) +7 (enhance) +2 (charge) + 4 (morale) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (haste) = 39, of which he'll deduct 12 for the flat-footed AC of the balor.
Damage: 2d6 + 2d6 (holy) +2d6 (bane) + 6 (STR) + 4 (morale) + 2 (weapon specialisation) +7 (enhance) +24 (power attack) = 6d6 + 43 = on avg 64 damage.
Then, once again the fighter wins initiative.
He attacks four times at (no longer with charge) + 37/32/27/22, hitting at least three times (likely with one critical) vs the flat-footed AC, totaling around (4 less power damage since longer charge) 24d6 + 160 damage, a total of 244, which together with the 64 first damage once again kills the balor. This time, it will only have to save 5 times vs massive damage (no slaying arrows). But devastating nonetheless (and this time: without extra luck buffs!).
So much for flexibility (and note that there are still feats left).

Now, some may say: haha! The balor explodes, dealing likely around 100 damage to the fighter. Which is exactly part of why I said going into melee with such a monster is a bad idea in the first place.
However, consider this situation: the fighter takes 100 damage and quickdraws his holy-radiating bow. Around him, in 100ft range, almost all the army of the balor has been killed (outsiders etc.). The few left are now, as lower level creatures with a lot of damage taken, up against a holy-bow-wielding, mightly looking fighter out to kill them.
Plus, the fighter now could use his intimidate ability (if maxed at +26 or more with customised items if necessary), another skill the cleric does not possess. The fighter intimidates the last remaining strong-looking non-outsider and gets him to withdraw the hell away from the city.

Encounter solved.

- Giacomo

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-03, 11:37 AM
Sir Giacomo, are you saying that the druid can't own the balor in melee? Due to the limits of wildshape?:eek:
:mind explodes:

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 11:38 AM
Sorry, Shapechange gives you a free vorpol sword. It is one way to get lots of cash once you get it. Shapechange Balor, drop weapon, sell. Use next shapechamge slot, sdrop, repeat.


Oh dear me, you are right! What an odd rule coincidence and nice loophole, since for the balor, the vorpal blade is listed among the "special attacks"(supernatural abilities), and thus is not considered equipment. You do not get cash for it, though, since the shapechange has a limited duration. Certainly as a DM I would not allow such a typical endless-loop thing.
However, it still does not change much. The druid just rose from a bad chance to a 50:50 chance in melee vs the balor. And regardless of any buffs, risks the vorpal blade attacks of his opponent. So the druid is out of the CoDzilla (or now rather: CoFzilla? :smallbiggrin: ) match here.



Actually, if you read closely, you get a chance to still relearn it later that day. It says at the earliest moment you are not interupted so you never actually lose the chance. Clerics so rule.


No, they don't, which is also part what this post is about. The core classes ARE balanced. Pls read the entry in the SRD 3.5:

Clerics meditate or pray for their spells. Each cleric must choose a time at which he must spend 1 hour each day in quiet contemplation or supplication to regain his daily allotment of spells. Time spent resting has no effect on whether a cleric can prepare spells. A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation.

No later that day, it is "choose a time at which he must spend 1 hour each day". I guess it's also part of the flavour. Sun clercis pray at noon or dawn, moon clerics at midnight as do undead clerics whatever have you etc...



Fighter relies on magic items that are not extraordinary. Clerics can get Beads of Karma to buff hr/level spells with caster level above Dispel magics limit.

Beads of Karma are neat (there is a link further up for all interested it seems). But you never get "above" dispel magics limit of same level opponents (beads of karma grant +4 spell level); although you could turn the odds to your favour.
If you use dispel magics vs magic items, you have to target one (only!) with your standard action, and it does not render the items like weapons useless, only non-magic four 1d4 rounds. Tactically sometimes strong, but the main strength of the fighter are his hits, his feats, his BAB. And those you cannot dispel. A Cleric playing CoDzilla can be ruined with one simple greater dispel magic.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 11:40 AM
Sir Giacomo, are you saying that the druid can't own the balor in melee? Due to the limits of wildshape?:eek:
:mind explodes:

See above for my dire tiger, roc and what have you discussion, or also the prvs post.
I know it's hard to swallow, since it seems to be such a common wisdom on this and other boards. However, if looking closely exactly into WHAT crap creatures (with low DEX, low attacks, low damage output) you turn with wildshape you realise it's nothing anymore for high level play, except, you may say, for fleeing in air elemental form from an overwhelming force.

- Giacomo

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-03, 11:45 AM
If you use dispel magics vs magic items, you have to target one (only!) with your standard action, and it does not render the items like weapons useless, only non-magic four 1d4 rounds. Tactically sometimes strong, but the main strength of the fighter are his hits, his feats, his BAB. And those you cannot dispel. A Cleric playing CoDzilla can be ruined with one simple greater dispel magic.

- Giacomo
But the cleric is ethereal with a spell or item, so only magical items could hit him. And the clerics spells still effect the figther. Or the cleric then goes Divine power+Rightious might=pwn'ed

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 11:50 AM
But the cleric is ethereal with a spell or item, so only magical items could hit him. And the clerics spells still effect the figther. Or the cleric then goes Divine power+Rightious might=pwn'ed

Hmmm, a direct confrontation of fighter and cleric is new in this discussion thread. I guess, at level 20 the cleric would win due to his higher Wisdom or tactical mind, plus research capabilities (plus the patronage of a god who would not wish to see him perish!). However, at lower levels the fighter would win (especially before 7th level!), so it's balanced overall.

However, as my examples above show, the DP/RM combo goes only so far (can't emulate BOTH melee AND range fighting strength of the fighter) and is vulnerable to greater dispel magic.
If the cleric goes etheral, it may be countered by ghost touch weapons, but that is quite a good strategy for the cleric and proves my first point that trying to remain in range fighting is the best option for all classes and only then melee if no other options are left.

- Giacomo

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-03, 11:54 AM
If the cleric goes etheral, it may be countered by ghost touch weapons, but that is quite a good strategy for the cleric and proves my first point that trying to remain in range fighting is the best option for all classes and only then melee if no other options are left.

- Giacomo
But the cleric just cast dispel magic on them? So how does that work? And I was under the assumption that we were discussing what happens in melee combat(that is what the post I originally quoted was about, wasn't it?)

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 12:02 PM
But the cleric just cast dispel magic on them? So how does that work? And I was under the assumption that we were discussing what happens in melee combat(that is what the post I originally quoted was about, wasn't it?)

Hmmm- basically this thread (not post) is around to try and prove three things
1) fighters can contribute to combat at 20th level (both in melee AND ranged combat)
2) they even are stronger at Melee than CoDzilla
3) they are balanced in 20th level combat situation vs the full casters (not outside of combat though, but this is balanced by their lower level combat superiority).

The cleric can just cast dispel magic on ONE weapon. And being etheral, he cannot attack the fighter in melee.

- Giacomo

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-03, 12:04 PM
The cleric can just cast dispel magic on ONE weapon. And being etheral, he cannot attack the fighter in melee.

- Giacomo
What about Ghost touch weapons? Or touch Attacks?

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 12:09 PM
What about Ghost touch weapons? Or touch Attacks?

Hmm. A ghost touch heavy mace or some such could be bought with the remaining gold for the fighter above.
His touch AC is around 41 (see above).

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 12:11 PM
Oops, sorry, oversaw that you referred to ghost touch weapons for the cleric.
Yes, that would be quite a good strategy, necessitating for the fighter to get some means to get to the etheral plane as well (an item, don't know right now which one...).

This all, of course, assumes the cleric goes first. It's likely a 50:50 chance. Plus the fighter may withdraw with a helm of teleportation. Illustrating once again the similar confrontational power of the high level classes.

- Giacomo

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-03, 12:13 PM
I meant the cleric, and the cleric could cast a spell that immobilizes the fighter, and the ghost touch weapon was for the cleric.


Edit: Simul-ninjad, and is dimensional anchor on the cleric spell list?

NullAshton
2007-03-03, 12:42 PM
Ghost touch weapons DO NOT ALLOW YOU to attack the material plane. Touch attacks do not cross over the two planes, and force effects started on the ethereal plane do not cross over to the material plane, only fro mthe material plane to the ethereal plane. And magic items cannot hit someone that is ethereal, unless the attack is made on the ethereal plane. Incorporeality is not being ethereal, and visa versa. The only exception to this would be ghosts, which can have an incorporeal form on the material plane while still having a material form on the ethereal plane.

Rigeld2
2007-03-03, 12:48 PM
Ghost touch weapons DO NOT ALLOW YOU to attack the material plane. Touch attacks do not cross over the two planes, and force effects started on the ethereal plane do not cross over to the material plane, only fro mthe material plane to the ethereal plane. And magic items cannot hit someone that is ethereal, unless the attack is made on the ethereal plane. Incorporeality is not being ethereal, and visa versa. The only exception to this would be ghosts, which can have an incorporeal form on the material plane while still having a material form on the ethereal plane.
Yeah... if the cleric goes ethereal, he cant do anything to the Fighter, and vice versa. Not that this thread was or should be going PvP, because that isnt the point - the point is that a Fighter cannot contribute meaningfully in high level combat.

NullAshton
2007-03-03, 12:53 PM
Yeah... if the cleric goes ethereal, he cant do anything to the Fighter, and vice versa. Not that this thread was or should be going PvP, because that isnt the point - the point is that a Fighter cannot contribute meaningfully in high level combat.

Actually, the point given by the original poster was that a Fighter can contribute meaningfully in high level combat. Not that a cleric can contribute more, not that a cleric could kick a fighters butt, but that a fighter can contribute in a fight of equivalent CR.

Which I believe he has done nicely. Nice ranged damage, decent protection against spells from what I've seen, and seems like it would be a blast to play.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-03, 01:11 PM
Actually, the point given by the original poster was that a Fighter can contribute meaningfully in high level combat. Not that a cleric can contribute more, not that a cleric could kick a fighters butt, but that a fighter can contribute in a fight of equivalent CR.

Which I believe he has done nicely. Nice ranged damage, decent protection against spells from what I've seen, and seems like it would be a blast to play.

Yes, a blast to play once. After a while, it gets real old.

NullAshton
2007-03-03, 01:17 PM
Yes, a blast to play once. After a while, it gets real old.

How is it old? Nice damage, and because of that, the wizard can use direct damage spells. Instead of just running around shooting off save or die effects, just blast stuff!

Quietus
2007-03-03, 01:21 PM
'Net puked on me, don't mind this.

NullAshton
2007-03-03, 01:23 PM
Quietus, you already posted that earlier in the thread....

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-03, 01:30 PM
How is it old? Nice damage, and because of that, the wizard can use direct damage spells. Instead of just running around shooting off save or die effects, just blast stuff!

Thanks for the feedback!
Now, I would agree that this fighter, on his way from 1st level to 20th level, never gets boring to play, since with his feats, he can do both those two awesome melee AND ranged combat performances. Simply said, I love that he can do what the class is about: fight intelligently, with rather straightforward non-complicated development. And has skill points and 6 feats to spare for added flexibility/flavour.
For instance, I love the monk's belt and to fully use it, improved unarmed strike and stunning fist (DC 25 forrtitude vs stuns anyone? Even the balor does not save in 10% of the time) are good. Plus blind-fighting (a must have vs blinding attacks).
For skills, I even thought about getting UMD for the fighter at max cross class skill ranks to +10 (could get a skill focus for another +3), so he could cast a dimensional anchor on the balor from a scroll (DC 27) to really have fun for a while with the poor critter...:smallbiggrin: But guess that's definitely not the best way to use the skill points, in particular since in the archetype group with 1 more rogue and a cleric plus wizard, the latter two can cast that easier.

- Giacomo

Quietus
2007-03-03, 01:58 PM
Quietus, you already posted that earlier in the thread....

I'm aware. The page didn't work last night, told me it failed to load, so I gave it a while then hit "try again". Apparently it posted it twice, I'll see if I can't edit that out.

Indon
2007-03-03, 04:41 PM
For skills, I even thought about getting UMD for the fighter at max cross class skill ranks to +10 (could get a skill focus for another +3), so he could cast a dimensional anchor on the balor from a scroll (DC 27) to really have fun for a while with the poor critter...:smallbiggrin: But guess that's definitely not the best way to use the skill points, in particular since in the archetype group with 1 more rogue and a cleric plus wizard, the latter two can cast that easier.

- Giacomo

One rank in UMD is always good, though, since it can't be used untrained, and it's always handy to have just in case.

Yahzi
2007-03-03, 04:49 PM
Congrats to Sir Giacomo for a clever idea and an interesting thread!

However, I confess I find BWL's point still stands: replacing the fighter with a Phalanx gun turret just isn't quite the same thing. ;)

Wizards just plain get to do stuff nobody else can. While fighters merely get to do what everyone else does (melee) better.

Hallavast
2007-03-04, 02:12 AM
I dunno... if you insist on even having a tank in your party, (which only works for certain group dynamics) then wouldn't the cleric be a better choice for this. So if the cleric is the "tank", you should have room for an archer fighter such as the one presented in the OP.

I hate how the whole Tank, Healer, Trapmonkey, Batman routine has seemed to hijack the mindset of a great many posters here. It seems like whenever a person presents a build that does not fit nicely into one of these roles, the build gets labeled as garbage and is disregarded for any "serious party". Not all parties consist of four PCs. Not all parties fit this mold. These party roles are like the alignment system. It's a good tool for casual play or for breaking a new group of players into the game, but beyond that it isn't really needed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my games have evolved past the stage where I need one of each of the roles above. The archer build presented above covers a lot of ground on fighter weaknesses. It's a step in the right direction if you're seeking to make the fighter contribute to the game.

Now, Sir Giacomo, if you're seeking a valid test of the build's merit, I would suggest putting such a character in an actual party, then level the playing field. Instead of a blatant assasasination of a poor, defenseless Balor, I would suggest meeting the beast on equal terms at the typical distance from which such an encounter would begin. If the character makes a dent, then I'd say you've done a good job.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-04, 03:09 AM
I dunno... if you insist on even having a tank in your party, (which only works for certain group dynamics) then wouldn't the cleric be a better choice for this. So if the cleric is the "tank", you should have room for an archer fighter such as the one presented in the OP.

I hate how the whole Tank, Healer, Trapmonkey, Batman routine has seemed to hijack the mindset of a great many posters here. It seems like whenever a person presents a build that does not fit nicely into one of these roles, the build gets labeled as garbage and is disregarded for any "serious party". Not all parties consist of four PCs. Not all parties fit this mold. These party roles are like the alignment system. It's a good tool for casual play or for breaking a new group of players into the game, but beyond that it isn't really needed.

I don't believe the problem is that everyone wants an iconic party. It's that there are those of us who would *like* to play an armor-wearing, no-spellcasting, weapon-swinging warrior without being rendered entirely ineffective once levels past 10 or so are reached.


I can't speak for anyone else, but my games have evolved past the stage where I need one of each of the roles above. The archer build presented above covers a lot of ground on fighter weaknesses. It's a step in the right direction if you're seeking to make the fighter contribute to the game.

See above comment on wanting what you desire to play to be effective, rather than having to play something outside of your desire

Rigeld2
2007-03-04, 10:17 AM
Which I believe he has done nicely. Nice ranged damage, decent protection against spells from what I've seen, and seems like it would be a blast to play.
If the Balor isnt aware of him. If you ignore the rules for Manyshot. The potion of Invisibility doesnt help at all, because the Balor has True Seeing.

Plus, its an archer. Its been given before that archers can contribute more than other fighters, but still not enough imo.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-04, 12:18 PM
I dunno... if you insist on even having a tank in your party, (which only works for certain group dynamics) then wouldn't the cleric be a better choice for this. So if the cleric is the "tank", you should have room for an archer fighter such as the one presented in the OP.


Maybe. As BWL put up in one of his first responses further up the thread, the question can be whether in a four-person-group of, say, Wizard, Cleric, Druid the fourth should be a fighter or a cleric. BWL believes a fighter would make a nice 5th party member. Since a cleric archer can do as well as a fighter archer plus 1th-9th level spells and turn undead, I tried to show above that there is (even at 20th level combat play) a niche for the fighter: being able to powerfully fight BOTH at melee and range combat, which a fourth cleric could not do. However, the 3rd and 4th cleric may share the respective roles. Hmmm. More on this below.



I hate how the whole Tank, Healer, Trapmonkey, Batman routine has seemed to hijack the mindset of a great many posters here. It seems like whenever a person presents a build that does not fit nicely into one of these roles, the build gets labeled as garbage and is disregarded for any "serious party". Not all parties consist of four PCs. Not all parties fit this mold. These party roles are like the alignment system. It's a good tool for casual play or for breaking a new group of players into the game, but beyond that it isn't really needed.


The archetypes are a good guideline, I think. Given that these archetypes include 2 non-spellcasters, there is likely a reason:in particular at lower levels, spellcasters need non-spellcasters and their abilities for protection. Big question: can the non-spellcasters (in this thread: the fighter) contribute still by 20th level? But of course, for most roleplaying aspects it is of secondary importance. For instance, the LOTR 9-party group had too many rogues and no cleric :smallbiggrin:



I can't speak for anyone else, but my games have evolved past the stage where I need one of each of the roles above. The archer build presented above covers a lot of ground on fighter weaknesses. It's a step in the right direction if you're seeking to make the fighter contribute to the game.


Thanks a lot!



Now, Sir Giacomo, if you're seeking a valid test of the build's merit, I would suggest putting such a character in an actual party, then level the playing field. Instead of a blatant assasasination of a poor, defenseless Balor, I would suggest meeting the beast on equal terms at the typical distance from which such an encounter would begin. If the character makes a dent, then I'd say you've done a good job.


Now Hallavast gives me nice inspiration here. In order to truly measure combat capability at any given level, let there be 3 dimensions to judge it: single combat or group fights, melee or ranged, opponent won initiative vs our heroes or the other way round.

Now...for the time being let us focus on the single performance (which likely leads to group performance in a simple sum-of-the-parts, there may be synergies which greatly benefit a spelluser (meatshield), fighter (buffs) or rogue (flankers) or all (magic in general and/or bards))

In the above posts, I believe I showed already the following for the hero winning initiative:
- Fighter wins BOTH melee AND ranged in ONE round (balor cannot strike back).
- Druid wins melee (he gets shapechange to raise the odds to 50:50, plus buffs and some due to his animal companion), but likely not in 1.5 rounds. At range (in particular outside the balor's ranged abilities I see NO rather safe winning tactics. So the Dzilla is out...:smallsmile:
- Wizard wins melee (similar to druid, due to shapechange and familiar helping), but again likely not in 1 round. At range, the time stop /several summonings vs the balor wins. So I guess the Wizard gets a nice 2nd place behind the fighter (remember we talking mere highl-level PURE combat efficiency here. Not the rest of the game or how you get to combat etc....)
- Cleric either wins melee CoDzilla in one round or at range CoDzilla in one round, but not both, and only because he basically becomes a fighter (duh!). At range with his 1-9 level spells he's not bad (especially with karma beads) but I do not see a strategy winning in 1.5 rounds. Still, I would grant here the Cleric a 3rd place (or even 2nd due to his or her versatility).

Now, something different is the challenge in case the balor gets the surprise round (sneaked up on the hero etc.) AND wins initiative. Now this definitiely goes one step further than what Hallavast asked for. And, by the way, both the fighter and the cleric in the above build would also have a good chance of winning in a no-surprise situation, since the hero most likely wins the initiative. The melee fighter even manages to safely kill the balor (if both happened to have no surprise but start the combat in melee range), since I noticed that in the above example I forgot to calculate the fifth attack into it (the one granted by haste).

So the new questions are: Who survives at ranged or melee range and escapes with a teleport etc. (or even fights back?)
This I'll try to find out at a later time (after the night time of my time zone is over...).

So far, in developing the above multi-purpose example core fighter, I am truly surprised by the sheer power of this build.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-04, 12:23 PM
Ah, and I quickly would like to answer to your remark, Rigeld2.


If the Balor isnt aware of him. If you ignore the rules for Manyshot. The potion of Invisibility doesnt help at all, because the Balor has True Seeing.

Plus, its an archer. Its been given before that archers can contribute more than other fighters, but still not enough imo.


I guess I have shown further up how the fighter archer would evade the True Seeing (range only up to 120ft) in a rather realistic setup. Manyshot (which I got wrong at first) is no longer needed for the 1.5 round kill.

The archer idea is old, that's true. However, this archer fighter is also highly efficient at melee, also killing the balor in 1.5 rounds. That is new, I guess, in particular because I believe no other class can offer this combat versatility. The reason, of course, is clear: the great many feats, which DD3.5 designers always quote as the source of the versatility of the fighter. So it should probably not come as too much of a surprise. However, the shiny mighty spells of full casters have appeared to have concealed that for a while...

Rgds,

- Giacomo

Indon
2007-03-04, 12:37 PM
The reason, of course, is clear: the great many feats, which DD3.5 designers always quote as the source of the versatility of the fighter. So it should probably not come as too much of a surprise. However, the shiny mighty spells of full casters have appeared to have concealed that for a while...


Well, I'd say a significant factor is that while feats are good for versatility, many of them aren't very individually strong. Thus, many different functions require multiple feats, that often don't really justify their cost. I think Whirlwind Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#whirlwindAttack) makes for a good example of this.

Not that there aren't a couple good feats or feat series. There just need to be more; way more than 11, so that fighters can pick out a full set of solid feats and be good at a number of things involving, well, fighting.

greenknight
2007-03-04, 08:09 PM
However, this archer fighter is also highly efficient at melee, also killing the balor in 1.5 rounds. That is new, I guess, in particular because I believe no other class can offer this combat versatility.

A 20th level Cleric has a pretty good chance of defeating the Balor in .5 of a round (the surprise round). To do this, all you need is:

1) A 20th level Cleric (any race), with at least 19 Wisdom (to cast 9th level spells) and the Trickery domain. The Cleric should also have the Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration feats and a base move rate of at least 20' per round.
2) A Bead of Kama (from a Strand of Prayer Beads).
3) The Cleric must be on his/her home plane (if the Cleric isn't, he/she can still defeat it easily, but it will take longer).
4) The ability to determine the Balor's location in advance, and move to within 40' of it.

Several other items would be useful but not essential. These include a Luckblade (to overcome a bad roll), a weapon which can overcome the Balor's DR, and something which grants the ability to fly (in case the Balor is flying).

Here's what you do:

1) Cast Invisibility (Domain spell). Get to within 150 feet of the Balor.
2) Cast Time Stop (Domain Spell). Get to within 40 feet of the Balor
3) Wait until Time Stop ends. Since the Balor shouldn't have noticed you yet, you should have Surprise.
4) Activate the Bead of Kama and cast Holy Word. Your effective caster level is 24 (thanks to the Bead). Add the Spell Penetration feats, and the Balor's SR shouldn't be a problem. This immediately means the Balor is Paralyzed, Blinded and Deafened (no save against any of those effects). The Balor must also make a Will save (at a –4 penalty) or be banished to its home plane. If it makes the save, it's still paralyzed (helpless) for 1d10 minutes, which should be enough time for the Cleric to finish it off. If it doesn't, it's paralyzed on its home plane - hope it's got some friends to help it survive....

Helgraf
2007-03-05, 12:30 AM
How does he see Mr. Balor from max range? You have +17 to your Spot. He has +38. That means that he can see you before you can see him, even with invisibility. Unfortunately you will never have the surprise round against the Balor.

Except True Seeing has a range of 120 feet - not line of sight.

Helgraf
2007-03-05, 12:44 AM
Sorry, Shapechange gives you a free vorpol sword. It is one way to get lots of cash once you get it. Shapechange Balor, drop weapon, sell. Use next shapechamge slot, sdrop, repeat.

I thought the changes made to the various form-changing spells and effects nerfed this combo?



Actually, if you read closely, you get a chance to still relearn it later that day. It says at the earliest moment you are not interupted so you never actually lose the chance. Clerics so rule.

Fighter relies on magic items that are not extraordinary. Clerics can get Beads of Karma to buff hr/level spells with caster level above Dispel magics limit.

Tor the Fallen
2007-03-05, 02:24 AM
What about throwing monsters at the party with astronomical SRs or straight up "This creature is immune to spells."

Or maybe a simple "75% of the time, any spell effect fails when targeting this creature."

Merlin the Tuna
2007-03-05, 03:53 AM
What about throwing monsters at the party with astronomical SRs or straight up "This creature is immune to spells."Yes. If only there were some kind of creature with nigh-infinite spell resistance. Surely it could defeat a caster? I would call it a Lem. Then, as it flew into battle, I would cry "Go, Lem!"

Wait a minute...

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-05, 03:55 AM
Yes. If only there were some kind of creature with nigh-infinite spell resistance. Surely it could defeat a caster? I would call it a Lem. Then, as it flew into battle, I would cry "Go, Lem!"

Wait a minute...


Awww, snap!

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 05:25 AM
Hi again everyone,

no, I still haven't got it complete how the Dzilla, Czilla, Wizard and Fighter would do in a situation where the balor goes first. But still working on it...Meanwhile, Greenknight had a fabulous idea on improving the cleric in this "contest". Unfortunately it has some drawbacks, but still it's awesome and has great ideas for high-level play...


A 20th level Cleric has a pretty good chance of defeating the Balor in .5 of a round (the surprise round). To do this, all you need is:

1) A 20th level Cleric (any race), with at least 19 Wisdom (to cast 9th level spells) and the Trickery domain. The Cleric should also have the Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration feats and a base move rate of at least 20' per round.
2) A Bead of Kama (from a Strand of Prayer Beads).
3) The Cleric must be on his/her home plane (if the Cleric isn't, he/she can still defeat it easily, but it will take longer).
4) The ability to determine the Balor's location in advance, and move to within 40' of it.

Several other items would be useful but not essential. These include a Luckblade (to overcome a bad roll), a weapon which can overcome the Balor's DR, and something which grants the ability to fly (in case the Balor is flying).

Here's what you do:

1) Cast Invisibility (Domain spell). Get to within 150 feet of the Balor.
2) Cast Time Stop (Domain Spell). Get to within 40 feet of the Balor
3) Wait until Time Stop ends. Since the Balor shouldn't have noticed you yet, you should have Surprise.
4) Activate the Bead of Kama and cast Holy Word. Your effective caster level is 24 (thanks to the Bead). Add the Spell Penetration feats, and the Balor's SR shouldn't be a problem. This immediately means the Balor is Paralyzed, Blinded and Deafened (no save against any of those effects). The Balor must also make a Will save (at a –4 penalty) or be banished to its home plane. If it makes the save, it's still paralyzed (helpless) for 1d10 minutes, which should be enough time for the Cleric to finish it off. If it doesn't, it's paralyzed on its home plane - hope it's got some friends to help it survive....


OK, first of all, to pull this combo, the cleric would have to spend two more feats - which would diminish his Czilla efficiency. But let us assume he decides to be a melee Czilla (needs less feats) and gets trickery and war domains (there goes that powerful luck domain, btw, but you can't have everything...). Now, of course, this would greatly nail down the cleric to a very particular role/religion/way to play which not many would like, but that's OK, I guess for this purpose.

The main problem with the above tactics is that, yes, the balor has no chance to escape the paralysing (+deaf&blind) effect of the holy word with its spell resistance. However, paralyse makes you only helpless physically, and you can still perform purely mental actions like spell-like abilities (check SRD 3.5 for this). So the whole fearsome array of spell-like abilities of the balor is still there. He cannot target the cleric (he's blind and deaf, after all), he cannot greater dispel the effect, since it realises the holy world was immensely powerful (lvl 35 to beat with a dispel check, so his caster level check likely fails except on a 15-20). So it will teleport to a safer point on the prime material plane, try the dispel for 4 rounds and then retaliate vs the cleric.

Its will save (+19) will likely beat the Holy Word's DC of 24 (assuming here the WIS 20 of the above build- otherwise Czilla won't work since the maxed out DEX is key for combat initiative- plus even two more Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus feats).

OK, at this point the Cleric still wins the initiative and has a full round vs a helpless balor. If the cleric had moved close to the balor with the time stop beforehand, he might CDG it now (or simply Czilla it with full attack in 1 round). This still puts the winning strategy to 1.5 rounds, not 0.5, on par with the fighter (now, a simple feat "combat reflexes" for the balor counters the casting of a holy word inside melee range, and another monster like a dragon may have that, obstructing the 1.5 kill for the cleric with this tactics).

Now, another tactics for the cleric would in that case be to simply emulate the wizard with time stop, plus summoning IX for at least 2 rounds vs the balor, which will likely defeat it (it may re-roll the 1d4 with the luck sword effect if need be). This qualifies as a powerful ranged tactics for the cleric, while he or she retains the Melee Czilla tactics.

What I notice by now is that at high level play, direct spell attacks are not as powerful as real weapon/melee/rangedweapon attacks. The time stop & summoning combo merely stresses that, since it is once again melee and damage exchange which win there.
And it appears as if the fighter as well as the cleric (with a very focussed specialisation, including his domains) are the most powerful combat classes at 20th level, both in their way equally powerful (OK, we have to admit that the fighter has a greater range, but the effect is the same). Of course, the cleric then outshines the fighter out of combat play, but I have a hunch that the fighter might get ahead of the cleric in direct comparision if the heroes LOSE the initiative/are surprised by the balor. But more on that later.

- Giacomo

greenknight
2007-03-05, 07:45 AM
OK, first of all, to pull this combo, the cleric would have to spend two more feats

The feats aren't absolutely necessary, since they only add 3 to the caster's chance of beating the SR, so I probably should have moved these into the useful but not essential category. With a luck blade, or something else which allowed a reroll, the odds would still be heavily in the caster's favor. Think of it this way: Without those Feats, the Cleric has to roll a 4 or greater to beat the Balor's SR (only a 15% failure rate). With them, even a "1" would do the job, if the DM didn't rule that to be an auto-fail.


gets trickery and war domains

I'm not sure War is such a great Domain, personally. It's bonus Feats tie the Cleric to a particular weapon, which is usually not the best choice for a melee (or ranged) Cleric, and the Domain spells are (mostly) on the Cleric's list already, or redundant. Personally, I'd avoid it even for CZilla.


So it will teleport to a safer point on the prime material plane, try the dispel for 10 rounds and then retaliate vs the cleric.

Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. If you really want to kill that Balor, throw in a quickened Dimensional Anchor just before you cast Holy Word. That might even stop it from returning to its home plane, and you can have fun for a few minutes (the average effect of the Holy Word would be 55 rounds) getting some target practice. This does mean you'd either have to add Quicken Spell to the Cleric's list of Feats (not a bad idea), or get a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell (normal or Greater).


Its will save (+19) will likely beat the Holy Word's DC of 24 (assuming here the WIS 20 of the above build- otherwise Czilla won't work since the maxed out DEX is key for combat initiative- plus even two more Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus feats).

Why Spell Focus, since there's no saving throws involved in the tactics I mentioned? No, not even with the Dimensional Anchor. There is SR, so you're better off with the Spell Penetration feats. And the Cleric might also find the Quicken Spell feat useful, although that's not essential either.


And it appears as if the fighter as well as the cleric (with a very focussed specialisation, including his domains)

Trickery's quite a useful Domain for a Cleric. All 9 of the Domain spells don't appear on the Cleric's normal list, and each of the spells can be quite useful (if you like Invisibility, check out Mislead). Plus, the Cleric now has Hide as a class skill, which can be very useful for surprising a foe. Trickery should be one of the top Domain choices for a Cleric, if their God allows them to take it, so it's not really that much of a stretch.


Of course, the cleric then outshines the fighter out of combat play

And this is the real problem. It's not that a Fighter or Barbarian can't usefully contribute, it's that Clerics and Druids can pretty much do everything the Fighter or Barbarian can do and a whole lot more.


but I have a hunch that the fighter might get ahead of the cleric in direct comparision if the heroes LOSE the initiative/are surprised by the balor. But more on that later.

Let's explore that a little. With your build, you have given the Fighter some equipment specifically designed to kill Evil Outsiders. Now sure, at around level 20, you will find a few Evil Outsiders to fight, but I doubt they'd be the most common foe you'd face. So most of the time in general adventuring, some of the benefits of that equipment have gone to waste. Furthermore, your strategy costs money - those arrows cost over 4,000gp each, since they're made of Cold Iron, and once they're used, they're gone forever. Sure, that might be relatively small change to a 20th level character, but shooting 7 arrows costs around 30,000 gp, which is more than the WBL allowance for a 8th level PC, to put it into perspective. So the Fighter would probably need to be warned in advance and it would cost a fair chunk of change to take that Balor on (assuming the items could even be obtained). More to the point, if every encounter cost something like that amount of money, your Fighter's going to be pretty poor (relatively speaking) by level 21.

Now consider the Cleric approach I suggested. The Cleric can cast Invisibility, Time Stop, Holy Word and Dimensional Anchor, and they have no material or XP components (for a Divine spellcaster). Those are all useful general purpose spells, so it would make sense for the Cleric to have them available at the beginning of the day (in scroll form, if nothing else). The Bead of Karma renews it's power every day, so it's a one time cost. Ditto if the Cleric decides to use a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell. And both those items have multiple uses, even for a Cleric during general adventuring. Since we're talking about actually killing the Balor now, the Cleric would need to have a decent ranged Cold Iron weapon with a Good descriptor, but the difference is that the Cleric can magic up the weapon with Align Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon for free. If given time to prepare (and the Cleric can cast the Divination spells which might provide the necessary warning), this Cleric can quickly and cheaply adapt to almost any type of foe. All that's really needed are some non-magical versions of the needed items, which are always much less expensive than the same items with magical effects already built in.

But what if there's no warning and the characters are horribly unprepared to fight a Balor? Again, the Cleric has a free "get out of jail" card for when these little surprises hit. It's called "Word of Recall" and it would probably allow a 20th level Cleric to get the whole group out of trouble (6 medium sized creatures). As for the Fighter? Well, I hope you did buy the guy that Helm of Teleportation, because without it his goose may well be cooked unless some other party member can save him. Since the Helm is CL 9, it would allow the Fighter to take up to 3 Medium sized creatures with him, meaning there's a greater chance that someone gets left behind (followers, cohorts, animal companions, familiars, other PCs etc). And on top of that, there's a (small) chance the group could wind up in other trouble if the teleport messes up.

NullAshton
2007-03-05, 07:53 AM
Why not just use normal magic arrows then? Normal cold iron arrows, fired with a magic bow.

And the cleric has a get out of jail card.... so? It doesn't matter if the cleric and wizard has a few deus ex machina's held in store in case there's a threat of a total party kill.

Rigeld2
2007-03-05, 07:56 AM
Why not just use normal magic arrows then? Normal cold iron arrows, fired with a magic bow.
That saves ~90k gold for the build, and the Balor doesnt have to make a Fort save every hit...


And the cleric has a get out of jail card.... so? It doesn't matter if the cleric and wizard has a few deus ex machina's held in store in case there's a threat of a total party kill.
If the entire party can get away... there will be fewer TPKs.

Rigeld2
2007-03-05, 07:58 AM
As for the Fighter? Well, I hope you did buy the guy that Helm of Teleportation, because without it his goose may well be cooked unless some other party member can save him. Since the Helm is CL 9, it would allow the Fighter to take up to 3 Medium sized creatures with him, meaning there's a greater chance that someone gets left behind (followers, cohorts, animal companions, familiars, other PCs etc). And on top of that, there's a (small) chance the group could wind up in other trouble if the teleport messes up.

He couldnt afford it.

NullAshton
2007-03-05, 08:24 AM
If the entire party can get away... there will be fewer TPKs.

....yes, the entire party gets away with word of recall?

Rigeld2
2007-03-05, 08:28 AM
And how does that not matter? Port out, heal up, mem the right spells, divine the right time to strike, and pop back in.

Fighters... dont add anything like that.

greenknight
2007-03-05, 08:37 AM
....yes, the entire party gets away with word of recall?

The entire party has a better chance of getting away with Word of Recall, because when cast by a 20th level Cleric, it allows for up to 6 Medium sized creatures to go along with the Cleric. And there's no chance of arriving at the wrong destination, unlike with Teleport.

As for the Fighter, the best option to make an escape is a Helm of Teleportation. That's expensive, can only teleport 3 other Medium sized creatures, and has a small chance of having the party arrive at an incorrect destination, even if that destination is very familiar. In other words, the Fighter can do some of what the Cleric can do, but it would cost a lot more and be less effective. It comes down to what I've stated many times, at higher levels especially, the Cleric and Druid can do pretty much everything the Fighter and Barbarian can do, and a whole lot more besides. I won't say that Fighters and Barbarians can't contribute at high levels, but compared to Clerics and Druids, they can't contribute as much overall.

Pocket lint
2007-03-05, 08:53 AM
If you have a helm of teleportation, why not teleport your whole gang o' melee fighters into close combat range, move to flanking position and let that sneak attack damage come into play?

(off-topic opting geekery)
I haven't done the math yet, but it seems to me that a multi-classed rogue/swashbucker/dervish can really go to town with two blessed, keen cold iron scimitars using A thousand cuts for 14 attacks on the surprise round and 7 on the next, all of whom benefit from sneak attack damage and automatic crit on 15-20 each hit. I haven't done the math yet, so I can't say how devastating this can be if you start opting it. And this is before the other fighters can have a go...
(/off-topic opting geekery)

For best effect, melee fighters are better off being neutral rather than good unless your Fort save is good enough. Especially that dervish, since you'll be rolling a lot of those saves.

Rigeld2
2007-03-05, 09:04 AM
A thousand cuts for 14 attacks on the surprise round and 7 on the next,
A Thousand Cuts requires a full attack, which you cant do during a Surprise round.

greenknight
2007-03-05, 09:04 AM
If you have a helm of teleportation, why not teleport your whole gang o' melee fighters into close combat range, move to flanking position and let that sneak attack damage come into play?

Getting them into flanking position during a teleport might be a bit of a stretch, and depending on the DM, you might lose the benefit of surprise as the group adjusts to their new location. Plus there's always the chance you'll wind up in the wrong location, especially since you might often find yourself in the situation of teleporting to locations you've only viewed once.

All that said, it's mainly the Fighters and Barbarians I'm talking about. I've always felt that every adventuring party needs a scout, and that's usually a Rogue with pretty decent Sneak Attack capability. But Rogues aren't terribly reliable because there are a number of foes they can't Sneak Attack, and without that damage they're usually fairly weak. So while it's a great idea to have a sneak attacker / scout in the party, I'd probably only have one, with a Druid serving as the main group's spotter.

Pocket lint
2007-03-05, 09:23 AM
Well, I wasn't aware the surprise round only allowed you one standard action, actually... haven't had too many of those.

I was thinking of everyone but the Teleport Guy (TG) preparing an action to attack as soon as they got teleported. Then TG teleports (don't know if this counts as a move action or not) and moves to flanking position, leaving the rogue in the sweet spot for a full round of backstabbery.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 10:40 AM
Hi again,

since my last post, Greenknight has responded with the most issues, so I'll try to answer to some of those. But regarding the others:

-Pocket lint brought up the idea how the rogueish character with sneaks would fare (Swashbuckler and Dervish are non-core, but yes, they would give some more/variation of oomph for non-casters, but not at range). A rogue vs the balor is something for a different thread maybe, but with the above fighter stats (i.e. DEX at 30 etc.) and equipment he or she could also get the balor in 1.5 rounds at melee range. At ranged tactics or even vs undead and constructs it's a different matter altogether.
-NullAshton is right: the fighter does not expand more for the archery power than the cleric version, since he can nicely do without the slaying arrows and still get the balor in 1.5 rounds. When I posted the first build, I sort of never expected that the balor would go down from sheer arrow damage alone. The arrows only need to be cold iron, and that's not that expensive.

Now on to Greenknight's many valid points...(and of course again in some cases I disagree :smallwink: )



The feats aren't absolutely necessary, since they only add 3 to the caster's chance of beating the SR, so I probably should have moved these into the useful but not essential category. With a luck blade, or something else which allowed a reroll, the odds would still be heavily in the caster's favor. Think of it this way: Without those Feats, the Cleric has to roll a 4 or greater to beat the Balor's SR (only a 15% failure rate). With them, even a "1" would do the job, if the DM didn't rule that to be an auto-fail.


A human cleric gets 8 feats by 20th level. To do anything zilla-like he will need some: Martial Weapon Proficiency (THSword or Longbow, the latter may be evaded as an elf), Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot, Quickdraw for the archery chain (plus the quicken spell feat). This means he has to take the War Domain to get it right with the feats. If the cleric chooses the meleezilla type he'll need Martial Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical, Quickdraw, Power Attack and the Quicken Spell feat. In this case, with the War domain he or she can afford to take the two Spell Penetration feats.
If the cleric does not have those, the likelihood of him or her failing with the tactics rise "only" to 15% but that is three times more likely than the fighter failing!
The luck-reroll is needed for the Initiative roll to get a reasonable chance at winning it. And the luck domain is out in this case, since trickery domain is chosen for your way.
So basically, your cleric version NEEDS to have war domain and trickery domain AND become a meleeZilla like cleric. No powerful archery for him or her.



I'm not sure War is such a great Domain, personally. It's bonus Feats tie the Cleric to a particular weapon, which is usually not the best choice for a melee (or ranged) Cleric, and the Domain spells are (mostly) on the Cleric's list already, or redundant. Personally, I'd avoid it even for CZilla.


As outlined above, the War Domain is necessary for the 2 extra feats. Otherwise, the cleric is in trouble keeping up with the fighter in combat.



Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. If you really want to kill that Balor, throw in a quickened Dimensional Anchor just before you cast Holy Word. That might even stop it from returning to its home plane, and you can have fun for a few minutes (the average effect of the Holy Word would be 55 rounds) getting some target practice. This does mean you'd either have to add Quicken Spell to the Cleric's list of Feats (not a bad idea), or get a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell (normal or Greater).


Yep, quicken spell is considered part of the cleric feats in my above examples and is a highly important feat for all non-spontaneous spellcasters in core. The cleric should DEFINITELY not play around with the balor for 55 rounds since all the other spell-like abilities work and he could get hurt...(firestorm anyone? Or, the balor may quicken telekinate anything in range which it can locate at will like dust on the ground, obscuring vision or some such)



Why Spell Focus, since there's no saving throws involved in the tactics I mentioned? No, not even with the Dimensional Anchor. There is SR, so you're better off with the Spell Penetration feats. And the Cleric might also find the Quicken Spell feat useful, although that's not essential either.


There is a will save vs the "sending home" effect in the holy word, albeit at -4. The Dimensional Anchor may even block that one, but I'm not sure. So the cleric should watch out not to score any own goals...:smallbiggrin: But you are correct, there should not be any spell focus feats, since the cleric has too few feats to spare for that tactics. The balor, therefore, even more likely escapes the holy word effect that kicks it home directly. Still, in the 1st full round, the Cleric should be able to kill a paralysed balor (if the balor had outsider minions and evil creatures around him, those would have been nicely taken care of with the area effect of the holy word. Hey, this "mass" effect IS a true advantage of the cleric over the fighter, but watch out the death throes of the balor when it goes down. A cleric may suffer more from losing 100 hits than a fighter initially- before he or she heals, that is. But a an archer fighter takes NO damage from the death throes which should be kept in mind).



Trickery's quite a useful Domain for a Cleric. All 9 of the Domain spells don't appear on the Cleric's normal list, and each of the spells can be quite useful (if you like Invisibility, check out Mislead). Plus, the Cleric now has Hide as a class skill, which can be very useful for surprising a foe. Trickery should be one of the top Domain choices for a Cleric, if their God allows them to take it, so it's not really that much of a stretch.


Yep, I guess the trickery domain, apart from the divine power spell and the strangely revised holy word (from 3.0 and 3.5, abused in the Wish and the Word combo already), appears to be the most balance-threatening thing for clerics. The domain is so good that it would almost be madness not to take that and the luck domain in core play. Once again, this greatly limits your religion/roleplaying aspects. Certainly trickery is non-lawful...:smallsmile:



And this is the real problem. It's not that a Fighter or Barbarian can't usefully contribute, it's that Clerics and Druids can pretty much do everything the Fighter or Barbarian can do and a whole lot more.


Well...the whole sense of this thread originally has been to show that fighters ARE balanced in combat at 20th level and can compete vs zilla tactics. Now slowly I believe I have shown even that fighters are - alongside VERY specialised clerics - the BEST at combat- although I have to admit that the cleric's holy word (getting it in due to time stop) is awesome, including vs several evil opponents.
Probably the real breakthrough will be if I can show any fighter superiority to caster classes in case of a surprise round/initiative gained by the balor.
But granted, OUTSIDE of combat, the cleric and other casters have many more options in the game. The big question is: is that balanced vs a slight advantage of the fighter in combat at high-level play (up to 20), and a huge advantage of the fighter in combat in low-level play (say, 1-6th level).



Let's explore that a little. With your build, you have given the Fighter some equipment specifically designed to kill Evil Outsiders. Now sure, at around level 20, you will find a few Evil Outsiders to fight, but I doubt they'd be the most common foe you'd face. So most of the time in general adventuring, some of the benefits of that equipment have gone to waste. Furthermore, your strategy costs money - those arrows cost over 4,000gp each, since they're made of Cold Iron, and once they're used, they're gone forever. Sure, that might be relatively small change to a 20th level character, but shooting 7 arrows costs around 30,000 gp, which is more than the WBL allowance for a 8th level PC, to put it into perspective. So the Fighter would probably need to be warned in advance and it would cost a fair chunk of change to take that Balor on (assuming the items could even be obtained). More to the point, if every encounter cost something like that amount of money, your Fighter's going to be pretty poor (relatively speaking) by level 21.


Well, as NullAshton has already brought up - correctly, I believe - the slaying arrows are not necessary. And the ONLY thing in the fighter build (melee or ranged) geared vs evil outsiders is the bane ability of the weapons (a +1 equivalent), maybe the "holy" ability (a +2 equivalent) as well, although the latter also helps against, well, almost all BBEG (as in the acronym, including the evil dragons) at level 20.
Against all other foes, I guess that the fighter simply rules (similar to all other lvl 20 characters). Undead like the Nightshade may be a bit tough since the Improved Critical of the weapon will never help, but still a 250 damage/round output should grind almost all CR 20 opponents and lower to dust. The bane of casters, iron golems, likely also do not last long vs such a fighter (who might throw some more money on a mace of smiting and get one of his remaining feats to improved critical with it).
Basically, the only way a DM can truly challenge even the core single class characters at such a high level are anti-magic tactics of the opponents, several opponents of CR 20 at once/party member, or simply letting the evil guys go first (which I'm still working on).



Now consider the Cleric approach I suggested. The Cleric can cast Invisibility, Time Stop, Holy Word and Dimensional Anchor, and they have no material or XP components (for a Divine spellcaster). Those are all useful general purpose spells, so it would make sense for the Cleric to have them available at the beginning of the day (in scroll form, if nothing else). The Bead of Karma renews it's power every day, so it's a one time cost. Ditto if the Cleric decides to use a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell. And both those items have multiple uses, even for a Cleric during general adventuring. Since we're talking about actually killing the Balor now, the Cleric would need to have a decent ranged Cold Iron weapon with a Good descriptor, but the difference is that the Cleric can magic up the weapon with Align Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon for free. If given time to prepare (and the Cleric can cast the Divination spells which might provide the necessary warning), this Cleric can quickly and cheaply adapt to almost any type of foe. All that's really needed are some non-magical versions of the needed items, which are always much less expensive than the same items with magical effects already built in.


As outlined above, the fighter only has the cold iron arrow costs. But your description outlines a lvl 20 cleric's power very well, in particular the awesome power addition of the trickery domain in core.
Still, as I tried to explain in various posts now, the cleric CANNOT emulate BOTH the fighter's melee AND ranged weapon capability. If he uses exactly the feats outlined above with trickery and war domains, THEN, and ONLY THEN will the cleric do well at ranged combat, plus take the Czilla route for melee and equate the fighter in those aspects.



But what if there's no warning and the characters are horribly unprepared to fight a Balor? Again, the Cleric has a free "get out of jail" card for when these little surprises hit. It's called "Word of Recall" and it would probably allow a 20th level Cleric to get the whole group out of trouble (6 medium sized creatures). As for the Fighter? Well, I hope you did buy the guy that Helm of Teleportation, because without it his goose may well be cooked unless some other party member can save him. Since the Helm is CL 9, it would allow the Fighter to take up to 3 Medium sized creatures with him, meaning there's a greater chance that someone gets left behind (followers, cohorts, animal companions, familiars, other PCs etc). And on top of that, there's a (small) chance the group could wind up in other trouble if the teleport messes up.


Now this is discussing what I'm currently also trying to figure out. Unfortunately, the "Word of Recall" is only a "get out of jail" card, not a "Oh no look, it's the balors attack again" card. It is a standard, not even an immediate action (and even immediate actions cannot be used if flat-footed). It cannot even be quickened since it's 6th level for the cleric and 8th level for the druid. So the balor having a surprise and winning initiative has exactly the same 1.5 rounds vs the cleric as the other way round. Good luck surviving that!
The only "escape quit yes"-button I currently see here is the contingency teleport of the wizard or sorcerer. Now, an evil DM bent on avoiding a rather non-suspense contingency escape may allow the balor with his INT/WIS at 24 research ability beforehand as to WHERE the wizard/sorcerer normally escapes with contingency to. Or, it may trick the wizard/sorcerer during the day to trigger the contingency and then attack it with the real attack.
But I haven't figured that all out yet, so it's for a later post.

- Giacomo

Piccamo
2007-03-05, 10:50 AM
Except True Seeing has a range of 120 feet - not line of sight.

The fighter has no reason to use the potion of invisibility before he actually knows the balor is there. By the time he does know the balor is there, the balor knows he's there.

Pocket lint
2007-03-05, 10:50 AM
It's probably a newbie question, but how do you get anything much done in the surprise round if you only have a standard action to play with? A single extra arrow won't do all that much damage...

NullAshton
2007-03-05, 10:58 AM
It's probably a newbie question, but how do you get anything much done in the surprise round if you only have a standard action to play with? A single extra arrow won't do all that much damage...

Manyshot. Allows you to fire off a full attack as a standard action, at the expense of having to be within 30 feet.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 11:05 AM
Hmmm, almost. Sorry, it's already quite a long thread and further up I had to stand corrected:
- at beyond 30ft range, manyshot does not work, so for the fighter archer tactics, in the surprise standard action the only thing he did was kicking in the boost of speed and shooting one arrow
- interestingly, alongside the 6 other arrows in the first round (where he won initiative) that totaled 7 arrows hitting the poor balor, with enough damage on average to kill it.
- piccamo: the balor's true seeing range only extends to 120 ft. The above example archer fighter had a bow with a range increment of 330ft. So no chance for the balor to see that coming, excepting maybe with some divine/evil inspirational magic cast on that morning or whatever.

Hope that helped.

- Giacomo

Piccamo
2007-03-05, 11:33 AM
- piccamo: the balor's true seeing range only extends to 120 ft. The above example archer fighter had a bow with a range increment of 330ft. So no chance for the balor to see that coming, excepting maybe with some divine/evil inspirational magic cast on that morning or whatever.

Hope that helped.

- Giacomo
No, it didn't help. Spot checks are used to determine awareness. The Balor becomes aware of the fighter long before the fighter ever gets close. Even if the fighter chugged the potion, the Balor would still have a chance to hear it. He cannot see invisibility past 120 feet, but he can pretty much see to 380 feet automatically. The fighter cannot see that far with a spot modifier of only +17.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 11:49 AM
A fighter 320 feet away from the balor (to evade some of the balor's medium-range powers) means a -32 to the spot check for the balor to notice a hidden fighter.
Say that fighter has a maxed cross-class hide rank of 10, +10 of DEX. That already raises the spot check DC to 52 (57 if the balor is distracted because, say, it talks to a minion or looks forward to invade the city in the example above). THAT is already tough to beat even with the balor's +38 spot modifier. Now the fighter is even invisible, which adds +40 to the hide...:smallredface:

Now, of course, conversely the DM may ask the fighter to make a spot check to locate the balor amidst its troops or where ever.
The fighter has a spot maxed cross-class to 10 ranks, +5 WIS, +3 (potential skill focus), getting a +18. This means, the fighter would have a -14 to his spot roll due to the distance. However, spot is only called for if someone is hiding. If the balor does not hide among its troops, but is there open to see to seed fear in the hearts of the poor city, and push on its troops, it's toast vs. the fighter.

Listening likewise does not help, since the fighter is not moving ahead of his attack and even if he did (say, he climbs the tower of the city wall from inside) that would amount to +1 to DC per 10ft, again adding 32 to the DC, plus 15 due to the stone wall vs a move silently check modified by +10 by the fighter (DEX bonus). Now add to that a penalty for the balor since there is the whole camp around him, at least deducting another 5 on the listen roll for being distracted...

However, you brought up a valid point. Say, the balor is highly paranoid and actually thinks it's realistic that some crazed adventurer dares to attack it (lowering the morale of its troops!). Then, the fighter would need to first locate the balor for the above melee and bow tactics. Here, the rogue in the party could help, or a hat of disguise to get into the enemy camp or whatever.
Similarly, in a different situation (say, both balor and fighter meet each other on a wide, flat plain), the balor could hear the fighter first, negating a surprise round, but still losing the initiative....it may survive barely in that case). Again, a simple armour with move silently enchantment could tilt the balance again in favour of the invisible fighter getting the surprise round.

Note, though, that a hiding/tricky balor would also shut down the cleric archer and/or holy word tactics...

- Giacomo

Pocket lint
2007-03-05, 12:00 PM
Um. I doubt the dervish actually needs that extra surprise round as long as he get the initiative. With boots of speed, he has a base move of 65', so he can get into close combat range from outside true seeing range with one double-move.

"A thousand cuts" will give him *16* attacks (base 4, plus 3 from TWF tree, plus 1 haste times two), of which 4 should be critical threats and every one that hit will do 6d6 plus Str and Int bonuses even before I start adding in enhancements. Assuming something similar to sir Giacomo's build (+5, keen, holy, bane evil outsider), each hit should kick in some 40-50 damage or so. The crits will add something like 10 points more.

...

Do demons need to roll for massive damage?

(I was wrong about Bless Weapon - it doesn't stack with Keen. Plus, it's a paladin spell, so access is limited)

Piccamo
2007-03-05, 12:12 PM
A fighter 320 feet away from the balor (to evade some of the balor's medium-range powers) means a -32 to the spot check for the balor to notice a hidden fighter.
Say that fighter has a maxed cross-class hide rank of 10, +10 of DEX. That already raises the spot check DC to 52 (57 if the balor is distracted because, say, it talks to a minion or looks forward to invade the city in the example above). THAT is already tough to beat even with the balor's +38 spot modifier. Now the fighter is even invisible, which adds +40 to the hide...:smallredface:

Now, of course, conversely the DM may ask the fighter to make a spot check to locate the balor amidst its troops or where ever.
The fighter has a spot maxed cross-class to 10 ranks, +5 WIS, +3 (potential skill focus), getting a +18. This means, the fighter would have a -14 to his spot roll due to the distance. However, spot is only called for if someone is hiding. If the balor does not hide among its troops, but is there open to see to seed fear in the hearts of the poor city, and push on its troops, it's toast vs. the fighter.

Listening likewise does not help, since the fighter is not moving ahead of his attack and even if he did (say, he climbs the tower of the city wall from inside) that would amount to +1 to DC per 10ft, again adding 32 to the DC, plus 15 due to the stone wall vs a move silently check modified by +10 by the fighter (DEX bonus). Now add to that a penalty for the balor since there is the whole camp around him, at least deducting another 5 on the listen roll for being distracted...

However, you brought up a valid point. Say, the balor is highly paranoid and actually thinks it's realistic that some crazed adventurer dares to attack it (lowering the morale of its troops!). Then, the fighter would need to first locate the balor for the above melee and bow tactics. Here, the rogue in the party could help, or a hat of disguise to get into the enemy camp or whatever.
Similarly, in a different situation (say, both balor and fighter meet each other on a wide, flat plain), the balor could hear the fighter first, negating a surprise round, but still losing the initiative....it may survive barely in that case). Again, a simple armour with move silently enchantment could tilt the balance again in favour of the invisible fighter getting the surprise round.

Note, though, that a hiding/tricky balor would also shut down the cleric archer and/or holy word tactics...

- Giacomo
Why are we suddenly assuming the fighter is hiding and drinks the potion long before he knows where the balor is?


Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins.

Why do you assume the Fighter is standing still after taking the potion?

If the fighter has max ranks in Hide he doesn't have max ranks in move silently and spot, too.

The fighter still must reach a position from which he can observe the balor (which at -1 per 10 feet means probably not the 320 feet you want him to use).

Where are you getting a DC of 52, anyway? He hides at +20. The distance subtracts 32 from the balor's spot check. Again, why would the fighter start hiding as soon as in range of the balor when he cannot detect said balor himself?

It is a good build, but I do not think you are going to get the surprise round versus the balor.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 12:32 PM
Why are we suddenly assuming the fighter is hiding and drinks the potion long before he knows where the balor is?


That was assumed from the first post. He knows where the balor is because said balor is not hiding in this scenario.



Why do you assume the Fighter is standing still after taking the potion?


Hmmm, correct. The fighter would need to drink the potion BEFORE reaching his hiding place. But that he could do in the middle of the city or 2000ft away or whereever.



If the fighter has max ranks in Hide he doesn't have max ranks in move silently and spot, too.


This example fighter I guess as an archer will have maxed cross-class hide at 10 ranks, spot at 10 ranks, spent another 10 skill points for getting tumble to the decisive cross-class 5 ranks (for +1 dodge AC fighting defensively and avoiding AoO), jump 5 ranks, intimidate maxed out to 23 ranks, plus a smattering of other ranks spread over some skills as the player sees fit (riding etc). Move Silently is not necessary for this situation. The +10 from DEX and some magic enchantment/item for another +10 should cover this for most mundane situations.



The fighter still must reach a position from which he can observe the balor (which at -1 per 10 feet means probably not the 320 feet you want him to use).

Where are you getting a DC of 52, anyway? He hides at +20. The distance subtracts 32 from the balor's spot check. Again, why would the fighter start hiding as soon as in range of the balor when he cannot detect said balor himself?

It is a good build, but I do not think you are going to get the surprise round versus the balor.


Thanks! Still, check again my above calculations. The balor does not hide, so the fighter sees it easily (at a 110 metres, everyone can "see" a large creature from that distance!). The balor does not see the fighter, because his spot check of +38 gets modified by a -32 from the distance, and the hide check of the fighter gets modified by a 10 from DEX, 10 from hide ranks, and 40 from the invisibility effect. Likewise, as I outlined above, listen will not help.

But you would be correct in saying that this gaining of a suprise round is very situation-specific. On a large field, the balor may succeed at a listen check vs a fighter moving silently at +20 (but only with a low chance, since the balor again gets his listen reduced by distance to a measly +6. If the fighter is willing to risk the shots from 600ft at -2 vs the balor, then the latter has no chance to detect him). If both sneak up on each other, not knowing before where the other is, the advantage is on the balor's side- but that is the category which I'd like to delve into soon: the balor actually going first.

- Giacomo

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-05, 12:41 PM
Giacomo--if you're comparing a cleric to a fighter, you might as well compare a cleric-archer to a fighter-archer. The War domain can give longbow proficiency; the human will use his level 1 feats for PBS and Precise Shot, snag Rapid Shot at first, and voila. He'll still be able to drop Divine Power/Righteous Might/etc. if he needs to melee, so the cleric-archer will melee *better* than the high-dex, mediocre-damage fighter archer.

You're also *severely* underestimating the druid. I'll try to crunch some numbers for you, both with Wild Shape and with Shapechange, tonight.

Quietus
2007-03-05, 12:44 PM
To be perfectly accurate, haste doesn't count for the number of attacks that get doubled, so you'd only get 15 attacks. That each do 6d6+10+str+int. 31 average damage if you have NO bonus to str/int. Not counting crits. Assuming only half of those hit (since five are at your highest attack bonus, and four are just 5 points below that, that shouldn't be tough to pull off) that's still something like 217 damage. Not counting strength, int, and crits.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 12:53 PM
Giacomo--if you're comparing a cleric to a fighter, you might as well compare a cleric-archer to a fighter-archer. The War domain can give longbow proficiency; the human will use his level 1 feats for PBS and Precise Shot, snag Rapid Shot at first, and voila. He'll still be able to drop Divine Power/Righteous Might/etc. if he needs to melee, so the cleric-archer will melee *better* than the high-dex, mediocre-damage fighter archer.

You're also *severely* underestimating the druid. I'll try to crunch some numbers for you, both with Wild Shape and with Shapechange.

Hi Bears with Lasers,

in some of the above posts I hope I have shown that the cleric can EITHER try to emulate the fighter in archery OR get to try to be the melee copy. Not both, due to the limited feats available, including the War domain (which I always assumed the cleric would have). The fighter, however, can be mighty in BOTH archery as well as melee.
In melee, the fighter is not "mediocre-damage" but awfully effective, getting with power attack around 300 damage with 5 hits vs the flat-footed balor in one round. If the fighter would solely focus on melee with the two-weapon-fighting tree, I guess the numbers would skyrocket, with the cleric unable to copy that at all, again for lack of feats.

Now regarding the druid: I'm looking forward to that one. Frankly, I do not have much experience with druids- never played one, only once saw a player play it (was not that effective in low levels, however was also not played maxed out). So most what I churned out so far is gut feeling and looking up a bit the SRD 3.5 entries.

- Giacomo

Fax Celestis
2007-03-05, 01:11 PM
The Druid looks weak, but it really, really isn't.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-05, 01:12 PM
Remind me how your fighter is doing 300 melee damage against a 39-AC balor, again, when he's using Weapon Finesse and can power attack at a 1:1 ratio at best? I say 39 AC, because if the fighter's close enough to melee, the Balor can and will notice him, and can and will throw his Unholy Aura up (in fact, given that they can activate it at will, I don't see why they don't just say the command word every 20th round unless they're busy with something else).

As for Druids, well, a bare-bones druid can be two of these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direTiger.htm), one boosted by items and the other by Animal Companion bennies, with buffs sprinkled in (+5 AB/damage via Greater Magic Fang, say, and quickened Bull's Strength on the druid [if the slotless-items-for-double-cost rules weren't allowed] plus Animal Growth on the companion in the first round). Both can Pounce and make three attacks, plus two Rakes, plus another Haste attack if they're hasted. Each for a lot of damage.
That's without Shapechange. Shapechange opens up forms like the Old black dragon or Very Young Force dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/dragonEpic.htm#forceDragon)... and the funny thing is that you keep your animal /Wild Shape (Ex) abilities, like Pounce, when Wild Shaped and then Shapechanged.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 01:19 PM
Hi BWL,

I tried to outline the DEX/archer-fighter's strength in melee in the above post (the following is an excerpt) in the lower part of the 2nd page of the thread:




(...)The above example fighter remains the same with the archery gadgets plus the bardic inspire courage (this time, he may greatly appreciate a bear's endurance and bull's strength, though, or he could simply drink potions of those), but it is important now to fix the remaining feats, some skills and equipment. Probably, for this excercise, it suffices to have the following feats IN ADDITION to the archery feats (which a cleric cannot copy since all of his or her feats are spent already, so he or she cannot copy BOTH the fighter's melee AND ranged combat strength):
Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Spc: Greatsword, Improved Critical: Greatsword, Skill Focus (Intimidate). Equipment: add a +5 holy, bane evil outsider cold iron greatsword (costs another 129,000 gold. If it seems to expensive, it's quite easy to make it only +3, reducing the price to a moderate 73,000 gp- that won't change the situation much).
This leaves some equipment and 6 feats to spare.

Now once again, the fighter downs a potion of invisibility and gets to 125 ft range (has to watch his step here!). He could, especially in the presence of an enemy army camp, use a hat of disguise and also get about as close to avoid the true seeing ability. Even better, he could simply get disguised non-magically by the rogue. Definitely, he beats a mightous right cleric at the "get within 125 ft" game!
At 125 ft he charges his double move of the 120 ft (due to his haste effect) to get to within 5 ft of the poor balor. He gets his charge attack with the two-handed sword, power attacked for maximum effectiveness...
Attack: +20 (base) + 4 (STR) +7 (enhance) +2 (charge) + 4 (morale) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (haste) = 39, of which he'll deduct 12 for the flat-footed AC of the balor.
Damage: 2d6 + 2d6 (holy) +2d6 (bane) + 6 (STR) + 4 (morale) + 2 (weapon specialisation) +7 (enhance) +24 (power attack) = 6d6 + 43 = on avg 64 damage.
Then, once again the fighter wins initiative.
He attacks four times at (no longer with charge) + 37/32/27/22, hitting at least three times (likely with one critical) vs the flat-footed AC, totaling around (4 less power damage since longer charge) 24d6 + 160 damage, a total of 244, which together with the 64 first damage once again kills the balor. This time, it will only have to save 5 times vs massive damage (no slaying arrows). But devastating nonetheless (and this time: without extra luck buffs!).
So much for flexibility (and note that there are still feats left).

Now, some may say: haha! The balor explodes, dealing likely around 100 damage to the fighter. Which is exactly part of why I said going into melee with such a monster is a bad idea in the first place.
However, consider this situation: the fighter takes 100 damage and quickdraws his holy-radiating bow. Around him, in 100ft range, almost all the army of the balor has been killed (outsiders etc.). The few left are now, as lower level creatures with a lot of damage taken, up against a holy-bow-wielding, mightly looking fighter out to kill them.
Plus, the fighter now could use his intimidate ability (if maxed at +26 or more with customised items if necessary), another skill the cleric does not possess. The fighter intimidates the last remaining strong-looking non-outsider and gets him to withdraw the hell away from the city.

Encounter solved.

- Giacomo

Now the one thing I got wrong up there* is that the fighter does not have four attacks, but five attacks going in the initiative round vs the balor. I admit I included the bardic inspire courage +4 for more effect, but I did that to illustrate the great usefulness of buffing that fighter. This fighter is even helped by a bull's strength, potion or spell by his cleric friend:smallsmile: .
The balor does not have an AC of 39, since it is flat-footed and was not able/did not see it fit to cast an unholy aura before.

- Giacomo

*oops, saw another mistake: the damage piled up in the initiative round should be 234, not 244. Still, add another 6d6+60 to it for the attack I forgot...

Thoughtbot360
2007-03-05, 01:20 PM
Awww, snap!

Thoughtbot not get references....

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-05, 01:33 PM
Hi BWL,

I tried to outline the DEX/archer-fighter's strength in melee in the above post (the following is an excerpt) in the lower part of the 2nd page of the thread:
So, he's got... a second +5 weapon, okay. That just happens to be Holy and Balor-bane, also? Incidentally, Cold Iron weapons cost double to enchant, so it'd be 200+k--that's way too much for a secondary weapon (and you'd think his secondary weapon would be themed to deal with something *other* than what his first weapon is out to deal with). And he's suddenly got a bard tagging along to help him out? And he wins initiative even though the Balor's got a good chance?
Sure, if absolutely everything works in the fighter's favor, I guess. If you happen to start from over 125 feet away from it, it's not over 125 feet in the air, it doesn't notice your party, it doesn't have Unholy Aura up even though it can constantly activate it...
"I start inivisible and within 125 feet of a sleepy, Auraless, flatfooted Balor with chronic bronchitis and a bum leg" is not really a good assumption.

I'd like to see the gold values for all of his gear, especially at 17th level or so rather than 20th, too. I may have missed that.


Now the one thing I got wrong up there is that the fighter does not have four attacks, but five attacks going in the initiative round vs the balor. I admit I included the bardic inspire courage +4 for more effect, but I did that to illustrate the great usefulness of buffing that fighter. This fighter is even helped by a bull's strength, potion or spell by his cleric friend:smallsmile: .
The balor does not have an AC of 39, since it is flat-footed and was not able/did not see it fit to cast an unholy aura before.

- GiacomoThe bard would be better off being a better fifth party member and doing something more useful than just giving +4.
What's your fighter's flight speed and maneuverability (remember, charging up costs more movement

I've never seen a scenario such as you describe in play; I'll wager you haven't, either. The vast majority of Balors, dragons, etc. you sneak up on *won't* hand you the surprise round, lose initiative, and be flatfooted.
Try it against one of them--there goes the Power Attack for 24 damage a hit.
(If you're assuming that you'll have leeway to Power Attack for 12 points against all, most, or even a significant minority of CR-appropriate enemies... yeah, not so much.)

Incidentally, Power Attacking for 12 against the flatfooted Balor, your second attack would have a 75% chance of hitting, the third--50%, and the fourth--25%.

NullAshton
2007-03-05, 01:53 PM
Cold iron weapons don't cost twice as much. The base non-magical cost is doubled, and any magical enchantments cost an extra 2,000 GP, but the magical enchantments don't cost double.

Incidentally, the challenge was to make it effective in combat, not to make it able to constantly defeat a balor in one-on-one combat. The fighter is still effective, is it not?

I actually have a build that can power attack for full BAB against all enemies, and still hit fairly regularly. Deep Impact, a psionic feat, lets you expend your focus in order to make one attack as a touch attack.

Truwar
2007-03-05, 01:56 PM
The real key should not be overcoming the fighter’s maneuverability problem (unless you wanted to give the fighter a feat that allows him to teleport?), the key is making the fighter such a colossal force of destruction that it is in all of the casters best interest to get that fighter next to his target (via Dimension door, etc.).

A front line fighter should be able to dish out more damage/round against a single target than ANY other class. All fighters do is FIGHT so they should be the best at it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-05, 01:58 PM
The real key should not be overcoming the fighter’s maneuverability problem (unless you wanted to give the fighter a feat that allows him to teleport?), the key is making the fighter such a colossal force of destruction that it is in all of the casters best interest to get that fighter next to his target (via Dimension door, etc.).

A front line fighter should be able to dish out more damage/round against a single target than ANY other class. All fighters do is FIGHT so they should be the best at it.
Umm... no, the fighter can fight just fine. Branch out from Core and you can have a pretty devastating set-up of feats that compensates for your lower AB/damage compared to the buffed-up guys, i.e. Combat Reflexes + Stand Still + Imp. Trip + Karmic Strike. The wizard spending standard actions and spell slots to cart him around still isn't a good solution.

Mobility *is* a huge fighter problem.


Edit: whoops, misread the Cold Iron ability. Okay, that's only 14300 more.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 02:00 PM
So, he's got... a second +5 weapon, okay. That just happens to be Holy and Balor-bane, also? Incidentally, Cold Iron weapons cost double to enchant, so it'd be 200+k--that's way too much for a secondary weapon (and you'd think his secondary weapon would be themed to deal with something *other* than what his first weapon is out to deal with). And he's suddenly got a bard tagging along to help him out? And he wins initiative even though the Balor's got a good chance?
Sure, if absolutely everything works in the fighter's favor, I guess. If you happen to start from over 125 feet away from it, it's not over 125 feet in the air, it doesn't notice your party, it doesn't have Unholy Aura up even though it can constantly activate it...
"I start inivisible and within 125 feet of a sleepy, Auraless, flatfooted Balor" is not really a good assumption.


Hmmm. I would disagree. The above scenario I think is not too far-fetched. What does a Balor normally do on the Prime Material Plane? Holidays? Likely not. It has some evil purpose, and being a powerful monster in a battle of good vs. evil with armies sounds like a regular encounter/challenge for me.
Now, the treasure a fighter "happens to have" is like in, cleric "happens to get the holy word granted for that day" or "wizard happens to have time stop in his spellbook". It's in the rules and I guess it would be unfair if all classes were able to load up stuff for various lvl 20 challenges, while the fighter is left with non-bane weapons (one of the best +1 enchantments to get).
Of course, it would not be clever to have a second weapon to do what his first weapon (the bow) can already do, in various situations.
The Two-handed sword I added because you, among others, raised the issue that a fighter should go melee (which I always thought was not a good strategy) and that a fighter "archer build" cannot do anything else. It can.
Being competent at melee will come in handy once a hero does NOT get to strike first vs the balor (or other CR 20 monster). That's what I'm currently trying to figure out.
However, keep in mind that for all heroes having the stats of the first post (cleric, wizard, fighter, whoever) the hero will likely go FIRST vs the balor (due to the luck re-roll).

Additionally, the melee zilla cleric would have similar problems that you raised.
Among the problems I see are valid is the cold iron stuff. I did not realise that cold iron makes the enchantment cost double (although NullAshton just said it's not so). In anycase, a two-handed sword reduced to +6 equivalent would also go quite a way (+3, holy, bane) doubled to around 150,000 gold.
The bard is not "suddenly" helping him out. That was, as I mentioned several times, one of the first modifications to illustrate that it is a GOOD idea to buff a fighter instead of attacking zilla like your self (now, as far as I know the bard was never discussed as being able to zilla himself...appears to be counterintuitive...:smallsmile: )



I'd like to see the gold values for all of his gear, especially at 17th level or so rather than 20th, too.


I'll try to figure that out later; and try to post a comprehensive, fully revised fighter build able to do all the above stuff (revised, that is, trying to factor in what was discussed so far in the thread).
The notion about what effect disproportionately less equipment options has on the fighter at lower levels, in particular lvl 17 where the spellcasters get 9th level spells, or 15th level when the cleric gets quickened divine power, I'll try to tackle later as well (it was one of the remaining open issues).



The bard would be better off being a better fifth party member and doing something more useful than just giving +4.


Hey, wow, I did not know you were such a bard fan! :smallbiggrin: Seriously, I guess we should not be discussing 5th party members, but wether a 2nd cleric or whaterver full caster should be the FOURTH party member or rather the fighter.



What's your fighter's flight speed and maneuverability (remember, charging up costs more movement


In the above examples the fighter does not need flying, that's the beauty of it. Neither for archery (self-explanatory) nor for the overland charge. If the terrain is rough, the prestige class duelist can help...but the discussion here should be confined to core only, without prestige classes.



I've never seen a scenario such as you describe in play; I'll wager you haven't, either. The vast majority of Balors, dragons, etc. you sneak up on *won't* hand you the surprise round, lose initiative, and be flatfooted.
Try it against one of them--there goes the Power Attack for 24 damage a hit.
(If you're assuming that you'll have leeway to Power Attack for 12 points against all, most, or even a significant minority of CR-appropriate enemies... yeah, not so much.)


Yep, the scenario is highly theoretic (although I'd say not unrealistic), since there are so few 20th level/high-level groups around and even less who are able to do all the stuff right in the action of combat rounds, whereas we can armchair the stuff here. Which, btw, supports the notion of the power of the fighter: it is simple to play, and most groups play only the, say, 1-15th level range.



Incidentally, Power Attacking for 12 against the flatfooted Balor, your second attack would have a 75% chance of hitting, the third--50%, and the fourth--25%.

Ah, sorry- you are right, thanks for the hint. In the initiative round, though, the power attack deduction is 10 and even less may be needed since I forgot to get the 5th attack in it in the original calculation (besides a likely critical). I'll redo the math, but have to rush off now for a couple of hours.

- Giacomo

Rigeld2
2007-03-05, 03:35 PM
Theres absolutely no way your fighter could afford all the equipment you listed in the first post, let alone this new + anything Greatsword.

And could you list all the feats youve taken? Cause I think youre over your limit. And some of the feats youre saying are required for a melee cleric build... simply arent.

LotharBot
2007-03-05, 04:30 PM
Enchanting a Cold Iron weapon costs 2000gp per individual enchantment added.

It's not double. It's also not 2000gp per point of enchantment. It's 2000gp for each individual enchantment added -- so "+5" would count as one enchantment, "holy" would count as one, and "evil outsider bane" would count as one, for a total of 6000 gp for that group of enchantments.

(I happen to have a character who plans to enchant his cold iron shortsword to +5 holy eviloutsiderbane chaoticoutsiderbane, an effective +9+6d6 vs demons; DM fiat ruled that bane stacks if something qualifies for both, since RAW is unclear.)

Truwar
2007-03-05, 05:03 PM
Umm... no, the fighter can fight just fine. Branch out from Core and you can have a pretty devastating set-up of feats that compensates for your lower AB/damage compared to the buffed-up guys, i.e. Combat Reflexes + Stand Still + Imp. Trip + Karmic Strike. The wizard spending standard actions and spell slots to cart him around still isn't a good solution.


I was not implying that the wizard should design his spell list around providing the fighter with improved mobility. What I was saying was there needed to be a broader range of feats that would make a pure fighter dangerous enough that it would be worth the caster’s time to insure that the fighter was able to USE those fancy feats on the enemy.

And while the combination you mentioned (along with several others I can think of) is quite nice, it still does not measure up to spells in combat. The point I was trying to make is that a fighter should outshine everyone in combat (in most situations). He has neither skills nor special abilities that allow him to shine in other situations.

greenknight
2007-03-05, 08:02 PM
A human cleric gets 8 feats by 20th level. To do anything zilla-like he will need some: Martial Weapon Proficiency (THSword or Longbow, the latter may be evaded as an elf), Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot, Quickdraw for the archery chain (plus the quicken spell feat).

I don't think all those feats are really necessary. For a Cleric who wants to concentrate on ranged fighting, the best weapon probably isn't even a bow, it's a sling (preferably with a +1 enhancement and the Distance special ability to give it a 100' range increment). Why? Because CZilla's strength is variable, and a sling allows CZilla to get the full damage bonus from strength no matter what that strength score is. You could do that with a bow, but then you take a -2 to attack with it if your strength doesn't exactly match (or exceed) that of the bow you're using. Which also means that as your archer's strength changes, he'll probably want different bows, btw (with more expense).

Weapon Focus? Well, that's of some use, but it's only a +1 modifier to attack, which the Cleric can get from many different spells, so while I agree it's useful, I don't think it's essential.

Improved Initiative? Again, it has it's uses, but CZilla should be powerful enough to allow someone else to go first. And there are advantages to the Cleric going last, since then the Cleric has an opportunity to undo some or all of the damage which has occurred during the combat round.

Improved Critical? Since a sling only scores a critical threat on a 20, that's only going to give a 5% improvement on the critical hit rate, even assuming all threats are confirmed. And there are plenty of creatures immune to critical hits anyway. Overall, I think it would be a bad idea to take this feat with a sling user.

Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot? All very useful for a ranged attacking Cleric, and if that's the character focus then I'd say they are essential to the build.

Quickdraw? I wouldn't say this is essential, but it is highly useful and I could certainly see a ranged attack focused Cleric taking it.

So of the 8 feats you listed, I'd only consider 4 to be really all that useful to the ranged attacking Cleric. That still leaves 3 or 4 for other things, and makes the War Domain totally unnecessary for this type of character.


If the cleric chooses the meleezilla type he'll need Martial Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical, Quickdraw, Power Attack and the Quicken Spell feat.

Martial weapons are better than Simple weapons for CZilla, but let's not overlook the advantages of a morningstar. It leaves the Cleric with one hand free for spellcasting, but can still be used as a two handed weapon (with all of a TH weapon's advantages) when needed. It has the same base damage as even the best 1 handed Martial weapons, although they generally have better threat ranges or critical multipliers. And it delivers two types of damage, which can be very useful for overcoming the DR of some monsters. That said, Martial Weapon Proficiency with a Longsword or Scimitar would be really nice, since the swords can be made out of many different materials to help overcome DR and it's a slashing weapon. So I'll give you that one.

Weapon Focus and Improved Initiative? Melee Zilla doesn't need these for the same reasons ranged Zilla doesn't.

Improved Critical? Since we've given melee Zilla proficiency in a sword, this could be useful, especially if it's a Scimitar. So in this case, the feat's worth taking.

Quickdraw? I don't see a whole lot of point to this really for a melee Cleric. CZilla's got one hand free for spellcasting, and there's plenty of nice ranged attack spells available to a Cleric if that's needed.

Power Attack, Quicken Spell? I'm not sure Quicken Spell would really be essential, but it sure is handy so we'll take it. Power Attack is an obvious must for melee Zilla.

Out of that, we again have 4 Feats (or 3, for an Elf), leaving 3 or 4 for whatever the Cleric wants. So no War domain needed here either.


If the cleric does not have those, the likelihood of him or her failing with the tactics rise "only" to 15% but that is three times more likely than the fighter failing!

Considering your Fighter is using the Luckblade as a reroll backup, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Give the Cleric a Luckblade (perfectly feasible, especially if it's one without a Wish) and the chance of any one spell not getting through drops to just over 2%. Essentially, the Cleric gets 3 rolls, 2 of which must be 4 or better.


The luck-reroll is needed for the Initiative roll to get a reasonable chance at winning it. And the luck domain is out in this case, since trickery domain is chosen for your way.

Trickery and Luck can be combined, especially if you don't waste a Domain by taking War. Combined with a Luckblade, that gives 2! rerolls per day. But given the choice, I'd probably take either Travel or Magic in preference to Luck.


As outlined above, the War Domain is necessary for the 2 extra feats. Otherwise, the cleric is in trouble keeping up with the fighter in combat.

The Cleric has many ways to boost attack and damage rolls through spells, such as Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might and Greater Magic Weapon. Clerics can also boost defence through spells like Shield of Faith and Magic Vestment, and if defence fails, the Cleric can cast healing spells. All of those tactics are effective even against creatures immune to magic. Clerics don't need to rely on magical items anywhere near as heavily as non-spellcasters do. Yes, it can take time to apply all those buffs, but many have long durations, and the Cleric has ways of applying those buffs quickly and/or safely if necessary (quickened spells come to mind immediately, although the Time Stop tactic could also be used by high level Clerics with the Trickery Domain).

Furthermore, Clerics have a number of spells which can practically end a battle with a single casting (Holy Word, Greater Command and Implosion are good examples). And they have a number of utility spells available to them which can be critical for party survival (Word of Recall is one example). And that is the real point of the arguement. Sure, you can make a Fighter who is effective in combat, but generally you can make a Cleric just as effective (and sometimes even more effective), and the Cleric offers so much more.


The cleric should DEFINITELY not play around with the balor for 55 rounds since all the other spell-like abilities work and he could get hurt...(firestorm anyone? Or, the balor may quicken telekinate anything in range which it can locate at will like dust on the ground, obscuring vision or some such)

I'll agree with that, especially since anything more than 10 rounds after the Holy Word goes off has a risk that the Balor will recover. But once paralyzed, the Balor is considered to have Strength and Dexterity of 0. Wasn't that Balor carrying a Vorpal Sword and flaming Whip? Power up with Divine Power and Righteous Might, and a couple of rounds and two Disarm checks should take care of that (we can sell them later, if we can't find any better use for them). If the Cleric happens to be alone, run back beyond 100', and cast Blade Barrier so that it's edge hits the Balor. It's paralyzed, so it can't move out, and it's reflex save is a puny +7 (Dex effectively 0). That's 15d6 damage per round. Then start firing 4 - 5 sling bullets per round at it's AC 23 (again, Dex 0), each doing 16+ damage on average (it's likely to be a bit more) and that Balor should go down quite quickly.


There is a will save vs the "sending home" effect in the holy word, albeit at -4. The Dimensional Anchor may even block that one, but I'm not sure. So the cleric should watch out not to score any own goals...

Thing is, there are very few Clerics who wouldn't want to kill that Balor. Even Evil aligned Clerics (who couldn't cast Holy Word anyway) would probably want to do so unless they have some kind of working relationship with it (or believe they can establish one). If it goes home, it can come back and (potentially) annoy the Cleric later on, so getting rid of it now is a great idea from the Cleric's POV.


Certainly trickery is non-lawful

Since we're staying with PHB stuff here, Boccob's a great choice for a God. Allows the Cleric to take the highly useful Magic and Trickery Domains, and as a TN God, the Cleric can be TN too, which allows the full range of Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil spells to be cast. What Cleric would want to be Lawful, since that limits spell selection?


Now slowly I believe I have shown even that fighters are - alongside VERY specialised clerics - the BEST at combat- although I have to admit that the cleric's holy word (getting it in due to time stop) is awesome, including vs several evil opponents.

Ok, maybe you can create a Fighter who is excellent at combat. But the Cleric (and Druid) can perform much the same function and do a whole lot more besides. That's the real problem with the Fighter and Barbarian - they don't have anything else significant to offer.

Oh, and I should mention that in 3.5e, Holy Word works equally well against any non-Good creature, so the Neutral aligned creatures are in trouble from it too, provided the Cleric can get his or her Caster Level high enough. If you're a TN Cleric of Boccob, you could have Blasphemy, Dictum, Word of Chaos and Holy Word all prepared at the same time.


a huge advantage of the fighter in combat in low-level play (say, 1-6th level).

You might want to run that huge advantage up against a Druid using a combat capable Animal Companion.


Well, as NullAshton has already brought up - correctly, I believe - the slaying arrows are not necessary.

Fair enough. I mentioned it since they were in your original build, and they do cost a fortune.


And the ONLY thing in the fighter build (melee or ranged) geared vs evil outsiders is the bane ability of the weapons (a +1 equivalent), maybe the "holy" ability (a +2 equivalent) as well, although the latter also helps against, well, almost all BBEG (as in the acronym, including the evil dragons) at level 20.

But that's a total +3 modifier, and that takes your bow from an enchantment cost of 98,000gp to 200,000gp. So to get two moderately useful enhancements, you more than double the cost to enchant your bow. And yes, Holy is only moderately useful given its cost and the fact that it doesn't work against Neutral aligned foes.


Undead like the Nightshade may be a bit tough since the Improved Critical of the weapon will never help, but still a 250 damage/round output should grind almost all CR 20 opponents and lower to dust.

Unless you're going to have the Fighter buy a whole lot of (expensive) specialist weapons to fight Undead, I really don't see how you're going to do 250 damage / round against one.


who might throw some more money on a mace of smiting

Where is all this money coming from? I've already shown how a Cleric can make do with fairly basic magical items, but it looks to me like you're saying the Fighter needs to spend a fortune to fight each type of foe he or she meets.


If he uses exactly the feats outlined above with trickery and war domains, THEN, and ONLY THEN will the cleric do well at ranged combat, plus take the Czilla route for melee and equate the fighter in those aspects.

No, once again you're forgetting the Cleric's spells. Divine Favor, Divine Power and Righteous Might make up for a lot of Fighter benefits. The melee specialist can use spells like Implosion and Destruction, or any one of a number of area effect spells (Greater Command works very well). Likewise, a ranged specialist could just throw out a Harm spell, or just switch to a melee weapon and take advantage of size and strength bonuses to damage.


It cannot even be quickened since it's 6th level for the cleric and 8th level for the druid.

Yes it can be quickened. Read the description of a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell. That's just one reason why a rod like that would be very useful to a Cleric.


So the balor having a surprise and winning initiative has exactly the same 1.5 rounds vs the cleric as the other way round. Good luck surviving that!

If I use the tactics guide for the Balor, it's going to Unholy Aura (which we can assume is already done), then go with Fire Storm/Implosion/Blasphemy or Dominate Monster during the surprise round. Since these are all spell-like effects, the 20th level Cleric might have Spell Resistance 32 or 36 (from the 5th level Cleric spell, possibly using a Bead of Karma), which would be hard for the Balor's Caster Level to penetrate. That would require the Cleric to have some warning though.

Who would best survive a Fire Storm? Fighters have a few more HP normally, and Reflex isn't a good save for a Fighter or Cleric, so on the face of it you'd have to give it to the Fighter by a small margin. But if that Cleric suspects that something dealing Fire damage is nearby, Resist Energy and Protection from Energy should deal with the worst of it.

How about Implosion? It's a Fort save, which is good for both the Fighter and the Cleric, so we'll call it a wash.

Blasphemy? This will result in both the Cleric and the Fighter being Dazed (assuming neither are Evil aligned), but the Balor won't be able to attack either. So unless the Balor has allies, it's not going to be too effective. BTW, this is a good example of how Evil spells are generally more powerful than Good spells, since Holy Word would only deafen the Cleric or Fighter (assuming neither were Good aligned).

Dominate Monster? This gives the first really clear-cut difference between the two characters. With a good Will save and high Wisdom, the Cleric's not likely to fall for this. The Fighter is much more vulnerable because of that poor Will save.

The next round will be Insanity or Power Word: Stun. Insanity allows a Will save, so the Cleric's much better at that. Power Word: Stun works on HP, with 151 hp being the magic number to avoid it's effects. Using average HP per level (max at 1st level, but with no bonuses for Con etc), the Fighter has around 115 hp, the Cleric has about 94. The average Fighter needs a Con bonus of at least +2 to avoid PW:S, the average Cleric needs a +3 bonus. It's harder for the Cleric, but not really all that tough.

Overall, it's the Fighter who's going to have the hardest time surviving that first 1.5 rounds, not the Cleric. And without a Helm of Teleportation, the Fighter's going to find it very difficult to escape if it becomes necessary, while the Cleric can call on Word of Recall in a pinch.


Now, an evil DM bent on avoiding a rather non-suspense contingency escape may allow the balor with his INT/WIS at 24 research ability beforehand as to WHERE the wizard/sorcerer normally escapes with contingency to.

This would only happen if the Balor had prior knowledge it would be attacked by that spellcaster. And if we're going that route, it would Fire Storm the Fighter, then PW:S (as necessary), then Dominate Monster until it had a new pet. And of course, it would choose a time when the Fighter doesn't have any Protection type spells to prevent mind control, so the Fighter's almost certainly going to fail against that approach. Not that other character types have much greater chance of success against it.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-05, 09:34 PM
Oh no! Greenknight posted a lot of good stuff; my reply will have to wait until tomorrow. For now, let me present what I worked on in the meantime...:smallcool:

THE REVISED FIGHTER BUILD
*****
“My client is unique, magicker. Some men are talented painters and sculptors; others can grow any kind of bloom in any kind of climate. You are obviously skilled in the arcane arts. But my client is a master of only one skill, one terrible talent. He is a killer. In all my long and thus far remarkably uneventful life I have neither known nor heard of anyone to match him. He has fought demons and magickers and werebeasts. (...) Now you believe, you are hunting him. It is an illusion. He is hunting you. You are already dead men. I do not desire friendship with dead men.” – Matze Chai, a merchant asked by an evil group of “maxed full casters” whether he would like to join forces with them against a fighter hero (quoted from David Gemmell “Hero in the Shadows”)

“In most adventuring parties, the fighter serves as a melee combatant, charging into the fray while his comrades support him with spells, ranged attacks, and other effects. Fighters who favor ranged combat can prove very deadly, though without other melee support, they can find themselves in front-line combat more often than they might prefer.” – PHB, p. 38, Role of the Fighter


Human Fighter 20
32-point-buy.
STR 20, DEX 30, CON 14, INT 14, WIS 20, CHR 10. (Note: STR, DEX, WIS are raised to this level through the usual magic items, plus level up from 14. It could easily be higher in case of an elf and starting level of 20, but for this purpose I like to make a more flexible fighter, say with potential for extra skill points for cross-class tumble and spot skills, as well as an extra feat)
FEATS (19; human 1, fighter 11, level 7): Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot, Improved Critical-Comp.Longbow, Weapon Focus-Comp.Longbow, WeaponSpecialisation-Comp.Longbow (these are the key feats for the 1.5-round ranged kill vs a balor; Manyshot no longer needed). The remaining 12 feats of his 19 total go to increasing his flexiblity. First of all, 4 to assure his melee capability (including defensive capability if surprised): Power Attack (typical must-have), Weapon Focus- Greatsword, Weapon Specialisation- Greatsword, Improved Critical - Greatsword. The remaining 8 feats fill key power niches for combat with Quickdraw (great in situations without suprise rounds), Blind-Fighting (the most powerful defense vs crippling blinding attacks without saves), Manyshot (for powerful close-ranged bow tactics), Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist (those last two are nice when being captive/without equipment and almost, with a monk’s belt, put the fighter on par with the monk in closed unarmed combat), Leadership (for various resources if the fighter has to go alone on adventures/a fight etc), Iron Will (brings Will saves up to making most of the saves vs 9th level spells (see below), Combat Expertise. Compared to the first version, I realised that some Skill Foci, as well as Alertness and Improved Grapple and Improved Disarm (vs a specialised telekinesis attack of the balor) are not needed and simply nice to have.
SKILLS (115 total) ranks: Spot 10 (20 cost), Hide 10 (20 cost), Tumble 5 (10 cost), Jump 5, Intimidate 23, remaining 37 as needed.
ITEMS (750,000 gold, 740,860 spent):
For the ranged attacks:
12,000 Boots of Speed
300 Potion of Invisibility
1,050 Potion of Good hope (no bard needed now, although a 20th level bard would come in handy)
128,800 Composite Longbow +8 eq. (+5 enhance, bane-evil outsiders, holy. Got rid of the seeking ability since it does not add much in the main scenarios. Likewise, got rid of the distance ability, the boni are high enough)
22,350 (using LotharBot’s cold iron method above): 50 Cold iron arrows, +1, axiomatic (they are way more effective than the slaying arrows).
22,060 LuckBlade (can come with a wish left, but is not necessary)
25,000 Bracers of Archery (Greater)
36,000 Gloves of Dexterity +6
137,500 Manual of +5 DEX
36,000 Belt of Giant Strength of +6 STR (occupies space of monk’s belt. Could be customised to a different item worn elsewhere to be in use simultaneously with monk’s belt, but is not necessary).
Additional for the melee attacks:
104,350 (using LotharBot’s cold iron method above) Two-Handed Cold Iron Sword +7 equiv. (+4 enhance, bane-evil outsiders, holy)
750 Potion of Rage
Additional for defensive purposes:
13,000 Monk’s belt (worn in situations where the fighter does not intend to attack; so likely in everyday use)
25,000 Cloak of Resistance +5
18,000 Ring of Protection +3 (Note that this guy gets along without armour since for many of the dangerous ray spells, touch attacks are common, plus he will not get weighed down by armour in case his STR gets some hits. Finally, a non-armoured fighter appears sometimes less threatening/. A robe of eyes for 120,000 may be a great addition, removing the need for a gem of Seeing, and would also help keep the DEX bonus in the case of being suprised. Difficult to say what should go in that casem though. Will think more about that. Vs non-spell-casters, a celestial armour for only 22,400 could still be a nice backup and will yield the fly ability once/day, courtesy BWL!:smallbiggrin: )
36,000 Periapt of WIS +6
40,000 Ring of Freedom of Movement
73,500 Helm of Teleportation
2,000 Handy Haversack
1,800 Hat of Disguise (will replace the helm if infiltration is necessary)
5,400 Eversmoking bottle (very nice in leveling the playing field for a blind-fighting character, also at low levels!)
COMBAT STATISTICS VS A BALOR
AC (touch): 33
(+10 DEX, +3 Deflection/Ring of Protection, +6 via Monk’s Belt (+1 AC, +5 WIS bonus, +3 fighting defensively as Tumble cross-class has been raised to 5, +1 from haste with boots of speed as free action at the start of each combat). With expertise: 38
Without monk's belt/not fighting defensively/wearing belt of giant strength: 24.
Hit Points: 164
Saves: Fort +18, Refl +22, Will +19 (note that an elf would have will+21 vs enchantment spells like Domination etc. already)
Initiative: +14 (DEX and Improved Initiative feat; re-roll once due to luck sword ability)
RANGED Attacks with Longbow:
Before: drink potions of invisibility, good hope.
Now, the range increment of this bow is 110 ft, + 55 ft from Far shot 165ft. Shoot from ca. 320 ft. (-2 to attack), negating true seeing and giving balor -32 to spot check, while hiding with +60 (DEX +10, hide ranks +10, invisibility+40).
6 as full attack (Rapid shot, Haste from boots of speed) plus one shot in surprise round.
The attack bonus total is: +39 (+20 base, +10 DEX, +2 competence/Bracers of Archery, +5 bow enhancement, +2 bow bane, +1 Haste from boots of speed, +1 Weapon Focus, -2 distance)
The attack boni with full attack: +37/+37/+37/+32/+27/+22. The shot in the surprise round is at +41 due to invisibility (outside balor’s true seeing range).
The damage per attack: 1d8 (arrow) + 6d6 (bane, holy, axiomatic) + 16 (STR +4, +5 enhance, +2 bane, +2 weapon specialisation, +1 competence/bracers of archery, +2 morale from potion of good hope). Or 42 per hit, and 84 on a critical (which would necessitate DC 15 Fort massive shock save). In the shots against the balor, all arrows should hit, but likely without critical, meaning 7 times 42 damage on average, or 294. Given that there is still a good chance of a critical and a standard deviation necessitating a massive shock save here and there, I'd argue: Balor dies.:smallbiggrin:
MELEE Attacks with Two-Handed Sword
Beforehand: drink potions of invisibility, good hope, rage. No fighting defensively stance (Touch AC goes down to 24). Suprise round: Charge attack 120ft with the two-handed sword, power attacked for maximum effectiveness...
Attack: +20 (base) + 6 (STR, incl. Rage) +4 (enhance) +2 (bane) +2 (charge) +2 (morale) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (haste) = 38, of which he'll deduct 12 for power attack to still hit the flat-footed AC of the balor on a “2” or better.
Damage: 2d6 + 2d6 (holy) +2d6 (bane) + 9 (STR) + 2 (weapon specialisation) +4 (enhance) +2 (bane) +2 (morale) +24 (power attack) = 6d6 + 43 = on avg 64 damage. (massive damage Fort DC 15 Save needed).
Then, once again the fighter wins initiative.
He attacks five times, this time deducting 5 for power attack to get in at least 3 rolls to hit the balor with a “2” or more (no longer with charge), meaning attacking with + 31/31/26/21/16, hitting likely with one of the remaining two attacks (also likely with one critical since the threat range is 17-20, which should be one in five hits including the surprise round) vs the flat-footed AC, totaling around 26d6 + 145 damage, on average 236 damage (including 4 saves vs massive damage). Together with the surprise round: 298 damage. Balor dies.:smallbiggrin:
******

A few comments on this
- buffing this fighter with prayer (luck +1) or a lvl 20 bard (+4 instead of the potion’s +2) are still a good idea, likely superior for a caster to risking one’s own neck in melee zilla tactics. Similarly, now it is possible to give that Thsword a bigger weapon enhancement from +4 to +5, or a shield of faith at +5 for a higher deflectio nbonus. Possibly the fighter can get those buffs even without an own group if leadership is played as written in the SRD3.5 (campaign-specific, for instance in a solo campaign)
- it WAS quite a challenge to calibrate the level 20 equipment to continue showing that the fighter owns the balor in BOTH melee AND ranged with the same build, something I so far think no other class can do with the same efficiency (as in: virtually guaranteed to take the balor out in 1.5 rounds in both methods). BWL is likely correct in assuming that the fighter will have to struggle competing in both melee AND ranged combat with drastically reduced equipment with the other classes in levels 15-19. However, in that case the best fighter option is to simply concentrate on archery in those levels, and only up the melee power again in the step from 18th/19th to 20th level. With manyshot, after all, the fighter is very powerful with his bow even in close combat (he can move away AND shoot 4 arrows per round, rising no AoO due to his tumble skill+17, whereas a melee enemy will only be able to move and do one attack. Fighter wins).
- the feats going to unarmed combat are noteworthy. Even if they do not contribute to the two situations of the hero getting 1.5 rounds first vs a balor, they are still quite powerful, since the stunning fist with the monk’s belt allows the fighter to stun opponents with a Fortitude DC of 25. In a limited way, he can thus fill the role of a monk. Hmmm. However, since he has already a formidable melee tactic available, he could use other feats, like Improved Disarm and a Skill Focus: Intimidate.
- I hope that beyond the balance discussions, this fighter build can be of use as reference and inspiration for high-level play.

Will rest now....:smallsigh:

- Giacomo

Helgraf
2007-03-05, 10:44 PM
If the Balor isnt aware of him. If you ignore the rules for Manyshot. The potion of Invisibility doesnt help at all, because the Balor has True Seeing.

Plus, its an archer. Its been given before that archers can contribute more than other fighters, but still not enough imo.

Well, the Manyshot problem is an issue, yes. However, at the initial range the combat starts at, True Seeing is irrelevant because it works out to 120 feet - *not* line of sight. Invisibility serves him just fine at 330-ish feet.

Rigeld2
2007-03-06, 12:15 AM
STR 18, DEX 30, CON 14, INT 14, WIS 20, CHR 8.
36,000 Gloves of Dexterity +6
137,500 Manual of +5 DEX
36,000 Belt of Giant Strength of +6 STR
36,000 Periapt of WIS +6

So +11 to DEX, +6 to STR, +6 to WIS. Youre low on your STR by 2, and high on your DEX by 1 (assuming all 5 level raises went to DEX). Did I miss something?

Also, you really need to decide what his AC is. If hes wearing his monks belt, hes at -2 to hit with his bow, and you do less damage. If hes not, his AC plummets.

edit: Anyone know where the encounter tables on pg 59-60 of the 3.0 DMG were reprinted? Its closing on midnite and I cant find em.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 04:47 AM
Ah, thanks for your hints Rigeld2. Edited it in the stats above. Basically, if the fighter knows he's out to get someone/attack the balor, he does not need much of an AC, since the critter is not going to hit back.
The DEX 30 is correct though. 14 starting value, 5 level ups, gloves +6, Manual +5 = 30.

- Giacomo

Roderick_BR
2007-03-06, 06:51 AM
Hmm... after reading this thread, plus that other one about the players that didn't want to take bows, I think I found a good way to make an effective fighter build.
On low levels, start with a typical tank build. Weapons focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack. A fighter has better skills to protect the party, seeing as clerics and wizards don't have many spells, and can't quicken them yet.
After 6-7 level, invest in battle field control. Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Shock Trooper, anything that can make you more than a nuisance, to give your party enough time to load on heavy spells.
After 12-13, any melee character gets hard to play, so ranged warfare is best. All the Point Blank Shot tree is useful, including Shot on the Run and similars, seeing as mobility is important.
The problem I see with most fighters is that they tend to play the "one trick poney" all their careers, forgetting that, as said in the Player's Handbook, they need aid from others classes, in the same time he helps them.
Charging works best at lower levels, and as they level up, they need to start using tactics, instead of just "stand in place, rolling the dice till the enemy drops".

NullAshton
2007-03-06, 08:06 AM
You messed up on the calculations for damage. Bows do x3 damage on a critical. Thus with improved critical, you would have 19-20 x3 criticals, for a total average of 126.

Heh, 42 average damage exactly.

Rigeld2
2007-03-06, 08:21 AM
Now, the range increment of this bow is 110 ft, + 55 ft from Far shot 165ft. Shoot from ca. 320 ft. (-2 to attack), negating true seeing and giving balor -32 to spot check, while hiding with +60 (DEX +10, hide ranks +10, invisibility+40).
If youre hiding after taking a shot, invisibility goes away totally, leaving you with a +20 to your Hide check. -20 since youre "sniping" means 0 vs the Balors +6. Youre also not counting in the Unholy Aura that would be up, granting another 4 AC.

Also, you need to make a DC26 Fort save for every melee attack that hits, and drop 1d6 strength if you fail it (your saves are high enough it shouldnt matter, but it might).

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 08:53 AM
If youre hiding after taking a shot, invisibility goes away totally, leaving you with a +20 to your Hide check. -20 since youre "sniping" means 0 vs the Balors +6. Youre also not counting in the Unholy Aura that would be up, granting another 4 AC.

Also, you need to make a DC26 Fort save for every melee attack that hits, and drop 1d6 strength if you fail it (your saves are high enough it shouldnt matter, but it might).

No, I guess you are wrong in these comments.
- invisibility goes away after the first shot, but the fighter does not need to hide after that (would be a move-equivalent action, anyhow, at the very least IF he could distract the balor with a free action/bluff). He shoots directly after the suprise round in the initiative round, when he full attacks. Initiative he wins due to higher initiative and a re-roll (luck blade). I admit that he does not auto-win initiative, but I'll try to delve into the balor going first at a later point.
- now, this "Unholy Aura always up" - thing was already brought up by BWL. I guess that would be highly unrealistic. The balor would have to, every 20 rounds (2 minutes) say to its minions: "oops sorry, can't listen to you right now, wait for 6 seconds, will ya?" And then: how on earth (er, prime material plane) should THE incarnation of CHAOTIC evil reasonably stick to such a rigid rule? No, I think in this case, we should try to keep it realistic from a roleplaying point of view. IF the balor somehow "has a hunch" he'll do it. But in my scenario it does not have it - realistically, I think.
- The DC 26 Fort save is a good point; but this unholy aura melee aspect only refers to good creatures. The above sample fighter may not necessarily be "good" (could also try to go neutral as most example builds of clerics able toss unholy and holy words at leasure). If he were good, then, with the potions, he'd get an extra potion of bear's with lase...er :smallwink: bear's endurance to push up his fortitude save mod to +23 (including the good hope and rage potions). Ah, and of course also in melee, for the realism reasons above, the balor likely has not its unholy aura up all the time.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 09:00 AM
Concerning the other posts: Nullashton, thanks for the arrow damage/hit correction, it's fixed in the version above now. Unfortunately, the x3 modifier does not apply to the 6d6 damage from holy/bane/axiomatic, so an arrow with a confirmed hit then will only have approx 84 damage.

Now, Roderick brought up some great points, illustrating how the fighter can proceed through levels 1-20 with the above build (shocktrooper unfortunately is non-core, but the fighter can massively contribute in mid-levels with stunning fist attacks and serving the foes on the platter for the rogue finishing them off. Plus, engage foes in melee to get leeway for the spellcasters).



The problem I see with most fighters is that they tend to play the "one trick poney" all their careers, forgetting that, as said in the Player's Handbook, they need aid from others classes, in the same time he helps them.
Charging works best at lower levels, and as they level up, they need to start using tactics, instead of just "stand in place, rolling the dice till the enemy drops".

Now this is the CORE of what I was thinking about as well. The fighter has so many feats, most players out there do not realise that it is not a "naw, the fighter cannot melee enough/do anything outside melee by 20th level". The class is the most versatile at combat, melee, range, unarmed. It is the most powerful in the lower levels and can greatly help in higher levels. So I guess it is fairly balanced vs full casters, who by the higher levels 17-20 have way more potential outsideof combat, but inside combat still lag the fighter, albeit narrowly.

- Giacomo

Rigeld2
2007-03-06, 09:07 AM
- now, this "Unholy Aura always up" - thing was already brought up by BWL. I guess that would be highly unrealistic. The balor would have to, every 20 rounds (2 minutes) say to its minions: "oops sorry, can't listen to you right now, wait for 6 seconds, will ya?" And then: how on earth (er, prime material plane) should THE incarnation of CHAOTIC evil reasonably stick to such a rigid rule? No, I think in this case, we should try to keep it realistic from a roleplaying point of view. IF the balor somehow "has a hunch" he'll do it. But in my scenario it does not have it - realistically, I think.
I think youre 100% wrong. Hes an Evil Demon. He's a glutton for power. And why does he have to pause for 6 seconds? He has to concentrate for less than that (its only a standard action) and it has no components (verbal, somatic, or material).

He doesnt have to do it every single 2 minutes - he can do it at 1.5 minutes, .5 minutes, 1.pi minutes etc.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 10:29 AM
Now, at long last in my late afternoon break a more detailed answer to the various issues Greenknight brought up.



I don't think all those feats are really necessary. For a Cleric who wants to concentrate on ranged fighting, the best weapon probably isn't even a bow, it's a sling (preferably with a +1 enhancement and the Distance special ability to give it a 100' range increment). Why? Because CZilla's strength is variable, and a sling allows CZilla to get the full damage bonus from strength no matter what that strength score is.


Sling is a great idea! However, the sling is much less powerful than the bow: it has less range (the above 100’ keeps you inside the balor’s true seeing range), it has less of a critical and less base weapon damage, for which you’d better really have a high STR score to equalise that. But I like the idea....perhaps I can redo the fighter build with a sling (although I like the composite longbow for style as well). The number of feats to take with the sling for the cleric to be equally effective as the fighter would, however, not diminish.



You could do that with a bow, but then you take a -2 to attack with it if your strength doesn't exactly match (or exceed) that of the bow you're using. Which also means that as your archer's strength changes, he'll probably want different bows, btw (with more expense).


The Bow being dependent on at least STR 18 is a vulnerability of the fighter if an opponent targets his belt with a dispel magic. However, what sane opponent would waste a greater dispel magic and, more importantly, a standard action in a fight against this threat, which only yields a -5 to attacks (and -3 to damage)? Likely not even the balor, were it to know what the belt’s enchantment was in the first place.




Weapon Focus? Well, that's of some use, but it's only a +1 modifier to attack, which the Cleric can get from many different spells, so while I agree it's useful, I don't think it's essential.


Weapon Focus may not be that usefull for an archerzilla, but definitely for a meleezilla, since it equates +2 damage with power attack. If the cleric does not take it, the fighter is ahead.



Improved Initiative? Again, it has it's uses, but CZilla should be powerful enough to allow someone else to go first. And there are advantages to the Cleric going last, since then the Cleric has an opportunity to undo some or all of the damage which has occurred during the combat round.


Improved Initiative has...its uses? It is an ab-so-lute must-have, for all classes. If you do not take it for your character, cleric or otherwise, you are toast because most of the time, you lose initiative. Which can be...painful as the balor can tell you as the 7 arrows/5 Swordcuts hit it before it can act. Or, in caster speak: which cleric will win in a duel: the one going first with a timestop/holy word-combo or the one going after that...?



Improved Critical? Since a sling only scores a critical threat on a 20, that's only going to give a 5% improvement on the critical hit rate, even assuming all threats are confirmed. And there are plenty of creatures immune to critical hits anyway. Overall, I think it would be a bad idea to take this feat with a sling user.


Improved Critical is not great for the sling, but great for the bow. If a sling is taken without impr. criticial, it’s likely inferior to the bow with improved critical.



Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot? All very useful for a ranged attacking Cleric, and if that's the character focus then I'd say they are essential to the build.


OK, here we agree.



Quickdraw? I wouldn't say this is essential, but it is highly useful and I could certainly see a ranged attack focused Cleric taking it.


Incidently, it is not that important for the situation where the hero gets the initiative/has prepared beforehand. But if the hero loses the first round/is surprised, it will be decisive to get out the weapons needed as a free action and be able to do a full round retaliation or other full-round action.



So of the 8 feats you listed, I'd only consider 4 to be really all that useful to the ranged attacking Cleric. That still leaves 3 or 4 for other things, and makes the War Domain totally unnecessary for this type of character.


This I guess will lead to the cleric archer/slinger being inferior vs the fighter archer, but it probably needs a full build to assess it, since the cleric has extra buff with the divine favor , can equate the fighter in BAB with the divine power, and has the size bonus to STR and weapon size with rightuous might. A close call, I’d say – plus the cleric archer would overly be dependent on buffs which are dispellable.



Martial weapons are better than Simple weapons for CZilla, but let's not overlook the advantages of a morningstar. It leaves the Cleric with one hand free for spellcasting, but can still be used as a two handed weapon (with all of a TH weapon's advantages) when needed. It has the same base damage as even the best 1 handed Martial weapons, although they generally have better threat ranges or critical multipliers. And it delivers two types of damage, which can be very useful for overcoming the DR of some monsters. That said, Martial Weapon Proficiency with a Longsword or Scimitar would be really nice, since the swords can be made out of many different materials to help overcome DR and it's a slashing weapon. So I'll give you that one.


OK, agreed. Heavy mace or morning star are great (including the bargain item mace of smiting), but likely inferior to the martial weapons you described, including the greatsword.



Weapon Focus and Improved Initiative? Melee Zilla doesn't need these for the same reasons ranged Zilla doesn't.


Whoa. Wrong on both accounts, see above.



Improved Critical? Since we've given melee Zilla proficiency in a sword, this could be useful, especially if it's a Scimitar. So in this case, the feat's worth taking.


Agreed.



Quickdraw? I don't see a whole lot of point to this really for a melee Cleric. CZilla's got one hand free for spellcasting, and there's plenty of nice ranged attack spells available to a Cleric if that's needed.


Hu? Why get quickdraw for a ranged cleric and not for a melee cleric? See above my reasoning for quickdraw becoming important in a defensive situation.



Power Attack, Quicken Spell? I'm not sure Quicken Spell would really be essential, but it sure is handy so we'll take it. Power Attack is an obvious must for melee Zilla.


Oha, don’t let Bears with Lasers know that...:smallbiggrin: seriously, quicken spell is THE power feat for a cleric going zilla. If your cleric does not have it, it cannot pull the attacks my example fighter build can, neither melee nor ranged. A Time Stop may help you for a while from level 17 on but at 15th/16th level (and from 9th level with quickened divine favor)? And: time stop as a domain spell can be cast by the cleric only once per day. Power Attack: agreed.



Out of that, we again have 4 Feats (or 3, for an Elf), leaving 3 or 4 for whatever the Cleric wants. So no War domain needed here either.


OK, I guess it’s easiest if I concede: the cleric does not maybe need the War domain, but still my main issue remaisn: the cleric cannot become BOTH a meleezilla and archer/slingzilla. He has too few feats for that. The best likely is to become a meleezilla and try the time stop/holy word combo for range. But nothing beats the RANGE of the fighter with the bow in that respect.



Considering your Fighter is using the Luckblade as a reroll backup, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Give the Cleric a Luckblade (perfectly feasible, especially if it's one without a Wish) and the chance of any one spell not getting through drops to just over 2%. Essentially, the Cleric gets 3 rolls, 2 of which must be 4 or better.


Why should a luckblade not be fair? It’s treasure, fairly cheap at that (so it could be there by level 6-8 or so). Now, the cleric with luck domain has a drawback: he cannot re-roll his luck domain special ability if he uses it. He may re-roll another roll with the luck blace’s ability, but that’s it.



Trickery and Luck can be combined, especially if you don't waste a Domain by taking War. Combined with a Luckblade, that gives 2! rerolls per day. But given the choice, I'd probably take either Travel or Magic in preference to Luck.


I still do not think the War domain would be a waste for a combat-oriented cleric (it even fits nicely with roleplaying aspects). Travel and Magic are nice, but distance you more from a cleric competing with a fighter in pure combat (they DO improve the power of the cleric outside of combat a lot!).



The Cleric has many ways to boost attack and damage rolls through spells, such as Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might and Greater Magic Weapon. Clerics can also boost defence through spells like Shield of Faith and Magic Vestment, and if defence fails, the Cleric can cast healing spells. All of those tactics are effective even against creatures immune to magic. Clerics don't need to rely on magical items anywhere near as heavily as non-spellcasters do. Yes, it can take time to apply all those buffs, but many have long durations, and the Cleric has ways of applying those buffs quickly and/or safely if necessary (quickened spells come to mind immediately, although the Time Stop tactic could also be used by high level Clerics with the Trickery Domain).


Yep, the cleric’s buff spells are great, but not without drawbacks (which is what balance in the game is about). One smallish disadvantage is that due to the presence of theses spells giving him deflection and enhancement boni, he cannot make much use of the powerful (yet still rather inexpensive) items out there. The fighter can.
Healing is not necessary in the combat situations outlined so far (fighter goes first, kills in 1.5 rounds; only takes 50/100 damage in melee from the death throes).
Spells are also more vulnerable to dispels than items. Plus, you have this whole issue of clerics being able to lose their class ability (spells and turn undead) if they somehow lose contact to their god; or if they are attacked during their praying hour.



Furthermore, Clerics have a number of spells which can practically end a battle with a single casting (Holy Word, Greater Command and Implosion are good examples).


Holy Word is awesome. But Greater Command (too low DC for most high-lvl creatures) and Implosion (needs full round concentration per attack, a killer in high level combat- for the caster!) are not what I would call a range strategy superior to the fighter’s arrows, in particular since their range is only 75 ft max.



And they have a number of utility spells available to them which can be critical for party survival (Word of Recall is one example). And that is the real point of the arguement. Sure, you can make a Fighter who is effective in combat, but generally you can make a Cleric just as effective (and sometimes even more effective), and the Cleric offers so much more.


Word of recall takes a standard action and cannot be quickened (except with an expensive rod, see below), so it is inferior to even a teleport. It is safer, but the destination of the recall may be researched in case the balor attacks/plans an assault. And teleport can be easily acquired through an item as in the example fighter build.
I admit again and again that full casters, including clerics, have more versatility outside of combat, but in combat all that does not help much.



I'll agree with that, especially since anything more than 10 rounds after the Holy Word goes off has a risk that the Balor will recover. But once paralyzed, the Balor is considered to have Strength and Dexterity of 0. Wasn't that Balor carrying a Vorpal Sword and flaming Whip? Power up with Divine Power and Righteous Might, and a couple of rounds and two Disarm checks should take care of that (we can sell them later, if we can't find any better use for them). If the Cleric happens to be alone, run back beyond 100', and cast Blade Barrier so that it's edge hits the Balor. It's paralyzed, so it can't move out, and it's reflex save is a puny +7 (Dex effectively 0). That's 15d6 damage per round. Then start firing 4 - 5 sling bullets per round at it's AC 23 (again, Dex 0), each doing 16+ damage on average (it's likely to be a bit more) and that Balor should go down quite quickly.


Sounds good. However, it takes longer than both melee and ranged tactics of the fighter (1.5 rounds), although in both cases the poor balor has not much of a chance to fight back.



Thing is, there are very few Clerics who wouldn't want to kill that Balor. Even Evil aligned Clerics (who couldn't cast Holy Word anyway) would probably want to do so unless they have some kind of working relationship with it (or believe they can establish one). If it goes home, it can come back and (potentially) annoy the Cleric later on, so getting rid of it now is a great idea from the Cleric's POV.


Ah, that’s an OOTS classic when the OOTS group wonders what would happen if they killed the evil succubus Sabine...what was the ruling again on that thing? Aren’t evil outsiders banished for 99 years from the prime material plane when they get slain there?



Since we're staying with PHB stuff here, Boccob's a great choice for a God. Allows the Cleric to take the highly useful Magic and Trickery Domains, and as a TN God, the Cleric can be TN too, which allows the full range of Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil spells to be cast. What Cleric would want to be Lawful, since that limits spell selection?


Yep, what adventuring cleric indeed...maybe...er...roleplaying reasons? But I have to say that all of that is very campaign-specific and you showed various methods to have quite a free selection of domains at least.



Ok, maybe you can create a Fighter who is excellent at combat.


Thanks a lot! That’s already more than what BWL originally assumed would be possible.



But the Cleric (and Druid) can perform much the same function and do a whole lot more besides. That's the real problem with the Fighter and Barbarian - they don't have anything else significant to offer.


OK, I’ll try to repeat it again: the cleric and druid (shudder, I’m looking forward to BWL’s zoo of animals a druid could meaninfully turn into :smallsmile: ), ok let’s say the cleric is ALMOST as powerful in combat as the fighter (due to the latter’s ability in BOTH ranged AND melee, combat ability less vulnerable to magic). OUTSIDE of combat, the full casters are way more powerful. Including the greater combat power at more often played low levels of the fighter, I’d call that a fair balance.



Oh, and I should mention that in 3.5e, Holy Word works equally well against any non-Good creature, so the Neutral aligned creatures are in trouble from it too, provided the Cleric can get his or her Caster Level high enough. If you're a TN Cleric of Boccob, you could have Blasphemy, Dictum, Word of Chaos and Holy Word all prepared at the same time.


That is truly awesome, I must say.



You might want to run that huge advantage up against a Druid using a combat capable Animal Companion.


At low levels, the fighter probably wins in combat vs a druid with its animal companion, but that could be something for a different thread....



Fair enough. I mentioned it since they were in your original build, and they do cost a fortune.
(...)
But that's a total +3 modifier, and that takes your bow from an enchantment cost of 98,000gp to 200,000gp. So to get two moderately useful enhancements, you more than double the cost to enchant your bow. And yes, Holy is only moderately useful given its cost and the fact that it doesn't work against Neutral aligned foes.


Hmmm. Is there a core CR 20 neutral monster that is a similar challenge as a balor? Dragons are also evil...the prices/enhancements have been fixed in the revised build.



Unless you're going to have the Fighter buy a whole lot of (expensive) specialist weapons to fight Undead, I really don't see how you're going to do 250 damage / round against one.


No new equipment needed. Only the bane ability does not work vs a Nightshade monster. Otherwise, once again likely 7 arrows hit (this time our hero can get closer since those critters do not have true seeing). A total of 245 damage (check the revised fighter build). All three would die...er be destroyed from that.



Where is all this money coming from? I've already shown how a Cleric can make do with fairly basic magical items, but it looks to me like you're saying the Fighter needs to spend a fortune to fight each type of foe he or she meets.


The money comes from the DMG guidelines on how many gold equivalent items characters should have on average in an average campaign (check the revised fighter build).



No, once again you're forgetting the Cleric's spells. Divine Favor, Divine Power and Righteous Might make up for a lot of Fighter benefits. The melee specialist can use spells like Implosion and Destruction, or any one of a number of area effect spells (Greater Command works very well). Likewise, a ranged specialist could just throw out a Harm spell, or just switch to a melee weapon and take advantage of size and strength bonuses to damage.


No melee specialist would ever use implosion or destruction, since those cannot get quickened (except, again, with an expensive rod) and you would have to get too close within retaliation strike to your opponent. The SR and Saves of a balor, for instance, are way too high for these direct spell attack tactics. Harm is awful to use for various reasons 1) it cannot be quickened expept with a rod, 2) it will at best do 150 damage in a round, not enough to win (and possibly survive retaliation, not even vs the example fighter build), 3) it is stopped by SR and 4) it is halved by a will save. Too many “ifs” for a good spellcaster tactic.



Yes it can be quickened. Read the description of a Rod of Metamagic: Quicken Spell. That's just one reason why a rod like that would be very useful to a Cleric.


Ah, you are right. The one up to 9th level costs a hefty 175,000, but a cleric not buying a similar equipment as the example fighter above may afford it. If, however, the cleric does not buy the fighter’s equipment, he will once again drop behind in combat.



If I use the tactics guide for the Balor, it's going to Unholy Aura (which we can assume is already done), then go with Fire Storm/Implosion/Blasphemy or Dominate Monster during the surprise round. Since these are all spell-like effects, the 20th level Cleric might have Spell Resistance 32 or 36 (from the 5th level Cleric spell, possibly using a Bead of Karma), which would be hard for the Balor's Caster Level to penetrate. That would require the Cleric to have some warning though.


Now this is a good way to start which class would have the best chance of survival in case the balor attacks the hero and goes first. However, if the balor goes first, there are no buffs on the cleric (except those that maybe last hours or a day).



Who would best survive a Fire Storm? Fighters have a few more HP normally, and Reflex isn't a good save for a Fighter or Cleric, so on the face of it you'd have to give it to the Fighter by a small margin. But if that Cleric suspects that something dealing Fire damage is nearby, Resist Energy and Protection from Energy should deal with the worst of it.


If both fighter and cleric use the example build stats, the reflex at least is modified by a +10 DEX. And do not forget the luck-reroll for the day from the shortsword and/or domain. The cleric suspects nothing, but may have a fire protecting device (for some reason). The balor attacks out of the blue, same as before for the fighter or the cleric.



How about Implosion? It's a Fort save, which is good for both the Fighter and the Cleric, so we'll call it a wash.
Blasphemy? This will result in both the Cleric and the Fighter being Dazed (assuming neither are Evil aligned), but the Balor won't be able to attack either. So unless the Balor has allies, it's not going to be too effective. BTW, this is a good example of how Evil spells are generally more powerful than Good spells, since Holy Word would only deafen the Cleric or Fighter (assuming neither were Good aligned).
Dominate Monster? This gives the first really clear-cut difference between the two characters. With a good Will save and high Wisdom, the Cleric's not likely to fall for this. The Fighter is much more vulnerable because of that poor Will save.
The next round will be Insanity or Power Word: Stun. Insanity allows a Will save, so the Cleric's much better at that. Power Word: Stun works on HP, with 151 hp being the magic number to avoid it's effects. Using average HP per level (max at 1st level, but with no bonuses for Con etc), the Fighter has around 115 hp, the Cleric has about 94. The average Fighter needs a Con bonus of at least +2 to avoid PW:S, the average Cleric needs a +3 bonus. It's harder for the Cleric, but not really all that tough.
Overall, it's the Fighter who's going to have the hardest time surviving that first 1.5 rounds, not the Cleric. And without a Helm of Teleportation, the Fighter's going to find it very difficult to escape if it becomes necessary, while the Cleric can call on Word of Recall in a pinch.

You make some vaild points here, but I still am not so convinced. The fighter does have a helm of teleportation, but a big question is, if he survives, whether he should flee at all. The manyshot tactics is still available, and once no longer flat-footed, the fighter has quite good defenses, including a will save of +19 in the above build. The cleric may have a will save higher by 4 or so, but still...(if he has higher WIS than the fighter the cleric would need to lower DEX or other stats, reducing once again his effectivenss in combat).



This would only happen if the Balor had prior knowledge it would be attacked by that spellcaster. And if we're going that route, it would Fire Storm the Fighter, then PW:S (as necessary), then Dominate Monster until it had a new pet. And of course, it would choose a time when the Fighter doesn't have any Protection type spells to prevent mind control, so the Fighter's almost certainly going to fail against that approach. Not that other character types have much greater chance of success against it.

Yep, the fire storm/pws combo looks pretty solid to me, likely vs all classes except those with evasion (monk and rogue). It shows that the fighter needs more hit points throuh higher CON bonus or some such. Will think on that. Maybe you could post a complete cleric level 20 build that could really be powerful at combat.

Thanks for the many remarks!

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 10:34 AM
I think youre 100% wrong. Hes an Evil Demon. He's a glutton for power. And why does he have to pause for 6 seconds? He has to concentrate for less than that (its only a standard action) and it has no components (verbal, somatic, or material).

He doesnt have to do it every single 2 minutes - he can do it at 1.5 minutes, .5 minutes, 1.pi minutes etc.

Hmmm- not such a far-fetched viewpoint. I like the idea that the balor just randomly uses unholy aura, resulting in it having it most of the time.
However, why have the game designers given the unholy auro to the balor as a spell-like ability and not something that it radiates all the time? I guess it is because of that mechanism: they felt that a balor randomly/sometimes would use it or use it if threatened, but not have it up all the time lest it would make the monster more powerful than CR 20 (= epic).
What I as a DM would consider an atmoshphere-killer, though, is trying to imagine that the balor gets distracted every 1.5/0.5 minutes or so (even if its only for 3 seconds). First of all, being distracted makes it more likely that a paranoid balor misses something (-5 to spot and listen) at that crucial moment. Especially a chaotic creature will believe in the reality of risk. Then, if in a scenario as an army leader, it would greatly demoralise its troops because they would immediatly realise/spread the rumour that something/someone very powerful is about to attack. I'd DM that an intelligent balor does not consider this worthwhile.

- Giacomo

Rigeld2
2007-03-06, 10:44 AM
And I'd DM that a Balor would do anything in its power to increase its strength. My mind wanders every couple of minutes no matter what is happening - the more chaotic the mind, the more itll wander, which means the more time it has to think "Hmm.. yeah, I'll toss my aura up because it make me invincible."

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-06, 10:50 AM
And I'd DM that a Balor would do anything in its power to increase its strength. My mind wanders every couple of minutes no matter what is happening - the more chaotic the mind, the more itll wander, which means the more time it has to think "Hmm.. yeah, I'll toss my aura up because it make me invincible."

OK, I'll give you that: in your campaign I would then play an elf with maxed DEX (reduce WIS, CHR and INT appropriately to do that) and get a cohort 5th level cleric to give me a prayer before the attack to overcome the +4 AC of the unholy aura.:smallbiggrin: Fighter would still win :smallcool:

Seriously, I guess you are right. It is up to campaign taste here, plus different opinions of what would constitute "realism" in a campaign.

- Giacomo

Rigeld2
2007-03-06, 11:02 AM
Nah... in my campaign you would never be able to ambush a Balor... they lead armies. Demon armies means massive amounts of mooks to wade through before you get within sight of the Balor. He'd know you were coming.

Krill
2007-03-06, 11:57 AM
+6 via Monk’s Belt (+1 AC, +5 WIS bonus)

Just wondering, I thought the Monk's Belt just functioned to give the Monk's class bonus (e.g. +1 as a 5th level Monk). I don't think it also gives the additional Wisdom bonus to AC.

The SRD does mention that, for monks, the belt gives the AC bonus of a monk of +5 levels. Which would generally translate to another +1.

If the belt gives the Wisdom bonus as well, we're in a strange place where the 'monk's belt' is actually better for non-monks. Also, 13k seems a generous price for an (irregular slot) magic item if it is interpreted as handing out a sizable AC enhancement and a bonus feat.

13k for a monk, however, to get a bit of an AC tweak and up their unarmed damage seems a bit more on the level (e.g. a Druid's Vestment or the like). I think the item is supposed to be 'a nice to have for the class', not a 'must have for every character'.

I think they made this more clear in earlier versions, when they specifically referred to the Wisdom as the 'insight bonus'. And it is unclear in the SRD.

I could see how it could go either way. I'm just pretty sure I'd DM it so that players didn't get the Wisdom perk as well...

(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltMonks)

Marius
2007-03-06, 12:02 PM
Monk's Belt is great but you have to remember that if you use armor (or a shield) you lose the benefit of the belt and that makes it no so good since a full plate with a shield could give you a lot more AC for a lot less money.
Monk's also get a higher unarmed damage (everybody get's it but only the monk really uses).

Krill
2007-03-06, 12:14 PM
you have to remember that if you use armor (or a shield) you lose the benefit of the belt

That makes total sense.

I should read all the fine print next time. I stand corrected!

NullAshton
2007-03-06, 12:39 PM
The monks belt is very good if, for some reason, you can't use armor. Makes perfect sense for an arcane caster, or someone that buffed their dexterity through the roof(There are instances where you're better off naked than in +5 padded armor, believe it or not), have bonuses from someplace else that requires no armor(like a duelist?), or generally have too weird of a body shape to easily use armor(like an awakened cat or something).

its_all_ogre
2007-03-06, 03:07 PM
lets not forget(going back to the fighter vs cleric example) that for reflex saves your average fighter will have better reflex saves than a cleric.
with all those bonus feats what fighter does not have lightning reflexes by level 20?!

Marius
2007-03-06, 04:23 PM
lets not forget(going back to the fighter vs cleric example) that for reflex saves your average fighter will have better reflex saves than a cleric.
with all those bonus feats what fighter does not have lightning reflexes by level 20?!

True, but lets not forget that the cleric is also a full caster, capable of healing and protecting himself and even having a huge spell resistance.
If you are really a character of a party what would you want to have at your side, a cleric or a fighter?

Quietus
2007-03-06, 04:46 PM
For most of the chars I've got active right now - a Fighter. In one I'm running a wererat Rogue, and I've managed to pick up fast healing. I almost never get seen, much less hit, and when I do, I can get away fast enough to heal it. I haven't needed to have a cleric heal me since level 1.

In another, I'm playing a cleric myself, running around with a druid and wizard. The druid's bear companion and I tend to be the tanks, but things would be a lot easier if we had a fighter to pull the tricky maneuvers off.

In the third (and last) game that I'm playing in, I'm playing a druid. The other three in the party are two clerics and another druid. We're FINE for healing, but again, someone with a few combat tricks (one of the two clerics is a bow-cleric, not much help there) would be nice.

Marius
2007-03-06, 04:56 PM
For most of the chars I've got active right now - a Fighter. In one I'm running a wererat Rogue, and I've managed to pick up fast healing. I almost never get seen, much less hit, and when I do, I can get away fast enough to heal it. I haven't needed to have a cleric heal me since level 1.

In another, I'm playing a cleric myself, running around with a druid and wizard. The druid's bear companion and I tend to be the tanks, but things would be a lot easier if we had a fighter to pull the tricky maneuvers off.

In the third (and last) game that I'm playing in, I'm playing a druid. The other three in the party are two clerics and another druid. We're FINE for healing, but again, someone with a few combat tricks (one of the two clerics is a bow-cleric, not much help there) would be nice.

The rogue can heal hp by himself but I'm pretty sure than there're a lot of conditions that he can't and I'm sure that he won't be able to resurrect by himself. Also it depends on what level are you playing clerics truly rule after 7th level. The last group could use a Wizard (or a Beguiler) a lot more than a fighter. And it also depends on how optimized the characters are. My players don't know anything about balance, rules or what spell is more powerful. The choose stuff because is flashy, not because it's "good" (they are also low level but that won't last for long). But now the cleric player left the game and if the new guy want's to play an optimized cleric he will do much more than anyone else (they don't even have a wizard).

Desaril
2007-03-07, 01:27 AM
I'm a big role-player, not much for theoretical builds, but this was quite interesting. Kudos to Sir Giacomo.

I did notice one thing and I'm surprised that n one in the first 30 posts (I didn't read all 6 pages) noticed that Manyshot only works within 30'.

Also, I take issue with BWL's statement that roleplaying limits (such as a cleric's relationship with his deity) is not part of balance. D&D is a role-playing game. If you take out the role-playing, it becomes a very complex tactical game. Trying to dissect the game mechanics independent from roleplaying considerations will always result in some imbalance because the game was designed to include both.

Similarly, someone mentioned that if you start the analysis with certain assumptions, you've already lost the argument. I think we have to have some assumptions, because the mechanics will be affected by tactics, terrain, weather, and scenario. No d20 conflict exists in a vacuum. If we try to create scenario-less scenario, it becomes useless. Who cares how effective a particular build would be in a non-game environment. It only matters in the specific environment of the campaign.

The above also applies to the notion that Leadership is not a resource the Fighter can employ. A druid would get her animal companion, the sorceror his familiar, so the Fighter should get his cohorts, etc.

Lastly, a lot was made about the fact that the Fighter has to have all this equipment specific to this opponent while the wizard can just memorize spells. I think much of the equipment was generally useful and what happens after the wizard uses his spells? The fighter is down a few arrows, but can move on to the next encounter, but the wizard only gets a few spells/day. He's got to take time out to get ready for the next encounter.

Marius
2007-03-07, 05:34 AM
Also, I take issue with BWL's statement that roleplaying limits (such as a cleric's relationship with his deity) is not part of balance. D&D is a role-playing game. If you take out the role-playing, it becomes a very complex tactical game. Trying to dissect the game mechanics independent from roleplaying considerations will always result in some imbalance because the game was designed to include both.

But it depends a lot on your cleric, if you have a cleric without a god with his own philosophy your argument is pointless. Everyone roleplays, even the fighter and if he makes his team cleric mad he'll have a BIG problem (just like anyone making his team cleric mad).



Similarly, someone mentioned that if you start the analysis with certain assumptions, you've already lost the argument. I think we have to have some assumptions, because the mechanics will be affected by tactics, terrain, weather, and scenario. No d20 conflict exists in a vacuum. If we try to create scenario-less scenario, it becomes useless. Who cares how effective a particular build would be in a non-game environment. It only matters in the specific environment of the campaign.

In what campaign you happend to find a lonely Balor right in the middle of nowhere and that you already now it's there? You can't prove anything with an scenario like that. What if he knows you are coming? What if he's not alone? What if he's inside any structure? What if he set up a trap? What if he's in the woods? So that build works well under very special circumstances, great, but it doesn't prove anything. You still depend on everyone else more than everyone else depends on you.



The above also applies to the notion that Leadership is not a resource the Fighter can employ. A druid would get her animal companion, the sorceror his familiar, so the Fighter should get his cohorts, etc.

No he can't, not without a DM allowing it (and I don't) but casters are also able to take Leadership so it's not like only the fighter can take it.



Lastly, a lot was made about the fact that the Fighter has to have all this equipment specific to this opponent while the wizard can just memorize spells. I think much of the equipment was generally useful and what happens after the wizard uses his spells? The fighter is down a few arrows, but can move on to the next encounter, but the wizard only gets a few spells/day. He's got to take time out to get ready for the next encounter.

At level 20 the fighter can have a lot of arrows, that do the same thing as always, at level 20 the wizard has a LOT of spells that do whatever he wants. But you are right, the caster will be out of spells eventually, but he can rest without danger after 9th level and without paying to be able to vast them again. So what if he takes time to get ready? It's not like anyone will move foward without him.

namo
2007-03-07, 06:11 AM
Just a small note regarding caster buffs being dispelled : Ring of Counterspells, 4000gp (or 6000gp to add this capability to another ring - I think), with Greater Dispel "stored" in it and you're set : if the opponent wastes 1 action trying to dispel your buffs, I'd wager he's lost already.

What I take out of this is that the fighter may be a little better than a cleric in either melee or ranged combat at level 20...

Note: in your scenario (which favors the fighter heavily :), the balor is apparently about to conquer a city, so I'd say he definitely has his aura up.

tiercel
2007-03-07, 07:25 AM
Lastly, a lot was made about the fact that the Fighter has to have all this equipment specific to this opponent while the wizard can just memorize spells. I think much of the equipment was generally useful and what happens after the wizard uses his spells? The fighter is down a few arrows, but can move on to the next encounter, but the wizard only gets a few spells/day. He's got to take time out to get ready for the next encounter.At the levels we are talking about (any level where fighting a balor, much less solo, is a reasonable challenge) a wizard has more than a "few" spells per day. In fact, during a standard campaign day the wizard is fairly unlikely to actually completely run out of spells. (And if he does somehow, don't you think he is going to have as much "spell ammo" as a fighter has arrows? A really high level wizard is likely to have a haversackful of scrolls, not to mention a staff or two.)

Furthermore, the wizard's spells return completely replenished the next day, while a fighter who fires off 9 slaying arrows has just burned through over 20k gold in about 10 seconds. Granted, if the balor loaded normal CR 20 treasure he's still netting a significant profit, assuming the the balor's loot doesn't go up in a puff of death-throes smoke, but the wizard is going to realize pure profit (and isn't going to have to wait to replenish his stocks, unlike the fighter -- sure, the fighter can presumably turn some of his easily-won gains back into more slaying arrows, but not in an infinitesimally small amount of time).

Additionally, while the fighter looks pretty impressive against the balor, it doesn't hurt that he happens to be loaded exactly for balor with a holy bane bow firing evil outsider slaying arrows. A significantly well built wizard with specifically chosen spells can probably easily accomplish the same thing (and a wizard is more likely to have a loaded spell selection than a fighter is to have a loaded inventory, because spells are easier to change than gear, and because the wizard has better info gathering capabilities than the fighter due to his magic).

It's not that a high level fighter *can't* contribute at high level, it's just that virtually everything he does can be done better by a spellcasting class, which can adapt to mimic his strengths or generate a thousand different strengths day to day depending on the situation. A fighter can't adapt his gear to a situation with the same ease and rapidity that most casters can change their spells.

Granted, a fighter which is heavily augmented by his allies' spells can make a significant difference. But the fighter depends on other characters in a way they don't depend on him -- and it's not like a cleric can just cast every buff spell he'd use on himself on the fighter instead/also. A number of those really strong buff spells are self only. This is also true for a wizard, from mirror image to shapechange.

And while 304 damage in "1.5 rounds" is pretty impressive, I think the balance of probability is that a wizard can probably generate that much damage or more against a single target given the same scenario, and find any number of other ways to defeat the balor in the same time (if nothing else, save-or-die spells, or even no-save-and-die spells, hah).

I've played at the high levels, and really I feel the balance of casters vs noncasters really has shifted by level 12. At level 1, noncasters are stronger than casters, but casters are still useful -- just more support. By level 12 or so, casters are stronger than noncasters, but noncasters are still useful -- just more support. The problem is that much above level 12, the imbalance tends to get further and further out of whack, as noncasters become increasingly dependent on their caster buddies to maintain any relevance. When in a campaign I was running much of the group generated new characters at high levels (whoops), I faced the prospect of 6 characters with a total of 102 levels, exactly zero of which were Fighter levels. Yep, not even a dip -- melee needs were met by casters, though by that level even engaging in melee at all was kind of optional.

Most games in my experience tend not to reach the high levels (say 15+) so this often isn't a big problem in practice, but it is something you have to consider if and when you do play at those levels.

NullAshton
2007-03-07, 07:33 AM
Again, slaying is not necessary.... you could probably get by with an enchanted holy bow, along with arrows of evil outsider bane.

Desaril
2007-03-07, 11:34 AM
@ Marius- My point about roleplaying limits is that some early comments indicated that we should look at the situation in a vacuum; just stats and equipment and that looking at the proposed scenario (or any scenario) was somehow an impure experiment. However, the experiment is only useful in a scenario, because we don't fight balors (or anything else) in a vacuum. We may suggest that the proposed scenario is unlikely, but we must accept that there will always be a scenario. Further that scenario is likely to include the "fluff" such as deities, combatant motivations, terrain, and story considerations. If not, we're not talking about D&D, we're talking about tabletop wargaming.

@ tiercel- I acknowledge that a wizard has more flexibility, but there are severe limits on his casting. First, although the wizard has 40+ spell/day at 20th level, most are useless against the Balor (and other high level monsters) because of Spell resistance and save bonuses. I'm no expert on casters, but I would conservatively estimate that most stuff under 5th level is useless (there are exceptions, please don't post a list of low-level spells everyone must have). So now we're looking at 20+ spells. Further, If the caster has memorized in preparation for the Balor, he's not as prepared for a different enemy. The general consensus is that a caster is good when they can prepare. So, if after the fight with the Balor, a big dragon attacks, the wizard may not be able to shift effectively, but the fighter can just keep going.

Lastly, except for arrows, most of the fighter's equipment has unlimited uses. The wizard has charges and scrolls. In one fight, the wizard can dominate, but over a campaign, the wizard's power is going to slowly diminish, unless the recharge rate (getting new items from defeated villains) surpasses the usage rate. But if that's the case, the fighter will be OK, too.
The fighter isn't going to be as prepared (since the holy, bane arrows may not be useful), but he's still mostly effective against all combatants.

Most telling is the HP difference, however, a 20th level wizard is looking at 20-80 base HP, while the fighter is looking at 20-200 (and you know he'll have a CON bonus). If the wizard can sling around big damage, so can the bad guys and the Wizard can't take it. Again, since I don't play with high level casters, maybe there's a spell that grants huge AC bonus or DR, but a balor in melee can inflict a lot damage before using a spell or ability.

The point is that fighting classes retain their usefulness even at high levels. Especially when you consider them in a story context, not just the vacuum of an imaginary fight.

Marius
2007-03-07, 12:12 PM
@ Marius- My point about roleplaying limits is that some early comments indicated that we should look at the situation in a vacuum; just stats and equipment and that looking at the proposed scenario (or any scenario) was somehow an impure experiment. However, the experiment is only useful in a scenario, because we don't fight balors (or anything else) in a vacuum. We may suggest that the proposed scenario is unlikely, but we must accept that there will always be a scenario. Further that scenario is likely to include the "fluff" such as deities, combatant motivations, terrain, and story considerations. If not, we're not talking about D&D, we're talking about tabletop wargaming.

I agree, but that scenario is very unlikely, VERY unlikely. An if you want to prove the usefullness of certain class you shouldn't just pit them againt one creature in one scenario that completely favor said class.



@ tiercel- I acknowledge that a wizard has more flexibility, but there are severe limits on his casting. First, although the wizard has 40+ spell/day at 20th level, most are useless against the Balor (and other high level monsters) because of Spell resistance and save bonuses. I'm no expert on casters, but I would conservatively estimate that most stuff under 5th level is useless (there are exceptions, please don't post a list of low-level spells everyone must have). So now we're looking at 20+ spells. Further, If the caster has memorized in preparation for the Balor, he's not as prepared for a different enemy. The general consensus is that a caster is good when they can prepare. So, if after the fight with the Balor, a big dragon attacks, the wizard may not be able to shift effectively, but the fighter can just keep going.

Wizard's spells are very versatile, they are great all the time, they are invincible when they can prepare, not just "good". And yes, there're a lot of low level buffs that are still good at high levels.



Lastly, except for arrows, most of the fighter's equipment has unlimited uses. The wizard has charges and scrolls. In one fight, the wizard can dominate, but over a campaign, the wizard's power is going to slowly diminish, unless the recharge rate (getting new items from defeated villains) surpasses the usage rate. But if that's the case, the fighter will be OK, too.
The fighter isn't going to be as prepared (since the holy, bane arrows may not be useful), but he's still mostly effective against all combatants.

You forget the fact that a wizard can actually create his equipment, he doesn't have to find it or buy it. And most scrolls are "just in case" it's not like they are going to use them unless they have to. They have enough spells to "dominate" all the time (and that's the problem).



Most telling is the HP difference, however, a 20th level wizard is looking at 20-80 base HP, while the fighter is looking at 20-200 (and you know he'll have a CON bonus). If the wizard can sling around big damage, so can the bad guys and the Wizard can't take it. Again, since I don't play with high level casters, maybe there's a spell that grants huge AC bonus or DR, but a balor in melee can inflict a lot damage before using a spell or ability.

Wizards don't go into melee and they don't need a spell that grants DR when they can use a greater maximaze metamagic rod to stop time for 5 rounds while they do whatever they want. And "good" wizards don't do damage they defeat foes. Damage spells generally suck.



The point is that fighting classes retain their usefulness even at high levels. Especially when you consider them in a story context, not just the vacuum of an imaginary fight.

No they don't, they are less and less useful as you reach higher levels while casters get more powerful and more versatile.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-07, 12:42 PM
No they don't, they are less and less useful as you reach higher levels while casters get more powerful and more versatile.
Yes, they do. It's true that wizards gets more versatiles, but it doesn't mean a fighter gets less useful.

And about wizards not going into melee or not needing DR...
It looks like a lot of people that says that wizards are too powerful never fight enemies that can attack them back.

Rigeld2
2007-03-07, 01:24 PM
And about wizards not going into melee or not needing DR...
It looks like a lot of people that says that wizards are too powerful never fight enemies that can attack them back.
Its very very hard to get into melee with an intelligently played wizard.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-07, 01:28 PM
Hi everyone,

just jumping in quickly before being unable to post until next week, to give some comments on the most recent discussion. Also, I still haven't figured it out how the full casters and the fighter would likely fare against a balor going first AND having the surprise round (or even just having the surprise round). But thanks for the praise, Desaril. All the stats is a bit technical stuff, I know, but it maybe also helps preview for high-level campaigns what can and what can't be expected.

It seems to be that some of you question the realism/representative ability of the scenario I described. Actually I it was the first thing that came to my mind to put in a CR 20 balor into a campaign: Evil army laying siege to good city. Balor commanding army etc...But of course, that could also be in a temple hall, the tower of an evil archmage, what have you...

Now if the fighter/hero/full spellcaster goes first AND has a surprise round before (able to sneak up, doing buffs etc), then the balor is toast probably in the majority of cases, but I guess I was able to illustrate that the fighter was the only one able to do that at range AND at melee with a the highest chance of success, although the cleric with trickery domain was able to do that as well or maybe even better (time stop/holy word combo, plus meleezilla), although I cautioned against the drawbacks of a cleric, in particular its dependence on spells and divine input.

Another point is that at range, the fighter has the bow, which is almost unbeatable when it comes to range. The major power of the balor to avoid being surprised, the true seeing and +38 spot therefore do not work here - not just in the scenario I described, they NEVER work. No forest, no dungeon whatever...

Now, Marius, if you believe that even a cleric without a deity can simply do what he likes with divine spells without the DM allowing it, I am inclined to say you are wrong. Let us take, for instance, the all-time favourite "anything goes" alignment for the cleric: neutral (or chaotic neutral even?). The cleric can toss around at leisure holy word, unholy word etc. So it seems...well...er...actually, that is not the case.
A TRUE NEUTRAL cleric, i.e. a character whose ENTIRE POWER is built on upholding that belief, plus also making sure the world develops towards that belief (that is what clerics are about, maybe read again the PHB "flavour" text :smallsmile: ), such a cleric may even end up HELPING the balor, because the city in the scenario is so good and nice and lawful that it leads to (in the cleric's eyes) less neutrality in the world. A cleric in this case would be in a big dilemma (something every DM worth his or her salt will exploit over an adventuring career of 1-20), if his group tries to help the city. He may and up (a great roleplaying challenge!) still helping his group, but then he'll lose his spellpowers.
A cleric IS severely limited (similar to the wizard's dependence on spellbooks), and only pushing it to roleplaying aspects which can be ignored at leisure I think misses the point.

So from that viewpoint I'd whole-heartedly agree to Desaril. Probably, however, Desaril is wrong in assuming that the high-level wizards and full casters would run out of spells on a regular basis. Additionally, SOME high-level spells have a good chance vs the balor, although I have to say that they are limited:
Holy Word, Time Stop, Shapechange, PowerWords (if the fighter got the critter down in its hitpoints) can help. As does Array Spell Resistance and stuff in non-core play.



Wizards don't go into melee and they don't need a spell that grants DR when they can use a greater maximaze metamagic rod to stop time for 5 rounds while they do whatever they want. And "good" wizards don't do damage they defeat foes. Damage spells generally suck.


Oh, in the direct comparison of combat effectiveness they have to enter the challenge of close combat as well...:smallbiggrin: However, they have quite a reasonable chance of winning vs a balor by shapechanging into a balor first, attacking with their boosted familiar and winning if they go first.

Overall, I guess the original dimensions of the "combat stress test" that I posted above may get augmented.
The fighter, as well as the casters, have to fight the balor 1) at melee and range, 2) as a group or individually to check for synergy powers (but I'll leave that out here) and 3) if they go first with surprise round, if they just win the initiative, if the balor has surprise but the hero wins the initiative, and if the balor both has suprise AND wins the inistiative.

So far, among 3), we have only discussed the hero having surprise AND winning initiative. For this, the fighter AT LEAST at lvl 20 is as strong as the full casters in combat, hopefully ending the "figher does not contribute anything at 20th level" notion.

Now, rightfully many have claimed: but what if the odds are against the hero?
Still thinking...one tidbit: apart from the strategies outlined for the balor in the SRD/monster manual, I found that a balor can simply take along several hundred pounds of weapons, drop them, and use quickened telekinesis on them whenever he likes, out to a range of 400+ft. That's another 20dsomething of damage every round (in addition to its other spell-like abilites or full attacks), with no save, AND hitting against flat-footed characters if the balor goes first. Heck, the balor may even ready the quickened telekinesis attack in the case a full caster tries to cast a spell (shutting down all spellcasting effectively). So it appears the only ones able to survive (if not being able to strike back with big chances) are those with uncanny dodge: barbarian (has Damage reduction to boost, which helps vs the telekinesis damage), and the rogue. Hey, unlikely winners of the contest, it appears. :smallamused:

Well, more about that later.

- Giacomo

Golthur
2007-03-07, 01:29 PM
Its very very hard to get into melee with an intelligently played wizard.
Exactly. Once third level spells are available, forget about melee, for the most part - oh, and forget about ranged combat with piddly little things like arrows, too.

Throwing boulders would work, though. :amused:.

Rigeld2
2007-03-07, 01:32 PM
Oh, in the direct comparison of combat effectiveness they have to enter the challenge of close combat as well...:smallbiggrin: However, they have quite a reasonable chance of winning vs a balor by shapechanging into a balor first, attacking with their boosted familiar and winning if they go first.
No, really, they dont. Wizards that enter melee should automatically lose. Just like a Fighter that tries to cast spells should automatically lose.

Rigeld2
2007-03-07, 01:33 PM
Exactly. Once third level spells are available, forget about melee, for the most part - oh, and forget about ranged combat with piddly little things like arrows, too.

Throwing boulders would work, though. :amused:.
Only some.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm
That + Wind Wall basically pwns ranged builds.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-07, 01:38 PM
Its very very hard to get into melee with an intelligently played wizard.
A smart opponent would force a wizard into melee, knowing they are weak in that area. I see wizards truly as artillery: Give him enough time and space, and he can beat nearly anything. Once you get into melee range, it's not hard to disrupt castings.
Attacking a wizard in a open field is practically suicide :p

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-07, 01:39 PM
And how do you force a wizard into melee?

its_all_ogre
2007-03-07, 01:41 PM
nah you lost me on the wizards must fight melee.
must fight within melee range, ok i can see some scenarios that could cause that to happen, bear in mind that every wizard i have ever seen above 9th level has teleport memorised.....so that would last one round? possibly with enemy having a surprise round first...
and to be fair killing a wizard in one round is not hard.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-07, 02:01 PM
Several ways: Teleport, Ethereal Jaunt, That counting only spells.
For a non-caste or creature without spell-like abilities. Anything that'll keep you out of the wizard's sight. Ring of invisibility is a way, but it's likely a wizard'll have True Vision cast on him. If the wizard is on tunels, city, or anywhere there are corners. You can show up just in time to get a hit or two. You don't even really need to hide. Even if he is ready for you, you still can get him. Of course, giving him time to buff is a waaay bad idea.
And one thing I found out in NWN, is that trip attacks can be devastating, as are stunning attacks, if you ever get it.
Now, something funny: If you want to take on a wizard, your best bet is to go without any armor. It'll enhance your speed, and free up any eventual high Dex you have, and you won't be missing much on AC from your armor, since most attacks ignore them.
Mundane itens can work too, if the wizard is not prepared. Tanglefoot bags and flash stones have a small chance of working, so it's worth try it if you need to buy yourself time. Pushing something heavy on top of a wizard works wonders too.
And don't forget the readied action, to disrupt casting when you know you can get him before he casts that pesky Time Stop. If he manages to do it, run. Or cry.

Funny trick against Magnifiend Mansion: First, the wizard needs to cast it. Okay, 1 action for a 7th level non-combat spell that practically renders you invulneable for hours (horrible broken). He still needs to enter. One last free shot you have before he vanishes. Oops, he's gone, and the door disappeared... But you can still leave traps in the place he's supposed to show up. Including setting some oil aflame, and throwing some dry plants to make a lot of smoke. Oh,yeah, smoke is something awesome to try. You both get blind in smoke, but you have a 50% chance of missing (25% with BlindFight), while the wizard can't target you, because he has no line of sight.
True Vision? That's not ilusion or invisibility. Darkvision? It's not darkness.
Fireball! Oops, he didn't memorize it, because evocation spells are bad.

As I said, tricks that happens in-game. No need to ultra-builds that can kill you in 1 round.

Golthur
2007-03-07, 02:08 PM
Only some.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm
That + Wind Wall basically pwns ranged builds.

True. I had forgotten that spell applied to all ranged weapons. I stand corrected - only very big or magical boulders would work. :smile:

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-07, 02:13 PM
Several ways: Teleport, Ethereal Jaunt, That counting only spells.
Yes, yes, other spellcasters are fine against wizards. Other spellcasters don't need to get into melee range, either.
Of course, teleporting next to the wizard uses your standard action. His turn! And that's even if this is core and he doesn't have Anticipate Teleport.


For a non-caste or creature without spell-like abilities. Anything that'll keep you out of the wizard's sight. Ring of invisibility is a way, but it's likely a wizard'll have True Vision cast on him.
No need for the expensive True Sight. See Invisibility, Glitterdust...


If the wizard is on tunels, city, or anywhere there are corners. You can show up just in time to get a hit or two. You don't even really need to hide. Even if he is ready for you, you still can get him. Of course, giving him time to buff is a waaay bad idea.
Oh no! Corners! As the wizard comes around the corner, you'll... what? Hit him once?


And one thing I found out in NWN, is that trip attacks can be devastating, as are stunning attacks, if you ever get it.
Wizards don't care about being tripped. They're flying, anyway, so you can't even do it. Stunning Fist is negated by a 37k +1 mithral buckler of Heavy Fortification.


Now, something funny: If you want to take on a wizard, your best bet is to go without any armor. It'll enhance your speed, and free up any eventual high Dex you have, and you won't be missing much on AC from your armor, since most attacks ignore them.
Yeah, now cover your saves... oh, wait, these ten spells he's got don't have them.


Mundane itens can work too, if the wizard is not prepared. Tanglefoot bags and flash stones have a small chance of working, so it's worth try it if you need to buy yourself time. Pushing something heavy on top of a wizard works wonders too.
And don't forget the readied action, to disrupt casting when you know you can get him before he casts that pesky Time Stop. If he manages to do it, run. Or cry.
They really can't. "Pushing something heavy on top of the wizard"? That's your suggestion?


Funny trick against Magnifiend Mansion: First, the wizard needs to cast it. Okay, 1 action for a 7th level non-combat spell that practically renders you invulneable for hours (horrible broken). He still needs to enter. One last free shot you have before he vanishes. Oops, he's gone, and the door disappeared... But you can still leave traps in the place he's supposed to show up. Including setting some oil aflame, and throwing some dry plants to make a lot of smoke. Oh,yeah, smoke is something awesome to try. You both get blind in smoke, but you have a 50% chance of missing (25% with BlindFight), while the wizard can't target you, because he has no line of sight.
Why would the wizard throw the Mansion up in front of you? He teleports. To, I dunno, the bottom of the ocean or something, if he doesn't need to breathe, since D&D has no pressure damage rules, but anywhere within Teleport's range is good enough. Maybe just twenty miles up into the air, since he can fly. Then he casts the Mansion there.
Traps outside the Mansion? How will those help when he can look out of it and see them?


True Vision? That's not ilusion or invisibility. Darkvision? It's not darkness.
Fireball! Oops, he didn't memorize it, because evocation spells are bad.
His all-day Overland Flight. He flies up! He's out of the smoke! He threw long-term buffs up before leaving the Mansion! He rainbowkillifies you! Wheee!


As I said, tricks that happens in-game. No need to ultra-builds that can kill you in 1 round.
Except none of those actually help.

Marius
2007-03-07, 02:14 PM
It seems to be that some of you question the realism/representative ability of the scenario I described. Actually I it was the first thing that came to my mind to put in a CR 20 balor into a campaign: Evil army laying siege to good city. Balor commanding army etc...But of course, that could also be in a temple hall, the tower of an evil archmage, what have you...

And where is his evil army? Why, if he's laying siege to a city, he's not expecting an attack?



Now if the fighter/hero/full spellcaster goes first AND has a surprise round before (able to sneak up, doing buffs etc), then the balor is toast probably in the majority of cases, but I guess I was able to illustrate that the fighter was the only one able to do that at range AND at melee with a the highest chance of success, although the cleric with trickery domain was able to do that as well or maybe even better (time stop/holy word combo, plus meleezilla), although I cautioned against the drawbacks of a cleric, in particular its dependence on spells and divine input.

At melee they can't only at range.



Another point is that at range, the fighter has the bow, which is almost unbeatable when it comes to range. The major power of the balor to avoid being surprised, the true seeing and +38 spot therefore do not work here - not just in the scenario I described, they NEVER work. No forest, no dungeon whatever...

So? The elf cleric also has a bow and 9th level spells.



Now, Marius, if you believe that even a cleric without a deity can simply do what he likes with divine spells without the DM allowing it, I am inclined to say you are wrong. Let us take, for instance, the all-time favourite "anything goes" alignment for the cleric: neutral (or chaotic neutral even?). The cleric can toss around at leisure holy word, unholy word etc. So it seems...well...er...actually, that is not the case.
A TRUE NEUTRAL cleric, i.e. a character whose ENTIRE POWER is built on upholding that belief, plus also making sure the world develops towards that belief (that is what clerics are about, maybe read again the PHB "flavour" text :smallsmile: ), such a cleric may even end up HELPING the balor, because the city in the scenario is so good and nice and lawful that it leads to (in the cleric's eyes) less neutrality in the world. A cleric in this case would be in a big dilemma (something every DM worth his or her salt will exploit over an adventuring career of 1-20), if his group tries to help the city. He may and up (a great roleplaying challenge!) still helping his group, but then he'll lose his spellpowers.
A cleric IS severely limited (similar to the wizard's dependence on spellbooks), and only pushing it to roleplaying aspects which can be ignored at leisure I think misses the point.

No, that's your example, my cleric favors booze, whores and that balor that wants to destroy the city is pissing him off. On the other hand your neutral cleric might think that there's enough evil in the world and that to balance it he has to kill the balor. What can you say against that? It's purely fluff and for every situation that you can imagine there's going to be a way out.



Oh, in the direct comparison of combat effectiveness they have to enter the challenge of close combat as well...:smallbiggrin: However, they have quite a reasonable chance of winning vs a balor by shapechanging into a balor first, attacking with their boosted familiar and winning if they go first.

No they don't, wizards don't do that (they could, but they shouldn't).



So far, among 3), we have only discussed the hero having surprise AND winning initiative. For this, the fighter AT LEAST at lvl 20 is as strong as the full casters in combat, hopefully ending the "figher does not contribute anything at 20th level" notion.

They are, even if they can contribute a little, less powerful than casters. And outside combat they suck completely.



Now, rightfully many have claimed: but what if the odds are against the hero?
Still thinking...one tidbit: apart from the strategies outlined for the balor in the SRD/monster manual, I found that a balor can simply take along several hundred pounds of weapons, drop them, and use quickened telekinesis on them whenever he likes, out to a range of 400+ft. That's another 20dsomething of damage every round (in addition to its other spell-like abilites or full attacks), with no save, AND hitting against flat-footed characters if the balor goes first. Heck, the balor may even ready the quickened telekinesis attack in the case a full caster tries to cast a spell (shutting down all spellcasting effectively). So it appears the only ones able to survive (if not being able to strike back with big chances) are those with uncanny dodge: barbarian (has Damage reduction to boost, which helps vs the telekinesis damage), and the rogue. Hey, unlikely winners of the contest, it appears. :smallamused:


Not really they wizard could have set a contingency against that and he probably is invisible (you know, they can cast greater invisibility) and well as many other hour/level buffs.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-07, 02:34 PM
Yes, yes, other spellcasters are fine against wizards. Other spellcasters don't need to get into melee range, either.
Of course, teleporting next to the wizard uses your standard action. His turn! And that's even if this is core and he doesn't have Anticipate Teleport.
I know, teleport is not the best use to a direct attack, but if you have,a cape of mounteblank, fro example, you could teleport to somewhere the wizard cant see.



No need for the expensive True Sight. See Invisibility, Glitterdust... I said True Seeing as an example.
I know. See Invisibility, Purge invisibility (tough that one costs one round to cast)



Oh no! Corners! As the wizard comes around the corner, you'll... what? Hit him once?
It was already said that a wizard in melee is not so powerful. Moving on.



Wizards don't care about being tripped. They're flying, anyway, so you can't even do it. Stunning Fist is negated by a 37k +1 mithral buckler of Heavy Fortification.
True, flying creatures are immune. Hmm.. Funny, back in my time, flying all day was something bad... Oh, well, no rules against it now. Buckler is indeed a great idea, seeing as it's only a 5% chance of spell failure.



Yeah, now cover your saves... oh, wait, these ten spells he's got don't have them.
True, but how many can disable a fighter in one round?



They really can't. "Pushing something heavy on top of the wizard"? That's your suggestion?
No, it's an example of things that can be done. A BBeG would surelly do it.



Why would the wizard throw the Mansion up in front of you? He teleports. To, I dunno, the bottom of the ocean or something, if he doesn't need to breathe, since D&D has no pressure damage rules, but anywhere within Teleport's range is good enough. Maybe just twenty miles up into the air, since he can fly. Then he casts the Mansion there.
Traps outside the Mansion? How will those help when he can look out of it and see them?
Alright, the wizard can teleport. In that case, he doesn't even need the mansion. Just go home (as long your enemy can't track you, and he can't) and sleep. Yeah, he can look... and then what? He can teleport over them?



His all-day Overland Flight. He flies up! He's out of the smoke! He threw long-term buffs up before leaving the Mansion! He rainbowkillifies you! Wheee!
Great. Now, he can't fly inside a cavern. A simple dispell will make him fall, and it's not hard for a figher to get some dispelling device. Yeah, as I said, he can buff... but then it's another day, and we can do start it all again.



Except none of those actually help.
[/QUOTE]We just saw how wizards are good at running away to rest and fight another day.

Marius
2007-03-07, 02:42 PM
True, flying creatures are immune. Hmm.. Funny, back in my time, flying all day was something bad... Oh, well, no rules against it now. Buckler is indeed a great idea, seeing as it's only a 5% chance of spell failure.

Not if it's a Mithral Buckler, those don't have spell failure.



True, but how many can disable a fighter in one round?

Forcecage?



Great. Now, he can't fly inside a cavern. A simple dispell will make him fall, and it's not hard for a figher to get some dispelling device. Yeah, as I said, he can buff... but then it's another day, and we can do start it all again.

Feather Fall, now is the wizards turn and you are dead. And dispelling the buffs it's not so easy, even for another spellcaster.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-07, 02:49 PM
I know, teleport is not the best use to a direct attack, but if you have,a cape of mounteblank, fro example, you could teleport to somewhere the wizard cant see.
Yeah, sure, great. The wizard goes home, uses scrying to find you, and busts a magical cap in your punk ass next time you sleep. Or just waits around until you show yourself again, because you can't do anything to him. Maybe he even cooks some eggs.


It was already said that a wizard in melee is not so powerful. Moving on.The wizard isn't going to melee. He's going to take one of his four or five options to get out of melee easily. It's possible to get next to a wizard, if you're taking him by surprise.
The problem is keeping him there.


True, flying creatures are immune. Hmm.. Funny, back in my time, flying all day was something bad... Oh, well, no rules against it now. Buckler is indeed a great idea, seeing as it's only a 5% chance of spell failure.Even if flying creatures weren't immune, why does a wizard care about being tripped?
The buckler is mithral and thus has no spell failure.


True, but how many can disable a fighter in one round?Lots. Not that the wizard needs to do it in one round, since he can fly/teleport to a distance, or go invisibile, or buy himself four rounds with Solid Fog, or throw a Wall up around the Fighter, and then do any number of other things that will let him killify the poor sap at his leisure. None of those require anything more than fifth-level spells. In addition to various save-or-loses targeting the fighter's weak save, the wizard can Forcecage him, hit him with a Ray of Enfeeblement (Quickened, plus a Ray of Exhaustion to follow up) to make him unable to move due to encumbrance + low STR, throw a Scintillating Pattern up to Confuse him (no save),


No, it's an example of things that can be done. A BBeG would surelly do it.A BBEG would... drop something heavy on the wizard? What? How? I have no idea what you're talking about, here.


Alright, the wizard can teleport. In that case, he doesn't even need the mansion. Just go home (as long your enemy can't track you, and he can't) and sleep. Yeah, he can look... and then what? He can teleport over them?He can look and then fly on out over/past them and still cast a spell with his standard action. Not to mention getting the drop on you since you don't know when he's coming.
Or he can just summon a big elemental to eat your face and send it out.


Great. Now, he can't fly inside a cavern. A simple dispell will make him fall, and it's not hard for a figher to get some dispelling device. Yeah, as I said, he can buff... but then it's another day, and we can do start it all again.Ethereal Jaunt'll let him fly through walls and buy himself as much time as he needs to. He can still fly, just not that far up *but how many caverns are 10' by 10' by 10'? and he's faster than you--his fly speed will be 40, 70, or 90. He can even fly back and out of charge range.
A "simple dispel"? Good luck making that caster level check with... what, exactly? What kind of "dispelling device" does a fighter use that succeeds on a DC 10+wizard's CL dispel check? An equal level caster... yes. Casters can take each other on. Duh.


We just saw how wizards are good at running away to rest and fight another day.Or, you know, flying/teleporting up above or behind you and then killing you. None of what you described would make the wizard break much of a sweat, or even have to deviate from a typical daily spell selection.
And being able to *poof*, be gone, whenever is a major strength... when you combine it with the ability to use that to replenish your resources. Or to scry your enemy and kill them in their sleep.


I'm not sure what you were trying to demonstrate, exactly, but you've definitely failed. If it was that it's easy or even possible to keep a wizard in melee range... you've double-failed.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-07, 03:24 PM
@Marius:
ForceCage is good. But any teleporting item frees you.
Mithral Buckler. Even better. Point for you.
Feather Fall. Since it's a 1st level spell, he's likely to have it cast all day, true.
I said that dispelling a fly wouldn't be hard because if you cast it to work all day, it probably got some Metamagic feat, so it's not so high a level.
A very though deal, indeed.


Yeah, sure, great. The wizard goes home, uses scrying to find you, and busts a magical cap in your punk ass next time you sleep. Or just waits around until you show yourself again, because you can't do anything to him. Maybe he even cooks some eggs.
Many ways to avoid that. Not many expensive as a Buckler of Heavy fortification and rods of quicken and maximize.
The fighter just waits for the wizard to appear again. Maybe they would meet when buying groceries.


The wizard isn't going to melee. He's going to take one of his four or five options to get out of melee easily. It's possible to get next to a wizard, if you're taking him by surprise.
The problem is keeping him there.
I know a wizard can excape easily. I'm not talking about the surprise round. There are ways to keep him in melee. None easy, but possible.


Even if flying creatures weren't immune, why does a wizard care about being tripped?If you can keep him down, and grapple him, he'll care. A lot.


Lots. Not that the wizard needs to do it in one round, since he can fly/teleport to a distance, or go invisibile, or buy himself four rounds with Solid Fog, or throw a Wall up around the Fighter, and then do any number of other things that will let him killify the poor sap at his leisure. None of those require anything more than fifth-level spells. In addition to various save-or-loses targeting the fighter's weak save, the wizard can Forcecage him, hit him with a Ray of Enfeeblement (Quickened, plus a Ray of Exhaustion to follow up) to make him unable to move due to encumbrance + low STR, throw a Scintillating Pattern up to Confuse him (no save)Nice selection of spells. The wall spells are great to delay a fighter. A Ray of Exhaustion wouldn't keep a fighter from moving. True, Will, along Reflex, are the fighter's weaknesses.
A spell that confuses up to 4 rounds with no save? I won't get on how broken it is.


A BBEG would... drop something heavy on the wizard? What? How? I have no idea what you're talking about, here.[QUOTE]Hehe... you would need to play some of my friend's campaigns to trully understand. The bastard can use very nasty trics, like dropping boulders on the group. You know traps? Most times you fall in a trap, and that's it. A nasty BBeG would attack when the group is more vulnerable. (I know someone will point it. No, he doesn't go in person).

[QUOTE]He can look and then fly on out over/past them and still cast a spell with his standard action. Not to mention getting the drop on you since you don't know when he's coming.
Or he can just summon a big elemental to eat your face and send it out.
And get caught in the net standing about him. Hey, 8 hours is enough time to make nifty traps. But he probably knows it there, so he won't do something silly.
For the elemental I don't have an answer now. Summoning would be a great trouble for a fighter.


Ethereal Jaunt'll let him fly through walls and buy himself as much time as he needs to. He can still fly, just not that far up *but how many caverns are 10' by 10' by 10'? and he's faster than you--his fly speed will be 40, 70, or 90. He can even fly back and out of charge range.You never entered a small cave? Dude, you would die so fast in my group's campaigns...


A "simple dispel"? Good luck making that caster level check with... what, exactly? What kind of "dispelling device" does a fighter use that succeeds on a DC 10+wizard's CL dispel check? An equal level caster... yes. Casters can take each other on. Duh.Oh yeah, I forgot that the dispell is based on the caster level, not the spell level. My bad.


Or, you know, flying/teleporting up above or behind you and then killing you. None of what you described would make the wizard break much of a sweat, or even have to deviate from a typical daily spell selection.
And being able to *poof*, be gone, whenever is a major strength... when you combine it with the ability to use that to replenish your resources. Or to scry your enemy and kill them in their sleep.

I'm not sure what you were trying to demonstrate, exactly, but you've definitely failed. If it was that it's easy or even possible to keep a wizard in melee range... you've double-failed.You said yourself that you can't teleport and instantly act :p But flying would still be nasty.
Yeah, the "hit and run" works perfecly. The "killing in your sleep" not so much, as a high level fighter has the means to avoid it.

No, I didn't see fail. I countered some major points, as you were saying them. Some of them still gets the upper hand to a wizard in direct combat, but I still showed several ways a fighter can keep up with a wizard.
If I have time, I could devise many ways a fighter could take on a wizard. As I said, none of them is easy. It's just not impossible.

Desaril
2007-03-07, 03:25 PM
My biggest concern is the high saving throws of high CR creatures. If I'm not mistaken save DCs are 10+Spell level+ Stat mod + other (spell focus and such). With good set of stats that will get close to 30, but the Balor has +19 saves (higher for Fort). He also has 28 SR. So the caster has a 40% chance of not affecting the Balor and the Balor has about a 50% chance to save when appropriate. If the Balor does damage, its gonna be big, so the caster won't be able to cast.

I'm sure I've missed something because this is so obvious, but since I don't play high level casters, I'd appreciate some guidance.

Marius
2007-03-07, 04:15 PM
@Marius:
If you can keep him down, and grapple him, he'll care. A lot.

Foresight + Greater Rod of extend, no more surprises, ever.



Nice selection of spells. The wall spells are great to delay a fighter. A Ray of Exhaustion wouldn't keep a fighter from moving. True, Will, along Reflex, are the fighter's weaknesses.
A spell that confuses up to 4 rounds with no save? I won't get on how broken it is.

If you liked those, see Irresistible Dance



You said yourself that you can't teleport and instantly act :p But flying would still be nasty.

Except that they can, a wizard could use a quiken DD or even a quiken teleport or buff himself with greater invisibility before porting or...


My biggest concern is the high saving throws of high CR creatures. If I'm not mistaken save DCs are 10+Spell level+ Stat mod + other (spell focus and such). With good set of stats that will get close to 30, but the Balor has +19 saves (higher for Fort). He also has 28 SR. So the caster has a 40% chance of not affecting the Balor and the Balor has about a 50% chance to save when appropriate. If the Balor does damage, its gonna be big, so the caster won't be able to cast.

I'm sure I've missed something because this is so obvious, but since I don't play high level casters, I'd appreciate some guidance.

Irresistible Dance doesn't allow a save and even a Balor with SR 28 wouldn't meant anything to a 20th level wizard with greater spell penetration (the check is a 1d20+caster level+feats =1d20+24
Power word Stun also doesn't have a save
Enervation (Ray, 1d4 negative levels) doesn't have a save and it's level 4
The lists goes on and I'm not even a wizard player.

Pocket lint
2007-03-07, 05:19 PM
Re Irresistible Dance: Heheee, I just got an idea for a house rule:

"A check of Perform(dance) against the caster level will let you move freely for the spell's duration."

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-07, 05:50 PM
Irresistible Dance is fun when a Duskblade/Sublime Chord with Whirlwind Attack and a cheesed-up reach makes all the enemies within like 60 feet be affected by it.

Dance party!

Hallavast
2007-03-07, 05:58 PM
Irresistible Dance is fun when a Duskblade/Sublime Chord with Whirlwind Attack and a cheesed-up reach makes all the enemies within like 60 feet be affected by it.

Dance party!
Can you say Dynasty Warriors? :smalltongue:

greenknight
2007-03-07, 08:47 PM
Maybe you could post a complete cleric level 20 build that could really be powerful at combat.

I didn't want to do this, because even a Cleric built with Core Rules can come with lots of CHEESE. And high level Clerics are the worst. But since you asked, here it is. It's not a bad try, but I'm certain there are plenty of people out there who could add even more to this build without going to the splatbooks (and if they did that, watch out!). Even as is, I strongly recommend that no-one use this in an actual game. Even though I don't have time right now to answer the other points in your post, hopefully this will show you some of the power of the Cleric class.

To create this character, I'm only going to use stuff in the PHB, DMG and MM (or in the official errata and FAQ for those books), although where there is a name difference between the books and SRD, I'll try to use the name from the SRD. This is going to be a single classed Cleric build, using a base race from the PHB and a character who worships one of the Gods in the PHB. I'll also use the fixed HP rule from the DMG (p198). Roleplaying isn't a major issue, this is a power / munchkin type build, so again, this is not recommend in an actual game! There are a number of basic assumptions with this build:

* Buffs with a duration of at least 6 hours (for the character's caster level) have already been cast and are functioning. The buffs add so much to the power of this build that there is no question that a dead magic area would seriously reduce this Cleric's power.
* Aside from the effects of purchased items, this character can cast all buffs listed, and is assumed to have done so (spell slots and items used for this will be accounted for).
* The Cleric has access to any needed material components, provided they have trivial cost.
* For the Balor attack scenario, the Cleric knows of the Balor in advance, and the Balor does not initially know about the Cleric (or at least, doesn't know the Cleric is going after it), and that the Balor is alone (these are the same assumptions Sir Giacomo used in his scenario).

Human Cleric 20. 760,000gp,
32 Point Buy. Stats: Initial / Magical Items + Level / Buffed (incl long term and temporary pre-battle magical buffs)
STR 14 / 14 / 33 (23 long term, Enhancement +6, Size +4); DEX 10 / 16 (+6 enhancement) / 29 (23 long term, +6 Enhancement); CON 10 / 10 / 25 (23 long term, +2 size, could add another +4 enhancement fairly easily) ; INT 14 / 14 / 12 (long term – this is the one area where the buffs work against the character slightly); WIS 16 / 32 (+5 inherent, +5 level, +6 enhancement) / 32; CHA 14 / 14 / 14 (could easily make this higher, but there's no need for it in this example);
Initiative: +13 (+9 Dex, Improved Init)
TN Alignment, worships Boccob (Domains Magic and Trickery). Channels Negative energy.
AC: 54 (+9 Dex, +11 Wis, + 5 Enhancement, +13 Natural, +6 unnamed) / 36 (Touch) / 45 (Flat Footed).
Note: Subtract 5 from AC when defending ability of Scimitar isn't used. When temporary combat buffs are applied, these numbers change to 57 (+2 Natural Enhancement, -1 Size, +5 Deflection) / 45 / 51.
HP: 210 (255 after short term enhancements)
SR: 0 (or up to 37 with buffs)
Saves: Fort: 25 (+12 Cleric, +5 Resistance, +6 Con, +1 Competence, +1 Luck), Reflex + 22 (+6 Cleric, +5 Resistance, +9 Dex, +1 Competence, +1 Luck), Will + 30 (+12 Cleric, +5 Resistance, +11 Wis, +1 Competence, +1 Luck)
BAB: +15 (+20 after buffs). Melee (after all buffs, with Haste, using Adamantine Scimitar): +34/+34/+29/+24/+19 (BAB + 11 Strength, -1 Size, +3 Luck, +1 Competence, +1 Haste). Ranged (after all buffs, with Haste, using Sling): +31/+31/+31/+26/+21/+16 (BAB + 9 Dex, -1 Size, +3 Luck, +1 Competence, +1 Haste, -2 Rapid Shot)
Melee Damage per attack after all buffs (add 2 for each point of attack bonus sacrificed if Power Attack): 1d8+ 11 (Str)+ 3 (Luck) + 5 (Enhancement – if Defending property not used). Crit 15 – 20.
Ranged Damage per attack after all buffs: 1d6 + 11 (Str) + 3 (Luck) + 5 (Enhancement) + 1d6 (if Merciful)
Feats 8 (7 level, +1 Human): Power Attack, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Far Shot, Quickdraw, Improved Initiative, Weapon Prof (Scimitar), Quicken Spell. (I know, I said Improved Initiative probably wasn't necessary, but I had room for it).
Skills (115 points). Note: All skills add at least 1 Competence (Ioun stone) and 1 Luck (Luckstone). Skills based on Str, Dex, Con, Int and Cha can usually be boosted through spells if necessary. Hide 23 ranks (+9 Dex, +10 Competence, +1 Luck = 43 – class skill thanks to Trickery), Knowledge: Religion 10 ranks (+ 1 Int, + 1 Competence, +1 Luck), Knowledge: The Planes 13 ranks (+ 1 Int, + 1 Competence, +1 Luck. This character might actually know something about Balors without needing to consult others!), Diplomacy 23 ranks (+2 Cha, + 1 Competence, + 1 Luck), Concentration 23 ranks (+6 Con, + 1 Competence, + 1 Luck), Spellcraft 23 ranks (+1 Int, + 1 Competence, +1 Luck)

Magical/Significant Items (760,000 gp available, 743,000 used – approx)
13,000 Monk's Belt
12,700 Ring of Chameleon Power
137,500 Tome of Understanding +5
36,000 Periapt of Wisdom +6
36,000 Gloves of Dexterity +6
25,000 Cloak of Resistance +5
12,000 Boots of Speed
70,000 Pearl of Power (2 x 6th level)
30,000 Ioun Stone (Orange - +1 Caster Level)
30,000 Ioun Stone (Pale Green - +1 Competence to attack, save, skill and ability checks)
20,000 Stone of Good Luck (+1 Luck to saves, ability and skill checks)
22,060 Luckblade (reroll 1/day)
18,300 Sling (+3 effect) +1, Distance, Merciful
21,315 Adamantine Scimitar (+3 effect) +1, Keen, Defending
8,405 Silver Scimitar (+2 effect) +1, Spell Storing
18,405 Morningstar (+3 effect) +1, Ghost Touch, Bane (Undead)
51,600 Strand of Prayer Beads (regular, x2) Note: I could have removed the Bead of Smiting, which is useless to this character, and saved 33,600gp. Then I could have had 5 Beads of Karma plus 5 Beads of Healing for 45,000 gp
170,000 Rod of Metamagic: Greater (Quicken Spell)
7,650 Scroll of Time Stop (included for Sir Giacomo, to show one way a Domain Only spell can be cast multiple times per day)
2,000 Handy Haversack (because no high level character should be without one)
50 Scroll of True Strike (2, included as an example of why the Magic Domain is so useful)
600 Adamantine Sling Bullets (10)
1 Cold Iron Sling Bullets (50)
20 Silver Sling Bullets (10)

Save DC: 10 + Spell Level + 11 (unless otherwise stated). DC 30 vs 9th level.
Effective Caster Level: 25
Spells (6 / 8+1 / 8 +1 / 8 + 1 / 7 + 1 / 7 + 1 / 6 + 1 / 6 + 1 / 5 + 1 / 5 + 1)
Not going to list every spell for every level, but here's a few highlights:
1st: Divine Favor (+3 Luck to attack and Damage – might quicken it); Shield of Faith (+5 Deflection to AC); Protection from Evil (good vs summoned creatures, and prevents mind control)
2nd: Aid (morale bonus and more HP – but I don't bother using it against the Balor); Align Weapon (this character can make any weapon Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic – whatever is required for the occasion); Spiritual Weapon (acts by itself, bypasses DR but not SR, has +31 to attack, 4 attacks per round and does 1d8+5 damage. Again, not used vs Balor); Resist Energy; Invisibility (Domain – the other Domain spell, Identify, can be cast without a material component, making it much cheaper and more useful than the Arcane version)
3rd: Animate Dead (who needs Leadership?), Continual Flame (Let there be Light, though this probably wouldn't be prepared often), Create Food and Water (no food costs), Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle against Evil (in case the Balor summons allies); Magic Vestment (+5 Enhancement bonus to AC for 25 hours); Protection from Energy (120 points worth of Fire protection); Wind Wall (an archer's worst nightmare), Nondetection (Domain – costs 50gp/day, but it prevents enemies from knowing where you are and lasts 25 hours, so it's a bargain)
4th: Cure Critical Wounds; Dimensional Anchor (probably have two Quickened); Death Ward; Divine Power (another Quicken candidate); Freedom of Movement; Greater Magic Weapon (you'd want at least 2 of these, but they last 25 hours); Neutralize Poison; Tongues (communication can be important), Confusion (Domain)
5th: Greater Command (Save DC 26 – that's not so easy even at high levels); Dispel Evil (goodbye to any one creature the Balor summons); Righteous Might (might even quicken one of these); Spell Resistance; True Seeing (Costly, but hey, it's a good spell); Divine Favor (Quickened); False Vision (Domain – and another reason why Scrying is useless vs this character)
6th: Blade Barrier; Create Undead (wouldn't be prepared, but it's a way to create loyal servants, and the Mohrg can then start creating its own zombies); Greater Dispel Magic; Heal; Heroes' Feast (I don't even use it in the Balor scenario, but I should since it's a great buff); Wind Walk (very fast movement); Word of Recall (the escape button); Mislead (Domain – who wouldn't use this if they had it?)
7th: Dictum/Holy Word (have them both, since they both work); Destruction (that's a 85' range spell for an effective 25th level caster); Regenerate/Greater Restoration/Resurrection (not particularly useful in this situation, but good as examples of extra things Clerics can do that Fighters can't); Repulsion (because this Cleric prefers ranged combat); Spell Turning (Domain – not very useful against a Balor, but still...)
8th: Dimensional Anchor (2 x Quickened); Divine Power (Quickened); Create Greater Undead (wouldn't prepare this on the day of battle, but I point it out since it gives more servants – and no death throes if that Balor's Life Essence get's trapped by a Devourer); Greater Spell Immunity; Polymorph any Object (Domain spell. Arguably even more broken than the Polymorph spell, and I plan on taking advantage of that)
9th: Righteous Might (Quickened); Implosion, Miracle; Time Stop (Domain – you knew it was coming)

Long Term Buffs:
1)Use Polymorph Any Object on self, taking the form of a Barbed Devil. Strength, Dexterity and Constitution all jump to 23 from this one spell, and you've also got +13 natural AC, Impale and Improved Grab. Unfortunately, Intelligence drops to 12, but you can't have everything. This is a Same Kingdom, Same Size and Some or Lower Intelligence polymorph, so it will be Permanent until we want to change it (by another casting of the spell). Since most people would tend to run from (or at least distrust) such a creature, use the disguise self ability of the Ring of Chameleon Power to look like a Human. Interestingly, if someone then uses a True Seeing on you, it will blast through the Human disguise and the Polymorphed form to reveal you to truly be ... a Human.

2)Activate a Bead of Karma and cast your 1hr/lvl buffs: Nondetection, Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon (on your sling and the adamantine scimitar); Because you now have a +5 enhancement on your scimitar, you can use that for defence. Strictly speaking, using the Bead isn't really necessary because you'll have a 21 hour duration with those items without it, but the extra duration gives a little more peace of mind. With nondetection going, that Balor is going to have a very hard time tracing you even if it does know you're after it. Also, nondetection would make it difficult for people to pick up on your Lawful and Evil (from type) status. Since you have an effective Caster Level of 25, it would be difficult for even Greater Dispel Magic to dispel these effects.

3)You could use Heroes' Feast for a further buff, and Animate Dead/Create Undead/Create Greater Undead (or your power to Command Undead) to obtain cannon fodder, but I haven't done that here.

Pre-Battle Buffs and Combat:

1)Cast Invisibility and start Hiding. Now you are protected from normal sight, so that Balor shouldn't be able to see you if you're outside it's True Seeing range, and even if it gets that close, your +43 to Hide should make it hard for the Balor to see you. Activate your 2nd Bead of Karma and cast your 10 min / level buffs: Resist Energy, Protection from Enegy, Freedom of Movement, Neutralize Poison. None of these are really necessary for the task, but a bit of caution never hurts. Also cast Magic Circle against Evil (another 10 min/lvl spell), since it could be useful. Then cast Align Weapon to make attacks from your sling Good aligned for the next 25 minutes. The Bead's effects last for 10 minutes, so it should also work for all the following spells.

2)Move in to about 150' from the Balor. This is beyond its True Seeing range, so you should be safe. Cast Time Stop, then run to 40' from the Balor (110' should be covered in a single round). If the Balor is flying, cast Miracle for Fly or Overland Flight (this use costs no XP). You should still have between 1 and 4 rounds before Time Stop ends, so cast quickened Divine Power and regular Righteous Might. BTW, this Righteous Might gives DR 9/Good, and it's highly unlikely the Balor has anything other than spells to bypass it. Now wait until the Time Stop is over so you can Surprise that Balor.

3)Cast Holy Word. Your CL 25 means you should beat the Balor's Spell Resistance on anything except a 1 or 2 (10% chance). If that does happen, use your Luckblade to get a reroll.This means the eventual chance of failure of this tactic is 1%. Then cast a quickened Dimensional Anchor. It's not as crucial that this spell pass SR, but in the three SR rolls, it's likely it will get through. If it fails, you should still easily beat the now Paralyzed Balor's initiative bonus of -1, so you can try again with another quickened Dimensional Anchor.

4)Activate your Boots of Speed for haste, then start disarming the Balor. It's Strength 0 means you should be able to take both its Vorpal Sword and Flaming Whip in two rounds. Then run to 125 feet away from the Balor, making sure you get behind it. Since it's paralyzed, it shouldn't be able to turn around and see you.

5)Cast a Blade Barrier on the Balor. If that fails, use your Pearl of Power to get another one and cast it again. After that, cast a quickened Divine Power and attack with your sling vs the Balor's AC 27. Thanks to Haste, you'll have 6 attacks per round, and even the last attack (+16 modifier) has a fair chance of hitting (although at this range, all attacks would be at -2 to hit, so that's only a 40% chance of hitting). And don't forget, the Balor should be taking around 15d6 damage per round from the Blade Barrier as well. All things considered, the Balor should go down very quickly.

Observations:

There's almost no risk for the Cleric in this approach, and aside from some Cold Iron sling bullets (which cost 1gp for 50), there's no real cost either. In fact, this Cleric gets a +1 Vorpal Sword and a +1 Flaming Whip as treasure which would not be obtained by the Fighter. The Cleric is significantly stronger than the Fighter, has almost as good a Dex score, much higher Wisdom score, equal Intelligence (except when buffed) and better Charisma. The Cleric's AC and HP are much higher than the Fighter's, and each saving throw is equal to or better than the Fighters (only Reflex is the same, like I thought it would be). If I wanted to, I could have increased the damage output with potions, but there's really no need for it in this case, and it's just extra expense.

Thanks to the range of spells available, this Cleric could even kill a Tarrasque, which the Fighter would be completely unable to kill (no Wish or Miracle available to the character). And this Cleric has the means to secure many loyal followers. In addition, this Cleric has ways of detecting the Balor through spells, and staying undetected by it even if it does try scrying. Overall, it comes down to what I've been saying all along – the Cleric provides everything the Fighter does, and a whole lot more.

Desaril
2007-03-07, 10:34 PM
@ Marius Otto's dance is a touch attack, i.e. caster in melee (not good). Enervation does not reduce HP, just gives a -1 to hit, save, skill checks, etc. and its range is close (75'). Power word stun only affects creatures with less than 150 HP and has a close range.

I suppose the Balor will let the wizard get that close and start casting. I can see that. Of course, having a fighter to hide behind may help.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-07, 10:39 PM
@ Marius Otto's dance is a touch attack, i.e. caster in melee (not good). Enervation does not reduce HP, just gives a -1 to hit, save, skill checks, etc. and its range is close (75'). Power word stun only affects creatures with less than 150 HP and has a close range.

I suppose the Balor will let the wizard get that close and start casting. I can see that. Of course, having a fighter to hide behind may help.

Well, reach spell, or arcane reach from the archmage would both alleviate problems with touch, and the mage could teleport/quickened (no save spell/timestop). The timestop would not allow him to cast these spells without the delay spell metamagic, but after timestop ended, the mage would have a number of options to make sure that he went first.

Dhavaer
2007-03-07, 10:41 PM
@ Marius Otto's dance is a touch attack, i.e. caster in melee (not good). Enervation does not reduce HP, just gives a -1 to hit, save, skill checks, etc. and its range is close (75'). Power word stun only affects creatures with less than 150 HP and has a close range.

Each negative level gives a -5 penalty to hit points. It's not actual damage, but it definitely reduces hp.

tiercel
2007-03-08, 07:16 AM
@ tiercel- I acknowledge that a wizard has more flexibility, but there are severe limits on his casting. First, although the wizard has 40+ spell/day at 20th level, most are useless against the Balor (and other high level monsters) because of Spell resistance and save bonuses. I'm no expert on casters, but I would conservatively estimate that most stuff under 5th level is useless (there are exceptions, please don't post a list of low-level spells everyone must have). So now we're looking at 20+ spells. Further, If the caster has memorized in preparation for the Balor, he's not as prepared for a different enemy. The general consensus is that a caster is good when they can prepare. So, if after the fight with the Balor, a big dragon attacks, the wizard may not be able to shift effectively, but the fighter can just keep going.

Um... starting from the last part first, the wizard is going to be able to shift more effectively than the fighter, because changing spells is easier than changing equipment. A wizard's "all purpose" spells are still going to outshine even good all-purpose fighter equipment, and a fighter's bow is going to be more vulnerable in his hands than a wizard's carefully protected and squirreled away spellbook (which will have duplicates more than likely.)

To the extent that a wizard is loaded for Balor, he can "reset" to a new fight a lot faster than a fighter can go run and get bane arrows of slaying for the new monster on deck.

As for a Balor being resistant to spells.... SR 28 isn't that terrible when you are a 20th level caster. Chances are your wizard has taken at least Spell Penetration, may have an orange ioun stone or similar, or even taken levels of Archmage. If that's not enough, there is the assay resistance spell and the Arcane Mastery feat (Complete Arcane) that greatly nerf the utility of SR as a defense, not to mention any number of SR: No spells... a handful of Core ones, and a mass proliferation of them in supplement books (heck, a wizard can just almost outdo a fighter at his own game with metamagicked orb spells, even though this is arguably not a wizard's strongest suit).

As for saves, the wizard could easily have an Int of 32 or so, so his highest level spells will be DC 28-30 or so even before Spell Focus or other DC raising goodies (or something like limited wish with a greater rod of Quickening for a -7 penalty to saves). Even without anything overtly fancy, the balor still has a 40-50% chance to fail a save against a high level spell which could very well be literally save-or-die... and a wizard worth his astronomical Int score will either pick spells that still have significantly Bad Results for the balor if he succeeds, or will have ways to crank up the failure chance if the wizard prefers one-shot spell kills.




Lastly, except for arrows, most of the fighter's equipment has unlimited uses. The wizard has charges and scrolls. In one fight, the wizard can dominate, but over a campaign, the wizard's power is going to slowly diminish, unless the recharge rate (getting new items from defeated villains) surpasses the usage rate. But if that's the case, the fighter will be OK, too.
The fighter isn't going to be as prepared (since the holy, bane arrows may not be useful), but he's still mostly effective against all combatants. A fair amount of the fighter-archer's demonstrated power is due to his pile of fancy arrows he shoots through (and if anything Bad ever happens to his bow, he's in a world of hurt). Meanwhile, most of the wizard's power is in his freely replenishable supply of daily spells. Sure, every once in a while he's going to burn an expensive scroll or a charge off a high-powered staff, but that's not much different from the occasional UberArrow the fighter fires (and the wizard isn't, in general, as dependent on his charged items to achieve Phenomenal Results as the fighter is).


Most telling is the HP difference, however, a 20th level wizard is looking at 20-80 base HP, while the fighter is looking at 20-200 (and you know he'll have a CON bonus). If the wizard can sling around big damage, so can the bad guys and the Wizard can't take it. Again, since I don't play with high level casters, maybe there's a spell that grants huge AC bonus or DR, but a balor in melee can inflict a lot damage before using a spell or ability. Well.... good luck getting to the wizard in melee. And if the wizard really wants sick stacks of AC and DR and even regeneration, he can just use a single spell (shapechange). Planetar is one particularly sick choice, and I'm sure you can probably do better out of Core. (Probably in Core too -- versus a Balor you don't necessarily want your regen and DR to be Evil.)

Hitting the wizard with the big damage is going to be the problem. He can resist forms of energy with spells (high resistance, protection from elements, even immunity), he can resist being targetted (mirror image, greater invisibility, displacement, project image), he can resist physical damage (stoneskin), and is ridiculously mobile (fly, polymorph, shapechange and all matter of teleportation). Sure, yeah, if you can somehow *surprise* the wizard, you can smack him around pretty hard (or not, depending on his contingency), but that's unlikely for a well-played wizard and not even the scenario we are looking at here. (Besides, if the fighter gets surprised he is in for a bad time too, if nothing else from the balor's at-will dominate monster ability.)


The point is that fighting classes retain their usefulness even at high levels. Especially when you consider them in a story context, not just the vacuum of an imaginary fight.Fighting classes aren't *useless* -- just that they are so dependent at the high levels on other classes that you are very often better off having another cleric or druid or some kind of spellcaster in the party than a fighter.

And in a story context.... well, the Fighter class has pretty unimpressive skills. There's... uh, well, there's Intimidate, the weakest of the social skills. Yeah. --That doesn't mean you can't have fun RPing a Fighter, just that he doesn't have the game-mechanical chops to contribute outside of fighting that many/most of the other classes do.

Desaril
2007-03-09, 01:19 AM
@tiercel- I see what you're saying about high DCs and overcoming SR. I also think that high-level wizards can be exceptionally powerful, but to assume that the wizard can avoid being hit is sketchy.

Also, there still is no response to the problem of multiple successive encounters (or multiple opponents). The wizard will run out of great spells before the fighter runs out of attack options. If the wizard is using metamaic, he's limiting his spell choices (quickened will only work on spells up to 5th level). If the wizard has time to prepare, then he will be able to cast all the defensive options you named, but it might be more difficult than you propose to get ready.

As to story considerations, I wasn't talking about skills, but about story. Fighters are often leaders, regardless of Cha or skills. Wizards are often loners, feared or misunderstood. That means the fighter may have intangibles that don't fit on a character sheet, but dramatically change a scenario. I readily admit that wizards could benefit from this as well, but typically they don't.

If a DM allows his PCs access to spells/equipment that make them undefeatable, the problem is with the DM, not the rule. I am a firm believer that the wide variety of spells, feats, and equipment are available to give spellcasters flexibility, but are not intended to be stacked together to break them. This goes back to my point that we cannot just look at this in a vacuum.

If we just flip through the book and see what's possible we get a funhouse picture of how the game works. The game is designed to be balanced not only by the rules, but by the DM. I believe the posters who find spellcasters are too powerful are allowing too much access to unbalancing spells, feats, and equipment simply because the rules allow it.

Jack Mann
2007-03-09, 01:56 AM
No, the wizard doesn't run out, not once he's past the lower levels. By the time he does (and the cleric and druid do), the fighter is out of hit points. Besides, the wizard can, generally, go and rest. The only time he can't is if there's something time sensitive, and in that case the fighter is in just as much trouble, since he's about to die.

Marius
2007-03-09, 05:30 AM
@tiercel- I see what you're saying about high DCs and overcoming SR. I also think that high-level wizards can be exceptionally powerful, but to assume that the wizard can avoid being hit is sketchy.

Also, there still is no response to the problem of multiple successive encounters (or multiple opponents). The wizard will run out of great spells before the fighter runs out of attack options. If the wizard is using metamaic, he's limiting his spell choices (quickened will only work on spells up to 5th level). If the wizard has time to prepare, then he will be able to cast all the defensive options you named, but it might be more difficult than you propose to get ready.

If you buy a greater rod of quicken you can quicken 3/day any 7th, 8th or 9th level spell. You can also buy any other rods of metamagic (extend, maximize, etc.) And if you follow the DMG guidelines he won't run out of spells, not at high levels at least.
On the other hand many defensive buffs are hours/level so he will have them on all day long and if they are not he can always use a rod of extend to make them last longer. And if he still wants to buff himself he can always cast "time spot" and buff himself while it lasts.



As to story considerations, I wasn't talking about skills, but about story. Fighters are often leaders, regardless of Cha or skills. Wizards are often loners, feared or misunderstood. That means the fighter may have intangibles that don't fit on a character sheet, but dramatically change a scenario. I readily admit that wizards could benefit from this as well, but typically they don't.

That is fluff, you can create a wizard leader just as easily as you can create a fighter leader. And sadly cha and skills does matter and even if the wizard doesn't have them he can casts many spells to be a good face man.
It's dumb to think that fighters are "better" than wizard because they can be leaders.



If a DM allows his PCs access to spells/equipment that make them undefeatable, the problem is with the DM, not the rule. I am a firm believer that the wide variety of spells, feats, and equipment are available to give spellcasters flexibility, but are not intended to be stacked together to break them. This goes back to my point that we cannot just look at this in a vacuum.

Sadly for you the non-caster classes depend way waaay much more on magic items that the caster class for 2 reasons: 1) Because casters can use their spells and 2) because caster classes can create their own magic items even if they can't "find them".
Unless you only give the party equipment for the melee classes in witch case you would be admitting that they need help.



If we just flip through the book and see what's possible we get a funhouse picture of how the game works. The game is designed to be balanced not only by the rules, but by the DM. I believe the posters who find spellcasters are too powerful are allowing too much access to unbalancing spells, feats, and equipment simply because the rules allow it.

That's the point, by RAW (rules as written) casters are almost godlike at high levels while non-casters suffer. I nerfed casters before and I'll do it again but that's a problem, I shouldn't have to do that. In any case you just admitted that casters are more powerful than non-casters so I think the argument is over.

Jack Mann
2007-03-09, 05:46 AM
Remember, kids, "They're better at roleplaying!" is never a good argument in a class balance thread. All classes are equally valid for roleplay. No class is better or worse (at most, a class may be more restrictive). It is just as easy to make a deep, interesting wizard as it is to make a deep, interesting fighter, as it is to make a deep, interesting bard.

The only time this argument is invalidated is when roleplay is enforced with dice rolls, in which case it generally goes to the class with the most social skills and skill points to spend on them.

Hallavast
2007-03-09, 12:25 PM
Remember, kids, "They're better at roleplaying!" is never a good argument in a class balance thread. All classes are equally valid for roleplay. No class is better or worse (at most, a class may be more restrictive). It is just as easy to make a deep, interesting wizard as it is to make a deep, interesting fighter, as it is to make a deep, interesting bard.

The only time this argument is invalidated is when roleplay is enforced with dice rolls, in which case it generally goes to the class with the most social skills and skill points to spend on them.
Ok. While it's true that "They're better at roleplaying" is not a good argument, I'd argue that "They have more roleplaying options" is a valid point. Not every class can adequately fit certain concepts. Most people think roleplaying is an abstract concept that can't be properly debated, because everyone's standards are different. This is partly true, but the DMG has outlined several points of contact that can be put down onto one of those nice Cut n Dry formulas that everyone seems to adore.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-09, 05:51 PM
Ok. While it's true that "They're better at roleplaying" is not a good argument, I'd argue that "They have more roleplaying options" is a valid point. Not every class can adequately fit certain concepts. Most people think roleplaying is an abstract concept that can't be properly debated, because everyone's standards are different. This is partly true, but the DMG has outlined several points of contact that can be put down onto one of those nice Cut n Dry formulas that everyone seems to adore.

No, I'm sorry but no. There are no classes that have more roleplaying options unless the class is built to deny options (ie: Non-lawful monks, non-lawful good paladins, and non-(partial)neutral druids) and even *these* can be homebrewed and changed to fit any specific concept.

You can define your character and his actions in any manner in which you choose. Hell you can have a character who is a cleric but calls himself a wizard, writing and prepares spells from a "spellbook" and whatnot. The mechanics remain the same (he prays and gets spells from whatever divine source) but what he does with them makes the difference.

Mechanics and roleplaying are entirely seperate. Roleplaying describes your character: his ideas, how he acts and how he sees the world. Mechanics describe how he interacts with the world via a system, but these interactions can be described via roleplaying however the character sees fit, so long as the mechanical result is the same.

Desaril
2007-03-09, 10:39 PM
@ Marius- I agree with your and all the subsequent posts that any character can be a leader or charismatic or fill any story component. But if you realistically look at the genre, that's not the case. Again, I'm not disputing what's possible, but what's likely. I won't deny that there is plenty of source material where the archetypical roles are altered, but they are rare. In fact, I specifically said that wizards could benefit from the same scenario, but that it is atypical

Also, it interesting that Marius responds to one part of my argument by explaining all the cool magic items that enable a player to break a wizard if you "buy" it. My point is that perhaps the DM should not allow the spellcaster to "buy" that stuff. If the point is whether the RAW alllow you to create an imbalanced spellcaster, the answer is yes. We all know that. So what. My point is that in any balanced game, the non-spellcasting classes can still contribute and are still important. Instead of complaining about how unbalanced spellcasters are, we should start exercising some restraint and incorporate the sense of balance the DM is supposed to provide.

Only when you start "creating" high-level wizards with access to everything do they shamelessly outclass everyone else. I believe that is because the designers built the game with DM balance in mind. It's like imagining that a 5 year old has control of the budget and using that scenario to say that the economy is screwed up. Sometimes, it's not the system, but the user.

greenknight
2007-03-10, 02:09 AM
Also, it interesting that Marius responds to one part of my argument by explaining all the cool magic items that enable a player to break a wizard if you "buy" it. My point is that perhaps the DM should not allow the spellcaster to "buy" that stuff.

The thing is, most Wizards will take Item Creation feats which allow them to make most of the things they want. And if that means the Wizard gets a little behind in levels, it won't make much real difference since the items should power the Wizard up, and the level difference should mean the Wizard gets a bit more XP (a challenge which would be appropriate for the higher level characters would be considered more difficult for a lower level character, and give more XP). So a Wizard can often overcome the problem of not getting the items the character really wants. In a party where the members include a Cleric, Druid and Wizard, nearly all the magical items from the DMG can be created, provided the DM allows them to exist at all.

A Fighter or Barbarian can't do that. If the Fighter is specialized in the Greatsword (for example) and the DM never gives out a magical Greatsword, then the character can't make one. And if he can't buy one or pursuade his spellcasting companions to make one for him, his combat prowess will suffer by comparison. A DM could favor this character by giving him/her/it exactly the items needed, but that would be unfair unless the DM also did that for every other member of the group.


Only when you start "creating" high-level wizards with access to everything do they shamelessly outclass everyone else.

Wizards automatically get 2 spells of their choosing (provided the DM allows those spells in the game) every level, according to the rules. The character can also copy from other spellbooks and scrolls, and it should be assumed that the character has had at least some new spells added to his or her spellbook over the course of several adventures. They would be of the DMs choosing, but they should represent spells which are commonly used in the DMs campaign, which are (presumably) useful in that campaign. By choosing the automatically gained spells wisely, and filling out the spell roster with spells gained during adventure, a Wizard should be able to outclass a non-spellcaster fairly easily even without magical items, unless the non-spellcaster has items which are ridiculously overpowered for the character's level.

Marius
2007-03-10, 06:10 AM
@ Marius- I agree with your and all the subsequent posts that any character can be a leader or charismatic or fill any story component. But if you realistically look at the genre, that's not the case. Again, I'm not disputing what's possible, but what's likely. I won't deny that there is plenty of source material where the archetypical roles are altered, but they are rare. In fact, I specifically said that wizards could benefit from the same scenario, but that it is atypical

Also, it interesting that Marius responds to one part of my argument by explaining all the cool magic items that enable a player to break a wizard if you "buy" it. My point is that perhaps the DM should not allow the spellcaster to "buy" that stuff. If the point is whether the RAW alllow you to create an imbalanced spellcaster, the answer is yes. We all know that. So what. My point is that in any balanced game, the non-spellcasting classes can still contribute and are still important. Instead of complaining about how unbalanced spellcasters are, we should start exercising some restraint and incorporate the sense of balance the DM is supposed to provide.

Only when you start "creating" high-level wizards with access to everything do they shamelessly outclass everyone else. I believe that is because the designers built the game with DM balance in mind. It's like imagining that a 5 year old has control of the budget and using that scenario to say that the economy is screwed up. Sometimes, it's not the system, but the user.

Greenknight already said what I was going to so I'm only going to add that I do think that the game is bronken and that is exactly why we are having this argument. While Sir Giacomo build is not useless it's not even close to the level of power that a caster can have and that sucks but many people don't believe it.
I allow my players to buy what they want but I've banned rods of metamagic in my games (I also banned spells and made some changes to the rules). But since my players don't even know how to optimize a character I don't bother too much.

Hallavast
2007-03-10, 08:29 PM
No, I'm sorry but no. There are no classes that have more roleplaying options unless the class is built to deny options (ie: Non-lawful monks, non-lawful good paladins, and non-(partial)neutral druids) and even *these* can be homebrewed and changed to fit any specific concept.

These examples are the ones to which I was reffering. And homebrewed rules don't really have a place in RAW discussions. Paladins must be lawful good. This is a roleplaying restriction, and it's a valid factor when considering balance. Clerics must be aligned similar to their deity/abstract concept. Barbarians can't be lawful. Monks must be lawful. If you change this flavor to fit better with what you want mechanically, then you're really not talking about the RAW any more.



Mechanics and roleplaying are entirely seperate. Roleplaying describes your character: his ideas, how he acts and how he sees the world. Mechanics describe how he interacts with the world via a system, but these interactions can be described via roleplaying however the character sees fit, so long as the mechanical result is the same.

I dissagree. I believe mechanics and roleplaying are intrinsically linked to each other. Mechanics quite often are designed to reflect fluff. For example, Fighters are supposed to be good warriors. Thus, they are given the best weapon proficiencies, good hit points, can wear whatever armor they want without penalty, and have the best BAB. The fluff is represented by the mechanic. If you change one, you have to change the other to be accurate.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-10, 10:54 PM
These examples are the ones to which I was reffering. And homebrewed rules don't really have a place in RAW discussions. Paladins must be lawful good. This is a roleplaying restriction, and it's a valid factor when considering balance. Clerics must be aligned similar to their deity/abstract concept. Barbarians can't be lawful. Monks must be lawful. If you change this flavor to fit better with what you want mechanically, then you're really not talking about the RAW any more.

Yes this is true in these small, certain instances but even then there is a *lot* of leeway given to the characters, nevermind your concept of what LG or whatever alignment *is* for these characters. A LG Paladin of Pelor is going to be a lot different than a LG Paladin of St. Cuthbert, while still falling under the "pious warrior" template, that even a fighter or cleric can catagorize themselves under without resorting to anything mechanical.


I dissagree. I believe mechanics and roleplaying are intrinsically linked to each other. Mechanics quite often are designed to reflect fluff. For example, Fighters are supposed to be good warriors. Thus, they are given the best weapon proficiencies, good hit points, can wear whatever armor they want without penalty, and have the best BAB. The fluff is represented by the mechanic. If you change one, you have to change the other to be accurate.

Ok, but what about the person who decides "I want to be a martial arts guy who doesn't have all of those weird monk abilities." And plays a streight fighter taking unarmed feats and whatnot. Hes got access to armor but roleplays a vow not to wear any, he can use any weapon but roleplays another vow to just use unarmed or whatever weapons. This can be done with nearly *any* class with only a few exceptions.

Can anyone tell the difference between a cleric and a paladin without looking at their stats? Both wear heavy armor, shields and weapons, devoting themselves to higher powers and recieving divine blessings that enhance their abilities to fight and heal. If you had a fighter who took two weapon fighting, archery feats and track and only put him in light armor how would you tell him apart from a ranger? If you took a sorcerer and gave him a spellbook that only he believed he drew power from and refused to cast spells if he wasn't able to study from it how could you tell him apart from a wizard?

As I said, you can roleplay nearly *anything* with *anything* mechanics are there to decribe what happens. Your there to describe what those mechanics are for.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-10, 11:12 PM
These examples are the ones to which I was reffering. And homebrewed rules don't really have a place in RAW discussions. Paladins must be lawful good. This is a roleplaying restriction, and it's a valid factor when considering balance. Clerics must be aligned similar to their deity/abstract concept. Barbarians can't be lawful. Monks must be lawful. If you change this flavor to fit better with what you want mechanically, then you're really not talking about the RAW any more.

A) A cleric can be of any good, so no role playing restrictions there, as long as you can choose your good(or ideals, by RAW)
B)There are different paladins/Monks for each alignment, and as ZekeArgo said, alignment and rolepalying aren't the same thing.

Hallavast
2007-03-10, 11:20 PM
Yes this is true in these small, certain instances but even then there is a *lot* of leeway given to the characters, nevermind your concept of what LG or whatever alignment *is* for these characters. A LG Paladin of Pelor is going to be a lot different than a LG Paladin of St. Cuthbert, while still falling under the "pious warrior" template, that even a fighter or cleric can catagorize themselves under without resorting to anything mechanical.



Ok, but what about the person who decides "I want to be a martial arts guy who doesn't have all of those weird monk abilities." And plays a streight fighter taking unarmed feats and whatnot. Hes got access to armor but roleplays a vow not to wear any, he can use any weapon but roleplays another vow to just use unarmed or whatever weapons. This can be done with nearly *any* class with only a few exceptions.

Can anyone tell the difference between a cleric and a paladin without looking at their stats? Both wear heavy armor, shields and weapons, devoting themselves to higher powers and recieving divine blessings that enhance their abilities to fight and heal. If you had a fighter who took two weapon fighting, archery feats and track and only put him in light armor how would you tell him apart from a ranger? If you took a sorcerer and gave him a spellbook that only he believed he drew power from and refused to cast spells if he wasn't able to study from it how could you tell him apart from a wizard?

As I said, you can roleplay nearly *anything* with *anything* mechanics are there to decribe what happens. Your there to describe what those mechanics are for.
I see your point. The only thing I would offer in answer is that the game is designed, mechanically, to encourage certain roleplaying options which are dependant on class. Technically, you could branch away from these class-specific roles, but why would you? Your fighter that doesn't wear armor or use weapons "just because" will have his ass handed to him fairly often. Thus monk is the better bet for your concept. Thus, the figher is "restricted", in a sense, to use weapons and wear armor. And if you don't want all the hokey monk abilities, the swordsage from Tome and Battle is more easily adaptable for your concept than the fighter.

Roleplaying and Mechanics aren't separate, so I wouldn't advise treating them as such.

Hallavast
2007-03-10, 11:22 PM
A) A cleric can be of any good, so no role playing restrictions there, as long as you can choose your good(or ideals, by RAW)
B)There are different paladins/Monks for each alignment, and as ZekeArgo said, alignment and rolepalying aren't the same thing.
Yes, but once you pick your god or your alignment you have to stick with it and abide by their principles. That is a restriction.

greenknight
2007-03-10, 11:49 PM
Yes, but once you pick your god or your alignment you have to stick with it and abide by their principles. That is a restriction.

This assumes that the Cleric never changes the God he/she/it worships. There are situations where a Cleric might choose to worship a different God (typically because of alignment changes), and as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules which would prevent the Cleric switching over (or even cause a problem). Logically, this would potentially mean the Cleric might access new Domains, and there might be a change in channelling positive and negative energy. As a roleplaying consideration, a DM might have a Cleric who does this suffer the wrath of his/her/its previous God, but again, the RAW seem silent about that.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-10, 11:51 PM
I see your point. The only thing I would offer in answer is that the game is designed, mechanically, to encourage certain roleplaying options which are dependant on class. Technically, you could branch away from these class-specific roles, but why would you? Your fighter that doesn't wear armor or use weapons "just because" will have his ass handed to him fairly often. Thus monk is the better bet for your concept. Thus, the figher is "restricted", in a sense, to use weapons and wear armor. And if you don't want all the hokey monk abilities, the swordsage from Tome and Battle is more easily adaptable for your concept than the fighter.

Roleplaying and Mechanics aren't separate, so I wouldn't advise treating them as such.

The reason why you would use something other than the "recomended" version is that you like the mechanics of X but the flavor of Y. Drawing from my previous example: you like the ease of the sorcerer spellcasting system, but you want to play a bookworm wizard. So you play your sorcerer in a way to mimic what a wizard does, but using the mechanics of a different class.

Or you could like the ranger mechanics but wanted to play a savage barbarian. You explain the favored enemy ability not by dedication and study of the creature type in question, but a bloodrage that overcomes you at the sight of their trails, leading to a fury when you encounter them allowing you to attack and damage them with greater ease.

Or a rogue who is played as a traveling healer and learned sage, who uses his intensive knowledge and study of creatures to strike their vital points to do harm while otherwise being an aloof yet altruistic citizen.

There isn't a limit to what you can do with any class. Just because the flavor text describes them a certain way does not mean you have to follow that in any way, shape or form if you've got something different in mind.

Hallavast
2007-03-10, 11:53 PM
This assumes that the Cleric never changes the God he/she/it worships. There are situations where a Cleric might choose to worship a different God (typically because of alignment changes), and as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules which would prevent the Cleric switching over (or even cause a problem). Logically, this would potentially mean the Cleric might access new Domains, and there might be a change in channelling positive and negative energy. As a roleplaying consideration, a DM might have a Cleric who does this suffer the wrath of his/her/its previous God, but again, the RAW seem silent about that.
Well, the cleric won't change his god everytime he comes across a decision that comes into conflict with his deity's ethos. He doesn't have the same ability to make decisions as, say, a rogue would. Thus, he is restricted.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-10, 11:55 PM
Well, the cleric won't change his god everytime he comes across a decision that comes into conflict with his deity's ethos. He doesn't have the same ability to make decisions as, say, a rogue would. Thus, he is restricted.

Or he could just dedicate himself to his own set of principals and never have to change them at all, or change them at his own whim and still remain in the right.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:02 AM
Or he could just dedicate himself to his own set of principals and never have to change them at all, or change them at his own whim and still remain in the right.

He could do that... but I wouldn't have any respect for the character. Especially if he breaks precedent on a whim just because it suits him. I personally wouldn't allow such a cleric in my game, but it is there by RAW so you do have a point.

However, a Paladin or monk can't really pull this crap. So they're still restricted.

Edit: Also, some of the spells a cleric can cast are based on alignment (which characters cannot change on a whim). Turn undead or Rebuke undead works similarly. Once you pick one you're stuck with it. Restriction.

ZekeArgo
2007-03-11, 12:17 AM
He could do that... but I wouldn't have any respect for the character. Especially if he breaks precedent on a whim just because it suits him. I personally wouldn't allow such a cleric in my game, but it is there by RAW so you do have a point.

However, a Paladin or monk can't really pull this crap. So they're still restricted.

Edit: Also, some of the spells a cleric can cast are based on alignment (which characters cannot change on a whim). Turn undead or Rebuke undead works similarly. Once you pick one you're stuck with it. Restriction.

Ok, now your just mincing facts and taking the small percentage of things that are restrictions. Yes, this is a game of classes and with those classes you get restrictions, but just because restrictions are there does *not* mean that they restrict a character if you build with them in mind, or if they fit your concept.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-11, 12:18 AM
Well, the cleric won't change his god everytime he comes across a decision that comes into conflict with his deity's ethos. He doesn't have the same ability to make decisions as, say, a rogue would. Thus, he is restricted.
And the stealthy rogue who hangs back and doesn't like to interact with people doesn't suddenly become the parties face. That is also a restriction. Restrictions are only what one makes of them. Really, a cleric's god is similar to a character's personality. Neither can be changed on a whim, and both restrict the characters actions somewhat.

And while they aren't separate, neither are they the same.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:20 AM
And the stealthy rogue who hangs back and doesn't like to interact with people doesn't suddenly become the parties face. That is also a restriction. Restrictions are only what one makes of them. Really, a cleric's god is similar to a character's personality. Neither can be changed on a whim, and both restrict the characters actions somewhat.

And while they aren't separate, neither are they the same.
True, but defying one's god is a bit more dangerous and meaningful than defying one's personality.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 12:21 AM
However, a Paladin or monk can't really pull this crap. So they're still restricted.

Paladins are very restricted by their alignment and code, no argument - provided they want to continue being Paladins. Monks aren't quite so restricted, because they can move on the Good/Evil scale and still be Monks.


Edit: Also, some of the spells a cleric can cast are based on alignment (which characters cannot change on a whim). Turn undead or Rebuke undead works similarly. Once you pick one you're stuck with it.

Characters can change their alignment through their behaviour. And in some cases, it could be on a whim (usually to do something particularly Evil, but it could be some noble sacrifice). In other cases, it might be a sudden change which is beyond the character's control. A classic example is of a LG Cleric who worships a LG God who falls foul of a Helm of Opposite Alignment to become CE. This Cleric would no longer be in step with the ideals of the LG God, and would choose some other, more suitable God. In the process, the character would lose the LG God's granted Domains, and gain the CE God's granted Domains. The character would also change from channelling Positive energy to channelling Negative energy.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:27 AM
Paladins are very restricted by their alignment and code, no argument - provided they want to continue being Paladins. Monks aren't quite so restricted, because they can move on the Good/Evil scale and still be Monks.



Characters can change their alignment through their behaviour. And in some cases, it could be on a whim (usually to do something particularly Evil, but it could be some noble sacrifice). In other cases, it might be a sudden change which is beyond the character's control. A classic example is of a LG Cleric who worships a LG God who falls foul of a Helm of Opposite Alignment to become CE. This Cleric would no longer be in step with the ideals of the LG God, and would choose some other, more suitable God. In the process, the character would lose the LG God's granted Domains, and gain the CE God's granted Domains. The character would also change from channelling Positive energy to channelling Negative energy.

Psh! Ok. If the cleric suddenly "changes his alignment" for whatever reason, he isn't going to change back to LG similarly on a whim! He needs to prove himself. You're not lawful good if you decide to commit mass murder for profit every couple months even though you're still a good person on most days. There's somewhat of a constant process of upholding lawfully good behaviour. You can't jump around in alignment whenever you want to without putting in some time and effort. Thus, it's a restriction.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-11, 12:37 AM
True, but defying one's god is a bit more dangerous and meaningful than defying one's personality.

Actually, it might be easier to defy your god as opposed to your personality. I mean, as long as the breach isn't to serious, the god doesn't mind and clerics are never perfect messengers of their Deity(esp. at lower levels), while your personality defines who you are(as it defines your actions). Therefore, I would frown on players acting contradictory to their personality, but minor lapses in regards to their deity's beliefs would be acceptable. If a player constantly defied their personality, I would probably rule that they had/ were developing a metal condition. After all, its harder to go against your personality than to break a law/guideline imposed by a separate authority.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:45 AM
Actually, it might be easier to defy your god as opposed to your personality. I mean, as long as the breach isn't to serious, the god doesn't mind and clerics are never perfect messengers of their Deity(esp. at lower levels), while your personality defines who you are(as it defines your actions). Therefore, I would frown on players acting contradictory to their personality, but minor lapses in regards to their deity's beliefs would be acceptable. If a player constantly defied their personality, I would probably rule that they had/ were developing a metal condition. After all, its harder to go against your personality than to break a law/guideline imposed by a separate authority.
You're oversimplifying. Generally, defying your god is more important than say, deciding you're more of a republican than a democrat after harboring socialist beliefs for the better part of your life. If you're a cleric, your god IS your personality (which also means your beliefs are, by definition, more important to you). A fighter's beliefs don't have to be that important to him. Thus it's a restriction.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 12:50 AM
If you're a cleric, your god IS your personality (which also means your beliefs are, by definition, more important to you).

Since when did that become a rule? The PHB allows the Cleric's alignment to be within 1 step of the God's, which means that there would be some cases where the Cleric's beliefs are different from those of his/her/its Gods. More to the point, for the Cleric to retain that different alignment, there would be times when the Cleric acts on those personal beliefs rather than the beliefs of his/her/its God.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 12:53 AM
You're oversimplifying. Generally, defying your god is more important than say, deciding you're more of a republican than a democrat after harboring socialist beliefs for the better part of your life. If you're a cleric, your god IS your personality (which also means your beliefs are, by definition, more important to you). A fighter's beliefs don't have to be that important to him. Thus it's a restriction.

That's not at all the case. It can be with some gods, but it doesn't have to be.

Hell, the basic premise behind clerics of Kossuth is that it's basically a sweet-magic-powers-for-worship trade.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 12:54 AM
Since when did that become a rule? The PHB allows the Cleric's alignment to be within 1 step of the God's, which means that there would be some cases where the Cleric's beliefs are different from those of his/her/its Gods. More to the point, for the Cleric to retain that different alignment, there would be times when the Cleric acts on those personal beliefs rather than the beliefs of his/her/its God.

The fact that the cleric is restricted by alignment at all is a restriction.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-11, 01:02 AM
You're oversimplifying. Generally, defying your god is more important than say, deciding you're more of a republican than a democrat after harboring socialist beliefs for the better part of your life. If you're a cleric, your god IS your personality (which also means your beliefs are, by definition, more important to you). A fighter's beliefs don't have to be that important to him. Thus it's a restriction.

Well, your overstating it. A god has a great deal to say in a persons life, but its not as if were dealing with paladins here, they have no official code of conduct. And, no, I'm not saying that they could do anything they want, but that they do have some freedom of choice here. And clerics aren't robotic copies of each other. Instead, I would say that the god is a major part of the characters personality, but not the whole package.

And if someone with no beliefs tried to play in my game, I would be pretty shocked. How many people do you know that have no important personal beliefs? Even thought they aren't important mechanically, they are important in creating a believable character, and I would say that is one of the most important part of DnD, for without a believable character, one can't latch onto it so as to make it grow and develop. A clerics beliefs happen to be somewhat set out for him, but he does get to choose what he want to hold as important to himself.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 01:02 AM
But... you can play a cleric of whatever alignment you want.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 01:05 AM
The fact that the cleric is restricted by alignment at all is a restriction.

The Cleric is restricted to one of the nine alignments, just like most other characters. That's not really a restriction. Think about it: There is no "Ex-Cleric" section in the PHB, but there is for Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Monks and Paladins. Each of those classes is restricted by alignment in some way.

Yes, there is a restriction on the alignment the Cleric has to be to worship particular Gods. Therefore, should the Cleric change alignment so greatly that he/she/it is no longer within 1 step of the diety he/she/it worships, it must be assumed that the Cleric simply changed the God he/she/it worships. But even in that case, the character is still a Cleric, and still has all the powers of a Cleric (it's just that they might be a bit different than they were before).

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:09 AM
Well, your overstating it. A god has a great deal to say in a persons life, but its not as if were dealing with paladins here, they have no official code of conduct. And, no, I'm not saying that they could do anything they want, but that they do have some freedom of choice here. And clerics aren't robotic copies of each other. Instead, I would say that the god is a major part of the characters personality, but not the whole package.

And if someone with no beliefs tried to play in my game, I would be pretty shocked. How many people do you know that have no important personal beliefs? Even thought they aren't important mechanically, they are important in creating a believable character, and I would say that is one of the most important part of DnD, for without a believable character, one can't latch onto it so as to make it grow and develop. A clerics beliefs happen to be somewhat set out for him, but he does get to choose what he want to hold as important to himself.
The difference is that the fighter doesn't have a powerful being or set of beliefs that gives him his power in exchange for service. If the fighter violates his personal beliefs, he still has the exact same set of skills. If a cleric opposes his own beliefs, he may face consequences that limit or alter his prowess. Thus it is a restriction.

Edit: Bears, I've already conceded that point, and I have a feeling you've already read my previous argument. Why put up this facade of coyness? I really don't even need to argue about clerics because the majority of you all are ready to concede that paladins are restricted by roleplaying.
RAW clerics aren't technically as restrained as that, but it is more than reasonable to come to the conclusion that they face similar consquences for betraying their beliefs. It would be a houserule, though. So I can't really argue. I have conceded this point on the previous page, but some of you have pushed the issue anyway.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-11, 01:16 AM
The difference is that the fighter doesn't have a powerful being or set of beliefs that gives him his power in exchange for service. If the fighter violates his personal beliefs, he still has the exact same set of skills. If a cleric opposes his own beliefs, he may face consequences that limit or alter his prowess. Thus it is a restriction.
I said a minor/medium violation, not a Miko-level one. Yes, there is a restriction, but the player must really want to change god for it to happen, because a god isn't just going to withdraw his support because the cleric acts up once. He might send a message, but remember that clerics are valuable, so as long as he stays in line most of the time, the god won't do anything to drastic for fear of alienating him.

Edit: And you keep bringing up alignment issues as restrictions, so you haven't really given it up.(Talk is cheap)

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:29 AM
Edit: And you keep bringing up alignment issues as restrictions, so you haven't really given it up.(Talk is cheap)
No, I haven't given it up because someone keeps pressing the issue. I've conceded the point, but then someone keeps taking it out of context. And I've only conceded the bit about clerics. My argument about paladins and monks and the like still stands.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 01:39 AM
If a cleric opposes his own beliefs, he may face consequences that limit or alter his prowess. Thus it is a restriction.

...

RAW clerics aren't technically as restrained as that, but it is more than reasonable to come to the conclusion that they face similar consquences for betraying their beliefs. It would be a houserule, though. So I can't really argue. I have conceded this point on the previous page, but some of you have pushed the issue anyway.

You don't appear to have conceded the point at all, not even for Clerics. One of your first statements in this post still says the Cleric is restricted by alignment. Yes, changing the Cleric's God does have consequences, in particular it might alter the Cleric's granted Domains and might change whether the Cleric channels positive or negative energy. However, the Cleric still has the full granted powers of a Cleric (just one which worships a different God).


the majority of you all are ready to concede that paladins are restricted by roleplaying

Yes, Paladins are restricted by their Alignment and Code. If a player wants to play a Paladin, then the character is expected to portray the character in a particular way, or most class abilities will be lost. But every stereotype has some mechanical issues which will affect roleplaying. For example, a single classed Fighter cannot cast spells (except through the use of a magical item or spell cast by someone else), therefore you can't roleplay the Fighter in the same way you can roleplay a Wizard (and vice-versa).

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:42 AM
Yes, Paladins are restricted by their Alignment and Code. If a player wants to play a Paladin, then the character is expected to portray the character in a particular way, or most class abilities will be lost. But every stereotype has some mechanical issues which will affect roleplaying. For example, a single classed Fighter cannot cast spells (except through the use of a magical item or spell cast by someone else), therefore you can't roleplay the Fighter in the same way you can roleplay a Wizard (and vice-versa).
Need I say more?

KoDT69
2007-03-11, 01:49 AM
So is our Fighter still trying to fight a Balor and win? Just wondering. I was just thinking that since all of the scenarios relied so heavily on magic items, why can't our fighter just buy a ring of quickened teleport, which would eliminate that whole mobility problem? :smallwink:

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 01:51 AM
So is our Fighter still trying to fight a Balor and win? Just wondering. I was just thinking that since all of the scenarios relied so heavily on magic items, why can't our fighter just buy a ring of quickened teleport, which would eliminate that whole mobility problem? :smallwink:
Because the magic item rules don't work that way.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:52 AM
So is our Fighter still trying to fight a Balor and win? Just wondering. I was just thinking that since all of the scenarios relied so heavily on magic items, why can't our fighter just buy a ring of quickened teleport, which would eliminate that whole mobility problem? :smallwink:
The Balor is dead. The original fighter shot him 5 times in the face, and the balor died. It wasn't a fair fight though. And some people think the Cleric could do it better.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 01:54 AM
Need I say more?

Yes. You need to concede the point about Clerics not being alignment restricted, because as has been shown, Clerics can be of any alignment and can change to any alignment and retain their full powers as a Cleric. If you want to restate your argument to "Clerics have alignment restrictions if they want to worship a specific God (or ideal, in some cases)", then I'd agree with you.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 01:57 AM
Yes. You need to concede the point about Clerics not being alignment restricted, because as has been shown, Clerics can be of any alignment and can change to any alignment and retain their full powers as a Cleric. If you want to restate your argument to "Clerics have alignment restrictions if they want to worship a specific God (or ideal, in some cases)", then I'd agree with you.
Ok. Let's try this. Clerics are not restricted by alignment.
"Clerics have alignment restrictions if they want to worship a specific God (or ideal, in some cases)"
Happy?

greenknight
2007-03-11, 02:18 AM
So is our Fighter still trying to fight a Balor and win?

The Fighter vs Balor is only a specific example trying to disprove a general argument, which Sir Giacomo originally stated as:


One of the prevailing themes in this d20 forum seems to be that even in core D&D3.5, the fighter, or even all non-full-spellcasting classes, are vastly inferior to the Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard from around mid-levels to level 20. This goes so far as the opinion, that by the time the characters hit the maximum non-epic level 20, the fighter can no longer meaningfully contribute to combat situations and typical CR 20 combat challenges.

The thing is, Fighters really are inferior to Druids and Clerics in particular because members of those two classes can do everything the Fighter can plus a whole lot more (they're more versatile). I'll go so far as to say there's really not much point having a Fighter (or Barbarian) after level 4. I will concede that a well prepared Fighter can make a significant contribution to combat beyond level 4, but so can a Druid with an Animal Companion (for example), or at higher levels, a Cleric. The only place a Fighter or Barbarian can contribute significantly more to combat is in a magic dead zone.

Wizards and Sorcerers aren't exactly a Fighter replacement the way Clerics and Druids are, IMO, but BWL has done a pretty good job of showing how their spells can render a Fighter type largely unnecessary. In some cases, someone might need to do cleanup damage, but just about any class can do that (in many cases, Rogues, Clerics and Druids would do the job just as easily).

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 02:21 AM
The Fighter vs Balor is only a specific example trying to disprove a general argument, which Sir Giacomo originally stated as:



The thing is, Fighters really are inferior to Druids and Clerics in particular because members of those two classes can do everything the Fighter can plus a whole lot more (they're more versatile). I'll go so far as to say there's really not much point having a Fighter (or Barbarian) after level 4. I will concede that a well prepared Fighter can make a significant contribution to combat beyond level 4, but so can a Druid with an Animal Companion (for example), or at higher levels, a Cleric. The only place a Fighter or Barbarian can contribute significantly more to combat is in a magic dead zone.

Wizards and Sorcerers aren't exactly a Fighter replacement the way Clerics and Druids are, IMO, but BWL has done a pretty good job of showing how their spells can render a Fighter type largely unnecessary. In some cases, someone might need to do cleanup damage, but just about any class can do that (in many cases, Rogues, Clerics and Druids would do the job just as easily).
So, are Fighters inferior to Rogues? How about Bards? I believe one of the main arguments was that fighters couldn't meaningly contribute to an equivalent CR encounter.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 02:33 AM
So, are Fighters inferior to Rogues?

Yes. The Rogue's typical role is scout/skillmonkey/sneak attacker, and the Fighter is vastly inferior to a Rogue in all three areas. If you want to measure the classes in terms of potential damage output, there are some builds where a Fighter can equal or even beat a Rogue, but that's not the only thing a Rogue can do.


How about Bards?

Again, yes. The Bard's primary capabilities are spell + music user/skillmonkey/knowledge, and the Fighter is inferior in all three areas.


I believe one of the main arguments was that fighters couldn't meaningly contribute to an equivalent CR encounter.

I think the main arguement was about class balance, which does not exist if a different class can do everything significant another class can and more besides. In the case of the Fighter, the class' most significant ability is being a Tank (being able to deal and receive significant damage in combat). Fighters have practically no other significant ability as a class. But both Clerics and Druids can do very well in the Tank role, and they have a lot of other things they can do as well. Therefore, Fighters lose out on balance to both of these classes at higher levels.


Happy?

MUCH better.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 02:42 AM
Yes. The Rogue's typical role is scout/skillmonkey/sneak attacker, and the Fighter is vastly inferior to a Rogue in all three areas. If you want to measure the classes in terms of potential damage output, there are some builds where a Fighter can equal or even beat a Rogue, but that's not the only thing a Rogue can do.

Well, can the rogue absorb as many hits as the fighter? Is the rogue's AC as good as the fighter? Does the rogue have the fighter's degree of control (like tripping, grappling, bullrushing, overrunning, and disarming)? And according to BWL, all smart fighters always out-damage rogues. So it would be safe to say they each have their strengths, yes?


Again, yes. The Bard's primary capabilities are spell + music user/skillmonkey/knowledge, and the Fighter is inferior in all three areas.
Again the fighter is tougher and hits harder.



MUCH better.
Thanks. I aim to please.:smallwink:

greenknight
2007-03-11, 02:56 AM
Well, can the rogue absorb as many hits as the fighter?

Who cares? That's not what the Rogue is supposed to do. It would be stupid to replace a Fighter with a Rogue, but it would be equally stupid to replace a Rogue with a Fighter.


Is the rogue's AC as good as the fighter?

At higher levels, it's often better, but again, that's beside the point.


So it would be safe to say they each have their strengths, yes?

Yes it would. Except that there really isn't any one class in Core which can completely replace a Rogue. There are at least 2 classes in Core which can completely replace a Fighter and do more besides. In other words, at higher levels a Cleric or Druid is just as good as a Fighter in combat, and their spells and class powers give them additional capabilities Fighters don't have. So not only can you completely replace a Fighter with a member of one of those classes, it would make the party more powerful overall to do so. Unless you want to put the characters into a dead magic zone, in which case the Fighter is better (but how often does that happen?).

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 03:02 AM
Who cares? That's not what the Rogue is supposed to do. It would be stupid to replace a Fighter with a Rogue, but it would be equally stupid to replace a Rogue with a Fighter.



At higher levels, it's often better, but again, that's beside the point.



Yes it would. Except that there really isn't any one class in Core which can completely replace a Rogue. There are at least 2 classes in Core which can completely replace a Fighter and do more besides. In other words, at higher levels a Cleric or Druid is just as good as a Fighter in combat, and their spells and class powers give them additional capabilities Fighters don't have. So not only can you completely replace a Fighter with a member of one of those classes, it would make the party more powerful overall to do so. Unless you want to put the characters into a dead magic zone, in which case the Fighter is better (but how often does that happen?).

I'd argue that all three classes from Complete Adventurer would be able to replace a rogue by virtue of trapfinding. It isn't the fighter's job to replace the rogue and vice versa. So how is the rogue superior?

Oh, and how is the rogue's AC higher? I'm genuinely curious this time.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 03:50 AM
I'd argue that all three classes from Complete Adventurer

Complete Adventurer is not Core.


It isn't the fighter's job to replace the rogue and vice versa. So how is the rogue superior?

The Rogue is far superior at the Rogue's job to the Fighter.


Oh, and how is the rogue's AC higher? I'm genuinely curious this time.

Because Rogues tend to focus on Dexterity, using Weapon Finesse for accuracy and Sneak Attacks for damage, so it's really not that difficult to get a high AC. And they are best off with light armor anyway, so it's viable not to wear any at all. Consider the following:

Dex +11 (Dex start at 16, +5 Inherent, +5 Level, +6 Enhancement - Gloves); Bracers of Armor +8 (armor); Monks Belt +6 (using 20 Wisdom, start at 14, +6 Enhancement - Periapt); Ring of Protection +5 (Deflection);

That's AC 40 right there, and a high level Rogue could use the UMD skill to boost that further with things like Barkskin, Haste, Magic Vestment and other spells. A typical Fighter will build Strength, and wear armor (limiting the benefit of Dexterity, and removing the possibility of the Monks Belt). Sir Giacomo came up with a very clever build which is arguably much better than the typical Fighter build, but even so, the character just doesn't have as much scope to improve AC as a Rogue would.

Rigeld2
2007-03-11, 03:14 PM
Also, Sir Giacomo's build gains AC, but trades off melee damage...
If youre taking damage that could be prevented by a high AC, youre typically in melee range. In Melee range, you need melee damage to even attempt to make bad guys look at you and fulfill the Tank role.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 03:34 PM
Complete Adventurer is not Core.

It still Exists. I wasn't aware we were talking strictly core. If you want to talk "core" I'd use the rules in the DMG to make a variant rogue class and just make a ninja or a scout.... happy? The rogue is replacable. Just like the fighter.



The Rogue is far superior at the Rogue's job to the Fighter.

I'm not sure I follow you. The Fighter is far superior to the rogue at the fighter's job. We haven't gotten anywhere. And besides, saying the fighter can only do one job is silly. He has the feat selection to do a lot more than just sit there in his mithral fullplate and trade melee hits with his greatsword.



Because Rogues tend to focus on Dexterity, using Weapon Finesse for accuracy and Sneak Attacks for damage, so it's really not that difficult to get a high AC. And they are best off with light armor anyway, so it's viable not to wear any at all. Consider the following:

Dex +11 (Dex start at 16, +5 Inherent, +5 Level, +6 Enhancement - Gloves); Bracers of Armor +8 (armor); Monks Belt +6 (using 20 Wisdom, start at 14, +6 Enhancement - Periapt); Ring of Protection +5 (Deflection);

That's AC 40 right there, and a high level Rogue could use the UMD skill to boost that further with things like Barkskin, Haste, Magic Vestment and other spells. A typical Fighter will build Strength, and wear armor (limiting the benefit of Dexterity, and removing the possibility of the Monks Belt). Sir Giacomo came up with a very clever build which is arguably much better than the typical Fighter build, but even so, the character just doesn't have as much scope to improve AC as a Rogue would.
Ah. So you're saying a rogue CAN have more AC than the fighter. Ok I'll agree with that.

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 03:39 PM
Dex +11 (Dex start at 16, +5 Inherent, +5 Level, +6 Enhancement - Gloves); Bracers of Armor +8 (armor); Monks Belt +6 (using 20 Wisdom, start at 14, +6 Enhancement - Periapt); Ring of Protection +5 (Deflection);

Whoa... okay then. That's:
Gloves of Dexterity +6 - 36000
Bracers of Armour +8 - 64000
Monk's Belt - 13000
Periapht of Wisdom +6 - 36000
Ring of Protection +5 - 50000

Also, you mentioned an 'inherent' +5. Do you mean a Manual of Quickness of Action? If so, that's a whopping 137500gp

So that's 336500gp spent there.

Now, if you replace the expensive bracers of armour with +5 Full plate, which is cheaper, you get an AC of +13 (8AC, + 5 Enhancement). +1 for a much more reasonable 12 Dex for +14. Then let's go with either a +5 large steel shield... that's an additional +7.

That's +21 to AC, and I've spent 50,000gp. That's less than the cost of just the bracers of armour +8, and the ending result is that it's beaten out both the rogue's dexterity-boosters and the rogue's bracers of armour.

Now, you can wear a belt over armour (DMG, pg 214). So anything you've done with the monk's belt or ring of protection can be done by the fighter as well. Basically, everything you mentioned sans the Dexterity boosts and bracers of armour can be done more easily and cheaply with a fighter just putting on full plate.

There are also amulets of natural armour, an Ioun stone, and a few other boosts that are just as usable for both. Or a fighter can go with an animated tower shield, which a rogue cannot replicate (a +4 Animated tower shield offers more defense, and still is cheaper with the armour than bracers of armour +8 or is on par with any of those dex boosts).

So basically, a Rogue needs a starting dexterity of 16 and to spend a lot more money than a fighter needs to gain an AC that's even comparable. The fighter can equal the rogue, spending next to no money, with a dexterity of 12 and full plate. Said fighter can then place his larger numbers into other stats, or afford more things with point buy.

Or in other words, a generic fighter will almost certainly have more AC than a rogue.

Just had to state that...

Marius
2007-03-11, 04:34 PM
That's +21 to AC, and I've spent 50,000gp. That's less than the cost of just the bracers of armour +8, and the ending result is that it's beaten out both the rogue's dexterity-boosters and the rogue's bracers of armour.

Ok try to build a 20th level fighter with armor and let's compare it with a 20th level rogue.



Now, you can wear a belt over armour (DMG, pg 214). So anything you've done with the monk's belt or ring of protection can be done by the fighter as well. Basically, everything you mentioned sans the Dexterity boosts and bracers of armour can be done more easily and cheaply with a fighter just putting on full plate.

Yes, you can use the belt but it won't work since the AC granted by the belt works in the same way as the bonus AC granted by the monk, so you can't get the benefit of the belt unless you don't wear armor or shields.




There are also amulets of natural armour, an Ioun stone, and a few other boosts that are just as usable for both. Or a fighter can go with an animated tower shield, which a rogue cannot replicate (a +4 Animated tower shield offers more defense, and still is cheaper with the armour than bracers of armour +8 or is on par with any of those dex boosts).

So basically, a Rogue needs a starting dexterity of 16 and to spend a lot more money than a fighter needs to gain an AC that's even comparable. The fighter can equal the rogue, spending next to no money, with a dexterity of 12 and full plate. Said fighter can then place his larger numbers into other stats, or afford more things with point buy.

Or in other words, a generic fighter will almost certainly have more AC than a rogue.

Just had to state that...

There's another difference, your fighters touch AC will be considerably lower than the rogues , while the rogues flatfooted AC will be lower than the fighter BUT the rogue has Improved Uncanny Dodge so it doesn't matter.

Jack Mann
2007-03-11, 04:35 PM
The rogue is better at being a rogue than any of the other core classes. The fighter is not the best at doing his job among the core classes. Indeed, he's utterly outclassed by classes that weren't meant to be primary fighters. And not by, say, the barbarian or paladin, the other primary tanks. No, he's outclassed by the cleric and druid, who were meant to be secondary tanks. That is why the fighter is underpowered and the rogue isn't.

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 05:34 PM
Ok try to build a 20th level fighter with armor and let's compare it with a 20th level rogue.

Um? I just made it fairly clear that armour is cheaper to boost than bracers of armour and dexterity boosters. Is a build really necessary? After all, the vast majority of the additions will be identical on both (Hey, they both have a ring of deflection!).

Not to mention, how much money is being given to play around with? Your average level 20 unit will not spend his entire wealth-by-level on armour class. That would make them both generally suck.

Basically, almost whatever you can do to give the rogue AC can also be given to the fighter. Who then gets full plate to replace bracers of armour, and enhancements thereto, which is far cheaper. I did, admittedly, forget about the style of a monk's wisdom bonus to AC from the belt, but the general point still stands. Not to mention that you'll need fairly high starting dexterity to come close to equal a fighter, who can (at worst) match your AC while having plunked his 16s or 18s in better places.


There's another difference, your fighters touch AC will be considerably lower than the rogues , while the rogues flatfooted AC will be lower than the fighter BUT the rogue has Improved Uncanny Dodge so it doesn't matter.

This is true; a rogue is much more likely than a fighter to have a good touch AC. A monk is also more likely than the fighter to have a good touch AC. So eh. The only fighterbuild you're likely to see that matches that is an archer-fighter, and even they tend to be in armour since it's way cheaper to go in armour, letting you spend your wealth-by-level on things that make you capable of doing something.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-11, 07:48 PM
Hi again everyone,

quite a few new posts in the meantime, although I have to say that I am a bit confused that neither have there been more comments on the original issue on the revised fighter build, nor have there been any comments on Greenknight's cleric build full of excellent stuff. Discussing fighter vs rogue ability or other classes (the rogue may well be the strongest class in the game alongside the bard in combat aspects etc) should be done in different threads.
However, there is one point which caused some new division between the "casters are better at the fighter in all combat, plus some more" supporters (BWL, Greenknight, Rigeld2, Marius seem to be among those) and the "fighters are as strong or even better in pure combat" (I seem to detect some support here and there, for instance Desaril).

The new division is: what are a cleric's drawbacks? (if there are any). Desaril was joined by Hallavast in saying that a Cleric HAS drawbacks, unlike the fighter. And I would go so far as saying that it is exactly those kind of drawbacks which draw back the cleric to a fighter's level (and below) in pure combat and limit the cleric's out-of-combat potential in such a way as to - including the fighter's vast combat superiority at low levels - balance those classes out.

Btw, I am still working on the challenge of a balor going first vs a fighter/fullcaster hero. With the telekinesis shutting down spellcasting, it likely comes down to pure defensive qualities and ability to retaliate. A rogue's and barbarian's ability to keep his or her DEX Bonus while flat-footed is key here (hinting why even those feat-poor classes are strong in comparison to pure spellcasters).

Anyway, on with some comment's on greenknight's great cleric build which shall at the same time serve as an example how the "flavour" text of the cleric class, plus how the entries on alignment and dependence on spellcasting lead to a lot of drawbacks.


I didn't want to do this, because even a Cleric built with Core Rules can come with lots of CHEESE. And high level Clerics are the worst. But since you asked, here it is.

Thanks a lot! Now the whole build is a great source of inspiration for other builds etc. even beyond core rules.
First some remarks on details of the build, which may stem from the lack of my knowledge how polymorph etc. exactly works (missed the FAQs on that, simply had a look at the SRD 3.5).
1) I laughed my head off about the notion that a true seeing on the disguised polymorphed devil cleric would reveal the true nature: a human cleric. Great stuff. However, polymorph any object changes you into the said creature, a barbed devil.
- how does one allow for smell and sound of its scales/devil hide alerting the ordinary farmers and their dogs what is going on? The disguise self effect only goes that far. So no escape from adverse social effects (DRAWBACK No. 1).
- if polymorph any object actually turns you into said barbed devil, you become a Lawful Evil creature. That's an alignment change and lets you lose your spellpowers presto (DRAWBACK No.2)
- the whole build revolves around solving an encounter/overcoming a challenge by combat (including some spells) and incredible buffs turning into a drastically differently aligned creature. It can be safely assumed that Boccob, a deity of sages, will see no sense in such a behaviour and simply refuse to grant the spells (if the cleric reveals in his spellgaining prayers his intent, which he or she should do, otherwise again: hello warrior-without-bonus-feats-and-simple-weapons). I admit that Boccob (otherwise described in the PHB as "a distant deity") may in some rare circumstances be moved to grant these kind of powers to one of his bookworm clerics. But this should rather be the exception than the rule. (DRAWBACK No. 3).
- some other thing I probably get wrong (since it gets spread so often in these and other forums), but, err...holy word cannot be cast by a neutral deity cleric, nor can dictum be cast. It's once again in the cleric description in the SRD:
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."
It may have been FAQed, but as a DM, I would certainly rule a good spell or lawful spell as being opposed to true neutrality. DRAWBACK No. 4.
- it is highly recommendable that the cleric does not change into a barbed devil for long. Otherwise, he is subject to summoning spells without save and SR :smallbiggrin: DRAWBACK No. 5.

Otherwise, the numbers add up impressively. I especially like the creature chosen in that it avoids the druid's problem of being only able to wild change into creatures that will impair it in its DEX bonus which needs to be that high to get first (a must have in high level play). Of course, now, if a druid feels it does not betray nature may use shapechange as well to turn into that creature (or a balor directly).
One area where the build lacks a bit is damage output (only around 22 per hit on ranged and 24 in melee sans power attack, which is far from a Czilla, owing to the equipment cost needed for the greated quicken rod). But, of course, the key remains the time stop/holy word combo (the latter I still assume works despite worshipping a neutral deity, but a neutral cleric without such a deity would get by in any case. Btw, the cleric would get deafened by his own holy word, since as a non-good creature he is affected).
If I were to play a Boccob-Worshipping cleric, I would truly try to prove the religion's worth and "a pen mightier than a sword" aspect of it by just using time stop and holy word and some coup-de-grace thing with quickened divine might/rightous might combo and a staff (Boccob's favoured weapon) to club the monster to death with CDG (and risking a fire storm with aforecast protection from fire).



All things considered, the Balor should go down very quickly.


However, the fighter likely beats the cleric a round or two in terms of how quickly the balor goes down.:smallsmile: True test of power probably comes in terms of defenses. Here, that strange turned-devil cleric of Boccob seems to have an advantage due to the higher (non-buffed) hit points. Hmmm.




Observations:

There's almost no risk for the Cleric in this approach, and aside from some Cold Iron sling bullets (which cost 1gp for 50), there's no real cost either. In fact, this Cleric gets a +1 Vorpal Sword and a +1 Flaming Whip as treasure which would not be obtained by the Fighter.


Weapons he cannot use without penalty (he has no proficiency in them). If he tries to sell those unholy weapons, a buyer will be difficult to find (the weapons look like a lighting bolt and whip of fire, so are easily identified and shunned). So it is no use getting the weapons (and trying to sidestep possible balor allies, but the cleric may simply use another time stop via the scroll).



The Cleric is significantly stronger than the Fighter, has almost as good a Dex score, much higher Wisdom score, equal Intelligence (except when buffed) and better Charisma.


The Intelligence thing puts one of the major powers of a cleric (the mind) at a disadvantage. A deity devoted to study of magic likely will not favour its super-high priest making him or herself more stupid. DRAWBACK No. 6



The Cleric's AC and HP are much higher than the Fighter's, and each saving throw is equal to or better than the Fighters (only Reflex is the same, like I thought it would be). If I wanted to, I could have increased the damage output with potions, but there's really no need for it in this case, and it's just extra expense.


However, I doubt that the damage output would be the same as the fighter's, plus the combat versatility is likely also not the same.



Thanks to the range of spells available, this Cleric could even kill a Tarrasque, which the Fighter would be completely unable to kill (no Wish or Miracle available to the character).


A fighter may have a wish left in a luck blade to defeat such a unique creature (equipment would need to be adjusted for that). Otherwise, the miracle of course is well used for such a thing.



And this Cleric has the means to secure many loyal followers. In addition, this Cleric has ways of detecting the Balor through spells, and staying undetected by it even if it does try scrying.


Which is actually derrived from its prime class ability - spells. So the cleric receives the highest utility by specialising on that (especially of a deity of sages), rather than boosting his combat ability and reducing a group's possiblities. And the ability to remain undetectef from scrying can be done by a magic item as well.



Overall, it comes down to what I've been saying all along – the Cleric provides everything the Fighter does, and a whole lot more.


THIS highly specialised cleric (able to use time stop and holy word, the most powerful spells in play) is the only one on par with the fighter in combat, as I have admitted before. If someone wants to play a different cleric (the majority of players, I dare say), he or she immediately falls behind.

Otherwise, I join once again Desaril and Hallavast in saying that such powers do not come as a free lunch. The cleric HAS drawbacks and IS more vulnerable in its prime power (spells) than the fighter (feats). That vulnerability stems
1) from class restrictions that the designers saw strong enough to include a category "ex-clerics"
2) from the dependence on a deity which is run by the DM. A "clever" player may try the pure "principles" route, but a similarly "clever" DM will then ask the player to exactly outline these principles, AND add those to the alignment restriction (i.e. the player will have to abide by the alignment as written OR lose his or her class abilities). Even if the player does abide by the alignment, then the DM will closely track if the core principles are also followed or not.
3) from the dependence on learning spells in a particular hour during the day which can be found out easily by enemies
4) from that wonderful passage in PHB "Background": "Most clerics join their churches..." So, clerics (even those without gods) are members of religious organisations which they cannot ignore in their proceedings.
5) Magic, as I have mentioned many times, can easily be targeted and countered/nullified by other magic and need special tactics to avoid AaO. In high-level campaigns, anti-magic means are abundant. A four-member-party of lvl 20 without even one non-spelluser is greatly biased and vulnerable to anti/countermagic tactics.
A single greater dispel at 20th level gets rid of 30% of all buffs on the cleric build (also of the fighter build, but the fighter has much less extra kick from such buffs than the above polymorphed/divinemighted/rightousmighted/divinefavored cleric). The "full caster rules" opinion seems to be so widespread and widely ignores that ALL classes use magic, only the full casters have it as class ability. Equipment makes up for a lot of it, giving in particular combat-boosting cheap weapons and armour to the non-casting classes. Fly, Teleport, Non-detection, 300-damage-per-round-furthering weapons etc. It's all there.

I guess BWL somewhere mentioned that the WoTC designers gave so many interesting spell stuff to the clerics because otherwise no one would want to play them. This unpopularity has a reason: clerics always were on a shorter leash of the DM than other classes (except, of course, the paladin), and this was preseved in DD 3.5.

Otherwise: thanks again for the great build, greenknight!

- Giacomo

greenknight
2007-03-11, 07:55 PM
I wasn't aware we were talking strictly core.

Then you should read what you quoted. Specifically:

Except that there really isn't any one class in Core which can completely replace a Rogue.

It shouldn't have been all that difficult to figure out.


If you want to talk "core" I'd use the rules in the DMG to make a variant rogue class and just make a ninja or a scout

That's only "Core" in the sense that House Rules are allowed under the Core Rules. But if you want that, I could create a variant Cleric class which has the BAB of a Fighter, d12 HP, the skill points (and trapfinding ability) of a Rogue, the ability to freely intermix both Divine and Arcane spells, and a bonus Feat every level. Oh, and just for good measure, the Animal Companion and Wild Shaping ability of a Druid and the Music and Knowledge ability of a Bard. That would completely replace all the Core classes (and would also be ridiculously unbalanced - don't try this at home!).


I'm not sure I follow you. The Fighter is far superior to the rogue at the fighter's job.

You've missed the point, but Jack Mann didn't. There's no other Core Class which can do a Rogue's primary jobs as effectively as a Rogue can. On the other hand, Fighters are matched at their primary job by Clerics and Druids at higher levels, and those classes can do other things as well.


And besides, saying the fighter can only do one job is silly.

Exactly what other role is the Fighter really good at besides physical combat (using the Core Rules, just so you don't get confused)? They don't get any class specific Feats other than combat Feats, and they only have a base 2 skill points per level (with a fairly weak list of class skills to choose from). They can gain other abilities through magical items, but again, other classes can also make use of those same magical items if they want to, and several classes have spells which make those items unnecessary.


He has the feat selection to do a lot more than just sit there in his mithral fullplate and trade melee hits with his greatsword.

Do those Feats allow the Fighter to cast spells? Find traps? Scout? Exactly what (besides physical combat) do those Feats allow the Fighter to do?


So you're saying a rogue CAN have more AC than the fighter. Ok I'll agree with that.

Thank you.


Whoa... okay then. That's:
Gloves of Dexterity +6 - 36000
Bracers of Armour +8 - 64000
Monk's Belt - 13000
Periapht of Wisdom +6 - 36000
Ring of Protection +5 - 50000

Also, you mentioned an 'inherent' +5. Do you mean a Manual of Quickness of Action? If so, that's a whopping 137500gp

So that's 336500gp spent there.

That's a fair chunk of change, I agree. But you notice that +5 for level I included in my post? What's the minimum level a character needs to get that, and what's the WBL of a character of that level?

Did you also notice that I mentioned a Rogue using Weapon Finesse for accuracy? The gold spent on Gloves of Dexterity and the Manual of Quickness improves offence (attack bonus), defence (AC), Reflex saves (making it unlikely area effect spells are going to work on this Rogue) and the many Dex related skills a Rogue has. So it's not only about making the character more likely to avoid attacks.

Likewise, the Periapt of Wisdom I mentioned serves several purposes, in that it provides AC, increases the character's weak Will save, and improves the character's Wis related skills (Listen and Spot being the two most important ones).

That still leaves around 130,000 spent on AC defence alone, which is a lot of gold, but personally I don't think that's excessive.


Now, you can wear a belt over armour (DMG, pg 214). So anything you've done with the monk's belt

Hold it right there. Yes, you can wear a Monk's Belt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltMonks) over armour. Now do me a slight favor and read up on the Monk's Belt and tell me exactly what AC benefit a character wearing armour or using a shield would get from it.


Or a fighter can go with an animated tower shield, which a rogue cannot replicate (a +4 Animated tower shield offers more defense, and still is cheaper with the armour than bracers of armour +8 or is on par with any of those dex boosts).

I'd agree that a Tower shield wouldn't be a good idea for a Rogue. But an animated Mithral Heavy Shield shouldn't be a problem, even if the Rogue isn't proficient in Shields (the armour check penalty is reduced to 0 by the Mithral). But I'd probably stay with the Monk's Belt, since it has a few added advantages.


Or in other words, a generic fighter will almost certainly have more AC than a rogue.

I really doubt it, especially since you're not considering the additional buffs a Rogue can get which I mentioned. Things like Barkskin, Haste, Magic Vestment and other spells (all of which the Rogue can cast using an item and Use Magic Device). Of course, a Fighter can get all that too (most likely cast by other party members), but if the Fighter already has an Amulet of Natural Armor, Barkskin becomes redundant, and magical armor doesn't stack with Magic Vestment, so the buffing options are more limited.

greenknight
2007-03-11, 09:15 PM
The new division is: what are a cleric's drawbacks? (if there are any).

It's pretty obvious for a Cleric - Magic Dead areas. A Dispel Magic or Mage's Disjunction might give a Cleric a hard time, although the effective Caster Level of a Cleric should help there.


I would go so far as saying that it is exactly those kind of drawbacks which draw back the cleric to a fighter's level (and below) in pure combat and limit the cleric's out-of-combat potential in such a way as to - including the fighter's vast combat superiority at low levels - balance those classes out.

Dead Magic areas are fairly rare in most games, and a magic heavy party would probably be very reluctant to enter one. They're also very dangerous to use even if the party consists of all Fighters and Barbarians, since they'd lose the benefit of their magical items, which might be needed if they are to stand a chance against monsters of appropriate CR.


With the telekinesis shutting down spellcasting

The Balor would need to concentrate on Telekinesis, which is a standard action, so this tactic would prevent the Balor from doing other things. And I'm not sure Telekinesis would shut down spellcasting, at best it might force a Concentration check.


However, polymorph any object changes you into the said creature, a barbed devil.

Not entirely, at least not for this usage. The character retains the original Wisdom and Charisma, and doesn't get any Supernatural or Special Qualities of the creature. The character's personality and alignment stay the same as well (at least, I can find nothing in the rules which indicates an alignment or personality change).


how does one allow for smell and sound of its scales/devil hide alerting the ordinary farmers and their dogs what is going on? The disguise self effect only goes that far. So no escape from adverse social effects (DRAWBACK No. 1).

Not sure about the smell issue. Do Barbed Devils have a distinctive smell, and if so would most dogs (or other animals) know what that smells like? And even if it does, would that be a Special Quality, none of which are given by the spell. As for the sound of the hide, it's natural armor which doesn't have an Armor Check penalty, so it shouldn't make any more noise than any other kind of natural armor.


if polymorph any object actually turns you into said barbed devil, you become a Lawful Evil creature. That's an alignment change and lets you lose your spellpowers presto (DRAWBACK No.2)

No alignment change, although because the Cleric now has the type of the Barbed Devil, that would make the Cleric detect as both Lawful and Evil.


the whole build revolves around solving an encounter/overcoming a challenge by combat (including some spells) and incredible buffs turning into a drastically differently aligned creature. It can be safely assumed that Boccob, a deity of sages, will see no sense in such a behaviour and simply refuse to grant the spells

Why would Boccob object to the use of Polymorph any Object, since it's a Domain spell? And why would a God of Magic and Trickery (they are both Domains for Boccob) object to the use of spells and deceit to overcome a foe?


if the cleric reveals in his spellgaining prayers his intent, which he or she should do, otherwise again: hello warrior-without-bonus-feats-and-simple-weapons).

You've somehow found the Ex-Cleric section in the rules?


I admit that Boccob (otherwise described in the PHB as "a distant deity") may in some rare circumstances be moved to grant these kind of powers to one of his bookworm clerics. But this should rather be the exception than the rule. (DRAWBACK No. 3).

One of the missions of a Cleric of Boccob is to push back the encroachment of Good or Evil (from Dieties and Demigods). A Balor would qualify as Evil.


holy word cannot be cast by a neutral deity cleric, nor can dictum be cast. It's once again in the cleric description in the SRD:
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

You've quoted it correctly, but haven't understood it. Good is opposed by Evil, not neutrality, likewise Law is opposed by Chaos. A Neutral Cleric of a Neutral God can cast any of those spells.


it is highly recommendable that the cleric does not change into a barbed devil for long. Otherwise, he is subject to summoning spells without save and SR

The Cleric isn't actually a Barbed Devil, and doesn't even get all the Barbed Devil's abilities. The Cleric would count as an outsider (unless the Cleric dies, in which case he's back to being a normal Human), which might be a slight problem.


Of course, now, if a druid feels it does not betray nature may use shapechange as well to turn into that creature (or a balor directly).

Shapechange is powerful, no question. I was almost tempted to give the Cleric a scroll of Shapechange and a temporary Intelligence boost just to get make use of it, but I decided a long term buff would be better.


Btw, the cleric would get deafened by his own holy word, since as a non-good creature he is affected).

I'm not sure if the spell is meant to affect the caster. Read Cone of Cold, for example, where the point of origin is the caster's hand. Does that mean the caster gets frostbite as well? Worst case scenario, the Cleric is deafened for 1d4 rounds, which is still better than being paralyzed.


If I were to play a Boccob-Worshipping cleric, I would truly try to prove the religion's worth and "a pen mightier than a sword" aspect of it by just using time stop and holy word and some coup-de-grace thing with quickened divine might/rightous might combo and a staff (Boccob's favoured weapon) to club the monster to death with CDG (and risking a fire storm with aforecast protection from fire).

It's up to you how you want to roleplay. As I mentioned in the intro, this is just a power build without any real concern for roleplaying, and I don't recommend anyone playing it that way.


However, the fighter likely beats the cleric a round or two in terms of how quickly the balor goes down.:smallsmile: True test of power probably comes in terms of defenses. Here, that strange turned-devil cleric of Boccob seems to have an advantage due to the higher (non-buffed) hit points. Hmmm.

Don't forget the AC, saving throws and spell resistance.


Weapons he cannot use without penalty (he has no proficiency in them). If he tries to sell those unholy weapons

Hold on now. The Balor's weapons are NOT unholy, once the Balor lets go of them. They are Large, but there are a number of weapon using Large creatures around who might want them.


a buyer will be difficult to find (the weapons look like a lighting bolt and whip of fire, so are easily identified and shunned)

They might be identifiable, but not necessarily shunned. They might even be items the owner would brag about (assuming the owner is willing to lie about how he/she/it obtained them).


The Intelligence thing puts one of the major powers of a cleric (the mind) at a disadvantage. A deity devoted to study of magic likely will not favour its super-high priest making him or herself more stupid. DRAWBACK No. 6

The intelligence loss is only temporary. Another use of Polymorph any Object could give the Cleric the intelligence of a Mind Flayer, for example.


A fighter may have a wish left in a luck blade to defeat such a unique creature (equipment would need to be adjusted for that). Otherwise, the miracle of course is well used for such a thing.

Again, it's cost vs reward. The Miracle costs the Cleric nothing except a spell slot (not even XP). The Wish would be a gold loss to the Fighter.


And the ability to remain undetectef from scrying can be done by a magic item as well.

But the item won't protect as well as the spell, and it costs lots of money (35,000gp for an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location) and (usually) a valuable item slot on the person using it.


THIS highly specialised cleric (able to use time stop and holy word, the most powerful spells in play) is the only one on par with the fighter in combat, as I have admitted before. If someone wants to play a different cleric (the majority of players, I dare say), he or she immediately falls behind.

You've also got a highly specialized and unusual Fighter build here. With a normal Fighter build (one focused on melee), a Cleric wouldn't need quite so many advantages. And most PC Clerics should be able to cast Holy Word, once they get to the appropriate level, which is the real core of this build.


1) from class restrictions that the designers saw strong enough to include a category "ex-clerics"

Where IS that category? I can't find it in the PHB or the SRD.


from the dependence on a deity which is run by the DM.

This is a God with the Magic and Trickery Domains, and the Cleric is simply making good use of both tactics.


from the dependence on learning spells in a particular hour during the day which can be found out easily by enemies

As is mentioned in the SRD:

"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."

You can't stop a Cleric from preparing spells just by interrupting the normal spell preparation time.


from that wonderful passage in PHB "Background": "Most clerics join their churches..." So, clerics (even those without gods) are members of religious organisations which they cannot ignore in their proceedings.

Most has never meant all, and an adventuring Cleric might take a sabbatical.


Magic, as I have mentioned many times, can easily be targeted and countered/nullified by other magic and need special tactics to avoid AaO. In high-level campaigns, anti-magic means are abundant. A four-member-party of lvl 20 without even one non-spelluser is greatly biased and vulnerable to anti/countermagic tactics.

My idea of the optimal party is 1 Rogue/Ranger, 1 Druid, 1 Cleric and 1 Wizard. The Rogue/Ranger is the non-spelluser, although technically this character could cast spells through UMD. There's also the Druid's Animal Companion to fall back on in the worst case scenario, although it wouldn't be as good as a Fighter.


A single greater dispel at 20th level gets rid of 30% of all buffs on the cleric build (also of the fighter build, but the fighter has much less extra kick from such buffs than the above polymorphed/divinemighted/rightousmighted/divinefavored cleric).

Worst case scenario is that the Cleric loses all magical buffs and has to retreat using Word of Recall. The Cleric can then rebuff and go back with different tactics if necessary.


The "full caster rules" opinion seems to be so widespread and widely ignores that ALL classes use magic, only the full casters have it as class ability. Equipment makes up for a lot of it, giving in particular combat-boosting cheap weapons and armour to the non-casting classes. Fly, Teleport, Non-detection, 300-damage-per-round-furthering weapons etc. It's all there.

Yes, non-casters can use magical items to give them at least some of the abilities of a full spellcaster. But the magical items often don't work as well as a spell, and the full spellcasters can use items too, giving them greater versatility. Which is the whole point I've been trying to make.


I guess BWL somewhere mentioned that the WoTC designers gave so many interesting spell stuff to the clerics because otherwise no one would want to play them. This unpopularity has a reason: clerics always were on a shorter leash of the DM than other classes (except, of course, the paladin), and this was preseved in DD 3.5.

Clerics have often been seen as healbots, and that was pretty much what they had to be in earlier editions. But since 3.0e, the Cleric's abilities have been improved considerably, so that's no longer the case.

Rigeld2
2007-03-11, 09:22 PM
1) I laughed my head off about the notion that a true seeing on the disguised polymorphed devil cleric would reveal the true nature: a human cleric. Great stuff. However, polymorph any object changes you into the said creature, a barbed devil.
- how does one allow for smell and sound of its scales/devil hide alerting the ordinary farmers and their dogs what is going on? The disguise self effect only goes that far. So no escape from adverse social effects (DRAWBACK No. 1).
Very minor, since all he has to do is recast PaO and turn back into a Human.


- if polymorph any object actually turns you into said barbed devil, you become a Lawful Evil creature. That's an alignment change and lets you lose your spellpowers presto (DRAWBACK No.2)
Theres nothing that says your alignment changes. Anywhere. In fact, you keep your WIS and CHA. Not a RAW drawback.


- the whole build revolves around solving an encounter/overcoming a challenge by combat (including some spells) and incredible buffs turning into a drastically differently aligned creature. It can be safely assumed that Boccob, a deity of sages, will see no sense in such a behaviour and simply refuse to grant the spells (if the cleric reveals in his spellgaining prayers his intent, which he or she should do, otherwise again: hello warrior-without-bonus-feats-and-simple-weapons). I admit that Boccob (otherwise described in the PHB as "a distant deity") may in some rare circumstances be moved to grant these kind of powers to one of his bookworm clerics. But this should rather be the exception than the rule. (DRAWBACK No. 3).
You make absolutely no sense here. What Good or Neutral diety wouldnt want the commander of a demonic army exterminated?


- some other thing I probably get wrong (since it gets spread so often in these and other forums), but, err...holy word cannot be cast by a neutral deity cleric, nor can dictum be cast. It's once again in the cleric description in the SRD:
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."
It may have been FAQed, but as a DM, I would certainly rule a good spell or lawful spell as being opposed to true neutrality. DRAWBACK No. 4.
From the Alignment section of the SRD:


Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos.
Why is any alignment opposed?


- it is highly recommendable that the cleric does not change into a barbed devil for long. Otherwise, he is subject to summoning spells without save and SR :smallbiggrin: DRAWBACK No. 5.
Hi houserule. Although, this situation isnt even entirely a drawback - it allows your allies to get you out of trouble.


Weapons he cannot use without penalty (he has no proficiency in them). If he tries to sell those unholy weapons, a buyer will be difficult to find (the weapons look like a lighting bolt and whip of fire, so are easily identified and shunned). So it is no use getting the weapons (and trying to sidestep possible balor allies, but the cleric may simply use another time stop via the scroll).
The Fighter has the same problem - theyre Large sized, which means he cant use them without the -4 innappropriate size penalty, which just happens to be the same as the -4 nonproficiency penalty.


The Intelligence thing puts one of the major powers of a cleric (the mind) at a disadvantage. A deity devoted to study of magic likely will not favour its super-high priest making him or herself more stupid. DRAWBACK No. 6
Not even to defeat the commander of a demonic army?


However, I doubt that the damage output would be the same as the fighter's, plus the combat versatility is likely also not the same.
Youre still set on the idea that combat is all about damage. Little hint - its not.


A fighter may have a wish left in a luck blade to defeat such a unique creature (equipment would need to be adjusted for that). Otherwise, the miracle of course is well used for such a thing.
Fighter has to spend money to do things like Mircale/Wish, Cleric just mems the spell.


Which is actually derrived from its prime class ability - spells. So the cleric receives the highest utility by specialising on that (especially of a deity of sages), rather than boosting his combat ability and reducing a group's possiblities. And the ability to remain undetectef from scrying can be done by a magic item as well.
See... a cleric can boost his combat ability and not really sacrifice and of his spellcasting power. Yay buffs.


THIS highly specialised cleric (able to use time stop and holy word, the most powerful spells in play) is the only one on par with the fighter in combat, as I have admitted before. If someone wants to play a different cleric (the majority of players, I dare say), he or she immediately falls behind.
Untrue. Gimme a few days and I'll put one up.


1) from class restrictions that the designers saw strong enough to include a category "ex-clerics"
... Yay? Doing something that "grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god" is so broad, its not really worth mentioning.

2) from the dependence on a deity which is run by the DM. A "clever" player may try the pure "principles" route, but a similarly "clever" DM will then ask the player to exactly outline these principles, AND add those to the alignment restriction (i.e. the player will have to abide by the alignment as written OR lose his or her class abilities). Even if the player does abide by the alignment, then the DM will closely track if the core principles are also followed or not.
DM adjudication has no bearing on a RAW discussion.

3) from the dependence on learning spells in a particular hour during the day which can be found out easily by enemies
Oh noes! People know that I might be vulnerable 1/24 of the time! Whatever shall I do?!

Cause, you know, the Fighter is never vulnerable. Ever.

4) from that wonderful passage in PHB "Background": "Most clerics join their churches..." So, clerics (even those without gods) are members of religious organisations which they cannot ignore in their proceedings.
Most != all.

5) Magic, as I have mentioned many times, can easily be targeted and countered/nullified by other magic and need special tactics to avoid AaO. In high-level campaigns, anti-magic means are abundant. A four-member-party of lvl 20 without even one non-spelluser is greatly biased and vulnerable to anti/countermagic tactics.
If you say so. I disagree, and I've played in a 4 Wizard party at 16th level.

A single greater dispel at 20th level gets rid of 30% of all buffs on the cleric build (also of the fighter build, but the fighter has much less extra kick from such buffs than the above polymorphed/divinemighted/rightousmighted/divinefavored cleric).
Actually, it gets rid of more buffs on the Fighter build - the Cleric has a caster level of 25, requiring the caster of the Greater Dispel Magic to roll a 15 or higher. Caster level on the Fighters buffs will not be that high.

The "full caster rules" opinion seems to be so widespread and widely ignores that ALL classes use magic, only the full casters have it as class ability. Equipment makes up for a lot of it, giving in particular combat-boosting cheap weapons and armour to the non-casting classes. Fly, Teleport, Non-detection, 300-damage-per-round-furthering weapons etc. It's all there.
Youre right - but the thing is, Full casters have thier spell list, wands, staves, scrolls, AND Misc. other magic items. Non casters have... Misc other magic items.


I guess BWL somewhere mentioned that the WoTC designers gave so many interesting spell stuff to the clerics because otherwise no one would want to play them. This unpopularity has a reason: clerics always were on a shorter leash of the DM than other classes (except, of course, the paladin), and this was preseved in DD 3.5.
Absolutely false. The reason is that in previous editions, Clerics were nothing but healbots. If you memmed anything other than a heal spell, you were doing bad things to your party. The 2 ways to fix this were 1) spontaneous heal casting (which they did) and 2) a better spell list (which they did). Doing both was a mistake.

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 10:44 PM
I pointed out in my second post about my error about the monk's belt.

My comment on the money spent was compared to the amount of cash a fighter would need to equal that. Namely, +5 Full Plate costs him slightly over 26K. That nets him a +13 to AC.

Your rogue has Bracers of armour +8, Gloves of Dex+6 (+3 bonus), a Periapht of Wisdom+6(+3 bonus), and a monk's belt (+1 to AC besides the Periapht). Those three items give your rogue a +15 to AC.

The fighter has spent slightly over 26K. You have spent, what, a digit more than that to get a very similar bonus from gear? Base stats can alter this as well, but this is the fighter not at all trying to boost his AC short of improving his default armour (I mean, if both the rogue and the fighter have 16s in dexterity, the fighter can mythril his armour).

And the Monk's Belt + The Periapht gives you a +4 to your AC, for 49K. A +5 Animated Tower Shield also costs 49k (+30gp for the shield itself), while giving you a +9 bonus to your AC. So if the comparison is 'a fighter cannot use his armour and a monk's belt, which is a pro for the rogue'... not really. Heck, +1 Animated Tower Shield gives you a +5 to AC for 9K, giving him 40K to go towards, say, a cloak of resistance for the save bonuses (And 15K left over for whatever he likes) while casually equaling the rogue's AC.

The fighter has spent a lot less of his money for either more or the same effect, armour-class wise. If the fighter spent the same amount of money the rogue spent on armour class, the fighter would have a much larger amount (as the rogue needs to spend a lot more to get the same effect).

Buffs do potentially alter things slightly. Of course, thus far, neither of the two can be effected by mage armour (Bracers/Full Plate). Of course, this takes consumable items or spell slots from the spellcasters - more money the rogue is spending to desperately try to match the fighter. The fighter coudl spend more gold and blow the rogue away, or not try and match him. Plus, if the rogue is expecting the cleric to magic vestment, then the fighter can get away with nonmagical full plate and match the rogue again.

Nevermind the occasional feat that lets him boost his armour class, which a fighter can afford to take while a rogue cannot as easily.

Really, a rogue can get a better touch armour class than a fighter. And if the fighter doesn't care, the rogue can potentially beat the fighter. But it's far easier and far more likely for a fighter to have the better armour class of the two. Base stats can change up the numbers a bit (For example, a rogue with an 18 wisdom) but that comes at the price of not placing said points into somewhere more valuable (Such as constitution, to not die). A fighter can just plunk on full plate with all his stats at 12.

Hallavast
2007-03-11, 10:56 PM
That's only "Core" in the sense that House Rules are allowed under the Core Rules. But if you want that, I could create a variant Cleric class which has the BAB of a Fighter, d12 HP, the skill points (and trapfinding ability) of a Rogue, the ability to freely intermix both Divine and Arcane spells, and a bonus Feat every level. Oh, and just for good measure, the Animal Companion and Wild Shaping ability of a Druid and the Music and Knowledge ability of a Bard. That would completely replace all the Core classes (and would also be ridiculously unbalanced - don't try this at home!).
Yes, but I have a justified precedent for my class. And the DMG also says to try to balance homebrewed classes to the other classes in the books. The ninja and scout are fine. If you just want to ignore them that's your choice.





Exactly what other role is the Fighter really good at besides physical combat (using the Core Rules, just so you don't get confused)? They don't get any class specific Feats other than combat Feats, and they only have a base 2 skill points per level (with a fairly weak list of class skills to choose from). They can gain other abilities through magical items, but again, other classes can also make use of those same magical items if they want to, and several classes have spells which make those items unnecessary.
Physical combat can mean a lot of things. Like mounted combat, archery, crowd control, and so on... A rogue has the feat selection to chose one of these things but not multiple ones. A fighter can do 2 or 3 of these jobs (thus adding to versatility).




you're not considering the additional buffs a Rogue can get which I mentioned. Things like Barkskin, Haste, Magic Vestment and other spells (all of which the Rogue can cast using an item and Use Magic Device). Of course, a Fighter can get all that too (most likely cast by other party members), but if the Fighter already has an Amulet of Natural Armor, Barkskin becomes redundant, and magical armor doesn't stack with Magic Vestment, so the buffing options are more limited.
Well, the fighter can do the same thing with potions, and at high level he can get his own UMD check to a respectable level if he pumps charisma and/or uses one of his many feats on skill focus or some such (since a lot of the DCs don't scale). Other than that, the fighter's mithral armor and a magic tower shield match up pretty well against a monk's belt, high dex, and bracers. They come out to about the same bonus (around +25 ac not including bonuses that are available to both builds <like rings of protection and ioun stones and such>). You still haven't convinced me that the Rogue is clearly superior to the fighter, but I won't discuss that anymore (at least not in this thread).

More on topic: has there been a scenario where a 20th level fighter can take on a Balor or any other 20th level monster or encounter? I'd say if the fighter can hold his own in a regular party, then it doesn't matter if the cleric can "do his job better". Since, you know, all fighters are supposed to do the same job, wield the same weapon, have the same stats, and are all named Bob...

greenknight
2007-03-12, 03:57 AM
Yes, but I have a justified precedent for my class. And the DMG also says to try to balance homebrewed classes to the other classes in the books. The ninja and scout are fine. If you just want to ignore them that's your choice.

Sigh. Let me say this again: the Ninja and Scout aren't outlined as a class in Core. Therefore, they are not a Core Class.


Physical combat can mean a lot of things.

Physical combat means Physical Combat. Yes, there are few different flavors, such as battlefield control, melee, archery etc, but it all comes down to using a weapon to do some kind of damage (which could be tripping or stunning the foe). A Cleric or Druid can do that, and their spells allow them to do much more besides.


A rogue has the feat selection to chose one of these things but not multiple ones. A fighter can do 2 or 3 of these jobs (thus adding to versatility).

AGAIN with the Rogue! Get it through your head - the ROGUE is not a replacement for a FIGHTER. The CLERIC and DRUID are, at higher levels. If you can find anywhere where I have stated that a Rogue is better at the Fighter's job, please point it out to me, otherwise stop this nonsense because you're comparing apples and oranges.


Well, the fighter can do the same thing with potions, and at high level he can get his own UMD check to a respectable level if he pumps charisma and/or uses one of his many feats on skill focus or some such (since a lot of the DCs don't scale).

Potions only go up to 3rd level, wands only to 4th level. Staffs can go to 9th level, but you'd need to emulate a class ability for caster level and ability score (unless you are prepared to accept the minimum values). But the most versatile use of UMD is to cast spells from scrolls, which does scale, and the DCs get fairly high. A Rogue has UMD as a class skill, so can have 23 ranks at level 20, with +2 Synergy from Dicipher Script. A 20th level Fighter can have 11 ranks, but that's cross class so it would have cost 22 of the Fighter's relatively few skill points.


I'd say if the fighter can hold his own in a regular party, then it doesn't matter if the cleric can "do his job better".

But in addition to doing the Fighter's job, the Cleric can heal, cast miscellaneous useful spells and turn (or rebuke) undead. And just by changing the prepared spell list, a Cleric can adapt to meet a changed situation within 24 hours, while a Fighter may need to hunt around for days/weeks/months/years to find the right magical items to overcome a particular foe.

Jack Mann
2007-03-12, 04:19 AM
The rogue could still hold his own in a party with, say, a scout. One isn't likely to outshine the other too badly, assuming the players of each is roughly equal in skill. Neither is blatantly superior. In some situations, the rogue is better, and in others, the scout.

Not so the fighter. While he can hold his own against a paladin or a barbarian, he simply can't compete with a cleric or a druid anywhere outside of an anti-magic field, assuming similar competence in players. He will continuously play second fiddle in his own primary role.

Sir Giacomo
2007-03-12, 05:14 AM
OK, I learned quite a few things about the rules in greenknight's posts, thanks! While I acknowledge now that the polymorph any object thing should work, I still am reluctant to agree to greenknight's and Rigeld2's notion that the cleric gains his or her power without drawbacks. They are there.

First, once again, post per post short comments of mine...



It's pretty obvious for a Cleric - Magic Dead areas. A Dispel Magic or Mage's Disjunction might give a Cleric a hard time, although the effective Caster Level of a Cleric should help there.
Dead Magic areas are fairly rare in most games, and a magic heavy party would probably be very reluctant to enter one. They're also very dangerous to use even if the party consists of all Fighters and Barbarians, since they'd lose the benefit of their magical items, which might be needed if they are to stand a chance against monsters of appropriate CR.

It's not the dead magic areas which are most often the problems of spellusers in high-level play. It is some monsters which can't be overcome with these tactics (golems come to mind) and, more importantly, other spellcasters (demons, dragons, full spellcasters) able to impair the major class ability of the cleric. If they are the BBEG, chances are that they have a higher caster level AND also some beads. They would then stop the Czilla tactics dead in their tracks because of a simple greater dispel magic (also quickened with rod of quicken if you like so they are free to wreak BBEG havoc in the same round). It is as in the old magic card game: cleric of the party casts around 4 buffs on the fighter, 4 buffs on himself, loses 4 buffs then to a single greater dispel magic by the BBEG. Who is then ahead?
Meanwhile, the fighter loses half his buffs, but retains his feats and magic items - which constitute 95% of his combat power, whereas the cleric loses around 40% of his combat power (see the above builds of greenknight and mine). Which again makes the Czilla not optimal.



The Balor would need to concentrate on Telekinesis, which is a standard action, so this tactic would prevent the Balor from doing other things. And I'm not sure Telekinesis would shut down spellcasting, at best it might force a Concentration check.


The balor does not need to concentrate if it decides to fire the telekinesis power all into a one-round effect. Such an effect can be firing up to 20 weapons onto any creature in range. These weapons (for instance, Greatswords) will do each do their weapon damage (with a chance of a critical, not unlikely for 20 attacks). A good thing the cleric has (if it is not dispelled yet) is the rightous might with the damage reduction, but still the telekinesis threat is awesome.



Not entirely, at least not for this usage. The character retains the original Wisdom and Charisma, and doesn't get any Supernatural or Special Qualities of the creature. The character's personality and alignment stay the same as well (at least, I can find nothing in the rules which indicates an alignment or personality change).


Well, for instance as an extreme case, if the spell turns you into a stone, you have 0 INT. This I would consider quite a vast personality change. Even if your INT is reduced by 2 points something happens to you. And the first sentence of the POA to me sounds rather obvious (but it appears the consensus seems to be on nothing changing but that which is explicity stated):
From the SRD:
"This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. " Big question is, what does the "except" imply? But I guess you are correct.



Not sure about the smell issue. Do Barbed Devils have a distinctive smell, and if so would most dogs (or other animals) know what that smells like? And even if it does, would that be a Special Quality, none of which are given by the spell. As for the sound of the hide, it's natural armor which doesn't have an Armor Check penalty, so it shouldn't make any more noise than any other kind of natural armor.


The name of the barbed devil comes from a certain property of the skin...:smallsmile: So anyone touching the creature will notice something odd is going on. And all physical traits definitely change with the POA, so dogs should smell the devillish flesh.
However, there is an escape route: bluff is a class skill of the cleric due to the trickery domain, so he could bluff (at an outrageous DC, however) to play over such a situation.



No alignment change, although because the Cleric now has the type of the Barbed Devil, that would make the Cleric detect as both Lawful and Evil.


Now this has me a bit confused. First you say, it has no personality change, now that the cleric should radiate Lawful and Evil due to its creature type? Isn't that a bit...contradicting? Even if the rules SEEM to make a distinction of creature type and alignment, it appears a bit too cheesy to avoid uncomfortable disadvantages.



Why would Boccob object to the use of Polymorph any Object, since it's a Domain spell? And why would a God of Magic and Trickery (they are both Domains for Boccob) object to the use of spells and deceit to overcome a foe?.


Well, you are correct. If it's a domain, it should reflect the mentality of the religion somehow. However, I guess in Boccob's case it was simply to use the trickery domain to grant the cleric of Boccob extra wizard spells, not because Boccob (a god of sages!) wants his clerics to cheat on others. But that is just my RPG interpretation, by RAW you are correct.



You've somehow found the Ex-Cleric section in the rules?.


Yep, here it is (SRD seems to be the same as PHB):
"Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description)."
It's funny how this gets overlooked so often, while a paladin always draws the flak...



One of the missions of a Cleric of Boccob is to push back the encroachment of Good or Evil (from Dieties and Demigods). A Balor would qualify as Evil.


Yep, should be true. However, if good is prevailing, the cleric will have to HELP the balor, possibly opposing his friends in an adventuring group.



You've quoted it correctly, but haven't understood it. Good is opposed by Evil, not neutrality, likewise Law is opposed by Chaos. A Neutral Cleric of a Neutral God can cast any of those spells.


OK, thanks.



The Cleric isn't actually a Barbed Devil, and doesn't even get all the Barbed Devil's abilities. The Cleric would count as an outsider (unless the Cleric dies, in which case he's back to being a normal Human), which might be a slight problem.


OK...why is it considered having the creature type, but not being actually that creature? That is what the spell says it does (see my above SRD quote on POA).



Shapechange is powerful, no question. I was almost tempted to give the Cleric a scroll of Shapechange and a temporary Intelligence boost just to get make use of it, but I decided a long term buff would be better.


Hmmm...not sure whether it is such a good idea to stay in that form for long. I did not just joke saying that over time, the polymorphed cleric gone devil could be the victim of a summon spell (of a lower level adventuring party, for instance :smallbiggrin: )



I'm not sure if the spell is meant to affect the caster. Read Cone of Cold, for example, where the point of origin is the caster's hand. Does that mean the caster gets frostbite as well? Worst case scenario, the Cleric is deafened for 1d4 rounds, which is still better than being paralyzed.


The Holy word has a radius, the cone of cold does not. So it can be argued that in the holy word case, the caster is in the middle of it (and definitely can hear his own word). So it's more like a fireball centered on the caster which also affects him or herself.
Now the thing that a cleric can worhip his deity but not have that deity's alignment appears odd to me roleplayingwise (but it's in the rules, I know). One of the drawbacks seems to be that that cleric then cannot use the purest attacks of that deity without some damage to him- or herself.
Now being deafened is not entirely without consequences (especially if the balor has some minions around), since the cleric can no longer hear someone sneaking up to him or her, and, more importantly, 20% of all spells cast afterwards with verbal components (allmost all) will fail. Now that is a big hindrance, I dare say, actually putting at risk the whole time stop/holy word combo if you are a neutral cleric.



It's up to you how you want to roleplay. As I mentioned in the intro, this is just a power build without any real concern for roleplaying, and I don't recommend anyone playing it that way.


Hmmm. Actually I do not think this build is cheesy or a non-roleplayable power build. That is because I think it has drawbacks, like any cleric has.



Don't forget the AC, saving throws and spell resistance.


Yep, they also get you very far, in particular the awesome saves. You have to buff, though, more than the fighter, which could be a drawback in defensive situations.



Hold on now. The Balor's weapons are NOT unholy, once the Balor lets go of them. They are Large, but there are a number of weapon using Large creatures around who might want them.
They might be identifiable, but not necessarily shunned. They might even be items the owner would brag about (assuming the owner is willing to lie about how he/she/it obtained them).


The weapons would radiate evil for a long, long time. And the new owner must really be powerful to brag about such items, since he or she incurs the wrath of the abyss. Most treasure comes from dungeons and creatures that are actually defeated and have no allies who can take revenge. A balor has...er had.



The intelligence loss is only temporary. Another use of Polymorph any Object could give the Cleric the intelligence of a Mind Flayer, for example.


You are correct. Once again, I would say that I would play a cleric of a god of sages differently. If he has the trickery domain and thus polymorph any object, it's more of a "philosopher's stone"-type cleric in my eyes, trying to turn lead into gold. But you are correct, the cleric can also try to be Czilla in some campaigns. Odd, but not forbidden by the rules.



Again, it's cost vs reward. The Miracle costs the Cleric nothing except a spell slot (not even XP). The Wish would be a gold loss to the Fighter.


You are correct. But Miracle is not exactly like wish which can be used by a mortal as he or she likes. It is the highest prayer granted in non-epic play, and, as such, very dependent on the deity's/DM's approval. (OK, many DMs like to twist wishes anyhow...)



But the item won't protect as well as the spell, and it costs lots of money (35,000gp for an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location) and (usually) a valuable item slot on the person using it.


You are correct. Escaping magical detection is more of an effort for non-casters than casters.



You've also got a highly specialized and unusual Fighter build here. With a normal Fighter build (one focused on melee), a Cleric wouldn't need quite so many advantages. And most PC Clerics should be able to cast Holy Word, once they get to the appropriate level, which is the real core of this build.


But...what do these clerics do before level 13, when they get holy word, and level 17, which gives them time stop to get close enough to a horrible foe to use it without risk?
And btw- is it really so 100% sure that a cleric/wizard stepping out of time stop 40 ft from the balor will automatically surprise it? It's probably like a teleport/dimension door within 40 ft of a balor. It gets a spot to detect you, and then initiative is rolled (likely once again goes to the cleric, since the initative and luck re-roll make it better).



This is a God with the Magic and Trickery Domains, and the Cleric is simply making good use of both tactics.


Yep, you are correct. It's pure roleplaying decision. If a deity/belief grants the domains, using them can be measured up to what they are for. For Boccob, they might have also chosen the knowledge and protection domains, but they have chosen trickery (as I said, likely because of the extra wizard spells).



As is mentioned in the SRD:

"Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells."

You can't stop a Cleric from preparing spells just by interrupting the normal spell preparation time.


Oh but you can. It's all written there in the last sentence. If he or she has to pray for a full hour, now that is easily disrupted (say, in the middle of the attack on a city, or in a dungeon or whereever). And if the first opportunity is not used (or is used but proves to be interrupted again), the cleric has to wait until the next day.
No escaping from this drawback, sorry.:smallsmile:



Most has never meant all, and an adventuring Cleric might take a sabbatical.


You are correct in that. However, a sabbatical means the church still has influence on him when they meet again and/or when the sabbatical is over. Highly likely by lvl 20 (when the cleric should be the equivalent of a pope or something). Now "most" in the context of the background text refers only to the age when clerics enter the church. THAT ALL enter a church is not denied here (and is made absolutely clear by introducing the non-chuch cleric, the favoured soul, at a later point non-core).



My idea of the optimal party is 1 Rogue/Ranger, 1 Druid, 1 Cleric and 1 Wizard. The Rogue/Ranger is the non-spelluser, although technically this character could cast spells through UMD. There's also the Druid's Animal Companion to fall back on in the worst case scenario, although it wouldn't be as good as a Fighter.


Yes, sounds like a good party. The rogue, due to the skills, is probably way more versatile than the fighter, and can even tank due to high AC and the immense defensive qualities of evasion and uncanny dodge. This thread, though, is mainly about BWL's notion that a fighter cannot contribute much in a four-member-party at lvl 20 and that the fourth member even should in all cases be a 2nd cleric, not a fighter. Which I think makes the party too vulnerable, and which obviously you think as well since you include a non-spellcaster.



Worst case scenario is that the Cleric loses all magical buffs and has to retreat using Word of Recall. The Cleric can then rebuff and go back with different tactics if necessary.


The cleric may have been hit by a dimensional anchor...but this would also bind the fighter with his helm of teleportation. Let's simply say that the fighter and cleric have both means of escaping. The cleric can quicken the word of recall with a rod, but risks an AoO, while the fighter will not be stopped by an AaO with his standard action. Both risk being the target of a greater dispel magic, with the cleric better off in that case since the caster level of the helm is much lower.



Yes, non-casters can use magical items to give them at least some of the abilities of a full spellcaster. But the magical items often don't work as well as a spell, and the full spellcasters can use items too, giving them greater versatility. Which is the whole point I've been trying to make.


Well, once more, the point I am trying to make is that the cleric does not get these high-level advantages without drawbacks. And that the fighter is balanced in that he ruled combat at low levels, having to protect the cleric at the beginning. By lvl 20, both are on par in combat (with the cleric only because of dispellable buffs), while the cleric has powerful out of combat abilities with drawbacks and more vulnerabilites. If you and Rigeld2 choose to ignore those drawbacks, I'd call that more houserule than including them.

- Giacomo