PDA

View Full Version : Defense, who needs it?



Thoughtbot360
2007-04-23, 03:49 AM
I was reading the Is Fighting Defensively a good idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32975) thread and I only got to the first reply when I found a post that I think is deeply insightful:


People like making "unkillable" builds and claiming theyre helping the party out with thier massive AC. I disagree. Sure, you have a huge AC. Youre not getting hit. What are you actually contributing in the fight? Its been said over, and over, and over... killing the opponent faster is better than preventing/healing more damage. If your uberAC build cant also do competitive damage with the rest of the melees, the bad guys will ignore you, making your uberAC build worthless.
Tanking your AB to raise AC (which is what most AC builds I've seen do) doesnt help the party unless theres a 5' hallway you can stand in. Even then, the bad guys can attempt to tumble past, only eating an AoO or two doing it.

-Especially on that last part, I believe this is true. In most MMORPGs, there is a little thing called "aggro" and what it is is basically an attempt to make AI seem smarter (if your mage goes spell-crazy, and heals/deals a lot of damage the monster will target you, which is a smart idea, why not kill the unarmored, low-hp mages and of course the healers first?) Basically, it makes high-defense builds (usually the warrior class) uniquely useful to the party (its where this myth about "tanks" started) in that if the casters can keep their nuking and healing at a slow, steady pace (so as not to attract aggro), the "tank" will take all the blows. WOW warriors actually have talents that raise the amount of aggro they generate when they attack, which makes their job of forcing the monster to hit them (the most heavily armored and hardest target to kill in the party, especially when the healer is focusing all his attention on that said tank) easier. Of course, Warriors that have spec'd for PVE (That is, Player Versus the stupid, stupid game Environment) combat suddenly find themselves gimped in a large-scale Player-Versus-Player fight (with human controlled opponents) a "tank" is at best, just a distraction (the same is true of Paladins in that game, sadly. Suboptimal melee to short-range damage and suboptimal healing does not a winner make). You cannot "tank" for anyone because smart players will just ignore you.

Which brings me back to tabletop D20 games where the monsters are also controlled by a player. He's called the DM. Maybe you've heard of him before. And the only thing really protecting a d4 hit dice wizard from an Ogre's wrath when he gets too out in the open is the DM's good will and generousity. Even if this isn't a "bad" DM we're talking about here, your puny caster should be smeared all over all but the most naive Monster's large-sized greatclub in such a situation. Is this fair? Of course, this is war and the Ogre'd rather not give you a chance to Scroching ray him. Elimating a diverse group of enemies can be best described with this simple algorithim:

Target's potential damage against your side - Target's hit points = Target priority. Therefore, in a fight with lots and lots of goblins and a few ogres, you should only pass great cleaving the goblins if their attack is really, really low per goblin or if those ogres are the type that like to really pull their punches. If the Ogres have formed a wall in front of the goblins, shoot arrows/throw alchemist fire/drop a sleep spell/tumble behind the ogres to shut down those Goblin archers/casters if you think their sheer numbers pose greater threat than the high hp Ogres blocking the way. Attacking the big one (the hard to kill target) is only a good idea if the big one is sufficently dangerous to warrant devoting to it.

Now, healing is very important after battle (unless someone goes down and into negative hit points and needs emergency care) and preventing damage is nice, but I think there is another primary use for protection spells that people overlook: some environments simply cannot be entered with protection spells and others like water breathing but you never know when or if you are going to need these spells and wizards only have so many spell slots (Sorcerers only learn so many spells, and would be happy to learn boring utility stuff if it weren't for this limitation.)

So we have two very good uses for healing/protection spells that don't neccesarily need to be cast during combat. But following Regold's logic, anyone who spends too many resources (prepared spells per day, scrolls for scribing into spell books, ability points spent in Dexterity/Constitution) in those abilites runs the risks of losing out on the more important goal of killing the enemy more effiecently than he can kill a party member. Fortunately, Clerics easily can have high AC and healing (and since the cleric is supposed to be healing or using a special x/per day attack -turn undead- healing is easy) but thats a lot of Scrolls/wands/potions for the other things. Also, some people have the perception that anyone who becomes a cleric does so as a favor to the rest of the party.

All this leaves me with one question.

Taking all of this in account, how far could a low defense (DR, SR, possibly AC)/low healing party go? Could they learn to cope with these short comings and develop new tactics for their survival? Could the DM cater to these weaknesses without snapping and saying "screw it" and siccing a super powerful monster on the party? And would a lack of healing basically turn a D20 game, universally heralded as a "heroic" game system, into a grim and gritty game?

ExHunterEmerald
2007-04-23, 05:39 AM
If someone can hold out defensively, they can save KO'd members of the party.

...other than that, I can't think of much unless you add some form of bluff check to try and force the enemies to attack you for whatever reason.

daggaz
2007-04-23, 05:55 AM
I think the biggest problem with AC tanks is that it removes the one key element from a melee character: tanking intelligently.

With an uber high AC, yeah, you can just wade on out there and try to hit things (albeit very poorly), and basically hope your DM will actually waste time trying to kill you instead of the cleric. The biggest problem here, besides the fact that you aren't doing any damage, is that you don't even need to think about tactics, and probably won't.

Best players I've ever seen took constant advantage of everything. Flanking, when to charge, battleground strategy involving placement, cover, and ground type. Perfect knowledge (and use of) AoO rules, as well as the correctly chosen respective feats. Heavy use of the long forgotten tanglefoot bag, deafstones, and other assorted trinkets that most warriors forget about. Battlefield control. Master of the 5-foot step.

As for the wizard, well he had better be able to keep himself safe for the most part. That really is his job, and nobody else is better at it. The cleric and the druid outta be able to hold their own. Rogues and bards? Please dont wade into the middle and get surrounded...

Sir Giacomo
2007-04-23, 05:59 AM
Hmmm,

one reason why many players prefer offense over defense is often the inclination of DMs to err on the benevolent side when player characters are attacked. Somehow the DM needs to keep the game full of suspense. If the dice of attacking bandits ambushing the players with arrows show several critical hits at low levels, this often means an untimely demise of the characters, with them being unable to do much about it. Result: everybody is unhappy, so most DMs will wing these rolls.

The problem is: subconciously, players will start to realise that high AC (in particular flat-footed) is not worth as much as high attack boni and options. Even initiative may get left behind for damage output.

More concretely: if a fighter player who took the combat expertise feat and tumbling up to cross-class 5 ranks, so he can add a total of 8 to AC (and suffering 9 from his attack rolls) will maybe not get hit, but likewise his comrades (even the skinny wizard with AC 14 with mage armour up) will survive the encounter. But they had more fun with the encounter since they "hit" more often and were able to fire off more offensive spells and were the ones who defeated the monsters.

So the only way for more defensive measures and higher AC (which, in my view, is WAY more effective and natural to take in order to survive in hazardrous adventures) is to be very strict as a DM with opponent attacks.

- Giacomo

Saph
2007-04-23, 06:03 AM
I think you're kind of missing the point. A character built to be "unkillable", with really high AC and nothing else, is pretty close to deadweight. No argument there. However, it's very useful to have high AC and defence in addition to having a high attack power.

Going back to Rigeld's argument, the main problem with it is that he assumes that killing the opponents in the first 1-2 rounds is always an option. Sometimes it isn't. D&D isn't just a tactical wargame, it's also an RPG. There are many, many situations where the "attack-kill!" approach just won't work, and even when it will work, the enemies are likely to get off the first shot on you. In these situations you want defence, not attack.

It's appropriate that you're using MMORPGs as an example, because that's a world where there really is nothing to the game except "attack-kill!". But a good D&D game is more varied than that.

- Saph

martyboy74
2007-04-23, 06:59 AM
Hmmm,

one reason why many players prefer offense over defense is often the inclination of DMs to err on the benevolent side when player characters are attacked. Somehow the DM needs to keep the game full of suspense. If the dice of attacking bandits ambushing the players with arrows show several critical hits at low levels, this often means an untimely demise of the characters, with them being unable to do much about it. Result: everybody is unhappy, so most DMs will wing these rolls.

The problem is: subconciously, players will start to realise that high AC (in particular flat-footed) is not worth as much as high attack boni (BONUSES!) and options. Even initiative may get left behind for damage output.

More concretely: if a fighter player who took the combat expertise feat and tumbling up to cross-class 5 ranks, so he can add a total of 8 to AC (and suffering 9 from his attack rolls) will maybe not get hit, but likewise his comrades (even the skinny wizard with AC 14 with mage armour up) will survive the encounter. But they had more fun with the encounter since they "hit" more often and were able to fire off more offensive spells and were the ones who defeated the monsters.

So the only way for more defensive measures and higher AC (which, in my view, is WAY more effective and natural to take in order to survive in hazardrous adventures) is to be very strict as a DM with opponent attacks.

- Giacomo

Depending on the level of optomization, that still may not work. At high-op levels, you're often dealing enough damage to one-shot a creature. If you look at the high CR creatures, the challange is either in overcoming insane DR/Regeneration, or just keeping up with the monster, because of it's mobility. There're very few high CR monsters that go toe-to-toe with you, without some huge compensating gimmick.

Bender
2007-04-23, 07:24 AM
...other than that, I can't think of much unless you add some form of bluff check to try and force the enemies to attack you for whatever reason.

In the Dragonlance campaign setting you have this use of the bluff skill. It's named "taunt" and Kender are very good at it. You throw the worst curses at you opponent, he/she becomes very angry, gets -1 to AC and AB and is very likely to attack you on his next round

This could be very useful if you play a very high AC Kender :smallbiggrin:

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-23, 08:37 AM
Goad. Races of Stone/the Wild. One of the 2, I think.

squishycube
2007-04-23, 08:46 AM
The OP is very much right about the things he posted. High AC and low AB makes you useless, unless there is aggro in the game.
Most DM's I played under do use some sort of aggro system. For as far as the creatures are capable they assess how dangerous each opponent is and go for the most dangerous one. For dumb creatures this is usually the character that hit it hardest.
Sometimes we faced a hit and run challenge where they simply try to take out the weakest party member and then run away.

Adding/using abilities to make people attack you can make AC-builds viable, but be careful because it can make combat very easy very soon. (In other words the ability should only work about half the time or less)

Olethros
2007-04-23, 12:15 PM
A ultra-high AC build is not deadweight if it is played intelligently, and if the party understands its place in the combat tactics. Im thinking of a monk that was in an adventure I played in a few years ago. The short fact was, he couldn't hurt things for anything, but nothing short of magic missile would touch him (eventually a equal-level wizard needed a 20 to hit with a touch attack). At first, we kinda thought of him as a wast of precious EXP split, but then we realised some very important factors.

1)Flanking. He was a flanking fool, he could auto-tumble anywhere, and didn't really have to anyway. Our Rouges loved this.

2)Aid other. When the ragging barbarian needs to hit to drop the BBEG, this was a very nice addition.

3)Threatening the Enemy possition. The fact is the Bad guys don't KNOW that the guy who just waided through the front lines untouched cant destroy them with the next blow, and this can be used to force the enemy into un-desierable formations/possitions. Never mind just possing a unhappy theat to archers and casters. Intelegently played intelegent monsters will not ignore an opponent in there backfield, who knows what he is going to do.

4)Trip, Disarm, etc. Already brought up.

5)Perhaps most importantly, He was a support character who was essentially never a drain on consumable resources. He didn't need potions, he never used up healing. With the exception of stunning fist, we didn't have to ever stop adventuring on his account.

To the other question of the OP.

In a dynamically run game where the tactics of intelegent monsters are varied and well concieved, I would not expect a High damage, low defence, Low healing group to make it past 3rd level unless the DM dumbed down all tactical experiences to fit into there strengths. If the DM runs IMO realistically, the party will fail, probly TPK, as soon as they face 2nd-tier tactics. Coordinated waves, terrain use, getting atact at night, effective ambushes, moving fights, will all spell doom for a group with no defence. Tactically speeking defence is related to "Staying power," and if you are forced to "stay" without it, you die.

Person_Man
2007-04-23, 12:48 PM
On the matter of "enemies can just run around the tank," I think that most DM's roleplay the enemies most of the time. An Ogre is just going to pound whoever is in front of him, because he probably doesn't understand the concept of magic. The same goes for mindless undead, animals, oozes, constructs, elementals, and many other common low Int/Wis enemies.

Also, most CR appropriate combats involving full casters only last 1-6 rounds. Assuming you have a tank (or summoned monsters) of some sort standing in front, stopping the enemy from attacking the fragile players for one or two rounds can make a huge difference.

Having said that, it's been my personal experience over the course of hundreds of combats that I almost never get killed in melee. If I'm in melee, its because I'm playing a melee build. If I'm not, then I'm in back somewhere, with an easy escape route (Dimension Door, Tumble, etc). If my melee build looks like he might die, I drink a potion of Invisibility and walk away.

So if I die, its almost always because of magic. So everyone needs respectable AC to avoid getting hit all the time. But in my opinion high hit points, Saves, Evasion, and Mettle are far more valuable. (SR would be even better, but reliably high SR is very difficult to come by).

asqwasqw
2007-04-23, 01:58 PM
If you play an all defensive knight, you can force your opponents to attack you, and if you have a high AC, then you will become less likely to hit. Defensive builds are also good if you do not want to kill someone, but do not want to be killed. Prevent them from killing you is a good idea. Sometimes, you can not have, kill or be killed, sometimes it is be killed or don't be killed.

Cobra
2007-04-23, 02:02 PM
Defense without aggro control or offense is indeed pretty worthless.

But it's not that hard to do both in DnD. A good tank with a spiked chain can guard a front 25' across. If he sacks AB to increase his AC with expertise, he can still make trip attacks since those are only touch attacks. In this way, a tank can frequently protect all the squishies in the back by simply tripping most opponents and preventing them from reaching the wizards and archers.

Tank builds can do a lot of other things as well. Flanking was mentioned. They can also 'soak' their opponent's AoO while they move into flanking position. This gives the other PC's a lot more combat options suddenly, assuming the opponent doesn't have combat reflexes. If the tank has mobility and elusive target, he is unlikely to get hit by the AoO, and may even trip the target for free.

It's also possible to have an excellent offense with a excellent defense. A full plate mailed cleric with a tower shield and a few defensive buffs can be pretty hard to hit, but can still dish out significant damage/effects with his spells. As long as the wizard makes himself not easily targetable (invis/flying etc.) the cleric will frequently be the optimal target, and thus his high AC will come into play a lot.

Matthew
2007-04-23, 08:13 PM
It's about balance between Attack and Defence, and being able to vary the group's melee tactics to meet the needs of the moment, as far as I am concerned. Combat Expertise and Improved Combat Expertise allow your character to trade AB for AC, but he doesn't have to, he just does it when its necessary. Going to extremes is fraught with dangers, regardless.

Person_Man
2007-04-24, 10:07 AM
It's about balance between Attack and Defence, and being able to vary the group's melee tactics to meet the needs of the moment, as far as I am concerned. Combat Expertise and Improved Combat Expertise allow your character to trade AB for AC, but he doesn't have to, he just does it when its necessary. Going to extremes is fraught with dangers, regardless.

You know, I've never actually seen anyone use Improved Combat Expertise. Have you? It seems retarded that Power Attack goes all the way up, but Combat Expertise only goes up to +5.

Also, I find that an AC of ECL+20 tends to be sufficient to cover most challenges, and if you can get an AC of ECL+30, you're basically unhittable in melee. If you stack enough small bonuses (Size, Dex, Armor, Shield, Natural Armor, Deflection, etc) its pretty easy to get into that range. A medium race with 16 Dex, +1 Mithral full plate, a +1 large shield, and a +1 amulet of Natural Armor has AC 26 for a very affordable cost, just using core only equipment. And that's before magic buffs, Combat Expertise, Tumble, class abilities, etc.

Also, asqwasqw mentioned the Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2). I'm a huge fan of playing a Strongheart Halfling Knight on a medium mount wielding a lance two handed and using an animated shield. Riding a mount divides some of your enemy's attacks, and Mounted Combat keeps your steed alive. Plus you have reach, which when combined with Hold the Line and Knock-Down, makes it insanely difficult for people to get to you. And the build synergizes well with Paladin or Hexblade, pumping your Saves to very respectable levels. Test of Mettle, charge for *2 or *3 damage, retreat, have enemies follow you, wait for other PC's to kill everyone off, rinse, lather, repeat.

Takamari
2007-04-24, 11:13 AM
I'm fond of the animated shield, shield specialization, shield wall, and a two handed weapon. I can still do insane damage and have a huge armor class. At high level, a figher type can have the AC of a cleric between his natural armor item and ring of protection. Equipment is a factor here.

My game master is very fond of killing us if our only tactic is punch it in the d**k. If we rush into combat without looking at the whole situation, we usually are in for a very hard fight. However, I've also noticed that levels 15+, unless your AC is 30+, you get hit. Period. The fighter has the hitpoints to soak some of that damage, the cleric probabily has that AC, the Rogue shouldn't be seen, and the wizard, by god, at that level if he isn't flying, invisible, with a displacement spell cast on him-for starters-should be able to pull through.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-04-24, 12:59 PM
I really, really, really dislike the concept of "Aggro" or something similar to be introduced into D&D. I think it is the DM's job to roleplay his opposition accurately, as personman said , not some "save or attack the tank" game mechanic. A smart opponent will quickly realize that the full combat expertise paladin in the full plate in front of him is a combat analog for a box turtle, difficult to kill but altogether unthreatening and given the opportunity pass him by. Similarly some less intelligent creatures, like pack hunters, would, given the opportunity, try to separate the weakest from the herd as a matter of instinct. However, other creatures would likely attack whatever was presented to them, while still others would simply try to escape combat with all haste. Using a mechanic to resolve this type of DM decision handicaps the DM and prevents him from crafting more logically coherent, intersting and fun encounters.

Sorry for the rant but I had to get that off my chest, its one of my biggest pet peeves about a few of the things I've seen developed for D&D in recent years.

Matthew
2007-04-24, 01:28 PM
You know, I've never actually seen anyone use Improved Combat Expertise. Have you? It seems retarded that Power Attack goes all the way up, but Combat Expertise only goes up to +5.
Heh, I have seen it in 'builds', but never in an actual game, but I don't play a lot of High Level (11-20) D&D, so I am not the best person to ask. I quite agree that the way this is currently set up is silly, but, then, I rather think the whole Feat system has been something of a Dead End for D&D.

I'm fond of the animated shield, shield specialization, shield wall, and a two handed weapon. I can still do insane damage and have a huge armor class. At high level, a figher type can have the AC of a cleric between his natural armor item and ring of protection. Equipment is a factor here.
Gah, fond of Animated Shields? Truly, I have the opposite feeling towards this (mechanically handy) item.

I really, really, really dislike the concept of "Aggro" or something similar to be introduced into D&D...
...Sorry for the rant but I had to get that off my chest, its one of my biggest pet peeves about a few of the things I've seen developed for D&D in recent years.
I understand and sympathise with this point of view completely.

Person_Man
2007-04-24, 03:46 PM
Gah, fond of Animated Shields? Truly, I have the opposite feeling towards this (mechanically handy) item.

I understand and agree with your distaste of the animated shield fluff. I often allow my players to use magical bracers or a cloak or something similar that costs the same amount of money and provides the same shield bonus to AC as an animated shield. In my games, it mechanically does the exact same thing (provides a shield bonus to someone with shield proficiency that doesn't stack with other shield bonuses but still has an Armor Check penalty) without being so visually stupid to picture. Hurrah for houserules!

Thoughtbot360
2007-04-24, 11:51 PM
Heh, I have seen it in 'builds', but never in an actual game, but I don't play a lot of High Level (11-20) D&D, so I am not the best person to ask. I quite agree that the way this is currently set up is silly, but, then, I rather think the whole Feat system has been something of a Dead End for D&D.


I figured as much after seeing as how everyone and everyone and their brother were claiming the Fighter (who's ONLY power is more and more feats) is considered the weakest class in the core books.

-Can I throw in a little quip here? Why does the Barbarian get more skill points than the fighter? I mean, conceptually, the Barbarian is supposed to be more of a "sluggo," in fact, Barbarians are either self-taught wildmen or warriors from a barbaric culture (apparently an illiterate one). Even though historians are finding more and more that the Western concept of a "Barbarian" was skewn by the Roman Empire (who damn well wrote the history books back in the day when they ruled the entire mediterrian) and in fact the word "Barbarian" basically translates "foreignor" and most "Barbarians" were smarter than we realized; the Barbarian class reminds me of a specialized type of Germanic/Viking warrior, called a Barzark (AKA Bear-Shirt or Berserker) that employed psychological warfare basically by announcing (via cutting himself) just how suicidal he is before charging fearlessly at a group of enemy soldiers with an axe.

A "Fighter" is supposed to be a lot more customizable, hence his many feats. But I percieve him to be a highly-trained professional. If there is any specialized warrior that kingdoms relied upon, they were fighters. Samurai? Fighters. Mounted Knights? Fighters. Urban Cohorts (Elite Infantrymen of the Roman Empire)? Fighters. Spartan Hoplites? Fighters (although 300 nearly makes them out to be Barbarians:smallbiggrin: ). 10,000 (or was it just 1,000?) Immortals? Fighters. Parthian Horse Archers? Fighters (come on, what other class can afford Mounted Archery?) Swashbuckling Pirates? Fighters (possibly some levels of Rogue, but I like to think Fighters.) Given enough levels, a Fighter can be all of the above.

If a Barbarian is a noble savage who's fighting style relies on a combination of willpower, intidimation, and just pure rage, then a Fighter is someone who was proffesionally trained in a specific (or perhaps multiple) fighting styles. Basically: the prototypical Barbarian learned how to wrestle crocdiles and tear his way out of traps and legions of cannibalistic wild humanoids just to survive. The prototypical Fighter learned how to fight because thats his lot in society, and he had a proud, complex military tradition to draw from. Having a few skill points or sexy class skills to show for it would be nice.

:roy: : Clearly, you must be the leader of the team. Perhaps we could compare tactical notes.
:thog: thog like breaking stuff.


(This isn't to say Fighters are hopelessly gimped vs. Barbarians-at least not nearly as they are vs. Wizards- but why do Barbarians get 4 ranks per level while Fighters get 2?)

Ponce
2007-04-25, 12:42 AM
I understand and agree with your distaste of the animated shield fluff. I often allow my players to use magical bracers or a cloak or something similar that costs the same amount of money and provides the same shield bonus to AC as an animated shield. In my games, it mechanically does the exact same thing (provides a shield bonus to someone with shield proficiency that doesn't stack with other shield bonuses but still has an Armor Check penalty) without being so visually stupid to picture. Hurrah for houserules!

That does sound rather delicious. :smallbiggrin:

In regard to the number of skills fighters get compared to barbarians:
Barbarians are meant to be a 'wild' class. As such, they are expected to live outside of lawful societies, to have an upbringing in an unlawful environment (probably wilderness). This is seen in their illiteracy. They are required to actually 'survive' in this wilderness, not just 'fight' in it. Hence, the ranger-esque skill list and decent skill total. Should the Fighter only get 2 skills per level? I don't know. Should the Fighter get less than the Barbarian? Yes, I think so.

If you are just talking crunch and balance, I would lean to agree that fighters would be helped with a few extra skill points, and that they probably deserve it.

Epiphanis
2007-04-25, 07:33 AM
As with so much else in D&D, the value of defense is situational.

Obviously, the Goad feat and Knight's Challenge class ability were created to address precisely the problem presented here, to effectively "get aggro" to protect lower-AC teammates. They work well for what they do.

PH2 introduced several other feats to assist this purpose less directly. Hindering Opportunist and Stalwart Defense at middle levels, and Defensive Sweep and Overwhelming Assault at the high end, make it difficult if not impossible to ignore you while you stand adjacent to a more attractive "soft target" teammate like a wizard.

The "adjacent bodyguard" is difficult to ignore even without the aforementioned feats. A 5-foot step will allow you to attack any non-reach melee opponent threatening your ward. If your ward is not currently threatened, you can ready a 5-foot step and attack on any non-reach meleer who moves adjacent to your ward.

Depending on the angle an approaching attacker is moving, you can interrupt his move/charge and prevent him from coming into reach of your ward in the first place -- you've intercepted him. Narrow corridors and corners make an interception easier to pull off.

A readied 5ft step and attack can prevent the previously intercepted opponent from advancing directly to your ward -- the opponent will have to go the long way around or lose a move action (unless they attempt an Overrun, but again, they can't ignore you!). Against most opponents you should be able to pull this off once before they wise up. Even if he is wise to the tactic, you will be able to get in at least one more attack against him before he reaches your ward.

The adjacent bodyguard isn't that effective against ranged or reach opponents and leaves both bodyguard and ward targetable by Area of Effect attacks, but it is often very useful.

Pocket lint
2007-04-25, 07:49 AM
The basic meh for the fighter class as far as I'm concerned is their skill list. I usually play humans with at least 14 int, so the class skill points aren't that big a concern. But the selection just isn't any fun.

Playing defensively can be very efficient during the fairly common dungeon crawl, especially if you're fighting large creatures. Two fighters can easily block a 20' wide corridor completely, 40' if the monsters want to avoid AoO. And that's when combat expertise is very nice for area denial to the casters/archers in the back. Not to mention when you're trying to get inside a monster's reach - those extra few points of AC can save you a world of hurt when going up against a large monster with Combat Reflexes and a polearm.

Not to mention, simply thumbing your nose at the big evil monster is *fun* - AC 32 at level 9...

Matthew
2007-04-27, 07:17 AM
I figured as much after seeing as how everyone and everyone and their brother were claiming the Fighter (who's ONLY power is more and more feats) is considered the weakest class in the core books.
Yeah, it's a strange situation. Feats were supposed to provide 'customisation', but it seems that, compared to Class Features, only a handful are worth anything, and very few of those can even begin to compare to Magic.


-Can I throw in a little quip here? Why does the Barbarian get more skill points than the fighter? I mean, conceptually, the Barbarian is supposed to be more of a "sluggo," in fact, Barbarians are either self-taught wildmen or warriors from a barbaric culture (apparently an illiterate one). Even though historians are finding more and more that the Western concept of a "Barbarian" was skewn by the Roman Empire (who damn well wrote the history books back in the day when they ruled the entire mediterrian) and in fact the word "Barbarian" basically translates "foreignor" and most "Barbarians" were smarter than we realized; the Barbarian class reminds me of a specialized type of Germanic/Viking warrior, called a Barzark (AKA Bear-Shirt or Berserker) that employed psychological warfare basically by announcing (via cutting himself) just how suicidal he is before charging fearlessly at a group of enemy soldiers with an axe.
A "Fighter" is supposed to be a lot more customizable, hence his many feats. But I percieve him to be a highly-trained professional. If there is any specialized warrior that kingdoms relied upon, they were fighters. Samurai? Fighters. Mounted Knights? Fighters. Urban Cohorts (Elite Infantrymen of the Roman Empire)? Fighters. Spartan Hoplites? Fighters (although 300 nearly makes them out to be Barbarians:smallbiggrin: ). 10,000 (or was it just 1,000?) Immortals? Fighters. Parthian Horse Archers? Fighters (come on, what other class can afford Mounted Archery?) Swashbuckling Pirates? Fighters (possibly some levels of Rogue, but I like to think Fighters.) Given enough levels, a Fighter can be all of the above.
If a Barbarian is a noble savage who's fighting style relies on a combination of willpower, intidimation, and just pure rage, then a Fighter is someone who was proffesionally trained in a specific (or perhaps multiple) fighting styles. Basically: the prototypical Barbarian learned how to wrestle crocdiles and tear his way out of traps and legions of cannibalistic wild humanoids just to survive. The prototypical Fighter learned how to fight because thats his lot in society, and he had a proud, complex military tradition to draw from. Having a few skill points or sexy class skills to show for it would be nice.

I quite agree, though I should point out that the majority would actually be 'Warriors', rather than actually Fighters. The Barbarian Base Class is obviously modelled on some sort of 'Berserker' fused with the concept of the 'Noble Savage' archetype. The (A)D&D 2.x Complete Barbarians' Handbook and (A)D&D 1.x Unearthed Arcana are mostly responsible.

In terms of explanations for Skill Points, I think of it a bit like this:

Ranger = (Fighter + Rogue + Druid)/X
Barbarian = (Fighter + Ranger)/X

Frankly, the 'Levelling Up' Feat and Skill Point Systems and inequalities cannot be solved through giving a few more Skill Points to the Fighter or a minor adjustment here and there. At the core of the problem is the Class and Level System, but these are also some of the most attractive parts of D&D, indeed, they are at its heart.
In my opinion most Classes need to be more heavily 'front loaded', but at the same time deny these benefits to Multi Classing. The precedent exists in the 4 x Skill Point Mechanic, but has not been further explored.

At the moment we're at a Half Way House between Character Points and Archetypes. I would imagine introducing the former would be quite unpopular, as it doesn't lend itself very well to a rigid rules structure.

Gamebird
2007-04-27, 09:29 AM
Why does the Barbarian get more skill points than the fighter?

Three possible reasons:
1) Class balance. Barbarians didn't get enough of something else to balance them with other melee types (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin), so the game designers bumped their skills to compensate.

2) Combo-class. Barbarians are sort of like a Fighter crossed with a Ranger, so we run their skills the same way.

3) Nature lovers. The designers of D&D are suckered in by the same stupid stereotypes we see in real life, where people idolize the noble savage and the forces of nature as being not only morally superior to civilization but more capable, wiser and well learned. Thus, most nature-based classes are disproportionately skilled compared to civilized classes (the only exception being the rogue).

I think you can give lip service to #1 and #2, but #3 is the real reason. It's funny how hillbillies and backwoods bumpkins are poster-children for stupidity and ignorance in the US society, but a native/indiginous person or a primitive tribesman is imagined to be a virtuous conservationist. I remember a friend of mine in college (who had totally bought into the "noble savage Native American" thing) telling me he'd heard a professor talking some BS about Aztecs eating people. He was pretty shocked and dismayed to discover the majority of some Native American religions was based on cannibalism and the majority of their agriculture was based on draining the land to uselessness and then abandoning it to recover on its own. Thousands of buffalo were driven off cliffs and killed so a score or so of them could be eaten... the great plains were formed by Indians burning off the prairie so they could drive herds into kill-traps... Just about every real world example of primitive people reveals them to be (gasp!) primitive. Yet the game designers of D&D are no more immune than the rest of us to the fantasy that primitive, ignorant folk must have something going for them.