Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters [Archive]

View Full Version : Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Lans

2017-06-22, 02:42 AM

Because this didn't get resolved in the manner that I wanted too and its been a few days

In theory and in practice, it remains equally true that the build with which I was presented was categorically incapable of fighting a pit fiend. Hells, I even got someone to try to play the build against a pit fiend just to check that it wouldn't work (it didn't).

Now we talk. It would be interesting to compare your players build with my players build and go from there.
The build was this

https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1223270 minus everything that wasn't a weapon or something that enhanced damage or accuracy , and I gave it all 18s because it was a thought experiment off of jormengand wanting to see a core fighter that could kill a pit fiend.
They got really uptight about using all 18s for what looked to be a thought experiment so I changed it to stats that I rolled once. It only had attack and damage things because it wasn't meant to be a complete character, just one that dished out enough damage.

He's been following me from thread to thread, insisting that everyone from PF paladins to 3.5 core fighters are good, because they can do almost (but not quite) enough damage to kill things, if they roll straight 18s and are loaded up with arrows with all possible subtypebanes for the target in question, which is why high-level outsiders are no match for the wrath of a fighter, apparently. It's all very strange. I believe you are confusing him with me, and I don't think I said that fighters are good. I might of said passable.

It's less "This doesn't mean anything when wizard does..." and more "No, seriously, this doesn't do enough damage to kill it." Like, I'm talking about what actual people do in actual games, which is why I've said that about seven times this thread already.

You never responded to when I pointed out your math was wrong, you had rolls of AC values missing, and that it did enough damage to kill the pit fiend with an average attack.

Can you do me the favor and actually post the build or at least a stub?

Edit: As you evaded the point the last time we got there, my guess is you can´t and you´re just a simple lier, perpetuating your "truths" without any meany to back it up.
Dollar for a dime that this will stay unanswered.

You mean the build we spent several pages of another thread arguing about already?

No. I already discussed to death why the build doesn't work. I wrote at least a thousand words explaining it to you. You can guess all you like, but I've already explained the exact particulars of why fighters don't work the way you think they do.

Either you dream or I´m drunk. Being in the beer-business the later is a common day to day occurrence for me, so I rule that out. We argued about a Mythic Barbarian for which I didn't provide full stats, as it was equipped and outfitted according to a very specific campaign and I don´t see the point in sharing and comparing under that circumstances. You did not provide anything, neither a build nor a way to go from there.

I can provide that on the stipulation that you do your research on the rules, but can you?

As I mentioned above they are confusing you with me, this is the finished build,

https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1223270 it wasn't originally made to fight a pit fiend, just put up enough damage to kill it like 40% of the time on a full attack. When I had clarification that that wasn't what they meant, and revised it they didn't respond

Florian

2017-06-22, 04:58 AM

@Lans:

That conversation carried a heavy dose of spillover from a prior discussion on the same topic, Fighters vs. Pit Fiends. That didn't´t have anything to do with your build, which is basically fine and proves the point.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-22, 07:01 AM

This does seem pretty good. I see only 3 complaints people could make: use 32 point buy instead, fear aura still gets through 40% of the time, and the specialized anti-balor ammo.

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 07:23 AM

Because this didn't get resolved in the manner that I wanted to

This is mostly because I'm not going to believe that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters, the moon astral projections were faked and we should wear tinfoil commoners to protect against mind control.

This does seem pretty good. I see only 3 complaints people could make: use 32 point buy instead, fear aura still gets through 40% of the time, and the specialized anti-balor ammo.

I can think of a few more - like "The pit fiend could grapple the fighter before the fighter knew that the pit fiend existed, if he didn't have yet two more items that were tailored to fight pit fiends because I pointed out in the last thread that this was a viable tactic for the pit fiend" or "You're wearing three rings and two sets of boots and three amulets and dear god did you even read the part where custom magic items require DM approval?"

Anthrowhale

2017-06-22, 07:57 AM

As a DM, I would approve. He's paying the full x1.5 cost and inventing nothing new either effect-wise or location-wise. Furthermore, the MIC later ruled that the x1.5 need not be paid sometimes.

The spot related items are also excellent general purpose choices if that's what you are referring to about Pit Fiend detection. There is nothing wrong with revising his build to accommodate your objections.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-22, 08:13 AM

This does seem pretty good. I see only 3 complaints people could make: use 32 point buy instead, fear aura still gets through 40% of the time, and the specialized anti-balor ammo.

The offcial point buy of 3.5 is 25. Any claims about RAW must adhere to that.

I can think of a few more - like "The pit fiend could grapple the fighter before the fighter knew that the pit fiend existed, if he didn't have yet two more items that were tailored to fight pit fiends because I pointed out in the last thread that this was a viable tactic for the pit fiend" or "You're wearing three rings and two sets of boots and three amulets and dear god did you even read the part where custom magic items require DM approval?"

Hence with or without custom items solutions to challenges. Obviously the latter makes things different. Slightly less obviously it is in favor of classes with limited/no spell selection.

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 08:14 AM

As a DM, I would approve. He's paying the full x1.5 cost and inventing nothing new either effect-wise or location-wise. Furthermore, the MIC later ruled that the x1.5 need not be paid sometimes.

It still falls victim to the Oberoni Fallacy, though - the idea that if it can be fixed (with rule 0), it isn't broken. Yes, the DM can say "These guidelines for making homebrew are now rules", but that says more about the custom item rules than about the fighter.

The spot related items are also excellent general purpose choices if that's what you are referring to about Pit Fiend detection. There is nothing wrong with revising his build to accommodate your objections.

I more mean the ring of FoM (not an item I see commonly) and the intelligent item with powers chosen to help the fighter against pit fiends (it has dimensional anchor and invisibility purge to the pit fiend's greater teleport and invsibility), and which deliberately didn't take two of the powers that it has to take, presumably to keep the item's ego from hitting the 21 it would have otherwise and therefore taking over the fighter (though why he didn't just save 3000 GP on getting a less powerful one I don't know), but the fighter still has to take will saves (which he still fails on a natural 1) or do what the item wants, not what he wants.

Azoth

2017-06-22, 08:24 AM

It still falls victim to the Oberoni Fallacy, though - the idea that if it can be fixed (with rule 0), it isn't broken. Yes, the DM can say "These guidelines for making homebrew are now rules", but that says more about the custom item rules than about the fighter.

I more mean the ring of FoM (not an item I see commonly) and the intelligent item with powers chosen to help the fighter against pit fiends (it has dimensional anchor and invisibility purge to the pit fiend's greater teleport and invsibility), and which deliberately didn't take two of the powers that it has to take, presumably to keep the item's ego from hitting the 21 it would have otherwise and therefore taking over the fighter (though why he didn't just save 3000 GP on getting a less powerful one I don't know), but the fighter still has to take will saves (which he still fails on a natural 1) or do what the item wants, not what he wants.

Really? All my high levels characters either buy Ring of FOM or can cast it themselves. Dimensional Anchor and a means to beat Invisibility are also typical high level tools.

There is an entire handbook on things you need by the high levels to basically function against average encounters. All three of those are on it along with flight, special senses, tactical teleportation effects, and more.

Zanos

2017-06-22, 08:57 AM

Really? All my high levels characters either buy Ring of FOM or can cast it themselves. Dimensional Anchor and a means to beat Invisibility are also typical high level tools.
Jormengand mentioned this briefly in the other thread. Isn't this discussion like a week or two old? I personally don't think FoM is an uncommon effect, but J doesn't put a lot of value on 'standard' defences. Personally I always like to have a ring of FoM, Heart of Water, or the actual spell up when I can reasonably afford it. There's a lot of monsters where if they grapple you you're just screwed, and a lot of movement restricting spells that are really nasty, even if you operate from the perspective that FoM doesn't work against mundane effects. Heart of Water is a 3rd level spell that gives you access to FoM pretty much once per day, and the ring of FoM isn't all that expensive at higher levels.

I very much would like to see a fighter build that could reliably kill a pit fiend without custom magic items and with 32 PB, though. In my experience the former are almost never allowed. W

Also, what are "anti-fire dragon", "anti-ice dragon", "anti-balor"?

emeraldstreak

2017-06-22, 09:17 AM

Fighter v Pit FiendCore onlyAll 1st party splatsAll 1st&3rd party
no UMDFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins
UMDFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins
UMD and custom itemsFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins

Summary for cell "A1" so far. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22302119&postcount=1248)

Going down the cells aids only the Fighter. Going right the cells greatly expands the Fighter options, and slightly expands the Pit Fiend's options.

Considering all of the above, it's hardest to prove the Fighter wins A1, and if he does, then he wins them all.

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 09:18 AM

Isn't this discussion like a week or two old?

Yup. The others have been popping up in basically any thread where I've posted (or even where I haven't) so that they can have a go at me, all the while insisting that caster superiority is fake and that fighters are actually good. It's obvious bait, but it's funny so I'm willing to let myself get dragged in to their bizarre conspiracy theory thing.

Here

Fighter v Pit FiendCore onlyAll 1st party splatsAll 1st&3rd party
no UMDPF wins?tough one?Fighter likely wins
UMDFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins
UMD and custom itemsFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins

We went over why UMD doesn't help the fighter, and I'm still not convinced that it wins with the custom items either.

But then, given that partially charged wands are custom items which require UMD, I'm not surprised.

Beheld

2017-06-22, 09:32 AM

Zanos

2017-06-22, 09:36 AM

Yup. The others have been popping up in basically any thread where I've posted (or even where I haven't) so that they can have a go at me, all the while insisting that caster superiority is fake and that fighters are actually good. It's obvious bait, but it's funny so I'm willing to let myself get dragged in to their bizarre conspiracy theory thing.
Well, I don't think not being able to one round CR 20 at level 20 is a great qualifier to call a class bad. Fighters aren't absolute garbage against core threats, they just don't absolutely destroy them like some of the other PHB classes can if played well.

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 09:39 AM

Well, I don't think not being able to one round CR 20 at level 20 is a great qualifier to call a class bad. Fighters aren't absolute garbage against core threats, they just don't absolutely destroy them like some of the other PHB classes can if played well.

I'm not insisting that it should be able to kill the pit fiend in one round, so much as before the pit fiend murderises his face. The fact that those are fairly similar lengths of time isn't my fault.

Also, if you can't do your job (fighting) and can't do anything else either, then you're not really very much of a success as a class.

Finally, the massive levels of optimisation going into this attempt to kill the said pit fiend imply that the fighter class itself has very little to do with it.

Zanos

2017-06-22, 09:49 AM

I'm not insisting that it should be able to kill the pit fiend in one round, so much as before the pit fiend murderises his face. The fact that those are fairly similar lengths of time isn't my fault.
I think it would take at least two or three rounds for the pit fiend to toast a 20th level fighter, simply because it can't blasphemy it to oblivion and most of its tactics revolve around HP damage.

Also, if you can't do your job (fighting) and can't do anything else either, then you're not really very much of a success as a class.
Fighters can't fight great by forum standards, but they're ok in a 4 man party against core monster manual threats.

Finally, the massive levels of optimisation going into this attempt to kill the said pit fiend imply that the fighter class itself has very little to do with it.
You aren't wrong here; it reminds me a little bit of Tippy's monk test where people were stacking so much stuff on the "monks" that they probably could have been commoners and been just as effective.

Beheld

2017-06-22, 10:36 AM

Fighters can't fight great by forum standards, but they're ok in a 4 man party against core monster manual threats.

They really aren't. What they are is "present while the rest of the party does things" against CR threats. But I've played games with parties of 3, because we have games with 4 players and sometimes people don't show. 3 PCs can handle a lot of challenges, when they are real PCs. If you took out the fighter and replaced him with an animated skeleton or half his CR equipped with the same items, the party could probably get along just as well.

Florian

2017-06-22, 12:53 PM

Here

Fighter v Pit FiendCore onlyAll 1st party splatsAll 1st&3rd party
no UMDPF wins?tough one?Fighter likely wins
UMDFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins
UMD and custom itemsFighter winsFighter winsFighter wins

UMD mainly concerns cost-benefit-ratio of buffs and simulating things you can expect to have in a regular party of four. Don´t even have to go too deep into custom items at that point. (For ex fly, FoM, ProtEvil, and so on)

Dagroth

2017-06-22, 01:46 PM

I'd prefer to see someone make an actual fighter not knowing specifically what on enemy they were going to be fighting, so they can't metagame the build, make the build, not use things like intelligent magic items (that are both purely DM fiat, and also metagamed) and not using custom magic items, and not using UMD, but using the 1.5times cost for two functions on an item, and the MIC rules about how basic bonuses don't do that.

Ideally, we'd see that fighter every level 1-20, or at specific levels, like 5/6, 9-11, 14-16, and then we could compare that fighter not built to fight a specific enemy to a different collection of enemies, to see if they are actually designed to beat one specific enemy and their tactics, or if they are more generally useful against a bunch of enemies.

I see no problem with a fighter equipped to fight Devils or Demons if that's the direction the campaign is going.

If you're running the Savage Tide campaign for example, you have to expect Holy, Axiomatic, Evil Outsider Bane & Cold Iron to be high priority things for the fighter-types to focus on getting.

Edit:
P.S. 25-point buy is crap. I play RPGs to play HEROES, not to play barely above average guys. And at least with 32-point buy, you can allow for Templates. Especially if you use the E6 rules on point buy reduction for templates.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-22, 02:48 PM

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 02:55 PM

P.S. 25-point buy is crap. I play RPGs to play HEROES, not to play barely above average guys. And at least with 32-point buy, you can allow for Templates. Especially if you use the E6 rules on point buy reduction for templates.

I agree that fighters are great if you ignore all the parts of the rules where they aren't.

There are degrees here, and this use seems quite minor. The tinfoil hat approach that wizardphiles use to claim antimagic can't touch them seems significantly more egregious in practice.

I also agree that that trick doesn't work if you ignore all of the parts of the rules which say it does.

Dagroth

2017-06-22, 05:26 PM

I agree that fighters are great if you ignore all the parts of the rules where they aren't.

I also agree that that trick doesn't work if you ignore all of the parts of the rules which say it does.

Oddly enough, the rules don't state that any specific number is required for Point Buy... so your argument is invalid.

Jormengand

2017-06-22, 05:30 PM

Oddly enough, the rules don't state that any specific number is required for Point Buy... so your argument is invalid.

I... meant the part where you decided we were using E6 rules out of nowhere.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-22, 06:18 PM

I have to call it guys: anyone thinking a level 20 Player Character pouring his WBL into UMD won't defeat a Pit Fiend is just naive. Mind you, that has nothing to do with Fighters.

A slightly more useful test would be consistently defeating Pit Fiends, say 1 per day for 1 year. But considering Pit Fiend treasure is the standard 80,000 + double items, while a scroll of Shapechange is 3,825 and a scroll of Wish 28,825...I don't see much chance for the Pit Fiends there as well.

Now suppress any desire to raise objections that are summarily defeated even by the most basic UMD optimization bible, and let's focus on the meat in the Fighter v Pit Fiend argument, which is the uppermost line in the table, where it actually matters what class the player character is.

The reasons behind the present annotation is:

Core (likely) to Pit Fiend: basically, the original Fighter's weaknesses exposed with few magic items on the market to shore them up

3rd Party (likely) to Fighter: well, considering at the very least the Fighter is now immune to hit point damage and will one-shot the paltry hit points of the Fiend...

And in the middle, all 1st party splats...they certainly raise the Fighter's deadliness, but do they give him enough battlefield control and/or staying power to survive the Pit Fiend?

If it isn't obvious, if the pro-Fighter guys prove he wins in the Core (without UMD/customs), it's all over for the Pit Fiend. Meanwhile, if the pro-Pit Fiend guys can make a solid argument for the devil's victory against all 1st party or even better all 1st+3rd party, that be an ignominious outcome for the Fighter as a class.

Lans

2017-06-23, 12:50 AM

This does seem pretty good. I see only 3 complaints people could make: use 32 point buy instead, fear aura still gets through 40% of the time, and the specialized anti-balor ammo.

I am aiming at the high end of what is possible, figure start at the high point and work down, the fear aura is only 20 feet, hopefully the fight starts beyond this, the specialized ammo and intelligent item is a bit much, but this is a core solo build with out caster support. In an actual campaign I would imagine the archer still has cold iron bane arrows, maybe the anti law or chaos enhancements, but the holy and elemental properties get popped onto the bow, which a caster would cast GMW on.

I can think of a few more - like "The pit fiend could grapple the fighter before the fighter knew that the pit fiend existed, if he didn't have yet two more items that were tailored to fight pit fiends because I pointed out in the last thread that this was a viable tactic for the pit fiend" or "You're wearing three rings and two sets of boots and three amulets and dear god did you even read the part where custom magic items require DM approval?"

Are you saying that he only has the ring of freedom of movement because you brought the tactic up? Because having something to handle grapples is just basic supplies for a solo venture. If this was noncore then weapon supremacy or close quarters fighting would be chosen over this. In a party scenario the monster using is super beneficial to the rogue and gives other characters free whacks.

The intelligent item is more for the blindsense, the invisibility purge was just a bonus. Also, anti invisibility tactics are a must for like levels beyond 5.

I don't consider combining item effects to be out of bounds, its an effect that was already priced and balanced, and their is a set price modifier for adding them. Its not like I'm using a 2k sword of truestrike.

I more mean the ring of FoM (not an item I see commonly) and the intelligent item with powers chosen to help the fighter against pit fiends (it has dimensional anchor and invisibility purge to the pit fiend's greater teleport and invsibility), and which deliberately didn't take two of the powers that it has to take, presumably to keep the item's ego from hitting the 21 it would have otherwise and therefore taking over the fighter (though why he didn't just save 3000 GP on getting a less powerful one I don't know), but the fighter still has to take will saves (which he still fails on a natural 1) or do what the item wants, not what he wants.

I chose 5 powers, dimension anchor cmw, bless faeerie fire, and invisible purge the dimensional anchor probably isn't going to matter, the invisibility purge is mostly a waste when the item has faerie fire and blind sense.

Also, what are "anti-fire dragon", "anti-ice dragon", "anti-balor"?

Shorthand for specialized arrows. In core the archer needs it to one round the pit fiend, so in order to justify that I had to cover the other big threats of that level.

Lans

2017-06-23, 03:02 AM

I made a column for if effects can't be combined. I didn't think combining effects would fall under things that need DM permission. Its in the feats and special abilities section of the character sheet.

https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1223270

It freed up a pile of cash, knocked the AC down by 8 points, upped some skills, lost the displacement effect, gained protection from evil in exchange for invisibility purge

logic_error

2017-06-23, 04:03 PM

The_Jette

2017-06-23, 04:34 PM

I will point out again what the OP is missing as an argument:

That a NAKED Wizard 20 can beat a Pit Fiend just armed with class skills. A Fighter can not.

A fighter needs support from all kinds of *magical* sources, including UMD which is for intents and purposes actually wizard spells, to beat a PF.

To be clear: The argument isn't if a level 20 Fighter fully equipped with magical stuff can beat PF or not. The argument is that Fighter with his *class skills* alone can not.

Why is this argument of this form? Because other classes that are NOT wizards can also do it, sometimes even better, such as Cleric or Druid. Even Rogues.

Could you describe what you mean by a "NAKED" Wizard? And, I'm not sure why you're saying that a Fighter should be stripped of magical stuff, since D&D is all about gathering neat magical items and using them to murder monsters.
To be devil's advocate, though, it's not likely that a naked Cleric or Druid would be able to kill a Pit Fiend, since they both need divine focuses to channel their spells through...

Jormengand

2017-06-23, 04:38 PM

To be devil's advocate, though, it's not likely that a naked Cleric or Druid would be able to kill a Pit Fiend, since they both need divine focuses to channel their spells through...

I don't think the pit fiend needs an advocate. Though it might need one against a cleric who was naked, but carrying a holy symbol, which I'm pretty sure you can do while naked.

Not that the ability of a cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, psion or even truenamer to fight a pit fiend was in question so much as the fighter's.

logic_error

2017-06-23, 04:52 PM

Could you describe what you mean by a "NAKED" Wizard? And, I'm not sure why you're saying that a Fighter should be stripped of magical stuff, since D&D is all about gathering neat magical items and using them to murder monsters.
To be devil's advocate, though, it's not likely that a naked Cleric or Druid would be able to kill a Pit Fiend, since they both need divine focuses to channel their spells through...

Worldly focus if we are talking toally naked. But, yeah, I imagined the crucial stuff like favored weapon and armour and shield on a fighter a part of nakedness. Don't expect them to go all fist and teeth. Equivalent of that for clerics would the symbol.

DEMON

2017-06-23, 05:25 PM

Worldly focus if we are talking toally naked. But, yeah, I imagined the crucial stuff like favored weapon and armour and shield on a fighter a part of nakedness. Don't expect them to go all fist and teeth. Equivalent of that for clerics would the symbol.

Question is, why would we expect anyone to tackle a CR20 challenge naked. Even more so, considering he's actually supposed to be soloing said challenge.

Florian

2017-06-23, 10:15 PM

@logic error:

Simply stop and think about it. In the d20 system, the job of the Fighter is to focus on raw combat, be easy to be buffed-up and help enable the other members of a group to do their job, like providing flanking or "tanking" so the casters actually don´t have to waste spells on their own defense.

WBL is a fixed part of the system and plays heavily into what CR can be engaged and won and what will be impossible. Now let´s talk about the "Solo Fighter" and what that means: We now have to decide between utility and focus on combat, because the Fighter has to provide the aforementioned buffs/cures with its own WBL now. It´s bordering on the insulting that with the mindset that´s displayed towards what a "mundane" should be able to do, you´ve got to decide between "Boots of Speed" and "Boots of Flying", when the truth is that you can pack some wand of Flight and Haste and chose entirely different kind of footwear - the hit to WBL is still there to cover the additional "solo cost".

But let´s take the "mundane" argument to the next step: The regular PF Fighter can get some of the Craft XY feats as bonus feats and use them with either Craft: Armorsmith or Craft: Weaponsmith in an entirely mundane way, so outfitting yourself with some Luck Blades and chain-crafting Candles of Invocation (both at the regular 50% discount for crafting) is a fairly plain option.
You will also more or less automatically go into UMD, as that is a prerequisite for the "Item Mastery" feats, which help mundanes "pimp" their equipment.
Lastly, WBL itself. Even when going for the real pricy items, like a Foesplitter as main, Luck Blade as backup weapon and wearing Lenses of True Seeing, it´s hard to cram more than 50% into pure equipment and maybe 20% into inherent boni (*)

So, overall, using extremely powerful magic/spells in not tied to a specific class, it´s tied to the specific spell. Stuff like the "Zodar"-trick are open to anyone being able to get their hands on Shapechange, no matter if spell known or scroll.

So please stop this specific version of the "guy at the gym"-fallacy.

(*) And it´s just a sensible thing to set up your own contingencies, ranging from "wearing" a Cassian Angel to CLW you when dropping below zero hp and covering the fact that you´re actually wearing a Cap of the Free Thinker, to contracting a high-level outsider to "gate in and get me up to shape when I go down in battle within the next year".

Lans

2017-06-23, 11:23 PM

I will point out again what the OP is missing as an argument:

That a NAKED Wizard 20 can beat a Pit Fiend just armed with class skills. A Fighter can not.

A fighter needs support from all kinds of *magical* sources, including UMD which is for intents and purposes actually wizard spells, to beat a PF.

To be clear: The argument isn't if a level 20 Fighter fully equipped with magical stuff can beat PF or not. The argument is that Fighter with his *class skills* alone can not.

Why is this argument of this form? Because other classes that are NOT wizards can also do it, sometimes even better, such as Cleric or Druid. Even Rogues.

Whether other classes can do something or not is immaterial to whether a core fighter can handle something or not with the assumed resources of his level. Also, if you go over who can and can not handle a pit fiend 'naked', I expect their to be almost as many classes who can, as those who can not.

If we are expanding out of core I imagine a fighter might be able to handle the pit fiend with a boomerang or intimidation shenanigans.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-23, 11:56 PM

Florian

2017-06-24, 12:36 AM

I´ve been fooling around with a PF version of Lans´ archer.

CRB only: I agree with Arrowhale, Halfing has the better options.
PRD only: Fetchlings now open up more utility.
All Paizo: Human.

(Edit: Family came to visit for a weekend, so that limits my time for this)

Jormengand

2017-06-24, 03:42 AM

It's funny how I've been complaining that fighters are incompetent in 3.5 (the insane amount of optimisation, specifically to fight pit fiends, which doesn't actually let you fight them reliably anyway, is a good example of this) and the consistent response is "But what about Pathfinder?" Well, what about it? It's no more relevant to the discussion than homebrew fighter fixes are. Less, even, because it's not even designed for the same system.

EDIT: Also "And what about this obscure 3.0 rule which implies that you can maybe do this thing I want to do?"

logic_error

2017-06-24, 04:37 AM

"Bordering on insulting"

This is what I am worried about. Your perception seems to be that I *hate* mundanes or something. No, not at all. All I am saying that the D&D 3.5 is biased towards casters. That *is* a problem and we need to acknowledge it so that it can be fixed. By continually asserting that this is not the case won't make your arguments look saner.

Pleh

2017-06-24, 05:42 AM

Haven't been following the weeks of discussion, but this thread by itself (a more manageable read) boils down to one point for me (which probably means I don't get it, but conversation is half of learning).

"WBL can defeat a pit fiend, so any hero with access to WBL can also defeat a pit fiend."

Two corrolaries of this: "is it fair to judge the fighter based on resources available to every character?" This essentially amounts to, "if you stick the same magic items on a commoner, can you tell the difference?"

This says you can't learn anything useful about the fighter through their ability to use magic items.

The other corrolary is like it:
"Is it fair to judge them without resources that all characters were meant to have?"

This says you can't learn anything useful about the fighter without considering their ability to use magic items.

A supplemental point seems to be: the wizard can win even without WBL, demonstrating it is superior to the fighter.

Have I got it right so far?

Beheld

2017-06-24, 06:10 AM

After playing with Lans's build a bit I have a core halfling sniper fighter 20 that can eat Pit Fiends and many other big bads with good odds of success. Relative to Lans's build, the halfling has a much higher Hide & Move Silently while avoiding super-expensive ammunition, avoiding intelligent items, not doing any custom items, and using a 32 point buy for stats. The only caveat is that I'm using rules from other parts of the game implying that standard bonuses can be added to items (MIC) and armor enhancements can be added to bracers (A&E). The build takes some advantage of various core potions and oils at a burn rate which seems reasonable at 20th level.

There are several levels of attack/defense starting with detection.

The halfling sniper has a Hide of 51 which is 71 with invisibility (available all the time via the ring). Move Silently is only 45 although a potion of silence can make it effective infinity for a short time. The Pit Fiend never succeeds with Spot(29) and can only succeeds with Listen (29) 2.5% of the time.

Both contestants have Darkvision 60'.

The Pit Fiend, like all Devils, has a racial see in darkness of infinite range. He can see your halfling from any distance. Balor's have True Seeing for 120ft seeing in Darkness and piercing invis which is your only grounds for making hide checks at all, Dragon's have blindsense, and Titan's have Invisibility Purge 100ft.

Many of these monsters, including the Pit Fiend, have something like Persistent Image at will which allows them to have a defensive array of images that prevent you from successfully sniping the Pit Fiend, because you snipe something else you think you see instead.

Also the Pit Fiend has a large army of Mummies and Morhgs around it.

In the other direction, the Pit Fiend can often Hide (25) vs the Halfling's Spot(19) although if the Pit Fiend tries to use Invisibility or other magic, the Halfling's Permanency Detect Magic will ping at 60' and give away the game.

While a Pit Fiend will certainly be invisible at the start of any fight, there will be visible images for you to waste time attacking. Detect Magic requires one round of concentration to even tell you that magical auras are present at all, I doubt you are going around spending standard actions detecting magical auras with your standard action at all times.

Overall, both contestants might miss each other, but the halfling has a huge advantage in tactical information gathering implying the Halfling almost always wins a surprise round. In a surprise round, the halfling can either snipe with an arrow at range (45 expected damage) or snipe with 4 arrows at close range using Manyshot for an expected 164 damage.

I hope you took into account the +4 deflection bonus to AC from Unholy Aura. But again, the halfing does not have any advantage in tactical information, he probably has a huge disadvantage.

It is very unlikely but possible the Pit Fiend wins a surprise round. In that case, the Fear Aura has only a 30% chance of success while the Pit Fiends best standard action option is unclear. A flat-footed Meteor Swarm at least inflicts ~30 damage with improved fire resistance quenching the fire damage. This is still not enough to make Power Word Stun viable.

If the Pit Fiend spots you before you make a surprise attack against an image, Targeted Greater Dispel Magic is probably the opening go to, since that allows his legion of mummies and morghs to attack you.

The halfling has an initiative bonus of +20 while the Pit Fiend only has +12 so the halfling wins initiative 83% of the time.

The halfling does a rapid hasted full attack with the bow using 6 arrows and doing an expected 244 damage against a Pit Fiend's full armor class. Against a flat-footed Pit Fiend or one within 30', it's of course even more damage.

The Pit Fiend is stuck in a hope&pray situation against AC 53, Fortitude save 27, Reflex save 29+Evasion, and a Will save of 26 vs fear or Will 22 vs. spells with immunity to compulsions and charms (i.e. Power Word Stun or Mass Hold monster). Either Meteor Swarm (expected 20 damage) or Greater Dispel Magic (which strips some protections) are reasonable choices. But the best course of action for the Pit Fiend is typically to run away (via Greater Teleport) and find allies. If the Pit Fiend's combat is unexpected (which it generally should not be given the enormous stealth advantage) the fear aura or mass hold monster have at least a reasonable minority chance (30%) of getting through.

Uh... Wait, you aren't even immune to fear? How did you fair against the 20+ saves against Mummy Despair before even getting a chance to shoot at the Persistent Image of an enemy.

But actually, the Pit Fiend can move over to within 40ft of you (absolutely no problem, because you apparently rely on your 60ft Darkvision) and then Blasphemy you, Dazing you for one round, and repeat infinitely while the Morghs/Mummies fish for crits to kill you.

Although, he could summon another Pit Fiend, since he's invisible, and you just sniped an image, he probably won't, because so far you seem singularly unthreatening.

Overall, the fighter can and likely will 1-round kill while the Pit Fiend can do little.

This looks like a 100% Pit Fiend Victory to me.

The halfling can snipe at 190' hitting 95% of the time and always successfully hiding afterwards. Even at 30', the halfling can snipe with a powerful Multiattack and successfully hide 66% of the time.

The halfing must have cover or concealment to hide, where are you getting this after you blow your invis sniping?

logic_error

2017-06-24, 06:11 AM

@pleh
Yep. Thumbs up.

Dagroth

2017-06-24, 07:50 AM

Where the heck did the Morhgs & Mummies come from? They're certainly not part of the Balor's stat block or his CR.

Cosi

2017-06-24, 08:12 AM

This essentially amounts to, "if you stick the same magic items on a commoner, can you tell the difference?"

This is the correct test. The effectiveness of the Fighter with magic items should be assessed not on whether he can do stuff with them, but on whether he can do stuff with them that is better than what a Commoner can do.

Where the heck did the Morhgs & Mummies come from? They're certainly not part of the Balor's stat block or his CR.

One assumes the Pit Fiend (not Balor) used its CL 18 create undead to make them. They are part of its CR because they are created with one of its abilities (and therefore do not count against CR per the DMG).

Lans

2017-06-24, 09:27 AM

One assumes the Pit Fiend (not Balor) used its CL 18 create undead to make them. They are part of its CR because they are created with one of its abilities (and therefore do not count against CR per the DMG).

I find that a little questionable, and if true, really sucks for people dealing with vampires, shadows and the like. So Source?

Cosi

2017-06-24, 09:58 AM

I find that a little questionable, and if true, really sucks for people dealing with vampires, shadows and the like. So Source?

Do not award XP for creatures that enemies summon or otherwise add to their forces with magic powers.

The DMG is pretty clear that you don't bump up difficulty for beating something that has summoned a bunch of other things it has the ability to summon. And yeah, the designers seem to have forgotten that to some degree with some monsters. But in this case, mummies (CR 5) and mohrgs (CR 8) are both well into the range where they should be a speedbump for PCs. If adding some CR 5 enemies to a CR 20 one shatters your Fighter's strategy, that seems like proof it was too fragile to be legitimate (which I think is the point some people are making).

Beheld

2017-06-24, 10:14 AM

Where the heck did the Morhgs & Mummies come from? They're certainly not part of the Balor's stat block or his CR.

As noted, they come from his Create Undead at will, and are accounted for in his CR and statblock, and also, literally wouldn't increase the EL of an encounter for a level 20 party anyway, since the rules even say as much, even aside from the rules Cosi cited, since they say that huge collections of very much lower threats are not worth anything to PCs.

And yes, the point is, that if a strategy relies on the Pit Fiend not using create undead, that strategy is no more viable than one that relies on him not using fireball, or not using invisibility, or not using Persistent Image.

lord_khaine

2017-06-24, 10:28 AM

Lans

2017-06-24, 10:28 AM

The DMG is pretty clear that you don't bump up difficulty for beating something that has summoned a bunch of other things it has the ability to summon. And yeah, the designers seem to have forgotten that to some degree with some monsters. But in this case, mummies (CR 5) and mohrgs (CR 8) are both well into the range where they should be a speedbump for PCs. If adding some CR 5 enemies to a CR 20 one shatters your Fighter's strategy, that seems like proof it was too fragile to be legitimate (which I think is the point some people are making).

The create undead ability isn't a summon ability though, and the pit fiend has no ability to control the undead it summons.

Beheld

2017-06-24, 10:41 AM

The create undead ability isn't a summon ability though, and the pit fiend has no ability to control the undead it summons.

"or otherwise add to their forces with magic powers."

But yes, he relies on his flying and invisibility to prevent them from attacking him. Or perhaps agreements about feeding them people.

lord_khaine

2017-06-24, 10:54 AM

"or otherwise add to their forces with magic powers."

If you want to get that technical though, then the Pit Fiend is not adding them to its forces. Each of them are created independently, and become their own force.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-24, 11:21 AM

Here's the Halfling Fighter 20 Sniper Build.

Strength 14 = 14-2 race -2 size +4 enhancement
Dexterity 34 = 18+2 race +2 size +5 levels +1 inherent +6 enhancement
Constitution 16 = 10 + 6 enhancement
Intelligence 14
Wisdom 16 = 10+6(enhancement)
Charisma 8

Fighter Bonus Feats:
1. Weapon Focus(Longbow)
2. Point Blank Shot
4. Weapon Specialization(Longbow)
6. Rapid Shot
8. Greater Weapon Focus(Longbow)
10. Precise Shot
12. Greater Weapon Specialization(Longbow)
14. Manyshot
16. Improved Critical (Longbow)
18. Improved Initiative
20. Combat Reflexes

Feats:
1. Iron Will
3. Skill Focus(Sleight of Hand)
6. Stealthy
9. Alertness
12. Weapon Finesse
15. Skill Focus(Move Silently)
18. Skill Focus(Spot)

Permanent items.

Neck: Hand og Glory, Constitution+6, Wisdom+6+Natural Armor+1: 82K
Arms: Greater Bracers of Archery: 25K
Shoulders: Cloak of Resistance+5: 25K
Waist: Strength+4: 16K
Feat: Boots of Speed+Boots of Winter: 15.75K
Eyes: Gem of Seeing + Eye of Eagle: 77.5K
Hands: Gloves of Dexterity+6 + Locking gauntlet + Silver Spiked Gauntlet+1: 38.333K
Body: Mithril Chain Shirt+2+Greater Silent Moves+Greater Shadow: 72.6K
Head: Hat of Disguise: 1.8K
Torso: nothing
Ring 1: Freedom of Movement+Deflect+1: 42K
Ring 2: Invisibility+Sustenance: 23.75K
Ring 3: Blinking: 27
Shield: Buckler+2: 4.165K
Weapon: Darkwood Composite (+2) Longow+1+Holy+Seeking+Flame+Frost+Shock+Merciful: 128.60375K
Backup Bow: Darkwood Composite(+2) Longbow: 0.30375
Slotless?: Masterwork tools of Move Silently, Hide, Sleight of Hand, and Spot .2K
Slotless: Obsidian Steed: 28.5K
Slotless: Luckblade (0 Wishes): 22.5K
Slotless: Handy Haversak: 2K
Slotless: Darkwood Tower Shield: 0.23625
Slotless: Manual Dexterity+1: 27.5K

Expendables. The number of expendables for a one-shot is 1/5th rounded down or the number after the slash in special cases.

Arrows: 200 Cold Iron+Darkwood: 1.258K
Arrows: 90 Silver+Darkwood: 0.737K
Arrows: 30 Cold Iron+1+Axiomatic+Darkwood: 12.246K
Arrows: 30 Silver+1+Anarchic+Darkwood: 11.046K
Arrows: 30 Adamantium+Darkwood: 1.806K
Arrows: 30 +1+Unholy+Silver+Darkwood: 11.046K
Arrows: 30 +1+Bane[Magical Beast]+Darkwood: 4.986K
Oil of Greater Magic Weapon+5 5 15K
Dust of Disappearance x5: 17.5K
Fly 5: 3.75K
Protection from Evil Potion 5: 0.25K
Silence 5: 1.5K
Remove Fear 5: 1.5K
Resist Energy 30 potion 5: 5.5K
Good Hope Potion 5: 5.25K
Cure Light Wounds 25: 1.25K
Water Breathing Potion 1: 0.75K
Remove Disease 1: 0.75K
Remove Curse 1: 0.75K
Remove Blindness/Deafness 1: 0.75K
Neutralize Poison 1: 0.75K
Lesser Restoration 1: 0.3K

Spellcasting Services

Reduce Person+Permanency: 2.95K
5x Magic Mouth @CL10: 0.55K

I avoided effects with a cost of >3K given that these are "not generally available". There are nevertheless some amazing ones including the classic Symbol of X on a Shield.

Total spent is 759.804K and all equipment is a light load.

Armor Class: 30 = 10(base)+6(Dexterity)+6(Armor)+2(Size)+1(Dodge, boots of Speed)+1(Natural Armor)+1(Deflect)+3(Shield)
+ Invisibility

Universal Save modifiers:+7 = +1(Race)+5(Resistance, cloak)+1(Luck, Luckblade)
Fortitude: 22(Good Hope+2): 12(Fighter 20)+3(Constitution)+7(Universal)
Reflex: 26(Evasion, Good Hope+2): 6(Fighter 20)+12(Dexterity)+1(Boots of Speed)+7(Universal)
Will: 18(P from E +Immune Charm&Control Compulsion, Halfling +2 vs Fear , Remove Fear + 4 vs Fear, Good hope+2): 6(Fighter 20)+3(Wisdom) +7(Universal)+2(Feat)

Bow Attack: +47+no dex to AC (Good Hope+2): +20(Fighter 20)+12(Dexterity)+5(Enhance)+2(Competence, Bracers)+2(Feats)+2(Size)+1(Haste, Boots of Speed)+1(Point Blank Shot)+2(Blinking)
Improvised Bow Attack (melee): +32+no dex to AC(Good Hope+2): +20(Fighter 20)+2(Strength)+5(Enhance)+2(Competence, Bracers)+2(Feats)+2(Size)+1(Haste, Boots of Speed)-4(Improvised)+2(Blinking)
Spiked Gauntlet Attack (melee): +36+no dext to AC(Good Hope+2): +20(Fighter 20)+12(Dexterity)+1(Enhance)+2(Size)+1(Haste, Boots of Speed)+2(Blinking)
Bow+Arrow Damage: 42.75 (Good Hope+2): 1.75 (Tiny Arrows)+2(Strength)+5(Enhance+5)+7(Holy)+7(Anarchi c)+4(Feats)+2(Morale)+3.5(Frost)+3.5(Flame)+3.5(Sh ock)+3.5(Merciful)+1(Bracers of Archery, Greater)+1(Point Blank Shot)
Improvised Bow Damage: 32: as bow+arrow except smaller dice, no Anarchic, no point blank shot
Spiked Gauntlet Damage: 4.5: 1.5+2(Strength)+1(enhance)

Attack Routine with Haste & Rapid Shot: +45/+45/+45/+40/+35/+30 Expected damage against AC 36: 252 (including criticals)
Attack Routine with Manyshot: +39 with 4 arrows. Expected damage against AC 36: 168 (Including criticals)

Universal Skill Modifiers: 13: 11(Fighter 20, Cross class)+2(Master work tool, Circumstance)
Universal circumstantial: Good Hope+2
Hide: 70: +13(Universal)+12(Dexterity)+8(size)+15(Competence , armor)+2(Stealthy)+20(Invisibility)
Move Silently 47: +13(Universal)+12(Dexterity)+2(Race)+15(Competence , armor)+2(Stealthy)+3(Skill Focus)
Spot 26: +13(Universal)+3(Wisdom)+5(Competence, Eyes of Eagle)+3(Skill Focus)+2(Alertness)
Sleight of Hand 28: +13(Universal+12(Dexterity)+3(Skill Focus)

Initiative: 16(Good Hope+2): +12(Dexterity)+4(Feat)

Hit Points: 174.5: 114.5(Fighter 20)+60(Constitution)

And here's an updated version of attack/defense taking into account small tweaks.

The halfling sniper has a Hide of 50 which is 70 with invisibility. Invisibility is maintained continuously. The command word is "mumbled" as per sleight of hand rules for spellcasting in the Rules Compendium. According to the rules this is opposed by spot which is effectively impossible since invisibility is on. Even if we overrule this so that Listen opposes the Sleight of Hand check, the chance of the Pit Fiend pinpointing the location is nearly 0.

Move Silently is only 47 although a potion of silence can make it effective infinity for a short time. The Pit Fiend never succeeds with Spot(29) and can only succeeds with Listen (29) .25% of the time.

When the halfling chooses to run (-20 penalty to MS or Hide), Spot never works and Listen sometimes works but rarely pinpoints.

The Sniper periodically checks for illusions with the Gem of Seeing and uses it every round of combat. In the other direction, the Pit Fiend can Hide (25) against the Halfling's Spot(26) only some of the time.

Overall, both contestants might miss each other, but the halfling has a large advantage in tactical information gathering implying the Halfling often wins a surprise round.

The surprise round is not completely decisive although it favors the halfling. The first round on the other hand is usually decisive in favor of the halfling.

The halfling has an initiative bonus of +16 while the Pit Fiend only has +12 so the halfling wins initiative most of the time. Using the luckblade, the probability of winning initiative is 0.8125.

The halfling does a rapid hasted full attack with the bow using 6 arrows. Since the halfling has and continually uses the ring of blinking, he attacks as if invisible, denying a dexterity bonus to the Pit Fiend leaving it with Armor Class 36. Since nearly all arrows hit, an expected 252 point of nonlethal damage is inflicted. This is followed up with a Coup de Grace the round after.

Overall, the fighter can and likely will 2-round kill the Pit Fiend. For example, if you use the Luckblade to reroll inititiative on a 6- or to reroll a miss, the probability of knocking out the Pit Fiend with a full attack is 0.68.

The last important point to consider is range of engagement.

The Pit Fiend can theoretically attack from a range of 1120' although that is severely limited by Spot checks.

The halfling can attack from a range of 1100' with on a composite longbow. Again, this is severely limited by Spot checks.

In a worst-case situation, the Pit Fiend may be able to get attacks off, so it's important to have robust defenses.

If the Pit Fiend full attacks it suffers a 50% miss chance due to the ring of blinking and the AC is high enough that Power Attack 2 maximizes damage at about 55 + poison & disease which take effects with a probability 0.2 which becomes 0.02 after taking into account the luckblade and the miss chance.

Each Disarm attack provokes an AOO which Combat Reflexes allows the Fighter to service. Using the bow as an improvised melee weapon plausibly (this requires DM interpretation) has an attack roll of:

+32=20(base)+2(strength)+5(Enhancement)-4(Improvised)+2(size)+2(competence)+2(feat)+1(hast e)+2(invisibility)

which hits against AC 36 and inflicts ~32-15 = 17 nonlethal damage 85% of the time.

Of the remaining 15%, the disarm will miss half the time (blinking) and then the opposed Disarm resistance roll is plausibly:
+46=20(base)+2(strength)+5(enhancement)-4(Improvised)+10(Locking Gauntlet)+2(size)+2(feat)+2(competence)+1(haste)+2 (invisibility)+4(Two-handed weapon)
vs +38=30(base)+12(Tiny to Large)-4(Light Weapon)
implying a 16.5% chance of successful disarm. Multiplying everything together, the odds of a successful disarm attempt is 1.2375%. This becomes lower for nonclaw attack so the odds of a successful disarm on a full attack is about 6% with a free helping of ~102 nonlethal damage to a Pit Fiend in the 94% failure case.

Each Sunder attempt provokes an AOO as for disarm, but Sunder can continue despite doing damage. A +5 bow has a hardness of 15, so the optimal level of power attack is actually +9 inflicting an expected ~21 damage after taking into account the miss chance. The bow has 51 hp so this is inadequate.

The Pit Fiend has no AOOs for bow attacks because blinking attackers attack as if invisible.

Grapple/Constrict/Improved Grab autofails due to the Ring of Freedom.

Blasphemy has no effect since it's caster level 18 vs. 20HD.

Create Undead is stated by the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) as having a casting time of 1 hour, but the Monster Manual plausibly states that it has a casting time of 1 standard action for monsters. Regardless of the rules, the created undead have negligible effect. They generally can't observe the fighter due to very high Move Silently/Hide, if they do observe they have a negligible chance of hitting, and if they do hit the paralysis effects are negated by the Ring of Freedom. Note that the Mummy's Despair(Su) effect causes paralysis so it is also negated by the Ring of Freedom.

The fireball does ~9 expected damage due to Ring of Blinking and a 95% reflex save.

A targeted greater dispel magic on the bow potentially suppresses both the oil on the bow and the bow itself. Since the oil is caster level 20 and there is a 50% miss chance due to the ring of blinking, the probability of suppressing the oil is 0.2. The bow has a much lower caster level, so it is suppressed with probability 0.4.

An area dispel magic will almost certainly dispel one magic mouth but otherwise have no effect.

Mass Hold Monster has no effect due to the Ring of Freedom.

Invisibility and Persistent Image can both be countered by the Gem of Seeing. Judicious use of the Gem of Seeing is important because we only have 300 rounds/day. Using the Gem when viewing a scene for the first time, whenever anything appears, and during rounds of combat sounds about right. Note that the Gem of Seeing is much more useful than True Seeing since it supports discontinuous use---the only more powerful effect is the always-on True Seeing which some monsters have access to.

Power Word Stun has no effect because the Fighter has more than 150 hit points.

Unholy Aura increases AC by 4, but there is no blinding effect due to the Fighter being True Neutral.

This is a 1/day ability. Meteor Swarm is double nerfed by Blink since it is both targeted and an area effect. Expected bludgeoning damage is 8*3.5/2=14, and the expected damage from hitting fire is 12*3.5/2=21. For missing fire only 12*3.5/2/2=10.5. Altogether, this is just 45.5 damage.

This is a 1/year ability, but it could be used to replicate Antimagic Field or Control Winds, both of which significantly nerf the Fighter. Against Control Winds, the best attack mode of the fighter is an improvised attack with the bow as a melee weapon doing only ~102 nonlethal damage. Against AMF attacks do only ~70 nonlethal damage and many of the Pit Fiends physical attacks become more potent.

Summon Devil grants access to Dimensional Anchor (which nerfs Blink if it hits) and Wall of Ice (which provides battlefield control) via Bone Devil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#boneDevilOsyluth). Summoning an Erinyes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#erinyes) grants access to a weak charm monster (2.5% chance of success), and True Seeing. Other abilities appear unremarkable.

The Fear Aura has a .3 probability (=.09 with a luckblade reroll) of affecting as a fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fear.htm) spell which institutes panic with a save for shaken. The probability of panic is .09 (or .0027 with a luckblade reroll).

Of all these effects, Wish[Antimagic Field] seems the most detrimental since it shuts down attacks enough to buy another round where a Charge/Tail Slap/Improved Grab/Constrict proves nearly irresistable. Amongst at-will abilities, a targeted Greater Dispel Magic on the bow is potent although unlikely to succeed.

An analysis of full attack damage vs. various creatures for the Halfling is below. These are generated by a simulator using 10^6 montecarlo full attacks. They take into account Silver(-1 damage), Bane(+2+2d6 damage, +2 to hit), Alignment & DR (assuming optimal arrow choice), regeneration (damage-regen), True Seeing or See Invisibility (no +2 to hit, no dex bonus to AC lost), critical hit immunity, nonlethal immunity, energy immunity if nonlethal immune, and long term AC bonuses (Mage Armor, Unholy Aura, etc...). They do not take into account flat-footed due to losing initiative, massive damage rules, or a luckblade reroll.

CRMonsterAC(modified)HPDamage/round
21Titan38370212
20Pit Fiend36225247
20Tarrasque30858200
20Balor41290236
20Black Wyrm43459224
20Ancient Brass42387201
18Nightcrawler37212157
16Planetar34133218
16Nightwalker34178161
16Greater Stone Golem27271149
16Horned Devil28172261
16Archon Hound Hero30143227
16Old Black36287257
16Mature Adult Copper34264223
15Marut34112184
13Death Slaad34142262
11Dread Wraith17104224
11Air elemental27204111

Responding to some criticisms/questions:

Low level undead is snipe-at-leisure fodder. Mummies can't even paralyze the Sniper due to Freedom of Movement.
Sniping does require some way to hide so it does not work in all terrain. It does however often work.
A commoner 20 is significantly subpar in the sense that expected damage is halved, principally due to a combination of -10 to hit and feat loss. Several other statistics get notably worse.
Illusions are defeated by True Seeing.
Beheld's Pit Fiend apparently wastes its action by casting Blasphemy. Everyone makes mistakes, but this is a fatal one.
Beheld lists several other monsters. Those can generally be dealt with as well, but let's stick to one opponent at a time.

Edit: I'm finding myself losing track of the wrong claims that have been made so I decided to make a FAQ.

Beheld claimed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22126324&postcount=38) that the Pit Fiend's Blasphemy power can daze the fighter.
...the Pit Fiend can move over to within 40ft of you ... and then Blasphemy you, Dazing you for one round, and repeat infinitely while the Morghs/Mummies fish for crits to kill you.

However, Blasphemy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blasphemy.htm) has no listed effect for a 20 HD creature (the halfling sniper) when cast at caster level 18.

Beheld claimed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22142707&postcount=185) that sniping requires losing hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm).
While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right?
This is wrong, because the 4th sentence of hide says:
It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. implying that it is possible as long as you hide with a -20 penalty. Beheld further claimed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22143250&postcount=196) this was not a rule.
Or you know, you could quote the actual rules.. referring to the sniping section. However the sniping section does not say you are revealed when sniping---it just says that:
...you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again... which does not contradict the first rule---it just clarifies that an additional hide check at -20 is required. In particular it never states that you are revealed if the hide check is made. As a general principle nothing changes according to RAW unless it is stated as changing. DEMON provides further evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22146829&postcount=263).

Beheld implies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22143250&postcount=196) that cover from a boulder only applies if a large number of enemies line up.
...if the mummies don't line up in a nice long line, and the Pit Fiend is in the air, then you probably don't have cover with respect to all of them from many locations. However the Cover rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) state:
If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover.... Hence a small boulder can provide cover against all opponents on the other side (not just ones in a carefully arranged line) of a boulder since one corner of the square has LOE blocked for all opponents on the other side.

Beheld apparently claims (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22142707&postcount=185) that cover and concealment only works within 10' of someone you hide from. After I point out that cover and concealment are common in natural settings he says:
Your contention that there is cover or concealment within 10ft of every enemy ever is silly.. This is simply an incorrect understanding of the cover rules---they apply at any range.

Beheld claims (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22144615&postcount=231) that all expendables are 10 times more expensive than what is listed and hence that the build is far over allowed wealth.
Well I mean, for one shots, consumables are supposed to cost 10 times as much. I have no idea where this is coming from and no rule has been cited---maybe it's some house rule for tournaments that Beheld once played with. Update: Beheld was referring to one-shot rules in the DMG which say x5 rather than x10. I adjusted the consumables so they are all multiples of 5: you can get the number for a one-shot by dividing by 5 and rounding down.

Beheld claims (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22146506&postcount=261) the the halfling's movement speed is 10.
...my point was your halfling with a 10ft movement speed.... This is simply false as a halfling has a movement speed of 20 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#halflings) which can be enhanced to 50 with haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), 60 with a fly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm) potion, or 90 with both. My best guess is that Beheld took Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) as a constraint and read the second sentence while missing the third and fourth sentences.

lord_khaine

2017-06-24, 11:27 AM

A commoner 20 is significantly subpar in the sense that expected damage is halved, principally due to a combination of -10 to hit and feat loss. Several other statistics get notably worse.

Does that also take into consideration loss of attacks?

Anthrowhale

2017-06-24, 11:39 AM

Does that also take into consideration loss of attacks?

It wasn't but the last 2 iteratives with a -12 (Fighter->Commoner + feat loss) to hit contribute very little to expected damage anyways (~11) so that doesn't change the conclusion.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-24, 02:40 PM

I think it seemed rather clear that the DMG rule is only suposed to apply to summoned creatures with a finite duration.
Because alternatively you could have an infinite horde of Wights that would only be the CR 3 of the initial wight that started the spawning snowball.

It's just so happens there's an item that let's a PC create this army for himself...and I'm sure it isn't the only way for a PC to create an (undead) army.

It should be obvious going in this direction is just silly for both participants, as would be Leadership, or, say, making the Fighter a Kobold and...you know the story.

Florian

2017-06-24, 11:08 PM

Have I got it right so far?

Not entirely, as far as I see it.

How to phrase that? It´s easier to start with an example: Some time ago, I go into a harmless argument about "best archer builds" and proposed the Paladin, while another countered with Cleric. Comparing builds, it turns out that both builds churned out nearly equal numbers, because the Cleric build relied on copying each and every spell, feat and class feature used by the Paladin build.

So, discussions like this always lead to an interesting triangle with basic class features - WBL - copying/infringing on other classes as the three cornerstones. Now that actually is interesting, as "downward"-infringing seems to be totally acceptable, but "upwards"-infringing is something to be frowned upon, bad WBLmancy and all that. To re-use the prior example, the Cleric is deemed to be intelligently played for being a fine archer and still having access to 9th level spells, while the Paladin, equipped to have better options than the basic chassis will most like be met with the question "why don´t you play a Cleric instead?".

As I see it, Lans offered a very solid archer Fighter build in the OP and answered the "Fighter vs. Pit Fiend" question with it. Every try to use additional "what if?..." conditions or disclaiming that it can do it will get us closer to the "nuclear option" of infringing into full caster territory to get the job done.

Edit: Exploring the axis "Totally self-reliant" <---> "Totally buff-reliant" simply will turn up the result that some things, especially spells, are self-contained, therefore powerful for whoever uses them, from Commoner to Wizard, from Shapechange, Freedom of Movement, Mind Blank to Wish, while others are reliant on the actual casting source, from Scroll to Item to actual caster to gain their real "oomph", from Dimensional Anchor to Baleful Polymorph to a full "Mailman" build.

@Jormengand:

You should actually be quite familiar with animosity making people blind and still step into that trap yourself. Reread the chart by emeraldstreak on page 1 of this discussion, look closely at row/colum1: No UMD? PF Wins? This I answered to, first by agreeing that the assessment of Lans´ archer is right and than pointing out the differences in performance, amongst others that a direct port of the build will have roughly 20% more to hit and damage and negating the fear aura and blasphemy completely.

Pleh

2017-06-25, 04:53 AM

Not entirely, as far as I see it.

How to phrase that? It´s easier to start with an example: Some time ago, I go into a harmless argument about "best archer builds" and proposed the Paladin, while another countered with Cleric. Comparing builds, it turns out that both builds churned out nearly equal numbers, because the Cleric build relied on copying each and every spell, feat and class feature used by the Paladin build.

Actually, I see this going the other way.

When the cleric copies the paladin, it says:

Paladin is best archer because they have X.

Cleric is best archer because the have X + 9th level spells.

Very similar to this discussion where we say:

Fighter has WBL.

Wizard has WBL + 9th level spells.

Of course the character that has all the same advantages PLUS more powerful spellcasting is going to be superior to any given task, unless you can find something unique to the noncasting class that is superior to the caster's spells. Good luck with that, btw.

logic_error

2017-06-25, 07:33 AM

Florian

2017-06-25, 08:41 AM

@pleh

It is not just that. In fact, the core argument about how this *debate* started has been completely tarnished at this point. The original argument was quite simple: That some classes (specifical spellcasters) outdo fighters in martial prowess; a feature where fighters are supposed to excel.

That´s part of a tangent I wanted to touch on earlier. For that we have to contrast the peak performance of a class with two builds - one that is self-reliant, the other that is buff-reliant and will get the necessary buffs - then compare how resource expenditure sums up. But, alas, still have visitors around, so not until monday evening or so.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-25, 09:18 PM

I made one tweak to the halfling sniper build: removing the inherent bonuses to dexterity and adding a robe of eyes. This makes to hit and initiative slightly worse while providing 120' darkvision, see invisible, see ethereal, keep Dexterity bonus when flat footed, can't be flanked and adds another +5 to spot. Altogether this provides even stronger tactical information advantage without significantly altering expected combat outcomes.

I also worked out in detail two other reference points. A Ranger 20 is a clearly better chassis because of a good class skill list, Hide In Plain Sight, and (potentially) Favored Enemy yielding Spot+10 and weapon damage+10. Overall, the ranger does a little bit more damage (280 vs. 245) and has total tactical information dominance.

In contrast, a Commoner 20 takes a huge hit to damage (98 vs. 245) while mostly maintaining a strong advantage in tactical information.

Dagroth

2017-06-26, 03:29 AM

Lans

2017-06-26, 04:04 AM

One thing I noticed...

You subtracted 2 from STR & added 2 to DEX... twice. Once for Size and once for Race.

That's not the way halflings work.

He used reduce person

Anthrowhale

2017-06-26, 07:14 AM

He used reduce person

Right. Permanency Reduce Person is just below the 3K gp cutoff for routine spellcasting services.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 08:28 AM

Right. Permanency Reduce Person is just below the 3K gp cutoff for routine spellcasting services.

Yes, we understand that NPC wizards are powerful. I'm glad we're agreeing that "Bribe a wizard to help you do it" is now the best way to defeat a pit fiend as a fighter.

Pleh

2017-06-26, 09:11 AM

I understand your frustration, Jormengand, but until we settle the underlying principles (e.g. whether it's better to judge fighter based only on class features or by all available character options), this argument is just talking past each other.

What I see needing to be argued is, "why is it better to test fighter with all character options" and, "why is it better to test fighter based on class features alone?"

To me, it seems clear that it depends on what you're testing FOR.

Raw ability against an encounter? All character options should be considered.

Comparative power relative to other classes? Only options unique to fighters should be considered.

We need to be careful not to conflate these two measurements.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 09:48 AM

There aren't any class features unique to a Fighter in 3rd/3.5 edition of D&D. The Fighter only gets access to bonus feats as a class feature. I suppose you could look at Fighter only feats, but they're not anything special when you consider what feats other classes have access to that they don't. Weapon Specialization gives +2 damage. Maximized Spell increases all damage from a spell to its maximum. I don't think there are any feats that maximize the damage that a Fighter does when he swings his sword, even just a certain number of times per day. That doesn't mean that a Fighter is useless. It also doesn't mean that a Fighter isn't fun to play. But, honestly, Fighter is a better class to dip into, versus taking up to level 20.

Zanos

2017-06-26, 10:03 AM

Yes, we understand that NPC wizards are powerful. I'm glad we're agreeing that "Bribe a wizard to help you do it" is now the best way to defeat a pit fiend as a fighter.
I think paying for a permanent spell that can be explicitly cast on others is within the realm of sanity, unlike the ExFighter which is just a pure display of "look at this phenomenal power I got by paying a wizard."

ngilop

2017-06-26, 10:17 AM

This is mostly because I'm not going to believe that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters, the moon astral projections were faked and we should wear tinfoil commoners to protect against mind control.

I don not have a clue as to what is going on exactly. But the image of wearing tinfoil commoners is the 2nd greatest image I have ever had from these forums.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 10:42 AM

I don not have a clue as to what is going on exactly. But the image of wearing tinfoil commoners is the 2nd greatest image I have ever had from these forums.

Oh, earlier on one of these goons was arguing that diplomacy on commoners was meant to be able to get oddly-specific information on a wizard from them, even if said wizard systematically wiped their memories.

(There was also a bit about how you supposedly can't astral project from the moon, and of course the ongoing argument about whether a fighter can kill a pit fiend without a real character's help which can generally be summarised as "No".)

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 10:58 AM

Oh, earlier on one of these goons was arguing that diplomacy on commoners was meant to be able to get oddly-specific information on a wizard from them, even if said wizard systematically wiped their memories.

(There was also a bit about how you supposedly can't astral project from the moon, and of course the ongoing argument about whether a fighter can kill a pit fiend without a real character's help which can generally be summarised as "No".)

Seriously, there's no need for name calling in these forums. Someone disagreeing with you is no reason for putting them down personally. The argument was that you could gather information about Wizards. Who you could get it from wasn't the point, just that there is a system built for getting information about enemies, and it would be stupid to go into a fight against someone without any information on them. The idea of a Wizard systematically wiping the memories of everyone who had ever seen them came up as a result of the suggestion that the Fighter would gather information before the fight, which is a very silly notion. Also, people have suggested a few builds that show a Fighter can kill a Pit Fiend, if allowed access to the magic items that they should be allowed access to. Why you're taking this so personally, I will never know.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 11:14 AM

The main thing I will say on this topic is something I have said many times before - a Balor with perfect knowledge of the Fighter coming his way and who also has prep time to raise an army of minions and otherwise prepare the battlefield is a harder encounter than the MM Balor was designed to represent. Treating the static CR number in the Manual or Bestiary like it is gospel when no other aspect of the game's design is treated that way (and hell, we all know how accurate CR numbers themselves can be, while we're at it) is going to result in nothing but more flamewars and locked threads until the end of time.

Of course the character that has all the same advantages PLUS more powerful spellcasting is going to be superior to any given task, unless you can find something unique to the noncasting class that is superior to the caster's spells. Good luck with that, btw.

Yes, Wizards and Clerics are superior. That has absolutely jack squat to do with the question "Can a level-appropriate Fighter with level-appropriate WBL take down a Balor/Pit Fiend." However true "Wizards do it more easily" might be, it has no bearing on the actual question.

To me, it seems clear that it depends on what you're testing FOR.

Raw ability against an encounter? All character options should be considered.

Comparative power relative to other classes? Only options unique to fighters should be considered.

We need to be careful not to conflate these two measurements.

I agree but would take it a step further: that underlined bit is completely irrelevant to the game unless you're running, I dunno, some kind of PvP Arena or something that 3.P clearly wasn't designed for.

Florian

2017-06-26, 11:33 AM

lord_khaine

2017-06-26, 11:37 AM

It does seem rather clear that the Op proved the original premise, and a little petty to start complaining about a permanented level 1 spell.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 12:40 PM

It does seem rather clear that the Op proved the original premise, and a little petty to start complaining about a permanented level 1 spell.

If the original premise was "Wizards and magic items are great", then sure. If the original premise was "Anyone can be good if you give them a ton of magic stuff", then sure. If the premise was "Fighters are a real class which actually does things", then no. The fact that "I'm building my fighter well!" is far less valuable than "I'm giving my fighter neat magic stuff!" is kinda proof of the fact that fighters don't do their job properly.

Also, the original original premise, lest we all forget (or lest we all never have known in the first place because this argument has gone on too long) is "A standard fighter in a standard game of D&D 3.5 doesn't do his job properly", not "Borderline-TO fighters don't do their job properly".

Florian

2017-06-26, 12:52 PM

If a core only build borders on TO, same as using the actual rules for the game, then there´s no helping you.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 12:53 PM

Also, the original original premise, lest we all forget (or lest we all never have known in the first place because this argument has gone on too long) is "A standard fighter in a standard game of D&D 3.5 doesn't do his job properly", not "Borderline-TO fighters don't do their job properly".

I don't think anyone is denying that. Unless I miss my guess, I believe Florian assumes PF unless the thread specifically limits it to 3.5 via tags (which neither this thread nor the one that spawned it have done.)

Zanos

2017-06-26, 12:57 PM

If a core only build borders on TO, same as using the actual rules for the game, then there´s no helping you.
I will, strangely enough, agree with Florian here. I didn't think the example builds should have used combining or intelligent magic items, but mostly they're just fighters who take a bunch of feats to make them better at shooting arrows, buy a magic bow and arrow to shoot arrows better, and buy magic armor and other gear to have decent defenses. None of the magic items are particularly insane either, I suppose the most "egregious" thing is the robe of eyes which is unusual on a fighter, but it's a core magic item and it provides a very potent detection mode. It's also been shown to work without the intelligent item.

I guess we could make a core fighter and core commoner and see how the commoner does in comparison? I'm guessing not super great.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 01:43 PM

Unless I miss my guess, I believe Florian assumes PF unless the thread specifically limits it to 3.5 via tags (which neither this thread nor the one that spawned it have done.)

The entire argument started when I said "Standard build core fighters don't do their job properly in 3.5", whereupon multiple posters threw a fit and posted multiple, non-standard core fighters in 3.5 and said "But you know if you allowed core/PF/custom items this would be even stronger" as though any of that proved their point. Yes, if you stack items on a fighter and give it stuff specifically to kill pit fiends, it can kill pit fiends. Sometimes. At length. But it can't without extreme difficulty, and no-one seems to understand that the majority of forumites don't play the game the way normal people do and therefore "Oh, I guess I'll carry around the best magic items in the game, carefully arrayed in such a way so as to optimally counter a pit fiend in this very optimised way" isn't how real people play the game.

And assuming PF unless the thread specifically limits it to 3.5 by tags is really stupid because there's a 3rd tag, a PF tag, and no 3.5 tag.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 01:52 PM

The entire argument started when I said "Standard build core fighters don't do their job properly in 3.5", whereupon multiple posters threw a fit and posted multiple, non-standard core fighters in 3.5 and said "But you know if you allowed core/PF/custom items this would be even stronger" as though any of that proved their point. Yes, if you stack items on a fighter and give it stuff specifically to kill pit fiends, it can kill pit fiends. Sometimes. At length. But it can't without extreme difficulty, and no-one seems to understand that the majority of forumites don't play the game the way normal people do and therefore "Oh, I guess I'll carry around the best magic items in the game, carefully arrayed in such a way so as to optimally counter a pit fiend in this very optimised way" isn't how real people play the game.

And assuming PF unless the thread specifically limits it to 3.5 by tags is really stupid because there's a 3rd tag, a PF tag, and no 3.5 tag.

So, to finish off your point, what do you see a Fighter's job as? Because, the typical assumption (that I've seen) from players is the job of the Fighter is to stand between the enemy and those with fewer hit points, and hit it with something sharp/hard/pointy, while those with fewer hit points deal out more damage from behind his cover. And, it certainly isn't to solo Pit Fiends. I mean, you start these conversations on this forum and they always spiral out of control and turn into a shouting match that Wizards can do all the stuff a Fighter can do with a few spells, and then devolve further into just slinging insults. If Fighter isn't your preferred class, that is fine. But, honestly, at what point would you even admit that the Fighter was just built to be a physical combatant, and in that aspect, they do just fine? There's a reason that Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers are frequently called the meat shields.

lord_khaine

2017-06-26, 01:55 PM

I will, strangely enough, agree with Florian here. I didn't think the example builds should have used combining or intelligent magic items, but mostly they're just fighters who take a bunch of feats to make them better at shooting arrows, buy a magic bow and arrow to shoot arrows better, and buy magic armor and other gear to have decent defenses. None of the magic items are particularly insane either, I suppose the most "egregious" thing is the robe of eyes which is unusual on a fighter, but it's a core magic item and it provides a very potent detection mode. It's also been shown to work without the intelligent item.

There is another example build on page 2 that dont use intelligent magic items.

The entire argument started when I said "Standard build core fighters don't do their job properly in 3.5", whereupon multiple posters threw a fit and posted multiple, non-standard core fighters in 3.5 and said "But you know if you allowed core/PF/custom items this would be even stronger" as though any of that proved their point. Yes, if you stack items on a fighter and give it stuff specifically to kill pit fiends, it can kill pit fiends. Sometimes. At length. But it can't without extreme difficulty, and no-one seems to understand that the majority of forumites don't play the game the way normal people do and therefore "Oh, I guess I'll carry around the best magic items in the game, carefully arrayed in such a way so as to optimally counter a pit fiend in this very optimised way" isn't how real people play the game

Well.. if you want to go by how normal people play the game, then a lot of the time tier 1-2 classes will also die if fighting the Balor unprepared, since Dominate Monster/Power word Stun/Implosion are all rather nasty tricks.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 01:59 PM

So, to finish off your point, what do you see a Fighter's job as? Because, the typical assumption (that I've seen) from players is the job of the Fighter is to stand between the enemy and those with fewer hit points, and hit it with something sharp/hard/pointy, while those with fewer hit points deal out more damage from behind his cover. And, it certainly isn't to solo Pit Fiends. I mean, you start these conversations on this forum and they always spiral out of control and turn into a shouting match that Wizards can do all the stuff a Fighter can do with a few spells, and then devolve further into just slinging insults. If Fighter isn't your preferred class, that is fine. But, honestly, at what point would you even admit that the Fighter was just built to be a physical combatant, and in that aspect, they do just fine? There's a reason that Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers are frequently called the meat shields.

The fighter's job is to fight, and they should be able to put out a decent bit of damage as well as to take damage, rather than just being the get-in-the-way machine. The problem with the fighter even if you do see being in the way as their job is that enemies can just walk past the fighter with relative impunity a lot of the time, and it gets worse once you're fighting in three dimensions or the enemy has ranged attacks that do something.

And whether you see the fighter's job as to fight or to get in the way, often it's very easy to summon or become something that's better at fighting than said fighter.

ngilop

2017-06-26, 02:01 PM

"egregious"

"egegios"

"eggio"

"egg"

YES.. after years of waiting it is proven You have to love them the incredible edible egg! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbbWieoNQ5E)

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 02:11 PM

The fighter's job is to fight, and they should be able to put out a decent bit of damage as well as to take damage, rather than just being the get-in-the-way machine. The problem with the fighter even if you do see being in the way as their job is that enemies can just walk past the fighter with relative impunity a lot of the time, and it gets worse once you're fighting in three dimensions or the enemy has ranged attacks that do something.

And whether you see the fighter's job as to fight or to get in the way, often it's very easy to summon or become something that's better at fighting than said fighter.

Would you rather have your summoned creature, or your summoned creature and a Fighter, between you and the enemy? Yes, summoning is an exceptionally powerful ability. There are summoned creatures that can cast spells and tank. A summoned creature can act as a healer. Summoning is powerful. But, if you can summon a creature, your enemy can dispel it. Fighters can't be dispelled. And, at what point is the Fighter not fighting? The whole Commoner vs Fighter thing is silly, because a Fighter will always be hitting easier, more often, and harder, even given the same equipment. Fighters have a higher BAB, WAY more hit points, and a ton more feats, allowing them to specialize in specific fighting styles. Give a Fighter a Polearm, and some tripping abilities, chances are they can completely protect people, and prevent movement past them.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:26 PM

Would you rather have your summoned creature, or your summoned creature and a Fighter, between you and the enemy?

I'd rather have my summoned monster, and my friend's animal companion, and my friend's summoned nature's ally, and my friend who is now also a tiger because screw it, why not? Fighters don't cut it compared to summoned creatures, most of the time.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 02:29 PM

The entire argument started when I said "Standard build core fighters don't do their job properly in 3.5", whereupon multiple posters threw a fit and posted multiple, non-standard core fighters in 3.5 and said "But you know if you allowed core/PF/custom items this would be even stronger" as though any of that proved their point. Yes, if you stack items on a fighter and give it stuff specifically to kill pit fiends, it can kill pit fiends. Sometimes. At length. But it can't without extreme difficulty, and no-one seems to understand that the majority of forumites don't play the game the way normal people do and therefore "Oh, I guess I'll carry around the best magic items in the game, carefully arrayed in such a way so as to optimally counter a pit fiend in this very optimised way" isn't how real people play the game.

Then I stand corrected, if your point was limited to core 3.5 fighters then I totally agree. However:

And assuming PF unless the thread specifically limits it to 3.5 by tags is really stupid because there's a 3rd tag, a PF tag, and no 3.5 tag.

If you say "Fighters can't beat balors" in this subforum with no system, then yes, people are going to post about the system where that is a falsehood. Especially when the solution to the problem is as simple as "hey, use this, it's free!"

I'd rather have my summoned monster, and my friend's animal companion, and my friend's summoned nature's ally, and my friend who is now also a tiger because screw it, why not? Fighters don't cut it compared to summoned creatures, most of the time.

The spells required to, say, hedge the Fighters out of melee or banish them all to another plane tend to be much higher than the ones for summons though. And if we're talking core only, summons are extremely weak anyway.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:34 PM

Then I stand corrected, if your point was limited to core 3.5 fighters then I totally agree. However:

If you say "Fighters can't beat balors" in this subforum with no system, then yes, people are going to post about the system where that is a falsehood. Especially when the solution to the problem is as simple as "hey, use this, it's free!"

I did mention that it was 3.5 originally, and also PF is a different system than 3.5 (It's a bit like saying "Well, in this homebrew fix of 3.5, fighters are good!" Wait, no, it's exactly like saying that) so people repeatedly attempting to bring it up isn't really helpful. Fighter in 3.5 and fighter in PF are different classes, and more importantly than the relatively minor numbers bonuses that PF gave to the fighter directly, all the stuff the fighters can get as peripherals is a lot better than 3.5, because they're two different systems.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 02:39 PM

I'd rather have my summoned monster, and my friend's animal companion, and my friend's summoned nature's ally, and my friend who is now also a tiger because screw it, why not? Fighters don't cut it compared to summoned creatures, most of the time.

I seriously don't know where your hatred for the Fighter comes from, but at every point that you add on, I continue. Would you rather have your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, and your friend who is now a tiger; or, your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, your friend who is now a tiger, and a Fighter? Extra Fighters, especially played by people who can adequately position them to take full advantage of terrain, and their weapons, are always useful, even if they're not putting out 300+ damage every round to every enemy. And, if the player isn't playing them effectively it's the player's fault. So, play your Wizard summoner, and only buff yourself and your summoned pets instead of the party. The Fighter will still be able taking the damage that you could have been taking instead.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 02:40 PM

Psyren

2017-06-26, 02:42 PM

I did mention that it was 3.5 originally, and also PF is a different system than 3.5 (It's a bit like saying "Well, in this homebrew fix of 3.5, fighters are good!" Wait, no, it's exactly like saying that) so people repeatedly attempting to bring it up isn't really helpful. Fighter in 3.5 and fighter in PF are different classes, and more importantly than the relatively minor numbers bonuses that PF gave to the fighter directly, all the stuff the fighters can get as peripherals is a lot better than 3.5, because they're two different systems.

"PF = homebrew fix" is a pretty bad analogy, there is just about no homebrew that gets the kind of widespread audience that Paizo has. That's really all that a system boils down to when you get right down to it - WotC 1st-party stuff is only valuable because it's a language we all speak from having the books (especially core) ourselves. Pathfinder is the same. Like deities and GMs, these rules only matter because enough of us think they matter.

I do wonder though if you are at all interested in a solution, rather than just posting to vent. (Which, if that's the case, go right ahead - just keep in mind that since this is a discussion forum you'll probably get suggestions and solutions anyway, rather than just mute commiseration.)

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:43 PM

I seriously don't know where your hatred for the Fighter comes from, but at every point that you add on, I continue. Would you rather have your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, and your friend who is now a tiger; or, your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, your friend who is now a tiger, and a Fighter?

I would rather have another druid than a fighter. I would rather have a freaking adept than a fighter, especially at high levels because the adept is now a freaking dragon. I would rather have someone who is actually good at doing a fighter's nominal job, than a fighter. Is the point.

I do wonder though if you are at all interested in a solution, rather than just posting to vent. (Which, if that's the case, go right ahead - just keep in mind that since this is a discussion forum you'll probably get suggestions and solutions anyway, rather than just mute commiseration.)

I created the Veteran. I think I have a solution: play something which isn't a fighter. But in order to make the solution work you do at least somewhat have to convince people there's a problem.

ngilop

2017-06-26, 02:44 PM

is it just me.. or when reading Jormengand's posts you cannot help but picture the fighter getting blasting by whatever red magic of pure rage and wrath his avatar is throwing at off screen?

also http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22132886&postcount=79

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:47 PM

is it just me.. or when reading Jormengand's posts you cannot help but picture the fighter getting blasting by whatever red magic of pure rage and wrath his avatar is throwing at off screen?

I mean, you can add "Truenamer" to the list of classes which are better than fighters if you like, because that's what class the person in the avatar is.

Also I'm not a "He".

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 02:48 PM

I would rather have another druid than a fighter. I would rather have a freaking adept than a fighter, especially at high levels because the adept is now a freaking dragon. I would rather have someone who is actually good at doing a fighter's nominal job, than a fighter. Is the point.

The point is that you don't like the Fighter, and have given no real reason why. The point of the Fighter is to fight, to defend, and to absorb damage. All of that is useful. So, answer me this, and don't deflect: when your Wizard is out of spells for the day, and all their contingencies are gone; no more summoning, or buffing, or teleporting away; would you rather have a Fighter standing between your Wizard and the enemy, or just get killed? Because even at level 20, the Wizard only has between 23 and 83 hit points, plus Con. And, we all know that enemies can tear through that in a single round with ease.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:51 PM

The point is that you don't like the Fighter, and have given no real reason why.

You literally just made that up. Stop it.

The point of the Fighter is to fight, to defend, and to absorb damage. All of that is useful.
And none of it is actually doable by the fighter.

So, answer me this, and don't deflect: when your Wizard is out of spells for the day, and all their contingencies are gone; no more summoning, or buffing, or teleporting away; would you rather have a Fighter standing between your Wizard and the enemy, or just get killed? Because even at level 20, the Wizard only has between 23 and 83 hit points, plus Con. And, we all know that enemies can tear through that in a single round with ease.

When my wizard is out of spells for the day, the last spell they cast was probably rope trick. I would rather be in an extradimensional space than protected by a schmuck with a sword. Or a bow.

That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.

Zanos

2017-06-26, 02:51 PM

But in order to make the solution work you do at least somewhat have to convince people there's a problem.
You have done a fairly poor job of that in this thread, considering that each time someone manages to make a build that can defeat a pit fiend using core resources, you complain that it counters pit fiends specifically when it has fairly wide-ranging defenses like see invisibility and freedom of movement.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 02:57 PM

You have done a fairly poor job of that in this thread, considering that each time someone manages to make a build that can defeat a pit fiend using core resources, you complain that it counters pit fiends specifically when it has fairly wide-ranging defenses like see invisibility and freedom of movement.

Well, to be fair, the all-18s fighter with anarchic holy lawful-outsider-bane evil-outsider-bane arrows and subsequent nonsense with intelligent items haven't really put me in the mood to check exactly how much of each pile-of-magic-items-with-a-fighter-in-it is tailored to fight pit fiends. The point is that a fighter which wasn't built by someone who optimises fighters as apparently their sole hobby isn't generally effective. Given the number of iterations of fighter optimisation it took to make one which was even approaching rules-legal and which could actually beat the pit fiend in question, I stand by that.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 03:02 PM

You literally just made that up. Stop it.

I didn't. You've been demonstrating a dislike of the Fighter in general over many different threads.

And none of it is actually doable by the fighter.

The Fighter can, and does this. Tripping opponents. Literally standing between enemies and allies. Grappling. These are all things that Fighters can do.

When my wizard is out of spells for the day, the last spell they cast was probably rope trick. I would rather be in an extradimensional space than protected by a schmuck with a sword. Or a bow.

That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.

First off, yes Wizards do run out of spells. Second off, what do you do when your last Rope Trick is countered by the enemy? You keep trying to deflect, but the fact is, an enemy caster is the bane of a Wizard, because the war of attrition is harder on you when your spells can be countered. So, in the situation described, having an ally who can just hit someone with a sword, club, or what have you, and just continue to do that all day, is much better than having to rely on something that can be dispelled.

Zanos

2017-06-26, 03:04 PM

Well, to be fair, the all-18s fighter with anarchic holy lawful-outsider-bane evil-outsider-bane arrows and subsequent nonsense with intelligent items haven't really put me in the mood to check exactly how much of each pile-of-magic-items-with-a-fighter-in-it is tailored to fight pit fiends. The point is that a fighter which wasn't built by someone who optimises fighters as apparently their sole hobby isn't generally effective. Given the number of iterations of fighter optimisation it took to make one which was even approaching rules-legal and which could actually beat the pit fiend in question, I stand by that.
I agreed with you on those points, but the creator of those builds made variants that addressed those specific complaints and you fell back on other ones.

That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.
Are we arguing about "real" fighters in the same breath as wizards with unlimited spell slots hiding in rope tricks?

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 03:12 PM

I agreed with you on those points, but the creator of those builds made variants that addressed those specific complaints and you fell back on other ones.
Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of "Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."

Are we arguing about "real" fighters in the same breath as wizards with unlimited spell slots hiding in rope tricks?

A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.

an enemy caster is the bane of a Wizard

And here I was thinking it was a fighter.

(No, I'm not going to respond to your post which is basically just saying overt falsehoods until you're blue in the face. Why would I do that?)

Zanos

2017-06-26, 03:19 PM

Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of -"Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."
Moving the goalposts would definitely be levied against you as a fair criticism if that's your methodology. You should present all of your initial objections in one post.

You don't seem to have any love for fighters, certainly.

A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.
They can run out of level appropriate spells depending on material on prep choices. I won't make any argument that a Wizard isn't better at pretty much everything than a fighter, but wizards do not have unlimited endurance against actually challenging encounters. Neither do fighters, with hit points and all, but still.

Florian

2017-06-26, 03:24 PM

Oh, it´s brain-farting time again. Reminds me how perplexed I was when a certain person burst into a PF-tagged thread, at a point discussing what AMH/WMH did for the Fighter and the "subtle" fineries (:P) of your regular mounted fury/superstitious AM-B builds, pouring hot rage over martial classes.
I think it´s actually cool to be called a "liar" while explaining how using those builds is pretty easy to one-shot high-level opponents, especially with AM-B.

Edit: Oh, and I´m still looking for the All-18s Fighter that person is rambling on about.

DEMON

2017-06-26, 03:24 PM

Let's murder each other over a base class in a more than decade old tabletop game.

On a more serious note, I think nobody with a decent system knowledge argues that Fighters are more powerful than Wizards. Even the devs have acknowledged that, mostly by giving us the Warblade and dropping a ton of ACFs for the fighter in books like CC and PHB2 (not necessarily their best ACFs, mind you, but those books have the highest number of them).

That being said, Jormengand, your attitude does wonders for making people side with whoever is on the other side of the argument, because you mostly seem like you've thrown a tantrum and turned it into a shouting match.

Is fighter a bad class? Perhaps... it certainly is a lot weaker than many other base classes in DnD 3.5, but at the same time, it lends quite well to both low/no-magic campaigns and multi-classing. They are the poster child for being a "mundane hero", for better or worse (mostly worse, when you look at if from an optimizer's POV).

Yes, it is a 20-levels long base class, but at the same time, v3.5 is an incredibly modular system allowing for all sorts of customization. At some level of that, Fighters work just fine. At top levels, they do not, but that's true for many other classes.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 03:26 PM

Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of "Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."

A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.

And here I was thinking it was a fighter.

(No, I'm not going to respond to your post which is basically just saying overt falsehoods until you're blue in the face. Why would I do that?)

Would you point out the falsehoods that I have supposedly said, at least, then? Because, as far as I know, a Fighter does in fact have more hit points; a wizard does have a finite amount of spells per day; and, a Wizard is most vulnerable to other spellcasters who can counter, or dispel, the spells that a Wizard tries to cast. I've never claimed that a Fighter is the greatest threat to anything. Your claim was that they are completely useless and can't even do what they're built to do. I've pointed out things in your claim that are false.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 03:27 PM

Moving the goalposts would definitely be levied against you as a fair criticism if that's your methodology. You should present all of your initial objections in one post.
And what if my objections to an illegal build which isn't that high-OP and can kill pit fiends, a legal build which is nearing TO and can kill pit fiends, and a legal build which isn't that high-OP and can't kill pit fiends, are all different? I don't see how raising different objections to different phony arguments which are wrong in different ways is "Moving the goalposts". If anything, saying "Ah, maybe that build didn't work, but THIS one will!" over and over again until you have one which eventually works is moving the goalposts.

Not that any of this is relevant when I specified 3.5 fighters in core in a thread about real games, which is when the ravening hordes of imbalance-deniers descended.

You don't seem to have any love for fighters, certainly.
You know what I really hate? Warblades. You know what's better than fighters? Warblades.
You know what I really love? Truenamers. Guess what isn't as good as a wizard!

To be clear, I don't hate soulknives, samurai or monks either. I mean, I don't really like any of them because they're boring, one-dimensional and not really that fun to play, but I don't have this massive vendetta against them. I didn't follow another poster to another thread which had nothing to do with the topic and bring it up, twice, nor did I start a whole new thread solely to argue about it.

They can run out of level appropriate spells depending on material on prep choices. I won't make any argument that a Wizard isn't better at pretty much everything than a fighter, but wizards do not have unlimited endurance against actually challenging encounters. Neither do fighters, with hit points and all, but still.

Well, no, but the argument in question was "What if the wizard's run out of spells entirely!" which seems more than a little unfair when the fighter would have run out of existence entirely by this point.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 03:37 PM

I created the Veteran. I think I have a solution: play something which isn't a fighter. But in order to make the solution work you do at least somewhat have to convince people there's a problem.

Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?

logic_error

2017-06-26, 03:38 PM

I fear Jorg is being treated unfairly. First of all, this thread is a patent illustration of a strawman. Jorg entered this debate way back where the Pit Fiend was just an example of how high CR encounters are difficult to impossible for mundanes. Jorg and others have been at that since ages and I can only testify that Jorg has been bearing the brunt of that assault alone against many. That itself can sour attitude of the lone person if people refuse to let go.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 03:39 PM

Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?

He does seem to think that an argument against the Fighter being worthless is the same as an argument that the Fighter is the greatest class ever.

Zanos

2017-06-26, 03:40 PM

And what if my objections to an illegal build which isn't that high-OP and can kill pit fiends, a legal build which is nearing TO and can kill pit fiends, and a legal build which isn't that high-OP and can't kill pit fiends, are all different? I don't see how raising different objections to different phony arguments which are wrong in different ways is "Moving the goalposts".
Because you presented the secondary arguments sequentially after the initial problems were corrected, shifting what it would take to satisfy you.

If anything, saying "Ah, maybe that build didn't work, but THIS one will!" over and over again until you have one which eventually works is moving the goalposts.
You suggested that a "real" fighter build doesn't exist that could reliably defeat a pit fiend. If any "real" fighter build exists that meets that criteria, then your point is countered. So making multiple builds that approach the problem from different angles is legitimate.

Not that any of this is relevant when I specified 3.5 fighters in core in a thread about real games, which is when the ravening hordes of imbalance-deniers descended.
Hey, we're on a tangent of a tangent here. Don't try to refocus me, I'm trying to ARGUE on the INTERNET.

You know what I really hate? Warblades. You know what's better than fighters? Warblades.
You know what I really love? Truenamers. Guess what isn't as good as a wizard!

To be clear, I don't hate soulknives, samurai or monks either. I mean, I don't really like any of them because they're boring, one-dimensional and not really that fun to play, but I don't have this massive vendetta against them. I didn't follow another poster to another thread which had nothing to do with the topic and bring it up, twice, nor did I start a whole new thread solely to argue about it.
Okay, fair. I'll pencil you in for "doesn't really like fighters" then.

Well, no, but the argument in question was "What if the wizard's run out of spells entirely!" which seems more than a little unfair when the fighter would have run out of existence entirely by this point.
Again fair, but you shouldn't counter with something that isn't really true. I think most people agree that wizards are better than fighters.

I fear Jorg is being treated unfairly. First of all, this thread is a patent illustration of a strawman. Jorg entered this debate way back where the Pit Fiend was just an example of how high CR encounters are difficult to impossible for mundanes. Jorg and others have been at that since ages and I can only testify that Jorg has been bearing the brunt of that assault alone against many. That itself can sour attitude of the lone person if people refuse to let go.
I think I've been uncharacteristically fair here. I usually just tell people they're wrong. And I was on Jormengand's side for a little bit.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 03:43 PM

Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?

No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.

Because you presented the secondary arguments sequentially after the initial problems were corrected, shifting what it would take to satisfy you.
Well, no, I presented them immediately and then pointed out the most obvious failing of each build as it arrived. Though I did point out quite a lot of the failings of the original all-18s fighter of pitfiendbane arrows immediately (namely that it was illegal, massively optimised, tailor-made, and didn't even work)

You suggested that a "real" fighter build doesn't exist that could reliably defeat a pit fiend. If any "real" fighter build exists that meets that criteria, then your point is countered. So making multiple builds that approach the problem from different angles is legitimate.

I did clarify at length fairly early on what exactly I mean by a real fighter build. Or are you seriously suggesting that these are the kinds of fighter builds that you would normally see in a normal game run by people who don't optimise as their hobby, and which haven't been painstakingly iterated upon?

Hey, we're on a tangent of a tangent here. Don't try to refocus me, I'm trying to ARGUE on the INTERNET.
I CAN AND I WILL. :smalltongue:

Okay, fair. I'll pencil you in for "doesn't really like fighters" then.

Not that my argument has anything to do with my personal opinion of fighters (whether they're interesting to play or not is another major issue they have, but...)

Again fair, but you shouldn't counter with something that isn't really true. I think most people agree that wizards are better than fighters.
Well... I think it pretty much is true and you pretty much admitted it was true that wizards practically never actually run out of spells, so responding to "WHAT IF THE WIZARD RUNS OUT OF SPELLS" with "He probably won't" is pretty fair, IMO.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 03:48 PM

No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.

Except that you haven't been saying that there's a problem with the Fighter. You've been saying that they're worthless as a class, and can't do the one thing that they were built for; which has been shown repeatedly to be false. If what you want to say is that there's a problem with the class, then say that. You'll be greeted by a cacophony of people stumbling over themselves to agree with you. Don't say that they're useless, or you'll be shown how they can be used.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 03:50 PM

No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.

Yes, fine. The 3.5 fighter has problems. I totally agree. It's a rather banal point to make but consider it truly, thoroughly made. So now what?

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 03:55 PM

Except that you haven't been saying that there's a problem with the Fighter. You've been saying that they're worthless as a class, and can't do the one thing that they were built for; which has been shown repeatedly to be false. If what you want to say is that there's a problem with the class, then say that. You'll be greeted by a cacophony of people stumbling over themselves to agree with you. Don't say that they're useless, or you'll be shown how they can be used.

What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

Is that now clear?

Yes, fine. The 3.5 fighter has problems. I totally agree. It's a rather banal point to make but consider it truly, thoroughly made. So now what?

Great, Psyren is convinced!

Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.

That being said, Jormengand, your attitude does wonders for making people side with whoever is on the other side of the argument, because you mostly seem like you've thrown a tantrum and turned it into a shouting match.

To be fair, these people hounded me in two threads and made a third thread to have this argument. My attitude started a lot more affiable and slowly turned more and more irritable as I found out that I couldn't mention the word "Fighter" without the hordes descending on me to remind me that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters.

EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.

Florian

2017-06-26, 04:02 PM

What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

Is that now clear?

No.

What you say is that being presented with a Fighter, build using the CRB and DMG, based to confront anything from the MM on a serious level just doesn´t exist.
Now what you do is moving goal-posts, in trying to say that a Fighter that is not build by a noob but by persons that have a clue about how to handle that class is TO.
In that, you´re either delusional or in denial, because all builds so far have refrained from actually using WBL to simulate caster shenanigans, even if that was at their fingertips and stayed with a pure weapon-based class.

It is not about comparison between classes. It is only about what height that specific class can reach, which is, frankly, way above what a summons or animal companion can do.

Zanos

2017-06-26, 04:03 PM

Well, no, I presented them immediately and then pointed out the most obvious failing of each build as it arrived. Though I did point out quite a lot of the failings of the original all-18s fighter of pitfiendbane arrows immediately (namely that it was illegal, massively optimised, tailor-made, and didn't even work)
I did too, I thought the all 18s intelligent item with 4 of everything in each slot was silly. The ensuing corrections and variants mostly satisfied my complaints, at least as far as I was willing to admit that a fighter had a significant chance of killing a pit fiend on it's own.

I did clarify at length fairly early on what exactly I mean by a real fighter build. Or are you seriously suggesting that these are the kinds of fighter builds that you would normally see in a normal game run by people who don't optimise as their hobby, and which haven't been painstakingly iterated upon?
I don't really consider those builds unusual, no. They've taken pretty obvious feat choices that make them good archers. They bow itself is pretty normal, and usually ammo is "cheap" enough that you can buy a different set for a variety of threats without breaking the bank insanely. Melee characters actually have a harder time golf bagging than archers because they have to switch weapons and can't use baseline bow enchantments. I think I would take more issue with it if we were fighting a more obscure threat, but you generally know if you're going to Hell unless something really bad happens. The author also took pains to buy other ammo types for other major enemies. Holy Axiomatic Bane arrows are probably a bit much, but Holy and Bane(Evil Outsiders) are both pretty good arrow enchantments, since those types of enemies are a pretty much cross-section of the creatures a high level character will be facing. I didn't consider the defenses unreasonable either. Ring of Freedom of movement protects a character against a lot of nasty stuff at higher levels, like being swallowed whole or having your brain eaten by illithids and being crushed under a dragon, and at those levels unless you're similarly large you probably aren't going to be within spitting distance of the monsters check. Similarly invisible foes are pretty common at lower levels, so a Robe of Eyes or another item that lets you deal with that is very good to have. I wouldn't expect something like this from a brand new player, but I don't think it approaches TO at all.

Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.
Oh, I agree that the fighter is bad, I just don't think it's bad in comparison to WotC tier optimization. Most of the time. Damned Adamantine Horrors.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 04:10 PM

What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

Is that now clear?

Great, Psyren is convinced!

Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.

To be fair, these people hounded me in two threads and made a third thread to have this argument. My attitude started a lot more affiable and slowly turned more and more irritable as I found out that I couldn't mention the word "Fighter" without the hordes descending on me to remind me that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters.

EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.

I have to agree with Florian. No, what you're saying isn't clear, since it's not what you've been saying. If you want to go back and edit all of your posts to say that the Fighter isn't a good class, I'll completely withdraw my point. If you want to say that Fighters are useless, as you've been saying, then you're just wrong. I've never made any of the points that you're claiming to be raging against. I've simply claimed that your point of the Fighter being useless is wrong, then showed how they can be used. You've yet to do anything other than say "well, you're wrong. Fighters are useless."

logic_error

2017-06-26, 04:11 PM

Alright. I have been reluctant to delve too deeply into this debate. But let me lay out the details in simple terms:

Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?
A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).

What does this tell us?

This tells us that the prime argument that was being made, that fighters are spectators in an optimally built party with casters, is probably right.

Q2) What is the role of the fighter?
A: It is dealing damage and absorbing it, chiefly. On top of that, the fighter can lay down tactical battlefield control. He can trip, bull rush, overrun and grapple opponents and keep them at bay. Assuming that these options cover all the fighter bases, one can safely argue that casters will do these things significantly, if not incomparably better than the fighter. Summons are known to be better at some things that a fighter can do, and there I believe should be little debate about this. Summons simply make the best damage absorbents for the obvious reason. They are expendable. Be very careful *even* to reason that a fighter does this job better. Aspects that the summons might not be able to cover, such as battlefield control or damage dealing, a caster can easily cover via spells and do so far more devastatingly to the opposition.

This is the second problem. A fighter's core role is easily usurped by full casters. In some cases, even by half casters or other mundanes such barbarians, who can do more damage and absorb more punishment!

Q3) Is there anything that the fighter can do better than other classes?
A: A fighter can go all day given the right supply of HP regeneration without suffering from intermediate penalties that accrue in other mundanes such a barbarians even if they occur temporarily. This is the core argument used to justify the fighter's raison de etre. Unfortunately, there the Rogue outdoes a fighter by being much more capable of avoiding and dealing damage *while* going all day. A fighter *does* shine here, but is outshone by another mundane!

In the verdict, I would say that the real problem is that the Fighter feats are simply not versatile enough. They do not compensate for the lack of spells. A fighter simply can not solve most plot problems that do not involve direct confrontation. He can easily get pigeonholed and thus become dangerously susceptible to *obvious* weaknesses.

This is what is really summarised when someone makes a passing remark "Fighters are useless". Taken in context, they mean "Fighters are useless when full casters, equally optimally built and sensibly played, are present". If you want to play fighters, sure, be my guest. D&D is Role Play and you should be playing what concept you wish to see materialise at the table.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 04:12 PM

Yeah, I do think the problem here is one of hyperbole.

Also, "not as good as other classes" does not equate to "useless." We can resort to the hypothetical question of "why would I bring any other class," but the fact remains that if your friend Bob wants to play a Fighter and not a Barbarian or Duskblade, he is going to play Fighter. You are within your rights to try and convince him once, but holding up the entire game with a line in the sand is just silly and disruptive.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 04:13 PM

No.

What you say is that being presented with a Fighter, build using the CRB and DMG, based to confront anything from the MM on a serious level just doesn´t exist.
Now what you do is moving goal-posts, in trying to say that a Fighter that is not build by a noob but by persons that have a clue about how to handle that class is TO.
In that, you´re either delusional or in denial, because all builds so far have refrained from actually using WBL to simulate caster shenanigans, even if that was at their fingertips and stayed with a pure weapon-based class.

I will remind you that this argument started in the "What notable discrepencies have you noticed in optimization theory and your games?" thread in which I said:

"The standard martial classes stand no real chance against spellcasters or even lucky rogues in any game I've actually seen played."

That was, to be clear, in the first post I made in the first thread in which this argument was had.

I made consistent references to "In real games" throughout the thread. I continually implied that builds like the 3.0 buff-pony and the all-18s archer didn't qualify. I've been clear on this from the start: hell, it was in the title of the thread I first posted in, that I was talking about what fighters do in the majority of real games. You should know this, because you were the first to respond. You were there when we discussed the many steves and the greg, the fighters of various levels of ineffectuality and rules-breaking. And yet you continued to claim never to have seen one of the builds.

Are you done lying, sir?

I don't really consider those builds unusual, no. They've taken pretty obvious feat choices that make them good archers. They bow itself is pretty normal, and usually ammo is "cheap" enough that you can buy a different set for a variety of threats without breaking the bank insanely. Melee characters actually have a harder time golf bagging than archers because they have to switch weapons and can't use baseline bow enchantments. I think I would take more issue with it if we were fighting a more obscure threat, but you generally know if you're going to Hell unless something really bad happens. The author also took pains to buy other ammo types for other major enemies. Holy Axiomatic Bane arrows are probably a bit much, but Holy and Bane(Evil Outsiders) are both pretty good arrow enchantments, since those types of enemies are a pretty much cross-section of the creatures a high level character will be facing. I didn't consider the defenses unreasonable either. Ring of Freedom of movement protects a character against a lot of nasty stuff at higher levels, like being swallowed whole or having your brain eaten by illithids and being crushed under a dragon, and at those levels unless you're similarly large you probably aren't going to be within spitting distance of the monsters check. Similarly invisible foes are pretty common at lower levels, so a Robe of Eyes or another item that lets you deal with that is very good to have. I wouldn't expect something like this from a brand new player, but I don't think it approaches TO at all.

I certainly consider the build in question exceptionally high-OP. I've never seen a player play anything even in the same vague strata as that.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 04:18 PM

DEMON

2017-06-26, 04:18 PM

EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.

By all means, you're welcome :smallamused:

emeraldstreak

2017-06-26, 04:26 PM

Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?

A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).

That doesn't make any sense.

First of all, you pin your argument on the word useless without ever defining what it is. That's how forumite time is wasted.

Second of all, four Core UMD Fighters will crush, obliterate, annihilate any remotely Core CR-appropriate encounter you can throw at them. Therefore, they are good enough to fulfill the role the game envisions for Player Classes.

PS. And for heaven's sake, do learn how to optimize unarmed strike already!

logic_error

2017-06-26, 04:30 PM

That doesn't make any sense.

First of all, you pin your argument on the word useless without ever defining what it is. That's how forumite time is wasted.

Second of all, four Core UMD Fighters will crush, obliterate, annihilate any remotely Core CR-appropriate encounter you can throw at them. Therefore, they are good enough to fulfill the role the game envisions for Player Classes.

PS. And for heaven's sake, do learn how to optimize unarmed strike already!

You just mentioned the word Define without defining it. Please, enlighten.

Florian

2017-06-26, 04:35 PM

Are you done lying, sir?

Trying to shift stance and move the blame at the certain time? Slick move.
Still, you wrote what you wrote and apparently a lot of people don´t agree.

You just mentioned the word Define without defining it. Please, enlighten.

Why, we have that. The outline of the whole d20 system.

Coretron03

2017-06-26, 04:36 PM

Second of all, four Core UMD Fighters will crush, obliterate, annihilate any remotely Core CR-appropriate encounter you can throw at them. Therefore, they are good enough to fulfill the role the game envisions for Player Classes.
Fighters, Meet Allip. Sword, Meet Immunity :smalltongue:.

PS. And for heaven's sake, do learn how to optimize unarmed strike already!
Hey, I remember you.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 04:40 PM

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 04:48 PM

Fighters, Meet Allip. Sword, Meet Immunity :smalltongue:.

Allip, meet Ghost Touch. :smallbiggrin: It's actually one of the first abilities that I get on my weapons for this exact reason. That, and, I once had to use my equipment as a ghost... it was difficult.

Incidentally, I think I have the first column, second column, and third row (http://imgur.com/jNT6Ce6) so far. Keep up the good work, guys!

Although unfortunately the bingo in question was made for PF, but it still works fairly well.

You're missing "Theorycrafting" (whatever that is), and "Skills" from the first column, "Optimizers are one trick ponies" from the second column, and "Theorycrafting" "Rule Zero" "Fine it exists" and "the Playtest complaint" from the third row.

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 04:53 PM

You're missing "Theorycrafting" (whatever that is), and "Skills" from the first column, "Optimizers are one trick ponies" from the second column, and "Theorycrafting" "Rule Zero" "Fine it exists" and "the Playtest complaint" from the third row.

I'm counting more threads than just this one. This argument has been going on longer than you may know.

Florian

2017-06-26, 04:56 PM

Incidentally, I think I have the first column, second column, and third row (http://imgur.com/jNT6Ce6) so far. Keep up the good work, guys!

Although unfortunately the bingo in question was made for PF, but it still works fairly well.

So, you want to take this on a very primitive level and possible feel vindicated by people lashing out?
Well, ok, drop me a hint on some appropriate swear words and demeaning phrases to throw your way and I might actually comply.

The_Jette

2017-06-26, 05:01 PM

So, you want to take this on a very primitive level and possible feel vindicated by people lashing out?
Well, ok, drop me a hint on some appropriate swear words and demeaning phrases to throw your way and I might actually comply.

There's no need for that. This isn't personal. It's a forum for discussing a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Remember?

Coretron03

2017-06-26, 05:02 PM

DEMON

2017-06-26, 05:02 PM

Allip, meet Ghost Touch. :smallbiggrin: It's actually one of the first abilities that I get on my weapons for this exact reason. That, and, I once had to use my equipment as a ghost... it was difficult.

You're missing "Theorycrafting" (whatever that is), and "Skills" from the first column, "Optimizers are one trick ponies" from the second column, and "Theorycrafting" "Rule Zero" "Fine it exists" and "the Playtest complaint" from the third row.

Nah, "Fine it exists" was called by me (to an extent) and Psyern. No dice on "skills" and "Optimizer's are one trick ponies" as far as I can tell, though.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 05:02 PM

Employing hyperbole generally leads to frustration and short tempers.

Fighters have problems, but are far from "useless," even in 3.5. Any PC brings with it PC wealth and a PC's tactics. Open it up to PF and the problem all but vanishes.

Also, I'm not sure how putting valid objections on a bingo card somehow makes them stop being valid. Maybe if the person who drew it argued better they wouldn't have to hear the same thing repeatedly?

Jormengand

2017-06-26, 05:12 PM

Employing hyperbole generally leads to frustration and short tempers.

Fighters have problems, but are far from "useless," even in 3.5. Any PC brings with it PC wealth and a PC's tactics. Open it up to PF and the problem all but vanishes.

I mean, I didn't claim that they were useless. The words I used all those threads ago were that a fighter "Does not have a level-appropriate response to situations".

Also, I'm not sure how putting valid objections on a bingo card somehow makes them stop being valid. Maybe if the person who drew it argued better they wouldn't have to hear the same thing repeatedly?

Well, I think the point is that responding to tone (for example) isn't a valid argument and this is generally understood in debate, and that "Fighters don't have resources which they lose as the day goes on" is patently untrue, and so forth. So, the point is that they're invalid objections on a bingo card. The bingo part of it is a general metaphor for "These incorrect arguments are so common that if I take 25 of them, it's likely that five of them will be mentioned which also conform to an arbitrary rule about which five those have to be."

Florian

2017-06-26, 05:18 PM

There's no need for that. This isn't personal. It's a forum for discussing a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Remember?

Admirable, Jette. But I tried to get something to that forumite, enforcing what should be considered BadWrongFun is not cool, not cool at all.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-26, 05:35 PM

Fighters, Meet Allip. Sword, Meet Immunity :smalltongue:.

Allips and shadows are where the newbie participants in gauntlet challenges die and the pros smirk. I've never lost to them in a gauntlet (or lost a gauntlet for that matter). By the way, among people who lost to shadows were the participants of "Casters v Everything" on these boards (I wasn't surprised).

While early levels can be rough against certain draws, this is an observation not necessarily limited to a UMD Fighter party. Overall, chances are they'll make it past to wealthier levels, eventually fulfilling their gameplay role and putting to rest this side of the argument.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 05:54 PM

I mean, I didn't claim that they were useless. The words I used all those threads ago were that a fighter "Does not have a level-appropriate response to situations".

Does he not have wealth either? You don't even need custom items, printed ones are fine.

Well, I think the point is that responding to tone (for example) isn't a valid argument and this is generally understood in debate, and that "Fighters don't have resources which they lose as the day goes on" is patently untrue, and so forth. So, the point is that they're invalid objections on a bingo card. The bingo part of it is a general metaphor for "These incorrect arguments are so common that if I take 25 of them, it's likely that five of them will be mentioned which also conform to an arbitrary rule about which five those have to be."

"They don't have resources" is indeed untrue, but "their resources are different" is not. Their main resources are hit points and daily uses of feats/items. You can build around the last two (choosing gear and builds that aren't limited by a daily supply) and as for hit points, the only one that actually matters is your last one.

The main one I was objecting to though was the one ascribed to me - "Fine, it exists." Which to me is a valid response if someone isn't actually looking for solutions but merely wants to gripe aimlessly. (Not saying that's you, rather I'm saying that's where I have used that response before.)

Cosi

2017-06-26, 06:30 PM

So, let's look at this bingo card. Is it just "bad arguments in a square" as some people are suggesting? Numbering is left to right and then top to bottom:

1. Trivially false, characters are (with relatively few exceptions) limited by at the very least HP. In any case, the ability to go longer than Wizards wouldn't necessarily be valuable even if it was real. You can deal 4 damage to something with DR 5/- as often as you want and you still won't kill it, but if you can do enough damage to kill it once, you will kill it.
2. Use Magic Device misses the point in a few ways. Most obviously, it is not a Fighter class feature. Anything a UMD Fighter can do a UMD Commoner can do just as well. It also essentially concedes that the gap between the Fighters abilities (having feats and full BAB) and the Wizard's is insurmountable, and the Fighter is better off aping the Wizard. Perhaps he can do so effectively, but that's hardly the Fighter doing anything impressive. Finally, while this may get you to some fixed standard, it clearly still leaves you wanting overall, as the Wizard has the same WBL the Fighter does and also better class features.
3. I think this is the most legitimate argument thus far, but it still falls pretty far short of being "good" in any real sense. For every Schrödinger's Wizard, there's a Schrödinger's Fighter on the other side. Wizards also have tools like Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster to allow them to actually be Schrödinger's Wizard. While it is true that people will often point out more defenses than any given Wizard will have, this is because you aren't supposed to be able to beat some particular Wizard, you're supposed to be able to reasonably acquit yourself across a representative sample of encounters at whatever balance point is considered appropriate.
4. I should hope the Stormwind Fallacy is reasonably well understood. The power of a character bears no connection to the ability to tell compelling stories about them. Anyone who doubts this should read Lord of Light, or almost any other book by Zelazny. Or Malazan. Or many of Sanderson's books. I assume someone more interested than I in terrible fantasy can prove this point in reverse by telling everyone about some atrocious books featuring weak protagonists.
5. Realism can mean one of two things -- what is possible in our world, or what is possible in the game world. The first is obviously crippling and puts you directly at the mercy of the Guy at the Gym fallacy. The second is meaningless, as anything any character does in the game world is, by definition, possible in the game world.
6. Fighters and Wizards get the same number of skill points. Wizards get better skills, and have more incentive to invest in INT. This argument is obviously stupid without examining any of the spells that obsolete skills.
7. While not strictly pertinent to Wizards v Fighters, the Cleric Archer put paid to this argument before Obama was president. You can be a better Fighter than the Fighter while also having the resources to see the future and summon angels. Faced with that the Fighter is, as the creator of the Cleric Archer put it, essentially like going out to dinner with your friends and refusing to pay. While it is true that the Wizard cannot be a Cleric Archer, an Incantatrix (or even a Gish) can prove the point just as well.
8. I will readily concede that low level play is, if not perfectly balanced, much more balanced than high level play. Indeed, I'm a strong proponent of solutions like E6 for people who don't want to deal with high level content. But that misses the point. If I'm concerned that my dog might be in danger because he ate some chocolate, telling me that cats can eat chocolate without health risks isn't very helpful to me.
9. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
10. This isn't really an argument. It's a preference. You are totally free to not want anime Fighters. That said, if you don't want anime Fighters, and consider the abilities that Fighters need to be valuable at high level universally "anime", then you should realize that you are not going to be happy (assuming you want Fighters to be good, and the game to be high level -- if you don't want those things, you can still be happy).
11. Honestly, this is too vague for me to have a good feeling of what the bad argument we're talking about here is. It sounds like a different way of making the same argument as 9 does.
12. This doesn't really mean anything. The game can require as many players as you want, but if there is a class that dominates the Fighter, any Fighters in the game are still a waste of space.
13. I once saw someone say that Rule Zero is the best solution for a game, but the worst solution for the game. I agree. It is necessary, helpful, and completely acceptable to make changes to the rules in the books when playing your game at the table for any number of reasons. But those changes don't fix the problems the game has, and are meaningless in a discussion of game design, as they are absolute independent from whatever product you have been sold.
14. This is another one that is so vacuous as to be impossible to evaluate. People say this a lot, but they say it for different reasons. "It doesn't matter, because I like it" is a dumb argument, but it's dumb for different reasons than "it doesn't matter, because the game is still fun", which is different in its turn from "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't happen at Real Tables".
15. See 9.
16. Again, this can be trivially demonstrated to be false. If anyone is confused about this, I will elaborate, but I doubt anyone here genuinely doesn't know about defensive buffs.
17. Optimized Fighters are one-trick ponies. Optimized Wizards take Spontaneous Divination and Versatile Spellcaster and laugh all the way to casting any spell they know whenever they want.
18. To some degree, see 8. However, Low Magic Campaigns are actually worse for Fighters, as the usually manifest as low magic item campaigns, which means that Fighters don't get to hurt monsters (because they don't have magic swords) and Wizards don't care because even having "only" four spells of each level is enough to make Fighters cry.
19. gate. shapechange. SLA wish.
20. See 18.
21. I'm sure there is a formal name for this fallacy, but I don't know it. Still, I hope no one thinks this is a good argument.
22. You know how much this is worth? One second level spell slot (heroics).
23. This is making a similar error to 8 and 18. Of course there are ways to play the game that are more balanced than using core Fighters. For example, you can take only personal buffs as a Sorcerer, take the "war Sorcerer" ACFs, and make up cool fighting style names. This doesn't fix the issues with the Fighter. It might make those issues less important, but it's not relevant to the Wizards v Fighters debate.
24. 4e was a terrible game, but it was way worse as a scientific experiment. 4e changed lots of things, not just class balance. It unified resource management. Was that the problem? It implemented skill challenges. Was that the problem? It implemented skill challenges really badly. Was that the problem? I don't know, and you don't know either. Any agenda can point to something 4e did as a reason that agenda is correct. For example, I might observe that 4e reduce the ability to do the crazy awesome stuff 3e Wizards did, and that was bad (effectively, that the issue was not "balance" but balancing down instead of up).
25. If every adventure has to negate the Wizard, and no adventures have to negate the Fighter, the Wizard is clearly better than the Fighter.

Overall, I think pretty much every point that is articulated well enough to be identifiable is a pretty bad to very bad argument. There are issues with the board -- redundant spaces, a Hitler comparison that seems kind of tasteless, saying "Rule Zero" instead of "Oberoni" which I think captures the point better -- but I don't think "those are good arguments" is one of them. If this is the best Team Fighter can muster, they should go home.

Fighters have problems, but are far from "useless," even in 3.5. Any PC brings with it PC wealth and a PC's tactics.

Arguing that a Fighter is useful because he brings to the table abilities available to a PC Commoner is absurd. For a class to be useful, the marginal benefit it brings to the party should be roughly equal to that of another Wizard (or Beguiler, or Cleric, or Druid, or other valuable class*). This is high school level economics, and the fact that people on this board don't understand it is deeply disappointing.

*: Of course, you can substitute a bunch of classes at whatever balance point you want if you happen to disagree with the Wizard.

lord_khaine

2017-06-26, 06:57 PM

Arguing that a Fighter is useful because he brings to the table abilities available to a PC Commoner is absurd. For a class to be useful, the marginal benefit it brings to the party should be roughly equal to that of another Wizard (or Beguiler, or Cleric, or Druid, or other valuable class*). This is high school level economics, and the fact that people on this board don't understand it is deeply disappointing.

Alternatively we could be be disapointed that you think this is something that can either be solved or explained by high school math. Just because you can put up an equation showing its the case does not mean its true.

Because another way to judge that would be Wizard+Rogue+Cleric < Wizard+Rogue+Cleric+Class X. If the equation is true then Class X is in fact useful.

Psyren

2017-06-26, 07:27 PM

"Valuable classes" are irrelevant if Bob simply wants to be a fighter. Though I can certainly see how someone who would rather spend their playtime trying to teach Bob economics instead of playing a game with him would end up with few friends at all.

Cosi

2017-06-26, 07:38 PM

Because another way to judge that would be Wizard+Rogue+Cleric < Wizard+Rogue+Cleric+Class X. If the equation is true then Class X is in fact useful.

Okay, so Commoners are useful? Having a PC play an awakened rat with no class levels is useful? Because those both satisfy the inequality in question.

"Valuable classes" are irrelevant if Bob simply wants to be a fighter. Though I can certainly see how someone who would rather spend their playtime trying to teach Bob economics instead of playing a game with him would end up with few friends at all.

"People who disagree with me are friendless losers."

Why should Bob be punished for having different preferences than you? Maybe he wants to play a Fighter that competes with optimized 20th level Wizards. Why should the game be harder for all of Bob's friends because Bob wanted to play a Fighter? Why should Bob's DM have to do extra work planning their encounters around a gimp? Why shouldn't things that have equal costs provide equal benefits?

Of course, Psyren has no answers to these questions, so he will simply ignore this post and continue to snipe passive-aggressively at me because he doesn't have the intellectual fortitude, integrity, or ability to defend the things he professes to believe are true.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-26, 09:09 PM

I'm finding today's discussion rather heated so I want to state my position rather carefully.

Is a fighter as capable as a spellcaster? Generally no. In this sense, having someone choose a Fighter over a spellcaster has an opportunity cost for the party.

Is a fighter as capable as MM-style CR appropriate enemies? Generally yes. There are some well known exceptions but with appropriate choices Fighters can generally keep up.

I could however imagine that if a DM is playing with optimized spellcasters using CR-inappropriate (or "CR-appropriate" with well beyond MM-level optimization), then a Fighter would have real difficulty. Maybe this is a point of divergence in experience?

Is a commoner as valuable as a fighter? No. I quantified this earlier. Using all the same tricks, I can get a commoner to crank out 40% of the damage of the fighter against a Pit Fiend. This matters quite a bit: Does the Pit Fiend get to act or not? With a fighter no, but with a Commoner yes. When they can act, they are certainly dangerous.

Is a summons as valuable as a fighter? Generally no. Particularly in core they have a low attack bonus, a low AC, and a short duration. They are however good for triggering traps or as bait. One measure of this: I think you will find it quite difficult to challenge a Pit Fiend with core summons. Consider this a challenge.

Are most fighters as optimized as this one? It's not far off my real game experience although the way real-game fighter are optimized differs. Many parties function as a team rather than as a bunch of solos, and many fighters have useful access to more sourcebooks than just core.

Should all choices lead to a character of the same capability? I'd say no personally, but this is a matter of taste. I like games where there are right and wrong decisions.

Is a Fighter as capable as other fighter-style classes (Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, etc...)? Typically it's somewhat worse. The Generic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior) frankly seems like a better design for a baseline Fighter to me as you aren't locked into crappy skills and get access to many class abilities as feats.

Cosi

2017-06-26, 09:15 PM

I could however imagine that if a DM is playing with optimized spellcasters using CR-inappropriate (or "CR-appropriate" with well beyond MM-level optimization), then a Fighter would have real difficulty. Maybe this is a point of divergence in experience?

This is the issue. Your Fighter is not a stock Fighter. The stock Fighter is the one depicted on the "Fighter" NPC table in the DMG. If you want to fight a stock Pit Fiend (as opposed to one that has used its SLAs, treasure and other resources to enhance its threat level), you need to use a stock Fighter. Otherwise the whole comparison is meaningless because you aren't comparing like to like.

Florian

2017-06-27, 03:16 AM

@Cosi:

Let´s take a pure designers POV on this, as most discussions happen in a vacuum with no common ground to work with. To do this, we should analyze it from top to bottom, meaning system > rules > individual rules elements.

Thesis: D&D is designed as a reactionary system with the gm setting up the "encounter" and the players using what they have at hand to "solve" that "encounter", whatever that might be. D&D is also designed towards a formalized way to use it, showcased by having an internal system for handling "balance" and "challenge", leading to the assumption that "combat as sports" is a heavy part of it, or, to rephrase it a bit, its a "permissive system" as you're mainly permitted to interact with the "encounter", whatever that might be.

This gives us the boundary conditions for what "act or affect the game world in a meaningful way" should mean.

If we work in reverse, individual rules element > rules > system and want every available element to be a meaningful choice and integrated into an "encounter", then we end up with the situation we´re often arguing about, judging the apparent worth of a class based on how many options it has available to act and affect the game world. This´ll lead to totally different boundary conditions and also promote the view that all classes should have an more or less equal number of options that are on a level compared to each other.

Both stances are mutually exclusive and can´t be combined.

Edit: Understanding that difference is extremely important. The former uses a neutral and system-centric bar for expected performance, the later uses a player-centric bar for expected performance.

... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.

lord_khaine

2017-06-27, 04:02 AM

Okay, so Commoners are useful? Having a PC play an awakened rat with no class levels is useful? Because those both satisfy the inequality in question.

Clearly they are? Its straight in the word. Use-ful. Having a use. And they both do that. Perhaps not as much as a lot of other classes. But then you need to change your argumentation to less or more useful. Instead of the binary useful or not useful.

... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.

Yeah i already made the point that none of the standard NPC classes can handle a Balor on their own. Or at least are highly unlikely to be able to do so. PW-Stun and the save-or-die abilities will handle the casters, and it can chop everyone else up easily.

Cosi

2017-06-27, 06:18 AM

Both stances are mutually exclusive and can´t be combined.

As always, your point seems fairly opaque here. Why do I care? What about a permissive system versus a restrictive system implicates either the stupidity of the arguments Fighter Bingo is mocking, or the absurdity of comparing an optimized character to stock monsters?

... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.

My point is that if you only want to face a stock Balor, you should only use a stock Fighter. If you want to use an optimized Fighter, you should be prepared for an optimized Balor.

Clearly they are? Its straight in the word. Use-ful. Having a use. And they both do that. Perhaps not as much as a lot of other classes. But then you need to change your argumentation to less or more useful. Instead of the binary useful or not useful.

You've defined the word "useful" so broadly as to be meaningless, then. Yes, the Fighter literally has a use, but there's clearly a contextual component to what is meant by "useful" that he does not fulfill.

Yeah i already made the point that none of the standard NPC classes can handle a Balor on their own. Or at least are highly unlikely to be able to do so. PW-Stun and the save-or-die abilities will handle the casters, and it can chop everyone else up easily.

First, I don't know that you're right. The Wizard table doesn't include spells, and the highest level sample Wizard is only 10th level. Even if you're locked into progressing him and complying with the table, I think a reasonable Wizard can be made. I don't think the same is true for a Fighter, but I think it would be better for someone to actually see if that's true.

Second, that's not necessarily the point. The point is that if you are going to demand to face stock enemies, you should use stock characters. If you want to play the Fighter Anthrowhale suggested, you should have to face an equivalently optimized Pit Fiend, which Anthrowhale doesn't seem to think you can do.

gkathellar

2017-06-27, 07:02 AM

lord_khaine

2017-06-27, 08:39 AM

You've defined the word "useful" so broadly as to be meaningless, then. Yes, the Fighter literally has a use, but there's clearly a contextual component to what is meant by "useful" that he does not fulfill.

You mean there is a contextual component you dont think he fulfill. And thats also fair enough. But since this thread is still alive then there are clearly a large number of people who disagree about that.
But for that matter, said contextual component has not really been defined either, so here, i will expand upon it.

Useful is also when your presence in the party increases the overall survival chance of the party against its encounters by a measurable degree, versus a situation where you had not been there, and your wealth instead divided among the remaining party members.

First, I don't know that you're right. The Wizard table doesn't include spells, and the highest level sample Wizard is only 10th level. Even if you're locked into progressing him and complying with the table, I think a reasonable Wizard can be made. I don't think the same is true for a Fighter, but I think it would be better for someone to actually see if that's true.

Second, that's not necessarily the point. The point is that if you are going to demand to face stock enemies, you should use stock characters. If you want to play the Fighter Anthrowhale suggested, you should have to face an equivalently optimized Pit Fiend, which Anthrowhale doesn't seem to think you can do.

Well yes. But you cant make a reasonable wizard that stand that much better of a chance against the Balor. Not while remaining true to the sample Wizard who are clearly a blaster. Case in point. It has prepared 2 uses of Ice storm. Shout, and cone of cold. Thats the sort of spells it would take against the Balor for it to be a fair comparison with the NPC fighter.

So the point im making is mainly that none of the stock characters really have a reasoanble chance against a Balor. It is of course also CR 20. They are kinda meant to have 3 buddies to help them with it.

All of this discussion of magic items and UMD seems to be entirely missing the point, because at no point in that equation is the fighter actually contributing much of anything. Sure, they'd do better than a commoner or a warrior, but those classes could still use the same tactics to achieve the same ends. What is actually being argued is, "can 20th level WBL beat a Pit Fiend?"

You are missing a point that was already made a few times. That no, a commoner cant make that work. The drop in BAB leads to a huge drop in damage.

Psyren

2017-06-27, 08:42 AM

The_Jette

2017-06-27, 08:44 AM

Psyren

2017-06-27, 08:49 AM

This thread stopped being about the Fighter's ability to contribute meaningfully to a fight a long time ago. When you start throwing around ideas like "Fighter's are useless because an optimized Fighter can't kill an Optimized Pit Fiend/Balor/other CR 20" and "PF Bingo for general arguing points" then the thread has definitely jumped the rails. If you don't think Fighters are useful, don't play one. If your idea is that anyone playing a Fighter is bringing down the group as a whole, don't play in a group with a Fighter. Meanwhile, yes, the Fighter as a class could definitely use some focus by the developers. I think the PF Fighter is a strong move in the right direction, personally.

It continues to evolve as well - see Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training (both conveniently consolidated right onto the Fighter page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter)) whereby the Fighter can trade these moderate bonuses for skill boosts and other class features.

Florian

2017-06-27, 11:32 AM

All of this discussion of magic items and UMD seems to be entirely missing the point, because at no point in that equation is the fighter actually contributing much of anything. Sure, they'd do better than a commoner or a warrior, but those classes could still use the same tactics to achieve the same ends. What is actually being argued is, "can 20th level WBL beat a Pit Fiend?"

The main focus on any martial class is using gear and items, improving that with feats. That´s why they are "mundane". So, yes, Bob the Fighter will use WBL, which is part of the basic rules for this game, outfit himself with it and go into battle with it. That´s the whole point of the mundane classes, after all. And unlike the Commoner or Warrior, they are good at that and will get results.

Karl Aegis

2017-06-27, 01:38 PM

This thread stopped being about the Fighter's ability to contribute meaningfully to a fight a long time ago. When you start throwing around ideas like "Fighter's are useless because an optimized Fighter can't kill an Optimized Pit Fiend/Balor/other CR 20" and "PF Bingo for general arguing points" then the thread has definitely jumped the rails. If you don't think Fighters are useful, don't play one. If your idea is that anyone playing a Fighter is bringing down the group as a whole, don't play in a group with a Fighter. Meanwhile, yes, the Fighter as a class could definitely use some focus by the developers. I think the PF Fighter is a strong move in the right direction, personally.

At some point it was pointed out (by you) that the job of the Bow Fighter (which is what is being discussed) is to stand between the enemy and their party and absorb damage for the other members of the party. That makes absolutely zero sense at all. Using a bow provokes an attack of opportunity and a Bow Fighter isn't guaranteed to be sturdier than any other member of the party. Quite frankly, they should be at the back of the party so they can use their range effectively and don't bring their pathetic saves into the equation of combat as frequently.

Also: Real Game Fighters are immune to fear effects. Failing your save 40% of the time is really dumb. Bad Fighter. Bad. Get a fear immunity from somewhere.

The_Jette

2017-06-27, 01:53 PM

At some point it was pointed out (by you) that the job of the Bow Fighter (which is what is being discussed) is to stand between the enemy and their party and absorb damage for the other members of the party. That makes absolutely zero sense at all. Using a bow provokes an attack of opportunity and a Bow Fighter isn't guaranteed to be sturdier than any other member of the party. Quite frankly, they should be at the back of the party so they can use their range effectively and don't bring their pathetic saves into the equation of combat as frequently.

Also: Real Game Fighters are immune to fear effects. Failing your save 40% of the time is really dumb. Bad Fighter. Bad. Get a fear immunity from somewhere.

Actually, I said that the job of the Fighter was to stand between the enemy of the party. If a person wants to play a ranged Fighter, so be it. But, you should always bring a backup melee weapon for situations where you need to take the fight to the enemy.

Edit: And, it should be pointed out that this thread had stopped being about the bow, and became about the class long before I said anything.

Dagroth

2017-06-27, 03:53 PM

I mean, I didn't claim that they were useless. The words I used all those threads ago were that a fighter "Does not have a level-appropriate response to situations".

Well, I think the point is that responding to tone (for example) isn't a valid argument and this is generally understood in debate, and that "Fighters don't have resources which they lose as the day goes on" is patently untrue, and so forth. So, the point is that they're invalid objections on a bingo card. The bingo part of it is a general metaphor for "These incorrect arguments are so common that if I take 25 of them, it's likely that five of them will be mentioned which also conform to an arbitrary rule about which five those have to be."

Even a +1 weapon hits an Allip 50% of the time...

Okay, so Commoners are useful? Having a PC play an awakened rat with no class levels is useful? Because those both satisfy the inequality in question.

"People who disagree with me are friendless losers."

Why should Bob be punished for having different preferences than you? Maybe he wants to play a Fighter that competes with optimized 20th level Wizards. Why should the game be harder for all of Bob's friends because Bob wanted to play a Fighter? Why should Bob's DM have to do extra work planning their encounters around a gimp? Why shouldn't things that have equal costs provide equal benefits?

Of course, Psyren has no answers to these questions, so he will simply ignore this post and continue to snipe passive-aggressively at me because he doesn't have the intellectual fortitude, integrity, or ability to defend the things he professes to believe are true.

This breaks down to a difference in GMing style, IMHO.

Do you GM as Ceasar? "Entertain me!"

The adventure is 'Trap-fest Dungeon Crawl!' Even a party of 4 Wizards/Sorcerers will run out of summons before they run out of traps. A party of Clerics/Druids will be in worse shape unless one takes the Kobold Domain. Fighter-types? Toast unless they've got a Barbarian trap-crusher. Rogue/Monk (i.e. Skill Monkey classes) party? They've got a cake-walk.

The adventure is 'Undead-fest in Town!'. The Wizards/Sorcerers will do fair-to-good, unless they've got the wrong spell selection... but throw in a Necromancer and they're doing really well. The Clerics/Druids will do fair-to-very good, depending on spell selection. The Fighter-types? Not so good without really lucky equipment selection... they're going to way outlast the Skill-Monkey party though.

Or do you GM as a Storyteller? "Let me entertain you!"

The party is 4 Wizards? Hmm... better throw away the 'Trap-fest Dungeon Crawl!' adventure and do things that challenge this party.

The party is 2 Fighters, a Rogue and a Healer? Hmm... Bring on the Orc tribes! As long as I don't throw more than one caster against them and one of the Fighters is good with a bow, everything should be fine. Better throw out the 'fight against the shadow swarm' adventure though...

If you're not at least partially tailoring your game to the players when the players make lopsided parties... you're doing something wrong, IMHO.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-27, 04:22 PM

This is the issue. Your Fighter is not a stock Fighter. The stock Fighter is the one depicted on the "Fighter" NPC table in the DMG. If you want to fight a stock Pit Fiend (as opposed to one that has used its SLAs, treasure and other resources to enhance its threat level), you need to use a stock Fighter. Otherwise the whole comparison is meaningless because you aren't comparing like to like.

Your claim is that a Fighter is only useful if it can defeat a Pit Fiend solo after being robbed of 70% of it's wealth? That test probably will give you the result that you seek, but it seems remarkably irrelevant to actual gameplay to me.

Instead of trying to move goal posts all over, maybe just admit that a fighter can be useful?

Psyren

2017-06-27, 04:36 PM

I never said anything about people. :smalltongue:

Even a +1 weapon hits an Allip 50% of the time...

It's even better in PF - half damage instead of miss chance, so you're hitting the Allip every time. They were also nerfed from 3.5 (Wis damage instead of drain.)

If you're not at least partially tailoring your game to the players when the players make lopsided parties... you're doing something wrong, IMHO.

This is as true for tabletop games as it is for video:

http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/166972/figure1.png

Properly tailoring challenge to ability lands you in the sweet spot. That is any designer's job, and the GM is no exception.

Dagroth

2017-06-28, 12:03 AM

This is as true for tabletop games as it is for video:

http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/166972/figure1.png

Properly tailoring challenge to ability lands you in the sweet spot. That is any designer's job, and the GM is no exception.

And this is why the whole "A core basic Fighter can't beat a core basic Pit Fiend" is a ridiculous argument.

A Good GM won't create the scenario where a single basic Fighter has to fight a Pit Fiend out of the blue.

A Good GM might create hints that a Fighter might eventually have to fight a Pit Fiend so that the player can buy gear and otherwise optimize to fight said Pit Fiend.

A Good GM doesn't even just drop a Pit Fiend in to fight a generic party of 4 characters. There will be a build-up so that the characters can optimize at least somewhat for the fight.

Lans

2017-06-28, 03:52 AM

The entire argument started when I said "Standard build core fighters don't do their job properly in 3.5", .

You are gravely mistaken, the argument started when you said
Well, fine: build me a level 20 core fighter that can take on a pit fiend. I'll be sitting here drinking ninth-level spells while I wait.

When you posted this, you weren't asking for a standard core fighter, you were literally asking for a core fighter that can take on a pit fiend. As such any level of optimizaton was on the table.

Yes, if you stack items on a fighter and give it stuff specifically to kill pit fiends, it can kill pit fiends. Sometimes. At length. But it can't without extreme difficulty, and no-one seems to understand that the majority of forumites don't play the game the way normal people do and therefore "Oh, I guess I'll carry around the best magic items in the game, carefully arrayed in such a way so as to optimally counter a pit fiend in this very optimised way" isn't how real people play the game.

I don't know about that. From my experience, even brand new players wind up with characters almost as good as I could build, and the fighter that I built in this thread is weaker than one I would build in an actual game, as the actual game one wouldn't be fighter 20 in core.

Well, no, I presented them immediately and then pointed out the most obvious failing of each build as it arrived. Though I did point out quite a lot of the failings of the original all-18s fighter of pitfiendbane arrows immediately (namely that it was illegal, massively optimised, tailor-made, and didn't even work)

You keep saying that it didn't work, but you never responded to the post where I pointed out that your math was wrong.

I honestly expect a core only game to have massively optimized characters, you don't have a lot to work with.

Also, could you point to where the item combining rules are just a guideline and not rules? They seem to be part of the rules from what I've seen.

"A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities)"

This is the issue. Your Fighter is not a stock Fighter. The stock Fighter is the one depicted on the "Fighter" NPC table in the DMG. If you want to fight a stock Pit Fiend (as opposed to one that has used its SLAs, treasure and other resources to enhance its threat level), you need to use a stock Fighter. Otherwise the whole comparison is meaningless because you aren't comparing like to like.

I disagree, the game isn't about comparing stock vs stock, its about players who invest time into making one character vs the dm who invests time into multiple characters, history, lore, weather, climate, geography. As such the PC should be assumed to be more optimized than the NPCs that they are facing.

Would you rather have your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, and your friend who is now a tiger; or, your summoned monster, your friend's animal companion, your friend's summoned nature's ally, your friend who is now a tiger, and a Fighter?

No, the extra fighter is a hinderance to the long term health of the real party by taking experience and wealth that would be better used giving the druid's animal companion ion stones away from the rest of the party

Edit: Oh, and I´m still looking for the All-18s Fighter that person is rambling on about.

That was my build, before I tweaked it, due to complaints to that no real character would have all 18s. Though after I tweaked it I remembered a campaing where we did build characters with all 18s, and the dm banned psionics as they would be too powerful with all 18s. It was 3.0, psionic casting was 6 schools based on 6 casting stats.

Cosi

2017-06-28, 08:30 AM

Useful is also when your presence in the party increases the overall survival chance of the party against its encounters by a measurable degree, versus a situation where you had not been there, and your wealth instead divided among the remaining party members.

No. In the context of limited resources, "useful" means that you are using resources comparably efficiently to other options, and the Fighter isn't. Also, if you're dividing wealth among the rest of the party, also divide XP. I have no trouble believing that Wizard/Beguiler/Druid with +1/3 resources each is better than Wizard/Beguiler/Druid/Fighter.

Well yes. But you cant make a reasonable wizard that stand that much better of a chance against the Balor. Not while remaining true to the sample Wizard who are clearly a blaster. Case in point. It has prepared 2 uses of Ice storm. Shout, and cone of cold. Thats the sort of spells it would take against the Balor for it to be a fair comparison with the NPC fighter.

The Wizard also prepares spells like enervation, glitterdust, and web. His spellbook contains options like dominate person, wall of force, and confusion. Clearly, the Wizard has at least some proclivity towards save or die spells.

You are missing a point that was already made a few times. That no, a commoner cant make that work. The drop in BAB leads to a huge drop in damage.

Commoner can't make the same tactics work. Doesn't mean he can't make any tactics work.

The main focus on any martial class is using gear and items, improving that with feats. That´s why they are "mundane". So, yes, Bob the Fighter will use WBL, which is part of the basic rules for this game, outfit himself with it and go into battle with it. That´s the whole point of the mundane classes, after all. And unlike the Commoner or Warrior, they are good at that and will get results.

I'm pretty sure the focus of a martial class is "prowess as a warrior" the classes focused on gear are gadgeteers like the Artificer. The fact that the Fighter needs gear to not suck doesn't make that his concept. It just means he sucks.

If you're not at least partially tailoring your game to the players when the players make lopsided parties... you're doing something wrong, IMHO.

If you're not bringing a character that's in line with the standard the rest of the party is setting, you're doing something wrong.

Your claim is that a Fighter is only useful if it can defeat a Pit Fiend solo after being robbed of 70% of it's wealth? That test probably will give you the result that you seek, but it seems remarkably irrelevant to actual gameplay to me.

Why? You're robbing the Pit Fiend of equivalent resources on its end. Why does your test prove anything?

Instead of trying to move goal posts all over, maybe just admit that a fighter can be useful?

Because even if you can contrive a Fighter to beat a Pit Fiend (and you certainly can, because Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold), you haven't proved the Fighter is "useful". For that to happen, there needs to be some reason for me to have a Fighter instead of a second Cleric.

Also, "beat a Pit Fiend" is just one part of being level appropriate at 20th level. Can you beat eight Trumpet Archons? Can you beat a 20th level Wizard? Does the same character go roughly 50/50 over a representative gauntlet of EL 20 encounters?

And this is why the whole "A core basic Fighter can't beat a core basic Pit Fiend" is a ridiculous argument.

A Good GM won't create the scenario where a single basic Fighter has to fight a Pit Fiend out of the blue.

A Good GM won't let players make characters that need to warp their build to beat a single level appropriate encounter.

I disagree, the game isn't about comparing stock vs stock, its about players who invest time into making one character vs the dm who invests time into multiple characters, history, lore, weather, climate, geography. As such the PC should be assumed to be more optimized than the NPCs that they are facing.

A DM also adjusts encounters to match PC capability -- so say several posters in this thread. Or is that just adjusting down because otherwise we make Fighters sad?

Anthrowhale

2017-06-28, 09:02 AM

Commoner can't make the same tactics work. Doesn't mean he can't make any tactics work.

Feel free prove it.

If you're not bringing a character that's in line with the standard the rest of the party is setting, you're doing something wrong.

Huh, you're acknowledging relative usefulness. So you agree that in a monk/rogue/paladin party the fighter is still useful?

Why? You're robbing the Pit Fiend of equivalent resources on its end. Why does your test prove anything?

It was Jormengand's test, remember? I also don't see any Pit Fiend robbery going on, at least until after the Pit Fiend is dead.

Because even if you can contrive a Fighter to beat a Pit Fiend (and you certainly can, because Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold), you haven't proved the Fighter is "useful". For that to happen, there needs to be some reason for me to have a Fighter instead of a second Cleric.

It looks like you are stuck with the opportunity cost definition of 'useful'. It's a reasonable definition in some settings, but I think that imposing it on playmates may not work well.

Also, "beat a Pit Fiend" is just one part of being level appropriate at 20th level. Can you beat eight Trumpet Archons? Can you beat a 20th level Wizard? Does the same character go roughly 50/50 over a representative gauntlet of EL 20 encounters?

For MM encounters at CR 20 it does better than 50/50.

The_Jette

2017-06-28, 09:10 AM

I'd like to point out that a monster's CR is for a party of four of that level. So, a Pit Fiend, with a CR of twenty, is built to be a challenge to a party of four, not to a single character at level twenty. So, the argument that a class is a waste of resources because it can't solo a challenge meant for four people is a little strange. Also, if the assumed WBL is held to, then the other party members don't get a 33% boost in wealth because the Fighter isn't there. Maybe they level up faster, but that's a very strange argument to make for a group that's already level 20.

Cosi

2017-06-28, 09:13 AM

Feel free prove it.

Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold. You don't even have to use wish cheese. Just summon the Pit Fiend you're supposed to beat, and tell it to do pushups while you murder it. gate is OP.

The only question is how many restrictions you have to put on the Commoner's use of items before he stops being able to win.

Huh, you're acknowledging relative usefulness. So you agree that in a monk/rogue/paladin party the fighter is still useful?

Sure. Of course, that means zero in terms of his usefulness to the Wizard/Beguiler/Druid party.

It was Jormengand's test, remember? I also don't see any Pit Fiend robbery going on, at least until after the Pit Fiend is dead.

You were the one who thought you couldn't beat a blinged out Pit Fiend.

It looks like you are stuck with the opportunity cost definition of 'useful'. It's a reasonable definition in some settings, but I think that imposing it on playmates may not work well.

First, this issue should be solved by designers. If your game goes to print with a Cleric who can fight better than the Fighter while also seeing the future and summoning angels, you screwed up.

Second, in actual play you are obligated to bring a character that is appropriate to the game, as determined by the group as whole. If the group wants you to bring a character that contributes to their Wizard/Beguiler/Druid party as an equal and you bring a Fighter that doesn't, you are in the wrong. You are also in the wrong if you bring an optimized Wizard to a Rogue/Ranger/Fighter party to overshadow them (assuming they don't want that). But this isn't just a power thing. If your character concept is "Cyborg Spaceman", it is probably not welcome in a campaign that is a magical western, but might be completely appropriate in one that is set in the galaxy of Warhammer 40k. In general, you have an obligation to bring a character that conforms to whatever power, genre, or concept standards the group has agreed on.

The_Jette

2017-06-28, 09:17 AM

Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold. You don't even have to use wish cheese. Just summon the Pit Fiend you're supposed to beat, and tell it to do pushups while you murder it. gate is OP.

As a side note to the whole "Candle of Invocation" thing, you'd have to buy a Lawful Evil Candle of Invocation in order to be able to summon a Pit Fiend, since what you summon has to be of the same alignment as the Candle. Plus, the commoner would have to take into account that the candle can be blown out, and compensate.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-28, 09:39 AM

Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold. You don't even have to use wish cheese. Just summon the Pit Fiend you're supposed to beat, and tell it to do pushups while you murder it. gate is OP.

You've clearly left the realms of real gaming.

You were the one who thought you couldn't beat a blinged out Pit Fiend.
Citation needed.

Second, in actual play you are obligated to bring a character that is appropriate to the game, as determined by the group as whole. If the group wants you to bring a character that contributes to their Wizard/Beguiler/Druid party as an equal and you bring a Fighter that doesn't, you are in the wrong. You are also in the wrong if you bring an optimized Wizard to a Rogue/Ranger/Fighter party to overshadow them (assuming they don't want that). But this isn't just a power thing. If your character concept is "Cyborg Spaceman", it is probably not welcome in a campaign that is a magical western, but might be completely appropriate in one that is set in the galaxy of Warhammer 40k. In general, you have an obligation to bring a character that conforms to whatever power, genre, or concept standards the group has agreed on.
This sounds reasonable.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-28, 11:11 AM

Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold. You don't even have to use wish cheese. Just summon the Pit Fiend you're supposed to beat, and tell it to do pushups while you murder it. gate is OP.

The only question is how many restrictions you have to put on the Commoner's use of items before he stops being able to win.

I've heard about Commoner charging builds. I'll crunch some number and see if one can kill a Pit Fiend.

Edit: You need a one level dip in Barbarian, but other than that I'm pretty sure it can be done in one turn.

Cosi

2017-06-28, 12:03 PM

I'd like to point out that a monster's CR is for a party of four of that level.

This is ... not even wrong.

A monster's CR isn't "for" anything. Every monster has some particular CR, and that CR is invariant for that monster (unless you do something to change its CR like give it a template or class levels). What can change with circumstance is EL.

But even if you meant EL, you're still wrong, because that doesn't change for party level. EL does sometimes change (for example, fighting undead without a Cleric is a higher EL encounter per the DMG). If a 1st level party fights a CR 5 monster, that's not a different EL than the same party fighting it at 10th level, the EL is just in a different position relative to the PCs and the challenge gives more XP (and is considered more difficult).

Finally, a single PC is supposed to go roughly 50/50 with CR = Level opposition. A party is supposed to defeat a CR = Level monster after using only a portion of their resources.

You've clearly left the realms of real gaming.

Did we define some standards I missed?

Citation needed.

You didn't say explicitly, but this:

I could however imagine that if a DM is playing with optimized spellcasters using CR-inappropriate (or "CR-appropriate" with well beyond MM-level optimization), then a Fighter would have real difficulty. Maybe this is a point of divergence in experience?

The idea of this Fighter (with it's well-beyond PHB/DMG optimization) struggling with comparably optimized monsters seems to me to prove that it is not really effective.

The_Jette

2017-06-28, 12:10 PM

This is ... not even wrong.

A monster's CR isn't "for" anything. Every monster has some particular CR, and that CR is invariant for that monster (unless you do something to change its CR like give it a template or class levels). What can change with circumstance is EL.

I'm not sure what EL is supposed to mean, so to back up my claim: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#challengeRating

Florian

2017-06-28, 12:14 PM

I'm not sure what EL is supposed to mean, so to back up my claim: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#challengeRating

EL = Encounter Level. CR plus the sum of all modifiers.

zergling.exe

2017-06-28, 12:15 PM

I'm not sure what EL is supposed to mean, so to back up my claim: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#challengeRating

EL means Encounter Level. It changes with things like favorable or unfavorable terrain, additional creatures and other such things.

The_Jette

2017-06-28, 12:16 PM

EL means Encounter Level. It changes with things like favorable or unfavorable terrain, additional creatures and other such things.

So, encounter level is like the challenge rating of the overall encounter, instead of the individual monster?

Florian

2017-06-28, 12:17 PM

So, encounter level is like the challenge rating of the overall encounter, instead of the individual monster?

Exactly that.

Cosi

2017-06-28, 12:18 PM

I'm not sure what EL is supposed to mean, so to back up my claim: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#challengeRating

EL is Encounter Level. It refers to the average party level for which an entire encounter (as opposed to a single monster, trap, or other hazard) would be appropriate. There are a variety of rules for determining EL, but the simplest is that doubling the number of creatures raises EL by two. So a single Hill Giant is CR 7, but two Hill Giants are an EL 9 encounter.

Your quote doesn't back up your claim. It says that a monster of CR X is a moderate challenge for a party of average level X. That makes no mention of changing CR to start with, and doesn't contradict the rules in the DMG that explain that a "moderate" encounter (one where CR = APL) is supposed to consume 20% of resources, and which imply by some fairly basic mathematics that a single level X PC should go 50/50 with a slate of CR X monsters (or really EL X encounters).

Anthrowhale

2017-06-28, 06:43 PM

Did we define some standards I missed?

Yes, there have been many references to real gaming.

You didn't say explicitly, but this:
...
The idea of this Fighter (with it's well-beyond PHB/DMG optimization) struggling with comparably optimized monsters seems to me to prove that it is not really effective.

I wasn't referring to a Pit Fiend there. Whether or not this fighter can take on a core optimized Pit Fiend remains to be determined. The earlier attempts upthread failed as they relied on low level undead that are snipe fodder. Feel free to make a suggestion.

I had in mind a high-op Cleric/Wizard/Druid, although it's not completely clear since that Hide check + Initiative bonus is pretty scary.

Beheld

2017-06-28, 07:29 PM

I have returned from my sojourn into the real world, where I had no access to a computer, and felt quoting was necessary for my replies, so put them off. I will attempt to target representative points/quotes.

Detect Magic+Permanency (via Ring of Spell Storing) 2.95K
Reduce Person+Permanency: 2.95K

I think it's strongly indicative of the joke of this idea that your entire character relies entirely on Detect Magic, something that doesn't even work the way you think it does, but also, has it from spending 3kgp and would permanently lose it and have to stop adventuring for the day from running into a CR 12 enemy.

Low level undead is snipe-at-leisure fodder. Even if the 5% "paralyzed with Fear" effect occurs, the mummy still can't even find the sniper (and isn't even aware enough to look).

The first time you snipe an undead, you break your invisibility, and then all the other undead, and the Pit Fiend see you, and then you die.

Sniping does require some way to hide so it does not work in all terrain. It does however often work.

It never works. I hate to break this to you, but your character has literally zero methods of obtaining cover or concealment after making an attack roll. You are 100% saying "I sure hope literally every location in the entire universe has a convenient hiding place within 20ft for me!"

Illusions are defeated by detect magic. The disparity between sniper Move Silently and Pit Fiend Listen is high enough that creeping within 60' of illusions is no problem and detect magic will ping.

You still don't understand how detect magic works. You have to spend your standard action concentrating for 1 round to even know if magic is there, unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged" by illusions of walls, or illusions of Pit Fiends. So when you snipe that Pit Fiend from 120ft away, you actually are shooting an illusion, and when you get within 60ft, you are still shooting an illusion.

Even if you did spend every single round concentrating, it would still only tell you that there are a bunch of illusions, which would do you pretty much no good, since you 1) would just have to pick one at random to shoot, 2) Would have already given yourself away by shooting a Mummy.

Beheld's Pit Fiend apparently wastes its action by casting Blasphemy. Everyone makes mistakes, but this is a fatal one.

Ignoring for the moment that this occurs probably from behind an illusory wall and you have no idea where the Pit Fiend is or even that it is a Pit Fiend, I think it's a bad sign if all non evil Fighters have a 100% loss rate against Pit Fiends. Hmmmmm.... almost like that thing where we said making fighters specifically for this challenge is a problem.

Beheld lists several other monsters. Those can generally be dealt with as well, but let's stick to one opponent at a time.

Well that's kind of the point. While you probably can't build a core fighter that can beat each of these opponents, the fact that this one you made specifically and only for Pit Fiends can't seems to indicate you building for Pit Fiends is relevant and a problem.

The main thing I will say on this topic is something I have said many times before - a Balor with perfect knowledge of the Fighter coming his way and who also has prep time to raise an army of minions and otherwise prepare the battlefield is a harder encounter than the MM Balor was designed to represent.

What the rules actually say, is that if a Pit Fiend is not allowed to or arbitrarily refuses to use it's abilities, then it is lower EL. However, the Pit Fiend using it's actual abilities is of course, precisely the point.

No one is contending the Pit Fiend should have any specific advanced knowledge of the fighter except that granted by his abilities, since he has an objectively superior detection suite. Unlike the people defending the fighter, who often contend the Fighter needs to have advance knowledge of facing a CR at level threat without using his abilities to get that, like for example, the "all fighters that ever fight Pit Fiends are evil" example presented, and another specific claim coming up later.

You have done a fairly poor job of that in this thread, considering that each time someone manages to make a build that can defeat a pit fiend using core resources, you complain that it counters pit fiends specifically when it has fairly wide-ranging defenses like see invisibility and freedom of movement.

So far I haven't seen a single build that would actually beat the Pit Fiend. Even less impressive are the builds presented, which lose to Pit Fiends, but are also designed only to fight Pit Fiends, and also lose to other CR 19-21 enemies.

Because another way to judge that would be Wizard+Rogue+Cleric < Wizard+Rogue+Cleric+Class X. If the equation is true then Class X is in fact useful.

No one has ever contended that a Fighter is less present than nothingness. I mean, a single mirror image from a casting of mirror image is not "useless" by your definition. But I don't tell players they have the choice to play an equal part as the other players, and then make them play a single mirror image. If you have a bunch of a PC classes, implicitly, they are supposed to be equally as reasonable options. If one of them is objectively much worse, and doesn't manage to conform to the rules that are actually present for what a PC class should be balanced for, that's a problem.

A Good GM won't create the scenario where a single basic Fighter has to fight a Pit Fiend out of the blue.

A Good GM might create hints that a Fighter might eventually have to fight a Pit Fiend so that the player can buy gear and otherwise optimize to fight said Pit Fiend.

A Good GM doesn't even just drop a Pit Fiend in to fight a generic party of 4 characters. There will be a build-up so that the characters can optimize at least somewhat for the fight.

No, according to the rules, a good DM should in fact totally just present a Pit Fiend, and if the PCs didn't use their abilities to find out what they were facing, (of which, the Fighter has none), then they won't know in advance they are fighting a Pit Fiend. And if it's a party of 4, they might fight a Titan, a Balor, and a Dragon in the same day they fight the Pit Fiend, all with no warning except what is granted by their abilities.

I have no idea why people always say this about level 20 parties and CR 20 enemies, but never seem to say the same thing about CR 3 enemies and level 3 parties. I never hear "well of course you have to give the party advance notice they are going to fight a Medium Earth Elemental! And you can't have them just fight one without giving hints! And you can't expect them to fight a second encounter that day! And you can't have the Earth Elemental start off inside the ground using it's Earth Glide without raising CR!"

I wasn't referring to a Pit Fiend there. Whether or not this fighter can take on a core optimized Pit Fiend remains to be determined. The earlier attempts upthread failed as they relied on low level undead that are snipe fodder. Feel free to make a suggestion.

The previous Pit Fiend both 1) Absolutely would kill this fighter, and 2) Is literally the Pit Fiend from the MM, with no changes. Technically, by the rules, he also has to have treasure, but if you let me pick the treasure, and redo skill ranks and feats, that Fighter is dead as a doornail. Why not present a fighter that can actually beat a Standard Pit Fiend with no changes first before we move on to stage 2?

@everyone: I present an open challenge, that I will run any "totally standard fighter" against one of a very small set of core EL 20 encounters. Because it sure looks like pretty much every technique for fighter victory relies on enemies just not actually using their abilities, and/or nonsense rules interactions, and also for some reason spending 3kgp on a "permanent" effect that will last less long than a wand, because the first time your level 20 PC runs into a CR 12 enemy he will lose it forever.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-28, 07:32 PM

SNIP

Interesting analysis. Do you think a charging build that pumps initiative could one shot the Pit Fiend?

Beheld

2017-06-28, 07:54 PM

Interesting analysis. Do you think a charging build that pumps initiative could one shot the Pit Fiend?

In Core? I don't know, maybe? But I think you'd run into the same problems, where your Core Fighter has no ability to even confront the Pit Fiend, and a sufficiently careful Pit Fiend will kill you 100% of the time.

Outside of Core, expanded items could result in a fighter that gets within 120ft True Seeing range, and then uber charges or bow attacks for a kill.

Another thing all these "super stealthy" halfling sneak fighters with no ability to have cover or concealment should keep in mind is that activating a command word item, such as a wand, or Ring of Invisibility, or Winged Boots requires talking, or True Seeing item command activated and that often times doesn't help with plans to sneak up on people.

Zanos

2017-06-28, 07:57 PM

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-28, 08:00 PM

In Core? I don't know, maybe? But I think you'd run into the same problems, where your Core Fighter has no ability to even confront the Pit Fiend, and a sufficiently careful Pit Fiend will kill you 100% of the time.

Maybe an archery build for the core Fighter?

Outside of Core, expanded items could result in a fighter that gets within 120ft True Seeing range, and then uber charges or bow attacks for a kill.

That was more or less my idea.

Another thing all these "super stealthy" halfling sneak fighters with no ability to have cover or concealment should keep in mind is that activating a command word item, such as a wand, or Ring of Invisibility, or Winged Boots requires talking, or True Seeing item command activated and that often times doesn't help with plans to sneak up on people.

Indeed.

Jormengand

2017-06-28, 08:02 PM

None of the stuff you're doing is in the printed Pit Fiend's round by round tactics. Although any build would have to fight another devil too because it explicitly summons prior to combat.

Please, please tell me you're not in the "Monsters only ever use the listed tactics, don't deviate from them under any circumstances, and if you change their tactics their CR is no longer valid" camp.

Zanos

2017-06-28, 08:03 PM

Please, please tell me you're not in the "Monsters only ever use the listed tactics, don't deviate from them under any circumstances, and if you change their tactics their CR is no longer valid" camp.
Sure aren't, but I wouldn't expect a Pit Fiend to spend all day creating armies of undead that they can't control from all those corpses that aren't in Hell and hiding behind illusionary walls despite being the most prideful of fiends.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-28, 08:04 PM

Please, please tell me you're not in the "Monsters only ever use the listed tactics, don't deviate from them under any circumstances, and if you change their tactics their CR is no longer valid" camp.

Naturally! Clearly, the designers intended for every monster to use full attacks over and over!

On a more serious note, was CR ever valid in the first place?

Beheld

2017-06-28, 08:22 PM

None of the stuff you're doing is in the printed Pit Fiend's round by round tactics. Although any build would have to fight another devil too because it explicitly summons prior to combat.

The round by round tactics of the Pit Fiend of course don't cover the things it did days ago, or hours ago, or 10 minutes ago.

Permanent concentration spells don't require concentration, so the fighter does not need to spend a standard action.

This appears no where in the Permanency spell description, or the concentration description in the magic overview, so I wonder where you get that from.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-28, 08:23 PM

This appears no where in the Permanency spell description, or the concentration description in the magic overview, so I wonder where you get that from.

I remember reading that you have to spend an action to activate a permanent concentration duration spell. I don't recall where, though.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-28, 08:40 PM

The first time you snipe an undead, you break your invisibility, and then all the other undead, and the Pit Fiend see you, and then you die.

This is a puzzling claim. Have you read the sniping rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm)? A Mummy (spot 8) literally cannot hope to observe a sniper with a hide of 51. Perhaps you are confused about how invisibility is useful? It allows you to reach a good sniping position with some natural cover or concealment.

It never works. I hate to break this to you, but your character has literally zero methods of obtaining cover or concealment after making an attack roll. You are 100% saying "I sure hope literally every location in the entire universe has a convenient hiding place within 20ft for me!"

This is an incomprehensible chain of reasoning to me. In natural settings it is often quite feasible to find some cover within LOS of a target. The nice thing about a sniper build is that patience works. Is the Pit Fiend going to avoid any locations with nearby cover forever? That's a disabling level of paranoia that will systematically prevent it from assigned tasks.

You still don't understand how detect magic works. You have to spend your standard action concentrating for 1 round to even know if magic is there, unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged" by illusions of walls

That is simply incorrect as Zanos points out. The duration becomes permanent and the effects of concentration are as per the spell description. Hence, it's quite possible to move, concentrate, move, concentrate, snipe, move, move, concentrate, etc...

Even if you did spend every single round concentrating, it would still only tell you that there are a bunch of illusions, which would do you pretty much no good, since you 1) would just have to pick one at random to shoot, 2) Would have already given yourself away by shooting a Mummy.

Again, I really think you should read the sniping rules. It's not at all clear to me that you understand them. Are you assuming that no natural cover exists to ever snipe from? That certainly can exist in some settings, but it's nothing like the games I've played and seems deeply unrealistic.

@everyone: I present an open challenge, that I will run any "totally standard fighter" against one of a very small set of core EL 20 encounters. Because it sure looks like pretty much every technique for fighter victory relies on enemies just not actually using their abilities, and/or nonsense rules interactions, and also for some reason spending 3kgp on a "permanent" effect that will last less long than a wand, because the first time your level 20 PC runs into a CR 12 enemy he will lose it forever.
It could only be done with a neutral 3rd party as I have no trust in your ability to either create a plausible setting or to execute the rules effectively. You've been verifiably wrong at least twice (asserting the Pit Fiend's caster level 18 Blasphemy would cripple a fighter 20 and misunderstanding how permanency detect magic works).

Dagroth

2017-06-28, 09:33 PM

No. In the context of limited resources, "useful" means that you are using resources comparably efficiently to other options, and the Fighter isn't. Also, if you're dividing wealth among the rest of the party, also divide XP. I have no trouble believing that Wizard/Beguiler/Druid with +1/3 resources each is better than Wizard/Beguiler/Druid/Fighter.

You do understand Economy of Actions, right?

What about a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue with +1/3 resources vs. Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter?

I'm pretty sure the focus of a martial class is "prowess as a warrior" the classes focused on gear are gadgeteers like the Artificer. The fact that the Fighter needs gear to not suck doesn't make that his concept. It just means he sucks.

So a Rogue doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Barbarian doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Duskblade doesn't need gear to not suck?

Need I go on?

If you're not bringing a character that's in line with the standard the rest of the party is setting, you're doing something wrong.

So we should ban the use of Wizards and Clerics because most character classes fall into Tier 3, clearly.

Because even if you can contrive a Fighter to beat a Pit Fiend (and you certainly can, because Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold), you haven't proved the Fighter is "useful". For that to happen, there needs to be some reason for me to have a Fighter instead of a second Cleric.

No, it doesn't. The reason to have a Fighter is because someone wants to play a Fighter. Full Stop. It's not the GM's job to tell players that the character they want to play "isn't good enough".

A Good GM won't let players make characters that need to warp their build to beat a single level appropriate encounter.

You didn't read what I wrote. If the goal of the game is to battle high level Devils, then the players are given a lot of build-up to that point so that their builds will end up good at beating high level Devils eventually.

Unless you're flat-out insisting that you can't have GM driven campaign goals and only the player's goals matter... Which doesn't work if you have players who just want their characters to "become powerful", "become heroes" or "go on adventures".

A DM also adjusts encounters to match PC capability -- so say several posters in this thread. Or is that just adjusting down because otherwise we make Fighters sad?

Or is that just adjusting encounters up because otherwise things are too easy for the Wizards?

Cosi

2017-06-29, 12:29 AM

Yes, there have been many references to real gaming.

But where are we drawing the line for "real gaming". Why is "I have a huge pile of permanency spells" Real Gaming but "I have a Candle of Invocation" not?

You do understand Economy of Actions, right?

Sure. But Fighter actions are crap.

What about a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue with +1/3 resources vs. Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter?

From 7th on the three-person party is a level ahead. From 16th on they're two levels ahead. I'll take 9th level spells over a Fighter any day of the week.

So a Rogue doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Barbarian doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Duskblade doesn't need gear to not suck?

Need I go on?

I don't see what your point is. The Rogue's concept is "be like Han Solo or Jack Sparrow", and is admittedly the closest to being gear based. The Barbarian's concept is that he gets really angry and hits things hard, which is not at all gear based -- the Hulk doesn't wear anything but pants and even that's only so you don't see his giant green dong. The Duskblade's concept is that he fights with sword and spell, not with really expensive sword and spell.

So we should ban the use of Wizards and Clerics because most character classes fall into Tier 3, clearly.

You should ban whatever your group wants to ban. If you want to do Lord of Light, you should ban anything that doesn't fall within striking distance of a god. If you want to do Lord of the Rings, you should ban anything that's more powerful than Gandalf.

The game is a social activity, and by joining a group you agree that you will sometimes not get all of what you want. If it is unacceptable to you to not play a Fighter, don't join the group that wants a character to play with their Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, and Planar Shepherd. If it is unacceptable to you to not play an Incantatrix, don't join the group that wants a character to play with their Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian. If it is unacceptable to you to not play a Jedi, don't join the group playing a Weird West campaign. This is not complicated.

You didn't read what I wrote. If the goal of the game is to battle high level Devils, then the players are given a lot of build-up to that point so that their builds will end up good at beating high level Devils eventually.

Maybe the goal of the game is to defeat an evil Wizard and the Pit Fiend is just guarding something of his. Maybe the goal is to protect the multiverse from danger and the Pit Fiend is just part of the party necromancer's backstory. A Pit Fiend at level 20 is just an encounter. It doesn't need any fanfare, and indeed if players take special precautions against it (particularly at the level of their build), it comes down in threat.

Unless you're flat-out insisting that you can't have GM driven campaign goals and only the player's goals matter... Which doesn't work if you have players who just want their characters to "become powerful", "become heroes" or "go on adventures".

You can have DM driven goals. But the DM isn't required to telegraph challenges in advance. You should be able to beat any EL 20 encounter at 20th level, regardless of whether it was foreshadowed or not. If you can't, either it is not EL 20 or you are not 20th level.

lord_khaine

2017-06-29, 01:14 AM

No one has ever contended that a Fighter is less present than nothingness. I mean, a single mirror image from a casting of mirror image is not "useless" by your definition. But I don't tell players they have the choice to play an equal part as the other players, and then make them play a single mirror image. If you have a bunch of a PC classes, implicitly, they are supposed to be equally as reasonable options. If one of them is objectively much worse, and doesn't manage to conform to the rules that are actually present for what a PC class should be balanced for, that's a problem.

Actually, that is straight up what people said when they called the fighter useless. Even if its not what they meant. Its why i extended my definition of useful.

From 7th on the three-person party is a level ahead. From 16th on they're two levels ahead. I'll take 9th level spells over a Fighter any day of the week.

Not everyone consider xp an resource. The three-person party was just meant to get the same amount of treasure as the 4 man party.

You can have DM driven goals. But the DM isn't required to telegraph challenges in advance. You should be able to beat any EL 20 encounter at 20th level, regardless of whether it was foreshadowed or not. If you can't, either it is not EL 20 or you are not 20th level.

The sample fighter does seem able to beat a large amount of evil EL 20 encounters if nothing else.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 04:31 AM

This is a puzzling claim. Have you read the sniping rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm)? A Mummy (spot 8) literally cannot hope to observe a sniper with a hide of 51. Perhaps you are confused about how invisibility is useful? It allows you to reach a good sniping position with some natural cover or concealment.

This is an incomprehensible chain of reasoning to me. In natural settings it is often quite feasible to find some cover within LOS of a target. The nice thing about a sniper build is that patience works. Is the Pit Fiend going to avoid any locations with nearby cover forever? That's a disabling level of paranoia that will systematically prevent it from assigned tasks.

Again, I really think you should read the sniping rules. It's not at all clear to me that you understand them. Are you assuming that no natural cover exists to ever snipe from? That certainly can exist in some settings, but it's nothing like the games I've played and seems deeply unrealistic.

Again, yes I have, including the part where they reference the hide skill, which requires cover or concealment you don't have. Specifically "If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

Your contention that there is cover or concealment within 10ft of every enemy ever is silly. There isn't. The Pit Fiend can fly, he can be 30ft in the air, ensuring that there is no cover or concealment for you to be standing in when you shoot at him or his persistent images. And the moment your plan involves refreshing invisibility, you are literally speaking a word outloud.

That is simply incorrect as Zanos points out. The duration becomes permanent and the effects of concentration are as per the spell description. Hence, it's quite possible to move, concentrate, move, concentrate, snipe, move, move, concentrate, etc...

Except that the rules don't say that anywhere, and that's wrong. They don't say that under Permanency, they don't say that under Detect Magic, they don't say that under the Magic Overview. I mean, you might as well just claim that Fighters can cast Shapechange at will if you are going to make up rules that don't exist.

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

Florian

2017-06-29, 04:37 AM

Well, what _is_ CR? It´s a short-hand for the expected performance level both side of an encounter should bing to the table. Wading through the MM appendices, you´ll come to the conclusion that it´ll actually lead to concrete data which hp, AC, to hit, damages, saves, etc., are expected to be dealt with at each level.
The only way to "grow" in core D20 is by using items, which in turn is tied to WBL, which in turn is tied to the performance expectations set up by the CR system. Non-core, we see things like the Automatic Bonus Progression (PF), Vow of Poverty (3E) and the build-in progression into the basic character chart (4E), which all, including WBL, touch on how "growth" is handles.

So talk about how a class should be imagined and how that is actually supported by the underlying system is pretty off the mark.

lord_khaine

2017-06-29, 05:53 AM

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

Thats assuming there is a horde of Morgs and Mummies though. But there is not agreement on if those would increase the CR of the encounter or not.

DEMON

2017-06-29, 06:10 AM

Your contention that there is cover or concealment within 10ft of every enemy ever is silly.

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

FWIW Woodland Archer's Moving Sniper ability suggests that when you successfully hide when sniping, you avoid detection from an enemy. I'm sure the meaning can be argued, but I read it as you're not really revealed to everyone after the hit and before the hide - it's all part of the sniping (shoot+hide).

Beheld

2017-06-29, 06:43 AM

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

Well within 10ft is of every enemy is being a little hyperbolic, but the issue here is that the handling has a move speed of 10ft, so he has to have cover or concealment relative to all enemies in his current location, then he makes the attack and moves 10ft to a new location that also has cover or concealment relative to all enemies. He can occasionally move 20ft when he wants to take a break from sniping, so he doesn't need 10ft of everything. But literally at any time the pit fiend can put up an image that blocks off far away cover from sight, and the fighter will be unable to continue to snipe morgs or illusions until he gets closer

Beheld

2017-06-29, 06:44 AM

Thats assuming there is a horde of Morgs and Mummies though. But there is not agreement on if those would increase the CR of the encounter or not.

I mean, I think its pretty clear that "the rules say so" is a better argument than "but then the fighter loses, so lets ignore the rules"

Anthrowhale

2017-06-29, 07:01 AM

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

Indeed.

Beheld doesn't seem to understand how cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) works. A 1 ft tall boulder provides cover. The boulder can 30', 100', or more away from the Mummy.

Beheld also doesn't understand how sniping works.
It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. Since we are paying the -20 penalty the hide stays on for the snipe attack.

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

This spell makes certain other spells permanent.
Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make :smallsmile: Detect Magic says:

The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
Study is not formally defined, so I was interpreting it as a standard action and calling it "concentrate". But that's provably incorrect because the spell itself requires concentration which consumes a standard action. Hence, "Study" can at most be a move action. It may also be a free action or no action. Regardless, the combination of these two spells means the Fighter can sleep, then wake up, then study an area and detect magic.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-29, 07:05 AM

But where are we drawing the line for "real gaming". Why is "I have a huge pile of permanency spells" Real Gaming but "I have a Candle of Invocation" not?

I don't know where to draw the line, but a "pile" of a 0th level and 1st level permanency spell seem fairly plausible for a 20th level character to me while Candle of Invocation abuse seems implausible at all levels in a real game.

ryu

2017-06-29, 07:31 AM

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make :smallsmile: Detect Magic says:

Study is not formally defined, so I was interpreting it as a standard action and calling it "concentrate". But that's provably incorrect because the spell itself requires concentration which consumes a standard action. Hence, "Study" can at most be a move action. It may also be a free action or no action. Regardless, the combination of these two spells means the Fighter can sleep, then wake up, then study an area and detect magic.

I find it cute that you think that, but no. Without permanency the spell literally requires your entire turn just to look at something. With it you're still using standard actions because you can explicitly only do it once per round which doesn't work with move actions because you can convert standards to moves. This is a 0th level spell and, no, it won't solve all your problems for you.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-29, 07:56 AM

I find it cute that you think that, but no. Without permanency the spell literally requires your entire turn just to look at something. With it you're still using standard actions because you can explicitly only do it once per round which doesn't work with move actions because you can convert standards to moves....
But, it's also the case that you don't get two standard actions (one to concentrate and one to study) for the normal spell. Hence "study is a standard action" is just wrong...

ryu

2017-06-29, 08:29 AM

But, it's also the case that you don't get two standard actions (one to concentrate and one to study) for the normal spell. Hence "study is a standard action" is just wrong...

Which is why the spell is USELESS without permanency or a concentration replacement RAW. It's a common houserule to let you take your entire turn just to look at something. This is a privilege. Not a right.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 09:26 AM

I don't know where to draw the line, but a "pile" of a 0th level and 1st level permanency spell seem fairly plausible for a 20th level character to me while Candle of Invocation abuse seems implausible at all levels in a real game.

While no one actually uses candles of invocation in real games, only someone who has never tried to buy permanencied spells in real games would ever actually contend that they are fairly plausible. Anyone who has actually tried would have quickly discovered how incredibly worthless they are, since they get auto dispelled by anything even vaguely approaching level appropriate.

Beheld doesn't seem to understand how cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) works. A 1 ft tall boulder provides cover. The boulder can 30', 100', or more away from the Mummy.

Actually, it only gives cover if a line from your square passes through an object that provides cover. So you know, if the mummies don't line up in a nice long line, and the Pit Fiend is in the air, then you probably don't have cover with respect to all of them from many locations.

Beheld also doesn't understand how sniping works. Since we are paying the -20 penalty the hide stays on for the snipe attack.

Or you know, you could quote the actual rules: "you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

Which makes it clear that you are hiding again, after the shot, because you aren't hiding during the shot, they can see you.

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make :smallsmile: Detect Magic says:

Except that you declare studying to be a move action for no reason, this has always been my point. You can have a permanent detect magic, but it provides no benefits unless you spend standard actions, so you don't get automatic pings when illusions are nearby.

But while we are on the subject, you actually can't Permanency Detect Magic on your fighter at all. It's literally against the rules.

The_Jette

2017-06-29, 09:46 AM

But while we are on the subject, you actually can't Permanency Detect Magic on your fighter at all. It's literally against the rules.

True. You can only make Detect Magic permanent, via Permanency, on yourself by RAW.

ryu

2017-06-29, 09:49 AM

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

The_Jette

2017-06-29, 10:04 AM

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 10:07 AM

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

Well that wouldn't even help in this circumstance, since the Permanency spell specifically says you can only make Detect Magic permanent on yourself. The only way around that would be to UMD a scroll of permanency himself or buy a Ring of Spell Storing. But the idea that you would put that much money and effort into a spell that gets dispelled the first time you fight something that is so low level you don't even get XP for it, is a little silly.

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

Wait, who's bashing the game system? The people who think that the game is really good without fighters, or the people who think the game is really good with fighters?

ryu

2017-06-29, 10:31 AM

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

Oh I agree with them, but it's not the system that's the problem. Fighters just suck. Even compared to most other mundanes, fighters suck. Most of those same mundanes also suck a bit, just not as much as the fighter.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 10:42 AM

Why Detect Magic and not Arcane Sight? It's more expensive, but a far better spell.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 10:52 AM

Why Detect Magic and not Arcane Sight? It's more expensive, but a far better spell.

Well mostly because like Detect Magic, it's impossible to actually get on the Fighter, but also because it costs 8kgp for a spell that disappears as soon as you fight a monster that is CR 12.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 10:54 AM

Well mostly because like Detect Magic, it's impossible to actually get on the Fighter, but also because it costs 8kgp for a spell that disappears as soon as you fight a monster that is CR 12.

True, but Detect Magic seems so, blah, that I question if it's worth the effort.

I guess the Fighter could pay a Spellcaster to cast Detect Magic and Permanency on him.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-29, 11:00 AM

Which is why the spell is USELESS without permanency or a concentration replacement RAW. It's a common houserule to let you take your entire turn just to look at something. This is a privilege. Not a right.
Ok, it's probably good to be explicit when you are talking about house rules in this conversation. Anyways, I think we are in agreement that this:

...unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged"...
is simply wrong. In particular, you can have many rounds when you do not spend a standard action interspersed amongst those that do.

Whether or not detect magic only works with permanency is unclear to me and it does at least seem rules ambiguous as 'study' has no assigned action cost.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 11:06 AM

I double checked the rules for Permanency, the Fighter would have to cast the spell himself, he can't pay anyone to do it for him. Same for Arcane Sight.

logic_error

2017-06-29, 11:08 AM

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 11:11 AM

I double checked the rules for Permanency, the Fighter would have to cast the spell himself, he can't pay anyone to do it for him. Same for Arcane Sight.

Always better to spellstore/umd/etc.

Remember: spells are powerful. Casters are service.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 11:17 AM

Always better to spellstore/umd/etc.

Remember: spells are powerful. Casters are service.

Why be a Fighter then? Why not be a Rogue, or a Bard, or a Commoner?

Also, magic items are expensive; are you planning on using them throughout your whole career?

Beheld

2017-06-29, 11:17 AM

Anyways, I think we are in agreement that this:

is simply wrong. In particular, you can have many rounds when you do not spend a standard action interspersed amongst those that do.

Whether or not detect magic only works with permanency is unclear to me and it does at least seem rules ambiguous as 'study' has no assigned action cost.

I don't think anyone is, because we all agree that if you aren't spending your standard actions concentrating on detect magic, then you aren't getting "pinged" with knowledge of magical auras. If you stop concentrating, you stop getting information.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 11:18 AM

I don't think anyone is, because we all agree that if you aren't spending your standard actions concentrating on detect magic, then you aren't getting "pinged" with knowledge of magical auras. If you stop concentrating, you stop getting information.

I think Anthrowhale's argument is that Detect Magic isn't concentration anymore, but permanent. Thus, you don't have to concentrate every round to get info with Detect Magic.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 11:21 AM

There is a simple way to resolve this:

How about Beheld plays a PitFiend. Any other guy voluntarily plays the optimised fighter. Both get same prep time and full idea of each other's capabilities. Just decide on the WBL and the features allowed within the strict rules of Core.

1) The requirement that the monster has to be a Pit Fiend and definitely will be is like 14 different free gifts to the Fighter. The entire point is that if you built a Schroedinger's fighter who always has the optimal build against the specific enemy he faces, that this already proves the fighter is a problem.

2) There are still tons of issues that always have to be ironed out, like treasure for the Pit Fiend, or how detect magic (doesn't) work or how sniping works, or the actual cause of the run in and associated battlefield locations.

I think Anthrowhale's argument is that Detect Magic isn't concentration anymore, but permanent. Thus, you don't have to concentrate every round to get info with Detect Magic.

I think his argument makes no sense, because Detect Magic detects magic in an area, and you have to move that area and study the same area for 3 rounds to get the info, and studying that area takes concentration.

Anthrowhale

2017-06-29, 11:21 AM

While no one actually uses candles of invocation in real games, only someone who has never tried to buy permanencied spells in real games would ever actually contend that they are fairly plausible. Anyone who has actually tried would have quickly discovered how incredibly worthless they are, since they get auto dispelled by anything even vaguely approaching level appropriate.
I've certainly used permanency in real games. It an expendable of unclear duration, and a 3K gp expendable is acceptable at this level. In this sense it's something like a potion, only better.

Actually, it only gives cover if a line from your square passes through an object that provides cover. So you know, if the mummies don't line up in a nice long line, and the Pit Fiend is in the air, then you probably don't have cover with respect to all of them from many locations.

I think this is your way of saying "Yes, I was wrong about the 10' requirement". You are also wrong about the line as well.

Or you know, you could quote the actual rules...

I quoted from the 4th sentence of hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm). The rules for sniping do not say that you are revealed---they say that you need to make another hide check with a -20 penalty.

Except that you declare studying to be a move action for no reason, this has always been my point.

That is not what you said. What you said is:
...unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged"...which you are now admitting was wrong.

But while we are on the subject, you actually can't Permanency Detect Magic on your fighter at all. It's literally against the rules.
I assume you missed the explanation "(via Ring of Spell Storing)". A ring of spell storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) allows a fighter to cast permanency. It's a quite standard core item.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 11:29 AM

Also, magic items are expensive; are you planning on using them throughout your whole career?

A common misconception among people who don't do PvE tests. Expenses are dwarfed by treasure gained. That's why earlier I posited that a meaningful test for lvl 20 UMD PC would be defeating one Pit Fiend per day for an extended period of time; not simply one poor fiend clobbered by lvl 20 wealth. But even so, a pit fiend is worth so much UMD ought to defeat it sustainably.

Why be a Fighter then? Why not be a Rogue, or a Bard, or a Commoner?

Now that's why I've been trying to focus the discussion on the Fighter's features since page one, but for some reason newcomers keep reframing the question into a larger problem.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 11:30 AM

I've certainly used permanency in real games. It an expendable of unclear duration, and a 3K gp expendable is acceptable at this level. In this sense it's something like a potion, only better.

I think this is your way of saying "Yes, I was wrong about the 10' requirement". You are also wrong about the line as well.

That is not what you said. What you said is: which you are now admitting was wrong.

Except that is what I said. You do not get pinged when you move within 60ft of magic unless you are concentrating every round. If you aren't concentrating, you don't get pinged.

I assume you missed the explanation "(via Ring of Spell Storing)". A ring of spell storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) allows a fighter to cast permanency. It's a quite standard core item.

Did you summon a Genie to wish for the ring of spell storing that you gave your fighter for free without cost?

Menzath

2017-06-29, 11:47 AM

My 2 sense on permanent detect magic in this derailed thread, after reading detect magic, permanency, and the persistent spell metamagic.

By strict RAW It removes the need to concentrate on the spell. Since concentration is only listed in the spell duration, and no where in the context of how the spell works, once permanent you are always "studying" whatever is in the cone in front of you.

Also, I skipped like 3 pages, is there a reason why normal wbl is not given to the fighter since every character is considered to have wbl to make them useful against correct challenge rating encounters?

Lans

2017-06-29, 11:54 AM

But even if you meant EL, you're still wrong, because that doesn't change for party level. EL does sometimes change (for example, fighting undead without a Cleric is a higher EL encounter per the DMG). If a 1st level party fights a CR 5 monster, that's not a different EL than the same party fighting it at 10th level, the EL is just in a different position relative to the PCs and the challenge gives more XP (and is considered more difficult).

So, if the pit fiend creates undead the encounter level is raised as the party does not include a cleric, so we should be using a level 21 fighter?

1) The requirement that the monster has to be a Pit Fiend and definitely will be is like 14 different free gifts to the Fighter. The entire point is that if you built a Schroedinger's fighter who always has the optimal build against the specific enemy he faces, that this already proves the fighter is a problem.

Is any one really arguing whether the fighter is weak, problematic, or underpowered? I mean this entire thread is about whether a core fighter can beat a pit fiend with basically a life time of for knowledge. I mean we are basically arguing whether the fighter passes with a 59.6% grade

2) There are still tons of issues that always have to be ironed out, like treasure for the Pit Fiend, or how detect magic (doesn't) work or how sniping works, or the actual cause of the run in and associated battlefield locations.

also true, we could run both scenarios, or just postulate of what happens if X is ruled G way.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 12:02 PM

Also, I skipped like 3 pages, is there a reason why normal wbl is not given to the fighter since every character is considered to have wbl to make them useful against correct challenge rating encounters?

I don't know why the Fighter gets more than WBL either. But apparently the fighter player decided they need more than WBL.

logic_error

2017-06-29, 12:07 PM

1) The requirement that the monster has to be a Pit Fiend and definitely will be is like 14 different free gifts to the Fighter. The entire point is that if you built a Schroedinger's fighter who always has the optimal build against the specific enemy he faces, that this already proves the fighter is a problem.

2) There are still tons of issues that always have to be ironed out, like treasure for the Pit Fiend, or how detect magic (doesn't) work or how sniping works, or the actual cause of the run in and associated battlefield locations.

I am sure that a competent player (which rules me out) with the right treasure can still do this. ANnyone else?

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 01:29 PM

A common misconception among people who don't do PvE tests. Expenses are dwarfed by treasure gained. That's why earlier I posited that a meaningful test for lvl 20 UMD PC would be defeating one Pit Fiend per day for an extended period of time; not simply one poor fiend clobbered by lvl 20 wealth. But even so, a pit fiend is worth so much UMD ought to defeat it sustainably.

Can the Fighter really afford to burn magic items in every encounter?

Now that's why I've been trying to focus the discussion on the Fighter's features since page one, but for some reason newcomers keep reframing the question into a larger problem.

What does the Fighter have (besides higher BAB) that a Rogue with Fighter bonus feats doesn't?

DEMON

2017-06-29, 01:41 PM

What does the Fighter have (besides higher BAB) that a Rogue with Fighter bonus feats doesn't?

Hmm...High For save and Handle Animal and Ride for class skills? :smalleek:

ryu

2017-06-29, 01:45 PM

Hmm...High For save and Handle Animal and Ride for class skills? :smalleek:

Both of which easily compensated for by more efficient use of wealth through class skill UMD, more skill points, and good old fashioned using the freed up cash for any leftover bonuses.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 01:46 PM

Hmm...High For save and Handle Animal and Ride for class skills? :smalleek:

The Fort save is nice, Handle Animal could be useful, but why would a Rogue care about Ride?

Beheld

2017-06-29, 01:53 PM

Can the Fighter really afford to burn magic items in every encounter?

It depends what your goals are and how efficiently you burn them. Truthfully, a fighter could go very far by buying a +30 UMD item and a Staff of Holy Word and Word of Choas and being Chaotic Good. You can kill like, mostly everything you would ever fight with that just emulating a stupidly high caster level.

And then you could buy a new staff when you run out.

On the other hand, anyone spending 3k on "better potion" (permancied spell) that might last you a day is probably going to run out of money really quick.

People who carry around lots of potions and oils basically never use them, because they run into the problem where level appropriate enemies have both defenders advantage and better detection systems than PCs.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 02:04 PM

It depends what your goals are and how efficiently you burn them. Truthfully, a fighter could go very far by buying a +30 UMD item and a Staff of Holy Word and Word of Choas and being Chaotic Good. You can kill like, mostly everything you would ever fight with that just emulating a stupidly high caster level.

We're allowing custom items in this discussion?

Also, how would the Fighter achieve a high caster level with UMD? I saw nothing in the skill description to indicate that, and don't staffs have a default caster level if yours isn't higher?

And then you could buy a new staff when you run out.

Staves are pretty expensive. Is this Fighter also buying the other types of magic gear like save/stat boosts, flight, ect.?

On the other hand, anyone spending 3k on "better potion" (permancied spell) that might last you a day is probably going to run out of money really quick.

Agreed.

People who carry around lots of potions and oils basically never use them,

I don't think they're cost effective, either.

because they run into the problem where level appropriate enemies have both defenders advantage and better detection systems than PCs.

Divination spells are really important at high levels, and non-casters can replicate them easily.

DEMON

2017-06-29, 02:17 PM

Both of which easily compensated for by more efficient use of wealth through class skill UMD, more skill points, and good old fashioned using the freed up cash for any leftover bonuses.

They do? I wouldn't have thought so myself.

The Fort save is nice, Handle Animal could be useful, but why would a Rogue care about Ride?

Never did I say a Rogue would care about any of this (though the Fort save is indeed nice). I was just answering your question without any regards to the bigger picture. Oh right, there's also more hit points I forgot to mention in my previous post...

Really, I don't have a stake in this argument, it's obvious not all classes were created equal (and they should have been), but the discrepancies are less visible in games where the players lack the knowledge and system mastery the long-term enthusiasts (such as many people on these forums), do.

Beheld

2017-06-29, 02:20 PM

Divination spells are really important at high levels, and non-casters can replicate them easily.

1) umd lets you emulate class feature, cleric with cl 35 is a class feature of a level 35 cleric.

2) a staff with different spells in it is no more a custom item than a wand with different spells, and much less so than a hand of glory with wisdom and con bonuses.

3) people say that they can use divination spells really well, but I literally gave my pcs a sword that casts commune or speak with dead once a day, and they regularly trick themselves into wrong expectations or just blow the days questions accomplishing nothing.

I've never had anyone actually use divinations that effectively when ive challenged them to in convos like this either. They certainly aren't worthless, but in practice they are substantially overblown.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 02:29 PM

1) umd lets you emulate class feature, cleric with cl 35 is a class feature of a level 35 cleric.

:smalleek: Wow. I'll have to add that one to my personal list of cheesy tricks.

2) a staff with different spells in it is no more a custom item than a wand with different spells, and much less so than a hand of glory with wisdom and con bonuses.

Won't all those magic items add up quickly? Plus, spamming those spells won't work on everything.

3) people say that they can use divination spells really well, but I literally gave my pcs a sword that casts commune or speak with dead once a day, and they regularly trick themselves into wrong expectations or just blow the days questions accomplishing nothing.

I was thinking of spells like Scrying and Discern Location. Spells like Commune take a bit for finesse to use well.

I've never had anyone actually use divinations that effectively when ive challenged them to in convos like this either. They certainly aren't worthless, but in practice they are substantially overblown.

The potential is certainly there.

But when we're talking about Fighter UMDing staffs to emulate CL 35 Holy Word/Blasphemy/ect. spells, we left typical play some time ago.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 03:19 PM

Can the Fighter really afford to burn magic items in every encounter?

Yes. The outcomes of all PvE gauntlets, and of all PvP arenas, point to consumables being too cheap for the power (and consequently treasure) derived from them.

What does the Fighter have (besides higher BAB) that a Rogue with Fighter bonus feats doesn't?

A Rogue with Fighter feats isn't the one in the PHB. The moment you walk into all 1st party supplements (let alone all 1st&3rd party supplements) the Pit Fiend's odds dwindle.

Mind you, no one here is attempting to re-tier the Fighter above the Rogue. The discussion is about Fighter v Pit Fiend, and right now is focused on Core without UMD/custom items (which is only one the nine boxes on the table on page 1 of this thread).

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 03:23 PM

Yes. The outcomes of all PvE gauntlets, and of all PvP arenas, point to consumables being too cheap for the power (and consequently treasure) derived from them.

I'm not really impressed that the Fighter can win a few battles by throwing money at the problem until it goes away. I was talking about the viability of such tactics in an actual campaign.

Also, what sort of UMD stratagems did you have planned?

A Rogue with Fighter feats isn't the one in the PHB. The moment you walk into all 1st party supplements (let alone all 1st&3rd party supplements) the Pit Fiend's odds dwindle.

I wasn't aware we're talking about Core only. Regardless, dragging 3rd party books into this discussion seems like a bad idea.

Mind you, no one here is attempting to re-tier the Fighter above the Rogue. The discussion is about Fighter v Pit Fiend, and right now is focused on Core without UMD/custom items (which is only one the nine boxes on the table on page 1 of this thread).

So, how's the Fighter faring?

Beheld

2017-06-29, 03:49 PM

Yes. The outcomes of all PvE gauntlets, and of all PvP arenas, point to consumables being too cheap for the power (and consequently treasure) derived from them.

Well I mean, for one shots, consumables are supposed to cost 10 times as much. So if we were really using the rules that are presented, presumably the fighter's consumable budget of 83.89k gold would therefore be multiplied by 10 and come out to 838.9k gp worth of consumables.... Or you know, more than WBL all on it's own.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 03:55 PM

Well I mean, for one shots, consumables are supposed to cost 10 times as much. So if we were really using the rules that are presented, presumably the fighter's consumable budget of 83.89k gold would therefore be multiplied by 10 and come out to 838.9k gp worth of consumables.... Or you know, more than WBL all on it's own.

Maybe some dips into Incarnate or Totemist would help replicate some magic gear. That, or taking Shape Soulmeld.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 04:08 PM

I'm not really impressed that the Fighter can win a few battles by throwing money at the problem until it goes away.

Take a look at the treasure table in the DMG, and then at the cost of a scroll of Shapechange.

I was talking about the viability of such tactics in an actual campaign.

Actual campaigns depend on the tastes of actual DMs (yes I've seen Fighters kill Pit Fiends in campaigns). PvE arguments however depend on the RAW, and even discounting UMD ,the Core Fighter gets ring of spellstoring and spellcasting services that, say, let him PAO himself.

Also, what sort of UMD stratagems did you have planned?

For me, when someone doesn't understand the power of consumables (and the major gateways to it like UMD), that's a flag that person is a relative newbie to the system. I'm sure there's plenty of information online even with minmax down.

I wasn't aware we're talking about Core only. Regardless, dragging 3rd party books into this discussion seems like a bad idea.

Certainly a bad idea for the Pit Fiend. Even within 1st party only the Fighter gets so many things: better battlefield control, much higher damage, Ikea Tarrasque options - and that's playing nice. Not nice would be his own personal armies of minions, dramatically expanded caster services exploits, all kinds of races/templates, and really heaven know's what else - and that's still without UMD/custom items.

So, how's the Fighter faring?

Are you convinced the non-UMD Core Fighter wins against the Pit Fiend? If not, the case isn't good enough yet.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 04:15 PM

Take a look at the treasure table in the DMG, and then at the cost of a scroll of Shapechange.

You might have excess cash to burn at +17, but your pockets are a lot more shallow at level 1.

Plus scrolls of Shapechange eat into your budget for other important magic items.

Actual campaigns depend on the tastes of actual DMs (yes I've seen Fighters kill Pit Fiends in campaigns). PvE arguments however depend on the RAW, and even discounting UMD ,the Core Fighter gets ring of spellstoring and spellcasting services that, say, let him PAO himself.

I was talking about WBL. How many times can a Fighter pay casters to give him spells before he runs out of cash?

For me, when someone doesn't understand the power of consumables (and the major gateways to it like UMD), that's a flag that person is a relative newbie to the system. I'm sure there's plenty of information online even with minmax down.

That tells me nothing about how you think the UMD Fighter can win.

Certainly a bad idea for the Pit Fiend. Even within 1st party only the Fighter gets so many things: better battlefield control, much higher damage, Ikea Tarrasque options - and that's playing nice. Not nice would be his own personal armies of minions, dramatically expanded caster services exploits, all kinds of races/templates, and really heaven know's what else - and that's still without UMD/custom items.

So, what's to stop the Pit Fiend from starting an infinite Wish loop? Or any number of other optimized tactics it could be using?

Are you convinced the non-UMD Core Fighter wins against the Pit Fiend? If not, the case isn't good enough yet.

What sort of strategy are we talking about? How much damage can the Core Fighter deal and how is he doing it?

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 04:26 PM

I was talking about WBL. How many times can a Fighter pay casters to give him spells before he runs out of cash?

Infinite amounts, as he's killing monsters and looting their treasure in-between.

That tells me nothing about how you think the UMD Fighter can win.

What it should be telling you is you lack basic knowledge in critical areas of the system. I'm not in the habit of writing UMD bibles on page 8 of random threats, so Google for yourself, or don't, it's all the same to me.

So, what's to stop the Pit Fiend from starting an infinite Wish loop? Or any number of other optimized tactics it could be using?

Won't be the Pit Fiend from the MM.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 04:29 PM

Infinite amounts, as he's killing monsters and looting their treasure in-between.

Without more details, I'm very skeptical of that claim.

What it should be telling you is you lack basic knowledge in critical areas of the system. I'm not in the habit of writing UMD bibles on page 8 of random threats, so Google for yourself, or don't, it's all the same to me.

I'm appreciate if you would cease pontificating on my knowledge of 3.5.

If you won't tell me how you're killing the Pit Fiend, why should I believe you?

Won't be the Pit Fiend from the MM.

Yes it is, it's just using its Wish SLA intelligently.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 04:47 PM

If you won't tell me how you're killing the Pit Fiend, why should I believe you?

And why should I believe you the Pit Fiend can kill the Fighter?

Yes it is, it's just using its Wish SLA intelligently.

OK, let take this non-MM Pit Fiend for a walk vs a 20th lvl PC.

The Pit Fiend's first move would be start the wish chain. However, any PC that gets more than 1 Wish per year (in any way - includes at least 6/9 boxes in the Fighter table) will Wish for the Pit Fiend's wish to fail. These PCs will either

- almost certainly act before the Fiend due to their insanely better options to improve initiative
- outright act before the Fiend due the likes of Craft Contingency

After that, they'll have a Wish renewal before the Pit Fiend and will complete the wish chain first. So for more than 1 Wish/year Pit Fiend got crushed.

For those with less than 1 Wish/year - say non-caster, non-UMD Pazuzu-fans, it's better to wish for the chain immediately. And again:

- almost certainly act before the Fiend due to their insanely better options to improve initiative
- outright act before the Fiend due the likes of Craft Contingency

and ultimately complete the chain faster, even by being first in the same turn, and still destroy the Pit Fiend.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 04:52 PM

And why should I believe you the Pit Fiend can kill the Fighter?

Because I never claimed that. :smallannoyed:

OK, let take this non-MM Pit Fiend for a walk vs a 20th lvl PC.

The Pit Fiend's first move would be start the wish chain. However, any PC that gets more than 1 Wish per year (in any way - includes at least 6/9 boxes in the Fighter table) will Wish for the Pit Fiend's wish to fail.

That is not a safe use of Wish. Also, why wouldn't the Pit Fiend have started the Wish loop long ago?

These PCs will either

- almost certainly act before the Fiend due to their insanely better options to improve initiative
- outright act before the Fiend due the likes of Craft Contingency

If this non-MM Pit Fiend is abusing Wish, why wouldn't it have Contingencies and high initiative bonuses?

After that, they'll have a Wish renewal before the Pit Fiend and will complete the wish chain first. So for more than 1 Wish/year Pit Fiend got crushed.

I repeat, why would the Pit Fiend wait to start the Wish loop until combat begun?

For those with less than 1 Wish/year - say non-caster, non-UMD Pazuzu-fans, it's better to wish for the chain immediately. And again:

- almost certainly act before the Fiend due to their insanely better options to improve initiative
- outright act before the Fiend due the likes of Craft Contingency

and ultimately complete the chain faster, even by being first in the same turn, and still destroy the Pit Fiend.

Wish loop abuse by both sides makes this contest rather pointless, as neither side will be able to hurt the other.

You never posted any tactics for the Fighter, UMD or no. Why should I believe that the Fighter beats the Pit Fiend, again?

Florian

2017-06-29, 05:02 PM

Without more details, I'm very skeptical of that claim.

I´ll give you an PF answer, but don´t fret, the item creation rules and their pricing didn't change between editions (you´d get the same result using the MiC).
Our basic archery Fighter needs only use 4 basic wands with spells we´d get from either the Paladin, Antipaladin or Ranger list, so nothing fancy - I´m sure you´ll find equivalent spells in 3,5 that will prove to be more powerful, as usual..
- Saddle Surge
- Celestial/Infernal Healing, Greater
- Named Bulled, Greater
- Litany of Righteousness

That 2x 4th and 2x 2nd, an initial investment of 72K for fully charged wands with 40 charges. Using this a pre-combat buffs, this´ll cost us 1,8K in charges to gain a whopping 600 DPR for a first strike.
Compare that to the 60K+ loot for the Pit Fiend.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:05 PM

I´ll give you an PF answer, but don´t fret, the item creation rules and their pricing didn't change between editions (you´d get the same result using the MiC).

Crafting doesn't cost XP in PF, but that's probably not what you meant.

Our basic archery Fighter needs only use 4 basic wands with spells we´d get from either the Paladin, Antipaladin or Ranger list, so nothing fancy - I´m sure you´ll find equivalent spells in 3,5 that will prove to be more powerful, as usual..
- Saddle Surge
- Celestial/Infernal Healing, Greater
- Named Bulled, Greater
- Litany of Righteousness

That 2x 4th and 2x 2nd, an initial investment of 72K for fully charged wands with 40 charges. Using this a pre-combat buffs, this´ll cost us 1,8K in charges to gain a whopping 600 DPR for a first strike.
Compare that to the 60K+ loot for the Pit Fiend.

As far as I can tell, none of those spells are in 3.5.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 05:10 PM

Also, why wouldn't the Pit Fiend have started the Wish loop long ago?

I repeat, why would the Pit Fiend wait to start the Wish loop?

OK, now you are utterly confused.

It's not for a PC to answer why Pit Fiends in a setting have not started abusing their Wishes "long ago". It's not for a first level PC to fix a setting where Pit Fiends have abused their wishes long ago.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:15 PM

It's not for a PC to answer why Pit Fiends in a setting have not started abusing their Wishes "long ago". It's not for a first level PC to fix a setting where Pit Fiends have abused their wishes long ago.

If we're optimizing Pit Fiends, they would have already begun a Wish loop. Just like an optimized Fighter would have purchased all his gear long ago, or in this case, started a Wish loop.

I'm not going to take your claims about Fighter VS Pitfiend seriously unless you can tell me exactly how the Fighter is supposed to win.

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 05:26 PM

If we're optimizing Pit Fiends, they would have already begun a Wish loop. Just like an optimized Fighter would have purchased all his gear long ago, or in this case, started a Wish loop.

Shockingly, whomever started first finished first? That's setting history, not a RAW challenge.

A challenge would be the CR 20 monster (as described in its entry by RAW) and the level 20 character (as built by its player by RAW) going for the loop at one and the same time. A challenge, as explained above, the PC wins overwhelmingly.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:29 PM

Shockingly, whomever started first finished first? That's setting history, not a RAW challenge.

It's assumed that characters have a history when building them. Otherwise, they just sprung out of the ground at level 20 with their WBLs worth of gear.

A challenge would be the CR 20 monster (as described in its entry by RAW) and the level 20 character (as built by its player by RAW) going for the loop at one and the same time.

Why? Why couldn't both characters have already benefited from free Wishes and walk into combat with the buffs and gear obtained from said Wishes?

A challenge, as explained above, the PC wins overwhelmingly.

Until you can show me how the Fighter is built, I don't believe you.

Florian

2017-06-29, 05:30 PM

If we're optimizing Pit Fiends, they would have already begun a Wish loop. Just like an optimized Fighter would have purchased all his gear long ago, or in this case, started a Wish loop.

I'm not going to take your claims about Fighter VS Pitfiend seriously unless you can tell me exactly how the Fighter is supposed to win.

You might have noticed that the fighter we discuss here didn't start the "wish loop" using WBL but instead used that to act like we suppose a Fighter acts, by beating the target by force of arms and skill.

So maybe such simple concepts are a bit above your pay grade?

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:31 PM

You might have noticed that the fighter we discuss here didn't start the "wish loop" using WBL but instead used that to act like we suppose a Fighter acts, by beating the target by force of arms and skill.

Irrelevant; we were discussing Wish loop tactics.

So maybe such simple concepts are a bit above your pay grade?

Would it kill you to be polite?

emeraldstreak

2017-06-29, 05:37 PM

Otherwise, they just sprung out of the ground at level 20 with their WBLs worth of gear.

Exactly, that's why it's called a challenge, a gauntlet, an arena - not a roleplaying campaign in setting with history.

Or if you prefer, they have their logical prehistory and setting - but it just so happens that they begin their rivalry exactly in that moment, under these exact conditions.

Why? Why couldn't both characters have already benefited from free Wishes and walk into combat with the buffs and gear obtained from said Wishes?

Because the PC would be Pun Pun. As in swat Greater Deities by the dozen final optimization Pun Pun. That's the end of the loop, Ninja.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:39 PM

Exactly, that's why it's called a challenge, a gauntlet, an arena - not a roleplaying campaign in setting with history.

Or if you prefer, they have their logical prehistory and setting - but it just so happens that they begin their rivalry exactly in that moment, under these exact conditions.

That still doesn't explain why that prehistory can't include Wish loops...

Because the PC would be Pun Pun. As in swat Greater Deities by the dozen final optimization Pun Pun. That's the end of the loop, Ninja.

I did say that Wish loops would leave them both unable to fight each other.

Menzath

2017-06-29, 05:43 PM

That still doesn't explain why that prehistory can't include Wish loops...

Because that would void the premise of the challenge and /thread?

Work within the constraints of the challenge, or not at all is part of the point I think.

ColorBlindNinja

2017-06-29, 05:44 PM

Because that would void the premise of the challenge and /thread?

Work within the constraints of the challenge, or not at all is part of the point I think.

Fine, it was a hypothetical discussion anyway.