Why play a Fighter?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Too offtopic for me. That sounds like a different thread.

OK, I just thought I'd ask.

[Jormengand]

Knights get Diplomacy and have more than bonus feats as class features, but yeah, they share a lot of the Fighter's flaws otherwise.

I don't know about you, but I'm looking at the knight (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2).

"Class Skills (2 + Int modifier per level, x4 at 1st level): Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Ride, Swim."

Their class features aren't enough to save them. The bonus feats might actually be better.

[Psyren]

Sure, but we were talking about the newbie aspect.

As has been discussed ad nauseam, the newbie impact will be on building the Fighter, which is 99% of the time irrelevant anyway. Running a fighter is very newbie friendly.


That said, if you want hardmode, you don't need Fighter for it. Just place any custom challenge and you're fine.

And if I WANT Fighter? Who are you to tell me not to play the class I want to play, if it is from an allowed book (and core usually is)?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't know about you, but I'm looking at the knight (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2).

"Class Skills (2 + Int modifier per level, x4 at 1st level): Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Ride, Swim."

Their class features aren't enough to save them. The bonus feats might actually be better.

True, their class features aren't anything to write home about.

The real question is, is the Knight better at being a knight than the Fighter?

[Jormengand]

True, their class features aren't anything to write home about.

The real question is, is the Knight better at being a knight than the Fighter?

Which I answered the first time you asked it, the answer being "It has knowledge (nobility) which makes it somewhat better, but otherwise it runs into a lot of fighter's problems", that is "Yes but not very much".

[Cosi]

And if I WANT Fighter? Who are you to tell me not to play the class I want to play, if it is from an allowed book (and core usually is)?

What if I want to have sexually explicit scenes in my game, but the rest of the group doesn't? What if I want to play a Jedi, but the rest of the group wants to do a Noir detective story in 1920s New Orleans? What if I want to play an Incantatrix with a perfect buff routine, Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster, and an army of a thousand demons but the rest of the group is three mundanes?

It's a group game. Sometimes you have to bow to group consensus, and sometimes that consensus won't include the class you want. What if you wanted to be a Samurai in an Old West game?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Which I answered the first time you asked it, the answer being "It has knowledge (nobility) which makes it somewhat better, but otherwise it runs into a lot of fighter's problems", that is "Yes but not very much".

So, the Knight is better at being a knight, but not by much.

Got it, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[Tainted_Scholar]

As has been discussed ad nauseam, the newbie impact will be on building the Fighter, which is 99% of the time irrelevant anyway. Running a fighter is very newbie friendly.

Why is building a Fighter irrelevant most of the time? You're assuming that every new player is going to be in a group with someone who can build them a good Fighter, and that the new player doesn't want to build their character themself.

Also running a Fighter isn't noob friendly either, since the Fighter has very limited options in what it can do and if those options aren't applicable, they're screwed. Having too many options is bad for a first time player, but having too few is even worse.

[Psyren]

Why is building a Fighter irrelevant most of the time? You're assuming that every new player is going to be in a group with someone who can build them a good Fighter, and that the new player doesn't want to build their character themself.

I assume that because the game tells me to. DMG pg. 6:


"Here are a few pointers on teaching the game.

Read the Player ’s Handbook and know the character creation rules so you can help new players build characters. Have each of the newcomers tell you what sort of character he or she wants to play and then show them how they can create those heroes with the D&D rules. If they don’t know what to play, show them the player character races and classes in the Player’s Handbook, briefly describe each, and let them choose the one that appeals to them the most. Another option is to keep a few simple characters (such as a 1st-level fighter or rogue) around for newcomers. Advance those characters in level as the party advances, and you’ll have “old friends” who adventure with the party when newcomers play them."



Also running a Fighter isn't noob friendly either, since the Fighter has very limited options in what it can do and if those options aren't applicable, they're screwed. Having too many options is bad for a first time player, but having too few is even worse.

There are very, very few monsters in the game that you can't beat via hit point damage. Attacking a monster may not always be optimal, but it IS always an option if the fighter has level-appropriate gear.

And one character being screwed in one encounter is not a big deal either. You can have a single encounter take place in a dead magic zone, does that mean wizards are a useless class?

[Mutazoia]

So the Wizards and the monsters are on one level, and the Fighter is on another level, and this is clearly the fault of the Wizard because reasons. Got it. Even if we accept this theory of the game's history, shouldn't we prefer to fix things by rewriting one class rather than one class and also the entire MM?

Yes, we should definitely rewrite the Fighter, as he didn't really get much of a rewrite when the shift was made from 2e to 3.X. Again, bad game design. But we should also do a bit of re-write on the rest of the game ....oh...wait....they DID do that, didn't they?




The point is in contrast to e.g. WoW where monsters are controlled by an algorithm that can be told to target the Warrior regardless of the efficiency of doing so.

Who said monsters are controlled by an algorithm? So let's look at it this way. In 2E, spells had a casting time. You rolled initiative, and subtracted the casting time of the spell you wanted to cast. So if you had a 17 for initiative, and wanted to cast a spell with a casting time of 4, you would start casting on 17, and your spell would go off on 13. If, on 15 a monster ran past the Fighter, and smacked the wizard upside the head, the wizard lost the spell (it would not be cast, but he would still expend it as if he had) and the monster's tactic would be a success.

In 3.X most spells are cast instantaneously. Factor in "casting defensively" and a 5' step, plus the fact that the monster can cleave the wizard clean in half, but if mr. Wizard still has 1 hp left, he can still cast, and all the monster has managed to do now, is put itself between the wizard, and the Fighter, who has high BAB, 2+ attacks per round (not counting the AoO he got when the monster flew past him) and, thanks to the "Intelligent" decision of the DM, now gets a nice flanking bonus. And Mr. Wizard still gets to cast his spell regardless of damage suffered. So, unless the monster can kill the wizard in one hit, charging him is a waste of time, and actually a tactical mistake.




Define broken.

All the power of the already OP wizard, with none of it's drawbacks (i.e. having to pre-select spells for the day for example).




I wouldn't say that. You have a social obligation to play in a way that is acceptable to the group you play with. That may or may not include restrictions on what classes are appropriate, which may or may not include Fighters.

Remind me to never play a game with you, as you seem to think that an RPG must be played to some mystical formula that you have worked out in your head, and playing for fun is verboten.

[Cosi]

Who said monsters are controlled by an algorithm?

WoW, or World of Warcraft, is a video game. In it, the monsters are controlled by some kind of target selection algorithm. Because this responds to "whatever the designers tell it to" rather than "how dangerous things actually are", you can have it force monsters to target a defensively powerful, but offensively anemic enemy, even though that's a terrible decision. This is how "tanking" works, and it obviously doesn't work if monsters do actual threat assessment.


So let's look at it this way. In 2E, spells had a casting time. You rolled initiative, and subtracted the casting time of the spell you wanted to cast. So if you had a 17 for initiative, and wanted to cast a spell with a casting time of 4, you would start casting on 17, and your spell would go off on 13. If, on 15 a monster ran past the Fighter, and smacked the wizard upside the head, the wizard lost the spell (it would not be cast, but he would still expend it as if he had) and the monster's tactic would be a success.

In 3.X most spells are cast instantaneously. Factor in "casting defensively" and a 5' step, plus the fact that the monster can cleave the wizard clean in half, but if mr. Wizard still has 1 hp left, he can still cast, and all the monster has managed to do now, is put itself between the wizard, and the Fighter, who has high BAB, 2+ attacks per round (not counting the AoO he got when the monster flew past him) and, thanks to the "Intelligent" decision of the DM, now gets a nice flanking bonus. And Mr. Wizard still gets to cast his spell regardless of damage suffered. So, unless the monster can kill the wizard in one hit, charging him is a waste of time, and actually a tactical mistake.

Which is more dangerous, the Wizard or the Fighter? Hint: not the Fighter. Which has more ability to impede the monster's actions, the Wizard or the Fighter? Hint: not the Fighter.

Yes, 2e Wizards needed tanks. Did 2e Fighters have any abilities that actually let them tank?


All the power of the already OP wizard, with none of it's drawbacks (i.e. having to pre-select spells for the day for example).

But we're right back to "the Wizard is balanced to the challenges we expect it to face, which means it is secretly OP because otherwise Fighters look bad".


Remind me to never play a game with you, as you seem to think that an RPG must be played to some mystical formula that you have worked out in your head, and playing for fun is verboten.

Can someone sane explain to me how you go from "you should play in a way your group is okay with" to "everyone must play the game exactly the way I say all the time"?

How the hell is "it's a social game, sometimes you can't just do whatever you want" something that people don't get?

[Togo]

It's a group game. Sometimes you have to bow to group consensus, and sometimes that consensus won't include the class you want.

Surely that cuts both ways, though? What happens if you're the outlier?

Have you ever played at a game where when someone concludes that taking spell X will make another character obsolete, they therefore don't take it? Or one in which they focus on party survival rather than individual power of the party members (i.e. they're actually good at optimisation, rather than just optimising builds)

You're keen on divine power as out-powering the fighter, but you only get that spell a third of the way through your character's career, at 7th level. You can't use it lots of times or have it on in the first round until you're about half way though your career, and persist is, technically, an effect that you can use out of the box as an 8th level spell, which means your character is 15th level, or 3/4 of the way through their career, before you're actually as good as a fighter. Of course you can use particular builds or bonus combinations to drive that down, but you're ending up with a very narrow and specific view of what a cleric is. That may be the kind you usually play, but it isn't what the game means by 'cleric'.

[ryu]

Surely that cuts both ways, though? What happens if you're the outlier?

Have you ever played at a game where when someone concludes that taking spell X will make another character obsolete, they therefore don't take it? Or one in which they focus on party survival rather than individual power of the party members (i.e. they're actually good at optimisation, rather than just optimising builds)

You're keen on divine power as out-powering the fighter, but you only get that spell a third of the way through your character's career, at 7th level. You can't use it lots of times or have it on in the first round until you're about half way though your career, and persist is, technically, an effect that you can use out of the box as an 8th level spell, which means your character is 15th level, or 3/4 of the way through their career, before you're actually as good as a fighter. Of course you can use particular builds or bonus combinations to drive that down, but you're ending up with a very narrow and specific view of what a cleric is. That may be the kind you usually play, but it isn't what the game means by 'cleric'.

Except easy access to cheap persist is literally one of the clerics favorite tricks. Only build more certain to be persisting is probably incantrix and that's metamagic the prestige class.

[TheIronGolem]

Can someone sane explain to me how you go from "you should play in a way your group is okay with" to "everyone must play the game exactly the way I say all the time"?

How the hell is "it's a social game, sometimes you can't just do whatever you want" something that people don't get?

It might help if you stop equating "the group doesn't get to pick my class for me" to "I will play a Jedi in a detective game".

[Cosi]

Surely that cuts both ways, though? What happens if you're the outlier?

Yes. If the group doesn't want you to do something, you don't do it. But that's not what the Fighter people want. They want to tell people that they can't play characters that overshadow their Fighters, but they don't want anyone to tell them they can't play Fighters.


It might help if you stop equating "the group doesn't get to pick my class for me" to "I will play a Jedi in a detective game".

How is "some groups say you can't play a Jedi" different from "some groups say you can't play a Fighter". How is "here is the character you play" the same as "you can't play this character".

[TheIronGolem]

How is "some groups say you can't play a Jedi" different from "some groups say you can't play a Fighter".
The difference should become apparent when you add "in this detective noir game" to the former and "in this Dungeons and Dragons game" to the latter.


How is "here is the character you play" the same as "you can't play this character".
In the context of your claim that playing a Fighter is selfish because you could have played a Cleric, the distinction is unimportant.

[OldTrees1]

How is "some groups say you can't play a Jedi" different from "some groups say you can't play a Fighter". How is "here is the character you play" the same as "you can't play this character".

Perhaps people didn't get it is due to the context of the thread where you started that argument. You came in the middle and that probably led to a miscommunication. For the past 2 pages it sounded like you were arguing "Playing a Fighter is selfish, even at tables where Cosi is not a member, because Cosi thinks playing any non caster is selfish". Of course only one of those 2 meanings is closer to the context of the subthread you joined. Hint: The other person started by saying "Playing a Fighter at level 2 is universally selfish".

[Tainted_Scholar]

I assume that because the game tells me to. DMG pg. 6:

Except that's not going to be an option in every group. If the group is made entirely of new players than it's not an option, and even if there are more experienced players none of them may know how to build a Fighter well. Also, what if the new player wants to build their character themself?



There are very, very few monsters in the game that you can't beat via hit point damage. Attacking a monster may not always be optimal, but it IS always an option if the fighter has level-appropriate gear.

What if they run into a shadow at level 1? What if somebody built the Fighter for the new player like you suggested, and it's a charging build, rough terrain then makes the Fighter useless. And what if the Fighter just get's his ass kicked by CR appropriate challenges?



And one character being screwed in one encounter is not a big deal either. You can have a single encounter take place in a dead magic zone, does that mean wizards are a useless class?

Those aren't equivalent, the chances of running into a dead magic zone are incredibly low.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Those aren't equivalent, the chances of running into a dead magic zone are incredibly low.

Not to mention that there are counters to Dead Magic Zones...

[Psyren]

Except that's not going to be an option in every group. If the group is made entirely of new players than it's not an option, and even if there are more experienced players none of them may know how to build a Fighter well. Also, what if the new player wants to build their character themself?

Circles again. If everyone is new, the challenges will be easy and so weaker classes won't matter as much.

Anyway, you asked for a reason for the assumption and I gave it to you, reading your DMG might help with some of the disconnect you seem to be having about this game.




What if they run into a shadow at level 1?


You mean a "very difficult" encounter, even for a whole group? They'll probably die. What's your point?




Those aren't equivalent, the chances of running into a dead magic zone are incredibly low.

We're talking about one instance, the chances of it happening eventually are pretty high.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Circles again. If everyone is new, the challenges will be easy and so weaker classes won't matter as much.

Um, no. Why would you assume the challenges would be easier just because everyone's new? And you didn't address my other points.


Anyway, you asked for a reason for the assumption and I gave it to you, reading your DMG might help with some of the disconnect you seem to be having about this game.

Your assumption is stupid. You assumed that a new player will always have a more experienced player around who can help them build a Fighter when that simply isn't the case.

I didn't have any experienced players around when I first played 3.5. Did you?


You mean a "very difficult" encounter, even for a whole group? They'll probably die. What's your point?

My mistake, I thought Shadows were CR 1 for some reason.

However, the Fighter will still be useless against it at level 3, and every level after that until he gets a magic weapon. And you didn't address my other points.


We're talking about one instance, the chances of it happening eventually are pretty high.

No, they really aren't, especially not in someone's first campaign.

[Cosi]

The difference should become apparent when you add "in this detective noir game" to the former and "in this Dungeons and Dragons game" to the latter.

Yes, Fighters are a part of D&D in a way that Jedi are not part of a hypothetical Noir game. But 15th level characters are a part of D&D. Can I bring a 15th level character to any D&D game? Can I abuse wish loops in any D&D game?


In the context of your claim that playing a Fighter is selfish because you could have played a Cleric, the distinction is unimportant.

Let's consider some context. Whoever it was that this argument started out with was complaining that the Cleric was "selfish" because he was overshadowing his Fighter. As I see it, there are essentially two paradigms you can have:

1. Anything goes, opinions of the rest of the group be dammed. In this model, neither character could be considered "selfish", because you aren't supposed to alter your character based on what the rest of the group is doing.
2. Play to whatever standards the group sets. In this case, either character could be "selfish" if they were violating expectations.

But whoever it was isn't willing to accept just one of those standards. He wants one for him (I can play my Fighter because its a core class) but two for everyone else (don't play a DMM Cleric because it overshadows my Fighter). And that's not okay. You can't simultaneously exempt yourself from the need to comply with the standards others set and set standards for others.

So in summary, the decision to play a Fighter is "selfish" in the immediate sense that if your group is playing on the level of the Cleric, they presumably expect characters who can handle multiple roles. But it's also selfish on a broader level, because the Fighter apologists are demanding special treatment for their pet characters.


"Playing a Fighter is selfish, even at tables where Cosi is not a member, because Cosi thinks playing any non caster is selfish".

I mean, I'm sorry that you misunderstood me talking about how individual groups should set standard for players in those groups as a universal commandment for all groups, but that kind of seems like a you problem.


"Playing a Fighter at level 2 is universally selfish".

I don't think that's too far off. We all agree that a Fighter is less effective than a Cleric, so clearly playing a Fighter is prioritizing some personal goal over the group's success, which seems pretty selfish. Like, your group probably tolerates some level of selfishness, but the idea that you're being selfless by playing a worse character seems pretty weird.

[Morphic tide]

Important thing to note about Cleric v Fighter: Clerics have to blow multiple spell slots per combat, or at the start of the day with Persist, to equal a Fighter's melee power. A Cleric using buffs to match a Fighter's melee power is selfish because that's a pile of spells slots being eaten for personal combat power, several of which can be put on a Fighter for even better combat power, and it eats into healing abilities for keeping the party on their feet.

A build focused on a high baseline competence in a field getting buffed is often better than those buffs going to making a character who does a lot of other things, often in combat, keep up with that baseline. I would, in fact, call an Incantatrix using their metamagic tricks on themselves selfish because they can use them on better buffers with a better baseline ability from which to buff upwards. Like Clerics, who have several Personal range buffs than an Incantatrix can Persist which are better than what most Incantatrix builds can make themselves, if only due to the Cleric's better baseline combat ability over most Incantatrix builds.

Artificers would be subject to this if they weren't specifically designed to have such selfish buffing be optimal use of their buffing power due to several of the buffs they get having massive costs for the other-people versions. Why, exactly, does an item crafter have self-only buffs? What, to make them be able to use their actions in combat? Buffs applicable to anyone solves that quickly, as they can buff themself first then allies if it turns out needed. Oh, wait, they have casting times rarely going below 10 rounds, actually buffing allies mid-combat isn't something they can do. Could WotC at least have given them the Cleric chassis? Medium BAB and Heavy Armor proficiency lets the self-buffing make sense by letting Artificers gish away and not need massive piles of resources to just keep up with a goddamn Fighter.

Seriously, screw WotC, they completely failed at having teamwork actually work in the game that's supposed to be built around it. Again, why do casters get personal-range buffs for combat? Most of them have abysmal baseline combat ability. Personal buffs make sense for Paladins and Rangers, not ****ing Wizards and Artificers. Druids, too, would make sense if they had Spell Sharing like Wizard Familiars, so those Personal buffs apply to the Animal Companion, and Wildshape makes them at least somewhat sensible, if Natural Spell didn't exist to let them go full on Gish.

[Psyren]

Um, no. Why would you assume the challenges would be easier just because everyone's new?

Because they'll likely be running a module, which tend to be easy since they were written with the basic tank fighter/blaster wizard/trapper rogue/healbot cleric that new players will be drawn to.



Your assumption is stupid. You assumed that a new player will always have a more experienced player around who can help them build a Fighter when that simply isn't the case.

I didn't have any experienced players around when I first played 3.5. Did you?

We played 2e before 3.5, so yes.



My mistake, I thought Shadows were CR 1 for some reason.

However, the Fighter will still be useless against it at level 3, and every level after that until he gets a magic weapon.

You should have one by 3rd level, or at the very least an oil of magic weapon. If you're going to deny WBL then of course the game becomes unreasonable.



No, they really aren't, especially not in someone's first campaign.

Who said anything about one campaign?

[Bakkan]

The difference should become apparent when you add "in this detective noir game" to the former and "in this Dungeons and Dragons game" to the latter.


Dungeons & Dragons is a mechanical system that is capable of handling a vast breadth of types of stories, including detective noir and superheroes. Thus, when a group decides to play together, it's not enough to say "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons". At the very least you have to say "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such". However, since the level system is insufficient to distinguish between qualitatively different kinds of ability, the group should ideally also agree on an expected amount of capability for the characters involved. Something like "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such, bring powerful characters because this will be challenging and the party may often be separated" or "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such, we're going for a more gritty, teamwork-required game so make sure your character has distinct strengths and weaknesses". The first game might include a Warblade, Wizard, Cleric, and Beguiler, while the second might include a Barbarian, Warmage, Healer, and Rogue. In particular, bringing a Fighter to the first game would be just as inappropriate as bringing a Psion to the second.

TL;DR: Not every class is appropriate for every campaign.

[Mutazoia]

WoW, or World of Warcraft, is a video game. In it, the monsters are controlled by some kind of target selection algorithm. Because this responds to "whatever the designers tell it to" rather than "how dangerous things actually are", you can have it force monsters to target a defensively powerful, but offensively anemic enemy, even though that's a terrible decision. This is how "tanking" works, and it obviously doesn't work if monsters do actual threat assessment.

D&D is not a video game. I'm not sure why you are attempting to draw this parallel. And in Wow (a video game), monsters will attack the player with the highest threat level, which some times is the tank, sometimes it's the healer who has done no damage the entire fight. What's your point?


Which is more dangerous, the Wizard or the Fighter? Hint: not the Fighter. Which has more ability to impede the monster's actions, the Wizard or the Fighter? Hint: not the Fighter.

Situational. A fighter standing in the middle of a 10' wide hallway can easily impede the monsters actions, simply by standing in it's way. A Wizard in the middle of a 10' hallway has drastically few options as his repertoire of spells diminishes through use....and is still pretty squishy once the monsters get in melee range.


Yes, 2e Wizards needed tanks. Did 2e Fighters have any abilities that actually let them tank?

See above. Since they were pretty averagely balanced with the abilities of the other classes, just being a meat-shield that could hit a monster with 3' of magical steel, while wearing an amout of armor that would put an M1A1 to shame, was enough.


But we're right back to "the Wizard is balanced to the challenges we expect it to face, which means it is secretly OP because otherwise Fighters look bad".

No...we're actually back to 3.X is a badly designed game, because it puts way to much emphasis on caster power, and purposely leaves martial characters in the role of redheaded stepchild. I understand that you think that a player is "selfish" if his chosen character is not capable of killing X number of monsters per second with a (literal) wave of his hand, and thus makes YOUR character have to kill X+2 characters per second. Perhaps you should stick to playing war games and leave the Role Playing games to people who are less interested in just rolling dice to generate random carnage.


Can someone sane explain to me how you go from "you should play in a way your group is okay with" to "everyone must play the game exactly the way I say all the time"?

Because you keep saying that people who don't want to play it your way are selfish?? Yup...I think that could be it.


How the hell is "it's a social game, sometimes you can't just do whatever you want" something that people don't get?

Um...because it IS a social game, where people get to play the kind of character THEY want to play, not the kind of character Cosi wants them to play, or the kind of character that is little more than a stack of numbers designed to be a killing machine with little other purpose to exist.


Dungeons & Dragons is a mechanical system that is capable of handling a vast breadth of types of stories, including detective noir and superheroes. Thus, when a group decides to play together, it's not enough to say "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons". At the very least you have to say "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such". However, since the level system is insufficient to distinguish between qualitatively different kinds of ability, the group should ideally also agree on an expected amount of capability for the characters involved. Something like "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such, bring powerful characters because this will be challenging and the party may often be separated" or "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons at level such and such, we're going for a more gritty, teamwork-required game so make sure your character has distinct strengths and weaknesses". The first game might include a Warblade, Wizard, Cleric, and Beguiler, while the second might include a Barbarian, Warmage, Healer, and Rogue. In particular, bringing a Fighter to the first game would be just as inappropriate as bringing a Psion to the second.

TL;DR: Not every class is appropriate for every campaign.

D20 is a mechanical system that is capable of handling a vast breath of typs of stories, including detective noir and superheroes. Dungeons & Dragons is fantasy roleplaying game that uses the D20 mechanichal system.

So, there is a vast difference between "We're playing Star Wars D20, I want to be a Jedi" and "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons, I want to be a Jedi".

[Bakkan]

Very well, replace my first sentence with "Dungeons & Dragons is fantasy roleplaying game that is capable of handling a vast breadth of types of stories, including detective noir (Low-level Expert attempting to solve the murder of a local barmaid) and superheroes (high-level sorcerers and clerics flying around shooting beams of energy at each other)" if you prefer.

[unseenmage]

I for one appreciate every attempt made to allow fighters and their other mundane kin survive the deadly-magical worlds of D&D/PF.

Their efforts inform how I should stat and kit out my own unskilled Construct laborforce to face similar challenges.

No seriously! Without Fighter optimization I literally wouldn't know how to give Golems spellcasting or Caryatids the BEST intelligent enchanted weaponry.

[Mutazoia]

Very well, replace my first sentence with "Dungeons & Dragons is fantasy roleplaying game that is capable of handling a vast breadth of types of stories, including detective noir (Low-level Expert attempting to solve the murder of a local barmaid) and superheroes (high-level sorcerers and clerics flying around shooting beams of energy at each other)" if you prefer.

Okay....but the point remains. If you tell some one playing D&D that they can't play a fighter in your detective noir style story, vs. telling some one that they can't play a Jedi in your fantasy detective noir stlye story.....

[Bakkan]

Okay....but the point remains. If you tell some one playing D&D that they can't play a fighter in your detective noir style story, vs. telling some one that they can't play a Jedi in your fantasy detective noir stlye story.....

Both are completely appropriate restrictions and should be respected, at least until the group decides otherwise.

[Mordaedil]

Important thing to note about Cleric v Fighter: Clerics have to blow multiple spell slots per combat, or at the start of the day with Persist, to equal a Fighter's melee power. A Cleric using buffs to match a Fighter's melee power is selfish because that's a pile of spells slots being eaten for personal combat power, several of which can be put on a Fighter for even better combat power, and it eats into healing abilities for keeping the party on their feet.
You can't Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might the fighter actually. So, uh, no. Your spells aren't wasted not buffing the fighter. You are the secondary fighter.

[Lans]

Y


Fortunately, the Cleric has the daily resources to both fight and cast. Take a look at the Cleric Archer (http://www.niftymessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=39391&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). The superiority of the Cleric at fighting has been a settled debate since before we had a black president.



You linked to a 3.0 build that got nerfed out of existence, and last I knew the fighter was a better at fighting until level 12 in his chosen field by miniscule margins. The cleric is still a better class as almost no fight or problem is going to be decided by less than 10 points of damage at level 12, and I'm sure plenty will be decided by having spells of level 0-6 available.





Mechanically, a fighter has no way to inspire people.
Martial study covers this, it also covers fighters having diplomacy and sense motive.


This is true if your character has a book of all the banners of all the lords to hand, or has specifically memorised them (which I kid you not is an autohypnosis check). You might memorise one or two without training knowledge, but not all of them.


It has knowledge (nobility) which makes it somewhat better, but otherwise it runs into a lot of fighter's problems.

Education is a feat a lot of fighters take, and while its not a fighter bonus feat, the fighter is at a reduced opportunity cost in grabbing a random feat compared to a lot of other martial classes.\


[QUOTE=Tainted_Scholar;22185744]Except that's not going to be an option in every group. If the group is made entirely of new players than it's not an option, and even if there are more experienced players none of them may know how to build a Fighter well. Also, what if the new player wants to build their character themself?
/QUOTE]

I really feel googling how to build a fighter 3.5 is a possible answer here

[Florian]

You can't Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might the fighter actually. So, uh, no. Your spells aren't wasted not buffing the fighter. You are the secondary fighter.

Or more to the point: Congratulations! You´ve blown two or three feats, dipped at least one obscure PrC and spent three spells to now be a Warrior with fewer available feats.

Edit: Funny how people still seem to be fascinated with wielding pointy things, else cleric archers and gishes are unexplainable.

[Lans]

You can't Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might the fighter actually. So, uh, no. Your spells aren't wasted not buffing the fighter. You are the secondary fighter.

I think you are miss reading what he said, when he says spell slots, I think he means he cleric should prepare spells that can buff the fighter , like bless and something or another.

[Mordaedil]

Or more to the point: Congratulations! You´ve blown two or three feats, dipped at least one obscure PrC and spent three spells to now be a Warrior with fewer available feats.

Edit: Funny how people still seem to be fascinated with wielding pointy things, else cleric archers and gishes are unexplainable.

If you think it only puts the cleric on par with the fighter, you haven't been paying attention.


I think you are miss reading what he said, when he says spell slots, I think he means he cleric should prepare spells that can buff the fighter , like bless and something or another.

Have you actually studied the cleric spell list? There are certainly buffs in there, but ultimately the cleric becomes a much stronger beast buffing himself to oblivion. Also bless, prayer, bull's strength... Those spells are kinda it, aren't they? What other buffs can a cleric give a fighter above second level that the fighter truly needs? You can't target the fighter with the three listed spells and even if you could, they wouldn't actually make him much stronger as it is meant to sort of equate the field.

Like seriously, leave the buffing to the wizard, they have far better buff spells for a fighter, a cleric should buff himself and go in with the fighter, side-by-side. That's why they have that chassis, not to stand in the back like a Final Fantasy White Mage, buffing and healing the party. That's like the least effective thing a cleric could do. When a cleric casts bless, it benefits himself as much as the fighter, prayer isn't really worth investing in etc.

Clerics are incredibly simple beasts, but they are basically combat classes with magic.

[Togo]

I mean, I'm sorry that you misunderstood me talking about how individual groups should set standard for players in those groups as a universal commandment for all groups, but that kind of seems like a you problem.

There are sufficient people drawing the the same conclusion, that I don't think that's likely. I'm still struggling to match your contention that the only point you're making is that the character choice should match the group, with your claim that player a fighter at level 2 is always selfish, irrespective of the group. These two seem contradictory.


I don't think that's too far off. We all agree that a Fighter is less effective than a Cleric,

Well, no, that depends on the group, the situation they find themselves in, and the respective builds of the character classes. Your favoured model of a DMM persist cleric is more effective within a particular level range, but that's not universal, nor is it 'cleric'. It's your favoured build of cleric.


So clearly playing a Fighter is prioritizing some personal goal over the group's success, which seems pretty selfish.

Ah, I thought this might be the problem. You're assuming that optimised builds increase the group's success. They don't, they do the opposite.


Like, your group probably tolerates some level of selfishness, but the idea that you're being selfless by playing a worse character seems pretty weird.

Not if you really think about it. Take two tables of players. One player on one of the tables insists on playing Pun-pun. One player on the other table insists on playing a pixie monk. Which table is more likely to have a sucessful campaign, and achieve their in-character goals?

[Yklikt]

Ah, I thought this might be the problem. You're assuming that optimised builds increase the group's success. They don't, they do the opposite.

Thats not right.

If everyone builds to optimize the characters will be stronger and succeed more. Even one that is optimized like that with its better power can help the others to succeed.

Basically optimization will make higher the average power and success of group, so what you say is wrong Togo


Not if you really think about it. Take two tables of players. One player on one of the tables insists on playing Pun-pun. One player on the other table insists on playing a pixie monk. Which table is more likely to have a sucessful campaign, and achieve their in-character goals?

First, no DM allow pun pun. Second, group is about helping one another. If a character does not use his power to help group members, problem is with way player use him than the character power.

[Lans]

Have you actually studied the cleric spell list? There are certainly buffs in there, but ultimately the cleric becomes a much stronger beast buffing himself to oblivion.

Not nearly as much as I've studied making monks, fighters and truenamers viable.


Also bless, prayer, bull's strength... Those spells are kinda it, aren't they? What other buffs can a cleric give a fighter above second level that the fighter truly needs.

Outside of core DMM persist on mass vigor and a save buff whose name escapes me are great options

[Mordaedil]

Mass spells benefit the cleric as much as the fighter though.

[Lans]

Mass spells benefit the cleric as much as the fighter though.

Thats a feature.

[Togo]

Thats not right.

<shrug> Yes it is. Try answering the question I asked, and you'll see why.


If everyone builds to optimize the characters will be stronger and succeed more.

Nope, they'll be stronger and succeed less.


Even one that is optimized like that with its better power can help the others to succeed.

Not usually. He'll generally help the others and the group will suceed less.

I appreciate it's counter-intuitive, but bear with me here.

Here's the question I asked.

Take two tables of players. One player on one of the tables insists on playing Pun-pun. One player on the other table insists on playing a pixie monk. Which table is more likely to have a sucessful campaign, and achieve their in-character goals?

So, set up the two groups, leave them for about 6 months, and then come back. Which group is more likely to have participated in a successful campaign, realised some of their character's goals, etc.


First, no DM allow pun pun.

Shrug, I've seen DMs allow it. I've never seen any DM allow DMM persist though. YMMV. If you want, please substitute Pun-Pun for the most broken character you've ever seen a DM allow. The point remains the same.

Put it this way. How many characters have you ever seen who actually achieved their character goals through a sucessful long-running campaign, while being in the same party as Pun-Pun or equivalent? Note that's not 'how successful do you imagine they'd be', how much success have you actually witnessed? Or to put it another way, if more powerful builds were really more successful than less powerful builds, why aren't the successful games filled with the most broken builds that people can find?

[SirNibbles]

If you think it only puts the cleric on par with the fighter, you haven't been paying attention.



Have you actually studied the cleric spell list? There are certainly buffs in there, but ultimately the cleric becomes a much stronger beast buffing himself to oblivion. Also bless, prayer, bull's strength... Those spells are kinda it, aren't they? What other buffs can a cleric give a fighter above second level that the fighter truly needs? You can't target the fighter with the three listed spells and even if you could, they wouldn't actually make him much stronger as it is meant to sort of equate the field.

Like seriously, leave the buffing to the wizard, they have far better buff spells for a fighter, a cleric should buff himself and go in with the fighter, side-by-side.

Shield of Lathander - DR 15/- (5th level)
Shield of Lathander, Greater - DR 20/-, immunity to negative energy and energy drain, and resistance 10 to acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic energy (7th level)
Divine Agility - +10 (12 with Ability Enhancer) enhancement bonus to DEX (5th level)

It's not hard to DMM:Persist those spells.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ah, I thought this might be the problem. You're assuming that optimised builds increase the group's success. They don't, they do the opposite.

:smallconfused: What are you talking about?

[Florian]

:smallconfused: What are you talking about?

CR adjustment.

[ColorBlindNinja]

CR adjustment.

And which classes are better equipped to deal with greater challenges (or indeed, any challenges), a well built character, or a poorly built one?

[EisenKreutzer]

:smallconfused: What are you talking about?

His point is that killing enemies and winning encounters is not the only, or even the most important measure of success.

It's a fair point, and it asks a poignant question: What does it mean to succeed in a roleplaying game?

This is where my background in rpg theory comes in handy.
See, we all have different goals in mind for our roleplay experience.
In Forge-speak, we call these goals Creative Agendas, and they shape our play and our expectations.

Leaving the technical (and controversial) terms aside, when you and I sit down to play, we might have very different goals and desired methods of achieving them.
For some, mechanically mastering the game and overcoming its challenges is the desired mode of play. Success, then, is measured in the level of threat overcome through mastery of the rules.
For others, the exploration of the shared fiction is the end goal, and for them the mechanical challenges of the game are window dressing.
Still others play to tell and simultaneously experience a great story. Mechanical challenges to these players serve as vehicles to deliver narrative success (which can often include mechanically losing the encounter).

Succeding at (or "winning") a roleplaying game means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

[ColorBlindNinja]

His point is that killing enemies and winning encounters is not the only, or even the most important measure of success.

Optimization has never been exclusively about killing things.

[Togo]

His point is that killing enemies and winning encounters is not the only, or even the most important measure of success.

That's part of it, certainly, but even just considering encounters, power rarely leads to success.


And which classes are better equipped to deal with greater challenges (or indeed, any challenges), a well built character, or a poorly built one?

In the long run, a poorly built one.

A poorly built character will still generally triumph, but not easily or at a cost. This leads to desperation, involved resource decisions , tactical decision making, teamwork, and even a certain amount of unexpected roleplaying.

An (excessively) well built character will triumph against any normal opposition. This means either the game comes to an end quite early, or the opposition becomes tougher to compensate. If the latter, then the game scales far less well, and becomes more 'swingy', where a run of luck by the opposition is far more likely to wipe the party out.

Either way, whether because of the game folding or getting dull, or because the party risks getting wiped out every time, in the long run the party is less successful due to the presence of even a single extremely powerful character.

[ColorBlindNinja]

His point is that killing enemies and winning encounters is not the only, or even the most important measure of success.

Optimization isn't always about killing things.


That's part of it, certainly, but even just considering encounters, power rarely leads to success.

That depends on what form that power takes.


In the long run, a poorly built one.

No, they really don't.


A poorly built character will still generally triumph, but not easily or at a cost. This leads to desperation, involved resource decisions , tactical decision making, teamwork, and even a certain amount of unexpected roleplaying.

It also could easily lead to a TPK. Edit: Stormwind Fallacy much?


An (excessively) well built character will triumph against any normal opposition. This means either the game comes to an end quite early, or the opposition becomes tougher to compensate. If the latter, then the game scales far less well, and becomes more 'swingy', where a run of luck by the opposition is far more likely to wipe the party out.

Combat is always swingy in 3.5.


Either way, whether because of the game folding or getting dull, or because the party risks getting wiped out every time, in the long run the party is less successful due to the presence of even a single extremely powerful character.

Who said anything about a single optimized character?

[Yklikt]

But when talking about encounter, Togo, power doesnt mean you must kill the enemy or win the encounter too fast. For example, you can optimize as a buffer to help allies. That is not making yourself too powerful so DM will make things to hard for others, since all party will become more powerful like this.

There is also case of whole party being optimized, so not a problem of too hard as all are that powerful.

Now I not saying that the killing power optimization will not make this kind of problem. It might. But that kind of optimization also only another kind of optimization. You cannot use one way of optimizing judge all optimizing.

Also, poorly built can also die quickly, just saying. Because it is poorly built.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Because they'll likely be running a module, which tend to be easy since they were written with the basic tank fighter/blaster wizard/trapper rogue/healbot cleric that new players will be drawn to.

Oh goodie gumdrops, more assumptions.

Not all first time players are going to use modules, and there are a great many modules that'll give the Fighter a hard time.


We played 2e before 3.5, so yes.

Oh of course, because knowledge of 2e is so helpful in 3.5. I'm sure you immediately knew how to optimize.


You should have one by 3rd level, or at the very least an oil of magic weapon. If you're going to deny WBL then of course the game becomes unreasonable.

A. Most characters do not have magic weapons by Level 3, not unless they're willing to sink almost their entire WBL into a single object.
B. It's entirely possible for the party to be stuck in a dungeon and not have access to any stores. Finding a magic weapon in the dungeon is also pretty unlikely at those levels.
C. Oils are one use items, so you better hope the Fighter doesn't need to use the it more than once.
D. Even with a magic weapon, the Fighter still only has a 50% chance of hitting to shadow, and he has to close melee with it.
E. New player's may not realise the importance of having a Magic weapon.


Who said anything about one campaign?

We're talking about new players, so that's why we're talking about their first campaign.


Alright everybody, let's take a look a the list of assumptions that Psyren's made so far.

1.The new player will be dead set on playing a Fighter and won't want to play anything else.
2.The new player will have access to an experienced player.
3.The experienced player will know how to build a good Fighter and is willing to help.
4.The new player is perfectly okay with somebody else building their character.
5.The new player will know how the play the Fighter they're given effectively.
6.The DM will know the Fighter's strength's and weaknesses and play to them.
7.None of the other characters will overshadow the Fighter.
8.New groups will always use modules for their first campaign.
9.The modules won't present an issue for the Fighter.
10.The other new player's characters will be just as weak as the Fighter.
11.The new player will be perfectly okay with the fact that his character is useless outside of combat.

Did I miss anything?

EDIT; Also, I'm not saying that you shouldn't let a noob play a Fighter, but stop claiming that Fighter is a noob friendly class.

[EisenKreutzer]

Optimization has never been exclusively about killing things.

Certainly, but all optimization is about defeating encounters of one variety or another. Diplomancers for social encounters, mailmen and oradins for combat encounters and so on.

Optimization is, by its very nature, all about taking full advantage of the rules to overcome the mechanical challenges of the game.
Many people do not play with that as their primary agenda.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Certainly, but all optimization is about defeating encounters of one variety or another. Diplomancers for social encounters, mailmen and oradins for combat encounters and so on.

Optimization is, by its very nature, all about taking full advantage of the rules to overcome the mechanical challenges of the game.
Many people do not play with that as their primary agenda.

Some people just want a competent character, that require optimization.

[EisenKreutzer]

Some people just want a competent character, that require optimization.

Sure, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But for others, the characters mechanical competency is second to their personality and narrative agency.
Granted, in 3.x narrative agency is most often delivered through combat ability and performance, but that does not mean that all players seek it out or value it above other elements of the game.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Certainly, but all optimization is about defeating encounters of one variety or another. Diplomancers for social encounters, mailmen and oradins for combat encounters and so on.

Optimization is, by its very nature, all about taking full advantage of the rules to overcome the mechanical challenges of the game.
Many people do not play with that as their primary agenda.

No, that's Theoretical Optimization, normal optimization just involves taking strong options and playing your character effectively.

[EisenKreutzer]

No, that's Theoretical Optimization, normal optimization just involves taking strong options and playing your character effectively.

And again, strong options and character effectiveness all relate to overcoming mechanical challenges.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And again, strong options and character effectiveness all relate to overcoming mechanical challenges.

And, that's... bad?

[Tainted_Scholar]

And again, strong options and character effectiveness all relate to overcoming mechanical challenges.

I was responding to this part;

"Optimization is, by its very nature, all about taking full advantage of the rules to overcome the mechanical challenges of the game."

You can optimize without taking advantage of the rules.

[Jormengand]

And again, strong options and character effectiveness all relate to overcoming mechanical challenges.

They also relate directly to the thematics of your character. A character who isn't strong at fighting mechanically cannot claim to be a strong fighter thematically, for example.

[Tainted_Scholar]

They also relate directly to the thematics of your character. A character who isn't strong at fighting mechanically cannot claim to be a strong fighter thematically, for example.

Plus I'm willing to bet that a great many players would like to be "The greatest swordsman, mage, thief, holy man, etc. in the land".

[EisenKreutzer]

And, that's... bad?

No..? It's not bad, it's awesome!

Just like making a profoundly underperforming character and enjoying the plot and roleplaying is awesome!


I was responding to this part;

"Optimization is, by its very nature, all about taking full advantage of the rules to overcome the mechanical challenges of the game."

You can optimize without taking advantage of the rules.

Ok, I see the disconnect. By "take advantage" I did not mean exploit or misuse. I just ment working with the mechanical tools the game offers.


They also relate directly to the thematics of your character. A character who isn't strong at fighting mechanically cannot claim to be a strong fighter thematically, for example.

Very true. There is interconnectivity, and concept does need to not exist independent of the mechanics.

But it's also possible to play the disowned son of the archduke, out to reclaim his heriage and dethrone his father without mechanical competence entering into the concept.


Plus I'm willing to bet that a great many players would like to be "The greatest swordsman, mage, thief, holy man, etc. in the land".

Without a doubt.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No..? It's not bad, it's awesome!

Just like making a profoundly underperforming character and enjoying the plot and roleplaying is awesome!

You can't make a well built character and enjoy the plot and roleplaying?

[Tainted_Scholar]

No..? It's not bad, it's awesome!

Just like making a profoundly underperforming character and enjoying the plot and roleplaying is awesome!

Playing an under-performing character severely limits your options though in roleplaying. You can't roleplay as being good at your job, because you aren't.

I suppose you argue the same is true of powerful characters in reverse, but most people probably don't want a character that sucks, and even fewer would want to admit their character sucks.

[EisenKreutzer]

You can't make a well built character and enjoy the plot and roleplaying?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Ok, I see the disconnect. By "take advantage" I did not mean exploit or misuse. I just ment working with the mechanical tools the game offers.

Ah, okay.


Very true. There is interconnectivity, and concept does need to not exist independent of the mechanics.

But it's also possible to play the disowned son of the archduke, out to reclaim his heriage and dethrone his father without mechanical competence entering into the concept.

Oh course, that might not work well if your character fails to do so. Your rather interesting character plot is brought to a screeching halt if he dies at level one to a dire rat.

[Lord Raziere]

In the long run, a poorly built one.

A poorly built character will still generally triumph, but not easily or at a cost. This leads to desperation, involved resource decisions , tactical decision making, teamwork, and even a certain amount of unexpected roleplaying.



Exactly this.

a poorly built character makes you invested in finding a way to succeed, makes you interested in the journey of trying to get a way to succeed in the first place rather than it being handed to you. It makes you try new things and awareness that you need put in the effort in play rather than before play. All this is what I roleplay for, right there in that quote, thats what makes it interesting.

there is also something to be said for the power of limitations. having a specific limit on something allows you roleplay better by thinking creatively around it. in fact if I can bring up something....



An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
If characters (especially viewpoint characters) solve a problem by using magic, the reader should be made to understand how that magic works. Otherwise, the magic can constitute a 'deus ex machina.'




Limitations > Power
The limitations of a magic system are more interesting than its capabilities. What the magic can't do is more interesting than what it can.




Expand on what you have already, before you add something new.
"A brilliant magic system for a book is less often one with a thousand different powers and abilities -- and is more often a magic system with relatively few powers that the author has considered in depth."


Sanderson's Laws of Magic are something to consider- for the first we can replace "reader" and "author" with player. No player can solve something without understanding magic. thats a given.

the second and third laws are more relevant to us. the best kind of magic and thus power has always been ones with limitations that make you think of how to use it better, thus making you consider a single power more in depth so as to use it creatively rather than having answer to every situation. Sure there are situations you don't have an answer for- but that just strengthens roleplay, as a part of life and thus roleplaying out someone who is living is exploring that there are flaws to someone and things they cannot do. I have a character who acts as a leader for a group of powerful warriors- but its acknowledged that despite her leadership status, she would be horrible for actual politics and leading something big like an empire, because that requires different leadership skills than being a personal leader of close friends. That was used to make the roleplay better and to go down a more intelligent path to give the role to a character who DOES have such skills to do such things instead while my character does something different.

This isn't to say you can't roleplay well with an optimized character.

However at the same time, that doesn't mean an optimized character is inherently better for roleplaying everything you want to roleplay, or everything that can be roleplayed. a godlike character has the flaw of lacking limitations, when some concepts thrive on limitations, on their ability to not be able to do something, so they have to do other things to make up for it. if a trickster can just destroy his enemies easily, why bother being a trickster? so you limit him from being able to just destroy his enemies in a straightforward manner so that his concept of tricking and outwitting his enemies is enforced. If a healer can just kill the enemy before anyone gets hurt, why heal? so you limit the healer from doing that. and so on. that and when you accomplish something with powers more limited just feels so much better because you actually worked for it rather than your powers doing it all for you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Then why include,


and enjoying the plot and roleplaying is awesome!

and just leave it at,


Just like making a profoundly underperforming character

is awesome?

To be clear, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

Edit:



However at the same time, that doesn't mean an optimized character is inherently better for roleplaying everything you want to roleplay, or everything that can be roleplayed.

Did anyone claim otherwise?

[EisenKreutzer]

Playing an under-performing character severely limits your options though in roleplaying. You can't roleplay as being good at your job, because you aren't.

I suppose you argue the same is true of powerful characters in reverse, but most people probably don't want a character that sucks, and even fewer would want to admit their character sucks.

I don't think playing an underperforming character neccessarily limits your roleplaying options. It can, certainly, but it does not have to.

Also, you might not see the value in playing a weak, clumsy or inept character, but plenty of people might.
I could definitely see the fun in playing a sorcerers apprentice type character, whose every effort is complicated by their own inexperience and lack of skill.
For a number of people, failure is not a bad thing. In fact, it can make the narrative more interesting!
Let's say two players are playing a couple of thieves sneaking over a rooftop. Three town guards are standing watch below, and if they spot the characters things could get dangerous fast.
So one player announces: "My character slips on a loose tile and falls into the merchants stall below, alerting the guards."

Is this wrong? Is it a bad way to play?

Take the same scenario, but instead of purposefully making their character fall, they fail an athletics check.
If this failure does not bother the player, and they find the added drama exciting, isn't that a valuable moment in the narrative?

For some players, this kind of dramatic twist is endlessly more valuable than playing a competent character who succeeds at practically everying they try.

Neither approach is wrong, they are just expressions of differing creative agendas.

[AnimeTheCat]

You can't Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might the fighter actually. So, uh, no. Your spells aren't wasted not buffing the fighter. You are the secondary fighter.

If a cleric wants to DMM Persist those three spells he is a 9th level character, minimum. Granted, the three spells net him a +16/+11 Attack minimum (without the base strength score and magic weapons), +8 damage minimum (without base strength or two handing a weapon), +18 HP (9 temporary, 9 as a CON modifier increase), Large Size, +2 Natural Armor, and DR 3/Good or Evil. The investment for this, however, is outrageous. All of you feats, from 1st to 9th level if you're playing any race that doesn't grant you a bonus feat, are spent on doing this. Additionally, to pull this off you must spend a 21 turning attempts. 1+1/each spell level adjustment of the spell. Aside from nightstick cheese, there isn't a good chance of your cleric having 21 turn attempts to do this, and any DM who allows you to carry 7 nightsticks is insane. That aside, we'll roll with it. Your cleric is large, has +16/+11 to hit, +8 Damage, +18 HP, +2 natural armor, and DR 3/Good or Evil.

The Fighter already has +9/+4, so you did nothing more with your second spell (Divine Power) than match the BAB and HP of the fighter, and give yourself a slightly better strength bonus than a Bull's Strength. It's very likely that you didn't start with a Strength of 16-18 like the fighter, so you may only be tied on strength. Next, You're getting a +3 attack and Damage from your first spell (Divine Favor). A fighter is likely getting +2 attack and +2 damage from weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and weapon specialization. You're now +1 to hit on the fighter and maybe +1 (or 2) to damage. Last, You're large, +4 size bonus to strength, +2 Con, and +2 natural armor. Without bringing in WBL here, it's possible that you're actually gaining some ground on the fighter here, at last, on the 21st turn attempt spent on buffing yourself just to outfight the fighter. You'll be getting +1 HP per level (on average) than the fighter, and you have a little higher strength and NA than the fighter. Meanwhile, you can't do anything except poke things with the pointy end with your newfound fightery power. You don't have the feats to do any combat maneuvers because you used them up persisting things on yourself. Meanwhile, the fighter is still fully capable of getting 3x damage on a charge with a lance, tripping foes on dealing 10+ damage, and getting additional attacks, plus his mount is getting attacks too.

Look, I'm not typing all of this out to say that a cleric is bad, but is using all of those resources (3 Feats, 21 turn attempts, and 3 spells) really the less selfish option when you have someone who's already pretty close to you in power level?

I'm not telling you that your having bad fun, but I wouldn't personally have fun at a table where a cleric is trying so hard and sinking so many resources in to being a front line fighter when there are lots of other classes to do that. Save your spells for better things than making yourself something that already exists.

[EisenKreutzer]

To be clear, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

What I am trying to say is that whichever approach you prefer, whichever creative agenda you follow, is awesome.

It's awesome to make a mechanically competent character and overcome themechanical challenges of the game!
It's awesome to build a deep character and roleplay them interacting with the shared narrative of the game world!
It's awesome to seek out and create drama and story, and to fascilitate the agency of the other players!

And any combination of those three things, or any other goal of play, is equally awesome.

I'm not suggesting all roleplaying is this thing and this thing only, or that people are only like this or like that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If a cleric wants to DMM Persist those three spells he is a 9th level character, minimum. Granted, the three spells net him a +16/+11 Attack minimum (without the base strength score and magic weapons), +8 damage minimum (without base strength or two handing a weapon), +18 HP (9 temporary, 9 as a CON modifier increase), Large Size, +2 Natural Armor, and DR 3/Good or Evil. The investment for this, however, is outrageous. All of you feats, from 1st to 9th level if you're playing any race that doesn't grant you a bonus feat, are spent on doing this. Additionally, to pull this off you must spend a 21 turning attempts. 1+1/each spell level adjustment of the spell. Aside from nightstick cheese, there isn't a good chance of your cleric having 21 turn attempts to do this, and any DM who allows you to carry 7 nightsticks is insane. That aside, we'll roll with it. Your cleric is large, has +16/+11 to hit, +8 Damage, +18 HP, +2 natural armor, and DR 3/Good or Evil.

The Fighter already has +9/+4, so you did nothing more with your second spell (Divine Power) than match the BAB and HP of the fighter, and give yourself a slightly better strength bonus than a Bull's Strength. It's very likely that you didn't start with a Strength of 16-18 like the fighter, so you may only be tied on strength. Next, You're getting a +3 attack and Damage from your first spell (Divine Favor). A fighter is likely getting +2 attack and +2 damage from weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and weapon specialization. You're now +1 to hit on the fighter and maybe +1 (or 2) to damage. Last, You're large, +4 size bonus to strength, +2 Con, and +2 natural armor. Without bringing in WBL here, it's possible that you're actually gaining some ground on the fighter here, at last, on the 21st turn attempt spent on buffing yourself just to outfight the fighter. You'll be getting +1 HP per level (on average) than the fighter, and you have a little higher strength and NA than the fighter. Meanwhile, you can't do anything except poke things with the pointy end with your newfound fightery power. You don't have the feats to do any combat maneuvers because you used them up persisting things on yourself. Meanwhile, the fighter is still fully capable of getting 3x damage on a charge with a lance, tripping foes on dealing 10+ damage, and getting additional attacks, plus his mount is getting attacks too.

Look, I'm not typing all of this out to say that a cleric is bad, but is using all of those resources (3 Feats, 21 turn attempts, and 3 spells) really the less selfish option when you have someone who's already pretty close to you in power level?

I'm not telling you that your having bad fun, but I wouldn't personally have fun at a table where a cleric is trying so hard and sinking so many resources in to being a front line fighter when there are lots of other classes to do that. Save your spells for better things than making yourself something that already exists.

I would to like to point out that the Cleric can still cast spells on top of fighting in melee.

Also, if those feats are Extend, Persist, and Divine Persist, you can get a lot of millage out those.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I don't think playing an underperforming character neccessarily limits your roleplaying options. It can, certainly, but it does not have to.

Also, you might not see the value in playing a weak, clumsy or inept character, but plenty of people might.
I could definitely see the fun in playing a sorcerers apprentice type character, whose every effort is complicated by their own inexperience and lack of skill.
For a number of people, failure is not a bad thing. In fact, it can make the narrative more interesting!
Let's say two players are playing a couple of thieves sneaking over a rooftop. Three town guards are standing watch below, and if they spot the characters things could get dangerous fast.
So one player announces: "My character slips on a loose tile and falls into the merchants stall below, alerting the guards."

Is this wrong? Is it a bad way to play?

Take the same scenario, but instead of purposefully making their character fall, they fail an athletics check.
If this failure does not bother the player, and they find the added drama exciting, isn't that a valuable moment in the narrative?

For some players, this kind of dramatic twist is endlessly more valuable than playing a competent character who succeeds at practically everying they try.

Neither approach is wrong, they are just expressions of differing creative agendas.

Playing a weak character can still limit your roleplaying options, but if you don't mind that it's not an issue. However that doesn't change the fact that the limitation still exists. There are plenty of people who would be very frustrated if their character was constantly failing. So, ultimately if your going to roleplay with a weak character, you need to be aware of what effects a weak character will have on your roleplaying.

Though in the second scenario the player is likely to get dice thrown at their head.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What I am trying to say is that whichever approach you prefer, whichever creative agenda you follow, is awesome.

It's awesome to make a mechanically competent character and overcome themechanical challenges of the game!
It's awesome to build a deep character and roleplay them interacting with the shared narrative of the game world!
It's awesome to seek out and create drama and story, and to fascilitate the agency of the other players!

And any combination of those three things, or any other goal of play, is equally awesome.

I'm not suggesting all roleplaying is this thing and this thing only, or that people are only like this or like that.

OK, I get it, thanks for elaborating.

[Bakkan]

I don't think playing an underperforming character neccessarily limits your roleplaying options. It can, certainly, but it does not have to.

Also, you might not see the value in playing a weak, clumsy or inept character, but plenty of people might.
I could definitely see the fun in playing a sorcerers apprentice type character, whose every effort is complicated by their own inexperience and lack of skill.
For a number of people, failure is not a bad thing. In fact, it can make the narrative more interesting!
Let's say two players are playing a couple of thieves sneaking over a rooftop. Three town guards are standing watch below, and if they spot the characters things could get dangerous fast.
So one player announces: "My character slips on a loose tile and falls into the merchants stall below, alerting the guards."

Is this wrong? Is it a bad way to play?

Take the same scenario, but instead of purposefully making their character fall, they fail an athletics check.
If this failure does not bother the player, and they find the added drama exciting, isn't that a valuable moment in the narrative?

For some players, this kind of dramatic twist is endlessly more valuable than playing a competent character who succeeds at practically everying they try.

Neither approach is wrong, they are just expressions of differing creative agendas.

The problem with the behavior in the example with intentional failure is that if the other player didn't feel the same way and is in fact interested in the success of the getaway, then he can see the first player as having sabotaged his fun. When it is a failed roll the second player might not see that as malicious, simply incompetent, which can be just as bad if there is a pattern of incompetence. Again it all comes down to the expectations of the group regarding what kind of game they want to play.

[Lord Raziere]

Did anyone claim otherwise?

Did anyone actually state it outright? I can't make assumptions. This is a big thread, and your constantly talking about "underperforming" characters and so on that can make one think your talking about limitations being bad, and after a while one gets the impression that with your constant defending of optimal characters that you do think limitations are bad but don't state it because it wouldn't be polite.

and please don't ignore the rest of my post for one cherry-picked line. the rest is important to you know.

[EisenKreutzer]

Playing a weak character can still limit your roleplaying options, but if you don't mind that it's not an issue. However that doesn't change the fact that the limitation still exists. There are plenty of people who would be very frustrated if their character was constantly failing. So, ultimately if your going to roleplay with a weak character, you need to be aware of what effects a weak character will have on your roleplaying.

Though in the second scenario the player is likely to get dice thrown at their head.

Certainly.
And lets not forget the role system mastery plays in this. It's frustrating to want to build an effective character, but making wrong decisions and ending up underperforming. Which is exaserbated by the traps built into the game by the designers, of which the Fighter is an unintended one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Did anyone actually state it outright? I can't make assumptions. This is a big thread, and your constantly talking about "underperforming" characters and so on that can make one think your talking about limitations being bad, and after a while one gets the impression that with your constant defending of optimal characters that you do think limitations are bad but don't state it because it wouldn't be polite.

I can't recall anyone mentioning that.

All I've said is that low-Op characters are more likely to die, and Fighter aren't good classes for noobs.


and please don't ignore the rest of my post for one cherry-picked line. the rest is important to you know.

Sorry, that part just leapt out at me.

Edit:


Exactly this.

a poorly built character makes you invested in finding a way to succeed, makes you interested in the journey of trying to get a way to succeed in the first place rather than it being handed to you. It makes you try new things and awareness that you need put in the effort in play rather than before play. All this is what I roleplay for, right there in that quote, thats what makes it interesting.

It's hard to be invested in a character if they die, though.


there is also something to be said for the power of limitations. having a specific limit on something allows you roleplay better by thinking creatively around it. in fact if I can bring up something....

Sanderson's Laws of Magic are something to consider- for the first we can replace "reader" and "author" with player. No player can solve something without understanding magic. thats a given.

the second and third laws are more relevant to us. the best kind of magic and thus power has always been ones with limitations that make you think of how to use it better, thus making you consider a single power more in depth so as to use it creatively rather than having answer to every situation. Sure there are situations you don't have an answer for- but that just strengthens roleplay, as a part of life and thus roleplaying out someone who is living is exploring that there are flaws to someone and things they cannot do. I have a character who acts as a leader for a group of powerful warriors- but its acknowledged that despite her leadership status, she would be horrible for actual politics and leading something big like an empire, because that requires different leadership skills than being a personal leader of close friends. That was used to make the roleplay better and to go down a more intelligent path to give the role to a character who DOES have such skills to do such things instead while my character does something different.

I'd argue that a character with more options allows more creative solutions to problems, while a more poorly built character may be capable of nothing more than stabbing things.


This isn't to say you can't roleplay well with an optimized character.

Agreed.


However at the same time, that doesn't mean an optimized character is inherently better for roleplaying everything you want to roleplay, or everything that can be roleplayed.



a godlike character has the flaw of lacking limitations, when some concepts thrive on limitations, on their ability to not be able to do something, so they have to do other things to make up for it.

Sometimes, limitations can mean that a character is completely useless.


if a trickster can just destroy his enemies easily, why bother being a trickster?
so you limit him from being able to just destroy his enemies in a straightforward manner so that his concept of tricking and outwitting his enemies is enforced.

Not all enemies can, or should be killed, though.


If a healer can just kill the enemy before anyone gets hurt, why heal? so you limit the healer from doing that.

Healing is more of a mechanical issue than anything else.


and so on. that and when you accomplish something with powers more limited just feels so much better because you actually worked for it rather than your powers doing it all for you.

I prefer to have a bigger toolbox than just one or two options, but that's just me.

[EisenKreutzer]

The problem with the behavior in the example with intentional failure is that if the other player didn't feel the same way and is in fact interested in the success of the getaway, then he can see the first player as having sabotaged his fun. When it is a failed roll the second player might not see that as malicious, simply incompetent, which can be just as bad if there is a pattern of incompetence. Again it all comes down to the expectations of the group regarding what kind of game they want to play.

Nail, head, etc.

This is the grand problem of roleplaying games as a whole, and it has sunk many a group.
When we sit down to play, we enter an unspoken social contract that governs our behaviour inside and out of the game. The problem is that as this agreement is unspoke, players at the table might unknowingly enter into it under false premses.
The unspoken nature of the social contract also means that communicating precisely what violates it and why becomes difficult.

[AnimeTheCat]

I would to like to point out that the Cleric can still cast spells on top of fighting in melee.

Also, if those feats are Extend, Persist, and Divine Persist, you can get a lot of millage out those.

I'm not saying those feats are bad. I'm saying that it is a selfish use of those resources just to become a front line fighter, only slightly stronger than a standard fighter without any buffs, when those resources can be used on other things as well. If you go down the DMM persist train, why not persist some spells on everyone, like was mentioned earlier such as vigor, Persisted True Seeing on the Ranger or Rogue (whoever your spotter/searcher is), Persistent Magic Vestment on the party Monk.

Like I said, there's no good/bad fun, but that would be a much better party dynamic in my opinion than the cleric buffing himself up at the beginning of the day with a bunch of persistent spells to make him a little stronger than the fighter/barbarian (possibly not stronger than the barbarian...)

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not saying those feats are bad. I'm saying that it is a selfish use of those resources just to become a front line fighter, only slightly stronger than a standard fighter without any buffs, when those resources can be used on other things as well. If you go down the DMM persist train, why not persist some spells on everyone, like was mentioned earlier such as vigor, Persisted True Seeing on the Ranger or Rogue (whoever your spotter/searcher is), Persistent Magic Vestment on the party Monk.

Like I said, there's no good/bad fun, but that would be a much better party dynamic in my opinion than the cleric buffing himself up at the beginning of the day with a bunch of persistent spells to make him a little stronger than the fighter/barbarian (possibly not stronger than the barbarian...)

Why is it selfish for the Cleric to become the frontline combatant instead of the Fighter? Especially when the Cleric can do a better job.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not saying those feats are bad. I'm saying that it is a selfish use of those resources just to become a front line fighter, only slightly stronger than a standard fighter without any buffs, when those resources can be used on other things as well.

What if there's no front line fighter in your group?


If you go down the DMM persist train, why not persist some spells on everyone, like was mentioned earlier such as vigor, Persisted True Seeing on the Ranger or Rogue (whoever your spotter/searcher is), Persistent Magic Vestment on the party Monk.

That's certainly effective, but some DMs might not like the party wandering around with 24 hour buffs.


Like I said, there's no good/bad fun, but that would be a much better party dynamic in my opinion than the cleric buffing himself up at the beginning of the day with a bunch of persistent spells to make him a little stronger than the fighter/barbarian (possibly not stronger than the barbarian...)

The problem is that the Cleric can make himself better than the Fighter/Barbarian, him choosing not too doesn't change that fact.

[AnimeTheCat]

Why is it selfish for the Cleric to become the frontline combatant instead of the Fighter? Especially when the Cleric can do a better job.

It's selfish because the Cleric has the capability to do more than that. Imagine it, you're playing a sport or a video game or a dice based game (take your pick) and you take on a role of dealing damage. You're going along, enjoying yourself, then all of a sudden another player who had previously been playing a supportive/off damage role comes in and says "You don't matter anymore dweeb" and upstages you. There is no reason for it. Your team isn't losing. You're party isn't failing. Everyone is having an enjoyable time. Why would the supportive/off damage role character do that? That's what I'm saying is selfish. Especially when the Three feats, 21 turn undead attempts, and 3 spells are used on themselves. That's kind of the definition of selfish.


lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure


What if there's no front line fighter in your group?
That's certainly effective, but some DMs might not like the party wandering around with 24 hour buffs.
The problem is that the Cleric can make himself better than the Fighter/Barbarian, him choosing not too doesn't change that fact.

If there is no front line fighter, then I don't see the problem. My problem was never with the cleric filling a need, it was with the cleric overshadowing someone already filling the need unnecessarily.

If the DM doesn't like 24 hour buffs, the cleric won't out fighter the fighter without an even greater expenditure of resources (3 spells per encounter, 3 turns to cast them, 1 round/level each.) That's not only selfish, but by the standards of many on this forum is wasteful.

I never hid the fact that the cleric can make himself/herself a better fighter than the fighter/barbarian/insert martial class here, but what I did say is that those three spells, three feats, and 21 turn undead attempts can be used to bolster other party member's weaknesses as opposed to shoving a character not prepared out of the box for front line combat (3/4 BAB, d8 HD, No combat focused class features like rage or bonus feats) into front line combat.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If there is no front line fighter, then I don't see the problem. My problem was never with the cleric filling a need, it was with the cleric overshadowing someone already filling the need unnecessarily.

If the Cleric is better at fighting in melee, why not let the Cleric do that? The Fighter can just as easily be an archer or a tripping build.

Why does the Fighter get dibs on melee combat, especially when he's bad at it, and can fill other roles?


If the DM doesn't like 24 hour buffs, the cleric won't out fighter the fighter without an even greater expenditure of resources (3 spells per encounter, 3 turns to cast them, 1 round/level each.) That's not only selfish, but by the standards of many on this forum is wasteful.

1. Most of those buffs are made for the spellcasters personal use anyway. How many of them are Personal?

2. I was talking the DM being unhappy about buffing the entire party, not just the Cleric.


I never hid the fact that the cleric can make himself/herself a better fighter than the fighter/barbarian/insert martial class here, but what I did say is that those three spells, three feats, and 21 turn undead attempts can be used to bolster other party member's weaknesses as opposed to shoving a character not prepared out of the box for front line combat (3/4 BAB, d8 HD, No combat focused class features like rage or bonus feats) into front line combat.

Fighters don't fight well out of the box either.

What about the Druid? All that class needs is Natural Spell and a good animal companion to do better job in melee than the Fighter.

[Tainted_Scholar]

It's selfish because the Cleric has the capability to do more than that. Imagine it, you're playing a sport or a video game or a dice based game (take your pick) and you take on a role of dealing damage. You're going along, enjoying yourself, then all of a sudden another player who had previously been playing a supportive/off damage role comes in and says "You don't matter anymore dweeb" and upstages you. There is no reason for it. Your team isn't losing. You're party isn't failing. Everyone is having an enjoyable time. Why would the supportive/off damage role character do that? That's what I'm saying is selfish. Especially when the Three feats, 21 turn undead attempts, and 3 spells are used on themselves. That's kind of the definition of selfish.

The Cleric playing Support is just fine if he wants to. But if he wants to be a main combatant it's not selfish. It's actually more selfish to force the Cleric to play support simply because there's a Fighter in the party. Two people want to do the same thing but you're forcing one of them to do something else. It's especially silly since, like I said earlier, the Cleric is better at it. If two people both want to be quarterback, the one who's better at gets the position. As it is, the Fighter player is forcing the Cleric Player to play a role he doesn't want to, simply because he doesn't like the fact that the Cleric is better in melee.

Making the Cleric play support when because there's a Fighter in the group, is no different than making the Fighter player play a different class because there's a Cleric in the group.

[Maximum Carnage]

Ye can turn it around easily though.

Why play a Wizard?

I am going postulate that Wizards are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Wizard as a magic crafter or their spells but rather just the normal Wizard class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Sorcerers at least have limits. Psions have unique mechanics. Bards, Beguilers, and War Mage all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is using spells.

Wizards have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. They are literally just loading up spell ammo from their book to win at everything and therefore destroy any sense of journey or challenge. Completely pointless.

So ultimately, what reason is there to play as a Wizard?

I believe the answer is masturbation.

Haha, glad to see someone understands the frivolity of this discussion.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Haha, glad to see someone understands the frivolity of this discussion.

Quick question, have you read most of the thread?

[AnimeTheCat]

If the Cleric is better at fighting in melee, why not let the Cleric do that? The Fighter can just as easily be an archer or a tripping build.
Why does the Fighter get dibs on melee combat, especially when he's bad at it, and can fill other roles?

I continue to use the example of a melee oriented fighter because that is the predominant desire in players who desire to play a fighter. I agree, Fighters make great archers in the sense that they can fully progress the feat lines without issue. They also make great throwers as they can follow those feats well too (they just lack extra umph from bonus damage). Again though, if a cleric suddenly says "I'm better at fighting now so I do the fighting" what have you left the fighter with? In an established party where you have a mounted charging fighter and then the cleric says "I'm better so I do this now" you've left the fighter with nothing. There's isn't a need for it, regardless of who is better.


1. Most of those buffs are made for the spellcasters personal use anyway. How many of them are Personal?

2. I was talking the DM being unhappy about buffing the entire party, not just the Cleric.

Of the ones that I listed as examples, none of them. They're all touch spells or multiple creature spells.

If the DM is ok with single target 24 hour buffs, there are still better ones than turning the cleric in to a fighter.


Fighters don't fight well out of the box either.

What about the Druid? All that class needs is Natural Spell and a good animal companion to do better job in melee than the Fighter.

Out of the box, a fighter does quite well. Level 1, fighter gets d10 HD, character level 1 feat, and a bonus fighter feat. At level 1 a fighter can take combat expertise and improved trip. Against a CR appropriate encounter the fighter can disable an enemy (by tripping it) and damage it (possibly kill or knock it in to negatives). At level 1 a cleric can only swing a weapon, possibly a martial weapon, at a distinct disadvantage to the fighter due to 3/4 BAB. Same with the druid. Same with the Wizard. Same with the monk. Same with the Rogue. Same with the Sorcerer. Same with the Bard. The only Class that's out fighting the fighter is the Barbarian, and that's only if you're looking at raw damage from a single encounter. A fighter can move, trip, hit all day.

That's fighting capability out of the box. That same capability can be applied to another build. A Half-Orc Fighter with a starting strength of 20 can take Power attack and cleave at level 1. He can move up to threaten two enemies, swing a greatsword for 2d6+7 damage without a power attack. Most CR appropriate encounters won't have more than 9 HP, so he'll get another attack and, assuming a hit, take out two enemies.

Druids, Clerics, and Wizards all contribute too, but that's what being a party is about. The wizard makes it easier for the fighter to waltz up and power attack/cleave the bad guys. The druid can do the same (with BFC) or summon a flanking buddy for the rogue. The cleric can buff the party or serve as a flanking buddy/off damage dealer.

I mean level 1 out of the box. Level 1 is the first thing you get when you open the class.


The Cleric playing Support is just fine if he wants to. But if he wants to be a main combatant it's not selfish. It's actually more selfish to force the Cleric to play support simply because there's a Fighter in the party. Two people want to do the same thing but you're forcing one of them to do something else. It's especially silly since, like I said earlier, the Cleric is better at it. If two people both want to be quarterback, the one who's better at gets the position. As it is, the Fighter player is forcing the Cleric Player to play a role he doesn't want to, simply because he doesn't like the fact that the Cleric is better in melee.

Making the Cleric play support when because there's a Fighter in the group, is no different than making the Fighter player play a different class because there's a Cleric in the group.

But the thing is, the cleric can't play fighter until level 9 and that's if your DM is allowing nightsticks and IF your DM is allowing DMM persist. Additionally, the cleric may be strong enough to hit and take hits on the front now, but they can't do any of the things a fighter can do at the front like tripping, disarming, 3x charging, etc. at least, not without expending additional resources (which he as already expended a lot of). If the Cleric is saying "I wanna be a front liner" at level 9, after the fighter has been fightering for 9 levels, I'm sorry but yes the cleric is being selfish by trying to force the fighter out of a role he/she has been filling since level 1. Tough luck for the cleric.

If your game is starting at level 10, different story and I'll admit that the fighter player is in the wrong. That is contextual though.

The cleric may have slightly bigger numbers than the fighter (by virtue of using his/her spells, feats, and turn undead attempts) that doesn't make the cleric a better fighter, especially before level 9 when a cleric can't be a better fighter than the fighter. A cleric may have the same BAB and may have a +1/3 level (max 3) attack and damage boost, but the fighter has a better base combat capability without any resource expenditure as well as more combat focused feat availability. Remember, to be a better fighter than a fighter all day you're banking on taking 3 feats (all possible to a 6th level character if you're a human, 9th if you're not), having 21 turn undead attempts to use, and consistently missing 3 spells per day. If those conditions aren't met, how are you going to be a better fighter?

[Maximum Carnage]

Quick question, have you read most of the thread?

Indeed I have, same old same old same old same old same old same.....

Poster 1: Hey I think this class should be in (X) tier for (X) reasons

Poster 2: No, I think (X) is a better classification for (X) class, because I've played more than you, and I know the game better.

Discourse is fine, but are we going to rehash this thread with every single class?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Indeed I have, same old same old same old same old same old same.....

Poster 1: Hey I think this class should be in (X) tier for (X) reasons

Poster 2: No, I think (X) is a better classification for (X) class, because I've played more than you, and I know the game better.

Discourse is fine, but are we going to rehash this thread with every single class?

Are you sure you read the thread? Because we never once discussed the tier system to my knowledge, or the Fighter's placement on it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I continue to use the example of a melee oriented fighter because that is the predominant desire in players who desire to play a fighter. I agree, Fighters make great archers in the sense that they can fully progress the feat lines without issue. They also make great throwers as they can follow those feats well too (they just lack extra umph from bonus damage). Again though, if a cleric suddenly says "I'm better at fighting now so I do the fighting" what have you left the fighter with? In an established party where you have a mounted charging fighter and then the cleric says "I'm better so I do this now" you've left the fighter with nothing. There's isn't a need for it, regardless of who is better.

I'm talking about at the beginning of the game before everyone's finished building their characters.

What if it becomes apparent later on that the Fighter is horrible at this job, and the Cleric has to pick up his slack?


Of the ones that I listed as examples, none of them. They're all touch spells or multiple creature spells.

Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Divine Favor are all Personal, and they're the most popular buffs for melee Clerics.


If the DM is ok with single target 24 hour buffs, there are still better ones than turning the cleric in to a fighter.

Better than the three spells I listed?


Out of the box, a fighter does quite well. Level 1, fighter gets d10 HD, character level 1 feat, and a bonus fighter feat. At level 1 a fighter can take combat expertise and improved trip. Against a CR appropriate encounter the fighter can disable an enemy (by tripping it) and damage it (possibly kill or knock it in to negatives).

That Fighter won't do well against swarms, and that sort of build isn't a melee frontliner, that's battlefield controller.


At level 1 a cleric can only swing a weapon, possibly a martial weapon, at a distinct disadvantage to the fighter due to 3/4 BAB.

At level 1, the D20 is going to be deciding who hits more than modifiers.


Same with the druid.

The Druid has an animal companion to help him out, Riding Dogs are amazing, and they can trip.


Same with the Wizard.

The Wizard can disable entire groups of enemies with Color Spray, Sleep and Grease.


Same with the monk.

I'd say the Fighter is better off than him.


Same with the Rogue.

The Rogue is probably using a bow some type.


Same with the Sorcerer.

Much like the Wizard, the Sorcerer isn't going to be fighting in melee.


Same with the Bard.

The Bard's probably going to be singing, not fighting.


The only Class that's out fighting the fighter is the Barbarian

What about the ToB classes and Incarnates (maybe the Totemist too)?


, and that's only if you're looking at raw damage from a single encounter. A fighter can move, trip, hit all day.

No, he can do that until he runs out of HP.

Again, that's not really a melee role, but a battlefield control one.

Edit: If the Fighter is going to trip, why can't the Cleric fight in melee? Those roles shouldn't clash.


That's fighting capability out of the box. That same capability can be applied to another build. A Half-Orc Fighter with a starting strength of 20 can take Power attack and cleave at level 1.

With flaws, a Barbarian can do the same, and use Rage on top of that.


He can move up to threaten two enemies, swing a greatsword for 2d6+7 damage without a power attack. Most CR appropriate encounters won't have more than 9 HP, so he'll get another attack and, assuming a hit, take out two enemies.

Zombie Commoners are CR 1/2 and have 16 HP. Granted, they're slow, but that's a lot more than 9.


Druids, Clerics, and Wizards all contribute too, but that's what being a party is about. The wizard makes it easier for the fighter to waltz up and power attack/cleave the bad guys.

The Wizard can literally disable an entire group of enemies and leave a bunch of Commoners with rocks to finish the job.


The druid can do the same (with BFC) or summon a flanking buddy for the rogue.

Once they get Wild Shape, the Druid is better in melee than almost anyone else but the Cleric.

Also, the Druid's Animal Companion is probably better than the Fighter at level 1.


The cleric can buff the party or serve as a flanking buddy/off damage dealer.

That's one role a Cleric can fulfill, but not everyone likes being the party buffer.


I mean level 1 out of the box. Level 1 is the first thing you get when you open the class.

Indeed, and the ToB classes are far better right out of the box.

[Maximum Carnage]

Are you sure you read the thread? Because we never once discussed the tier system to my knowledge, or the Fighter's placement on it.

...I was using the tier system as an example of how these threads always go. I can rewrite an equally sarcastic and meaningless post with examples taken directly from the thread if you'd like?

[Tainted_Scholar]

...I was using the tier system as an example of how these threads always go. I can rewrite an equally sarcastic and meaningless post with examples taken directly from the thread if you'd like?

You can leave out the sarcasm. But as it was, your post didn't address anything in the actual thread.

[Maximum Carnage]

You can leave out the sarcasm. But as it was, your post didn't address anything in the actual thread.

Oh, I get it.. You want some substance.

Fighters, in my opinion are one of the weakest core classes in the game. They make excellent starting points for certain PrC, but other than that, the bonus feats they are granted are not enough to justify picking the class. Indeed, they have a decent HD and 1-1 BAB ratio, but martial prowess alone isn't enough to sell me. I agree with many people in the thread, in that, the fact they have no class features, is a major let down. Many people use it as a dip to gain some extra feats, but what does that say about your class, if people are just abusing it for a feat like Weapon Focus?

I think they are a good choice for beginner players, or for people that like the idea of molding a piece of clay into something beautiful. You won't, however, find many advanced players sitting at the table with a fighter as their avatar. Including myself.

Satisfied? I'm one of the sheep now.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Oh, I get it.. You want some substance.

Fighters, in my opinion are one of the weakest core classes in the game. They make excellent starting points for certain PrC, but other than that, the bonus feats they are granted are not enough to justify picking the class. Indeed, they have a decent HD and 1-1 BAB ratio, but martial prowess alone isn't enough to sell me. I agree with many people in the thread, in that, the fact they have no class features, is a major let down. Many people use it as a dip to gain some extra feats, but what does that say about your class, if people are just abusing it for a feat like Weapon Focus?

I think they are a good choice for beginner players, or for people that like the idea of molding a piece of clay into something beautiful. You won't, however, find many advanced players sitting at the table with a fighter as their avatar. Including myself.

Satisfied? I'm one of the sheep now.

Thank you for clarifying.


I think they are a good choice for beginner players, or for people that like the idea of molding a piece of clay into something beautiful. You won't, however, find many advanced players sitting at the table with a fighter as their avatar. Including myself.

I completely disagree with the idea that they're good for new players. That was a major discussion earlier. They're too hard to build and have too few options for them to be noob-friendly I feel.

[Maximum Carnage]

I completely disagree with the idea that they're good for new players. That was a major discussion earlier. They're too hard to build and have too few options for them to be noob-friendly I feel.

I see what you mean, but I think if a beginner player were to sit down with a journeyman/advanced player, and express ideas on where he wants to go with the character, that person helping could easily point him in the right direction of feats that would accomplish his goal. If you've never played 3.5 before, you're alone, and you're in a situation where you're starting at level 5 (with 7 feats to spend), that would be quite daunting. In the real world though, no one is going to leave a player like that to their own devices. Or you'll end up with a fighter with 7 stacks of toughness.

[Psyren]

Oh goodie gumdrops, more assumptions.

Not all first time players are going to use modules, and there are a great many modules that'll give the Fighter a hard time.

Yes, it is an assumption - a reasonable one. If you're going to make any kind of game aimed at a large audience, you do have to make some basic assumptions about the people who will be playing it. "If none of you are experienced, we expect you to run a module" is one such assumption. If you believe it's impossible to make any kind of assumptions about your audience, well that's on you, but that leaves us with absolutely no way to discuss anything without peer-reviewed statistical surveys of the playerbase at each rung of experience.



Oh of course, because knowledge of 2e is so helpful in 3.5. I'm sure you immediately knew how to optimize.

It meant that I was pretty comfortable going to a "Magic" chapter to read spells/rituals and learn what they do. Just as I have since done in other TTRPGs (like Dragon Age and Werewolf) despite never having played them before. That kind of experience IS transferable. Whereas



A. Most characters do not have magic weapons by Level 3, not unless they're willing to sink almost their entire WBL into a single object.
B. It's entirely possible for the party to be stuck in a dungeon and not have access to any stores. Finding a magic weapon in the dungeon is also pretty unlikely at those levels.
C. Oils are one use items, so you better hope the Fighter doesn't need to use the it more than once.
D. Even with a magic weapon, the Fighter still only has a 50% chance of hitting to shadow, and he has to close melee with it.
E. New player's may not realise the importance of having a Magic weapon.

First, the whole point of WBL is that you get to spend it. Simply giving the characters their treasure and then throwing them into the next set of encounters without a chance to buy anything is not WBL. Second, you can afford several oils of Magic Weapon at level 3 if you desire, each one of which will last for a whole combat. Third and final, Shadows are notorious for being under-CRed anyway, as you can see from several threads on this very subforum over the years, so the expected WBL to take them on should be even higher than their CR would indicate. They're an outlier to your point, not the rule.





Alright everybody, let's take a look a the list of assumptions that Psyren's made so far.

1.The new player will be dead set on playing a Fighter and won't want to play anything else.
2.The new player will have access to an experienced player.
3.The experienced player will know how to build a good Fighter and is willing to help.
4.The new player is perfectly okay with somebody else building their character.
5.The new player will know how the play the Fighter they're given effectively.
6.The DM will know the Fighter's strength's and weaknesses and play to them.
7.None of the other characters will overshadow the Fighter.
8.New groups will always use modules for their first campaign.
9.The modules won't present an issue for the Fighter.
10.The other new player's characters will be just as weak as the Fighter.
11.The new player will be perfectly okay with the fact that his character is useless outside of combat.

Did I miss anything?

See first point. What assumptions about new players are you willing to make? If there are none that you'll accept, there's no point in us continuing, and furthermore I would hope you never end up designing a game that I or my friends would be new to.



EDIT; Also, I'm not saying that you shouldn't let a noob play a Fighter, but stop claiming that Fighter is a noob friendly class.

Get it errataed out of the DMG and we'll talk. Otherwise no, I'll keep saying it.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm talking about at the beginning of the game before everyone's finished building their characters.

What if it becomes apparent later on that the Fighter is horrible at this job, and the Cleric has to pick up his slack?

If the Fighter is horrible at his job, sure the cleric can pick up the slack. Whatever. Don't assume the fighter is going to be terrible at his job though. That is an unfair assumption especially when we're only talking hypothetically and there aren't any actual scenarios being called in to play.


Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Divine Favor are all Personal, and they're the most popular buffs for melee Clerics.
Better than the three spells I listed?

True seeing on the rogue allows him to detect illusion type traps and lead the party safely through an entire dungeon as well as spot invisible enemies to direct the other players, etc. That I think is more useful than the cleric becoming large and getting some other buffs. Magic Vestment gives the character who has a problem with AC less of a problem with AC. For that matter, giving the Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, etc. a deflection bonus with shield of faith persisted would also be better than magic vestment. Increase their survivability. That seems better than giving the cleric +1/3 level (Max 3) to hit and damage to me. Slap Freedom of Movement persisted on anybody and suddenly a pack of spiders and their webs are no threat to that person (or 3 if you give 3 people FoM). That seems better than the strength bonus and BAB increase.


That Fighter won't do well against swarms, and that sort of build isn't a melee frontliner, that's battlefield controller.

Does a battlefield controller fight with a melee weapon in front of the casters and deal damage? That sounds like a Melee Frontliner. Whether they are tripping in addition to doing damage or not, they are still a buffer between the less HP and AC heavy part of the party.


At level 1, the D20 is going to be deciding who hits more than modifiers.

I would argue that the value of the small +1 bonuses are far greater in the earliest levels of the game. An enemy with an AC of 15 is going to be hit far more commonly by a level 1 Fighter with 18-20 strength than a level 1 Cleric with 12-14 strength (approximately 20% more commonly). +1 to hit at low levels is +5% to hit and with a difference of +3 to +5 modifiers, those stack up in the fighter's favor.


The Druid has an animal companion to help him out, Riding Dogs are amazing, and they can trip.
The Wizard can disable entire groups of enemies with Color Spray, Sleep and Grease.
I'd say the Fighter is better off than him.
The Rogue is probably using a bow some type.
Much like the Wizard, the Sorcerer isn't going to be fighting in melee.
The Bard's probably going to be singing, not fighting.
What about the ToB classes and Incarnates (maybe the Totemist too)?

That means the Druid's Animal companion is fighting, not the druid. The animal companion can deal damage and then trip, but they don't get nearly the same bonus as the fighter with improved trip. I acknowledged the wizard's capability to disable a group of enemies, but what if all of the enemies don't fit neatly into your 15' cone, 10' square, or 10' burst? What if only one does? We've already established that creatures are intelligent so why would the group up like that when they know that the clothy types can disable them all with a single action if they do so? The Wizard and the sorcerer can't fighter better than the fighter out of the box. Point proven. Same with the bard. As for the ToB and other classes, I was focusing primarily on what is available on the SRD since that is information that I know everyone in the world has legal access to.


No, he can do that until he runs out of HP.

That applies to every. class. ever. And hey, he gets the second best HD in the game so... He's more likely to keep going longer than most other classes.


Again, that's not really a melee role, but a battlefield control one.
Edit: If the Fighter is going to trip, why can't the Cleric fight in melee? Those roles shouldn't clash.

You seem to think that tripping isn't an effective means of killing enemies... That seems... odd to me. Just because a fighter has Improved Trip doesn't mean he can't also be an ubercharger. There's the Knock Down feat that allows him to make a trip attempt after dealing 10 points of damage. Charge, hit, trip, hit. It's very simple and very effective. Why does there need to be a second melee combatant? The roles don't clash, but if there's no need why do you want to do it? can't your resources be better allocated to something else?


With flaws, a Barbarian can do the same, and use Rage on top of that.

With Flaws, a fighter can Take power attack and cleave as well as combat expertise and improved trip allowing him to be a charging tripping cleaver. He's got that role covered even without rage. Flaws aren't a factor of a class out of the box.


Zombie Commoners are CR 1/2 and have 16 HP. Granted, they're slow, but that's a lot more than 9.

9 HP is the bare minimum for the 2d6+7 damage. You have an upper limit of 19. Therefore you have approximately 33% chance of destroying the zombie in a single hit. That's not factoring a power attack which would raise the base damage to 11 and the max damage to 21 bringing you up to a 55% success at killing in a single blow allowing you to power attack cleave dealing 11-21 damage.


The Wizard can literally disable an entire group of enemies and leave a bunch of Commoners with rocks to finish the job.

Again, that's if the intelligent creatures attacking you don't know that the clothy ones can disable an entire group of them and they probably shouldn't group up like that... very circumstantial, but a valid point.


Once they get Wild Shape, the Druid is better in melee than almost anyone else but the Cleric.
Also, the Druid's Animal Companion is probably better than the Fighter at level 1.

Well, I admit a wild shaped druid is formidable. It certainly a powerful ability and I'm not arguing that. But while wild shaped a druid has two options. Attack in melee or cast a spell. Either way your action is being eaten up. Why not let the fighter do what he's designed to do and fight while you cast your spell, THEN join the fray. A druid's animal companion knows 7 tricks and a trip ability that is inferior in every way to improved trip. It requires a melee attack against the full AC of the target to succeed (and a riding dog only gets +3 to hit while the fighter gets +5 or more if they are focusing on strength and only has to succeed on a touch attack) and only has a +1 bonus to the check while the fighter gets a +4. I would take the fighter's trip of +9 or more than the riding dog/wolf's trip of +3. The riding dog and wolf do have an extra HD, but since PCs get Max HD at level 1, it's very likely that the animal companion will only have +1 hp to the fighter (and that's if the fighter only took 14 CON). Moving on to the AC of an animal Companion, the Fighter (if starting with the equipment listed in the PHB) will have an AC of 16 or 17 as long as they have a 10 or 12 dexterity, which is common among fighters so as to not waste points that you won't get to capitalize on. A riding dog has an AC of 16 and a wolf, 14. the animal companion seems to me to be mechanically inferior to a trip built fighter.


That's one role a Cleric can fulfill, but not everyone likes being the party buffer.
Indeed, and the ToB classes are far better right out of the box.

Again, I'm not saying the cleric should not fill the fighter role if there is a need, but if the role is filled there is no reason to use resources on something that is unnecessary. Also, I'm keeping to SRD content to ensure that anyone who wants to engage in the conversation can do so and use references as applicable. I'm not saying that fighters are better than ToB initiators, I just simply am saying that of the core classes, fighters are one of the best at fighting out of the box.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes, it is an assumption - a reasonable one. If you're going to make any kind of game aimed at a large audience, you do have to make some basic assumptions about the people who will be playing it. "If none of you are experienced, we expect you to run a module" is one such assumption. If you believe it's impossible to make any kind of assumptions about your audience, well that's on you, but that leaves us with absolutely no way to discuss anything without peer-reviewed statistical surveys of the playerbase at each rung of experience.

It's not a reasonable assumption. Like you said ToB, they're kind of expensive, Red Hand of Doom is 45$ on Amazon. And, like you said, most people start with just the core books or the SRD.

Also, you can make assumption, but the ones you're making to justify the idea of Fighters being Noob friendly are unreasonable.


First, the whole point of WBL is that you get to spend it. Simply giving the characters their treasure and then throwing them into the next set of encounters without a chance to buy anything is not WBL. Second, you can afford several oils of Magic Weapon at level 3 if you desire, each one of which will last for a whole combat. Third and final, Shadows are notorious for being under-CRed anyway, as you can see from several threads on this very subforum over the years, so the expected WBL to take them on should be even higher than their CR would indicate. They're an outlier to your point, not the rule.

A. Yes, you're suppose to spend your money, but you shouldn't dump it all on one thing. If the player spends all his money on a magic sword he'll have a hard time affording other things.
B. What are you talking about? All WBL is the amount of money the characters should have at each level. Plus, it's unrealistic to assume that the PCs will always have access to a shop to buy things. Being stuck in a dungeon with no way to spend your money until you leave is incredibly common. Or what if you're just traveling? You won't be able to buy anything until you reach a town, and most of D&D doesn't take place in towns.
C. You're still assuming that the Fighter player will understand the importance of having a magic weapon and be willing to spend alot of money on several oils of it.
D. Shadows are far from the only low CR incorporeal monster, and they're iconic D&D monsters.


See first point. What assumptions about new players are you willing to make? If there are none that you'll accept, there's no point in us continuing

I'm willing to accept assumptions, like a new table will start with only core and the SRD. But the assumptions you're making are unreasonable.


and furthermore I would hope you never end up designing a game that I or my friends would be new to.

Why? what I'm doing is actually a good idea in game design. I'm making assumptions that new players will have no clue what they're doing and the game should be designed according. What you're doing is bad game design, you're making assumptions that would make the game easier to play (like the assumption that new players will always have access to an experienced player to help them), and if you're assumptions are wrong then it's hard for new players to build a good character.


Get it errataed out of the DMG and we'll talk. Otherwise no, I'll keep saying it.

Get what errataed out? The Fighter or the fact that the DMG says new players can use characters built by other people?

Either way that's a stupid argument. Just because Fighters are core doesn't make them noob friendly. And just because the DMG says that new players can use pre-made characters doesn't mean that's always going to be an option.

[AnimeTheCat]

It's not a reasonable assumption. Like you said ToB, they're kind of expensive, Red Hand of Doom is 45$ on Amazon. And, like you said, most people start with just the core books or the SRD.

Also, you can make assumption, but the one's you're making to justify the idea of Fighters being Noob friendly are unreasonable.

To be fair, Sunless Citadel is free and is used by a lot of groups I know of as a starter dungeon for new players. It is simple, can be put in any world, and starts at level 1. Forge of Fury is also free and goes from level 3 to level 5 I believe. It contains a bit more advanced play tactics, but still good for beginners and fighter friendly as far as modules go. Just... to point out.

And by free, I mean free legally.

[Tainted_Scholar]

To be fair, Sunless Citadel is free and is used by a lot of groups I know of as a starter dungeon for new players. It is simple, can be put in any world, and starts at level 1. Forge of Fury is also free and goes from level 3 to level 5 I believe. It contains a bit more advanced play tactics, but still good for beginners and fighter friendly as far as modules go. Just... to point out.

And by free, I mean free legally.

I wasn't aware that Sunless Citadel was free, could I have a link?

Oh, but do you know what Sunless Citadel has? SHADOWS!!!

[DEMON]

To be fair, Sunless Citadel is free and is used by a lot of groups I know of as a starter dungeon for new players. It is simple, can be put in any world, and starts at level 1. Forge of Fury is also free and goes from level 3 to level 5 I believe. It contains a bit more advanced play tactics, but still good for beginners and fighter friendly as far as modules go. Just... to point out.

And by free, I mean free legally.

To add to the list, A Dark and Stormy Knight was also free 1st level adventure. Super short, too.

[Psyren]

I'm willing to accept assumptions, like a new table will start with only core and the SRD. But the assumptions you're making are unreasonable.

Sounds like we're at an impasse then. Both the DMG and CRB recommend published campaigns. And there are free modules available online (legally) for both games, which in 3.5's heyday were front and center.

[AnimeTheCat]

I wasn't aware that Sunless Citadel was free, could I have a link?

Oh, but do you know what Sunless Citadel has? SHADOWS!!!

Send me a PM and I'll send you the link when I get home. At work now with limited website access.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Sounds like we're at an impasse then. Both the DMG and CRB recommend published campaigns. And there are free modules available online (legally) for both games, which in 3.5's heyday were front and center.

Alright, I concede that using a module isn't an unreasonable assumption. However that doesn't help your argument much.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If the Fighter is horrible at his job, sure the cleric can pick up the slack. Whatever. Don't assume the fighter is going to be terrible at his job though. That is an unfair assumption especially when we're only talking hypothetically and there aren't any actual scenarios being called in to play.

It's not an unfair assumption, Fighters need a lot of optimization to work.


True seeing on the rogue allows him to detect illusion type traps and lead the party safely through an entire dungeon as well as spot invisible enemies to direct the other players, etc.

Shouldn't the Rogue have True Seeing from an item of some type by these levels?



That I think is more useful than the cleric becoming large and getting some other buffs.

Maybe, that really depends on the circumstances.


Magic Vestment gives the character who has a problem with AC less of a problem with AC. For that matter, giving the Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, etc. a deflection bonus with shield of faith persisted would also be better than magic vestment. Increase their survivability. That seems better than giving the cleric +1/3 level (Max 3) to hit and damage to me. Slap Freedom of Movement persisted on anybody and suddenly a pack of spiders and their webs are no threat to that person (or 3 if you give 3 people FoM). That seems better than the strength bonus and BAB increase.

- Should other members of the party have a Ring of Freedom of Movment?

- It's entirely possible the Cleric doesn't want to devote a sizable chunk of his spells slots to his teammates.

- Now, granted, with Divine Chain, Persist, and perhaps Ocular spell, the Cleric can buff everyone. But at level of Op, the Fighter is going to fall behind.


Does a battlefield controller fight with a melee weapon in front of the casters and deal damage? That sounds like a Melee Frontliner. Whether they are tripping in addition to doing damage or not, they are still a buffer between the less HP and AC heavy part of the party.

I was under the impression that tripping was mostly used for crowd control.


I would argue that the value of the small +1 bonuses are far greater in the earliest levels of the game. An enemy with an AC of 15 is going to be hit far more commonly by a level 1 Fighter with 18-20 strength than a level 1 Cleric with 12-14 strength (approximately 20% more commonly). +1 to hit at low levels is +5% to hit and with a difference of +3 to +5 modifiers, those stack up in the fighter's favor.

A +1 will help a little, but it won't save you if you roll a 5.
Like I do. A lot. Why do D20s hate me? :smallfrown:


That means the Druid's Animal companion is fighting, not the druid.

Maybe. Or maybe, the Druid is using Greenbound Summoning to get an Op Wolf to cast Wall of Thorns.

Edit: The Animal Companion is a Druid class feature, so the Druid still gets credit for its contributions.


The animal companion can deal damage and then trip, but they don't get nearly the same bonus as the fighter with improved trip.

No, but the Animal Companion is basically a free party member that can trip. Take Riding Dog, slap some armor on it, and its AC could be as high as 20.


I acknowledged the wizard's capability to disable a group of enemies, but what if all of the enemies don't fit neatly into your 15' cone, 10' square, or 10' burst? What if only one does?

- Taking out one enemy is still useful. I'd dare say it's unlikely you can't hit more than one of them.

- Also, what will the Tripping Fighter do if swarms show up?


We've already established that creatures are intelligent

Not all of them are, what about animals, undead, and constructs?


so why would the group up like that when they know that the clothy types can disable them all with a single action if they do so?

Do they know that? They'd better have ranks in Knowledge Arcana if they do.


The Wizard and the sorcerer can't fighter better than the fighter out of the box. Point proven. Same with the bard.

What does that prove? None of those classes are supposed to fight in melee, except maybe the Bard.
Later on, Wizards and Sorcerers can fight in melee, but that's beside the point.


As for the ToB and other classes, I was focusing primarily on what is available on the SRD since that is information that I know everyone in the world has legal access to.

We're talking about 3.5 as a whole here, so the ToB classes are just as relevant as the Core ones.

Edit: Also, Psychic Warrior says hi.


That applies to every. class. ever. And hey, he gets the second best HD in the game so... He's more likely to keep going longer than most other classes.

Other classes have better HD or more of an incentive to pump CON. It really doesn't matter, as you're looking at 4-5 encounters a day, then everyone will rest.

Edit: Also, by the time most characters have used up their daily resources, the Fighter's HP will be pretty low.


You seem to think that tripping isn't an effective means of killing enemies... That seems... odd to me.

How much damage can the Fighter deal via tripping?


Just because a fighter has Improved Trip doesn't mean he can't also be an ubercharger. There's the Knock Down feat that allows him to make a trip attempt after dealing 10 points of damage. Charge, hit, trip, hit. It's very simple and very effective.

Charging doesn't work if there's difficult terrain around. You also have to be able to see your opponent and have line of effect.

Edit: Also, you need good DEX, a 13 in INT, and good STR. That sounds like quite the strain on your point buy.


Why does there need to be a second melee combatant? The roles don't clash, but if there's no need why do you want to do it? can't your resources be better allocated to something else?

Maybe another player wants to fight in melee. That doesn't answer my initial question of why shouldn't the Cleric do it if he's better at it?


With Flaws, a fighter can Take power attack and cleave as well as combat expertise and improved trip allowing him to be a charging tripping cleaver. He's got that role covered even without rage. Flaws aren't a factor of a class out of the box.

I don't know about you, but I always take flaws if they're available.


9 HP is the bare minimum for the 2d6+7 damage. You have an upper limit of 19. Therefore you have approximately 33% chance of destroying the zombie in a single hit. That's not factoring a power attack which would raise the base damage to 11 and the max damage to 21 bringing you up to a 55% success at killing in a single blow allowing you to power attack cleave dealing 11-21 damage.

With Power Attack, that's about 15 damage on average, not quite enough to kill a Zombie, but it's still pretty good.


Again, that's if the intelligent creatures attacking you don't know that the clothy ones can disable an entire group of them and they probably shouldn't group up like that... very circumstantial, but a valid point.

- How will your enemies tell who the spellcasters are?

- So using AoEs to disable your enemies is circumstantial, but charging and tripping aren't?


Well, I admit a wild shaped druid is formidable. It certainly a powerful ability and I'm not arguing that. But while wild shaped a druid has two options. Attack in melee or cast a spell. Either way your action is being eaten up.

- That Druid also has an Animal Companion (probably buffed) and whatever he can summon.

- Also, Quicken spell.


Why not let the fighter do what he's designed to do and fight while you cast your spell, THEN join the fray.

Because the Druid's better at it?


A druid's animal companion knows 7 tricks and a trip ability that is inferior in every way to improved trip. It requires a melee attack against the full AC of the target to succeed (and a riding dog only gets +3 to hit while the fighter gets +5 or more if they are focusing on strength and only has to succeed on a touch attack) and only has a +1 bonus to the check while the fighter gets a +4. I would take the fighter's trip of +9 or more than the riding dog/wolf's trip of +3. The riding dog and wolf do have an extra HD, but since PCs get Max HD at level 1, it's very likely that the animal companion will only have +1 hp to the fighter (and that's if the fighter only took 14 CON). Moving on to the AC of an animal Companion, the Fighter (if starting with the equipment listed in the PHB) will have an AC of 16 or 17 as long as they have a 10 or 12 dexterity, which is common among fighters so as to not waste points that you won't get to capitalize on. A riding dog has an AC of 16 and a wolf, 14. the animal companion seems to me to be mechanically inferior to a trip built fighter.

It's still a free party member, and at level 4 or so, can be swapped for a Fleshraker. At level 5, you can buff it with Venomfire, and deal absurd damage.


Again, I'm not saying the cleric should not fill the fighter role if there is a need, but if the role is filled there is no reason to use resources on something that is unnecessary.

Again, what if the Cleric's player wants to fight in melee? Why should the Fighter get the role instead?


Also, I'm keeping to SRD content to ensure that anyone who wants to engage in the conversation can do so and use references as applicable. I'm not saying that fighters are better than ToB initiators, I just simply am saying that of the core classes, fighters are one of the best at fighting out of the box.

What about Barbarians?

Also, what about level 6+ where the Druid is unquestionably better at melee?

[Psyren]

Oh, but do you know what Sunless Citadel has? SHADOWS!!!

It has a single Shadow, which only attacks if you try to investigate its treasure, and explicitly does not even pursue you if you flee the room. You also get a magic weapon before you fight it (Balsag's +1 morningstar.) There's also a gnome cleric NPC that can accompany you, dragonbreath potions, and a cure scroll, all given out before you come across it.


Alright, I concede that using a module isn't an unreasonable assumption. However that doesn't help your argument much.

Most level 1 modules were tuned like the one above, so as not to turn new people off the game. Your fighter will be fine, even without someone around to super-optimize it. Not that experience really makes that much of a difference at level 1, when you only have 1-2 feats anyway.

[Tainted_Scholar]

It has a single Shadow, which only attacks if you try to investigate its treasure, and explicitly does not even pursue you if you flee the room. You also get a magic weapon before you fight it (Balsag's +1 morningstar.) There's also a gnome cleric NPC that can accompany you, dragonbreath potions, and a cure scroll, all given out before you come across it.

A. A single shadow is still enough to kill the Fighter.
B. A Magic weapon will only let you hit the Shadow 50% of the time.
C. Not all group are going to take the Cleric with them (My group didn't).
D. There's still plenty of things that can kill the Fighter in that module.



Most level 1 modules were tuned like the one above, so as not to turn new people off the game. Your fighter will be fine, even without someone around to super-optimize it. Not that experience really makes that much of a difference at level 1, when you only have 1-2 feats anyway.

I disagree, a level 1 Fighter that's poorly built will have a hard time with much of the Sunless Citadel, especially if he's the party's main combatant. With the traditional party of Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter the Fighter is going to struggle quite a bit.

It only becomes worse at latter levels. Red Hand of Doom would slaughter a poorly built Fighter.

[Psyren]

A. A single shadow is still enough to kill the Fighter.
B. A Magic weapon will only let you hit the Shadow 50% of the time.
C. Not all group are going to take the Cleric with them (My group didn't).
D. There's still plenty of things that can kill the Fighter in that module.


The Shadow is the only thing there that requires specific equipment to kill, and you don't even have to kill it, thereby defanging your objection.



I disagree, a level 1 Fighter that's poorly built will have a hard time with much of the Sunless Citadel, especially if he's the party's main combatant. With the traditional party of Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter the Fighter is going to struggle quite a bit.

You're talking about a module where you aren't even expected to break level 3 most of the time. Poorly-built how, dumping all your physical stats in favor of Charisma?

[AvatarVecna]

A self-buffing wizard focusing on hour/level buffs who has Faerie Mysteries Initiate is going to be a pretty solid combatant start at lvl 1. Based on some quick and rough, 5th lvl would see the wizard with better saves across the board, a laggy AC, comparable HP, and decently comparable attack/damage. This gets worse if you go into a full Thor build and pick up Incantatrix 3 by ECL 8, and that Persistomancy has the benefit of not being item dependent.

Part of the issue with the argument, though: sure, the Persistomancy Cleric 9 or Persistomancy Wizard 8 might be better at fighting all day than the Fighter, but wouldn't those buffs go better on making the Fighter better, adding the Fighter's slew of feats to the Peristed buffs of the buffmancer? Sure, but if buffed!Wizard is better than unbuffed!Fighter, then a buffomancer putting even more buffs on the already buffed wizard will be better still.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The Shadow is the only thing there that requires specific equipment to kill, and you don't even have to kill it, thereby defanging your objection.

Yes, because we all know that D&D players usually take the non combat approach⸮

And no my objection isn't defanged. The Fighter is useless against a Shadow, that's as much true here as it is anywhere else.


You're talking about a module where you aren't even expected to break level 3 most of the time.

The campaign isn't likely to end with that module. Not to mention the fact that the Fighter will still have trouble in the Sunless Citadel.


Poorly-built how, dumping all your physical stats in favor of Charisma?

I know you love to Strawman your opponent's argument but could you not? A Sword and Board Fighter is poorly built. Or just about any Fighter that doesn't go for Tripping/Charging.

[Knaight]

So, the problem in 3.X (or later) isn't that the fighter sux balls. The problem is that casters had some pretty big shackles removed when AD&D was copy/pasta'd into WOTCs pre-existing D20 game.

Prior to 3.X, the fighter was your tank. He stood on the front line of combat, and kept your squishy mage alive, so he could cast his magic. This is back when taking any sort of damage ruined a caster's spell. Back before "Casting defensively", or a magic 5' step.

It's both. Yes, mages got a ridiculous amount of power added to them, but the fighter also lost defensive capability. The 3.x fighter has two bad saves, the 2e and earlier fighter had top notch saves across the board. The change to HP makes poorly optimized fighters go from effective to laughable.

[DEMON]

The Fighter is useless against a Shadow, that's as much true here as it is anywhere else.

In all fairness, a Shadow is not just a fighter issue.
It will be a problem for most the classes, especially at that level. An under-CRed monster that is bordering on challenging and TPK for various party make-ups is, as was mentioned before, an outlier.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In all fairness, a Shadow is not just a fighter issue.
It will be a problem for most the classes, especially at that level. An under-CRed monster that is bordering on challenging and TPK for various party make-ups is, as was mentioned before, an outlier.

True, but at least some of the other classes can actually put up a fight.

The Fighter can't even do that.

[Mordaedil]

A self-buffing wizard focusing on hour/level buffs who has Faerie Mysteries Initiate is going to be a pretty solid combatant start at lvl 1. Based on some quick and rough, 5th lvl would see the wizard with better saves across the board, a laggy AC, comparable HP, and decently comparable attack/damage. This gets worse if you go into a full Thor build and pick up Incantatrix 3 by ECL 8, and that Persistomancy has the benefit of not being item dependent.

Part of the issue with the argument, though: sure, the Persistomancy Cleric 9 or Persistomancy Wizard 8 might be better at fighting all day than the Fighter, but wouldn't those buffs go better on making the Fighter better, adding the Fighter's slew of feats to the Peristed buffs of the buffmancer? Sure, but if buffed!Wizard is better than unbuffed!Fighter, then a buffomancer putting even more buffs on the already buffed wizard will be better still.

My point earlier was that the best buffs that the cleric has are personal only and can't just be slapped on a fighter without going through some strange routes. And even then, the fighter isn't going to benefit hugely from Divine Power, which raises BAB to character level, which is the main attraction for it in the first place. A fighter in full plate isn't going to benefit from Divine Agility either, that someone else mentioned, and Shield of Lathander that same person mentioned is kinda restricted to a domain that isn't in most settings, requires a specific deity and quite frankly is so OP my DM scoffed at it when I showed it to him. I'm surprised it is 3.5 edition.

There were other examples, like freedom of movement, true seeing and I can see spell resistance also being good picks, but the thing is, these already have a pretty solid duration and thus don't need to be cast at the beginning of each day and persisted, while Divine Favor has a really short duration and benefits greatly from being persisted as it not only makes the cleric match the fighter early on, but exceed him. Mix it with Divine Power later and it is even more true.

There's an argument that clerics should stick to buffing, but I honestly don't see how that is beneficial to the party! The cleric is better setting himself up (though for the love of god, he doesn't need to cast every buff spell available to himself on himself, it's always a good idea to ration it out) so that he can go into the fray and back up that rogue with the fighter. And if you're fighting undead, by all means, give the rogue a Grave Strike spell by that method (why is this personal, it doesn't make a lick of sense to me)

Yeah, as a cleric you have a lot of options, but you also have an unholy amount of slots and I don't see why using some of them to making yourself a more useful party member is a loss at any capacity. Just don't neglect your other roles and set your party up. There just isn't a lot you can do for a fighter, compared to every other class. Some of your spells don't stack with things like wizard spells or bard songs either.

And all your best buffs are personal.

[Psyren]

Yes, because we all know that D&D players usually take the non combat approach

If you attacked something and figured out you weren't hurting it, what would you do? That's like... games 101.



And no my objection isn't defanged. The Fighter is useless against a Shadow, that's as much true here as it is anywhere else.

Wrong; you just need a magic weapon, which the module gives you.


The campaign isn't likely to end with that module. Not to mention the fact that the Fighter will still have trouble in the Sunless Citadel.



I know you love to Strawman your opponent's argument but could you not? A Sword and Board Fighter is poorly built. Or just about any Fighter that doesn't go for Tripping/Charging.

Suboptimal != useless.

[Lord Raziere]

True, but at least some of the other classes can actually put up a fight.

The Fighter can't even do that.

So a class is horrible because it can't stand up to one monster? a monster known to be under-CR'd? Yeah thats TOTALLY fair.

Maybe think differently: A Shadow seems less like a random monster I'd throw at any old party and more like a specific small scale threat that could be the focus for a single adventure, one that requires investigation with old fashioned detective work and gathering clues and then coming up specific solution to deal with it. Like it seems like a monster that an urban fantasy detective would fight by going around town trying to identify the threat, its pattern and then trying to figure how it got here. did somebody else capture a Shadow and unleash it as a distraction? perhaps the local thieves guild contrived a way to capture one and let it loose while they stole things behind the scenes. so you do a single battle with it, defeat it then confront the thieves guild and have a more old fashioned battle. in short its a gimmick monster, one and done.

we should judge these classes based on common monsters that are commonly fought in DnD, not these strange super monsters, unless you plan on facing Shadows in every dungeon or something, which is ridiculous.

[Tainted_Scholar]

As I stated earlier, it's not selfish for the Cleric to buff himself and do melee simply because there's a Fighter in the Group. It is selfish to force the Cleric into a support role simply because the Fighter wants to be doing melee. The Cleric is better at melee than the Fighter, so why shouldn't the Cleric be in melee. Either the Fighter or Cleric player is going to be unhappy, but the rest of the Party will be better off with the Cleric in melee than the Fighter in melee, therefore it's actually more selfish to force the Cleric to support the Fighter. Not to mention that the Fighter forcing the Cleric to play support is like the Cleric forcing the Fighter to play a different class.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So a class is horrible because it can't stand up to one monster? a monster known to be under-CR'd? Yeah thats TOTALLY fair.

Shadows are far from the only monsters Fighter struggle with.


Maybe think differently: A Shadow seems less like a random monster I'd throw at any old party and more like a specific small scale threat that could be the focus for a single adventure, one that requires investigation with old fashioned detective work and gathering clues and then coming up specific solution to deal with it. Like it seems like a monster that an urban fantasy detective would fight by going around town trying to identify the threat, its pattern and then trying to figure how it got here. did somebody else capture a Shadow and unleash it as a distraction? perhaps the local thieves guild contrived a way to capture one and let it loose while they stole things behind the scenes. so you do a single battle with it, defeat it then confront the thieves guild and have a more old fashioned battle. in short its a gimmick monster, one and done.

So, how is the Fighter supposed to be able to do this with his 2+INT skill points and awful skill list?


we should judge these classes based on common monsters that are commonly fought in DnD, not these strange super monsters, unless you plan on facing Shadows in every dungeon or something, which is ridiculous.

How about dragons? Something tells me barbecued Fighter is on the menu.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If you attacked something and figured out you weren't hurting it, what would you do? That's like... games 101.

The Fighter can't do anything, but other classes can.


Wrong; you just need a magic weapon, which the module gives you.

And it only makes the Fighter marginally more helpful.


Suboptimal != useless.

For the love of the gods, will you stop with the Strawman. Did I say that the Fighter is going to be useless, no, I said he'd have a harder time than other classes.

[Lord Raziere]

Shadows are far from the only monsters Fighter struggle with.



So, how is the Fighter supposed to be able to do this with his 2+INT skill points and awful skill list?



How about dragons? Something tells me barbecued Fighter is on the menu.

1. Yes because DnD is badly designed in general.

2. There are some improvements that a fighter can need yes. doesn't change that the monster is badly designed as well or that arbitrarily putting it up against a monster like this is unfair.

3. a boss monster that is supposed to need teamwork. hardly common. how about trying orc?. that seems to be a common enemy. its the monster that I'd say is most depicted as the common fantasy enemy in DnD as well as all media derived from that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1. Yes because DnD is badly designed in general.

No argument there.


2. There are some improvements that a fighter can need yes. doesn't change that the monster is badly designed as well or that arbitrarily putting it up against a monster like this is unfair.

That doesn't change how the game is designed.


3. a boss monster that is supposed to need teamwork. hardly common. how about trying orc?. that seems to be a common enemy. its the monster that I'd say is most depicted as the common fantasy enemy in DnD as well as all media derived from that.

Dragons are uncommon? They're in the title! Orcs without class levels will only show up at low levels. They're also dangerous with their falchions and high STR.

[Psyren]

The Fighter can't do anything, but other classes can.

So?



And it only makes the Fighter marginally more helpful.

And you're still wrong, they can win.


For the love of the gods, will you stop with the Strawman. Did I say that the Fighter is going to be useless, no, I said he'd have a harder time than other classes.

Unless every class is perfectly equal, then yes, some class is going to have a harder time than another. As long as they can both get through the module, who cares? I don't.



Dragons are uncommon? They're in the title!

So are dungeons, were you intended to solo those too?

[Tainted_Scholar]

So?

So, it shows that not only can the Fighter can not operate outside combat, but there are even situations in combat where he's useless.


And you're still wrong, they can win.

Yes, but with no help from the Fighter.


Unless every class is perfectly equal, then yes, some class is going to have a harder time than another. As long as they can both get through the module, who cares? I don't.

A new player might care, after all that is what we were discussing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So are dungeons, were you intended to solo those too?

Who said anything about soloing?

Edit: The Fighter is supposed to be a front line combatant, how long would he last in melee with a dragon?

[Psyren]

So, it shows that not only can the Fighter can not operate outside combat, but there are even situations in combat where he's useless.

That's true of every class; even wizards can be made useless "in situations."


Yes, but with no help from the Fighter.

By "they" I DID mean fighters. Even a noob with a +1 weapon can beat a shadow. It might not be the easiest fight in the module but it is doable, and that's all that matters.



A new player might care, after all that is what we were discussing.

Why would you pick Gimli instead of Gandalf if you wanted to be the most powerful? It seems pretty basic to me. "Most powerful" isn't the design goal, the goal is "powerful enough," and they have that.


Who said anything about soloing?

Edit: The Fighter is supposed to be a front line combatant, how long would he last in melee with a dragon?

You did; Lord Raziere said dragons are teamwork monsters, and you seemed to be trying to disagree with that.

As for how long a fighter would last in melee with a dragon, answering that needs a lot more information.

[Tainted_Scholar]

That's true of every class; even wizards can be made useless "in situations."

Except Fighters are only useful in combat. They literally cannot do anything else besides fight, so you should see why it's a problem when they're useless in combat.


By "they" I DID mean fighters. Even a noob with a +1 weapon can beat a shadow. It might not be the easiest fight in the module but it is doable, and that's all that matters.

Conceded.



Why would you pick Gimli instead of Gandalf if you wanted to be the most powerful? It seems pretty basic to me. "Most powerful" isn't the design goal, the goal is "powerful enough," and they have that.

We're still talking about whether or not Fighters are good for noobs. And as it is, Fighters are not powerful enough for a new player. A new player will have to deal with the fact that Fighters are hard to build, poorly built Fighters are hard to play, and that their character isn't very good.

[Psyren]

Except Fighters are only useful in combat. They literally cannot do anything else besides fight, so you should see why it's a problem when they're useless in combat.

What combat are they useless in? That module certainly doesn't have any.



We're still talking about whether or not Fighters are good for noobs. And as it is, Fighters are not powerful enough for a new player. A new player will have to deal with the fact that Fighters are hard to build, poorly built Fighters are hard to play, and that their character isn't very good.

I don't see anything in that module that even a poorly-built fighter would have trouble with, unless he's actively trying to make his character bad at fighting (poor physical stats, naked etc.) And I know you're going to call this a strawman again but I literally have no idea what you mean by "poorly-built" in this context.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What combat are they useless in? That module certainly doesn't have any.


Conceded again.

The Fighter won't be useless, just practically useless. And since fighting is literally the only thing that a Fighter can do, that's bad too.


I don't see anything in that module that even a poorly-built fighter would have trouble with, unless he's actively trying to make his character bad at fighting (poor physical stats, naked etc.) And I know you're going to call this a strawman again but I literally have no idea what you mean by "poorly-built" in this context.

A Sword and Board Fighter would have trouble in this module, I don't know the dungeon by memory but I do remember some fairly powerful monsters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Conceded again.

The Fighter won't be useless, just practically useless. And since fighting is literally the only thing that a Fighter can do, that's bad too.

In Sunless Citadel, perhaps, but swarms tend to cause Fighters problems, and as I said earlier, Dragons eat Fighters for lunch.

[Tainted_Scholar]

In Sunless Citadel, perhaps, but swarms tend to cause Fighters problems, and as I said earlier, Dragons eat Fighters for lunch.

There was a Dragon in Sunless Citadel wasn't there.

[Psyren]

For the love of the gods, will you stop with the Strawman. Did I say that the Fighter is going to be useless, no, I said he'd have a harder time than other classes.



The Fighter won't be useless, just practically useless. And since fighting is literally the only thing that a Fighter can do, that's bad too.

Whether you want to call it "useless" or shift the goalposts to "practically useless" you're still wrong. A new person running a Fighter can clear that module, save the day, and have fun doing it. That to me is useful, the only useful that matters in fact.



A Sword and Board Fighter would have trouble in this module, I don't know the dungeon by memory but I do remember some fairly powerful monsters.

I've looked at all the encounters and I have to disagree. Only the Shadow even comes close, and they both give you a magic weapon ahead of time to deal with it and deliberately hobble the monster by rooting it in place.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There was a Dragon in Sunless Citadel wasn't there.

It was pretty young, and you're not supposed to kill it.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Whether you want to call it "useless" or shift the goalposts to "practically useless" you're still wrong. A new person running a Fighter can clear that module, save the day, and have fun doing it. That to me is useful, the only useful that matters in fact.

A. Yes, I moved the goalpost, but I acknowledge that I was wrong earlier. The goalposts moved, but only because I admitted defeat from where I originally put them.

B. I wasn't talking about clearing the module. I was talking about how it's bad for the Fighter to be ineffective in any combat situation since combat is all they can do.


I've looked at all the encounters and I have to disagree. Only the Shadow even comes close, and they both give you a magic weapon ahead of time to deal with it and deliberately hobble the monster by rooting it in place.

I don't remember the module well enough to get specifics, but I'm fairly certain that there were encounters that would give a Sword and Board Fighter a hard time.

However, Sunless Citadel is far from the only low level Module. The Fighter would be slaughtered in Red Hand of Doom, admittedly it's higher level module but a New Player could go through it in their first campaign.

[Psyren]

A. Yes, I moved the goalpost, but I acknowledge that I was wrong earlier. The goalposts moved, but only because I admitted defeat from where I originally put them.

B. I wasn't talking about clearing the module. I was talking about how it's bad for the Fighter to be ineffective in any combat situation since combat is all they can do.

A. Fair enough.

B. If they wanted to do things other than fight, they probably wouldn't pick Fighter.


I don't remember the module well enough to get specifics, but I'm fairly certain that there were encounters that would give a Sword and Board Fighter a hard time.

At the risk of being blunt, it's evident that you don't remember it, no.



However, Sunless Citadel is far from the only low level Module. The Fighter would be slaughtered in Red Hand of Doom, admittedly it's higher level module but a New Player could go through it in their first campaign.

Does it start from level 1?

[Tainted_Scholar]

B. If they wanted to do things other than fight, they probably wouldn't pick Fighter.

Being able to only Fight makes them a bad class for Noobs though. A noob friendly class should be able to do more than just one thing.

Also, they might not realise the Fighter's deficiency until it comes up. My first class was a druid, and I didn't put any ranks in Knowledge Nature. I didn't really think too much about this until the time came to make a Knowledge Nature check, then it frustrated me that my Druid knew jack squat about nature.


Does it start from level 1?

Red Hand of Doom? no it does not. It starts at level 3-4 I believe. However it's entirely possible that the party may reach that level in their first campaign, in fact I'd say it's pretty likely. So they could wind up doing that module after the first one they run.

[Psyren]

Being able to only Fight makes them a bad class for Noobs though. A noob friendly class should be able to do more than just one thing.

I disagree with the bold completely. The more things a class can do, the more the complexity can be off-putting. Whereas if I'm a Fighter (or even a Barbarian) I know that the more experienced roleplayers won't be expecting me to do much until a fight starts. There are plenty of people who find that appealing.



Also, they might not realise the Fighter's deficiency until it comes up. My first class was a druid, and I didn't put any ranks in Knowledge Nature. I didn't really think too much about this until the time came to make a Knowledge Nature check, then it frustrated me that my Druid knew jack squat about nature.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d748d4018cb471d357409c9306477a336645cce5cfa2bf8618 95546983b07703.jpg

I've made plenty of imperfect characters - including, like you, T1 classes. It's part of growing as a roleplaying gamer.


Red Hand of Doom? no it does not. It starts at level 3-4 I believe. However it's entirely possible that the party may reach that level in their first campaign, in fact I'd say it's pretty likely. So they could wind up doing that module after the first one they run.

They won't exactly be new at that point. Also, see above.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I disagree with the bold completely. The more things a class can do, the more the complexity can be off-putting. Whereas if I'm a Fighter (or even a Barbarian) I know that the more experienced roleplayers won't be expecting me to do much until a fight starts. There are plenty of people who find that appealing.

Having too many options is bad for a new player, but having too few is even worse. A new player shouldn't be forced into a single option and be unable to do anything but that one option, but that's what happens when you play a Fighter. A noob friendly class should have around 2 or 3 options for what it can do.


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d748d4018cb471d357409c9306477a336645cce5cfa2bf8618 95546983b07703.jpg

I've made plenty of imperfect characters - including, like you, T1 classes. It's part of growing as a roleplaying gamer.

My point was that a new Player might not realise the fact that a Fighter can only do one thing until it's too late. The example was simply there to illustrate that new players may not realise this even when it should be obvious.


They won't exactly be new at that point. Also, see above.

Actually, yes they will still be new players, they're only had three levels of experience with the game. what's more, many of the Fighter's big problems aren't obvious until around level 5. It's still their first character and they'll be incredibly confused and upset if the character that served them just fine up til now is suddenly sucking. As a result they may come to conclusions that aren't true, they might think the module sucks, they might think that the DM has it out for them, they might think the other classes are over powered, etc.

Also they won't know what to do to rectify the situation, and as such they'll just keep sucking the rest of the campaign.

[Psyren]

Having too many options is bad for a new player, but having too few is even worse. A new player shouldn't be forced into a single option and be unable to do anything but that one option, but that's what happens when you play a Fighter. A noob friendly class should have around 2 or 3 options for what it can do.

I simply don't agree that this is an absolute design standard. I've seen plenty of players in real life that are happy engaging when initiative is rolled and just not worrying about the other aspects of the game. So we'll have to agree to disagree here.



My point was that a new Player might not realise the fact that a Fighter can only do one thing until it's too late. The example was simply there to illustrate that new players may not realise this even when it should be obvious.

And my meme was meant to illustrate that if they don't realize that, it's not the end of the world. They can simply roll something deeper once they feel confident.



Actually, yes they will still be new players, they're only had three levels of experience with the game. what's more, many of the Fighter's big problems aren't obvious until around level 5. It's still their first character and they'll be incredibly confused and upset if the character that served them just fine up til now is suddenly sucking. As a result they may come to conclusions that aren't true, they might think the module sucks, they might think that the DM has it out for them, they might think the other classes are over powered, etc.

Also they won't know what to do to rectify the situation, and as such they'll just keep sucking the rest of the campaign.

Even if as you say they'll be disappointed that their Fighter is made only for fighting, I don't see it as being this traumatizing.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I simply don't agree that this is an absolute design standard. I've seen plenty of players in real life that are happy engaging when initiative is rolled and just not worrying about the other aspects of the game. So we'll have to agree to disagree here.

But a noob friendly class should be able to appeal to multiple types of players. It's not noob friendly if it doesn't work for very, very, very large group of players. And like I said, they may not realise that the Fighter can't function out of combat right away.


And my meme was meant to illustrate that if they don't realize that, it's not the end of the world. They can simply roll something deeper once they feel confident.

You don't see how that's a bad idea for a first time player? And this wouldn't be an issue if they weren't playing a Fighter.


Even if as you say they'll be disappointed that their Fighter is made only for fighting, I don't see it as being this traumatizing.

Except the Fighter won't just be bad at out of fighting, he'll be bad in fighting as well. The Fighter can not survive in Red Hand of Doom, he'll be killed. The one thing that the Fighter was previously able to do, he now can't.

And will you stop stawmanning by argument! It won't be traumatizing, but it's not a good experience for a first time player.

[Psyren]

But a noob friendly class should be able to appeal to multiple types of players. It's not noob friendly if it doesn't work for very, very, very large group of players. And like I said, they may not realise that the Fighter can't function out of combat right away.

Fighter clearly does work for a very, very large group of players. Every iteration of D&D includes it in core for a reason.



You don't see how that's a bad idea for a first time player? And this wouldn't be an issue if they weren't playing a Fighter.

I don't. I think Fighter's design space is valuable, even if it could use some tweaks. (Tweaks which PF has pretty much included.)



Except the Fighter won't just be bad at out of fighting, he'll be bad in fighting as well. The Fighter can not survive in Red Hand of Doom, he'll be killed. The one thing that the Fighter was previously able to do, he now can't.

And will you stop stawmanning by argument! It won't be traumatizing, but it's not a good experience for a first time player.

"Upsetting" then. I still don't see it.
I'm not going to spoil Red Hand of Doom just for an argument, but I doubt it's as hard on fighter players as you claim.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Fighter clearly does work for a very, very large group of players. Every iteration of D&D includes it in core for a reason.

You're aren't addressing my point, a noob friendly class shouldn't be undesirable for a bunch of people. Or at the very least, it should be obvious that it's undesirable.


I don't. I think Fighter's design space is valuable, even if it could use some tweaks. (Tweaks which PF has pretty much included.)

You don't see how it's bad for a first time player to have to stop and write up a new character solely because their old one wasn't good? In fact, that kinda proves that it's not a good class for noobs if they have to scrap it for a new one.


"Upsetting" then. I still don't see it.
I'm not going to spoil Red Hand of Doom just for an argument, but I doubt it's as hard on fighter players as you claim.

You don't see how it's bad for a first time player to suddenly stop having fun at the game? An issue that wouldn't pop up if they played a different class by the way.

Trust me, a Fighter would not have a fun time.

[Psyren]

You're aren't addressing my point, a noob friendly class shouldn't be undesirable for a bunch of people.

ou can't please everyone. I think Fighter appeals to enough.



You don't see how it's bad for a first time player to have to stop and write up a new character solely because their old one wasn't good? In fact, that kinda proves that it's not a good class for noobs if they have to scrap it for a new one.

They don't have to. Well, unless they want to do something like cast spells, in which case they do have to, but they would have known that going in.



You don't see how it's bad for a first time player to suddenly stop having fun at the game? An issue that wouldn't pop up if they played a different class by the way.

Trust me, a Fighter would not have a fun time.

Do you have a survey showing Fighter players that stopped having fun partway through RHOD?

[Tainted_Scholar]

ou can't please everyone. I think Fighter appeals to enough.

Except it's not obvious to noobs that Fighters can't do anything outside of combat, and that means the class isn't noob friendly. Someone who enjoys non-combat encounters could easily play a Fighter and not realise that they're only useful in combat until it's too late.


They don't have to. Well, unless they want to do something like cast spells, in which case they do have to, but they would have known that going in.

You really don't like addressing my point do you? Or did you just forget that the reason someone might have to roll up a new character is because they didn't realise that Fighters can't function outside of combat? I'm not sure how you could have forgotten though considering you suggested it.

You suggested that if the player doesn't like the way a Fighter performs outside of combat then they can roll up a new character.

Which, like I said, is a terrible idea. Of course the alternative is keep playing as a character you don't like which is also a problem. One they wouldn't have had if they didn't play a Fighter.


Do you have a survey showing Fighter players that stopped having fun partway through RHOD?

Red Hand of Doom has you fighting multiple Dragons if that tells you anything. It's also known to be quite challenging, and since poorly built Fighters are rather weak...

[Psyren]

Except it's not obvious to noobs that Fighters can't do anything outside of combat, and that means the class isn't noob friendly. Someone who enjoys non-combat encounters could easily play a Fighter and not realise that they're only useful in combat until it's too late.

I think the combat focus of the class is right in the name.



You really don't like addressing my point do you? Or did you just forget that the reason someone might have to roll up a new character is because they didn't realise that Fighters can't function outside of combat? I'm not sure how you could have forgotten though considering you suggested it.

You suggested that if the player doesn't like the way a Fighter performs outside of combat then they can roll up a new character.

Which, like I said, is a terrible idea. Of course the alternative is keep playing as a character you don't like which is also a problem. One they wouldn't have had if they didn't play a Fighter.

I am addressing your point. Fighter is by definition not the one class that fits everyone who sits down to the game. Some will stick with it. Some will, having gotten the broader exposure to mechanics and roleplay they needed, be willing to branch out and crack open the Spells chapter, or the Skills chapter, or start looking at the Monster Manual for wild shape forms. But the existence of the Fighter means they don't have to do all that stuff before they can play with their friends. It's a win-win.



Red Hand of Doom has you fighting multiple Dragons if that tells you anything. It's also known to be quite challenging, and since poorly built Fighters are rather weak...

Fighters can fight dragons, what matters is their level and gear. To use an extreme example, a level 100 fighter is capable of slaying a large number of printed dragons. So merely saying Fighter < Dragon (or far more accurately in this case, Party With Fighter < Dragon) is specious.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Fighters can fight dragons, what matters is their level and gear. To use an extreme example, a level 100 fighter is capable of slaying a large number of printed dragons. So merely saying Fighter < Dragon (or far more accurately in this case, Party With Fighter < Dragon) is specious.

Any Dragon with Epic Spellcasting > Fighter.

[Psyren]

Any Dragon with Epic Spellcasting > Fighter.

Epic Spellcasting is functionally a completely different game anyway.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Epic Spellcasting is functionally a completely different game anyway.

True, but any dragon of comparable CR to the Fighter will likely have spellcasting; we all know how well Fighters do against high tier spellcasters.

Also, just about every true dragon qualifies for epic spellcasting by the time they're a great wyrm.

[Psyren]

True, but any dragon of comparable CR to the Fighter will likely have spellcasting; we all know how well Fighters do against high tier spellcasters.

Dragons are actually pretty weak spellcasters for their CR, so that's not much of a worry at most levels.


Also, just about every true dragon qualifies for epic spellcasting by the time they're a great wyrm.

Certainly, though I did specify printed dragons - as far as I can see, none of them actually have Epic Spells. Rather, it's a rule the GM can choose to use when making their own custom boss monsters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Dragons are actually pretty weak spellcasters for their CR, so that's not much of a worry at most levels.

Even low levels spells like Blood Wind, Scintillating Scales, and Nerveskitter can be powerful.


Certainly, though I did specify printed dragons - as far as I can see, none of them actually have Epic Spells. Rather, it's a rule the GM can choose to use when making their own custom boss monsters.

Printed dragons don't have any feats, the DM has to pick all of them.

[Psyren]

Even low levels spells like Blood Wind, Scintillating Scales, and Nerveskitter can be powerful.

I agree. Powerful doesn't mean unbeatable though.


Printed dragons don't have any feats, the DM has to pick all of them.

The ones I'm seeing in Draconomicon (where your rule comes from) do have feats.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I agree. Powerful doesn't mean unbeatable though.

I'd say it means the Fighter's in trouble.


The ones I'm seeing in Draconomicon (where your rule comes from) do have feats.

Really? I've always meant to read that book.

I was looking in the Monster Manual, those dragons don't have any feats.

[Psyren]

I'd say it means the Fighter's in trouble.

Maybe. I don't see anything in the spells you listed that makes the Dragon immune to a level-appropriate Fighter. Tough, certainly, but not unbeatable.



Really? I've always meant to read that book.

I was looking in the Monster Manual, those dragons don't have any feats.

That splat contains the "Dragons can take Epic Feats" rule, so you'd need it if you plan to use that. But even then, none of the RHoD dragons have epic feats, which was his original concern.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Maybe. I don't see anything in the spells you listed that makes the Dragon immune to a level-appropriate Fighter. Tough, certainly, but not unbeatable.

I guess that depends on the dragon's age; there was a thread about a level 13 Wizard VS a level 20 Fighter, and more often than not, the Wizard won.


That splat contains the "Dragons can take Epic Feats" rule, so you'd need it if you plan to use that. But even then, none of the RHoD dragons have epic feats, which was his original concern.


- Dragon's automatically qualify for epic feats if they have 21+ HD.

- The RHoD dragons don't need epic feats; all they have to is fly above the Fighter's head and blast him with their breath weapons.

[Psyren]

I guess that depends on the dragon's age; there was a thread about a level 13 Wizard VS a level 20 Fighter, and more often than not, the Wizard won.

I'm sure if you rebuild/optimize the dragon to the nines then it can win most of the time. But a Fighter running through a module wouldn't have to worry about that, and that's what we were discussing.



- Dragon's automatically qualify for epic feats if they have 21+ HD.

- The RHoD dragons don't need epic feats; all they have to is fly above the Fighter's head and blast him with their breath weapons.

1) Again, that rule is from Draconomicon, and none of the printed dragons there picked Epic Spellcasting. They picked things like Epic Will.

2) Bows exist, and a dragon in the air is one that is not defending whatever the PCs need to get to in that module.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I think the combat focus of the class is right in the name.

Yes, but just because they know it focuses on combat doesn't mean they'll realise that it can only do combat. And a class that traps new players into something they don't like isn't noob friendly.





I am addressing your point. Fighter is by definition not the one class that fits everyone who sits down to the game. Some will stick with it. Some will, having gotten the broader exposure to mechanics and roleplay they needed, be willing to branch out and crack open the Spells chapter, or the Skills chapter, or start looking at the Monster Manual for wild shape forms. But the existence of the Fighter means they don't have to do all that stuff before they can play with their friends. It's a win-win.

No it is not a win-win, because the new player will not enjoy playing as the Fighter. If they don't enjoy playing a Fighter in their first campaign, then they either have to roll up a new character or just keep playing as one the hate. Both are terrible options, made worse by the fact that this is their first character.

Someone's first character shouldn't be something they dislike.


Fighters can fight dragons, what matters is their level and gear. To use an extreme example, a level 100 fighter is capable of slaying a large number of printed dragons. So merely saying Fighter < Dragon (or far more accurately in this case, Party With Fighter < Dragon) is specious.

...I'm not even sure how to respond. It's like, you're strawmanning your own argument. Like, if you said that Fighters can beat Dragons, and then I strawmanned that into "level 100 Fighter can beat a Dragon." I am honestly just confused by this part, what else is there to say other than, your Fighter isn't going to be fighting monsters that are 80 levels below his CR. I kinda thought that went without saying though.

The Dragons in Red Hand of Doom are CR appropriate, and since the Fighter is the only front line combatant in a standard party he's going to get his ass kicked.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm sure if you rebuild/optimize the dragon to the nines then it can win most of the time. But a Fighter running through a module wouldn't have to worry about that, and that's what we were discussing.

An ancient red dragon has 15th CL and is CR 23; not out of line for a boss monster at level 20.



1) Again, that rule is from Draconomicon, and none of the printed dragons there picked Epic Spellcasting. They picked things like Epic Will.

That's moot; they can take epic spellcasting, and any dragon that did would slaughter a level 100 Fighter.



2) Bows exist, and a dragon in the air is one that is not defending whatever the PCs need to get to in that module.

- Unless that Fighter is an archer, he's doing scratch damage.

- Wind Wall is a low level spell.

- A flying dragon can still defend his post; he'll just nuke the party with his breath weapon.

[Hackulator]

Yes, but just because they know it focuses on combat doesn't mean they'll realise that it can only do combat. And a class that traps new players into something they don't like isn't noob friendly.





No it is not a win-win, because the new player will not enjoy playing as the Fighter. If they don't enjoy playing a Fighter in their first campaign, then they either have to roll up a new character or just keep playing as one the hate. Both are terrible options, made worse by the fact that this is their first character.

Someone's first character shouldn't be something they dislike.



...I'm not even sure how to respond. It's like, you're strawmanning your own argument. Like, if you said that Fighters can beat Dragons, and then I strawmanned that into "level 100 Fighter can beat a Dragon." I am honestly just confused by this part, what else is there to say other than, your Fighter isn't going to be fighting monsters that are 80 levels below his CR. I kinda thought that went without saying though.

The Dragons in Red Hand of Doom are CR appropriate, and since the Fighter is the only front line combatant in a standard party he's going to get his ass kicked.

That time when you tried to make your claim that you knew what everyone else in the world would or would not like part of your argument.

[Tainted_Scholar]

That time when you tried to make your claim that you knew what everyone else in the world would or would not like part of your argument.

Have you been completely ignoring the conversation up til now? Because otherwise you would know that I was talking about people who like to do things outside of combat, which the Fighter cannot do.

[AnimeTheCat]

To start, this is a big post so I'm cutting it in to quotes and answers to make it easier to read and appear less like a wall of text. Tainted_Scholar, I'm not singling you out, I just had more to say in response to your comments than I did to other people. Just wanted to make sure that you knew that I didn't have a personal vendetta against you or something. Just explaining my views.


It's not an unfair assumption, Fighters need a lot of optimization to work.
Shouldn't the Rogue have True Seeing from an item of some type by these levels?
Maybe, that really depends on the circumstances.
- Should other members of the party have a Ring of Freedom of Movment?
- It's entirely possible the Cleric doesn't want to devote a sizable chunk of his spells slots to his teammates.
- Now, granted, with Divine Chain, Persist, and perhaps Ocular spell, the Cleric can buff everyone. But at level of Op, the Fighter is going to fall behind.
I was under the impression that tripping was mostly used for crowd control.
A +1 will help a little, but it won't save you if you roll a 5.
Like I do. A lot. Why do D20s hate me? :smallfrown:
Maybe. Or maybe, the Druid is using Greenbound Summoning to get an Op Wolf to cast Wall of Thorns.
Edit: The Animal Companion is a Druid class feature, so the Druid still gets credit for its contributions.
No, but the Animal Companion is basically a free party member that can trip. Take Riding Dog, slap some armor on it, and its AC could be as high as 20.
- Taking out one enemy is still useful. I'd dare say it's unlikely you can't hit more than one of them.
- Also, what will the Tripping Fighter do if swarms show up?
Not all of them are, what about animals, undead, and constructs?
Do they know that? They'd better have ranks in Knowledge Arcana if they do.
What does that prove? None of those classes are supposed to fight in melee, except maybe the Bard.
Later on, Wizards and Sorcerers can fight in melee, but that's beside the point.
We're talking about 3.5 as a whole here, so the ToB classes are just as relevant as the Core ones.
Edit: Also, Psychic Warrior says hi.
Other classes have better HD or more of an incentive to pump CON. It really doesn't matter, as you're looking at 4-5 encounters a day, then everyone will rest.
Edit: Also, by the time most characters have used up their daily resources, the Fighter's HP will be pretty low.
How much damage can the Fighter deal via tripping?
Charging doesn't work if there's difficult terrain around. You also have to be able to see your opponent and have line of effect.
Edit: Also, you need good DEX, a 13 in INT, and good STR. That sounds like quite the strain on your point buy.
Maybe another player wants to fight in melee. That doesn't answer my initial question of why shouldn't the Cleric do it if he's better at it?
I don't know about you, but I always take flaws if they're available.
With Power Attack, that's about 15 damage on average, not quite enough to kill a Zombie, but it's still pretty good.
- How will your enemies tell who the spellcasters are?
- So using AoEs to disable your enemies is circumstantial, but charging and tripping aren't?
- That Druid also has an Animal Companion (probably buffed) and whatever he can summon.
- Also, Quicken spell.
Because the Druid's better at it?
It's still a free party member, and at level 4 or so, can be swapped for a Fleshraker. At level 5, you can buff it with Venomfire, and deal absurd damage.
Again, what if the Cleric's player wants to fight in melee? Why should the Fighter get the role instead?
What about Barbarians?
Also, what about level 6+ where the Druid is unquestionably better at melee?


I'll try to break it down the best that I can so that I give you the clearest picture of what's going on in my head to hopefully clear any possible miscommunication because I think there may actually be.

For the duration of this example I will be using a Half-Orc Fighter 2 with a 20/12/12/13/8/6 spread. Starting HP 11 minimum HP 13 (if the 2nd HD was a 1), starting armor from the PHB gives Scale Mail. The weapon will determine whether a shield gets used or not. In the case that a shield is used, it will be a heavy wooden shield.

To start, no new player in a group of experienced players will be making their character solely by themselves. Even if they do, it is the responsibility of the DM to review all character sheets to ensure an even playing field to ensure the best possible fun. It is the DM's duty to ask questions if the character above gets presented with 3 Toughness feats and make recommendations from there. There is not an incredible amount of optimization with those abilities and the armor is given by the PHB or by DM, either way medium armor is normal in every situation I've encountered with new players and new games.

Second, I'm trying to maintain a look at classes and class abilities without the effects of WBL because WBL is a guideline, not a hard rule. Some game worlds may only see magic items found in adventuring and if a rouge doesn't find an item of true seeing it should absolutely be the responsibility of the spell casters to assist the party with that spell. WBL is not a class ability of any class except maybe the vassal of bahamut who gets a platinum hoard.

A druid requires 1 full round to summon a greenbound monster, which may be too late. Quicken Spell is not usable on these spells. Additionally, by second level a druid can't get greenbound summoning unless flaws are used which are not a component of the class and are therefore not being taken into consideration in this scenario. A druid's animal companion gets 7 tricks (if it has 2 int) at the start of the game. If the animal doesn't know the trick the druid is trying to make them do, the druid will need to use a move action to push the animal. Training an animal to use it's abilities is one trick by itself. Other tricks that will eat up the animal companion's trick pool. To fight undead you're required to train your animal to attack and attack unusual targets. There's three of your 7 tricks eaten up just to get the AC to attack anything and to get it to use it's special ability. You should also remember that an AC is still an animal and it's likely that most cities wouldn't let a wolf or dire rat in as those are commonly considered pests, nuisances, and vermin and that they will still behave like animals. If they aren't trained to do something or instructed to do it they won't do it (as per the Handle Animal Skill). If you want your AC to stick by you you'll need the heel trick. If you want the animal to come to you, you'll need the come trick. If you want the animal to guard something, you'll need the guard trick. If you want the animal to stay outside while you go into a bar, you'll need the stay trick. That's all 7 tricks. If you want your AC to do anything else, you have to wait. ACs are not PCs and they don't just act on their own like a PC would. They act like an animal of it's kind would.

If the cleric doesn't want to devote his resources to the party, that is the very definition of selfish, which was the original argument I was pointing out when I first made the comment.

Next, I will answer tripping as damage, and bonuses to hit. Using the fighter outlined above you take the feats Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Knock-Down. At level 2, this fighter will have a +7 to hit from strength and BAB alone. A 5 on the die like you suggested would give him a 12 to hit and would miss just about everything. Charging however adds an additional +2 to hit granting a +9 to hit. This would give a d20 roll of 5 a total of 14. Substantially better than the cleric who likely doesn't have a 20 strength and +2 BAB. Now say, for instance, you didn't roll a 5 and managed to succeed at hitting your target, you get to roll your damage which is 2d6+7 Damage. You deal a minimum of 9 damage. If any of your 2d6 is a 2 or better you get 10+ damage. This allows you (through the knock-down feat) a free trip attempt. You still get your +2 charge bonus to hit a melee touch attack. If you successfully do, you trip with a +9 modifier against your opponent's opposed roll. If you succeed, you get a free attack against a prone target (effectively a +4 to hit by virtue of their -4 AC). If you hit, you deal an additional 2d6+7 damage granting a total of 4d6+14 for a minimum of 18 damage, more than enough to kill most challenge appropriate targets in your single action. It is a combination of BFC and damage.

Although charging in difficult terrain doesn't work, for Knock Down to work you don't need to charge. You simply need to deal at least 10 damage on the hit. Charging just makes hitting a little more likely.

In this scenario, the cleric will not be better at fighting and has no claim to the title. If later on the cleric is able to use infinite nightsticks to DMM his way into fightering, the fighter only needs a little buff here and there to be better than the cleric again (large size, maybe a Con or strength bonus, and maybe a natural armor bonus. Mostly the large size).

If another character wants to be a melee combatant, that should be solved at character creation and should be agreed upon. Changing the agreed upon terms post-fact is what I have an issue with.

Some methods low int creatures can be using to identify spell casters could be as simple as finding the target that looks the easiest to hit, spreading out, and ambushing from multiple angles from the rear. Three goblins won't all just spring out from the bushes in a neat little cluster. They make their living ambushing so that makes no sense. They would try to lure the party into a trap to disable the ones that are harder to hit then come from multiple angles for a quick hit and run dealing as much damage as possible and taking as much treasure as possible. That's how most goblins and kobolds are written to fight at least. Other situations could involve a spellcaster in the opposition who calls out who/where the spell caster is based on the fact that there's a giant book hanging off the hip of the robed one. Maybe it's even more simple than that and the bureaucrat or noble is probably the one not wearing armor and he/she's the rich one. Take that one first. split up and get it. That's very logical thinking even for low int creatures.

Zombies aren't affected by color spray or sleep soo... just grease. And that's only a 10 foot square. Which honestly isn't much. A fighter naturally covers a 15 foot space by virtue of his natural reach (not including reach weapons). He can, without too much work, be better than grease. He is not as versatile as a wizard, I will say that though. But that is a common fact.

The final nail in the coffin for the animal companion is that, it's not all that unique of an ability. A fighter has Handle Animal as a class skill meaning that he can train domesticated animals to do tasks equal to the abilities of the animal companion. In the build presented above, he even has the skill points to put fully in to handle animal!

Barbarians are very good damage dealers. But they lack the battlefield versatility of the fighter. While the Barbarian gets 7 feats through his career (unless he dips something else) the fighter gets 18 feats which he can use to fill a variety of roles. You want to play a fighter who can charge, trip, disarm, and ride a horse well? You have more than enough feats to do it as a fighter. You can pick really one of those roles to be as a barbarian, which is most commonly charging. Even then, the barbarian needs Power attack, Improved Bull Rush, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper to do the most common and simplest charge build. The earliest, without dipping, the barbarian can do that is 9th level, which is commonly too late if everything you're saying is true and means that the cleric is outclassing the barbarian too. To stack even more on that, the barbarian can't do ANYTHING else, even in combat. He's the epitome of a one trick Pony. A fighter, even when he can't charge can usually do something else.

The easiest way for a non-spell casting class (ranger, fighter, barbarian, monk, etc) to deal with swarms is with the Craft (Alchemy) skill to make Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Flame. Not the most effective, but they are mundane, inexpensive items that can be crafted with ease (low DCs) that give the character an option against creatures that they would not normally be able to do anything against.

The fact of the matter is that at level 6+ when the numbers game may be in favor of the Cleric or Druid when it come to hitting and Damage, they lack the feats to pull of the functions of the fighter like charging, tripping, disarming, riding, etc. They will pale in comparison to the combat versatility of the fighter. Their spells are available, but they will have to either cast quickened spells (+4 spell level adjustment, 35,000GP for a lesser rod) and attack, cast a spell but don't attack, or attack and not cast a spell. Due to the fact that the fighter can attack and trip and attack again even at level 2, he is going to be better at fighting, not necessarily damage and not necessarily to hit, but his options all available all the time.

On a foot note, I prefer psychic warriors to be sure, but they do distinctly have a lower HD and BAB and while they have more skills, they don't get the skill points to use them just like the fighter.


As I stated earlier, it's not selfish for the Cleric to buff himself and do melee simply because there's a Fighter in the Group. It is selfish to force the Cleric into a support role simply because the Fighter wants to be doing melee. The Cleric is better at melee than the Fighter, so why shouldn't the Cleric be in melee. Either the Fighter or Cleric player is going to be unhappy, but the rest of the Party will be better off with the Cleric in melee than the Fighter in melee, therefore it's actually more selfish to force the Cleric to support the Fighter. Not to mention that the Fighter forcing the Cleric to play support is like the Cleric forcing the Fighter to play a different class.

I won't argue that it isn't selfish for a player playing a fighter to whine and force a cleric to only buff/support. But I will argue that it is still selfish for a cleric to ONLY buff themselves and the continue to use his/her spells only on themselves. They are using all of their resources to further themselves, not the party. In a team environment, it is important to share. It is a bit presumptuous for me to assume the fighter will be unhappy, but it is also a bit presumptuous to assume that a cleric will want to be a melee combatant. I hear that Cleric Archers are good too :smallwink:

Forcing someone to do something their class excels at is far from forcing someone to change their entire character... but I think I get the point you were trying to make and whether I agree or not, I do understand it.


Except Fighters are only useful in combat. They literally cannot do anything else besides fight, so you should see why it's a problem when they're useless in combat.

We're still talking about whether or not Fighters are good for noobs. And as it is, Fighters are not powerful enough for a new player. A new player will have to deal with the fact that Fighters are hard to build, poorly built Fighters are hard to play, and that their character isn't very good.

Your assessment that Fighters are only useful in combat is actually, false. By virtue of the Handle Animal skill which is a class skill, a fighter can in fact train an animal to seek out and find traps, follow a scent trail, grapple and bring down flying foes, bring back small objects from hidden locations, steal items from nobility (if you're in to that kind of thing). While the class itself may not be able to do those things, the class grants a skill that can be used in a variety of situations, depending on how creative you can get.

I would say that it is the responsibility of the DM to ensure that an adventure or campaign does not become something the fighter can't handle. That either means limiting things to what the fighter can handle on his own, or making sure to equip the fighter with what he/she needs to handle a situation. This, however, is only a statement I make in reference to a new player. If it is an experienced player in question, they need to be capable of thinking for themselves and preparing for a multitude of situations and if they don't have a specific plan in place they need to have the knowledge base to effectively wing it.


Having too many options is bad for a new player, but having too few is even worse. A new player shouldn't be forced into a single option and be unable to do anything but that one option, but that's what happens when you play a Fighter. A noob friendly class should have around 2 or 3 options for what it can do.
My point was that a new Player might not realise the fact that a Fighter can only do one thing until it's too late. The example was simply there to illustrate that new players may not realise this even when it should be obvious.
Actually, yes they will still be new players, they're only had three levels of experience with the game. what's more, many of the Fighter's big problems aren't obvious until around level 5. It's still their first character and they'll be incredibly confused and upset if the character that served them just fine up til now is suddenly sucking. As a result they may come to conclusions that aren't true, they might think the module sucks, they might think that the DM has it out for them, they might think the other classes are over powered, etc.
Also they won't know what to do to rectify the situation, and as such they'll just keep sucking the rest of the campaign.

Having too many options is definitely bad for a player, but having too few is not a problem the fighter has. They have a great number of options in the form of their bonus feats and skills. A fighter can serve in the position of ranger if you're trying to find something by training an animal to track. Does a ranger/druid do this better? Yes, but in the absence of one a fighter can do it. A fighter can use Handle Animal to have a rat scout a room for anything living. That's pretty useful outside of combat. Fetch, that's another good one. Point being, there's still plenty of agency, but no spell lists, spells per day, power points, powers known, maneuvers readied, maneuvers known, essential, incarnum, stances readied, stances known, etc. He/she has feats, which is a concern for everyone but he/she gets more than most and skills which everyone has. Those things are the building blocks for ANY character ever made. Those provide the best basis with which to add more things later. Can some new players handle more, yes. Can all new players handle more? No. You can't rightly disagree with me on the second point because it has been personally experienced and I'm sure everyone on the forum can talk about at least one new player that couldn't even handle a fighter without getting confused. Not realizing that a character is messed up till it's "too late" is easily handled by allowing the player to rework/tweak the character. This is especially true for new players who probably experience this more than older players since they don't know many of the pitfalls and traps. At level 5, a fighter seems like he can still be pretty effective against most CR 5 monsters. I'm not sure what problems the fighter will face until flight among enemies becomes common or incorporeal creatures become common. Under what circumstances would a level 5 fighter against a level appropriate challenge with a party of a cleric, wizard, and rogue be worthless or nearly worthless? most level appropriate challenges seem pretty simple to me. Most things still have legs. Most things can still be charged. Most things can still be tripped. I'm not really seeing a drop in efficacy that the cleric, if it were serving as the fighter, wouldn't also see or that couldn't be remedied by the cleric casting a buff on the better combatant.

[ColorBlindNinja]

To start, this is a big post so I'm cutting it in to quotes and answers to make it easier to read and appear less like a wall of text. Tainted_Scholar, I'm not singling you out, I just had more to say in response to your comments than I did to other people. Just wanted to make sure that you knew that I didn't have a personal vendetta against you or something. Just explaining my views.




I'll try to break it down the best that I can so that I give you the clearest picture of what's going on in my head to hopefully clear any possible miscommunication because I think there may actually be.

For the duration of this example I will be using a Half-Orc Fighter 2 with a 20/12/12/13/8/6 spread. Starting HP 11 minimum HP 13 (if the 2nd HD was a 1), starting armor from the PHB gives Scale Mail. The weapon will determine whether a shield gets used or not. In the case that a shield is used, it will be a heavy wooden shield.

To start, no new player in a group of experienced players will be making their character solely by themselves. Even if they do, it is the responsibility of the DM to review all character sheets to ensure an even playing field to ensure the best possible fun. It is the DM's duty to ask questions if the character above gets presented with 3 Toughness feats and make recommendations from there. There is not an incredible amount of optimization with those abilities and the armor is given by the PHB or by DM, either way medium armor is normal in every situation I've encountered with new players and new games.

Second, I'm trying to maintain a look at classes and class abilities without the effects of WBL because WBL is a guideline, not a hard rule. Some game worlds may only see magic items found in adventuring and if a rouge doesn't find an item of true seeing it should absolutely be the responsibility of the spell casters to assist the party with that spell. WBL is not a class ability of any class except maybe the vassal of bahamut who gets a platinum hoard.

A druid requires 1 full round to summon a greenbound monster, which may be too late. Quicken Spell is not usable on these spells. Additionally, by second level a druid can't get greenbound summoning unless flaws are used which are not a component of the class and are therefore not being taken into consideration in this scenario. A druid's animal companion gets 7 tricks (if it has 2 int) at the start of the game. If the animal doesn't know the trick the druid is trying to make them do, the druid will need to use a move action to push the animal. Training an animal to use it's abilities is one trick by itself. Other tricks that will eat up the animal companion's trick pool. To fight undead you're required to train your animal to attack and attack unusual targets. There's three of your 7 tricks eaten up just to get the AC to attack anything and to get it to use it's special ability. You should also remember that an AC is still an animal and it's likely that most cities wouldn't let a wolf or dire rat in as those are commonly considered pests, nuisances, and vermin and that they will still behave like animals. If they aren't trained to do something or instructed to do it they won't do it (as per the Handle Animal Skill). If you want your AC to stick by you you'll need the heel trick. If you want the animal to come to you, you'll need the come trick. If you want the animal to guard something, you'll need the guard trick. If you want the animal to stay outside while you go into a bar, you'll need the stay trick. That's all 7 tricks. If you want your AC to do anything else, you have to wait. ACs are not PCs and they don't just act on their own like a PC would. They act like an animal of it's kind would.

If the cleric doesn't want to devote his resources to the party, that is the very definition of selfish, which was the original argument I was pointing out when I first made the comment.

Next, I will answer tripping as damage, and bonuses to hit. Using the fighter outlined above you take the feats Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Knock-Down. At level 2, this fighter will have a +7 to hit from strength and BAB alone. A 5 on the die like you suggested would give him a 12 to hit and would miss just about everything. Charging however adds an additional +2 to hit granting a +9 to hit. This would give a d20 roll of 5 a total of 14. Substantially better than the cleric who likely doesn't have a 20 strength and +2 BAB. Now say, for instance, you didn't roll a 5 and managed to succeed at hitting your target, you get to roll your damage which is 2d6+7 Damage. You deal a minimum of 9 damage. If any of your 2d6 is a 2 or better you get 10+ damage. This allows you (through the knock-down feat) a free trip attempt. You still get your +2 charge bonus to hit a melee touch attack. If you successfully do, you trip with a +9 modifier against your opponent's opposed roll. If you succeed, you get a free attack against a prone target (effectively a +4 to hit by virtue of their -4 AC). If you hit, you deal an additional 2d6+7 damage granting a total of 4d6+14 for a minimum of 18 damage, more than enough to kill most challenge appropriate targets in your single action. It is a combination of BFC and damage.

Although charging in difficult terrain doesn't work, for Knock Down to work you don't need to charge. You simply need to deal at least 10 damage on the hit. Charging just makes hitting a little more likely.

In this scenario, the cleric will not be better at fighting and has no claim to the title. If later on the cleric is able to use infinite nightsticks to DMM his way into fightering, the fighter only needs a little buff here and there to be better than the cleric again (large size, maybe a Con or strength bonus, and maybe a natural armor bonus. Mostly the large size).

If another character wants to be a melee combatant, that should be solved at character creation and should be agreed upon. Changing the agreed upon terms post-fact is what I have an issue with.

Some methods low int creatures can be using to identify spell casters could be as simple as finding the target that looks the easiest to hit, spreading out, and ambushing from multiple angles from the rear. Three goblins won't all just spring out from the bushes in a neat little cluster. They make their living ambushing so that makes no sense. They would try to lure the party into a trap to disable the ones that are harder to hit then come from multiple angles for a quick hit and run dealing as much damage as possible and taking as much treasure as possible. That's how most goblins and kobolds are written to fight at least. Other situations could involve a spellcaster in the opposition who calls out who/where the spell caster is based on the fact that there's a giant book hanging off the hip of the robed one. Maybe it's even more simple than that and the bureaucrat or noble is probably the one not wearing armor and he/she's the rich one. Take that one first. split up and get it. That's very logical thinking even for low int creatures.

Zombies aren't affected by color spray or sleep soo... just grease. And that's only a 10 foot square. Which honestly isn't much. A fighter naturally covers a 15 foot space by virtue of his natural reach (not including reach weapons). He can, without too much work, be better than grease. He is not as versatile as a wizard, I will say that though. But that is a common fact.

The final nail in the coffin for the animal companion is that, it's not all that unique of an ability. A fighter has Handle Animal as a class skill meaning that he can train domesticated animals to do tasks equal to the abilities of the animal companion. In the build presented above, he even has the skill points to put fully in to handle animal!

Barbarians are very good damage dealers. But they lack the battlefield versatility of the fighter. While the Barbarian gets 7 feats through his career (unless he dips something else) the fighter gets 18 feats which he can use to fill a variety of roles. You want to play a fighter who can charge, trip, disarm, and ride a horse well? You have more than enough feats to do it as a fighter. You can pick really one of those roles to be as a barbarian, which is most commonly charging. Even then, the barbarian needs Power attack, Improved Bull Rush, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper to do the most common and simplest charge build. The earliest, without dipping, the barbarian can do that is 9th level, which is commonly too late if everything you're saying is true and means that the cleric is outclassing the barbarian too. To stack even more on that, the barbarian can't do ANYTHING else, even in combat. He's the epitome of a one trick Pony. A fighter, even when he can't charge can usually do something else.

The easiest way for a non-spell casting class (ranger, fighter, barbarian, monk, etc) to deal with swarms is with the Craft (Alchemy) skill to make Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Flame. Not the most effective, but they are mundane, inexpensive items that can be crafted with ease (low DCs) that give the character an option against creatures that they would not normally be able to do anything against.

The fact of the matter is that at level 6+ when the numbers game may be in favor of the Cleric or Druid when it come to hitting and Damage, they lack the feats to pull of the functions of the fighter like charging, tripping, disarming, riding, etc. They will pale in comparison to the combat versatility of the fighter. Their spells are available, but they will have to either cast quickened spells (+4 spell level adjustment, 35,000GP for a lesser rod) and attack, cast a spell but don't attack, or attack and not cast a spell. Due to the fact that the fighter can attack and trip and attack again even at level 2, he is going to be better at fighting, not necessarily damage and not necessarily to hit, but his options all available all the time.

On a foot note, I prefer psychic warriors to be sure, but they do distinctly have a lower HD and BAB and while they have more skills, they don't get the skill points to use them just like the fighter.



I won't argue that it isn't selfish for a player playing a fighter to whine and force a cleric to only buff/support. But I will argue that it is still selfish for a cleric to ONLY buff themselves and the continue to use his/her spells only on themselves. They are using all of their resources to further themselves, not the party. In a team environment, it is important to share. It is a bit presumptuous for me to assume the fighter will be unhappy, but it is also a bit presumptuous to assume that a cleric will want to be a melee combatant. I hear that Cleric Archers are good too :smallwink:

Forcing someone to do something their class excels at is far from forcing someone to change their entire character... but I think I get the point you were trying to make and whether I agree or not, I do understand it.



Your assessment that Fighters are only useful in combat is actually, false. By virtue of the Handle Animal skill which is a class skill, a fighter can in fact train an animal to seek out and find traps, follow a scent trail, grapple and bring down flying foes, bring back small objects from hidden locations, steal items from nobility (if you're in to that kind of thing). While the class itself may not be able to do those things, the class grants a skill that can be used in a variety of situations, depending on how creative you can get.

I would say that it is the responsibility of the DM to ensure that an adventure or campaign does not become something the fighter can't handle. That either means limiting things to what the fighter can handle on his own, or making sure to equip the fighter with what he/she needs to handle a situation. This, however, is only a statement I make in reference to a new player. If it is an experienced player in question, they need to be capable of thinking for themselves and preparing for a multitude of situations and if they don't have a specific plan in place they need to have the knowledge base to effectively wing it.



Having too many options is definitely bad for a player, but having too few is not a problem the fighter has. They have a great number of options in the form of their bonus feats and skills. A fighter can serve in the position of ranger if you're trying to find something by training an animal to track. Does a ranger/druid do this better? Yes, but in the absence of one a fighter can do it. A fighter can use Handle Animal to have a rat scout a room for anything living. That's pretty useful outside of combat. Fetch, that's another good one. Point being, there's still plenty of agency, but no spell lists, spells per day, power points, powers known, maneuvers readied, maneuvers known, essential, incarnum, stances readied, stances known, etc. He/she has feats, which is a concern for everyone but he/she gets more than most and skills which everyone has. Those things are the building blocks for ANY character ever made. Those provide the best basis with which to add more things later. Can some new players handle more, yes. Can all new players handle more? No. You can't rightly disagree with me on the second point because it has been personally experienced and I'm sure everyone on the forum can talk about at least one new player that couldn't even handle a fighter without getting confused. Not realizing that a character is messed up till it's "too late" is easily handled by allowing the player to rework/tweak the character. This is especially true for new players who probably experience this more than older players since they don't know many of the pitfalls and traps. At level 5, a fighter seems like he can still be pretty effective against most CR 5 monsters. I'm not sure what problems the fighter will face until flight among enemies becomes common or incorporeal creatures become common. Under what circumstances would a level 5 fighter against a level appropriate challenge with a party of a cleric, wizard, and rogue be worthless or nearly worthless? most level appropriate challenges seem pretty simple to me. Most things still have legs. Most things can still be charged. Most things can still be tripped. I'm not really seeing a drop in efficacy that the cleric, if it were serving as the fighter, wouldn't also see or that couldn't be remedied by the cleric casting a buff on the better combatant.

I'm on my phone right now, I'll respond to your post in full later.

[Tainted_Scholar]

@AnimeTheCat, thank you for the answers you gave me. I had forgotten about the Fighter's handle animal skill truth be told.

[Psyren]

Yes, but just because they know it focuses on combat doesn't mean they'll realise that it can only do combat. And a class that traps new players into something they don't like isn't noob friendly.

But it's obvious they can't do certain things, like magic. Similarly, it's intuitive that the guy in plate mail won't be a good sneak. So I just don't think it's as big a "gotcha" as you seem to think.



No it is not a win-win, because the new player will not enjoy playing as the Fighter.

You keep asserting this with no evidence. People clearly enjoy playing Fighters (whether initially or long-term) or they would have been removed from core years ago. All you can actually say is that YOU won't enjoy playing a Fighter, but you can only speak for yourself.



...I'm not even sure how to respond. It's like, you're strawmanning your own argument. Like, if you said that Fighters can beat Dragons, and then I strawmanned that into "level 100 Fighter can beat a Dragon." I am honestly just confused by this part, what else is there to say other than, your Fighter isn't going to be fighting monsters that are 80 levels below his CR. I kinda thought that went without saying though.

The Dragons in Red Hand of Doom are CR appropriate, and since the Fighter is the only front line combatant in a standard party he's going to get his ass kicked.

You missed the point of my analogy, which was to point out that merely saying fighters will have a hard time with dragons without discussing their relative CRs and opimization levels is meaningless. And yes, optimization matters for the monsters too - none of the ones in the module are particularly optimized, just like how the printed great wyrms in Draconomicon spend their epic feats to slightly bump an already strong saving throw.

So no, simply declaring that he'll "get his ass kicked" without any specifics is a non-starter.

[Tainted_Scholar]

But it's obvious they can't do certain things, like magic. Similarly, it's intuitive that the guy in plate mail won't be a good sneak. So I just don't think it's as big a "gotcha" as you seem to think.

Dear gods how do you keep forgetting what we're talking about? I was talking about how it's not obvious to new players that the Fighter can't function outside of combat. Yet you jump to magic and stealth. Maybe I was wrong maybe you didn't forget the subject, maybe you're just strawmanning, again.

Fortunately for you, another poster mentioned that the Fighter can train animals so they do have something that they can do outside of combat. However this doesn't change the fact that your arguments have been terrible.



You keep asserting this with no evidence. People clearly enjoy playing Fighters (whether initially or long-term) or they would have been removed from core years ago. All you can actually say is that YOU won't enjoy playing a Fighter, but you can only speak for yourself.

Again, will you stop forgetting the topic? We're talking about how people who like to do things outside of combat will dislike the Fighters. It was made a non-issue by the fact that they can train Animals, but it doesn't excuse your crappy debating.



You missed the point of my analogy, which was to point out that merely saying fighters will have a hard time with dragons without discussing their relative CRs and opimization levels is meaningless. And yes, optimization matters for the monsters too - none of the ones in the module are particularly optimized, just like how the printed great wyrms in Draconomicon spend their epic feats to slightly bump an already strong saving throw.

Your analogy was just confusing, especially since most would probably assume that the Dragons are CR appropriate. Also, you're forgetting that the Fighter is also poorly optimized.

Dragons are tough for their CR, and a poorly built Fighter isn't going to survive in melee against one.

[Hackulator]

Have you been completely ignoring the conversation up til now? Because otherwise you would know that I was talking about people who like to do things outside of combat, which the Fighter cannot do.

You conflate everything with power level. A fighter can do all sorts of things out of combat, and often being bad at them can be just as entertaining, or more so, as being good at them.

[Psyren]

Dear gods how do you keep forgetting what we're talking about? I was talking about how it's not obvious to new players that the Fighter can't function outside of combat. Yet you jump to magic and stealth. Maybe I was wrong maybe you didn't forget the subject, maybe you're just strawmanning, again.

Fortunately for you, another poster mentioned that the Fighter can train animals so they do have something that they can do outside of combat. However this doesn't change the fact that your arguments have been terrible.

I'm not jumping anywhere. Aside from magic and skill usage, what exactly did you have in mind for "out of combat?"



Again, will you stop forgetting the topic? We're talking about how people who like to do things outside of combat will dislike the Fighters. It was made a non-issue by the fact that they can train Animals, but it doesn't excuse your crappy debating.

I'm not forgetting the topic. "Fighters are meant for fighting" seems a pretty basic assumption to people who know the English language.



Your analogy was just confusing, especially since most would probably assume that the Dragons are CR appropriate. Also, you're forgetting that the Fighter is also poorly optimized.

Dragons are tough for their CR, and a poorly built Fighter isn't going to survive in melee against one.

If the Dragons in Draconomicon are any indication, the ones in the module will be poorly-built too (by the stated standards.) So the Fighter will be fine.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If the Dragons in Draconomicon are any indication, the ones in the module will be poorly-built too (by the stated standards.) So the Fighter will be fine.

I doubt this, I'll crunch some numbers later, but I suspect the Fighter is screwed.

[Bakkan]

You conflate everything with power level. A fighter can do all sorts of things out of combat, and often being bad at them can be just as entertaining, or more so, as being good at them.

Anyone can be bad at things. The problem is when a player wants to be competent at things and their class doesn't allow them to be.

[Lans]

Fun fact- The reason the barbarian has a higher HD and skills than the fighter is that it wasn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The barbarians and alot of other classes then got buffed between 3.0 and 3.5, guess who didn't?

[AnimeTheCat]

Fun fact- The reason the barbarian has a higher HD and skills than the fighter is that it wasn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The barbarians and alot of other classes then got buffed between 3.0 and 3.5, guess who didn't?

Fighters, to answer your question. But I did assess that when I responded to ColorBlindNinja who's currently on her phone.

A fighter gets 18 feats from level 1 to level 20 where a fighter gets 7 (8 if they are granted a feat from race). This allows the fighter to fight in more ways than a barbarian. A fighter has enough feats to be competent in many different fighting styles where the barbarian must pick one style and stick with it otherwise they will no longer be competent in that style of fighting.

[Psyren]

I doubt this, I'll crunch some numbers later, but I suspect the Fighter is screwed.

I'm searching online for "My Fighter can't complete Red Hand of Doom" and "My Fighter is dragging down my Red Hand of Doom party" and coming up empty.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You conflate everything with power level. A fighter can do all sorts of things out of combat, and often being bad at them can be just as entertaining, or more so, as being good at them.

No, I do not conflate everything with power level, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asserting things about me. Also, most people don't enjoy failure, it can be frustrating if your character can't do anything outside of combat well.


I'm not jumping anywhere. Aside from magic and skill usage, what exactly did you have in mind for "out of combat?"

Tracking, scouting, social interactions, that kind of stuff. I'm surprised you didn't realise that. As it stands the Fighter can train animals to do things for him, so he's not completely useless outside of combat.


I'm not forgetting the topic. "Fighters are meant for fighting" seems a pretty basic assumption to people who know the English language.

...Sigh, Did you forget the part where I said that, New Players might not realise that Fighters can't do anything but fight. You are forgetting the subject, you're doing it right now. A New Player will realise that Fighters are meant for fighting but may not realise that they can't do anything else.

Again, this was made a non-issue by the animal training, but you're debating is still bad.


If the Dragons in Draconomicon are any indication, the ones in the module will be poorly-built too (by the stated standards.) So the Fighter will be fine.

No, he won't because the Fighter will be poorly built too.

The first Dragon they fight is at level 5ish, it's a Young Green Dragon with over a hundred HP, an AC of 23, and a +14 on it's bite. That thing is going to slaughter a Sword and Board Fighter in melee.

[Psyren]

Tracking, scouting, social interactions, that kind of stuff. I'm surprised you didn't realise that. As it stands the Fighter can train animals to do things for him, so he's not completely useless outside of combat.

You expected to track and scout in plate? That's on you.
EDIT: The PHB lists both those words under the Ranger's entry, not the Fighter.

Intimidate is a social skill.



...Sigh, Did you forget the part where I said that, New Players might not realise that Fighters can't do anything but fight.

I didn't forget, I just don't agree with your assumption.



No, he won't because the Fighter will be poorly built too.

The first Dragon they fight is at level 5ish, it's a Young Green Dragon with over a hundred HP, an AC of 23, and a +14 on it's bite. That thing is going to slaughter a Sword and Board Fighter in melee.

Is the Fighter naked and alone? Is the objective 1:1 arena battle to the death in a featureless low-ceiling chamber?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Is the Fighter naked and alone? Is the objective 1:1 arena battle to the death in a featureless low-ceiling chamber?

That dragon is on a bridge, if I recall correctly.

[Psyren]

That dragon is on a bridge, if I recall correctly.

That sounds like an encounter I'd need to read the specifics of myself.

[AnimeTheCat]

The first Dragon they fight is at level 5ish, it's a Young Green Dragon with over a hundred HP, an AC of 23, and a +14 on it's bite. That thing is going to slaughter a Sword and Board Fighter in melee.

Is that dragon unique/written in to RHoD? The one on the SRD has less than 100 HP (93), 20 AC, and a +14 on the bite which is powerful, yes, but against a 4 person party, hardly a threat.

A sword and shield fighter focusing on increasing his/her AC as much as possible could have an AC of 22 (if they took shield specialization/shield ward which is typical for a sword/shield focused fighter) and had full plate which is likely at level 5. If they got their hands on a magic shield or plate at any point that would be higher. The dragon has a 60% chance of hitting, true, but that's a lower chance than hitting the barbarian, bard, wizard, or cleric most likely. If the fighter is having trouble in AC land, those classes are likely having trouble too. Additionally, if the dragon didn't see the fighter as a threat, they could easily bypass them and go for the wizard. If the fighter took Stand Still (which would make sense for a sword/shield fighter) it's possible that the dragon didn't even bypass him/her.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You expected to track and scout in plate? That's on you.

Those were examples, something like that.


Is the Fighter naked and alone? Is the objective 1:1 arena battle to the death in a featureless low-ceiling chamber?

https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/18002/wide_article/width1356x668/3q3bvxxf-1353902236.jpg

The Fighter is going to be the main melee combatant, which means he'll be getting up in the Dragons face. And no, there isn't a low hanging ceiling, which mean the Dragon can just circle strafe and use his breath weapon, which does 6d6 I might add.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Is that dragon unique/written in to RHoD? The one on the SRD has less than 100 HP (93), 20 AC, and a +14 on the bite which is powerful, yes, but against a 4 person party, hardly a threat.

A sword and shield fighter focusing on increasing his/her AC as much as possible could have an AC of 22 (if they took shield specialization/shield ward which is typical for a sword/shield focused fighter) and had full plate which is likely at level 5. If they got their hands on a magic shield or plate at any point that would be higher. The dragon has a 60% chance of hitting, true, but that's a lower chance than hitting the barbarian, bard, wizard, or cleric most likely. If the fighter is having trouble in AC land, those classes are likely having trouble too. Additionally, if the dragon didn't see the fighter as a threat, they could easily bypass them and go for the wizard. If the fighter took Stand Still (which would make sense for a sword/shield fighter) it's possible that the dragon didn't even bypass him/her.

What if the dragon flies over him and blasts him with chlorine gas?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Is that dragon unique/written in to RHoD? The one on the SRD has less than 100 HP (93), 20 AC, and a +14 on the bite which is powerful, yes, but against a 4 person party, hardly a threat.

I got those numbers straight out of the module.

[Psyren]

Those were examples, something like that.

See PHB references above. Fighter entry says nothing about tracking and scouting, while Ranger and Rogue do.




The Fighter is going to be the main melee combatant, which means he'll be getting up in the Dragons face. And no, there isn't a low hanging ceiling, which mean the Dragon can just circle strafe and use his breath weapon, which does 6d6 I might add.

So when it takes off to strafe, they cross the bridge and leave, problem solved. I assume that's why the dragon is there, so it can be dumb if it wants to be, sure.

[AnimeTheCat]

What if the dragon flies over him and blasts him with chlorine gas?

I believe it's in PHB2 (can't access anything but SRD ATM) that allows you to add your Shield Bonus to your Reflex save and I also believe it's a fighter bonus feat, but don't quote me on that. Also, if it's not you still get 2 non-fighter bonus feats by level 5 so you can probably still fit it in. Maybe it's called shield evasion? I can't remember...


I got those numbers straight out of the module.

Ah, gotcha. No argument from me other than it's still not too much for a well made fighter to take for the few rounds it will take for everyone to work together to subdue the threat. He will fill his role of getting in the mix and stopping/being a nuisance for the dragon to get past before he gets to the wizard.

As a medium creature, tripping is still a possibility. The dragon doesn't have that great a strength bonus over the fighter (if any at all) so the trip may still happen. Throw an enlarge person on the fighter and he can definitely take care of the problem.

A different fighter build that could take care of the problem would also be a grappling build. You can still carry a shield, taking shield ward, shield focus, combat expertise so you still fit the "sword and shield" build, but you also take improved unarmed strike and Improved Grapple. This doesn't let you pick up the shield bonus to reflex saves, but if you get enlarge person on you, with a good strength (the 20/12/12/13/8/6 Half Orc for instance) You'll match the grapple of the dragon. +6 strength bonus (Str 22 because enlarge person), +4 (Improved Grapple), +4 (Large Size Bonus) gets you a +14. All you have to do is succeed once to give your party the time to do the rest of the work.

Also, the fighter isn't the only one that an intelligent creature would try to roast/melt(?) with it's breath weapon. It would likely do that to others as well so that's not just a fighter problem.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So when it takes off to strafe, they cross the bridge and leave, problem solved. I assume that's why the dragon is there, so it can be dumb if it wants to be, sure.

1. The PCs are supposed to destroy the bridge, not cross it.

2. The dragon nukes them with chlorine gas for 6d6 damage; on average that's 21 damage.

[OldTrees1]

Question: Why are we talking about newb friendly at Dragon Strafing levels (both CR and optimization level)? Surely everyone here will agree that 1st level (ex: Barbarian 1) is more newb friendly than higher level(ex: Barbarian 11) right?


So is Fighter at 1st level newb friendly (not claiming it is the ideal 1st class)? I would say yes, but not as newb friendly as other options.

Fighter gets some spammable abilities that it can learn to use one at a time. (Pro)
Fighter does not get an limited used abilities to learn about. (Con due to incomplete tutorial)
At low level merely having numbers can be a great strength in and out of combat. (Pro, low level is more newb friendly by default)
Can Fighter do stuff out of combat at low levels, yes. Lots of stuff out of combat at low level is more about player engagement than raw stats. (Pro)

[Tainted_Scholar]

See PHB references above. Fighter entry says nothing about tracking and scouting, while Ranger and Rogue do.

Do you not know what examples mean?


So when it takes off to strafe, they cross the bridge and leave, problem solved. I assume that's why the dragon is there, so it can be dumb if it wants to be, sure.

I'm not sure if this is a Strawman or you just didn't think this through. The Dragon can still attack the party while they're crossing the bridge, and their job is to destroy the bridge not cross it. Also there are hobgoblin archers who will be shooting at them.

[Doug Lampert]

Fun fact- The reason the barbarian has a higher HD and skills than the fighter is that it wasn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The barbarians and alot of other classes then got buffed between 3.0 and 3.5, guess who didn't?

Nonsense! Fighters got the MASSIVE buff of having Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization available!

What more could they want. If fighters wanted actual meaningful class features they'd be Rangers or Paladins or Barbarians instead.


See PHB references above. Fighter entry says nothing about tracking and scouting, while Ranger and Rogue do.

Fighter entry says a lot of things other than "This guy just fights."

I don't have my PHB handy to look up the fluff, but IIRC He's supposed to be used for a skilled professional soldier or guard officer. No Spot, Listen, or Sense Motive for you.

He's supposed to be a noble leader, no knowledge history or nobility and royalty for you.

He's supposed to be a leader of men, no diplomacy or other social skills, no charisma focus.

Tactician, no ability that would reflect this.

If you're going to reference the PHB description and fluff, and are arguing that "scout and sneak" aren't on there, then why not look for what is there, because the fluff is NOT just "this guy does nothing but fight", its got a bunch of stuff he's crap at compared to a bard (for example).

[Tainted_Scholar]

So is Fighter at 1st level newb friendly (not claiming it is the ideal 1st class)? I would say yes, but not as newb friendly as other options.

Fighter gets some spammable abilities that it can learn to use one at a time. (Pro)
Fighter does not get an limited used abilities to learn about. (Con due to incomplete tutorial)
At low level merely having numbers can be a great strength in and out of combat. (Pro, low level is more newb friendly by default)
Can Fighter do stuff out of combat at low levels, yes. Lots of stuff out of combat at low level is more about player engagement than raw stats. (Pro)

Okay, I will concede that at level 1-3 the Fighter isn't unfriendly to new players. However I maintain that the Fighter stops being friendly to new players past this point.

[Psyren]

Do you not know what examples mean?

Use better examples then?



I'm not sure if this is a Strawman or you just didn't think this through. The Dragon can still attack the party while they're crossing the bridge, and their job is to destroy the bridge not cross it. Also there are hobgoblin archers who will be shooting at them.

You've cherry-picked the dragon without saying a word about the equipment/treasure available to the party during the module. I'll read it myself and judge how difficult it was intended to be.



I don't have my PHB handy to look up the fluff...

Then you're in luck, because I do.

Blurb - "Fighter: A warrior with exceptional combat capability and unequaled skill with weapons."

Fluff - "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king’s champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king— all are fighters. Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers. Some are among the land’s best souls, willing to face death for the greater good. Others are among the worst, with no qualms about killing for private gain, or even for sport. Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers. An adventuring fighter might call himself a warrior, a mercenary, a thug, or simply an adventurer."

Fighter can do all that, and new players presumably can read.

[OldTrees1]

Okay, I will concede that at level 1-3 the Fighter isn't unfriendly to new players. However I maintain that the Fighter stops being friendly to new players past this point.

So the current argument is merely the result of each side becoming more and more hyperbolic over a miscommunication? Well that is giantitp for you.

[Psyren]

So the current argument is merely the result of each side becoming more and more hyperbolic over a miscommunication? Well that is giantitp for you.

He would have never conceded that to me. Just shifted the goalposts to a new module and posted more images of straw.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Use better examples then?

I find that rich coming from you.


You've cherry-picked the dragon without saying a word about the equipment/treasure available to the party during the module. I'll read it myself and judge how difficult it was intended to be.

You get a +1 Frost Bastard Sword before the encounter but not much else.


So the current argument is merely the result of each side becoming more and more hyperbolic over a miscommunication? Well that is giantitp for you.

This thread has definitively gotten out of hand.

[OldTrees1]

He would have never conceded that to me. Just shifted the goalposts to a new module and posted more images of straw.

Well you have your concession now.

If you see me as having some magical power, I assure you it is a mundane skill.

[Tainted_Scholar]

He would have never conceded that to me. Just shifted the goalposts to a new module and posted more images of straw.

I would have been more than willing to concede to you if your arguments were good, hell I did concede to you earlier. I also wouldn't post pictures of straw if you didn't make so many Strawmen.

[Psyren]

Well you have your concession now.

The goalposts were already moved, but for what it's worth, thank you for trying.



You get a +1 Frost Bastard Sword before the encounter but not much else.

If this module was as unforgiving to Fighters as you seem to think it is, there would be some evidence of it, it's quite popular. So I'm not going to put much stock in these one-off reports until I can read it myself.


This thread has definitively gotten out of hand.

We agree on something at least.

[AnimeTheCat]

OOH brief research has turned up that a dragons breath weapon won't have any effect on a fighter using a tower shield as full cover. Tower shield proficiency is a proficiency unique to Fighters (in SRD at least) which means any other class would need a feat to use one proficiently. That full cover granted by the Tower shield also means that no target behind him has line of effect either. A Fighter with a tower shield could actually navigate an encounter like that fairly well.

EDIT:
Whoops, there I go propagating a thread that's been pronounced too far. Maybe, to further discuss scenarios in modules where people feel a fighter would do well/poorly a new thread could be started? Or is there a consensus that the topic is done?

[Tainted_Scholar]

The goalposts were already moved, but for what it's worth, thank you for trying.

We already discussed the moving of the goalposts, not to mention that you've also shifted them.


If this module was as unforgiving to Fighters as you seem to think it is, there would be some evidence of it, it's quite popular. So I'm not going to put much stock in these one-off reports until I can read it myself.

Nice to know that you're just going to ignore my argument.

[OldTrees1]

The goalposts were already moved, but for what it's worth, thank you for trying.

So? Why do you care about those goalposts rather than the issue you wanted to resolve? Unless you also are moving your goalposts? If both of you are moving your goalposts further away from the issue in question, then neither of you will ever be happy. Why not accept with a smile the agreement on the issue in question.

[Tainted_Scholar]

OOH brief research has turned up that a dragons breath weapon won't have any effect on a fighter using a tower shield as full cover. Tower shield proficiency is a proficiency unique to Fighters (in SRD at least) which means any other class would need a feat to use one proficiently. That full cover granted by the Tower shield also means that no target behind him has line of effect either. A Fighter with a tower shield could actually navigate an encounter like that fairly well.

Out of curiosity, do people use tower shields that often? I've never seen them used outside of some neat tricks.

[OldTrees1]

Out of curiosity, do people use tower shields that often? I've never seen them used outside of some neat tricks.

If using a shield, a tower shield is a decent choice. It only penalizes your attack bonus and martials have too high of an attack bonus.

However if you don't like Tower Shield, Tower Shield proficiency also grants Extreme Shield proficiency (+1AC over Heavy Shield, -1 AC & +2 Attack over Tower Shield)

[ColorBlindNinja]

To start, this is a big post so I'm cutting it in to quotes and answers to make it easier to read and appear less like a wall of text. Tainted_Scholar, I'm not singling you out, I just had more to say in response to your comments than I did to other people. Just wanted to make sure that you knew that I didn't have a personal vendetta against you or something. Just explaining my views.

I'll try to break it down the best that I can so that I give you the clearest picture of what's going on in my head to hopefully clear any possible miscommunication because I think there may actually be.

OK, I'm ready to respond to this.


For the duration of this example I will be using a Half-Orc Fighter 2 with a 20/12/12/13/8/6 spread. Starting HP 11 minimum HP 13 (if the 2nd HD was a 1), starting armor from the PHB gives Scale Mail. The weapon will determine whether a shield gets used or not. In the case that a shield is used, it will be a heavy wooden shield.

OK.


To start, no new player in a group of experienced players will be making their character solely by themselves. Even if they do, it is the responsibility of the DM to review all character sheets to ensure an even playing field to ensure the best possible fun. It is the DM's duty to ask questions if the character above gets presented with 3 Toughness feats and make recommendations from there. There is not an incredible amount of optimization with those abilities and the armor is given by the PHB or by DM, either way medium armor is normal in every situation I've encountered with new players and new games.

This assumes that anyone in the group knows what they're doing, and if they are experienced, that they understand how to build Fighters.

That might not always be the case.


Second, I'm trying to maintain a look at classes and class abilities without the effects of WBL because WBL is a guideline, not a hard rule. Some game worlds may only see magic items found in adventuring and if a rouge doesn't find an item of true seeing it should absolutely be the responsibility of the spell casters to assist the party with that spell. WBL is not a class ability of any class except maybe the vassal of bahamut who gets a platinum hoard.

The game is designed with WBL in mind, without magic items, Fighters and other martial characters are going to fall behind fast.


A druid requires 1 full round to summon a greenbound monster, which may be too late.

I seriously doubt that.


Quicken Spell is not usable on these spells.

I wasn't talking about summoning when I mentioned Quicken, Rapid spell does work on Summon Nature's Ally, and is quite useful as a result.


Additionally, by second level a druid can't get greenbound summoning unless flaws are used which are not a component of the class and are therefore not being taken into consideration in this scenario.

Why not? Flaws are part of the system, and are commonly used, as far as I know.


A druid's animal companion gets 7 tricks (if it has 2 int) at the start of the game. If the animal doesn't know the trick the druid is trying to make them do, the druid will need to use a move action to push the animal. Training an animal to use it's abilities is one trick by itself. Other tricks that will eat up the animal companion's trick pool. To fight undead you're required to train your animal to attack and attack unusual targets. There's three of your 7 tricks eaten up just to get the AC to attack anything and to get it to use it's special ability.

OK, but why does that matter? Attacking is mostly what I want the AC to do, and the Druid can order it as free action and she gets bonuses to the skill check.


You should also remember that an AC is still an animal and it's likely that most cities wouldn't let a wolf or dire rat in as those are commonly considered pests, nuisances, and vermin and that they will still behave like animals.

Except the AC I was taking about is a Riding Dog.


If they aren't trained to do something or instructed to do it they won't do it (as per the Handle Animal Skill). If you want your AC to stick by you you'll need the heel trick.

Heel is only really necessary if you want the AC to go where it wouldn't otherwise. Besides, you get a lot of tricks, why does it matter?


If you want the animal to come to you, you'll need the come trick. If you want the animal to guard something, you'll need the guard trick. If you want the animal to stay outside while you go into a bar, you'll need the stay trick. That's all 7 tricks. If you want your AC to do anything else, you have to wait. ACs are not PCs and they don't just act on their own like a PC would. They act like an animal of it's kind would.

Guarding doesn't seem necessary.


If the cleric doesn't want to devote his resources to the party, that is the very definition of selfish, which was the original argument I was pointing out when I first made the comment.

And it's not selfish for the party to have multiple spell slots from the Cleric?


Next, I will answer tripping as damage, and bonuses to hit. Using the fighter outlined above you take the feats Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Knock-Down. At level 2, this fighter will have a +7 to hit from strength and BAB alone. A 5 on the die like you suggested would give him a 12 to hit and would miss just about everything. Charging however adds an additional +2 to hit granting a +9 to hit. This would give a d20 roll of 5 a total of 14.

OK, but you won't always be able to charge.


Substantially better than the cleric who likely doesn't have a 20 strength and +2 BAB. Now say, for instance, you didn't roll a 5 and managed to succeed at hitting your target, you get to roll your damage which is 2d6+7 Damage. You deal a minimum of 9 damage. If any of your 2d6 is a 2 or better you get 10+ damage. This allows you (through the knock-down feat) a free trip attempt. You still get your +2 charge bonus to hit a melee touch attack. If you successfully do, you trip with a +9 modifier against your opponent's opposed roll. If you succeed, you get a free attack against a prone target (effectively a +4 to hit by virtue of their -4 AC). If you hit, you deal an additional 2d6+7 damage granting a total of 4d6+14 for a minimum of 18 damage, more than enough to kill most challenge appropriate targets in your single action. It is a combination of BFC and damage.

Thanks for explaining that.


Although charging in difficult terrain doesn't work, for Knock Down to work you don't need to charge. You simply need to deal at least 10 damage on the hit. Charging just makes hitting a little more likely.

If you're taking charging feats, you damage output will suffer if you don't charge.


In this scenario, the cleric will not be better at fighting and has no claim to the title. If later on the cleric is able to use infinite nightsticks to DMM his way into fightering, the fighter only needs a little buff here and there to be better than the cleric again (large size, maybe a Con or strength bonus, and maybe a natural armor bonus. Mostly the large size).

1. What if the campaign didn't start at level 1?

2. Where is the Fighter getting those boosts from?


If another character wants to be a melee combatant, that should be solved at character creation and should be agreed upon. Changing the agreed upon terms post-fact is what I have an issue with.

I mostly agree, but should this be the case even if the Cleric now does a better job than the Fighter?


Some methods low int creatures can be using to identify spell casters could be as simple as finding the target that looks the easiest to hit,

- What guarantee is there that's the spellcaster?

- Also, wouldn't low INT creatures just attack whoever's closest?


spreading out, and ambushing from multiple angles from the rear. Three goblins won't all just spring out from the bushes in a neat little cluster.vThey make their living ambushing so that makes no sense.

What if neither side gets a surprise round?


They would try to lure the party into a trap to disable the ones that are harder to hit then come from multiple angles for a quick hit and run dealing as much damage as possible and taking as much treasure as possible. That's how most goblins and kobolds are written to fight at least.

OK.


Other situations could involve a spellcaster in the opposition who calls out who/where the spell caster is based on the fact that there's a giant book hanging off the hip of the robed one.

1. No Wizard worth her INT score is going to have her Spellbook visible.

2. What if the Wizard isn't dressed in robes?


Maybe it's even more simple than that and the bureaucrat or noble is probably the one not wearing armor and he/she's the rich one. Take that one first. split up and get it. That's very logical thinking even for low int creatures.

No, it isn't. Armor is expensive, and aristocrats are proficient with all types of armor.


Zombies aren't affected by color spray or sleep soo... just grease. And that's only a 10 foot square. Which honestly isn't much.

It's likely enough to hit one or two Zombies, that's still helpful.

Not that Zombies are that dangerous, just move away from them and shoot; they can't hurt you if they don't have reach.


A fighter naturally covers a 15 foot space by virtue of his natural reach (not including reach weapons).

How?


He can, without too much work, be better than grease. He is not as versatile as a wizard, I will say that though. But that is a common fact.

Grease is one spell, that's still very useful, as it lasts for several rounds, while the Wizard can use other spells.


The final nail in the coffin for the animal companion is that, it's not all that unique of an ability. A fighter has Handle Animal as a class skill meaning that he can train domesticated animals to do tasks equal to the abilities of the animal companion. In the build presented above, he even has the skill points to put fully in to handle animal!

1. The Druid automatically has an Animal Companion, and has Handle Animal, she can get more animal friends too.

2. CHA and INT are dump stats for Fighters (especially Half-Orcs).

3. There's no guarantee that any other animal will show up in the campaign, while the Druid gets her's for free.


Barbarians are very good damage dealers. But they lack the battlefield versatility of the fighter.

Barbarians can trip, it just takes them longer to get the feats. They're also better at charging.


While the Barbarian gets 7 feats through his career (unless he dips something else) the fighter gets 18 feats which he can use to fill a variety of roles. You want to play a fighter who can charge, trip, disarm, and ride a horse well? You have more than enough feats to do it as a fighter.

Do you need to do all of that? Plus, riding a horse can be accomplished by taking ranks in Ride (skill points that Fighters often lack).


You can pick really one of those roles to be as a barbarian, which is most commonly charging. Even then, the barbarian needs Power attack, Improved Bull Rush, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper to do the most common and simplest charge build. The earliest, without dipping, the barbarian can do that is 9th level, which is commonly too late if everything you're saying is true and means that the cleric is outclassing the barbarian too. To stack even more on that, the barbarian can't do ANYTHING else, even in combat. He's the epitome of a one trick Pony. A fighter, even when he can't charge can usually do something else.

Except Barbarians have more skill points, and have Trap Sense.


The easiest way for a non-spell casting class (ranger, fighter, barbarian, monk, etc) to deal with swarms is with the Craft (Alchemy) skill to make Acid Flasks and Alchemist's Flame.

That skill is only available to spellcasters.


Not the most effective, but they are mundane, inexpensive items that can be crafted with ease (low DCs) that give the character an option against creatures that they would not normally be able to do anything against.

They are expensive, since they can't craft them.


The fact of the matter is that at level 6+ when the numbers game may be in favor of the Cleric or Druid when it come to hitting and Damage, they lack the feats to pull of the functions of the fighter like charging, tripping, disarming, riding, etc.

They don't need them.


They will pale in comparison to the combat versatility of the fighter.

:smallconfused: What?


Their spells are available, but they will have to either cast quickened spells (+4 spell level adjustment, 35,000GP for a lesser rod) and attack, cast a spell but don't attack, or attack and not cast a spell.

1. Clerics can take Divine Quicken.

2. They can use spells outside of combat.

3. Quicken may have a +4, but they can still cast and bash in the same round.


Due to the fact that the fighter can attack and trip and attack again even at level 2, he is going to be better at fighting, not necessarily damage and not necessarily to hit, but his options all available all the time.

The Fighter has one viable tactic, and is screwed when it doesn't work.


On a foot note, I prefer psychic warriors to be sure, but they do distinctly have a lower HD and BAB and while they have more skills, they don't get the skill points to use them just like the fighter.

They get powers, that's better than handful of extra feats Fighters get compared to the Psychic Warrior.


I believe it's in PHB2 (can't access anything but SRD ATM) that allows you to add your Shield Bonus to your Reflex save and I also believe it's a fighter bonus feat, but don't quote me on that. Also, if it's not you still get 2 non-fighter bonus feats by level 5 so you can probably still fit it in. Maybe it's called shield evasion? I can't remember...

You're going to waste feats on something like that?


Ah, gotcha. No argument from me other than it's still not too much for a well made fighter to take for the few rounds it will take for everyone to work together to subdue the threat. He will fill his role of getting in the mix and stopping/being a nuisance for the dragon to get past before he gets to the wizard.

The dragon flies over their heads and blasts them. The Fighter failed to protect his teammates.


As a medium creature, tripping is still a possibility. The dragon doesn't have that great a strength bonus over the fighter (if any at all) so the trip may still happen. Throw an enlarge person on the fighter and he can definitely take care of the problem.

Not if it's flying.


A different fighter build that could take care of the problem would also be a grappling build. You can still carry a shield, taking shield ward, shield focus, combat expertise so you still fit the "sword and shield" build, but you also take improved unarmed strike and Improved Grapple. This doesn't let you pick up the shield bonus to reflex saves, but if you get enlarge person on you, with a good strength (the 20/12/12/13/8/6 Half Orc for instance) You'll match the grapple of the dragon. +6 strength bonus (Str 22 because enlarge person), +4 (Improved Grapple), +4 (Large Size Bonus) gets you a +14. All you have to do is succeed once to give your party the time to do the rest of the work.

Again, that won't work if the dragon's in the air.


Also, the fighter isn't the only one that an intelligent creature would try to roast/melt(?) with it's breath weapon. It would likely do that to others as well so that's not just a fighter problem.

The Fighter has an awful reflex save, other classes likely have higher DEX, and spellcasters may have spells to protect themselves.

But other than that, yes, everyone in a low Op party is in trouble.

[AnimeTheCat]

Out of curiosity, do people use tower shields that often? I've never seen them used outside of some neat tricks.

I happen to love them because they're ridiculous. I played a fighter that used one and specialized in getting the most out of it. A party member played a barbarian with a long spear and would use me as cover while he poked over/around the shield to hit the enemy. It may not have been RAW, but it was fun and ridiculous. I also have used one on a mounted fighter. +4 AC from a shield is pretty good, +5 with shield specialization is better. +5 to your Touch AC is even more icing on the cake. So you take a -2 to hit, there's a good chance that if you're using one, you're not trying to hit anything. Or you could charge to offset that penalty. Would I call a tower shield "Optimal", no. But I would call it really stinking fun to have a +13 to your AC without any enhancement bonuses :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Nice to know that you're just going to ignore my argument.

Until you post every detail of the module (btw, don't do this) then I only have your cherry-picked pieces to go on. As I stated, I have reason to believe the module is not as unforgiving for fighters as you claim, and I'm going to act on that.


So? Why do you care about those goalposts rather than the issue you wanted to resolve? Unless you also are moving your goalposts? If both of you are moving your goalposts further away from the issue in question, then neither of you will ever be happy. Why not accept with a smile the agreement on the issue in question.

I am smiling.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Until you post every detail of the module (btw, don't do this) then I only have your cherry-picked pieces to go on. As I stated, I have reason to believe the module is not as unforgiving for fighters as you claim, and I'm going to act on that.

So, the only way you'll believe me is if I present you evidence that I can't present to you. You have made it impossible to convince you. Congratulations you have forced an impasse.



For the record my argument is that Fighters aren't a good class for new players. They aren't terrible for new players for the 3 levels, but beyond that they are a bad idea. Building a good Fighter requires knowledge of system that a First Time Player won't have, so while they may be fine at the beginning they quickly become problematic.

[Psyren]

So, the only way you'll believe me is if I present you evidence that I can't present to you. You have made it impossible to convince you. Congratulations you have forced an impasse.

It's solvable, I'll just read the encounter and preceding bits of the module myself. Which I obviously can't do right this minute. If I agree that there is no earthly way they should have expected a party with the frontline fighter/trapper rogue/blaster wizard/healbot cleric to bypass it without said fighter dying, I will concede the point. But again, RHoD is extremely popular and you're the first person I've ever seen raise this objection over years of people playing it, so I think some skepticism on my part is healthy. Especially since your opening post shows that you have a clear bias on this topic.



For the record my argument is that Fighters aren't a good class for new players. They aren't terrible for new players for the 3 levels, but beyond that they are a bad idea. Building a good Fighter requires knowledge of system that a First Time Player won't have, so while they may be fine at the beginning they quickly become problematic.

I agree that they have problems, but I think that for most new players they will be relatively minor in practice. We've agreed that they require little bookkeeping, we've agreed that a module is a highly probable route in for new players, and we've agreed that most early modules have undertuned encounters (like a Shadow that can't move.) In higher modules and custom campaigns, Fighters will indeed be in more trouble, but expecting everyone at the table to be new for those is I think unlikely enough to discount.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's solvable, I'll just read the encounter and preceding bits of the module myself. Which I obviously can't do right this minute. If I agree that there is no earthly way they should have expected a party with the frontline fighter/trapper rogue/blaster wizard/healbot cleric to bypass it without said fighter dying, I will concede the point. But again, RHoD is extremely popular and you're the first person I've ever seen raise this objection over years of people playing it, so I think some skepticism on my part is healthy. Especially since your opening post shows that you have a clear bias on this topic.

Have you read Saph's campaign journal of RHoD?

Granted, Saph tinkered with the monsters' stat blocks, but even still, more than a few players died.

[AnimeTheCat]

The game is designed with WBL in mind, without magic items, Fighters and other martial characters are going to fall behind fast.

Again, WBL is a guideline not a hard rule. If the Magic Items aren't flowing for anyone, everyone's resources are getting more precious and using 3 spell slots to become slightly better than a fighter isn't exactly effective at that point.


I seriously doubt that.
I wasn't talking about summoning when I mentioned Quicken, Rapid spell does work on Summon Nature's Ally, and is quite useful as a result.

Rapid Spell is a +1 spell level adjustment metamagic. It requires Quicken Spell. If you're playing a human at level 1, you can take both, but you can only quicken a 0th level spell. So no rapid summons fro a level 2 druid. and you also don't have greenbound. or augment summoning.


Why not? Flaws are part of the system, and are commonly used, as far as I know.

Flaws are not a part of any class. This is a discussion of classes. Not about subsystems to the system. I get that most parties play with them but for the purposes of this analysis, they are not considered.


OK, but why does that matter? Attacking is mostly what I want the AC to do, and the Druid can order it as free action and she gets bonuses to the skill check.
Except the AC I was taking about is a Riding Dog.
Heel is only really necessary if you want the AC to go where it wouldn't otherwise. Besides, you get a lot of tricks, why does it matter?
Guarding doesn't seem necessary.

It matters because a lot of the utilitarian use of the AC is what a lot of people tout about it. If you want something to be an attacker, you just have a weaker fighter. This was covered in an earlier response where I broke down the numbers. The druid can't PUSH as a free action. She must use a move action to do so (reduced from the full round action of the non-AC use of the ability)

Your riding dog will not follow you in to mordor if you don't have heel. That's not a place riding dogs go. and 7 isn't "a lot" its only 1 more than a normally trained animal. If you want your AC to protect the wizard at low level it is necessary.


And it's not selfish for the party to have multiple spell slots from the Cleric?

I mean... the vast majority of the cleric's spells are for use on other people... also... no it's not selfish for the party to receive more of the cleric's spells than the cleric... sharing is the opposite of selfish.


OK, but you won't always be able to charge.
Thanks for explaining that.
If you're taking charging feats, you damage output will suffer if you don't charge.

If you're taking charging feats (like mounted combat, ride by attack, and spirited charge) you still gain the benefits of improved trip through knock-down. If you're charging with a mount that has pounce, you're getting those attacks too (very easy DC ride check. DC 10). Hippogriff and Griffon come to mind as the most supreme mounts, but that's way above starting/new player level. The point is, you're less building a charging build and more buiding a knock-down build. You can effectively play a knock-down build with a one handed weapon (dwarven waraxe comes to mind). The goal is to always deal 10 or more damage so that you can attack again after tripping, effectively doubling your damage.


1. What if the campaign didn't start at level 1?
2. Where is the Fighter getting those boosts from?

If the campaign didn't start at level 1, then it started at level 2 because the level 2 fighter I presented wouldn't be behind the party like that (most likely... I'm assuming and I could possibly wrong). The fighter can get those boosts from the cleric or wizard. All I'm saying is that they are one, maybe two spell casts from a better team player to be better than the cleric again.


I mostly agree, but should this be the case even if the Cleric now does a better job than the Fighter?

Well, I bring up the point again. How does the cleric intend on filling the role of the fighter. There's more to melee combat than just "hit it with a stick". Positioning, combat maneuvering (like tripping or disarming or grappling), mounted combat, Charging. All of those things require feat investment and while the cleric may have the stats, he doesn't have the feats to do it as effectively as the fighter.


- What guarantee is there that's the spellcaster?
- Also, wouldn't low INT creatures just attack whoever's closest?
What if neither side gets a surprise round?

There is no guarantee, but that is what I would do. Why spend time smashing my head on a shield when I can cut the purse of an unarmored weaker guy and run for it. Maybe even stab him in the gut as I go. If neither side gets a surprise round that still doesn't change the fact that three opponents coming from three different directions won't all get hit by a cone shaped spell of 15'. Low int creatures wouldn't necessarily barge in full frontal. Take wolves for instance. They are listed as having an int of 2, but they use pack tactics and send a few from the front to push targets into the pack at the rear. A 3-4 int creature that's used to hunting could very easily determine that they need to attack from the rear and hit the weaker targets first so that in the event they need to run, at least it's not empty handed.


1. No Wizard worth her INT score is going to have her Spellbook visible.
2. What if the Wizard isn't dressed in robes?
No, it isn't. Armor is expensive, and aristocrats are proficient with all types of armor.

If the wizard isn't in robes, he/she is still not wearing armor which makes him/her a better target than the armored individual. Aristocrats may be proficient with all types of armor, but is the mayor of merryland going to put on his armor to get in a carriage to go to a ball? That seems unlikely to me, but your game your NPCs.


It's likely enough to hit one or two Zombies, that's still helpful.
Not that Zombies are that dangerous, just move away from them and shoot; they can't hurt you if they don't have reach.
How?
Grease is one spell, that's still very useful, as it lasts for several rounds, while the Wizard can use other spells.

I never said it wasn't helpful, just not an instant solution to all problems. The Fighter doesn't have that either. The party does. And trust, I know zombies are easy :smallbiggrin:

As far as the reach comment, its because the fighter threatens all squares around him/her. That's a 3ux3u area. A 15' square. compared to the 10' square of grease. I didn't explain that one too well though. My bad.

Grease is nice and so are a lot of other spells, but they don't out fighter the fighter because they aren't movable once cast.


1. The Druid automatically has an Animal Companion, and has Handle Animal, she can get more animal friends too.
2. CHA and INT are dump stats for Fighters (especially Half-Orcs).
3. There's no guarantee that any other animal will show up in the campaign, while the Druid gets her's for free.
Barbarians can trip, it just takes them longer to get the feats. They're also better at charging.
Do you need to do all of that? Plus, riding a horse can be accomplished by taking ranks in Ride (skill points that Fighters often lack).
Except Barbarians have more skill points, and have Trap Sense.

Fair points. There's not guarantee of anything in a game. But your second point is also an argument against your first point of "getting more animal friends". CHA and INT may be dump stats for a fighter but 4 points of an attribute are made up for by 2 skill points. The fighter I made has 3 skill points per level. Ride, Handle Animal, and... idk... something cross class? Craft Maybe? either way, you get the points for what you need and you only need ride if your a rider otherwise, you're golden. Barbarians can trip, but not as fast as the fighter. and what makes a barbarian better at charging? Pounce? Not for the first 5 levels it doesn't. And barbarians can't get spun up on the charging track as fast either. Power attack, Improved Bullrush, Shock Trooper, and Leap attack. That's four feats that the barbarian can't get till level 12. That's a loooooong time to be behind in the charging game. A fighter can be ready to go starting at level 6 when he has the ranks for leap attack (found the place for that last skill point).

The question isn't, do I need to do all that it's, can you do even half of that as effectively as I can do all of it? If the answer is no, the fighter is fighting better.


That skill is only available to spellcasters.
They are expensive, since they can't craft them.

Whoops, my houserules came out. Sorry.


They don't need them.
:smallconfused: What?

When it comes to combat maneuvers, the fighter is going to be better than the cleric or druid. That's all there is to it. There is a greater chance that the fighter will have the in combat solution available at all times.


1. Clerics can take Divine Quicken.
2. They can use spells outside of combat.
3. Quicken may have a +4, but they can still cast and bash in the same round.

Yet another feat... You're really relying on the DM allowing flaws and nightsticks for this to work...

as for point number 2... yes. that is accurate. The fighter can train animals to do plenty of out of combat work unless all the animals in the world have left (except for animal companions).


The Fighter has one viable tactic, and is screwed when it doesn't work.
They get powers, that's better than handful of extra feats Fighters get compared to the Psychic Warrior.[QUOTE]

first, that's false. The fighter doesn't have one viable tactic. They have a wide variety of tactics that can be picked and chosen based on the needs of the party and they can never stop using them.

Also, I said I preferred P. Warriors. I just said they have smaller HD, BAB, and the same skill points as Fighters.

[QUOTE]You're going to waste feats on something like that?
The dragon flies over their heads and blasts them. The Fighter failed to protect his teammates.
Not if it's flying.
Again, that won't work if the dragon's in the air.
The Fighter has an awful reflex save, other classes likely have higher DEX, and spellcasters may have spells to protect themselves.
But other than that, yes, everyone in a low Op party is in trouble.

The feats aren't wasted if that's the goal of the fighter. If the goal is to get the most out of the shield bonus to AC those feats are great. Take Shield Specialization (heavy) and Shield ward and you're getting a +3 to your touch AC and a +3 to resist bull rushes, grapples, and trips. If you get and enchanted shield, that number goes up. What's a druid's normal touch AC at level 5 (which was the level that this scenario took place)? Probably just 10+dex mod. The fighters, in this case, would be 13+dex mod. I'll take the fighter.

If the dragon takes off before the fighter gets to it, that's not the fighter's fault. If the fighter got there and his purpose was a lock down build, he would have taken stand still as a feat for either first or third level. If the dragon takes off he must succeed on a DC 10+damage dealt reflex save or stop moving as if his move action had been used up. If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then the fighter could have taken improved trip and combat expertise as a means of locking things down. Even subtracting his full BAB from his attack to bolster his AC against the dragon, he will still be getting +strength to hit on a touch attack against a dragon... AC 10... He'll probably touch. then it's an opposed strength check where the fighter is getting +4 minimum (if he had a 10 str... but he won't.) A green dragon (young) has Strength 17 meaning he gets a +7 on the check vs the fighter's most likely +8 or more. The fighter is more likely to win in this scenario causing the dragon to fall prone and getting a free attack.

If the dragon succeeded in getting past the fighter, that was a result of dice being rolled, not the efficacy of the fighter. A level 5 cleric, druid, or wizard couldn't do any better than the fighter in that situation.

Also, I realized about tower shields too so that's a possibility too.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I agree that they have problems, but I think that for most new players they will be relatively minor in practice. We've agreed that they require little bookkeeping, we've agreed that a module is a highly probable route in for new players, and we've agreed that most early modules have undertuned encounters (like a Shadow that can't move.) In higher modules and custom campaigns, Fighters will indeed be in more trouble, but expecting everyone at the table to be new for those is I think unlikely enough to discount.

I don't think it's that unlikely for First Time Players to reach higher levels, especially since higher levels in this instant mean 4-6. How long did your first campaign run, out of curiosity? My first campaign ran to level 6.

[Psyren]

Have you read Saph's campaign journal of RHoD?

Granted, Saph tinkered with the monsters' stat blocks, but even still, more than a few players died.

As a matter of fact I have. One of Saph's goals was to challenge their relatively experienced group, so I don't take that as indicative of a typical newcomer to that module. Rather, I would believe that RHoD's popularity stems from the fact that most groups consider it to be fun and thus fair. It's not like it was a BDSM-style Tomb of Horrors module.


I don't think it's that unlikely for First Time Players to reach higher levels, especially since higher levels in this instant mean 4-6. How long did your first campaign run, out of curiosity? My first campaign ran to level 6.

I went to 10, but again, I was not a Fighter then, having played casters in 2e. So I never had the "new player picks up Fighter" experience myself. I have however as previously mentioned constructed fighters for friends who literally wanted to do nothing but roll initiative and hit things in the face, followed by swilling beer in the tavern between dungeons, and they loved it. Some stuck with those characters and some decided to give this whole magic and skill rolls thing a try. That is my experience, and why I believe the way I do.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I went to 10, but again, I was not a Fighter then, having played casters in 2e. So I never had the "new player picks up Fighter" experience myself. I have however as previously mentioned constructed fighters for friends who literally wanted to do nothing but roll initiative and hit things in the face, followed by swilling beer in the tavern between dungeons, and they loved it. Some stuck with those characters and some decided to give this whole magic and skill rolls thing a try. That is my experience, and why I believe the way I do.

Yes, but I'm not talking about building Fighters for someone, most classes can be played by noobs if someone built them well.

[Psyren]

Yes, but I'm not talking about building Fighters for someone, most classes can be played by noobs if someone built them well.

Yes, exactly! We agree.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes, exactly! We agree.

But that doesn't make Fighters a noob friendly class, a noob friendly class should be something that a new player can build and play themselves.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Spoilers to keep this from getting too hard to read:



Again, WBL is a guideline not a hard rule. If the Magic Items aren't flowing for anyone, everyone's resources are getting more precious and using 3 spell slots to become slightly better than a fighter isn't exactly effective at that point.

It is effective, because the Fighter sucks beyond belief without magic items.


Rapid Spell is a +1 spell level adjustment metamagic. It requires Quicken Spell. If you're playing a human at level 1, you can take both, but you can only quicken a 0th level spell. So no rapid summons fro a level 2 druid. and you also don't have greenbound. or augment summoning.

- Rapid doesn't require Quicken, and I only need Rapid at level 3+.

- I can easily take Greenbound Summoning and Augmented Summoning.


Flaws are not a part of any class. This is a discussion of classes. Not about subsystems to the system. I get that most parties play with them but for the purposes of this analysis, they are not considered.

No, we're not excluding flaws, we're considering 3.5 as a whole, not 3.5 with certain content removed.


It matters because a lot of the utilitarian use of the AC is what a lot of people tout about it. If you want something to be an attacker, you just have a weaker fighter. This was covered in an earlier response where I broke down the numbers. The druid can't PUSH as a free action. She must use a move action to do so (reduced from the full round action of the non-AC use of the ability)

Riding Dogs can trip by default, and combat related tricks are mostly sufficient.


Your riding dog will not follow you in to mordor if you don't have heel. That's not a place riding dogs go. and 7 isn't "a lot" its only 1 more than a normally trained animal. If you want your AC to protect the wizard at low level it is necessary.

- Dogs pretty much go anywhere their owners do, this dog is actually trained for combat.

- I also doubt we're going to be in Mordor at level 1, and I can pick up Heel later.


I mean... the vast majority of the cleric's spells are for use on other people... also... no it's not selfish for the party to receive more of the cleric's spells than the cleric... sharing is the opposite of selfish.

And? Why are other party members entitled to the Cleric's spells?


If you're taking charging feats (like mounted combat, ride by attack, and spirited charge) you still gain the benefits of improved trip through knock-down. If you're charging with a mount that has pounce, you're getting those attacks too (very easy DC ride check. DC 10). Hippogriff and Griffon come to mind as the most supreme mounts, but that's way above starting/new player level. The point is, you're less building a charging build and more buiding a knock-down build. You can effectively play a knock-down build with a one handed weapon (dwarven waraxe comes to mind). The goal is to always deal 10 or more damage so that you can attack again after tripping, effectively doubling your damage.

OK


If the campaign didn't start at level 1, then it started at level 2 because the level 2 fighter I presented wouldn't be behind the party like that (most likely... I'm assuming and I could possibly wrong). The fighter can get those boosts from the cleric or wizard. All I'm saying is that they are one, maybe two spell casts from a better team player to be better than the cleric again.

- I was thinking of a starting level closer to 6.

- What if the Wizard/Cleric don't want to buff the Fighter? When I play Wizards, I prefer Battlefield Control and debuffs.



Well, I bring up the point again. How does the cleric intend on filling the role of the fighter. There's more to melee combat than just "hit it with a stick". Positioning, combat maneuvering (like tripping or disarming or grappling), mounted combat, Charging. All of those things require feat investment and while the cleric may have the stats, he doesn't have the feats to do it as effectively as the fighter.

Clerics don't need combat manuavers; they buff themselves, turn in CoDzilla and smash Tokyo. They have spells if they need something non-smashing related done.


There is no guarantee, but that is what I would do. Why spend time smashing my head on a shield when I can cut the purse of an unarmored weaker guy and run for it. Maybe even stab him in the gut as I go.

Not all encounters are with thieves. In that case, the unarmored guy is likely fine, but angry that he got pick pocketed.


If neither side gets a surprise round that still doesn't change the fact that three opponents coming from three different directions won't all get hit by a cone shaped spell of 15'.

What if the PCs walk in on gobins playing cards at a table? They're likely a few of them within the reach of a 15' cone.


Low int creatures wouldn't necessarily barge in full frontal. Take wolves for instance. They are listed as having an int of 2, but they use pack tactics and send a few from the front to push targets into the pack at the rear. A 3-4 int creature that's used to hunting could very easily determine that they need to attack from the rear and hit the weaker targets first so that in the event they need to run, at least it's not empty handed.

- Last I checked, wolves aren't subtle hunters; they surround targets and bite them.

- I wouldn't be surprised if a bear charged a party.


If the wizard isn't in robes, he/she is still not wearing armor which makes him/her a better target than the armored individual. Aristocrats may be proficient with all types of armor, but is the mayor of merryland going to put on his armor to get in a carriage to go to a ball? That seems unlikely to me, but your game your NPCs.

- That mayor would likely have guards.

- Also, that's one brazen thief, not to mention that some spellcasters wear armor.


I never said it wasn't helpful, just not an instant solution to all problems. The Fighter doesn't have that either. The party does. And trust, I know zombies are easy :smallbiggrin:

- In many cases, the Wizard can easily disable most of his opponents with a single spell.

- This only becomes more pronounced when 2nd level spells hit the table.


As far as the reach comment, its because the fighter threatens all squares around him/her. That's a 3ux3u area. A 15' square. compared to the 10' square of grease. I didn't explain that one too well though. My bad.

Grease can be put anywhere within its range, though.


Grease is nice and so are a lot of other spells, but they don't out fighter the fighter because they aren't movable once cast.

Except for Summon Spells.


Fair points. There's not guarantee of anything in a game. But your second point is also an argument against your first point of "getting more animal friends". CHA and INT may be dump stats for a fighter but 4 points of an attribute are made up for by 2 skill points. The fighter I made has 3 skill points per level. Ride, Handle Animal, and... idk... something cross class? Craft Maybe? either way, you get the points for what you need and you only need ride if your a rider otherwise, you're golden. Barbarians can trip, but not as fast as the fighter. and what makes a barbarian better at charging? Pounce? Not for the first 5 levels it doesn't. And barbarians can't get spun up on the charging track as fast either. Power attack, Improved Bullrush, Shock Trooper, and Leap attack. That's four feats that the barbarian can't get till level 12. That's a loooooong time to be behind in the charging game. A fighter can be ready to go starting at level 6 when he has the ranks for leap attack (found the place for that last skill point).

- What doe this hypothetical Fighter's stats look like?

- Barbarians still get Rage, and they can dip into Fighter pretty easily for more feats. Also, they mostly don't need to Trip.


The question isn't, do I need to do all that it's, can you do even half of that as effectively as I can do all of it? If the answer is no, the fighter is fighting better.

- I don't buy it, other classes are better at fighting, most notably the ToB classes.


Whoops, my houserules came out. Sorry.

OK.


When it comes to combat maneuvers, the fighter is going to be better than the cleric or druid. That's all there is to it. There is a greater chance that the fighter will have the in combat solution available at all times.

Why does that matter if spells are better?


Yet another feat... You're really relying on the DM allowing flaws and nightsticks for this to work...

And? We're talking about all of 3.5, not a few books that the DM will allow. You can literally buy feats, so I'm not that concerned.


as for point number 2... yes. that is accurate. The fighter can train animals to do plenty of out of combat work unless all the animals in the world have left (except for animal companions).

- I never claimed that the world was devoid of animals, just that they might not appear in a campaign.

- Also, the Druid can do that too, as I said earlier.


first, that's false. The fighter doesn't have one viable tactic. They have a wide variety of tactics that can be picked and chosen based on the needs of the party and they can never stop using them.

At level 1?


Also, I said I preferred P. Warriors. I just said they have smaller HD, BAB, and the same skill points as Fighters.

HD is pretty minor, BAB is good, but powers are better.


The feats aren't wasted if that's the goal of the fighter. If the goal is to get the most out of the shield bonus to AC those feats are great. Take Shield Specialization (heavy) and Shield ward and you're getting a +3 to your touch AC and a +3 to resist bull rushes, grapples, and trips. If you get and enchanted shield, that number goes up. What's a druid's normal touch AC at level 5 (which was the level that this scenario took place)? Probably just 10+dex mod. The fighters, in this case, would be 13+dex mod. I'll take the fighter.

If you take those feats, that's fewer feats you have for Tripping, Charging, and Mounted Combat.


If the dragon takes off before the fighter gets to it, that's not the fighter's fault. If the fighter got there and his purpose was a lock down build, he would have taken stand still as a feat for either first or third level.

That doesn't help once the dragon's in the air.


If the dragon takes off he must succeed on a DC 10+damage dealt reflex save or stop moving as if his move action had been used up.

If it's close enough, or isn't already flying.


If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then the fighter could have taken improved trip and combat expertise as a means of locking things down. Even subtracting his full BAB from his attack to bolster his AC against the dragon, he will still be getting +strength to hit on a touch attack against a dragon... AC 10... He'll probably touch. then it's an opposed strength check where the fighter is getting +4 minimum (if he had a 10 str... but he won't.) A green dragon (young) has Strength 17 meaning he gets a +7 on the check vs the fighter's most likely +8 or more. The fighter is more likely to win in this scenario causing the dragon to fall prone and getting a free attack.

How is he reaching it if the dragon is flying?


If the dragon succeeded in getting past the fighter, that was a result of dice being rolled, not the efficacy of the fighter. A level 5 cleric, druid, or wizard couldn't do any better than the fighter in that situation.

- Those classes can fly.

- The Cleric and Druid can also can cast Downdraft to force the dragon to the ground.

- The Wizard can one shot it with Shivering Touch.

Edit: If recall, all three get spells that protect against energy attacks.


Also, I realized about tower shields too so that's a possibility too.

You get a +2 to you REF save, that's not much.


As a matter of fact I have. One of Saph's goals was to challenge their relatively experienced group, so I don't take that as indicative of a typical newcomer to that module. Rather, I would believe that RHoD's popularity stems from the fact that most groups consider it to be fun and thus fair. It's not like it was a BDSM-style Tomb of Horrors module.

No one claimed that RHoD was akin to the Tomb of Horror.

I should point out that despite its insane difficulty, the latter is quite popular.

Also:

Fighter VS Red Dragon


- Assuming our Fighter has an 18 in STR, he does not hit the Dragon on average rolls.

- If our Fighter has full plate and a heavy steel shield, the Dragon hits him on average rolls, in fact, the dragon hits on a 2 or higher.

- Even if the Dragon takes Nerveskitter, the Fighter likely wins initative, assuming he has Improved Initiative. This is not the case if the Dragon uses Nerveskitter and has Improved Initative.

- With a 16 in CON, the Fighter has, on average, 48 HP, compared to the Dragon's 123.

- The Dragon's breath weapon deal 6D10 damage (33 on average) with a DC 19 for half damage. The Fighter fails unless he rolls a 16 (assuming a 14 in DEX). Two hits from the Dragon's breath weapon kills him, if the Dragon took Clinging Breath, the Fighter likely dies in two rounds.

- The Dragon deals on average 14 damage with its bite, while the Fighter deals on average 15 damage. If the Dragon full attacks, it deal 42 damage on average. That leaves the Fighter at 6 HP.

- Even if the Fighter use Power Attack for full (ensuring he won't hit, I might add), his damage improves to 25. The Dragon can use Power Attack to boost his damage to by +9 and still hit on average rolls and deal 21 damage. Power Attacking once in a full attack is enough to kill the Fighter.

[Psyren]

But that doesn't make Fighters a noob friendly class, a noob friendly class should be something that a new player can build and play themselves.

I disagree that both "build and play" are required. That is our true impasse.



No one claimed that RHoD was akin to the Tomb of Horror.

I should point out that despite its insane difficulty, the latter is quite popular.

It's a joke module though, explicitly designed to kill parties; RHoD is not.



Also:

Fighter VS Red Dragon


- Assuming our Fighter has an 18 in STR, he does not hit the Dragon on average rolls.

- If our Fighter has full plate and a heavy steel shield, the Dragon hits him on average rolls, in fact, the dragon hits on a 2 or higher.

- Even if the Dragon takes Nerveskitter, the Fighter likely wins initative, assuming he has Improved Initiative. This is not the case if the Dragon uses Nerveskitter and has Improved Initative.

- With a 16 in CON, the Fighter has, on average, 43 HP, compared to the Dragon's 123.

- The Dragon's breath weapon deal 6D10 damage (33 on average) with a DC 19 for half damage. The Fighter fails unless he rolls a 16 (assuming a 14 in DEX). Two hits from the Dragon's breath weapon kills him, if the Dragon took Clinging Breath, the Fighter likely dies in two rounds.

- The Dragon deals on average 14 damage with its bite, while the Fighter deals on average 15 damage. If the Dragon full attacks, it deal 42 damage on average. That leaves the Fighter at 1 HP.

- Even if the Fighter use Power Attack for full (ensuring he won't hit, I might add), his damage improves to 25. The Dragon can use Power Attack to boost his damage to by +9 and still hit on average rolls and deal 21 damage. Power Attacking once in a full attack is enough to kill the Fighter.


A Young Red is CR 7, not 5.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I disagree that both "build and play" are required. That is our true impasse.

Very well then. I maintain that a class can't be friendly to new players if a new player can't build one well.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's a joke module though, explicitly designed to kill parties; RHoD is not.

And? It's still popular.


A Young Red is CR 7, not 5.

Yeah, I blame the formatting of the SRD for that mistake.

I doubt a level 7 Fighter would have fared much better.

Some quick math says that he dies from two breath weapons.

Also, I screwed up the Fighters HP by 5, I'll fix it.

[Psyren]

And? It's still popular.

It's lethality towards fighters (or anyone else) is not representative, regardless of popularity.



I doubt a level 7 Fighter would have fared much better.

You do realize that a level 7 fighter has more than double the WBL of a level 5 one? to say nothing of BAB, feats, saving throws, HP...

[Tainted_Scholar]

The Young Red Dragon would be a boss for a CR 5 party, I would like to point out.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's lethality towards fighters (or anyone else) is not representative, regardless of popularity.

You're the one who said RHoD is popular, and therefore not hard on new Fighter players.


You do realize that a level 7 fighter has more than double the WBL of a level 5 one? to say nothing of BAB, feats, saving throws, HP...

I crunched the numbers on HP already, his REF save goes up by a grand total of 1, and his BAB has risen by 2.

He can hit the Dragon on average rolls, but a full attack from the Dragon still hurts way more than one from the Fighter.

WBL is the biggest X factor here, but I suspect most of that is going into armor/weapon enhancements.

If that Dragon gets in the air, the Fighter's toast.

[Tainted_Scholar]

WBL is the biggest X factor here, but I suspect most of that is going into armor/weapon enhancements.

Probably not very good weapon enhancements either. A flaming weapon is something that new player is likely to pick simply because it's cool. I sure wanted a Flaming sword when I started playing D&D, it took me a long time to admit that they suck.

[Psyren]

You're the one who said RHoD is popular, and therefore not hard on new Fighter players.

I did, and it isn't. I also said Tomb of Horrors isn't representative of low-level modules (its selling point IS being lethal) and that is also correct, it isn't. (On top of not being a low-level module in the first place.)



I crunched the numbers on HP already, his REF save goes up by a grand total of 1, and his BAB has risen by 2.

WBL is the biggest X factor here, but I suspect most of that is going into armor/weapon enhancements.

If that's Dragon gets in the air, the Fighter's toast.

So +100% reflex and +40% BAB then, right?

And yes, WBL matters a great deal for a class that depends on gear. It's not as though every single picture of them in the PHB doesn't make this abundantly clear.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I did, and it isn't. I also said Tomb of Horrors isn't representative of low-level modules (its selling point IS being lethal) and that is also correct, it isn't. (On top of not being a low-level module in the first place.)

This is true, but popular the Tomb of Horrors remains.


So +100% reflex and +40% BAB then, right?

That +1 to REF isn't helping him much; he still only succeeds on a roll of 15+.


And yes, WBL matters a great deal for a class that depends on gear. It's not as though every single picture of them in the PHB doesn't make this abundantly clear.

So what gear saves the Fighter from being Dragon chow?

[Togo]

Tower sheild are exceptionally good. Very situational, but in the situations where they're good, they're exceptional.

I've played RHoD - the fighter did just fine, and was the most valuable character is some situations.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I've played RHoD - the fighter did just fine, and was the most valuable character is some situations.

How well built was the Fighter?

[Psyren]

So what gear saves the Fighter from being Dragon chow?

Before I answer that, your calculations are still off. CR7 means the Dragon is "Challenging" for an entire party of level 7 characters. DMG 50:


Challenging: Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters, about equal in Encounter Level to the party level. The average adventuring group should be able to handle four challenging encounters before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources. If an encounter doesn’t cost the PCs some significant portion of their resources, it’s not challenging.

So even with an entire party at his back, he would be "seriously threatened" by your dragon at level 7, much less the incongruous 1:1 scenario you've set up. So demonstrating that he would likely die on his own proves nothing.

For a test in line with the DMG rules, the solo Fighter would need to be at least 8 or 9.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Before I answer that, your calculations are still off. CR7 means the Dragon is "Challenging" for an entire party of level 7 characters. DMG 50:

So even with an entire party at his back, he would be "seriously threatened" by your dragon at level 7, much less the incongruous 1:1 scenario you've set up. So demonstrating that he would likely die on his own proves nothing.

For a test in line with the DMG rules, the Fighter would need to be 8 or 9.

Who said he was alone? If his party isn't optimized either, I suspect they'll die too.

The dragon kills the Fighter with two breath weapon attacks; his lower HD friends aren't going to fair much better.

The Rogue might live via Evasion, but a full attack or two will end him.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Just pointing out that a level 7 character should be equivalent in power to a CR 7 monster, after all they are both the same CR. However, the Fighter is much weaker than a Dragon of the same CR.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Just pointing out that a level 7 character should be equivalent in power to a CR 7 monster, after all they are both the same CR. However, the Fighter is much weaker than a Dragon of the same CR.

This is a good point.

If I'm remembering the rules correctly, a single PC has a 50% chance of winning against an opponent of the same CR.

The Fighter can't even manage that.

Edit: So, what gear will save him?

[Psyren]

Who said he was alone? If his party isn't optimized either, I suspect they'll die too.

Ah, so he has buffs and healing available then from his healbot cleric, right? And even the blaster wizard has Fly.



The dragon kills the Fighter with two breath weapon attacks; his lower HD friends aren't going to fair much better.

You can quite easily afford a tower shield or a potion of fire resistance at level 7.



The Rogue might live via Evasion, but a full attack or two will end him.

Not if he's flanking and the dragon is paying attention to the fighter.

Can you cite the 50% single PC rule? I cited mine for "Challenging."

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ah, so he has buffs and healing available then from his healbot cleric, right? And even the blaster wizard has Fly.

Buffs from a Healbot? That doesn't sound likely. What buffs would help him?


You can quite easily afford a tower shield or a potion of fire resistance at level 7.

- That tower shield does little, unless the Fighters wants to give up attacking.

- That potion protects him from 2 fire breaths. Then what?


Not if he's flanking and the dragon is paying attention to the fighter.

How is the Rogue flanking a flying dragon?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Can you cite the 50% single PC rule? I cited mine for "Challenging."

Challenging and 50% chance of victory are the same thing. Page 49 of the DMG under "Difficulty", you'll find a table that examples the likelihood of victory for each category of difficulty. The Fighter should have a 15% chance at beating a CR 7 monster like the Dragon.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Challenging and 50% chance of victory are the same thing. Page 49 of the DMG under diffuculty, you'll find a table that examples the likelihood of victory for each category of difficulty. The Fighter should have a 15% chance at beating a CR 7 monster like the Dragon.

Thanks, I was having a hard time finding that. Where are you getting the 15% number from?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Wait never mind, I completely misread the table and what it means, ignore my previous post.

[Lans]

Probably not very good weapon enhancements either. A flaming weapon is something that new player is likely to pick simply because it's cool. I sure wanted a Flaming sword when I started playing D&D, it took me a long time to admit that they suck.

I would always go for the higher enhancement bonus when I started, but alot of that is from pre 3.5 DR.


Who said he was alone? If his party isn't optimized either, I suspect they'll die too.

The dragon kills the Fighter with two breath weapon attacks; his lower HD friends aren't going to fair much better.
.

Well it takes d4 rounds, so that gives the party time to flounder with its range attacks, and healing. Say they have a healer, he can use mass cure light wounds to get the party back 15 hp, before using other healing spells so nobody dies from the next strafe.

A warmage in the party can start pinging the dragon for 28 or so a round.

Fighter can add in maybe 5 a round with a bow. (d8+4)*odds of hitting, so around 45/20 with his full attack

Rogue/skill monkey adds another 4 or 5.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well I can't find the rule in question. :smallmad:

I will say this; it's generally agreed upon that a single character should be able to kill a monster of their CR.

The Same Game Test was created for to test characters in this manner. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test)

Edit:



Well it takes d4 rounds, so that gives the party time to flounder with its range attacks, and healing. Say they have a healer, he can use mass cure light wounds to get the party back 15 hp, before using other healing spells so nobody dies from the next strafe.

That assumes that the Dragon isn't casting spells or using FlyBy Attack to bite off someone's head (they have 10' reach with that bite).


A warmage in the party can start pinging the dragon for 28 or so a round.

How many breath weapon attacks can he survive? Edit: Looks like two to me.


Fighter can add in maybe 5 a round with a bow. (d8+4)*odds of hitting, so around 45/20 with his full attack

That dragon has over 120 HP.


Rogue/skill monkey adds another 4 or 5.

If they can hit it.

[Lans]

That assumes that the Dragon isn't casting spells or using FlyBy Attack to bite off someone's head (they have 10' reach with that bite).. The bite does 2d6+7, the healer heals 1d8+5+charisma with a first level spell, and 2d8+7+charisma with a second level spell. Its a first level caster so not too concerned about spells




How many breath weapon attacks can he survive? Edit: Looks like two to me.

If the warmage has a 16 con between the base and item, he will have 48hp, so after the first one he will be down to 15 hp, if he casts flame shield to protect himself from the dragons melee attacks, and gets healed 1d8+7+ con from the healer then he will be up after the next breath attack.


That dragon has over 120 HP. I know, just adding up all the damage sources.



If they can hit it well its likely to hit better than the fighter due to dex focus

[ColorBlindNinja]

The bite does 2d6+7, the healer heals 1d8+5+charisma with a first level spell, and 2d8+7+charisma with a second level spell. Its a first level caster so not too concerned about spells

Is the healer healing only one person at a time? Otherwise, someone's HP is going to dip too low.



If the warmage has a 16 con between the base and item, he will have 48hp, so after the first one he will be down to 15 hp, if he casts flame shield to protect himself from the dragons melee attacks, and gets healed 1d8+7+ con from the healer then he will be up after the next breath attack.

- OK, but the dragon might have spells that can hurt him.

- If the Warmage is the only one left standing, the dragon will likely just eat the damage or wait for Flame Shield to run out.


I know, just adding up all the damage sources.

OK.


well its likely to hit better than the fighter due to dex focus

They have worse BAB though, and they likely won't be dealing much damage.

[Psyren]

Buffs from a Healbot? That doesn't sound likely. What buffs would help him?

Bless, Pro:Evil, Pro: Energy, Bull's Strength...



- That tower shield does little, unless the Fighters wants to give up attacking.

- That potion protects him from 2 fire breaths. Then what?

Breaths have cooldowns. Fighter can use it to block (or rely on buffs/potions to protect them) then attack.



How is the Rogue flanking a flying dragon?

How is the dragon full-attacking while flying?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Bless, Pro:Evil, Pro: Energy, Bull's Strength...

Only one of those is going to help, and I doubt a Healbot prepared it.


Breaths have cooldowns. Fighter can use it to block (or rely on buffs/potions to protect them) then attack.

While the dragon is flying overhead, nuking his teammates and casting spells?

The Fighter relying on his teammates buffs doesn't validate his value as a class.


How is the dragon full-attacking while flying?

He doesn't, he uses his breath weapon until everyone but the Rogue is dead, then he either lands and kills the Rogue, or uses Flyby Attack.

Edit: We should probably assume that the Fighter has a Healer and Warmage in his party and not a Cleric and Wizard.

[Lans]

Is the healer healing only one person at a time? Otherwise, someone's HP is going to dip too low.. I figure he could have 1 or 2 mass cure light wounds, and 2 close wounds, 1 speak with animals, 1 goodberry, 1 protection from evil, and every thing else be a stock curespell. I am thinking that each party member would have 8 goodberrys on them.

Edit- Would be reasonable to assume a healer has spent a couple character choices and got better at healing?

edits edit- how high do you think a healers charisma should be?





- OK, but the dragon might have spells that can hurt him.

- If the Warmage is the only one left standing, the dragon will likely just eat the damage or wait for Flame Shield to run out. Well, the dragon isn't dealing much damage if its not standing and fighting, so the party has a bit of time.



They have worse BAB though, and they likely won't be dealing much damage
They have a 5 base attack bonus, and 18-22 dexterity vs the 7 base attack bonus and 8-13 of the fighter,

[ColorBlindNinja]

I figure he could have 1 or 2 mass cure light wounds, and 2 close wounds, 1 speak with animals, 1 goodberry, 1 protection from evil, and every thing else be a stock curespell. I am thinking that each party member would have 8 goodberrys on them.

Unless I'm wrong about this, Mass Cure Light is a 5th level spell, and these PCs are only level 7.

Edit: I was wrong, but 1d8 + 5 + CHA isn't going to cut it.


Edit- Would be reasonable to assume a healer has spent a couple character choices and got better at healing?

Maybe? I guess that depends on what they are.

Edit:


edits edit- how high do you think a healers charisma should be?

14-16 or so?


Well, the dragon isn't dealing much damage if its not standing and fighting, so the party has a bit of time.

It's still using its breath weapon every three rounds or so, casting spells, and using Flyby Attack for around 14 damage per bite.


They have a 5 base attack bonus, and 18-22 dexterity vs the 7 base attack bonus and 8-13 of the fighter,

With those numbers, they should hit on average, but they won't be doing much damage. Unless the Dragon is too far away, then they'll take range penalties.

[Lans]

Unless I'm wrong about this, Mass Cure Light is a 5th level spell, and these PCs are only level 7.


Maybe? I guess that depends on what they are.

Edit:

14-16 or so?

The healer class gets the mass cure spells a level early

I'm thinking the augment healing feat, and a character trait that ups his caster level for conjuration spells by 1 and reduces the other schools caster level by 2 or a different feat.

Would 16 counting a cloak of charisma sound fair?


It's still using its breath weapon every three rounds or so, casting spells, and using Flyby Attack for around 14 damage per bite.

With those numbers, they should hit on average, but they won't be doing much damage. Unless the Dragon is too far away, then they'll take range penalties.


True, but I think that puts its DPR to a point where the the warmage is going to get 5 or more spells off, and the fighter and rogue are going to deal over 20 points of damage.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The healer class gets the mass cure spells a level early

I realized that after I typed that. :smallsigh:


I'm thinking the augment healing feat, and a character trait that ups his caster level for conjuration spells by 1 and reduces the other schools caster level by 2 or a different feat.

I guess? It does sound like a feat a noob might take.


Would 16 counting a cloak of charisma sound fair?

Sure.


True, but I think that puts its DPR to a point where the the warmage is going to get 5 or more spells off, and the fighter and rogue are going to deal over 20 points of damage.

What spells will the Warmage be casting?

Edit: That Healer is going to run out of Cure Light Mass quickly.

[Togo]

In no particular order...

I helped build the fighter, so I think it was a good build. <shrug>

Dragons are a poor example, because they're deliberately under CRed to make them more challenging than other monsters.

Given that parties do, in practice, actually beat dragons, I'm not sure what we're trying to prove here?

[ColorBlindNinja]

In no particular order...

I helped build the fighter, so I think it was a good build. <shrug>

We're talking about poorly built Fighters, mostly.


Dragons are a poor example, because they're deliberately under CRed to make them more challenging than other monsters.

Something tells me they might be common in this game. :smalltongue:


Given that parties do, in practice, actually beat dragons, I'm not sure what we're trying to prove here?

That poorly built ones can't win against a dragon the actually uses its INT score?

[OldTrees1]

That poorly built ones can't win against a dragon the actually uses its INT score?

So low OP Fighters can't stand up to standard OP Dragons? Uh Duh! But that also doesn't mean anything (so exactly like the last several pages).

[Psyren]

While the dragon is flying overhead, nuking his teammates and casting spells?

Its 1st-level spells? Ooh, scary.



The Fighter relying on his teammates buffs doesn't validate his value as a class.

Could you make up your mind? Is he solo or not?



He doesn't, he uses his breath weapon until everyone but the Rogue is dead, then he either lands and kills the Rogue, or uses Flyby Attack.

What's it doing for the 1d4 rounds between breaths?



Edit: We should probably assume that the Fighter has a Healer and Warmage in his party and not a Cleric and Wizard.

So we're opening this up past core?

[Lans]

I realized that after I typed that. :smallsigh:


I guess? It does sound like a feat a noob might take.


Sure.


Edit: That Healer is going to run out of Cure Light Mass quickly.


ok lets look at damage vs healing for a second, the dragon will do 33*.7+16*.3 to the fighter, warmage and healer or about 28 damage average. The rogue will take 33*.4 or around 13. The healer can then use cure mass wounds to restore 1d8+8CL+3healing hands+8, for around 23 points of healing, from their the party can hopefully split up so only 2 members can get hit by a breath weapon.



What spells will the Warmage be casting?


Fire shield then lesser orb of colds, first one empowered

I'm assuming 16s in the secondary casting stats of the warmage and healer, 1 point of dexterity for fighter, cloak of resistance+1 for every one, and the rogues dexterity will be 20

[ColorBlindNinja]

Its 1st-level spells? Ooh, scary.

- The Dragon casts Mage's Armor; good luck hitting him now.

- Or he could just use Flyby Attack and bite them.


Could you make up your mind? Is he solo or not?

That doesn't matter; if the Fighter can't get by without the Cleric's/Wizard's buffs, he sucks.


What's it doing for the 1d4 rounds between breaths?

Using Flyby attack?



So we're opening this up past core?

It was always all of 3.5, I mentioned Nerveskitter.

Edit:


ok lets look at damage vs healing for a second, the dragon will do 33*.7+16*.3 to the fighter, warmage and healer or about 28 damage average. The rogue will take 33*.4 or around 13. The healer can then use cure mass wounds to restore 1d8+8CL+3healing hands+8, for around 23 points of healing, from their the party can hopefully split up so only 2 members can get hit by a breath weapon.

The Healer can probably only cast that spell four times or so.


Fire shield then lesser orb of colds, first one empowered

That should deal a good amount of damage.

[Tainted_Scholar]

So low OP Fighters can't stand up to standard OP Dragons? Uh Duh! But that also doesn't mean anything (so exactly like the last several pages).

I'm not sure if I would qualify using flyby attacks and the breath weapon from a distance as standard Op, it still seems pretty low op to me. Especially since these are just tactics rather than build.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not sure if I would qualify using flyby attacks and the breath weapon from a distance as standard Op, it still seems pretty low op to me. Especially since these are just tactics rather than build.

I easily could build a better Dragon.

Metabreath feats alone would work well.

I just thought of something; while the dragon is waiting for its breath weapon to recharge, it could fly higher so the PCs can't hit it.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure if I would qualify using flyby attacks and the breath weapon from a distance as standard Op, it still seems pretty low op to me. Especially since these are just tactics rather than build.

New DMs tend to have dragons land and full attack. If you are comparing a newb playing a Fighter to a strafing Dragon...

I can have a Dragon strafe in a manner it cannot be hit except by readied ranged attacks. (1 step above the dragon being used)
I also make highly optimized Fighters. (at least 2 steps above the Fighter being used)

So perhaps you can see why I think "strafe in a manner that it cannot be hit except by ranged or readied attacks" would be standard OP rather than low OP.

[ColorBlindNinja]

New DMs tend to have dragons land and full attack. If you are comparing a newb playing a Fighter to a strafing Dragon...

Why would the dragon land? Why wouldn't it just fly above their heads, nuke them with its breath weapon, then fly higher until it recharges?

A dragon trading full attacks with the party isn't playing smart.

I suspect it could still kill low Op parities, though.