Balance. Why do we need it?

[Gnaeus]

It's precisely one more feat than a wizard would need to do the same thing, so I don't see it being a big burden even in a party situation. And if you don't have a wizard, a Fighter is actually a logical choice to take this role on. Even if you do, this lets you spread the crafting feat burden, such that the Fighter for instance has CWI and CMAAA while the Wizard grabs Craft Rod, Forge Ring, Craft Wand etc. Hell, the fighter has more feats than ever before when you consider things like Weapon Specialist, Martial Flexibility and Barroom Brawler (i.e. abilities that get you multiple feats for the price of one) so spending a few on crafting is even easier to justify.

And in-universe it's even more sensible, because any given Fighter can't guarantee having a wizard in his pocket or access to magic mart to get the gear he needs to keep up, much less utility items.

The fighter is almost never a logical choice to take the role on, unless the other party members are swashbuckler, samurai, chained monk. Pathfinder helps fighter, I agree, but he’s still near the bottom of the pile in both combat and non-combat usefulness. Crafting is a team benefit feat, and if balance is a thing we care about (and it has s a balance discussion) it should be taken by the most powerful PCs in the party, who are also, in this case, the best at it, since most of them were maxing spellcraft anyway and they can actually meet some spell prerequisites. Even Ranger and Paladin are enough above Fighter they make better crafters than he does, and they get it for 1 feat. Fighter does have more feats than before, but also longer feat chains, and there’s always plenty to do with them. I would call a fighter who spent 3 feats on item crafting to get 2 crafting feats wildly unoptimized in a standard party of 4. He’s not best at it because he has more feats, he’s worst at it because crafting is one of the things a high tier player who is feeling guilty can actually do to help the muggles out.

(And also because you want the guy with CWI to be rapid crafting, so you want it on an int caster, not a fighter who is unlikely to have more than a +1 int or wis mod)

[Eldariel]

(Why do people always mention Power Attack as a nerf in Pathfinder? While it combo-d with a few other feats like Shock Trooper, on its own it was pretty terrible in 3.5. Much better in Pathfinder as you get a 3/1 ratio instead of 2/1. Plus it's easier to track since it's either on or off.)

Even in Core, Quicken True Strike > PA for full on a mounted charger (Cleric/Wizard chassis) with Spirited Charge is something you simply can't pull off without Power Attack. And flat Power Attack is actually pretty good in 3.5, even core, if you put effort into improving your to hit. Something like Trip allows you to pretty much put all the attack bonus gained into extra damage. 3.5 PA is more versatile and of course, when stacked bonuses are used, more powerful. But at least far as I'm concerned, the lack of versatility is the biggest complaint I have in the PF version.

[Psyren]

@Gnaeus - I agree that crafting is generally better on your team's primary caster. But comparing one Fighter to another, more options > fewer options.

Also, your definition of "wildly unoptimized" apparently doesn't align with mine, so we'll have to just leave that there.


But at least far as I'm concerned, the lack of versatility is the biggest complaint I have in the PF version.

I understand that, but mathematically, all it does is turn you into a 3/4 BAB class in exchange for 3:1 damage. 3/4 BAB is fine if you have attack bonuses (which the Fighter does.)

[Eradis]

People are underestimating the value of balance to DMs.

If characters have equal and predictable abilities, you can pick up challenges and run them without worrying. This makes the game much easier. If they do not, you have to check every challenge against your PCs. Having game balance makes being a DM much easier, and it makes it easier in the places that are most often cited as obstacles to good DMing.

Actually, even if it's true in a way, while I play the part of the Game Master, I love to put my players in a variety of challenges. Some to let specific PCs shine, other to watch the whole party scratch their head as the only skill lacking by the party is required or "faith" (forced faith to be honest) puts them against a room full of traps the only day the rogue is MIA. Just like most games, balance is nice to have, but what gives me a thrill in rpgs like Dungeons & Dragons is when that scale is tipped and that balance shatters to an extend.

By all means, I do believe that a minimum of balance is required. But every characters have to play on their weaknesses once and a while to keep it fun and interesting. A too well balance party gets bored fast if it ends up being a round of tag-team switching who tackles problem for minimal group effort.

Just my vision.

[Eldariel]

Actually, even if it's true in a way, while I play the part of the Game Master, I love to put my players in a variety of challenges. Some to let specific PCs shine, other to watch the whole party scratch their head as the only skill lacking by the party is required or "faith" (forced faith to be honest) puts them against a room full of traps the only day the rogue is MIA. Just like most games, balance is nice to have, but what gives me a thrill in rpgs like Dungeons & Dragons is when that scale is tipped and that balance shatters to an extend.

By all means, I do believe that a minimum of balance is required. But every characters have to play on their weaknesses once and a while to keep it fun and interesting. A too well balance party gets bored fast if it ends up being a round of tag-team switching who tackles problem for minimal group effort.

Just my vision.

If the baseline is balanced, it's easy as a DM to consciously break it. The opposite is not true; with an unbalanced baseline, a DM has to work superhard for those parts of the campaign where he wants to achieve a certain level of balance. Balance is a tool, which empowers the DM.

[Nifft]

If the baseline is balanced, it's easy as a DM to consciously break it. The opposite is not true; with an unbalanced baseline, a DM has to work superhard for those parts of the campaign where he wants to achieve a certain level of balance. Balance is a tool, which empowers the DM.

This, 100 times this.

Balance is a firm place to stand, whereupon you can leverage the system into doing whatever it is you want.

A balanced playing field empowers the DM -- and it also empowers the players, since a player can choose to focus on one area to the detriment of another area and actually hope to achieve the desired personal imbalance.

[Eradis]

If the baseline is balanced, it's easy as a DM to consciously break it. The opposite is not true; with an unbalanced baseline, a DM has to work superhard for those parts of the campaign where he wants to achieve a certain level of balance. Balance is a tool, which empowers the DM.

I agree that it simplify the task of a Game Master greatly. Although in certain circumstances an unbalanced game-play on a given time span can actually create something beautiful in a long run. Think of the magic-user class of Warhammer Fantasy. It takes a while before it gets decent (its first spells are still a cool rp tool). Early on, a grave digger can be worth two spell-caster whereas in an extended campaign, the caster is the only one needed for most combat situation if he so wishes*.

*I am not particularly a fan of this caster, but the concept of a caster that is really frail and have to master the basics such as lighting a candle is gold for me. D&D skips this part for obvious reasons. Level one are already weakling, it would be harsh draining their strength even more. I do hope I will find my Grail of a rpg eventually that might line with this and forgo the imposed classes. Some came near, but it's hard to keep such kind of system without implementing a mechanics that might throw off the rest. Again, balance issue. A minimum is always needed. For me it doesn't all have to be about combat.

[ShurikVch]

Its a dividing line drawn to show the influence of the game, independent of any other argument here. Prior to it fictional wizards simply are nowhere near as powerful and versatile. Post that line, there's some pretty nuts ones out there. Making the philosopher's stone and getting immortal life are cool, but its not teleportation, angel summoning, Save or Dies, flying without shapechanging, shapechanging etc.etc. Mythical wizards can match them in certain areas, but none of them have the same breadth. No Gygax, no Harry Potter. I find that kinda cool. And for the small amount of relevance - if people come to D&D expecting wizards to be more useful than fighters, I'm pretty sure that's down to D&D in the first place.

And Feist's Midkemia is heavily based on his own D&D campaign. Wizards like Pug and Moraine are what you get when authors have played D&D.

This has next to nothing with the actual topic mind...Excuse me, but how well you know comics?
Because in both DC and Marvel magic-using characters appeared notably earlier than D&D
Let's see:
Brother Voodoo - 1973
Silver Sorceress - 1971
Agatha Harkness - 1970
Scarlet Witch - 1964
Zatanna Zatara - 1964
Baron Mordo - 1963
Doctor Strange - 1963
Doctor Doom - 1962
Doctor Druid - 1961
Phantom Stranger - 1952
Merlin - 1944
Alan Scott - 1940
Black Widow (Claire Voyant) - 1940
Shazam (wizard) - 1940
Captain Marvel - 1939
Giovanni "John" Zatara - 1938

("magical" characters who may be "too non-human" - such as Loki or Raven - are excluded)

[Eldariel]

I agree that it simplify the task of a Game Master greatly. Although in certain circumstances an unbalanced game-play on a given time span can actually create something beautiful in a long run. Think of the magic-user class of Warhammer Fantasy. It takes a while before it gets decent (its first spells are still a cool rp tool). Early on, a grave digger can be worth two spell-caster whereas in an extended campaign, the caster is the only one needed for most combat situation if he so wishes*.

*I am not particularly a fan of this caster, but the concept of a caster that is really frail and have to master the basics such as lighting a candle is gold for me. D&D skips this part for obvious reasons. Level one are already weakling, it would be harsh draining their strength even more. I do hope I will find my Grail of a rpg eventually that might line with this and forgo the imposed classes. Some came near, but it's hard to keep such kind of system without implementing a mechanics that might throw off the rest. Again, balance issue. A minimum is always needed. For me it doesn't all have to be about combat.

Well, AD&D Wizards were closer to that though they still carry a nuclear missile even on level 1 (Sleep). But they have no endurance or durability (even higher up), take a while to get going and have the slowest XP progression and need to find scrolls for most of their stuff. But around level 9 they can kinda do everything by themselves (like in 3.5, really).

[Peat]

Excuse me, but how well you know comics?
Because in both DC and Marvel magic-using characters appeared notably earlier than D&D
Let's see:
Brother Voodoo - 1973
Silver Sorceress - 1971
Agatha Harkness - 1970
Scarlet Witch - 1964
Zatanna Zatara - 1964
Baron Mordo - 1963
Doctor Strange - 1963
Doctor Doom - 1962
Doctor Druid - 1961
Phantom Stranger - 1952
Merlin - 1944
Alan Scott - 1940
Black Widow (Claire Voyant) - 1940
Shazam (wizard) - 1940
Captain Marvel - 1939
Giovanni "John" Zatara - 1938

("magical" characters who may be "too non-human" - such as Loki or Raven - are excluded)

I don't know the history of comics well but I'm not saying magic using characters didn't exist before then. I'm saying characters with the incredibly broad array of extremely powerful abilities displayed by D&D wizards were rare before then. If comics do disprove the theory, then fair enough. But I am skeptical.

[Gnaeus]

I don't know the history of comics well but I'm not saying magic using characters didn't exist before then. I'm saying characters with the incredibly broad array of extremely powerful abilities displayed by D&D wizards were rare before then. If comics do disprove the theory, then fair enough. But I am skeptical.

Little of both. Comics have a lot of characters with basically undefined powers, but most of them are either off screen NPC types, or more commonly, villains. Doom, for example, can probably do almost anything a T1 caster can do. But he generally doesn’t, and seems to get his butt kicked regularly by teams in which no one would clear T4. Comic Merlin’s powers, likewise, are undefined T1. But mostly offscreen. Loki looks like a T1, but sometimes hulk kicks his ass.

The characters in whom we do see T1 power ranges tend
1. To lack many of the broken tricks that all T1 optimized tricks D&D wizards use or use them rarely. Contingency for example. While a few of them can astral project, we usually see them “adventuring” in person. Almost none could copy the (summon a powerful angel and enslave it in 6 seconds) form of gate.
2. To take longer. In a meaningful way. Zatanna doesn’t autobeat Superman, Batman or flash in a fight. Because she is a person and if she gets silenced or dropped before she can spellcast she loses.
3. To have real limits. Comic/fiction wizards seem to run out of magic a lot. That doesn’t happen much in game.
4. Some powers tend to be NPC only. Yeah, Doom might use planar binding to summon 2 dozen demons to fight a supergroup. Have you seen any heroes do that?

And the top tier ones are mostly powers cosmic. Yes, Strange or Fate are probably close to being a 3.5 wizard in ultimate power output. But they seem to spend most of their time fighting archdemons or gods.

The things I would definitely take away from comics? That the Tier 4 characters (like hulk, or the thing) have a reasonable chance to foil the plots of T1 characters like Doom or Loki. That the full caster types tend to be fragile, their minions seem to be far, far inferior to similar power level tank types, and for whatever reason, while they may have T1 power ranges, they seem to be unable to bring that power to bear in the ways a high level wizard can. If hulk and strange teamed up, I would expect (and this is born out by the team ups ive seen) that strange has way more utility, but hulk is far superior in any fight not involving closing a dimensional gate.

[Luccan]

I don't know the history of comics well but I'm not saying magic using characters didn't exist before then. I'm saying characters with the incredibly broad array of extremely powerful abilities displayed by D&D wizards were rare before then. If comics do disprove the theory, then fair enough. But I am skeptical.

The characters that can match T1s are usually villains, NPCguffin types, or have severe mental blocks (like Jean Grey. Not a magic-user, but with the Phoenix, she could destroy the planet). Or they cast off HP if the effect is powerful enough.

[upho]

Surely you aren't saying that we should totally disregard "swinging a pointy stick" when evaluating the power of martial characters.

I think I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds like we're talking about different things.

In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, most of the power of martial characters is concentrated in "swinging a pointy stick or blunt object". This is their primary means of contributing in combat.I agree. However, as Psyren hinted at earlier, judging by the majority of the items on your list of superior martial options in 3.5, it seems to me you're unaware of what PF martials actually can do by "swinging a pointy stick", and therefore measure the value of their combat related options using a 3.5 martial "optimization yardstick". A yardstick that I believe is no longer accurate in PF.

First, from a 3.5 martial optimization perspective, the only way for a non-ToB martial to remain at least somewhat mechanically useful in higher level combat is by having great actual in-game DPR numbers. So using 4e lingo, martial builds can only be viable as single-target primary strikers (and possibly secondary controllers/debuffers), and are largely limited to a chain tripping or supercharging combat style. Naturally, this means the handful of related options these combat styles rely on (such as Power Attack, spiked chain, Dungeon Crasher, Lion Totem, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack etc) are typically absolutely vital, while the value of other options is often primarily based on their ability to increase the actual in-game DPR numbers of these highly specific combat styles and builds.

But although PF martials also used to be confined to the same niche striker roles - but with slightly different and weaker and/or less accessible related melee options - they can now actually be just as successful in a few other primary roles. And if looking at PF builds as specialized as the 3.5 chain trippers or superchargers, they can even be afford to disregard DPR and ignore related stuff like Power Attack and pounce, and still be very effective in combat. Blasphemy, I know! :smalltongue: For example, a high level melee build can reliably make every enemy within 30' panicked and one cowering, all in one turn. In every round, every fight, all day long, every day. Heck, you can even build an effective switch-hitter who gathers up several enemies from up to more than 300' away and have them fall flat on their backs right at his side, robbed of their movement speeds and spanked silly by AoOs from allies. Also in every round, every fight, all day long, every day. And this is besides potentially even stronger/more reliable options/combos for which there are no 3.5 counterparts AFAIK, such as Spell Sunder, Dirty Trick Master + Savage Dirty Trick/Kitsune Vengeance/Fox Trickery, Come and Get Me, Tetori Monk + Ascetic Style + monk reach weapon etc.

In short, while there are still a LOT more numerous effective damage options for martials, pounce is still regarded is highly valuable, and a majority of effective martial builds are still single-target strikers, there are now completely different ways to swing a pointy stick to great effect in PF. Ways which in 3.5 cannot be made even remotely close to competitive with dealing lots of damage, or which simply don't have any related build options.

Second, I believe one should take into account that many of PF's arguably greatest damage options have no 3.5 counterparts accessible to martials in practice (multiple primary natural attacks, AoO loops, Horn of the Criosphinx, Dragon Ferocity, Boar's Charge etc), and these are thus easily forgotten/missed if applying the "3.5 yardstick". 3.5 melee martials undoubtedly still win a "most over-the-top överkill capacity" contest, but both systems can pretty easily produce martials with ridiculous damage output numbers, far above those required even for very high-op games.

Third, IIRC, there are more non-ToB/PoW T3 martials in PF than in 3.5, including for example certain archetypes of the Pally and the Bloodrager. These of course tend to be powerful combatants also by T3 standards.

As an aside, the excellent PoW (Path of War), the PF equivalent to ToB, is pretty much in all ways superior to its 3.5 conceptual parent and now includes maybe three times the amount of content, but it's 3PP (Dreamscarred Press). Should we bring that material into the equation, martials are definitely better off in PF.



No, but when you're attempting to evaluate what martials gained and lost in a particular edition, ignoring everything that isn't swinging a pointy stick is pretty disingenuous.While I think the need for more numerous effective non-swinging options is dire and the PF fighter is far better than the 3.5 version in most regards, I also think BassoonHero has a highly valid and important point. A PF fighter based build isn't any better than the 3.5 version at living up to its description as the game's master of combat. So if trying to compare the degree to which the two systems succeed/fail with the fighter, it seems weird to me if that particular capability didn't have a greater influence than the class' potential strengths in other areas. And at least during lower levels, I believe the 3.5 fighter definitely has the potential to do much better than the PF fighter in this regard, mainly due to having easier access to powerful options like pounce.

[Psyren]

If DPR is really the sole yardstick we're allowed to use to measure the Fighter's worth, then so be it - as I said yonks ago, 3.5 will nearly always win in the numbers department, because PF has a lower ceiling by design. But if we truly care about meaningless and overly literal terms like "mastering combat," we need a pretty wide lens for that because "combat" is itself broad - exotic weapons, improvised weapons, unarmed, archery, thrown, combat maneuvers and tricks all need to be considered too. So while the 3.5 Fighter definitely wins at standard martial melee damage output, I'm less convinced about their supremacy in the other categories, nor do I think Bassoon knows enough about Pathfinder to properly evaluate their performance in both; and it's not my job to painstakingly defend his own assertion about where Fighter A and Fighter B lie in relation to one another. That is what I was taking issue with.

And on the subject of "mastering combat" - that banal benchmark entered the discussion in the first place because of Nifft's quote from the PHB, to which I responded but did not receive an answer:



You haven't used the word "ranger" on page 7 or 6 of this thread, so ... maybe you could describe your problem more explicitly, or link to whatever it is you're referencing?

What I was referring to was a similar quote from the Ranger's entry, PHB pg 46:


The forests are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker.

If you're going to read every bit of flavor text as though it were inviolate law, you open yourself up to all kinds of nonsense. A level 1 ranger is going to get curbstomped by owlbears and displacer beasts - yet there it is in black and white, our PHB says rangers are more powerful, a clear and obvious statement. And that is the danger of being overly literal with fluff text.

[Nifft]

A PF fighter based build isn't any better than the 3.5 version at living up to its description as the game's master of combat. Agreed.

I don't know Pathfinder that well, but in 3.5e the Fighter is basically a feat-providing toolbox for dipping to improve other, better classes which have real features.


nor do I think Bassoon knows enough about Pathfinder to properly evaluate their performance Well, there you have it. If you don't like the opinion, just attack the poster's credentials.


And on the subject of "mastering combat" - that banal benchmark entered the discussion in the first place because of Nifft's quote from the PHB, to which I responded but did not receive an answer:


What I was referring to was a similar quote from the Ranger's entry, PHB pg 46:


The forests are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker.


If you're going to read every bit of flavor text as though it were inviolate law, you open yourself up to all kinds of nonsense.

Do you honestly think that level 1 Ranger is the only kind of Ranger that exists? Or is that just another dumb straw-man argument?


In real games, there are quite a lot of Rangers who can and do exceed Owlbears and Displacer Beasts, both in any number that could represent "cunning" or "power", and also in any tactic that could represent "cunning" or "power". Hell, Rangers can cast spells, so they beat out non-caster monsters pretty conclusively.

Rangers can hit the benchmarks promised in the flavor text.

Fighters cannot.

Rangers can actually perform in their role.

Fighters will never perform as promised.

That's the difference.

[Psyren]

Agreed.

I don't know Pathfinder that well, but in 3.5e the Fighter is basically a feat-providing toolbox for dipping to improve other, better classes which have real features.

Whereas PF Fighter has real features of its own.


Well, there you have it. If you don't like the opinion, just attack the poster's credentials.

It's not an attack. Knowledge of two systems is indeed required to compare them effectively. I'm in no way impugning him as a person.



Do you honestly think that level 1 Ranger is the only kind of Ranger that exists? Or is that just another dumb straw-man argument?

Of course it isn't, but if one is fond of reading flavor text overly literally, it does not specify a level or build of Ranger, just as the Fighter's level or build is not specified.

And of course Fighters can hit those benchmarks. They can beat up/outfight anything in the MM/Bestiary, all they need is optimization.

[Nifft]

Of course it isn't, but if one is fond of reading flavor text overly literally, it does not specify a level or build of Ranger, just as the Fighter's level or build is not specified.

And of course Fighters can hit those benchmarks. They can beat up/outfight anything in the MM/Bestiary, all they need is optimization.

Fighters can't hit their benchmark because the Fighter's benchmark is stated relative to all other classes.

Ranger doesn't do that. Ranger sets a benchmark relative to monsters, which the Ranger can indeed surpass in all relevant areas.


This is why Ranger's flavor text is telling the truth, while Fighter's flavor text is a lying liar who lies.

It's because they promise different things, with entirely different types of goalposts.

This is pretty simple stuff, which anyone should be able to understand.

[Gnaeus]

And of course Fighters can hit those benchmarks. They can beat up/outfight anything in the MM/Bestiary, all they need is optimization.

That’s a backwards way of saying they can’t outfight bog standard monsters without optimization. A basic player who doesn’t know the best archetypes and decides fighting with shortsword and dagger sounds sexy can underperform and not know why.

[Psyren]

That’s a backwards way of saying they can’t outfight bog standard monsters without optimization. A basic player who doesn’t know the best archetypes and decides fighting with shortsword and dagger sounds sexy can underperform and not know why.

It's not the fluff description's job to teach you how to optimize though. It lets you know what is possible, that's all. Optimization is learnable, just like we all did.


Fighters can't hit their benchmark because the Fighter's benchmark is stated relative to all other classes.

See, and that's where we fundamentally disagree, so there's probably nowhere to go from there.

Your benchmark is other classes.
Mine is the Monster Manual.
Ne'er the 'twain shall meet.

[digiman619]

See, and that's where we fundamentally disagree, so there's probably nowhere to go from there.

Your benchmark is other classes.
Mine is the Monster Manual.
Ne'er the 'twain shall meet.

*cough*Savage Species*cough*

[Gnaeus]

It's not the fluff description's job to teach you how to optimize though. It lets you know what is possible, that's all. Optimization is learnable, just like we all did.

Legitimate difference of opinion. I am of the opinion that if you need to read a guide and create a build to do your basic job, that’s a problem. Most of the games classes do ok if you take options that sound useful on their face and put points in your primary stat. Fighter doesn’t.

[Nifft]

See, and that's where we fundamentally disagree, so there's probably nowhere to go from there.

Your benchmark is other classes.
Mine is the Monster Manual. No, that's the PHB's benchmark for the Fighter. You're quite persistent in your failure to either comprehend the PHB, or to remember two posts ago. Here, I'll find the picture which I made for you:
https://i.imgur.com/P0RJ3OX.png

... compared against your quote from the Ranger's text:

The forests are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker.

The PHB's benchmark for the Ranger is the Monster Manual.

The PHB's benchmark for the Fighter is all other classes.


~Your~ benchmarks are irrelevant, since you don't have the experience nor mental capability to properly evaluate the difference between Fighter and Ranger flavor text. Nothing against you as a person, of course -- just stating the facts.



*cough*Savage Species*cough*

True, but unnecessary, and not applicable in this specific case -- the PHB Ranger text mentions Owlbear and Displacer Beast, neither of which appear in Savage Species (except one mention of DB as pets).

There is an anthropomorphic owl.

[Psyren]

since you don't have the experience nor mental capability

If all you have left is flaming then we have nothing else to discuss. As someone once told me, "if you don't like the opinion, just attack the poster's credentials." Or in this case, the poster, directly, apparently.

[Nifft]

nor do I think Bassoon knows enough about Pathfinder to properly evaluate their performance


If all you have left is flaming then we have nothing else to discuss. As someone once told me, "if you don't like the opinion, just attack the poster's credentials." Or in this case, the poster, directly, apparently.

Was it a flame when you judged Bassoon's capabilities?

Or is it only a flame when someone judges your capabilities?

Your hypocrisy aside, let's address your dishonesty: that's obviously not all I have.

In fact what I have is a refutation of your central argument, and a refutation of your failed attempted to characterize the PHB's different treatment of two classes as somehow my opinion.

I note you're not even bothering to engage with those arguments -- I suppose that means everything else in my post was beyond reproach, and you're conceding the areas where we disagree? If so, that'd be great.

[Psyren]

Was it a flame when you judged Bassoon's capabilities?

Or is it only a flame when someone judges your capabilities?

Play coy if you want - talking about someone's "mental capabilities" has nothing to do with their knowledge of a game and everything to do with attacking them personally.

[AvatarVecna]

I am amused at the arguments being put forth by one particular person in this thread that both there is nothing wrong with the 3.5 Fighter's abilities and that Pathfinder fixed everything wrong with the 3.5 fighter.

[Psyren]

I am amused at the arguments being put forth by one particular person in this thread that both there is nothing wrong with the 3.5 Fighter's abilities and that Pathfinder fixed everything wrong with the 3.5 fighter.

I'm not seeing where anyone said either of these myself.

[Crichton]

Balance. Why do we need it?


I need it to avoid being flat-footed on grease or marbles. Only 5 ranks, though.

[Cosi]

After calling people who disagreed with his stance on whether the DM should be allowed to unilaterally veto player actions "babies", Psyren has no leg to stand on accusing other people of flaming. Then, his lack of a leg to stand on hasn't prevented him from speaking about topics as diverse as "game balance" and "good design".

Really, there's no point in engaging with him. You can construct a perfect model of what Psyren is going to say about any topic by assuming he supports the position that is maximally pro DMs and designers doing whatever they want to the exclusion of players doing what they want. Actually finding out what he has to say is a waste of time.

[Nifft]

Play coy if you want Nah, I'd rather continue to play right.

Let's see what you have to say in response to this:


Your hypocrisy aside, let's address your dishonesty: that's obviously not all I have.

In fact what I have is a refutation of your central argument, and a refutation of your failed attempted to characterize the PHB's different treatment of two classes as somehow my opinion.

I note you're not even bothering to engage with those arguments -- I suppose that means everything else in my post was beyond reproach, and you're conceding the areas where we disagree? If so, that'd be great.

I'm forced to assume that you're not responding to any of the substantive arguments because you can't.

Is that correct?

[death390]

the biggest issue with the fighter is lack of both combat and out-of combat options. combat options are easy enough to grant due to being a numbers game most of the time (though i would like to see them be able to do cool moves that debuff like a shield bash that dazes an opponent (DC 10+ 1/2 lvl vs Will) i guess there is intimidate for "fear". staggered condition could easily apply to several thing though its basically slow - speed reduction)

the problem with out of combat options is that everytime someone gives the fighter something nice it turns into "anime" or "wuxia". there seems to be no middleground.

[upho]

If DPR is really the sole yardstick we're allowed to use to measure the Fighter's worth, then so be it - as I said yonks ago, 3.5 will nearly always win in the numbers department, because PF has a lower ceiling by design.As I exemplified in my previous post, DPR is clearly no longer the sole yardstick for measuring at least higher level PF martials, including the fighter. That is however very much the case for the 3.5 fighter, and it seems to me especially those coming into PF from 3.5 often expect the fighter to have the same extremely narrow/limited viable combat niche/style. And by not raising their proverbial 3.5 fighter glasses, these people often initially fail to recognize that the PF fighter not only has the potential to be far more versatile in general, but also to be at least equally effective in combat roles other than "full attack for max damage".

But it seems you may have missed the point in my reply to you; namely that the PF fighter's more numerous viable combat role/style options does not in and of itself necessarily make the PF fighter a more capable combatant than the 3.5 fighter. And when comparing the actual combat performance of optimized builds of the two versions, the 3.5 fighter does tend to perform better during early/mid levels. And this is simply because the 3.5 fighter has earlier and easier access to the most powerful options supporting its niche DPR combat style, whereas most of the equivalent stuff for the PF fighter likely won't be accessible before 10th level. Which is pretty much what BassoonHero's list showed, despite IMO also being way too 3.5-centric in its apparent baseline assumptions of what makes or breaks a PF fighter build.


But if we truly care about meaningless and overly literal terms like "mastering combat," we need a pretty wide lens for that because "combat" is itself broad - exotic weapons, improvised weapons, unarmed, archery, thrown, combat maneuvers and tricks all need to be considered too.While I don't agree with the "meaningless and overly literal terms" - the fighter's description seems to be one of the most often mentioned reasons for players/GMs feeling cheated and/or having balance issues - I do agree that combat is indeed broad in its literal meaning.

Thing is, the near opposite is true when looking at the actual mechanical value of having broad martial combat abilities versus having a narrow focus in 3.5/PF. Meaning that if a class can be built to perform at up to 60% of a theoretical max capacity in five different types/styles of martial combat, it will most likely be a far worse combatant than a class which can only be built to perform at up to 100% in one single type/style. So for example, in PF/3.5 combat, being "decent" with large selection of weapons isn't even remotely close to as valuable as being able to pounce.

And I believe this is BTW the reason people have such strong feelings about the fighter, as it in 3.5 also comes labeled with an explicit in-game comparison to other classes.


So while the 3.5 Fighter definitely wins at standard martial melee damage output, I'm less convinced about their supremacy in the other categories, nor do I think Bassoon knows enough about Pathfinder to properly evaluate their performance in both; and it's not my job to painstakingly defend his own assertion about where Fighter A and Fighter B lie in relation to one another. That is what I was taking issue with.Well, I agree. And I actually am convinced the 3.5 fighter doesn't stand a chance against the PF fighter if they're forced to perform outside of the niche DPR style. Not to mention when it comes to being useful outside of combat.


And on the subject of "mastering combat" - that banal benchmark entered the discussion in the first place because of Nifft's quote from the PHB, to which I responded but did not receive an answer:IIRC, the fighter's grossly and uniquely misleading description was actually hinted at in one of the thread's first posts.

[upho]

the biggest issue with the fighter is lack of both combat and out-of combat options. combat options are easy enough to grant due to being a numbers game most of the time (though i would like to see them be able to do cool moves that debuff like a shield bash that dazes an opponent (DC 10+ 1/2 lvl vs Will) i guess there is intimidate for "fear". staggered condition could easily apply to several thing though its basically slow - speed reduction)Funny how this is pretty much exactly what the PF fighter (and other PF martial classes) are able to do, and much more reliably than what an ability with your suggested extremely low DC would allow for. Again, it's perfectly possible to build a PF martial who focuses on taking enemies out of the fight mainly by imposing serious action-denial debuffs like dazed, nauseated, panicked, pinned/tied up, speed 0 and dimensional anchor effects. It's damage output numbers are irrelevant, but it can still be at least as effective a combatant as a DPR focused build.


the problem with out of combat options is that everytime someone gives the fighter something nice it turns into "anime" or "wuxia". there seems to be no middleground.I think a much of PF's PoW does exactly this, without "anime" or "wuxia" stylistic elements. But of course, whether you agree depends on what you would categorize as "anime" or "wuxia".

[death390]

the DC for the ability is the exact same for casters highest level spells (1 level later for spont.) but that as a flat DC scales better. because while spellcasters get + attribute to it it is DC 10 + spell level (every odd lvl for wiz even starting at 4 for 9s spont.) up to lvl 9 + attribute mod. note that is HIGHEST lvl spells. its still 11 + modifier for lvl 1 spells, 12+ mod for lvl 2, ext. the modifier makes up the difference later on. @lvl 20 the wizard on average ranges from DC 18-26. depending on spell level (+1-2 for specific schools), while a lvl 20 DC 10 + 1/2 ECL = DC 20 straight. if we added a similar modifier to fighter it would end up DC 27 all the time.

i am guessing Path of War is PoW for pathfinder. i haven't read it, i mostly use DND 3.5. and i was saying that people think those extra abilities are anime/wuxia like. i personally don't find that half the time. even the few that are (EX; shadowhand style ToB) are fine.

[thelastorphan]

My interpretation of Best All Around is not BestAtEverything it's this guy is the most versatile at fighting. It doesn't say combat. It says fighting. Fighting to me implies physical. I don't think thats a flat lie. The fighter just fell short of designer expectations. I agree with that idea fully. I just think that quote is a poor example to point at. There are lots of other things that suggest the designers weren't sure how to properly rate melee options. ToBs late release is an indicator of that for me. It was them giving up on trying with the system they had in place and building a new one.

[digiman619]

My interpretation of Best All Around is not BestAtEverything it's this guy is the most versatile at fighting. It doesn't say combat. It says fighting. Fighting to me implies physical. I don't think thats a flat lie. The fighter just fell short of designer expectations. I agree with that idea fully. I just think that quote is a poor example to point at. There are lots of other things that suggest the designers weren't sure how to properly rate melee options. ToBs late release is an indicator of that for me. It was them giving up on trying with the system they had in place and building a new one.
The analogy I use is a decathlon; you don't hate to win every event, but being 2nd and 3rd in every event can still be enough to win.

[Luccan]

My interpretation of Best All Around is not BestAtEverything it's this guy is the most versatile at fighting. It doesn't say combat. It says fighting. Fighting to me implies physical. I don't think thats a flat lie. The fighter just fell short of designer expectations. I agree with that idea fully. I just think that quote is a poor example to point at. There are lots of other things that suggest the designers weren't sure how to properly rate melee options. ToBs late release is an indicator of that for me. It was them giving up on trying with the system they had in place and building a new one.

I'd argue it wasn't that they weren't unsure and more that they were certain melee was the best for some time. That's how you get Half-Orc or the guideline in the 3.0 DMG (I can't remember if it made it into the 3.5 version) about how a race with +Strength needed -TwoOtherStats.

[CharonsHelper]

I'd argue it wasn't that they weren't unsure and more that they were certain melee was the best for some time. That's how you get Half-Orc or the guideline in the 3.0 DMG (I can't remember if it made it into the 3.5 version) about how a race with +Strength needed -TwoOtherStats.

Yes - half-orc in 3.5 was still +2 STR / -2 INT & CHA

Admittedly - in core 3.5 all other core races got their bonus to Dex or Con which are generally secondary stats. They didn't want to give a bonus to a caster stat either. (Of course - all of the various splats & even MM races totally destroyed that, such as having an elf subspecies for every stat.)

So - it wasn't so much that melee was superior so much as they wanted to keep any race from getting a bonus to a primary stat. Pathfinder has that - where you're being inherently sub-par if you make a wizard which doesn't get +2 to Int. So, no gnome, dwarf, or halfling wizards in Pathfinder unless you're intentionally gimping yourself.

[Cosi]

My interpretation of Best All Around is not BestAtEverything it's this guy is the most versatile at fighting. It doesn't say combat. It says fighting. Fighting to me implies physical. I don't think thats a flat lie.

I think the fact that people describe the scenes in Harry Potter where people are blasting at each other with magic "fight scenes" puts lie to the idea that "fighting" is a purely physical activity. D&D is a game about going into Dungeons and fighting (among other things) Dragons. Having a single Dungeon Delver class that had the protected niche of "goes into dungeons" would be stupid, and so is having a single "Fighter" class with the protected niche of "fights things". Fighter needs a better concept, not to be better at a bad one.

[Zanos]

I think the fact that people describe the scenes in Harry Potter where people are blasting at each other with magic "fight scenes" puts lie to the idea that "fighting" is a purely physical activity. D&D is a game about going into Dungeons and fighting (among other things) Dragons. Having a single Dungeon Delver class that had the protected niche of "goes into dungeons" would be stupid, and so is having a single "Fighter" class with the protected niche of "fights things". Fighter needs a better concept, not to be better at a bad one.
Context matters.

When I hear "Fighter" in the context of D&D, I definitely think of a guy in full plate who's a versatile physical combatant.

[Eldariel]

Context matters.

When I hear "Fighter" in the context of D&D, I definitely think of a guy in full plate who's a versatile physical combatant.

But that's because of tradition, not the term. Introduce someone to the game first in 3E and they'll probably not have the connection. A Fighter could just as well be a lightning fist, a pyrokineticist fighting with a flaming whip and a sword á la Balrog, a martial artist, a pikeman, a knight, a samurai, a longbowman, a spatial contorter, a telekineticist, etc. As easy, broad archetypes. Man-at-arms would be a more appropriate term for a foot soldier. Or just foot soldier. Lancer, just as well. Or all of above.

[thelastorphan]

Tradition matters as much as context. And 1e had the same deal. The fighter has always been the versatile physical combatant. Thats the terms context in DnD. Thats the definition that matters when talking about DnD. The PHB didn't lie. It fel short. And thats a big difference.

[Cosi]

Tradition matters as much as context. And 1e had the same deal. The fighter has always been the versatile physical combatant. Thats the terms context in DnD. Thats the definition that matters when talking about DnD. The PHB didn't lie. It fel short. And thats a big difference.

Hewing to a bad concept does not become a good idea because earlier editions did it does not make the game better. Getting rid of THACO was good. Getting rid of racial level limits was good. Getting rid of different XP tables was good. Changing the Fighter to something better would also be good. No one wept when Magic Users became Wizards.

[Eldariel]

Tradition matters as much as context. And 1e had the same deal. The fighter has always been the versatile physical combatant. Thats the terms context in DnD. Thats the definition that matters when talking about DnD. The PHB didn't lie. It fel short. And thats a big difference.

Tradition matters to people who know it. People who come from the outside, new players, are inevitably excluded. And frankly, there should be no sacred counts, certainly not in semantics. Fighter with a better concept and a better execution; weapon master, perhaps. Warleader, perhaps. There are things Fighter could or should be but isn't (and ones that thus don't exist); and what Fighter is right now is kinda redundant.

[Necroticplague]

Tradition matters to people who know it. People who come from the outside, new players, are inevitably excluded. And frankly, there should be no sacred counts, certainly not in semantics. Fighter with a better concept and a better execution; weapon master, perhaps. Warleader, perhaps.

How about Warblade? :smalltongue:

[Cosi]

How about Warblade? :smalltongue:

In general, I dislike names in the form <whatever>blade or <whatever>sword, because they feel unnecessarily limiting. There's no reason your "brute force melee combat guy" can't be someone like Thor (who fights with a hammer) or Hulk (who fights with his fists) or that guy with the spear in WoT (who fights with a spear).

[thelastorphan]

Fighter says what is intended. The guy that fights. Is there a difference in your mind between the words fight and brawl? The brawler evokes a certain style. Fighter is broad and is supposed to be. I would guess even most newer players hear any of the martial class names and don't expect anything that seems magical. Barbarian is no. More helpful than fighter and in fact applies a mounted warrior. The difference between savages and barbarians is that barbarians ride horses. All the martial class names are broad terms. Many of the magical ones are as well. Its intentional and not the problem. The problem is that the gap is too wide. It should be heavily favored toward mundanes early. Become equal from around 5-15 and shift to casters at the end. Thats my opinion anyway.

[Eldariel]

Fighter says what is intended. The guy that fights. Is there a difference in your mind between the words fight and brawl? The brawler evokes a certain style. Fighter is broad and is supposed to be. I would guess even most newer players hear any of the martial class names and don't expect anything that seems magical. Barbarian is no. More helpful than fighter and in fact applies a mounted warrior. The difference between savages and barbarians is that barbarians ride horses. All the martial class names are broad terms. Many of the magical ones are as well. Its intentional and not the problem. The problem is that the gap is too wide. It should be heavily favored toward mundanes early. Become equal from around 5-15 and shift to casters at the end. Thats my opinion anyway.

I think instead of that, it should be rather equal throughout. Just project the different XP progressions into class progression; slow down casters, speed up martials (though of course, 2e martials were 100 times the characters 3e ones were), make them gain the relevant stuff at the same rate. That's what the 3e system is built for. Instead, make it a niche based system; let everyone do their thing and be the best at it. That said, I still think Barbarian, Ranger & Paladin are all more interesting martial types than Fighter; D&D has moved far from the 4-class system and that's for the better with the way multiclassing in the edition plays out (though caster multiclassing should work without PRCs but that's its own problem). And again, we're missing a Warlord and a Weapon Master; Fighter is kinda Weapon Master but not nearly, nearly enough. That angle needs to be played up more.

[thelastorphan]

I actually agree with some of this. I think what keeps the fighter from being the weapon master is that feat power was over estimated and fighter only feats should have been stronger. The PHB2 feats address some of that but dont go far enough. As far as a warlord that should be a function of the barbarian in my opinion. Or the knight. Depending on your preferred flavor.

[Loxagn]

The issue of mundane characters' inability to meaningfully contribute past a certain point is a reason I don't really play 3.X anymore. Just taking the issue of skills, for a moment:

Your average Fighter, who is supposed to be a master of warfare, lacks the basic ability to survey the battlefield, and is incapable of knowing anything other than what is directly spoon-fed to him. In 3.5, he can't even have a day job if he wants one, and also wants to be able to, say, be an athletic individual, because a measure of how athletic he is, is divided into Climb, Swim, and Jump. Do you want to have a soldier who enjoys baking in his spare time, but is also a skilled horseman with a working knowledge of siege warfare? What a shame, you can't do that. As a fighter, if you are a human, you are likely to have, at best, four things you can do, assuming you have a 12 in Intelligence. And you can't have Ride, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering), Profession (Baker), and be a Fighter; if you have instead Average human Intelligence (10), you even have to give up those things. And you're going to die the instant you encounter water, or, say, an ambush, because as a master of warfare you can't even perceive your enemies.
Contrast a young man who was born to a couple of tailors who through years and years of hard work saved up enough to get their son into a good Wizard University. He picked up a working knowledge of tailoring from his parents, studied hard to become a wizard, anddeveloped a knack for dead languages and took a few semesters of Alchemy into the bargain. With a 16 in Intelligence and as a human, he can be an expert in Knowledge (Arcane), Spellcraft, and Concentration, and have points leftover for Profession (Tailor), Craft (Alchemy), and Decipher Script. The result is a character who is, in fact, already more well-rounded and deeper roleplay-wise. He's not terribly athletic or perceptive, but he can make up for (and even render useless) those weaknesses with spells, while the Fighter has nothing to make up for it.

The Fighter has the same problem as the Barbarian, who gets all the Fighter's limitations except he's even more of a moron because he can't even read.

You can't just say 'so put bonuses in Intelligence', either, because that expressly limits the Fighter's ability to do what his Class ought to be capable of.

If you roll 3d6x6 and get the results 16, 12, 11, 9, 6, 13, and you're playing a Fighter, you rapidly come to the realization that you need a lot of things to be any good as a Fighter. If you don't put that 16 in Strength, you're just gimping yourself. And you need at least a +1 in Constitution, so you stick 12 there. Oh, but you need Dex 13 to qualify for some feats you want to take, so you put a 13 there and... oh. Your choices for mental stats become 11, 9, and 6. You really don't want a -1 in Wisdom, because your Will and Spot are already awful and making them worse will only complicate matters... so you spend your precious 11 on Wisdom. Leaving you with a 9 in Intelligence and a 6 in Charisma. Congratulations, you only have one skill point now. Two, if you're human. And, according to stats, you're also ugly and socially retarded, which you don't need to be effective at Fighting, but leaves little opportunity for roleplay.

Give the same array to a Wizard, and he can freely assign that 16 to his Intelligence. That's all he needs to be good at Wizarding, and he gets five or six (if human) skills into the bargain. He can stick a 12 in Dexterity and an 11 in Constitution, giving him no penalty to any of his saves and even letting him drop that 13 into Charisma and 9 into Wisdom, since he wants to be a little bit social as well. As for the 6, throw it in Strength. Who needs it? The heaviest thing his character's ever had to lift is a spellbook. A wizard who wants to have lots of things to do outside of his class's basic functions just needs to be a Wizard to do it. A Fighter who wants the same has to actively hurt his effectiveness as a class.

Ability score prerequisites are also a thing. Casters have none, and Mundane classes, who will already be stretched thin, have lots.

And the Fighter is, at least, better than the poor Monk. Who has the melee fighter issue of needing Three decent stats, like the Fighter, as well as needing a decent Wisdom. And in exchange for that ludicrous investment, can't even really perform in his advertised role. Someone who rolls the Fighter mentioned above, expecting to have a well-rounded character with a deep set of skills that would be reminiscent of, say, an actual human being with that background, will be sorely disappointed and have to sacrifice aspects of his character's concept, whereas the Wizard's player will have to sacrifice... very little, actually.

There is literally no reason that a Player Character class, that is not a full caster singularly dependent on Intelligence, should be limited to 2+Int Skills. And yet, the Fighter remains an ignorant buffoon who can't climb a rope, ride a horse, and know basic local history at the same time.

Sorry for the long-winded post.
TL;DR version:
If a Wizard wants to excel in combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel outside of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel outside of combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel in and out of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in and out of combat, the Fighter can't do that.
And that's not fair.

[Luccan]

The issue of mundane characters' inability to meaningfully contribute past a certain point is a reason I don't really play 3.X anymore. Just taking the issue of skills, for a moment:

Your average Fighter, who is supposed to be a master of warfare, lacks the basic ability to survey the battlefield, and is incapable of knowing anything other than what is directly spoon-fed to him. In 3.5, he can't even have a day job if he wants one, and also wants to be able to, say, be an athletic individual, because a measure of how athletic he is, is divided into Climb, Swim, and Jump. Do you want to have a soldier who enjoys baking in his spare time, but is also a skilled horseman with a working knowledge of siege warfare? What a shame, you can't do that. As a fighter, if you are a human, you are likely to have, at best, four things you can do, assuming you have a 12 in Intelligence. And you can't have Ride, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering), Profession (Baker), and be a Fighter; if you have instead Average human Intelligence (10), you even have to give up those things. And you're going to die the instant you encounter water, or, say, an ambush, because as a master of warfare you can't even perceive your enemies.
Contrast a young man who was born to a couple of tailors who through years and years of hard work saved up enough to get their son into a good Wizard University. He picked up a working knowledge of tailoring from his parents, studied hard to become a wizard, anddeveloped a knack for dead languages and took a few semesters of Alchemy into the bargain. With a 16 in Intelligence and as a human, he can be an expert in Knowledge (Arcane), Spellcraft, and Concentration, and have points leftover for Profession (Tailor), Craft (Alchemy), and Decipher Script. The result is a character who is, in fact, already more well-rounded and deeper roleplay-wise. He's not terribly athletic or perceptive, but he can make up for (and even render useless) those weaknesses with spells, while the Fighter has nothing to make up for it.

The Fighter has the same problem as the Barbarian, who gets all the Fighter's limitations except he's even more of a moron because he can't even read.

You can't just say 'so put bonuses in Intelligence', either, because that expressly limits the Fighter's ability to do what his Class ought to be capable of.

If you roll 3d6x6 and get the results 16, 12, 11, 9, 6, 13, and you're playing a Fighter, you rapidly come to the realization that you need a lot of things to be any good as a Fighter. If you don't put that 16 in Strength, you're just gimping yourself. And you need at least a +1 in Constitution, so you stick 12 there. Oh, but you need Dex 13 to qualify for some feats you want to take, so you put a 13 there and... oh. Your choices for mental stats become 11, 9, and 6. You really don't want a -1 in Wisdom, because your Will and Spot are already awful and making them worse will only complicate matters... so you spend your precious 11 on Wisdom. Leaving you with a 9 in Intelligence and a 6 in Charisma. Congratulations, you only have one skill point now. Two, if you're human. And, according to stats, you're also ugly and socially retarded, which you don't need to be effective at Fighting, but leaves little opportunity for roleplay.

Give the same array to a Wizard, and he can freely assign that 16 to his Intelligence. That's all he needs to be good at Wizarding, and he gets five or six (if human) skills into the bargain. He can stick a 12 in Dexterity and an 11 in Constitution, giving him no penalty to any of his saves and even letting him drop that 13 into Charisma and 9 into Wisdom, since he wants to be a little bit social as well. As for the 6, throw it in Strength. Who needs it? The heaviest thing his character's ever had to lift is a spellbook. A wizard who wants to have lots of things to do outside of his class's basic functions just needs to be a Wizard to do it. A Fighter who wants the same has to actively hurt his effectiveness as a class.

Ability score prerequisites are also a thing. Casters have none, and Mundane classes, who will already be stretched thin, have lots.

And the Fighter is, at least, better than the poor Monk. Who has the melee fighter issue of needing Three decent stats, like the Fighter, as well as needing a decent Wisdom. And in exchange for that ludicrous investment, can't even really perform in his advertised role. Someone who rolls the Fighter mentioned above, expecting to have a well-rounded character with a deep set of skills that would be reminiscent of, say, an actual human being with that background, will be sorely disappointed and have to sacrifice aspects of his character's concept, whereas the Wizard's player will have to sacrifice... very little, actually.

There is literally no reason that a Player Character class, that is not a full caster singularly dependent on Intelligence, should be limited to 2+Int Skills. And yet, the Fighter remains an ignorant buffoon who can't climb a rope, ride a horse, and know basic local history at the same time.

Sorry for the long-winded post.
TL;DR version:
If a Wizard wants to excel in combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel outside of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel outside of combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel in and out of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in and out of combat, the Fighter can't do that.
And that's not fair.

I think this is why "everyone gets minimum 4+Int Skills" is a fairly common houserule. I think the real problem though is that bonus skillpoints are tied to one stat. If you could, say, pick Int or Wis, that'd be better (especially for guys like fighter, who also really need the Will save boost).
This is also why I still like rolling sometimes, since good rolls means you can play a more competent martial.

Also why I like the idea of picking your skill list.

[Psyren]

I agree, Fighters should get more skills. This was one of the patches made to the base PF Fighter, via Advanced Weapon Training -> Versatile Training (which costs them no build resources), and archetypes like Lore Warden take it even further.

[death390]

The table i play at has a couple house rules to patch certain holes.
everyone gets 4+int skills minimum, and no loss of skill points due to low int.
4D6 reroll all 1's. (avg is about 13) for attributes.

all classes get listen, spot, search as class skills. honestly who doesn't NEED these? barbarian hunts, ranger hunts, druid gathers, fighters are the wall watchers, wizards and sorcerers attention to detail, and the bard wants to keep track of the audiences mood.

flaws and traits (2 each) from unearthed arcana are allowed due to the limited number of feats given this was a big boon to everyone. (and gives reasons for certain role play) we do use dandwiki and dnd-wiki traits and flaws as well as te printed ones as long as the balance is there. a ranger in my group had old-wound and bad leg leading to his taking his riding dog everywhere (halfling).

we are also toying with spontaneous divine casters from UA. a few of our group (90% mundanes) are toying with the idea of spellcasting but don't like the prepared caster. i know its subpar but hey they want to try ez caster first good on them.

[Necroticplague]

I agree, Fighters should get more skills. This was one of the patches made to the base PF Fighter, via Advanced Weapon Training -> Versatile Training (which costs them no build resources), and archetypes like Lore Warden take it even further.

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

[Loxagn]

Alas, I can't speak for Pathfinder as I'm not nearly as familiar with it as I am with 3.5. Personally I'd argue Fighter deserves either 6+Int, or the skills need to be greatly condensed. Both would probably go a long way towards making Fighter more attractive. Unfortunately, the problems go a bit deeper than that. Even from a combat perspective, there's a definite disparity in terms of options. A Fighter, for instance, has been investing heavily in being a melee bruiser who wears plate mail and acts as a prickly indomitable wall between the enemies and the other members of his party, who are the quintessential supportive Cleric, backstabbing Rogue, and blasty Wizard. The DM reveals that there's a young Red Dragon terrorizing the local countryside, and the king is begging the party to help. Simple, right?

Except, not so simple. Fighter has absolutely no options available for dealing with a flying enemy. He's been investing into becoming a big strong two-handed Fighter. So, he reasons, he'll grab a Longbow at the next town. Only he's not going to be very good with that bow, is he? If he wants to be anything approaching decent with it, he needs to get it Masterwork, have a Strength Bonus, and he needs to get it Enchanted to at least +1, unless the Cleric has Greater Magic Weapon and is willing to cast it. If he really wants to have even the slightest hope with that bow, he'll need to spend feats on becoming good with it, which means that he needs to wait at minimum until he reaches next level. Possibly two levels from now, at which point the dragon fight might well have already passed. But he still has to invest a significant portion of a finite resource (Feats) to get an ability like Weapon Focus or Point Blank Shot, which are abilities appropriate for a first level character, not a level 5-7 one like the Fighter is now.

Rogue has a similar problem. He's been largely reliant on flanking with the fighter to be a combat contributor, and while he's been investing in Dexterity, he has even fewer feats to work with than Fighter, and even if he's an archer all of his damage output is completely negated if, say, the dragon doesn't approach closer than thirty feet, which for a sapient creature with a survival instinct is, clearly, not something any sane dragon would do. The Rogue might have some low-level wands to contribute to the fight with UMD, at the very least, but he's unlikely to be able to meaningfully contribute against a flying enemy.

Wizard has also run into a problem. He's been favoring pyromancy this entire time, because who doesn't enjoy a good explosion? But, obviously, Red Dragons are immune to fire, and Wizard needs something else to add to his arsenal to be able to Blast like he could before. So he makes a quick visit to the local Mage College, pays a pittance to the College's coffers, and copies an Orb of Cold spell into his spellbook, thus instantly gaining a level-appropriate ability in exchange for a small investment of an infinite resource (there are always ways for an adventurer to get more Gold.) Oh, and Fighter and Rogue have been begging him to help, so he takes their money to scribe two scrolls of Flight.

Cleric has run into exactly zero problems. He's been supporting the party with magic from the beginning, and continues to support the party. He prays for an Energy Resistance spell tomorrow morning, and a Greater Magic Weapon spell at Fighter's request, and calls it a day.

If Feat Chains didn't exist and Feats scaled to level, this would be fine; not quite equal, but fine. But they do, and they don't, and that means that a mundane character is pretty much always going to be behind the curve. The vast majority of characters will never get more than five feats, and when casters can spend feats to gain benefits that will always be level-appropriate (metamagic, crafting, increases to DC) while mundanes must spend feats on useless prerequisites before getting the 'good stuff' (How often is Dodge a prerequisite? Or Point-Blank Shot? Yes, let me have more conditional +1 Bonuses, please.), there's a disparity there, too.

That said: Tome of Battle and some of the PHBII feats are fantastic. We needed more of these!
But to quote Frank Trollman, "A +1 bonus is so pitiful you might honestly forget you had it." And unfortunately, there's a lot of those in 3.5.

[Cosi]

Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is. No amount of craft is going to give you a niche comparable to planar binding. And so on. Yes, the Fighter should get more skills. But skills are basically character background, and no amount of character background is a substitute for real, meaningful abilities.

FFS, the Sorcerer gets as many skills as the Fighter, and their list is comparably bad. I think it's pretty clear the skills aren't the issue here.

[Rynjin]

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

AWTs and Weapon Mastery Feats are also unavailable or harder to obtain for many solid archetypes that trade out Weapon Training. They put more pressure build-wise on Fighters IME.

Not that they're bad options, mind, but them needing to be tacked on years later instead of being a core feature that DOESN'T trade out a Fighter feature's progression hurts them a bit.

[Loxagn]

Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is. No amount of craft is going to give you a niche comparable to planar binding. And so on. Yes, the Fighter should get more skills. But skills are basically character background, and no amount of character background is a substitute for real, meaningful abilities.

FFS, the Sorcerer gets as many skills as the Fighter, and their list is comparably bad. I think it's pretty clear the skills aren't the issue here.

I'm not saying that more Skills would fix the Fighter. I'm saying that a lack of Skills is one reason they can be unfun to play.

[Psyren]

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

Every single choice you make has an opportunity cost, so I wasn't counting that. The alternative is not making any build choices at all.

What I meant by "build resources" is that it doesn't cost you any feats or wealth, doesn't require a specific race or archetype etc.



Not that they're bad options, mind, but them needing to be tacked on years later instead of being a core feature that DOESN'T trade out a Fighter feature's progression hurts them a bit.

I agree, but rolling that stuff out before they even knew whether Pathfinder would be successful at all is a bit premature. Better late than never.

[Rynjin]

Would have been a perfect fit for Unchained though. Everybody and their grandma wanted UnFighter.

[Psyren]

I mean, for all we know that was the original plan... WMH came out only a few months after Unchained, so it seems likely they were in development concurrently.

I'm liking what they did with the Starfinder Soldier at least.

[Calthropstu]

I mean, for all we know that was the original plan... WMH came out only a few months after Unchained, so it seems likely they were in development concurrently.

I'm liking what they did with the Starfinder Soldier at least.

Magic becomes less of an advantage when jet packs and laser guns come into play.

[death390]

hmm the major point about the fighter building only 1 'good' strategy with his feats is quite important. so collapsing a entire style into 1-2 feats would make them better overall. this would also make them available to more people. so have 4 basic feat styles (several more maybe). note this is all combat oriented and does not help out of combat (unless these styles have some kind of OoC applications)

Melee: two handed fighting (contains power attack), two weapon fighting, sword and board fighting. (maybe a single hand fighting style, unarmed fighting style, grappler style).

Ranged: Volley style, rapid style. (maybe a precision style)

also possibilities could include specific typed styles. Piercing style (maybe DR negation? or AC reduction), Slashing style (bonus damage against un-armored/ soft-armored targets? maybe bleed?), blunt style (AC reduction against hard armors, armorcrush/bonebreak to apply entangle) these would only be useful when using melee weapons that are the correct type. (ranged would have its own damage style probably DR/ reduction since that is its bane)

all of these feats should scale with BaB giving the most to full BaB classes and least to the 1/2 BaB classes.

[upho]

the DC for the ability is the exact same for casters highest level spells (1 level later for spont.)No, it's typically not even remotely close. I think you're missing two very important factors here:

Casters that use spells with saves tend to be of the MAD sort, which usually means that (spell level + mod) > (full ECL).
There are numerous options which grant stacking bonuses to spell DCs, so spells with saves cast against enemies typically have DCs above (10 + spell lvl + mod).


but that as a flat DC scales better. because while spellcasters get + attribute to it it is DC 10 + spell level (every odd lvl for wiz even starting at 4 for 9s spont.) up to lvl 9 + attribute mod. note that is HIGHEST lvl spells. its still 11 + modifier for lvl 1 spells, 12+ mod for lvl 2, ext. the modifier makes up the difference later on. @lvl 20 the wizard on average ranges from DC 18-26. depending on spell level (+1-2 for specific schools), while a lvl 20 DC 10 + 1/2 ECL = DC 20 straight.Huh? I'd say a 20th level wizard's spell DCs can typically be expected to range from at least 21 (10 + 1 spell lvl + 10 Int) to above 38 (10 + 9 spell lvl + 13 Int + 6 or more from feats/items/race/whatever), and potentially a lot higher if also including temporary boosts and more serious DC optimization (for example up to +15 from the Fatespinner PrC).

In addition, a wizard who likes casting spells with saves will of course typically focus on spells which benefit from the same DC boosts. Which in reality means that the average DC of the spells such a wizard casts against enemies in combat is virtually always much higher than the mean of the DCs of all spells in his book. For example, IME a decently built 20th level enchanter will very rarely cast a spell with a DC below 25, but often spells with a DC ranging from 31 to 35 or more.

In contrast, your suggested ability would have a maximum save DC of 20. (Or perhaps 22? I don't remember whether 3.5 has any DC boost options applicable to this ability.) Likewise, at 1st level, the wizard's spell DC is typically somewhere between 15 and 18, while your dazing fighter ability would have a DC of 10.

But more importantly, the average Will of CR 20 monsters in 3.5 is about +19 IIRC. So IMO the save DCs of the above mentioned enchanter seem very reasonable, while the DC 20 of your fighter ability is everything but.

For what it's worth, you're far from the first to cripple an otherwise potentially great martial ability by including a way too weak DC which cannot be meaningfully improved. The formula the WoTC designers typically used for martial abilities IIRC (10 + 1/2 class level (or full PrC level) + Wis/Int/Cha mod) also produce too low DCs in a large majority of cases IME. Again, the main problem is that these DCs are virtually impossible to boost substantially in practice, often making the related abilities only useful against lower CR mooks which rarely present much of a threat anyways. The same is BTW often true even in the case of the few PF abilities - notably Dazing Assault (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dazing-assault-combat) - which use the much stronger DC formula (10 + bab). Although come to think of it, this formula could actually be just about right in 3.5 with its lower average monster saves.


if we added a similar modifier to fighter it would end up DC 27 all the time.Sorry, but I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. It seems to me you claim a "+ mod" bonus would always end up being exactly +7. Which would be... weird.


i am guessing Path of War is PoW for pathfinder.Yep.


i haven't read it, i mostly use DND 3.5. and i was saying that people think those extra abilities are anime/wuxia like. i personally don't find that half the time. even the few that are (EX; shadowhand style ToB) are fine.Ah, I think I get what you're saying; basically that people find many of the ToB/PoW abilities/mechanics too anime/wuxia for D&D. If so, I've also heard that complaint about ToB. But it also seems to me when these complaints are more closely examined, it becomes evident that a large majority of them actually have very little to do with mechanics, but much to do with flavor. Meaning that if only the strictly mechanical elements of the more offending options, such as many of the Shadow Hand maneuvers, were kept intact and everything else changed into a more classic D&D fantasy style, I believe there would be considerably fewer such complaints.

[Psyren]

Magic becomes less of an advantage when jet packs and laser guns come into play.

Indeed. And thematically, people don't seem to mind when Boba Fett is a challenge for Luke Skywalker.

Maybe that's the key.

[death390]

huh i see what you mean about the DC, to be honest i was mostly just throwing numbers, i sadly have yet to play a game that high let alone one which i am allowed to power game. (my group sadly consists of only martials [yes i count 2 rangers as martials]) though i did convince one of them to try a dragonfire adept (as the sole spellcaster i need help not only overshadowing them.

that said i see what you mean about the attribute modifier being necessary. perhaps 11 + 1/3 ECL + Strength modifier? this would give a +6 ECL which puts it only 2 spell levels away from the wizard with a similar boost about half way between a bards spells and a sorcerers. martials tend to increase Str especially two handers though the type of skill (SU/EX/none/ect) would alter how it could be boosted. my big concern was that it being a static variable keeping it too high would overtake saves. i mean on a all good save class/gestalt the total bonus for a save is +12 for a PC class, let alone the creatures/ beings you are meant to fight at that level.

[Necroticplague]

Every single choice you make has an opportunity cost, so I wasn't counting that. The alternative is not making any build choices at all.

What I meant by "build resources" is that it doesn't cost you any feats or wealth, doesn't require a specific race or archetype etc.

An Advanced Weapon Training slot isn't drastically different from a feat slot. That Advanced Weapon Training takes up one such slot. So if you're considering feats to be a rescource, then Advanced Weapon Trainings should also be considered such for fighters.

[Gnaeus]

I was in a game about a dozen years ago. The play environment was very low op. DMs girlfriend had a swashbuckler. One guy either played a monk and rerolled into Samurai or the other way around. I had a Druid. Granted, I shouldn’t have, and wouldn’t today, but I like Druids. I think they are fun to play, and while I had the intelligence to build a solid one I didn’t have the wisdom to know I shouldn’t.

So, the party fell into this dynamic where DM would clone whatever monster we were fighting. My pet and I would charge/pounce/grapple/murder one, and the other 3 PCs together would fight the other. Most of the time, with average rolls on all sides, I would kill mine first and help them finish theirs off. I was passibly optimized, but basically just self buffed and ate peoples faces.

So, that’s issue 1. A Druid (and when I think of Druid I think of an old guy with a sickle, not a death machine) can casually outfight 3 PCs who are theoretically frontline melee combatants.

So the DM brings his brother into the game. He tells me his brother is playing a fighter and my heart sinks. There must have been fear in my voice when I asked what kind of fighter it was. “Oh, some kind of tripper with some Tome of Battle stuff”. And suddenly everything was ok. I was solid enough at game theory by then to know that casual low op players don’t make spiked chain trippers. And sure enough, that character was a beast. The biggest problem was that we had a hard time remembering his turn because he did so much damage on the enemy’s turns. No, there was never a chance he could scout like the Druid, or heal or teleport or do anything but fight. But I wouldn’t have wanted to melee him because he could do his job.

And that is issue 2. Fighter is so wildly erratic by optimization that it swings from competent to incompetent based on whether he read a guide (or in that case had solid opti-fu himself) and followed it closely. Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.

[CharonsHelper]

Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.

I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.

[Psyren]

An Advanced Weapon Training slot isn't drastically different from a feat slot. That Advanced Weapon Training takes up one such slot. So if you're considering feats to be a rescource, then Advanced Weapon Trainings should also be considered such for fighters.

But feats are necessary not just for the build itself, but to qualify for the other things you want on time - prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, even crafting the items you need for your build if magic mart isn't available. So I still see AWT as different, even if you count them as resources too. AWT just gives you stuff for the build itself.

[EldritchWeaver]

But feats are necessary not just for the build itself, but to qualify for the other things you want on time - prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, even crafting the items you need for your build if magic mart isn't available. So I still see AWT as different, even if you count them as resources too. AWT just gives you stuff for the build itself.

It's possible to avoid those dependencies, which makes the feats and skills to be simply stuff for the build. Or vice versa, I could easily create a feat which depends on AWT in some way. Overall, I see little benefit in this distinction. You might have different opportunity costs, but in the end, only stuff on your char sheet counts, not where it came from.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.

It’s not that they are impossible to screw up. Or to misplay. But honestly, we played that game a surprisingly long time. A wizard 8/rogue 1/wizard 1 I could at least have bought a scroll of polymorph to scribe and that one move would have shot it forever above the T5s.

The optimization standard I now use is (can my 11 year old build it?). She can build a fully competent Barbarian. We could build a stronger one, but hers wouldn’t fail. She would realize Str was key, pick a 2h weapon because she has seen Conan, and find Power Attack pretty quickly. She would probably take some junk feats but nothing fatal.

She can even build a competent wizard. She would know that Int was key. She would be way blastier than most forum goers would prefer, but she would find some of the useful spells on her own and would rapidly adopt others. She’s fully able to stop using underperforming options. She’s smart, just not with a high degree of system mastery.

For her to build a competent, competitive fighter, I would have to step in and stomp on build decisions. You don’t want to focus on TWF because (game mechanics). You don’t want dodge and toughness because (game mechanics). You need these 3 feats from different splatbooks in order to be decent.

[Zanos]

She can even build a competent wizard. She would know that Int was key. She would be way blastier than most forum goers would prefer, but she would find some of the useful spells on her own and would rapidly adopt others. She’s fully able to stop using underperforming options. She’s smart, just not with a high degree of system mastery.

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

[Psyren]

It's possible to avoid those dependencies, which makes the feats and skills to be simply stuff for the build. Or vice versa, I could easily create a feat which depends on AWT in some way. Overall, I see little benefit in this distinction. You might have different opportunity costs, but in the end, only stuff on your char sheet counts, not where it came from.

Very well - let's compare it to the 3.5 Fighter then. AWT has a cost, but its cost is something that 3.5 Fighters wouldn't have gotten anyway. That to me is a distinction worth making - all upside.

[Gnaeus]

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

And that’s just stupid. I’m not saying I don’t believe it happened, but it’s closer to a fighter wandering around naked and weaponless because he’s a sumo wrestler than picking TWF because you want to be the Grey Mouser. Nothing fixes aggressive anti optimization. The Druid could have a bird companion and use produce flame a lot. But a smart, aggressive, system clueless player will still likely find spells like invisibility and immediately realize how being invisible can help you.

I was in another game where we had a player who had a necromancer Sorcerer. Literally all his spells were necromancy. He sucked as a sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles. When he died, his next Sorcerer has all evocation spells (not kidding). He also sucked as a Sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

This is probably at least a vaguely-fair point. Fighter and Wizard both have heaps and heaps of trap options, but the Fighter's trap options are in the range of "makes you better, but not nearly enough" (Weapon Focus, TWF, Toughness), while the wizard's trap options are scores and scores of nigh-useless spells. Sure, there's tons of gems and decent spells scattered through, and the lists are expansive enough that you easily prepare a list that was nothing but broken-ass bull**** char-op darling spells, but there's not really any spells that are considered the "obvious meta" option the way Weapon Focus is for Fighter (except maybe Fireball?). Wizards and Sorcerers are kinda thrown into the deep end. "Pick your spells known/spellbook spells, hope you don't screw up". Wizard is slightly better off if they make bad decisions (since they can spend money on extra spells), sorcerers are screwed. Clerics and Druids are better off since they can prepare from their whole list every day, so bad decisions have a maximum life expectancy of 24 hours. Bad Fighter feats are forever, but they're rarely as wasteful of feat slot as Read Magic is a waste of a spell slot, if only because of how much better a spell could've been in that slot compared to how good a feat could've been in that feat slot.

[CharonsHelper]

(Weapon Focus, TWF, Toughness),

Actually - Weapon Focus is awesome, and while I haven't run the #s in 3.5, in Pathfinder TWF builds have the highest DPR in the game, being 15-20% higher than a two-handed build. (though with drawbacks due to feat cost, DR, and lower damage on single attacks)

[Necroticplague]

Actually - Weapon Focus is awesome
Err....can you explain how this is true? Even assuming the only weapons you use are ones WF applies to (which is a fairly reasonable assumption), the feat only benefits you in one situation: when it turns what would be a hit, into a miss (i.e, your attack roll is one less than their AC). This mean it's relevant on 5% of all attacks (barring weirdly weighted/crappy/loaded dice). This sounds like its very non-preferable compared to something that affects all attacks, or all attacks that hit.

[CharonsHelper]

Err....can you explain how this is true? Even assuming the only weapons you use are ones WF applies to (which is a fairly reasonable assumption), the feat only benefits you in one situation: when it turns what would be a hit, into a miss (i.e, your attack roll is one less than their AC). This mean it's relevant on 5% of all attacks (barring weirdly weighted/crappy/loaded dice). This sounds like its very non-preferable compared to something that affects all attacks, or all attacks that hit.

It boosts your damage by about 10% (variable depending upon your attack bonus & target's AC). How is that NOT a good feat?

With a VERY modest average damage of 2d6+23 (17-20) damage per two-handed swing at level 11 , Weapon Focus is giving you (based upon the above 10% estimate) an additional 10.8 damage each round. (14.4 with Haste since you get a fourth swing)

Seems like a very good feat to me. (I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)

Is Weapon Focus an exciting feat? No. But mathematically it's nearly always worth taking for any martial or gish unless your build is extremely feat starved.

[Zanos]

And that’s just stupid. I’m not saying I don’t believe it happened, but it’s closer to a fighter wandering around naked and weaponless because he’s a sumo wrestler than picking TWF because you want to be the Grey Mouser. Nothing fixes aggressive anti optimization. The Druid could have a bird companion and use produce flame a lot. But a smart, aggressive, system clueless player will still likely find spells like invisibility and immediately realize how being invisible can help you.

I was in another game where we had a player who had a necromancer Sorcerer. Literally all his spells were necromancy. He sucked as a sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles. When he died, his next Sorcerer has all evocation spells (not kidding). He also sucked as a Sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles.
I think it's harder to accidently anti-optimize a Fighter. Even your example naked weaponless fighter isn't technically useless if he has good physical stats and IUS, where the wizard is actually doing nothing, and has the potential to actually be detrimental. I've seen badly played BFC wizards be actively harmful to parties before. Overall point being that I think spellcasters have both a higher floor and a lower ceiling, it's fairly easy to pick spells that will make you actually useless and it's not exactly intuitive, whereas "strong man with stick and armor" is pretty simple.

For the record this player actually thought animate rope was useful, because he looked through the PHB transmutation spells and just picked that because magic rope sounded cool without realizing it had no combat abilities.


Seems like a very good feat to me. (I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)
I would like to see the math. Not that I don't believe you. Trust but verify and all that.

[Necroticplague]

(I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)


Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Under those scenarios, here's my own math on it:
Again, ignoring crits because that adds a s***-ton of complexity to this, and because WF-made attacks aren't gonna be threats in the first place (though they will have higher chances to confirm.
Average damage of a hit: 3.5*2+23=30.
Average damage of an attack: 30 (average damage of hit)*X(accuracy, as a decimal).
Average damage of an attack with WF: 30 (average damage of hit)*(X(accuracy, as a decimal)+.05 (increase in hit chance from Weapon Focus).
Some easy algebra later, we get that the damage increase of WF-attacks over non-WF attacks is .05*30=1.5.
This can be generalized out to other weapons/scenarios to be that Weapon Focus's benefit is .05*average damage of hit.
Which makes sense intuitively, as the benefit of Weapon Focus is improved accuracy, so its effect is how many more times it helps you hit things (5%)* the damage those attacks do.

[Eldariel]

Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Under those scenarios, here's my own math on it:
Again, ignoring crits because that adds a s***-ton of complexity to this, and because WF-made attacks aren't gonna be threats in the first place (though they will have higher chances to confirm.
Average damage of a hit: 3.5*2+23=30.
Average damage of an attack: 30 (average damage of hit)*X(accuracy, as a decimal).
Average damage of an attack with WF: 30 (average damage of hit)*(X(accuracy, as a decimal)+.05 (increase in hit chance from Weapon Focus).
Some easy algebra later, we get that the damage increase of WF-attacks over non-WF attacks is .05*30=1.5.
This can be generalized out to other weapons/scenarios to be that Weapon Focus's benefit is .05*average damage of hit.
Which makes sense intuitively, as the benefit of Weapon Focus is improved accuracy, so its effect is how many more times it helps you hit things (5%)* the damage those attacks do.

This math is not accurate. Crits are really pretty easy to account for (Crit Chance % * Damage * Crit Multiplier + Hit % * Damage + No Hit % * 0 - 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 in average damage) but remember that while the percentile point change is indeed 5%, the percentile change is variable. This is trivial to showcase: if you're hitting at +15 vs. AC 16, Weapon Focus is a 0% increase, while if you're hitting at +0 vs. 24 AC it's also 0%. Everywhere between that it varies from a rather minor shift (hitting on 3-20 to hitting on 2-20) to a massive change (hitting on 20 - hitting on 19-20, which is a 50% improvement). The main argument against it is opportunity cost - generally another feat does it better and other bonuses tend to eclipse this.

[CharonsHelper]

I would like to see the math. Not that I don't believe you. Trust but verify and all that.


Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Sure.

First - I ball-parked the 10% on the estimate that you need an 11+ to hit your target without Weapon Focus. If you're hitting 50% of the time a +1 to your accuracy makes you hit 55% of the time, which is a 10% increase in damage (55/50 = 1.1). The harder of a time you have hitting your foe, the more beneficial Weapon Focus becomes.

For example, if you are hitting on a 16+ (25% of the time) and increase that to 15+, that's a 20% increase in damage (30/25 = 1.2). However, if you are hitting on a 5+ (75% of the time) and increase that to 80% it's only a 6.7% increase (80/75=1.067).

Unless you are hitting on a 2+ without Weapon Focus, Weapon Focus ALWAYS increases damage more than 5%.

Second - yes, you do include criticals. And no, it's not that complex. Weapon focus usually doesn't help you to get a critical chance, but it helps you to confirm criticals. With a 17-20 critical you will crit 20% of the time (unless the foe is immune/resistant). So all you need to do is multiply your base damage by 1.2 (a 20% increase) because you will confirm the critical exactly 20% of the time which you hit.

So - the average of 30 damage per swing is correct. Then multiplied by 1.2 due to the (17-20) critical chance to 36 average damage per hit. (If you have a bonus to confirming criticals such as Critical Focus then that does make the math tricky. Otherwise it's really easy to include.)

Without Weapon Focus

Your first attack hits on a 6+ (75% chance), second on a 11+ (50% chance), third on a 16+ (25% chance). You hit an average of 1.5 times - which is multiplied by 36 for an average DPR (damage per round) of 54.

With Weapon Focus

Your first attack hits on a 5+ (80% chance), second on a 10+ (55% chance), third on a 15+ (30% chance). You hit an average of 1.65 times - which is multiplied by 36 for an average DPR (damage per round) of 59.4 - which is a 10% increase.

While my 10% if correct - I do now feel a bit sheepish about the "10.8" number, because doing it in my head I forgot to reduce that by the average accuracy of the initial example. :smalleek: My bad.

Nonetheless - Weapon Focus remains a solid albeit unexciting feat.


(hitting on 20 - hitting on 19-20, which is a 50% improvement)

I totally agree with your post's point, but to be nit-picky, that's actually a 100% improvement.

[Gnaeus]

I think it's harder to accidently anti-optimize a Fighter. Even your example naked weaponless fighter isn't technically useless if he has good physical stats and IUS, where the wizard is actually doing nothing, and has the potential to actually be detrimental. I've seen badly played BFC wizards be actively harmful to parties before. Overall point being that I think spellcasters have both a higher floor and a lower ceiling, it's fairly easy to pick spells that will make you actually useless and it's not exactly intuitive, whereas "strong man with stick and armor" is pretty simple.

For the record this player actually thought animate rope was useful, because he looked through the PHB transmutation spells and just picked that because magic rope sounded cool without realizing it had no combat abilities

1. That’s a good reason to take animate rope. It’s even a good reason to memorize animate rope. It’s not a good reason to memorize ONLY animate rope. There is no good reason for anyone to memorize only animate rope. It’s deliberately and counterintuitively gimping yourself.

2. Animate rope does have some combat abilities. I wouldn’t expect a low system mastery player to be able to read it and immediately determine how bad it is. I would expect a low system mastery player to use it a couple times, realize the suck, and never memorize it agin, or retrain it at the next even level. A poorly built fighter is still screwed unless retraining rules are in effect and he has significant downtime.

Basically, you are just flat wrong. No class above T5 has a lower optimization floor than the fighter. The sor/wiz list is so full of flashy sounding combat spells that it takes breathtaking stupidity to not build something that can do its job even if all you know are the dictionary synonyms for fiery (flaming, scorching, fire, etc). Plus utility spells like fly and invisibility that are immediately, obviously beneficial to anyone with sense. It takes 0 system mastery to realize that if you can fly up in the air and shoot things, that’s kinda helpful. Your animate rope guy should be 8 hours from a more useful spell than animate rope (even if he is picking spells by throwing darts at a dartboard, he probably has better level 1 spells he could put in a level 2 slot than animate rope just by dumb luck), and at level 4 he gets at least 2 more chances to get something phenomenal. Meanwhile, the TWF Guy has no non system mastery reason to know he has doomed himself to long term suckitude, and it’s unlikely to get better.

Yes, poor player performance can hurt anything. Blasting your party with BFC or fireball doesn’t mean you don’t have a valid character. It probably means you DO have a valid character and you just can’t be bothered to pay attention

[Necroticplague]

Unless you are hitting on a 2+ without Weapon Focus, Weapon Focus ALWAYS increases damage more than 5%.
No, it's always a 5% increase, unless it offers no benefit (as someone pointed out earlier). 50%->55% is a +5% increase. I see no reason why these percentage of a percentage methods are in any way useful, when we're looking at the overall performance.


Second - yes, you do include criticals. And no, it's not that complex. With a 17-20 critical you will crit 20% of the time (unless the foe is immune/resistant). So all you need to do is multiply your base damage by 1.2 (a 20% increase) because you will confirm the critical exactly 20% of the time which you hit. You won't crit 20% of the time. You'll threaten a crit 20% of the time. You'll actually crit .2*(accuracy as decimal) of the time. And this isn't independent of the hitting, so i don't think a flat multiplier to damage is an appropriate way to represent the critical hits.

However, taking crits into account, I decided on an exhaustive tree for average damage would be easier on my math abilities. :
Assuming average 30 damage a hit, crit range 17-20, 55% accuracy
rolling 1-9: .45*0=0. The 45% of the time you miss.
Rolling 10-16:.35*30=10.5. When you hit and don't threaten a crit.
Rolling 17-20:.2*.45*30+.2*.55*60=9.3. When you threat, you either fail to confirm, and do normal damage (first part)+or, you confirm, and do crit damage(second part)
Average damage from attack: 19.8
Huh. Somewhat unintuitively, adding the crits is a 20% increase in damage, just like you said, albiet for different reasons.
Now, adding in WF changes that tree to this:

rolling 1-8: .4*0=0. The 40% of the time you miss.
Rolling 9-16:.4*30=12. When you hit and don't threaten a crit.
Rolling 17-20:.2*.4*30+.2*.60*60=9.6 When you threat, you either fail to confirm, and do normal damage (first part)+or, you confirm, and do crit damage(second part)
Average Damage from Attack: 21.6
Comparison: 21.6/19.8=1.091
So, not quiet the 10% increase you claim, but better than my 5% claim, and you were significantly closer to the truth. Sorry for wasting your time with my ignorance.

[CharonsHelper]

bad math...

I don't think that you should practice math-fu...


No, it's always a 5% increase

No - you are wrong. It makes you have a 5% additional chance to hit, which is an INCREASE of more than 5%.


You won't crit 20% of the time.

Good thing I didn't say that you would. You WILL crit on 20% of your hits.

[Zanos]

No, it's always a 5% increase, unless it offers no benefit (as someone pointed out earlier). 50%->55% is a +5% increase. I see no reason why these percentage of a percentage methods are in any way useful, when we're looking at the overall performance.
5% flat is not the same as 5% relative.

I didn't factor in crits, but here's my spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQt0b6draIKQIwA8Hvn8cSIxzAu-S1mYZJbcbTvIPhfeelrWeYVvPED9M8_YbqvTq7LoUhZ5ciDXPL W/pubhtml

So WF is always worth more than 5% relative damage increase.


Basically, you are just flat wrong. No class above T5 has a lower optimization floor than the fighter.
A character being fixable isn't really part of it's "floor." The player fixing it means the player is becoming more skilled and is no longer operating at the classes floor.

I can show you a wizard that can't cast any spells. Show me a fighter that can't attack. I've never met a player who didn't understand the concept that armor = surviving and strength = damage and hitting. I've met plenty of players who were confused by spell availability at level 1 and made bad choices.

Wizard has a lower floor.

[Necroticplague]

I don't think that you should practice math-fu...
Is there anything wrong about the probabilities in that table? While I admit it's a fool's method of just going through all possibilities, I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. And it leads me to ultimately agree with you (it's a roughly 9% increase in damage, not 5%, at least at that accuracy level. Presumably, it gets better results for lower accuracies).

[digiman619]

A character being fixable isn't really part of it's "floor." The player fixing it means the player is becoming more skilled and is no longer operating at the classes floor.

I can show you a wizard that can't cast any spells. Show me a fighter that can't attack. I've never met a player who didn't understand the concept that armor = surviving and strength = damage and hitting. I've met plenty of players who were confused by spell availability at level 1 and made bad choices.

Wizard has a lower floor.
That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

[Gnaeus]

That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

Exactly.

A Sor/Wiz needs a few decent spells. That’s all. The mistakes are irrelevant, you just don’t memorize/cast them. Animate rope guy sits down next to me at table, I don’t have to tell him to jump off a bridge, I just point him at a couple better level 2 spells and he’s golden. A fighter needs a good build. Not even good feats, that’s not enough. He needs good feats that work well together towards a design goal like tripping or charging. That’s a whole other level of required mastery. You can’t make a bad wizard with all good spells. You can easily, with the best intentions, make an awful fighter who has only good feats but no focus or synergy.

Again, my standard. My 11 year old, who is intelligent but has never read a guide, can make a perfectly solid wizard. She can't make a solid fighter. Id give better than 50/50 odds that the wizard she built and played could outperform over a campaign a single classed 3.5 fighter built from a guide and played by a forum veteran.

[AvatarVecna]

Crits aren't that hard to take into account as long as you approach it with a particular range/multiplier in mind. Trying to account for every combo is where it'd get interesting, but the only difficult bit for a set crit rate is when you get to the point where you roll within your crit threat range but still miss.

x is your normal hit damage, assuming no bonus damage dice that wouldn't get multiplied on a crit.



Attack hits on...
Chance You Miss (deals 0x)
Chance You Hit (deals x)
Chance You Crit (deals 2x)
Avg Dmg


2
5%
76%
19%
1.14x


3
10%
72%
18%
1.08x


4
15%
68%
17%
1.02x


5
20%
64%
16%
0.96x


6
25%
60%
15%
0.90x


7
30%
56%
14%
0.84x


8
35%
52%
13%
0.78x


9
40%
48%
12%
0.72x


10
45%
44%
11%
0.66x


11
50%
40%
10%
0.60x


12
55%
36%
9%
0.54x


13
60%
32%
8%
0.48x


14
65%
28%
7%
0.42x


15
70%
24%
6%
0.36x


16
75%
20%
5%
0.3x


17
80%
16%
4%
0.24x


18
85%
12.75%
2.25%
0.1725x


19
90%
9%
1%
0.11x


20
95%
4.75%
0.25%
0.0525x




The problem with Weapon Focus - which is mentioned partially in the post that guy was responding to - is that, while it doesn't strictly make you worse at your job, it doesn't make you as good as other options do. But the problem is exacerbated by the existence of feat trees: Weapon Focus on its own is just kinda eh, and is vaguely comparable to some individual feats, but the Weapon Focus line is pretty awful and compares poorly with others. Since we're talking about a lvl 11 Fighter, lets use that as our baseline: this dude is getting 3 attacks with a weapon that deals x damage with a 17-20/x2 crit threat range (could any 19-20/x2 weapon with Improved Critical or Keen or whatever). Since we're being optimistic by expecting a competent Fighter with a nice attack bonus, let's assume that this guy's three attacks are hitting on a 4, 9, and 14 on the die (since that's in line with iterative penalties). That dude would have DPR of 2.16x. Throw on Haste (turning 4/9/14 into 3/3/8/13) and DPR is 3.42x.

Now, if he takes Weapon Focus, each of those hit numbers gets shifted up (to 3, 8, and 13), increasing DPR to 2.34x. Throw Haste on that (changing 3/8/13 to 2/2/7/12) and DPR is 3.66x.

If he instead took Rapid Shot, he's shifting all those numbers down 2 but is getting an additional attack at his highest bonus (so now instead of 4/9/14, it's 6/6/11/16), changing DPR to 2.7x. Throw Haste on that (for 5/5/5/10/15) and DPR is now 3.9x.

If he instead Power Attack, he could push his numbers down the track by n in exchange for changing {x} to {x+2n}. Let's crank the penalty to -4 (changing numbers to 8/13/18 and changing {x} to {x+8}. Now DPR is 1.4325x+11.46. Throw Haste on that (changing numbers to 7/7/12/17 and changing {x} to {x+8}) and DPR becomes 2.46x+19.68.

Here's a table comparing those options:



Feat
Normal
Is the best when x is...
Haste
Is the best when x is...


Weapon Focus
2.34x
-
3.66x
-


Rapid Shot
2.7x
9<x
3.9x
13<x


Power Attack (-4)
1.4325x+11.46
x<10
2.46x+19.68
x<14




And that's individual feats. Let's throw four feats each into the mix: Weapon Focus+Weapon Specialization+Greater Weapon Focus+Greater Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot+Rapid Shot+Weapon Focus+Dead Eye, and Power Attack+Improved Bull Rush+Shock Trooper+Leap Attack (ignoring charge bonus to attack). Let's also shift the basic assumption down to 5/10/15 to avoid cutting Slasher short.

Slasher turns 5/10/15 into 3/8/13 and turns {x} into {x+4}. DPR becomes 2.34x+9.36. Throw on Haste (for 2/2/7/12 and x+4) and DPR becomes 3.66x+14.64.

Shooter turns 5/10/15 into 6/6/11/16 and turns {x} into {x+7}. DPR becomes 2.7x+18.9. throw on Haste (for 5/5/5/10/15 and x+5) and DPR becomes 3.9x+27.3.

Pouncer takes a -4 to AC to turn {x} to {x+12} (not a small penalty, but not a large one either). Their DPR is 1.98x+23.76. Throw on Haste (for 4/4/9/14 and x+12) and DPR becomes 3.18x+38.16.

Also, for an additional category, let's take a person who's take an Int 16 Human Cloistered Cleric (with Divine Power for full BAB) and give them Knowledge Devotion+Item Familiar+Power Attack, full ranks in Concentration/the 6 monster knowledge skills/Spellcraft (with all skill points invested for +7 to each of the 6 knowledge skills), and the Collector Of Stories skill power. Now, for monster knowledge checks, you're effectively looking at +30, so you've got a great chance to always get that +5 Attack/Damage, giving you some wiggle room for PA tradeoffs. That build takes a -2 PA tradeoff to go from 5/10/15 to 2/7/12 and from {x} to {x+9}. Their DPR is 2.52x+22.68. Throw on Haste and increasing the PA penalty by 1 (changing it to 2/2/7/12 and to x+11) and DPR becomes 3.66x+40.26. Here's another chart:



Role
Normal
Is the best when x is...
Haste
Is the best when x is...


Slasher
2.34x+9.36
-
3.66x+14.64
-


Shooter
2.7x+18.9
20<x
3.9x+27.3
54<x


Pouncer (-4)
1.98x+23.76
3<x
3.18x+38.16
-


Knower
2.52x+22.68
1<x<22
3.66x+40.26
x<55



Shooter has Weapon Focus too, but only 'cause it's a pre-req; you could ignore the WF bonus it gets and it'd still be objectively better than Slasher. All four of these builds could do better by expanding their option even further, but it serves to illustrate the point of why people call Weapon Focus a terrible feat: it's not that it makes you bad, it's just that it makes you worse than you could be. When you take Weapon Focus instead of Power Attack or Rapid Shot or Knowledge Devotion, you're ever-so-slightly shooting yourself in the foot...but only a little bit. The problem is that the Weapon Focus feat tree is the obvious and intended bread-and-butter of every Fighter in existence, and the whole feat tree gives Attack +2/Damage +4. Shooter is better because it's getting Attack +2/Damage +7/+1 iterative, Knower is objectively better because it's getting Attack +5/Damage +5, and Pouncer is usually better because it's getting Attack +0/Damage +12.

When you take one feat that improves DPR by 10% instead of another feat that improves DPR by 15%...big deal, that's probably just a couple points difference in the end. When you take 4 feats that improve DPR by 10% instead of four feats that improve DPR by 15%, that's now a 20% difference, much more significant.

[upho]

I was in a game about a dozen years ago. /telling example cut short for brevity/ I have similar experiences. And I've been in a 3.5 game where caster optimization was taken to its extreme by my RL brother, playing a very seriously optimized sorcerer. Meaning his character had almost the complete "Ultimate Sorcerer Cheese Megapack" (ie Incantatrix with Persistent Spell, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, extreme race (petal) with the perfect templates (such as White Dragonspawn) and LA buy-off, perfectly tailored items, spamming silly stuff like wings of cover/flurry, polymorph (= party of hasted wartrolls) and enervation, metamagic-ed to the high heavens, all at a CL above ECL, and so on - you get the picture). By the time we decided to end the campaign (Monte Cook's Ptolus) at 12th level, the specific mechanics of the other four PCs in the party were of course completely irrelevant, regardless of the type and difficulty of the challenges we faced. And my brother had written his Short Sorcerer Handbook (necro-ed on EN World (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471575-Needs-Reformatting-Short-Sorcerer-Handbook-(bjorsa))), which is largely based on what he learned building his sorcerer.


I like Druids. I think they are fun to play, and while I had the intelligence to build a solid one I didn’t have the wisdom to know I shouldn’t.:smallbiggrin: It appears you're very far from alone in having had this very problem arising from such an ability score distribution! More seriously, I think this particular trap is very difficult to avoid when you're the first to try building a truly strong full caster in a group not used to more serious optimization. And at least for my group, I think my brother's silly sorcerer was a very valuable lesson, giving us a much deeper understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses, as well as a healthier and more useful ultimate goal for the practical optimization of PCs created for later games.



1. A Druid (and when I think of Druid I think of an old guy with a sickle, not a death machine) can casually outfight 3 PCs who are theoretically frontline melee combatants.Yeah. I'd only add that it may be worth noting also a fighter managed to "casually outfight 3 PCs". Meaning that the lower op the rest of the group is, the less impact class choices have on whether an optimized build will dominate the mechanics-heavy parts of the game. But of course, building a druid capable of doing this would of course require less system mastery and a considerably lower level of optimization than building the fighter.


2. Fighter is so wildly erratic by optimization that it swings from competent to incompetent based on whether he read a guide (or in that case had solid opti-fu himself) and followed it closely. Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.
I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.I think I agree with CharonsHelper. Especially when it comes to wizards; I don't think any other class comes with as many abilities where failing to read, understand and act according to the fine print may have extremely dire in-game consequences. And not just for the wizard or the party, but potentially for everyone in an entire region, country or even world.

[Psyren]

That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

I would view the fighter player, sitting there week after week and not having fun or asking his friends/GM (same thing, hopefully) for help with his character, to be no less stupid. The game is mutable.

[Gnaeus]

I would view the fighter player, sitting there week after week and not having fun or asking his friends/GM (same thing, hopefully) for help with his character, to be no less stupid. The game is mutable.

Oh, I would also. But the fighter is much more likely to be stuck, both mechanically and conceptually. Conceptually, the handful of archetypes that make the PF fighter decent may not be appropriate IC to an existing character, and that’s much worse in 3.5 (so your Italian rapier dilettante is going to become a dungeoncrasher from Zhentil Keep? Why?)
Mechanically, retraining feats is expensive and time consuming, if the DM uses those rules at all. You may also need to adjust stats to provide the right prerequisites, and/or sell gear at a loss in a higher level party. Asking your friends for help isn’t great if the mechanically superior advice is to start over. I’d think a good DM would be likely to allow at least a conceptual rebuild, but I think good DMs would do a lot of things that are not apparently common, and there’s certainly no guarantee that the fighter is fixable at all.

TLDR: “just memorize scorching ray and mirror image” is a lot easier than “just become a completely different person, and let me rebuild your guy from the roots up”.

[Psyren]

TLDR: “just memorize scorching ray and mirror image” is a lot easier than “just become a completely different person, and let me rebuild your guy from the roots up”.

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

[AvatarVecna]

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

Pieces of paper though they may be, they represent a lot more than just numbers. It's one thing to tell a wizard that he picked some bad spells, but not to sweat it because he can prepared better ones tomorrow. It's another thing entirely to tell a person that their character concept is inherently incompetent and they need to build their character some way other than the intuitive way they built it.

EDIT: The fighter isn't even the one that gets the worst of this kinda stick, that'd be the monk. You could probably build a Barbarian or Paladin or Ranger and call it a gladiator/soldier/hunter -type Fighter and it wouldn't be a huge issue; sure, the class that most directly fits your concept might not be all that competent at it, but you can go with another class that has a lot of the same feel while being a lot more capable and you'll be fine. But Monk? Beyond just giving up and playing an Unarmed Swordsage, you could maybe put together a decent martial artist build with a Ranger or Scout or Swift Hunter, maybe a decent ninja build with a Scout or Rogue or Swift Ambusher (but ironically, notNninja), but you'll likely remain disappointed in some aspect or another. Or hey, you could go Cloistered Cleric and DMM: Persist your way to being an all-day badass unarmed warrior!

[Gnaeus]

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

Again, I’m not disputing that’s the best solution, Psyren. But unless you have just become everyone’s DM, you have no way to make that happen. PFS, for example, if it’s after level 1, you are retraining, and I’ve seen DMs who aren’t even that generous.

And that’s assuming that you even get a good response to a query that’s essentially a polite “your guy sucks, let me rebuild it”. I’ve met a lot of people who would be ok with you buying them a scroll, who get really bent out of shape when you are suggesting they rewrite their guy to specific parameters.

[Psyren]

I've seen enough of the horror stories on this forum to know that I am not, in fact, everyone's GM. That doesn't change the fact that "play with better people who care about your happiness" is the only practical solution besides homebrew, because errata ain't happening.



And that’s assuming that you even get a good response to a query that’s essentially a polite “your guy sucks, let me rebuild it”. I’ve met a lot of people who would be ok with you buying them a scroll, who get really bent out of shape when you are suggesting they rewrite their guy to specific parameters.

Why would they react that way unless they were actually having fun? And if they're having fun, yeah, leave it alone.

[Gnaeus]

Why would they react that way unless they were actually having fun? And if they're having fun, yeah, leave it alone.

Some people have this weird idea they want to build their own character
Some people think that charop is a sign of wicked munchkinry.
Sometimes they feel that the problem isn’t their character, it’s the fault of the players whose characters can do their job.
Sometimes they are having fun, but the fact that their fighter can’t do its job endangers or angers other players, especially if you are in an adventure where the DM is using prepublished games without fitting challenges to characters.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.

[upho]

in Pathfinder TWF builds have the highest DPR in the game, being 15-20% higher than a two-handed build. (though with drawbacks due to feat cost, DR, and lower damage on single attacks)Really? I don't see how TWF could possibly generate the highest DPR possible in PF, regardless of whether you're only measuring theoretical on-paper DPR during a certain level or not. Actually, I don't see it even should the comparison be limited to only 20th level melee builds with say at least 16 levels in martial classes (those granting a maximum of 4th spells/extracts). AFAIK, no TWF build will be able to match the DPR numbers of the actual heavy-hitters in PF, at any level. And neither will any 2H builds to my knowledge, which makes the comparison weird in my eyes.

In addition, I believe this claim becomes even less true if looking at greater level spans or actual in-game DPR, as the drawbacks you mention tend to be pretty significant in a real game IME.

But maybe I've missed something important, and I'd really appreciate if you or anyone else could explain how TWF is the superior combat style for DPR in PF.

[upho]

Some people have this weird idea they want to build their own character
Some people think that charop is a sign of wicked munchkinry.
Sometimes they feel that the problem isn’t their character, it’s the fault of the players whose characters can do their job.
Sometimes they are having fun, but the fact that their fighter can’t do its job endangers or angers other players, especially if you are in an adventure where the DM is using prepublished games without fitting challenges to characters.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.I've very rarely encountered these reactions in the groups I've played in, and only in a mild form. But judging from what I've heard/read about other groups over the years, I'd agree this does indeed seem to be the case. Moreover, it also seems to me that the risk of upsetting a fellow player with well-meaning char-op advice increases if the player is neither 1) very new to the game or 2) one who normally builds competent characters.

Which I believe does make some sense from a psychological perspective. Meaning the players which tend to get upset are more likely to instinctively perceive friendly advice as a thinly veiled personal insult, aimed at a weakness in their person, or as an attempt to lessen their power to influence how the game is played. In contrast, new players are usually well aware of their own relative ignorance and have no reason to view their mistakes as personal flaws, and those normally competent usually have enough system mastery to realize that they cannot be expected to not make mistakes.

Anyhow, to me these issues primarily illustrate the importance of the group/GM having decided upon and clearly defined the power level for the game before the players start building their characters.

[Psyren]

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.

Well, I can only say those people are beyond help. I don't think trying to design around them is a particularly productive use of dev resources. Either they'll evolve and learn to accept help, or they'll keep not having fun and eventually abandon the hobby; either way, problem solves itself.

[Lans]

My big issue with weapon focus is that its significantly weaker than knowledge devotion, shape soulmeld, and weapon mastery


Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is.
.

That depends on how good your flight is, you can get really bad flight from feats, or the truenamer's invocations that don't overshadow climbing and jump as much.

[Powerdork]

Either they'll evolve and learn to accept help, or they'll keep not having fun and eventually abandon the hobby; either way, problem solves itself.

An attitude that can kill gaming.

[Psyren]

An attitude that can kill gaming.

Only if you exclusively play with unfeeling robots instead of with friends. Most of us don't.

[Zanos]

Only if you exclusively play with unfeeling robots instead of with friends. Most of us don't.
Are you implying that unfeeling robots can't be friends with each other?

My group resents that remark. Beep boop.

[Psyren]

Are you implying that unfeeling robots can't be friends with each other?

My group resents that remark. Beep boop.

I mean, friendship is a feeling, or so I'm told. Beep boop. :smalltongue:

[EldritchWeaver]

I mean, friendship is a feeling, or so I'm told. Beep boop. :smalltongue:

Friendship is Magic!

[Calthropstu]

Friendship is Magic!

... This comment makes me want to shoot ponies.

[AvatarVecna]

... This comment makes me want to shoot ponies.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/963/734/c8e.png