Is a "fighter 20" even worse off in a mid-/high-power PF game than in a 3.5 one?

[upho]

Alternative thread title: Can anyone point me to a truly high-op full 3.5 fighter 20 build (with typical combat values including gear etc)?

During a recent lengthy discussion I had with a few other writers of (mostly) D&D material, one of the participants* claimed the answer to the question in the (actual) thread title is: "Yes, without a doubt".

When I asked how this could be true despite the PF fighter having actual class features, stronger ACF/archetype/variant/VMC/similar options and access to PF's more powerful feats, this person gave the following reasons (in summary):

Combat feat chains (such as Improved (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip)/Greater (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat/) Trip) are generally longer and have greater prerequisites in PF than in 3.5, but grant no notable additional benefits.
Some of the strongest fighter feats in 3.5, such as Power Attack and Imperious Command, are less powerful/versatile or non-existent in PF.
PF opponents are tougher than in 3.5 (higher defenses, more hp etc), and the PF fighter doesn't gain enough additional offense numbers to compensate for this.
The math for PF's combat maneuvers are flawed, giving the average higher CR monsters impossibly high CMD values. In effect, a higher level PF fighter is even more limited to a single-target DPR combat role than their 3.5 counterpart.
It's impossible to recreate any of the few less weak 3.5 fighter build types with the PF fighter, such as the "chain-tripper", "dungeon-crasher" and/or "Zhentarim Intimidatomancer". This means the PF fighter has a lower power-/op-ceiling both in and out of combat than the 3.5 fighter.
Over 20 levels, the PF fighter gains a total number of feats 120% greater than the minimum 10 feats all classes gain in PF, while the 3.5 fighter gains a number more than 171% greater than the minimum 7 all classes gain in 3.5.
There are much stronger suitable races and magic item options in 3.5 than in PF (even if disregarding custom items or items which cannot normally be crafted by PCs).
Caster focuses which are the closest to the fighter's primary combat role(s) are stronger in PF. Notably minionmancy via the SM spells is much stronger in PF, while other forms, such as via calling/binding, aren't any weaker than in 3.5.
PF classes have a higher power floor than 3.5 classes so the competition is greater, and the PF fighter doesn't have nearly as great advantages/options as the other weaker PF classes (like the monk or unchained rogue) have when compared to their 3.5 counterparts.

Many of you will probably recognize a number of these arguments, and those of you with a bit of up-to-date PF knowledge so will probably also know nearly all of them are misleading or based on claims that are flat-out untrue. However, without comparing actual builds against appropriate challenges and opponents, I still can't say with full certainty that high-op PF fighter is far more capable relative other PF classes than its 3.5 counterpart is relative other 3.5 classes. And while I'm able to relatively quickly put together detailed example builds of 20th level PF fighters capable of easily beating several opponents of a wide variety of CR 25+ in combat and providing useful abilities to help overcome other adventuring challenges, I realize my 3.5-fu isn't what it once was, and it would probably take me ages to actually put together equally high-op 3.5 fighter builds for comparisons.

I've found plenty of build outlines and less detailed builds of high-op 3.5 fighters, but not a single fully equipped and detailed one. I'd be most grateful if anyone can point me to - or post - such builds.

I'd also like to hear your views on the above arguments and on how the PF and 3.5 fighters compare to the other classes in a mid-/high-power game.

*This guy has written published material for 3.5 and PF. No, I won't give you his name, but I'll give him the link to this thread so he may introduce himself if he wishes.

[AvatarVecna]

To make a long story short, your buddy is talking about "mid/high-op lvl 20 games" where conditions besides "dead" matter. He's being either extremely thick at best or disingenuous at worst about fighters having less feats in Pathfinder by talking about percentages (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fastest_growing_2x.png). Power Attack on its own is better tradeoff in PF in exchange for worse flexibility, which is the actual problem with PF Power Attack. 3.5 PA can get a whole bunch of things to rack of extra bonuses, but TBH even a lot of those would be a lot less viable if Shock Trooper wasn't a thing. Incidentally, "able to make a huge PA attack on a charge" can most certainly be done by a high-op 20th lvl fighter via that 2H archetype that can give themself a 2-20 crit threat range for a single attack made as part of the same standard action. Also, the part about how monsters are tougher but fighters dont have class features to keep up with that...what? What exactly does he think Weapon Training does? Like, you could argue it doesn't do enough, but to say that fighter doesn't get any new features to keep up with the improved defenses is...well. Pretending archetypes are all **** compared to ACFs, pretending more feats is somehow less feats, pretending that trip was viable in high-op 3.5, pretending that Dazzling Display and Unchained Skills aren't accessible to fighters, pretending that item crafting isn't available to fighters...

His idea of what constitutes mid/high-op at level 20 is laughable for either edition, but especially for 3.5, and that's the disconnect. Fighters are slightly better, monsters are slightly better, wizards are slightly better in low-op ways but so many high-op stuff just isn't available...and wizards (and the like) are what made high-op high-level combat a joke. Fighter is more viable in PF than in 3.5 under these circumstances because high-op nonsense is gone and the bar of comparative competency has been lowered from "high orbit" to "the top of this skyscraper". That he doesn't recognize these huge obvious systemic changes, or doesn't acknowledge it, confirms in my eyes your assertion that he had a hand in designing both of these games.

Case in point, his first reaction to "is PF Fighter 20 or 3.5 Fighter 20 doing better in high-op games", his response wasn't "people play Fighter 20 in high-op 3.5?". Maybe you took a two-level dip into monk, maybe you took a one-level dip into barbarian, maybe you dipped into a PrC...there's options. Lots of options. Lots of options that are necessary to play with the big boys past a certain point. PF rewards you for staying in your class in a way that 3.5 doesn't, and punishes you for leaving in a way that's actually hard to ignore (the way basically everybody ignores multiclassing penalties in 3.5).

EDIT: If he wants to say "fighter cant keep up as well in PF", he needs to show that PF Wizard can utterly ruin the game just as hard/easily as 3.5 wizard can, because wizard (and similar classes) are what set the balance of high-op. Pretending otherwise...well.

[Kurald Galain]

Class balance is better in PF, and PF martials stack up against casters much better (but by no means perfectly). So your "fighter 20" is better off, not even worse, in PF.

Basically, your thread is repeating the standard ten-year-old "paizo bashing" arguments without bothering to check the math, or see if the last ten years of extra source books make a difference.

For instance, Power Attack is actually stronger in PF; your complaint about feat chains is limited to Improved Trip only, people keep citing that specific example because there aren't any others; and we've had at least three threads last year about how tripping math is entirely viable for any full-BAB class. Dungeon Crasher? Yeah, PF has that too. Four skill points as a fighter? Sure, PF does that. Oh yeah, and PF fighters can deflect spells with their sword, too.

So basically, stop panicking and actually play the game.

[Psyren]

Many of you will probably recognize a number of these arguments, and those of you with a bit of up-to-date PF knowledge so will probably also know nearly all of them are misleading or based on claims that are flat-out untrue.

If you know that, and I know you do upho, then I question the very purpose of this thread existing :smallconfused:

Also, NYPA.

[gkathellar]

In general, a PF fighter 20 can do adequate amounts of single-target damage to level-appropriate opponents with a relatively normal amount of optimization. Some of that has nothing to do with the fighter in particular, and more to do with PF's higher level of consistency with respect to monster numbers.

Comparatively speaking, lots of 3.5 fighter builds (though by no means all) can't do that.

As to your request for builds - a friend of mine has a solid PF fighter benchmark build lying around, so I'll see if she's not amenable to me posting it.

[unseenmage]

Yes. Because PF feats dont give you magical superpowers like 3.x feats do.

[upho]

To make a long story short, your buddy is talking about "mid/high-op lvl 20 games" where conditions besides "dead" matter.Just a quick clarification so that I don't accidentally misconstrue his arguments: we were using slightly unconventional definitions of the terms power and op in this discussion. The important distinction between the two in this context being that "power" is a scale of the difficulty of the challenges in games (enemy combat power, skill DCs, party/PC versatility requirements etc) largely as defined by guidelines and regardless of the op-level of the specific PCs in the game, while "op" is a scale defined by what a PC of a certain class is able to do with the options available to that specific class. So for example, a "high-op" 3.5 rogue might very well be fine in a party with a "lower op" 3.5 sorcerer in a "mid-power" game, and neither would be able to pull their own weight in a "high-power" 3.5 game. (We also assumed experienced and reasonably competent players able to benefit fully from their PCs' mechanical abilities when possible.)

Anyhow, I think your "short story" is pretty succinct, and I definitely agree with you. Perhaps just as surprisingly, this person nevertheless seems to understand there's real power to be found in things like tripping and combat demoralization, calling out the chain-tripper and Zhentarim as unique build advantages the 3.5 fighter has over the PF one, but he's obviously not aware - or doesn't yet understand - that the PF fighter has access to vastly more powerful melee control and demoralization combos (including things like reliable multitarget dazing and making all non-immune enemies within 60' cowering in the opening round of each combat).


He's being either extremely thick at best or disingenuous at worst about fighters having less feats in Pathfinder by talking about percentages (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fastest_growing_2x.png).Yeah, I think he's confusing a rather irrelevant specific relationship with the relevant greater net effect relationship. But I guess it sounds good when accompanied by a bit of casual confirmation bias, provided you don't listen too closely of course... :smallamused:


Power Attack on its own is better tradeoff in PF in exchange for worse flexibility, which is the actual problem with PF Power Attack. 3.5 PA can get a whole bunch of things to rack of extra bonuses, but TBH even a lot of those would be a lot less viable if Shock Trooper wasn't a thing. Incidentally, "able to make a huge PA attack on a charge" can most certainly be done by a high-op 20th lvl fighter via that 2H archetype that can give themself a 2-20 crit threat range for a single attack made as part of the same standard action.Indeed. And the PF fighter can also for example get a crown of horns (for a gore attack dealing double damage on a charge), the Boar's Charge, Disemboweling Tusks and Lethal Accuracy rage powers (charge gore attacks gets a 95% crit chance, x3 crit multiplier and deals 1d4 Con damage), and use Dragon Ferocity with Feral Combat Training for 2.5 x Str to damage and the "two-handed" x3 PA bonus, for a total average effective damage of easily more than 430 (vs a 20 HD target) in one charge hit (and potentially with PA effectively penalizing AC instead of accuracy).

More importantly, when someone brings up damage on an uber-charger scale as somehow relevant in a comparison between high-op PF and 3.5 melee muggles, it seems all I'm seeing is that someone holding up a big sign saying:

"I have no idea of what high-op PF muggles are capable of! Say what? Melee muggles more powerful in combat than uberchargers? Without even dealing any damage at all? LOL, nice joke. 'Cause melee muggles must only win by dealing damage! Or... ...uh... BLASPHEMY!

Sorry, but I'm still struggling with the idea that there might just be a point in a muggle's DPR numbers beyond which further investments to boost those numbers will have very rapidly decreasing returns..."

I mean, at least from mid levels the melee PF fighters (as well as most other melee muggles) that typically are the most powerful combatants don't give a proverbial rodent's butt about their damage output. Though these builds' actual DPR numbers may in reality often be quite decent, that's typically merely coincidental and largely irrelevant when judging their combat effectiveness, as they don't rely on damage in order to reliably take several opponents of at least CR = level + 5 out of the fight in every round of every combat, every day and practically all day long. The only thing 3.5-style damage builds in PF - typically natural attack "superchargers" - may excel at in high-power games is fighting an extremely dangerous foe (like say CR 30 Cthulhu (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/great-old-ones/great-old-one-cthulhu/), as such a build may splatter the foe before it's able to act if the circumstances are advantageous.


Also, the part about how monsters are tougher but fighters dont have class features to keep up with that...what? What exactly does he think Weapon Training does? Like, you could argue it doesn't do enough, but to say that fighter doesn't get any new features to keep up with the improved defenses is...well.Honestly, I suspect he completely forgot about weapon training, and never would've guessed that it typically adds from +6 to +8 to the attack (and damage) of a 20th level high-op fighter. Which of course is also far more than needed to compensate for the increased toughness of PF monsters.


Pretending archetypes are all **** compared to ACFs, pretending more feats is somehow less feats, pretending that trip was viable in high-op 3.5, pretending that Dazzling Display and Unchained Skills aren't accessible to fighters, pretending that item crafting isn't available to fighters......and things like the Mutation Warrior fighter, Siegebreaker fighter, VMC (barbarian is great), versatile training AWT, warrior spirit AWT (great for ad-hoc feats via training weapon abilities), dueling (PSFG) and leveraging weapons (up to +42 to trip and reposition checks), Combat Stamina, Imposing Bearing, Hero's Display with Awe-Inspiring Smash, Performing Combatant and Master Combat Performer, Disheartening Display, Soulless Gaze, Crashing Wave Fist, Demonic Slaughter, Paired Opportunists, Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Dirty Trick Master, Weapon Style Mastery, savage dirty trick, spell sunder... Yep, it goes on and on and on...

Yet some people remain certain that builds with these options are even further removed from PF wizards than chain-tripper or Jack-B-Quick type of 3.5 builds are from high-op 3.5 wizards.

Yeah... I'm honestly kinda awe-struck by the fantastic mental gymnastics and highly selective attention these people must be capable of in order to keep denying this reality... :smallamused:

And yes, I say “some people”, because the guy in this particular case is unfortunately far from the only person I’ve heard/seen making the same or very similar claims (a few are found here on GitP).


His idea of what constitutes mid/high-op at level 20 is laughable for either edition, but especially for 3.5, and that's the disconnect. Fighters are slightly better, monsters are slightly better, wizards are slightly better in low-op ways but so many high-op stuff just isn't available...and wizards (and the like) are what made high-op high-level combat a joke. Fighter is more viable in PF than in 3.5 under these circumstances because high-op nonsense is gone and the bar of comparative competency has been lowered from "high orbit" to "the top of this skyscraper".Yes. At 20th, I actually suspect a high-op PF fighter can have stronger consistent offense (numbers, effects, action economy) than any single-classed PF caster, including even (properly built) Synth summoners, and be able to successfully combat far more dangerous opponents than PF caster minions are able to deal with (with the possible exception of extremely rare and cheesy tromp l’oeils). I think anyone who claims otherwise must also provide a caster able to for example reliably one-shot enemies such as the aforementioned Cthulhu, to take out a family of tarrasques before any of them can cause any harm, to each round dispel/suppress multiple spells of any kind with a duration of at least 1 round and of basically any CL found in Paizo material (including spells like AMF and prismatic wall). So yeah, good luck with that! :smalltongue:

Also, what you're saying here is IME true also if we assume games which don't allow the most silly caster options/shenanigans (say from ice assassins via Incantatrix to various loops in 3.5, and from Sacred Geometry via tromp l'oeils to Master Summoner in PF), even though this would of course result in a far greater reduction of the max possible op-level in 3.5 than it would in PF.


That he doesn't recognize these huge obvious systemic changes, or doesn't acknowledge it, confirms in my eyes your assertion that he had a hand in designing both of these games.To be fair, AFAIK he had little to nothing to do with the basic design of either game, and has mostly written pretty innocent stuff for splats and lots of 3PP stuff I'm less familiar with. But even so, I agree that his arguments show a considerable lack of system insight. And/or possibly an inability to apply his actually existing system insight, albeit limited, to this comparison (some things he has said sure seem to contradict some of the other things he has said).

And I also agree this lack of insight seems to have been shared by too many of the designers of the games. Too often have I also seen it combined with the odd belief that their arguments are made valid simply by virtue of their job description and expressing annoyance at having their arguments scrutinized or questioned. Sure seems like fine examples of Dr. Dunning’s and Mr. Kruger’s handiwork to me, spiced up with a fallacy or two and typically served with a few weird views and ideas more unique to the specific chef in question...


Case in point, his first reaction to "is PF Fighter 20 or 3.5 Fighter 20 doing better in high-op games", his response wasn't "people play Fighter 20 in high-op 3.5?". Maybe you took a two-level dip into monk, maybe you took a one-level dip into barbarian, maybe you dipped into a PrC...there's options. Lots of options. Lots of options that are necessary to play with the big boys past a certain point. PF rewards you for staying in your class in a way that 3.5 doesn't, and punishes you for leaving in a way that's actually hard to ignore (the way basically everybody ignores multiclassing penalties in 3.5).Well no, that wasn't his response, but I honestly don't think that fact is any kind of indication in this case, because this whole discussion came up after I had described the "fighter 20 in a mid-/high-power game"-scenario as hypothetical (for a different purpose).

(As a sidenote, IME the single-classed muggle scenario is quite rare in PF as well, since most high-op martial builds can be made stronger with - or are highly dependent on - levels in multiple classes despite PF's greater rewards for staying single-classed. I believe the main difference to 3.5 is that such PF builds stuff virtually never include PrC levels, at least not if they're limited to only 1PP material.)


EDIT: If he wants to say "fighter cant keep up as well in PF", he needs to show that PF Wizard can utterly ruin the game just as hard/easily as 3.5 wizard can, because wizard (and similar classes) are what set the balance of high-op. Pretending otherwise...well.Yep. I guess I should wish him good luck... :smallbiggrin:

Thank you for reassuring me I'm not forgetting some 3.5 magic item or other option significant enough to turn my view on its head.

[Gnaeus]

If you assume that the 3.5 fighter can access ToB via bonus feats, but the PF fighter can’t use the official 3rd party PoW equivalent, that would be a big boost to 3.5 fighter.

If PoW is on the table that’s a huge boost to the PF fighter. It has more/better options than ToB.

[Psyren]

Yes. Because PF feats dont give you magical superpowers like 3.x feats do.

Some do actually - particularly feats tied to divinity like Divine Fighting Techniques and Obedience feats, but also some others like Style feats and Occult feats can grant extranormal and outright magical abilities.

Now, can these compete 1:1 with things like Shape Soulmeld, probably not - but then, they don't really need to, because the PF fighter has other strengths that obviate any need to become a pseudo-caster like they might want to in 3.5.



Honestly, I suspect he completely forgot about weapon training, and never would've guessed that it typically adds from +6 to +8 to the attack (and damage) of a 20th level high-op fighter. Which of course is also far more than needed to compensate for the increased toughness of PF monsters.

...and things like the Mutation Warrior fighter, Siegebreaker fighter, VMC (barbarian is great), versatile training AWT, warrior spirit AWT (great for ad-hoc feats via training weapon abilities), dueling (PSFG) and leveraging weapons (up to +42 to trip and reposition checks), Combat Stamina, Imposing Bearing, Hero's Display with Awe-Inspiring Smash, Performing Combatant and Master Combat Performer, Disheartening Display, Soulless Gaze, Crashing Wave Fist, Demonic Slaughter, Paired Opportunists, Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Dirty Trick Master, Weapon Style Mastery, savage dirty trick, spell sunder... Yep, it goes on and on and on...

It's also per swing, so it adds to DPR quite considerably - akin to having an extra 10+ Str vs. 3.5. It also interacts with maneuvers and items, and gets multiplied on a crit for an even more outsized effect. And that's before all the ancillary stuff you listed.



Yet some people remain certain that builds with these options are even further removed from PF wizards than chain-tripper or Jack-B-Quick type of 3.5 builds are from high-op 3.5 wizards.

I'm not really seeing the value in comparing this kind of distance. At the end of the day, PF Wizard is still T1 and even the most optimized fighter is a high T4 or at the very bottom of T3. If one guy has $10,000 and the other has $2 billion, even doubling the first guy and cutting the first guy in half doesn't do a whole lot to stop them from still being very far apart.

[gkathellar]

Here, an actual build. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OFpiG5_gVXGBKbirkmr9C2OZ-5mgr_xgcS5VmGwdbHo/edit#gid=0)

[upho]

If you know that, and I know you do upho, then I question the very purpose of this thread existing :smallconfused:Well, first off:
However, without comparing actual builds against appropriate challenges and opponents, I still can't say with full certainty that high-op PF fighter is far more capable relative other PF classes than its 3.5 counterpart is relative other 3.5 classes. And while I'm able to relatively quickly put together detailed example builds of 20th level PF fighters capable of easily beating several opponents of a wide variety of CR 25+ in combat and providing useful abilities to help overcome other adventuring challenges, I realize my 3.5-fu isn't what it once was, and it would probably take me ages to actually put together equally high-op 3.5 fighter builds for comparisons.

I've found plenty of build outlines and less detailed builds of high-op 3.5 fighters, but not a single fully equipped and detailed one. I'd be most grateful if anyone can point me to - or post - such builds.Second, I was looking for useful tips on how to help a person more quickly learn to recognize and understand the more unique possible combat roles/functions a PF fighter (and other PF martials) may take on, options which simply haven't been supported nearly enough to be viable in any edition of D&D aside from 4E (which is typically regarded as too different to be of much help).

The reason why I brought up the PF fighter in the original discussion was because I believed it would make for a good reference point, or short-hand for a certain type of martial PC concept which stands out as rather unique in the D&D tradition. I wrongly assumed all the six people involved in the discussion (all having played a lot of PF and/or written PF material) would be very familiar with the PF fighter and most of its related stronger and more unique build possibilities, and why and how those allow for a distinctly different type of "warrior" PC than the more conventional variants found in previous editions, 5E and PF2.

So, here I am trying to explain these less conventional martial concepts, roles and mechanics to someone who has never seen or heard of a truly effective D&D warrior type which does anything but single-target hp damage in combat. Someone who at least until now have firmly believed all the arguments I mentioned in the OP to be objective truth.


Also, NYPA.Yes? Didn't you get the PM where I named you my Grand Forum Marshal and Community Commander?

Seriously though, I wouldn't have made this thread without first asking and receiving permission from the person in question, or before making certain he's perfectly fine with his arguments being torn to shreds... :smalltongue:

(He actually said he was looking forward to read this thread to better understand if and why people other than me say he's wrong. Which is a great attitude IMO. So though I may sound harsh and needlessly sarcastic in my critique of his arguments, let me assure you that there are no serious conflicts or personal vendettas of any kind going on here.)


Yes. Because PF feats dont give you magical superpowers like 3.x feats do.:smallbiggrin:


If you assume that the 3.5 fighter can access ToB via bonus feats, but the PF fighter can’t use the official 3rd party PoW equivalent, that would be a big boost to 3.5 fighter.

If PoW is on the table that’s a huge boost to the PF fighter. It has more/better options than ToB.Indeed. But I was hoping to "dodge" these facts to avoid complicating things... :smallredface:


It's also per swing, so it adds to DPR quite considerably - akin to having an extra 10+ Str vs. 3.5. It also interacts with maneuvers and items, and gets multiplied on a crit for an even more outsized effect. And that's before all the ancillary stuff you listed.Precisely.


I'm not really seeing the value in comparing this kind of distance. At the end of the day, PF Wizard is still T1 and even the most optimized fighter is a high T4 or at the very bottom of T3. If one guy has $10,000 and the other has $2 billion, even doubling the first guy and cutting the first guy in half doesn't do a whole lot to stop them from still being very far apart.Oh for sure. The value is of a more abstract nature - it hints at the possibility of a 3.5-style game with far more powerful martials being possible, even without initiator type classes. Which can indeed be a very novel thought for quite a few people, including some professional designers. But more importantly in this case, it's useful in order to communicate power levels when discussing fantasy RPG design in general and D&D design in particular.


Here, an actual build. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OFpiG5_gVXGBKbirkmr9C2OZ-5mgr_xgcS5VmGwdbHo/edit#gid=0)Thanks, seems like a decent build. But as mentioned in the OP, I think I've got more than enough suitable PF builds for comparisons. What I'd really appreciate are a couple of fully detailed high-op 3.5 fighter 20 builds.

[Thunder999]

Yes. Because PF feats dont give you magical superpowers like 3.x feats do.

But they do, item mastery feats literally give you spells, using your BAB as their caster level and con as the casting score, as can some of the conduit feats, including such great options as dimension door, invisibility, dispel magic, fly and freedom of movement.

You can even use the martial master archetype or barroom brawler feat to grab them as needed.

[Sinner's Garden]

If I had to run a straight fighter as high op as possible, 3.5 for sure. Grab Valkyrie template for a free DvR 0 when a full BAB standard class hits level ten, and then grab the Aberrant Dragonmark feat chain and abuse Bestow Curse. In terms of straight classes, the PF chassi are better, less dead and empty, than the 3.5 ones, but the options, such as templates and feats, are worse.

[Kurald Galain]

If I had to run a straight fighter as high op as possible, 3.5 for sure. Grab Valkyrie template for a free DvR 0

I've googled that and have found zero references to this template. What book and/or setting is it from? Is it third-party? What makes you think this template would be available in the average campaign?

[Sinner's Garden]

I've googled that and have found zero references to this template. What book and/or setting is it from? Is it third-party? What makes you think this template would be available in the average campaign?

It's from Deities and Demigods. The official 3.5 update clarified that it has a +0 LA. I believe the book also calls it Einherjar. I don't understand games that run limited book lists instead of allowing all official material for reference as intended; you might have to go on a quest to gain favor from a god or something to get it, but why wouldn't it be allowed if you put in the otherwise pointless effort of becoming a tenth level Fighter?

[Kurald Galain]

I don't understand games that run limited book lists instead of allowing all official material for reference as intended
That's a fair point for generic rules, but not for elements specific to one campaign world. Don't expect defilers outside of Dark Sun, spellfire outside the Forgotten Realms, dragonmarks outside of Eberron, or Norse deities outside of Midgard or Greyhawk.


The official 3.5 update clarified that it has a +0 LA.
You are mistaken.

[Sinner's Garden]

That's a fair point for generic rules, but not for elements specific to one campaign world. Don't expect defilers outside of Dark Sun, spellfire outside the Forgotten Realms, dragonmarks outside of Eberron, or Norse deities outside of Midgard or Greyhawk.


You are mistaken.

You're right on the second point, having gone to review it, but on the first case, a tenth level character is fully capable of plane shifting to any setting he likes. Some settings are wiser than others, admittedly, but it is an option.

[Psyren]

You're right on the second point, having gone to review it, but on the first case, a tenth level character is fully capable of plane shifting to any setting he likes. Some settings are wiser than others, admittedly, but it is an option.

Plane shift doesn't take you between settings - and even if it could, you would need a focus tuned for that setting's version of whatever destination plane you're going to, which you'd pretty much need to get from the GM. Rather, the most typical way to hop settings s via the Plane of Shadow, which connects the material plane of every setting - but you have very little control over which one you get to and how, and the PoS is a fairly hostile place to be for long stretches of travel time especially if a caster is only 10th level.

[unseenmage]

Plane shift doesn't take you between settings - and even if it could, you would need a focus tuned for that setting's version of whatever destination plane you're going to, which you'd pretty much need to get from the GM. Rather, the most typical way to hop settings s via the Plane of Shadow, which connects the material plane of every setting - but you have very little control over which one you get to and how, and the PoS is a fairly hostile place to be for long stretches of travel time especially if a caster is only 10th level.

Might be a silly question but could a simple Find the Path spell navigate one through the Plane of Shadow reliably?

[Psyren]

Might be a silly question but could a simple Find the Path spell navigate one through the Plane of Shadow reliably?

...Maybe? The passages about this are very vague:

"With the right spell, you can use the Plane of Shadow to visit other realities."

"Depending on your cosmology, the Plane of Shadow might lead to alternate Material Planes and other planes of existence. This is a perilous way to travel, because the way to other planes plunges through parts of the Plane of Shadow that are not coexistent with any known plane and home to a variety of fell monsters."

Even if FTP works for this, that only gives direction - nothing is said about how long traveling this way takes, or how safe it is. Might be a question for afroakuma's thread.

[upho]

If I had to run a straight fighter as high op as possible, 3.5 for sure. Grab Valkyrie template for a free DvR 0 when a full BAB standard class hits level ten, and then grab the Aberrant Dragonmark feat chain and abuse Bestow Curse.I must say I also very much doubt this mix of setting-specific options from different settings is anywhere remotely close to being an actually realistic option for PCs in a game played largely according to RAW. Especially when considering the few relevant lines in official material Psyren quoted basically describe travels between settings as a theoretical (and very dangerous) possibility at best.

But more importantly, even if we assume that the options you mention is just as accessible to a high level fighter as options found in the core rules, I fail to see how that combo would make the 3.5 fighter less worse off relative other 3.5 classes than the PF fighter is relative other PF classes. Sure, the template grants some very nice immunities and a pretty decent SR, but IIRC the Aberrant Dragonmark feats are a rather poor investment, granting only very few daily uses of weak CL 15(?) SLA's with poor Cha-based save DCs. And even if it turns out my poor old brain has simply forgotten that a 3.5 fighter can somehow greatly boost the number of uses, action economy and success probabilities of offensive Dragonmark SLAs for little cost, the 3.5 fighter needs to gain a lot more than merely some improved passive defenses and the ability to spam a reasonably viable offensive SLA to even come close to the combat effectiveness of a high-op PF fighter, not to mention its far greater overall adventuring capabilities.

And this is merely comparing the two fighters' performance in a mid-/high-power game, without considering that the 3.5 fighter is up against quite considerably stiffer competition than the PF fighter is, most notably 3.5's (in)famously powerful spells and caster shenanigans.


In terms of straight classes, the PF chassi are better, less dead and empty, than the 3.5 ones, but the options, such as templates and feats, are worse.First off, with the rare exceptions of the templates which PCs may acquire as typically unintended consequences of their adventures, PCs don't have access to any templates in PF per RAW in your "typical" game limited to 1PP material. Since this is true for all PCs in PF regardless of class, I don't believe the existence of strong 3.5 templates accessible to PCs are likely to have much impact in this context. At least not unless the far most powerful templates in 3.5 are only available to the fighter or somehow vastly more beneficial for the fighter than for other classes.

Second, when it comes to PF feats, especially PF combat feats of interest to a fighter, what you're saying is the opposite of the objective and provable truth. If you honestly believe PF feats to be weaker for a fighter than 3.5 feats, you must have some kind of unique "Sinner's Garden Edition" 3.5 rule books including numerous feats vastly more powerful than those found in the standard editions. Or - more likely - you simply don't know which PF feats are the most powerful, if I had to guess because you're only aware of the PF feats published more than say five years ago.

If you doubt me, try checking out for example the options mentioned by AvatarVecna and me earlier in this thread:

Pretending archetypes are all **** compared to ACFs, pretending more feats is somehow less feats, pretending that trip was viable in high-op 3.5, pretending that Dazzling Display and Unchained Skills aren't accessible to fighters, pretending that item crafting isn't available to fighters......and things like the Mutation Warrior fighter, Siegebreaker fighter, VMC (barbarian is great), versatile training AWT, warrior spirit AWT (great for ad-hoc feats via training weapon abilities), dueling (PSFG) and leveraging weapons (up to +42 to trip and reposition checks), Combat Stamina, Imposing Bearing, Hero's Display with Awe-Inspiring Smash, Performing Combatant and Master Combat Performer, Disheartening Display, Soulless Gaze, Crashing Wave Fist, Demonic Slaughter, Paired Opportunists, Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Dirty Trick Master, Weapon Style Mastery, savage dirty trick, spell sunder... Yep, it goes on and on and on...

Yet some people remain certain that builds with these options are even further removed from PF wizards than chain-tripper or Jack-B-Quick type of 3.5 builds are from high-op 3.5 wizards.

Yeah... I'm honestly kinda awe-struck by the fantastic mental gymnastics and highly selective attention these people must be capable of in order to keep denying this reality... :smallamused:

And yes, I say “some people”, because the guy in this particular case is unfortunately far from the only person I’ve heard/seen making the same or very similar claims (a few are found here on GitP).And a very brief example of the combat capabilities these options allow for:
I mean, at least from mid levels the melee PF fighters (as well as most other melee muggles) that typically are the most powerful combatants don't give a proverbial rodent's butt about their damage output. Though these builds' actual DPR numbers may in reality often be quite decent, that's typically merely coincidental and largely irrelevant when judging their combat effectiveness, as they don't rely on damage in order to reliably take several opponents of at least CR = level + 5 out of the fight in every round of every combat, every day and practically all day long.

[Quertus]

But more importantly, even if we assume that the options you mention is just as accessible to a high level fighter as options found in the core rules, I fail to see how that combo would make the 3.5 fighter less worse off relative other 3.5 classes than the PF fighter is relative other PF classes.

I'm not sure that that's the right question.

Suppose, in game #1, the Fighter can kill an equal CR monster with an expected output of 2% of their resources, while the Wizard can do so while spending only 0.5% of their resources. In game #2, the Fighter spends 5% of his resources, while the Wizard spends only 4%. In which of these systems is the Fighter "better"?

[the_david]

I think the word that's missing here is comparatively. They got the short end of the stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)

1. This is true for the maneuver feats. However, this also holds up for other classes that have less feats to spend. That makes it somewhat easier for the fighter to specialize in a maneuver than for a non-fighter.
2. Power attack now gives a +3 on damage rolls for every -1 penalty you take on attack rolls. That used to be +1. This also goes for all other melee combatants, not just fighters. There's also Deadly Aim now.
3. Fighters get Weapon Training which brings them somewhat on an equal level with classes that have rage, favored enemy or smite evil.
4. I kinda don't expect Fighters to win a wrestling match eith a Tarrasque anyway. Maybe this is a good thing.
5. I'm sure there are other interesting builds out there for Fighters in Pathfinder. Can't come up with one. I have a great Intimidatrix build though, and it's a Barbarian-Cavalier-Rogue multiclass, not a fighter. You might be on to something, but my example is just anecdotal evidence.
6. Your math is of? Fighters get 21 feats in Pathfinder which is 110% more than a Cleric. In 3.5, fighters get 18 feats which is 157% more than a Cleric. I kinda agree with you here, Fighters get the short end of the stick. The same can be said about the HP increase for Classes in Pathfinder. Comparatively, that is.
7. Maybe, but Pathfinder got rid of the headache that was level adjustment.
8. I'm not sure about this, and would like to see more proof.
9. In some ways, yes. But a bunch of spells were nerfed, or at least they've gotten some clear limits.

So yeah, maybe. But in a lot of ways they hold up pretty good. Except for Bravery. That's just stupid when you compare it with Aura of Courage. (And it does nothing against Intimidate which doesn't require a will save.)

[Bartmanhomer]

The Pathfinder Fighter Class has made some improvement comparing to 3.5. It's not great but it better than the 3.5. :smile:

[Ramza00]

If you assume that the 3.5 fighter can access ToB via bonus feats, but the PF fighter can’t use the official 3rd party PoW equivalent, that would be a big boost to 3.5 fighter.

If PoW is on the table that’s a huge boost to the PF fighter. It has more/better options than ToB.

All you said is True! At the same time...

If Dreamscarred is on the table, then non Fighter Class which is playing a similar role as a Fighter also gets a power boost and thus comparatively to other martials and magics in 3.5 or PF.

Aegis 4/X 16 with X 16 being a full BAB path of war martial class will get 8 levels of Aegis Customization Points with the Student of the Astral Suit feat so 11 customization points plus whatever free ones you get from the suit. (It can get higher with magic items.)

And since 1 trait Practiced Initiator gives you +2 IL (up to your hit dice) you get 2+2+16=Full Initiator Level. The amount of freedom this gives a Full Path of War Initiator is obscene.

[Kaouse]

All you said is True! At the same time...

If Dreamscarred is on the table, then non Fighter Class which is playing a similar role as a Fighter also gets a power boost and thus comparatively to other martials and magics in 3.5 or PF.

Aegis 4/X 16 with X 16 being a full BAB path of war martial class will get 8 levels of Aegis Customization Points with the Student of the Astral Suit feat so 11 customization points plus whatever free ones you get from the suit. (It can get higher with magic items.)

And since 1 trait Practiced Initiator gives you +2 IL (up to your hit dice) you get 2+2+16=Full Initiator Level. The amount of freedom this gives a Full Path of War Initiator is obscene.

Alternatively, you could just play a straight Aegis 20 with Initiator Soul and Advanced Study to get access to higher level maneuvers and stances. Works even better if you choose an archetype that gives you a floating combat feat like Host of Heroes Champion Monomyth. Then you effectively get access to the entire Path of War system at your beck and call, but can always just decide to do something else if you wish.

[Quertus]

I know that the call was for a full 3e build, but… given that 3e Fighters can be built to a) deal more damage than monsters have HP, or b) get infinite attacks, is there really much point to comparing numbers at that point?


I'm not sure that that's the right question.

Suppose, in game #1, the Fighter can kill an equal CR monster with an expected output of 2% of their resources, while the Wizard can do so while spending only 0.5% of their resources. In game #2, the Fighter spends 5% of his resources, while the Wizard spends only 4%. In which of these systems is the Fighter "better"?

This question has been bothering me. I think that, to compare Fighters in the systems, we have to compare them purely against the monsters / challenges of the system (so, compare the 2% to the 5% in the above example); otherwise, it gets… complicated.

For example, suppose the actual numbers looked like this:

Fighter
* 70% chance to go infinite against single foe vulnerable to crits, 1/day go infinite against any foe, and
A) defeat 98% of single foes in 1 round
B) be unable to harm 2% of single foes
* 99% chance to destroy 100+ cannon fodder per round
* Mediocre performance against midrange foes - able to take down 1-2 per round
* Large loss of resources (HP) to midrange foes
A) (however, due to the potential for infinite healing / regeneration, "HP" may not be an actual resource, so much as a timer until you stop participating in this particular encounter)
* 3/day tactical teleport -> no loss of functionality, but loss of resources, to Force Cage etc
* Likely loss of functionality (but no loss of personal resources) to Mind Control / Hold / Fear effects (unless party Wizard expend resources to buff with Mind Blank)

How would you compare that to a Wizard who can, say…

Wizard
* 70% chance to go first against most monsters; 10/day, almost guaranteed.
* 5/day SoD effect vs single targets, with ~50% accuracy to guess if foe has 20%-80% chance to fail their saves, and nearly 100% accuracy to recognize 2% of foes which are immune.
* 20/day 1-shot cannon fodder, or 2-shot midrange foes, up to ~20 at a time
A) however, some foes are resistant or immune
B) the odds of foes being resistant / immune increases with each resource expended
* At will 1-shot cannon fodder, or 3-4 shot midrange foes, 1-4 at a time

More to the point, how do you compare the experience of being a Fighter in a party with that Wizard, to that of another Fighter / Wizard pairing?

It seems, to me, that it is far easier to compare, say, a party of 4 Fighters vs CR appropriate monsters, than to evaluate their experience in a mixed party.

Thoughts?

[Kurald Galain]

It seems, to me, that it is far easier to compare, say, a party of 4 Fighters vs CR appropriate monsters, than to evaluate their experience in a mixed party.

Easier to compare, but also mostly irrelevant, since nobody plays a four-fighter party.

Then again, pretty much nobody plays at level 20, either. If the alleged game designer mentioned in the OP was any good at game design, he'd realize that level 20 is not a suitable comparison point.

[Alexvrahr]

I've spoken to a handful of game designers online. Some knew their stuff, some clearly didn't know any more about the games they were writing for than random people on the homebrew board here. The arrogance to put your writing out there for money and contacts with people who can help you publish are more important than that knowledge I think.

[Gnaeus]

All you said is True! At the same time...

If Dreamscarred is on the table, then non Fighter Class which is playing a similar role as a Fighter also gets a power boost and thus comparatively to other martials and magics in 3.5 or PF.

Aegis 4/X 16 with X 16 being a full BAB path of war martial class will get 8 levels of Aegis Customization Points with the Student of the Astral Suit feat so 11 customization points plus whatever free ones you get from the suit. (It can get higher with magic items.)

And since 1 trait Practiced Initiator gives you +2 IL (up to your hit dice) you get 2+2+16=Full Initiator Level. The amount of freedom this gives a Full Path of War Initiator is obscene.

Yes. There are more effective tier 3 fighter-role classes. Always were. And yes, dipX/other class Y was always better than fighter and still is. Of course, comparing vanilla fighter with a build is a bit unfair. The fighter PoW archetype is quite solid. I was just comparing basic 3.5 fighter with ToB feats with PF one with PoW feats.

But even if Aegis>PF fighter by more than Warblade>3.5 fighter, which I by no means concede, that doesn’t make PF fighter worse than 3.5 fighter. CoDZilla > Aegis or Warblade. And CoDZilla barely exists in PF (the C and the D exist, but wildshape and persistent spell nerfs make them more casters than super fighters who are also casters.)

[Seerow]

All you said is True! At the same time...

If Dreamscarred is on the table, then non Fighter Class which is playing a similar role as a Fighter also gets a power boost and thus comparatively to other martials and magics in 3.5 or PF.

Aegis 4/X 16 with X 16 being a full BAB path of war martial class will get 8 levels of Aegis Customization Points with the Student of the Astral Suit feat so 11 customization points plus whatever free ones you get from the suit. (It can get higher with magic items.)

And since 1 trait Practiced Initiator gives you +2 IL (up to your hit dice) you get 2+2+16=Full Initiator Level. The amount of freedom this gives a Full Path of War Initiator is obscene.

If PoW is on the table the fighter gets an archetype that makes them an initiator and also grants grit for good measure (which can be used for some utility, but most importantly stopping most status effects flat), in exchange for a few bonus feats.

Heck if we're allowing 3rd party, coiled blade from SoM is potentially on the table, which let's you trade the other half of your bonus feats plus armor training for a full talent progression plus martial tradition (so about 24 talents total) and the tension feature from striker (which enables nice things like bonus attacks and Swift action movement). And it's compatible with myrmidon so you can have both.

PF Fighter with access to third party archetypes is probably one of my favorite classes ever. Fighter without that does still have some fun things like martial master and mutation warrior, but lore Warden getting nerfed to the ground is a bit disappointing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think 3rd party is a can of worms you want to open.

If the comparison is to be considered anything resembling fair, you can't allow 3p for one side and not the other. That being the case, the gods only know what's out there for the 3e fighter. The system was the current system in print for 8 years and the d20 OGL was a thing. I'm sure we can find something absolutely absurd somewhere in a compatible published source that makes it ridiculously powerful and versatile, even if I have no idea what that is.

At the same time, there's the minor issue of that essentially opening up the stuff you'd consider to be "for the 3e/PF fighter" to the other thanks to the cross-compatibility of the two systems. At that point all you can really compare is the changes to the class itself and the underlying system. It makes the question almost moot since the difference becomes so academically fine as to be irrelevant. I suppose you could restrict it to only allowing for each version things that are explicitly for that version to aleviate this concern. It still leaves the issue of there being far more material for both than anyone could really claim to have wrapped their head around entirely.

So I'd say that you really have to keep it strictly first party: WotC published for 3e and Paizo published for PF. Dragon magazine is in such a ridiculously grey area between the two that I'd just throw it out altogether.

If you agree, then the 3e fighter -can- take up to three ToB maneuvers with his bonus feats and as many stances as he wants and can qualify for while the PF fighter has no equivalent.

And just to put my biases out there, I disliked the changes that Paizo made to the d20 system when creating PF and strongly prefer 3e over PF as a result.

I'm willing to hear any argument anyone has on why 3p should be allowed for one but not the other but I very seriously doubt I or anyone else that's being intellectually honest will be convinced.




@OP

No promises but I'll see what I can do about putting together a level 20 fighter build and link you the myth-weavers sheet.

[Gnaeus]

If you agree, then the 3e fighter -can- take up to three ToB maneuvers with his bonus feats and as many stances as he wants and can qualify for while the PF fighter has no equivalent.

I'm willing to hear any argument anyone has on why 3p should be allowed for one but not the other but I very seriously doubt I or anyone else that's being intellectually honest will be convinced.
.

That’s rude.

The argument is simple. DSP was the official port for the 3.5 subsystems that Paizo didn’t want to personally adapt. Incarna, Initiators and Psionics. Any group that likes those subsystems in 3.5 is likely to allow them in PF. And the average quality of DSP material in terms of play testing, balance, errata support etc is higher than either 3.5 or PF.

If PoW isn’t allowed, ToB shouldn’t be allowed either. It has always been controversial and the groups that don’t use one probably won’t allow either.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That’s rude.

The argument is simple. DSP was the official port for the 3.5 subsystems that Paizo didn’t want to personally adapt. Incarna, Initiators and Psionics. Any group that likes those subsystems in 3.5 is likely to allow them in PF. And the average quality of DSP material in terms of play testing, balance, errata support etc is higher than either 3.5 or PF.

If PoW isn’t allowed, ToB shouldn’t be allowed either. It has always been controversial and the groups that don’t use one probably won’t allow either.

DSP isn't paizo. It's no more official than anything printed by green ronin, white wolf, or whatever other 3p publisher makes and slaps a PF logo on it. I understand the argument for why a group might be willing to use them and I'd probably accept it if I was part of a PF group without batting an eye since I do like all 3 of those subsystems. This isn't a discussion about which books a group should use though. It's a discussion about whether a PF fighter or a 3e fighter is better off in their respective games such as those games are.

As I said, you can't reasonablly allow 3p for one and not the other and still call it a fair comparison. You also can't reasonably say that anyone has the knowledge to speak on -everything- either of them is capable of if you include 3p unless you restrict which 3p sources are to be considered valid in some, fundamentally arbitrary way. Since the question becomes fundamentally unanswerable with 3p, the only thing to do is to restrict the comparison to 1p. You haven't even addressed this argument, much less refuted it.

WotC gave something to their fighter that Paizo didn't with the maneuvers system, albeit not much for any given fighter. That's just a difference in the systems that exists. Maybe it's not fair but the alternative is to make the whole comparison fall apart from either inescapable bias in source selection or from becoming incomprehensibly massive.

[Kurald Galain]

Maybe it's not fair but the alternative is to make the whole comparison fall apart from either inescapable bias in source selection or from becoming incomprehensibly massive.
Justified or not, the Tome Of Battle remains heavily controversial; and you can't just assume that it's going to be allowed in a campaign.

This is similar to how you can't assume that Pun-Pun is going to be allowed in any campaign, no matter how much he is technically RAW. Otherwise the outcome of this thread would simply be "3E's fighter goes Pun-Pun therefore PF's fighter is weaker".

[Psyren]

Even comparing first-party to first-party without concerns of ToB being disallowed, I'd give the edge to the PF Fighter. Yes, the 3.5 one can get some maneuvers and those are great, but the PF one can craft all his own gear without needing to beg a caster, and then squeeze even more utility out of said gear via Item Mastery. Not being at the mercy of a DM's loot tables or Magic Mart is huge, to say nothing of the effective increased WBL that crafting grants.

[Quertus]

Easier to compare, but also mostly irrelevant, since nobody plays a four-fighter party.

Then again, pretty much nobody plays at level 20, either. If the alleged game designer mentioned in the OP was any good at game design, he'd realize that level 20 is not a suitable comparison point.

Well, yes, on both counts.

However, as you may note from my descriptions, even the Same Game Test doesn't evaluate the experience, only the capacity to solo. In that regard, this question would have the same… fidelity… as the Same Game Test if we simply evaluated "Fighter vs System".

Further, just like "Wizard > Fighter" doesn't tell us that Wizard is overpowered (it might mean that Fighter is underpowered, or even one of several more complicated things), how the Fighter performs in comparison to the Wizard doesn't really tell us much about the relative strength of the two Fighters. That is, if I make a new system, where the core Fighter 20, naked, can 1-shot two CR 20 Dragons / Balors per round, all day long, isn't that Fighter objectively stronger than a 3e or PF Fighter, regardless of how I build the Wizard class?

Lastly, balance to the table. Given the *huge* range of power levels at which *both* classes can be built, if the Wizard is out-performing the Fighter, does that really tell us anything other that they've failed to balance to the table?

Subsequently, I see no reason why evaluating the Fighter vs the System is not the correct answer.

However, I do admit that the Same Game Test doesn't tell us much about the experience of being a character. For example, suppose that a particular Wizard overcomes 60% of the Same Game Test, while a particular Rogue build overcomes 50%. However, those overlap, and, in play, the Rogue does so without expending nearly as many resources, and thus is called on to handle 40-50% of encounters, while the Wizard has first dibs on 15%. Worse, once the wizard runs out of resources (or when they pack the wrong ones), they cannot even address that 15%, and the rest of the party has to pick up the slack.

It would be nice to develop an "actual play experience" test, but I suspect that that's outside the scope of this thread.


I know that the call was for a full 3e build, but… given that 3e Fighters can be built to a) deal more damage than monsters have HP, or b) get infinite attacks, is there really much point to comparing numbers at that point?

I've got to circle back to this: given that the 3e Fighter can be built to deal damage = "enough", either a) PF Fighters can be built to deal "enough" damage, in which case there's no point to looking at the specific numbers, or b) PF characters cannot be built to deal "enough" damage, at which point 3e characters just win. The same for grapple bonus, tripping, etc. Right? Is there some flaw in this reasoning that I'm not seeing?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Justified or not, the Tome Of Battle remains heavily controversial; and you can't just assume that it's going to be allowed in a campaign.

This is similar to how you can't assume that Pun-Pun is going to be allowed in any campaign, no matter how much he is technically RAW. Otherwise the outcome of this thread would simply be "3E's fighter goes Pun-Pun therefore PF's fighter is weaker".

Again, we're not talking about actual play or a particular campaiign here. What's good for one table is broken for another and what's okay for the latter might be broken for the first in a different area so "what's likely to be allowed" isn't a meaningful metric. If you really want a fair comparison that comes anywhere close to objective, then either it's all first party or core only.

Honestly, this almost sounds like an argument for a core only comparison. In that case, even I have to say PF wins. The differences aren't much at that point but they do favor PF and a core only environment is pretty awful for both.

[Kurald Galain]

Again, we're not talking about actual play or a particular campaiign here.

Of course we are. If we're not talking about actual play, then the whole discussion is utterly meaningless.

[Thunder999]

If we're going to ignore the idea of what would actually be allowed, then the PF fighter grabs some crafting feats, makes a candle of invocation and proceeds to get himself infinite minions with infinite wishes while the 3.5 fighter is pun-pun. Clearly that's a load of nonsense.

The fact is that in pathfinder DSP's 3pp stuff is about as accepted as ToB was in 3.5, Paizo even said that they weren't going to try and make their own 1pp versions because DSP already did a good job.

[upho]

I know that the call was for a full 3e build, but… given that 3e Fighters can be built to a) deal more damage than monsters have HP, or b) get infinite attacks, is there really much point to comparing numbers at that point?

Thoughts?I don't think much math or difficult "apples to pears"-comparisons are needed in order to make the answer to the question in thread title apparent, not to a person who has a good grasp of the capabilities of some of the most high-op fighter 20 builds possible in both games and at least a somewhat realistic idea of the general power span of the classes relative that of opponents in both games. But a person who lacks sufficient knowledge of such fighters in either or both games also needs actual fighter builds to compare (preferably with summaries explaining their respective "schticks" and strengths along with related probabilities vs average monster values of certain CRs). This is of curse especially the case if the person also believes they have sufficient knowledge, but their knowledge is actually based on misleading/false claims.


Then again, pretty much nobody plays at level 20, either. If the alleged game designer mentioned in the OP was any good at game design, he'd realize that level 20 is not a suitable comparison point.To be fair, I think he's well aware of that. Again, this whole discussion came up after I had mentioned the hypothetical "fighter 20 in a mid-/high-power game" as an attempt to exemplify the type of non-caster viability and variety which WotC gave up on with 5e and Paizo with PF2. And in this more abstract context I think level 20 is more appropriate, as it adds "high level viability" to the list of key differences separating this kind of PF fighter from the more traditional 3.5 one, aside from the fact that most of those key differences are the most pronounced at 20th.

But regardless, the PF fighter's relative superiority should be obvious also during a very large majority of earlier levels.


The argument is simple. DSP was the official port for the 3.5 subsystems that Paizo didn’t want to personally adapt. Incarna, Initiators and Psionics. Any group that likes those subsystems in 3.5 is likely to allow them in PF. And the average quality of DSP material in terms of play testing, balance, errata support etc is higher than either 3.5 or PF.
DSP isn't paizo. It's no more official than anything printed by green ronin, white wolf, or whatever other 3p publisher makes and slaps a PF logo on it.

As I said, you can't reasonablly allow 3p for one and not the other and still call it a fair comparison.Please guys, I said I wanted to dodge this, goddammit! :smallannoyed:

FWIW, I fully agree with the principle expressed by Kelb here, which I definitely believe applies universally except specifically when it comes to certain 3.5 vs PF comparisons and DSP's PoW, Akashic and maybe psionics (but no other DSP material). And the reason for this would in the case of most comparisons probably be simply because not including the DSP stuff would render the comparison meaningless.

However, in this particular case, I think including PoW material would just make the related options available the focus of the comparison for both fighters. Not to mention we all know the end result of such a comparison, while one in which only the 3.5 fighter is given access to initiating seems like less of a foregone conclusion.


Even comparing first-party to first-party without concerns of ToB being disallowed, I'd give the edge to the PF Fighter. Yes, the 3.5 one can get some maneuvers and those are great, but the PF one can craft all his own gear without needing to beg a caster, and then squeeze even more utility out of said gear via Item Mastery. Not being at the mercy of a DM's loot tables or Magic Mart is huge, to say nothing of the effective increased WBL that crafting grants.Well, at least the applicable ToB stuff I can remember wouldn't be enough to let the 3.5 fighter catch up to the PF fighter (even without crafting and/or Item Mastery).

[upho]

I've got to circle back to this: given that the 3e Fighter can be built to deal damage = "enough",I'm not certain I've understood your definition of "enough" damage is in this context, but assuming this means "DPR > average equal CR monster's max hp", using the standard definition of theoretical DPR (= average total damage dealt to a "block of tofu" with the average defense values of equal CR monsters during one round starting at preferred distance), then yes, PF Fighters can easily deal "enough" damage. And high-op damage focused builds can deal "enough" damage when using on the average values of up to at least +5 CR monsters. But regardless, I think you can safely assume that a single-classed PF fighter can be at least as effective in a damage combat role as the 3.5 counterpart during a majority of levels, games and circumstances.


either a) PF Fighters can be built to deal "enough" damage, in which case there's no point to looking at the specific numbers, or b) PF characters cannot be built to deal "enough" damage, at which point 3e characters just win. The same for grapple bonus, tripping, etc. Right? Is there some flaw in this reasoning that I'm not seeing?

I believe you're missing that a high-op PF fighter is typically a significantly stronger combatant when built to focus on hardcore control/debuff instead of dealing "enough" damage. So while your reasoning would indeed be valid if you compared 3.5 fighters, it's not particularly applicable to the PF fighter. This is of course also a significant part of the reason why the control/debuff combat focus is more versatile and effective, especially against truly challenging foes, and in turn why a high-op PF fighter can deal with a larger variety of foes and remain viable all the way to 20th in more games.


Of course we are. If we're not talking about actual play, then the whole discussion is utterly meaningless.We are indeed talking about actual play, but make as few and as universally applicable assumptions as possible about the game's specifics (party, setting, campaign/adventure etc).

[Sleven]

Maybe this is where the disconnect is for you: you're not familiar enough with 3.5 high-op to realize that it homogenizes most classes. High-op mid-to-high level fighters in 3.5 can be functional wizards with all the power 3.5 spells have to offer. Even if we assume this thread requires a high-op fighter's primary role to be weapon attacks, there are some defensive benchmarks I can give you for a 3.5 fighter that you can tell me if a PF fighter has any way of hitting. If yes, then PF high-op fighters have a lot more options then I realized. If not, I think it's clear who takes the cake.

Example benchmarks:
- Regeneration with the ability to be immune to the lethal damage types and nonlethal damage. Mix in the capability to continue fighting well into the negatives to taste.
- Continuous total concealment.
- Immunity to entire schools of magic.
- Immunity to most debilitating effects and conditions, including but not limited to: daze, stun, sicken, nauseated, fear, mind-affecting, surprise, flat-footed, confusion, ability damage, ability drain, death affects, etc.
- Etc.

The defensive benchmarks alone should be sufficient for now, but we can also get into offense if you can demonstrate this isn't already a landslide for the 3.5 fighter. Options there include many that allow a fighter's attack(s) to straight up ignore a large number of defenses.

I am legitimately curious if PF has feats that provide multiple immunities, massive save boosts, or the ability to create epic level casters under a character's suggestion? If not, I can't consider it a serious high-op competitor.

Going through the thread a bit more, I'm seeing a lot of attempts from the PF side to limit the 3.5 fighter's available sources while showing no willingness to restrict their own. This is laughably dishonest when trying to find a non-biased answer to the question you posed.
- Setting specific is being thrown around as an excuse to limit the 3.5 fighter's options? I've never seen a genuinely high-op table that restricted setting specific sources. You need a fluff excuse? They can be from Eberron, which explicitly says anything from any other setting specific source has a place in Eberron. Problem solved. Now we can move on from this attempt to move the goal posts.
- 3rd party products are okay for PF because they're respected? You couldn't make your bias more obvious. 3.5 has many well respected sources too, such as Legend of the Five Rings (aka Rokugan). I'd love to wipe the floor with a DSP PF fighter using Void and Kiho feats or Taint or Shadow Points. This is one can of worms you don't want to open. 1st party for both is plenty fair, and the version of 1st party being offered by Kelb is still limiting some 3.5 first party sources. Although, if I'm being frank Tome of Battle feats are pretty low-priority for a non-initiator compared to what other sources have to offer.
- Templates shouldn't be allowed? Once again, you don't just get to dismiss a 3.5 source of power because its convenient for you to make your point. If PF doesn't make templates available, that's one more advantage for 3.5. And for anyone trying to dismiss the Einherjar template from Deities and Demigods, let me refresh your memory on how templates work in 3.5:

Generally, if a template does not cause a change to a certain statistic, that entry is missing from the template description. For clarity, the entry for a statistic or attribute that is not changed is sometimes given as “Same as the base creature.”
That means templates without a listed or -- under level adjustment are effectively level adjustment 0. Does it make some updated 3.0 content bonkers? Yes. Is it RAW? Yes. I've also used the Einherjar template at a number of high-op tables. Most high-op DMs consider it more than reasonable for having actually taken 10 levels in fighter, ranger, paladin, or barbarian. But 3.5 fighters can still get the aforementioned immunities without it.

The bottom line is, quit trying to re-frame what high-power means just because it's convenient for a PF fighter. I think the perfect demonstration of this is at one point in this thread someone said something along the lines of "what makes you think this would be allowed in an average campaign?" The question clearly specifies high-op, which is not your average table. So either you want to actually have a discussion about the question you asked or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways.

[upho]

The bottom line is, quit trying to re-frame what high-power means just because it's convenient for a PF fighter.

I think the perfect demonstration of this is at one point in this thread someone said something along the lines of "what makes you think this would be allowed in an average campaign?" The question clearly specifies high-op, which is not your average table. So either you want to actually have a discussion about the question you asked or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways.I hope you don't mind if I start by replying to the end of your post, because I believe this is indeed where you mention "the bottom line", pointing at the underlying reason for your critique.

Most importantly, AFAICT according to your definitions, "high-power" and "high-op" are interchangeable terms, and it's the mechanical power of the options available to the PCs which primarily determines whether a game or PC is "high-power/-op" or not. Is this correct?

According to my definitions - especially in the context relevant to the topic of this thread - these terms instead refer to different things. "High-power" primarily refers to the overall capability (mechanical strength, tactical/teamwork skills and creativity, etc) the party/PCs (and players) are required to have in order to overcome the game's challenges, and "high-op" instead refers to a build with a mechanical power near the maximum theoretically possible for the class the build's based on and in the specific game it's played in.

But while I don't find your definitions wrong per se, can you think of any reasons why I might consider them unsuitable in the specific context of this thread?


Maybe this is where the disconnect is for you: you're not familiar enough with 3.5 high-op to realize that it homogenizes most classes.Nah, I'm well aware of this. Of course, there are plenty of similar silly options allowing you to go bananas in PF, and some of them - such as monsters/templates having LA (pre-packed with buy-off) = CR, and especially Mythic tiers (PF's Epic) being separate from levels and having no cost whatsoever - can likely add even more crazy amounts of power to a fighter 20 build.

Yet nobody has suggested any of these options should be considered for the PF fighter, despite the fact that some of them are far more considerable advantages the PF fighter has over the 3.5 version than any of the options which have actually been mentioned. And curiously, I personally even suggested giving the 3.5 fighter access to ToB options, without giving the PF fighter access to the stronger PoW options. Do you have any thoughts on why this is the case?


I hope this at least makes it obvious there have AFAICT been zero attempts to "re-frame what high-power means just because it's convenient for a PF fighter". (And I really don't give a rats ass about which game's fighter is the most competent; I only care about promoting martial classes able to be effective in more than one combat role and to have as tactically interesting, meaningful, varied and fun mechanics as casters enjoy.)

[Ramza00]

DSP isn't paizo. It's no more official than anything printed by green ronin, white wolf, or whatever other 3p publisher makes and slaps a PF logo on it. I understand the argument for why a group might be willing to use them and I'd probably accept it if I was part of a PF group without batting an eye since I do like all 3 of those subsystems. This isn't a discussion about which books a group should use though. It's a discussion about whether a PF fighter or a 3e fighter is better off in their respective games such as those games are.

As I said, you can't reasonablly allow 3p for one and not the other and still call it a fair comparison. You also can't reasonably say that anyone has the knowledge to speak on -everything- either of them is capable of if you include 3p unless you restrict which 3p sources are to be considered valid in some, fundamentally arbitrary way. Since the question becomes fundamentally unanswerable with 3p, the only thing to do is to restrict the comparison to 1p. You haven't even addressed this argument, much less refuted it.

WotC gave something to their fighter that Paizo didn't with the maneuvers system, albeit not much for any given fighter. That's just a difference in the systems that exists. Maybe it's not fair but the alternative is to make the whole comparison fall apart from either inescapable bias in source selection or from becoming incomprehensibly massive.

Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum were never created with the idea of balancing against existing 3.5 but instead were new mechanics to play test 4th edition before 4th edition. And it really shows in Tome of Magic for only the binder is usable but also makes sense with the 3.5 framework. Tome of Battle is internally consistent but is also very different than 3.5 style.

I feel you are post how rationalizing 3.5 being coherent merely for Tome of Battle turned out good. 3.5 was never balanced. Homebrew and 3rd Party is real hit or miss with balance and you should be skeptical of it, yet some publishers actually do a better job than WoTC or Paizo.

[Quertus]

I'm not certain I've understood your definition of "enough" damage is in this context, but assuming this means "DPR > average equal CR monster's max hp", using the standard definition of theoretical DPR (= average total damage dealt to a "block of tofu" with the average defense values of equal CR monsters during one round starting at preferred distance), then yes, PF Fighters can easily deal "enough" damage. And high-op damage focused builds can deal "enough" damage when using on the average values of up to at least +5 CR monsters. But regardless, I think you can safely assume that a single-classed PF fighter can be at least as effective in a damage combat role as the 3.5 counterpart during a majority of levels, games and circumstances.

Once again, let me rephrase, to make sure that we're on the same page.

Are you saying that, for any attack form (damage, grapple, trip, whatever), you can build a PF Fighter such that a party of 4 such identical Fighters facing 4 identical equal CR (or even "CR +5") threats, chosen to be the *worst* for that build to face, anyone with a lick of sense would bet even money on at least 3 out of 4 of those Fighters successfully 1-round "dispatching" their foe (where "tripping", "disarming", etc, qualify for these purposes, I suppose).

If so, then… yes, both are close enough to "combat Pun-Pun", and any difference in their performance when brought down to a lower level than TO represents a failure of defining the level, not of the Fighter's capabilities, so my point / question is… is there an interesting question here somewhere, or can we just say, "yes, they both rock combat"?


I believe you're missing that a high-op PF fighter is typically a significantly stronger combatant when built to focus on hardcore control/debuff instead of dealing "enough" damage. So while your reasoning would indeed be valid if you compared 3.5 fighters, it's not particularly applicable to the PF fighter. This is of course also a significant part of the reason why the control/debuff combat focus is more versatile and effective, especially against truly challenging foes, and in turn why a high-op PF fighter can deal with a larger variety of foes and remain viable all the way to 20th in more games.

This sounds like it wants to be an answer to my question, but… perhaps I lack the pf experience to parse it?

Trying again… hmmm…

A 3e Fighter can Large and in Charge. reach weapon, combat reflexes, <stance to prevent 5' steps?> OR¹ <stance to penalize attacking allies>, <Mage Something to prevent casting defensively> etc etc do an awful lot to really Control an area - quite a large one, at that, with enough cheese.

Are you really saying that a PF Fighter's Control is noticeably better / more versatile / more entertaining / something? I don't know PF, so please, what makes PF Control awesome? (Or, if I've missed the point, please try to explain said point to someone simultaneously ignorant of PF, and with limited reading comprehension skills)

¹ maybe "and", as there's ways to be in 2 stances at once

[Sleven]

Feel free to start anywhere you want. But you shouldn't be asking me these questions:

can you think of any reasons why I might consider them unsuitable in the specific context of this thread?
[...]
Do you have any thoughts on why this is the case?

I'm not a mind reader and I'm not here to play 20 questions. If you want something from me you need to declare what that is.


According to my definitions - especially in the context relevant to the topic of this thread - these terms instead refer to different things. "High-power" primarily refers to the overall capability (mechanical strength, tactical/teamwork skills and creativity, etc) the party/PCs (and players) are required to have in order to overcome the game's challenges, and "high-op" instead refers to a build with a mechanical power near the maximum theoretically possible for the class the build's based on and in the specific game it's played in.

So I'm addressing your two definitions simultaneously. Particularly if you look at what I started with when addressing your question as to whether or not the PF fighter is worse off than the 3.5 fighter: defensive capabilities. I was demonstrating that a high-op 3.5 fighter can make themselves so effective at disregarding many of the typical issues faced by mundanes that most enemies will be forced to fight them on their terms. Can a PF fighter say the same?


Nah, I'm well aware of this. Of course, there are plenty of similar silly options allowing you to go bananas in PF, and some of them - such as monsters/templates having LA (pre-packed with buy-off) = CR, and especially Mythic tiers (PF's Epic) being separate from levels and having no cost whatsoever - can likely add even more crazy amounts of power to a fighter 20 build.

Yet nobody has suggested any of these options should be considered for the PF fighter, despite the fact that some of them are far more considerable advantages the PF fighter has over the 3.5 version than any of the options which have actually been mentioned.

If PF has 0 LA templates that allow you to play fighter 20 in (what's pressumably) a ECL 20 framework, then why wouldn't that be part of the discussion? On the other hand, if we're only here to discuss fighter bonus feats and how those fair against expected challenges, then I'm sure PF is probably better. Though I do find it interesting that people are so quick to dismiss a fighter specific template from 3.5 in a discussion about 3.5 fighters, while I fail to see how "Epic" is relevent in a fighter 20 discussion. If PF has hidden tech we don't know about that can boost the viability of fighters in high-power games, your question seems like the perfect place to discuss it. So do it. Don't hold back on my account.


I really don't give a rats ass about which game's fighter is the most competent; I only care about promoting martial classes able to be effective in more than one combat role and to have as tactically interesting, meaningful, varied and fun mechanics as casters enjoy.

A noble goal. I myself share this sentiment. But it requires players to overcome years of bias and build paradigms that quite frankly undermine the fact that a fighter can do exactly that. Someone mentioned it earlier in the thread, so I'll use it for punctuation on this point: builds like Jack-B-Quick are part of the aforementioned problem. They waste feats unnecessarily on doing one thing and doing more of it, which is why the build ends up being very low-op. Proof of concept builds like that are not exemplary of the diversity a fighter can weave into their build with general feats and items.



A 3e Fighter can Large and in Charge. reach weapon, combat reflexes, <stance to prevent 5' steps?> OR¹ <stance to penalize attacking allies>, <Mage Something to prevent casting defensively> etc etc do an awful lot to really Control an area - quite a large one, at that, with enough cheese.

That's not even cheesy. That's a pretty standard 3.5 fighter. You're optimizing, but not that much. And while I personally find it to be a waste of feats, you can also use all the +5ft reach feats and size increases to easily cover 50ft+ areas where enemies can't even scratch their balls without provoking.

I really don't know what the OP or the other PF posters consider "good enough" as proof of concept for the purpose of this thread, but I did offer defensive benchmarks I think are "good enough" for high-op 3.5 and got no response regarding setting them as standards.

[HouseRules]

Well, yes, on both counts.

However, as you may note from my descriptions, even the Same Game Test doesn't evaluate the experience, only the capacity to solo. In that regard, this question would have the same… fidelity… as the Same Game Test if we simply evaluated "Fighter vs System".

Further, just like "Wizard > Fighter" doesn't tell us that Wizard is overpowered (it might mean that Fighter is underpowered, or even one of several more complicated things), how the Fighter performs in comparison to the Wizard doesn't really tell us much about the relative strength of the two Fighters. That is, if I make a new system, where the core Fighter 20, naked, can 1-shot two CR 20 Dragons / Balors per round, all day long, isn't that Fighter objectively stronger than a 3e or PF Fighter, regardless of how I build the Wizard class?

Lastly, balance to the table. Given the *huge* range of power levels at which *both* classes can be built, if the Wizard is out-performing the Fighter, does that really tell us anything other that they've failed to balance to the table?

Subsequently, I see no reason why evaluating the Fighter vs the System is not the correct answer.

However, I do admit that the Same Game Test doesn't tell us much about the experience of being a character. For example, suppose that a particular Wizard overcomes 60% of the Same Game Test, while a particular Rogue build overcomes 50%. However, those overlap, and, in play, the Rogue does so without expending nearly as many resources, and thus is called on to handle 40-50% of encounters, while the Wizard has first dibs on 15%. Worse, once the wizard runs out of resources (or when they pack the wrong ones), they cannot even address that 15%, and the rest of the party has to pick up the slack.

It would be nice to develop an "actual play experience" test, but I suspect that that's outside the scope of this thread.



I've got to circle back to this: given that the 3e Fighter can be built to deal damage = "enough", either a) PF Fighters can be built to deal "enough" damage, in which case there's no point to looking at the specific numbers, or b) PF characters cannot be built to deal "enough" damage, at which point 3e characters just win. The same for grapple bonus, tripping, etc. Right? Is there some flaw in this reasoning that I'm not seeing?

Well, there are many variations of Same Game Test.

Basically, any character is thrown into a challenge of appropriate CR for the character's ECL.
The character should win an average of 60% to be appropriate to be a player build and 40% to be appropriate to be a monster build.
To have a win rate above 60% + allowed variance is overpowered, and a win rate below 40% - allowed variance is underpowered.

The Same Game Test could also extend to party, but it is harder since there are no "default" parties for comparison.
The size of the party also influence classes that have party based skills, so a party of 100 is different from a party of 10.

The Same Game Test is to test a character build or a party build (when extended for parties).
Do not award experience in Same Game Tests like many fools would do so.
It fact, Same Game Test are best done by simulation software.

[Kurald Galain]

Most high-op DMs consider it more than reasonable for having actually taken 10 levels in fighter, ranger, paladin, or barbarian.
So basically, the much-maligned 3E fighter is so weak that DMs are willing to houserule in its favor. That's hardly surprising (we have common threads in this forum about houserule the 3E monk as well), but it also falls squarely under the Oberoni Fallacy.

[Efrate]

I think you should evaluate fighter 20 just with 20 fighter levels and what those levels give you. Not with wbl mancy, not with templates, 1st party only. How much that deviates from high op is a concern, but if you are specifying fighter 20, the things that are outside that seem irrelevant. Items in general can skew things so think of big 6 only, because a difference in what items are available is more about edition than fighter. No leadership for either because then it's about building a sidekick that's better than you.

Everything possible being allowed makes it not about the fighter but about the full options available to the edition. And if it's the available options within editions I am sure 3.5 comes out ahead just because there are more silly top end things, and everyone just goes so far off the rails there is not meaningful differences.

That being the case I'll take pathfinder fighter 20 over 3.5 fighter 20. Natively in class it just has more, and feats are often better except power attack. Plus I would take most PF archetypes over most fighter acfs. My 2 copper.

[Gnaeus]

If PF has 0 LA templates that allow you to play fighter 20 in (what's pressumably) a ECL 20 framework, then why wouldn't that be part of the discussion? On the other hand, if we're only here to discuss fighter bonus feats and how those fair against expected challenges, then I'm sure PF is probably better. Though I do find it interesting that people are so quick to dismiss a fighter specific template from 3.5 in a discussion about 3.5 fighters, while I fail to see how "Epic" is relevent in a fighter 20 discussion. If PF has hidden tech we don't know about that can boost the viability of fighters in high-power games, your question seems like the perfect place to discuss it. So do it. Don't hold back on my account..

My first thought is the notoriously broken race building system.

My second thought is that the downtime system gives me an inexpensive way to hire teams of hirelings. For less than a +1 sword the fighter can permanently hire a wizard 3, a cleric 3, and 5 archers. Unless he has downtime to generate resources. In that case it’s wizard 3, cleric 3, Druid 3 bard 3 10 archers for 2300 gp and a few months of time.

But wait. Once I have teams and buildings generating resources, I can quickly graduate to Kingdom Builder. Wizard College generating Magic Items every month? Taxes to abuse? Yes please.

And it’s something the fighter can do effectively cheaper than a wizard. He doesn’t have item creation or spell research or scribing competing for his downtime work. It gives a real way for muggles to manipulate the environment. My paladin built a police force. My pirate created a cult of cannibals.

[Peat]

Yes. There are more effective tier 3 fighter-role classes. Always were. And yes, dipX/other class Y was always better than fighter and still is. Of course, comparing vanilla fighter with a build is a bit unfair. The fighter PoW archetype is quite solid. I was just comparing basic 3.5 fighter with ToB feats with PF one with PoW feats.

But even if Aegis>PF fighter by more than Warblade>3.5 fighter, which I by no means concede, that doesn’t make PF fighter worse than 3.5 fighter. CoDZilla > Aegis or Warblade. And CoDZilla barely exists in PF (the C and the D exist, but wildshape and persistent spell nerfs make them more casters than super fighters who are also casters.)

I'm pretty out of my depth here, but this part does seem true and pretty pertinent in terms of comparing the ability of Fighters in either system to hang in a high level, high power game. Sure well prepared casters can take over everything if they want to in both games, but the absence of CoDZilla does seem to leave a clearer niche that someone could fill with a Fighter if they wanted to (although arguably strong Gish in a cans like Magus and Warpriest trample on the territory).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum were never created with the idea of balancing against existing 3.5 but instead were new mechanics to play test 4th edition before 4th edition. And it really shows in Tome of Magic for only the binder is usable but also makes sense with the 3.5 framework. Tome of Battle is internally consistent but is also very different than 3.5 style.

You synicism is noted. Unless you can find a dev interview to that effect though, this is nothing but naked speculation. Tome of Magic definitely has some glaring issues but incarnum is actually pretty well designed and its numbers work out pretty tightly with the baseline expectations of the system.


I feel you are post how rationalizing 3.5 being coherent merely for Tome of Battle turned out good. 3.5 was never balanced. Homebrew and 3rd Party is real hit or miss with balance and you should be skeptical of it, yet some publishers actually do a better job than WoTC or Paizo.

Your attempt at mind reading here is an utter failure. For one thing, nobody was talking about balance at all. 3e's balance isn't nearly as bad as people think but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is likely why no one brought it up.

My quoted commentary there is discussing methodology for the proposed comparison. Game balance just isn't a conern for this discussion. Finding a method that's "balanced" such that it doesn't obviously favor one or the other fighter in how the examination is setup is what matters. If the OP wants to go ahead and allow the DSP stuff on the PF side, that's his prerogative but to my mind, and I suspect at least a few others, it would mean putting a -big- asterisk next to the PF fighter's name, should it be determined to be the winner in this contest.

@upho

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by saying that disincluding the DSP material renders this discussion meaningless. Surely there's a decent amount of fighter content made by paizo itself?

[Kurald Galain]

Finding a method that's "balanced" such that it doesn't obviously favor one or the other fighter in how the examination is setup is what matters.
If the KP wants to go ahead and allow setting-specific material, and material not normally available to players, and the most controversial splatbook on the 3.5 side, that's his prerogative but to my mind, and I suspect at least a few others, it would mean putting a -big- asterisk next to the 3.5 fighter's name, should it be determined to be the winner in this contest.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You synicism is noted. Unless you can find a dev interview to that effect though, this is nothing but naked speculation. Tome of Magic definitely has some glaring issues but incarnum is actually pretty well designed and its numbers work out pretty tightly with the baseline expectations of the system.

On the one hand, the idea that Tome of Magic was intended as a playtest largely comes from the fact that David Noonan was co-writing that at the same time he was in charge of creating 4e playtest material and mentioned (in some now-long-gone comments that went down with Gleemax, as I recall) that there was some cross-pollination of ideas, particularly in the shadowcaster...but the other authors have given other reasons, and the "official" one on Wikipedia doesn't mention playtesting at all. And Magic of Incarnum was only ever associated with the 4e playtest retrospectively after the two Tomes came out, there's no developer commentary to that effect.

On the other hand, the late-edition material for every edition has always been at least a little bit of a playtest for the next one, since that's when the devs start throwing in more out-there material that's not entirely balanced with or integrated into what came before to see what sticks. 1e had Unearthed Arcana, which introduced what became cantrips, Weapon Specialization, class subraces, and more in 2e; 2e had Player's Options books, which introduced what became the skill system, combat maneuvers, magic item creation, and more in 3e. And we know for a fact that ToB was based on an early draft of 4e, codenamed Orcus; if it felt like the warblade, swordsage, and crusader started off as rewrites of the fighter, monk, and paladin, it's because they literally did.

So the idea that they were intended (or at least used) as playtests has only tenuous evidence, but the idea that they were new mechanics that weren't introduced with as much of an eye to balance and integration as most other 3e material is fairly well supported.

[Ramza00]

So the idea that they were intended (or at least used) as playtests has only tenuous evidence, but the idea that they were new mechanics that weren't introduced with as much of an eye to balance and integration as most other 3e material is fairly well supported.

*Nods in agreement*

It is correct that editions do not have a singular goals, and thus we should not just trust that material inside a system is balanced or not balanced.

In specific books (not the system as a whole) the goal some of the time was to try out new mechanics and effectively do a playtest out in the wild as a beta, instead of testing the mechanics inhouse (doing an alpha.)

Assuming that each new book is calibrated to be roughly balanced to the current existing superstructure is a mistake, it is making an cognitive error.

-----

Especially in a "collaborative" game type where there are no winners or losers. In other game types where there is 1 on 1 competition, tournaments, etc you will see the nature of game design changes. You actually have game designers care about balance for that is what is being judged. How game designers create D&D is different than how game designers create Magic the Gathering (two different games that were both owned by the same corporation in the 00s.)

-----

I am sorry if this will not please you Kelb_Panthera for you only find things "valid" if a designer said it in an interview. Regardless it is the truth. *Shrug* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Magic of Incarnum was roughly on par balance wise as 3.5 even though it was new mechanics, yet Tome of Magic 6 months later was obviously not playtested and the whole mechanics just do not make sense. 3rd party people could have done the Shadowcaster and the Trunenamer far better than the "official" 3rd edition.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the KP wants to go ahead and allow setting-specific material, and material not normally available to players, and the most controversial splatbook on the 3.5 side, that's his prerogative but to my mind, and I suspect at least a few others, it would mean putting a -big- asterisk next to the 3.5 fighter's name, should it be determined to be the winner in this contest.




I am sorry if this will not please you Kelb_Panthera for you only find things "valid" if a designer said it in an interview. Regardless it is the truth. *Shrug* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Magic of Incarnum was roughly on par balance wise as 3.5 even though it was new mechanics, yet Tome of Magic 6 months later was obviously not playtested and the whole mechanics just do not make sense. 3rd party people could have done the Shadowcaster and the Trunenamer far better than the "official" 3rd edition.

You guys really aren't getting what I'm saying at all, are you?


The question posed by the thread is an objective one. To get an objective answer you have to define the parameters of the experiment clearly. When deciding what to include or disinclude you need something objective to check for or you're making fundamentally arbitrary distinctions that get you a fundamentally arbitrary answer.

For 3p material there are two major problems: there's way too much of it to allow it all and there's no objective way to cut any of it out other than, maybe, by publisher. There's no addressing the first at all. The latter is very difficult to avoid skewing the answer because of the fact that some publishers only ever really produced content for one or the other of 3e or PF. DSP isn't appropriate because they only ever made PF material (I'd be happy to be proved wrong here but there's only PF on their website.) It's blatantly skewing the resluts in favor of the PF fighter, whether it atually means an overall victory or not. Even if you wanted to add -just- akashic mysteries, path of war, and psionics unleashed then you have to explain how that is in any way objective compared to the whole of DSP material and/or why the 3e fighter shouldn't get three 3p sources as well.

So far as I can tell, the entire argument in favor of just those 3 books is that they're 1:1 translations of Incarnum, ToB, and XPH. I can very much get why you would want them in any particular playgroup. I'd probably want all 3 if I was in a PF group. That doesn't change the fact you're going outside of the original publisher to find sources to favor one side of the discussion. If you're going to allow them, why shouldn't you allow the immortals handbook for the 3e fighter? Because it's ridiculous on the face of it? That's a judgement call not anything objective.

Now if you want to argue to -disallow- subsytems altogether, you might have an argument with merit. That's something on which we can take an objective measure. I'd suggest we make it non-core subsystems though, since you'd otherwise be nixing gear and spellcasting too and they're pretty well established portions of the overall core systems.


All that said, I now repeat: what's balanced within the game never did matter for this question since it seriously has nothing to do with the question. That either is or isn't balanced within their respective systems simply doesn't matter to determining which is "better off" except in that if one is balanced to its system and the other isn't then you can simply declare the winner by determining whether the unbalanced one is above or below the system's baseline in its imbalance.

What's "likely to be allowed" isn't remotely objective. It's almost a purely arbitrary distinction that -will- change from one observer to another. As a consequence it also has no useful bearing on the question.

Finally, Kurald, other than your "Most controversial" label for ToB (I'd argue XPH is more likely to have that distinction), that would all be true for PF too or not, in the case of things not available to players, should that be (reasonably) disincluded. Did Paizo only ever publish the golarion setting?


On the one hand, the idea that Tome of Magic was intended as a playtest largely comes from the fact that David Noonan was co-writing that at the same time he was in charge of creating 4e playtest material and mentioned (in some now-long-gone comments that went down with Gleemax, as I recall) that there was some cross-pollination of ideas, particularly in the shadowcaster...but the other authors have given other reasons, and the "official" one on Wikipedia doesn't mention playtesting at all. And Magic of Incarnum was only ever associated with the 4e playtest retrospectively after the two Tomes came out, there's no developer commentary to that effect.

On the other hand, the late-edition material for every edition has always been at least a little bit of a playtest for the next one, since that's when the devs start throwing in more out-there material that's not entirely balanced with or integrated into what came before to see what sticks. 1e had Unearthed Arcana, which introduced what became cantrips, Weapon Specialization, class subraces, and more in 2e; 2e had Player's Options books, which introduced what became the skill system, combat maneuvers, magic item creation, and more in 3e. And we know for a fact that ToB was based on an early draft of 4e, codenamed Orcus; if it felt like the warblade, swordsage, and crusader started off as rewrites of the fighter, monk, and paladin, it's because they literally did.

So the idea that they were intended (or at least used) as playtests has only tenuous evidence, but the idea that they were new mechanics that weren't introduced with as much of an eye to balance and integration as most other 3e material is fairly well supported.

There's little doubt that a clear evolutionary path can be seen from elements of one edition to elements of the next. To say that it's a playtest with little to no concern for balance within the extant system just because it's near the end of the run is just ridiculous though.

Particularly with the accusation that ToB was an experiment with an eye toward 4e has been explicitly refuted by the devs, IIRC. WotC's tendency to wipe away the past makes that difficult to prove though.


*Nods in agreement*

It is correct that editions do not have a singular goals, and thus we should not just trust that material inside a system is balanced or not balanced.

In specific books (not the system as a whole) the goal some of the time was to try out new mechanics and effectively do a playtest out in the wild as a beta, instead of testing the mechanics inhouse (doing an alpha.)

Assuming that each new book is calibrated to be roughly balanced to the current existing superstructure is a mistake, it is making an cognitive error.



None of the supplements in 3e were calibrated to an overall superstructure. They -were,- however, balanced against the core rules and themselves as best as the devs were able. There were definitely some hit-and-miss items. That and some vaguery has combined with the weight of community momentum over the years to -drastically- exaggerate the game's -actual- balance issues.

Not that any of this matters to the discussion at hand.



Especially in a "collaborative" game type where there are no winners or losers. In other game types where there is 1 on 1 competition, tournaments, etc you will see the nature of game design changes. You actually have game designers care about balance for that is what is being judged. How game designers create D&D is different than how game designers create Magic the Gathering (two different games that were both owned by the same corporation in the 00s.)

This is just plain wrong. While it's certainly true that there is no winning at D&D on the whole, it's very much possible for everyone to lose if the game is too big of a mess. A TPK is very definitely a loss, for instance. The PCs have failed in whatever their goals may be and the GM has likely failed at encounter design uness it was a matter of sheer dumb luck (sometimes the dice just hate you) or, and this is where your idea falls apart, because the tools the game has given the GM for encounter design are not fit for purpose.

The devs have an ethical reponsibility to -not- give a GM broken tools for encounter design. Because encounters are fundamentally competitive matters between the GM and his players, it's important that the tools given are designed such that options the players are expected to compete with are balanced with the tools that are available to them. In both 3e and PF, classed PC race characters are one such tool and as such -should- be roughly balanced to a certain standard. The standard given is that one such creature of a given CR should consume about 20% of a party of 4's resources.

Now whether that design goal was actually consistently met accross the entire system for the entire 8 years of 3e's run or however long PF 1e ran and its whole system are an entirely different matter but that was or damn well should've been a goal.

[Sleven]

So basically, the much-maligned 3E fighter is so weak that DMs are willing to houserule in its favor. That's hardly surprising (we have common threads in this forum about houserule the 3E monk as well), but it also falls squarely under the Oberoni Fallacy.

{Scrubbed}


My first thought is the notoriously broken race building system.

Race build the best damn 0 LA thing you can then. Let's see what PF can do.


My second thought is that the downtime system gives me an inexpensive way to hire teams of hirelings. For less than a +1 sword the fighter can permanently hire a wizard 3, a cleric 3, and 5 archers. Unless he has downtime to generate resources. In that case it’s wizard 3, cleric 3, Druid 3 bard 3 10 archers for 2300 gp and a few months of time. [...]

Presumably we weren't talking about hirelings or other classes. But if you want to get into that discussion I'm sure the rules for 3.5 slave markets will far outstrip anything PF has to offer. Unless they have some other system that can do it cheaper. Remember, 3.5 is the system where you can buy to own an Efreeti and milk it like a cow.

And if 3.5 fighters want to stoop so low as to craft something themselves, they can use things like affiliation benefits and magical locations to disregard the need for fe ats like Craft Magic Arms & Armor. But in 3.5 crafting isn't supposed to allow you to exceed WBL. If this isn't the case for PF, then we might be seeing signs of a real advantage.


If the KP wants to go ahead and allow setting-specific material, and material not normally available to players, and the most controversial splatbook on the 3.5 side, that's his prerogative but to my mind, and I suspect at least a few others, it would mean putting a -big- asterisk next to the 3.5 fighter's name, should it be determined to be the winner in this contest.

{Scrubbed}It's not like there could possibly be a difference between a system that only supported one setting vs one that supported many. But as I've already pointed out before, settings like Eberron explicitly allow material from any setting. {Scrubbed}

Tome of Battle's "controversial" status is largely overstated. But I suppose my long history with the edition playing in-person and online has less weight than someone who's probably spent most of their time playing Pathfinder?


-snip-

-snip-

All this discussion is doing is trying to obfuscate the fact that the requested limitation of 1st party sources from both editions is more than reasonable.

But hey, at this point I haven't seen anyone from the PF camp even attempt to address my request for a defensive capabilities comparison. So I'm going to have to take that as a concession that the 3.5 fighter has more (and better) defensive options available for handling high-power encounters. If you think this isn't fair, start stepping up, because right now the only things being contested seem to be better 0 LA racial options and hirelings (because I guess hirelings are going to be a thing now)?

EDIT: Looks like I got ninja'd by Kelb.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

There's little doubt that a clear evolutionary path can be seen from elements of one edition to elements of the next. To say that it's a playtest with little to no concern for balance within the extant system just because it's near the end of the run is just ridiculous though.

I was actually agreeing with you there; my post was meant to point out that the fact that the Tomes and MoI might have been used as playtest material, like all late-edition books, doesn't mean that they were specifically intended as playtest material, and any lack of balance and cohesion with the rest of 3e relates to the normal "put the B team on the edition as it's winding down" process and not any sort of hidden 4e agenda. Sorry if that didn't come across.


Particularly with the accusation that ToB was an experiment with an eye toward 4e has been explicitly refuted by the devs, IIRC. WotC's tendency to wipe away the past makes that difficult to prove though.

Yep, like I mentioned above it was actually a retrofit from 4e, not a playtest of it. The first draft of 4e, ORCUS I, was in development from June to September 2005, and then when the dev team was asked/told to scrap it and rebuild things for ORCUS II, some of the bare-bones ORCUS I material was fleshed out and turned into ToB 'cause they didn't have much 3e stuff in development at the time.

[Peat]

You guys really aren't getting what I'm saying at all, are you?


I get what you're saying but I think it's at least as wrong as it is right and probably more wrong.

Saying that all 3rd party content should be treated equal, without regard to whether it is in terms of likelihood of use at the table (or whether the games' fanbases and creators even see 3rd party the same), strikes me as more or less as arbitrary as seeking a case by case or looking at what actually gets used. Sure everything fits on one side of an objective measuring line, but it doesn't fit on other measuring lines, so using just that one line is arbitrary in and of itself. And if that objective measure doesn't reflect how a lot of games are run, I don't see it as useful to answering the question if we're going to try and fit everything around that one line.

[Quertus]

So, can PF Fighters be made to trivialize all equal CR (or even "CR +5”) combat encounters?


All that said, I now repeat: what's balanced within the game never did matter for this question since it seriously has nothing to do with the question. That either is or isn't balanced within their respective systems simply doesn't matter to determining which is "better off" except in that if one is balanced to its system and the other isn't then you can simply declare the winner by determining whether the unbalanced one is above or below the system's baseline in its imbalance.

What's "likely to be allowed" isn't remotely objective. It's almost a purely arbitrary distinction that -will- change from one observer to another. As a consequence it also has no useful bearing on the question.

Well put. Kudos!

[Kurald Galain]

What's "likely to be allowed" isn't remotely objective. It's almost a purely arbitrary distinction that -will- change from one observer to another. As a consequence it also has no useful bearing on the question.

And yet you insist that the question be resolved using your, and solely your, opinion on what should be allowed.

That strikes me as problematic.

If you insist that the ideal 3E fighter should
use a mix of Greyhawk-only and Eberron-only material despite playing in neither of those settings; and/or
rely on material that requires DM intervention to get; and/or
take TOB options while disallowing the equivalent options for the PF fighter;

then your argument no longer has any bearing on actual gameplay.

And frankly, if the position is that "everything by WOTC goes, regardless of constraints", then the answer is simply "3E fighter goes Pun-Pun", and there's no sense in discussing further than that.

[exelsisxax]

Can a fighter 20 actually go pun-pun at all? I thought you needed a handful of bizarre splat classes to get the combo working.

[Ramza00]

I get what you're saying but I think it's at least as wrong as it is right and probably more wrong.

Saying that all 3rd party content should be treated equal, without regard to whether it is in terms of likelihood of use at the table (or whether the games' fanbases and creators even see 3rd party the same), strikes me as more or less as arbitrary as seeking a case by case or looking at what actually gets used. Sure everything fits on one side of an objective measuring line, but it doesn't fit on other measuring lines, so using just that one line is arbitrary in and of itself. And if that objective measure doesn't reflect how a lot of games are run, I don't see it as useful to answering the question if we're going to try and fit everything around that one line.

Same here. I have no problems with removing 3rd party material for many reasons such as simplicity to name a single reason (see what I did here? )

I have a problem with pretending this is inherently objective and them giving faux objective arguments like 1st party is inherently better balance and so on. It is the justification as in trying to consecrate and call 1st party sacred and 3rd party profane I have a problem with.

[Sinner's Garden]

take TOB options while disallowing the equivalent options for the PF fighter;


You keep pretending like this is a legitimate and transparent issue, and it is, just not the way you're arguing for. The "equivalent option" for the PF Fighter is third party content, so there's no basis to allow it unless you're also willing to allow similarly well regarded third party content for the 3e Fighter. Somebody mentioned L5R earlier, so there's your trade. Drop your request for 3rd party content or accept both sides get access to equal amounts of third party content.

[Peat]

You keep pretending like this is a legitimate and transparent issue, and it is, just not the way you're arguing for. The "equivalent option" for the PF Fighter is third party content, so there's no basis to allow it unless you're also willing to allow similarly well regarded third party content for the 3e Fighter. Somebody mentioned L5R earlier, so there's your trade. Drop your request for 3rd party content or accept both sides get access to equal amounts of third party content.

Is L5R - or any other 3rd party content - as well regarded and widely used in the 3.5 community as PoW is in the PF community though?

Honestly, the easiest thing to do by now is to just present the PF argument in two different strands "If PoW is being used" "If PoW isn't being used". But it would be nice if people actually engaged with what's being said rather than just going "Third party! Third party!".


edit: I am happy to acknowledge that this is a weird gray area and that there is certainly a fair argument to "But one's 1st party and the other's 3rd party". Just that acting like the fair argument is a clinching one that brooks no response completely ignores the other side of the gray area and the other fair arguments that they both hit the same area in design philosophy as intended to by the game's publisher. Can we at least acknowledge that?

[Ramza00]

edit: I am happy to acknowledge that this is a weird gray area and that there is certainly a fair argument to "But one's 1st party and the other's 3rd party". Just that acting like the fair argument is a clinching one that brooks no response completely ignores the other side of the gray area and the other fair arguments that they both hit the same area in design philosophy as intended to by the game's publisher. Can we at least acknowledge that?

No we can not acknowledge that, for that is synthesis, and only the thesis is objective, only the thesis is the one true thing. :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

I have a problem with pretending this is inherently objective and them giving faux objective arguments like 1st party is inherently better balance and so on. It is the justification as in trying to consecrate and call 1st party sacred and 3rd party profane I have a problem with.
Yes, that.


I am happy to acknowledge that this is a weird gray area and that there is certainly a fair argument to "But one's 1st party and the other's 3rd party". Just that acting like the fair argument is a clinching one that brooks no response completely ignores the other side of the gray area and the other fair arguments that they both hit the same area in design philosophy as intended to by the game's publisher. Can we at least acknowledge that?
And also that.

[Gnaeus]

Race build the best damn 0 LA thing you can then. Let's see what PF can do.

Here’s the thing. PF doesn’t have LA. It has race points. If I build a monstrous race, it has 20+ race points. No upper limit. The only thing stopping me from making a playable race with +100 on all stats, 100 dr, fast healing 100 and every other racial trait possessed by any race is a reasonable DM. The same thing stopping stacking a million ECL 0 templates or hiring an Efreet for wish looping. Any rule you use that any rational DM would counter is immediately matched by a legal fighter with arbitrarily high stats, ac, healing, saves, hp, and a pile of immunities. So I guess either we use some level of human reason or the PF fighter breaks the game at level 1 before buying gear. Arbitrarily high damage breath weapon. Every spell in the game below level 4 that doesn’t do damage or attack a creature at will, and all the 4ths 3/day. Sky’s the limit.



Presumably we weren't talking about hirelings or other classes. But if you want to get into that discussion I'm sure the rules for 3.5 slave markets will far outstrip anything PF has to offer. Unless they have some other system that can do it cheaper. Remember, 3.5 is the system where you can buy to own an Efreeti and milk it like a cow.

Where are the slave market rules? I’m unfamiliar.

But anyway I’m not talking about hirelings. I’m talking about the organization rules. PF has rules for how a fighter becomes a king. 3.5 doesn’t. So I guess you can’t.



And if 3.5 fighters want to stoop so low as to craft something themselves, they can use things like affiliation benefits and magical locations to disregard the need for feats like Craft Magic Arms & Armor. But in 3.5 crafting isn't supposed to allow you to exceed WBL. If this isn't the case for PF, then we might be seeing signs of .

That’s not even the case in 3.5. So there you go.

[upho]

Once again, let me rephrase, to make sure that we're on the same page.

Are you saying that, for any attack form (damage, grapple, trip, whatever), you can build a PF Fighter such that a party of 4 such identical Fighters facing 4 identical equal CR (or even "CR +5") threats, chosen to be the *worst* for that build to face, anyone with a lick of sense would bet even money on at least 3 out of 4 of those Fighters successfully 1-round "dispatching" their foe (where "tripping", "disarming", etc, qualify for these purposes, I suppose).First, I definitely wouldn't consider tripping or disarming as "dispatching", considering neither can be expected to have much effect on the combat capabilities of a significant proportion of CR 20+ opponents, much less to completely remove the immediate threat such an opponent poses regardless of its combat abilities.

Instead, I believe the only conditions which can reasonably make an enemy considered taken out of the combat ("dispatched") are those which can be expected to rob any kind of enemy of any and all offensive actions for more than say 2 rounds. IOW, this typically includes cowering, dazed, dead, dominated, helpless, panicked, paralyzed, stunned, unconscious and similar, and maybe things like confused, tied up and nauseated, but most certainly not anything which can't be expected to at the very least deny a very large majority of offensive actions - or make the effects of those actions meaningless - from a very large majority of CR 20 enemies. So relatively unreliable and/or minor action denial or debuffs, like disarming, prone, slowed, staggered, immobilized, fatigued, frightened, sickened etc. isn't enough, not even if all apply simultaneously.

But of course, this doesn't mean I think all results which don't actually dispatch an enemy should necessarily be considered worthless in this kind of more theoretical comparison, although I suspect giving the great number of plausible such less definitive results reasonably accurate ratings might involve quite a bit of work.

Second, AFAICT the most important problem with your "4 identical fighters vs 4 equal CR monsters"-measure is that it assumes a fighter build which can reasonably only be expected to dispatch one single such somewhat capable or stronger enemy per round. Which of course fails to recognize that a high-op PF fighter can not only be expected to reliably dispatch more than one such enemy during most of the fighter's own turns, but may very well also be able to immediately dispatch the first two or three enemies which provoke an AoO outside of the fighter's turn each round, one of which may provoke when about to leave a threatened square by any means and for any reason, including by poofaporting or being forcibly moved. (If you can recall the general combat style of "Nelly Nephilim" - my silly "Pazuzu + 3 balor lords CR 32+ one-shot"-initiator example build which you and I have briefly talked about before - and imagine that with more reasonable action economy and numbers, I think you've got a decent idea of how such a PF fighter's combat style actually works in practice.)

As an example to illustrate this, here are some of the more notable offensive combat abilities and related success chances vs average opponent values of such a high-op PF human fighter 20 build (numbers from this compilation (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/edit#gid=3) of average values of more than 3080 published creatures):

1. Attack Bonus A typical minimum +50 melee attack bonus (for a +50/+50/+45/+40/+35 full attack sequence). This attack bonus is higher than the highest listed AC value of any PF creature published by Paizo (and the first four attacks in a full attack have the minimum 95% hit chance vs the average AC 37 of CR 20 foes, and the last one a 90% chance). Combat Stamina with a 25 point pool per combat allows for the attack bonus of any individual attack roll - including combat maneuver checks - to be increased with +1 per point spent as part of the attack, up to a maximum of +5. The Spirit Warrior feature also grants a daily pool of 7 points, each point may be spent (requires no action) to increase the weapon's enhancement bonus by +1 (max +3) or give special magic weapon abilities of equal cost (no maximum) for 1 minute. 84% of the +50 attack bonus comes from class features (+24) and Str (+18), the remaining 16% from feats and items.

2. Bull Rush Each hit or successful combat maneuver made with a weapon against an enemy up to Gargantuan size grants a free action bull rush check (even outside of own turns), using the weapon and the best of two rolls plus at least a +66 CMB, for a net 99.75% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 61 of up to CR 25 foes. Each successful bull rush made during own turns makes the target provoke an AoO since it's about to leave a threatened square, as does up to one bull rush per round made outside of turn (see also about AoOs below). This ability is gained through combat feats and an item, and is enhanced with class features and additional items.

3. Dirty Trick A typical dirty trick CMB of at least +69, giving the minimum 95% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 61 of enemies up to CR 25 of any size. Can make a dirty trick in place of a normal melee attack as an AoO or at the end of a charge, and up to at least 12 times per day as a free action on any melee hit. Each successful dirty trick also makes the enemy provoke an AoO, as does an enemy attempting to remove the effects of a dirty trick. Each dirty trick imposes two conditions for at least 1d4 rounds, and a second dirty trick worsens the previously applied conditions, the net effect being that the enemy is immediately dazed and typically blinded for an average of at least 5 rounds. (Note that less than one in a thousand 1PP PF creatures are immune to being dazed.) This ability is gained through combat feats and is enhanced with class features and items.

4. Spell Sunder Can suppress any spell on a creature for at least 1 round with a sunder check, made in place of any melee attack with a typical CMB of at least +65 and ignoring any miss chances caused by spells, for at least the minimum 95% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 66 of enemies up to CR 25. A sunder check which beats the CMD with at least 10 instead dispels the spell. Can also use sunder to dispel a spell of virtually any CL which doesn't affect a creature. This is ability is gained as a class feature, enhanced with feats and items.

5. AoOs Can typically make at least 6 AoOs per round. Each time an enemy is about to leave a threatened square in by any means or for any reason during the fighter's own turn, and once per round outside of the fighter's turn, the enemy provokes an AoO. This ability is gained through class features and feats.

6. Reach Main weapon threatens all within a radius of at least 30' centered on the fighter (includes the 4 squares occupied by the fighter).

7. Demoralization Can typically make at least 3 free action Intimidate checks during each own turn to demoralize all enemies within 60' not immune to fear into at least panicked for a minimum of 1 round (minimum 7 rounds vs average equal CR monster), and can in most combats also make an additional check during any one turn to make all panicked enemies within 30' cowering. These checks have a 100% success chance against at least the mean average DC 50 of CR 25 monsters larger than the fighter (10 + 30 hd + 6 Wis mod + 4 size), and gives the first three checks up to at least a total 54% chance to make the average CR 28 monster panicked. With the exception of making enemies cowering as a free rather than a standard action once per combat, this ability is gained through class features and feats, and is enhanced with feats and items.

If so, then… yes, both are close enough to "combat Pun-Pun", and any difference in their performance when brought down to a lower level than TO represents a failure of defining the level, not of the Fighter's capabilities, so my point / question is… is there an interesting question here somewhere, or can we just say, "yes, they both rock combat"?The important point is that with the exception of some stuff relating to the complaints made by Sleven, none of the PF fighter options and numbers which have been mentioned in this thread (including those in the above spoiler) are considered TO or restricted to TO builds, but can be gained simply through fighter levels, normally allowed feats, common alternative build options and relatively cheap and easily crafted magic items. No fancy races, templates, houserules, exotic alternative rules or other significant DM concessions are required to make these options accessible for a fighter PC in a typical PF game played largely according to RAW.

That said, for example the build with the abilities mentioned in the spoiler above is certainly very optimized, putting it far outside the balanced PC power span in a typical average game even though all of the options used are likely to be allowed in such a game and won't make the build into a "combat Pun-Pun" (IMO that label would only be appropriate for builds far more powerful in combat, like say Nelly). But this is of course true for a larger proportion of builds of more powerful classes.


A 3e Fighter can Large and in Charge. reach weapon, combat reflexes, <stance to prevent 5' steps?> OR¹ <stance to penalize attacking allies>, <Mage Something to prevent casting defensively> etc etc do an awful lot to really Control an area - quite a large one, at that, with enough cheese.

Are you really saying that a PF Fighter's Control is noticeably better / more versatile / more entertaining / something? I don't know PF, so please, what makes PF Control awesome? (Or, if I've missed the point, please try to explain said point to someone simultaneously ignorant of PF, and with limited reading comprehension skills)See spoiler above for examples. But in summary, I'd say the things that stand out when comparing the melee control available to a PF fighter to that available to a 3.5 fighter are:

a single melee attack gained through any action (including AoOs) is often enough to allow for removing an enemy of CR above level from combat
allows for highly efficient and reliable removal of enemy buff and defense spell effects (far stronger than any caster of equal level is capable of)
combat demoralization can be made significantly stronger (as free action AoEs multiple times per round with increasing fear conditions)
the above abilities are primarily gained through class features and feats and require no options typically considered TO

So summarized with a bit of hyperbole: while a non-TO 3.5 fighter is often useless against enemies protected by multiple strong defensive spell effects but can often one-shot any other opponent, a non-TO PF fighter can often reliably remove multiple such spell effects per round and often one-shot an entire encounter during the first turn.


I'm not a mind reader and I'm not here to play 20 questions. If you want something from me you need to declare what that is.Lets spell out the obvious then: your definitions don't result primarily comparing what the games' fighters are capable of in most games, but primarily the strength of the most powerful options a PC could theoretically be able to gain assuming any and all special GM permissions are always granted, as very few of these options will be the class features, feats and items which don't require such permissions and can be expected to be allowed in most games. Most notably, as you also pointed to, it's largely irrelevant that the 3.5 build in this comparison happens to be a fighter, as almost none of its mechanical strength is based on class features.


So I'm addressing your two definitions simultaneously. Particularly if you look at what I started with when addressing your question as to whether or not the PF fighter is worse off than the 3.5 fighter: defensive capabilities. I was demonstrating that a high-op 3.5 fighter can make themselves so effective at disregarding many of the typical issues faced by mundanes that most enemies will be forced to fight them on their terms. Can a PF fighter say the same?This is IMO a completely irrelevant comparison in the context of the topic of this thread, but fine, I'll indulge you:

A "high-op" PF fighter build could for example have the maximum 10 Mythic tiers (granting abilities and access to options at a general power level closer to 3.5's Epic), race changed into Balor, adding all the 20 racial hd to the 20 fighter levels (including the extra feats and skills of choice along with everything else except gear listed in the CR 20 monster entry), a size changeable at-will to any from Small to Gargantuan (threatening all within a radius of up to 70'+) and the Myrmidon fighter archetype (granting an initiator progression along with IL 30 and access to 9th level maneuvers and stances more powerful than any of those found in ToB). This is all according to RAW and without increasing the build's PC level above 20.

To give you an idea of the power of such a "fighter" build, as far as can be deduced from the relevant rules and guidelines it would make for an enemy with a theoretical CR of approximately 48, and in reality it would be able to easily end most fights against several of the most dangerous and highest rated CR 30 opponents ever published by Paizo in the first round. I mean, the free action demoralization abilities alone would be 100% certain to make any and all enemies within 60' cowering for several rounds in the first turn of a large majority of combats, completely ignoring any immunities. So in short, the amazing to utterly bonkers numbers across the board, the awesome offensive action economy and the "you're dead or worse the instant you so much as think of changing position or attacking"-kind of active defenses add up to a combat prowess beyond "stupidly pointless overkill".

So yeah, I believe a "high-op" PF fighter 20 can say quite a bit more than a 3.5 fighter 20 with some great passive defenses. I still fail to see any sound reason why the theoretical possibility of this PF fighter build should be given any consideration whatsoever in this comparison, just as I still fail to see why your "high-op" 3.5 fighter build should be given any consideration. And this is completely regardless of whether or not it's possible to pimp your 3.5 build to even more absurd power levels than the PF "balor build", as the power of neither build no longer has much to do with the specific abilities of the fighter 20.


If PF has 0 LA templates that allow you to play fighter 20 in (what's pressumably) a ECL 20 framework, then why wouldn't that be part of the discussion?As mentioned, PF actually has a 0 LA "template" option which per RAW allow you to add up to 20 outsider (demon) racial hd to a fighter 20 build. And of course this is a fantastically powerful "race option" for a PF fighter. But assuming we could for example swap the 20 fighter levels in this build into say a barbarian or ranger levels, doing so would have relatively little impact on the build's capabilities. So it's pretty apparent that a PF fighter build including this option is in fact no longer longer a "fighter 20" build in any but the most superficial sense. Not to mention any conclusions based on a comparison including this build is most likely bound to be applicable to less than say 0.001% of the fighters actually played in real games.

The same is true for a large majority of the options you've suggested for the 3.5 fighter build AFAICT, though they probably don't restrict the comparison's applicability to quite as ridiculously few (or non-existing) fighters in real games as the PF "balor build".


while I fail to see how "Epic" is relevent in a fighter 20 discussion. If PF has hidden tech we don't know about that can boost the viability of fighters in high-power games, your question seems like the perfect place to discuss it. So do it. Don't hold back on my account.The PF equivalent to 3.5's Epic is called Mythic (https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Mythic%20Rules&Category=Optional%20Rule%20Systems). An important difference between these two subsystems is that PCs don't gain Mythic abilities by advancing ECLs above 20th, but by advancing from 1st to 10th "Mythic Tier" parallel to advancing in the normal 1-20 levels. In effect, a PF fighter 20 build must have 10 Mythic Tiers to be considered "high-op" according to your definition.


A noble goal. I myself share this sentiment. But it requires players to overcome years of bias and build paradigms that quite frankly undermine the fact that a fighter can do exactly that.Unfortunately, likely the very same "bias and build paradigms" - established quite early in the 3.5 era and ever since then echo-chambered online - have also seemingly made many players blind to the actual potential of PF's melee combat options. This is IME especially the case when it comes to the PF fighter's class features and combat feats allowing for at least viability in combat roles/functions and with styles breaking with the "single-target full attack hp damage with 2-handed melee"-paradigm. As I've mentioned before in this thread, such players seem to struggle the most with ideas such as a fighter who doesn't rely on dealing hp damage yet manages to be at least as effective as the paradigm builds, or a fighter able to reliably take more than one actually dangerous enemy out of the fight each round.


Someone mentioned it earlier in the thread, so I'll use it for punctuation on this point: builds like Jack-B-Quick are part of the aforementioned problem. They waste feats unnecessarily on doing one thing and doing more of it, which is why the build ends up being very low-op. Proof of concept builds like that are not exemplary of the diversity a fighter can weave into their build with general feats and items.I can certainly see how such builds - as well as any at least somewhat functional 3.5 fighter builds I've ever seen in the player community - have exacerbated people's inability to understand how the PF fighter can break with almost every single aspect of the expectations and beliefs about fighters in 3.5.

But I honestly can't remember having ever seen or even heard of any combo of options* available to a 3.5 fighter which for example allow for the fighter to be at least as strong in a different combat role as in the traditional "single-target melee full attack hp damage"-niche. The same goes for any such combo which allow a 3.5 fighter to easily switch between multiple combat roles or to take on multiple roles simultaneously while remaining as least as effective as a fighter in the mentioned traditional niche.

So how do you make a 3.5 fighter* a reasonably effective in combat without being forced into hyper-focusing build resources (like spending their feats "on doing one thing and doing more of it")? How do you make the same fighter also reasonably capable of pulling their weight also outside of combat?

*Assume only options which can be expected to be allowed without special DM permission in a majority of games. Say only core races and no templates for simplicity's sake, and of course all setting specific options must belong in the same one setting, while any fighter ACFs and similar should be perfectly fine.

[Sinner's Garden]

Is L5R - or any other 3rd party content - as well regarded and widely used in the 3.5 community as PoW is in the PF community though?

Honestly, the easiest thing to do by now is to just present the PF argument in two different strands "If PoW is being used" "If PoW isn't being used". But it would be nice if people actually engaged with what's being said rather than just going "Third party! Third party!".


edit: I am happy to acknowledge that this is a weird gray area and that there is certainly a fair argument to "But one's 1st party and the other's 3rd party". Just that acting like the fair argument is a clinching one that brooks no response completely ignores the other side of the gray area and the other fair arguments that they both hit the same area in design philosophy as intended to by the game's publisher. Can we at least acknowledge that?

L5R is popular enough that it's reached its fifth edition as a stand-alone game. I don't entirely know how common it is to use at D&D tables, but I've seen it used at mine and know some other people who have, so it's not especially rare either.

And no, I can't agree with that, because Paizo is a company of petty and spiteful people. For example, they made their own "psychic magic" book after saying repeatedly they don't intend to touch psionics only because they were mad that DSP made their own psionics update. They also moved their official srd because they hated having third party content on it, despite the fact that that content was also perennially out of date. To say that adaptations of the third edition content they skipped fit into their design philosophy of continuing third edition suggests a poor understanding of the company.

[Quertus]

OK, managing all these quotes is a pain. So I'm just going to trust that everyone can follow at least most of what I'm saying without quotes.

-----

"You must be at least 42 inches tall to ride" is an objective measure. "The coffee must taste good" is subjective. "Only people with odd numbers of characters in their names" is probably arbitrary.

"Only 1st party" is objective. Most touchy feely optimization levels are subjective. "No infinite (or arbitrary)" is objective.

As I read it, the one who is not kelp is asking for measurable, objective rules. This is not only completely fair, the alternative is unreasonable for this type of question.

That said, although "first party only" is objective, it is also more or less arbitrary, rather than "the obvious one true benchmark". And, iirc, the one who is totally not kelp said as much.

In short, this kind of challenge demands an objective benchmark for rules. And, from what I've read, I trust not-kelp to answer fairly whether something is an objective benchmark or not.

-----

On a related note, I look forward to reading about L5R vs SoW, as I know neither.

And, for apples to apples, would "mythic" and "gestalt" be equivalent?

-----

If I have, say, a Paragon Elan Fighter 10 (~level 20 in 3e), and convert him to Pathfinder, he would be a level 10 character? That's… a pretty strong advantage for Pathfinder. And also makes me sad that PF didn't just go with "level = CR".

-----

I agree that tripping and disarming don't *usually* take out a foe (although I've defeated encounters with each). However, with and against the right builds / foes, either can - the lockdown trip build vs melee opponents being the obvious one. Point is, I'm assuming that PF has win conditions beyond "hit them dead", just like 3e does. And my question was, for the worst/scariest thing vulnerable to that tactic, does the optimized PF Fighter just win, same as the 3e Fighter?

The "single target" thing was just to keep the question and the math simple. But, fine, I've got 5 3e builds that can reliably kill over 100 fodder per round. Can PF keep up on numbers there? (Add in something like Festering Anger, and that's 100+ "more-or-less anything" per round)

Now, there's bigger questions, like just what types of foes can a single Fighter expect to neutralize. For instance, if faced with an atypical opposing party of an invisible pixie Rogue, a Dragon-riding Sorcerer, a large construct grapple monster, and a Cleric, how many of those would a single PF build expect to completely negate at once, say, 80+% of the time? (Oh, and the Dragon is really big (gargantuan?), and has Rogue levels. And, yes, this is basically an actual party I've ran - I'm not creative enough to come up with half the examples I use). I expect that an optimized 3e Fighter/tripper could singlehandedly shut them all down a) with the possible exception of the Dragon (although a level ~5 party kept a T-Rex tripped, so it could force it to hold still, but I don't know any way to keep a Dragon from using is breath weapon), b) *if* they happened to have a way to detect a flying invisible foe (which, IME, is not a given for such builds… especially as it's often handled through teamwork via the Arcanist (or skill monkey) and Glitterdust), and c) if the entire party was within their reach (which they usually clumped together, so… yes?). So, does anyone a) disagree with my assertion that a well-built 3e tripper with anti-caster tech could do exactly what I just said, potentially shutting down my sample 4-being party, sans mount, at similar level; b) care to venture how well a PF Fighter could do in the same (or in their systems equivalent) scenario?

For the proposed role versatility… I'm actually opposed to this line of thought. Not because the 3e Fighter can get amazing role versatility by retraining their levels. But because "denied actions" is denied actions, regardless of its flavor. It's simply a number of builds to compare against each other, for effectiveness in dealing with what range of encounters. *Except* that they theoretically have different… areas of the Venn diagram of encounters that they can shut down. So. Yes. Once we get that far, we should evaluate a party of 4 *different* Fighter builds in each system, to see how much overlap in their capabilities exists / how many holes in their capabilities can be filled by *other* Fighters in their system. Absolutely. But we're not there yet.

In part because we need to throw away this silly notion of "PO" and "TO", and replace them with simple, objective rules. I propose "no infinite, no arbitrary". Feel free to propose better.

[Kurald Galain]

"Only 1st party" is objective. Most touchy feely optimization levels are subjective. "No infinite (or arbitrary)" is objective.
"No campaign-specific material" is objective.
"All campaign-specific material allowed even if it belongs to mutually-exclusive campaigns" is pretty arbitrary, and you'd have to make a non-objective decision wherever these campaigns conflict.

"No material requiring DM intervention" is objective.
"DM intervention is automatically granted for any material requiring it" is arbitrary, and you'd have to impose an abitrary limit (since DM intervention could get you an artifact with near-infinite bonuses).

"1st party plus DSP" is still objective, and as people have pointed out, it is less arbitrary than allowing POW but banning DSP.

[Ramza00]

The difference of objective vs subjective is what organizing principle, what value you are organizing to.

For example making a top of a map north, as if magnetic north is a constant some place in Canada and will some day soon be in Russia.

But why is magnetic north the place to orient the map? Why can't the top of the map be East for that is the direction the sun rises? Or perhaps the top of the map points to some city like Jerusalem, or Mecca?

Many Objective measurements have Subjective values built into them. What is "common sense" is often built around subjective values not everyone shares. Just because you think it is common or acceptable in your table does not mean it is the same in other tables. Thus for a productive discussion you need to make sure everyone has a loose agreement of the rules instead of just assuming what rules should be in place for it is obvious, and it is obvious for you think they are objective.

[Quertus]

"No campaign-specific material" is objective.
"All campaign-specific material allowed even if it belongs to mutually-exclusive campaigns" is pretty arbitrary, and you'd have to make a non-objective decision wherever these campaigns conflict.

"No material requiring DM intervention" is objective.
"DM intervention is automatically granted for any material requiring it" is arbitrary, and you'd have to impose an abitrary limit (since DM intervention could get you an artifact with near-infinite bonuses).

"1st party plus DSP" is still objective, and as people have pointed out, it is less arbitrary than allowing POW but banning DSP.

As has been stated, Eberron explicitly includes all other campaign-specific material, and thus allows all campaign-specific material to be used simultaneously. So this is a rather pointless comment. Also, if we removed all Golaron-specific content, the results for Pathfinder would be… undefined?

Actually, Pathfinder released their version of a Spelljammer setting, did they not? So, tell me: how much of Pathfinder content turned out to be setting specific? What would a "setting-agnostic" Pathfinder Fighter look like? (Seriously, I don't know Pathfinder - I just heard that there were some changes in space)

The rest of your post, however, has made me think. Kudos!

"Weight limit 900 lbs", "maximum occupancy 47 people", "16 foot clearance" - these are not just objective, their underlying derivation is clear and objective.

I personally understand the underlying objective thought process of "1st party only". And I also understand the thought process of "X's version of Y". The problem with the latter, though, is you get questions like, "what's 3e's version of 'Fighters crafting their own items?'", or "what's PF's version of Paragon Multi-Headed Half-Dragon?". I'm sure there's plenty of homebrew for each - do we just pick "the best"? It needs a fundamental decision-making process - an objective one. Give one, and I have faith that the one who is not kelp will accept it - as one possible valid measuring stick, mind, not necessarily as *the* measuring stick.

"No material requiring GM intervention", though, is an incredibly tricky one. I'll leave it for others to give a better answer, but you're right - by RAW, with no GM intervention, a 3e Fighter could purchase a Spell Component Pouch, and from it draw fourth whatever artifact(s) they want. I think that this "contest" (really, this question) is best handled by simple, consistent, objective underlying rules that are extensive enough to cover this issue.

[Peat]

"You must be at least 42 inches tall to ride" is an objective measure. "The coffee must taste good" is subjective. "Only people with odd numbers of characters in their names" is probably arbitrary.

*snip*

In short, this kind of challenge demands an objective benchmark for rules. And, from what I've read, I trust not-kelp to answer fairly whether something is an objective benchmark or not.

I get the need for an objective measurement, but some of what's being said feels a bit like saying "only five year olds can ride" because that's when most kids reach 42 inches and there's this massive four year who's as big as all the five year olds and can't get on.

I honestly think this would be easier to do by considering all the options - this is what you get with A, this is what you get with A + B, this is what you get with A + B + C etc.etc. and let people respond to what they think's fair. Which is possible overcomplicating things massively.


And, for apples to apples, would "mythic" and "gestalt" be equivalent?

Not reeeeeally. The apples to apples is Mythic to Epic, and tough luck for the 3.5 Fighter that Epic happens post-20th and that Mythic happens alongside 1-20.

If you're trying to do an apples to oranges to get something to add for both for 20th level then I dunno, there's a comparison of a sort in that you're adding an extra progression, but I think they're too different. And I think even if you do say "Sure", adding a second martial class wouldn't really compare, and I think adding a 20 level full caster with PrCs probably blows it away because that's what 20th level spellcasting does. And it's not really a Fighter then.

Basically I think it's the same sort of boat that 1st party vs 1st party has for ToB - one system has it, the other doesn't, and any attempt to try and find a comparable runs into problems. Probably bigger in this case.

[Quertus]

I get the need for an objective measurement, but some of what's being said feels a bit like saying "only five year olds can ride" because that's when most kids reach 42 inches and there's this massive four year who's as big as all the five year olds and can't get on.

Agreed. Asking, "what is <game>", and answering "what it's patent company wrote", or even "what it's patent company paid for" is a valid definition. It excludes all the fan-created mods. Or, saying that the game includes all the fan created mods is also a valid definition of a game.

But you have to start at a question, and an answer, to come to a valid definition to use.


I honestly think this would be easier to do by considering all the options - this is what you get with A, this is what you get with A + B, this is what you get with A + B + C etc.etc. and let people respond to what they think's fair. Which is possible overcomplicating things massively.

Probably. I, OTOH, am trying to massively simplify things by asking, "can't both just do 'enough'? Is there even an interesting question here?"


Not reeeeeally. The apples to apples is Mythic to Epic, and tough luck for the 3.5 Fighter that Epic happens post-20th and that Mythic happens alongside 1-20.

If you're trying to do an apples to oranges to get something to add for both for 20th level then I dunno, there's a comparison of a sort in that you're adding an extra progression, but I think they're too different. And I think even if you do say "Sure", adding a second martial class wouldn't really compare, and I think adding a 20 level full caster with PrCs probably blows it away because that's what 20th level spellcasting does. And it's not really a Fighter then.

Basically I think it's the same sort of boat that 1st party vs 1st party has for ToB - one system has it, the other doesn't, and any attempt to try and find a comparable runs into problems. Probably bigger in this case.

Mythic is epic… in the sense of "going beyond", I guess? Mythic is Gestalt in the sense of adding something alongside the character? Mythic feels like it occupies the design space of "gestalting with epic". Actually, that would be a hilarious comparison: mythic pathfinder Fighter 20 vs 3e gestalt Fighter 20 // epic Fighter 20.

Again, for 1st party vs 1st party - what's 3e's 1st party way to allow a Fighter to craft his own gear? What's pathfinders 1st party Festering Anger? These things don't have to exist for the comparison to be fair - their lack of existence says something about their capabilities, too.

-----

Comparing me to an elephant, what's my trunk? What's my tusks?

Comparing me to a fish, what's my fins? What's my gills?

Comparing me to a book, what's my word count? What's my genre?

Although it's cool that humans can create weapons and scuba gear for me to use, it depends on the nature of the question, the nature of what we're comparing as to whether I should be compared with or without such things.

So, again, *start* by defining the question. Everything else proceeds from there.

[Kurald Galain]

As has been stated, Eberron explicitly includes all other campaign-specific material
Please cite me a source on that (as in, rulebook and page number). I find it hard to believe that Eberron is intended to include defiler/preserver wizards, or the Wall of Souls, or Count Strahd, or every pantheon ever printed.


Also, if we removed all Golaron-specific content, the results for Pathfinder would be… undefined?
Most of PF content is setting-agnostic; regional traits and certain deity-specific options would be unusuable outside of Golarion. By the way, I'm fine with picking one campaign world ("Greyhawk vs Golarion, go!"); what I object to is the assumption that everything from campaign world X was intended and/or balanced to work with campaign world Y.


Actually, Pathfinder released their version of a Spelljammer setting, did they not?
Not that I know of. Unless you mean Starfinder, which is a futuristic setting in a completely different system with its own non-compatible mechanics.

[Peat]

Agreed. Asking, "what is <game>", and answering "what it's patent company wrote", or even "what it's patent company paid for" is a valid definition. It excludes all the fan-created mods. Or, saying that the game includes all the fan created mods is also a valid definition of a game.

But you have to start at a question, and an answer, to come to a valid definition to use.

D'accord.


Probably. I, OTOH, am trying to massively simplify things by asking, "can't both just do 'enough'? Is there even an interesting question here?"

Fair. For me, the question is interesting simply because it leads to me hearing about a lot of stuff I hadn't heard before, even if I suspect the actual question might be a bit pointless.


Mythic is epic… in the sense of "going beyond", I guess? Mythic is Gestalt in the sense of adding something alongside the character? Mythic feels like it occupies the design space of "gestalting with epic". Actually, that would be a hilarious comparison: mythic pathfinder Fighter 20 vs 3e gestalt Fighter 20 // epic Fighter 20.

Again, for 1st party vs 1st party - what's 3e's 1st party way to allow a Fighter to craft his own gear? What's pathfinders 1st party Festering Anger? These things don't have to exist for the comparison to be fair - their lack of existence says something about their capabilities, too.

Mythic is intended to occupy the same space of "going beyond" as best I know, yeah. For when level 20 isn't enough and you want to be a borderline demigod. And would gestalting Fighter and Epic Fighter achieve much beyond giving a bunch of Epic Fighter feats?

But yeah. I see where you're coming from. No Festering Anger that I'm aware of (does that strength bonus go away if someone is rude enough to cure you?)

[Quertus]

Not that I know of. Unless you mean Starfinder, which is a futuristic setting in a completely different system with its own non-compatible mechanics.

That's what I meant. So, their only 2 published settings are so incompatible as to use different systems? Wow. I guess that answers that. So much for comparing system-agnostic characters.


Fair. For me, the question is interesting simply because it leads to me hearing about a lot of stuff I hadn't heard before, even if I suspect the actual question might be a bit pointless.

Well, yes, the discussion can be interesting, even if the question itself is not.


Mythic is intended to occupy the same space of "going beyond" as best I know, yeah. For when level 20 isn't enough and you want to be a borderline demigod. And would gestalting Fighter and Epic Fighter achieve much beyond giving a bunch of Epic Fighter feats?

+10 attack & saves?

Huh. Classes in 3e really aren't very interesting, are they?


But yeah. I see where you're coming from. No Festering Anger that I'm aware of (does that strength bonus go away if someone is rude enough to cure you?)

Yes. This is why you carry a Spell Blade (Cure Disease). (And another for Heal?) And have a trusted source research a custom spell to cure diseases singly and selectively, in case you get Mummy Rot or some such.

[Kurald Galain]

That's what I meant. So, their only 2 published settings are so incompatible as to use different systems? Wow. I guess that answers that. So much for comparing system-agnostic characters.
Oh, PF is pretty clear on which parts are setting-specific and which are not. An easy way to check is comparing the d20pfsrd website with Aonprd - because the former filters out all setting-specific content and the latter does not. There are numerous third-party settings for PF that use this distinction.

So a setting-agnostic comparison is straightforward. By the way, I'm fine with picking one campaign world ("Greyhawk vs Golarion, go!"); what I object to is the assumption that everything from campaign world X was intended and/or balanced to work with campaign world Y.

[Peat]

+10 attack & saves?

Huh. Classes in 3e really aren't very interesting, are they?

Ah, the Epic class page I looked at didn't list those progressions.

But yeah. Interesting they're not. And I get the feeling most of the things a high end 3.5 Fighter can do a Barbarian or whatever could do just as well, albeit maybe feeling a bit feat starved. Where as, fwiw, the PF Fighter does have a few nifty tricks that they and they alone can do.

Where as at the 10th Mythic tier, the PF character has 5 +2 stat advances, 5 mythic feats, 10 path abilities that are kinda like feats, a bunch of bonuses like extra HP, initiative bonuses, automatic stabilisation on negative hit points, and a pool of 23 points that you can use to reroll dice, add another dice, activate powers, automatically remove conditions... oh, and you automatically come back to life unless killed by someone as mythic as you.

I mean, logically, once you introduce Mythic it's a different game anyway, because you face a decent amount of Mythic monsters and your Wizard buddies are Mythic Wizards and blah blah. If your GM is a nut who decides you can have a Mythic Fighter and everybody else is non-mythic then, uh, well, you win. But the option is there. And certainly, in terms of PC vs System, it makes them dramatically more powerful (even if some parts of it grow in power with them).


Yes. This is why you carry a Spell Blade (Cure Disease). (And another for Heal?) And have a trusted source research a custom spell to cure diseases singly and selectively, in case you get Mummy Rot or some such.

Pretty nifty.

[Quertus]

And I get the feeling most of the things a high end 3.5 Fighter can do a Barbarian or whatever could do just as well, albeit maybe feeling a bit feat starved. Where as, fwiw, the PF Fighter does have a few nifty tricks that they and they alone can do.

So, completely off-topic, but this reminds me of a… historical perspective disconnect.

Wizard are considered so OP in no small part because of their versatility, right? They can fly, and detect invisibility, hold portals, and summon monsters to fight.

Thing is, that's the oldschool Fighter. They have the strength score to carry the flour to detect invisible creatures, the rope to navigate obstacles, the hammer and spikes to hold doors, the axe to chop them down, and the proficiencies to learn to use the most weapons (note that treasure was random, and weapons were by far the most common treasure). Plus the best chassis (HP, attack bonus, # of attacks, allowed both armor and two weapons).

So it's easy to see how all these feats were intended to give the 3e Fighter the ability to retain their "versatility" edge, all day long, over the poor "one and done" Wizard with its terrible chassis.

Happily, they messed up badly, and gave the Fighter a new, much higher benchmark to hit, that couldn't be reached with rope and flour.

It sounds like the Pathfinder Fighter stepped up to the challenge, while a lot of comments about and design for later editions of D&D seem to be more in the vein of, "but… we like rope" than "the Fighter should be awesome".

[upho]

But you have to start at a question, and an answer, to come to a valid definition to use.This is very true. And even though the people involved in the original discussion mentioned in the OP (the original reason I started this thread) seemed to be largely agreeing on which options in the systems should be considered in the comparison (and I'd guess they would've agreed "if ToB, then PoW"), I honestly can't see how our reasoning could be translated into actually objective definitions based solely on known facts. Most importantly, a comparison using only applicable such objective definitions to limit options available will also limit the validity of the results to a purely theoretical level with little to nothing in common with the large majority of games played in reality.


Probably. I, OTOH, am trying to massively simplify things by asking, "can't both just do 'enough'? Is there even an interesting question here?"Well, depends:


1. Mythic Race to La-La-Land - Unrestricted 1PP
All 1PP options accessible as per RAW and assuming any and all DM permissions are granted.

PF Fighter As Gnaeus mentioned, unrestricted use of the Race Creation system gives the fighter arbitrarily high ability scores from 1st, which is more than enough for practical invincibility in combat against nearly any PF creature ever published by Paizo. At 20th with 10 Mythic Tiers, things like immunities and multiple save rerolls per round likely means practical invincibility can be assumed to include also combat against a very large number number of foes (including several copies of the most dangerous unique monsters from 3PPs, such as CR 39 Lucifer). Besides being a true "Combat Pun-Pun", this fighter is at the very least capable of anything which can be done with arbitrarily high skill bonuses in every skill.

3.5 Fighter AFAICT, while the 3.5 options mentioned in this thread so far, and those my senile brain can remember, would be quite different from the PF ones mentioned above, it seems they would grant the 3.5 fighter 20 at least as silly Pun-Pun-Power. I'd guess the various spell related cheese (like "pulling artifacts from a Spell Component Pouch") available in 3.5 should be capable of ensuring this, especially with the added support of La-La-Land's race and template shenanigans. (Might be interesting to learn more details about this fighter and their rise to Pun-Pun-hood from the more frequent GitP travelers to 3.5's La-La-Land. And please let me know if you think I'm wrong here.)

CONCLUSION: So it appears both fighters are pretty much equally bonkers, just as one might expect from the bonkers effects of RAW without restrictions. And although I suspect the PF fighter's Pun-Pun-Power might theoretically be a bit closer to that of other PF classes than the 3.5 fighter's Pun-Pun-Power is to that of other 3.5 classes, the difference is irrelevant since both fighters and everyone else still have Pun-Pun-Power.

The practical relevance of this comparison is of course non-existent.


2. Core Initiator Race - Restricted 1PP + DSP
All 1PP options accessible as per RAW except non-core races and options dependent on DM permission or those most commonly banned. ACF/archetype/variant/VMC/similar options in both games are allowed, as are MoI, psionics and ToB in 3.5 and the DSP equivalents in PF (but not for example the aasimar or Leadership in either game, templates in 3.5, or Mythic or Combat Stamina in PF).

PF Fighter The Myrmidon (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/dreamscarred-press-fighter-archetypes/myrmidon-fighter-archetype/) archetype adds Wis-based initiating at IL 20, 7 maneuvers readied (15 known), access to PoW feats and Radiant Dawn maneuvers granting up to 9 essence for great Akashic (PF's MoI) options, 4 skills/level and better class skills, plus some nifty additional class features. This is a major boost for the fighter, increasing the variety of possible high-op builds along with each build's versatility and power.
"Dirty Dazing Defender" Classic Str/size/reach melee control with a dirty trick focused style (similar to that mentioned in the spoiler in my previous post):

Reliably strike/AoO dazes - for 5+ rounds - up to 7 enemies of up to at least CR 25 as a standard action most rounds, and 17 such enemies during at least 1 round per encounter. (Again, immunity to daze is virtually non-existent in PF.)
Can typically take an extra standard action, plus an additional standard and a move (or full round), each at least once per encounter.
Fantastic party and self defense abilities make it very difficult for enemies in reach to even try to move or harm anyone in the party with any abilities without being taken out of the fight and their action wasted.
Can spell sunder even more reliably and efficiently than the 1PP fighter mentioned in my previous post, and melee hits (includes dirty tricks) also impose dimensional anchor (no save) for 1 round.
Threatens all in up to 57.5'+ radius with main weapon, and can change to any size from Tiny to Huge as a standard at will.
Continuous blindsight 100'+ and a Perception bonus near 100% certain to beat opposed Stealth checks of up to CR 25 enemies (average of those trained in Stealth).
Initiative more than 85% certain to be higher than enemies of up to CR 25 (based on average initiative bonuses of all creatures of each specific CR).
Typical AC gives 85% miss chance to attacks by enemies of up to at least CR 25, and Fort and Will bonuses have more than 95% success chance vs DC of enemies of up to CR 28.

"Deadly Damage Defender" As above but instead of dirty trick dazing, each single AoO hit reliably deals near 1000 damage, enough to reduce any enemy ever published by Paizo to less than 0 hp.

"Dread Demoralization Debuffer" All enemies in a 37.5' radius lose immunity to fear. No save, no exceptions. Each turn the fighter is able to attack any enemy ends with all enemies up to CR 30 within the same radius cowering for multiple rounds.

"Puny Power Pistolero" Tiny stealthy gunslinger brings his own storm cloud (covers large area in non-magic smoke) and a veritable thunderstorm of full attacks packed with electricity, cold and sonic, each consisting of at least 8 accurate attacks (with a single pistol) targeting touch AC, ignoring invisibility, concealment and all but total cover. The DPR of his full attacks are typically enough to one-shot most enemies of up CR 30 within 80'+ range, and up three enemies of up to CR 20.
3.5 Fighter Aside from ToB not having nearly the same wealth and breadth of powerful options as PoW, the 3.5 fighter also has very limited access to them in comparison to the PF fighter. Whether the capabilities of this fighter are "enough" is solely dependent on how high that bar is set in the game, but assuming a high-power game, I'm pretty certain they won't be. More importantly, the capabilities of the more powerful classes in the same game are less restricted by the limitations, and access to ToB options isn't enough to compensate for this difference.

CONCLUSION: This is likely the set of limitations giving the PF fighter the greatest advantage, since the 3.5 fighter doesn't have access to any options outside of class able to match the powerful class features of the PF version. The practical relevance of this comparison probably rather poor for both games, as especially the core race limitation is unlikely to ever be combined with ToB or PoW. It is however quite revealing when it comes to comparing how much the fighter class itself adds to a PCs capabilities in the games.


EDIT: So the TL/DR here is "Yes, there's definitely an interesting question here, at least in the context of most games played in reality." Though since the answer also should be pretty obvious to most people who have enough experience with both systems, they'll likely find the question rather pointless (see for example the first posts by AV, Psyren and Kurald in this thread). /EDIT


Mythic is epic… in the sense of "going beyond", I guess? Mythic is Gestalt in the sense of adding something alongside the character? Mythic feels like it occupies the design space of "gestalting with epic". Actually, that would be a hilarious comparison: mythic pathfinder Fighter 20 vs 3e gestalt Fighter 20 // epic Fighter 20.That's also going to end up being a significant advantage for the PF fighter, as is practically everything else more closely tied to the class itself in both games.


Again, for 1st party vs 1st party - what's 3e's 1st party way to allow a Fighter to craft his own gear? What's pathfinders 1st party Festering Anger? These things don't have to exist for the comparison to be fair - their lack of existence says something about their capabilities, too.Indeed.


So, again, *start* by defining the question. Everything else proceeds from there.That would be something like:

"Whatever precisely defined limitations of the mean or mode average game actually played are."

And assuming we actually knew these limitations for certain, rather than having some pretty decent hunches, I'd bet my life savings on the PF fighter's relative power being clearly greater than that of the 3.5 fighter.


That's what I meant. So, their only 2 published settings are so incompatible as to use different systems? Wow. I guess that answers that. So much for comparing system-agnostic characters.They're two different games. They happen to have the same publisher and similar overall systems.

[Kaouse]

Well, now I want to see some builds of the PF Fighter. Especially the 1pp only one. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that stuff only gets this high with Mythic and Occult Rituals, which aren't likely to be widely used in actual play...though who knows, I am open to being surprised.

[upho]

Well, now I want to see some builds of the PF Fighter. Especially the 1pp only one. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that stuff only gets this high with Mythic and Occult Rituals, which aren't likely to be widely used in actual play...though who knows, I am open to being surprised.Are you referring to a specific build implied or more explicitly stated in this thread?

If you're thinking of the builds briefly described in the comparisons I made in my last post, they already contain the answer to whether your suspicions are correct:

The PF fighter in my silly "Mythic Race to La-La-Land"-comparison uses only 1PP options, one of which is virtually guaranteed to never be allowed in actual play; a custom PC race made using the Race Creation system with no RP limit. (It also has 10 Mythic Tiers, and although it can of course access and use all Occult Rituals published with no chance of failure, their advantages aren't really significant enough to be worth mentioning in the context of this insane comparison.)

The builds in the second "Core Initiator Race"-comparison explicitly contain options from DSP's Akashic, PoW and UP series, so none of them are only 1PP.

Or are you thinking of this:
As an example to illustrate this, here are some of the more notable offensive combat abilities and related success chances vs average opponent values of such a high-op PF human fighter 20 build (numbers from this compilation (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/edit#gid=3) of average values of more than 3080 published creatures):

1. Attack Bonus A typical minimum +50 melee attack bonus (for a +50/+50/+45/+40/+35 full attack sequence). This attack bonus is higher than the highest listed AC value of any PF creature published by Paizo (and the first four attacks in a full attack have the minimum 95% hit chance vs the average AC 37 of CR 20 foes, and the last one a 90% chance). Combat Stamina with a 25 point pool per combat allows for the attack bonus of any individual attack roll - including combat maneuver checks - to be increased with +1 per point spent as part of the attack, up to a maximum of +5. The Spirit Warrior feature also grants a daily pool of 7 points, each point may be spent (requires no action) to increase the weapon's enhancement bonus by +1 (max +3) or give special magic weapon abilities of equal cost (no maximum) for 1 minute. 84% of the +50 attack bonus comes from class features (+24) and Str (+18), the remaining 16% from feats and items.

2. Bull Rush Each hit or successful combat maneuver made with a weapon against an enemy up to Gargantuan size grants a free action bull rush check (even outside of own turns), using the weapon and the best of two rolls plus at least a +66 CMB, for a net 99.75% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 61 of up to CR 25 foes. Each successful bull rush made during own turns makes the target provoke an AoO since it's about to leave a threatened square, as does up to one bull rush per round made outside of turn (see also about AoOs below). This ability is gained through combat feats and an item, and is enhanced with class features and additional items.

3. Dirty Trick A typical dirty trick CMB of at least +69, giving the minimum 95% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 61 of enemies up to CR 25 of any size. Can make a dirty trick in place of a normal melee attack as an AoO or at the end of a charge, and up to at least 12 times per day as a free action on any melee hit. Each successful dirty trick also makes the enemy provoke an AoO, as does an enemy attempting to remove the effects of a dirty trick. Each dirty trick imposes two conditions for at least 1d4 rounds, and a second dirty trick worsens the previously applied conditions, the net effect being that the enemy is immediately dazed and typically blinded for an average of at least 5 rounds. (Note that less than one in a thousand 1PP PF creatures are immune to being dazed.) This ability is gained through combat feats and is enhanced with class features and items.

4. Spell Sunder Can suppress any spell on a creature for at least 1 round with a sunder check, made in place of any melee attack with a typical CMB of at least +65 and ignoring any miss chances caused by spells, for at least the minimum 95% success chance vs the highest mean average CMD 66 of enemies up to CR 25. A sunder check which beats the CMD with at least 10 instead dispels the spell. Can also use sunder to dispel a spell of virtually any CL which doesn't affect a creature. This is ability is gained as a class feature, enhanced with feats and items.

5. AoOs Can typically make at least 6 AoOs per round. Each time an enemy is about to leave a threatened square in by any means or for any reason during the fighter's own turn, and once per round outside of the fighter's turn, the enemy provokes an AoO. This ability is gained through class features and feats.

6. Reach Main weapon threatens all within a radius of at least 30' centered on the fighter (includes the 4 squares occupied by the fighter).

7. Demoralization Can typically make at least 3 free action Intimidate checks during each own turn to demoralize all enemies within 60' not immune to fear into at least panicked for a minimum of 1 round (minimum 7 rounds vs average equal CR monster), and can in most combats also make an additional check during any one turn to make all panicked enemies within 30' cowering. These checks have a 100% success chance against at least the mean average DC 50 of CR 25 monsters larger than the fighter (10 + 30 hd + 6 Wis mod + 4 size), and gives the first three checks up to at least a total 54% chance to make the average CR 28 monster panicked. With the exception of making enemies cowering as a free rather than a standard action once per combat, this ability is gained through class features and feats, and is enhanced with feats and items.If so, this build uses only 1PP options and no Mythic or Rituals. It does however use two very powerful feats - Dirty Trick Master and Soulless Gaze - which I think could've been more fun and less disruptive in most games if they had been sent to a carefully supervised meeting with the nerf-bat.

(Speaking of rituals, with a very slight tweak or two, this build could make pretty great use of especially Fiendish Transformation to gain the Half-Fiend template virtually permanently. But that would of course also require at least a game where not only rituals exist and this particular ritual can be found, but also one where using an explicitly evil and powerful ritual like this would be acceptable OoC and not bring more in-game trouble to the party or fighter than it's worth.)

So, are there actually any surprises here, or were you thinking of something else?

[Kaouse]

I kind of just want to see how you fit everything into one build, and see if there are any noticeable drawbacks, like ****ty saves or something. I especially want to know how you got a 30 ft threatened area, presumably without relying on Combat Patrol. My first thought was an Interfering Bow, but all the other talk above about bull rush, Spell Sunder (which I presume forces you to take the Viking archetype) and everything else made it seem much more like a melee build.

Though I guess theoretically, you could take the Archer archetype to be able to use Combat Maneuvers at range, but does that stack with Viking for Spell Sunder? Also, getting 3 free action Intimidates is interesting. Are you using Enforcer with a Merciful weapon or something? Oh, and there was also talk of dealing 1000 damage in an AoE. That I have to see.

[Eldariel]

I mean, can't either one-shot anything ever printed effortlessly? What more do you really want from your fighter type? I don't think there's a meaningful distinction other than the competition (where opposition is generally tougher in PF, but top tier classes weaker).

[Peat]

I kind of just want to see how you fit everything into one build, and see if there are any noticeable drawbacks, like ****ty saves or something. I especially want to know how you got a 30 ft threatened area, presumably without relying on Combat Patrol. My first thought was an Interfering Bow, but all the other talk above about bull rush, Spell Sunder (which I presume forces you to take the Viking archetype) and everything else made it seem much more like a melee build.

Though I guess theoretically, you could take the Archer archetype to be able to use Combat Maneuvers at range, but does that stack with Viking for Spell Sunder? Also, getting 3 free action Intimidates is interesting. Are you using Enforcer with a Merciful weapon or something? Oh, and there was also talk of dealing 1000 damage in an AoE. That I have to see.

He could be getting Spell Sunder through Barbarian VMC - you get a Rage Power at 11th and can take Extra Rage Powers thereafter - which can be done all through feats.

[upho]

I kind of just want to see how you fit everything into one build, and see if there are any noticeable drawbacks, like ****ty saves or something.Fitting everything together is actually quite a puzzle, especially when it comes to matching the tons of feats and feat slot special requirements with level progression, retraining and the sometimes massive minimum number of feats required to make a combo useful. I mean, this build has regular feat slots at 1st and every 4th level thereafter, a human bonus feat at 1st, 11 fighter bonus feats, a varying large number of feats from training weapon abilities and manual of war (which must be matched to WBL and often weapon training bonuses for Spirit Weapon), 4 capstone combat feats at 20th, IIRC a couple of feats from ioun stones in a headband of twisted intellect, etc, etc. :smallsigh:

Especially at higher levels, fighter builds are complex enough to give me a headache also when single-classed, and it seems it's almost impossible for me to get every detail right on the first attempt. For example, I put together this particular build - "Dirty Percy Performance" - almost two years ago (the only fully detailed fighter 20 I've made), and going through the details again just now I noticed I had forgotten to include the 25% WBL increase to account for his magic item crafting as per guidelines. (It probably should be more than 25%, but since Percy retrains his crafting feats just about when he reaches 20th, I decided to keep it modest.) So I just gave him some more/better gear, and just trying to remember relevant options and decipher which ones would actually be optimized made my poor old brain hurt... :smallredface:

But anyways, Percy's attack and CMB numbers should be 1 higher than those I've mentioned in my previous post. And I also think his other important basic numbers are pretty good or better - or at least decent by high-op standards - across the board, as that is typically mandatory for high-op builds (except of course in the case of numbers the build can reliably make irrelevant through other abilities).


I especially want to know how you got a 30 ft threatened area, presumably without relying on Combat Patrol.This is actually pretty easy at higher levels: caster ally/paid service/UMD and scrolls for permanent enlarge person gives permanent large size and 10' natural reach for a total 15' radius threatened, adding a reach weapon doubles the natural reach to 20', and then a wand of long arm (preferably with a high CL for duration) adds another 5' in a large majority of fights.

Percy adds a nifty trick to this "standard" combo by wielding a spine flail (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/e-g/flail-spine/), which both can be made compatible with other key stuff (like Cloak and Dagger Style) thanks to being a one-handed slashing weapon, but is also a reach weapon which threatens all spaces within his total reach radius (unlike normal reach weapons which don't threaten within natural reach).


My first thought was an Interfering Bow, but all the other talk above about bull rush, Spell Sunder (which I presume forces you to take the Viking archetype) and everything else made it seem much more like a melee build.Percy is indeed a melee build, but he's a Mutation Warrior VMC barbarian (with 4 Extra Rage Power feats) instead of Viking. That particular combo not only gives access to great rage powers and alchemist discoveries, but also happens to add a total of +14 to Str, which in turn is a major part of the reason why Percy's melee accuracy is unusually high even for a fighter.


Though I guess theoretically, you could take the Archer archetype to be able to use Combat Maneuvers at range, but does that stack with Viking for Spell Sunder?Those two definitely wouldn't be compatible, as they both replace bravery as well as armor and weapon training. Especially replacing weapon training is btw IME rarely a good idea for a build with more than 4 fighter levels or so, since almost none of the archetype features replacing it can match the stronger AWT options. The Viking at least has the potential to be a rare exception, since many rage powers offer great and highly unique mechanics and are often vital components in some very strong melee combos. But at least for most higher level straight fighters who can afford enough Extra Rage Power feats, I think VMC barb is a clearly superior means to get rage powers.

The Archer kinda sucks IMO, its ranged combat maneuvers being limited to those which are both rather weak and/or of limited use in and of themselves and can't enable any particularly strong combos for a ranged combatant. I think the only actually viable 1PP option for a combat style based on ranged combat maneuvers is seven levels of Shield Champion brawler, as it allows for significantly more combo-friendly maneuvers and for making them at range "as if melee". This can enable effective and absolutely hilarious switch-hitting control shenanigans, for example with a blinkback belt of mighty hurling, a distance maelstrom throwing shield, (Improved) Ki Throw and standard trip feats... :smalltongue:


Also, getting 3 free action Intimidates is interesting. Are you using Enforcer with a Merciful weapon or something?While I think the Enforcer + merciful/Bludgeoner/Blade of Mercy/unarmed combo is an okay free action demoralize combo, especially for builds who don't use Power Attack and thus can't use Cornugon Smash, Percy's demoralization combo is quite a bit more potent and involves a far greater number of components:

Dazzling Display a feat tax which is absolutely awful by itself
Intimidating Prowess adds Str mod to Intimidate
Awe-Inspiring Smash Str instead of Cha on PCCs (performance combat checks)
Hero's Display demoralize all within 30' on successful PCC
Combat Stamina increase area of Hero's Display by up to 30'
Performing Combatant PCCs vs DC 20 in any combat
Master Combat Performer PCCs as free action instead of swift
Soulless Gaze (and Fiendskin) each demoralization success after first increases fear condition up to panicked
Disheartening Display successful Dazzling Display makes panicked enemies in 30' cowering
Advanced Weapon Training (dazzling Intimidation) use Dazzling Display as standard instead of full round
Wand of contingent action triggers Dazzling Display at the end of opening round to make panicked enemies cowering

On top of that, things like rage, free action combat maneuvers and multiple attacks per round ensures Percy gets several PCCs with 100% success chance each round.

The end result is a 65' "panicked aura" generated Percy's other actions in combat each round, which can also make enemies in 30' cowering once in each combat Percy has been able to prepare for up to 10 minutes in advance.


Oh, and there was also talk of dealing 1000 damage in an AoE. That I have to see.Not in an AoE, as an AoO! Anyways, the combo's key components are:

Ascetic Strike and monk's robe for 2d10 (Medium) damage with any weapon (with monk Versatile Design if needed)
Mighty Frame allows for wielding weapons designed for creatures one size category larger: 4d8 base damage die (as Large monk)
Skin of proteus for continuous metamorphosis granting Huge size: 8d8 damage die
Shape Veil for Armory of the Conqueror with 4 essence (from Radiant Dawn maneuvers) and a greater akashic catalyst granting 4 "virtual" size increases: 32d8 damage die
Greater Vital Strike adds 3 additional damage die rolls: 128d8 damage die
Furious Finish (and stuff for rage cycling with fatigue immunity) maximizes damage on Vital Strike instead rolling: 1024 damage from weapon die
Seize the Opportunity allows for using Vital Strike as AoO

Add various stuff to ensure an AoO is triggered on each hit and lots of enemy actions in a huge threatened area. Then go find an army of demon lords or something to show them and the world who's boss...

And here's a summary of Percy (with typical combat values):

Human fighter (Mutation Warrior, VMC barbarian) 20
N Large male humanoid (human)

Initiative +22; Senses darkvision 60’, continuous detect magic and see invisibility; Perception +44


DEFENSE
AC 49, touch 20, flat-footed 41 (14 armor, 8 natural, 7 dex, 7 shield, 5 deflection, 1 dodge, -2 rage, -1 size)
Hp 315 (10+19d10 fighter, 200 con)
Fort +28; Ref +20; Will +27; +6 vs fear; +7 morale vs spells, (Sp) and (Su)
DR 3/-; Immune exhausted, fatigued, flat-footed, nauseated, sickened; Resist cold 5, fire 5;
demoralization DC 39; Endurance; freedom of movement 10 min/day; uncanny dodge
Weakness damned (DC 30 CL check to bring back to life, unaffected by breath of life and raise dead)


OFFENSE
Speed 60 ft., fly 90 ft.; +20 ft. charge speed
Melee Cornugon’s Tail (+5 spine flail) +51/+51/+46/+41/+36 (2d6+36 plus bull rush, +12 with Power Attack)
Reach 30 ft. radius with Cornugon’s Tail (15 ft. natural reach), +5 ft. for 1 round 3/day (longarm bracers)
Attacks of Opportunity 8/round, may make dirty trick attempt instead of normal attack

Weapon Training and Advanced Weapon Training
Weapon Training +6 attack and damage using weapons in monk weapon group

Armed Bravery Bravery bonus (+6) to Will saves
Dazzling Intimidation Weapon training bonus (+6) to Intimidate, can use Dazzling Display as standard instead of full round action
Trained Initiative Weapon training bonus (+6) to initiative
Versatile Training (close weapon group) Sense Motive and Stealth as class skills, using base attack bonus in place of ranks
Warrior Spirit +1 to +3 weapon enhancement or +1 to +5 abilities per use, 1 min/use, max +7 total/day (+1 active)

Combat Stamina and Notable Combat Tricks
Stamina Pool 25, 1 stamina regained per minute outside of combat

Accuracy Up to 5 stamina as part of attack for +1 competence to attack per stamina spent
Combat Style Master 2 stamina to switch style feat stances as free action outside of own turn
Combat Reflexes 5 stamina on AoO miss to immediately make another AoO at -5
Disheartening Display 5 stamina to affect a creature a second time within 24 hours
Hero’s Display Up to 6 stamina to increase effect radius by +5 feet per stamina spent (for max 60 ft. radius)
Improved Bull Rush/Dirty Trick/Sunder Up to 18 stamina for +1 CMD per stamina vs bull rush, dirty trick or sunder attempt
Intimidating Prowess 2 stamina per size category smaller than target of Intimidate check to ignore -4 penalty

Mutagen and Discoveries
Mutagen 1 hour prep, standard action use, +6 NA, +8/+6/+4 alchemical to physical and -2 to mental ability scores, 200 minutes duration
Discoveries grand mutagen, greater mutagen, vestigial arm, wings

Vestigial Arm Third arm as functional as normal arms, but can't increase number of attacks otherwise possible in full attack
Wings Discovery standard action 60' (Ex) fly speed and +14 to Fly checks, 1-20 minutes/use and max 20 minutes/day

Rage and Rage Powers
Greater Rage 25 rounds/day; +6 morale to Str and Con, +3 morale to Will, -2 AC (active), can stop rage and start new rage as free action

Internal Fortitude Immune to sickened and nauseated (plus fatigued and exhausted due to flawed scarlet and green cabochon)
Spell Sunder 1/rage sunder vs CMD +5 (no miss chance from spells) to suppress spell 1 round, 2 rounds if CMD beat by 5-9, dispelled if beat by 10+
Superstition +7 morale vs spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities, must save also vs harmless or beneficial such abilities
Unexpected Strike 1/rage AoO vs foe leaving threatened square for any reason or by any means (incl. 5-foot step, forced movement, teleportation, etc)
Witch Hunter Attacks deal +6 damage to creatures able to cast spells or use spell-like or supernatural abilities (included in damage bonus above)


STATISTICS
Str 46, Dex 24, Con 30, Int 14, Wis 18, Cha 12 (20 point-buy)
Base Atk +20; CMB +43, bull rush +66 (best of 2 rolls) up to Gargantuan, dirty trick +69, spell sunder +65
disarm +65, drag +60, overrun +45, reposition +70, trip +70 up to Gargantuan
CMD 62, cannot be disarmed, bull rush 76, dirty trick 74, drag 72, overrun 64, reposition 92, sunder 68, trip 92

Feats Advanced Weapon Training (armed bravery)F, Advanced Weapon Training (dazzling intimidation)I, Ascetic StyleI, Awe-Inspiring SmashI, Cloak and Dagger StyleF, Cloak and Dagger SubterfugeI, Combat ReflexesF, Combat StaminaI, Combat Style MasterI, Dazzling DisplayF, Dirty FightingF, Dirty Trick MasterI, Disheartening DisplayB, EnduranceI, Extra Rage Power (internal fortitude), Extra Rage Power (spell sunder), Extra Rage Power (superstition), Extra Rage Power (witch hunter), Fiendskin, Greater Dirty TrickF, Hero’s DisplayB, Improved Bull RushI, Improved Dirty TrickF, Improved SunderI, Intimidating ProwessB, Kitsune StyleF, Kitsune TricksF, Kitsune VengeanceI, Master Combat PerformerI, Performing CombatantB, Power AttackF, Soulless GazeB, Vital StrikeF, Weapon Focus (light flail)I, Weapon Style MasteryI
F Fighter bonus. B Human or old dog, new tricks bonus. I Granted by training weapon or ioun stone.

Trained Skills Disable Device +43, Fly +25, Intimidate +51 (+56A), Knowledge (arcana, local, nature, nobility, religion) +3, (dungeoneering) +30, (engineering) +6, (planes) +28, Perception +44B (+54A, +34C), Sense Motive +35 (+45A), Stealth +47, Swim +22, Use Magic Device +25 (+29D, +35E).
A Versus chosen target when using focused scrutiny. B +5 to find invisible, incorporeal and/or on Ethereal Plane. C Excluding bonus from pattern recognition. D Activating item attuned to nine-eaves key. E Activating scrolls of impenetrable veil.

Traits Dangerously Curious, Snowstride, Trapfinder; Drawback Warded Against Nature

Gear—Continuous/Recharging Cornugon’s Tail (+2 dueling (PSFG) furious leveraging dueling spine flail of monk versatile design with effortless lace), +5 pauldrons of the bull resistance, +5 greater shadow locksmith mithral celestial plate, +5 mithral +1 training x31 heavy shield, +5 ring of protection, +6 victor’s belt of physical perfection, Azlant x22 training x23 amulet of mighty fists and +2 natural armor, boots of speed, cracked dusty rose prism, cracked pale green prism (2), eyes of the eagle, flawed scarlet and green cabochon, dueling giant fist gauntlets of skilled maneuver, goggles of minute seeing, headband of twisted mental might (+6 Int & Wis, +4 Cha) with cracked opalescent white pyramid and cracked scarlet and blue sphere, longarm bracers, lore needle, nine-eaves key (2), sash of the war champion, shadow head piercings (minor), +1 training x34 spiked gauntlet, +1 training x25 spiked gauntlets (2), serpentine tattoo (4), unfettered shirt, wand key ring.
1 Awe-Inspiring Smash, Kitsune Vengeance, Weapon Style Mastery. 2 Knowledge (dungeoneering, planes). 3 Ascetic Style, Combat Stamina. 4 AWT (dazzling Intimidation), Dirty Trick Master, Improved Sunder. 5 Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Combat Style Master, Improved Bull Rush, Master Combat Performer.

Gear—Limited Use +1 manual of gainful exercise (used); +4 manual of quickness of action (used); scrolls of impenetrable veil CL 16 (x4) and true seeing CL 9 (x4); used scrolls of darkvision CL 20, detect magic CL 20, enlarge person CL 20, permanency CL 9 (2) and CL 10; wands of contingent action CL 10, focused scrutiny, heightened awareness CL 10, linebreaker CL 10, long arm CL 10, pattern recognition CL 20 and see beyond; approximately 23,200 gp*
*Remainder of 880,000 gp standard WBL, increased by 25% as per guidelines for magic item creation feats.


The combined result of many of the things listed in that summary was described in my previous post, but please ask away if there's anything you'd like to know more about!

EDIT: I've added lists of notable class features with brief descriptions to the summary of Percy above, hopefully making things a bit less confusing for readers less experienced with PF. (I've also changed/corrected some minor details, and Percy has gotten his old lower Str of 46 and the related 1 point lower attack and Intimidate bonuses back, but has instead gained an increased Dex for +1 to initiative, AC, Disable Device, Stealth and especially an additional AoO for increased multi-target control.) /EDIT

[Peat]

I mean, can't either one-shot anything ever printed effortlessly? What more do you really want from your fighter type? I don't think there's a meaningful distinction other than the competition (where opposition is generally tougher in PF, but top tier classes weaker).

I think the answer to that is

a) Be pretty difficult to kill themselves. Not much good being able to one-shot everything if everything (not just the really tough guys) can one-shot you.
b) Be able to actually get the one-shot off. Not a lot of point to it if you can't reach them due to flight, or battlefield control, or whatever.
c) Be able to do other cool stuff. I dunno about everyone else, but I want to be able to spend a lot of time playing a character who hits people with a sword and then does other stuff in combat if it comes up and has the type of skills that can affect the world outside of combat. It's why I like stuff like the Iron Caster build - tackable onto any Fighter build for one feat and one use of AWT (or a different use of AWT and applying the Training property to your weapon too I believe - and I think they stack for lots of uses) to access a suite of SLAs, picking and choosing which one you need as you use them. Or other feats as needed.

[Eldariel]

If we consider high op 3e Fighter, some of the feats they have access to are pretty ridiculous (Troll-Blooded, for instance, for easy immortality is pretty good and they can also easily get into the Darkstalker + Absurd Stealth train with feats gaining said class skills and magical buffs and such) as is having access to DCFS. It's solely a matter of how high you want to pull the op ladder of course - it simply goes higher for wealth and magical services in 3e than in PF (which is both a blessing and a curse). It's trivial for a 3e character to e.g. buy a bodyswap with an epic creature and use those stats as the baseline (Anthrowhale used a basic version of this in his Ex-Fighter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?265730-The-ExFighter)), which in turn puts the baseline at "what epic creatures exist in each edition".

Mostly though, both boil down to the worst designed feats, items, and spells in their respective editions and they offer very different things (a 3.5 Fighter should be impossible to kill without highly specialized options). PF Fighter has more midrange options and probably more reliability, while 3.5 Fighter has more raw damage (and has reasonable options for making reaching targets fairly simple). Like, 3e Fighter should be able to easily do infinite damage per round while being more or less undetectable magically and mundanely outside absurd spot checks while also being immune to most effects in the game including damage. But that just takes pulling the optimization ladder high enough. So...the answer really depends on how you define "high optimization".

[upho]

I think the answer to that is

a) Be pretty difficult to kill themselves. Not much good being able to one-shot everything if everything (not just the really tough guys) can one-shot you.
b) Be able to actually get the one-shot off. Not a lot of point to it if you can't reach them due to flight, or battlefield control, or whatever.
c) Be able to do other cool stuff. I dunno about everyone else, but I want to be able to spend a lot of time playing a character who hits people with a sword and then does other stuff in combat if it comes up and has the type of skills that can affect the world outside of combat.For high-op, I'd probably also add:

d) Be able to reliably take out multiple enemies of a CR above level during each round. Dealing Ni hp damage to one enemy of "threat level X" per round isn't even half as valuable as doing just enough (damage or whatever) to remove two enemies of "threat level X" from combat each round.
e) Be able to take out enemies also during the enemies' turns, and/or to prevent enemies from fleeing or harming the fighter or their allies.
f) Have more than one reliable method to take out enemies, including ways which don't rely on killing the enemy. Neither hp damage or death can be expected to always be effective or preferable, or even to always be an option. Not to mention a PC with varied, meaningful and tactically interesting mechanical abilities is IMO far more fun to play in combat than a repetitive one-trick pony.

And finally, pretty much regardless of op-level:
g) Have options allowing for mechanically distinctly different builds reflecting a wide variety character concepts, and for great performance in more than one primary combat role/function. A class which restricts viable builds to the "single-target melee full attack DPR"-niche (or any other role/niche) doesn't exactly increase its chances of seeing play, on top of simply being poorly designed IMO.


It's why I like stuff like the Iron Caster build - tackable onto any Fighter build for one feat and one use of AWT (or a different use of AWT and applying the Training property to your weapon too I believe - and I think they stack for lots of uses) to access a suite of SLAs, picking and choosing which one you need as you use them. Or other feats as needed.Indeed. Both the Item Mastery AWT and the Spirit Weapon AWT with training actually add quite impressive amounts of versatility, especially when combined and complemented with the Abundant Tactics AWT and additional item mastery feats. And these fighter class features are arguably even more valuable the more high-op a build is, at least in a large majority of games actually played.

(Gaining the same item mastery feat multiple times during the same day doesn't increase the number of uses per day the feat grants btw, if that is what you were thinking of.)


If we consider high op 3e Fighter, some of the feats they have access to are pretty ridiculous (Troll-Blooded, for instance, for easy immortality is pretty goodEasy immortality from regen 1? But regardless, out of curiosity, how does a fighter make this sing without a +LA (or setting specific) race or template immune to nonlethal, and how do they keep it singing also at 20th when the general relative value of stuff protecting against death from hp damage has typically plummeted?


and they can also easily get into the DarkstalkerIf you label this "pretty ridiculous", I can't help but wonder how you would label the
Lurker in Darkness (General)
Your training allows you to foil even magical and unusual senses.
Prerequisites: Stealth 6 ranks
Benefit: Creatures using unusual forms of sensory perception such as blindsight, greensight, or tremorsense cannot automatically foil your use of Stealth; such creatures must make a Perception check as normal to detect you when you make use of the Stealth skill. This feat foils indirect detection (such as a creature using detect magic to search for your magical items while you are using Stealth) in the manner described above, but has no effect on psi-like abilities, powers, spells, spell-like abilities, and/or supernatural abilities specifically used to uncover information about you rather than enhancing the user’s perception, such as the augury spell.


+ Absurd Stealth train with feats gaining said class skills and magical buffs and such)Just in case you didn't know, for the opportunity cost of one WT class feature "slot", (or a training weapon (+1 enhancement cost) via own crafting or the Spirit Weapon class feature, or a fighter bonus combat feat), the PF fighter can get both Stealth and for example Perception as class skills along with bab for max ranks in both (and can immediately reinvest any skill points previously invested in those skills). Yes, the equivalent of at least 40 PF skill points and two class skills for the price of at most one combat feat. And the fighter can do this twice, effectively gaining 4 additional class skills and +4 skill points/level.

So for example Percy - the build I posted previously - has both high enough Stealth for reliable use against enemies up to at least CR 20, will auto-succeed vs the highest Perception DCs of traps and any Disable Device DCs listed in the rules, and can disable also magic traps. Yet none of this requires any "pretty ridiculous" options or anything else which can't be expected to be allowed and easily accessible to a fighter in a very large majority of PF games, because those capabilities are almost exclusively enabled by fighter class features.


It's solely a matter of how high you want to pull the op ladder of course - it simply goes higher for wealth and magical services in 3e than in PF (which is both a blessing and a curse).As long as you keep options limited to what's allowed per RAW and without DM permissions in a majority of games actually played, please "pull the op ladder" as high as it possibly goes! (You probably can't expect a 3.5 fighter to get more out of wealth without also being capable of crafting magic items on their own, nor any no magical services beyond the most generic and basic stuff provided by "standard" casters, albeit possibly of CL 20.)


It's trivial for a 3e character to e.g. buy a bodyswap with an epic creature and use those stats as the baseline /snip/, which in turn puts the baseline at "what epic creatures exist in each edition".Do you actually believe that "buy a bodyswap with an epic creature" can not only be safely assumed to be an option in a large majority of 3.5 games played, but can also be assumed to be "trivial" for a fighter in such a game? If not, why does it matter in a comparison relevant to games actually played?

A game where this is actually a possibility seems to belong in the same category of hypothetical silly games as the mentioned PF one allowing for transformation into a balor fighter 20 (an option fully detailed in the PF rules). Except AFAICT it has even more specific and DM fiat dependent requirements, is even more likely to cause PC balance issues, and is far more likely to come loaded with murky rules interactions.


Mostly though, both boil down to the worst designed feats, items, and spells in their respective editionsThis at the very least highly misleading and more often simply not true in the case of the PF fighter. It appears to be a very common misconception among people who know the 3.5 fighter well but obviously not the PF fighter, based on the false premise that the PF fighter has a similar lack of class features and very few strong combat feat options. Again, the PF fighter doesn't rely on murky RAW or poorly designed or rarely allowed options in order to enable powerful builds. IOW, the class has not just a higher optimization floor than the 3.5 fighter, but a significantly higher practical optimization ceiling, especially in terms of overall adventuring capability relative stronger PF classes.


and they offer very different things (a 3.5 Fighter should be impossible to kill without highly specialized options). PF Fighter has more midrange options and probably more reliability, while 3.5 Fighter has more raw damage (and has reasonable options for making reaching targets fairly simple).Are you talking about "raw damage" actually put to use taking enemies out of combat, or about theoretical DPR largely wasted on single-target overkill in a real game? If it's the latter, I certainly believe you. But if it's the former, I actually doubt that (and note that it's certainly possible to build a PF fighter 20 capable of enough DPR to one-shot practically any creature published by Paizo, including Mythic CR 30 ones).


Like, 3e Fighter should be able to easily do infinite damage per round while being more or less undetectable magically and mundanely outside absurd spot checks while also being immune to most effects in the game including damage. But that just takes pulling the optimization ladder high enough.But as already has been shown multiple times in this thread, the idea that the TO op-ceiling is somehow less arbitrary for a fighter in PF is simply not true.


So...the answer really depends on how you define "high optimization".This I agree with, although probably not in the way you meant it. I think what matters is whether you define "optimization" primarily as a measure of a) the power of the PC options available in a game, or b) the adventuring capabilities of a build relative the options available in the game it's played in (and in many cases also relative the class the build is based on).


(Ex-Fighter is absolutely fantastic, by far the most crazy optimized and hyper-specific unconventional use of spellcaster services I've seen in the creation of an "optimization ladder" to reach delicious cheese! Thank you for informing me of his existence.

(As an aside, that build almost appears like a joke in the context of this thread, designed to make fun of the insane complexity and specificity of many TO builds and how far removed the related game assumptions are from games actually played. And perhaps even greater issue in this context, to [URL="https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=14439852&postcount=10"]quote Kelb (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?265730-The-ExFighter):

*stares, slack-jawed, at the abomination that is the furthest thing from his mind upon hearing the term "fighter"*)

[Kurald Galain]

If you want PF fighter tricks, you can pull off things like Shield Slam + Squash Flat around level six.

The former gives you a free action bull rush whenever you hit with your shield. The latter gives you a free trip whenever you hit with a bull rush. Can you make that trip with your shield? Why yes, yes you can. :smallamused:
This loop also deals damage every cycle, and provokes OAs from anybody who has the enemy in reach, including yourself. Can you make that OA with your shield? Well...

[Peat]

Indeed. Both the Item Mastery AWT and the Spirit Weapon AWT with training actually add quite impressive amounts of versatility, especially when combined and complemented with the Abundant Tactics AWT and additional item mastery feats. And these fighter class features are arguably even more valuable the more high-op a build is, at least in a large majority of games actually played.

(Gaining the same item mastery feat multiple times during the same day doesn't increase the number of uses per day the feat grants btw, if that is what you were thinking of.)


I didn't think it increased uses of the same feat - I just wasn't sure that you could pull the same trick with the Training quality as you could with Barroom Brawler to just pick up different versions of it as needed.

[upho]

If you want PF fighter tricks, you can pull off things like Shield Slam + Squash Flat around level six.

The former gives you a free action bull rush whenever you hit with your shield. The latter gives you a free trip whenever you hit with a bull rush. Can you make that trip with your shield? Why yes, yes you can. :smallamused:
This loop also deals damage every cycle, and provokes OAs from anybody who has the enemy in reach, including yourself. Can you make that OA with your shield? Well...Yeah, shields are quite fantastic for combat maneuvers in PF, perhaps especially because of maelstrom and tempest shield (both of which a fighter can reliably craft by 8th or so). Together, they give a free trip on every shield bash attempt and a free bull rush on every shield bash hit, including on AoOs and other combat maneuvers made with the shield. And at higher levels, shields can also enable many of the combos allowing a fighter to take out several above level enemies per round.

For example, adding leveraging, impact and dueling (PSFG) to a maelstrom tempest shield with a +5 shield enhancement means it adds +20 to bull rushes and +30 to trips with Shield Master. With Merciless Rush, each bull rush also deals Str + Power Attack damage, and with Raging Throw (Viking archetype or VMC barb) each time the enemy is bull rushed into solid object or enemy, both targets also take Str + Con damage. Adding stuff like a "Tsunami Bashing"-combo (Riptide Attack and Crashing Wave Fist with Ascetic Style and monk Versatile Design shield) and practically every single initial shield bash (as part of a full attack, Whirlwind, AoO, whatever) can be expected to also generate an average of easily more than 8 additional attacks, provoking 8 AoOs from the fighter and twice as many from each ally, and enough DPR to easily take out a majority of enemies of up to at least CR 25.

I think lack of reach is the only thing keeping the heavy shield from being a complete no-brainer choice of weapon for a high-op fighter.


I didn't think it increased uses of the same feat - I just wasn't sure that you could pull the same trick with the Training quality as you could with Barroom Brawler to just pick up different versions of it as needed.Ah, I see. And yeah, while Barroom Brawler isn't necessarily a bad feat, it's "move action for 1 feat 1-2/day" is kinda pathetic in comparison to Spirit Weapon's "no action for up to 5 feats 2-9/day". But then, arguably none of the other fighter class features and nothing else a fighter can get as a single combat feat offer as great combat versatility as Spirit Weapon does.