Core Strictly Better Fighter

[blackwindbears]

I was reading through the long "why 3.5" thread and there was a side discussion on the perennial caster/martial issues that seemed to boil down to the idea that casters can fill the role of martials better than the martials.

I'm curious how literal that statement is meant to be and sometimes I've seen it stated that a cleric can be as good as a fighter at fighting *and* also have a bunch of spell slots.

I'm interested to know if there is a core-only caster build that is strictly better than a core-only power attack + greatsword fighter build at level 5/10/15/20? (Without pets or wish shenanigans. Using the elite array.)

Quick note on the difference between better and strictly better: a cleric might be able to get the same BAB, weapon and strength as a fighter for 8 rounds with a buff, but won't have the damage boost from power attack. The extra spells might be more useful in more situations than power attack, but it isn't strictly better.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

1: In Core-only fighters get hit harder than casters. They often can't hit anything when they Power Attack, because they lack the feats/ACFs used for the strong martial builds (Shock Trooper, etc). IIRC the "optimal" melee core-only builds are things like the Horizon Tripper, which is basically Solid Fog with extra steps.
2: Why wouldn't the Cleric have Power Attack? If I'm building a caster who wants to fight in melee in Core only, it'll probably be a War Domain Cleric of some sort spending my feats on melee combat just like a fighter would. The fighter relatively quickly runs out of good feats in Core, after all. From level 7 onwards I have a fighter's BaB with Divine Power. I also have Power Attack, and I've also got access to all the Cleric buffs (from the measly Bless to the mighty Magic Weapon/Vestment line, with spells like Righteous Might and Holy Word coming in at higher levels). I have the same gear, but I have more WBL because I can cast my own Magic Vestment instead of paying for expensive combat stuff.
3: A Cleric that invests a few feats into being a fighter is still an amazing healer, and still has access to combat-reshaping spells like Dispel Magic, Meld Into Stone, Planar Ally spells, Plane Shift, Repulsion, Blasphemy, and of course 9ths. And of course Core-only Clerics still have some decent blasting and save-or-lose options (Blindness/Deafness, Fire Storm, etc).

[blackwindbears]

1: In Core-only fighters get hit harder than casters. They often can't hit anything when they Power Attack, because they lack the feats/ACFs used for the strong martial builds (Shock Trooper, etc). IIRC the "optimal" melee core-only builds are things like the Horizon Tripper, which is basically Solid Fog with extra steps.
2: Why wouldn't the Cleric have Power Attack? If I'm building a caster who wants to fight in melee in Core only, it'll probably be a War Domain Cleric of some sort spending my feats on melee combat just like a fighter would. The fighter relatively quickly runs out of good feats in Core, after all. From level 7 onwards I have a fighter's BaB with Divine Power. I also have Power Attack, and I've also got access to all the Cleric buffs (from the measly Bless to the mighty Magic Weapon/Vestment line, with spells like Righteous Might and Holy Word coming in at higher levels). I have the same gear, but I have more WBL because I can cast my own Magic Vestment instead of paying for expensive combat stuff.
3: A Cleric that invests a few feats into being a fighter is still an amazing healer, and still has access to combat-reshaping spells like Dispel Magic, Meld Into Stone, Planar Ally spells, Plane Shift, Repulsion, Blasphemy, and of course 9ths. And of course Core-only Clerics still have some decent blasting and save-or-lose options (Blindness/Deafness, Fire Storm, etc).

1) I totally believe fighters get hit harder

2) Cleric could invest a feat in power attack. That leaves the cleric with 2-3 other feats left, right?

Divine power lasts for one fight? What do you do for the other three fights per day?

I should make the fighter build more explicit, shouldn't I?

[RandomPeasant]

"Strictly Better" tends to be really hard to do (not just in this case, in general), and not very important. In MTG, Lightning Bolt isn't "strictly better" than Wild Slash, but there's not a deck in the world that'd play the latter over the former given the option not to do that.

What matters is just "better". The question isn't "can you make a Cleric who has all the things a given Fighter has and also extra things", but "can you make a Cleric that does whatever you think a Fighter is supposed to do well enough and is more valuable to the party overall". Though in a Core-only environment, you probably want a Druid.

And I think the answer to the question is pretty clearly yes. At 1st level, a Druid is a second-tier combatant themselves, and has a pet wolf that is in the same range as a 1st level Fighter, but completely expendable. At 5th level they get Wild Shape, and at 6th level they get Natural Spell. At that point, it seems pretty clear to me that whatever stat difference there is between the Druid and the Fighter, it's less than the utility you get from a full caster's worth of spell slots.

[blackwindbears]

"Strictly Better" tends to be really hard to do (not just in this case, in general), and not very important. In MTG, Lightning Bolt isn't "strictly better" than Wild Slash, but there's not a deck in the world that'd play the latter over the former given the option not to do that.



Totally agree, but in this context I'm only asking whether a strictly better non-fighter fighter exists in core.

So lightning bolt wouldn't beat wild slash but it would beat shock.

[Max Caysey]

1) I totally believe fighters get hit harder

2) Cleric could invest a feat in power attack. That leaves the cleric with 2-3 other feats left, right?

Divine power lasts for one fight? What do you do for the other three fights per day?

I should make the fighter build more explicit, shouldn't I?

A human cleric would have 8 feats in 20 levels… Why only 2-3 other feats left? There is no prerequisite for PA, so you have that one every level interval.

[RandomPeasant]

Totally agree, but in this context I'm only asking whether a strictly better non-fighter fighter exists in core.

And I'm asking why you think this question is particularly useful or interesting to ask. Because to me, this looks like yet another attempt to "prove" that the Fighter is good by incredibly narrow argument, the constraints of which will be forgotten by the people who see it as vindicating their side of the argument.

[Soranar]

Wells strickly core the druid's animal companion is stronger or on par with the fighter, at all levels.

But fine, let's play by your rule and ignore a whole class feature because... reasons.

A druid is still a better fighter than the fighter because wildshape lasts for hours. It's true at level 5,10,15 and 20. You don't need power attack or natural spell.

The fighter has a slight edge at level 1-5 if you ignore the animal companion.

[Eurus]

The problem with core fighters (well, one of the problems) is that there literally aren't enough good feats for a fighter to care about. Power attack, (combat expertise+)improved trip, maybe cleave and combat reflexes? And then everything else is incremental bonuses like iron will, weapon focus, improved initiative, nice enough to have but you can replicate them in other ways.

Unless you're trying to do low-level archery or something, a fighter doesn't really get anything relevant because a cleric or druid with three feats has all the feats they need.

[blackwindbears]

And I'm asking why you think this question is particularly useful or interesting to ask. Because to me, this looks like yet another attempt to "prove" that the Fighter is good by incredibly narrow argument, the constraints of which will be forgotten by the people who see it as vindicating their side of the argument.

I'm not under the impression that failure to find something strictly better is the same as 1) something strictly better not existing, or 2) that failing to find something strictly better in the narrow domain of core is anywhere near similar to failing to find something "better".

I think it's interesting because strictly better things are less open to subjective interpretation, dm/adventure context, etc.

Fair enough if you don't find it interesting.


Wells strickly core the druid's animal companion is stronger or on par with the fighter, at all levels.

But fine, let's play by your rule and ignore a whole class feature because... reasons.

A druid is still a better fighter than the fighter because wildshape lasts for hours. It's true at level 5,10,15 and 20. You don't need power attack or natural spell.

The fighter has a slight edge at level 1-5 if you ignore the animal companion.

Actually, I do find this interesting, I was kind of trying to head off a bunch of, "well if I gate in a Solar, it's got such and such a BAB", discission which I don't find terribly interesting.

Which core animal companion is strictly better than this (pretty bad) level 5 human fighter build:

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3

I think this is a sort of build a player might end up with by default choosing a human fighter, and getting a normal amount of treasure. Totally plausible to have a +1 greatsword instead but I didn't look super careful at the gold spent.


In comparison the wolf animal companion at level 5 has less HP, ac, a lower attack bonus, does less damage (though it gets free trip attempts which is cool), has worse initiative and the saves are a mixed bag.

There are for sure advantages the wolf has sometimes, but it's a pretty far cry from strictly better.

Now I didn't check all the core animal companions, and maybe there's a well known specific one that has better all around stats than a simple core fighter build?

A cursory review kind of makes me think the bison comes closest, but I'm sure it's not optimized.

[Mechalich]

The OP seems to be focusing on maximum potential DPR, via physical attacks only. And yes, by that metric a fighter (or possibly a Barbarian) might have the highest score using a Core only setup, in terms of standing around a empty room wailing on a training dummy.

One problem, of course, is the ability to deliver that damage to the target. For example, even at level 5, the Greatsword Fighter's efficacy collapses outside of melee when they are forced to rely on their longbow and there are plenty of flying or otherwise alternate movement enemies below CR 5.

[Melcar]

The OP seems to be focusing on maximum potential DPR, via physical attacks only. And yes, by that metric a fighter (or possibly a Barbarian) might have the highest score using a Core only setup, in terms of standing around a empty room wailing on a training dummy.

One problem, of course, is the ability to deliver that damage to the target. For example, even at level 5, the Greatsword Fighter's efficacy collapses outside of melee when they are forced to rely on their longbow and there are plenty of flying or otherwise alternate movement enemies below CR 5.

Hoping not to offend anyone too much by saying it seems that the OP doen'ts really grasp the full power of tier 1 casters... I obviously don't know that, but I'm getting that whole "Monks are OP" kind of vibe from his posts...

Either that, or im totally missing the points... which could very well be!

In terms of answering the question: I think that if you included ALL official material and optimized the to the level of TO it would still fail to a core only tier 1 caster! When you realize chain gating solars is a thing, there is really no need to ever be a strong person swing a sharp metal thing!

[Lilapop]

Which core animal companion is strictly better than this (pretty bad) level 5 human fighter build:
I don't think animal companions can keep up "at all levels" - really the high point (especially in core) is riding dog at level 1. That one DOES come out on top, but from there they pretty much immediately start falling behind, no matter if you advance or replace.


Divine power lasts for one fight? What do you do for the other three fights per day?
You cast it again? A level 7 cleric has 18+ wisdom, and divine power is on the war domain list. On the fourth fight, you use more of the smaller spells, and once you get to level 8 the problem disappears already because you now have 2+1+wis 4ths per day.

Generally though, the thing that hasn't really been touched upon but should have is stat replacement. The level 8 druid puts his elite array's 8 into strength and has 27 strength anyway. The wizard casts polymorph and becomes... anything? I've never bothered looking at the options because I don't particularly care about arcane gishes.

[Anthrowhale]

This (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22350680&postcount=1481) is an optimized core-only fighter. The general strategy is: surprise + shoot it full of arrows, go first + shoot it full of arrows. The exact amount of damage inflicted varies with the opponent with 200 to 600 damage a plausible range of outcomes.

A ranger may be able to do it better.

I'm not sure about a core-only cleric. They would need to invest most of their feats to do archery, and they still couldn't do it quite as well. The outcome of a combat with this approach is strongly dependent on effectively using surprise, initiative, and having a high attack bonus. As a consequence, you can't avoid casting divine power, and you can't afford to spend a round casting it in lieu of attacking. That means you need to either be investing in Quicken spell and casting it out of 8th level slots or using metamagic rods of quicken spell. Either approach starts working at 15th level.

[blackwindbears]

The OP seems to be focusing on maximum potential DPR, via physical attacks only. And yes, by that metric a fighter (or possibly a Barbarian) might have the highest score using a Core only setup, in terms of standing around a empty room wailing on a training dummy.

One problem, of course, is the ability to deliver that damage to the target. For example, even at level 5, the Greatsword Fighter's efficacy collapses outside of melee when they are forced to rely on their longbow and there are plenty of flying or otherwise alternate movement enemies below CR 5.

True.


Hoping not to offend anyone too much by saying it seems that the OP doen'ts really grasp the full power of tier 1 casters... I obviously don't know that, but I'm getting that whole "Monks are OP" kind of vibe from his posts...

Either that, or im totally missing the points... which could very well be!

I really should rewrite the original post because it seems like folk are really sensitive to an argument that I'm not trying to have. So they say slanderous things, that I like monks for example!

Maybe I would have gotten more mileage out of, "my friend thinks that fighters are the best at fighting, but I suspect a full caster could be *strictly* better at doing all the fighter things using only core rules. Anyone have a build?"

Everyone is aware full casters can do lots of stuff, including broken stuff. But my understanding is that the tier 1 is mostly about "such and such class can break the game in X number of ways" not "a core version of this class has a better HP and can make melee attacks at a higher attack bonus" or whatever.

Like those are totally independent questions, because as Mechalich helpfully points out, it's not even clear that making a good melee attack is a useful or important thing!

Re-chain gating solar:

If we're just going to be silly for the sake of being silly the 100 TO fighters obviously could just buy a scroll of gate and chain gate their own Solars, right?

Infinite loop rules exploits are cute, but I don't think they really add a lot to the discussion.


You cast it again? A level 7 cleric has 18+ wisdom, and divine power is on the war domain list. On the fourth fight, you use more of the smaller spells, and once you get to level 8 the problem disappears already because you now have 2+1+wis 4ths per day.

It looks to me like you're spending the first round of every fight casting divine power? Which probably means that you would contribute reasonably well to fights! I don't know that I'm convinced that's better than just fighting the fight without the buff? It also seems like a pretty far cry from being strictly better than the fighter there. It puts you a little behind being strictly better than a warrior, unless you can figure out a way to start every fight with it on?

Again, I'm not at all saying that this cleric isn't better than a fighter, but that's not what I'm looking for. And to be fair, maybe what I'm looking for doesn't exist in core.


This is an optimized core-only fighter. The general strategy is: surprise + shoot it full of arrows, go first + shoot it full of arrows. The exact amount of damage inflicted varies with the opponent with 200 to 600 damage a plausible range of outcomes.

A ranger may be able to do it better.


Thanks!

[Jervis]

Really a fighter’s melee is just another way of dealing damage. You can make a better damage sorcerer that does said damage in a AOE. It eats up resources and in a core only game *bleeck* you won’t be as good as you could be but Polymorph alone means fighters need not apply past level 7. And Druids Wildshape with some dmg natural attack feats can out damage power attack.

[blackwindbears]

Really a fighter’s melee is just another way of dealing damage. You can make a better damage sorcerer that does said damage in a AOE. It eats up resources and in a core only game *bleeck* you won’t be as good as you could be but Polymorph alone means fighters need not apply past level 7. And Druids Wildshape with some dmg natural attack feats can out damage power attack.

So I've heard this, but every time I try to make the build it just doesn't shake out to be precisely strictly better. Could you give me an example build (level 7 with polymorph is fine!). My versions wind up being able to do it like 3 times per day, rather than covering a full adventuring day and wind up with worse AC and HP, on top of that I still have to waste a turn casting polymorph!

Wildshape seems more promising because that lasts hours, right? Which feats and forms do you use?

Thanks!

[Melcar]

True.

Re-chain gating solar:

If we're just going to be silly for the sake of being silly the 100 TO fighters obviously could just buy a scroll of gate and chain gate their own Solars, right?

Infinite loop rules exploits are cute, but I don't think they really add a lot to the discussion.

Indeed... they could, and therein lies the "problem" - magic beats mundane. There is really no upper limit to what can be achieved with magic in 3.5. On a purely theoretical level, the number of combinations of different outcomes of the different combinations of magical energies and components are probably finite, meaning that there is a set maximum number of possible spells or effects that could ever be created, but the power of such spells/rituals seem to have no upper limit.

So, even tho the epic magic rules are terribly written, the idea of them is not. Neither is true dweomers of level 10+. Like Karsus' Avatar or Proctiv's Move Mountain. And even tho there have only been cast 1 level 12 spell in the official history of the game, Elven High Magic and indeed epic spells really have no upper limit to them.

So imagine if you will, the strongest being in the multiverse... it can deliver the hardest punch, and is the best fighter as it has the highest BAB... but what good is that when magic can shore up the sum of all creation? What good is str or high BAB?

The game mechanics is set up in a way that makes magic inherently better than mundane. Its probably realistic in as much realism can be concluded from a fantasy game, but none the less. Magic can break the laws of physics - what ever they might be in any particular setting. And a fighter is a physical thing.

[blackwindbears]

Indeed... they could, and therein lies the "problem" - magic beats mundane. There is really no upper limit to what can be achieved with magic in 3.5. On a purely theoretical level, the number of combinations of different outcomes of the different combinations of magical energies and components are probably finite, meaning that there is a set maximum number of possible spells or effects that could ever be created, but the power of such spells/rituals seem to have no upper limit.

So, even tho the epic magic rules are terribly written, the idea of them is not. Neither is true dweomers of level 10+. Like Karsus' Avatar or Proctiv's Move Mountain. And even tho there have only been cast 1 level 12 spell in the official history of the game, Elven High Magic and indeed epic spells really have no upper limit to them.

So imagine if you will, the strongest being in the multiverse... it can deliver the hardest punch, and is the best fighter as it has the highest BAB... but what good is that when magic can shore up the sum of all creation? What good is str or high BAB?

The game mechanics is set up in a way that makes magic inherently better than mundane. Its probably realistic in as much realism can be concluded from a fantasy game, but none the less. Magic can break the laws of physics - what ever they might be in any particular setting. And a fighter is a physical thing.

All of that is true, but I guess I'm trying to answer a completely different question.

Can you build a strictly better fighter using a caster at level 5, 10, 15? Without infinite wishes etc etc.

I'm well aware that magic does all sorts of things that fighters can't do, but "clerics are better fighters and also have spells" is a claim I see get tossed around, and I'm curious to see what the actual core build would look like.

Every time I try to make the build it has lower HP or worse saves or so on.

It still gets spellcasting, and spellcasting is great!

But not precisely what I'm looking for, make sense?

[Eurus]

This (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22350680&postcount=1481) is an optimized core-only fighter. The general strategy is: surprise + shoot it full of arrows, go first + shoot it full of arrows. The exact amount of damage inflicted varies with the opponent with 200 to 600 damage a plausible range of outcomes.

A ranger may be able to do it better.

I'm not sure about a core-only cleric. They would need to invest most of their feats to do archery, and they still couldn't do it quite as well. The outcome of a combat with this approach is strongly dependent on effectively using surprise, initiative, and having a high attack bonus. As a consequence, you can't avoid casting divine power, and you can't afford to spend a round casting it in lieu of attacking. That means you need to either be investing in Quicken spell and casting it out of 8th level slots or using metamagic rods of quicken spell. Either approach starts working at 15th level.

In practice, I think that a ranger or cleric following that build would be generally better. Would it be "strictly better"? Probably not, it seems like the fighter having more feats to burn on things like Skill Focus will let it come out ahead in some minor way regardless of what other benefits the other class brings to the table (which is admittedly not that many in the case of the ranger).


Can you build a strictly better fighter using a caster at level 5, 10, 15? Without infinite wishes etc etc.

I'm well aware that magic does all sorts of things that fighters can't do, but "clerics are better fighters and also have spells" is a claim I see get tossed around, and I'm curious to see what the actual core build would look like.

Here's the problem. "Strictly better" means that if the fighter does even one thing better, no matter how pointless that thing is or how small the margin is, the other character is not "strictly better". If you have two builds with identical attack bonus, damage, saving throws, HP, and every other statistic, except that one of the builds has a Craft: Underwater Basketweaving bonus two points higher and the other build has access to 9th level spells, the second build is not "strictly better" than the first.

This is why the question is... kind of pointless. For one build to be "strictly better" than another build is onerous to prove, and doesn't really mean much anyway. For one class to be "strictly better" than another class is almost impossible to prove, because the space of available builds is so high.

For what it's worth, yes, I think that you have successfully phrased the question in such a way as to get the answer you want.

[Melcar]

All of that is true, but I guess I'm trying to answer a completely different question.

Can you build a strictly better fighter using a caster at level 5, 10, 15? Without infinite wishes etc etc.

I'm well aware that magic does all sorts of things that fighters can't do, but "clerics are better fighters and also have spells" is a claim I see get tossed around, and I'm curious to see what the actual core build would look like.

Every time I try to make the build it has lower HP or worse saves or so on.

It still gets spellcasting, and spellcasting is great!

But not precisely what I'm looking for, make sense?

So, if I understand you correctly you're asking whether a cleric is a better fighter without the magic? Because its specifically the magic that allows the cleric/druid/wizard to become better at dealing mundane damage than the fighter... so take that away and the answer is probably no! At least for the cleric and wizard!

[blackwindbears]

So, if I understand you correctly you're asking whether a cleric is a better fighter without the magic? Because its specifically the magic that allows the cleric/druid/wizard to become better at dealing mundane damage than the fighter... so take that away and the answer is probably no! At least for the cleric and wizard!

I mean, magic could be used, but what I'm looking for is a result that is 1) basically always on (3-6 encounters per day?), 2) Sidesteps "well yes the fighter still has a higher attack bonus and AC, but this build has three third level spell slots left, which are clearly superior".

If it can't be done, bummer for me I guess.


In practice, I think that a ranger following that build would be generally better. Would it be "strictly better"? No, because...



Here's the problem. "Strictly better" means that if the fighter does even one thing better, no matter how pointless that thing is or how small the margin is, the other character is not "strictly better". If you have two builds with identical attack bonus, damage, saving throws, HP, and every other statistic, except that one of the builds has a Craft: Underwater Basketweaving bonus two points higher and the other build has access to 9th level spells, the second build is not "strictly better" than the first.

This is why the question is... kind of pointless. For one build to be "strictly better" than another build is onerous to prove, and doesn't really mean much anyway. For one class to be "strictly better" than another class is almost impossible to prove, because the space of available builds is so high.

For what it's worth, yes, I think that you have successfully phrased the question in such a way as to get the answer you want.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the answer I want". The answer I want is the build! I don't think failing to find a build really shows anything because as you've pointed out "strictly better" is a pretty narrow window.

You've got the definition of strictly better exactly correct. If it were loosened to simply being combat relevant statistics would that be doable then? Melee and ranged attack bonus, AC, initiative, HP, damage, and Saves?

The question is very pointless if the result is negative, but it's sure got a really useful point if you can answer it positively!

You're right about the number of possible builds being too high, so I suggested a baseline fighter build as an example.

[Zarator]

Hello, long time lurker here but I figured out I may as well post for once^^

One of the things that annoy me a bit about people in the "casters > fighters" field (not saying I believe fighters are better than casters, I'm just discussing the arguments) is that a lot of these arguments, especially at lower levels, seem to revolve around the fact you'll always be able to rest whenever you want.

This is kind of an exceedingly generous assumption, from my point of view, and fully depends on how the DM structured the adventure. First of all, if you're venturing in a dungeon that includes any number of sentient beings, you may very well have to do more than 3 fights per day before sleeping - either because you're pressured into doing so by enemies attacking you on your way back, or because, if you do NOT press on your advantage when invading said dungeon, you may give your enemies enough time to make your life much harder on the following days.

Plus, there might be time-sensitive challenges involved in exploring the dungeon. Maybe, the big bad at the end of the dungeon is preparing something and you are on a timer to stop him before it's too late. And this isn't even too farfetched of a thing to have, when sentient enemies are involved - there are even published modules where this is a thing.

In short, most of the time, it's the DM who's in control of the time flow of the session, not the players. And if the DM wants to force the players' hands with a longer-than-usual sequence of encounters before they actually get to rest (or at least put them into a situation where they do NOT know when they will get to rest), then suddenly melee characters become a lot better because, as long as they don't get hit (or otherwise drain significant resources from the group), they can go on for much longer than your typical caster. In turn, the presence of melee characters can allow casters to hold back for much longer in situations like these, where they have to play cautiously with their spell slots and can't afford to burn a divine power whenever something hostile comes within eyesight - heck, what stops an intelligent enemy from getting you to USE your spells and then flee, in a hit-and-run scenario? It's not like clerics are exactly champions at movement on the battlefield, and a highly mobile enemy can definitely play this game with them.

Now, of course, you could object that it goes both ways - the DM could theoretically shorten time between rests in such a way that heavily favors casters. And, in event-based adventures, you generally get to rest a lot more often anyway - to the point that even a published module like The Speaker in Dreams makes a point about how such adventures allows DMs to throw harder-than-usual battles at their players because they have more opportunities to rest than in dungeons.

Still, the game is balanced around dungeon crawling, and in a dungeon crawling setting, you often don't have control over how often or easily you get to rest (I believe the corebooks' common assumption, btw, is FIVE encounters, not three, assuming an EL equal to the party's average level). At the very least, I wish these discussions were a bit more realistic about the casters' ability to use their spell slots, especially at lower levels.

[blackwindbears]

Hello, long time lurker here but I figured out I may as well post for once^^

One of the things that annoy me a bit about people in the "casters > fighters" field (not saying I believe fighters are better than casters, I'm just discussing the arguments) is that a lot of these arguments, especially at lower levels, seem to revolve around the fact you'll always be able to rest whenever you want.

<Snip>

At the very least, I wish these discussions were a bit more realistic about the casters' ability to use their spell slots, especially at lower levels.

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork!

Discussions about balance for sure rely on some assumptions about adventure design and encounter design. The nice thing about restricting your discussion to "strictly better" is that you don't have to worry about any of those assumptions.

[Soranar]

Which core animal companion is strictly better than this (pretty bad) level 5 human fighter build:

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3

Now I didn't check all the core animal companions, and maybe there's a well known specific one that has better all around stats than a simple core fighter build?


If you're going strickly for fighting ability, having a ranged attack should give the fighter the edge

but the core animal companions include the dire bat at level 4 and flight is better than a ranged attack

4d8+12 (about 30)

17 STR
22 DEX
17 CON
2 INT
14 WIS
6 CHA

Saves (base, no buffs or magic items)
+7 FORT
+10 REF
+6 WILL

AC 20
Ini +6
To hit +5, 1d8+4 damage (average 8.5)

-the dire bat has much better saves
-the dire bat has blindsense 40 ft
-the dire bat has +12 to listen and +8 to spot, +4 to hide and + 11 to move silently
-the dire bat has flight (40 ft good maneuverability) and can carry a medium companion
-It's large and it has increased reach

The animal companion has a little less HP (though 1 magic item or a spell would change that). It requires no magic item budget to do it's job, it's a better sentry (listen and spot + blindsense), it's a better disposable fighter (you just get a new one if it dies) it has much better saves (making it more reliable)

In short, the dire bat is a better fighter than the fighter.

[RandomPeasant]

For what it's worth, yes, I think that you have successfully phrased the question in such a way as to get the answer you want.

That's exactly what I was talking about. I mean, look at the linked build. If your argument starts with "if you let the Fighter buy polymorph any object at 3rd level", I already don't care, because that's the kind of nonsense level of optimization where the logical rejoinder is some kind of wish/planar binding-abusing nonsense.


Can you build a strictly better fighter using a caster at level 5, 10, 15? Without infinite wishes etc etc.

You're going to need to be a lot more specific with your constraints there. Because "things the caster does that make it better are cheese and don't count" is another staple of these arguments.


I'm well aware that magic does all sorts of things that fighters can't do, but "clerics are better fighters and also have spells" is a claim I see get tossed around, and I'm curious to see what the actual core build would look like.

I've never seen anyone claim "there is a strictly better Core-only Cleric build", so I still don't see what the point of the question is. The argument that gets made is "the Cleric can do the Fighter's job and provide additional value". What exactly people think that job is varies, but while the Cleric's stats are a bit worse in some places if you demand a Core-only comparison, the fact that the Cleric gets an army of minions more than makes up for that.


Every time I try to make the build it has lower HP or worse saves or so on.

It is hard for me to imagine how you'd end up with worse saves. The Cleric does in fact have strictly better saves than the Fighter.


One of the things that annoy me a bit about people in the "casters > fighters" field (not saying I believe fighters are better than casters, I'm just discussing the arguments) is that a lot of these arguments, especially at lower levels, seem to revolve around the fact you'll always be able to rest whenever you want.

But by the same token, the Fighter side always wants to ignore the fact that the Cleric gets spells. You can see it in the very premise of this thread. Who cares if the Fighter gets a +2 or a +3 here or does better when an antimagic field strips away buffs (which it always will in Core, making the literal version of this question uninteresting because it is definitely false in addition to all the other reasons it is uninteresting)? The Cleric gets raise dead and restoration and greater planar ally and commune.


then suddenly melee characters become a lot better because, as long as they don't get hit (or otherwise drain significant resources from the group), they can go on for much longer than your typical caster.

Your typical caster perhaps. But confronted with such challenges, casters will optimize to deal with them. That means that the Cleric will have a pile of skeletons from animate dead. It means that everyone will dig up whatever options they have for Persistent spells. It means that the Druid will invest in making Wild Shape effective. It means the Wizard will pop a couple of outsiders out of planar binding. And, frankly, if we are talking about a Core environment, the Fighter is almost certain to run out of hit points before anybody runs out of spell slots. You're substantially better off with minions, because they're disposable in a way the Fighter isn't.

[Mechalich]

Your typical caster perhaps. But confronted with such challenges, casters will optimize to deal with them. That means that the Cleric will have a pile of skeletons from animate dead. It means that everyone will dig up whatever options they have for Persistent spells. It means that the Druid will invest in making Wild Shape effective. It means the Wizard will pop a couple of outsiders out of planar binding. And, frankly, if we are talking about a Core environment, the Fighter is almost certain to run out of hit points before anybody runs out of spell slots. You're substantially better off with minions, because they're disposable in a way the Fighter isn't.

Right. I'd add that beyond methods for casters to adjust to higher encounter rates, it's also very difficult to enforce such rates against casters. Rope Trick is a 2nd level spell, allowing for pretty danger free resting options from level 3 onward (better spells become available as enemy detection methods expand). Yes the GM can enforce a brutal time limit - something almost guaranteed to irritate the players BTW - but that just means the ability of casters to bypass encounters, travel times, and potentially even whole dungeons using spells becomes part of the calculus too. It's really difficult for a fighter to win a contribution race against a time limit when they're up against Teleport.

[animewatcha]

How does a 'core-only' fighter deal with thorn/grapple damage? By thorn, I mean the language of 'non-reach, etc.' gets smacked back via different damage via depending upon mob. Using a Reach weapon means they are close enough to be grapple-able (depending upon the mob) and Grapple-score nastily tends to scale faster than fighter unless fighter specializes. Fighter specializing uses up precious 'permanent' (feat). Ranged attacks say hello to windwall or heck a 'form of tower shield while in the air'. Fighter using any kind of magical ANYTHING (even a +1 sword) is an acknowledge of needing caster and therefore caster wins.

As for the resting whenever want..

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ropeTrick.htm Others can post other ways as it has been a long time since I have been in a game.

-edit- little bit to add on via wildshape. Druid recovers lost hitpoints as if rested for a night. Not much but it's something fighter don't got without needance of spell slots.

[RandomPeasant]

Right. I'd add that beyond methods for casters to adjust to higher encounter rates, it's also very difficult to enforce such rates against casters. Rope Trick is a 2nd level spell, allowing for pretty danger free resting options from level 3 onward (better spells become available as enemy detection methods expand).

Honestly, if you want to "prove" that people need mundanes in a Core-only environment, the way to do it is the Rogue, not the Fighter. Because the Rogue is the only class to get Trapfinding in Core. That's a capability that is unique, and therefore quite well suited to Texas Sharpshooter-ing an argument into submission. Can you make an adventure that a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Druid party beats but a Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric/Druid party doesn't? Probably not. But just putting a pile of stock DMG traps between them and their destination will roadblock any (Core-only) party without a Rogue pretty effectively (even things like "throw minions at it" or "teleport to the destination" don't necessarily work if the traps are set up properly).

[blackwindbears]

If you're going strickly for fighting ability, having a ranged attack should give the fighter the edge

but the core animal companions include the dire bat at level 4 and flight is better than a ranged attack

4d8+12 (about 30)

17 STR
22 DEX
17 CON
2 INT
14 WIS
6 CHA

Saves (base, no buffs or magic items)
+7 FORT
+10 REF
+6 WILL

AC 20
Ini +6
To hit +5, 1d8+4 damage (average 8.5)

-the dire bat has much better saves
-the dire bat has blindsense 40 ft
-the dire bat has +12 to listen and +8 to spot, +4 to hide and + 11 to move silently
-the dire bat has flight (40 ft good maneuverability) and can carry a medium companion
-It's large and it has increased reach

The animal companion has a little less HP (though 1 magic item or a spell would change that). It requires no magic item budget to do it's job, it's a better sentry (listen and spot + blindsense), it's a better disposable fighter (you just get a new one if it dies) it has much better saves (making it more reliable)

In short, the dire bat is a better fighter than the fighter.

Better perhaps, but worse HP, to hit and damage, keep it from being strictly better.



You're going to need to be a lot more specific with your constraints there. Because "things the caster does that make it better are cheese and don't count" is another staple of these arguments.

I've never seen anyone claim "there is a strictly better Core-only Cleric build", so I still don't see what the point of the question is. The argument that gets made is "the Cleric can do the Fighter's job and provide additional value". What exactly people think that job is varies, but while the Cleric's stats are a bit worse in some places if you demand a Core-only comparison, the fact that the Cleric gets an army of minions more than makes up for that.


But by the same token, the Fighter side always wants to ignore the fact that the Cleric gets spells. You can see it in the very premise of this thread. Who cares if the Fighter gets a +2 or a +3 here or does better when an antimagic field strips away buffs (which it always will in Core, making the literal version of this question uninteresting because it is definitely false in addition to all the other reasons it is uninteresting)? The Cleric gets raise dead and restoration and greater planar ally and commune.

You are really invested in talk me out of an argument I'm not trying to make, and I find myself frustrated.

This entire thread could have been simplified to "there isn't a core only caster build that's strictly better than the fighter because of Antimagic field."

You seem really worried that if you say the above I will conclude that the cleric isn't better than the fighter, which you're really invested in me not concluding.

The cleric is 87 times better than the fighter. CoDzilla is real.

Can I continue to ask around for help with a build now? ;-p

Leaving aside Antimagic fields, because I agree that makes the question sort of vacuously false. Is there a way to get the same or better HP, Attack bonus, damage per hit, saves, speed, AC, and initiative as the simple fighter I posted? Preferably with power attack?

[animewatcha]

wand of https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findTraps.htm

BTW, When to 'core only', are the complete series included. I always got confused a bit over the years over 'core only' aside from PH, DMG, and MM.

[RandomPeasant]

You seem really worried that if you say the above I will conclude that the cleric isn't better than the fighter, which you're really invested in me not concluding.

I'm really invested in asking useful questions. The question you have asked has an answer of "trivial no". That having been pointed out, instead of reevaluating whether this is an interesting or meaningful question, you've decided to just ... ask the question anyway. What is the point of that? Why not ask a question like "what are the circumstances where you might prefer a Fighter to a comparably-optimized Cleric, and vice-versa", which would potentially produce an interesting result?


wand of https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findTraps.htm

That doesn't let you disable the traps. It might be sufficient for dealing with traps you encounter during a regular adventure, but it doesn't really handle the "moderately fairer Tomb of Horrors" that you'd base the argument on.

[eggynack]

Which core animal companion is strictly better than this (pretty bad) level 5 human fighter build:

I'm kinda skeptical of the companion in the comparison, broadly. The companion does a good amount better at first, probably somewhat better at third, but, I dunno, 5th in core only is tricky. Dire bats were mentioned, and apes are pretty good at beating face, but at that level you really want to be doing some non-core stuff to keep up. That said, is this really the pertinent comparison to make? Druids have wild shape which lasts for five hours a day at this level. Take something like deinonychus form and you have a solid pouncing attack routine that doesn't do too badly compared to the fighter you've listed. Pair that up with an ape or a dire bat or an advanced riding dog and I'm not so sure the fighter measures up. Being two peeps at once is a pretty solid advantage in a number of ways. And it's somewhat of note that one of those peeps is relatively disposable, while the other of the peeps can choose a fighting form best suited to the situation at hand to some extent. Oh yeah, druids also have summon nature's ally, which represents a couple more bonus fighters that can be tossed into fights as needed. It's a lot of fighter stuff, is my point.

[animewatcha]

I'm really invested in asking useful questions. The question you have asked has an answer of "trivial no". That having been pointed out, instead of reevaluating whether this is an interesting or meaningful question, you've decided to just ... ask the question anyway. What is the point of that? Why not ask a question like "what are the circumstances where you might prefer a Fighter to a comparably-optimized Cleric, and vice-versa", which would potentially produce an interesting result?



That doesn't let you disable the traps. It might be sufficient for dealing with traps you encounter during a regular adventure, but it doesn't really handle the "moderately fairer Tomb of Horrors" that you'd base the argument on.

Doesn't Tomb of horrors assume the players are going beyond the PHB? Disabling of the traps depends upon the trap itself as magical and non-magical have quite a bit of scaling difference on the DC just to 'see'. From there, it is a matter of being creative. 5e WOTC had Force Grey episodes with Matt Mercer as DM. One of the players used immovable rod to stop swinging blades. Magical traps would be susceptible to find magic and dispel magic.

I mean heck arrow-slit trap is asking for something to 'jam' the hole and then repeatedly press the trigger until you gum up the arrow hole. Or heck poison arrows + tower shield = free poison.

[Biggus]

I don't think animal companions can keep up "at all levels" - really the high point (especially in core) is riding dog at level 1. That one DOES come out on top, but from there they pretty much immediately start falling behind, no matter if you advance or replace.



If you're going strickly for fighting ability, having a ranged attack should give the fighter the edge

but the core animal companions include the dire bat at level 4 and flight is better than a ranged attack

4d8+12 (about 30) <snip>

To hit +5, 1d8+4 damage (average 8.5) <snip>

In short, the dire bat is a better fighter than the fighter.

In both these cases, a fighter of the same level can do much better damage. The riding dog does 1d6+3 damage, a 1st-level fighter with a greatsword and Str 16 does 2d6+4 damage. A 4th-level fighter with Str 16, a +1 greatsword and weapon specialisation does 2d6+7. And a greatsword crits on 19-20, not just 20. The fighter's average damage is more than 65% higher both times, without using power attack or having min-maxed strength.

So they might be better than the fighter in some other ways, but they're not better at fighting.

[RandomPeasant]

Oh yeah, druids also have summon nature's ally, which represents a couple more bonus fighters that can be tossed into fights as needed. It's a lot of fighter stuff, is my point.

It's also "fighter stuff" that can be other stuff, which is a key part of the Druid's value proposition and something the OP is (seemingly intentionally) set to ignore. Your analysis can't just be "are the Cleric's numbers bigger" or "does the Druid tank more" because a key part of the Cleric and the Druid is that they, more so than perhaps any other class, have the ability to come back tomorrow with a different set of abilities that are suitable to a different set of challenges. There will be far more problems that are solved because you have access to every Druid spell than because your main tank has AC 21 instead of 24 or whatever the number comes out to be.


Doesn't Tomb of horrors assume the players are going beyond the PHB?

I just meant it as a shorthand for "adventure that is mostly traps".


I mean heck arrow-slit trap is asking for something to 'jam' the hole and then repeatedly press the trigger until you gum up the arrow hole. Or heck poison arrows + tower shield = free poison.

That sounds like you're describing someone making a Disable Device check.


So they might be better than the fighter in some other ways, but they're not better at fighting.

That depends what you think "fighting" entails. Maybe the Fighter wins in a damage race (though summons and animal companions will often benefit more from buffs), but that's hardly the only thing you want a melee combatant for. You also want them to get between the bad guys and your squishes, who will typically be the ones tasked with ending fights, and the animal companion or summons are way better at that. They're better at straight body-blocking (because they're generally larger than the Fighter) and unlike the Fighter you can let them die if that's tactically advantageous.

[animewatcha]

In both these cases, a fighter of the same level can do much better damage. The riding dog does 1d6+3 damage, a 1st-level fighter with a greatsword and Str 16 does 2d6+4 damage. A 4th-level fighter with Str 16, a +1 greatsword and weapon specialisation does 2d6+7. And a greatsword crits on 19-20, not just 20. The fighter's average damage is more than 65% higher both times, without using power attack or having min-maxed strength.

So they might be better than the fighter in some other ways, but they're not better at fighting.

Just as depending upon circumstances of how fighter fights, dire bats can make use of 10 ft reach to grab fighter (unarmed, harder to do, but still) since fighter may not use reach/bow (if does then dire bat + druid adapt accordingly ). Grab fighter and fly higher. If fighter breaks free, takes fall damage. If hold on, fly higher for more eventual fall damage. If grappled, fighter lacks reach and can't damage unless specialized equipment (unsure of armor spikes) as i do believe core-only fighter reach weapons are only 2 handed.






That sounds like you're describing someone making a Disable Device check.




Really depends upon the circumstances. Disable Device check is more of an overall (I don't wanna describe what i wanna do, I just roll for it) versus creativity via specific trap (5e Force grey immovable rod versus spinning blade- no 'disable device' check was done).

[eggynack]

It's also "fighter stuff" that can be other stuff, which is a key part of the Druid's value proposition and something the OP is (seemingly intentionally) set to ignore. Your analysis can't just be "are the Cleric's numbers bigger" or "does the Druid tank more" because a key part of the Cleric and the Druid is that they, more so than perhaps any other class, have the ability to come back tomorrow with a different set of abilities that are suitable to a different set of challenges. There will be far more problems that are solved because you have access to every Druid spell than because your main tank has AC 21 instead of 24 or whatever the number comes out to be.


Sure. The question of whether druid can outdo a fighter in some general sense seems like a pretty clear cut yes at every level. In point of fact, I generally recommend against doing this whole fighter copying thing, especially at level five where the lack of natural spell causes it to shut down your significantly more potent caster shtick. The question of whether you can, in fact, just straight up crush the fighter's whole deal is at least somewhat interesting though.

[blackwindbears]

The question of whether you can, in fact, just straight up crush the fighter's whole deal is at least somewhat interesting though.

I mean I think this is interesting anyway.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What I'm trying to figure out now is how I should have written the original post differently to avoid retreading the tier system for the billionth time.

I think I should have just posted a stat block and phrased it as an optimization challenge, because there are a lot of folk really invested in having an argument about whether full casters are "better" in some general sense, and all I really wanted to know is if it was easy for a full caster to have, like, a specific set of stats and power attack.

It's not even like a really weird build for a fighter, or like a really good one.

[animewatcha]

Thing is, the intention was for 3.5 fighter to be like tactician-marshal plus fighter in one. Execution of it however was severely lacking. Things are more than just DPR. Heck, Barbarian/Frenzied berzerker is able to output lots of damage per round. Yet, is stopped by Grease.

[Mechalich]

I think I should have just posted a stat block and phrased it as an optimization challenge, because there are a lot of folk really invested in having an argument about whether full casters are "better" in some general sense, and all I really wanted to know is if it was easy for a full caster to have, like, a specific set of stats and power attack.

It's not particularly difficult to build a cleric who wields a greatsword- you just need a War Domain deity who uses one. That supplies Weapon Focus with a greatsword as well for free. Anyone can pick up power attack. So it basically comes down to a question of whether or not a Cleric can make up a modest difference in BaB, Str Bonus (though you can build a cleric with a high str if you want), and Weapon Spec, via buffs. At level 5, the fighter might come out ahead, barely, because Divine Power is not yet online. Once it is, and later once additional buffs such as Righteous Might are added, the Cleric wins. Also, in a purely endurance battle, a high-level cleric can get by with having a worse damage ratio than a fighter because they can periodically just drop Heal on themselves and start over.

[Max Caysey]

Can I continue to ask around for help with a build now? ;-p

Is there a way to get the same or better HP, Attack bonus, damage per hit, saves, speed, AC, and initiative as the simple fighter I posted? Preferably with power attack?

So you just want a core only cleric build which has all of the above for at least 4 encounters? Am I reading you right?

[Lans]

At 5th level the cleric can cover the difference in combat with aid, magic weapon, death knell, bless

[spectralphoenix]

Which core animal companion is strictly better than this (pretty bad) level 5 human fighter build:

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3



When you count in some of the other bonuses you could bring into play, the Dire Bat could compare across the board.

Saves are already better.
Initiative is already better.
Armor class is the same out of the box, though some dirt-cheap leather barding will get you a 22, or 23 if it's +1.

With Bull's Strength and (Greater) Magic Fang, damage improves to 1d8+8 (avg 12.5)
To hit improves to +8. Flank with the Druid and it's a +10.

With a few slots of Cure Light Wounds, the bat's hit points will go farther, and share spells means the druid keeps himself healed up too.

The bat can even get power attack next level when his HD improves (as well as +2 attack, +2 damage, +2 AC, 15 more hp, better saves, and evasion.) You could arguably have it here if the DM allows you to change out the default feats through retraining or hunt down one with different feats, though that's not a guarantee. If you can switch out both feats, though, you could also take Improved Natural Attack to improve bite damage to 2d6 and outdamage the fighter.

A fifth level druid with 16 WIS can cast 4/3/2 spells per day, so that's one casting of Greater Magic Fang (which lasts five hours, so easily enough time to get in, do your thing, and leave,) four castings of Bull's Strength (which lasts five minutes, so certainly enough for one combat, you could probably get in more than one if things keep moving,) and maybe three CLWs and an extra Magic Fang in case you get ambushed on the way home or something. So you could pretty reasonably maintain these buffs for every fight.

[eggynack]

I think I should have just posted a stat block and phrased it as an optimization challenge, because there are a lot of folk really invested in having an argument about whether full casters are "better" in some general sense, and all I really wanted to know is if it was easy for a full caster to have, like, a specific set of stats and power attack.
I guess I'm just not sure whether you literally mean that the goal is to replicate stats or if it is sufficient to simply be better at hitting enemies in the face. Because, when I say a class is better at fighting than a fighter, the latter is generally what I would mean. In a pure stats context, the ability to beat face with multiple characters simultaneously wouldn't be especially important, but, then again, such an ability seems critical if you're trying to replicate the role of a fighter.

[MeimuHakurei]

When I look around to see what Fighters are good at (or, in more sceptical circles, what they should be good at), I tend to see three different things come up regularly:
-Damage. Fighters are attributed to do strong damage against the powerful foes that are exceptionally resilient against magic that call for physical attacks.
-Protection. For many a martial, they are supposed to "protect the squishies", meaning that they take hits for the more vulnerable characters that can then bring out their full potential.
-Leadership. A Fighter specifically is meant to gain renown as they level, obtaining a stronghold and a retinue of soldiers that enable them influence even if not in combat, along with their reputation helping them in social interactions.

So how about I posit a few specific challenges where you can broadly apply these positive traits? They should be appropriate for a 5th to 6th level party.


-A demon cult is cornered as your party faces the Cult Leader. He is but a 4th Level Cleric and there's only a few 2nd level Warriors supporting him, but his bargain with the underworld allows him to summon a Vrock, a most fearsome demon, in order to get back at the party.
-The princess of the kingdom you are loyal to (Let's say 3rd Level Aristocrat) is coming home after a diplomatic talk to the people. As your party escorts her, a pair of mercenaries (Fighter 2/Rogue 1) riding Griffons attack under the specific orders to bring the princess alive to force her into marriage of the noble who hired them.
-You need to guide your party, which includes a weakly optimized Wizard that can effectively damage monsters but not take hits through a dungeon infested by undead. You'll find Skeletons, Wights and Ghouls, but the crumbling dungeon houses several Gray Oozes that can squeeze their amorphous bodies through the cracks to attack parties from behind.
-The Elf and Dwarf kingdoms get into a dispute at the rate in which the logging industry of the latter advances, along with allegations of civilian attacks on side of the Elves. Without a skilled diplomat, these kingdoms could escalate into war - and perhaps, maybe there is an instigator behind the scenes?
-The ogres near your kingdom have been scarily organized after a particularly exceptional one (a Half-Green Dragon Ogre Wizard 2, with 12 Int) strongarmed himself into a leadership position and now rallies the clan into a full-scale assault. Can you support the troops to stand a chance against these massive brutes, then take on this monstrous leader with his elite guards (three Ogre Fighter 2) ready to defend him to their deaths?

So if the Cleric were to be far more useful and important than the Fighter in all five of these scenarios, I'd say the Cleric is strictly better.

[Melcar]

When I look around to see what Fighters are good at (or, in more sceptical circles, what they should be good at), I tend to see three different things come up regularly:
-Damage. Fighters are attributed to do strong damage against the powerful foes that are exceptionally resilient against magic that call for physical attacks.
-Protection. For many a martial, they are supposed to "protect the squishies", meaning that they take hits for the more vulnerable characters that can then bring out their full potential.
-Leadership. A Fighter specifically is meant to gain renown as they level, obtaining a stronghold and a retinue of soldiers that enable them influence even if not in combat, along with their reputation helping them in social interactions.

So how about I posit a few specific challenges where you can broadly apply these positive traits? They should be appropriate for a 5th to 6th level party.


-A demon cult is cornered as your party faces the Cult Leader. He is but a 4th Level Cleric and there's only a few 2nd level Warriors supporting him, but his bargain with the underworld allows him to summon a Vrock, a most fearsome demon, in order to get back at the party.
-The princess of the kingdom you are loyal to (Let's say 3rd Level Aristocrat) is coming home after a diplomatic talk to the people. As your party escorts her, a pair of mercenaries (Fighter 2/Rogue 1) riding Griffons attack under the specific orders to bring the princess alive to force her into marriage of the noble who hired them.
-You need to guide your party, which includes a weakly optimized Wizard that can effectively damage monsters but not take hits through a dungeon infested by undead. You'll find Skeletons, Wights and Ghouls, but the crumbling dungeon houses several Gray Oozes that can squeeze their amorphous bodies through the cracks to attack parties from behind.
-The Elf and Dwarf kingdoms get into a dispute at the rate in which the logging industry of the latter advances, along with allegations of civilian attacks on side of the Elves. Without a skilled diplomat, these kingdoms could escalate into war - and perhaps, maybe there is an instigator behind the scenes?
-The ogres near your kingdom have been scarily organized after a particularly exceptional one (a Half-Green Dragon Ogre Wizard 2, with 12 Int) strongarmed himself into a leadership position and now rallies the clan into a full-scale assault. Can you support the troops to stand a chance against these massive brutes, then take on this monstrous leader with his elite guards (three Ogre Fighter 2) ready to defend him to their deaths?

So if the Cleric were to be far more useful and important than the Fighter in all five of these scenarios, I'd say the Cleric is strictly better.

Usually, when I think fighter I think tank or some form of weapon master. The fighter class are neither. I would say that it needs a flat increase to weapon damage deal that scaled with level and an ability to taunt enemies like in WoW, where as more attacks yields some kind of damage reduction or something, so you effectively could tank... And possibly adding some form of bonus damage for every enemy taunted. So the more the fighter was doing his "job" the better he got at it.

The leadership part could be fixed by adding the Legendary Tactician PrC or Marshal... or possibly gestalting Marshal and fighter... but I don't think its a given that a good swordsman necessarily needs to be a leader type... What is needs - imo - in the architecture of the class is some form of tanking mechanic and higher weapon damage output. I have tried looking at 3rd party material but even here it seems to be lacking, at least what I associate with a fighter.

I have a level 32 wizard, who can remove 50% health with a single spell with no upper limit. So a Great Wyrm Time Dragon would loose 1856 hp with a standard action. What fighter can possibly do that amount of damage with a standard action. That same mage, for which the profile is named can also cast an intensified maw of chaos which is 408 damage per round for 34 round (him being CL 34). Netting a total damage of 13872 damage. You could probably get to 400 dam per round with a level 32 melee damage build, using epic items and such, but it would take a lot more effort to actually deal said damage with a weapon when things like Iron Guard or starmantle cloak is a thing - not to mention flight, teleport, invisibility etc...

If you are only looking at comparing stat numbers of a fighter and a non-fighter core only classes and you are specifically looking at things which determines the ability to fight (attack bonus, damage, AC, saves, HP) then I think the fighter is probably on par with most things if you look at things being unbuffed. However, buffing increases numbers to a point where the fighters base numbers are being over shadowed. Just look at Team Solar (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?188138-Team-Solars-(Archiving)) That's all done with magic and class abilities. However the point stands...

So however repetitive this post have is, it all boils down to a poorly written class! Even in core! But to try to end this long winded post purely looking at numbers in a core only scenario, while unbuffed, the fighter is probably pretty good.

[blackwindbears]

When you count in some of the other bonuses you could bring into play, the Dire Bat could compare across the board.

Saves are already better.
Initiative is already better.
Armor class is the same out of the box, though some dirt-cheap leather barding will get you a 22, or 23 if it's +1.

With Bull's Strength and (Greater) Magic Fang, damage improves to 1d8+8 (avg 12.5)
To hit improves to +8. Flank with the Druid and it's a +10.

With a few slots of Cure Light Wounds, the bat's hit points will go farther, and share spells means the druid keeps himself healed up too.

The bat can even get power attack next level when his HD improves (as well as +2 attack, +2 damage, +2 AC, 15 more hp, better saves, and evasion.) You could arguably have it here if the DM allows you to change out the default feats through retraining or hunt down one with different feats, though that's not a guarantee. If you can switch out both feats, though, you could also take Improved Natural Attack to improve bite damage to 2d6 and outdamage the fighter.

A fifth level druid with 16 WIS can cast 4/3/2 spells per day, so that's one casting of Greater Magic Fang (which lasts five hours, so easily enough time to get in, do your thing, and leave,) four castings of Bull's Strength (which lasts five minutes, so certainly enough for one combat, you could probably get in more than one if things keep moving,) and maybe three CLWs and an extra Magic Fang in case you get ambushed on the way home or something. So you could pretty reasonably maintain these buffs for every fight.

This is definitely the winner so far!

The issues are:

- Flanking doesn't stack and isn't as easy as just having +10 to hit. The fighter if he flanks with an additional friend, can get to +12

- Healing isn't the same as just having more HP.

- The other buffs might be on for the first round of combat or might not. And bulls str is a really common buff that other party members would normally drop on the front liner. Now they can't.

- Flying isn't a ranged weapon. Long distance on the plains for example. We've still got the druid though? Maybe with small size and some feats they can get there?

I like:

- Greater Magic Fang stacks with every common buff. Maybe there's a way for the druid to improve it early? Two castings per day is 10 hours and provides reasonably good coverage.

- With scrolls the druid can definitely get there for 3 to 6 encounters

- Doesn't require the bats actions to buff which is a big issue for the cleric versions

- 6th level looks more promising, and it's not clear what the fighter would do with the two feats it gets.


Again, closest I've seen!


So you just want a core only cleric build which has all of the above for at least 4 encounters? Am I reading you right?

3 to 6 encounters. Maybe say 3 which you can control the timing of, minimum 10 minutes between, 3 you can't control the timing of, which can happen at any point during the 24 hour day.

This looks harder than I expected, so I'm just going to pick the one that gets the closest.

(Again, everyone understands the "best" character is different than just trying to replicate a specific set of stats with bonus spells)


At 5th level the cleric can cover the difference in combat with aid, magic weapon, death knell, bless

Sure, but then they spend the first rounds of combat casting a bunch of buffs, while the fighter fights.


It's not particularly difficult to build a cleric who wields a greatsword- you just need a War Domain deity who uses one. That supplies Weapon Focus with a greatsword as well for free. Anyone can pick up power attack. So it basically comes down to a question of whether or not a Cleric can make up a modest difference in BaB, Str Bonus (though you can build a cleric with a high str if you want), and Weapon Spec, via buffs. At level 5, the fighter might come out ahead, barely, because Divine Power is not yet online. Once it is, and later once additional buffs such as Righteous Might are added, the Cleric wins. Also, in a purely endurance battle, a high-level cleric can get by with having a worse damage ratio than a fighter because they can periodically just drop Heal on themselves and start over.

What level can it be done? Seems rough to get 3-6 encounters with those buffs, especially without having to blow the first round of combat. Is there some way to get them quickened early in core?


Looks to me like spectralphoenix's dire bat build is the closest so far.

[AvatarVecna]

TL;DR There's a very good reason the OP has to specify that pet builds are off-limits.

Human Druid 1

Attributes: 13/14/12/10/15/8

Feats: who cares

Skills: who cares

Spells Prepared: is too stoned to prepare spells

Animal Companion: Riding Dog



AC: 16
HP: 18
Full Attack: +5/+3 (w/ flanking), 1d6+3/1d6+1
DPRish: 2d6+4 (avg 11)

A druid 1 who never casts a single spell still gets two sets of actions and two pools of HP, and will always have a flanking buddy if desired (something the fighter can't really guarantee to have without another player's cooperation). The individual attack bonuses and damage rolls might be lower than that of the fighter 1, as are each HP pool, but the total HP and DPR the druid brings to the table is superior. Because the druid's HP pool is two creatures, the HP pool regenerates at twice the rate the fighter's HP does.

The druid being two creatures mitigates the downsides of every condition in the game: if the fighter is Stunned for 1 round, he loses 100% of his DPR; if the druid is Stunned for 1 round, he loses less than 100% because the pet can still act. This even applies to death: bringing back a deceased fighter costs at least 1000 gp, and is only free if you're more bringing in a new fighter (which causes the fighter's story to end anticlimactically). Either way you're likely having to spend 8 hours waiting since most casters don't go into a dungeon with rezzing spells prepared. Meanwhile, the AC just requires 24 hours of wait and no gp spent. You could rez it if you want, but the companions death doesn't ruin the druid's story the way the fighter's death ruins the fighter's story.

Most pets have good Perception Skills and sometimes have special senses, allowing the druid a much higher chance of detecting hidden threats than the fighter. Some pets have odd movement types, allowing them to traverse the battlefield in interesting ways. Some pets have multiple attacks on a full attack even at lvl 1; if you've ever heard people joke about how a cat can kill a commoner, it's primarily because the cat gets three chances per round at hitting/critting (among other reasons). As the druid levels, the animal companion becomes more powerful, either through HD upgrades, or simply a better kind of animal for the companion.

None of the above ceases being true in an AMF. The floor of core druid capability is "fighter+", because they get two lesser fighters for the price of one. One could cry and whine about how it doesn't count because the druid didn't do all the work himself, but the difference is a matter of semantics: a group that has a fighter will be outperformed by a group that has a druid who refuses to cast spells instead of a fighter.

This all gets worse if magic stuff is allowed to play into things, of course. If absolutely nothing else, the druid's wild shape can be spammed at the end of a day of adventuring for the healing it provides (equivalent to a night's sleep). Alternatively, this free healing can instead be sprinkled through the day in various fights, allowing the druid to benefit from not just the healing, but the combat capabilities, special senses, and movement types of their wild shape forms as well.

And if spells are allowed to come into it, even shaggy up there with his "no spells prepared" issue can still use his spells to improve his party's beatsticking: he gets two lvl 1 spells per day, so in the tougher fights, he can summon something like an eagle and turn his stats to something like:

AC: 16/14
HP: 23
Full Attack: +5/+5/+5/+3/+0 (w/ flanking), 1d6+3/1d4/1d4/1d6+1/1d4
DPRish: 2d6+3d4+4 (avg 18.5)

That's without Augment Summoning, btw. Which shaggy has the feats to take. Which would increase HP by 2 and DPRish by 6. The advantages of the AC (action economy and condition mitigation) are compounded by summons. And where the companion still needed a bit of healing, the summons don't: any damage they take is damage nobody has to spend time or spell slots healing. And because I know it would get mentioned by someone else if I didn't do so myself: yes, at lvl 1, the druid would be spending a full round action to get the summon, which would only have one round to deal/absorb damage. This particular strategy, for multiple reasons, is best at higher levels. It's still an upgrade IMO - you give up a round of druid damage in exchange for +5 HP and three attacks dealing 1d4 each (or +7 HP/1d4+2 each) - but it's not nearly as good at lvl 1 as it will be at lvl 2, let alone lvl 5.

If Shaggy is allowed to prepare spells as well, it should be mentioned that he can give up flanking benefits for himself/his companion in exchange for buff-sharing. How worthwhile that is depends on the buff in question, but in general it's at least worth considering.



Nobody is disputing that fighter's chassis is better for combat than druid's, or than the animal companions, or than the summons. It just is. Even an AC with optimal feats is going to have their stats trailing behind a fighter with similar book access. Nothing the druid summons is going to be outperforming the fighter even a little bit on their own, even with Augment Summoning in play. But at the end of the day, the path taken to get there is more or less irrelevant: a druid dedicating 100% of their build to beatsticking, even just in core, is going to get more done than a fighter doing the same. Slightly lower attack bonuses and damage rolls will be overcome by the sheer number of attacks being made. At the end of the day the druid's damage will be superior. At the end of the day, the druid had more HP to meatshield with. At the end of the day, the summons absorbing hits without needing heals, the druid wild shaping for self-healing, and the animal companion recovering overnight means that the cleric had to spend fewer spell slots healing the front line.

We can sit in the corner and comfort ourselves in the fact that the druid himself isn't as good as our fighter in an AMF 1v1...but at the end of the day, it's just sour grapes.

Increasing book access lets cleric and wizard play around with Persistomancy, allowing them to also outperform fighter reliably starting at lvl 7 (cleric) and lvl 8 (wizard/incantatrix). The former is pretty item-dependent, and the latter only really becomes reliably significantly better at lvl 15 when the game is basically over anyway, but both will be melee powerhouses with a handful of good spell picks. Awhile back, I built a Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 for a thread somewhat like this, and with all the all-day buffs he had going, he could go toe-to-toe with Ares and win 50% of the time (provided divine rank auto-20s weren't included and Ares didn't use his own cleric casting to self-buff).

For pet druid specifically, the big gain from book access will be fleshraker dinosaur, which is either amazing under normal circumstances, or just straight up breaking the DPR game if Venomfire is also available. The default fleshraker is nothing to sneeze at, though.

And it must be mentioned: enemy casters using dispel magic are going to play hell with most any caster playing beatstick, since most any caster will be using buff piles. Druid is a little more resistant to this, since dispel won't work on Wild Shape or Animal Companion, just summons, but it's still a way the DM can level the playing field a bit. All this means is that casters who pretend to be fighters are going to be outperformed by casters who play like casters, which...isn't really that surprising.

[King of Nowhere]

I was reading through the long "why 3.5" thread and there was a side discussion on the perennial caster/martial issues that seemed to boil down to the idea that casters can fill the role of martials better than the martials.

I'm curious how literal that statement is meant to be and sometimes I've seen it stated that a cleric can be as good as a fighter at fighting *and* also have a bunch of spell slots.

I'm interested to know if there is a core-only caster build that is strictly better than a core-only power attack + greatsword fighter build at level 5/10/15/20? (Without pets or wish shenanigans. Using the elite array.)

Quick note on the difference between better and strictly better: a cleric might be able to get the same BAB, weapon and strength as a fighter for 8 rounds with a buff, but won't have the damage boost from power attack. The extra spells might be more useful in more situations than power attack, but it isn't strictly better.

it's a wild exaggeration at best.
first, the build doing that abuses persistomancy (getting persistent spells for free) to have all your buffs up all the time. it does include protections against dispels, but if your buffs get dispelled somehow you become useless.
second, even with that colossal investiture of build resources to fight just as well as a fighter thanks to your buffs, you still fight a lot worse than a buffed fighter. expect arguments like "my spell slots are mine and you are not entitled to ask for buffs" arguments for why the fighter should not be buffed.
third, even with all those assumptions, a fighter at the same level of charOP can be an ubercharger, and i'm not aware of any cleric build that does that.

so no, a cleric does not hit better than a fighter. a fighting cleric still keeps his spell slots, so he's still probably better off than a fighter. but all the fighting cleric builds i've seen are a huge waste of build resources to do something that your party fighter could do a lot better if you spent a tenth of those resources buffing him - leaving you to be a primary caster.

this forum has... extreme ideas on the martial/caster divide. it will present it as a lot bigger than it is, a lot bigger than it needs to be. take everything you read in this forum with a grain of salt; i've taken bad dming decisions by trusting this forum's more extreme opinions in the past.

[spectralphoenix]

When I look around to see what Fighters are good at (or, in more sceptical circles, what they should be good at), I tend to see three different things come up regularly:
-Damage. Fighters are attributed to do strong damage against the powerful foes that are exceptionally resilient against magic that call for physical attacks.
-Protection. For many a martial, they are supposed to "protect the squishies", meaning that they take hits for the more vulnerable characters that can then bring out their full potential.
-Leadership. A Fighter specifically is meant to gain renown as they level, obtaining a stronghold and a retinue of soldiers that enable them influence even if not in combat, along with their reputation helping them in social interactions.

So how about I posit a few specific challenges where you can broadly apply these positive traits? They should be appropriate for a 5th to 6th level party.

To be honest, these really leave me wanting to play a paladin! The Pathfinder version at least, it kind of spoiled the 3.5 implementation for me.



-A demon cult is cornered as your party faces the Cult Leader. He is but a 4th Level Cleric and there's only a few 2nd level Warriors supporting him, but his bargain with the underworld allows him to summon a Vrock, a most fearsome demon, in order to get back at the party.

So the primary goal here is to prevent the Vrock from being summoned in the first place. Silence could be a big winner here - if completing the summoning requires speech or a verbal component, that can lock him down (cast it on a summoned monster or a point in space to avoid a will save.) Alternatively, the fighter might be able to find something important to sunder - an unholy symbol, a staff, a contract signed in blood.

If it does get summoned, a Vrock versus a fifth level party is going to be tough. Protection from Evil can prevent it from attacking you, and Delay Poison will prevent spore growth until long after the battle. The fighter is not going to have it easy against that DR. A scroll of Dismissal or even Banishment could be useful here. Whatever consumables you have stashed away for a rainy day, now's the time! This might be a good situation to let discretion overrule valor, and hope the summoning is temporary.


-The princess of the kingdom you are loyal to (Let's say 3rd Level Aristocrat) is coming home after a diplomatic talk to the people. As your party escorts her, a pair of mercenaries (Fighter 2/Rogue 1) riding Griffons attack under the specific orders to bring the princess alive to force her into marriage of the noble who hired them.
This seems like the sort of thing I think the fighter was intended to be good at - a dynamic encounter where he can mix up various fighting styles and feats. Harry them in the sky with his longbow, bring out a polearm to brace for the charge, then finish them off on the ground with his trusty blade. Unfortunately, the various forces that encourage specializing in a single weapon make this sort of thing hard.

Most clerics will be a bit limited at range at this level. Summon Monster III could bring in a Celestial Hippogriff or Fiendish Dire Bat to take the fight to the enemy, or Wind Wall could foil ranged attacks and force them to close. Sanctuary can be useful for keeping noncombatants out of harm's way.

I'd say a fighter might have an advantage here if he has good archery and the cleric didn't have the right spells prepared.

-You need to guide your party, which includes a weakly optimized Wizard that can effectively damage monsters but not take hits through a dungeon infested by undead. You'll find Skeletons, Wights and Ghouls, but the crumbling dungeon houses several Gray Oozes that can squeeze their amorphous bodies through the cracks to attack parties from behind.
Neither fighters nor clerics have Spot as a class skill, but the cleric has WIS as his primary ability score, so he'll probably have the better Spot check (Fighter's skill list is so bad that cross-class skill ranks aren't outside the breadth of possibility though.) Turn Undead is actually pretty good against groups of low-HD undead, and the cleric can destroy skeletons and ghouls outright, so that could be pretty strong. Summon Monster is also pretty good here - if someone's going to get paralyzed, level drained, or attack a grey ooze, better for it to be someone who's going back to their home plane in a few rounds anyway. Fighter might have a bad time against the oozes if he doesn't have archery or several backup weapons he's not too attached to.

-The Elf and Dwarf kingdoms get into a dispute at the rate in which the logging industry of the latter advances, along with allegations of civilian attacks on side of the Elves. Without a skilled diplomat, these kingdoms could escalate into war - and perhaps, maybe there is an instigator behind the scenes?
This one seems like more of a job for the cleric. He has Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills, maybe a little CHA, the ability to buff himself and get more, and access to various divination spells. The fighter doesn't have a lot he can do here from a mechanical perspective - maybe look around for someone he can challenge to Trial by Combat?

-The ogres near your kingdom have been scarily organized after a particularly exceptional one (a Half-Green Dragon Ogre Wizard 2, with 12 Int) strongarmed himself into a leadership position and now rallies the clan into a full-scale assault. Can you support the troops to stand a chance against these massive brutes, then take on this monstrous leader with his elite guards (three Ogre Fighter 2) ready to defend him to their deaths? TBH, a lot of this one feels like a non-mechanical challenge. Cleric has some mass buffs like Bless and Prayer that can hit everyone in a huge radius, so that's a plus. He could maybe use some face skills to inspire the troops or negotiate for support. Energy resistance spells would be important when the final showdown arrives. The fighter doesn't have much he can do besides kill things. Maybe try to challenge the leader to a one-on-one duel, if he seems like the honorable type?

...

One of the real problems here is that the fighter ultimately doesn't have much in his playbook besides "hit it until it dies." That's not to say you can't find things to do in the right circumstances - like destroying magical implements to disrupt a ritual or killing an enemy champion to inspire troops - but they just don't have much in the way of mechanical support for anything other than direct combat. There wasn't much I liked about Fourth Edition, but I did like the idea of the Warlord as a sort of fighter-bard hybrid.

[Max Caysey]

it's a wild exaggeration at best.
first, the build doing that abuses persistomancy (getting persistent spells for free) to have all your buffs up all the time. it does include protections against dispels, but if your buffs get dispelled somehow you become useless.
second, even with that colossal investiture of build resources to fight just as well as a fighter thanks to your buffs, you still fight a lot worse than a buffed fighter. expect arguments like "my spell slots are mine and you are not entitled to ask for buffs" arguments for why the fighter should not be buffed.
third, even with all those assumptions, a fighter at the same level of charOP can be an ubercharger, and i'm not aware of any cleric build that does that.

so no, a cleric does not hit better than a fighter. a fighting cleric still keeps his spell slots, so he's still probably better off than a fighter. but all the fighting cleric builds i've seen are a huge waste of build resources to do something that your party fighter could do a lot better if you spent a tenth of those resources buffing him - leaving you to be a primary caster.

this forum has... extreme ideas on the martial/caster divide. it will present it as a lot bigger than it is, a lot bigger than it needs to be. take everything you read in this forum with a grain of salt; i've taken bad dming decisions by trusting this forum's more extreme opinions in the past.

You should also take this comment with a grain of salt! It all depends on the optimization floor (or cealing) of the game you're playing...

[InvisibleBison]

Sure, but then they spend the first rounds of combat casting a bunch of buffs, while the fighter fights.

The cleric only spends the first rounds of the fight buffing while the fighter fights if the party was surprised, which is far from guaranteed. You said 3 encounters where the party controls the timing and 3 where they don't. In the encounters where they control the timing the party is guaranteed to not be surprised, so the cleric is guaranteed to have whatever buffs they want up at the start of the fight. In the 3 encounters where the party doesn't control the timing, they might be surprised, but they might also not be. An encounter the timing of which the party does not control could be "You turn the corner and find a bunch of orcs, roll initiative", but it could also be "You hear a bunch of orcs marching down the corridor towards you, they'll be here in thirty seconds, what do you do?".

[AvatarVecna]

Some slight counterpoints to a post I mostly agree with:


it's a wild exaggeration at best.
first, the build doing that abuses persistomancy (getting persistent spells for free) to have all your buffs up all the time. it does include protections against dispels, but if your buffs get dispelled somehow you become useless.

I don't really feel that's a put-down of gish-casters though. Having your caster pretend to be a fighter just means you're vulnerable to casters using anti-fighter tactics. The fact that for you, it's dispel instead of SoD/SoS doesn't change the fact that a single good enemy spell can ruin your whole day worth of contribution. But yeah, a lot of builds that show off the real power of the gishing method tend to fall into a "all your eggs in one basket" problem. A few 10 min or 1 hour/CL buffs that can be cast a handful of times each are probably better than a bunch of 1 day buffs that can be cast once each, for precisely this reason.


second, even with that colossal investiture of build resources to fight just as well as a fighter thanks to your buffs, you still fight a lot worse than a buffed fighter. expect arguments like "my spell slots are mine and you are not entitled to ask for buffs" arguments for why the fighter should not be buffed.

Two slight counterpoints:

1) A lot of buffs are "one target only", with the exception provided by the Share Spells thing animal companions and familiars have going on. If, by default, your fighter/wizard/familiar are Badass 7/3/1, polymorphing the fighter into a Hydra might make that Badass 8/3/1, but polymorphing the wizard+familiar means Badass 7/7/7, which is just objectively better. Even if polymorphing the fighter would be better than polymorphing the wizard, putting it on the wizard means also putting it on the familiar, which might matter depending on the buff. This is more relevant for animal companions (especially those who serve as mounts for their druid buddy), as animal companion is actually competent-ish by default in a way familiars just aren't.

2) A number of good buffs are personal range only. It would be objectively better for the cleric to cast Righteous Might on the Fighter than on the Cleric, but that's illegal.



third, even with all those assumptions, a fighter at the same level of charOP can be an ubercharger, and i'm not aware of any cleric build that does that.

I agree that a fighter will generally hit harder (even much much harder) than a cleric of similar level. But a cleric going gishing only needs so much damage; past a certain point, the party has all the damage it needs, and I think in general a cleric doesn't quite reach that but can usually get pretty close. The difference between 40 DPR and 200 DPR is irrelevant when you're fighting a squad of 30 HP enemies. (And honestly, mostly the rogue is gonna outperform everybody on damage anyway.)

[eggynack]

Snip
That's at level one though, which is one of the prime animal companion levels. You are indeed going to do better than a lot of melee peeps at that level, as well as level three, and level four is plausible what with advanced companions and such, but other levels are variously not so good for the companion. Druid can still pull out a lot of face stabbing specific stuff on top of the companion, but you're usually not going to get a clean companion win the same way you do at first level.

[AvatarVecna]

That's at level one though, which is one of the prime animal companion levels. You are indeed going to do better than a lot of melee peeps at that level, as well as level three, and level four is plausible what with advanced companions and such, but other levels are variously not so good for the companion. Druid can still pull out a lot of face stabbing specific stuff on top of the companion, but you're usually not going to get a clean companion win the same way you do at first level.

I'll defer to your expertise.

[bean illus]

These debates often seem to circle around some sort of unrealistic starting bell. Qualifications such as 'a fighter and cleric waken, fully armored, and stand to find the other at 30 ft'. You know how many times my fresh cleric has been ambush teleported to being 30' from a fresh fighter in an open plain? Never.

One way to look at this is; what's the difference at keystone levels. Level 5 isn't a very useful metric for clerics, but 1st and 8th are.

Obviously, one could say dwarf cleric. We get Con, darkvision, +4 vs trip, dwarven axe, etc. Someone could just respond with 'dwarf fighter' and nullify that point.

A different way to look at the question is: can 4 core fighter's win 4 encounters against 4 melee clerics?

No.
One cleric may specialize in crafting and divination, another in ranged and initiative, one on summons, and one in AC+HP. Remember some may start with a 13 Wis, and a 20 Dex or Con.

But, they all have saves. They all have heals.

I'd guess that a party of 4 war clerics optimized together from human, dwarf, elf and halfling handles the majority of melee encounters (including 4 fighters) better than 4 fighters do.

But no, a cleric doesn't get more feats than a fighter at 5th level. I've checked, and I'm sure.

[RandomPeasant]

first, the build doing that abuses persistomancy (getting persistent spells for free) to have all your buffs up all the time. it does include protections against dispels, but if your buffs get dispelled somehow you become useless.

No, if those buffs get dispelled, you become a Cleric. With a (nearly) full complement of spells, less only whatever slots you spent on buffs. Whereas when the buffs the Fighter has (because the assumption is always that the Fighter has buffs, despite the Fighter not being a spellcaster) are dispelled, he is just worse at his job for the rest of the day, with no fallback plan. Plus, as Vecna notes, I would way rather my enemies be trying to drop dispels on me than casting spells that have a chance of killing me.


second, even with that colossal investiture of build resources to fight just as well as a fighter thanks to your buffs, you still fight a lot worse than a buffed fighter. expect arguments like "my spell slots are mine and you are not entitled to ask for buffs" arguments for why the fighter should not be buffed.

Do you have a reason that's a bad or invalid argument, or do you just think this is one of those fighting games where calling your opponent's attack counters it? Because as I see it, there are two competing principles at work here. First is something along the lines of "people can play the way they want because the point of the game is to have fun". Second is something along the lines of "people should make optimized choices to ensure their party has the best chance of overall success". Now, obviously, neither of those are absolutes. Very few people will defend playing a Commoner because that's your vision, or demand you play Pun-Pun to give your party the best chance of success. But it seems to me that insisting on playing a Fighter (despite there being other, better options to play instead) puts you at a point where demanding that people buff you instead of doing something else with those spell slots is applying a double standard.


third, even with all those assumptions, a fighter at the same level of charOP can be an ubercharger, and i'm not aware of any cleric build that does that.

You can build a basic Power Attack charger build as a Cleric. But this is where the demand for "strictly better" starts causing problems. Yes, you can probably get a Fighter that does 2,000 damage on a charge when the Cleric only does 500. But who cares? 500 damage is already at the point of diminishing marginal returns. You don't get nearly as much as you give up when you lose full Cleric spellcasting for a larger amount of overkill on your charges.


but all the fighting cleric builds i've seen are a huge waste of build resources to do something that your party fighter could do a lot better if you spent a tenth of those resources buffing him - leaving you to be a primary caster.

As I have said in literally every one of these threads: that's not how costs work. You don't choose "be a martial Cleric or buff the party Fighter", you choose "have a martial Cleric or a party Fighter". If you're admitting the former is better than the latter, that means you've conceded the argument. If you disagree, feel free to tell me who in a Cleric/Druid/Beguiler/Dread Necromancer party you'd replace with a Fighter, why, and at what levels.



A few 10 min or 1 hour/CL buffs that can be cast a handful of times each are probably better than a bunch of 1 day buffs that can be cast once each, for precisely this reason.

It depends on how often you expect to be dispelled. It's not actually that common of a tactic by default. Certainly if your DM is prepping against you and most fights open up with a dispel from a high-CL caster, you may want to invest in backup buffs. But against stock MM opposition, you're better off accepting that sometimes you will end up dispelled and just preparing offensive spells in your spell slots, because most days that won't happen and you'll have the ability to fight as needed or be a regular caster.


A lot of buffs are "one target only", with the exception provided by the Share Spells thing animal companions and familiars have going on.

Also, buffs that are multi-target will benefit more from being able to target a caster + minions than a single Fighter. If you cast haste, you'd rather drop it on a Cleric and two Hill Giant Skeletons than a Fighter, even if you'd rather drop it on just the Fighter than just the Cleric. The Fighter side of these discussions always wants to completely ignore the ancillary benefits of spellcasters, but those are a huge portion of why spellcasters are good. A Fighter is a combat specialist every hour of every day. A Cleric is a combat specialist on days when you're adventuring, but has the ability to cash in that combat prowess for utility when you're not. And much of that utility has benefits that carry over into combat.


I agree that a fighter will generally hit harder (even much much harder) than a cleric of similar level. But a cleric going gishing only needs so much damage; past a certain point, the party has all the damage it needs, and I think in general a cleric doesn't quite reach that but can usually get pretty close. The difference between 40 DPR and 200 DPR is irrelevant when you're fighting a squad of 30 HP enemies. (And honestly, mostly the rogue is gonna outperform everybody on damage anyway.)

Also, if your party is a bunch of casters, you're probably not killing a whole lot of things with damage. If the fight is going to end when the enemy fails a save to finger of death or dominate monster, you want your frontliner to invest in durability and crowd control, not raw damage.

[icefractal]

It's amusing the strong counter-reaction in these parts to anything even vaguely suggesting that T1 casters could be anything less than omnipotent under any circumstances. :smalltongue:

I mean, nobody is even debating that casters are stronger over-all, but I see stuff like "core only Wizard trivially beats a gestalt of all non-casting classes combined, at any level" which is IMO pretty laughable. Or comparisons which seem to be based on "Wizard is allowed to optimize and/or use loops, the comparison character isn't".

Like, I get that "show your work" is a non-trivial ask, and I'm not volunteering to make a bunch of complete high-level characters myself either, but if nobody does it then we don't really have data, we just have memes.


Relevant to this specific case, I don't personally think "spend the first round of combat self-buffing" is very compatible with being high-op. In such a situation, you often only get 1-2 turns total, so if you spend one of them casting Divine Power, you then need to be twice as effective to even keep pace.

So as Anthrowhale mentions, the real point when you can rely on Divine Power is not 7th level, it's at the level where you can Quicken it for each fight - around 15th or so. Or of course the level you can Persist it ... which in core-only is never.

[Jervis]

It's amusing the strong counter-reaction in these parts to anything even vaguely suggesting that T1 casters could be anything less than omnipotent under any circumstances. :smalltongue:

I mean, nobody is even debating that casters are stronger over-all, but I see stuff like "core only Wizard trivially beats a gestalt of all non-casting classes combined, at any level" which is IMO pretty laughable. Or comparisons which seem to be based on "Wizard is allowed to optimize and/or use loops, the comparison character isn't".

Like, I get that "show your work" is a non-trivial ask, and I'm not volunteering to make a bunch of complete high-level characters myself either, but if nobody does it then we don't really have data, we just have memes.


Relevant to this specific case, I don't personally think "spend the first round of combat self-buffing" is very compatible with being high-op. In such a situation, you often only get 1-2 turns total, so if you spend one of them casting Divine Power, you then need to be twice as effective to even keep pace.

So as Anthrowhale mentions, the real point when you can rely on Divine Power is not 7th level, it's at the level where you can Quicken it for each fight - around 15th or so. Or of course the level you can Persist it ... which in core-only is never.

I can answer that question with 5 words. “I Polymorph into a Hydra”

[Gurgeh]

Just as depending upon circumstances of how fighter fights, dire bats can make use of 10 ft reach to grab fighter (unarmed, harder to do, but still) since fighter may not use reach/bow (if does then dire bat + druid adapt accordingly ). Grab fighter and fly higher. If fighter breaks free, takes fall damage. If hold on, fly higher for more eventual fall damage. If grappled, fighter lacks reach and can't damage unless specialized equipment (unsure of armor spikes) as i do believe core-only fighter reach weapons are only 2 handed.
A Dire Bat only has a five-foot horizontal reach (as a rule of thumb, you don't get more than 5 feet of horizontal reach just for your size until you hit Huge).

For what it's worth, there is a one-handed reach weapon in core 3.5 (the whip) but it's an exotic weapon and pretty weak.

[Doctor Despair]

A Dire Bat only has a five-foot horizontal reach (as a rule of thumb, you don't get more than 5 feet of horizontal reach just for your size until you hit Huge).

For what it's worth, there is a one-handed reach weapon in core 3.5 (the whip) but it's an exotic weapon and pretty weak.

You're right that dire bats have 5 feet of reach, but large creatures generally have 10 feet of natural reach. Huge creatures generally have 15.

[Gnaeus]

so no, a cleric does not hit better than a fighter. a fighting cleric still keeps his spell slots, so he's still probably better off than a fighter. but all the fighting cleric builds i've seen are a huge waste of build resources to do something that your party fighter could do a lot better if you spent a tenth of those resources buffing him - leaving you to be a primary caster.


Aside from the above mentioned counter that many of the best cleric buffs are personal and many of the good druid ones can't be used on the fighter, this argument assumes that you have a party fighter and a melee cleric or druid.

Now that is possible, and certainly the caster has every right to build a melee cleric or druid, because whether or not it is a waste of build resources or a sub optimum build, it's certainly still adding as much to a group as a fighter. But more generally, I think most of us in camp CoDzilla would agree that a caster cleric + a fighter is better than a melee cleric + a fighter (leaving aside that after level 5-7 the cleric can be a caster cleric while also doing the fighters job better than the fighter via minions). If someone insists on playing a fighter, yeah you probably might as well buff it. What I'm generally assuming in this conversation is that you have a fairly optimized party with an arcane caster and a divine caster and a trap finder, and party member 4 is asked to build the tank and their choices include fighter, cleric and druid. A CoDzilla tank is generally better at the basic functions of tanking than a fighter. And if you are the designated party tank, spending build resources on being the tank is optimized, even if, in a vacuum, you are stronger pretending to be a wizard than pretending to be a fighter. At least until you hit the point where your teams minions obsolete the tank role entirely

[icefractal]

I can answer that question with 5 words. “I Polymorph into a Hydra”What question? :smalltongue:

Polymorph's a great spell, although not a Cleric one. It has the same issue (in a high-op environment) as Divine Power though - by the time you spend a round casting it and then reach your turn again, the fight may well be over.


For reference, I'd say that a minimal requirement for an "optimized for power" character would be the ability to fairly reliably defeat equal-CR foes (as in, CR 10 foes at 10th level, in equal numbers to the PCs) when operating on the foes' terms rather than your own - meaning the possibility of enemy ambushes, having to work within a time limit, not being able to do pre-fight divinations, non-ideal terrain, etc.

Like if you can't do that, the character is only situationally-optimized at best. Which is not a bad thing! In most campaigns, a character who's not omni-competent is probably preferable. But when we're talking about "more powerful" in general, that's what my standard is.

[Morphic tide]

Usually, when I think fighter I think tank or some form of weapon master. The fighter class are neither. I would say that it needs a flat increase to weapon damage deal that scaled with level and an ability to taunt enemies like in WoW, where as more attacks yields some kind of damage reduction or something, so you effectively could tank... And possibly adding some form of bonus damage for every enemy taunted. So the more the fighter was doing his "job" the better he got at it.
Problem is that this is supremely "gamey". The way D&D approaches it is that you stop enemies from approaching the squishy backline or interrupt their attempts at attacking it, not force attention onto yourself, particularly given the durability differential. Making it mandatory for a Dragon to put all its damage on you is a Bad Idea without some truly ludicrous mitigation, another common feature of MMO party balance for the very same reasons... Which AC and save binary defenses are very unfriendly with.

In other words, the Tank Fighter should be a tripper with the ability to directly interrupt enemy damage by physically getting in the way. This is actually possible in 3.5 in a very limited capacity, but not anything near sufficient to shut down enemy threats to be a "real" tank build bar a tiny handful of classes and feats.

[Doctor Despair]

This is actually possible in 3.5 in a very limited capacity, but not anything near sufficient to shut down enemy threats to be a "real" tank build bar a tiny handful of classes and feats.

Specifically: Knight, Goad, and Master of Mockery.

[blackwindbears]

I can answer that question with 5 words. “I Polymorph into a Hydra”

Can I see the level 7 build, cause every time I try to make it work I end up with some low HP glass cannon that still had to spend the first round casting a buff spell.

I mean let's imagine you were building the wizard to pull off the hydra thing and be strictly better.

Transmutation wizard 7
Human
Str: 13
Dex: 12
Con: 16
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 8

Feats: Toughness x 3, Extend Spell

Hydra form:
Str: 19

Hp: 7d4 + 21 + 9 = 49
AC: 17

7 Attacks: +7 bite 1d10+4 (avg 9)

Meanwhile a *warrior 7* has
Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14

HP: 7d10+14 = 57
AC: 21

2 attacks: +12/+7 (+1 sword with weapon focus) 2d6+5 (avg 12)
More?

If these two guys trade blows who goes down first? (I actually don't know). How many feats does it take to make it no longer even?

No idea.

It really seems to me like dire bat has a much easier time, and it doesn't need to waste the first turn casting a buff spell.

[Gurgeh]

You're right that dire bats have 5 feet of reach, but large creatures generally have 10 feet of natural reach. Huge creatures generally have 15.
The trend seems to be that humanoid (the bodyplan, not the creature type) creatures get five extra feet of reach at Large and bigger, while almost everything else (quadrupeds, snakes, birds and bats, etc) needs to be Huge for 10 feet, and need to reach Gargantuan for 15.

[Max Caysey]

Can I see the level 7 build, cause every time I try to make it work I end up with some low HP glass cannon that still had to spend the first round casting a buff spell.

I mean let's imagine you were building the wizard to pull off the hydra thing and be strictly better.

Transmutation wizard 7
Human
Str: 13
Dex: 12
Con: 16
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 8

Feats: Toughness x 3, Extend Spell

Hydra form:
Str: 19

Hp: 7d4 + 21 + 9 = 49
AC: 17

7 Attacks: +7 bite 1d10+4 (avg 9)

Meanwhile a *warrior 7* has
Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14

HP: 7d10+14 = 57
AC: 21

2 attacks: +12/+7 (+1 sword with weapon focus) 2d6+5 (avg 12)
More?

If these two guys trade blows who goes down first? (I actually don't know). How many feats does it take to make it no longer even?

No idea.

It really seems to me like dire bat has a much easier time, and it doesn't need to waste the first turn casting a buff spell.

Thats a super unoptimized wizard build. You go Grey elf, with flaws, pump int, take Faerie Mysteries Initiate… dump con, dump str, increase dex! Go combat wizard… for improved initiative. Thats were you start…

As a High summoner we get summons as a standard action… at level 7 we are pulling Arcadian Avengers! Go. To. Town!

[icefractal]

Core only, so no FMI, no flaws, no grey elf, and no familiar that boosts Initiative.
That said, if your strategy is Polymorph you absolutely should dump Str, and Dex is only a priority to the extent it matters for initiative.

For 28 point buy (IME the most common), I might go with: Str 8, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 17 (18 at 4th), Wis 10, Cha 8
High Int even if not using any spells with DCs, because more spell slots means more stamina and more versatility.

However, this is pretty fragile. Polymorph alone isn't going to make a Wizard into a front-liner. At high levels where you can maintain a good buff-stack maybe, but at 7th it's best used to either buff others, take a defensive form, or for non-combat utility.


Edit: Since I'm advocating specifics over "details left as an exercise to the reader", a preliminary build for said melee-Wizard:

Dwarf Wizard (Transmuter) 7
Feats: Improved Initiative, Skill Focus (Concentration), Craft Wondrous Item, [6th]
Stats: Str 8, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 6
Gear (5.4 - 10.8k, depending on crafting): TBD
Spells Prepared (* is hours/level):
1st: Mage Armor*, [any x4], [transmutation]
2nd: Alter Self, False Life* x2, Protection from Arrows*, Resist Energy
3rd: Magic Circle against Evil, Heroism, [any], [transmutation]
4th: Polymorph x3

Semi-Bad Case (long buffs only, before casting polymorph):
HP 63 (7d4+28 + 1d10+7)
AC 14, touch 10, flat 14 (0 dex + 4 armor)
Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +5
Defense: DR 10/magic vs ranged
Attack: MW Dagger +3 (1d4-1)

Best Case (vs evil foes, shorter buffs already on, after casting polymorph):
HP 63 (7d4+28 + 1d10+7)
AC 23, touch 11, flat 22 (1 dex - 2 size + 4 armor + 8 natural + 2 def)
Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +9
Defense: DR 10/magic vs ranged, Resist [energy type] 20
Attack: 7 bites +7 (1d10+4)

[Anthrowhale]

It may be worth spelling out what an optimized fighter can do in core, as I'm not sure people appreciate how close they are to instakill vs. CR-appropriate opponents.

The ECL 7 version of this build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22350680&postcount=1481) might look like:

Initiative:+12
AC: 37 (Touch AC: 18)
Hit points: 56 (6d10+18)
Fly 50'(average)
Str: 31+2
Dex: 25+2
Con: 25 (but 16 for the purpose of hit points)
Wis: 19

Fort: +12
Refl: +10
Will: +8

The melee attack routine might look like: Large Greatsword +17/+12 3d6+16, Bite+12 2d8+5, Tail+12 2d6+5 (Expected damage 79 if everything hits)
Or the ranged attack might look like: Large composite+11 Longbow +13/+13/+8 2d6+12 (expected damage 57 if everything hits). (Archery hasn't fully come online yet.)

(I'm sure this can be optimized further within WBL.)

The average (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J7KongPAMxJCKuSlDFIyRKj7YPWsTP2fJUh_tuS16Qs/edit#gid=1854430337) CR 7 creature has 87 hp, AC 18, Init+3, BAB+8 so this is not quite an instakill. However the remaining members of the standard party of 4 could probably finish it off quickly.

Solo characters are supposed to typically encounter opponents CR 4 less than ECL. Hence, CR 3 where creatures average 27hp, AC 16, Init+3, BAB+3. That's definitely instakill territory.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Core only, so no FMI, no flaws, no grey elfGray elves are in the Monster Manual (under "Elf") and are thus options for a Core-only game.

[icefractal]

Ah right, thought they were FR for some reason. Maybe not a good option for a melee-oriented Wizard without access to FMI though.

[Gnaeus]

It may be worth spelling out what an optimized fighter can do in core, as I'm not sure people appreciate how close they are to instakill vs. CR-appropriate opponents.

The ECL 7 version of this build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22350680&postcount=1481) might look like:

Initiative:+12
AC: 37 (Touch AC: 18)
Hit points: 56 (6d10+18)
Fly 50'(average)
Str: 31+2
Dex: 25+2
Con: 25 (but 16 for the purpose of hit points)
Wis: 19

Fort: +12
Refl: +10
Will: +8

The melee attack routine might look like: Large Greatsword +17/+12 3d6+16, Bite+12 2d8+5, Tail+12 2d6+5 (Expected damage 79 if everything hits)
Or the ranged attack might look like: Large composite+11 Longbow +13/+13/+8 2d6+12 (expected damage 57 if everything hits). (Archery hasn't fully come online yet.)

(I'm sure this can be optimized further within WBL.)

The average (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J7KongPAMxJCKuSlDFIyRKj7YPWsTP2fJUh_tuS16Qs/edit#gid=1854430337) CR 7 creature has 87 hp, AC 18, Init+3, BAB+8 so this is not quite an instakill. However the remaining members of the standard party of 4 could probably finish it off quickly.

Solo characters are supposed to typically encounter opponents CR 4 less than ECL. Hence, CR 3 where creatures average 27hp, AC 16, Init+3, BAB+3. That's definitely instakill territory.

So, in a party which thinks a bought CL31 Polymorph Any Object is fair game at level 7, which makes up exactly 0 percent of gaming groups I've ever witnessed, any chassis, fighter, cleric or warrior, can make a competent melee. Cool, but hardly persuasive. It's not exactly a high optimization fighter so much as any character turned into a demon.

A comparable cleric is behind by 2 points of BAB but gets all his spells for utility purposes (because buffing at that point really isn't needed) and also has 25 HD of minions on the table. The party rogue is virtually identical, with slightly less HP and significantly higher damage.

And this fighter sits in a corner of the tavern and drinks himself into oblivion at level 9 because the RAW only group that allows this won't likely stop the wizard from binding 75 outsiders and sitting in a deck chair drinking mimosas and playing words for friends with the iphone he invented with his 45 intelligence while outsiders gather his treasure.

This is a classic example of how as the optimization level of the party goes up, the value of the fighter goes down by comparison with his teammates.

[RandomPeasant]

I mean, nobody is even debating that casters are stronger over-all, but I see stuff like "core only Wizard trivially beats a gestalt of all non-casting classes combined, at any level" which is IMO pretty laughable. Or comparisons which seem to be based on "Wizard is allowed to optimize and/or use loops, the comparison character isn't".

Not so directly, but "the Fighter in a party with optimized casters is a useful contributor" gets put forward pretty consistently, and never gets meaningfully defended. The last time we did this, Darg made the claim, and then every subsequent post of his was just complaining that the people proposing caster strategies are being unfair.


Aside from the above mentioned counter that many of the best cleric buffs are personal and many of the good druid ones can't be used on the fighter, this argument assumes that you have a party fighter and a melee cleric or druid.

No matter how many times it comes up, the Fighter side seems incapable of acknowledging the actual tradeoff. It's always "a Fighter getting support from casters can do X", but having a Fighter means you get less caster support because the Fighter is not a caster.


If someone insists on playing a fighter, yeah you probably might as well buff it.

Honestly, I'm not even sure that's true. Maybe buffing the Fighter is better than buffing yourself. But it's still probably not the optimal use of your spell slots, until we're talking about the low level ones that are basically free and wouldn't get used in combat anyway. As a 5th level Wizard, stinking cloud is better than haste. Maybe as a 10th level Wizard, greater magic weapon is a better use of your 3rd level spell slots arcane sight or magic circle (though phantom steed is probably better still, at least once you get to the point where it gives you flight). But that's a point where you have lots of other options to do the Fighter's job, like lesser planar binding and animate dead.


What I'm generally assuming in this conversation is that you have a fairly optimized party with an arcane caster and a divine caster and a trap finder, and party member 4 is asked to build the tank and their choices include fighter, cleric and druid.

Like I said earlier in this thread (and in the previous thread): imagine you've got a party of a Cleric, a Druid, a Beguiler, and a Dread Necromancer. Who do you think should be a Fighter instead, and why do you think they should be? That's the question, or at least the type of question, that needs to be answered, not some arbitrary "is this strictly better, except for the things I won't count and the things that make the question trivial".


A comparable cleric is behind by 2 points of BAB but gets all his spells for utility purposes like death ward and FOM (because buffing at that point really isn't needed) and also has 30 HD of minions on the table.

All of which can be polymorph any object-ed along similar lines. It's such a ridiculous example I'm not sure what it's supposed to be proving. Any discussion of optimization in this game has to start from the understanding that the game breaks in certain places. In Core alone, an 11th level Wizard can get as much power as they can describe as a magic item. Being willing to go more TO than the other guy doesn't prove anything useful (I'm not even sure it proves the point it's supposed to prove in the original thread, because a Pit Fiend gets wish and can just wish for its own stupid nonsense).

[Anthrowhale]

A comparable cleric is behind by 2 points of BAB but gets all his spells for utility purposes like death ward and FOM (because buffing at that point really isn't needed) ...

PAO is a routine spellcasting service (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) in core.

A cleric with the ability to permanently PAO into a Cornugon in core actually only has access to 3rd level spells at ECL 7 since you need to be a Tiefling.

You mention other things, but I don't follow them. Maybe you can spell out the details?

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, I'm not even sure that's true. Maybe buffing the Fighter is better than buffing yourself. But it's still probably not the optimal use of your spell slots, until we're talking about the low level ones that are basically free and wouldn't get used in combat anyway. As a 5th level Wizard, stinking cloud is better than haste. Maybe as a 10th level Wizard, greater magic weapon is a better use of your 3rd level spell slots arcane sight or magic circle (though phantom steed is probably better still, at least once you get to the point where it gives you flight)..

I agree with everything else but I can't follow this far. Stinking cloud is a nice spell, in the combats where it is helpful. But haste + beat stick is useful in almost all fights. I find buffing to be a good fallback if you are fighting something resistant to your daily load out, especially since the non DC dependent buffs make good wands

[RandomPeasant]

I agree with everything else but I can't follow this far. Stinking cloud is a nice spell, in the combats where it is helpful. But haste + beat stick is useful in almost all fights. I find buffing to be a good fallback if you are fighting something resistant to your daily load out, especially since the non DC dependent buffs make good wands

haste on a single target is pretty marginal. Maybe you get the Rogue too, but maybe the skillmonkey is a Beguiler or a Bard and doesn't particular want the extra attack. You do need a backup plan for when stinking cloud doesn't work, but that could just as easily be major image or web or even fireball (and that's just in Core). I guess putting it in a wand is a point, but that kinda seems like something the Fighter would be expected to pay for, seeing as he might be the only one who cares.

[Gnaeus]

haste on a single target is pretty marginal. Maybe you get the Rogue too, but maybe the skillmonkey is a Beguiler or a Bard and doesn't particular want the extra attack. You do need a backup plan for when stinking cloud doesn't work, but that could just as easily be major image or web or even fireball (and that's just in Core). I guess putting it in a wand is a point, but that kinda seems like something the Fighter would be expected to pay for, seeing as he might be the only one who cares.

In many, I daresay most parties, haste is a better damage spell than fireball, even assuming an enemy that can be hit by fireball.

Not sure why even in standard 4 the fighter would be the only one who cares. There's the rogue, the undead, the summoned monsters, the dominated mooks. Heck, the wizard won't say no to free +1 AC and reflex and move speed even if he never makes an attack roll. The tactical benefits of +30 move alone likely make the wand worthwhile.

If the fighter needs the haste to be functional, the fighter should pay for the wand. If the wizard likes to keep a wand of haste in his pocket to extend his spells per day to contribute to fights where he doesn't have or wants to save his fight enders or wants to boost the effects of his minionmancy, the wizard should pay for the wand. Or the party.

[RandomPeasant]

Not sure why even in standard 4 the fighter would be the only one who cares. There's the rogue, the undead, the summoned monsters, the dominated mooks.

Well that's the thing, you're not really casting haste for the Fighter then. Dropping haste because you have a Cleric Archer with a couple of frontline undead or a Druid with their animal companion is fine. Arguably better than stinking cloud as a default, even. But using it to buff the Fighter, when the Fighter is your primary frontliner and you don't have those things (as is the typical supposition of the "buff the Fighter" side, because if you have those things you don't need a Fighter), is fairly unimpressive. I'm not saying haste is never a good spell to cast. I'm saying that "buff the Fighter" is rarely the right strategy even if you do have a Fighter instead of a Cleric.

[King of Nowhere]

You should also take this comment with a grain of salt! It all depends on the optimization floor (or cealing) of the game you're playing...

Everything always depends on the optimization level of the game, and I'm not disputing the general principle that casters are stronger than martials. Nobody is disputing that fact.
but, with similar level of optimization between the caster and the fighter, claiming that the caster can just fight better is patently false. As a rule of thumb, even at high levels of optimization, a well-played and well-built martial - while not as powerful as a caster - can still shine in his tasks and make himself useful.

[Gnaeus]

Well that's the thing, you're not really casting haste for the Fighter then. Dropping haste because you have a Cleric Archer with a couple of frontline undead or a Druid with their animal companion is fine. Arguably better than stinking cloud as a default, even. But using it to buff the Fighter, when the Fighter is your primary frontliner and you don't have those things (as is the typical supposition of the "buff the Fighter" side, because if you have those things you don't need a Fighter), is fairly unimpressive. I'm not saying haste is never a good spell to cast. I'm saying that "buff the Fighter" is rarely the right strategy even if you do have a Fighter instead of a Cleric.

Fair enough. Haste is a group buff. Many buffs aren't worth the slot to cast. But even without going into crazy 31HD PAO shenanigans, I've thrown a lot of polymorphs at party muggles. Making your mage slayer chain tripper into something huge with high 30s strength etc is effectively a fight ender for a decent subset of fights and not a waste of your action/slot in most others. Not that that says much about fighters as opposed to clerics, warblades or NPC warriors, or that a fighter shouldn't bear costs in some cases, or that generic fighter should assume a Polymorph by default. But it's a key that fits a lot of locks.



but, with similar level of optimization between the caster and the fighter, claiming that the caster can just fight better is patently false. As a rule of thumb, even at high levels of optimization, a well-played and well-built martial - while not as powerful as a caster - can still shine in his tasks and make himself useful.

It is certainly not false. Before there were any guides on the internet I played a melee druid in a party of muggles. The DM started duplicating all his big monsters. My pet and I would fight one, the 3 beat sticks the other. I could regularly lockdown and murder a foe before the other 3 combined.

Now, and you can get Anthrowhale to help you, show me the optimized fighter 11 who can outtank 40 HD of selected undead and 30 bound outsiders of my choice of under 12 HD each. Because that's what high levels of optimization looks like.

[Eurus]

PAO is a routine spellcasting service (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) in core.

A cleric with the ability to permanently PAO into a Cornugon in core actually only has access to 3rd level spells at ECL 7 since you need to be a Tiefling.

You mention other things, but I don't follow them. Maybe you can spell out the details?

I don't deny that RAW for buying spellcasting services allows it, but it's such an extreme example that it's very centralizing and drives the conversation in weird directions. A candle of invocation is also available by 7th level, for what it's worth, so should we be trying to figure out which class is best at commanding an army of solars?

Arguably, having access to PAO reduces the gap between most classes at most levels, because the fighter's higher attack bonus and base HP are a smaller portion of the overall attack bonus and HP available to everyone. A WBL abusing fighter is stronger than a WBL abusing commoner (with PC wealth), but the two are closer together in power than a "normal" fighter is to a "normal" commoner.

Truthfully, I'm not sure it matters either way. Whatever WBL abuse you can do with one class, you can most likely do with another. What it comes down to in the end is what one class has that another does not: in the case of the fighter, that's feats, HP, and base attack bonus.

Core doesn't provide flawless ways to make up this number gap. That's true. A core only spellcaster cannot perfectly emulate a core only fighter. It's also true that this number gap generally isn't super significant compared to the absurdly unfair things that spellcasting can do, and a higher tier class can outperform a fighter in the vast majority of tests that aren't just numbers benchmarks. And it's also also true that a well built fighter with WBL can still do more than well enough to handle appropriately leveled encounters.

[Gnaeus]

PAO is a routine spellcasting service (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) in core.

A cleric with the ability to permanently PAO into a Cornugon in core actually only has access to 3rd level spells at ECL 7 since you need to be a Tiefling.

You mention other things, but I don't follow them. Maybe you can spell out the details?

Sorry, missed this reply.

As noted, there are a lot of things that are legal but broken. This is one. RAW planar binding is one. Candles of Incovation. Diplomacy. This particular example is not only crazy broken, it also assumes that the Zulkir of Transmutation lives in your village and is dropping PAOs on scrubs. I don't think most DMs would let you buy spellcasting services higher level than the strongest NPC casters in the region. Is that a RULE? No. But kind of basic logic.

You are right on the tiefling thing. I noticed that after posting and corrected. But it's irrelevant. It's just as meaningful at level 8. The bigger point remains. Any class with even marginal HP and melee chops is about equal in melee PAOed into a cornugon, and the 2 BAB difference is likely to be less relevant in tank effectiveness than even relatively low level buffs. Let alone mid level buffs + the army of minions that would be available at this level of Opti fu

On top of everything else, I'm not even sure that it demonstrates melee competence. Sure, those numbers are very good. But DMs can adjust encounters based on circumstances and party optimization. Lets assume that the DM doesn't find it particularly interesting to watch a party polymorphed into outsiders curb stomp equal CR encounters. I wouldn't expect to see many CR=level unmodified monsters from the MM.

[Max Caysey]

Honestly, I'm not even sure that's true. Maybe buffing the Fighter is better than buffing yourself. But it's still probably not the optimal use of your spell slots, until we're talking about the low level ones that are basically free and wouldn't get used in combat anyway. As a 5th level Wizard, stinking cloud is better than haste. Maybe as a 10th level Wizard, greater magic weapon is a better use of your 3rd level spell slots arcane sight or magic circle (though phantom steed is probably better still, at least once you get to the point where it gives you flight). But that's a point where you have lots of other options to do the Fighter's job, like lesser planar binding and animate dead.

While I would venture that you are correct it can be quite fun have a small party of buffers! Who in the end can be highly op. Like having an inspire courage optimized bard! You can get to about + 20 moral bonus to attack and damage pre epic! Sure it’s not breaking anything but it helps on top of massive amounts of fast healing etc

[RandomPeasant]

can still shine in his tasks and make himself useful.

Then I ask again: party of Beguiler, Cleric, Dread Necromancer, and Druid. Who do you replace with a Fighter, and why is he comparably useful to the character he replaced? What makes him useful in a way that remotely justifies the actual cost of having him show up?


Fair enough. Haste is a group buff.

Exactly. Which goes to further undermine the "Fighters are a good target for buffs" line. Not only are a lot of the best buffs Personal, meaning you can't cast them on the Fighter at all, many of the others are multi-target, meaning you get substantially more value from casting them on a caster + minions than a Fighter alone. Even the few buffs I can think of off the top of my head that don't fall into one of those categories (polymorph and greater invisibility in Core) are substantially better off being cast on a Rogue.

Think about that party I've been talking about. Suppose the Beguiler is pulling out haste at 8th level. Who do you replace with a Fighter to get better value out of haste? The Cleric, his skeletons, and his lesser planar ally? The Druid and her animal companion? The Dread Necromancer's skeletons?


Arguably, having access to PAO reduces the gap between most classes at most levels, because the fighter's higher attack bonus and base HP are a smaller portion of the overall attack bonus and HP available to everyone. A WBL abusing fighter is stronger than a WBL abusing commoner (with PC wealth), but the two are closer together in power than a "normal" fighter is to a "normal" commoner.

And more than that, whatever gap exists between the Fighter and the Commoner is smaller than what the Commoner can gain by abusing polymorph any object slightly more effectively. Can you hit a power target by doing TO nonsense? Sure. But the limit of TO nonsense is "infinity", so you can't really win an argument that way. You just make things spiral into absurdity.

[Anthrowhale]

As noted, there are a lot of things that are legal but broken. This is one.

I generally agree. It's less broken at higher levels, however.


This particular example is not only crazy broken, it also assumes that the Zulkir of Transmutation lives in your village and is dropping PAOs on scrubs.

Even a level 15 casting (= minimum possible) is unlikely to be dispelled, and by level 7 you've typically moved beyond your village. It's reasonable to visit a major metropolis by level 7.

As far as other sources of brokenness, Planar Binding requires 2-3 more levels. Diplomacy is really good, but not so broken in a core-only environment. A Candle of Invocation is absurdly expensive at this level, certainly not something you can routinely use to handle an encounter.


Any class with even marginal HP and melee chops is about equal in melee PAOed into a cornugon, and the 2 BAB difference is likely to be less relevant in tank effectiveness than even relatively low level buffs. Let alone mid level buffs + the army of minions that would be available at this level of Opti fu

Is the point here that the fighter does have an advantage but it's not that important? I'd tend to agree. A few more hit points, a few more BAB, a few more feats, and a few more weapons they are familiar with. These advantages are not overwhelming, but perhaps they are enough that the fighter can play a fairly effective "don't mess with my friends" role.


On top of everything else, I'm not even sure that it demonstrates melee competence. Sure, those numbers are very good. But DMs can adjust encounters based on circumstances and party optimization. Lets assume that the DM doesn't find it particularly interesting to watch a party polymorphed into outsiders curb stomp equal CR encounters. I wouldn't expect to see many CR=level unmodified monsters from the MM.
This sounds like a generic response to any capable build?

[Zarator]

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork!

Discussions about balance for sure rely on some assumptions about adventure design and encounter design. The nice thing about restricting your discussion to "strictly better" is that you don't have to worry about any of those assumptions.

True but, as others have said, I think there're WAY too many dimensions to D&D to be able to identify anything as "strictly better" than anything else.


But by the same token, the Fighter side always wants to ignore the fact that the Cleric gets spells. You can see it in the very premise of this thread. Who cares if the Fighter gets a +2 or a +3 here or does better when an antimagic field strips away buffs (which it always will in Core, making the literal version of this question uninteresting because it is definitely false in addition to all the other reasons it is uninteresting)? The Cleric gets raise dead and restoration and greater planar ally and commune.

Yes but the point I was trying to make is that the presence of the warrior is what allows their Cleric (and their Wizard, even more so) to save their spells for when it matters. The presence of a melee class (and actually competent and well-built one, at least, not a monk) can give their group much needed longevity for when you can't just rest whenever you want - not to mention that it provides a good answer to enemies that can prove to be troublesome for casters, such as those with high SR, golems, etc. - this isn't to say a caster cannot handle these, but having a fighter around spares you having to spend a polymorph spell everytime something like this shows up. This is especially important because it's not uncommon for a dungeon to feature a great number of such enemies - constructs for example are very splashable in any dungeon setting, as are undead.

Though I'll give you that, in core 3.5 at least, if I were to pick a caster to fully outclass a fighter as early as possible, I'd definitely pick druid over cleric. Even as early as lvl 1, a druid's wolf can be a very worthy replacement for a fighter, even if your DM is strict about how closely you can control your wolf's actions (and many DMs kinda aren't, letting druids basically treat their animal companions as just another PC, capable of flanking and maneuvering as desired). And, from lvl 5 forward, wild shape can quickly replace a fighter completely - especially if the party wizard casts Mage Armor on them to remedy the main weakness of shapeshifted druids (i.e. the very low AC).


Your typical caster perhaps. But confronted with such challenges, casters will optimize to deal with them. That means that the Cleric will have a pile of skeletons from animate dead. It means that everyone will dig up whatever options they have for Persistent spells. It means that the Druid will invest in making Wild Shape effective. It means the Wizard will pop a couple of outsiders out of planar binding. And, frankly, if we are talking about a Core environment, the Fighter is almost certain to run out of hit points before anybody runs out of spell slots. You're substantially better off with minions, because they're disposable in a way the Fighter isn't.

First of all, Animate Dead has the [Evil] descriptor, so it's not a spell that Good-aligned Clerics (which happens to make for a nice chunk of adventuring Clerics all around) can cast to begin with.

Persistent spells also aren't really an option in Core since, without DMM, they're prohibitively costly, so that's another option down the drain within the context of this thread.

And yes, past a certain level, primary casters have so many spells that they just don't have to worry about running out of gas anymore - partly because spells in D&D scale so damn well. Many lvl 2 and 3 spells, for example, can still do their job even at higher levels (glitterdust, haste, stinking cloud, just to name a few). My point is simply that it takes some levels before getting there. Depending on whom you ask, this may happen somewhere between lvl 7 and lvl 11. But I'd say that, if (just using core rules) your wizard or cleric doesn't have to worry about spell slots as early as lvl 5 (or even lvl 3), then that's a sign that the Dungeon Master is just allowing them to rest way too often - there's no way a lvl 3 wizard can go through, say, five EL 3 fights without running low on spell slots if the party constantly has to turn to them for damage, protection etc. because they don't have a repeatable source of dmg in a physical class.

[Lans]

If you use an Orc you cover the combat difference, put a 13 into wisdom, use sling for ranged

[bean illus]

Maybe Blackwindbears meant he wanted to start with some direct comparison like this. (I've stripped his build down. There's no need to say masterwork, if both characters have masterwork.)



Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 19 (full plate)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Melee: +9, greatsword 19-20 x2 (2d6+3 +2, avg 12)
Ranged: +7, composite longbow x3 (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +6
Ref: +2
Will: +2



Domains: Travel, Trickery.
Str: 16 ... ... . 16
Dex: 14 ... .. . 14
Con: 16 +2 ... 18
Int: 8
Wis: 14 +1 ... 15
Cha: 8 -2 ... ... 6

AC: 21 (full plate)
HP: (5d8+20) avg 42
BAB: 3 (5)
Initiative: +6
Melee: +8, Waraxe, Dwarven x3 (1d10+3 avg 8)
Ranged: +7, Spear (1d8+3 avg 7), and light crossbow

Feats: WF waraxe, improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +8
Ref: +3
Will: +6


This cleric has:
* Same Str, better Dex, and better Con.
* Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +4 (better vs casters)
* Better initiative (6 vs 5), divination, and probably better listen/spot

* Better AC (21 vs 20)
* Better HP (42 vs 37)
* BAB 3 vs 5
* Melee attack/damage: 7/9 vs 8/12
* Ranged attack/damag: 7/7 vs 7/7

* Cleric lacks cleave (useless in 1 vs 1)
* Cleric has Freedom of Movement.
* Cleric has spells (5-1st, 4-2nd, 3-3rd), including Longstrider, Fly, and Invisibility.

So, ... if they are teleported together in the dark, the dwarf wins.

Standing toe to toe, the cleric has +1 AC, and +1 initiative. Cleric needs 13 to hit, vs 12 for the fighter. It, takes the fighter 4 hits to kill the cleric, and visa versa. They both have PA, but the Cleric is behind 2 BAB. To 1 shot the cleric, the fighter has to dump 2 BAB, minimum, and confrm a crit (about 3%?).
If the cleric survives long enough to take a single standard action, they cast invisibility, then fly.

The 5th level cleric wins this fight nearly every time. It doesn't get better at later levels. Basically, the fighter must beat divinations, then beat perception, then win initiative, then one shot the cleric. In most other scenarios the cleric turns invisible, then buffs, and wins. If the encounter is undecisive, and they encounter again, then the cleric is healed.
The fighter will get better at melee in coming levels (6th would look good for fighter). But even at 6th, the fighter first needs multiple successful rolls to get the surprise, AND either hit x>12 four times in succession, or crit on one of 4 strikes (12%).
By 12th level the cleric has wands, scrolls, rods of extend, etc. They have spent about 0 feats becoming better at fighting (imp init and WF are good feats for a cleric, and the rest can be metamagic/etc).

Ok, there. Try to remember that I'm not very good at this, but i think this comparison might be similar to the direct question that was asked ("a cleric can be as good as a fighter at fighting *and* also have a bunch of spell slots"). This cleric wins about 30+%? of the melee (100% in the dark) without a single spell, and 90+% if he uses spells.

[Zarator]

Maybe Blackwindbears meant he wanted to start with some direct comparison like this. (I've stripped his build down. There's no need to say masterwork, if both characters have masterwork.)



Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 19 (full plate)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Melee: +9, greatsword 19-20 x2 (2d6+3 +2, avg 12)
Ranged: +7, composite longbow x3 (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +6
Ref: +2
Will: +2



Domains: Travel, Trickery.
Str: 16 ... ... . 16
Dex: 14 ... .. . 14
Con: 16 +2 ... 18
Int: 8
Wis: 14 +1 ... 15
Cha: 8 -2 ... ... 6

AC: 21 (full plate)
HP: (5d8+20) avg 42
BAB: 3 (5)
Initiative: +6
Melee: +8, Waraxe, Dwarven x3 (1d10+3 avg 8)
Ranged: +7, Spear (1d8+3 avg 7), and light crossbow

Feats: WF waraxe, improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +8
Ref: +3
Will: +6


This cleric has:
* Same Str, better Dex, and better Con.
* Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +4 (better vs casters)
* Better initiative (6 vs 5), divination, and probably better listen/spot

* Better AC (21 vs 20)
* Better HP (42 vs 37)
* BAB 3 vs 5
* Melee attack/damage: 7/9 vs 8/12
* Ranged attack/damag: 7/7 vs 7/7

* Cleric lacks cleave (useless in 1 vs 1)
* Cleric has Freedom of Movement.
* Cleric has spells (5-1st, 4-2nd, 3-3rd), including Longstrider, Fly, and Invisibility.

So, ... if they are teleported together in the dark, the dwarf wins.

Standing toe to toe, the cleric has +1 AC, and +1 initiative. Cleric needs 13 to hit, vs 12 for the fighter. It, takes the fighter 4 hits to kill the cleric, and visa versa. They both have PA, but the Cleric is behind 2 BAB. To 1 shot the cleric, the fighter has to dump 2 BAB, minimum, and confrm a crit (about 3%?).
If the cleric survives long enough to take a single standard action, they cast invisibility, then fly.

The 5th level cleric wins this fight nearly every time. It doesn't get better at later levels. Basically, the fighter must beat divinations, then beat perception, then win initiative, then one shot the cleric. In most other scenarios the cleric turns invisible, then buffs, and wins. If the encounter is undecisive, and they encounter again, then the cleric is healed.
The fighter will get better at melee in coming levels (6th would look good for fighter). But even at 6th, the fighter first needs multiple successful rolls to get the surprise, AND either hit x>12 four times in succession, or crit on one of 4 strikes (12%).
By 12th level the cleric has wands, scrolls, rods of extend, etc. They have spent about 0 feats becoming better at fighting (imp init and WF are good feats for a cleric, and the rest can be metamagic/etc).

Ok, there. Try to remember that I'm not very good at this, but i think this comparison might be similar to the direct question that was asked ("a cleric can be as good as a fighter at fighting *and* also have a bunch of spell slots"). This cleric wins about 30+%? of the melee (100% in the dark) without a single spell, and 90+% if he uses spells.

Why is the fighter using human race instead of half-orc? You don't really need the extra feat in core as a fighter, let alone the extra skill points - heck, the cleric prolly needs the extra feat more than the fighter does. And why is the fighter using a suboptimal elite array while the cleric seems to be using a more focused point-buy array? If you wanted to be more fair, give the Fighter something like:

Str 16 (18 as Half-Orc) -> 17 (19)
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 10 (8 as Half-Orc)
Wis 12
Cha 8 (6 as Half-Orc)

and just ditch Weapon Focus (longbow). And lemme know what calcs look like after you do^^

[bean illus]

Why is the fighter using human race instead of half-orc? You don't really need the extra feat in core as a fighter, let alone the extra skill points - heck, the cleric prolly needs the extra feat more than the fighter does. And why is the fighter using a suboptimal elite array while the cleric seems to be using a more focused point-buy array? If you wanted to be more fair, give the Fighter something like:

Str 16 (18 as Half-Orc) -> 17 (19)
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 10 (8 as Half-Orc)
Wis 12
Cha 8 (6 as Half-Orc)

and just ditch Weapon Focus (longbow). And lemme know what calcs look like after you do^^

Because that's the fighter 5 that the poster put forward as bar for comparison.

[icefractal]

Fair, but I'm not sure how useful a comparison "more optimized Cleric vs less optimized Fighter" is.

As far as an optimized Fighter -
Anthrowhale's version is interesting, but IME very few GMs would allow a 7th level character to have obtained "spellcasting services" from a 20th level (or even 15th level) caster as part of their backstory. And if you take that option to its logical extent, it's NI loops for everybody.

So I'm curious what an optimized Fighter who doesn't use those would look like.

[DMVerdandi]

Alright, So.

The thing that has always bothered me with these godforsaken threads, is that the fighter without the assumptions of being equipped in the most metagamey way possible gets crushed every time in every facet. Even in core.

Let's say it's fighter 20, right? Cause that's the king of battle here.
Restricting access to everyone else, should restrict access to fighter in an equally detrimental way. What is the fighter incapable of doing that all the other casters ARE capable of doing.

Crafting magic items. So even if a fighter was say... Given a full armory and equipment of all the best non-magical items in existence, he crumbles without magic support. What's he got, if he decides to specialize in craft?

Adamantine scimitar, composite longbow, a lance and spiked shield, Arrows, and a war carriage, and wagon.

With let's say, A sword bearer to fetch and carry his stuff for him [Let's give our fighter leadership to be nice, right?]. In fact, just for convenience, we will make the cohort a fighter who specializes in craft, and animal handling, so that the main one can focus on ride and animal handling, and the drivers, as well as the rest of the men in the carriage are aristocrats themselves.

In the wagon, as many different non-magic weapons and tools as possible. including a good amount of goods.



That's a fighter. Anything else is a barbie doll. Just a mannequin to hang magic items off of. If all you are doing is giving the fighter all the gucci gear possible, You don't even need a fighter for that. Warrior will do just fine, to show us how to make the D&D equivalent of bling bling boy.


With that, guaranteed you are going to need probably,

>Leadership
>Mounted Combat
>Mounted Archery
>Quick Draw
>Power attack
>Point blank shot
>Ride by attack
>Spirited charge
>Rapid shot
>Manyshot
>Improved initiative
>Far shot

not in order, but that is about the most complete fighter in core. Everything else is essentially, doing all of that without a mount. You aren't going to actually have an easier time getting in a caster's face. Your best actual bet is making as much space as possible, and just peppering it with arrows.

Except...Everyone gets wind wall. Ope.
And how are you going to overcome a cleric's sanctuary?
What happens when they summon a magical beast literally as a meat shield?


What are we quantifying? If a fighter has a chance in hell? Non-magical. COMPLETELY?
Not a baby's chance in a volcano.




Sure if he's just there to carry magic items around, but is that really the game? Is that the level one must stoop to? If that's the case, then just have no holds barred, and the mage will absolutely win. especially in the stand up and brawl department.

Here?
Because smiting spell isn't actually allowed, but you CAN still strike with spells unarmed, we won't use any thing that is blasty, even though fighters can use projectiles, and arguably molotovs, but practically no way. and honestly, I wouldn't even be opposed to allowing firearms and grenades instead of someone metagaming like that. I say allow firearms in 3.5.

The greyhawk setting is rediculous and kooky and all over the place, but whatever. Allow it, right? Cause, past 1300, firearms were basically CONSTANTLY fielded.
Anyway. Doesn't matter. Wind wall. ALL the wall spells. Instant ramparts.



I am talking all this smack, but what can the fighter really do against a empowered, maximized vampire touch? One smack and that's it folks.What are they going to do against an empowered maximized chill touch?
You are DEAD. Haste. it's over already. Scorching ray? Over. Any good touch spell turned up, and they are easy mac.

What can they do against 8th and 9th level scrolls? I'm not talking about wish. I'm talking about forcing a save failure, basically no matter what with moment of prescience.


You are GOING to die.
And the idea, this silly idea that fighters have endless endurance. Are you ignoring encumbrance rules. When is the last time they took their armor off?

Sure, Hit points are either 0, or X as far as being able to continue doing stuff, but that also applies to mages, who have considerably easier times healing themselves. Sure it's hard for a wizard to do it in core, but it's also hard to hit a wizard in core.
They can get damage reduction, AC bonuses of every kind that last HOURS. concealment standing right in front of you, illusions, invisibility, etc.

contingent dimension door.
SCROLLS.
WANDS.
RINGS OF WIZARDRY



Unless someone brutally BRUTALLY nerfs Cleric, Wizard, Or Druid, they can just smoke the dog dook out of a mundane 20 fighter.

The fighter feats in core aren't even worth it being worth anything. power attack?
YOU ARE BLIND ALREADY BRO. AND CURSED. You missing. And He's already using Greater blink.
What fighter feat in 3.5 core gives a better ailment tactically than blindness/deafness?

And don't forget... We gave the mage leadership. And they don't have any qualms about magic users. That means all of em can just snatch use magic device, have their buddy craft them awesome stuff and assist, and voila.

Need Divine power? Not on list? Who cares, you can beat darn near any skill roll you want. There you go.
Wand. Or just need like 3 of a really good spell just in case you get into it with some baddy? Voila.






Don't ever put a mundane character in a match against a non-mundane character and try and pass them along as such after giving them freaking genie lamps. No. That's not the spirit of the match at all. It's like giving an addict junk after hours at rehab and then making everyone celebrate their sobriety.
What sobriety?

What mundane?

Even if, it's so much better putting a fully mundane character against a magic user with all splats allowed. They lose harder, but they are much more of a match as far as pliability.
Core fighters stink. Literally just play a bard or a sorcerer LOL.

They are good at one spot. Level 1-3 with players that don't actually know how to play.

Because it'd would be smart to just gain XP from spell research as a caster. Logically, they shouldn't be leaving wherever they do basic training at until about level...10.
The only thing that makes that even questionable is the absolute gameyness of this game.

why can you only learn from killing? Why can you learn unknown things from coup de grace'ing a monster?
In fact, monster farming for hard leveling young mages should be the law of the land if we toss away any verisimilitude[actually how they would approach it in real life].

Just have some baby mages tag along with level 20 mage, have the level 20 nearly kill a monster, and then have them kill it. In the right place, they should be level 10 by the end of the night.






This should be dropped forever...
Watch everyone cry [WBL is in the DMG, No one said no magic items.]. Is it that worldbreaking having the guy who specializes in not using magic, not using magic?

And no more core only ANYTHING. it's simple jack behavior.

[Mechalich]

That's a fighter. Anything else is a barbie doll. Just a mannequin to hang magic items off of. If all you are doing is giving the fighter all the gucci gear possible, You don't even need a fighter for that. Warrior will do just fine, to show us how to make the D&D equivalent of bling bling boy.


There's actually a broader point here, which is that, in 3.5, WBL accounts for entirely too much of a character's overall power and as level increases, and basically at any level above 10, there are very few class packages other than spellcasting that remain competitive with what WBL is putting out (and the existence of UMD-based builds only confirms this).

The Fighter's class features are a pile of bonus feats and d10 versus d8 HD. That's basically all that separates them from the NPC Warrior class (of note, the PF Fighter gets a significantly more substantial list of class features, though they still aren't all that impressive).

[bean illus]

Fair, but I'm not sure how useful a comparison "more optimized Cleric vs less optimized Fighter" is.

As far as an optimized Fighter -
Anthrowhale's version is interesting, but IME very few GMs would allow a 7th level character to have obtained "spellcasting services" from a 20th level (or even 15th level) caster as part of their backstory. And if you take that option to its logical extent, it's NI loops for everybody.

So I'm curious what an optimized Fighter who doesn't use those would look like.

I was trying to guess what Blackwindbears was asking. I

It seems acknowledged that higher level casters win, the question is 'at what level does that become obvious, vs an average fighter, while still considering the "cleric's a better fighter" trope.

I don't think the OP was challenging anyone to lightening tag. Nobody i know can hold a candle to these boards. Most of the TO and high level theory discussed here ever gets used anywhere i play. I feel this poster acknowledged those things, and was just interested in comparisons.

But the whole thing is funny, if you compare this discussion to chess.

Obviously, the queen is the best piece. The rooks seem strong in mid game, and knights are useful in early game. But, ... for some reason ... we don't play chess with 16 queens on each side. Though that's some rather TO rocket tag, it's not as fun.

[icefractal]

Alright, So.

The thing that has always bothered me with these godforsaken threads, is that the fighter without the assumptions of being equipped in the most metagamey way possible gets crushed every time in every facet. Even in core.
The thing that always bothers me with these threads is that many people were apparently so traumatized by some "Fighters are the best!!1" threads in the distant past that they ignore whatever is written and come in to loudly and repeatedly make the point "No, Fighters are not better than spellcasters!" despite that not being what the OP or anyone else asked or stated.

The OP asks a simple question - can a caster such as a Cleric be strictly better than a Fighter in all meaningful aspects, in core? That's a different question than "are they stronger overall", but it's still a valid question to ask. And the answer does change depending on the environment - if DMM and plenty of Nightsticks are on the table, the answer is obviously yes. In core-only, it appears to be no.

Does WBL make more of a different to a Fighter than a Cleric? Yes, absolutely. Does that matter? No. I'm not interested in "who does better with no gear" (and if it's literally no gear, most casters ain't happy either), I'm interested in comparisons relevant to a campaign - which obviously vary, but are as likely to be more generous than default WBL as they are to be less generous.

Now I should note - I mostly play casters, for several reasons. I've played a Wizard 20, and yes, it was strong as hell. But to play a caster well, you have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. As well as what's actually reasonable to do in a campaign. If you go in with the attitude "I'm a T1 caster, I'm going to trivially win everything!" then you're setting yourself up for failure and disappointment.



Obviously, the queen is the best piece. The rooks seem strong in mid game, and knights are useful in early game.That's a good example of better vs strictly better. The Queen is strictly better than every other piece ... except the Knight. The Queen is better overall than the Knight, but not strictly better - in some board positions you'd rather have a Knight in a given spot than a Queen.

[ben-zayb]

That's a good example of better vs strictly better. The Queen is strictly better than every other piece ... except the Knight. The Queen is better overall than the Knight, but not strictly better - in some board positions you'd rather have a Knight in a given spot than a Queen.For a more fighter-like comparison, the Queen arguably isn't strictly better than a Pawn either.

[blackwindbears]

The thing that always bothers me with these threads is that many people were apparently so traumatized by some "Fighters are the best!!1" threads in the distant past that they ignore whatever is written and come in to loudly and repeatedly make the point "No, Fighters are not better than spellcasters!" despite that not being what the OP or anyone else asked or stated.


Oh man, YES! THIS!



The OP asks a simple question - can a caster such as a Cleric be strictly better than a Fighter in all meaningful aspects, in core? That's a different question than "are they stronger overall", but it's still a valid question to ask. And the answer does change depending on the environment - if DMM and plenty of Nightsticks are on the table, the answer is obviously yes. In core-only, it appears to be no.


I think Druid can get there in at least some levels with dire bat.



Why is the fighter using human race instead of half-orc? You don't really need the extra feat in core as a fighter, let alone the extra skill points - heck, the cleric prolly needs the extra feat more than the fighter does. And why is the fighter using a suboptimal elite array while the cleric seems to be using a more focused point-buy array? If you wanted to be more fair, give the Fighter something like:

Str 16 (18 as Half-Orc) -> 17 (19)
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 10 (8 as Half-Orc)
Wis 12
Cha 8 (6 as Half-Orc)

and just ditch Weapon Focus (longbow). And lemme know what calcs look like after you do^^

Both should use the elite array, rather than point buy. Just to ensure they're on even footing, and I personally roll dice for ability scores, and I am given to understand the elite array is the most probable result.

Definitely should have picked half-orc, but not going to pull the rug now, you know?


Maybe Blackwindbears meant he wanted to start with some direct comparison like this. (I've stripped his build down. There's no need to say masterwork, if both characters have masterwork.)



Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 19 (full plate)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Melee: +9, greatsword 19-20 x2 (2d6+3 +2, avg 12)
Ranged: +7, composite longbow x3 (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +6
Ref: +2
Will: +2



Domains: Travel, Trickery.
Str: 16 ... ... . 16
Dex: 14 ... .. . 14
Con: 16 +2 ... 18
Int: 8
Wis: 14 +1 ... 15
Cha: 8 -2 ... ... 6

AC: 21 (full plate)
HP: (5d8+20) avg 42
BAB: 3 (5)
Initiative: +6
Melee: +8, Waraxe, Dwarven x3 (1d10+3 avg 8)
Ranged: +7, Spear (1d8+3 avg 7), and light crossbow

Feats: WF waraxe, improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +8
Ref: +3
Will: +6


This cleric has:
* Same Str, better Dex, and better Con.
* Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +4 (better vs casters)
* Better initiative (6 vs 5), divination, and probably better listen/spot

* Better AC (21 vs 20)
* Better HP (42 vs 37)
* BAB 3 vs 5
* Melee attack/damage: 7/9 vs 8/12
* Ranged attack/damag: 7/7 vs 7/7

* Cleric lacks cleave (useless in 1 vs 1)
* Cleric has Freedom of Movement.
* Cleric has spells (5-1st, 4-2nd, 3-3rd), including Longstrider, Fly, and Invisibility.



This looks pretty close. Can the Cleric reasonably close the gap all day with spells?

[Lans]

Bison AC, Mst wk chain shirt Barding, ring of deflection, amulet of natural armor, cloak of protection with bulls strength and gmf. If it's locked into standard feats it's down 1 on will saves and ranged options. Have the druid be an elf that takes pbs and rapid shot.

Alternatively a wolf AC arguably becomes large at 4hd and is a beast at level 5

[DMVerdandi]

There's actually a broader point here, which is that, in 3.5, WBL accounts for entirely too much of a character's overall power and as level increases, and basically at any level above 10, there are very few class packages other than spellcasting that remain competitive with what WBL is putting out (and the existence of UMD-based builds only confirms this).

The Fighter's class features are a pile of bonus feats and d10 versus d8 HD. That's basically all that separates them from the NPC Warrior class (of note, the PF Fighter gets a significantly more substantial list of class features, though they still aren't all that impressive).
Precisely. It's not even a "optimized" fighter. What is an optimized fighter? A fighter who does whatever in it's power to not be a fighter, and just do tilddly weapon tricks? 11 of them.

I've been teaching myself martial arts, and in a month I can do what? 6-8 different things?



The thing that always bothers me with these threads is that many people were apparently so traumatized by some "Fighters are the best!!1" threads in the distant past that they ignore whatever is written and come in to loudly and repeatedly make the point "No, Fighters are not better than spellcasters!" despite that not being what the OP or anyone else asked or stated.
Oooh, smarmy are we?

Don't advertise against crowd reaction. That's a pretty simple principle. Either OP didn't package it well enough, from laziness, or ignorance. You know what it will do, why doesn't OP? I'm just acting on reflex right?
What causes bad action, rather than bad reaction?




The OP asks a simple question - can a caster such as a Cleric be strictly better than a Fighter in all meaningful aspects, in core? That's a different question than "are they stronger overall", but it's still a valid question to ask. And the answer does change depending on the environment - if DMM and plenty of Nightsticks are on the table, the answer is obviously yes. In core-only, it appears to be no.
That's a lie. Why no? Stop for a second.

What can core fighters do? Do you even know? What is it that they can do with their feat paths? What skills do they have to edge themselves out against any of the casters? Can they do those things 36 times a day naked? is it worth it? Is it worth 20 levels of mundaneness?

DMM and nightsticks? You don't need anything of the sort?
What is fighter better at? having more fighter feats. That is the only strict truth. But fighter feats are a JOKE compared to spells. Especially in core.

It's NOT a valid question, because it has a no true scotsman fallacy built right into it. That's why people are beating around the bush. Because it's a horrible question that has no limits. What is significant to OP? Who cares. Why are we answering to some rando's standards without them telling us what it is?





Does WBL make more of a different to a Fighter than a Cleric? Yes, absolutely. Does that matter? No. I'm not interested in "who does better with no gear" (and if it's literally no gear, most casters ain't happy either), I'm interested in comparisons relevant to a campaign - which obviously vary, but are as likely to be more generous than default WBL as they are to be less generous.

I don't accept this either. I didn't say no gear, even though a non-unarmed strike fighter is getting washed buck naked against... HAHAH, a druid, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a wizard.
Wizards can just learn spell mastery feat and boom. Keep time stop, greater teleport, shadow evocation,shadow conjuration, gate, and moment of prescience,


Almost every touch spell in core is straight up better than a single fighter attack, and let us not forget that fighter doesn't have pounce.

They either move and attack stacatto, Charge, Bullrush, trip. etc. OR they do a full attack.
Ranged ones do nothing.

Coming in close gets you flanked, hit by a weapon that has it's own initiative, ripped up into some barrier, or really just got smacked themselves running into a combat reflexes touch attack flurry.
So incidental and sustained damage is better.

They have better mounts ALL the time
More options for movement and survival
Higher AC all the time
Usually can stack buffs to get stronger, buffs that end up doing more damage than a fighter feat.
They can make their own magic items.

What do you want? How many shots can they make replicating manyshot with an arrow, and no manyshot feat? None over the standard. But can a fighter who has taken toughness for every single feat do that either? no. But outside of sorcerer for full casters, they remain supremely flexible. Fighters are STUCK with bad feat choices. They are way worse sorcerers with divine power.
So give the sorcerer divine power, right? Can't you do than within a character's build without outside intercession? YES.

Can you just use leadership as a fighter to get a mage as a cohort? Yes. Does that completely destroy any point? Yes.




If you don't accept an all mundane fighter, you cannot accept that fighter has anything worth it. Ranger and paladin thusly smoke it, because even they can craft a litle bit on their own without FIAT.



Magic items that you didn't create is DM FIAT.
Gabice? You can't force the books to let you get them, thus they are solely in the hands of the DM, and thusly NOT a capability of said build at all.



So, the spellbook, that the wizard gets automatically, and the mundane gear that a level 1 fighter get are the guarantees.





Now I should note - I mostly play casters, for several reasons. I've played a Wizard 20, and yes, it was strong as hell. But to play a caster well, you have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. As well as what's actually reasonable to do in a campaign. If you go in with the attitude "I'm a T1 caster, I'm going to trivially win everything!" then you're setting yourself up for failure and disappointment.
This is a should, not a can.
Fighter CANNOT without Fiat. Every caster smokes them.
Even if they got plane shifted into the wildlands, where there are no people. Wizard still does solitary research and as long as he has the book and tools, can make new spells, and the interesting thing is you can learn how to summon. furthermore secret chest is in core.

If the DM wants to metagame their ass off, especially if they cast non-detection with secret chest?
Go ahead.



That's a good example of better vs strictly better. The Queen is strictly better than every other piece ... except the Knight. The Queen is better overall than the Knight, but not strictly better - in some board positions you'd rather have a Knight in a given spot than a Queen.

Fighter is rather like as pawn in that.
Anyone who is worth their salt isn't going to let someone pawn a queen without any other influence. That's mad.

The pawn's ability thustly is two people coming to an impasse. To get caught up in power struggles that are beneath the queen.

That's how the fighter is.
Why exactly are we holding back? To enjoy martial arts? Then why not let the post core material speak for itself.

Put a mundane fighter against an optimized caster with full book access if they are irreplaceable.


We aren't on the beginning patch. That alone is an absurdity. Ignoring all but the least tested and balanced resources.
And I even restricted them to only using touch attacks instead of all hosts of ranges.



The only semblance of balance is giving fighter everything and caster just enough not to arouse suspicion.


NAH. Fighter has Coin, mundane materials, and no mage stuff whatsoever. He hates magic of all kinds right?

That includes armors and weapons and sundries. Suffer not a witch to live and alladat.



Otherwise, its a red herring, a strawman and a bad faith argument.

[eggynack]

Oooh, smarmy are we?

Don't advertise against crowd reaction. That's a pretty simple principle. Either OP didn't package it well enough, from laziness, or ignorance. You know what it will do, why doesn't OP? I'm just acting on reflex right?
What causes bad action, rather than bad reaction?


That's a lie. Why no? Stop for a second.

What can core fighters do? Do you even know? What is it that they can do with their feat paths? What skills do they have to edge themselves out against any of the casters? Can they do those things 36 times a day naked? is it worth it? Is it worth 20 levels of mundaneness?

DMM and nightsticks? You don't need anything of the sort?
What is fighter better at? having more fighter feats. That is the only strict truth. But fighter feats are a JOKE compared to spells. Especially in core.

It's NOT a valid question, because it has a no true scotsman fallacy built right into it. That's why people are beating around the bush. Because it's a horrible question that has no limits. What is significant to OP? Who cares. Why are we answering to some rando's standards without them telling us what it is?
While I remain a bit confused by the question of how companions and summons fit into this, the question is, all in all, pretty simple and reasonably well explained. Specifically, it basically amounts to, "Can you get a core cleric or druid or whatever, at all levels, to be better at hitting enemies in the face with a stick while not getting hit in the face with a stick yourself, and do so in a sustainable manner?" I dunno what part of that question reads as a bad action, or a no true Scotsman, or bad faith, or any of this. Again, no one is contesting that spells allow access to a lot more options than fighter feats. Or even that casters are better in combat. It's just about whether you can build a 5th level cleric or whatever to pick up a sword and beat up encounters with it better than a fighter can.



Magic items that you didn't create is DM FIAT.
Gabice? You can't force the books to let you get them, thus they are solely in the hands of the DM, and thusly NOT a capability of said build at all.
The ability to buy magic stuff is assumed by the game system, and, as a consequence, usually assumed in optimization conversations. You don't exactly have the authority to declare that stuff off limits. I guess the OP theoretically does, as it's their ballgame, but the idea that this must be a baseline assumption is rather odd.


The only semblance of balance is giving fighter everything and caster just enough not to arouse suspicion.


NAH. Fighter has Coin, mundane materials, and no mage stuff whatsoever. He hates magic of all kinds right?
I'm just really not sure where you got the idea that anyone was asking whether the game is balanced, or why you think the fighter is some kind of anti-magic advocate.

[blackwindbears]

Precisely. It's not even a "optimized" fighter. What is an optimized fighter? A fighter who does whatever in it's power to not be a fighter, and just do tilddly weapon tricks? 11 of them.

I've been teaching myself martial arts, and in a month I can do what? 6-8 different things?



Oooh, smarmy are we?

Don't advertise against crowd reaction. That's a pretty simple principle. Either OP didn't package it well enough, from laziness, or ignorance. You know what it will do, why doesn't OP? I'm just acting on reflex right?
What causes bad action, rather than bad reaction?


OP here. This really reads to me like "I'm not responsible for my actions because I'm predictable."

I'm sorry you were offended about the way my post was phrased.



<Snip a bunch of irrelevant stuff>

Because it's a horrible question that has no limits. What is significant to OP? Who cares. Why are we answering to some rando's standards without them telling us what it is?


I get it.

You don't like the question even being asked.

I don't see why you have to show up to the thread and interrupt a discussion other folks are having about it though.

The specific set of stats I'm trying to replicate was posted somewhere on the first page.



<Snip a bunch more arguing about whether casters or fighters are "better">

Otherwise, its a red herring, a strawman and a bad faith argument.

You're under the impression I posted an argument, and I posted a challenge. Whatever you want to conclude from your inability to replicate a simple set of stats for 3-6 encounters per day is on you.

I'm sure if you actually tried you could do it.


While I remain a bit confused by the question of how companions and summons fit into this, the question is, all in all, pretty simple and reasonably well explained. Specifically, it basically amounts to, "Can you get a core cleric or druid or whatever, at all levels, to be better at hitting enemies in the face with a stick while not getting hit in the face with a stick yourself, and do so in a sustainable manner?" I dunno what part of that question reads as a bad action, or a no true Scotsman, or bad faith, or any of this. Again, no one is contesting that spells allow access to a lot more options than fighter feats. Or even that casters are better in combat. It's just about whether you can build a 5th level cleric or whatever to pick up a sword and beat up encounters with it better than a fighter can.

Not even better than a fighter can. I just want to see if a specific set of stats can be basically replicated for 3-6 encounters per day.

Regarding Pets and Companions --

I should specify that animal companions are fine, I just didn't want to see a bunch of leadership/planar binding cheese.

"I bind a fighter of the same level", "well the fighter hires a wizard of the same level".

<thread devolves into a bunch of arguments about what's allowed to count.>

I just want to read the stats off your character sheet, you know? This is just a practical optimization test of whether you can easily get like +10 to hit with 12 average damage and some other stuff, or whatever. For 3-6 encounters per day that you can't always prepare in advance for.

I know how "aid" works. If the answer was as trivial as "be in one encounter that you buffed yourself for just before kicking in the door" I wouldn't have asked the question because I would have been able to answer it myself.

[bean illus]

... snip ...

Not even better than a fighter can. I just want to see if a specific set of stats can be basically replicated for 3-6 encounters per day.

In truth, you did have a few other parameters. Btw, could you be more specific? Did i miss where you listed "core" sources? Do you mean only PHb and DMG? Can the caster bring wands, or crafting to the question?

And I've already shown that an optimized cleric 5 can compete against an average fighter, with zero magic, and dominate with fly, invisibility, etc, etc.

Which level do you think fighter is strongest? By 13th, a caster can quicken 20 spells a day. I'm pretty certain that a fighter can't compete with that?

[bean illus]

OP here.

I know how "aid" works. If the answer was as trivial as "be in one encounter that you buffed yourself for just before kicking in the door" I wouldn't have asked the question because I would have been able to answer it myself.

Are divinations allowed? What about spells that increase perception, or buff initiative? At a certain point, the caster will win a surprise round the majority of the time.

[Xervous]

Which level do you think fighter is strongest? By 13th, a caster can quicken 20 spells a day. I'm pretty certain that a fighter can't compete with that?

I think a big piece of the framing that we still need is some manner of quantifying the fighter’s resources. Fighters DO NOT go all day without something putting HP into them. The fighter in this case is a melee beat stick. He needs to not die (AC, saves, HP) and kill things (to hit, damage). Past some point Y he is going to need healing that is either covered by WBL, or pulls resources from another party member.

I feel that if we can put the cleric in the same realm of durability and damage while exceeding the fighter’s innate endurance we have demonstrated the cleric is a net positive replacement for the given fighter at that given level.

[bean illus]

I think a big piece of the framing that we still need is some manner of quantifying the fighter’s resources. Fighters DO NOT go all day without something putting HP into them. The fighter in this case is a melee beat stick. He needs to not die (AC, saves, HP) and kill things (to hit, damage). Past some point Y he is going to need healing that is either covered by WBL, or pulls resources from another party member.

I feel that if we can put the cleric in the same realm of durability and damage while exceeding the fighter’s innate endurance we have demonstrated the cleric is a net positive replacement for the given fighter at that given level.

But, if X gets outside healing, then Y gets outside healing, of course. So, little help to the fighter, it just frees up more spells for the caster.

I think that fighter's strongest levels are 2-4. The only way fighter competes beyond that is to rule out invisibility, fly, etc. By 9th level, a cleric can quicken heals, maybe with a rod of maximize.

7th level delivers dimension door, and if they need, they can attempt to end an encouter, heal, and return. The fighter has no such options, and if he runs then the cleric summons a tracker, who also attacks.

[eggynack]

Not even better than a fighter can. I just want to see if a specific set of stats can be basically replicated for 3-6 encounters per day.
Interestingly, this is probably harder than the baseline challenge. Fighters are, to the extent they're better at anything, better at making the numbers bigger. Casters are better at doing qualitative stuff than quantitative stuff.


Regarding Pets and Companions --

I should specify that animal companions are fine, I just didn't want to see a bunch of leadership/planar binding cheese.

"I bind a fighter of the same level", "well the fighter hires a wizard of the same level".

<thread devolves into a bunch of arguments about what's allowed to count.>

I just want to read the stats off your character sheet, you know? This is just a practical optimization test of whether you can easily get like +10 to hit with 12 average damage and some other stuff, or whatever. For 3-6 encounters per day that you can't always prepare in advance for.

I know how "aid" works. If the answer was as trivial as "be in one encounter that you buffed yourself for just before kicking in the door" I wouldn't have asked the question because I would have been able to answer it myself.
In that case I'ma stick with my answer. At fifth level you can have an advanced riding dog, a dire bat, or an ape animal companion, depending on your mood, five hours of deinonychus form a day, and two castings of SNA III to manage the remaining encounters where you lack wild shape. You can also go down an SNA III for greater magic fang on the companion, and you can always sub in some buffs and even use your sling if you're real desperate. Probably augment summoning is the best feat choice, because it's core, and, given you're not generally using your own stats in combat, you're probably running human. So maybe improved initiative as the third feat? I'm skeptical that either the companion or the wild shape/SNA are better than the fifth level fighter, but the combo probably is better.

Anyways, that's just level five. Other levels vary in how good the comparison is. Later levels are generally going to increasingly advantage the druid. Six bumps you to twelve hours of wild shape and gives natural spell, as well as an extra third level spell, so now you can bring yourself, the companion, and summons into just about every encounter. Also the companion gets a buff, so that's neat. Level seven lets you pick up a seventh level companion, and those are pretty strong. You also go up to SNA IV, which is also pretty strong. Then you get large wild shape at 8th, and, I dunno, I feel like increasing access to summoning and the advancement of the companion means that all three pseudo-fighters are combining to more than keep up. You also get a lot of versatility with this stuff. SNA can be chosen in the moment, wild shape has a lot of daily flexibility, and even the companion can be subbed out long term.

The other direction is a bit trickier, I think. First level is trivial. A riding dog does well in the comparison with the first level fighter, even when that fighter is optimized, and you get to add combat druid stuff to that equation. Third level is also pretty trivial. You get to advance the riding dog, SNA II is reasonably strong, it's just a good level all around. Fourth is kinda finnicky. You get to advance your companion, which is neat, but, I dunno, does an ape or a dire bat win out on its own? Maybe if the fighter is relatively suboptimal, but it's not ideal. You don't get much else here either. Maybe call it a wash? Summoned hippogriffs are reasonably strong, at least. Second level is arguably the worst point of comparison in the entire game. You still just have that same first level riding dog, and that's basically it. The closest thing to a solid case here is that you can use augment summoning on your two round duration summoned wolves and eagles? That might handle the gap.

In conclusion, I'd say that druids, even when ignoring every option that doesn't make you better in mundane combat, outdo fighters at either every level or nearly every level. This might even hold for more optimized core fighter builds, like a chain tripper, but that might tilt those iffy levels in the fighter's direction. It's not the exact same approach to combat that the fighter takes, reliant on a barrage of usually weaker yet disposable melee fighters, but it's a pretty strong approach.

[RandomPeasant]

Yes but the point I was trying to make is that the presence of the warrior is what allows their Cleric (and their Wizard, even more so) to save their spells for when it matters. The presence of a melee class (and actually competent and well-built one, at least, not a monk) can give their group much needed longevity for when you can't just rest whenever you want

But it also means you have less spells. Maybe having a Druid instead of a Fighter means your Cleric needs to cast more spells. But unless he needs to cast more additional spells than the Druid is able to cast in a day, your party still comes out ahead. It is certainly true that a Fighter having an at-will "hit them with a sword" attack can allow you to forgo casting spells in some encounters. But so will a Cleric Archer, a wild shape'd Druid, an animal companion, some skeleton or zombie troops, and whatever other permanent minions casters can bring to the table. And unlike the Fighter, none of that costs you a full character's worth of spell slots.


constructs for example are very splashable in any dungeon setting, as are undead.

But those are not things you want a Fighter to fight! Mindless constructs lose to a 1st level silent image. Undead are blown up by Turning or (for mindless ones) taken over by command undead.


First of all, Animate Dead has the [Evil] descriptor, so it's not a spell that Good-aligned Clerics (which happens to make for a nice chunk of adventuring Clerics all around) can cast to begin with.

Just because someone doesn't use an option doesn't mean that option doesn't count. Plenty of people will build their characters in a way that leaves a niche for the Fighter because they're playing socially and don't want to make the guy who made a character that can be trivially replaced feel bad by replacing him. But that doesn't mean the Fighter is a good use of resources.


there's no way a lvl 3 wizard can go through, say, five EL 3 fights without running low on spell slots if the party constantly has to turn to them for damage, protection etc. because they don't have a repeatable source of dmg in a physical class.

You mean like a Druid or a Cleric? Maybe they're not "strictly better", but even in Core, it's hard to see how you get more value out of the Fighter's marginally better chassis than you do out of the Cleric or Druid bringing additional characters to the table. As I noted earlier, a lot of the buffs you can cast on a Fighter are multi-target, meaning the Fighter is a worse target for them than a Cleric or Druid.


I should specify that animal companions are fine, I just didn't want to see a bunch of leadership/planar binding cheese.

So, again, what exactly is the point of the question? Because you've thus far rejected "trivially no because of antimagic field" and said that the best options for doing the Fighter's job for him aren't allowed. I am sure that you can produce a set of constraints such that the answer is "no you can't do that", but the more you add the more skeptical I am of your insistence that there was no agenda in asking the question.

[icefractal]

I think Druid can get there in at least some levels with dire bat. I was just thinking about Cleric, yeah. Druid very likely can do this by mid-high levels.

In keeping with "data, not memes", let's examine how that could look at 10th level:

Dwarf Druid 10
Stats: Str 8, Dex 8, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 6
Feats: 1st, 3rd, Natural Spell, 9th
Gear: +1 Wild Dragonhide Full Plate, +1 Wild Tower Shield, 13.3k TBD
Long Buffs (10 hours): Longstrider, Greater Magic Fang
Mid Buffs (100 minutes): Barkskin, Resist Energy, Freedom of Movement

Travel Mode (Dire Bat + long buffs):
HP 10d8+40 (93 hp)
AC 34, touch 15, flat 28 (6 dex - 1 size + 9 armor + 5 shield + 5 natural)
Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +12
Immune: poison
Offense: Bite +11 (1d8+6)

Melee Mode (Rhino + mid buffs + Bull's Strength):
HP 10d8+40 (93 hp)
AC 34, touch 9, flat 28 (0 dex - 1 size + 9 armor + 5 shield + 11 natural)
Fort +12, Ref +3, Will +12
Immune: poison, restraint
Resist: [energy types] 20
Offense: Gore +19 (2d6+17 / 4d6+32 charging)

Druids don't have nearly as many buff spells in core, although they have plenty of other things to do with those spell slots. Personally, I think "defense oriented Dire Bat and summon things" is probably how I'd go, but for a more direct melee type Rhino seems decent - there may be better options though. I'm keeping with the same "max one round on in-combat / near-combat buffing" as with the Cleric.

[blackwindbears]

I'm interested to know if there is a core-only caster build that is strictly better than a core-only power attack + greatsword fighter build at level 5/10/15/20? (Without pets or wish shenanigans. Using the elite array.)

Quick note on the difference between better and strictly better: a cleric might be able to get the same BAB, weapon and strength as a fighter for 8 rounds with a buff, but won't have the damage boost from power attack. The extra spells might be more useful in more situations than power attack, but it isn't strictly better.

This is the original post. People seem to be really tripping over "strictly" better, and keep bringing up things they think are "better" instead. I believe that I addressed the difference here, but below I post a precise set of stats.


I'm not under the impression that failure to find something strictly better is the same as 1) something strictly better not existing, or 2) that failing to find something strictly better in the narrow domain of core is anywhere near similar to failing to find something "better".

<snip>

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3

I think this is a sort of build a player might end up with by default choosing a human fighter, and getting a normal amount of treasure. Totally plausible to have a +1 greatsword instead but I didn't look super careful at the gold spent.


To simplify the question. I'm basically wondering if it's possible for a full caster built with the stuff in the PHB/DMG to have this set of statistics or better for 3-6 encounters of day (using the elite array), some of which will be surprising. Without resorting to wish loops, buying services, or Planar Binding.

I'm well aware that anyone with 13K GP (or whatever) and a lenient DM can get infinite wishes and do anything they want.

This is not:

"Is a fighter better than a full caster?"

"I think fighters are better than full casters."

"Could you please list the ways in which fighters are worse than full casters"

All of those have had very clear, answers in other threads, about a hundred times over. Rest assured I need none of that proven for me. My secret motive isn't to point out "a cleric can't reliably get +10 to hit at level 5 without buffs and therefore fighters are clearly superior in every way". If it was who in the world would find that compelling? And if I did, literally who cares?

You might not even care about this question! That's your god-given right. You can not care about all sorts of things. I just ask that you DM me about how much you don't care rather than polluting the thread to impress us all about how little you care, or how annoying you find optimizing characters to specific stats. (Not calling out any person in particular, but jeez guys, I don't think the fighter build I posted was super cheesy or anything, you don't have to get mean just because you haven't figured out a way to reliably get 37 HP or whatever...)



In truth, you did have a few other parameters. Btw, could you be more specific? Did i miss where you listed "core" sources? Do you mean only PHb and DMG? Can the caster bring wands, or crafting to the question?

And I've already shown that an optimized cleric 5 can compete against an average fighter, with zero magic, and dominate with fly, invisibility, etc, etc.

Which level do you think fighter is strongest? By 13th, a caster can quicken 20 spells a day. I'm pretty certain that a fighter can't compete with that?

Bingo on the PHB + DMG

I have no idea what level fighter is strongest. I think invisibility is a whole lot better than an AC of 20. I think flying is better than walking. I think quickened spells are awesome.

I also think none of these things are precisely identical to:

AC: 20, Fort: +7, Ref: +3, Will: +3, Attack: +10 (13 avg damage), Ranged Attack: +8 (8 avg damage), HP: 37


I think a big piece of the framing that we still need is some manner of quantifying the fighter’s resources. Fighters DO NOT go all day without something putting HP into them. The fighter in this case is a melee beat stick. He needs to not die (AC, saves, HP) and kill things (to hit, damage). Past some point Y he is going to need healing that is either covered by WBL, or pulls resources from another party member.

I feel that if we can put the cleric in the same realm of durability and damage while exceeding the fighter’s innate endurance we have demonstrated the cleric is a net positive replacement for the given fighter at that given level.

I think whether the cleric is net positive has been really well established elsewhere, and the subjective bits are just barely contentious enough to create endless arguments about DMs or whatever.

I personally am more interested on whether the cleric can have a max hp of 37. (If you've got some longterm source of temp HP like extended false life I figure that's fine too)


But, if X gets outside healing, then Y gets outside healing, of course. So, little help to the fighter, it just frees up more spells for the caster.

I think that fighter's strongest levels are 2-4. The only way fighter competes beyond that is to rule out invisibility, fly, etc. By 9th level, a cleric can quicken heals, maybe with a rod of maximize.

7th level delivers dimension door, and if they need, they can attempt to end an encouter, heal, and return. The fighter has no such options, and if he runs then the cleric summons a tracker, who also attacks.

I don't have any idea if the fighter can compete with that, and it sounds like some sort of long drawn out argument that people better than me at playing martials would have. All I want to know is whether the cleric can get a specific set of stats.

That's not very interesting to a martials vs casters debate, but I personally find the question interesting.


Interestingly, this is probably harder than the baseline challenge. Fighters are, to the extent they're better at anything, better at making the numbers bigger. Casters are better at doing qualitative stuff than quantitative stuff.


In that case I'ma stick with my answer. At fifth level you can have an advanced riding dog, a dire bat, or an ape animal companion, depending on your mood, five hours of deinonychus form a day, and two castings of SNA III to manage the remaining encounters where you lack wild shape. You can also go down an SNA III for greater magic fang on the companion, and you can always sub in some buffs and even use your sling if you're real desperate. Probably augment summoning is the best feat choice, because it's core, and, given you're not generally using your own stats in combat, you're probably running human. So maybe improved initiative as the third feat? I'm skeptical that either the companion or the wild shape/SNA are better than the fifth level fighter, but the combo probably is better.

Anyways, that's just level five. Other levels vary in how good the comparison is. Later levels are generally going to increasingly advantage the druid. Six bumps you to twelve hours of wild shape and gives natural spell, as well as an extra third level spell, so now you can bring yourself, the companion, and summons into just about every encounter. Also the companion gets a buff, so that's neat. Level seven lets you pick up a seventh level companion, and those are pretty strong. You also go up to SNA IV, which is also pretty strong. Then you get large wild shape at 8th, and, I dunno, I feel like increasing access to summoning and the advancement of the companion means that all three pseudo-fighters are combining to more than keep up. You also get a lot of versatility with this stuff. SNA can be chosen in the moment, wild shape has a lot of daily flexibility, and even the companion can be subbed out long term.

The other direction is a bit trickier, I think. First level is trivial. A riding dog does well in the comparison with the first level fighter, even when that fighter is optimized, and you get to add combat druid stuff to that equation. Third level is also pretty trivial. You get to advance the riding dog, SNA II is reasonably strong, it's just a good level all around. Fourth is kinda finnicky. You get to advance your companion, which is neat, but, I dunno, does an ape or a dire bat win out on its own? Maybe if the fighter is relatively suboptimal, but it's not ideal. You don't get much else here either. Maybe call it a wash? Summoned hippogriffs are reasonably strong, at least. Second level is arguably the worst point of comparison in the entire game. You still just have that same first level riding dog, and that's basically it. The closest thing to a solid case here is that you can use augment summoning on your two round duration summoned wolves and eagles? That might handle the gap.

In conclusion, I'd say that druids, even when ignoring every option that doesn't make you better in mundane combat, outdo fighters at either every level or nearly every level. This might even hold for more optimized core fighter builds, like a chain tripper, but that might tilt those iffy levels in the fighter's direction. It's not the exact same approach to combat that the fighter takes, reliant on a barrage of usually weaker yet disposable melee fighters, but it's a pretty strong approach.


I think you're probably right that, this is the best approach, and the direbat looks the most promising. Does Deinochyus form match those fighter stats? I thought it was short on the HP end?



So, again, what exactly is the point of the question? Because you've thus far rejected "trivially no because of antimagic field" and said that the best options for doing the Fighter's job for him aren't allowed. I am sure that you can produce a set of constraints such that the answer is "no you can't do that", but the more you add the more skeptical I am of your insistence that there was no agenda in asking the question.

Hopefully I clarified for you the point of the question.

If you're really worried that this is somehow a trap, wouldn't I have posted like, an optimized fighter?

And what am I gonna do with this? All this can conceivably do is prove that it is always, in every situation, better to have a full caster than a fighter.

I only ignored anti-magic field because it would render the question totally moot. I think everyone knows that if there is no magic then the only question is who gets more BAB, Feats, Skillpoints, and Saves.

So it's trivially easy to produce that set of constraints. If my goal was to just produce that set of constraints, why in the world wouldn't I have just closed up shop when someone pointed out AMF exists?

Further if the only option you've got to do the fighters job for him are wish loops, or hiring/binding better fighters, then I kind of think you don't have a way to produce the above set of stats. A fighter can hire a better wizard. Who cares?

Now I want to be extremely clear, I don't think this is true. I think there's probably a full caster build that replicates the above set of stats, and I kind of think it's a druid's animal companion.


Re-Someone asked something about divinations

Go ham with the divinations. I don't think there are any low level divinations that will tell you precisely when up to 3 (of the 3 to 6) fights will happen today and allow you to get your buff routine in. If there are, I think that's super cool and you ought to use it!

Like Augury is wrong sometimes, and I don't know how to phrase the question anyway. "If I buff at precisely 2:15 will I get to use the buffs in combat?"

Re - Someone else mentioned rope trick

If you've got a way to make sure that you can't be tracked to the rope, that it will last exactly the amount of time between however many encounters you intend to take, and that you definitely can't be accosted on the way to or from your rope trick location, that's all fine. I don't think it can be controlled so precisely, so I think it's probably easiest to just build assuming 3 to 6 encounters.

General comment
Also, failing to figure out the build that replicates that set of stats doesn't mean one doesn't exist. So this whole thread really can't prove anything good about fighters.

Which would, of course, be a disaster if my secret motive was to prove that fighters were, like, the best class or something.

I think that's what people are having the hardest time with in this thread. They think because I brought it up I must want to prove that fighters are better than casters somehow. They're also smart enough to conclude that the way the question is constructed it can't be used to prove fighters are "better"

Since they've made an assumption about my secret motive, and they know this question can't accomplish my "secret motive", they think I just wrongly think it will accomplish my "secret motive".

Worry not. Everyone here is smart enough to understand that "not strictly better" =/= "not generally better".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How about "A wizard of the fighter's level, with dominate person"? Dominate the fighter. Now you're strictly better, because the fighter is your minion, and you have a wizard on top of that.

Strictly better, for everything.

[blackwindbears]

How about "A wizard of the fighter's level, with dominate person"? Dominate the fighter. Now you're strictly better, because the fighter is your minion, and you have a wizard on top of that.

Strictly better, for everything.

Well, you've got precisely right what "strictly better" means. But this is why I specified "no pets" then made an exception for animal companions. It is pretty trivial to answer "just get a pet with the same stats as the fighter", or hell "hire a wizard that has a pet fighter with the same stats as the fighter, the DMG lays out mercenary costs after all".

It's really easy to do it if you've got a helpful DM. Can a wizard replicate the stats with some buffs? Wizards get lots of good buffs in core, right? I think it ought to be possible.

[eggynack]

I think you're probably right that, this is the best approach, and the direbat looks the most promising. Does Deinochyus form match those fighter stats? I thought it was short on the HP end?
Wild shape doesn't change your HP. P strong form, what with pounce and all. Anyways, dire bat and ape are just very different propositions. Dire bat has substantially better utility and defense, but that ape attack routine is pretty sweet. Same average damage per hit with the primary weapon, but the ape's got two of them, a +2 to hit, and a bite attack on top. So, depends pretty heavily on what you're looking for out of the deal. The big advantage of the riding dog, meanwhile, is the whole trip thing, but it's also running 19 AC, +6 to hit, and a decent 7.5 damage. So, the stats kinda have a dire bat vibe, except you lose the flight and the vision and get to trip people sometimes. Which I appreciate. Also don't hate leopard. The whole pounce+grab+rake shtick is kinda nice.

[bean illus]

... snip

All I want to know is whether the cleric can get a specific set of stats.


See, i don't think i saw you be as clear as you were there.

'Can an elite array core caster achieve only these stats, without buffing in advance of the fight'?

You didn't answer about wands and etc, so I'll assume no?

I'm not sure why you included saves in your original stats, if we aren't supposed to target them.

Either way, I've already answered. A cleric comes close at 5th, with zero spells. Later, after 9th, they can quicken 1st level spells like divine favor, putting them at equal BAB with fighter. They also get quickened shield of faith, giving them +3 AC over the fighter. They can't quicken 2nds, but since they can quicken the first 2, then bear's endurance can go in the buff round, negating the fighters HP advantage.

But the easiest answer is "No, a caster doesn't do that, but they can do 90% of that while flying invisible and buffing, healing, summoning, and basically being a badass".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As a reminder and for future reference, a good way to use your actions to buff while still being able to attack is through lots of reach and AoOs. It functions reasonably even in Core, especially if you've got Cleave and Improved Trip.

[spectralphoenix]

]


Domains: Travel, Trickery.
Str: 16 ... ... . 16
Dex: 14 ... .. . 14
Con: 16 +2 ... 18
Int: 8
Wis: 14 +1 ... 15
Cha: 8 -2 ... ... 6

AC: 21 (full plate)
HP: (5d8+20) avg 42
BAB: 3 (5)
Initiative: +6
Melee: +8, Waraxe, Dwarven x3 (1d10+3 avg 8)
Ranged: +7, Spear (1d8+3 avg 7), and light crossbow

Feats: WF waraxe, improved initiative

Saves:
Fort: +8
Ref: +3
Will: +6


This cleric has:
* Same Str, better Dex, and better Con.
* Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +4 (better vs casters)
* Better initiative (6 vs 5), divination, and probably better listen/spot

* Better AC (21 vs 20)
* Better HP (42 vs 37)
* BAB 3 vs 5
* Melee attack/damage: 7/9 vs 8/12
* Ranged attack/damag: 7/7 vs 7/7

* Cleric lacks cleave (useless in 1 vs 1)
* Cleric has Freedom of Movement.
* Cleric has spells (5-1st, 4-2nd, 3-3rd), including Longstrider, Fly, and Invisibility.


As a point of order, this is a 32-point buy. The elite array used by the fighter is effectively a 25-point buy. It's not really reasonable to assume the cleric will have better unbuffed physical stats then the guy who doesn't have a spellcasting stat.

[bean illus]

As a point of order, this is a 32-point buy. The elite array used by the fighter is effectively a 25-point buy. It's not really reasonable to assume the cleric will have better unbuffed physical stats then the guy who doesn't have a spellcasting stat.

Yeah, that discrepancy was already pointed out. It's possible that some folks didn't notice it was.

[Lans]

This

AC: 20, Fort: +7, Ref: +3, Will: +3, Attack: +10 (13 avg damage), Ranged Attack: +8 (8 avg damage), HP: 37
r".

I do you feel about a build that has more damage but less accuracy or multiple hits that produce more or equal damage in average?

What about a little less hp but access to healing? Like an animal companion that has 5 less hp? If it would be dropped unconscious it could be healed back into the fray by the druid. If it would be killed then the fighter would of been knocked out of the fight

[bean illus]

I do you feel about a build that has more damage but less accuracy or multiple hits that produce more or equal damage in average?

What about a little less hp but access to healing? Like an animal companion that has 5 less hp? If it would be dropped unconscious it could be healed back into the fray by the druid. If it would be killed then the fighter would of been knocked out of the fight

I don't think healing is really being asked about. We know that invisibility, fly, etc are not.

I believe that the question is narrowing to 'how close can a caster come to these stats, if they use no crafting, and only have 1 buff round 50% of the time.

[blackwindbears]

I do you feel about a build that has more damage but less accuracy or multiple hits that produce more or equal damage in average?


If you can show that it does more expected damage (including when you have to move and can't get a full attack for melee) for _any_ AC I think that's good enough.

[Troacctid]

All you need is shocking grasp for better average damage (5d6 avg 17.5), and ignoring armor is effectively a higher attack bonus, so the offense is trivial to achieve. A Small race with mage armor and a +1 mithral buckler should have about the same AC. Casting false life should bring HP up to par, but we can be a gnome just to make sure. Since we didn't use any feats, we can take Improved Initiative in a normal slot. Just in case we run up against electricity resistance, we can take magic missile (3d4+3 avg 10.5), which also serves as a ranged option and helps against incorporeals. If we cast an average of 3 or 4 spells per encounter plus one each of our hour/level buffs at the start of the day, that lets us cover 3 encounters pretty easily, which should let our sorcerer meet the benchmark with two spells known, six cantrips, a feat, and a familiar still unused.

[blackwindbears]

All you need is shocking grasp for better average damage (5d6 avg 17.5), and ignoring armor is effectively a higher attack bonus, so the offense is trivial to achieve. A Small race with mage armor and a +1 mithral buckler should have about the same AC. Casting false life should bring HP up to par, but we can be a gnome just to make sure. Since we didn't use any feats, we can take Improved Initiative in a normal slot. Just in case we run up against electricity resistance, we can take magic missile (3d4+3 avg 10.5), which also serves as a ranged option and helps against incorporeals. If we cast an average of 3 or 4 spells per encounter plus one each of our hour/level buffs at the start of the day, that lets us cover 3 encounters pretty easily, which should let our sorcerer meet the benchmark with two spells known, six cantrips, a feat, and a familiar still unused.

So the assumption is that you will make no more than 10 attacks in a day with 3 to 6 encounters as long as the adventuring day is less than 5 hours?

It looks to me like you hit all the stats, but you've got to make some assumptions to make sure it stays that way.

Looks like this hits all the encounters you plan for, but none of the ones you don't, right?

Good job hitting the stats though

[Troacctid]

So the assumption is that you will make no more than 10 attacks in a day with 3 to 6 encounters as long as the adventuring day is less than 5 hours?
Sounds to me like all you need. And keep in mind each of those attacks is about 40% more effective than your fighter's equivalent, and I didn't even need all the build's resources. We could, for example, take Improved Familiar and get another 9 DPR every single turn, even without casting a spell. We also have enough gold left to comfortably afford a nice wand. Those two things combined would provide the same DPR as the fighter even after all spell slots are depleted.

[Zarator]

But it also means you have less spells. Maybe having a Druid instead of a Fighter means your Cleric needs to cast more spells. But unless he needs to cast more additional spells than the Druid is able to cast in a day, your party still comes out ahead. It is certainly true that a Fighter having an at-will "hit them with a sword" attack can allow you to forgo casting spells in some encounters. But so will a Cleric Archer, a wild shape'd Druid, an animal companion, some skeleton or zombie troops, and whatever other permanent minions casters can bring to the table. And unlike the Fighter, none of that costs you a full character's worth of spell slots.


Putting aside that I already conceded the Druid's prolly better than the Fighter at pretty much all levels (because of a combination of wildshape at higher levels and animal companion at lower levels), and that my point was more about comparing Fighter to Cleric and Wizard... Cleric archer rly isn't a thing in Core (you don't get to use Wisdom for ranged rolls, no Elf domain, etc.), skeleton/zombie troops aren't a thing good-aligned Clerics (that is to say, a large chunk of adventuring Clerics in the game) can even use, and aside from those (and the aforementioned animal companion) you don't really get much in the way of permanent minions before mid-high levels unless you flat out hire them or something (and at that point, can't the Fighter also hire people? It's not really a territory I wanna go into).




But those are not things you want a Fighter to fight! Mindless constructs lose to a 1st level silent image. Undead are blown up by Turning or (for mindless ones) taken over by command undead.




Just because someone doesn't use an option doesn't mean that option doesn't count. Plenty of people will build their characters in a way that leaves a niche for the Fighter because they're playing socially and don't want to make the guy who made a character that can be trivially replaced feel bad by replacing him. But that doesn't mean the Fighter is a good use of resources.


I wouldn't say that playing a Good-aligned Cleric is something you do primarily in order to not put the Fighter out of a job (rather than, say, because you don't want to play an Evil or evildoing character).



You mean like a Druid or a Cleric? Maybe they're not "strictly better", but even in Core, it's hard to see how you get more value out of the Fighter's marginally better chassis than you do out of the Cleric or Druid bringing additional characters to the table. As I noted earlier, a lot of the buffs you can cast on a Fighter are multi-target, meaning the Fighter is a worse target for them than a Cleric or Druid.


Yes as I said I did concede Druids can fully replace Fighters (and pretty much any other core melee class except Rogue) at pretty much all levels, though I'd be a bit more cautious about saying the same about Clerics, at least at low levels. Though IMO there's no contention that this is 100% true at higher levels, even factoring magic items and WBL guidelines.



Don't get me wrong - I overall agree with the general point that druids/clerics/wizards are vastly superior to the likes of fighters/barbarians/paladins, even in core. I was just expressing my annoyance as to how these conversations end up assuming a lot of contextual elements (such as how often you can rest to regain your spells) which are a lot more controversial than what some players seem to believe.

For example, I've even read (even on this forum) some players claiming that Rogues are also useless under the assumption (generally implicit but often explicit as well) that the DM would obviously cut down on traps if the party has no Rogue. Like... why? If the party deliberately eschewed picking a Rogue, it's their own fault - the reality of the game shouldn't depend on whether the party has or doesn't have a certain class.

[blackwindbears]

Don't get me wrong - I overall agree with the general point that druids/clerics/wizards are vastly superior to the likes of fighters/barbarians/paladins, even in core. I was just expressing my annoyance as to how these conversations end up assuming a lot of contextual elements (such as how often you can rest to regain your spells) which are a lot more controversial than what some players seem to believe.

For example, I've even read (even on this forum) some players claiming that Rogues are also useless under the assumption (generally implicit but often explicit as well) that the DM would obviously cut down on traps if the party has no Rogue. Like... why? If the party deliberately eschewed picking a Rogue, it's their own fault - the reality of the game shouldn't depend on whether the party has or doesn't have a certain class.

Fortunately, here I'm removing _all_ of the contextual elements by just providing a well defined set of stats to hit.

I'm with you on the rogue bits though. I run mostly AP's, my party currently has no Rogue. I'm not removing traps from the published adventure because they don't have one. They just have to figure it out.

[Anthrowhale]

When within melee range you provoke an attack of opportunity from casting by default. This can be avoided with a DC 16 skill check for a first level spell. Concentration could be as high as 8+3(con)=11 without feats. Hence, I think you need an additional feat for Combat Casting to reliably avoid the AOOs.

[Zarator]

When within melee range you provoke an attack of opportunity from casting by default. This can be avoided with a DC 16 skill check for a first level spell. Concentration could be as high as 8+3(con)=11 without feats. Hence, I think you need an additional feat for Combat Casting to reliably avoid the AOOs.

Skill Focus (Concentration) is generally better in 3.5 because it was upgraded from +2 to +3 and it works on ALL Concentration checks, not just those to cast defensively. For example, if enemy archers prepare an action to hit you the moment you cast a spell, even casting defensively won't rly help since they're still going to shoot you before you cast (and then if you take damage you gotta roll for a normal Concentration check, not one where you can benefit from Combat Casting). Similarly, effects like summon swarm and sleet storm force you to make Concentration checks against which you can't take advantage of Combat Casting. Combat Casting is just too narrow for justifying its 1 extra bonus over Skill Focus (Concentration), and should've been upgraded to at least a +5 in 3.5 to retain a shred of its usefulness.

[DMVerdandi]

Ive been ruminating about even posting back in this thread, but Troacctid inspired me with their no nonsense sense.



Lets say, they both live sequestered in a sort of no mans land. Not greyhawk, but lets just say it's mostly NPC's in their village. There is danger all around, but they are the only folk with PC class levels. Real hicks.


Natively, there is one big HUGE thing that separates the casters from the fighter. All they need is pen and paper to make magic items. PERIOD. No special stuff, no woowoo. Natively, It just works. Eschew materials for the needy.


Scribe Scroll smokes whatever "infinite resource" fighters have? What is that? Swing the weapon, right? Power attack? Cause it's not anything else. It DEFINITELY isn't HP.

If anything, early game meta with ANY caster without Scribe Scroll at level 1 is absolute madness.
Level 1, caster level 1 scrolls cost 12 bucks and like 1 XP.
Also Sling. Sling is OP. Club is OP.

Extend Spell is the next one to grab. No maybes.

Other than that, Long bow, and they have fighter beat CONSISTENTLY at Damage, Life lead, Having actual skills, Everything.


So level 5?

CLERIC
Any domain you want is fine, but war guarantees you a longbow if you want it. Other ones may even be better. Arcane is pretty stellar in general, especially if you aren't restricted by the standars of this thread.

Scribe scrolls of cure light wounds, sanctuary, entropic shield [Full caster level], 12 DOLLAR MAGIC STONE SCROLLS. And Scribe Scrolls of contagion and Bestow Curse .

Shoot with longbow, Extend spiritual weapon, Hit the boss with contagion and bestow curse. As well as any fighters, to shut them down completely.


[B]Druid
Extend Produce flame and Shilelagh.
12 dollar produce flame scrolls. Barkskin lasts so long that you can make those dumb cheap. Cure light wounds,

Even here, you are hitting so far away from a fighter that it's nonsense. At least the greatsword fighter. And in fact, druid buffs are so long in duration, that I would actually give druid empower spell so you could use an empowered produce flame. Then you ABSOLUTELY are doing more.
Contagion scrolls for hard dudes.

WIZARD
HEHE Free scribe scroll. Take Elf for free longbow.

Touch of fatigue on all cantrips. Cantrip scrolls for random nonsense.
Fatigue is NUTS. Especially when you need to escape.

True Strike scrolls are nuts.
Ray of enfeeblement scrolls are nuts
Expeditious retreat scrolls are nuts
Ghoul touch scrolls are nuts.
Invisibility scrolls are BEYOND nuts.
[no less than 5 each before any adventure.]


Fill up all level one slots with Chill touch[RIP the opps]
Extend Protection from arrows.
Extend spectral hand.

You gonna get touched, and you gonna get hurt. This completely bypasses any AC fighter has, and any enemy for that matter.

And when all that runs out, you have arrows. AND protection from them. 100 points of soak.




This is without ANY DM intervention.
Wizard is "vulnerable" early in the game, but there is no reason they should be low level when they first start adventuring anyway. You'd just farm XP for a second until you got what you needed.


Yes, I acknowledge that railroad tracks will change this dynamic and what not, but yeah. We are talking Cell games? Mages Smoke them 100%
Oh sure, that's very specific. So is a power attacking greatsword fighter. Where is the all toughness feats unarmed fighter? Popeye is a thing innit.



People are just notoriously bad at playing them without breaking everything or just dying super fast.
They die because they don't craft, and they don't understand that part. The downtime part.
They break cause it's easy.






Core. There you go. With everything taken away but core, consistently, the mages will outfight a fighter easily. Honestly, Low level, in a lot of ways Sorcerer is MONSTROUS. Base sorcerer. If they are played like so, but sorcerer requires WAY more brains to play than wizard ironically. You have to know which spells to even grab. INTIMATELY.



Does that mean fighter is easier to play? Absolutely not. Because spells are gold. Literally. You can just hustle by selling spells to people. And that's also XP. Scrolls are downtime from your job as a local spellcaster.
More gold and xp, more scrolls, more scrolls, more power.


The fighter doesn't even have the heal skill.


I wouldn't call any of that trivial, but they past this thread's test. Not only can they do those sorts of things to outdo the fighter in core, but they can allow OTHERS to do better.


They don't need WBL.
They need paper and pen and an actual caster behind the wheel.Every single one has a combat killer in core that can be done multiple times. Wizard is the only one who can't natively heal themselves in core. But not getting hit is better than healing, and if you play them right, they won't get hit.

[Lans]

An augmented crocodile is like 1 pt behind the fighter in average damage.

[MeimuHakurei]

So about 1st level Wizards:

-Elf gives you a Dex boost but a Con Penalty. With the Elite Array we make:
10 Str
16 Dex
11 Con
15 Int
12 Wis
8 Cha

And we add a Toad familiar for 3 additional HP. 7 isn't that much but you can take a hit or two from Level 1 threats. Mage Armor puts you at 17 AC, which has the same armor value as the Fighter's Scale Mail. And your Longbow is only one point less to hit than the Fighter's and the same damage. Conjuration is generally a good specialization so we take that so we have three first level spells to work with, dropping Enchantment and Evocation. So if we get a few too many enemies on us we can Sleep/Color Spray to clutch us out. Touch of Fatigue gives us an edge in close quarters to either take out a melee threat or at least bail. Additionally, let's add Silent Image to our loadout to allow us to slip away from mindless foes. We should also have enough skill points to help us with Knowledge as well as put a point into things like Survival to take 10 on them. Let's max out Spellcraft and Concentration, spend two points each in Spot, Listen and Survival to help us move about more easily. We dip our last two points into Knowledge for Arcane and Nature; Taking 10 on those will help us with a variety of creature identifications. Improved Initiative is probably the call because going first will significantly help our survivability.

Putting it all together, we have:

7 HP
13 AC (17 with Mage Armor)
Spot +4, Listen +4, low-light vision; Init +7
30 ft Speed
+0 Fort, +3 Ref, +3 Will; immune to sleep effects, +2 vs. enchantment
Attack: Longbow +3 (1d8), Longsword +0 (1d8)
Spells:
0th level: Daze, Touch of Fatigue, Touch of Fatigue
1st level: Mage Armor(spec), Color Spray, Silent Image

Core only does make playing a Level 1 Wizard somewhat challenging, but nothing too bad to overcome. The biggest hurdle is dealing with vermin type creatures who can poison on hit as we lack budget to invest in our Fortitude. But since we have Scribe Scroll and several options for scrolls, noncombat problems shouldn't be that big of a deal. We can take 10 on Survival to sustain ourselves in the wilderness too.

Let's try and make a ranged Fighter that can keep up with this:

I'll take Half-Elf because Elf has Wizard as a favored class so I'll pick one that has any. For our stats, I'd do it like this:

10 Str
15 Dex
14 Con
13 Int
12 Wis
8 Cha

The only choices we're making as a Fighter is where to put our skill points and feats. I put 4 ranks into Intimidate, two points in Spot, Listen and Survival and a point in Climb and Swim. Taking 10 on movement skills helps us with some rough terrain. We get three whole feats to choose from - to optimize for archery, let's take Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Rapid Shot. We can eat an opportunity attack coming for us and even get a plus for shooting people up close. Two attacks is helpful for delivering damage effectively. Let's be a bit generous and assume we can start with a Chain Mail, one of the best options for a Dexterity character to boost their AC. Since we have no more choices to make, there's no consideration about spells and how to tackle problems with them, better hope the Longbow does it for us.

Putting it all together, we get:

12 HP
16 AC
Spot +3, Listen +3, low-light vision; Init +2
30 ft Speed
+4 Fort, +2 Ref, +1 Will; immune to sleep, +2 vs. enchantment
Attack: +3 or +1/+1 Longbow (1d8), Longsword +1 (1d8) [+4 or +2/+2 on Longbow within 30 ft]

Our final build could match the Wizard in senses and AC if we went Elf, which would drop our HP to 11 and Fortitude to +3.

I'll leave it up to the readers here to call a verdict on comparing those two builds.

[bean illus]

Here's something i don't remember being mentioned.

Cleric 5: combat casting, skill focus concentration, heighten spell. Get a +2 Wisdom item on a 16 Wis.

Combat casting check: 8 +1 +3 +3 =15
Sanctuary spell: DC 10 +1 +1 +4 =16

Now buff yourself, and cast spiritual weapon, or maybe hold person.

[Anthrowhale]

Now buff yourself, and cast spiritual weapon, or maybe hold person.

It's not quite clear what an attack is for the purpose of Sanctuary, but I wouldn't be surprised to see DMs imposing the standard from Invisibility, which would preclude Spiritual Weapon or Hold Person.

[eggynack]

Gotta say, one thing I haven't seen pointed out about the premise is that the "core only" thing is a bit wonky. I feel like it has been evidenced that this comparison tends to swing the way of casters in core, but, at the same time, the impetus for the argument was apparently some people being like, "Casters can outfight the fighter and still have casting left over," and this claim notably doesn't restrict things to core. More to the point, core isn't usually the context where I see the claim made. The reason clerics are assumed able to fight all day is in large part because of DMM persist. Broadly, I would say that changing the book access to out of core mostly benefits the casters. Like, fighters get zhentarim soldier, I guess? Dungeoncrasher? Maybe we get generous and allow a dip for pounce? It's definitely an upgrade on the baseline core chain tripper (which, gotta say, that's probably what we should be comparing the fifth level caster to), but casters get a lot more. Clerics get to persist stuff, druids get fleshraker shenanigans, and both of them get lots and lots of spells that are highly useful in melee combat. Maybe it's irrelevant because the core comparison already seems fairly slanted, but I think it's notable that other contexts arguably make it even more lopsided.

[RandomPeasant]

Gotta say, one thing I haven't seen pointed out about the premise is that the "core only" thing is a bit wonky. I feel like it has been evidenced that this comparison tends to swing the way of casters in core, but, at the same time, the impetus for the argument was apparently some people being like, "Casters can outfight the fighter and still have casting left over," and this claim notably doesn't restrict things to core. More to the point, core isn't usually the context where I see the claim made.

The claim is also never "strictly better". The Cleric isn't better because she has better numbers than the Fighter, she's better because she has "good enough" numbers and also can see the future and summon angels. Discounting the future-seeing and angel-summoning the Cleric does in pursuit of narrowly better numbers is missing the point of the argument being made. As I've been saying from like the third post of the thread, it's not really clear to me what the point of this exercise is supposed to be. "Claim no one makes is false in context most people don't care about" doesn't strike me as a particularly useful point, unless (and, yes, I know OP insists they don't plan to) you want to misrepresent your results to advance an agenda.


Broadly, I would say that changing the book access to out of core mostly benefits the casters.

I would disagree with that. They're banned for some reason, but Core casters get planar binding and the various derivatives. That's already enough that you will never need a dedicated PC frontliner, and it's not even the limit of what you can do with those spells or the only broken spells that exist in Core. If you open things up to more books, the Cleric goes from Cleric + skeletons + planar ally + I still have all my spell slots today to Cleric + skeletons + planar allly + a few Persistent buffs + I have most of my spell slots today. Conversely, the Fighter (or rather, Fighter-type, as even in Core this character doesn't want to take more than two Fighter levels) goes from "maybe a Horizon Tripper, I guess" to some kind of ToB-based build with white raven tactics (allowing her to provide combat support in the same way that casters are always expected to) and the Diamond Mind save-replacers (which are a highly effective defensive option). Her non-combat options are still pretty much limited to "Diplomacy" and "break things real good", with a Cleric likely being better at the former anyway, but it's much easier for me to imagine that character having a niche than a Core Fighter.

[Gemini476]

Yeah, Fighter's definitely going to get better out of core just by virtue of having more options. It's not getting so much better that it outpaces the out-of-core Wizard et. al., who fully take advantage of the variety (especially Clerics! Gotta love knowing your whole list!), but it's definitely better.

Even the quality of [Fighter Bonus Feat]s is generally on an upward trend... and that's before you bring into the picture that there's, like, 200ish of them. Unfortunately the Fighter's still only going to be picking the handful that look the tastiest, but it's something.
I've gotta say, Paizo was on to something when they made a Fighter archetype that let you change up what bonus feats you're using.

The biggest benefit to the Fighter is, unfortunately, also going to be... no longer being a fighter. Exciting new prestige classes, dips into other classes, there's a lot of things that a Fighter will prefer to do over getting one bonus feat every other level. Grab two levels of fighter, maybe six if you're going Dungeoncrasher, eight if you're feeling really spicy, and then off to the races with multiclassing.

[Gnaeus]

. Broadly, I would say that changing the book access to out of core mostly benefits the casters. Like, fighters get zhentarim soldier, I guess? Dungeoncrasher? Maybe we get generous and allow a dip for pounce? It's definitely an upgrade on the baseline core chain tripper (which, gotta say, that's probably what we should be comparing the fifth level caster to), but casters get a lot more. Clerics get to persist stuff, druids get fleshraker shenanigans, and both of them get lots and lots of spells that are highly useful in melee combat. Maybe it's irrelevant because the core comparison already seems fairly slanted, but I think it's notable that other contexts arguably make it even more lopsided.

For me the non core argument is that it makes fighter meaningful at all. The core fighter cares about 2 feats to do his job, power attack and improved trip. And the cleric can trivially get those because there aren't many core feats worth getting. You can compare apples to apples, and then the cleric gets a free banana and a side of grapes. Non core, the fighter can achieve a meaningful build that the T1 melee types can't easily and directly match until much higher level. Like chargers or battlefield controllers. "How does my battle cleric or druid compare with a huge chain tripper with mage slayer line and ToB stuff" is a much more apples to oranges comparison. I still feel CoDzilla is better in every way I find meaningful. But it's a much more complicated discussion, and much harder to answer without answering questions like "how likely are enemy NPC casters to carry hard counters to a mage slayer area control build" or "where exactly is the line between practical and theoretical optimization, and what counts as equivalent optimization between these builds".

[Lans]

This is definitely the winner so far!


- Flying isn't a ranged weapon. Long distance on the plains for example. We've still got the druid though? Maybe with small size and some feats they can get there?


How far of a distance do you expect to engage? At 3 range increments a druid can summon a hippogriff and have it dive attack, At 6 increments it can do so after running for a round.

+8 to hit for 2d4+8 damage. Almost as much as 2 rounds of the fighter firing his bow at either the same or better attack bonus.

[RandomPeasant]

The biggest benefit to the Fighter is, unfortunately, also going to be... no longer being a fighter. Exciting new prestige classes, dips into other classes, there's a lot of things that a Fighter will prefer to do over getting one bonus feat every other level. Grab two levels of fighter, maybe six if you're going Dungeoncrasher, eight if you're feeling really spicy, and then off to the races with multiclassing.

I mean, to be fair, it's not like the casters are particularly excited to take levels in their base classes either. Clerics would happily PrC out at 2nd level if there was a way to do that without losing casting. Very few base classes are competitive with the PrCs you can qualify for coming out of those classes. Druid and maybe Rogue probably the only ones in Core (arguably Monk, if you ignore the fact that there are a bunch of non-class-specific PrCs that are better than being a Monk).


For me the non core argument is that it makes fighter meaningful at all. The core fighter cares about 2 feats to do his job, power attack and improved trip. And the cleric can trivially get those because there aren't many core feats worth getting. You can compare apples to apples, and then the cleric gets a free banana and a side of grapes.

But that's not an apples-to-apples comparison either. Which I think is the fundamental issue. The "strictly better" framework OP wants to use is simply not applicable in this case. Even if you found some build that exactly satisfied all OP's conditions for what "strictly better" means (or proved to his satisfaction that no such build exists), the base-level reality is that the vast majority of resources a Druid or Cleric directs to such a purpose are things that can simply do something else tomorrow. And that means that looking at a stat-to-stat picture is never going to give you the whole story.


"where exactly is the line between practical and theoretical optimization, and what counts as equivalent optimization between these builds".

I would argue that Anthrowhale has demonstrated that this question can't be avoided even in Core. The fundamental problem with optimization discussions in 3.5 (and, frankly, a lot of games) is that there are things that just break the system. So there's always going to be a whole layer of pre-debate debate (usually conducted in parallel in practice) where people try to hash out what stuff is allowed.

[eggynack]

I dunno, fighter gets some cool stuff but I'm pretty skeptical. Casters just get so much stuff, including the stuff that makes their melee deal really work. Instead of being a deinonychus with an ape companion tossing out lions, you can be a venomfire fleshraker with a venomfire fleshraker, summoning greenbound lions, and you can even go deep and pull that off at 5th with surrogate spellcasting instead of having to wait for 6th. And that's next to, y'know, a bunch of other stuff. Fighters are invariably kinda limited in terms of how they access the stuff they want to do. Casters just have all of it all the time.

Also, a lot of this added fighter utility is in stuff besides dealing maximum damage to maximum enemies. ToB and mageslayer and such. And, really, at that point this just becomes kinda silly, right? It's vaguely interesting to ask whether a caster can out-melee a fighter in an all day sort of way. It's deeply uninteresting to ask whether a caster can out-BFC a fighter. Like, one of the best things those greenbound lions can do is toss out walls of thorns for free. Direct damage is arguably the thing casters are worst at, simply because they have such a relative advantage in every other area. All that expanding the conversation does is make the fighter look worse.

[icefractal]

The claim is also never "strictly better". The Cleric isn't better because she has better numbers than the Fighter, she's better because she has "good enough" numbers and also can see the future and summon angels. Discounting the future-seeing and angel-summoning the Cleric does in pursuit of narrowly better numbers is missing the point of the argument being made.The argument being made on some other thread? I'm looking at this thread. Which has a fairly simple and relatively clearly defined question. I don't honestly care what arguments somebody is making elsewhere.


As I've been saying from like the third post of the thread, it's not really clear to me what the point of this exercise is supposed to be.What is the point of an Iron Chef or Zinc Saucier thread? It's not likely than in an actual campaign, the GM will say that your build needs to focus on (checks latest) the Siren PrC. The point is that it's an interesting challenge and you might learn something in the process. Is "How effective can you make a caster whose offense is entirely weapon attacks, in core?" an interesting challenge? That's subjective, and fair enough if it doesn't interest you personally, but then ... just don't reply?


And personal opinion, but ...
"Casters vs Martials, how should they be balanced?" is IMO a pointless topic that's been endlessly reheated and never produced much. It's IME always turned into either an unending circular argument, or just choir-preaching, neither of which has any utility I can see.

More specific challenges/questions, on the other hand, can be interesting and sometimes produce useful insights. For example, this thread has brought to my attention a few things:
* DMM Persist is a huge factor in how Clerics compare to other classes (including other casters). Sometimes people have said it's not a big deal because Clerics are already so good at self-buffing - not true.
* It's no surprise that (mid-level+) Druid is the best combat class in core, but I hadn't realized how big the gap was.
* Going beyond core helps full casters as much as it does other classes. Yes, some of the most powerful spells are already in core, but being able to fill in the gaps makes a major difference.

[Lans]

Up till AC 25 a hippogriff with augment summoning does more damage, past that the hippogriff does more on the 1st round. Almost any melee animal companion swings the difference, and the druid can shoot into the melee or poke with a stick. At ranged either the fighter is heavily penalized due to range or the Griff can cover the distance in 1 round then dive down for massively more damage. That's 3 fights, he then has 2 3rdlevel spells, then wild shape.


So Griff > fighter except for melee fights against creatures with between 25-29 AC past the first round. Animal Companion can cover the difference.

How often does 25 ACs come up at level 5? If it's less than 3 times a day he can throw out a dire wolf

[blackwindbears]

Up till AC 25 a hippogriff with augment summoning does more damage, past that the hippogriff does more on the 1st round. Almost any melee animal companion swings the difference, and the druid can shoot into the melee or poke with a stick. At ranged either the fighter is heavily penalized due to range or the Griff can cover the distance in 1 round then dive down for massively more damage. That's 3 fights, he then has 2 3rdlevel spells, then wild shape.


So Griff > fighter except for melee fights against creatures with between 25-29 AC past the first round. Animal Companion can cover the difference.

How often does 25 ACs come up at level 5? If it's less than 3 times a day he can throw out a dire wolf

Real dumb question here:

If you're surprised how is the hippogriff dealing more damage than the fighter on the first round? I'm counting between 3-6 fights, three of which you have no control over. Is this meant to be exclusively for the case in a large field to make up for the lack of a ranged weapon?

Would it be a little easier to just give the druid a bow? (Not saying it would be "better", just in terms of hitting the avg 8 damage with +8 to hit at range...)

[Lans]

Real dumb question here:

If you're surprised how is the hippogriff dealing more damage than the fighter on the first round? I'm counting between 3-6 fights, three of which you have no control over. Is this meant to be exclusively for the case in a large field to make up for the lack of a ranged weapon?

Would it be a little easier to just give the druid a bow? (Not saying it would be "better", just in terms of hitting the avg 8 damage with +8 to hit at range...)
Originally the hippogriff was for a large field, with croc during normal fights, I then ran numbers and the hippogriff out performed the croc. The bow locks me into stat and race that I wanted to leave open. The Griff has a combat range of 240 from the druids starting location, and can move another 200 feet if an enemy is still out of range

[bean illus]

It's not quite clear what an attack is for the purpose of Sanctuary, but I wouldn't be surprised to see DMs imposing the standard from Invisibility, which would preclude Spiritual Weapon or Hold Person.

Of course.
I was only creating a cleric option, that was different from the other cleric options that i had mentioned.

This one uses no melee or fighter feats. Instead it aims for 6th, 9th, and 12th level magic based feats (possibly extend, quicken, maybe spell penetration?).

The ability for a Wis based caster to consistently hit concentration checks and raise spell DC is not a given in core, with only a 25 point buy.

[Anthrowhale]

...
The larger point that Sanctuary is a powerful spell seems quite valid in combination with summons (for example). It's also pretty compelling for Imbue with Spell Ability.

[blackwindbears]

Originally the hippogriff was for a large field, with croc during normal fights, I then ran numbers and the hippogriff out performed the croc. The bow locks me into stat and race that I wanted to leave open. The Griff has a combat range of 240 from the druids starting location, and can move another 200 feet if an enemy is still out of range

But, you still lose the first attack, right? Also, casting SMX during combat seems really risky to me. Is it intended to be used exclusively for pre-combat summoning?

[bean illus]

The larger point that Sanctuary is a powerful spell seems quite valid in combination with summons (for example). It's also pretty compelling for Imbue with Spell Ability.

You would consider hold person or spiritual weapon attacks, but not summon monster? Or were you just addressing the usefulness of sanctuary?

Again, that +6 (and a 12 Int plus eagle's splendor) are pricey, but your chance of not wasting the spell is greatly improved (in the theoretical 'front line cleric').

I hope you know how impressed i am with your builds.

[Anthrowhale]

You would consider hold person or spiritual weapon attacks, but not summon monster?
Yeah, summon monster passes the Invisibility test since the spell does not target a foe or include the foe in an area of effect.

I hope you know how impressed i am with your builds.
Oh, thanks :smallsmile:

[Lans]

But, you still lose the first attack, right? Also, casting SMX during combat seems really risky to me. Is it intended to be used exclusively for pre-combat summoning? Yes, I thought it had the casting time of a full round action, not 1 round. Definitely still useful for covering range and times where a prebuff/summoning.

[Gurgeh]

Mm, Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally have casting times of one round; they will do absolutely nothing until just before the caster's next turn (and the caster will need to make concentration checks if they're damaged or otherwise distracted in the intervening time, etc.)

I'm not aware of any full-round action cast-time spells other than standard action spells that are penalised by spontaneous metamagic use.

[Gemini476]

Mm, Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally have casting times of one round; they will do absolutely nothing until just before the caster's next turn (and the caster will need to make concentration checks if they're damaged or otherwise distracted in the intervening time, etc.)

I'm not aware of any full-round action cast-time spells other than standard action spells that are penalised by spontaneous metamagic use.

From what I can tell, there might literally just be one full-round action spell: Righteous Exile from Fiendish Codex II. (It's a Cleric 9 spell that deals 20d6 damage to evil creatures within a 20ft burst, and then evil outsiders need to make a custom-DC will save or get transported back to their home plane.)

Other magic systems and whatnot occasionally use them, though.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A chronocharm of the uncaring archmage (MIC) is stupidly cheap and allows you to cast summon spells as a standard action. You can only wear one at a time, and other limits make it hard to swap out, but there's nothing saying you can't stack multiple CotUA effects on a single chronocharm using the rules there in the MIC.

[Lans]

The premise is core only, maybe a scroll or staff could work?


The claim is also never "strictly better". The Cleric isn't better because she has better numbers than the Fighter, she's better because she has "good enough" numbers and also can see the future and summon angels. Discounting the future-seeing and angel-summoning the Cleric does in pursuit of narrowly better numbers is missing the point of the argument being made. As I've been saying from like the third post of the thread, it's not really clear to me what the point of this exercise is supposed to be. "Claim no one makes is false in context most people don't care about" doesn't strike me as a particularly useful point, unless (and, yes, I know OP insists they don't plan to) you want to misrepresent your results to advance an agenda.



I have seen this claimed, maybe as an exaggeration of an exaggeration. It's an interesting build excercise against what I think is Redgar where even if the caster falls short on the fringes, knowing where they are has value.

[Gemini476]

The claim I've seen bandied about is more along the lines of CoDzilla being on fairly equal footing with the Fighter, combat-wise, while also having all those spells available. That even if, yes, they're worse in a fight in some ways... they make up for it by being able to cast spells. Also the whole thing about how the Druid being two slightly-worse fighters makes the character as a whole better than the fighter, perhaps.

In actuality a lot of the time you're probably going to be better off tossing those persisted buffs onto the Fighter-equivalent to further stack the deck, but charop's generally been focused on single characters rather than full synergistic parties.

[Gnaeus]

In actuality a lot of the time you're probably going to be better off tossing those persisted buffs onto the Fighter-equivalent to further stack the deck, but charop's generally been focused on single characters rather than full synergistic parties.

Fighters don't exist in optimized full synergistic parties. They bring no synergy to the table. They are only halfway decent at best at 2 things. Being a mediocre wall and inflicting damage against AC defense. Neither of those is worth a PC slot who does nothing to add to the capabilities of other PCs.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Fighters don't exist in optimized full synergistic parties. They bring no synergy to the table. They are only halfway decent at best at 2 things. Being a mediocre wall and inflicting damage against AC defense. Neither of those is worth a PC slot who does nothing to add to the capabilities of other PCs.Well, they can, but they require tricks and racial goodies (such as acquiring Large+ size, flight, and fast healing), and they generally only go to about level 6, at best, and even then they lean heavily on ACFs such as dungeon crasher.

[RandomPeasant]

In actuality a lot of the time you're probably going to be better off tossing those persisted buffs onto the Fighter-equivalent to further stack the deck, but charop's generally been focused on single characters rather than full synergistic parties.

Is that even a thing you can do? Unless you believe in Persistent Touch spells (which is not an entirely unreasonable position, but is a fringe one), the overlap between "buffs you can cast on the Fighter" and "buffs you can make Persistent" is ... not large. I guess maybe all spellcasters are expected to have Ocular Spell to use on buffs?

More generally, the "Fighters are a good target for buffs" argument is a common one, but I'm not convinced it holds much water. You can't target a Fighter with Personal buffs. Most of the buffs that aren't Personal are party-wide, or at least multi-target, so you get more mileage out of casting them on a caster + minions than just a Fighter. There are a few buffs that are single target and not Personal, but even there, I'd rather cast polymorph to turn a Rogue into a Hydra that can make ten Sneak Attacks in a round than to turn a Fighter into a slightly beefier beatstick.

And again, if you want to make this claim, I invite you to tell me who out of a Beguiler/Cleric/Dread Necromancer/Druid party (or Cleric/Druid/Rogue/Wizard party in Core) you'd replace with a Fighter, at what levels, and why (or in what circumstances) you'd expect that trade to have positive EV.


Fighters don't exist in optimized full synergistic parties. They bring no synergy to the table. They are only halfway decent at best at 2 things. Being a mediocre wall and inflicting damage against AC defense. Neither of those is worth a PC slot who does nothing to add to the capabilities of other PCs.

The implicit double standard of "I can play a Fighter because I think it's fun" and "you should buff the Fighter because it's the best tactic" is one of the most frustrating parts of this argument. You can't simultaneously argue that decisions should be made on the basis of fun and tactical optimality.

[Anthrowhale]

W.r.t. buffs,

Any spell can easily be cast on the fighter via Magic Jar or a Ring of Spell Storing in core. Out of core, you can achieve even higher buffing efficiency.
Fighters can easily pay for their own buffs through purchase of a pearls of power.
With intelligently used core buffs the game already struggles in player vs monster balance.
Once you open up out of core buffs there is no balance. For example, even in an E6 environment, Persistent Wraithstrike + Persistent Alter Self[Crucian] leaves a character almost always missed and almost always hitting. Layering on more buffs for damage, resistances, and movement modes overwhelms.


Given the last point in particular, fighters are most useful in settings with few-or-no buffs since with buffs on the table it really doesn't matter much what you start with. Perhaps, a core-only game that is 1/3 normal, 1/3 limited magic, 1/3 dead magic might leave a fighter fairly essential? A classical Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Fighter party might work reasonably well.

A Rogue's skills seem fairly essential when magic is unavailable. Sneak attack is also a solid combat augment.
A Cleric's status removal suite seems fairly essential and their dead magic AC is welcome.
Between Wizard and Druid, the Wizard substantially broadens the suite of available spells where they can be used.
Given the above, a Druid adds little to spell versatility. Their dead magic combat suite is ok, but a fighter's is a plausibly better.

[Troacctid]

W.r.t. buffs,

Any spell can easily be cast on the fighter via Magic Jar or a Ring of Spell Storing in core. Out of core, you can achieve even higher buffing efficiency.
Fighters can easily pay for their own buffs through purchase of a pearls of power.
With intelligently used core buffs the game already struggles in player vs monster balance.
Once you open up out of core buffs there is no balance. For example, even in an E6 environment, Persistent Wraithstrike + Persistent Alter Self[Crucian] leaves a character almost always missed and almost always hitting. Layering on more buffs for damage, resistances, and movement modes overwhelms.

A lot of heavy lifting being done by that "easily," I see.

[Lans]

Fighters don't exist in optimized full synergistic parties. They bring no synergy to the table. They are only halfway decent at best at 2 things. Being a mediocre wall and inflicting damage against AC defense. Neither of those is worth a PC slot who does nothing to add to the capabilities of other PCs.

Intimidating and Dazing..






The implicit double standard of "I can play a Fighter because I think it's fun" and "you should buff the Fighter because it's the best tactic" is one of the most frustrating parts of this argument. You can't simultaneously argue that decisions should be made on the basis of fun and tactical optimality.

The choice to choose to be a fighter is an out of character player choice, while the choice of who to buff would be an in character player choice

[icefractal]

A lot of heavy lifting being done by that "easily," I see.
Well yes, but a lot of heavy lifting is also being done by "just use DMM: Persistent, which is a normal and expected part of the game".

Look, I like buff-stacks, I generally make it a point to acquire them in any higher-op campaign (still very possible in PF1, despite the lack of Persistent), so I'm obviously not against them in general.

But DMM: Persistent is honestly broken by the standards of most campaigns. It isn't just "being somewhat better at buffing", it's a complete game-changer for the Cleric. As seen in this thread, you take that away and it changes the Cleric's play-style considerably - either pushing them to a more-casting / less-melee role or else eating up the majority of their slots until high level.

And actually yes, in a high-op campaign I do consider "switch bodies as needed for better buffing" to be normal SOP. As well as using minions for some of your buffing so you're not spending your own slots on it, as well as doing it in a custom demiplane for that bonus to CL, as well as everyone being PaO'd into a better form, etc, etc. Because that's the level of high-op where DMM: Persistent would be appropriate - any less than that and it probably isn't.

[Gnaeus]

Intimidating and Dazing..

1. Aren't synergistic. They don't help my druid or Beguiler at all. He is still just a lump to take benefits from other PCs. Synergistic is we give each other stuff. Fighter is among the least synergistic classes in the game. What buffs does the fighter provide? What items can he create? What spells does he bring to the table that can't be acquired elsewhere? None x3
2. Intimidate isn't really something even the zhentarim fighter is good at compared to a full caster. Imperious command isn't a fighter only feat and most casters are better at skill check boosting than is fighter. Samurai is a bit better at it but still not worth the slot. A synergistic use of intimidate would be a bard using doomspeak to give a target -10 on saves before the wizard drops him.
3. Any full caster is better at inflicting disabling conditions than fighter.



The choice to choose to be a fighter is an out of character player choice, while the choice of who to buff would be an in character player choice

Oh is it? Then my in character decision that buffing myself is just more fun is entirely valid. My in character decision that the fighter would be better off as a dominated flunky also. My decision to make/summon a dozen fighters who completely obsolete your fighter likewise

[RandomPeasant]

The choice to choose to be a fighter is an out of character player choice, while the choice of who to buff would be an in character player choice

I'm not even sure I agree with that. In-world, people don't just wake up one day with a bunch of Fighter levels. They train to gain those levels, and presumably could choose to train in some other way. Maybe you don't directly choose between Fighter and Wizard because of ability scores, but I would say you at least choose between Fighter and Warblade. And, personally, if people were saying "you should take a Warblade on your adventures", I would be a lot more amenable to that argument. You're still worse than a caster (especially outside combat), but at least you have a couple of things like white raven tactics or the Diamond Mind auto-save maneuvers that grant capabilities casters can't easily replicate.


Any spell can easily be cast on the fighter via Magic Jar or a Ring of Spell Storing in core. Out of core, you can achieve even higher buffing efficiency.

If I'm casting my buffs via magic jar, why do I need to cast them on a party member?


Fighters can easily pay for their own buffs through purchase of a pearls of power.

I am not convinced you can afford all the gear you need and all the Pearls of Power you need for buffs. Plus, if you're doing this, you have to stop arguing about how dispelling is a disadvantage of the caster.


Perhaps, a core-only game that is 1/3 normal, 1/3 limited magic, 1/3 dead magic might leave a fighter fairly essential?

Pretty sure the Fighter just gets shredded when he tries to fight a Dragon or something in a dead magic zone. The class may not have spells, but it's dependent as hell on gear.


But DMM: Persistent is honestly broken by the standards of most campaigns. It isn't just "being somewhat better at buffing", it's a complete game-changer for the Cleric. As seen in this thread, you take that away and it changes the Cleric's play-style considerably - either pushing them to a more-casting / less-melee role or else eating up the majority of their slots until high level.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Without stacking Nightsticks or ability score boosting cheese, you get somewhere between one and three Persistent spells. That's not game-breaking, unless you are doing something like Persistent wraithstrike. If you just go for the stock divine power + righteous might + maybe divine favor suite, you aren't going to trivialize encounters, you're just better than the Fighter. Honestly, it's probably less raw power than the Wizard gets from making good spell choices, it's just that it's directly superior to another class in a way that people want to believe isn't possible.

[Anthrowhale]

Pretty sure the Fighter just gets shredded when he tries to fight a Dragon or something in a dead magic zone. The class may not have spells, but it's dependent as hell on gear.

Fighting a Black Wyrm in a DMZ is indeed a serious challenge for a party. Given the challenge, I expect a Fighter contributes more than a Druid. With an out of core fighter, the party might even win.

[Lans]

1. Aren't synergistic. They don't help my druid or Beguiler at all. He is still just a lump to take benefits from other PCs. Synergistic is we give each other stuff. Fighter is among the least synergistic classes in the game. What buffs does the fighter provide? What items can he create? What spells does he bring to the table that can't be acquired elsewhere? None x3
2. Intimidate isn't really something even the zhentarim fighter is good at compared to a full caster. Imperious command isn't a fighter only feat and most casters are better at skill check boosting than is fighter. Samurai is a bit better at it but still not worth the slot. A synergistic use of intimidate would be a bard using doomspeak to give a target -10 on saves before the wizard drops him. debuffing the enemy is comparable to providing a buff, it effectively gives the enemy -2 to saves. I don't care if imperious command isn't a fighter feat it goes well with a fighters class abilities. Other classes can make use of it as well, I think the fighter is the third best at it though. Past certain number the skill number won't matter I think the fighter can hit this number


3. Any full caster is better at inflicting disabling conditions than fighter. I don't know if that is true, and it doesn't matter.




Oh is it? Then my in character decision that buffing myself is just more fun is entirely valid. My in character decision that the fighter would be better off as a dominated flunky also. My decision to make/summon a dozen fighters who completely obsolete your fighter likewise if that is the type of character that you want to play then sure.

[Gnaeus]

debuffing the enemy is comparable to providing a buff, it effectively gives the enemy -2 to saves. I don't care if imperious command isn't a fighter feat it goes well with a fighters class abilities. Other classes can make use of it as well, I think the fighter is the third best at it though. Past certain number the skill number won't matter I think the fighter can hit this number

Yeah, until the bard uses the same skill to give a -10. I agree hitting the number isn't hard. That's why it isn't much of a selling point for the fighter. Virtually every character in a caster party will have more skills than the fighter, and be better at cheesing intimidate checks than the fighter, so saying a fighter can intimidate is like saying he can keep his horse from running away. Any NPC can be polymorphed into something huge and make intimidate checks.



I don't know if that is true, and it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. In an optimized synergistic party, not being the worst at your job matters massively.



if that is the type of character that you want to play then sure.

Cool. I'm going to quote you in all future discussion about how not buffing the fighter shows a lack of cooperative play. Since it is entirely an in character decision. "Lans said I was under no OOC obligation to buff the fighter and it is an in character decision".

[MeimuHakurei]

It's funny to cry teamwork over this - you know what the Fighter's idea of "teamwork" is? Policing the party spellcasters on which spells they're allowed to use and how, taking no action to support anything the casters might be up to and demanding reputation and fame for mooching off the accomplishments of the casters that they themselves took no part in. And having the audacity to call the supporting characters useless for not being the ones dealing damage and not being allowed to be the one beating the boss.

[Lans]

I'm not even sure I agree with that. In-world, people don't just wake up one day with a bunch of Fighter levels. They train to gain those levels, and presumably could choose to train in some other way. Maybe you don't directly choose between Fighter and Wizard because of ability scores, but I would say you at least choose between Fighter and Warblade.


.



I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Without stacking Nightsticks or ability score boosting cheese, you get somewhere between one and three Persistent spells. That's not game-breaking, unless you are doing something like Persistent wraithstrike. If you just go for the stock divine power + righteous might + maybe divine favor suite, you aren't going to trivialize encounters, you're just better than the Fighter. .

1 I don't know if that is true in universe, otherwise warriors and commoners would not exist.

2 are you saying as a character or at whacking people with a chunk of metal?

[icefractal]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Without stacking Nightsticks or ability score boosting cheese, you get somewhere between one and three Persistent spells. That's not game-breaking, unless you are doing something like Persistent wraithstrike. If you just go for the stock divine power + righteous might + maybe divine favor suite, you aren't going to trivialize encounters, you're just better than the Fighter. Honestly, it's probably less raw power than the Wizard gets from making good spell choices, it's just that it's directly superior to another class in a way that people want to believe isn't possible.The equivalent to a Wizard making good spell choices is ... a Cleric making good spell choices. :smalltongue: In core, the Cleric list may be a bit lackluster, but with all sources open they've got plenty of top-tier options.

Yes, in a high-op game where the other party members are a Minion-mancer and a Mailman, a Persist-o-mancer will fit in fine. In a game like that, an "as WotC intended" martial is not remotely suitable. The closest thing that would be is maybe an Ubercharger.
Note that none of these need to be at the maximum-TO level they can reach, I'm just referring to the strategies; all of these have in common that they can scale from 'pretty strong' up to TO levels or anywhere in between.

So I'm not sure how useful the comparison of a DMM Cleric to a plain non-WBLmancy Fighter is, because those two characters don't belong in the same campaign.

[RandomPeasant]

Fighting a Black Wyrm in a DMZ is indeed a serious challenge for a party. Given the challenge, I expect a Fighter contributes more than a Druid. With an out of core fighter, the party might even win.

The Druid gets to sack their animal companion while the party runs away from a fight they can't hope to win. The Fighter dies. Turns out an expendable meatshield is way better than one you need to protect long term.


It's funny to cry teamwork over this - you know what the Fighter's idea of "teamwork" is? Policing the party spellcasters on which spells they're allowed to use and how, taking no action to support anything the casters might be up to and demanding reputation and fame for mooching off the accomplishments of the casters that they themselves took no part in. And having the audacity to call the supporting characters useless for not being the ones dealing damage and not being allowed to be the one beating the boss.

And this, again, is why it would be so much easier to make this case if people were willing to just play a goddamn Warblade. white raven tactics is a meaningful thing you can do to support the rest of your party. Is it as good as the laundry list of buffs Fighters ask for, or the "any meaningful non-combat utility" casters bring to the table? No. But it's not nothing, and that would go a long way to making the case for cooperation.


1 I don't know if that is true in universe, otherwise warriors and commoners would not exist.

Commoners are pretty clearly people who just aren't trained. Similarly, I think Warriors are best understood as people who don't apply themselves very hard to martial skills.


2 are you saying as a character or at whacking people with a chunk of metal?

As a character. That's the only thing that actually matters.


The equivalent to a Wizard making good spell choices is ... a Cleric making good spell choices. :smalltongue: In core, the Cleric list may be a bit lackluster, but with all sources open they've got plenty of top-tier options.

Or making good feat choices. DMM is not a high-op option. You are taking a feat to do the exact thing the feat says it does. It's not even like planar binding, where using the ability to do the thing it says it does results in potentially game-breaking power. Having divine power up all the time is just not a big deal, because the abilities the Fighter gets are not a big deal. I will certainly give you that buying a dozen Nightsticks so you can get a double-digit number of Persistent spells is high-op. Similarly, using things like anyspell to dumpster-dive for Persistable spells from other lists, or using Ocular spell to make non-Persistable spells Persistable are high-op. But "use a feat to do a thing that feat does" is not high-op just because it makes you better than another character.

[Anthrowhale]

The Druid gets to sack their animal companion while the party runs away from a fight they can't hope to win.

Hirelings, mounts, and pet animals are cheap enough in core that the Druid's advantage here seems marginal in comparison to a character that can actually win more DMZ combats.

[icefractal]

But "use a feat to do a thing that feat does" is not high-op just because it makes you better than another character.High-op is about the results more than the method. At least in terms of what's suitable in a "high-op campaign" / "low-op campaign".

Like for example, Undead Tainted Scholar for NI spells and DCs is a lot simpler than using all kinds of obscure skill-boosting tricks to make Truenamer good. But the latter would be fine in most campaigns, where-as the former wouldn't.

Festering Anger + Cancer Mage is using two things from the same book in a way that's very fitting thematically. Still broken in most campaigns. Adding Aeshkrau Illumian is only one extra source, and not even setting specific, and that pushes it to the PO/TO border.

[RandomPeasant]

High-op is about the results more than the method. At least in terms of what's suitable in a "high-op campaign" / "low-op campaign".

But the results are not game-breaking! Having divine power up all the time doesn't break the game. It just lets you do the Fighter's job. I can see how that would get banned on the basis of "we're playing for fun, let Steve have his thing", but the idea that full BAB and +6 Strength is game-shattering just seems wholly unsupported to me. We're not even talking about something like a Cloistered Cleric where you get power for nothing by trading down BAB and then setting your BAB.

Moreover, I don't see how this doesn't just turn into "class doesn't matter, the DM will let you cheese your way to the target power level". Which might be true in practice (though often not, a lot of DMs will tune out mid-way through your explanation of where your Truespeak bonus comes from and reject it), but is not a useful way to discuss power imbalances. Outcome is certainly one aspect of optimization, but things like "this requires six different sources, two of which are from settings the campaign isn't in" or "this requires me to accept your interpretation of the text based on a CustServ answer that is no longer on the searchable internet" or "this will make your turn take four times as long to adjudicate as any other player's" are also factors.


Hirelings, mounts, and pet animals are cheap enough in core that the Druid's advantage here seems marginal in comparison to a character that can actually win more DMZ combats.

You're not going to win DMZ combats unless the DM either A) makes creatures act like idiots by having enemies that depend on magic fight you there or B) applies a huge "all the stuff you use doesn't work" EL premium. And if the DM does that, we're into "things rubber-band until you win and class doesn't matter territory". Which is sort of the flaw in your whole argument. If you have to go to "what if we turn off the casters 33% of the time" to make a case for the Fighter, you've effectively conceded that there is no case to be made for the Fighter.

[Troacctid]

Festering Anger + Cancer Mage is using two things from the same book in a way that's very fitting thematically. Still broken in most campaigns. Adding Aeshkrau Illumian is only one extra source, and not even setting specific, and that pushes it to the PO/TO border.
Not a great example, since cancer mage is nothing more than a glorified lesser restoration in this combo, and I'm not aware of any means for a PC to deliberately contract festering anger outside of DM fiat. Festering anger is basically an artifact. If the DM drops an overpowered artifact into your hands and you use it to break the game, is that really optimization, or is it just a Monty Haul?

[Anthrowhale]

You're not going to win DMZ combats unless the DM either A) makes creatures act like idiots by having enemies that depend on magic fight you there or B) applies a huge "all the stuff you use doesn't work" EL premium.

If you go out of core, a DMZ party that can handle level-appropriate challenges seems pretty doable. In core it's more challenging, but it may be feasible. For example, a Balor (AC 35, Attack+33) or an Old Red (AC 33, attack+36) may be viable. That's better than a fighter can generate, but it's close enough that with a party of 4 it may be doable.

[JNAProductions]

What's the best archer you can build in core?

Because Balors and Dragons can both do two things:

1) Fly
2) Carry heavy rocks

Even IF you can handle them in a DMZ in a straight-up fight, they can disengage pretty easily and just dump heavy objects on you from high above until you die.

[Anthrowhale]

Even IF you can handle them in a DMZ in a straight-up fight, they can disengage pretty easily and just dump heavy objects on you from high above until you die.
My understanding is that "rocks fall" is a Refl DC 15 to negate. Between that, the time required to find and fly up with rocks, archery providing a minimum of a 5% chance of hitting/arrow, and the potential for underground adventures this doesn't seem very effective.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

At high levels, dragons are pretty much never random encounters, since they are CR'd several tiers below where they actually fall, and so any powerful true dragon is going to have the battlefield set to their advantage already, using their magical and physical prowess to prep the battlefield beforehand. And that's not including their own personal preparations, such as keeping a pouch full of shrink item'd boulders on-claw, which are also (of course) prepped with things like explosive rune traps, fire traps, alchemical explosives, and so on. They aren't just falling rocks; they're flaming, exploding, acidic, entangling falling rocks.

Basically, any dragon worth fighting is a dragon who learned at the school of Tucker's kobolds.

[RandomPeasant]

If you go out of core, a DMZ party that can handle level-appropriate challenges seems pretty doable. In core it's more challenging, but it may be feasible. For example, a Balor (AC 35, Attack+33) or an Old Red (AC 33, attack+36) may be viable. That's better than a fighter can generate, but it's close enough that with a party of 4 it may be doable.

It's perfectly doable in Core, but the way you do it is by abusing planar binding, not by anything the Fighter does. But the broader point that if you have to go to "what if casters just didn't work" to argue why a Fighter might be worthwhile, what you are saying is that Fighters are not worthwhile.

[Anthrowhale]

... magical and physical prowess ...
The magical part doesn't work in a DMZ.

It's perfectly doable in Core, but the way you do it is by abusing planar binding,
That works although the revenge clause could get interesting with a creative DM.

But the broader point that if you have to go to "what if casters just didn't work" to argue why a Fighter might be worthwhile, what you are saying is that Fighters are not worthwhile.
I don't understand. Fighters are not worthwhile because they are sometimes worthwhile?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The magical part doesn't work in a DMZ.Depends on the setup. Dropping shrunken boulders into a dead magic zone works just fine, as does prepping other stuff that activates when the magic is suppressed, such as illusions blocking line of sight for mindless undead. Or, y'know, just raising undead that function just fine without magic afterwards. Also, alchemical items, since you have to be a spellcaster for them (which many dragons are).

[Nizaris]

In a DMZ magic bows will no longer make their arrows magical to bypass the dragon's DR/magic. A level 20 fighter has a 18 base Dex + 5 from tomes and +5 from leveling, belt's deactivated in the DMZ. Add in feats and probably looking at a +32 to hit dealing 1d8+ 3 Str + 4 Weapon Specialization. An old red only has 33 AC so the fighter's going to hit with a lot of arrows, but only deal an average of 1.5 damage after DR 10 is applied. The dragon can win solely by fly-by breath weapons, there's no resist energy to protect against the breath weapon and it's longer reach will also let it make melee attacks at 20ft where the party's melee can't touch. Sure in a DMZ the party's fighter is likely the only person able to get damage in, but that 19 damage a round isn't going to do much against 378 HP.

[RandomPeasant]

That works although the revenge clause could get interesting with a creative DM.

Urgh. People say this every time the spell comes up, but the revenge clause does not matter. "Some demons show up to hassle you" is just an adventure. As adventurers the PCs are perfectly happy to have one of those.


I don't understand. Fighters are not worthwhile because they are sometimes worthwhile?

I'm saying your situation is so contrived as to not be a meaningful argument. A Commoner is worthwhile if you assume that the premise of the campaign is that there's a magic item that gives +100,000 to all stats and wish at will, but is class-restricted to single-classed Commoners. But that doesn't mean "Commoners are worthwhile sometimes" in anything but the most vacuous sense.

[Anthrowhale]

In a DMZ magic bows will no longer make their arrows magical to bypass the dragon's DR/magic.
I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe DR/magic is supernatural and so suppressed in a DMZ.

Edit: also, dragons definitely don't have a breath weapon in a DMZ.


I'm saying your situation is so contrived as to not be a meaningful argument.

There are several published settings in which "Magic does not work here" is a significant part of the setting. For example, the Forgotten Realms has Anauroch. More generally "magic is unreliable" is a fairly well-known idea culturally. Overall, a setting with significant DMZs and limited magic zones seems like a reasonable-but-not-default setting to me.

I agree that your "commoners only" setting seems far-fetched.

[Nizaris]

I'm AFB at the moment, but I believe DR/magic is supernatural and so suppressed in a DMZ.

Edit: also, dragons definitely don't have a breath weapon in a DMZ.

Missed that on the breath weapon being a no-go Su, tactic would probably switch to Fly-By Attack and Snatch to keep the fighter from being able to use the bow and take them up in elevation to drop.

Good ole' 3.5 editing, the dragon's stat block doesn't list the DR as being Ex or Su and the glossary in the MM puts Damage Reduction as being Ex or Su, but doesn't state how to tell which DR/Magic would be.

[RandomPeasant]

There are several published settings in which "Magic does not work here" is a significant part of the setting. For example, the Forgotten Realms has Anauroch. More generally "magic is unreliable" is a fairly well-known idea culturally. Overall, a setting with significant DMZs and limited magic zones seems like a reasonable-but-not-default setting to me.

Can you name a single published adventure where the party spends 1/3 of their time in a DMZ? Because I can't. The fact remains that if the only way you can make a case for the Fighter is "what if the caster just doesn't work", you're not making a case for the Fighter. It is okay if the Fighter is bad. You don't have to stop liking them, but if you can't make a serious argument for why they're good, maybe they aren't good.

[Lans]

Can you name a single published adventure where the party spends 1/3 of their time in a DMZ? Because I can't. The fact remains that if the only way you can make a case for the Fighter is "what if the caster just doesn't work", you're not making a case for the Fighter. It is okay if the Fighter is bad. You don't have to stop liking them, but if you can't make a serious argument for why they're good, maybe they aren't good.

Even in a DMZ a caster has options alananimate dead and planar binding/ally that could out do a fighter. Which is why even this core only premise had a no minions clause along with it being absolutely better to at best a fairly medium op fighter that I think is could be an npc

[Anthrowhale]

Missed that on the breath weapon being a no-go Su, tactic would probably switch to Fly-By Attack and Snatch to keep the fighter from being able to use the bow and take them up in elevation to drop.

Snatch is a real concern. I expect setting up to resist a snatch is important tactically.


Good ole' 3.5 editing, the dragon's stat block doesn't list the DR as being Ex or Su and the glossary in the MM puts Damage Reduction as being Ex or Su, but doesn't state how to tell which DR/Magic would be.
I believe the RC disambiguates this.

Can you name a single published adventure where the party spends 1/3 of their time in a DMZ?

Anauroch: Empire of Shade is a 3.5 adventure with some DMZ adventuring, although I'm unfamiliar with the exact split.

The one I am familiar with (from looooong ago) was "The Immortal Storm" from basic D&D which featured a long adventure sequence on a magicless pseudo-earth.

I would not be surprised if there are published adventures in the Outlands (which have limited-or-no magic depending on location). It's certainly odd to publish magic-limited settings and then never have or expect an adventure there.

I expect there are others that I'm not aware of.

[RandomPeasant]

Even in a DMZ a caster has options alananimate dead and planar binding/ally that could out do a fighter. Which is why even this core only premise had a no minions clause along with it being absolutely better to at best a fairly medium op fighter that I think is could be an npc

That's the thing. Even if we accept the premise that "what if casters just didn't work" is a meaningful argument for the Fighter, you still don't want a Fighter. The Warblade is still better. Casters can still deal with the challenge if they're aware they're going to need to. That's the other thing that frustrates me about this debate. You get these comically absurd scenarios from Team Fighter, and half the time they don't win even if you grant all their premises. But god forbid that their pet class could not be worthwhile.


I expect there are others that I'm not aware of.

Or maybe there aren't. Maybe "what if half the party's abilities don't work" is just not a thing that happens very often, and therefore not a good argument for other party members mattering. I mean, look at your actual examples. They are "I don't know if this meets the standard, but let's assume it does" and "here's an adventure from two editions prior to the one we're talking about". In attempting to provide evidence for your argument that is so bad it undermines your position, you have made an argument that is so bad it undermines your position. If this is the best you can do, you are admitting the Fighter is not a worthwhile party member.

[icefractal]

That's the thing. Even if we accept the premise that "what if casters just didn't work" is a meaningful argument for the Fighter, you still don't want a Fighter. The Warblade is still better.Wait - why are we talking about whether Fighter is a good class? It isn't, but that's not the subject of the thread.

In fact, it having the least features is what makes this an interesting question - is it so featureless that a caster can simply do everything that it does, as a side hobby? Like, the answer is obviously "no" for Warblade, because even with Heroics stacking to pick up maneuvers via feats, you won't have the recovery mechanism - a caster can be better than a Warblade, but not strictly better. For Fighter? Seems like the answer depends on what sources are in play.



That's the other thing that frustrates me about this debate. You get these comically absurd scenarios from Team Fighter, and half the time they don't win even if you grant all their premises. But god forbid that their pet class could not be worthwhile.The thing that frustrates me about the stupid ****ing debate is that people keep bringing it to any thread where the word "Fighter" is mentioned! Go make a separate thread so I can ignore it, plz.

[RandomPeasant]

Wait - why are we talking about whether Fighter is a good class? It isn't, but that's not the subject of the thread.

I don't know, Anthrowhale is the one who jumped in to say "but what if 1/3 of the campaign was in a DMZ". Maybe you should ask him.


The thing that frustrates me about the stupid ****ing debate is that people keep bringing it to any thread where the word "Fighter" is mentioned! Go make a separate thread so I can ignore it, plz.

No, they don't. Feel free to go make a thread talking about roleplaying a Fighter, and I at least promise I will not go in there and saying anything at all about whether Fighters are good or bad. But if you ask a question about mechanical power differences between classes, you should not be surprised when people talk about how powerful classes are in your thread. Especially once you reject an answer to the question you asked initially, as OP did the first time AMFs came up.

[Gemini476]

When it comes to minions, the only mechanical advantage the core Fighter has is that they have Handle Animal and Ride as class skills. If they pump those up then that takes 2 of their 2+int skill points, though. (These two skills are also shared with the Barbarian, Druid, Paladin and Ranger. Note that this discussion came up because of the Druid.)
The relevant DCs are very low, however (like, 10), and can be attempted untrained, so the only good the skills do is save on skill bonus equipment and giving the ability to train the animal yourself.
As for which animals are available through purchase in core... I think it's basically just horses, donkeys, dogs, and the expected flying monsters (giant eagle, griffon, hippogriff, giant owl, pegasus, and a bonus spider eater). There's not the variety of an animal companion. You can train basically any animal where you can find a baby if you have the Handle Animal ranks, sure, but that's an adventure in and of itself.


Hirelings are cheap, but they're also weak and Fighters don't have the Diplomacy you want for putting them in dangerous situations. (DMG p.105)

Leadership scales with Charisma.

Fighters can't really do anything in this area that any other class couldn't do, at least not in core.

[Anthrowhale]

The Warblade is still better.
There are two conflations happening here---Fighter the concept vs Fighter the class and in-core vs everything else. Warblade is an example of Fighter the concept which exists out of core. If we are looking at out of core, I think the fighter concept has a substantially higher ceiling than a pure Warblade although it is a great dip class for the fighter concept.


Or maybe there aren't.

If you want to design your parties for reliable-magic-only environments, feel free to optimize for that somewhat-limited scope. For myself, it seems reasonable enough to have one party member who is can handle things in Anauroch, the Outlands, with Beholders, or similar.

[Gemini476]

Anauroch: Empire of Shade is a 3.5 adventure with some DMZ adventuring, although I'm unfamiliar with the exact split.
The travel through Anauroch's DMZ is a somewhat sizeable part of the adventure. I'd call it maybe a third if you're generous, but I don't think the encounter numbers back that up. While the dead magic zone extends to the city of Orome, it doesn't cover the catacombs beneath them. It also doesn't cover the final battle of the adventure, just the four-ish minor encounters on the way there.

The adventure is also somewhat generous with Shadow Weave items, and explicitly assumes that psionics are not affected by the dead magic zone. (One of the encounters in the desert is a Yuan-ti Psychic Warrior.)
Also, well, this adventure literally has NPCs with the Shadow Weave Magic feat. Remember, The Forgotten Realms is the setting where a DMZ won't actually stop an optimized caster from casting spells, and the adventure knows that. It even has a note about how you should probably beef up the encounters a bit if the party has a bunch of shadow weave items or manifesters.


The one I am familiar with (from looooong ago) was "The Immortal Storm" from basic D&D which featured a long adventure sequence on a magicless pseudo-earth.
The thing you might've forgotten about The Immortal Storm is that it's not an adventure where you're running around as Fighters and Magic-Users, it's an adventure where you're running around as functional capital-G Gods (or, well, Immortals). And since all Immortals of the same rank are basically identical once you strip them of their magic, well.


I would not be surprised if there are published adventures in the Outlands (which have limited-or-no magic depending on location). It's certainly odd to publish magic-limited settings and then never have or expect an adventure there.
As far as I can tell, they never actually published an adventure that went there. Probably because all the interesting stuff in Planescape is either in Sigil or out in the further reaches of the Wheel.

Not to mention that most of the interesting places in the Outlands are in the divine realms and gate towns on the outskirts where magic works just fine. Even those legendary neutral meetings between gods aren't in the center, since that would leave them vulnerable to even mortal weapons; it's some rings out from there, where gods lose their offensive powers but you can still cast low-level spells.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of this is originally from the 1E Manual of the Planes, where a lot of the planar traits can be generously described as "this kills the character immediately". There's a lot that's just written because it sounds cool and then later writers needed to figure out what to make playable, what to remove, and what to silently ignore.


I expect there are others that I'm not aware of.
The one that immediately came to mind was Dragon #100's The City Beyond the Gate, where the PCs go to London and raid the Victoria and Albert Museum for the Mace of St. Cuthbert.

However, the Earth in that adventure isn't a dead magic zone. There's just no connection to the Outer Planes and it's distant from D&D as a whole so a bunch of spells related to that cease to work: summoning spells, extraplanar spells, Shadow spells, etc. You can still sling all the Cure Light Wounds and Fireballs that you want, though.

In fact, I've found that generally this is more common in adventures: some specific spells don't work, usually ones the writer considers problematic like teleportation, but the rest are just fine.

[RandomPeasant]

There are two conflations happening here---Fighter the concept vs Fighter the class and in-core vs everything else. Warblade is an example of Fighter the concept which exists out of core. If we are looking at out of core, I think the fighter concept has a substantially higher ceiling than a pure Warblade although it is a great dip class for the fighter concept.

I agree. You could, for example, play a DMM Cleric, who fulfils the concept of "guy who fights with weapons" while also having meaningful non-combat abilities and contributing appropriately. I'm glad we understand one another.


If you want to design your parties for reliable-magic-only environments, feel free to optimize for that somewhat-limited scope. For myself, it seems reasonable enough to have one party member who is can handle things in Anauroch, the Outlands, with Beholders, or similar.

If you want to design your parties for adventures that reliably don't have a Commoner-only artifact of campaign-warping power, feel free to optimize for that somewhat-limited scope. For myself, it seems reasonable enough to have one party member who can wield that sort of artifact.

Also, you absolutely don't need a Fighter to handle a Beholder. It can't shoot you if you're in the AMF eye, and it can't cover your whole party with the AMF eye except maybe in the first round before you can spread out. Also, you'd think if you could name actual monsters where the Fighter was good, you could've lead with that instead of contrived campaign premises. If you think there are monsters the Fighter is well-suited to handling, by all means talk about those, because that's an argument that might mean something.


It even has a note about how you should probably beef up the encounters a bit if the party has a bunch of shadow weave items or manifesters.

That's the thing. A DMZ hoses everyone. That means either A) you lose even if the Fighter loses marginally less or B) it gets rubber-banded and doesn't matter.


As far as I can tell, they never actually published an adventure that went there. Probably because all the interesting stuff in Planescape is either in Sigil or out in the further reaches of the Wheel.

Also because saying "your stuff doesn't work" to half the party is not the compelling premise Anthro thinks it is. Ultimately, this sort of thing is why I'm hostile to the people who complain about "characters that can do everything" and suggest that we should balance the game around non-overlapping spheres of competence. The end result is that the segments where the Fighter has nothing useful to do (e.g. virtually everything outside combat) are "balanced out" with segments where casters have nothing useful to do, which is not fun.

[Anthrowhale]

...
This is quite comprehensive, thanks. It also reminds me of the 2e Spelljammer setting which disables a bunch of spells when you are between crystal spheres and nerfs high level cleric spells, if I recall correctly.

With regard to Immortals, if I recall correctly you keep some of your class advancement details which tended to favor fighter types in a zero-magic setting, but I forget which (hit points at least?).

...
I think we'll have to just leave it at disagreement.


...Beholder...

I've been in an adventure where we had to invade a Beholder hive. It was pretty fun, actually.


...not fun.

Nothing to do for a long period of time is problematic in my experience, but I've been in plenty of adventures where not everyone was capable of (or vying for) the spotlight at all times. It was great, but this may be a question of the personality of the players involved.

[Lans]

That's the thing. Even if we accept the premise that "what if casters just didn't work" is a meaningful argument for the Fighter, you still don't want a Fighter. The Warblade is still better. Casters can still deal with the challenge if they're aware they're going to need to. That's the other thing that frustrates me about this debate. You get these comically absurd scenarios from Team Fighter, and half the time they don't win even if you grant all their premises. But god forbid that their pet class could not be worthwhile.


the Fighter is not a worthwhile party member.

People aren't arguing that the fighter is worthwhile in a lot of ways they are arguing just how bad they are with the increasingly contrived the scenarios that are brought up. There's been "non core fighter vs core wizard," "level 1 wizard vs level 1 fighter in a 10' cage, "level 10 wizard vs level 20 fighter"


Unless by worthwhile you mean " don't even grab the fighter character in a hypothetical CRPG because it's just that big of a drain on resources that being a half level behind would entail" in which case I would say it's arguable

[Gemini476]

This is quite comprehensive, thanks. It also reminds me of the 2e Spelljammer setting which disables a bunch of spells when you are between crystal spheres and nerfs high level cleric spells, if I recall correctly.

With regard to Immortals, if I recall correctly you keep some of your class advancement details which tended to favor fighter types in a zero-magic setting, but I forget which (hit points at least?).

When becoming an Immortal (in the original Immortals box set the adventure was written for, not the later Wrath of the Immortals rework)...
Your XP is converted to Power Points at a 10,000:1 ratio (given the minimum levels required, this means Clerics will generally have less starting PP than Magic-Users)
Your incorporeal and "normal" Immortal forms are much like other Immortals, but if you visit the Prime Plane you can only assume your mortal form including all the physical attributes. (You still have access to your divine powers in addition to your old stats, though.)
Race stays the same but isn't mechanically relevant, your new level is Initiate, your alignment should probably match your Sphere, your armor class is 0, your hit dice 15, your hit points 75 ("even if the latter number is less than the character had in mortal life") - you get your old hit point total when you reassume your mortal form, though. You keep your original attributes, but a requirement for advancing through the ranks of Immortality is to spend power points to raise them to a cap (initially 25).

Also, if you're on the job then there's a number of ready-to-use "identities" of various types and levels that the immortals have put in place for other immortals to take over for various reasons - after all, your mortal body kind of disintegrated in a big flashy ceremony and if you show up again some people might have questions.
tl;dr: your mortal attributes are only relevant if you decide to pop back to the mortal plane and adventure with your old buddies or whatever. Otherwise you're AC 0, THAC0 8, HP 75, with four new saving throws entirely unrelated to mortal ones.

As for The Immortal Storm, the issue is that the Chicago and New York within it (it's like a sixth of the module?) are a three-dimensional plane (the usual ones, specifically); magic functions on the fourth dimension, so it isn't possible there. All you have is your Immortal Aura (charm/terrify mortals), Power Attacks (think old-school psionic combat, in this case it's a save-or-fall-comatose against mortals), big Immortal statline, and some miscellaneous mortal skills (specifically Thief Skills, Weapon Mastery, and Turn Undead; the latter isn't relevant, though).

For the most part those skills probably aren't incredibly relevant, unless the former Fighter is planning to pull out a broadsword in Manhattan, but as Immortals you could also probably just beat most of the enemies in a knifefight. (Incidentally, if the former Magic-User has any Weapon Mastery it's going to be in daggers, the one weapon they're proficient in.) AC 0, THAC0 8, 75hp, and a 35% save for half physical damage goes a long way when the highest-level hostile is probably a 3HD gangster.

As an aside, the Earth in that adventure is basically identical to our own except fantasy as a genre never existed, witches and magic were never thought up, etc. etc. The rough plot of the module is that you need to go find the essences of the five senses, and in their horrible magic-less plane the inhabitants compensate with "technology" and some chemists have managed to synthesize the essence of smell.

Overall it's not all that relevant to the whole Fighter vs. Wizard debate since it's really just about a bunch of level 30+ gods trying to not blow their cover as they pull a heist in Chicago.

[Anthrowhale]

...

I don't have my books handy, but I have distinct recollection of a "knife to a gunfight" situation. It may have been melee weapons more generally. The situation was challenging enough that the something about the fighter mattered. Apparently, it wasn't hitpoints, so it may have been weapon proficiency, which was a bigger deal in basic d&d. (It's also possible that the DM embellished a little bit beyond the adventure to setup that situation.)

[RandomPeasant]

Unless by worthwhile you mean " don't even grab the fighter character in a hypothetical CRPG because it's just that big of a drain on resources that being a half level behind would entail" in which case I would say it's arguable

I dunno, I'm pretty sure 33% more wealth and XP is going to be better than a Fighte. I don't know how it maths out off the top of my head, but even one level is basically the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, and that's a 1-tier jump. But again, this is not really something that matters. The question is if you have a party that is something like Beguiler/Cleric/Dread Necromancer/Druid, what are the circumstances where a Fighter would have positive EV. Thus far Anthrowhale has proposed "1/3 of the campaign is in a DMZ", which is a concession that there's no reason to have a Fighter in your party.


I think we'll have to just leave it at disagreement.

I don't see where we disagree. Optimized Fighter-types, like a DMM Cleric, have a place in optimized parties.


I've been in an adventure where we had to invade a Beholder hive. It was pretty fun, actually.

It was also not an adventure that turned off everyone's abilities, so I really don't see how you think that proves your point.

[Lans]

I dunno, I'm pretty sure 33% more wealth and XP is going to be better than a Fighte. I don't know how it maths out off the top of my head, but even one level is basically the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, and that's a 1-tier jump. But again, this is not really something that matters. The question is if you have a party that is something like Beguiler/Cleric/Dread Necromancer/Druid, what are the circumstances where a Fighter would have positive EV. Thus far Anthrowhale has proposed "1/3 of the campaign is in a DMZ", which is a concession that there's no reason to have a Fighter in your party.



I don't see where we disagree. Optimized Fighter-types, like a DMM Cleric, have a place in optimized parties

I think the argument is on whether a DMM cleric is a fighter type

Depending on how treasure is given out and presence or lack of shops that might not matter.

It would wind up being less than 33% xp due to getting less xp, with it being a crpg there could be a level cap that is easy to reach leading to a potential disadvantage early on while bringing advantages later on.

There are a lot of questions and scenarios being discussed

[blackwindbears]

Man I go away for a week and we have to retread the martial v caster debate?

Even if martials v casters was an interesting question (I don't think it is) it has been discussed to death. If anyone in this thread had an original thought on this subject that hasn't come up at least a hundred times already I'll eat my shoe.

The original question was: Can a full caster build be strictly better than a fighter? Which was later simplified to: Can you make a full caster with a specific set of stats or better?

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3

The best answer so far involves a dire bat animal companion and still can't quite get there.

Then you have at least one poster, who is so deeply upset that anyone would ask if a full caster can have this specific set of stats, that they've spent the last few weeks trying (and succeeding) to draw people into a completely different argument.

We're seven pages in and no progress has been made on the original question for the last four.

My suspicion is that the people actually interested in optimization saw a martial v caster thread and wisely steered clear.

[Brackenlord]

-snip-

The original question was: Can a full caster build be strictly better than a fighter? Which was later simplified to: Can you make a full caster with a specific set of stats or better?

Str: 16
Dex: 13
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 8

AC: 20 (full plate + ring of protection +1)
HP: (5d10+10) ~= 37
BAB: 5
Initiative: +5
Attack: +10 mwk greatsword (2d6+6 avg 13)

Ranged attack: +8 mwk composite longbow (1d8+3 avg 7)

Feats: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, power attack, cleave, weapon focus (longbow), improved initiative

Saves: (cloak of resistance)
Fort: +7
Ref: +3
Will: +3
-snip-


To be fair, the original post wasn't such a clear question. It looked a lot like bait for a corner case martials v casters debate.

The intended question probably ran it's course by now, there's no hidden gem in core only to uncover. The CoD-zilla will rival the fighter in every metric, but it won't have a character sheet with >= numbers across the board, at least not 24/7.

[blackwindbears]

I'm interested to know if there is a core-only caster build that is strictly better than a core-only power attack + greatsword fighter build at level 5/10/15/20? (Without pets or wish shenanigans. Using the elite array.)

Quick note on the difference between better and strictly better: a cleric might be able to get the same BAB, weapon and strength as a fighter for 8 rounds with a buff, but won't have the damage boost from power attack. The extra spells might be more useful in more situations than power attack, but it isn't strictly better.

There's the question and then an entire paragraph explaining what I meant by "strictly better".

I should have considered that strictly better is actually a really difficult concept to understand and should have just posted the stats.

[Gemini476]

I don't have my books handy, but I have distinct recollection of a "knife to a gunfight" situation. It may have been melee weapons more generally. The situation was challenging enough that the something about the fighter mattered. Apparently, it wasn't hitpoints, so it may have been weapon proficiency, which was a bigger deal in basic d&d. (It's also possible that the DM embellished a little bit beyond the adventure to setup that situation.)

The only thing the Fighter gets to bring over is Weapon Mastery, but the book somewhat strongly suggests that the only weapons the players get to bring with them are daggers - which everyone except the Cleric likely have some Weapon Mastery levels in. Remember, the base requirement for becoming an Immortal is to be level 30: a level 30 character has 9 Weapon Masteries, 14 for a Fighter. The Fighter's probably not putting a lot of those into daggers, given how those magic weapons are better used by the Magic-User and daggers are, well, kind of a crummy weapon.
Also, remember that the system in question is BECMI and not 3E. This is the edition where the Magic-User's spells get less useful as they go up in level since saves vs. spells get stronger and stronger, while the Fighter becomes a living blender who shrugs off all attacks and instantly pastes anything that gets within range of their sword or bow. There's a reason that it's somewhat jokingly called "Fighter Edition": it's a version of D&D where the Fighter arguably is the best class. The Fighter inherently mattered.


There are a couple possible fights involving guns in the adventure, but generally they're avoidable through one way or another. And if absolutely necessary, well, you do have save-or-lose Immortal abilities available - it's tricky given how you need to stay undercover, but it's there.
I suspect that your DM probably embellished a bit, but to be fair that's kind of expected and the adventure-as-written isn't exactly the clearest thing in the world anyhow. Or the best. Immortals was kind of a mess, really, and the adventures made for it clearly didn't know what to do with it.

In any case, the "DMZ" portion of the adventure is something that could take a couple sessions but is also just a small part of the adventure as a whole and ultimately sidesteps the whole Fighter vs. Wizard thing by having everyone effectively be a Wizard. (Seriously, the fighter Sphere - the Sphere of Matter - is the one with all the healing and monster-summoning and a fair bit of crowd control.)

[RandomPeasant]

I think the argument is on whether a DMM cleric is a fighter type

He gets full BAB and fights with weapons. What else is there to a Fighter type? I know Anthro thinks that "fight in a DMZ" is super important, but he is alone in that.


It would wind up being less than 33% xp due to getting less xp, with it being a crpg there could be a level cap that is easy to reach leading to a potential disadvantage early on while bringing advantages later on.

I don't think that's accurate, because you'll have a smaller party, causing you to get more XP from the same encounters.


We're seven pages in and no progress has been made on the original question for the last four.

That's because the question was answered on page one, but you rejected that answer because for some reason you didn't want an answer to the question you actually asked. And now you're angry that people are talking about something else in a thread where you rejected answers to the question you asked.

[Gemini476]

I don't think that's accurate, because you'll have a smaller party, causing you to get more XP from the same encounters.

So, 3E runs on a number of base assumptions:

An adventuring party will use 20% of their resources (HP, spells, consumable items) per encounter, hence an adventuring day of 4 encounters.
The average encounter level is equal to the party's average level.
Experience is evenly split between party members.
If you are higher level than an encounter, you get less experience.
You only level up between sessions.

For the sake of this exercise, I'll make some further assumptions:

Going from four party members to three still results in the same encounters; the DM is effectively blindly assuming they're the other party.
Each session is one adventuring day, or thereabouts. The party levels up as they rest, anyhow.
The fourth party member is adding so little that losing 25% of their total resources doesn't stop them from being able to still take on four encounters per day.


With all those assumptions in place, and an Excel table in hand, you get something like this graph:
https://i.imgur.com/0aVygWm.png
As you can see, most of the time this leads to the 3-PC party having half a level's lead on the other party, and generally you can simplify it as "they're one level ahead".

This does require some big assumptions, though. Moving down to three-encounter days with encounter levels equal to the 3-PC party might equalize things a bit.

[Lans]

Do animal companions always have default feats and average hp?


He gets full BAB and fights with weapons. What else is there to a Fighter type? I know Anthro thinks that "fight in a DMZ" is super important, but he is alone in that.
.

That his primary contribution potential be fighting with weapons

[RandomPeasant]

That his primary contribution potential be fighting with weapons

Why does it have to be his primary contribution? That would imply that if you had a character who could do the weapon-fighting perfectly well, but could also do other stuff (and was therefore better than other Fighter-types) he couldn't be a Fighter-type. A Beguiler isn't not a skillmonkey because their primary contribution comes from spellcasting.

[Gemini476]

Overall I think there are two essential roles in a party, and then some more that're also essential but much more broad.

A character that can heal and cure curses/petrification/death/etc.
A character with Trapfinding (or just the ability to detect/disarm traps with a DC higher than 20).
A character who can deal with swarms.
A character who can remove enemies.
A character who can handle each of the non-selfish skills (e.g. Knowledge (Religion) rather than Jump).

(I rank selfish skills like Jump, Ride etc. lower since generally if you're using them for exploration and traversal you want everyone to have them. The big exception is when you use Jump, Climb etc. to open paths for the rest of the party by dropping down a rope or whatever, of course.)

The Fighter can generally only really help with #4, removing enemies, since the only non-selfish skills they have are Craft (better done by characters capable of magic item creation), Handle Animal (for training animals, which is kind of niche), and Intimidate (fairly useful, but it's one skill and has drawbacks when used in social situations).
And fighters can be good at removing enemies, don't get me wrong! They can put out big damage numbers in large amounts. It's just the only thing they excel at, and even then arguably they're worse at removing enemies than characters with save-or-lose/die spells.

(A Beguiler generally covers #2 due to Trapfinding, #4 due to mind magics, and can take some of #5 through skillmonkeying.)

Some "Fighter-types" try to cover a sixth role, what 4E would later call the "Defender": someone who can encourage the enemy to attack them rather than the squishy wizard. The core Fighter can't really do this much, although the Horizon Tripper does a decent job in threatening AoOs. The Knight does this, the Crusader kind of does this, but the core Fighter doesn't do a great job at it except intight corridors.