Core Strictly Better Fighter

[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 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.

Spoiler: Pet Druid

Show

Spoiler: Norville "Shaggy" Rogers

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler: book access

Show

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.

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.

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”