Core Strictly Better Fighter

[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.)

Spoiler: Level 5 human fighter

Show

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

Spoiler: Level 5 dwarf cleric

Show

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.)

Spoiler: Level 5 human fighter

Show

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

Spoiler: Level 5 dwarf cleric

Show

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]

]

Spoiler: Level 5 dwarf cleric

Show

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.