Core Strictly Better Fighter

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

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

[TalonOfAnathrax]

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

[blackwindbears]

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

1) I totally believe fighters get hit harder

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

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

[Max Caysey]

1) I totally believe fighters get hit harder

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

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

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

[Soranar]

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

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

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

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

[Eurus]

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

Fair enough if you don't find it interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Mechalich]

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

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

[Melcar]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lilapop]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anthrowhale]

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

A ranger may be able to do it better.

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-chain gating solar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ranger may be able to do it better.

Thanks!

[Jervis]

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

Thanks!

[Melcar]

True.

Re-chain gating solar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It still gets spellcasting, and spellcasting is great!

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

[Eurus]

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

A ranger may be able to do it better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Melcar]

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

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

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

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

It still gets spellcasting, and spellcasting is great!

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zarator]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

<Snip>

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

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork!

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

[Soranar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4d8+12 (about 30)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mechalich]

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

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

[animewatcha]

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

As for the resting whenever want..

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

[blackwindbears]

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

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

4d8+12 (about 30)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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