|
TWF fighters are better in close combat than rangers are because they are squishy compared to the fighter but if the fighter is in there tanking then the ranger can jump and do his work while the fighter has the creature distracted.Explain yourself. Don't just drop a comment like that and don't detail it.
I don't have to explain myself because common sense should come into play. Fighters have a higher AC than Rangers so they stand a better chance in close combat. Rangers are good in close combat if there is someone else up there with them to take some of the heat away from them. Rangers are not known for the high AC I'm afraid unless they want to spend a lot of money on a mithral breastplate.
The base analysis should be as blunt as the DPR Olympics, maximize on both sides for pure round by round damage output minus any influence from the 10 character feats. After all that's what the kvetching is about... is the optimal damage output lower or higher to the point of being worth it to give up the character feats to non-combat uses.
|
|
The base analysis should be as blunt as the DPR Olympics, maximize on both sides for pure round by round damage output minus any influence from the 10 character feats. After all that's what the kvetching is about... is the optimal damage output lower or higher to the point of being worth it to give up the character feats to non-combat uses.
I hate to break it to you but straight DPR does not a class make.
I don't have to explain myself because common sense should come into play.
Really? Well assume I have no common sense and prove your point. Explain why.
I don't have to explain myself because common sense should come into play. Fighters have a higher AC than Rangers so they stand a better chance in close combat. Rangers are good in close combat if there is someone else up there with them to take some of the heat away from them. Rangers are not known for the high AC I'm afraid unless they want to spend a lot of money on a mithral breastplate.
The general difference in AC is around 5 if the Fighter is in full plate. This carries across lots of things.
By 16th level, if an Amulet of Natural Armor isn't part of the equation, that's all but defeated by Barkskin, giving +5 AC, and lasting 2 hours per casting. Very reasonable since there are some other awesome neck slot fillers out there (necklace of adaptation, hand of glory with a decent ring, periapt of wound closure is nice). This is conditional though, so I mention it merely as a side note, not an argument.
There is the fact that the Ranger will almost always strike first (perception & stealth). But again, this doesn't mean anything regarding "squishy".
In the end, the Ranger isn't more squishy, as much as easier to hit - 25% easier - when talking about armor. When armor isn't part of the equation (AoE, touch attacks, energy damage, saving throws) the Ranger usually comes out ahead. All in all, I say it would average out somewhat in favor of the Fighter for physical tanking, but the Ranger is certainly able to pull it off.
I hate to break it to you but straight DPR does not a class make.
The base analysis should be as blunt as the DPR Olympics, maximize on both sides for pure round by round damage output minus any influence from the 10 character feats. After all that's what the kvetching is about... is the optimal damage output lower or higher to the point of being worth it to give up the character feats to non-combat uses.
Much as I hate to say it, I have to give this one to Shallowsoul.
The best way to measure effectiveness of a class or ability is with multiple rounds of playtesting under different conditions, and then "rating" it somehow.
Stuff to my stuffFinal follow up question then... Are the things you can now do out of combat exciting?
That's a question that only the player can answer. It's going to vary a lot from player to player, group to group, GM to GM, etc. There's no way to quantify that.
As this drives to the heart of complaints about the fighter. Can the Character feats alone make a fighter interesting outside of combat? Granted that's a highly subjective question in dependent on the game but that would be the final question.
I would expect, just from what my own brain is spitting out, that most of the options will be constantly avalibile but low glamor. Just like the fighters (Ex) feats in combat.
The biggest problem I see in these discussions about the fighter is that it is looked at in a vacuum. The claim is that fighter can't do something, let's say Diplomacy. However, how many characters need to be able to use that skill for success? Just one. Other skills, like Perception and Stealth are actual concerns that may need to be addressed. They are easy to address though.
I have made plenty of different fighters that can do quite a bit of things. People complain that the fighter can't do something and then when the solution is presented, they hand wave it away. This thread started off talking about the fighter in general not being able to do things in and out of combat, but when it was shown that they could with at least one build, the goal post was quickly moved to "core chassis fighter." So the solutions to perceived problems are there for those who want them.
You should consider those victories then, Bob...
If the entire sample space of usable Fighter characters were the "battlefield" for this discussion, each build (that proves a point you make) allows you to claim one piece of that sample space. Allow me to be the first from the "dark side" who acknowledges this, much how you acknowledged some issues (and notions on how to fix) a couple pages back.
I wonder how much territory you can claim.
|
Bob, I'm happy with your builds for the fighter, as they do accomplish a lot of the things that characters should be able to do should they want to. I do wish, however, that the fighter provided more with its "core chassis", because the alternative requires building skill that a lot of players do not have.
|
Of course I get that fact.
Clearly you don’t get it.
A fighter can spend 11 combat feats to become as proficient in as other martial combat classes in a specific combat style and STILL have 10 non-combat feats for other things.
If, for example a Fighter decided to take the TWF approach and takes 11 combat feats to make them effective at TWF, they would have an additional 10 feats to take anywhere else they would like.
They can decide to take a second specialization to also be effective with ranged attacks, or they can take feats to improve non-combat skills.
If you take as just 3 of those 11 feats (Weapon focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization) and combine that with weapon training, you will now do potentially 8 more damage per attack at a +4 base attack higher than other martial classes are capable at all times, not just against favored enemies or while raging. Other classes don’t have access to weapon training or the weapon specialization chain, or other fighter only feats.
With just the 11 combat feats and the fighter only feats you can create a fighter that is combat competitive with any other martial class.
And then you also have the 10 general feats to either diversify options for combat or non-combat.
That is the point you don’t seem to get.
The extra feats, and the feats that are fighter only, are the core of the class. You asking what they can do without feats is like asking what a Barbarian can do without raging, or a Cleric can do without spells.
It is completely irrelevant to any serious discussion on the topic.
You are willfully ignoring this because it doesn’t fit your narrative, and I’m calling you out on it.
With just the 11 combat feats and the fighter only feats you can create a fighter that is combat competitive with any other martial class.
I'm assuming you're also adding Weapon training, Armor training and Bravery.
It's competing against a Barbarian with no feats (but all 10 rage powers) and only 2 skill ranks per level (no "+INT" here; it's cancelled out by what we're also removing from the Fighter).
Care to break it down?
I hate to break it to you but straight DPR does not a class make.
The base analysis should be as blunt as the DPR Olympics, maximize on both sides for pure round by round damage output minus any influence from the 10 character feats. After all that's what the kvetching is about... is the optimal damage output lower or higher to the point of being worth it to give up the character feats to non-combat uses.
I disagree in this context. While a DPR king may not be viable build for "fun" it will demonstrate the absolute peek the classes "core" aspect can reach. It sets a benchmark for other comparisons. Once you know the theorical maximum for damage (a.k.a most obvious result in combat) then you can start marking value judgments for things like combat maneuvers or defensive vs damage choices. It also gives an idea how important those character feats are to being the combat king fighters are expected to be.
It is a starting point. Considering that the combat nature of the fighter class is what's under question it is the first place to look. Can a "core" fighter out fight a "core" barbarian, and if so by how much?
*By "core" I mean builds that do not take the 10 charcter feats into account, of in the extreme even extra options like traits.
|
|
With just the 11 combat feats and the fighter only feats you can create a fighter that is combat competitive with any other martial class.I'm assuming you're also adding Weapon training, Armor training and Bravery.
It's competing against a Barbarian with no feats (but all 10 rage powers) and only 2 skill ranks per level (no "+INT" here; it's cancelled out by what we're also removing from the Fighter).
Care to break it down?
Your "Featless" Barbarian strawman is no more interesting, helpful, or productive than your "Featless" fighter strawman.
I'm not "adding" weapon training. It's a class feature. It exists. So it is a part of what the class has. Just as 11 combat feats are part of the class, and access to fighter only feats are part of the class, and armor training are part of the class.
Creating what if strawmen scenarios is pointless. Mort, Bob, and a few others are trying to have a legitimate discussion, maybe you should join them.
With just the 11 combat feats and the fighter only feats you can create a fighter that is combat competitive with any other martial class.I'm assuming you're also adding Weapon training, Armor training and Bravery.
It's competing against a Barbarian with no feats (but all 10 rage powers) and only 2 skill ranks per level (no "+INT" here; it's cancelled out by what we're also removing from the Fighter).
Care to break it down?
Your "Featless" Barbarian strawman is no more interesting, helpful, or productive than your "Featless" fighter strawman.
I'm not "adding" weapon training. It's a class feature. It exists. So it is a part of what the class has. Just as 11 combat feats are part of the class, and access to fighter only feats are part of the class, and armor training are part of the class.
Creating what if strawmen scenarios is pointless. Mort, Bob, and a few others are trying to have a legitimate discussion, maybe you should join them.
I see your response, that 75% of it is focused on a total misunderstanding of what I thought was a simple statement, realize that this theme has occurred at least two other times in the last couple interactions, and now conclude that I don't have the patience for re-explaining and then re-explaining my re-explanations to someone who misinterprets so thoroughly, be it intentional or not.
|
|
I see your response, that 75% of it is focused on a total misunderstanding of what I thought was a simple statement, realize that this theme has occurred at least two other times in the last couple interactions, and now conclude that I don't have the patience for re-explaining and then re-explaining my re-explanations to someone who misinterprets so thoroughly, be it intentional or not.
Lack of understanding and lack of agreement aren’t the same thing.
You are creating artificial scenarios in an effort to bolster your stance on an issue, rather than trying to analyze the circumstances as they actually exist.
It is an intellectually dishonest way to approach a problem by adjusting the criteria to better suit your hypothesis. Others in the thread are approaching the question in an intellectually honest way, you should do the same.
If you want to ask how many feats does it take for a fighter to achieve parody with X for Y, that would be fair to ask. Then we could discuss how many feats remain to achieve something else.
What you seem to be saying is “If I remove the primary class feature, is a class still viable.”
Which is a silly and pointless question.
If your Barbarian gets to keep it’s primary class feature (rage powers) and you are comparing it to a Fighter who’s primary class feature is having nearly double the feats of other classes who only has half of the feats available to them in the scenario, what does that scenario demonstrate?
Nothing.
It is a waste of both of our time to discuss a scenario that has nothing to do with the topic.
If you honestly wanted to compare the two in non-combat situations, you would set a criteria at which a fighter is combat effective relative to other classes and see how many feats it takes to get there. Then you would be able to see if any feats are left over for other non-combat things.
But you didn’t.
You don’t seem to be interested in actually exploring the question, you seem to be interested in being right.
Have fun with that.
Gentlemen, you can't use a Fighter has a +5 AC argument successfully.
AC is a combination of Armor + Dex. What Armor Training does is increase the Dex limit...but you still have to have the Dex!
That's the biggest problem with fighter AC.
A Fighter starting with 13 Dex will likely only have a 19 Dex at level 16...and won't even max out his Mithral plate. He MUST have stat buffers to max out his armor! Seriously, the fighter will probably never have to buy mithral plate until 17+, because he won't have the Dex to make use of it.
he could conceivably get to a 24 Dex with a +5 Tome.
Meanwhile, the Ranger could be wearing Celestial Chainmail which is +5 with a +8 Dex bonus...and also maxing out his 24 Dex. Or a Mithral Breastplate of Nimbleness, also doing the 24 Dex.
The AC advantage tends to be 2 points at best, at least if the other party pays any attention to AC.
Granted, the Barbarian loses 2 when raging. But that's not a ranger problem.
Any AC advantage vs a ranger tends to lose to Barkskin at lower levels, too. +5 Nat AC amulets aren't cheap.
==Aelryinth
I hate to break it to you but straight DPR does not a class make.
The base analysis should be as blunt as the DPR Olympics, maximize on both sides for pure round by round damage output minus any influence from the 10 character feats. After all that's what the kvetching is about... is the optimal damage output lower or higher to the point of being worth it to give up the character feats to non-combat uses.
I disagree in this context. While a DPR king may not be viable build for "fun" it will demonstrate the absolute peek the classes "core" aspect can reach. It sets a benchmark for other comparisons. Once you know the theorical maximum for damage (a.k.a most obvious result in combat) then you can start marking value judgments for things like combat maneuvers or defensive vs damage choices. It also gives an idea how important those character feats are to being the combat king fighters are expected to be.
It is a starting point. Considering that the combat nature of the fighter class is what's under question it is the first place to look. Can a "core" fighter out fight a "core" barbarian, and if so by how much?
*By "core" I mean builds that do not take the 10 charcter feats into account, of in the extreme even extra options like traits.
DPR can't be used as a baseline because the options are way to diverse for being relevant in combat. For example, you probably didn't see the tactician I posted a while back. He is not a DPR guy. He's the one who gets everyone else in and around the battlefield. His individual damage potential isn't anywhere where most fighters would be but that's fine. It would be hard to argue that he isn't viable in combat.
What's in question isn't really how much damage the fighter can do. What's in question is how much fun can the fighter be if all he does is damage. Other martial classes have options that turn on and off and can give the illusion of having more options than ones that are always turned on. Because the fighter essentially must be built from scratch, it appears to have fewer options. It really has more options, but more options isn't always better. No other martial class has the flexibility with build than the fighter. The class doesn't really come with instructions on how to build it either.
Bob, I'm happy with your builds for the fighter, as they do accomplish a lot of the things that characters should be able to do should they want to. I do wish, however, that the fighter provided more with its "core chassis", because the alternative requires building skill that a lot of players do not have.
I don't believe that it requires any more skill than what I see from people who claim the ranger (or any other class) is better. The ranger requires a lot of skill to build effectively. You need to know what to expect for favored enemies and terrain. You need to know which fighting style will fit your concept best. You need to know whether an animal companion (and which one) or if hunting companions will work better for you and your group. You need to know which spells will work best. You need to know which skills will be best for your concept and how they work so that you don't over or underspend your skill points. That's a lot of stuff to learn and know.
That goes for every class, especially full casters. Even if all that is allowed are the core spells, that's a ton of spells to go through to see which ones you want.
I think that the fighter just appears to need more mastery because people don't spend as much time with it. It's the only martial class that requires you to fully build it, unlike the others that come with a set of abilities.
You are creating artificial scenarios in an effort to bolster your stance on an issue, rather than trying to analyze the circumstances as they actually exist.
I'm removing the common elements from all classes equally, and comparing the differences of what remains.
Earlier I was weighing class features for their value outside of combat, and removing those which had none, and using what remains to make a claim on out-of-combat utility.
How is that intellectually dishonest?
You should consider those victories then, Bob...
If the entire sample space of usable Fighter characters were the "battlefield" for this discussion, each build (that proves a point you make) allows you to claim one piece of that sample space. Allow me to be the first from the "dark side" who acknowledges this, much how you acknowledged some issues (and notions on how to fix) a couple pages back.
I wonder how much territory you can claim.
Thank you. I'm not really trying to claim any territory. I'm just trying to make sure that lurkers can see that things can vary quite a bit in opinion and that they shouldn't assume that because a few people are vocal about their opinion that those opinions are fact in all games. Even my opinion isn't a fact in all games. It only holds up in mine.
You are creating artificial scenarios in an effort to bolster your stance on an issue, rather than trying to analyze the circumstances as they actually exist.I'm removing the common elements from all classes equally, and comparing the differences. How is that intellectually dishonest?
I don't think it's dishonest so much as unintentionally misleading. I say that not because I think that it's wrong but because using the commoner as the basis for everything makes it look like you are trying to make the fighter look like a commoner. I know that's not what you are doing, but that's how it looks. "Commoner" has a negative connotation in these discussions.
Unfortunately, because the discussion is about the fighter, it looks like you are picking on the fighter. You aren't using the comparison for wizards or clerics. That's because this topic is about fighters, but that can shift a reader's understanding.
Heh. Well I'm fully aware of the connotation of the word "Commoner". I enjoy the dramatic flair of some decent shock value. The great thing is, I feel like it really fit.
Plus, after the initial shock, any thorough reader would find, for example, my build which I called "Sean Commoner" and realize that there's another layer of depth - a commoner's contribution, which is the lowest of all classes (PC and NPC alike), can actually be pretty darn good.
But that contribution should not be mistaken for what the Fighter class itself brings to the table, since those things which make a Fighter what he is, aren't part of that contribution; Fighter class features may bring a truckload into the battlefield, but they do little in the back alleys, royal courts and unexplored jungles that fill the imagined movie screen between fight scenes. In those realms, the Fighter is a "regular joe/joan"... though even a "regular joe/joan" can, with some planning, be interesting and fun.
Thanks for the insight, Bob.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you. I'm not really trying to claim any territory. I'm just trying to make sure that lurkers can see that things can vary quite a bit in opinion and that they shouldn't assume that because a few people are vocal about their opinion that those opinions are fact in all games. Even my opinion isn't a fact in all games. It only holds up in mine.You should consider those victories then, Bob...
If the entire sample space of usable Fighter characters were the "battlefield" for this discussion, each build (that proves a point you make) allows you to claim one piece of that sample space. Allow me to be the first from the "dark side" who acknowledges this, much how you acknowledged some issues (and notions on how to fix) a couple pages back.
I wonder how much territory you can claim.
As one of those lurkers, I thank you for the builds they were edifying and really cut to the practical side of the issue.
But that contribution should not be mistaken for what the Fighter class itself brings to the table, since those things which make a Fighter what he is, aren't part of that contribution; Fighter class features may bring a truckload into the battlefield, but they do little in the back alleys, royal courts and unexplored jungles that fill the imagined movie screen between fight scenes. In those realms, the Fighter is a "regular joe/joan"... though even a "regular joe/joan" can, with some planning, be interesting and fun.
I think that is also one of the problems that many players have. They confuse "class" with "concept." Too many players get stuck on which class they want to play instead of asking themselves what kind of character they want to play. Once they do that, they may find that their original class idea doesn't fit. Maybe they should use a different class, or combination of classes. Maybe their concept isn't viable with the options available.
I can think of probably a dozen different ways to build to something as simple as "axe wielding half-orc." I actually built one a while ago that was a wizard with a 13 Intelligence.
As one of those lurkers, I thank you for the builds they were edifying and really cut to the practical side of the issue.Thank you. I'm not really trying to claim any territory. I'm just trying to make sure that lurkers can see that things can vary quite a bit in opinion and that they shouldn't assume that because a few people are vocal about their opinion that those opinions are fact in all games. Even my opinion isn't a fact in all games. It only holds up in mine.You should consider those victories then, Bob...
If the entire sample space of usable Fighter characters were the "battlefield" for this discussion, each build (that proves a point you make) allows you to claim one piece of that sample space. Allow me to be the first from the "dark side" who acknowledges this, much how you acknowledged some issues (and notions on how to fix) a couple pages back.
I wonder how much territory you can claim.
If you ever want to see what can be done with build, just ask. Create a thread with your concept, criteria, and available options and just sit back a bit and see some interesting ideas poor in. I have seen some really off the wall ideas that look like they would be a lot of fun to play.
Rangers are going to be worse at combat then a fighter, since a fighter... well.... fights.
From my experience however, I rather play a Ranger because of Skill points and abilities, stuff outside of combat. A fighter ain't going to be very good tracking someone down.
Barbarian is the same way, less useful outside of combat then a ranger, but more so then a fighter due to skills and abilities. With Paladin filling the same slot, due to doing far less damage, but having an actual healing ability without drain on wealth.
It is the same story with the Bard. Everyone focuses on combat that any non-combat, DARE I SAW.... RP abilities are seen as distractions.
If a Fighter on a scale from 5 to 1 for direct combat. Where 5 is amazing and 1 is commoner I would say....
Fighter 5, Barbarians 4, Paladin/Ranger 3. However outside of combat it would be more like, Fighter 1, Barbarians 3, Paladin/Rangers 4, Bard 5(:p).
Without bring the Magic vs Martial argument in, and not accounting for many of the other classes (Monk/Rogues/Casters ect...) Fighters are good at one thing, and no one should be able to best them in it.
However, only so many problems can be solved with swing to the blade. So in higher level play, there are some crazy abilities up there. Which seems to be all anyone talks about on these forums, which is strange to me, since I've only ever played 3 "serious" level 20 campaigns since NO ONE ever wants to play them for the reasons everyone on the boards want to play them.
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't use a Fighter has a +5 AC argument successfully.
AC is a combination of Armor + Dex. What Armor Training does is increase the Dex limit...but you still have to have the Dex!
That's the biggest problem with fighter AC.
A Fighter starting with 13 Dex will likely only have a 19 Dex at level 16...and won't even max out his Mithral plate. He MUST have stat buffers to max out his armor! Seriously, the fighter will probably never have to buy mithral plate until 17+, because he won't have the Dex to make use of it.
he could conceivably get to a 24 Dex with a +5 Tome.
Meanwhile, the Ranger could be wearing Celestial Chainmail which is +5 with a +8 Dex bonus...and also maxing out his 24 Dex. Or a Mithral Breastplate of Nimbleness, also doing the 24 Dex.
The AC advantage tends to be 2 points at best, at least if the other party pays any attention to AC.
Granted, the Barbarian loses 2 when raging. But that's not a ranger problem.
Any AC advantage vs a ranger tends to lose to Barkskin at lower levels, too. +5 Nat AC amulets aren't cheap.
==Aelryinth
Really depends on the type of item the fighter has. With the introduction of the Belt of Physical Perfection you now have an item that grants you bonuses to all three of those stats which will enable the fighter to gain that great dex. Now the ranger has more stats that it needs to worry about such as STR, DEX, CON and WIS. Now if it's an archery ranger then STR doesn't really matter that much but a TWF ranger will need to go this route. What good is a low STR TWF ranger who is the primary melee combatant? If a ranger wants to cast his 4th level spells he is going to have to have a 14 WIS minimum along with a high dex, plus good CON plus a good STR for damage. The fighter doesn't need to give up his damage and attack bonus in order to increase his AC. The fighter pretty much needs to focus on only two stats and those are STR and DEX with a little bit of CON plus all those feats to spend.
|
|
You are creating artificial scenarios in an effort to bolster your stance on an issue, rather than trying to analyze the circumstances as they actually exist.I'm removing the common elements from all classes equally, and comparing the differences of what remains.
Earlier I was weighing class features for their value outside of combat, and removing those which had none, and using what remains to make a claim on out-of-combat utility.
How is that intellectually dishonest?
You aren't removing common elements from classes equally when the volume of feats is itself a value that allows the class to branch into non-combat areas.
By removing the volume, you remove the benefit. If you want to look at the class, you look at the class as a whole.
|
|
Now the ranger has more stats that it needs to worry about such as STR, DEX, CON and WIS. Now if it's an archery ranger then STR doesn't really matter that much but a TWF ranger will need to go this route. What good is a low STR TWF ranger who is the primary melee combatant? If a ranger wants to cast his 4th level spells he is going to have to have a 14 WIS minimum along with a high dex, plus good CON plus a good STR for damage.A Twf Ranger do not need Dex, at least for his bonus feats.
He will if he wants a semi good AC.
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't use a Fighter has a +5 AC argument successfully.
AC is a combination of Armor + Dex. What Armor Training does is increase the Dex limit...but you still have to have the Dex!
A ranger is more MAD than a fighter, particularly if you want to have the ability to cast ranger spells.
A fighter needs STR and Con. Dex is nice, the rest are personal preference.
A Ranger is either going to be Str or Dex based (or both) and will still need Con and can't dump Wisdom if they want to cast.
So either your ranger has better AC by upping Dex over Str but does less damage or has worse AC to keep pace in the damage race by upping Str over Dex.
A fighter with a 20 point buy could have an AC of 54 and an attack line of 35/35/30/25/20 for 1d4 +36 (15/x3) and 35/35/30/25 for 1d6 +30 (19/x2). If you wanted to go for a defensive build.
|
|
Rangers need only a 14 for spells. 12 if he doesn't mind getting a periapt of wisdom later.
Absolutely, but that is still more that what a fighter needs.
I'm not saying he is wrong that a Ranger can't have just as high an AC, I'm just pointing out that a Ranger will have to sacrifice elsewhere even more than a fighter to have both Dex and Str high.
STOP COMPARING ME WITH OTHER CLASSES. HAVE YOU NO REGARD FOR MY SELF-ESTEEM?
|
Absolutely, but that is still more that what a fighter needs.I'm not saying he is wrong that a Ranger can't have just as high an AC, I'm just pointing out that a Ranger will have to sacrifice elsewhere even more than a fighter to have both Dex and Str high.
I disagree, as a Fighter will want a 12 Wis for the bonus to Will saves just as much as the Ranger.
|
|
I disagree, as a Fighter will want a 12 Wis for the bonus to Will saves just as much as the Ranger.
Absolutely, but that is still more that what a fighter needs.I'm not saying he is wrong that a Ranger can't have just as high an AC, I'm just pointing out that a Ranger will have to sacrifice elsewhere even more than a fighter to have both Dex and Str high.
Just as much is debatable, but certainly not more than a Ranger which is the point.
The argument he was making was that the ranger will have high dex and the fighter won't. So what is the ranger giving up for this high dex that the fighter isn't able to also sacrifice?
|
|
I disagree, as a Fighter will want a 12 Wis for the bonus to Will saves just as much as the Ranger.
Absolutely, but that is still more that what a fighter needs.I'm not saying he is wrong that a Ranger can't have just as high an AC, I'm just pointing out that a Ranger will have to sacrifice elsewhere even more than a fighter to have both Dex and Str high.
Well Iron Will is better because the fighter has the feats that he can spend. A 12 Wis only gives you a +1 to Will.
Bob: Since you have Hero Lab, will you build a 10th level TWF Ranger and a 10th level TWF Fighter and see who has the better AC?
I can but these would be my builds and not really any value-added comparison. I can simply make the data match whatever I want it to match.
The fighter doesn't make a good ranger and the ranger doesn't make a good fighter (this is dependent on what you think a fighter should be able to do). The fighter can probably have a better AC overall simply because he can take more feats that focus on AC: dodge, shield specialization, etc, while the ranger will have fewer feats to choose from overall.
Improving a fighter's Wisdom is very important to ensuring his survival. If you go back and look at the fighters I built, I did not neglect Wisdom. I may not have made it the #1 priority but it was important. It not only improves Will saves but it also adds to Perception and Sense Motive which were two things that people were concerned that the fighter would have a hard time dealing with. Every two points of Wisdom is like adding 4 skill points and +1 to Will saves. Every Wisdom-based skill can be used untrained. That's significant to note because Intelligence increasing does not have that same benefit. Most Intelligence-based skills are Trained-only.
A ranger is definitely better when it comes to skills and neither class should neglect wisdom however a ranger with the bare minimum of wisdom needed to cast his spells only gets 1 use of instant enemy at 10th level and when not dealing with a favoured enemy the ranger pales in combat ability to classes like the cavalier, fighter, gunslinger, and barbarian. A fighter can make do with a 12 starting wisdom while a ranger is going to either need to invest in a headband or use ability increase to access the higher level spells. The fighter can make use of the more economical cloak to shore up his will save and invest in a headband much later. I would only bother with perception myself if making a fighter, sense motive is nice but not necessary and maybe UMD later to take some burden off the parties casters.
A ranger spends half the game being situationally good at combat and then can be good at it all the time providing they have enough spells available. Classes like the barbarian and fighter are good at it all the time (or nearly) although the fighter lacks a lot of oomph the first 3 levels. The ranger is useful in that it can fulfil a combat role as well as a skill role. In a standard party of 4 or less the ranger can excel but as the number of players increase the CR of challenges can get to a point where a dedicated combat specialist will outshine the ranger much as the ranger will outshine most rogues in a combat situation.
My opinions of course are biased from my own personal experiences. I have seen other players flounder with the class and when I include rangers as NPC opponents the performance has generally been sub par. But my games tend to have parties of at least 6 people and above average wealth by level and this might be a major contributing factor as to why rangers are relatively unpopular in my gaming circle.
A ranger is definitely better when it comes to skills and neither class should neglect wisdom however a ranger with the bare minimum of wisdom needed to cast his spells only gets 1 use of instant enemy at 10th level and when not dealing with a favoured enemy the ranger pales in combat ability to classes like the cavalier, fighter, gunslinger, and barbarian. A fighter can make do with a 12 starting wisdom while a ranger is going to either need to invest in a headband or use ability increase to access the higher level spells. The fighter can make use of the more economical cloak to shore up his will save and invest in a headband much later. I would only bother with perception myself if making a fighter, sense motive is nice but not necessary and maybe UMD later to take some burden off the parties casters.
A ranger spends half the game being situationally good at combat and then can be good at it all the time providing they have enough spells available. Classes like the barbarian and fighter are good at it all the time (or nearly) although the fighter lacks a lot of oomph the first 3 levels. The ranger is useful in that it can fulfil a combat role as well as a skill role. In a standard party of 4 or less the ranger can excel but as the number of players increase the CR of challenges can get to a point where a dedicated combat specialist will outshine the ranger much as the ranger will outshine most rogues in a combat situation.
My opinions of course are biased from my own personal experiences. I have seen other players flounder with the class and when I include rangers as NPC opponents the performance has generally been sub par. But my games tend to have parties of at least 6 people and above average wealth by level and this might be a major contributing factor as to why rangers are relatively unpopular in my gaming circle.
Any Fighter that hopes to survive encounters that don't revolve entirely around slobberknockin' is going to need to invest in Wisdom heavily. You will definitely want that +6 Wisdom item because it's an extra +3 Will save. Iron Will is also a good idea. Having a 12-14 Int initially is good, but nothing lower than a 10 if you like your character and want to keep playing it.
The Ranger is the same way. It needs lots of nice Wisdom to help its poor Will saves. It just happens that the Ranger's Wisdom is doing even more for him, since it's +X to Will, +X to lots of his class skills, +X to his spells, and he has enough skill points per level that he doesn't need to feel tight on points due to Intelligence. In fact, he could crush his Intelligence down to 7, and still match a 14 Int Fighter in terms of skill points; allowing him to comfortably afford his Wisdom.
I did not put that 7 in my Int because I wanted to. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, you're right, a fighter doesn't need wisdom. He'll just kill the rest of his party without it.
This. As a GM I get excited when the wizar casts enlarge person, haste, and a number of buffs that make him a terror on the field. Why? Because behind the next door is an enchanter with Dominate Person. I think the party has gone out of its way at least three times to prevent themselves from getting utterly annihilated by the buffed out 8 wis fighter.
For a class that really needs saves killing your will save is a really silly idea.
Compare a Fighter that has Weapon Training 6, WF, GWF, WS, GWS, PA, Furious Focus and Improved Critical against a Barbarian that has his Rage.
Without mentioning that for the 40 skill points you highly advertise we would need at least 8 int while our fighter can safely dump it to 7, saving him two points and giving him a higher stat elsewhere.You're already comparing apples to oranges here by minmaxing with dump stats to INT favoring the Fighter. Further, you're creating a counterexample which proves nothing of value to anything in this discussion at all. Bad formatting too.
Later, you start adding equipment for some reason, and the equipment isn't equal, so you're muddling the comparison with added complexity... is it to obscure something, or perhaps load the comparison unevenly for your favor? If you're being dishonest here, your response to my accusation would likely be equally as dishonest. If you're being honest and just making a mess (which is more likely the case), then you may be insulted by my question. A question which is nonetheless warranted.
Either way, your post can be discarded quite early, simply because the unnecessary mess it introduces makes any reasonable and unbiased analysis border on the impossible.
1. I didn't min max anything. I just showed that having 2+int skillpoints also can be turned into an advantage, which is common use on these boards.
16 14 14 7 13 7 is a possible Fighter block (15pb)16 14 14 9 10 7 is a possible Barbarian block (15pb)
2. I am deeply saddened by the fact that my humble attempt on formatting didn't meet your, rightly so, high requirements in order to appease you. I will try harder next time for you!
3. I added the best plain weapon you can have without meddling to deep in the resistance and whatever.
Both have a +5 weapon while the Barbarian uses a +4 furious weapon in order to make up for the fact that I gave the Fighter a Bracer of Duelling.
Also they feature a +6 strength belt and boots of speed.
I think giving the Fighter his Bracers while the Barbarian can min max a bit with his furious weapon is fair grounds.
But again, in order to meet your high requirements I will try much harder next time, because my ultimate goal of course is appeasing you.
Both use 98k of equipment in common while the fighter uses 113k. Feel free to add anything worth 15k to the Barbarian in Order to smash my argument to bits as it seems to hurt you alot to see how badly the Barbarian performs and of course your arguments are very valid in order to prove my arguments are nothing but strawmen as any commoner could clearly do the same.
But what bugs you is that you know you will find no item that brings the Barbarian ahead of the fighter. Because you know that the +2 on to hit and damage isn't what brings the Fighter ahead. He is already ahead more than this and didn't even spend all his feats.
If you demand it we will both spend our full character wealth on items and then see which one comes out ahead. But I see nothing of value coming out of this because this won't change our results at all.
4. In order to compare anything at level 20 we have to incorporate at least the basic magic items everyone will have at that level. Everything else is just pointless. Of course this adds complexity to the thing but D&D and its balancing is a complex issue, just in case you didn't notice.
*sneaks in 1,000th post*
BWAHAHAHA