When's the last time a Fighter was your big bad evil villain?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kydeem...if that was a response to me, I should explain I was responding to the original topic and not you. I only read so far before tossing in my two cents and hadn't gotten to yours.

While I agree the BBEG of a whole campaign doesn't have to be the head of some organization...I'm hard pressed to come up with a good reason for it. Assuming by campaign we're talking a series of linked adventures, what was the party doing at low level that is connected to what's happening with this guy at higher level? I can see a campaign revolving around fighting a big scary singular monster at the end, but not so much a single lone fighter. Not trying to rain on your idea at all by the way, I'm actually hoping for a response that includes a sound idea along those lines.

As for militant organizations, at least for me, the fighter isn't what I think of when I think of the guy that gets ahead. You don't normally make it up the ranks by successfully attacking more than your companions, but by making better combat decisions...something the fighter doesn't really have as a likely option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunbeam wrote:

you can have a BBEG who can:

1) Teleport anywhere he needs to be.
2) Stop Time and hit the reset button
3) Take on whole armies by himself. "That's it! I've had enough. I'm going to personally take care of the Antolian Empire, once and for all!"
4) Raise the dead
5) Summon his own demonic armies, or at least "special forces"
6) Build an undead army
7) Build an army of constructs
8) Make a simulacrum army of utterly loyal copies of himself. Or who or whatever he wants really.
9) Read his underlings minds to know EXACTLY whether they are loyal
10) Scry on his enemies/underlings/empire/wayward daughter, without depending on spies
11) And lots, lots, lots more

An argument in favor of mundane BBEGs: a high-level caster with any sense would use divination to identify the party as a threat and use scry-and-fry tactics to murder them all when their guard was down. He'd have to act like an idiot to give the PCs any chance of winning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh. Nearly everything Sunbeam listed simply takes money. Lots and lots of money - enough that if you can actually build an army of constructs, odds are good you already have an empire. But if you've got the money, you can just as easily have loyal follower(s) do all that for you.

Edit: And time! Remember that a CR 13 iron golem takes 70 days, at minimum, to construct. And that's to make something that'll die in one round to any comparable jack-ass with an adamantine sword.

Fighter's a solid class, but is unlikely to be the BBEG unless he's some sort of general, in which case he's going to have caster flunkies who do the stuff on Sunbeam's list for him. If the fighter's worth a damn, he's better than anything his flunkies can build.

A fighter who does nothing but hit things with a sword is a fighter who failed to comprehend feats, skills, ranged weapons, combat maneuvers, and most importantly, magic items.

Anyways, a vanilla fighter BBEG is doable, but generally not as fun at high levels as something else. For example, L20 antipaladin vampire demigod (which was the final BBEG for my CC campaign) has a much nicer ring to it than, well, L20 fighter.


Fraust wrote:

Um, no. Not even hell no, but donkey punch no. I could see a weak possibility if you open it up to martials in general, but even that stretches my sense of a consistent game world.

Fighters are the dumb lugs with the pole-arms out front guarding the door. Fighters are the rank and file of the mercenary company used to keep the commoners in line. The person in charge? Sure, they might have a level in fighter, but more than half? BWHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAA

Clearly you haven't played enough fighters.

Besides which, if you want the BBEG to stand alone in the final battle, maybe the problem's actually the GM--no BBEG should have to be alone against six PCs. Even Dragotha tended to get allies added in.

Also, if you're dumping your BBEG's stats because of Point Buy, maybe you aren't giving him enough points. :P


Fraust wrote:

Kydeem...if that was a response to me, I should explain I was responding to the original topic and not you. I only read so far before tossing in my two cents and hadn't gotten to yours.

While I agree the BBEG of a whole campaign doesn't have to be the head of some organization...I'm hard pressed to come up with a good reason for it. Assuming by campaign we're talking a series of linked adventures, what was the party doing at low level that is connected to what's happening with this guy at higher level? I can see a campaign revolving around fighting a big scary singular monster at the end, but not so much a single lone fighter. Not trying to rain on your idea at all by the way, I'm actually hoping for a response that includes a sound idea along those lines.

As for militant organizations, at least for me, the fighter isn't what I think of when I think of the guy that gets ahead. You don't normally make it up the ranks by successfully attacking more than your companions, but by making better combat decisions...something the fighter doesn't really have as a likely option.

Well, I don't think BBEG has to be just at the end of an entire campaign. It can also be at the end of significant sections/chapters. Though I have heard some use the BBEL (Big Bad Evil Lieutenant) for that.

I wouldn't have the BBEG alone. I don't think a lone anything makes a very good BBEG unless he is stupidly more powerful than the PC's. But he might be head of an anti-party rather than a large organization. I've done that several times. Have a fighter with a cleric half his level that mostly just buffs and heals him from hiding. A wizard of half his level that uses battle field control spells to split up the party and let the fighter get them 1 at a time. Along with a sneaking rogue half his level to sneak attack the enemy caster. Yes, a BBEG that is still exceedingly dangerous.

There have been many cases in history and fantasy literature where guys are on top not because they made good decision but just through brute force. Attack straight into the teeth of the prepared defenses to show them how brave we are. It happened. It sometimes succeeded. Some even specifically got promoted just for persevering in the face of high body counts.


Note that many barbarian tribes let the strongest lead. Then note that a well-built, well-stocked fighter can beat a raging barbarian without too much trouble (especially if he has 2 ranks in Acrobatics, goes on total defense, and lets the barbarian exhaust himself).

Honestly, fighters work pretty well as the leaders of groups outside the law.


idk, I point buy my BBEGs. I'm a little liberal with money though for things like inherent bonuses (that the PCs can't loot)

So a fighter BBEG would have the following stats

str 34
dex 25
con 25
int 21
wis 21
cha 21

Mythic fighter BBEG is a bit more

str 44
dex 25
con 25
int 24
wis 24
cha 24


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
I agree completely with Sunbeam. Major villains need narrative power to fulfill their role. A class with the built-in ability to influence the narrative will have an easier time being a villain than a class which only gets the ability to hit things really hard.

NPCs are by definition running on narrative power. It dosent matter if it is a figther or a Evil god. They are the creatures of the GM and the GM have exactly the narrative power he think he need.

But if your NPCs all have to follow the rules the players used to make there characters then i guess yes, we are looking at a game with humanoid adversaries and Lots of spellcasters in the high levels.
My point is that no one will have a hard or easy time being a villan. Because you dont need to play the NPCs up from level 1 when preparing the game. You can make them just like you want them, give them the background they need and fit them rigth in to the story because you are the GM.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

From what I've seen of APs, Paizo tends to use 25 point-buy for their Adventure Path BBEGs, and sets them against PCs who've only had 15 points.

...So why are we insisting our hypothetical fighter BBEG needs to have mental stats dumped so far down as to make him a blundering idiot who can comprehend little more than "The pointy end of the sword goes in the hero"?

Heck, you don't even need high Int (or Cha), really. Give a villain enough Wis and he'll have the common sense to recognize his shortcomings and employ someone to make up for them. Give him enough ranks in Intimidate (or the Intimidating Prowess feat) and you can reasonably explain why people are cowed beneath his boot.

And at the end of the day why is the wizard or dragon henchman not the BBEG? Well, it's rather circular logic, but they're not the BBEG because they're not the BBEG. They don't have the point-buy, the resources, the minions, or the sheer amount of levels that he does, and they're probably not fully decked out in the best of the best magic gear like a BBEG is. They're minions because they were built to be minions, and the BBEG fighter is a BBEG because he was built to be one.


That's a really interesting point on the BBEG point-buy, Gluttony. I always do that on my most important villains (since the PCs are also on a 25 pt buy). You think that affects their CR? Could you provide some examples?


Just as a rough guess, I have used 1 CR for going from each point buy level.
So a 15 point buy is about 1 CR more powerful than a 10 point buy.
A 20 point buy is about 1 CR more powerful than a 15 point buy and 2 CR more powerful than a 10 point buy.
Etc...

That is really just a rough estimate though. It makes a bigger difference at low level than high level. And it makes a much bigger difference for some builds than other builds.

The Exchange

wizards are the poster boy of corruptible. Clerics have evil/chaotic gods, Druids can conflict with society, witches have curses. it is much easier to make other classes the bbeg.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobold Cleaver...Sorry if I came across sounding like BBEG was alone. I don't believe in unsupported bad guys, be they lieutenants or not. As for point value...sure, me as the GM is well within my rights to give the fighter whatever stats I like, and any spell like ability I like, or billions of gold worth of resources. Personally I prefer a more consistent game. An NPC might have a higher point buy than the party, but it likely isn't going to be much higher. Anything else I'm going to want some sort of story justification. Why is this army following this person? Where did they get the wealth they have? In the game world, I can't fathom a fighter ever amounting to much of anything, short of GM fiat.

Kydeem...I was going under the assumption, from the original post, we were talking end of a campaign type person. In the case of lieutenants, I absolutely agree that fighters have worth there. A bodyguard the party has to fight before they make it to the final encounter, the thug enforcer the thieve's guild's guildmaster sends out to rough up particularly troublesome goody-two-shoes. That sort of thing.

The anti party idea has merit, though in my own personal opinion it seems a little forced that it's a fighter at the heart of the group.

As for fantasy literature...I think that's a dangerous road to go down personally. For one, a lot of fantasy fighters don't compare with Pathfinder fighters all that well, short of just being able to put stats however one likes. Also, on the idea of promotion through ability, I think there's just as many examples where someone earns a promotion through that, and is shown to be a bad choice because all they know how to do is kill/fight. The old Dark Sun novels were a great example in my opinion. Rikus the gladiator was scary good in a fight...but once he found himself in a position of even leading troops into battle he fell apart because all he knew how to do was hit things. He even had the charm to get people to follow him...they just followed him to their deaths because his military strategy was "get in there and kick ass!"

Malwing...I'm thoroughly in the camp of fighters-are-a-bad-class, but I don't agree that the reason fighters make bad BBEGs makes them bad PCs. Fighters make bad party leaders for the same reasons they make bad BBEGs. It's one thing for a group (big or small) to have bruisers there to dish out punishment, but it's quite another for a group to be lead by a bruiser.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

a caster can willingly follow a martial for many reasons. Love, respect, idealism, responsibility, patriotism, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
I agree completely with Sunbeam. Major villains need narrative power to fulfill their role. A class with the built-in ability to influence the narrative will have an easier time being a villain than a class which only gets the ability to hit things really hard.

NPCs are by definition running on narrative power. It dosent matter if it is a figther or a Evil god. They are the creatures of the GM and the GM have exactly the narrative power he think he need.

But if your NPCs all have to follow the rules the players used to make there characters then i guess yes, we are looking at a game with humanoid adversaries and Lots of spellcasters in the high levels.
My point is that no one will have a hard or easy time being a villan. Because you dont need to play the NPCs up from level 1 when preparing the game. You can make them just like you want them, give them the background they need and fit them rigth in to the story because you are the GM.

Note I did not say that it's impossible to make a fighter the big villain, only that it's easier to do so with a class with narrative power. I could say that the fighter BBEG knows what the party has been up to because a god told her or because an artifact told her or because her wizard follower told her. I could even just simply not bother to give a reason. The wizard BBEG can scry, cast contact other plane, etc. It requires less effort on my part to have the wizard be the villain; she can do the villainy things without me having to make up anything outside the rules to explain how she can do them. Also, anything the fighter BBEG can do outside the rules, so can the wizard. So it is in fact easier to make a wizard the main villain than it is to make a fighter the villain.

Dark Archive

I've always had one big problem with spellcasters as BBEGs. They all just seem to sit around and wait for the good guys to stop their reign of terror.

Let's take a wizard for example. The standard wizard BBEG would have some of his buffs up, and that's it. Typically, you'd find him in the last room you'd look for him. That would be the highest level of his tower.
Now if he was as smart as his stats would have you believe, He'd use some of his daily spells to prevent people from entering his towers, not to mention a few Alarm spells for when someone does enter his tower. Sure, some of those are permanent or instantaneous, but some are not.
That's not everything, because an evil wizard is usually very busy doing a lot of evil things. And he does those things by using spells, otherwise, he may as well have been an evil commoner. (Now there's an idea.)
Looking back at whatever the statblock is of your evil wizard, what spells did he already cast this day? His buffs, and nothing else. That means he either just finished casting his buffs for the day after preparing his spells, or he just waits around all day for the heroes to arrive for the final battle. (In which case, he's not doing evil things so why would the heroes want to stop him? Oh, right. Loot!)
This does bring up another thing, shouldn't the evil wizard rest every now and then? Shouldn't he take an hour to prepare his spells? Well there are ways around this, check your evil wizard's statblock. Can he avoid resting and preparing? I'm afraid not, he doesn't even have a ring of sustenance as he needed the ring slot for something else. And even then, he'd be very vulnerable for 3 hours per day.

My point is that BBESpellcasters as portrayed aren't realistic. The problem with that is that it doesn't make for a good story if the spellcaster has already cast half of his highest level spells. (As a sidenote, when the heroes do reach the BBEG try a tactical retreat first. I know he wouldn't usually do that because he can't leave the McGuffin in the hands of the enemy, but just do it once and sit back to see the reaction on your players' faces.)

As for fighter BBEG's. Martial focus/lack of motivation should never be an excuse not to do it. Just like some people have said before, give him a 25 point buy, PC level wealth and a small army of minions to join him in the fight and he'd be a lot stronger than you might think.
I'd have to say though, an undead anti-paladin sounds a lot better than an undead fighter. If only for the charisma hit points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Never said promotion/leadership based on ability to kill was a good idea. I think it is a horrible idea. History tends to show that 'those' leaders are pretty lousy and usually come to a grizzly end sooner or later.

But that is kinda what we're talking about. Some brute thug of a bandit warlord has managed to get control over several bands of brigands. He has them marauding like the mongols all over the place. He's managed to cow several low level spell casters into helping protect him from other spell casters. Plus he some spies planted in various locations.

The cities get tired of it and hire someone to stop him (or the PC's have loved ones die in one of the attacks, whatever...). The party tries to stop him primarily because he is a base thug that beats people up and takes what he wants.


Malwing wrote:

A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.

No class has more or less narrative power. The main complaint is, "Fighters tend to have low mental stats." That's not disparaging the fighter as a class (though I know a lot of people want to go off-topic so they can do so ;P), it's disparaging them as BBEGs. No more, no less.

That being said, with 25 Point Buy and an eighth level hobgoblin fighter:

Str 18 (including +2 level)
Dex 14 (including +2 race)
Con 16 (including +2 race)
Int 14
Wis 13
Cha 10

Give him Intimidating Prowess and he's a good leader, a cunning adversary and a formidable combatant. Then just stick him in a rickety chemicals warehouse, give him an alchemist and a warpriest as "bodyguards" (in quotes because they're freaking hobgoblins) and you've got a perfectly compelling final battle.

Maybe we should use this thread to come up with interesting fighter Big Bads. Seems like it'd both be more productive and more fun. ;D

Fighter Big Bads In Movies/TV:
  • The general guy from Avatar.

  • Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. Okay, you could say he's a ranger, but he never demonstrates any wilderness lore other than being good at killing animals. Given his total lack of wisdom/reverence for nature, I'm not buying it.

  • Adam from Buffy (in fairness, he is a monster, but he's a monster with strictly martial style and capabilities).

  • Jubal Early from Firefly. Okay, he could be a ranger or rogue, but his main shtick is how good he is at killing people. Besides, what would his favored enemy be? Human? Gee, real balanced there.

  • The White Orc from The Hobbit. Yeah, Smaug is actually the Big Bad, but the White Orc is completely separate, leads a huge force, and has a whole emotional subplot with Thorin.

  • Jenner from The Secret of NIMH.

  • The leader of the bandits in The Magnificent Seven.

  • Pretty much everyone in Game of Thrones except the dragon girl and the kid I want to punch.

  • I get the sense this would be easier if I watched more non-fantasy movies.
  • EDIT: You could also leave the hobgoblin's Dexterity at 12, give him full plate, and use the extra two points to raise Wisdom or Charisma.


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Malwing wrote:

    A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

    This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.

    No class has more or less narrative power. The main complaint is, "Fighters tend to have low mental stats." That's not disparaging the fighter as a class (though I know a lot of people want to go off-topic so they can do so ;P), it's disparaging them as BBEGs. No more, no less.

    That being said, with 25 Point Buy and an eighth level hobgoblin fighter:

    Str 18 (including +2 level)
    Dex 14 (including +2 race)
    Con 16 (including +2 race)
    Int 14
    Wis 13
    Cha 10

    Give him Intimidating Prowess and he's a good leader, a cunning adversary and a formidable combatant. Then just stick him in a rickety chemicals warehouse, give him an alchemist and a warpriest as "bodyguards" (in quotes because they're freaking hobgoblins) and you've got a perfectly compelling final battle.

    Maybe we should use this thread to come up with interesting fighter Big Bads. Seems like it'd both be more productive and more fun. ;D

    My last Fighter Big Bad actually was a Hobgoblin.

    I wanted to see how well a smart fighter would do so I made a lvl 15 Hobgoblin Tactician Fighter. He rallied an army of Goblinoids against the other races. He'd be buffed by his goblin vivisectionist alchemists (trying to generate super soldier bugbears) and be reinforced with Goblin Alchemist bodyguards.

    I never got to see him in action. Players rotated until the party was all casters. Got wiped out by lower level hobgoblin monks. (got grappled by a group three levels lower than them, it was sad.) I was tired of narratively rescuing them from CR<APL threats so just let them die and let someone else DM so I could plan this out a bit better.


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Note that many barbarian tribes let the strongest lead. Then note that a well-built, well-stocked fighter can beat a raging barbarian without too much trouble (especially if he has 2 ranks in Acrobatics, goes on total defense, and lets the barbarian exhaust himself).

    Wut? How do you reach this conclusion, exactly?

    Dark Archive

    Malwing wrote:

    A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

    This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.

    Actually, it doesn't say good things about your creativity. A fighter BBEG could easily be driven by revenge. He could be ambitious enough to conquer a nation or to decimate an entire race. He could lead entire armies. (Or, you could even subvert it, by giving him an evil intelligent weapon that takes control of him.)

    Pathfinder shows that BBEGs should be bigger with 25 point buys (where the PCs have 15), PC wealth, and plenty of mooks. Add some mythic tiers and you have something people will fear.


    Well, I'll grant that it was from a statement in 3.5, but seeing as fighters and barbarians didn't have any huge nerfs/boosts, I don't expect it's changed. The barbarian may have more hit points and a higher strength, but the fighter's dramatically superior Armor Class and bonus feats are going to let him win anyways.

    And outside rage, there simply ain't a contest.

    Here, let's pit a barbarian chieftain with a greataxe against a sword-and-board fighter who's come to take over the tribe. Each is level 3. Fighter has a +1 tower shield, full plate and a masterwork longsword. Barbarian has a masterwork greataxe and +1 hide armor (he could have better medium armor, but thematically speaking, this equipment is fairly realistic for a barbarian tribe. It won't much matter).

    Fight starts. Fighter goes on total defense, wrangling around an AC of 30 with a couple ranks in Acrobatics. The barbarian, with a 20 Strength, has around a +9 or +10 to hit.

    The fighter simply endures for around eleven rounds, assuming the barbarian has a 16 Con. He probably gets hit at least once, especially if the GM lets the raging barbarian use the strategy of pulling back and charging for the extra +2 (and I wouldn't), but no more.

    Then the fighter wipes the floor with the fatigued warrior (potentially taking off his shield for the two-handed benefits).

    Now, all this depends on plenty of factors. The point is, it's not hard for an NPC fighter to take over a tribe he's meant, plot-wise, to take over. Statistically, and story-wise, it works.

    Silver Crusade

    In the homebrew game I gm the pcs just finished a major plot arc that was a large multi-country war. The leader of the main opposing army, and effectively the bbeg, was an android fighter with a gun. I think it went rather well. This fight was at apl 9.


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:

    Well, I'll grant that it was from a statement in 3.5, but seeing as fighters and barbarians didn't have any huge nerfs/boosts, I don't expect it's changed. The barbarian may have more hit points and a higher strength, but the fighter's dramatically superior Armor Class and bonus feats are going to let him win anyways.

    And outside rage, there simply ain't a contest.

    Why does his superior AC matter a whole lot? The Barbarian's to-hit is not going to be low enough that any Fighter not specced for defense entirely is going to shut him down by taking Total Defense.

    He'll still hit his first attack every round at least, which will whittle down the Fighter's HP a lot faster than his defensive hits are going to do to the Barbarian.

    And gods help the Fighter if the Barbarian just goes for the easy option ("Sunder his armor, lol!"). Strength Surge makes that pretty much an automatic success, and he doesn't even need Improved Sunder since you're using Total Defense and can't make AoOs.

    Even if the Fighter does it back, he'll provoke from the Barbarian, who comparatively relies on armor much less (9 out of 10 times he'll have natural armor from Beast totem and a higher Dex to take advantage of CaGM), so now the Barbarian has an HP, AC, AND DR advantage.

    It's not as open and shut as you made it out to be, which is why it's such a weird statement to make. I have no doubt that the Fighter would probably win half the time in a knockdown/drag-out but it's by no means a sure thing.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    All the time in Pathfinder Society. Of course, a lot of the time it's a low level module where casters haven't completely pulled ahead. But I've faced rangers, barbarians, and fighters as the final boss quite often in the past few months.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I think the Raven King does a pretty good job of it. Not only does he have a lot of skills, leadership qualities, and versatile abilities, but he is also a formidable foe in combat that possesses the power of an entire shadow kingdom behind him.

    It can totally be done, you just need to be creative.


    Rynjin wrote:
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:

    Well, I'll grant that it was from a statement in 3.5, but seeing as fighters and barbarians didn't have any huge nerfs/boosts, I don't expect it's changed. The barbarian may have more hit points and a higher strength, but the fighter's dramatically superior Armor Class and bonus feats are going to let him win anyways.

    And outside rage, there simply ain't a contest.

    Why does his superior AC matter a whole lot? The Barbarian's to-hit is not going to be low enough that any Fighter not specced for defense entirely is going to shut him down by taking Total Defense.

    True, but as I showed above, the well-stocked fighter has the AC to counter the barbarian's extra accuracy. And once the rage ends, the fighter doesn't even need to fight defensively to be hard for the barbarian to hit.

    Quote:
    And gods help the Fighter if the Barbarian just goes for the easy option ("Sunder his armor, lol!").

    Gods help the barbarian if the fighter has Improved Disarm and the barbarian didn't think to pack an extra weapon. ;D

    Quote:
    (9 out of 10 times he'll have natural armor from Beast totem and a higher Dex to take advantage of CaGM)

    Geez, what games are you playing in that people always take the same options?

    Quote:
    It's not as open and shut as you made it out to be, which is why it's such a weird statement to make. I have no doubt that the Fighter would probably win half the time in a knockdown/drag-out but it's by no means a sure thing.

    I'll admit I was being a bit hyperbolic, but I also think it'd be a bit more than half the time. The whole reason the barbarian gets stuff like fast movement and skills is because he's not a pure martial class--unlike the fighter, who's basically pure violence.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    All the time in Pathfinder Society. Of course, a lot of the time it's a low level module where casters haven't completely pulled ahead. But I've faced rangers, barbarians, and fighters as the final boss quite often in the past few months.

    Barbarians and Monks make really mean big bads, especially with minions in the same room.


    Cap. Darling wrote:
    Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
    I agree completely with Sunbeam. Major villains need narrative power to fulfill their role. A class with the built-in ability to influence the narrative will have an easier time being a villain than a class which only gets the ability to hit things really hard.

    NPCs are by definition running on narrative power. It dosent matter if it is a figther or a Evil god. They are the creatures of the GM and the GM have exactly the narrative power he think he need.

    But if your NPCs all have to follow the rules the players used to make there characters then i guess yes, we are looking at a game with humanoid adversaries and Lots of spellcasters in the high levels.
    My point is that no one will have a hard or easy time being a villan. Because you dont need to play the NPCs up from level 1 when preparing the game. You can make them just like you want them, give them the background they need and fit them rigth in to the story because you are the GM.

    this.


    Cap.Darling wrote:
    NPCs are by definition running on narrative power.

    Hm...Narrative Power Character?


    Malwing wrote:

    A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

    This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.

    Or cavaliers, barbarians, rangers, even paladins does not have the narrative power of full casters. Not sure how that relate to NPCs that runs on DM fiat.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    True, but as I showed above, the well-stocked fighter has the AC to counter the barbarian's extra accuracy. And once the rage ends, the fighter doesn't even need to fight defensively to be hard for the barbarian to hit.

    Why is the Rage ending? Unless you're at pretty low levels (5 or so) Rage should last long enough for any 3 or 4 battles, much less one long one.

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Gods help the barbarian if the fighter has Improved Disarm and the barbarian didn't think to pack an extra weapon. ;D

    The difference being a weapon cord and a locked gauntlet can save you from Disarm (less so now that Paizo derped on the weapon cord, but still), but there ain't jack that can save ya from "HULK SMASH!". =p

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Geez, what games are you playing in that people always take the same options?

    Not my games, per se, but the Beast Totem/Spell Sunder line is the cliche Barbarian for a reason...it is both the best and the most common build for him.

    I must confess, my one Barbarian is of this variety.

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    I'll admit I was being a bit hyperbolic, but I also think it'd be a bit more than half the time. The whole reason the barbarian gets stuff like fast movement and skills is because he's not a pure martial class--unlike the fighter, who's basically pure violence.

    ?

    This I definitely can't agree with. The Barbarian is at least as good at fighting as the Fighter at any given level. Perhaps slightly less accuracy, but roughly the same (or more, especially against casters) damage and higher survivability overall, along with more options in combat.

    Just because the Fighter has 3 class features doesn't make him the only "pure martial" it just makes him the least inspired and most poorly designed pure martial.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Now, all this depends on plenty of factors. The point is, it's not hard for an NPC fighter to take over a tribe he's meant, plot-wise, to take over. Statistically, and story-wise, it works.

    It's worth noting that your NPC fighter is using about fourteen times the expected value of a third level NPC's protective gear,

    A third level basic scores NPC is expected to have about 200 gp in protective gear. This guy has ~2800.

    If I am incorrect about Basic scores, then the expected wealth for a heroic scores third level NPC is about 800 in protective gear according to the same table.

    Either way, your point requires going pretty far outside the guidelines.


    I think

    STAP spoilers:
    Vanthus Vanderboren
    might have been a fighter chapter boss wielded against our party, though I'm not actually sure. He was definitely a half-fiend and relied on a lot of template powers and SLAs during the fight, though.

    In general I've observed that the GM has turned to heavy race/template augmentation to make enemy fighters challenging at high levels. It's been necessary but effective. I don't believe we have faced a regular old humanoid fighter with regular old wealth that has been a challenge in... well, I'm not sure there have been any since I joined the campaign at 10th level. OTOH some of the awakened dire apes or half fiends or whatnot have been quite serviceable.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    BBEGs generally break the WBL curve. Especially if they have an army, country, or world that they rule over.


    Rynjin wrote:

    Why is the Rage ending? Unless you're at pretty low levels (5 or so) Rage should last long enough for any 3 or 4 battles, much less one long one.

    Reference my earlier post--eleven rounds gives the barbarian a chance to hit the fighter once at most, given the numbers I presented.

    Quote:

    Not my games, per se, but the Beast Totem/Spell Sunder line is the cliche Barbarian for a reason...it is both the best and the most common build for him.

    I must confess, my one Barbarian is of this variety.

    I thought the cliched barbarian was the one without non-core archetypes. You've been on these forums too long, I think. :P

    Quote:
    higher survivability overall

    High HP, low Armor Class. It balances out.

    Quote:
    Just because the Fighter has 3 class features doesn't make him the only "pure martial" it just makes him the least inspired and most poorly designed pure martial.

    Ah, there we go. I had a feeling that was what was driving this argument.

    Anyways, I'm gonna drop this. I thought we (more-or-less) agreed right up until that last paragraph, but since it seems there's no way to resolve this short of a pointless, non-conclusive argument, it's really silly and not helpful. Cheers.


    Coriat wrote:
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Now, all this depends on plenty of factors. The point is, it's not hard for an NPC fighter to take over a tribe he's meant, plot-wise, to take over. Statistically, and story-wise, it works.

    It's worth noting that your NPC fighter is using about fourteen times the expected value of a third level NPC's protective gear,

    A third level basic scores NPC is expected to have about 200 gp in protective gear. This guy has ~2800.

    If I am incorrect about Basic scores, then the expected wealth for a heroic scores third level NPC is about 800 in protective gear according to the same table.

    Either way, your point requires going pretty far outside the guidelines.

    You use NPC wealth-by-level guidelines for BBEGs? Huh. Do you use the "Elite" array of abilities, too?


    Alexandros Satorum wrote:
    Malwing wrote:

    A lot of this boils down to Fighters not having enough narrative power to be a convincing or effective BBEG.

    This doesn't say good things about the Fighter class as a PC class.

    Or cavaliers, barbarians, rangers, even paladins does not have the narrative power of full casters. Not sure how that relate to NPCs that runs on DM fiat.

    Well with DM fiat a lot more is possible. Who cares if half his minions could nuke him from miles away THIS guy is the big bad tyrant that rules with fear.

    Granted this is less of an issue when the minions aren't casters. Which is very possible. I still don't know how my players aren't able to handle slow phalanxes though.


    By that logic, wizards shouldn't rule either. An unprepared wizard up against a couple fighters and rangers at close range is going to get the stuffing beat out of him, as is a wizard who's just spent all his spells fighting the good guys.

    All BBEGs require some GM fiat. Even Dragotha had powers outside those of a regular dracolich--heck, his very creation was a literal case of deus ex machina thanks to Tiamat.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    As was stated earlier, BBEGs are already DM fiat.

    Every thing they have, their organization, their goals, their resources...they weren't played up from 1st level. The DM simply decided what he wanted for a villain.

    Suddenly stopping and worrying about how much cash or loot the BBEG carries is trying to put the horses back in the barn.


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Reference my earlier post--eleven rounds gives the barbarian a chance to hit the fighter once at most, given the numbers I presented.

    Well, to be fair, your example is a Fighter with a full plate and a freaking tower shield (who uses that? Tower shields suck!) vs a Barbarian with poor choice of armor.


    Lemmy wrote:
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Reference my earlier post--eleven rounds gives the barbarian a chance to hit the fighter once at most, given the numbers I presented.
    Well, to be fair, your example is a Fighter with a full plate and a freaking tower shield (who uses that? Tower shields suck!) vs a Barbarian with poor choice of armor.

    In fairness, a barbarian isn't allowed to wear full plate or tower shields. I gave him hide armor for story purposes, but scale mail wouldn't have made much of a difference. :P

    The barbarian's WBL was likely applied on potions and other magic items, which I'll grant could make a big difference in the fight if he gets a chance to use them.


    How about a Barbarian with a breastplate and a Fighter who is not wielding a shield that nerfs him 95% of the time?


    Tower shields are fun! They give you total cover if used right, and they have a good AC bonus. I used it because this was a tank-style fighter. If you really take exception to it, just give him a heavy shield. It really doesn't make much of a difference.


    I don't particularly care, actually... I just think it was a biased example.


    How? You said yourself that tower shields are gimping the fighter, so by your logic, my example was slanted in the barbarian's favor.

    My original hyperbolic statement was actually more designed to show that a fighter "from the big city" would have absolutely no trouble finding lots of minions. The array was set up with that still in mind. I was trying to avoid this becoming an outright class vs. class dispute, because I know that my favorite class is everyone else's least favorite because it's "limited".


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    How? You said yourself that tower shields are gimping the fighter, so by your logic, my example was slanted in the barbarian's favor.

    I think you found that 5% of the time...

    Anyway... I don't really care... Fighters... BBEG... Discuss.

    Scarab Sages

    Tower shields suck if you dont know how to build a high ac monster. Without even using simple things like potions of barkskin or the like you can have a lvl 3 fighter with full plate and tower shield with the 12 dex (for that plus 1 dex bonus) who would have a what 28 ac (9 for the plate,1 for the dex, 4 tower shield, 4 total defense) vs your 18 str raging make it 20 str barbarian (bab+3, rage gives him a +5 to hit, now what weapon focus+1 and add whatever other feat you want you know what 3+5+1=9 so you need what 19 or 20 to hit? you are going to roll that what 2 out of 20 times maybe or one out of ten. so in that eleven rounds... as he stated you are looking at one blow statistically before your winded.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Geez, what games are you playing in that people always take the same options?

    Pathfinder

    51 to 100 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / When's the last time a Fighter was your big bad evil villain? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.