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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I still need to roll an antipaladin lich as a recurring villian, just to see how many times he comes back before the PCs figure out what he is. :)


Detect Magic wrote:
A high level fighter with an antimagic field is nothing to joke about; you fight him on his terms.

I... don't really agree with this, unless she's got some way to deliver that antimagic field (read: unless arcane archer).

The antimagic field will negate any magical items on the extremely item dependant fighter. Meanwhile, a prepared party can call and raise a lot of creatures that won't suffer much from it.

Now, arcane archers with scrolls of antimagic field are a whole different story...


Detect Magic wrote:
A high level fighter with an antimagic field is nothing to joke about; you fight him on his terms.

It doesn't matter who you are, when in an anti-magic field the first thing you want to do is get out. That includes the fighter BBEG.

Now the buffs Fighter BBEG actually wants are Protection from X, Energy Resistance 30 for X, Stone-skin, True-sight, Energy Protection for X and so forth.

Obviously not all those buffs are needed for a credible threat.


I personally prefer for the final confrontation in a game to have both sides fighting at full strength, an anti magic field prevents this.


Marthkus wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
A high level fighter with an antimagic field is nothing to joke about; you fight him on his terms.

It doesn't matter who you are, when in an anti-magic field the first thing you want to do is get out. That includes the fighter BBEG.

Well, there ARE ways to engineer a fight so that an anti-magic field is beneficial to you. It's a goddamn lot of work to do though, and generally requires you to outsmart the party too.

Oh, and of course, if you're a monstrous BBEG an antimagic field will hurt you less than if you're a humanoid.

An ancient red dragon tricking the party into planeshifting into a lava-filled dead magic plane with the only escape being a portal high up will have a lot of benefit from the anti-magicness of the place (although it doesn't include the actual anti-magic field spell). In there, even a prepared party who has called a few outsiders in case of anti-magic fields will have a hard time.


There is a certain comic in Order of the Stick where a black dragon wizard uses that spell on Vaarsuvius. Her speech goes something like this:

"Fascinating. It appears that you cease to be a mighty wizard and become a fragile pointy-eared monkey. While I? I am still a dragon."

While the fighter does lose the benefit of buffs (though why's he gonna need Protection From Energy? Alchemist Fire?), against a caster-heavy party, he's still gonna have a hefty advantage.

But yeah, I agree with Diminuendo. This is better for the BBEG's first introduction (just make sure he has a few handy escape routes), or a character who's not the BBEG, period.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

And that totally does not happnes when the BBEG is another class? Does the other classes BBEG are of the same level of the party

3-4 higher, tops.

Quote:
or do not they use companions, or have monsters to defend themselves?

A wizard in his bathrobe can (with a few moments notice bought by the screams of his dying minions aka encounters 1-3) be a fairly credible threat. The big bad fighter needs a good weapon and good armor to function and that makes him a treasurebath.

And? The wizard needs their things to be a a strong challenge, the fighter just need a different set of things.

And it is not like the wizards would not have their gear. For start wizards have low saves, and that in a sole encounter is a death sentence.


Diminuendo wrote:
I personally prefer for the final confrontation in a game to have both sides fighting at full strength, an anti magic field prevents this.

That's the whole point; the villain doesn't want them fighting at full strength, especially if he lacks spellcasting of his own. He's bringing them down to his level, where he has the advantage. The idea of an entity completely immune to magic is pretty scary, in the same way that the yuuzhan yong are scary because of their immunity to the force (star wars).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Detect Magic wrote:
The idea of an entity completely immune to magic is pretty scary, in the same way that the yuuzhan yong are scary because of their immunity to the force (star wars).

As long as they aren't immune to lightsabers, we'll be alright. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rune wrote:
Xenophile wrote:
I think that it's very easy to see the rules as your master instead of your tool...

Wow. This sums up what I've been feeling for a good time. During my early D&D 3rd edition days (also my earliest DMing experience), justifying plot stuff as rules components made me feel more confident and rules-savvy. As the time passed, it became more and more of an obligation to my rules-lawyering players.

4th edition broke that mold incidentally saying "OK, this goblin shaman has this special power that only he has". Say what you will about that system, but you could really design a monster/NPC with whatever power you felt it needed. Paizo has done that many times over the years (most important NPCs have special, cool and unique abilities) but we're still somewhat shackled to this "must follow every rule" attitude.

Yeah, that's where I got that mindset too. 4E was my first taste of D&D (having only played GURPS before), and between the system itself and the painful edition wars I learned a lot about game design philosophies. Unfortunately, I also have a strong sense of insecurity when it comes to houseruling, so it can be hard to put those lessons to use.


Detect Magic wrote:
Diminuendo wrote:
I personally prefer for the final confrontation in a game to have both sides fighting at full strength, an anti magic field prevents this.
That's the whole point; the villain doesn't want them fighting at full strength, especially if he lacks spellcasting of his own. He's bringing them down to his level, where he has the advantage. The idea of an entity completely immune to magic is pretty scary, in the same way that the yuuzhan yong are scary because of their immunity to the force (star wars).

Except you're making the final fight of the game a fight in which the wizard and cleric can scarcely take part and everyone feels limited. That's why such fights are placed before the final battle.


True, what works for star wars might not necessarily work for d&d/fantasy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or what works for a fictional story may not work for D&D. In a story, it'd be perfectly acceptable to have one of the characters incapacitated for the entire run. In a D&D game, incapacitating someone's PC for the whole adventure is something that should only be done after talking it out with them.


Maybe you guys can elaborate a bit more than I do, but I feel like the fighter isn't much of a leader archetype. Regardless of how you look at it, the fighter feels more like a pawn than a king.

Divine spellcasters can rule over a church, a cult or a sect. Arcane spellcasters can rule over an institute or a cabal. Skill-using characters can rule over crime gangs and guilds. Nature-themed characters can rule over lands and tribes. Most martial characters can rule armies, but also cities and kingdoms... and then you have the fighter.

Barbarians, druids, rangers, oracles and witches can all serves as leaders for invading tribes. Clerics, monks, paladins and inquisitors can all serves as leaders for pragmatic religious cults. Bards, rogues, alchemists, gunslingers and ninjas can all serve as leaders for notorious crime organizations. Sorcerers, wizards, summoners and magi can all serve as leaders for demon-worshiping cabals. Cavaliers and samurais can both serve as leaders for armies during a war or even as kings and shoguns.

Fighters? They can lead armies as generals and marshals sure, but under whose orders? A Hobgoblin leading a Goblinoid tribe is better as a barbarian or ranger than a fighter because it represents the wild nature. An Aasimar cleric or paladin is better suited for a crusade than a fighter, just like a human rogue is better suited to lead a rebellion in a corrupted theocratic city led by a wizard.

Fighters are more suited as weapon masters dedicated to the art of wielding weapons (depending on the archetype, of course). They're not suited for leading something or someone, because they lack what they need, be skills or class abilities.

Best way to have a fighter as a BBEG? A fighting tournament where the champion is your worst nightmare or where the former champion wants revenge.


I would be heavily surprised to see a barbarian leading hobgoblin troops. I would also be fairly surprised if anybody other than a fighter led a group of fighters. Just like your examples of mages leading mages. Your examples ignore the most obvious choice for a fighter's team, in fact: A mercenary band.

Also, exactly how do you visualize an alchemist or gunslinger being best-suited to leading a crime organization? Both are classes that tend not to play well with others, after all. I can see it happening, sure, but no easier than I can see a fighter leading his army of hardened killers in a military coup.


Actually, a gunslinger is literally a fighter. So how are you okay with the gunslinger leading a crime organization but not okay with a fighter doing the same?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Divine spellcasters can rule over a church, a cult or a sect. Arcane spellcasters can rule over an institute or a cabal. Skill-using characters can rule over crime gangs and guilds.

What gives these classes exclusive rights to run these organizations.

There is no reason a fighter couldn't be in-charge of each of them, or a wizard, or an aristocrat.

Focus on the aristocrat. Why are they in charge of things? Power through loyalty or money. Nothing is stopping a fighter from having these qualities.


gnoams wrote:
Lots of talk about high level play; there's bbegs in low level games too. Not ever bbeg is a ruler or someone on a global scale. They can be just one guy with a personal grudge. Think of movies like Die Hard, the main villain is just the leader of a group of thieves. Nothing world shattering. Perfect opportunities for fighter villains.

BBEG stands for Big Bad Evil Guy.

At low levels it's always "Kinda Bad Mean Dude".

The KBMD can easily be a Fighter, sure.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or what works for a fictional story may not work for D&D. In a story, it'd be perfectly acceptable to have one of the characters incapacitated for the entire run. In a D&D game, incapacitating someone's PC for the whole adventure is something that should only be done after talking it out with them.

Final boss encounter =/= the whole adventure. Still, I understand that a spellcaster is wholly dependent on their spells, whereas a jedi can use the force, but is not limited to only using the force (i.e. he or she can still use melee/lightsaber/acrobatics in combat versus a force-immune foe). A wizard, however, has nothing else to fall back on; he or she is going to have to sit the fight out when faced against the magic-immune foe, which would be a boring/anti-climactic way for that player to spend the big-boss-battle.


Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Divine spellcasters can rule over a church, a cult or a sect. Arcane spellcasters can rule over an institute or a cabal. Skill-using characters can rule over crime gangs and guilds.

What gives these classes exclusive rights to run these organizations.

There is no reason a fighter couldn't be in-charge of each of them, or a wizard, or an aristocrat.

Focus on the aristocrat. Why are they in charge of things? Power through loyalty or money. Nothing is stopping a fighter from having these qualities.

The institutions listed are, in most cases, meritocracies, though.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:


And? The wizard needs their things to be a a strong challenge, the fighter just need a different set of things.

The things a wizard needs (1 minute of time basically) cannot be sold in the market for a heaping pile of gold. The fighter is barely a threat WITH the pile of gold, without it he';s a speed bump.

Quote:
And it is not like the wizards would not have their gear.

You do not HAVE to overgear the wizard (or even gear them) to be a threat.

Quote:
For start wizards have low saves, and that in a sole encounter is a death sentence.

If they're not running around under improved invisibility, non detection, blur and displacement sure. A wizards best save is to prevent himself from getting targeted at all.


Detect Magic wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or what works for a fictional story may not work for D&D. In a story, it'd be perfectly acceptable to have one of the characters incapacitated for the entire run. In a D&D game, incapacitating someone's PC for the whole adventure is something that should only be done after talking it out with them.
Final boss encounter =/= the whole adventure. Still, I understand that a spellcaster is wholly dependent on their spells, whereas a jedi can use the force, but is not limited to only using the force (i.e. he or she can still use melee/lightsaber/acrobatics in combat versus a force-immune foe). A wizard, however, has nothing else to fall back on; he or she is going to have to sit the fight out when faced against the magic-immune foe, which would be a boring/anti-climactic way for that player to spend the big-boss-battle.

Thing is, if the party is the proactive part of the equation, as is mostly the case in the final show downs, the caster isn't very limited by even an antimagic field, or spell immunity like that of golems. In fact, an antimagic field can work to her benefit - because while the end boss might be have Str 20/Dex 16/Con 16 after all the magics are gone, she can gate in a solar with Str 28/Dex 20/Con 30.

Antimagic can be for the proactive party, but as a defensive mechanism it's generally quite weak unless combined with other good stuff. The radius is also very small, which is a large issue - if you could have a 60 ft radius antimagic field, a naturally flying martial BBEG could make great use of it when the party takes to flight and she drops them from orbit.


Detect Magic wrote:


Final boss encounter =/= the whole adventure.

I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out that some things are acceptable in a story but not in a campaign.

Also, a good example of a meritocracy is a fighter leading an army. You need a general? Try someone who personally leads the troops and knows exactly what a mass melee looks like. Just try not to dump Intelligence with him.


Said solar would be unable to enter the antimagic field, but what about it's arrows? Would they simply wink out of existence upon entering the area?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out that some things are acceptable in a story but not in a campaign.

Understood.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, a good example of a meritocracy is a fighter leading an army. You need a leader? Try someone who leads the troops and knows exactly what a mass melee looks like.

That was my point; a fighter isn't going to be the head of an bardic college or a druidic circle, for example, because he or she isn't likely to have any experience with bardic music or druidic rites.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Detect Magic wrote:
Said solar would be unable to enter the antimagic field, but what about it's arrows? Would they simply wink out of existence upon entering the area?

Gate is a Calling effect, so the solar is not a summoned creature for the purpose of antimagic field. He could handily beat down anyone in the field.


Ah, I hadn't realized that. That is, indeed, bad news for our fighter. I suppose for that adventure to work the party would have to face him before they gain access to 9th level spells--15th level, as per most Paizo adventure paths, would work.


Detect Magic wrote:
Said solar would be unable to enter the antimagic field, but what about it's arrows? Would they simply wink out of existence upon entering the area?

Uhm... No. Both the solar and the arrows work in the antimagic field, though the slaying properties of the arrows will be lost. Or rather, the solar can't draw arrows while in the 10ft antimagic field, but when outside can draw them and fire them into the field (though they will act as normal arrows). A solar in an antimagic field basically has these statistics:

AM Solar:

Solar
NG Large outsider (angel, extraplanar, good)
Init +9; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +33
DEFENSE
AC 39, touch 11, flat-footed 37 (+9 armor, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +19 natural, –1 size)
hp 363 (22d10+242); regeneration 15 (evil artifacts, effects, and spells)
Fort +25, Ref +14, Will +23; +4 vs. poison
DR 15/epic and evil*; Immune acid, cold, petrification; Resist electricity 10, fire 10; SR 34
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft., fly 150 ft. (good); 35 ft., fly 100 ft. (good) in armor
Melee masterwork greatsword +31/+26/+21/+16 (3d6+13) or +25/+20/+15/+10 (3d6+31) or slam +30 (2d8+13)
Ranged masterwork composite longbow (+9 Str bonus) +27/+22/+17/+12 (2d6+9) or +21/+16/+11/+6 (2d6+21) (deadly aim)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 28, Dex 20, Con 30, Int 23, Wis 27, Cha 25
Base Atk +22; CMB +32; CMD 47
Feats Cleave, Deadly Aim, Dodge, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Toughness
Skills Craft (any one) +31, Diplomacy +32, Fly +32, Knowledge (history) +31, Knowledge (nature) +31, Knowledge (planes) +31, Knowledge (religion) +31, Perception +33, Sense Motive +33, Spellcraft +31, Stealth +21, Survival +31
Languages Celestial, Draconic, Infernal;

*Might be lost depending on interpretation; does not state if extraordinary or supernatural

Though of course the solar was just an example (and only available if the caster has specialized for that purpose) - but the point was that if the party is the proactive part, casters can do a LOT of stuff that just doesn't care about an anti-magic field. There's loads of powerful outsiders that can be called, from all sides of the alignment spectrum, and in addition to that you can create quite powerful undead (though undead generally rely heavily on supernatural attacks, so are a bit more limited for this).


Ah, but the wizard can't cast this spell once in the field. So if the fighter really wants to be smart (we'll assume this is not a BBEG battle for now), he'll have it cast in a small room, and/or go for the conjurer first.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would be heavily surprised to see a barbarian leading hobgoblin troops. I would also be fairly surprised if anybody other than a fighter led a group of fighters. Just like your examples of mages leading mages. Your examples ignore the most obvious choice for a fighter's team, in fact: A mercenary band.

Your mercenary band is likely to be hired by someone, thus NOT granting your fighter a lead role.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, exactly how do you visualize an alchemist or gunslinger being best-suited to leading a crime organization? Both are classes that tend not to play well with others, after all. I can see it happening, sure, but no easier than I can see a fighter leading his army of hardened killers in a military coup.

Alchemists as drug dealers and poison crafters and gunslingers as marksmen and the equivalent of modern bandits and hijackers, that's how I made the comparison.

Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Divine spellcasters can rule over a church, a cult or a sect. Arcane spellcasters can rule over an institute or a cabal. Skill-using characters can rule over crime gangs and guilds.
What gives these classes exclusive rights to run these organizations.

Woaw, woaw, I didn't say "exclusive", I said that they were "better suited" for it... or "logically suited" in some cases.

Marthkus wrote:
There is no reason a fighter couldn't be in-charge of each of them, or a wizard, or an aristocrat.

I don't see a wizard running a clergy, when the class that is the closest to their deity would be none other than a cleric, even if the deity's doctrine is focused on magic itself.

Marthkus wrote:
Focus on the aristocrat. Why are they in charge of things? Power through loyalty or money. Nothing is stopping a fighter from having these qualities.

A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.

You said that a fighter could lead a cabal of sorcerers. Sure he could... provided that he doesn't fail a Will save against a mind-controlling spell and/or a Reflex save against an evocation spell when the sorcerers deem him not worthy anymore. Yes, a fighter can multiclass into other classes and even prestige classes, but now we're talking about a different kind of character, not a fighter.

Like I said, a fighter BBEG is better suited for an adventure or campaign centered around an event where the fighter is on the center stage. Where exactly? Again, a tournament, where fighters can show their skills and claim the prize. You can have other martial classes in that, but the fighter is the class where it will truly shine.


Marthkus wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
A high level fighter with an antimagic field is nothing to joke about; you fight him on his terms.
It doesn't matter who you are, when in an anti-magic field the first thing you want to do is get out. That includes the fighter BBEG.

That gives me an idea for an encounter. Each corner of the room has an anti magic sphere, only a cross shaped set of five squares in the middle of the room aren't covered. In the center of those stands an armed and bloodthirsty fighter. Leaving the anti magic area means getting right in his face (and more importantly his attack range).


Detect Magic wrote:
Ah, I hadn't realized that. That is, indeed, bad news for our fighter. I suppose for that adventure to work the party would have to face him before they gain access to 9th level spells--15th level, as per most Paizo adventure paths, would work.

Well, while Gate is the worst offender, you can do pretty nasty stuff with a few Planar Bindings too.

At 15th level, Greater Planar Binding allows things like Planetar (Regen 10, great flying, DR 10), marilith (attack routine in the field: mw longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+7/17–20), 5 mw longswords +24 (2d6+3/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)).

At 11th level, Planar Binding allows Bebilith (DR10, 150 hp, dismantles armor, decent attack routine), Glabrezu (2 pincers +20 (2d8+10/19–20), 2 claws +20 (1d6+10), bite +20 (1d8+10) plus rend 2d8+15), and Hamatula (quite good grappler with DR10).

I'm not saying anti-magic is never useful, just that as long as the party has reason to believe it might come at the table, the casters has easy workarounds allowing them to contribute greatly anyway.

Basically, in antimagic fields, monsters rule supreme, and puny humans get heavily nerfed, regardless of whether it's their weapons losing the magic or they themselves losing the magic. And casters can easily get monsters - fighters can't.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ah, but the wizard can't cast this spell once in the field. So if the fighter really wants to be smart (we'll assume this is not a BBEG battle for now), he'll have it cast in a small room, and/or go for the conjurer first.

Yes, again, if the BBEG outsmarts the party, antimagic can be kinda useful. It's quite a big risk though.

But as far as mage-killing shenanigans go, I still prefer the plan to trick them into plane-shifting into a dead-magic demiplane filled with lava. Preferably while you yourself are a red dragon, ready to pick up their phat l00t to add to your horde.

EDIT: I should also note, that while I haven't played high levels in quite some time and have mostly experience with 3.5 high level play (though not super-optimized builds), in my experience it's very uncommon for high-level fights to take place in small rooms. Basically, small room says "trap" quite clearly, and so parties tend to avoid situations where that would happen. In addition, all kinds of divination magic will usually mean they know what they're getting into at least right before they go there, and they usually have plenty options to retreat.

In my experience, high-level games lose a lot Street Fighter and gains a lot of Total War; it's much less about what to do in a fight and much more to analyze and predict the opponent's behaviour outside a fight, to make sure that when you do fight, you've already won.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.

Sorry, this is just limited imagination. Nothing about the aristocrat class makes it better at having power through money and loyalty more than a fighter.


JiCi wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would be heavily surprised to see a barbarian leading hobgoblin troops. I would also be fairly surprised if anybody other than a fighter led a group of fighters. Just like your examples of mages leading mages. Your examples ignore the most obvious choice for a fighter's team, in fact: A mercenary band.
Your mercenary band is likely to be hired by someone, thus NOT granting your fighter a lead role.

Unless the mercenary band becomes something more. Just like any other organization might. My point is that it's childishly simple to put the fighter in a position of leadership.

Quote:
gunslingers as marksmen and the equivalent of modern bandits and hijackers, that's how I made the comparison.

Yes, but that's exactly what a fighter could do. There's no difference.

Quote:


Woaw, woaw, I didn't say "exclusive", I said that they were "better suited" for it... or "logically suited" in some cases.

Except the fighter also has organizations he's more "logically suited" to run.

Quote:


I don't see a wizard running a clergy, when the class that is the closest to their deity would be none other than a cleric, even if the deity's doctrine is focused on magic itself.

Actually, I'd be rather surprised if the leader of a cult of Nethys wasn't at least a mystic theurge.

Quote:


A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or...

Why? Because you decided he is. Where in the class description does it say, "Fighters cannot be aristocratic and must serve somebody else."? It doesn't. You just assume a fighter will serve somebody else.

EDIT: Also

Quote:
You said that a fighter could lead a cabal of sorcerers. Sure he could... provided that he doesn't fail a Will save against a mind-controlling spell and/or a Reflex save against an evocation spell when the sorcerers deem him not worthy anymore.

This assumes the sorcerers are only serving him thanks to brute force. That's Kinda Mean Bad Guy material.

A BBEG gets his minions to serve him out of admiration, his own vision, or because of simple tradition. Maybe the sorcerers serve him because his noble birth gives their ragtag order legitimacy. Maybe they're evokers who admire his thirst for blood. Maybe he's the only one who knows how to wield their badass magic tower shield. Maybe he just has a ton of money and set things up so they can't just charm it out of him with the help of associates/anti-mind control items/just a good Will save. Heck, maybe all the sorcerers are crazy and the less crazy fighter gives them direction in life.


Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.
Sorry, this is just limited imagination. Nothing about the aristocrat class makes it better at having power through money and loyalty more than a fighter.

Let's see:

- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties

For a political figure, you're better off with an aristocrat, a cavalier or a samurai.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why? Because you decided he is. Where in the class description does it say, "Fighters cannot be aristocratic and must serve somebody else."? It doesn't. You just assume a fighter will serve somebody else.

I didn't say that fighters cannot be aristocratic, I'm just saying that something doesn't "feel" right with the idea.


Note that Gaston, a fighter, got the villagers to follow him solely because they overlooked his boorish nature to focus on his good looks and awesome killing skillz.

Sometimes the minions are just kinda dumb.

Why do hordes and hordes of goblins serve comparatively smaller hobgoblin armies? The hobgoblins are smarter and stronger, and the goblins are too insane to realize that they might win if push came to shove--and that these wars never end well for their kind. It's not a matter of Charisma, it's a matter of "In the kingdom of the blind..."


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A BBEG gets his minions to serve him out of admiration, his own vision, or because of simple tradition. Maybe the sorcerers serve him because his noble birth gives their ragtag order legitimacy. Maybe they're evokers who admire his thirst for blood. Maybe he's the only one who knows how to wield their badass magic tower shield. Maybe he just has a ton of money and set things up so they can't just charm it out of him with the help of associates/anti-mind control items/just a good Will save. Heck, maybe all the sorcerers are crazy and the less crazy fighter gives them direction in life.

What I mean to say is that the fighter lacks something "special" and better cleared cut purpose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.
Sorry, this is just limited imagination. Nothing about the aristocrat class makes it better at having power through money and loyalty more than a fighter.

Let's see:

- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties

Please point to the section in the aristocrat's class that underlines these abilities. And don't point to the class skills--an extra +3 bonus to Knowledge (nobility) is not enough to put a fop in charge over someone who knows what he's doing.

Quote:


I didn't say that fighters cannot be aristocratic, I'm just saying that something doesn't "feel" right with the idea.

It feels fine to a lot of people. Maybe you should reconsider taking a stance only supported by unsubstantiated "feelings". After all, those "feelings" would have told Tucker to ditch his kobolds and go with ogres.


JiCi wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.
Sorry, this is just limited imagination. Nothing about the aristocrat class makes it better at having power through money and loyalty more than a fighter.

Let's see:

- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties

For a political figure, you're better off with an aristocrat, a cavalier or a samurai.

Uhm... No. The only benefit the aristocrat class grants over the fighters is 2 skill points per level and a few more class skills. Also, good will save, which is kind of a big deal but doesn't really affect this that much. Note that if you want the aristocrat to ever show up in a fight, it needs to invest a noticable amount of general feats, meanwhile the fighter can get equal mediocrity in battle without spending those, saving feats that can be spent on Skill Focus to shore up the aristocrat's higher number of skill points.

The difference between an aristocrat that's invested in combat and a fighter that's invested in skills is pretty marginal.

EDIT: Also note the myriad of fighter archetypes - in particular, the Lore Warden, which brings the fighter's skill points per level up to the same amount as the aristocrat, at pretty minor penalties.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, an aristocrat BBEG who's actually an Aristocrat is a kinda terrible final bossfight. ;D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the thread topic nonsensical. Why wouldn't a fighter make a fine BBEG? If I'm envisioning my BBEG to be a warlord in charge of a marauding army for example, the first class that pops into my mind is fighter. I think people are getting way too hung up on the game statistics when determining that a fighter can't make a good BBEG.

The main villain is only as memorable as the moments of roleplaying that involve him/her. And the best BBEGs aren't the ones who put up the toughest final battle, but the ones that are remembered long after the campaign ends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
A fighter doesn't sound like an aristocratic type of character. He's the soldier, the bodyguard, the general, the marshal, the captain... but all under someone else's control... or in a role where another class can do much better in terms of theme and abilities.
Sorry, this is just limited imagination. Nothing about the aristocrat class makes it better at having power through money and loyalty more than a fighter.

Let's see:

- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties

And the aristocrat class is mechanically better at having these because?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I vehemently disagree with the characterization of the fighter as "lacking in intelligence, charisma" or whatever else to prevent the fighter from being the central villian of a story. Perhaps because my "Pathfinder" roots emerged from the soil of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons where you looked forward to becoming a 9th level fighter, gaining the title of "lord", building a keep and gaining followers.

In terms of a fighter "lacking in intelligence and charisma" I think that's hogwash. That's metagame stuff. The average intelligence is between 10-11. The same with charisma. A fighter with an average or even an above average intelligence of 12 and a charisma of 12 is perfectly capable of possessing the raw intellectual ability and the personal magentism he needs. Intelligence and magentism however, aren't the end all be all of what really makes a fighter a successful villian. His backstory is more important. A narrative in which the fighter has had success after success in his military campaigns or in marrying the the right lady or lord, all of these factors can help establish the fighter as the central villian in a long story arc. If your just looking at the mechanics of what makes a successful villian, I think that misses the point of the central villian in the first place. The central villian compels the plot, and it's not that he's a wizard/antipaladin/lich with a kung fu grip that makes him or her interesting.

In one of my campaigns, it was fighter who usurped the throne with the support of the "old religion" against the temples of the new god that were doting the land. Noble born, with the support of a circle of less than savory druids and key family alliances, he engineered a successful plot to kill the king, a supporter of the new religion and a number of rivals. He troops were the best equipped,trained and experienced. His study of war and tactics (his skills in relevant areas were better; always the great equalizer in comparison to "raw" ability) proved the advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
A high level fighter with an antimagic field is nothing to joke about; you fight him on his terms.
It doesn't matter who you are, when in an anti-magic field the first thing you want to do is get out. That includes the fighter BBEG.
That gives me an idea for an encounter. Each corner of the room has an anti magic sphere, only a cross shaped set of five squares in the middle of the room aren't covered. In the center of those stands an armed and bloodthirsty fighter. Leaving the anti magic area means getting right in his face (and more importantly his attack range).

Yoink!

Gwaithador wrote:

I vehemently disagree with the characterization of the fighter as "lacking in intelligence, charisma" or whatever else to prevent the fighter from being the central villian of a story. Perhaps because my "Pathfinder" roots emerged from the soil of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons where you looked forward to becoming a 9th level fighter, gaining the title of "lord", building a keep and gaining followers.

That actually damaged my suspension of disbelief back when I was playing 2e. Unless the fighter had leadership skills, he needed to hire a steward and a captain. One of the things I like about 4e is having warlords (martial leaders) who can fulfill the "leaders of men" trope. They make great BBEGs, even if they're not as smart as their wizard adviser or as social as their herald. I would expect them to be smarter and more social than their regular troops.

A lot of real life or fictional "fighters" would fall under such a class, or a Pathfinderized warblade instead. I would put people like Alexander the Great (real-life) and King Arthur (fictional) under such a class banner. Without such a class, fighter/aristocrat seems to work. Of course, this weakens their fighting ability (lower BAB, fewer feats, putting stat points into mental stats) and makes it hard to be a good "boss battle".

Of course, this being D&D (and Pathfinder), I'm a bigger fan of the Five Bad Band (does not actually require five Big Bads) of differing classes. It's not like any of the PCs are a "main character". If the Big Bad really is a "leader of men" they might be spending their time directing their allies rather than putting their relatively weaker combat ability into play.


Kimera757 wrote:
I would put people like Alexander the Great (real-life) and King Arthur (fictional) under such a class banner.

Alexander was probably an aristocrat with delusions of fighterdom. He most certainly had the aristocratic skillset. He most certainly lacked the fighter's personal prowess (but was fond of charging into the breach and giving his whole army a heart attack anyway).


Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Let's see:
- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties
And the aristocrat class is mechanically better at having these because?

Social skills, Knowledge skills, and double skill points I would imagine.


Coriat wrote:
Kimera757 wrote:
I would put people like Alexander the Great (real-life) and King Arthur (fictional) under such a class banner.
Alexander was probably an aristocrat with delusions of fighterdom. He most certainly had the aristocratic skillset. He most certainly lacked the fighter's personal prowess (but was fond of charging into the breach and giving his whole army a heart attack anyway).

A man trained under Aristotle was no NPC class.


Coriat wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Let's see:
- better connections
- better knowledge of politics
- better education
- better family ties
And the aristocrat class is mechanically better at having these because?
Social skills, Knowledge skills, and double skill points I would imagine.

Ah yes because a fighter can't take those skill.

And no not double. 2 more per level. A fighter BBEG can easily have 8 skill points per level. The Aristocrat's 2 more are not earth shattering.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And then of course there's Xanatos who has Mages, immortal kings, gargoyles, and mutates working for him, even when they don't know it yet. And one radical suit of armor.

201 to 250 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.