Amric's page

HEre's the problem.

1) the Fighter doesn't get a +5 Bonus over everyone. The barb gets +4/+4 from his +8 Str boost, and might have Wpn Focus. So, you're on par. If you've got GWF, you're at +1 to hit. If you start shouting Gloves of Dueling, i start shouting Furious+Courageous weapon and you lose.

2) The barb is not weapon centered. Sure, he's +2 dmg more with a 2h'er. But he can pick up a longsword and not suffer, and he can use a shield if he want to. That longsword can also be used in two hands.

3) The barb has access to Guarded Stance and NAt Armor bonuses through rage powers, if he wants them. He'll take -2 for rage at level 20,and then +12? AC for those bonuses, completely outclassing the fighter.

4) The fighter's dex to AC only matters if you have the Dex to make use of it. At level 20, a suit of celestial mail works for a 26 Dex. Mithral BP, a 21. The fighter's armor advantage is +1-2 pts...completely overwhelmed by Rage Powers.

The fighter's move in armor is gained at level 1 by dwarves, by anyone in mithral BP or lighter armor...which is what they'll wear if they want to max dex, anyways.
And the barb still moves faster. So does a ranger with Longstrider, or a Paladin on a phantom steed..

Consistent damage is NICE. Spike damage, especially reusable spike damage, tends to be better. The fighter gets his +8/+10 against the demon BBEG, great, with his best specialized weapon and gloves. The ranger gets +10/+10, with any weapon and Instant Enemy. The paladin is rocking +7/+20 with any weapon,and can give it away to the rest of the party. The barb is rocking +8/+8(+11 2h) with any weapon with Courageous and Furious on it, as long as his rage holds out...which is generally more then long enough.

On a battlefield where the fighting can last for hours? Yeah, fighter wins.

In adventuring fights where short but furious is the rule? Not so much.

==Aelryinth

1, Dwarves don't get fighter's move in armour at first because the have a 20 ft movement speed.

2, I'm not really saying anything about Fighters other than they are about as good as any other class in combat.

3, This thread is more about whether fighters have any feats they are better off taking than focus/specialization, and the nature of "always on +1 fiddly bits" in general.

Sorry guys, reading comprehension fail. Not trying to be mean, just read the post again and see if you can figure out what the topic is.

It amazes me that people still spout misinformed stuff like AC not mattering when the enemy has a +43 bonus... On his first attack. You know iteratives? Well, those are made at a lower bonus.

I already explained why even small bonuses are valuable at high level.

Ichigeki wrote:

Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.

Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.

Your point is irrelevant because the discussion (which is a generous way to describe me trying to coax something other than a blatant evasion out of EldonG) I'm having is about someone claiming that there are more worthwhile things to do with your fighter feats than pick up weapon focus/specialization and their greater versions.

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

Oh, how I disagree.

Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.

So what feats do make a difference then?

Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.

I wasn't trying to imply that you said they don't make any difference.

To rephrase, What feats do you feel make more of a difference then?

It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..

OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.

What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?

Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building a

...

I see, you don't have any arguments, your just making excuses at this point. Weapon specialization/focus and their greater versions are the best feats Fighters get. No one has been able or even willing to present an argument otherwise.

Lemmy said earlier that he read my thread "A game of inches" and vehemently disagrees with it. Yet he didn't bother to post any evidence in my thread that refutes what I said. Why? Because he can't. Apparently, you can't either.

ciretose wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Exactly.

If 4 classes are better than 1 class, you don't nerf the other 4 to the one class' level.

So where can we test this theory. What are the builds, level by level, for the 4 classes that are clearly superior.

I posted a thread like 12 hours ago but nobody ever replied to it.

Well, actually, I guess Nicos and Shallowsoul posted.

Here.

Ichigeki wrote:

You didn't answer my question. I know it's the traps that ToH is famous for, but it's also pretty close to what I see as the "default" adventure scenario. I specifically asked you not to pick any feats that you can't take as a fighter bonus feat, yet you listed 3 of that sort! Those would be on my list too, but they don't qualify as bonus feats for the fighter.

So, again, What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?

That's a bit of a loaded question isn't it considering there are only like 4 Fighter only Feats to begin with, 2 of them being the Feats in question.

Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

Oh, how I disagree.

Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.

So what feats do make a difference then?

Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.

I wasn't trying to imply that you said they don't make any difference.

To rephrase, What feats do you feel make more of a difference then?

It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..

OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.

What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?

Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building a character specifically for it.

In that place,...

You didn't answer my question. I know it's the traps that ToH is famous for, but it's also pretty close to what I see as the "default" adventure scenario. I specifically asked you not to pick any feats that you can't take as a fighter bonus feat, yet you listed 3 of that sort! Those would be on my list too, but they don't qualify as bonus feats for the fighter.

So, again, What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?

I want people to argue with me so that I can figure out if I'm right.

Ichigeki wrote:

1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.

Well, if we're at the point where every other martial class would need to be nerfed to be on par with the fighter, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just bump the fighter up their level instead?

Maybe. I don't believe Paizo will ever nerf any class (except maybe the monk, out of sheer perversity -_-), But I think that would actually be the best course of action. The core 3.5 chassis Pathfinder is built on is extremely complex and deep in actual play. Contrary to popular opinion, as long as you stuck strictly to the Player's handbook, 3.5 was actually a very well balanced game imo. Most of the perceived balance issues simply arose from incompetent DMs who didn't know how to enforce the value of expendable resources by pushing the party past the "5 minute workday". As soon as any content beyond the phb opened up it all went to hell though.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think that paizo really has what it takes to balance the game with additional coontent, the best that can be done is probably to move closer to 3.5, not farther away. That said, it won't happen.

I'm not seeing why magic jar or astral projection is any good?

I mean, if your DM wants to keep the campaign on one plane for simplicity sake, astral projection does nothing.

Don't worry about astral projection for now, it's a long way off. Just read Magic jar and imagine the possibilities. Remembering that you keep your spellcasting when in another body.

You can possess anything that has a soul. A hill giant for example. Or even undead creatures that you raise yourself. So lets say a wight. Now, wights have the following ability:

Create Spawn (Su) Any humanoid creature that is slain by a wight becomes a wight itself in only 1d4 rounds. Spawn so created are less powerful than typical wights, and suffer a –2 penalty on all d20 rolls and checks, as well as –2 hp per HD. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death, at which point they lose their spawn penalties and become full-fledged and free-willed wights. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.

Your slave wights have the same ability.

Let you imagination run wild. This is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000. Fighters have continued to be plagued by the same types of problems since the system was released and they are still plagued by these problems today. I have seen countless fighters in my tabletop games, public games, online games, and all suffer from the same problems. The most optimized over them can kill things really well. In 3.5 you could at least make a very competent martial-lockdown through the usage of spiked chains, enlargements, tripping emphasis (in 3.5 you can trip flying enemies causing them to fall prone), stand still (stand still was much stronger in 3.5 and turned a fighter's high damage into a CC ability), etc. However everything listed above was nerfed in Pathfinder so GG guys.

In my years of playing, I've seen 1 Fighter who was actually really exceptional at fighting (not just killing). That was played by a friend of mine who both had an avid love for fighters and exceptional optimization skills and he carefully picked which magic items he would try to acquire to work in tandem with his fighter (he and I frequently discussed interesting strategies, many of which are detailed in my adventuring guidebook). He squeezed out every benefit he could from items, feats, and race, and even at the end of the day he admitted that as much as he loved fighters that he was getting his pro-killing from his fighter and making up the rest through pure system mastery. But he felt it was a nice challenge and enjoyed it.

I'm sure that fighter was exceptional, but don't you think maybe you're overstating things just a bit? there are a few things that come to mind for me when I read your post.

1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.

2, Combat is two things, dealing damage, and enabling damage. there is nothing else. Will saves? enables damage by "keeping you in the game". Ditto for every other Defense. Locking down the enemy? you're enabling the rest of the party to continue dealing damage. Etc. In short, good at killing is good at combat.

3, In regard to you earlier post, and your "simplistic Ranger", Rangers may be leagues ahead of fighters out of combat, they can't really do anything truly different from the fighter in combat. It's not like they get full spellcasting or anything. They typically just hit stuff and shoot stuff, kind of like the fighter no? Now, since Paizo went absurdly, ridiculously too far in buffing them for Pathfinder, they hit and shoot stuff just as well or better than the Fighter, which is a problematic, but separate issue.

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but I just really take issue with this statement:

(actual combat, not just the one facet of combat that involves hitting things with a stick).

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

Oh, how I disagree.

Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.

So what feats do make a difference then?

Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.

I wasn't trying to imply that you said they don't make any difference.

To rephrase, What feats do you feel make more of a difference then?

It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..

OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.

What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?

Ichigeki wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

Oh, how I disagree.

Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.

So what feats do make a difference then?

Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.

I wasn't trying to imply that you said they don't make any difference.

To rephrase, What feats do you feel make more of a difference then?

So can anyone refute my arguments? Apparently my opinions on this are not commonly accepted on these boards, yet no one has bothered to actually argue my points. Is it because I'm right but my way is "boring"? Is it because (to borrow a 4E-ism) I think of Fighters as Strikers, and others think of them as Defenders?

Or is there another reason?

Neo2151 wrote:

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

Oh, how I disagree.

Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.

So what feats do make a difference then?

To address your concern directly - yes, there's a chance you'll roll crummy, but serious chance-taking has always been part of the game (in some ways, they've taken some out over time). Take the fact that the others don't seem to be answering your question directly as simply an overwhelming endorsement of the spell's worth (which I add +1 to).

Given all this, yes, there are much worse ideas than applying the Magical Lineage trait to enervation and applying Empower Spell to it - that way, you've got something really good to do with your 5th-level slots (kind of a weak level for necromancers), while freeing up both 4th- and 6th-level slots, two of the best levels for Necromancy spells, for others.

-_-

Lolwut? 5th level has Magic Jar. It's arguably the best spell in the whole Necromancy school. If you ask me, only astral projection can compete with Magic Jar.

I cannot overstate how powerful and abusable Magic Jar is. It's a top tier spell, one of the best on the entire wizard list.

Ichigeki wrote:

There are only two ways to defend against these tactics, GM fiat protecting the PCs, and being capable of the same tactics. This is why Wizard lords always rule the world in D&D settings that make sense (See Darksun, and Jack Vance's Dying Earth, on which D&D was largely based), and why Wizard lords have trouble eliminating each other.

If we look at Dragonlance based on 1e AD&D things don't look so good for the Wizards. The 3e+ concept of wake up and poof all your spells are back makes what you say true, but in 1e/2e you only had to be willing to sacrifice a few and they were dead meat. Wizards now have far more spells per day and get them back almost instantaneously compared with their 1e/2e counterparts.

S.

Well, first off, Dragonlance is terrible. And doesn't represent high level D&D at all, it falls into the "high levels are just like low levels but epic" trap that many novelists and GMs fall prey to. And is absolutely untrue.

As to spell slots, it doesn't really matter. Remember how I said,"begin preparing to eliminate the threat and build up their defenses"? well I meant it, and it seems like a lot of posters are having trouble with that concept. They can take as long as they want to set up the perfect scenario and spell list to deal with the issue. Heck, maybe they'll even torment their target with the nightmare spell for a week. Or two. Or a year. While they craft a golem to teleport in with them. And send planar bound outsider assassins at them. etc. etc. etc.

Actually it is a fallacy because when debates about wizards take place they also refer to solving out of combat situations, which can have unlimited problems, but the number of spells you can have per day is limited, and often these debate are about PC wizards.

You can't make a wizard that can the "best" spell availible for any situation which is what happens in a debate. Often in a real game a good player can find a spell that works, or he will use a spell in an unintended but legal way, which I dont think most of us would have an issue with.

Also wizards in various settings have different powers so trying to apply any character in a game to one in a D&D or Pathfinder is a poor choice.

They only have trouble killing each on novels because the author says so, which is just like GM Fiat for a game. That has nothing to do with a game's actual rules.

Pathfinser is D&D by another name. I know the debate is often about PC Wizards, but It sometimes veers into talking about NPCs, which is especially relevant to actual gameplay when the BBEG has 20 levels of Wizard (not uncommon). Hence the comment on "GM fiat".

Note: none of this usually applies to player characters, because they have a party to keep alive and worry about.

Some people like to complain about "Schrodinger's Wizard" and pretend it's some kind of fallacy. It's not. There is something called the "Magic Game". Some characters have the INT score, spell lists and spells known to pull it off (Typically Wizards). Most don't.

It involves: High level magic, divination, teleportation, abjurations to prevent opponents from locating you, the clone spell, multiple clones and a defensive mindset.

Basically, characters capable of playing the "Magic Game" always go first and attack when their target is most vulnerable, and when they are prepared to the best of their ability to attack whatever target they have chosen because their capabilities allow them to do that.

Whenever this kind of character perceives a danger to themselves, They immediately use their magic to remove themselves from the situation, and begin preparing to eliminate the threat and build up their defenses. Now sometimes danger gets the jump on them, and scores the first blow. If this blow doesn't kill them outright, their contingency spell activates and removes them to a safe location, and they begin preparing to eliminate the threat and build up their defenses.

In a worst case scenario, they are killed outright, and wake up in one of their clones, and they begin preparing to eliminate the threat and build up their defenses.

There are only two ways to defend against these tactics, GM fiat protecting the PCs, and being capable of the same tactics. This is why Wizard lords always rule the world in D&D settings that make sense (See Darksun, and Jack Vance's Dying Earth, on which D&D was largely based), and why Wizard lords have trouble eliminating each other. And why a Lich is a source of Lovecraftian cosmic horror.

Barbarians are easily hittable, compared to fighters, but with archetypes, they can have nasty amounts of Damage Reduction, awesome saving throws, the amazing Pounce, and they already have so many rage rounds they can afford to rage during every significant encounter. in fact, with a 1 level dip into monk, they can charge over difficult terrain.

Again, I'm not arguing that that Barbarian isn't effective. I know better than that. But DR is not enough to substitute for a Real armour class, and you never see archer Barbarians, and I think they are simply not terribly efficient. They are heal sinks, and need to use an expendable resource to match a fighters offensive numbers, and even then using that resource comes with a number of penalties (AC penalty, not being allowed to use tactics beyond HULK SMASH, and so on).

Ichigeki wrote:

To me the Barbarian is a supplement to the Fighter, not a replacement. They lack ranged capacity and are not defensively sound. Having hit points is meaningless without AC or another form of mitigation because they evaporate after a single full-attack. They rely on sheer offense to carry them through encounters, and it does, but it's really inefficient (IMO) because it turns them into resource sinks for the whole party.

Not quite true. Barbarian can tank up easily. But offense suffers.

Usually people aren't willing to let offense suffer. and almost never with a Barbarian.

Ichigeki wrote:

I believe fighters need a boost, but...

Greater weapon focus is like, my favourite feat. See my thread, A game of inches.

I did read your thread. But I honestly couldn't disagree more with you.

IMHO, Getting +1s and +2s is boring and does nothing to expand your character's options.

Especially Weapon Focus, that is only useful 5% of the time. (Weapon Specialization at least applies to every attack you land).

I like feats that give you (real) choices and/or cool abilities. Feats that expand your options.

Feats like Lunge, Cornugon Smash, Improved/Greater [Combat Maneuver of choice]. They give you something new, and/or the chance to make a choice. (Combat Reflexes is fun too, because more AoO means more chances to act and more choices to make... Do I attack the enemy with my AoO? Do I trip it?)

A +1 doesn't give you anything new. It simply makes you slightly better at something you can already do. Hell, even Power Attack, which is simply a numerical bonus gives you a choice, use it or not. You have to analyze the situation (in this case, the enemy's AC) and adjust.

Weapon Focus, OTOH, changes absolutely nothing about how a Fighter plays. Its only benefit is that it's a very common prerequisite, which IMO, is more of a problem with feat chains than a advantage of Weapon Focus.

Now, I don't mind the occasional "numerical bonus" feat, (I grab Improved Critical all the time), I just don't particularly care for them, and I hate when they become the standard choice (like Weapon Focus/Specialization has become for Fighters)

I totally understand where you're coming from, I just don't think it's the best way to "play the system", objectively speaking.

I haven't taken improved trip or any of the combat maneuvers since 3.5, the last time those tactics were worth investing in imo. CMB/CMD got borked, and so did the spiked chain.

One likely controversial thing you could try is a damage cap. A friend and I once tossed around the idea of a 10 damage per level cap on melee and ranged attacks and a 5 damage per level cap on AoE spells. Since you're specifically trying to control ranged damage maybe you'd cap that at 5 per level too. Would reducing the Fighter to 40 DPR be enough to "fix" the problem, or is 40 damage "too much"?

Maybe you could also allow a PC to bypass the damage cap for a round by spending a hero point. We never instituted the cap in our games since we ultimately decided it was a bad idea, but for groups who dislike having the monsters die fast and seeing DPR disparity between PCs it might be a workable solution.

Obviously this would encourage certain styles of play, but maybe that's what you want.

I would walk away at that point, if I was that player. It isn't him, the others are incompetent. They should be asking him to fix their builds, not the other way around.

What's the historical/in-have justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?

It's ridiculous isn't it?

Basically, I'm saying that Fighter is about playing Moneyball. Remember that movie? I hate baseball, but that was a cool movie.

Craig Mercer wrote:

And then I always say, "If you think the barbarian/ranger/paladin is better, why don't you play that?"

And they always answer "Because the barbarian/ranger/paladin doesn't fit my character concept."

So these classes are only better if your concept matches the concept they are built around.
In every other case, you have to go with a fighter.
So people are complaining that characters with set niches or restrictions are better than generalists, and why can't the generalist have all the neat stuff that the niche character has? Maybe the niche character gets more because he's in a niche?

The problem is that making a customizable class doesn't mean making a versatile/effective character. Also, it's not hard to use Rangers or Barbarians to make pretty much any character concept that can be created by Fighters.

Hell, one of my favorite builds nowadays is a Halfling duelist made only with Barbarian levels!

Craig Mercer wrote:

Once again, how do you build a class that has to model everything?

Answer that, and maybe you would get something for the fighter.

- Give Fighters more skill points and a better list of class skills (personally, I give them 4 skill points and add Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the players choices to their class skill list). This would go a long way to improve Fighters' out of combat utility, but not much to their overall power (skills are nice, but they are a bit underpowered).

- Create better feats that scale with level/BAB with fair/useful prerequisites instead of the way-too-long feat chains with boring/useless prerequisites (I'm looking at you, Combat Expertise!) and diminishing returns (each TWF feat is progressively worse than the one before. Greater Weapon Focus is not any better than Weapon Focus, so you're basically taking the same feat twice!)

I believe fighters need a boost, but...

Greater weapon focus is like, my favourite feat. See my thread, A game of inches.

Ichigeki wrote:

To me the Barbarian is a supplement to the Fighter, not a replacement. They lack ranged capacity and are not defensively sound. Having hit points is meaningless without AC or another form of mitigation because they evaporate after a single full-attack. They rely on sheer offense to carry them through encounters, and it does, but it's really inefficient (IMO) because it turns them into resource sinks for the whole party.

Barbarians can pick up a bow just like anybody else. And barbarians have amazing defenses, and because they have great offense with relatively little effort, they can pick defensive options quite freely in my experience. I think you aren't giving barbarians their due.

They lack incentive to invest in dexterity, lack the feats to invest in improving their ranged attacks (or have to choose between that and defensive capabilities) and possess nothing comparable to weapon training that allows Fighters to improve their ranged damage and accuracy without committing to it, by picking secondary weapon groups.

I've seen 12th level Barbarians with 32 strength while raging, they have a ton of HP and hit like a train. Filled with contact explosives. My opinion still stands.

Multiple weak enemies are like kryptonite to them because they lack the AC that would otherwise trivialize the attacks of low level enemies. Likewise if for any reason whatsoever (bad luck, can't reach the target, etc.) their enemies are still standing after 2 rounds, in my experience, they're screwed, because at that point offense as defense has already failed.

They are effective, they just aren't efficient in my opinion. They have a ton of HP, and it's almost always down to nothing by the end of an encounter, thereby requiring a fortune in healing resources.

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

Very good points Ichigeki. I think the number of encounters between resting affects how powerful the fighter is in comparison to a barbarian- if you have fewer encounters per day the barbarian's rage outshines even a well-optimized fighter. A well-optimized fighter has options for maximizing attack rolls, damage, or AC. But a raging barbarian has a bonus to attack, damage, and hit points without having to optimize any of the three.

My observation is that fighters are the most effective class with a ten-point point buy. Their combat effectiveness is dependent on feat selection and equipment. MAD classes have trouble (especially at low levels) with low point buy or low attributes, and a fighter can carry a low point buy party. Because a fighter is easy to make effective at low levels (power attack, cleave, weapon focus, combat reflexes, and vital strike all are very effective at low levels) there might be an assumption by a lot of players that it should be as easy to make a fighter effective at medium and higher levels. Almost any fighter feat adds to combat effectiveness for the first few levels, by level 6 a feat has to work in conjunction with other feats to have a similar effect.

You made very good points without raising an obvious question, I hope this response is appropriate to the thread you've started.

I think the issue might stem more from the fact that, at low levels, what makes fighters effective is pretty obvious. It's very easy to see how Power attack helps at levels 1-3. Weapon focus and combat reflexes also have clear usefulness. You want more of a dex-based build? Easy: Dodge and Combat Expertise. Etc.

As you get into more advanced levels, you have so many more options. Each of those "obvious" feats at your first three-four levels opens up one or more feat trees. Once you take Power Attack, you have to decide if you want to be a cleave-monster or go the overrun/bull rush route. After Dodge, do you want to go down the Mobility-Spring...

I consider Lunge to be a feat tax at sixth level myself. If you look at how much damage you lose by missing even one chance to full-attack, Lunge starts to look really appealing because it increases the number of times per combat that a 5-foot step is sufficient to position yourself for a full attack.

Very good points Ichigeki. I think the number of encounters between resting affects how powerful the fighter is in comparison to a barbarian- if you have fewer encounters per day the barbarian's rage outshines even a well-optimized fighter. A well-optimized fighter has options for maximizing attack rolls, damage, or AC. But a raging barbarian has a bonus to attack, damage, and hit points without having to optimize any of the three.

My observation is that fighters are the most effective class with a ten-point point buy. Their combat effectiveness is dependent on feat selection and equipment. MAD classes have trouble (especially at low levels) with low point buy or low attributes, and a fighter can carry a low point buy party. Because a fighter is easy to make effective at low levels (power attack, cleave, weapon focus, combat reflexes, and vital strike all are very effective at low levels) there might be an assumption by a lot of players that it should be as easy to make a fighter effective at medium and higher levels. Almost any fighter feat adds to combat effectiveness for the first few levels, by level 6 a feat has to work in conjunction with other feats to have a similar effect.

You made very good points without raising an obvious question, I hope this response is appropriate to the thread you've started.

To me the Barbarian is a supplement to the Fighter, not a replacement. They lack ranged capacity and are not defensively sound. Having hit points is meaningless without AC or another form of mitigation because they evaporate after a single full-attack. They rely on sheer offense to carry them through encounters, and it does, but it's really inefficient (IMO) because it turns them into resource sinks for the whole party.

Ichigeki wrote:

Question wrote:

So you are saying that if i use create undead to turn the corpse of a level 10 warrior into a ghoul, it becomes a level 10 ghoul warrior and not a 2hd ghoul? Well, that makes it much better.

I'm stuck on one thing though...how exactly does a wizard-necromancer get negative energy to heal undead?

They don't. The Necromancer Wizard has never been about undead, that was just "a thing they can do". A gimmick. Necromancer Wizards are all about debilitating status effects, possession, astral shenanigans and they used to be able to do save-or-dies, but everyone whined about those, so Paizo nerfed those spells. Actually, Paizo flipped the bird to Necromancers and their fans in general by giving them the worst and most pathetically useless school powers of all the wizard options.

Untrue the necromancer wizard has Negative Energy Ray and Burst both 3.5 spells that can found on the following site.

http://dndtools.eu/spells/tome-and-blood-a-guidebook-to-wizards-and-sorcere rs--51/negative-energy-ray--3410/
http://dndtools.eu/spells/tome-and-blood-a-guidebook-to-wizards-and-sorcere rs--51/negative-energy-burst--3409/

3.5, Your argument is invalid.

I forgot to mention that This was in relation to EldonG's thread and I was thinking terms of inexhaustible resources, so I'm not factoring things like Rage or instant enemy in when I say +5 over anybody else.

Now I agree that the Fighter needs some changes, more class skills, skill points and perhaps just a little something extra.

Please only reply if you read the whole post.

That said, I notice that many complaints arise from people who don't like fiddly little +1s. This is what the fighter is all about. The fighter lives for +1 fiddly bits. Weapon training is the difference between being able to effectively power attack while you're using a tower shield or not.

See what I mean?

For example, say you have two combatants, Gronk and Bob. Gronk has an attack bonus of +20 +15, Bob wields a longsword and has an AC of 31 and 22 strength and likes to power attack, but he's not using his +1 heavy shield (he has greater shield focus), in favour of using his sword two-handed.

So Gronk has a 50% chance of hitting Bob with his first attack, and a 25% chance on the second.

If Bob equips his shield he sacrifices 6 (he's 8th level) points of damage per attack but gains "only" 5 points of AC. How ever Gronk's chance of hitting drops to 25%, and 5%.

Regardless of whether these tactics are sound or not, in my opinion this illustrates quite nicely how even fairly small numbers can add up to have a significant impact on combat.

+7 AC (a +5 heavy shield) doesn't sound like much at 20th level, does it? It seems insignificant until you realize that (as long as you haven't completely dumped your AC) it still represents a 5% reduction per point of AC to your enemy's chance to hit, or in this case a 35% reduction in hit percentage.

The fighter is the king of accuracy, because the system is miserly when it comes to hit chance. it makes you spend a feat just to get +1 with one weapon! But the Fighter gets an additional +5 over anyone else over the course of his career, that is not insignificant, it's a 25% boost in accuracy per attack, because each point represents an additional number on your die that will register a hit. This tends to be obscured by people forgetting about the third and fourth iterative at higher levels, forgetting about the mechanics of the D20 and not thinking in terms of percentages.

A relevant quote:

you know, he'd be a pretty good warrior if he had a better head for numbers

Then what does the versatile channeler feat do for necromancers?

Allow you to choose whether to turn or rebuke undead whenever you channel. in short, it would be a waste of a feat IMO.

Well i just found a spell called "Infernal healing" that gives any character fast healing 1 for 1 minute.

That. and my DM decided to let me take inflict light wounds as a class spell, so that settles it.

Next step : Traits/feats...

Traits : I could take desperate focus/reactionary for a safe and useful +2 to concentration/+2 to initiative. Are there any better options for a necromancer? Im planning to take craft wondrous item at some point, so hedge magician may be a good idea...

Feats : Are there any that would help to buff undead?

There are a couple undead based feats in Ultimate magic if I'm not mistaken... However, Personally I would prioritize Spell focus (Necromancy) and the greater version over those. This will boost the DC of your command undead spell, which is vital if you are focusing on the minion aspect. especially at higher levels. As you know, create undead does not automatically grant you control over the raised creature. However, command undead does not grant a saving throw when cast on an unintelligent undead, regardless of hit dice, and lasts days per level, so remember that if you ever encounter a dragon zombie or something like that.

I also recommend craft wand, especially if your GM is allowing you to take inflict spells as a wizard.

Ichigeki wrote:

Personally I hate the fact that odd numbers do absolutely nothing. I increase my 16 to a 17! I get jack squat for another 4 levels! Yay!

It just seems really dated and obsolete design.

I did give +1 to two stats every 4 levels in a previous game, this gives you quite a bit of freedom on how to boost your abilities and can make sure you get pay off every 4 levels, if you go for an early pay off you might not see benefits every level. I also reinforced no starting ability scores over 18 after racial adjustments, this was in part to make MAD characters more viable and decrease dump stats.

That method would certainly help with the "dead" +1s issue. It just seems odd to me that game designers haven't really caught on to this yet. I mean, 5th edition D&D isn't that far away and even they haven't considered changing the crummy old ability system. Heck, "baby with the bathwater 4th edition" wouldn't even touch the ability system.

And remember too diversify your spell list, as a specialist you must pick one spell of your specialization school per wizard level, and that is plenty. You won't regret picking up a few spells like colour spray, mirror image, haste or slow for exemple. It sucks when you've only got vampiric touch, chill touch and ghoul touch, but your up against a raging ogre barbarian.

You probably know this but it doesn't hurt to say it just in case.

Well the necromancer idea just hit another deadwall then, unless i can find some way to get access to negative energy. Is there anything in 3.5 material?

I'm thinking of selecting evocation/enchantment as my opposition schools. Thoughts on this?

I wouldn't worry too much about healing your minions, but there are a couple of things you can do, give temporary HP to your minions with enervation, and wands of inflict light wounds if you're willing to invest in your UMD skill. When I said Wizards don't heal their undead, I meant they don't typically heal their undead, Because IMO it's not usually worth it when you can just raise more. there are options but I just wouldn't worry about it too much unless you've got a particular creature that you really like.

As for opposition schools, the two that you picked are usually the ideal schools to drop as a Necromancer.

It says right in the quoted text "but only to use the selected feat".

Personally I hate the fact that odd numbers do absolutely nothing. I increase my 16 to a 17! I get jack squat for another 4 levels! Yay!

It just seems really dated and obsolete design.

So you are saying that if i use create undead to turn the corpse of a level 10 warrior into a ghoul, it becomes a level 10 ghoul warrior and not a 2hd ghoul? Well, that makes it much better.

I'm stuck on one thing though...how exactly does a wizard-necromancer get negative energy to heal undead?

They don't. The Necromancer Wizard has never been about undead, that was just "a thing they can do". A gimmick. Necromancer Wizards are all about debilitating status effects, possession, astral shenanigans and they used to be able to do save-or-dies, but everyone whined about those, so Paizo nerfed those spells. Actually, Paizo flipped the bird to Necromancers and their fans in general by giving them the worst and most pathetically useless school powers of all the wizard options.

Or you know, casting a spell like command undead. I recommend raising it in a secure location, like in a cell. or while possessing another creature with magic jar. You can also use hold undead to buy yourself some time.

Bonus tip: Heighten spell is worth it for Necromancers.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Why must you insist on claiming we said thing we didn't? Hell, even the posts you quoted don't say what you claim they said.

Bah, to hell with this, I'm off to bed.

Yeah, at this point he's arguing against things that were never said, showing quotes that don't say what he claims they say, and just ignoring us when we tell him thats not what it says. This fight was over long ago and I believe he's been trolling for the most part.

Honestly at this point I don't even know what you are trying to say. I said fighters can do things outside of combat but that was not the point of the class. I then had every single statement I made attacked by several people. And so now I'm a "troll."

Lesson learned. Never defend a class in a thread talking about that class!

Holy $**t on a cracker from effin' heck. Dude, Listen very carefully, you are NOT defending the fighter. You are holding it back. We want to fix the Fighter. That is actually an option. Especially if people like you can just admit you are wrong so that we, as Fighter fans and PF players in general can present a unified front to Paizo, and get them to fix the issues with their system, regardless of whether those issues were inherited or mistakes on their part.

My old GM had a Kobold sorcerer riding inside the skull of an animated giant skeleton while he threw spells at us... and hasted kobold archers shot at us from the skeleton's shoulders, If memory serves.

just sayin'.

Ichigeki wrote:

None taken, but what I'm saying is that I deliberately played a nerfed character that wouldn't pass here (No Power attack?!? Burn the witch!) and still got the occasional dirty look. If I had played a Wizard I would have gotten dice hurled at me.

With an archer it's hard to go wrong. Just take the archery feats and you're laughing, which is why I feel sympathetic.

Why would a wizard take power attack? :P

Because he dipped for Foresight prescience and the rest of his levels are fighter. ;p

Lad, Just as a heads-up, Your comments border on trolling.

-Skyrim easy mode-

-Vulgar display-

-More brains, less power gaming-

Are you trying to be deliberately inflammatory? Because you come off that way.

No offense Ichi but this place is pretty much the highest standard in terms of capability for any ability :P If you pass in here, you can be pretty much assured your character will do moderately well in a regular pathfinder game (moderate amounts of social and combat).

None taken, but what I'm saying is that I deliberately played a nerfed character that wouldn't pass here (No Power attack?!? Burn the witch!) and still got the occasional dirty look. If I had played a Wizard I would have gotten dice hurled at me.

With an archer it's hard to go wrong. Just take the archery feats and you're laughing, which is why I feel sympathetic.

There isn't any issue to handle. Typical archer is typical.

It's not his fault that he looks too good by contrast. Not everything can be optimal but everything can be optimized. In other words, one guy shouldn't be singled out because others don't know how to execute their concepts effectively.

This kind of thing irks me because I've played fighters that would get ripped apart for being useless on a char-op board, but made the rest of the party look terrible because they were just that bad.

My invisible internet hat goes off to you chopswil. Paizo should be paying you for doing quality work. Who knew writing up a bunch of NPCs was such a difficult task?

The sping attack/vital strike mess is especially enlightening as to how well Paizo actually knows their own system.

Dabbler wrote:

It adds the intelligence dodge bonus to the dex dodge bonus, which in theory limits it by armour - my own deulist build above uses bracers rather than armour for just this reason. Paizo have since said that this wasn't how it was intended to work - that is should be treated like the dexterity bonus, but is separate from it.

The official CRB FAQ wrote:

Duelist--Canny Defense: Is this ability limited by my armor's maximum Dexterity?

A duelist adds her Int bonus to her AC (not to her Dex bonus to AC). She loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC.
Her Int-based bonus to AC ignores the max Dex limitation of armor because the Int-based bonus to AC is not a Dex bonus.
(This Int bonus to AC applies to the character's touch AC.)

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13

They fixed it for us. : )

What a mess. Why the fudge didn't they say it was dodge Bonus? No, that would be too simple. Paizo really irks me sometimes.

How about this:

** spoiler omitted **...

I like your build. I can't think of any argument not to take crane style, which to me means those feats are maybe a little to good. But that's a different discussion.

I've been thinking about a strength based duelist lately. Since int is added to your dex bonus, if you don't use dex as your main stat you could get more out of mithral breastplate or something. I kind of like the idea of a duelist who surprises foes with the sheer force and ferocity of his attacks.

I would probably take the dazzling display line and intimidating prowess on such a build. Thoughts?

Ichigeki wrote:

Kodger wrote:

You have to look at 16th level. Assume their best ability score is 20. Both use a d8 weapon. We’ll ignore magical pluses since they should be the same.

I would go Weapon Master 4 Urban Barbarian 1 Aldori Swordlord PrC 1 Duelist 10.

The Duelist’s damage would be d8 plus Duelist (10), Dexterity (5), Rage (2), Weapon Specialization (2) and Weapon Training (1) for d8 + 20. Note that the 10 points of Duelist damage would not apply to anything immune to critical hits.

The Sword and Board Fighter would get d8 plus Power Attack (10), Strength (5), Greater/Weapon Specialization (4), and Weapon Training (3) for d8 + 22. Compared to a Duelist, you lose 5 points of BAB to Power Attack but get 2 back from Weapon Training and 1 from Greater Weapon Focus. You could drop one level of fighter to take Urban Barbarian. Raging would give you an extra +2/+2.

I would like to play a Duelist in Kingmaker. The closest I have come to this build is Free Hand Fighter 8, Aldori Swordlord PrC 1, and Duelist 2, in PFS.

A Duelist is fun to play. A great weakness for them is being feinted. The fighter has a much better flat-footed AC.

I did this off the top of my head, so there may be errors and omissions.

Thanks,

Kodger

Thanks, I always think that people slightly undervalue the Duelist. Pathfinder did nerf their AC though.

How did PF nerf the AC of the duelist?

PF allows the duelist to wear light armour, but the 3rd ed version didn't allow the duelist to wear armour at all! Well, he could but he'd lose his duelist abilities while he did.

What Dabbler said, But also in 3.5 Duelists used to get +1 AC per level of duelist when fighting defensively in addition to the regular benefit.