Matthew Hooper's page

As about 3.0 cleric archers, they didn't even use Zen Archery and still demolished non-casting archers. Here is a complete example of a very early build:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/dungeons-and-dragons-24/cleric-archer-564 74.html

Oh, yeah. This is a real simple build. No cheese at all.

Cleric 6/ Church Inquisitor 3/ Divine Disciple 2/ Contemplative 6/ Sacred Exorcist 3

Race: Grey Elf
Domains: Elf, War, Inquisition, Exorcism, Mysticism, Time, Plant

I can just glance at this example and find errors, by the way...

9th: x2 Extended Foresight (Domain Slot- Rod), x5 Extended Tongues, x5 Extended Deathward, x5 Extended Air Walk

If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in his domain spell slot.

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how many sourcebooks all of this nonsense came from? Or maybe even a legal character sheet?

Or better yet, build one with Pathfinder rules and *just* Pathfinder rules? Start comparing apples to apples, instead of apples to lychee fruit and a T-bone steak.

It's a startlingly large amount, trust me. (I've freelanced for other companies before.) As a rule of thumb, if you ever ran across a miserably worded rule, word count can be blamed. 1,000 words would be a really nice number.

Well, let's start off by tightening up what we want action points to do. Some of that can be accomplished by wording:

- An action point lets you, as an immediate action, take a standard or move action at any point in the initiative sequence.

- An action point restores a dead or dying character to -1 hit points and stable.

- Action points may be used as ki or rage points by monks and barbarians.

- An action point lets you add 1d6 to any d20 roll. Rolls altered by an action point are never automatic failures.

Cleaner?

If I understand correctly, Paizo's finalizing a lot of this discussion by Monday. We're going to have to come up with a quick, clean system fast (by comittee over the Internet, eek).

I'd firmly suggest sticking with the SRD version of Action Points as closely as possible, simply for ease of use and consensus. How many per session is an important question, but it'd be hard to determine without some playtesting. My instinct is that you'd need 1 per session at low levels, five to ten at high levels, and double that for a fighter. Since action points are such a high-stakes "gambling" sort of affair, it's entirely possible that there is no "right number" of action points - it's entirely based on your play group's risk aversion.

If you really want to boggle a player's mind - what if you could cash in unused action points for extra XP at the end of a session? Or what if, whenever you used an action point, you granted the DM permission to use one, at some point, on some opponent? I've seen both systems before in other games. You can go all over the place with this sort of mechanic if you're not careful.

Can we cram this idea down into 1-2 paragraphs? Something that could be shoved into a "DM's Option" sidebar, or another relevant chapter?

I would add three effects to the list of action point uses in the SRD:

Extra move You may spend one action point to move your full normal movement rate as a swift action. (Kieth, does that supply the extra movement you wanted?)

Mitigate death After failing a save vs. a death effect, you may spend 1 action point to mitigate the effect. Instead of dying, the character is at -10 hit points and stable.

Alternate point usage A monk or barbarian may convert 1 action point to 1 ki or rage point.

Do those make sense?

Heh. Amusing topic.

I like the idea of *some* spice of some variety being extremely expensive (and thus treasure-worthy). Saffron, black lotus pollen, nymph snot, whatever. Maybe a "spices, ultra-rare" entry is needed.

As for the iron pot... well, what do you think a sensible price ought to be? Come to think of it, what size of pot are we talking here? Cauldron? Fry pan?

I like the action point idea for several reasons:

First, it's already a part of the SRD. That limits the amount of extra writing that the Pathfinder developers have to do.

Second, giving the fighter extra action points plays into the "action hero" mold that most fighters aspire to (and our favorite movie fighters exhibit so well).

Third, they're just plain fun. Being able to invest extra effort into a roll at the cost of a rare resource can really make a session exciting.

I flat-out don't understand the "Mickey Mouse" argument. I'll happily listen to anyone who can explain it. I feel that action points add to the game, rather than take away from it. I have to wonder if people reflexively object to them becuase they're in 4e.

Action points might even out some other problems we've been complaining about, like the nerfing of Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Spend an action point, get the "old" version of the feat for a round. It lets you hit big (or defend big) when you need to while addressing the issues that consistent abuse of those feats generate. It's not ideal, but it's not bad either, and it's an answer that doesn't involve digging into the guts of the rules for combat.

Matthew Hooper wrote:

Tying some disparate problems together here:

What if we gave fighters a bonus to their action points per level? Call it an extra 1-5 per level. Would that even out the fighter to some extent?

That could potentially solve a lot of problems. Fighters typically have a lot more die rolls, and more chances to drop their weapon/critically fail on a "1," especially because casters don't even need to roll to cast a spell (unless they're threatened). And if an action point could be, say, traded for an immediate 5-ft. step instead of a bonus... yeah, that proposal would solve pretty much 75% of the class' issues in one shot.

Hooray! An elegant solution to multiple problems!

All right then, now comes the fun part: figuring out just how many bonus points a fighter should get. So far on this thread, we've seem some people us hoard them and some who blow through them. I'm guessing, very very roughly, that an extra 2.5 a level is right, but that's a total guess. It's a start for playtesting.

I'm really tickled by the idea that this might be a solid answer to the "fighters suck!" threads that doesn't rely on digging into the guts of the combat system or nerfing someone in some regard.

We *might* want to trim out action points for instant metamagic. I really do like the idea of a spell begin cast with heroic effort, though. Maybe using an action point like that counts as "spontaneous metamagic", and thus requires a full-round action? How does that sound?

This deserves its own thread. I'm at work, so I don't have the time to devote to it. Anyone want to kick off that conversation?

Tying some disparate problems together here:

What if we gave fighters a bonus to their action points per level? Call it an extra 1-5 per level. Would that even out the fighter to some extent?

The only problem I can see is people complaining that the spellcaster can augment his magic with metamagic feats "for free", again.

Eh. I can live with that personally, seeing as the caster can't do it consistently - 5 or so times a level. I think that consistent "free" metamagic is a much bigger issue. And action points have a lot of uses that are more tempting than metamagic.

I noticed that the Divine Metamagic/uber-cleric proponents got much quieter when I pointed out that channel energy is a much more valuable resource in Pathfinder than 3.5. Throwing away something on the order of 18d6 worth of healing for a 24 hour spell suddenly doesn't look like a very good deal. Likewise, an action point has so many other good uses (like a chance to beat SR, for example) that I doubt we'll see it used for metamagic too often. It's a choice, but upon close examination I think it's a suboptimal one under average conditions.

Cool. Four people on the Internet actually agree on something. (Warning: This might, in fact, be a sign of the apocalypse. Proceed with caution.)

Is there anything wrong with the SRD version of action points? It seems to solve the saving throw problem rather well, and offers a lot of other possible (and fun) things to do with points. Note that using an action point might be a dandy way to "fix" the nerfed versions of Power Attack and Combat Expertise in Pathfinder...

It seems to me that people are reacting to things like Action Points as "My Little Pony" D&D because it reminds them of 4e. That's got to stop. People can dislike 4e for whatever reason, but it does some things really well. If we kill anything that even remotely resembles 4e, it'll be a huge mistake.

I'd cheerfully play 4e in a good gaming group. I'm sticking with Pathfinder because it's cheap, there are extensive online resources for it, and it's much much better for play-by-post gaming. Both systems have merit. Pathfinder just does it differently.

Agreed. I'll point out that while mages have some very dramatic ways of altering the battlefield, ownership of strategic points is by no means limited to the mage. If you're very, very good at this, it's eminently possible that you might want to skip attacking the mage entirely on the first round, and simply run to the place where the mage wants to be. Not only does that keep the mage from placing himself in an optimal position, it forces him to try and move you, instead of moving to him. Ultimately, maneuver is the best tool for terrain manipulation.

Disenchanter wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Use of spells and cheap magic item construction -- neither of which is available to fighters without their friends' say-so.

That could be changing. It isn't an official change yet, but for now Fighters can craft magic items - they just have to focus a bit at it.

I saw that too, but it kind of pigeon holes them into using their few skill points on crafting. I hope if they do that then fighters end up with a few more skill points.

:crosses fingers:

:p

Well, it's not as if the fighter has an overwhelming number of in-class skills to focus on in any event... and it is kinda cool to have this approach to the "dwarven master smith" archetype. And it's something for the high-Int fighter.

To get back on topic: I agree with Mr. Gersen - action points of some stripe are a great way to "fix" saving throws. I fail to see how introducing them makes the game easier or more simplistic - if anything, it adds another level of strategy to the game.

Why would a high-level wizard fight in a confined -- or any other non-optimal -- space, ever? He can just about always pick his own battlefield by teleporting as his first action.

Because that's his home? Or where the treasure is? Or where's he conducting the Ritual Of Ultimate Power? Or the Mystic Well of Doom? Or any of a hundred other plot points that an adventure designer can and does come up with? It's not PVP we're talking here; it's an adventure.

You can complain that it's not "smart" for the evil wizard to teleport away... but that's heroic fantasy for you. If the evil wizard was really smart, he'd skip right past trying to take over the world and crank out magical items all day to earn a fortune in gold and buy his own kingdom.

Whew. We're really talking about trying to "fix" saving throws in 3e? Tinkering with classes is one thing, but isn't that a bit like ripping out the transmission on the car?

If we want to "fix" saving throws, we *have* do to it with feats. No other solid options. Feats are how we rewrite rules for characters. Anything else rips out way too many moving parts of 3e to keep it recognizable.

Action points are a really good option on this one. Or luck points. Or some other expendable resource. But something innate to the rules is going to go really hurt. If anyone has a copy of 3.0 Rokugan anymore, with its "Void Points" (and the awesome options for using them), it would be cool.

P.S. Trip, etc. don't work if you can't reach them in the first place. They just walk around you, 10 ft. away, and avoid your less-combat-apt friends' AoO in the meantime.

Wait, wait. What?

Let's leave alone for the moment that you're now saying that the tumbling mage is not, in fact,a fighter issue (i.e., the tumbling mage must avoid the fighter to be effective.) You're seriously going to give the fighter a 25' radius? On a featureless plain, maybe. In a dungeon with 60' by 60' rooms and 10' corridors? Seriously?

As a thought experiment, sure, maybe it works. But I've never seen a game table where you can "just" give someone who's trying to close with you a 10' berth. Put it back on the tabletop, please. Take a look at what actually happens.

There are more than a few feats at this point (Shall Not Pass, et al) that can cope with the shinobi caster.

Much more to the point: So?

Even if mages are much more mobile than fighters, it still doesn't tell me what a fighter's going to *do* if we grant them extra mobility. Where are you going to go with a full attack and a move action? Why would you full-move and attack when you can double-move and charge - or if it's a hyper-mobile target, charge and bull rush? What's the tactical benefit? The presumption seems to be that mage offense=fighter offense, which is an apples to oranges comparison at best.

It's been argued repeatedly that "hit points don't matter" at high levels because of save-or-die spells. Why full attack, then? No, I mean it. Your mage has those spells too. Why not rob your opponents of their opportunities instead of dealing damage? Trip. Bull rush. Sunder. Grapple. Move to obstruct. If you want the fighter to be a linebacker, don't punch - block.

And the "tumbling mage" is a nonissue. If you're seriously worried about tumbling wizards, don't full attack them. Trip them. You draw an attack of opportunity from them (eek) and have to pass an opposed Strength check (double eek). Problem solved. No, you do not have to take Improved Trip to trip someone - you just have more risks, and against a caster those risks are meaningless. (BTW, would you post a sample "tumbling mage" build, please? Let's see exactly what a mage has to give up to play ninja.)

It's almost to the point where I wonder if anyone actually reads the rules for combat and just drools over the class descriptions. There are hordes of things you can do in combat that flat-out solve these problems. Just because you *can* full attack doesn't mean it's always the best choice, even at high levels. It's as much a miniatures game as an RPG now, folks. Think tactically.

Don't act like this is a settled issue. We've had as many rebuttals as arguments on this thread; I have yet to see a rational explanation for the "conventional wisdom" that fighters should be able to move and full attack a la 2nd edition. Nobody can tell me why that extra movement is tactically necessary on a 3e map; all I get is nostalgia. And there are multiple feat based options, both in 3e and in Pathfinder, that are ignored on a regular basis in favor of conventional wisdom ("Flying mages make fighters useless", but flying mounts outperform them; archers; the playtest feats; et al.)

The troll is rude, I'll grant you. But it is by no means settled that the fighter needs still more bonuses after the upgrades he's received so far.

How many feats do we see a monk "demanding" to have? How many ki powers can the monk have specifically as feats?

Honestly, I think the barbarian has way too many class options as it stands. (Barbarians have always been the "easy" class for my players, and I hate to see that change.)I'd like to see a more directed build in that class and in the monk. Feats would be a good way to do that.

I'm not convinced you need to give the monk a higher BAB, because he breaks a lot of rules regarding BaB. Look at where the flurry of blows ability "breaks" (i.e., the penalty goes from -2 to -1 to 0), and consider the "maneuver bonus" the monk has in Pathfinder. The monk pretty much does have a fighter's BaB; it's just not applicable to an "ordinary" attack. After the first 5 levels or so, it's much more efficient for a monk to be using Flurry of Blows, stunning, tripping, sundering, bull rushing, etc. A monk is great at nonbasic attacks, and less great at "normal" attacks. It's eminent possible to build an "asassin" monk that goes after one elite opponent and disables (not necessarily kills, but disables) him.

I would suggest that with their high movement rate, high saving throws, low AC, and multiple status-ailment attacks (stunning fist the highest among them), and innate SR, monks are meant as "strikers", specifically lone NPC hunters, and even more specifically mage killers. Any additional powers should probably be authored with with in mind.

I'll also point out that the fighter is in a better position to take advantage of this new playtest feat:

Improved Iron Will

You have a clarity of thought that allows you to fight off mental attacks.
Prerequisites: Iron Fortitude.
Benefit: Once per day, you may reroll a Will save. You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed. You must take the second roll, even if it is worse.

...than anyone else. And unless I'm gravely mistaken, This Feat beats having a "good" will score to a large degree.

It provides a +2 AC v evil attacks too, which is handy (as most enemies tend to be of evil alignment). It is a perfectly good spell, and scales appropriately with similar spells (like Mage Armour +4 AC all the time, but no control from potential Domination attacks).

Evil outsiders, not evil people - among other things, that would make it a quickie poor man's detect evil, which is not a good thing.

<Grinds teeth in frustration> For (at least) the 5,227th time, it's at HIGH LEVELS that the fighter lags in effectiveness. We all know he's great at 3rd level.

...so why do we keep having these "fighters are terrible" threads? They kick butt. It's just at the highest levels that they seem to suffer in comparison.

I'll even go further: Fighters probably rock in the majority of *all* D&D games, because more of them are low or mid level rather than high level.

So what's the problem?

*nods* that's a pretty good answer to the problem, but it's a little campaign-specific. Extended dungeon crawls pretty much demand the cleric.

What I really think ought to happen is a boost to natural healing times - healing as a percentage of your HP is about right. Hit points are an abstraction anyways; at high levels, you're more likely to be a little sore, scratched, tired, and frazzled after losing five hp than you are a first. A day's rest ought to knock that out. Healing about 20% of your hp per day (or your CON bonus, whichever's higher) seems about right. Add in some caveats for being diseased or poisoned and you're on the right track.

But that's another discussion.

.... I got four words for you if you want to get a game that doesn't need a specific class breakdown for your party:

"We need a healer".

I know that nobody on this board like to hear it, but 4e does a great deal to eliminiate the class-dependency issues. Everyone's got healing surges. You don't "need" a healer. It makes life a lot easier, but you can get by. In 3.5/3.75, you need a healer - specifically, you need someone who can provide a lot of healing outside of combat, to keep the adventure rolling.

But back to Fort saves... yes, you do need to prepare ahead of time. That's half the fun, in my opinion. If you're going up against critters who bend your will, memorize Protection from Evil. If you're going into the desert, get Create Water. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

...and just to annoy the rules monkeys further, I will point out that Divine Metamagic is incompatible with Pathfinder, since clerics no longer have the "ability to turn/rebuke undead" that the feat demands. Admittedly, the ability has more or less just changed names, but if you're going to insist on reading the RAW one way...

Oh, and don't forget that an archer cleric has to have at least an 18 charisma, to muster the 7(!) turn attempts needed to cast persistent spell. That's even fewer resources to devote to dexterity - and be ready to earn some dirty looks from the rest of the party. Yeah, yeah nightsticks. Let's leave alone the fact that you can only use one at a time. Are you seriously going to tell me that me that your DM is using Libris Mortis - a book chock full of nasty, horrible undead critters, with feats and goodies to boost them - and you're finding it more efficient to blow seven turn attempts on a 24 hour spell? Seriously? In Pathfinder, that's at least 21d6 worth of healing and 21d6 worth of damage vs. undead (remember, your DM has Libris Mortis and knows how to use it). All that for a 24 hour spell? And this is the *super-amazing broken efficient build*?

Matthew Hooper wrote:

Or to put it another way: If I could create a "broken" cleric build that that used feats from, say, The Book of Erotic Fantasy, does that mean we need to work a celibacy clause into the core Pathfinder fighter class?

Or can the DM just say no to using that sourcebook?

What could you possibly use from the BoEF that could possibly be so broken that a DM would ban... nevermind. :p

Well, Timmy, when a succubus and a gibbering mouther love each other very much...

Or to put it another way: If I could create a "broken" cleric build that that used feats from, say, The Book of Erotic Fantasy, does that mean we need to work a celibacy clause into the core Pathfinder fighter class?

Or can the DM just say no to using that sourcebook?

Matthew Hooper wrote:

Interesting.

So where's this "Zen Archery" feat in Pathfinder?

I couldn't find Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell in the PDF of Pathfinder; can you give me a page reference?

I'll give you a page reference when you'll give me a reference to the developers, saying that Pathfinder is NOT backwards compatible and is not intended to be.

"Compatible"<>"mandatory". Zen Archery and Persistent Spell are only compatible with any given game with DM permission, as has been posted earlier. In other words, talking about how archer cleric builds are patently superior to all fighter archer builds, and thus demands modification of the base fighter class to keep up, only holds water if the rules inherent to building said build are inherent to the Pathfinder system, and not to rules that are strictly optional to any given game.

Show me a superior archer cleric build created strictly with Pathfinder and OGL - in other words, stuff everyone can use and agree on - and we'll talk. Don't talk to me about out-of-print stuff.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the nature of the rules and rules systems for Magic and for D&D. Magic rules are always written "in house", for example, while 3.5 rules are often freelanced.

And even then, things sneak by the M:tG rules. Tolarian Academy, anyone?

The primary difference is that Magic can ban a card (read: rule) outright, and it's gone. In a D&D game, that job is up to the DM... and if the DM doesn't have the nerve to say "no" to his players, then degenerate flying rules monkeys run amok.

The thing of it is, often the rules monkeys aren't even reading the rules in their entirety (as Sneaksy Dragon has inadvertently demonstrated - shatter has never been able to destroy magic items.) Case in point: degenerate tripper builds only work if you don't read closely enough to recognize that attacks of opportunity happen before, not after, the provoking action is completed.

In short, a lot of these uber-builds that rely on feats from splat books A, B, and C rely on bullying your DM into submission. And quite frankly, that's a game that broken before it ever got started.

Lord oKOyA wrote:

Stuff

Too bad, that the only thing a cleric archer needs to completely outshine a figher starting from levels 5-6 is PHB spells and Zen Archery. Apply Divine Metamagic and Persistent spell to multiply the advantage. Other stuff is just icing on the cake for those who want to dominate the game from level 1. Also, a cleric archer was a staple build from times of 3.0.

Interesting.

So where's this "Zen Archery" feat in Pathfinder?

I couldn't find Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell in the PDF of Pathfinder; can you give me a page reference?

Matthew Hooper wrote:

...it seems very odd to me that regular ranged attack would draw AoO, while ranged touch attacks do not

A ranged touch is still a spell, presumably? If so, it would draw an AoO. Not that the caster would fail the casting defensively roll, mind you...

Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Note that a regular ranged attack provokes an AoO without benefit of "shooting defensively", a skill to negate the AoO, etc. It could be argued that casting a ranged touch attack is not, in fact, "touching" someone. Nor is it using a weapon, although a caster counts as armed for the purposes of drawing an AoO.

Also, I strongly suspect that the archer feats that you're mentioning are incompatible with ranged-attack spells.

Precise Shot

You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard -4 penalty on your attack roll.
Special

A fighter may select Precise Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

A touch attack does count as being armed for the purposes of drawing a melee AoO; however, that clause may or may not apply to ranged touch attacks (it seems very odd to me that regular ranged attack would draw AoO, while ranged touch attacks do not.) More to the point, a ranged touch attack is not an attack with a ranged weapon. What exactly is being "shot or thrown"?

It is, at a minimum, a debatable rules interpretation, and I can easily see a DM disallowing it.

Sneaksy, you're not paying attention to the range on these spells. Shatter is a close-range spell, with a range of 25 ft+5 ft. a level; it's not going to be all that good against another archer (and it presumes the other archer doesn't invest in a +1 bow, which is silly). Most range touch spells have comparable range. If you aren't conducting an arrow fight from beyond charge range, you're doing it wrong.

You're also not factoring in things like surprise situations, time-limit modules, night raids, etc., etc. As always, the fighter has an edge in consistency and durability that is being discounted.

Don't get it - I've never seen an archer cleric build. How does an archer cleric beat a dedicated fighter at dealing damage at range with arrows?

Now, I can understand the idea that an archer cleric can deal damage at range and do lots of unrelated stuff well. But that's not precisely what we're talking about.

The living campaign, almost by definition, is going to develop munchkinitis in record time. It wasn't any better in Living Greyhawk. I'm think more of regular play.

Hrm. That being said, something occurred to me last night I want to express.

Suboptimal builds that are "fun" should be viable. Not necessarily the most effective things ever, but fun.

I can remember a game I played with a huge crowd, including the DM's 10 year old daughter. She wanted to play a giantess; the rules of the setting more or less permitted that. But she was scared of going hand to hand with the monsters; she wanted to be an archer. She used a Large-sized longbow, and fired what we more or less described as ballista bolts all over the battlefield. All those lovely advantages of reach and maneuver bonus weren't a factor.

But she loved it. She had a hoot. And since she had fun, we had fun.

4e is actually pretty good at making "bad" builds playable and fun. I would be really happy if we kept that in mind somehow for Pathfinder, even though I suspect it won't be a "beginner's" game.

I've often had this suspicion that the weapon focus/specialization tree is a bit of a trap, because a fighter should be able to whip out a bow or a polearm or a greatsword, depending on just what you need for a given situation.

I'm currently playing in a play-by-post where I get to play a minotaur from Dragonlance. I'm strongly inclined to the feats that rewrite the rules on combat maneuvers - Improved Sunder, Overrun, et al. are the more useful feats for a fighter to take in the long run. The feats that break or rewrite rules are a whole lot more important than a +X to hit or damage feat. I'm intensely looking forward to picking up the Combat Brute and Shock Trooper tactical feats at 6th level; I think the two will blend well and produce some really entertaining combats. It's going to be fun to bully and shove around my opponents.

I'm also beginning to think that the humble enlarge person spell is one the most useful tools a fighter can get access to. The extra threatened squares are huge; so's the +4 to trip/bull rush/other combat maneuvers.

No, we don't want it to be contingent on the success (or complete success) of an attack, we want it to be an option for characters with multiple attacks, to move and make more than a single attack, simple as that.

Sigh. I know we've been around and around on this, but... I'm just not getting it.

How is moving and attacking more fun, objectively? What does it permit you to achieve via board position that you can't get with the current scenario? Where are you going to go with that extra movement? What do you want to achieve?

Are we convinced that a full attack is the most successful use of a fighter's capabilities at high levels? Especially since there is a school of thought that "hit points don't matter"? There are several ways that a fighter can debuff an opponent in straight 3.5 - you can do it at least three different ways without a feat at all, four with Improved Overrun. The consequences of the failure of these options - a drawn attack of opportunity - is meaningless in the example commonly cited (an enemy mage). The playtest feats increase that debuffing power dramatically.

The example of enemies ignoring the fighter and moving past him at high levels is cited. Why aren't you bull rushing on the attack of opportunity?

How much does board positioning, cover, concealment, and terrain figure into this decision making? I keep seeing "save vs. suck" spells brought up as fighter killers; where do these examples take place? In forested terrain? How about in the rain, where your visibility's cut in half? Mages demand line of sight and line of effect for most of these spells; fighters generally do not.

I'm very much convinced that the conclusion that "fighters suck" ignores large swathes of the rules involving alternate attack modes, terrain, and movement. In other words, "fighters suck" seems to be a hypothetical, when fighters demand placement on the tabletop and a thorough understanding of all your options to be fully effective.

You know, I've seen a feat or prestige class ability that lets you pull that stunt off. Basically, it was an other iteration on Great Cleave, that let you take a 5-foot step after killing something to apply your next cleave-strike. As I recall, the barbarian with that ability had an awful lot of fun popping goblins like popcorn with that. Is that the sort of thing people want?

...and upon reflection, the fighter has significantly more options than the wizard - unlike the spellcaster, he can increase his chances of success based upon his actions on the board.

Consider:

If he charges, he can take a +2 to his attack roll and increase his chance of success by 10%; the -2 to AC is irrelevant in this situation.

Or of course, he can simply use a bow. The range of color spray is a paltry 15 feet; a fighter is eminently capable of staying outside of that range and killing the caster, and the caster has no tools to close the range. It's not just a matter of casting a spell; you have to be able to apply it tactically. Even a thrown dagger has a reasonable chance of hitting and killing the caster from outside of color spray range.

Interestingly enough, the DC for that color spray spell from a 1st level caster is anywhere from 11-15, so it's not a "one-shot kill"; there's roughly a 75% chance of success at best.

By the same token, the fighter's chance of hitting an AC 10 caster is roughly the same. And one greatsword swing will take out that caster.

So in all honestly, it's down to initiative. And if the caster fails, he's done. The fighter can swing again on round 2 with no opportunity cost. When the 1st level caster is done, he's done.

Fighters are not key at low levels, they are comparable. you go from comparable to obsolete, and that my friend is poor class design.

In no way is a 1st level fighter comparable to a 1st level wizard in damage output. The wizard is totally outclassed.

Shall Not Pass doesn't stack with lunge or standard reach weapons because it only affects adjacent squares. However, a half-haft feat would add more options so that the build would have something to do, in terms of stopping opponents, at 5, 10 and 15 feet of range. Even better if enlarged...

Actually, I was thinking Shall Not Pass for the adjacent squares, Stand Still for the reach ones. Still, it gets nuts pretty quick. Honestly, though, isn't this sort of an iteration of the infamous spiked chain tripper? (I hate spiked chains - they just annoy my sense of aesthetics. Kind of like the double weapons - I still refer to the dire flail as "the autogelding machine".

Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity? We all know...at higher levels Cast defensively is a joke. Casters never fail.

Granted. But an attack's an attack, and you can do all sorts of things on that attack - with the new playtest feats, you might well get that disrupt (becoming stunnned tends to disrupt spellcasting). You can also get the trip in, or the sunder on the balor's whip... in general, make the monster pay in hp or opportunity costs to make that teleport.

(and, sorry, lockdown builds are BORING. doing the same crap over and over is button mashing, table top style - I don't play button mashers in street fighter or tekken, I don't want them at my table, so you can keep the spiked chain tripper - who doesn't even work as well in Beta with the CMB...).

I really can't help you if you think it's boring - that's a personal choice of play, not a game flaw. The rogue and the mage are going to out-damage you at high levels, not matter what. It's just a fact. Unless you let the fighter have death effects, it's just going to be so. One of the best ways that the fighter can contribute to that high-level fight, though, is to keep the opponent locked down so that the mage can get a good shot lined up, or the rogue can get the flank.

If keeping the fighter interesting means being a valuable part of the team, here's a way to do it. If it means keeping the spotlight on you... go play a video game.

Seriously, when you get to the point where you're dealing with lower planar beings with teleport as an "at will"...

Are you aware that those teleport effects are spell-like abilities? That means that they provoke attacks of opportunity. In between the debuffing critical feats in the playtest, tripping, and other hijinks, you've got lots of options when it comes to dealing with that teleporter - or at least, ensuring that the teleporter ends up in a postion he didn't want to be in. (Tripping a flyer leads to some interesting situations...)

Which 1st level spell are you referring to to shut down an archer?

Here's the thing about these "corner cases" - it's your job as the tactician on the board to force the badguy into that corner. No, when you're dealing with the huge, evil demon, you can't just march up and kill it and take its stuff. Monsters aren't built like that anymore. You're meant to work with at least three other guys to take the badguy down - that's part of the definition of CR. What you can do is deny the enemy actions (Stand Still, trip, grapple) and make him pay for making actions near you (Attacks of Opportunity, debuffing critical feats). You're going to have to think about how to crack the nut.

Shall Not Pass stops them dead (new feat Jason suggested) and Stand Still is SRD and would stack with Lunge (proposed by Jason at same time as SNP)...

And if you use a reach weapon, you can use the lunge to add 5 and get 15 feet of movement control out of the enemy. That's a huge footprint.

It's a four-feat chain: Combat Reflexes, Lunge, Stand Still, Shall Not Pass. A dedicated build. But it does what it does damned well.

Add a guisarme, and add improved trip? Or even the infamous spiked chain? Oh, if only the whip did jack squat for damage. Ow. What a painful build.

"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy, so you can't make a full attack."

Basically, the way it seems to work is that you ready an attack to occur once your mount takes you into range. It might be worthwhile to allow a mounted combatant to make a full attack while the mount moves, but limit it to only one attack per enemy as you ride past; maybe add it to the Mounted Combat feat. Ride-by-Attack could be correspondingly upgraded, as well, to allow attacks to multiple targets.

There's also this interesting feature of the Ride skill: With the appropriate check, you can dismount as a free action - you just have to have a move action available.

Could you possibly ride up to an enemy, dismount, and do your full attack? It smells of cheese, but if you squint your eyes funny it works. The horse rides up to the enemy. You dismount. It's not your mount anymore, it's just a horse standing around next to you. You had a move action available when the shenanigans started, but once you're off the horse you changed your mind and did a full attack.

Smells of cheese, but... Dungeons and Dragoons, anyone?

Actually, this is a design forum, so I figure this would be exactly the place for it. I'm still stuck on the 1e D&DG descriptions of Fafhrd, Elric, et al. I guess, they were mostly combined 20+ level characters IIRC. (Looking at the stat blocks now, they resemble more 3x multiclass characters than 1e PCs - minus skills and feats, that is, don't you think?)

I honestly can't remember - I owned that Alpha printing of Dieties and Demigods, way back in the day, but durned if I know where it is now. Anyone know their levels? (A quibble - I remember that Cat's Paw was a +2 this and Scalpel was a +3 that, but in the books Leiber makes it clear that the lads steal whatever weapon's handy and rename it as they go... that idea really amuses me, actually.)

Oooh! Wait! I know! Michael Moorcock! Elric's a high-fantasy fighter! (Er, kinda equipment-dependent, though...)

If melee characters (anyone using a hand held weapon, in this case, not just fighters - paladins and rangers need some love too) could move half their move and still full attack, and could, if necessary, reserve an attack (above and beyond AoO) and some movement to intercept critters trying to get past them to the soft skinned party members, how would this do anything but restore some of the shine fighters lost in the edition change?

I honestly don't know - the tabletop rules for 1e and 3e are very, very different animals. I have seen several feats that try to grant this power by now, from Stand Still on the SRD to Shall Not Pass as a playtest feat here to several iterations on the theme in the PHB II.

I think that the best solution is one you might not necessarily like - fighters should have the power not to keep up with a moving enemy, but to negate that movement and lock him down. It lets the rogues and the wizards be more effective, lets the PCs set up combos and work together, and lets everyone do their own thing.

Look, you can play in a game completely informed by 3.5 rules, I prefer to play a game informed by the fantasy lit that inspired Gygax to do what he did. Conan, Fahfrd and Grey Mouser, Three Hearts and Three Lions, LotR, Ringworld, et al. (there's a list in the back of the 1e DMG if you're interested). Fighters didn't need to have a ton of crap to do what they did, they just could.

Fafhrd, his back to a great oak, had his broadsword out and was holding off two of Rannarsh's henchmen, who were attacking with their shorter weapons. It was a tight spot and the Northerner realized it. He knew the ancient sagas told of heroes who could best four or more men in swordplay. He also knew such sagas were lies, providing the hero's opponents were reasonably competent.

That's from The Jewels in the Forest, p.184 if you're reading the Borealis anthology (awesome cover art on the dust jacket by Mike Magnolia, by the way - boy, do our lads look like 3.5 heroes adrip with magic items...).

I submit to you that high level combat in D&D bears very little resemblance to the fiction you cite, and thus may not be the best source to use when trying to describe it. You're talking about classic "low fantasy" works, which are awesome, but by 17th level you're dealing with "high fantasy" - think The Belgariad, the Sparhawk books, Raymond E. Feist, or any of Ed Greenwood's works. (I know, not as elite a gathering authors, but that's either a testament to how much wine I've had tonight or the quality of high fantasy authors, take your pick.) And in fact, I'd suggest that Pathfinder, with its notable uptick in power, is even more high fantasy than the original 3.5 rules.

A flying mount of some kind is almost de rigeur for a mighty warrior in high fantasy - generally on dragonback, but that's another issue.

Don't get me wrong, I love the authors you're talking about, but we aren't talking about literature here. (Lord knows, a quick perusal of your average WotC novel proves that.) We're talking about a game. If we want to talk about what kind of game you think it ought to be, that's one thing. But the rules are what they are, and begging for different options when the ones that currently exist don't suit your stylistic tastes is simply screaming for a houserule. Which is not bad, but this isn't the place for it.