My opinion, or at least the explanation I always gave it's about the basic.
Many martial arts styles, no mater what we think, are based on your strenght. Try to swing a sword, and you'll see why it uses the Strenght, since it's heavy and you can swing better with some training, but you can swing it very better with a strong arm.
However, you can train in special ways to compensate for a possible lack of muscle with quick and fast moves. There are some martial arts that even empathize this.
But since this is exception, it's supposed you CAN be like this, but as a exception -using feats.
You don't need to be fast and agile to grab someone by the neck and trow him to the ground. You must be strong. But now, that dammed japanese little girl who just trow that huge man far far away has some kind of feat to allow her to use her Dex for that. And that's awesome. That's how a dex-based fighter should feel on the RP. Awesome. Ninja. Kung-fu like.
Not to mention the fact that if you do take weapon finesse, your armor penalty affects your attack rolls...
Because as the game is written By default:
STR == Offensive Powers
DEX == Defensive Powers
If you could have a strong DEX based fighter by default there would be no reason at all to take STR. It's about game balance. If anything the cost of making a decent DEX based fighter is fairly cheap considering you just have 1 primary attribute to build on.
As it is, DEX buys you Lower AC, Ranged attack bonus, lower reflex save, and good skill bonuses.
By comparison strength gets you melee attack and damage bonus and a couple skills only one of which is used much.
well armor training works with just a buckler.
17th level fighter
so dex of 17[+3] buckler[+1] AT[+4]=18
OR
dex of 17[+3] buckler[+1] chain shirt [+4]AT[+4]=22
or real fun
dex of 17[+3] large shield[+2] full plate [+8..-2 acp] AT[+4]=27
no magic or anything. so AC wise dex fighters are a lot better then b4
Not to mention the fact that if you do take weapon finesse, your armor penalty affects your attack rolls...
Only for shields, which means that you use either a masterwork light shield or a heavy mithral shield and you're home free.
In my campaigns, you can choose to use dex for appropriate attacks - though not for combat manoeuvres (unless you do take that feat). I'd welcome a similar change in the core rules.
Well in my games I already houseruled that all light weapons and ranged weapons automatically use Dexterity for attack AND damage.
If someone has high strength they can still use that if they want.
Also all monsters now with high dexterity use that for natural attacks and damage (of course some creatures are not allowed dexterity to damage lest they become even more dangerous to commoners :D)
This gives Dex based fighter and ranged character a bit of power and brings then a bit closer to the melee based characters.
Oh yea, feat like Double Slash now give full Dex damage with off hand weapon (and of course wielding two weapons normally gives half dexterity mod damage with off hand weapons)
Well in my games I already houseruled that all light weapons and ranged weapons automatically use Dexterity for attack AND damage.
I think using 'DEX for DAMAGE' is potentially game breaking and seems like a bit of favoritism when it comes to Rogues, who get advantage of extra dice through tactics. This doesn't even begin to cover all the Wizard/Sorcerer/Clerics out there that are DEX based who can now randomly make a STR fighter, whose forced to buy armor for AC, look stupid with a high die roll + DEX. Not flaming the idea, just don't agree with it. :)
I do kinda like the DEX 'TO ATTACK' with light weapons. Though it makes 'Weapon Finesse' a useless feat. That being said, Pathfinder has seen it fit to give us 'Weapon Finesse' WITHOUT the +1 BAB requirement, which was a huge step in the right direction for Rogues, waiting until 3rd level always sucked!
This doesn't even begin to cover all the Wizard/Sorcerer/Clerics out there that are DEX based who can now randomly make a STR fighter, whose forced to buy armor for AC, look stupid with a high die roll + DEX.
Off topic, but I found that dexterity has risen in value for fighters ever since they got armour training: They can wear full plate and still put a dex score of up to 21 to good use for AC (more if they use mithral plate)
|
umm prolly because dex would then be the best stat in the game (if it already isnt) it would be the one stat that added heavily to both defense and offense ( it is already as good of a defensive stat as CON) it has ranged attacks and initiative, heck lets just add dex to damage with everything and really break the mechanics!
give him a elven thinblade or elven courtblade and the dex fighter is FINE.
my question is why doesn't being beefier give you any more hitpoints? ( not just because im a big guy) a gnome should not have more hitpoints than a Half-Orc. once again the answer is game balance. CON is already a secondary statistic as per it has very limited uses with class features, skills, and can be replaced fairly easily with a couple feat (improved toughness anyone)
we should be discussing how to make the CON Fighter better.
Well in my games I already houseruled that all light weapons and ranged weapons automatically use Dexterity for attack AND damage.I think using 'DEX for DAMAGE' is potentially game breaking and seems like a bit of favoritism when it comes to Rogues, who get advantage of extra dice through tactics. This doesn't even begin to cover all the Wizard/Sorcerer/Clerics out there that are DEX based who can now randomly make a STR fighter, whose forced to buy armor for AC, look stupid with a high die roll + DEX. Not flaming the idea, just don't agree with it. :)
I do kinda like the DEX 'TO ATTACK' with light weapons. Though it makes 'Weapon Finesse' a useless feat. That being said, Pathfinder has seen it fit to give us 'Weapon Finesse' WITHOUT the +1 BAB requirement, which was a huge step in the right direction for Rogues, waiting until 3rd level always sucked!
Actually all the weapons that use Dex for damage are light weapons and as such cannot get 1.5x Dex mod to damage (and cannot get 2x Dex mod to damage with new feats). Also these weapons cannot be used with Power Attack (which is the main damage source for fighters).
And Rogues get lots of bonus dice from Sneak Attack, so a few x extra damage does not mean much to them, and against creatures immune to SA it means a lot.
And Sorcerors/Wizards are not going to use weapons anyway (but crossbow wielding wiz/sorc will actually do some useful damage when they hit).
Clerics main spells (divine power and righteous might) work of Strength so it will be no use to them to go high Dex. Ranged Clerics are useless as it is (same as other ranged chars) so this change is good for them.
Only druids and monks will profit more from this, but not enough to make it gamebreaking.
This doesn't even begin to cover all the Wizard/Sorcerer/Clerics out there that are DEX based who can now randomly make a STR fighter, whose forced to buy armor for AC, look stupid with a high die roll + DEX.Off topic, but I found that dexterity has risen in value for fighters ever since they got armour training: They can wear full plate and still put a dex score of up to 21 to good use for AC (more if they use mithral plate)
I have not had the opportunity to see a Pathfinder Fighter in action yet, but we just started 'Curse of the Crimson Throne', so I look forward to it. Unfortunately, I'm playing a Celestial Sorcerer this time around. I will make sure to point out the benefits of the new 'Armor Training' to our Rogue/Fighter, I honestly hadn't thought of it despite having read over it.
BTW, I didn't think this off topic. It relates well enough to DEX & DEX Fighters in my book. :)
|
As the player of a Dex-based melee fighter in a PbP on these very boards, I can tell you that, thus far, I have not had any problems whatsoever. I built the character at least in part as an experiment specifically to try to see whether Pathfinder would allow a swashbuckler-style fighter to work without needing to multiclass and/or use a specially designed class to achieve the effects. At this point, it's going swimmingly.
The catch, of course, is that we're only level 2, and we have generally faced enemies that drop as soon as you manage to hit them. When we have faced enemies who were not so kind, it was much more of a struggle - but that's usually the case for 1st level characters, no matter what.
For my 2cents,
the main thing relevant to this in Pathfinder I'd like to change,
is to merge Weapon Finesse & Dextrous Maneuvers back together.
In 3.5, EVERYONE essentially already had the Defensive benefit of Dextrous Maneuvers, since all Maneuvers ran off of an initial Touch Attack, and if you had Weapon Finesse, that applied when you were initiating a Maneuver.
I'd actually like to see some signifigant changes to CMB to make it act more like 3.5 (while keeping one roll),
but that's really a topic for the Combat Chapter... :-)
Please check out my post on this thread. I have proposed some new class features for fighters, which while being universally useful for fighters in general, and will help them do their job as it was intended, are actually even more beneficial to the mobile, dexterity based fighter. Please let me know what you think about them, especially in relation to how they affect dexterity based fighters.
I have not had the opportunity to see a Pathfinder Fighter in action yet
I did. Basically Valeros on steroids, i.e. I took his stats and gave him all benefits PCs got in my campaign. He got access to PHB2 and the Book of Experimental Might 2, and I tested the rule of Two-Weapon Fighting just granting you as many off-hand attacks as you have normal attacks (instead of 3 feats for up to 3 extra attacks), and he really tore things to pieces with his matched bastard swords.
Unfortunately, I'm playing a Celestial Sorcerer this time around.
Your real name isn't Alexander, that sorcerer isn't a halfling, and you're not playing in my campaign, are you? ;-)
I will make sure to point out the benefits of the new 'Armor Training' to our Rogue/Fighter, I honestly hadn't thought of it despite having read over it.
All I can tell you is that Armour Training, Dex 22, and a Mithral Full Plate +5 means that you're virtually untouchable! That's +17 armour, and +6 dex! And we haven't talked shield/two-weapon defense and things like Dodge, rings or protection or amulets of natural armour yet!
Don't forget that medium load limits you to +3 max dex bonus to AC, and heavy load to +1 max dex bonus to AC.
Load? Those rules do not exist. ;P
I gotta say, I've really had the exact opposite experience. I'm running a higher level playtest game right now, and easily one of the most effective characters is a fighter specializing in archery. Between weapon group bonuses, weapon focus, greater focus, a magic bow, haste, manyshot and rapid shot, and a bard in the party he's attacking 6 times a round or so with a healthy +28 to +35 (depending on if he uses deadly aim) and hitting with each arrow for 20 or more.
All with an AC in the 40's. I'd say DEX based fighters are doing just fine compared to STR based fighters.
EDIT: Some hard numbers, just so no one claims I'm exaggerating, level 13 with a +12 BAB (he grabbed a couple levels of rogue), So +12 BAB, +2 from Greater weapon focus, +3 from weapon training, +3 from Bard Song, +4 from enhancement bonus on his bow, +1 Point blank shot, +1 Haste, +2 Greater Bracers of Archery, +7 Dex bonus for a total of +35 normally, or +28 when using Deadly Aim.
EDIT2: And for damage, 1d8, +4 Mighty Composite Bow, +4 Enhancement Bonus, +3 Bard Song, +4 Greater Weapon Spec, +3 Weapon Training, +1 Point Blank Shot, +1 Greater Bracers of Archery, so 1d8+20 on a normal shot, or 1d8+27 with Deadly Aim.
EDIT3: And the AC, 10 +7 Dex, +11 Mithril Fullplate (3 armor training) +4 buckler (3 armor training) +2 Dodge +2 Ring of Protection +2 Amulet of Natural Armor +1 Haste so 39 normally, once the cleric casts Magic Vestments using a bead of karma to up the caster level that jumps to AC 47, with a touch AC of 22.
Even if you drop all the other bonuses he's getting from group members, that's still +32 or +25 to hit for 1d8+17 or 1d8+24
All your loot and gear are weightless? I have got to find out which book you get your anti-grav equipment in!Load? Those rules do not exist. ;P
It's in the BORWI*
*Book Of Rules We Ignore
I gotta say, I've really had the exact opposite experience. I'm running a higher level playtest game right now, and easily one of the most effective characters is a fighter specializing in archery. Between weapon group bonuses, weapon focus, greater focus, a magic bow, haste, manyshot and rapid shot, and a bard in the party he's attacking 6 times a round or so with a healthy +28 to +35 (depending on if he uses deadly aim) and hitting with each arrow for 20 or more.
All with an AC in the 40's. I'd say DEX based fighters are doing just fine compared to STR based fighters.
EDIT: Some hard numbers, just so no one claims I'm exaggerating, level 13 with a +12 BAB (he grabbed a couple levels of rogue), So +12 BAB, +2 from Greater weapon focus, +3 from weapon training, +3 from Bard Song, +4 from enhancement bonus on his bow, +1 Point blank shot, +1 Haste, +2 Greater Bracers of Archery, +7 Dex bonus for a total of +35 normally, or +28 when using Deadly Aim.
EDIT2: And for damage, 1d8, +4 Mighty Composite Bow, +4 Enhancement Bonus, +3 Bard Song, +4 Greater Weapon Spec, +3 Weapon Training, +1 Point Blank Shot, +1 Greater Bracers of Archery, so 1d8+20 on a normal shot, or 1d8+27 with Deadly Aim.
EDIT3: And the AC, 10 +7 Dex, +11 Mithril Fullplate (3 armor training) +4 buckler (3 armor training) +2 Dodge +2 Ring of Protection +2 Amulet of Natural Armor +1 Haste so 39 normally, once the cleric casts Magic Vestments using a bead of karma to up the caster level that jumps to AC 47, with a touch AC of 22.
Even if you drop all the other bonuses he's getting from group members, that's still +32 or +25 to hit for 1d8+17 or 1d8+24
So compare this with a melee monster and it is weak.
lvl 13 fighter will have: 13bab+7str+4 weapon+3 weapon training+2 greater weapon focus+3 bard song+ 1 haste for +33. When Charging +35.Damage: falchion (with 15-20 critical)2d4 (+10 strength+4 greater weapon spec + 4 weapon +3 training +3 bard song for +28).
Now this character can stand and do full attack with high change of critical and also apply some power attack to boost damage a lot. Also gets 3x strength on damage for his first attack (another +14)
breaking through DR is also not a problem (with power attack).
This character could also be build to use a GreatAxe and use Devastating Blow for a 3x critical each round. With power attack active you can imagine what this can do anyone, especially to high DR enemies you do not have the right weapon for.
Don't forget Vital strike. That feat is pure feat tax for any melee type.
Don't forget Vital strike. That feat is pure feat tax for any melee type.
This feat is not useful for this fighter build. And it cannot be used in combination with Devastating attack.
So compare this with a melee monster and it is weak.
lvl 13 fighter will have: 13bab+7str+4 weapon+3 weapon training+2 greater weapon focus+3 bard song+ 1 haste for +33. When Charging +35.
Damage: falchion (with 15-20 critical)2d4 (+10 strength+4 greater weapon spec + 4 weapon +3 training +3 bard song for +28).
The problem here is you're comparing apples and oranges. The level 15 melee fighter is going to do a bit more damage on a full attack, yes, but he's almost never going to get the chance to use his full attack because he'll have to move to engage. The archer can almost always make a full attack from anywhere and does enough damage that he can force opponents to stop and move to engage him, just because they can't afford to ignore him.
Also, the melee fighter is going to need to switch the investment in dex into str, and can't use a buckler the way the archer can, which means his AC is going to drop 8 points. Which is going to be a very, very big change in how much damage he takes.
The dex based archer is so effective precisely because he forces opponents to choose between taking massive damage, or making futile attacks against his very high AC. Without the AC he'd soak up a few hits, but he wouldn't have the staying power to last through some of the fights the archer has survived in our game.
So compare this with a melee monster and it is weak.
lvl 13 fighter will have: 13bab+7str+4 weapon+3 weapon training+2 greater weapon focus+3 bard song+ 1 haste for +33. When Charging +35.
Damage: falchion (with 15-20 critical)2d4 (+10 strength+4 greater weapon spec + 4 weapon +3 training +3 bard song for +28).The problem here is you're comparing apples and oranges. The level 15 melee fighter is going to do a bit more damage on a full attack, yes, but he's almost never going to get the chance to use his full attack because he'll have to move to engage. The archer can almost always make a full attack from anywhere and does enough damage that he can force opponents to stop and move to engage him, just because they can't afford to ignore him.
Also, the melee fighter is going to need to switch the investment in dex into str, and can't use a buckler the way the archer can, which means his AC is going to drop 8 points. Which is going to be a very, very big change in how much damage he takes.
The dex based archer is so effective precisely because he forces opponents to choose between taking massive damage, or making futile attacks against his very high AC. Without the AC he'd soak up a few hits, but he wouldn't have the staying power to last through some of the fights the archer has survived in our game.
Why can't a melee fighter use buckler? I do not see the difference. Both of them cannot get the AC from the buckler unless they take Improved Buckler Defense (which is not a Pathfinder feat).
Also melee fighters cannot be so easily taken out of the game with wind walls, fog clouds and such. Archers also have no chance to guess a position of a invisible opponent, the cleric is not going to be near them when they need healing and opponents with DR are going to be a much bigger problem for them.
Also Point Blank shot is not always usable, and they also suffer penalties for Cover enemies get from (usually) the archer's allies in melee. Of cours, the wooden bow is easily destroyed with warp wood (already done that to my player).
Why can't a melee fighter use buckler? I do not see the difference. Both of them cannot get the AC from the buckler unless they take Improved Buckler Defense (which is not a Pathfinder feat).
A melee fighter can use a buckler, but takes a penalty for doing so (-1 to attacks) and loses his AC, the wording on buckler is really vague, but it's arguable you keep the bonus to AC when using a bow, as Pathfinder added the line "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." to the buckler description. (Which is still pretty vague in my opinion, and probably just applies to the penalty to attacks, but the argument is there. Either way, I'll give you that one, which means the difference in AC is only 4 points.)
Also melee fighters cannot be so easily taken out of the game with wind walls, fog clouds and such.
Wind wall can prevent an archer from firing through it. And every other wall can prevent a melee fighter from moving into melee at all. Both types of fighter have their disadvantages when facing spellcasters that are prepared for them.
Archers also have no chance to guess a position of a invisible opponent...
Archers have just as much of a chance to guess the position as invisible opponents as anyone else, it's just a perception check against a (fairly tough) DC to pinpoint, and if the opponent does something that gives away their position (like making a full attack) then both the archer and the melee character are of course going to know their opponents position. Of course, the melee character may not be able to get there in time, and is likely to get (at best) 1 attack, instead of 6.
...the cleric is not going to be near them when they need healing...
Healing in combat is usually a losing strategy anyways, due to how much faster damage per round scales in comparison to healing per round. That said, the character in question hasn't needed any sort of healing as of yet (though he's been close).
opponents with DR are going to be a much bigger problem for them.
DR has made him take a hit to his damage now and then, but other than the first attack, the melee fighter in your example is only doing 1.5 points more on average per hit (2d4+28 vs. 1d8+27) so I'm not sure exactly why you think DR is such a huge concern for the archer.
Also Point Blank shot is not always usable, and they also suffer penalties for Cover enemies get from (usually) the archer's allies in melee.
You're right that point blank shot isn't always usable, but Cover and Concealment at least are a non-problem. The archer has Improved Precise Shot (negates concealment) and a Seeking bow (negates cover).
Oh, and the melee fighter in your example, if he's going for max damage, is making 4 attacks (3 base + haste) a round at a 26/26/21/16 on a full attack (when he can get one). Where the archer is making 6 attacks (3 base + haste + manyshot + rapidshot) at a +26(x2)/+26/+26/+21/+16. Considering the melee fighter only had a 1.5 to 2.5 point advantage in damage on each attack, he's not going to be coming out ahead on total average damage. (Also, having more attacks per round means the archer is going to scale better with any buffs he does receive, such as bard song.)
EDIT: Oh, and before anyone says that manyshot and rapidshot can't be used together, check the wording in pathfinder. Manyshot is no longer a seperate action. It simply allows you to fire two arrows with the first shot of a full attack.
I'm not trying to argue that a ranged/dex fighter is better. I think you can build very effective fighters either way. I was just pointing out that they're not nearly as bad off as the rest of the thread was making them seem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for DR, an archer actually has a *huge* advantage in that they can pick up 20 silver arrows, 20 cold iron arrows, and 20 adamantine arrows for next to nothing, and bypass almost all types of DR. Get Holy on your bow, and the only DRs you cant bypass are Good/Lawful/Chaotic. While we're on the topic of items, bracers of archery give a big bump to an archer character.
As for DR, an archer actually has a *huge* advantage in that they can pick up 20 silver arrows, 20 cold iron arrows, and 20 adamantine arrows for next to nothing, and bypass almost all types of DR. Get Holy on your bow, and the only DRs you cant bypass are Good/Lawful/Chaotic. While we're on the topic of items, bracers of archery give a big bump to an archer character.
This is a really good point. An archer can pick up a magic bow and DR appropriate arrows and the arrows pick up the magic attributes from the bow, stacking powers of sorts. The melee fighter has to invest in separate weapons with magic, an adamantine axe, a silver one, etc. if each one is magic the pricing difference is huge.
The obvious exception to this is is going is 10/slash or 10/ bludgeon but then the archer is in the same boat as the fighter. I suggest you carry a sling with some magic bullets for backup ;)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Why can't a melee fighter use buckler? I do not see the difference. Both of them cannot get the AC from the buckler unless they take Improved Buckler Defense (which is not a Pathfinder feat).A melee fighter can use a buckler, but takes a penalty for doing so (-1 to attacks) and loses his AC, the wording on buckler is really vague, but it's arguable you keep the bonus to AC when using a bow, as Pathfinder added the line "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." to the buckler description. (Which is still pretty vague in my opinion, and probably just applies to the penalty to attacks, but the argument is there. Either way, I'll give you that one, which means the difference in AC is only 4 points.)
Also melee fighters cannot be so easily taken out of the game with wind walls, fog clouds and such.Wind wall can prevent an archer from firing through it. And every other wall can prevent a melee fighter from moving into melee at all. Both types of fighter have their disadvantages when facing spellcasters that are prepared for them.
The big difference is that the fighter can step through the wind wall, fog, etc. quite easily and move in and attack the bad guy.
The archer generally can't bypass the auto-ranged-attack-blocker by moving through it without violating the first commandment of archery: Thou Shalt Not Enter Melee!
Archers also have no chance to guess a position of a invisible opponent...Archers have just as much of a chance to guess the position as invisible opponents as anyone else, it's just a perception check against a (fairly tough) DC to pinpoint, and if the opponent does something that gives away their position (like making a full attack) then both the archer and the melee character are of course going to know their opponents position. Of course, the melee character may not be able to get there in time, and is likely to get (at best) 1 attack, instead of 6.[/b]
Mostly right, except that making a full attack doesn't give away your position to anyone other than the person you attacked (and for that matter, they only know the direction from which you attacked them - if the attacker has reach, they don't know the square), assuming of course a greater invis. or equivalent. It narrows things down a bit but is not a dead giveaway.
More to the point, Blind-Fight applies to melee attacks but not to ranged attacks. Seeking bows (an absolute must cuz they're awesome) only help if you are attacking the right square.
...the cleric is not going to be near them when they need healing...Healing in combat is usually a losing strategy anyways, due to how much faster damage per round scales in comparison to healing per round. That said, the character in question hasn't needed any sort of healing as as of yet (though he's been close).This is certainly true. By keeping away from the pointy nasty monsters, the archer avoids damage. In my HL STAP campaign, the archer character is pretty binary, either she never takes any damage (most of the time) or gets horrifically savaged (every once in a while, when an enemy closes on her and is able to really give her the what-for).
Wind wall can prevent an archer from firing through it. And every other wall can prevent a melee fighter from moving into melee at all. Both types of fighter have their disadvantages when facing spellcasters that are prepared for them.The big difference is that the fighter can step through the wind wall, fog, etc. quite easily and move in and attack the bad guy.
The archer generally can't bypass the auto-ranged-attack-blocker by moving through it without violating the first commandment of archery: Thou Shalt Not Enter Melee!
Yeah, I see what you're saying, my point was that if the caster was prepared for an archer and had spells like Wind Wall available, then he could be just as easily prepared for a melee character with spells like Grease, Entangle, Web, Solid Fog, etc.
Spells that would just prevent the melee character from moving into melee at all.
Actually, on that point, really the only spell (that I can think of) that flat out prevents ranged attacks anymore is Wind Wall, protection from arrows is only DR 10/magic (which is completely useless by the time you get it), and there are a _lot_ of spells that can control battlefield movement. (Just off the top of my head, Grease, Entangle, Web, Solid Fog, Spike Stones, Wall of Force/Iron/Ice/Fire, various Bigby's Hands, Resilient Sphere, etc.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Wind wall can prevent an archer from firing through it. And every other wall can prevent a melee fighter from moving into melee at all. Both types of fighter have their disadvantages when facing spellcasters that are prepared for them.The big difference is that the fighter can step through the wind wall, fog, etc. quite easily and move in and attack the bad guy.
The archer generally can't bypass the auto-ranged-attack-blocker by moving through it without violating the first commandment of archery: Thou Shalt Not Enter Melee!
Yeah, I see what you're saying, my point was that if the caster was prepared for an archer and had spells like Wind Wall available, then he could be just as easily prepared for a melee character with spells like Grease, Entangle, Web, Solid Fog, etc.
Spells that would just prevent the melee character from moving into melee at all.
Actually, on that point, really the only spell (that I can think of) that flat out prevents ranged attacks anymore is Wind Wall, protection from arrows is only DR 10/magic (which is completely useless by the time you get it), and there are a _lot_ of spells that can control battlefield movement. (Just off the top of my head, Grease, Entangle, Web, Solid Fog, Spike Stones, Wall of Force/Iron/Ice/Fire, various Bigby's Hands, Resilient Sphere, etc.)
Some of those are equivalent vs. ranged or melee. Some obviously are better vs. people on the ground (rock to mud, soften E&S, grease, spike stones/growth, entangle, most of the Bigby's).
Solid fog is actually better vs. ranged. It's HARD to move inside (unless you have freedom of movement, of course), but not impossible, and you can still attack. Ranged = totally blocked.
Web is similar but not as much - cover vs. any ranged, total cover if 20'; melee = no effect (assuming you aren't entangled, of course).
Wall of fire effectively totally blocks ranged attacks because it inflicts damage on any arrows you shoot through it as unattended objects. Unless you are actually using magical arrows (most archers I know use mundanes with a super-juiced magic bow) they go *poof* when they hit the flames. Even +1 [insert special property] arrows usually will get toasted. This is all, of course, on top of it blocking LoS.
A melee fighter hops through it, sucks up the relatively light damage, and goes to town.
Wall of ice is in some ways better and worse than WoF. It totally blocks ranged attacks, since ranged attacks (if not siege weapons) can't damage objects. The melee guy can smash a hole through it in round and move through. Once a hole is made, it's not as bad as fire vs. your arrows because the "wall of cold air" left behind does less damage vs. unattended objecs. Ordinary arrows with your super-magic bow might still get destroyed, but magical ones should get through.
Other walls are just as impossible for the ranged attacker, but if a melee guy breaks a hole they are no particular problem other than cover.
I think Jason's arguments on this point are good enough that it is clear that melee is superior in these situations.
Against flying invisible opponents archers have a upper hand (but they will still only get one attack since any such an opponent with intelligence over 10 will first cast a spell and then move from that spot leaving any arrows attacking a empty spot)Against non-flying opponents melee has a upper hand with being right next to them (which actually probably only gives then no penalties to Perception due to distance) but allows them to use Blind Fighting feat.
To this I can only say that you have not challenged your archer character good enough.
But you forget melee has access to better power attack and better weapon enchantments. Also you forgot to mention the main advantage of my character, his critical. This character will do a critical hit on every 4th attack with 15-20 critical threat range. You char will do this once every 10th attack.
I think Jason's arguments on this point are good enough that it is clear that melee is superior in these situations.
I disagree, you've got two walls that prevent arrows from being fired through them, but do nothing at all to prevent the archer from moving to the other side and continuing to fire the following round, and that most casters are not going to have memorized by default, vs. 2-3 spells at every level that are designed to control the battlefield, and can shut down or greatly hinder melee characters as a consequence. There are quite a few spells that will completely shut down both, like Wall of Force, but those tend to also prevent the caster from firing out.
Against flying invisible opponents archers have a upper hand (but they will still only get one attack since any such an opponent with intelligence over 10 will first cast a spell and then move from that spot leaving any arrows attacking a empty spot.
An invisible caster that won't lose invisibility after casting is going to be hard for either melee or ranged characters to hit, flying or not. The only chance they will have is if they can make the Perception Check (DC 20 + the opponents stealth check) to pinpoint the square they moved to after casting. If they do make that check, then the melee character is going to have to move into range first, and will get one attack (assuming they can move far enough to even get one.) The ranged archer is going to get a full attack, and with seeking on the bow, is going to have no miss chance from concealment. Seems like the archer has the advantage to me.
Against non-flying opponents melee has a upper hand with being right next to them (which actually probably only gives then no penalties to Perception due to distance) but allows them to use Blind Fighting feat.
Why would melee or non-melee matter at all when it comes to positioning on an invisible opponent. If they choose to attack the fighter, they'll be in melee either way, and both types of fighter will have exactly the same odds of detecting them. If they choose to attack one of the other group members instead, then at least an archer can make a full attack on a successful pinpoint, instead of a move and a single attack for the melee character. Also, Blindfight, while nice, is considerably weaker than the Seeking enchantment on a bow. Blindfight gives you 75% odds of bypassing concealment from invisibility, seeking is 100%.
To this I can only say that you have not challenged your archer character good enough.
Ha! I've been consistently throwing the party against encounters 2-4 levels above the average party level, and rewriting most monsters with full suggested HD for pathfinder (usually a 20-30% bump for creatures of this CR.) Challenge is definitely not lacking, but he's up to it.
But you forget melee has access to better power attack and better weapon enchantments. Also you forgot to mention the main advantage of my character, his critical. This character will do a critical hit on every 4th attack with 15-20 critical threat range. You char will do this once every 10th attack.
Actually I didn't forget. I included the power attack numbers from your example in the total damage, and the melee fighter was still only doing 1-2 points more on average with each swing.
I'd actually say ranged characters have much better access to enchants because of the way magic arrows and magic bows stack abilities.
The melee character does crit on a 15-20 for x2, which is (roughly) a 30% boost to damage from the crits. An archer with imp. crit threatens on a 19-20, for x3, which is roughly a 20% bump in damage. I'll give you the benefit there, by 10%. But with only 4 attacks to the archer's 6, that still leaves the melee character behind in damage.
I disagree, you've got two walls that prevent arrows from being fired through them, but do nothing at all to prevent the archer from moving to the other side and continuing to fire the following round, and that most casters are not going to have memorized by default, vs. 2-3 spells at every level that are designed to control the battlefield, and can shut down or greatly hinder melee characters as a consequence. There are quite a few spells that will completely shut down both, like Wall of Force, but those tend to also prevent the caster from firing out.
Look, any spell that can stop the melee stops the ranged character as well. But in addition Wind Wall, Fire Wall and some others stop only ranged characters.
Of course ranged chars can move through it but then that spell was cast badly. If I was using Wind Wall and Fire Wall to stop arrows to reach me, I would cast is as close as possible to my location so any ranged chars that wanted to get to attack me would practically have to enter into melee with me (or my allies). Of course these spells are not useful against ranged chars in open plains, but how many fight actually take place in these areas?!An invisible caster that won't lose invisibility after casting is going to be hard for either melee or ranged characters to hit, flying or not. The only chance they will have is if they can make the Perception Check (DC 20 + the opponents stealth check) to pinpoint the square they moved to after casting. If they do make that check, then the melee character is going to have to move into range first, and will get one attack (assuming they can move far enough to even get one.) The ranged archer is going to get a full attack, and with seeking on the bow, is going to have no miss chance from concealment. Seems like the archer has the advantage to me.
No, because after the caster moves away you have to use a move action to actively listen for him. That means you only get your Manyshot to use against that target.
Why would melee or non-melee matter at all when it comes to positioning on an invisible opponent. If they choose to attack the fighter, they'll be in melee either way, and both types of fighter will have exactly the same odds of detecting them. If they choose to attack one of the other group members instead, then at least an archer can make a full attack on a successful pinpoint, instead of a move and a single attack for the melee character. Also, Blindfight, while nice, is considerably weaker than the Seeking enchantment on a bow. Blindfight gives you 75% odds of bypassing concealment from invisibility, seeking is 100%.
Blindfight can be taken at lvl 1. When can you get a hold of a bow with seeker enchantment? You cannot base you arguments on one specific detail that is even not available for most of the game. It is like me claiming that a two-weapon fighting character is superior to any other because eventually he can get 2 vorpal weapons.
Ha! I've been consistently throwing the party against encounters 2-4 levels above the average party level, and rewriting most monsters with full suggested HD for pathfinder (usually a 20-30% bump for creatures of this CR.) Challenge is definitely not lacking, but he's up to it.
Why don't you try to grapple that archer? Or attack his will save? Cast no save spells at him, like Force Cage?
The melee character does crit on a 15-20 for x2, which is (roughly) a 30% boost to damage from the crits. An archer with imp. crit threatens on a 19-20, for x3, which is roughly a 20% bump in damage. I'll give you the benefit there, by 10%. But with only 4 attacks to the archer's 6, that still leaves the melee character behind in damage.
Your numbers are wrong, read manyshot again. You can only get one critical for manyshot attack.
Look, any spell that can stop the melee stops the ranged character as well. But in addition Wind Wall, Fire Wall and some others stop only ranged characters.
Of course ranged chars can move through it but then that spell was cast badly. If I was using Wind Wall and Fire Wall to stop arrows to reach me, I would cast is as close as possible to my location so any ranged chars that wanted to get to attack me would practically have to enter into melee with me (or my allies). Of course these spells are not useful against ranged chars in open plains, but how many fight actually take place in these areas?!
My point was that spells that prevent movement would stop a melee fighter (and not a ranged fighter), are very common, and leave the caster able to cast spells back at the character.
To stop a ranged they are either going to need to use a spell that cuts off line of sight/effect (in which case the caster is cut off from the archer as well) or they are going to have to use one of a small number of spells that work particularly well against archers (such as Wind Wall and Wall of Fire). However, because those spells are pretty suboptimal against everyone else, casters aren't always going to have them unless they've specifically prepared for fighting an archer.No, because after the caster moves away you have to use a move action to actively listen for him. That means you only get your Manyshot to use against that target.
Pinpointing an invisible creature moving past you is a reactive check, DC 5 (+20 for invis) for armored foes, DC 10 (+20 for invis) for unarmored foes, or DC 20 + Stealth for invisible foes moving stealthily (pg. 68 and 69, bottom right and top left columns respectively.) a character that fails to notice the invisible opponent as it's moving away may attempt to pinpoint it's attacker as a move equivalent action on their turn, but if they beat the initial perception check their is no reason they can't fire into the square they heard/perceived their opponent move into.
Of course, if the character did fail the initial perception check, using a move equivalent action to search only leaves the melee character with one action to move towards their foe, and they don't get even a single attack. Either way the archer is still ahead.
Blindfight can be taken at lvl 1. When can you get a hold of a bow with seeker enchantment? You cannot base you arguments on one specific detail that is even not available for most of the game. It is like me claiming that a two-weapon fighting character is superior to any other because eventually he can get 2 vorpal weapons.
Considering this whole discussion is in response to my post about a specific character I currently have a player using in my playtest game, I don't think the details of their equipment and feats is off limits. But in general, you're correct, if we're talking all fighters in general Blind Fight is available much sooner than Seeking, so I'll go with you on that one.
Why don't you try to grapple that archer? Or attack his will save? Cast no save spells at him, like Force Cage?
Who said I don't? I've taken him out of the fight several times through Fear effects, wall of force, wall of ice (though that only bought a round before he punched through it), illusions (Because of the bad will save), once by sundering his bow, etc. At this point the party is casting Mind Blank on him every day, so most of the time his will save is pretty decent (though illusions still trip him up.)
Grapple checks haven't been an option really because of how the check works in pathfinder. Most monsters only have 3/4 BAB (if not 1/2 BAB), so against a full BAB character with a good Strength (or Dex if they take a feat) you need a ridiculously high number of HD to match the BAB, even then they need a 15+ on the die to have a chance of grappling, which just isn't usually worth losing all the creatures attacks.
Your numbers are wrong, read manyshot again. You can only get one critical for manyshot attack.
True, then the archer is getting +20% for five attacks, and normal damage for one.
To settle any argument, I'll run both characters numbers on an actual encounter from our last session.
The party is 15th level currently, and got the drop on a pair of advanced Nightwalkers (CR 17 each). The Nightshades each had an AC of 32, and since the archer could beat their DR, the melee character probably would be able to as well.
The archer was attacking at a +36(x2)/+36/+36/+31/+26 (+14 BAB, +2 from Greater weapon focus, +3 from weapon training, +3 from Bard Song, +5 from enhancement bonus on his bow, +1 Point blank shot, +1 Haste, +2 Greater Bracers of Archery, +7 Dex, -2 Rapid Shot, Manyshot) for 1d8+21 (+4 Mighty Composite Bow, +5 Enhancement Bonus, +3 Bard Song, +4 Greater Weapon Spec, +3 Weapon Training, +1 Point Blank Shot, +1 Greater Bracers of Archery)
Average damage on the first shot is 53.55 (5% miss, 85% 2d8+42, 10% 4d8+84)
Average damage on the next three shots is 29.325 (5% miss, 85% 1d8+21, 10% 3d8+63)
Average damage on the final shot is 24.225 (25% miss, 65% 1d8+21, 10% 3d8+63)
Total Avg. Damage: 165.75
Now, the archer wasn't actually in melee range immediately, but I'll give the melee character the benefit of the doubt and say he was dropped into place and can make a full attack without moving up first, taking the attacks of opportunity, etc. Just for the sake of comparing damage dealt. Using the stats from your example character earlier, bumped up to match the archer at level 15. Using backswing, and with all the other bonuses on par with the archer, the melee guy would be hitting at +35/+35/+30/+25 (+15 BAB, +7 Str, +4 weapon enhance, +3 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +3 bard song, +1 haste) for 2d4+25 (+10 Str, +4 G. Weapon Spec, +5 Weapon Enhancement, +3 Weapon Training, +3 Bard Song). The first attack would add another +11 damage from triple Str in place of 1.5x Str, making it 2d4+36. All the attacks threaten a crit on a 15 or better.
Average damage on the first attack is 56.25 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+36, 30% 4d4+72)
Average damage on the second attack is 42.5 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the fourth attack is 40.8 (10% miss, 60% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the last attack is 32.3 (35% miss, 35% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Total Avg. Damage: 171.85
There, actual encounter, realistic AC, even gave the melee character favorable conditions.
I'm not trying to argue that an archer is more powerful than a melee fighter, I was just demonstrating what I've seen in my playtest group, which is that with some of the new feats and abilities in pathfinder, an archer can keep up with a melee fighter in most situations, and do better in some situations that favor them, which is a nice change from 3.5
Average damage on the first attack is 56.25 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+36, 30% 4d4+72)
Average damage on the second attack is 42.5 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the fourth attack is 40.8 (10% miss, 60% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the last attack is 32.3 (35% miss, 35% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Total Avg. Damage: 171.85
Woops, I was off slightly, that should have been..
Average damage on the first attack is 51.25 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+36, 30% 4d4+72)
Average damage on the second attack is 37.5 (5% miss, 65% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the fourth attack is 36 (10% miss, 60% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Average damage on the last attack is 28.5 (35% miss, 35% 2d4+25, 30% 4d4+50)
Total Avg. Damage: 153.25
After doing all the calculations for the archer I was still thinking d8's instead of d4's
I found a couple of mistakes, like you giving the ranged char +5 weapon and Greater Bracers of Archery while a melee char only got a +4 weapon.
I think a +4, Flaming Burst (or Holy) would be a better choice for a weapon, especially for a critical hit kind of character.
Of course Nightshade is immune to critical hits being undead and all.
Also after the first round this melee char is going to start power attacking (and probably even before that). The problem here is that power attack is nerfed bad, and in my home campaign I still use the 3.5e version of power attack.
I also never claimed that archers were useless when compared to melee, but are weaker. And still are.
You also forgot Deflect Arrows feat and a similar enchantment on armors.
Also as it has been stated earlier, the archer cannot break through Wall of Ice with arrows since arrows cannot damage hard objects. So he needed to come into melee range of the wall and start hitting it with his longsword of whatever.
And I cannot see any spell that will make the melee guy weaker then the archer after a failed save by both. Entangle is one such but I think any lvl 15+ char can fail that only on roll of 1 on d20 and such situations are just too rare to be of any worth. At earlier levels the spell will make melee become useless while ranged will become almost useless with the huge penalty to attacks rolls.
I found a couple of mistakes, like you giving the ranged char +5 weapon and Greater Bracers of Archery while a melee char only got a +4 weapon.
Ah quite right, sorry about that, forgot to change the +4 to a +5. As for the bracers, well, there just isn't an equivalent for melee characters.
I think a +4, Flaming Burst (or Holy) would be a better choice for a weapon, especially for a critical hit kind of character.
I suppose that's reasonable, considering there just isn't an equivalent to Bracers of Archery, and a +6 weapon is close to the same price as a +5 and the bracers.
Of course Nightshade is immune to critical hits being undead and all.
Yeah, I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to lower the melee characters damage, so I chose to ignore that part.
Also after the first round this melee char is going to start power attacking (and probably even before that). The problem here is that power attack is nerfed bad, and in my home campaign I still use the 3.5e version of power attack.
I'll run the numbers with power attack as well, and using a more exact formula for the average damage.
Same bonuses to damage and attack for the archer.(+36(x2)/+36/+36/+31/+26 for 1d8+21, +1d8+21 on the first shot, and +2d8+42 on a crit)
Average damage on the first attack is 53.295
Average damage on the next three is 29.07
Average damage on the last attack is 22.95
Total Avg. Damage: 163.455
Using backswing and power attack, and with all the other bonuses on par with the archer, the melee guy would be hitting at +28/+28/+23/+18 (+15 BAB, +4 weapon enhance, +3 weapon training, +2 greater weapon focus, +3 bard song, +1 haste) for 2d4+38+1d6 (+10 Str, +14 Power Attack, +4 G. Weapon Spec, +4 Weapon Enhancement, +3 Weapon Training, +3 Bard Song). The first attack would add another +11 damage from triple Str in place of 1.5x Str, making it 2d4+49+1d6. All the attacks threaten a crit on a 15 or better, and do 1d10 burst instead of 1d6 on a successful crit.
Average damage on the first attack is 61.3
Average damage on the second attack is 49.6125
Average damage on the fourth attack is 36.175
Average damage on the last attack is 22.7375
Total Avg. Damage: 169.825
The average damage for the melee character does go up slightly with power attack, but is still really, really close to the average damage for the archer.
I also never claimed that archers were useless when compared to melee, but are weaker. And still are.
Well, I suppose that's why we're having the discussion. Considering the higher AC, equivalent damage output (in pathfinder at least), stronger first round, better round by round damage when changing targets, and the ability to overcome damage reduction by switching ammo types, I don't see how archers are weaker than melee characters.
You also forgot Deflect Arrows feat and a similar enchantment on armors.
Ehhhh, yeah, but I also didn't include enchantments like fortification (that would hurt the damage of the crit based melee character).
And, really, in the 8 years since 3.0 came out, I have yet to see anyone pay for Arrow Deflection over a flat +2.
Also as it has been stated earlier, the archer cannot break through Wall of Ice with arrows since arrows cannot damage hard objects. So he needed to come into melee range of the wall and start hitting it with his longsword of whatever.
Actually most objects just take half damage from ranged weapons, and adamantium arrows with a flat +28 to the damage can make short work of just about anything, half damage or not.
And I cannot see any spell that will make the melee guy weaker then the archer after a failed save by both.
Ray of Enfeeblement, Repulsion, Interposing Hand, Forceful Hand, Forcecage (well, one variant), Symbol of Weakness...
On the caster it could be Teleport, Fly, Greater Teleport... I could go on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Also as it has been stated earlier, the archer cannot break through Wall of Ice with arrows since arrows cannot damage hard objects. So he needed to come into melee range of the wall and start hitting it with his longsword of whatever.Actually most objects just take half damage from ranged weapons, and adamantium arrows with a flat +28 to the damage can make short work of just about anything, half damage or not.
The half damage comes before applying hardness, which makes it toughter, but adamantine ignores hardness below 20, so it's an easy (if very slightly expensive) fix. Still, each smashie-smashie only opens a 5' square.
That said, an interesting quirk of the spell in Pathfinder is this: The cold damage from WoI isn't going to stop arrows, since cold only does 1/4 damage to objects. However, if the WoI caster is high-level or the WoI is empowered, in any case if it does 24 or more points of damage (it does 1d6 + 1/level uncapped, no save), any arrow that goes through it would acquire the "broken" condition and suffer -2 to hit and damage and only crit on a 20/x2.
Not a big deal, just an interesting little corner case.
And I cannot see any spell that will make the melee guy weaker then the archer after a failed save by both.Ray of Enfeeblement, Repulsion, Interposing Hand, Forceful Hand, Forcecage (well, one variant), Symbol of Weakness...
On the caster it could be Teleport, Fly, Greater Teleport... I could go on.
I only wanted to comment on the two bolded spells above, and that was to note that STR-draining spells can be as bad for ranged attackers as for melee fighters (unless they are using crossbows with no STR mod), since you would lose your STR bonus to dmg from mighty bows and thrown weapons, on top of taking a -2 to hit with comp bows if you drop below the STR rating of your bow.
Also, a hidden cost is that when your STR goes down and your STR was not that high to begin with, you are very likely to become encumbered to a medium or heavy load, which will vastly drop your AC bonus from DEX (max +3 or +1, not amenable to mithril armor or any other countermeasures) and dis-enable some class abilities & skill use a DEX-meister might have (evasion, fast movement, ranger Combat Style, Tumble).
A character with a phat STR score already will not be nearly as good at his attacks, but is less likely to get gimped by his equipment if his STR gets dropped; even if he is wearing heavy armor, he has less DEX bonus and class features built up to lose even if he DOES get encumbered.
|
There should really be a "Philosophy of Sword and Sorcery Combat" introduction in the combat chapter. If we proceed with the assumption that brute strength is the accepted baseline for an effective warrior in this genre, then it will be easier to explain why agile warriors are an exceptional alternative, and thus pursued through feats.
Either that, or you divide the fighter into two classes based upon Strength or Dexterity the same way Sorcerers were splintered from Wizards. Or is this what the Monk is supposed to be?
As far as I know, in the DMG it says some attacks just cannot destroy objects (and arrows were an example with the door), so I would say arrows cannot break the Ice Wall.
Adamantine arrows would go through it like cheese adamantine ignoring hardness and all but this would just leave a arrow sized wholes in the wall (not that much). You could still attack someone on the other side if you could see them but with a circumstance penalty for arrows slowing down for sure by passing through the wall. Then if the arrows get broken by passing through it, that makes them unreliable to hit something on the other side.
I agree, Repulsion and antilife shell make the melee guy not be able to continue and I forgot about those spells.
As for flying, except for lvl 5 to about 10 melee fighter should have some flying abilities through magic items or potions (I know that fighters before lvl 5 also cannot get to flying opponents but normally these kind opponents are not enemies at this level)
Don't forget Vital strike. That feat is pure feat tax for any melee type.
There is absolutely nothing in the feat description of either Vital Strike or Improved Vital Strike that says it is a melee only feat. It's just as powerful for ranged fighters, if not more so because of Manyshot and Rapid Shot. Other feats that seem to be melee on but are not are.
Dazzling Display
Stunned Defense
Deadly Stroke
and Arcane Strike
I think the point Brodiggan Gale is trying to get across is that Dex fighters are about as good as Str fighters. Both have strengths and weaknesses but neither is clearly superior to the other.
Not to thread-jack, but reading this:
I thought that was seriously out-of-wack. Armor/ No Armor/ Stealth should all use the base DC, and add/subtract Stealth Ranks and Armor Penalty where appropriate... Otherwise, why NOT take one Rank in Stealth, since you increase the Perception DC by +11/+16 ? (and that's NOT as a Class Skill).
Of course all fighteres presented here pale before the might of Benny! ;) (go read the thread if you don't know what I'm talking about!)
Well I started this comparison between ranged and melee Strength chars because of my house rule where Dex get applied to ranged attacks (and melee attacks with light weapons) for attack rolls and damage rolls.
And I feel melee fighters are still stronger in PF and my house rules is OK to put them to the level playing field.
And for two-weapon fighting character is even more needed, because while ranged chars are close to melee Strength chars, melee dex chars are not even close.
I can understand why one would feel this way. However this game does have a mechanical balancing factor to consider. You can't just make dex do what dex does and what str would already do for free, with exception of carrying capacity. That would make str a dump stat for everyone, and dex too good not to put a high stat in.
Now as for making some changes to better help them, yeah I can see having ranged combat adding their dex modifier on top of strength from a strength composite bow. This would help the DR problem a lot.