Fighters rule!

[Studpuffin]

Zark wrote:

agree but as a GM I would not to allow it. I go with Selois and say a monk is an exception.

That's what I just said...

???

[Captain Django]

The only change I propose to fighters ever since 3.0 came out was that they should have more starting skills. I understand that it represents the fighters devotion to feats and martial proficiencies as explained with the cleric, paladin, and wizard. I think if fighters had 4 starting points (like for some reason the barbarian)I would see no problems in fighters, at all. And god forbid a fighter can have Acrobatics and Perception as class skills, you know every martial class in should have....
It could be me, I see skills as more flavor for characters and group balancing rather than the 3 main forces of the game, skills, combat, and magic.

[Zark]

Studpuffin wrote:

Zark wrote:

agree but as a GM I would not to allow it. I go with Selois and say a monk is an exception.

That's what I just said...

???

Studpuffin wrote:

To be clear here, the monk's Unarmed Strike does count as a manufactured weapon and can have magic weapon cast on it. The Improved Unarmed Strike feat doesn't seem to bestow this same benefit, though as a GM I could probably be persuaded to allow it.

agree

Studpuffin wrote:

though as a GM I could probably be persuaded to allow it.

but as a GM I would not to allow it, that is I would not be persuaded to allow it (since I go with Selois and say a monk is an exception).

So yes I got you. You to say the monk is an exception. What I meant was, I would not be persuaded to allow it
:-)
Sorry my sloppy english.

[Studpuffin]

No problem. I have trouble understanding the posts that are considered good english.

I said I could be persuaded, by which I mean my players could probably bribe me with cookies or a pizza. :D

[ruemere]

Apologies for taking such a long time to answer. I got a little bored with this issue (especially since it's a bit trivial), and when I finally mustered my will enough to continue, the boards proved to be unavailable.

Here is a belated and short commentary on your comments:

1. Technically and by the rules of real world, unarmed attacks are melee attacks, albeit the weapons have shorter range and lesser durability. The lack of clear distinction under both 3.5 and Pathfinder BETA rules seem to support this notion.

1b. Combat Expertise yields dodge bonus type. It's not a given then, that melee weapon must be used at all. Mere presence of an object usable at melee distance should be sufficient.

1c. If one cannot use their own limbs to *dodge*, but can do so using their own severed limb, something is amiss.

2. Unarmed attacks should be, in my opinion, be ruled as Light Melee Weapon with special quality of "Unarmed" added. Improved Unarmed Strike would simply remove "Unarmed" quality.

3. The whole reason this discussion started was that Wizards (Intelligence based spellcasters) could theoretically profit from the feat. However, we do not need to assume that Wizards have to be unarmed - they can still use weapons (quarterstaves, daggers) and spells (Quickened spells) in melee.

4. Is a properly buffed Wizard more dangerous than a Fighter?
(example of effects on a buffed high level wizard)
- fixed 75% miss hit chance
- medium armor class
- touch and quickened spells (casting defensively is not an issue, ranged spells: see below)
- Repulsion + Rays and close distance spells

*sigh*

That's just an example. I am sure that wizardly pros can come up with more creative techniques.
The bottom line is: Wizards do not need to use Combat Expertise. But if they want to have fun, they can.

Regards,
Ruemere

[Wrath]

ruemere wrote:

4. Is a properly buffed Wizard more dangerous than a Fighter?
(example of effects on a buffed high level wizard)
- fixed 75% miss hit chance
- medium armor class
- touch and quickened spells (casting defensively is not an issue, ranged spells: see below)
- Repulsion + Rays and close distance spells

Regards,
Ruemere

Not if the fighter is also properly buffed :)

Your argument assumes the Wizard gets all the buffing goodness while the fighter just turns up.

- 75% miss chance mitigated somehwat by blind fight, or if a buff is available (which I'm sure you'll have some suitable reason why it shouldnt be) then truesight.
- medium armour class means fighter hits with most of their attacks
- touch spells still have to be cast. Ranged is more difficult. Casting defensively is about to become an issue in Pathfinder (see the spellcasting threads for Jason's input on this)
- Repulsion is a toughy.

However you should ask yourself, is an unbuffed wizard mroe deadly than a fighter. I think that one comes down to initiative.

Cheers

[Zark]

Wrath wrote:

(...)

However you should ask yourself, is an unbuffed wizard mroe deadly than a fighter. I think that one comes down to initiative.

Cheers

Good point.

As for the name of this thread. "Fighters rule!" No I don't think they do, but they are not poor little sods. But I still find them boring.
I usually play charisma based characters, Rogues, Paladins, Clerics, etc. perhaps that's why I don't like them. And perhaps they need a little love. But I'm not sure Love equals more power.