Those people are, at the very most, level 5 or 6 in terms of the game. Go beyond that, and your not dealing with 'humans' anymore... The warriors from mythology and anime rather than average joe soldier.
I have to disagree that anyone who has ever lived should autmoatically be considered level 5 or 6 at the most in game terms; consider how many boxing matches Mike Tyson has won, even if all his opponents were below his "level," he'd still have enough XP to be a high level fighter, by 3.5 terms. My bigger problem with your assessment, though, is that if I'm playign D&D/PF, that means I'm specifically choosing NOT to play BESM. (Also, I disagree with the common trope that Anime = Better and hence Pathfinder = Anime.)
A level 10 Pathfinder fighter (arguably worse than the 3.5 fighter, I believe you said) can't kill a 3.5 fire giant, can he? I beg to differ. I didn't bother working out skill totals; I only listed the taken skills for completeness.
<Fight>
Do mind that counting the dwarf's situational +4 AC against giants and then claiming general efficacy is about as fair an appraisal as giving the dwarf a giant bane axe. The fact that you're having to resort to situational racial bonuses to get the Fighter to function at this point is a Big Deal. Also of note is that the dwarf wasn't fighting a Pathfinder-compliant fire giant (which I don't believe exists yet). At the very least, the giant gets two more feats from the rules changes. Possibly more goodies than that. I don't recall the full transitions.
And also mind that the problem isn't that the Fighter can't win, but can't do so at an even chance of success. Luck makes anything possible. Hence, "Personal experience means nothing." One trial dinnae cut it.
Fine I will rephrase it. Oone does things that no person could do without training in magic.
I was assuming we were not going into epic levels with this discussion but if you want to use above 20 examples let me know.
On the first point, so what? They're both beyond the realm of what is physically possible. Why is it so unbelievable that the warrior could keep up with the mage? Just because he doesn't waggle her fingers and recite gibberish?
On the second point, this isn't epic. Lava deals 2d6 damage per round of exposure, plus an additional 1d6 per round for 1d3 rounds after breaking contact. A 1 HD commoner getting lucky rolls could survive that. A level 5 Fighter with a decent constitution score could be reasonably expected to survive that. Far from epic.
You have to separate the math from what is realistically possible. A little old lady can not realistically win that contest. The numbers are put that way to allow the PCs, and some NPCs the chance to do heroic things.
You are aware that this statement could retain meaning if rephrased as, "The PCs are beyond the ken of ordinary mortals," and still retain its meaning. Which means the PC warrior is beyond the ken of ordinary mortals.
I disagree. To discuss the system meaningfully you must be able to accept what is possible under normal circumstance. Defining "normal" may take a while to be agreed upon, but using extraordinary(excessive or inadequate) means to prove what is valid is a terrible way to reach any conclusion.
So you admit folks still must strip away the trappings of their own social structures, personal quirks, and the like to reach the common ground they all share. In other words, remove everything personal from their personal experience. In other words, personal experience means nothing.
Are you playing semantics are actually trying to debate? A buffalo takes full round to summon if it can be done at all, and it does not equal a fighter. The fighter is not great, but unless the builder has no idea what is going on the buffalo should not be able to take his spot.
If you're going outside of core, Rapid Summoning is available for the mage, making the summon a standard action. The buffalo's greater physical size lets it block paths more effectively by right of its sheer size. When you gain access to it, it has about as much HP as a Fighter of the Wizard's level, possibly more with Augment Summoning. Because it's not a PC, you have no need to waste resources on keeping it alive, which is good, considering how much damage a legitimate melee threat is liable to deal. And after you summon it, you're still a Wizard and are still entirely capable of using real spells to disable the enemy.
A dedicated summoner can do the job of meat shield more effectively than the Fighter can, while still retaining the myriad options available by right of being a Wizard. And also, the Wizard can wise up and realize that Grease or Web or Solid Fog can do the job of meat shield even better than Fighters or summons.
Whenever you are debating on a board the common rationale is to use 10 on the dice for everything. We know upsets happen, but on average can the fighter win?
Tens would also skew things in odd ways. If one side always hits on ten or better and the other on eleven or better, say. It's more accurate to do averages. A 25% chance to hit at 24 damage average would then just be 6 damage.
To me the perfect representation of a level 20 monk comperable power, would probably be Goku during the end of the Sayain Saga.
Considering at that point, he was powerful enough to blow up an entire planet, no. Just no. Even ignoring the stylistic issues.
A representation of a level 20 warrior (or close to it) would be Gatts, no Goku.
But a level 20 martial character would indeed be definitively beyond what is possible for a human being.
Also, picking Dwarf as the fighter's race specifically to skew his hit probability upward is just plain misleading at best, and dishonest at worst.Fair point. That said, had I used human, I would have had an extra feat available, which would have been used early so that I could take improved critical later and would have used a scimitar, thus making almost all of the fighter's hits criticals. Or else I could have made the Fighter an archer, thus automatically winning the fight due to the Fire Giant's comparatively abysmal ranged attack mod.
When playtesting on a board there are no crits because there is no valid way to say when it would occur. Once again we only use 10's because that is an average number and would represent an average fight. If we choose numbers anyone can say the giant crits for all its hits against the human, and then we are into the childhood situation of:
child 1: I tagged you last
child 2: No you didn't
child 1: Yes I did
or the other one
child 1: I have X many
child 2: Well I have X many +2
What makes you think a Fire Giant would stay at range if it does more damage close up? More than likely it will charge across to get into melee range.
On the first point, so what? They're both beyond the realm of what is physically possible. Why is it so unbelievable that the warrior could keep up with the mage? Just because he doesn't waggle her fingers and recite gibberish?
Read my edit for my last post and using the game rules it could not happen. Now in literature it depends on how the author makes him caster work. Gibberish, tell that to the warrior who finds himself stranded on the 9 hells.
On the second point, this isn't epic. Lava deals 2d6 damage per round of exposure, plus an additional 1d6 per round for 1d3 rounds after breaking contact. A 1 HD commoner getting lucky rolls could survive that. A level 5 Fighter with a decent constitution score could be reasonably expected to survive that. Far from epic.
The commoner might survive for a short time in lava, but balancing himself on it is an entirely different thing altogether. Stop moving the goalpost.
If you're going outside of core, Rapid Summoning is available for the mage, making the summon a standard action. The buffalo's greater physical size lets it block paths more effectively by right of its sheer size. When you gain access to it, it has about as much HP as a Fighter of the Wizard's level, possibly more with Augment Summoning. Because it's not a PC, you have no need to waste resources on keeping it alive, which is good, considering how much damage a legitimate melee threat is liable to deal. And after you summon it, you're still a Wizard and are still entirely capable of using real spells to disable the enemy.
A dedicated summoner can do the job of meat shield more effectively than the Fighter can, while still retaining the myriad options available by right of being a Wizard. And also, the Wizard can wise up and realize that Grease or Web or Solid Fog can do the job of meat shield even better than Fighters or summons.
The buffalo cant hit as well as the fighter, nor does it have the fighter's AC, so all the wizard did was waste a spell, and it is still not in melee. 3rd level monks laugh at grease. Web and Solid Fog block the field both ways. Granted the fighter can't block it one way, but you are failing at making points. I think we should clarify what points you are trying make with the fighter since he equal to caster in one part of your post, and is useless in another part.
Tens would also skew things in odd ways. If one side always hits on ten or better and the other on eleven or better, say. It's more accurate to do averages. A 25% chance to hit at 24 damage average would then just be 6 damage.
On d20's 10's are average. Actually the average is closer to 10.5, but you get the point.
Edit: I did say everything didn't I, but did you think I would expect a 10 on a d10 or d8(not even possible) every time?
I don't want to get into a debate on power levels, but I hope you got my point. (And hopefully this won't start a debate, but even in Kaio-ken Goku couldn't blow up a planet at that stage, your thinking of Giant Ape Vegeta. I was referring to normal Goku at that point in the story)
Vegeta's gallic gun was supposedly powerful enough to destroy the planet. Goku's kamehameha overcame the gallic gun. So Goku did indeed have the power to destroy a planet.
You want to argue potential when speaking of no human being pure and fighters having some powerful inner force that lets them go against casters, but then you wants to use in game mathematics for the little old lady to overpower a minotaur.
Which is it going to be?
The little old lady example may be silly, but the point is that the conventional logic, physics, and biology you are trying to apply? They really don't apply at all. These aren't normal human beings in our own world. Things don't work in their world like they do in ours. No matter how you slice it, no matter which premises of the world you accept or reject, the D&D world is fundamentally weird and asserting conventional logic, physics, and biology from our own world as your premise for what does and does not strain suspension of disbelief is fallacious.
And do note the difference between, "Who says?" as opposed to, "This is."
The commoner might survive for a short time in lava, but balancing himself on it is an entirely different thing altogether. Stop moving the goalpost.
I don't see any balance checks required for lava. Just hop on, do your six second tap dance, hop off, and go about your merry way.
The buffalo cant hit as well as the fighter, nor does it have the fighter's AC, so all the wizard did was waste a spell, and it is still not in melee. 3rd level monks laugh at grease. Web and Solid Fog block the field both ways. Granted the fighter can't block it one way, but you are failing at making points. I think we should clarify what points you are trying make with the fighter since he equal to caster in one part of your post, and is useless in another part.
The buffalo doesn't need to hit, and AC isn't a big deal, especially as levels rise, particularly when you don't care if the creature dies. If you're facing a 3rd-level Monk, you're not casting Grease, ignoring the fact that they're not a threat in the first place. Web doesn't block your allies' arrows, and actually does the job of stopping/slowing enemies without the risk of having a PC in melee range. Solid Fog makes it so the enemy essentially doesn't exist for at least three rounds, no save, no spell resistance, which allows you the freedom of turning your attention elsewhere; trap one cluster of enemies so you can defeat another.
And in no part of my post was the Fighter equal to the Wizard. Fighter is hideously underpowered. My point is that high-level warriors are supposed to be superhuman, that warrior types should be allowed to be awesome, that they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the group, to fight in a level-appropriate manner, and that mage archetypes shouldn't be almighty overlords in a game where they're expected to comingle with useless warrior PCs.
On d20's 10's are average. Actually the average is closer to 10.5, but you get the point.
Edit: I did say everything didn't I, but did you think I would expect a 10 on a d10 or d8(not even possible) every time?
Yes, 10.5 is average. However, a 10 on an attack roll does not yield average damage per attack. If you have 10 HP, and I hit you for 10d6 damage on a roll of 11 or better, while I have 1,000 HP and you hit me for 1d2 damage on a roll of 10 or better, assuming all 10's means you'd be projected as beating me. Rather, my average hit is 35 damage, and I have a 50% chance of hitting you, so my average attack does 17.5 damage, while you have a 55% chance of doing 1.5 damage, or .825 damage on average. If you use those average damage numbers, the results will be far more accurate; I deck you. This method also takes into account greater nuances, like the fact that a 70% chance of dealing 10 damage is better than a 65% chance of dealing 10 damage.
I was re-readind the novel "Spellfire" by Ed Greenwood. Terrible book really but I was travelling and bored. It struck me that Wizards/Magic-users were seen as the most powerful things on the planet (bar a few critters). This under 1e was very true at high levels (and some would say 3e also). Anyway has making say a fighter of high level equal to a Mage at high level a good thing? The novel Spellfire really falls apart if we take the balancing of classes view. I will make a statement I may get flak for but... In a roleplaying game is it required that all PC's are "equal"? Perhaps when I was younger I adhered to "the world must be fair" view, but back then I was stuck with 1e so even in my gaming world it wasn't. Just wondering if we have lost something, fear of evil wizards?
Thoughts?
S.
I wouldnt say ruined but I am one RPGer who has no interest in inter-class balance - I prefer the classes to be fundamentally different both in flavor and power. (Although I suspect I'm in a very small minority in that regard, based purely on messageboard arguments).
Having said that, I dont think a ruleset has that much of an impact on the flavor of the game you run. I've played and DMed probably a dozen different rules systems over the years and the nature of the game hasnt changed substantially - my 4th edition game plays very similar to my Pathfinder game. Some of the rules I've changed a little - but only in the sense of tweaking what's already there. (Humans in my 4th edition games are seriously beefed up - unbalancing in a sense, but in another perhaps I'm just imputing a 'fluff value' for getting to play a demihuman. When I ran GURPS, mages were also 'improved'. In rolemaster and AD&D I played pretty much as I understood the rules to be written).
Ultimately the rules you choose to play by dont have a lot of impact on the type of story you tell, in my experience. That's assuming you know them well enough to not have to focus on them - when learning a new game, the time put into deciphering the rules can often make it seem like that is the point of playing the game.
All right, since the dwarf fighter doesn't count, here's a human build. In this instance, the human was insanely lucky with the dice, having dealt two critical hits and threatened a third and only been hit four times, each for considerably less than average damage. Is a human fighter beating a fire giant without any kind of magical help the norm? No. Is it possible? Yes.
The human did indeed get insanely lucky. Again, this is why "Personal experience means nothing." The test is irrelevant, as the point wasn't "it's impossible," but that the Fighter doesn't approach the 50/50 chance she's supposed to have.
|
Viletta makes excellent points. I don't want fighters who can cast spells or jump 100-ft. chasms, but I DO want fighters who can kill equal-CR brute monsters with even odds of success, and who can reliably anticipate threats and counter them: move and attack and block enemies and disrupt casting. You know, do their job.
I missed a lot today, because I was playing D&D for 7 hours. ;)
Anyway, I also agree with Kirth (see all my posts where I state that each class should be useful). But Viletta has taken issue with my criticism of mathematics in regards to balance. All of my issues can be fixed without worrying about the specific mathematical balance between classes.
1) Fighters vs. Wizards is balanced by not making spellcasting arbitrarily easy when all previous editions made it ridiculously hard. 3rd Edition attempted to provide Wizards with a mathematical balance over an experiential one and the net result was that spellcasters completely demolish everything.
2) The Fighter vs. Fire Giant argument has nothing to do with class balance and everything to do with the bloated way that 3rd Edition constructed monsters. If instead a Fire Giant was treated as a 10th Level Fighter with no bonus feats but size bonus, high Strength, rock-throwing and fire immunity, this wouldn't be a problem. Another solution would be don't fight a fire giant in melee combat!
3) Any mathematical argument is inherently flawed because it ignores in-game experience. Sure a wizard could handily defeat the same fire giant alone, but not without surprise, distance, the right spells, the right spells left that day, the right character build, the giant being alone without possibility of help, a small amount of luck, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I will reiterate: D&D is not an optimized character under ideal conditions waking up in the morning, standing the perfect distance from a given opponent across smooth terrain, and then going night-night when the battle is over. Math will never solve all your problems, only most of the big ones (and what is big is sometimes opinion).
That said, I've been through all these discussions before. Feel free to post more insights, but unless I see something new or amazing I am not likely to respond (but don't be offended, I am still reading!) I was seeing some new directions here about the nature of balance, but we've looped back to the old and worn gamist vs simulationist stuff that cluttered the boards about a year ago. To be honest Viletta, you do make some good points and you're being much more reasonable than some people were back then. :)
|
|
Those people are, at the very most, level 5 or 6 in terms of the game. Go beyond that, and your not dealing with 'humans' anymore... The warriors from mythology and anime rather than average joe soldier.I have to disagree that anyone who has ever lived should autmoatically be considered level 5 or 6 at the most in game terms; consider how many boxing matches Mike Tyson has won, even if all his opponents were below his "level," he'd still have enough XP to be a high level fighter, by 3.5 terms. My bigger problem with your assessment, though, is that if I'm playign D&D/PF, that means I'm specifically choosing NOT to play BESM. (Also, I disagree with the common trope that Anime = Better and hence Pathfinder = Anime.)
Yep. Conan kicked a lot of ass without any crazy anime-powers. Know how? Because sorcerers are wimpy little dorks once Conan closes in for the kill. Just like it should be!
1) Fighters vs. Wizards is balanced by not making spellcasting arbitrarily easy when all previous editions made it ridiculously hard. 3rd Edition attempted to provide Wizards with a mathematical balance over an experiential one and the net result was that spellcasters completely demolish everything.
Except the spellcasters completely demolished everything before, they just had some legitimate weaknesses. Making spellcasting easier was not a decision made to balance gameplay, mathematically or otherwise. At least, not an informed decision on the matter.
2) The Fighter vs. Fire Giant argument has nothing to do with class balance and everything to do with the bloated way that 3rd Edition constructed monsters. If instead a Fire Giant was treated as a 10th Level Fighter with no bonus feats but size bonus, high Strength, rock-throwing and fire immunity, this wouldn't be a problem. Another solution would be don't fight a fire giant in melee combat!
Thing is, the bloat doesn't make the creatures disproportionately powerful. The bloat is what it takes to get a creature with no special abilities to be a legitimate threat; no breath attack, or petrifying gaze, or spell-like abilities. A fire giant needs its increased size and strength and hit die just to keep pace with PCs who get actual class features. If a fire giant instead got 10 HD, 10 BAB, and mortal-level strength and damage die, it would cease to be a threat at all to level 10 characters.
The problem with Fighter is that it's a fire giant with 10 HD, 10 BAB, and mortal level strength and damage die that ceases to be a threat. Fighters don't get class abilities. They can't do anything that a 1 HD kobold gets. All they get is slightly boosted numbers, that aren't enough to keep up the pace.
And a melee Fighter is supposed to be able to take on the fire giant in melee, or at least come close on average. They're both CR 10 melee creatures. They're supposed to be comparably dangerous in melee. Conventional logic of "fighting giants up close is dumb" doesn't apply when you're supposed to be able to fight giants up close. If a Fighter can't, then she's not capable of doing their job.
3) Any mathematical argument is inherently flawed because it ignores in-game experience. Sure a wizard could handily defeat the same fire giant alone, but not without surprise, distance, the right spells, the right spells left that day, the right character build, the giant being alone without possibility of help, a small amount of luck, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I will reiterate: D&D is not an optimized character under ideal conditions waking up in the morning, standing the perfect distance from a given opponent across smooth terrain, and then going night-night when the battle is over. Math will never solve all your problems, only most of the big ones (and what is big is sometimes opinion).
A Proctor test is a geological test performed on a soil sample that basically boils to tamping it just so, with a precise number of blows to add a precise amount of energy at varying moisture contents so that you can determine its maximum density and the best water content to reach that density, so that you know how it will act in the field, what water content you want when you run the steam roller, and so on.
In the field, any number of factors can change the water content, you won't get the same density as you got in the lab, the soil as a whole may differ somewhat from your sample, and any number of factors may contaminate the process as a whole.
By the logic you present, proctor compaction testing is irrelevant.
In a real game, of course you won't have perfect, idealized fights. That doesn't matter. A lab test is a means of gathering information in a sterile setting, to glean information that will remain applicable in the field, and to weed out irrelevant distractions that could skew results. No, it's not a perfect one-to-one transition. It's still valid and necessary information. The math ain't a perfect end-all, be-all, but it's relevant and legitimate. The mathematical argument is not inherently flawed, because it's valid evidence being presented as valid evidence. Objective support on position in a subjective topic is perfectly valid.
Also, a savvy Wizard can pretty much always have the right spell for the job, simply because there's so much overlap with what constitutes the "right spell" in various situations. For a fire giant, it starts with Grease. A high-level Wizard who doesn't have Grease prepared isn't much of a Wizard.
Yep. Conan kicked a lot of ass without any crazy anime-powers. Know how? Because sorcerers are wimpy little dorks once Conan closes in for the kill. Just like it should be!
But not how it is within the rules. Mages actually have stronger defenses than Conan. And the author likes Conan. Part of the whole book/game dichotomy.
A Proctor test is a geological test performed on a soil sample that basically boils to tamping it just so, with a precise number of blows to add a precise amount of energy at varying moisture contents so that you can determine its maximum density and the best water content to reach that density, so that you know how it will act in the field, what water content you want when you run the steam roller, and so on. In the field, any number of factors can change the water content, you won't get the same density as you got in the lab, the soil as a whole may differ somewhat from your sample, and any number of factors may contaminate the process as a whole. By the logic you present, proctor compaction testing is irrelevant.
As a professional geologist, I can aver that the Proctor test often IS irrelevant to anything I actually want to know. However, your point is still a good one!
Regarding the rules not supporting Conan in his fight against Thoth-Amon or whomever, you are unfortunately 100% correct. Which is why I've rewritten all the combat rules, and revised all the base classes. Now we play very happily in a world where magic is powerful, but so is the sword. The scales are still tipped a bit towards the casters at higher levels, but nowhere near the grotesque mockery of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Engineering student here.
Regarding the rules not supporting Conan in his fight against Thoth-Amon or whomever, you are unfortunately 100% correct. Which is why I've rewritten all the combat rules, and revised all the base classes. Now we play very happily in a world where magic is powerful, but so is the sword. The scales are still tipped a bit towards the casters at higher levels, but nowhere near the grotesque mockery of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture.
Not a perfect fix, but easy.
|
A Proctor test is a geological test performed on a soil sample that basically boils to tamping it just so, with a precise number of blows to add a precise amount of energy at varying moisture contents so that you can determine its maximum density and the best water content to reach that density, so that you know how it will act in the field, what water content you want when you run the steam roller, and so on. In the field, any number of factors can change the water content, you won't get the same density as you got in the lab, the soil as a whole may differ somewhat from your sample, and any number of factors may contaminate the process as a whole. By the logic you present, proctor compaction testing is irrelevant.
As a professional geologist, I can aver that the Proctor test often IS irrelevant to anything I actually want to know. However, your point is still a good one!
Regarding the rules not supporting Conan in his fight against Thoth-Amon or whomever, you are unfortunately 100% correct. Which is why I've rewritten all the combat rules, and revised all the base classes. Now we play very happily in a world where magic is powerful, but so is the sword. The scales are still tipped a bit towards the casters at higher levels, but nowhere near the grotesque mockery of 3.0/3.5/3.PF.
Kinda like 1e on steroids.
:)
My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture. Not a perfect fix, but easy.
I'm a tinkerer, and I play with houstonderek, a fellow 1e grognard. Yeah, my method was a LOT more work, but it was worth it... Because we still hate BESM.
|
|
My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture. Not a perfect fix, but easy.I'm a tinkerer, and I play with houstonderek, a fellow 1e grognard. Yeah, my method was a LOT more work, but it was worth it... Because we still hate BESM.
Well, not all of our group is in the anti-anime camp. But we do enjoy similar play styles, which is more important.
;)
|
|
BESM isn't the only source of the kind of combat I'm turning Pathfinder into. I actually tend closer to Wushu or such. (Isn't BESM basically a GURPS derivative anyway???)My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture. Not a perfect fix, but easy.I'm a tinkerer, and I play with houstonderek, a fellow 1e grognard. Yeah, my method was a LOT more work, but it was worth it... Because we still hate BESM.
Not a big fan of mixing Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon in my D&D either...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I'm about as far from anti-anime as they come, and I've flat had orcs with shunpo running around once or twice, but the "ToB is anime" camp has always seemed ridiculous to me, particularly considering it's the players and the DM who bring the flavor. Most of it is "I hit hard" or "I hit good," and is very easy to fluff without the mystical superwarrior airs. It's very easy to make a Warblade who's just a good warrior a la Conan, without anime flavoring.
I look at it this way: if it is to be written magic always triumphs, if it is to be played magic triumphs only in few aspects, to preserve variety. Otherwise everyone would be a caster since they were that much more powerful than other classes...so as far as balancing goes, a single class (let's say wizards) should not be the end all be all, but have it's strengths and weaknesses (which are, in turn the things that another class can exploit)
otherwise, like stated people start becoming powermongers and ignore the RP'ing aspect
those are my two CPs
is."
Yes, 10.5 is average. However, a 10 on an attack roll does not yield average damage per attack. If you have 10 HP, and I hit you for 10d6 damage on a roll of 11 or better, while I have 1,000 HP and you hit me for 1d2 damage on a roll of 10 or better, assuming all 10's means you'd be projected as beating me. Rather, my average hit is 35 damage, and I have a 50% chance of hitting you, so my average attack does 17.5 damage, while you have a 55% chance of doing 1.5 damage, or .825 damage on average. If you use those average damage numbers, the results will be far more accurate; I deck you. This method also takes into account greater nuances, like the fact that a 70% chance of dealing 10 damage is better than a 65% chance of dealing 10 damage.
I am utterly convinced you must be trolling because that makes no sense.
|
|
Then I guess you'd hate my Monk redesign. One part of it was replacing Slow Fall with Run on the Air (Airwalk, as the spell, a number of rounds equal to the slow fall distance divided by ten, so 2 rounds at a time at 4th level for example)Not a big fan of mixing Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon in my D&D either...BESM isn't the only source of the kind of combat I'm turning Pathfinder into. I actually tend closer to Wushu or such. (Isn't BESM basically a GURPS derivative anyway???)My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture. Not a perfect fix, but easy.I'm a tinkerer, and I play with houstonderek, a fellow 1e grognard. Yeah, my method was a LOT more work, but it was worth it... Because we still hate BESM.
Honestly? I house ruled monks out of my 1e until Oriental Adventures was released. They didn't fit the flavor of my homebrew at all. Monks in my homebrew made beer and funny coffee with frothy milk, they didn't wander around the countryside spouting koans and kicking the crap out of bandits and swindlers...
;)
All right, since the dwarf fighter doesn't count, here's a human build. In this instance, the human was insanely lucky with the dice, having dealt two critical hits and threatened a third and only been hit four times, each for considerably less than average damage. Is a human fighter beating a fire giant without any kind of magical help the norm? No. Is it possible? Yes.
Incidentally, this is assuming that the human has only one masterwork item (the bastard sword) and no magical gear. Magical armour would have reduced the amount of damage the human took in this fight by a little over half.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Why is the giant playing ranged attack when he does better in melee? It's not like the fighter is going against a hill giant, and even they would try to close the gap.
|
|
Fair enough Derek, your game. I honestly don't think I'd enjoy a 'd&d' game without the monk, it's so engrained into my consciousness as a gamer. (Note the first game I was in that was actually GM'd in a mature way was 3.5)Then I guess you'd hate my Monk redesign. One part of it was replacing Slow Fall with Run on the Air (Airwalk, as the spell, a number of rounds equal to the slow fall distance divided by ten, so 2 rounds at a time at 4th level for example)Not a big fan of mixing Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon in my D&D either...BESM isn't the only source of the kind of combat I'm turning Pathfinder into. I actually tend closer to Wushu or such. (Isn't BESM basically a GURPS derivative anyway???)My method's rather simpler. I ban the Big Five (Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Erudite [yes, I know that's six- Erudite doesn't exist]), and bring in Tome of Battle for melee classes. And I monitor some of the known hot spots, like Polymorph or Iron Heart Surge (for all your natural gravity dispelling needs). ToB actually does a spectacular good job of making melee relevant again, as well as making them awesome, particularly when the Big Five are out of the picture. Not a perfect fix, but easy.I'm a tinkerer, and I play with houstonderek, a fellow 1e grognard. Yeah, my method was a LOT more work, but it was worth it... Because we still hate BESM.Honestly? I house ruled monks out of my 1e until Oriental Adventures was released. They didn't fit the flavor of my homebrew at all. Monks in my homebrew made beer and funny coffee with frothy milk, they didn't wander around the countryside spouting koans and kicking the crap out of bandits and swindlers...
;)
My homebrew is tied deeply into European myth and ancient history, and the kung fu monk is like a watch in a caveman movie, doesn't fit thematically. If I run Greyhawk or FR, monks are there, they were blended into the general mishmash and don't screw with my verisimilitude there.
I am utterly convinced you must be trolling because that makes no sense.is."
Yes, 10.5 is average. However, a 10 on an attack roll does not yield average damage per attack. If you have 10 HP, and I hit you for 10d6 damage on a roll of 11 or better, while I have 1,000 HP and you hit me for 1d2 damage on a roll of 10 or better, assuming all 10's means you'd be projected as beating me. Rather, my average hit is 35 damage, and I have a 50% chance of hitting you, so my average attack does 17.5 damage, while you have a 55% chance of doing 1.5 damage, or .825 damage on average. If you use those average damage numbers, the results will be far more accurate; I deck you. This method also takes into account greater nuances, like the fact that a 70% chance of dealing 10 damage is better than a 65% chance of dealing 10 damage.
Just because you don't understand doesn't make me a troll.
Now. Let's try this again. Two stat blocks. Assume no criticals.
Bob:
20/20 HP
Longsword: +6/+1 AB, 1d8+2 damage
16 AC
Initiative: -1
Julia
6/6 HP
Shortsword: +9/+4, 1d6+1 damage
21 AC
Initiative: +3
If you assume all attack roll results are 10's, Bob never hits Julia, and Julia hits Bob once per round until he's dead, without taking a scratch. That's not a reasonable representation of the fight.
My way? If Bob hits, he deals 6.5 damage on average. That's 4.5 as the average result of a d8, plus 2. For Bob's first attack, he has to roll a 15 or better to hit. Rolling a 15 or better is a 30% chance. A 30% chance of 4.5 damage is, on average, 1.35 damage. His second attack only hits on a natural 20, so it only hits 5% of the time, for an average of .225 damage. Bob's average full attack deals 1.575 damage to Julia.
If Julia hits, she deals an average of 4.5 damage. That's 3.5 as the average result of a d6, plus 1. Her first attack hits on a 7 or better. That's a 70% chance to hit, for an average of 3.15 damage. Her second attack hits on a 12 or better, for 45% accuracy, for an average of 2.025 damage. Julia's average full attack deals 5.175 damage to Bob.
Assuming Julia won initiative (as she does have the advantage), and using the average damage numbers, the fight would go thusly.
Julia full attacks Bob. 5.175 damage. Bob has 14.825 HP left.
Bob full attacks Julia. 1.575 damage. Julia has 4.425 HP left.
Julia full attacks Bob. 5.175 damage. Bob has 9.65 HP left.
Bob full attacks Julia. 1.575 damage. Julia has 2.85 HP left.
Julia full attacks Bob. 5.175 damage. Bob has 4.475 HP left.
Bob full attacks Julia. 1.575 damage. Julia has 1.275 HP left.
Julia full attacks Bob. 5.175 damage. Bob is at negative hit points and dying. Julia wins with 1.275 HP remaining.
That is the definitively average match, and it's close. Julia was a full attack away from defeat. If Bob wins initiative, the fight is his, on average. If Bob gets an extra lucky attack in, it's a big advantage to him. However, on average, Julia wins.
I've played both fighter types and arcane casters in rather "classic" lineups, and found both classes to make equally important contributions. My fighter stayed quite busy, and was effective his whole career (hit 21st). He pounded the crap outta things, and got pounded back. In fact, our cleric and stealth guy did some amazing things, too.
Guess I just had a great DM.
Or possibly good players as well....Honestly its the player who decides exactly how much impact they have on the game. Not to say there isn't a a certain ease to the path of power for the spell casting classes. I try to make every character have impact on the game. A lot of it can come down to choices you make round to round, or a tactic you adopt that turns the tide. I've had the rogue use his sly tongue to turn a potentially deadly foe into a boon companion, or the fighter that calls out and takes down the fire giant king in single combat, or single handedly holds the flank outnumbered 8 to 1. I've seen the barbarian cast the spear that skewered the fleeing sentry at 100 ft. Sometimes its just as simple as that, the choices a player makes from one moment to the next, mixed with the chance of the die roll.
I am utterly convinced you must be trolling because that makes no sense.is."
Yes, 10.5 is average. However, a 10 on an attack roll does not yield average damage per attack. If you have 10 HP, and I hit you for 10d6 damage on a roll of 11 or better, while I have 1,000 HP and you hit me for 1d2 damage on a roll of 10 or better, assuming all 10's means you'd be projected as beating me. Rather, my average hit is 35 damage, and I have a 50% chance of hitting you, so my average attack does 17.5 damage, while you have a 55% chance of doing 1.5 damage, or .825 damage on average. If you use those average damage numbers, the results will be far more accurate; I deck you. This method also takes into account greater nuances, like the fact that a 70% chance of dealing 10 damage is better than a 65% chance of dealing 10 damage.Just because you don't understand doesn't make me a troll.
Now. Let's try this again. Two stat blocks. Assume no criticals.
Bob:
20/20 HP
Longsword: +6/+1 AB, 1d8+2 damage
16 AC
Initiative: -1Julia
6/6 HP
Shortsword: +9/+4, 1d6+1 damage
21 AC
Initiative: +3If you assume all attack roll results are 10's, Bob never hits Julia, and Julia hits Bob once per round until he's dead, without taking a scratch. That's not a reasonable representation of the fight.
My way? If Bob hits, he deals 6.5 damage on average. That's 4.5 as the average result of a d8, plus 2. For Bob's first attack, he has to roll a 15 or better to hit. Rolling a 15 or better is a 30% chance. A 30% chance of 4.5 damage is, on average, 1.35 damage. His second attack only hits on a natural 20, so it only hits 5% of the time, for an average of .225 damage. Bob's average full attack deals 1.575 damage to Julia.
If Julia hits, she deals an average of 4.5 damage. That's 3.5 as the average result of a d6, plus 1. Her first attack hits on a 7 or better. That's a 70% chance to hit, for an average of 3.15 damage. Her second attack hits on a...
In the earlier post I saw the 1d2 and 1000 hp, and I pretty much stopped reading. I was not willing to do the math. Now I have to go and read one of your other post. I will be back tomorrow.
In the earlier post I saw the 1d2 and 1000 hp, and I pretty much stopped reading. I was not willing to do the math. Now I have to go and read one of your other post. I will be back tomorrow.
The arbitrarily lopsided numbers were the entire point. That you refused to even read it and then claim that I'm a troll over the matter is getting rather absurd.
I'm no mod, but let's throttle back a bit here and avoid name calling while remaining on topic. While averages are a wonderful thing, they are just that- an average, and indication of how things will turn out most of the time, but not all of the time. While in my experience a D&D game is one of exceptions to the rule, I understand that some people would rather keep dice and situations on their side rather than play the odds. One wonders though, what happens in situations where the dice become treacherous or when roleplaying demands something mathematically not in keeping with the character.
In that respect, I'd say Pathfinder did a better job than 4e; the melee classes are actually capable of dealing a respectable amount of damage, whereas in 4e the designers arbitrarily decided that fighters and paladins are only there to stand there and take a beating so that the wizard doesn't have to.There are those who are obsessed with mathmatical balance true, but I think they're far outnumbered by those who just want their fair share of opportunities to shine in an adventure. And I think that's achievable.
For the people who are OBSESSED with mathematical balance, I just don't understand what they see in D&D.
This sounds nothing like 4th Edition, and it's comments like the above that really make me question whether the people who criticize aspects of 4th Edition gameplay are familiar enough with the game to justify them.
Not only are fighters and paladins fantastic at locking down monsters, but they also deal "a respectable amount of damage." In fact, in one of the games I play in the fighter regularly dishes out damage comparable to or just below that of the party strikers.
The difference is that fighters' and paladins' stated design goals are fulfilled in 4th Edition. Previously they had the hit points and defenses to serve as the party meat shield, but lacked any ability to actually make that a reality; they were very easily ignored by monsters in favor of more effective, more vulnerable targets, and there was nothing the fighter could do to stop them. Now defenders are actually sticky. Not only do they still have the hit points and defenses, but they have the ability to make themselves the monsters' target. The monster can still choose to ignore them, but they do so at significant peril - they'll likely suffer damage, have a lower chance to hit their target, might not even get to their target (in the case of a fighter defender), might deal less damage (or no damage) to their target (in the case of a swordmage defender), etc.
My homebrew is tied deeply into European myth and ancient history, and the kung fu monk is like a watch in a caveman movie, doesn't fit thematically. If I run Greyhawk or FR, monks are there, they were blended into the general mishmash and don't screw with my verisimilitude there
My homebrew monks are a druidical sect. Druids wear brown robes; the monks' are more yellow-orange or something, but you find them together a lot. Druids meditate on nature and talk to animals; monks meditate on nature and pretend to fight like animals.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In that respect, I'd say Pathfinder did a better job than 4e; the melee classes are actually capable of dealing a respectable amount of damage, whereas in 4e the designers arbitrarily decided that fighters and paladins are only there to stand there and take a beating so that the wizard doesn't have to.This sounds nothing like 4th Edition, and it's comments like the above that really make me question whether the people who criticize aspects of 4th Edition gameplay are familiar enough with the game to justify them.
Honestly? I thought he typoed 4e for 3e.
I mean most of the complaints (valid or not, I don't play 4x) are that the abilities are all kind of bland. Wizard blasts for xd6 damage, figher hits for xd6 rogue backstabs for xd6 etc. While they might have special effects, they're still niche effects (fighter pushes, wizard barriers, rogue does something else etc.)
The 3.x fighter was 'stand there and take the damage, so the C/W/D/A can blow it to bits.' The PF-fighter can do that, but also can use other feats.
FWIW, I like the Tome of Battle :-)
Edit: Fixed some grammar. English speaking I am.
|
|
Thing is, the bloat doesn't make the creatures disproportionately powerful. The bloat is what it takes to get a creature with no special abilities to be a legitimate threat; no breath attack, or petrifying gaze, or spell-like abilities. A fire giant needs its increased size and strength and hit die just to keep pace with PCs who get actual class features. If a fire giant instead got 10 HD, 10 BAB, and mortal-level strength and damage die, it would cease to be a threat at all to level 10 characters.
I never said they should get mortal-level strength, just equivalent-HD to their CR. All their other abilities are equivalent to other class features (reach, huge size, fire immunity, rock throwing, and massive strength and constitution put them at least on par with a solid barbarian or even better). And they aren't meant to be a challenge to level 10 characters. The characters should beat them with relative ease in a 4-PC party.
The problem with Fighter is that it's a fire giant with 10 HD, 10 BAB, and mortal level strength and damage die that ceases to be a threat. Fighters don't get class abilities. They can't do anything that a 1 HD kobold gets. All they get is slightly boosted numbers, that aren't enough to keep up the pace.
A 10th level fighter has 6 more feats than any 10th level character, and 4 more than even a normal fire giant. Those feats are easily spent on Power Attack and other feats to put his damage and defenses on par with a fire giant.
And a melee Fighter is supposed to be able to take on the fire giant in melee, or at least come close on average. They're both CR 10 melee creatures. They're supposed to be comparably dangerous in melee. Conventional logic of "fighting giants up close is dumb" doesn't apply when you're supposed to be able to fight giants up close. If a Fighter can't, then she's not capable of doing their job.
It's a matter of debate whether you should fight giants in melee. But let's assume a fighter that does. Using core only you can easily put together a 10th level fighter with attacks of +15/+10 (2d6+24) and AC 26 (+2 full plate, +2 Dex, +2 natural, +1 deflection, +1 Dodge), compared to the fire giants +15/+10/+5 (3d6+25) and AC 23. So the giant deals an extra 1d6+1 damage per attack and gets one extra attack and reach but the fighter has a better AC. One on one the fighter doesn't stack up, but with a party backing him up the giant will not kill him first. If the fighter takes Mobility and Spring Attack he is about "balanced".
A Proctor test is a geological test performed on a soil sample that basically boils to tamping it just so, with a precise number of blows to add a precise amount of energy at varying moisture contents so that you can determine its maximum density and the best water content to reach that density, so that you know how it will act in the field, what water content you want when you run the steam roller, and so on.In the field, any number of factors can change the water content, you won't get the same density as you got in the lab, the soil as a whole may differ somewhat from your sample, and any number of factors may contaminate the process as a whole.
By the logic you present, proctor compaction testing is irrelevant.
I never said it was irrelevant, I said it was flawed, which by your own admission it is unless you know how to apply the findings in a useful way. Too often I find people conduct a mathematical test to prove their point, rather than actually test the system. Then they interpret the results to their advantage. I do think there is value in some math, and it does give a general idea of how things fit, but starting and ending with math gives us a program, not a game or a story.
Also, a savvy Wizard can pretty much always have the right spell for the job, simply because there's so much overlap with what constitutes the "right spell" in various situations. For a fire giant, it starts with Grease. A high-level Wizard who doesn't have Grease prepared isn't much of a Wizard.
By the same token I would argue that a fighter should be built and played to their strengths, and unless they have permanent enlarge person, a greatsword, Power Attack, and heavy armor, they should not be charging fire giants. It would be the equivalent of a wizard using lightning bolt on the same giant.
I suppose since we are sharing I should point out I am a musician and a teacher. One of the reasons I got into music was because I was very good at math but found it very unrewarding.
Honestly? I thought he typoed 4e for 3e.
Me too. I can honestly see how some criticisms of 4e arise. This one just blew me away, though. It doesn't line up with my rather extensive experience with the game at all.
Which is pretty much my point. The fighter is now a "Defender". He has a strictly defined party role; not that of a tactician (that's the warlord) or of someone to beat the tar out their enemies (that's the dual wielding ranger) but of someone to stand there and be beaten up so the wizards can cast their spells and the archers can fire their arrows unmolested. How is that a "chance to shine"?
The fighter is the one going toe-to-toe with the monsters. How is that not a chance to shine? Really, have you played defenders in 4e?
At least in Pathfinder I can go ahead and create a fighter who also happens to be a fairly decent diplomat, is capable of defending himself while unarmed (as may well happen in a game that focuses more on social role play than dungeon crawling) and given a wizard to protect, stands close enough to said wizard with a reach weapon that going anywhere near said wizard will provoke three or four attacks of opportunity.
Funny, I can do all of these things in 4e, too (save the three or four attacks of opportunity bit, since you get one per monster turn).
I never said they should get mortal-level strength, just equivalent-HD to their CR. All their other abilities are equivalent to other class features (reach, huge size, fire immunity, rock throwing, and massive strength and constitution put them at least on par with a solid barbarian or even better). And they aren't meant to be a challenge to level 10 characters. The characters should beat them with relative ease in a 4-PC party.
You're assuming the level 10 Barbarian is sufficiently powerful to be a CR 10 creature. It isn't. It has the exact same problem of having no real features, only bigger numbers, though it's not nearly so bad as the Fighter, and is considerably more coherent. The fire giant needs the extra hit die and all the other bonuses just to be a threat, because it doesn't have any additional abilities. Bringing it down results in a creature that ceases to be a level-appropriate threat, which defeats the purpose of a CR 10 monster.
A 10th level fighter has 6 more feats than any 10th level character, and 4 more than even a normal fire giant. Those feats are easily spent on Power Attack and other feats to put his damage and defenses on par with a fire giant.
And the Fighter is still pretty much constrained to full attack, charge, sometimes trip, and a laundry list of options that generally can't win. Feats would be nice if they actually helped, but they pale in comparison to legitimate class features. The way feats work, you take the ones that help you most first, and they may build on each other a bit, but before long, each becomes less useful than the last until there are no more feats that let you advance coherently, that help as much as actual class features. Eleven feats in core 3.5 that actually help a level 10 human Fighter? Thirteen in Pathfinder? If you get into the splats, the options open up, but the question of how many of those options are any good? That's another story altogether.
Six more feats is scarcely an advantage.
It's a matter of debate whether you should fight giants in melee. But let's assume a fighter that does. Using core only you can easily put together a 10th level fighter with attacks of +15/+10 (2d6+24) and AC 26 (+2 full plate, +2 Dex, +2 natural, +1 deflection, +1 Dodge), compared to the fire giants +15/+10/+5 (3d6+25) and AC 23. So the giant deals an extra 1d6+1 damage per attack and gets one extra attack and reach but the fighter has a better AC. One on one the fighter doesn't stack up, but with a party backing him up the giant will not kill him first. If the fighter takes Mobility and Spring Attack he is about "balanced".
Mobility and Spring Attack are a couple of those feats that don't help. They're not an advantage, and render the Fighter less effective than just standing there doing full attacks. And you speak of the extra attack and reach dismissively, yet it's a huge deal when you're not applying way too much Power Attack (and the use of Power Attack for the fire giant actually reduces damage dramatically in this case). There are also all those extra hit points. The fire giant's liable to have nearly double the Fighter's hit points, and can still take out the Fighter in two or three rounds on average to the Fighter's requisite six. The Fighter still loses in a big way.
I never said it was irrelevant, I said it was flawed, which by your own admission it is unless you know how to apply the findings in a useful way. Too often I find people conduct a mathematical test to prove their point, rather than actually test the system. Then they interpret the results to their advantage. I do think there is value in some math, and it does give a general idea of how things fit, but starting and ending with math gives us a program, not a game or a story.
Your basis for declaring it flawed is under the assumption that it's being used as something it isn't. It's evidence. It's perfectly valid evidence. It's being presented as evidence. Not being absolute proof is not a flaw.
By the same token I would argue that a fighter should be built and played to their strengths, and unless they have permanent enlarge person, a greatsword, Power Attack, and heavy armor, they should not be charging fire giants. It would be the equivalent of a wizard using lightning bolt on the same giant.
Except the fire giant is the standard for what they're supposed to be able to charge in and go toe-to-toe against in the first place. The fact that it is a bad idea to charge is the very reason they're underpowered.
|
|
You're assuming the level 10 Barbarian is sufficiently powerful to be a CR 10 creature. It isn't. It has the exact same problem of having no real features, only bigger numbers, though it's not nearly so bad as the Fighter, and is considerably more coherent. The fire giant needs the extra hit die and all the other bonuses just to be a threat, because it doesn't have any additional abilities. Bringing it down results in a creature that ceases to be a level-appropriate threat, which defeats the purpose of a CR 10 monster.
You are making a contradictory argument. One one hand you argue that fighters are too weak because the fighter cannot win a straight up fight against a fire giant. On the other you equate that as a CR 10 creature the fire giant cannot be reduced in power or else it is not a CR 10, so what exactly is the giant doing? Is it killing the fighter alone or does it have other opponents (possibly deadlier than the fighter) to worry about and therefore the fighter is doing his job by going in and fighting it until it dies?
And the Fighter is still pretty much constrained to full attack, charge, sometimes trip, and a laundry list of options that generally can't win. Feats would be nice if they actually helped, but they pale in comparison to legitimate class features. The way feats work, you take the ones that help you most first, and they may build on each other a bit, but before long, each becomes less useful than the last until there are no more feats that let you advance coherently, that help as much as actual class features. Eleven feats in core 3.5 that actually help a level 10 human Fighter? Thirteen in Pathfinder? If you get into the splats, the options open up, but the question of how many of those options are any good? That's another story altogether.
First off the abilities granted by feats are certainly not comparable to class features in 3.5 core. I fully agree, that's why they get so many. And more in Pathfinder, plus new better feats, plus more regular feats, plus actual class features. The point is it's more than the fire giant gets.
Mobility and Spring Attack are a couple of those feats that don't help. They're not an advantage, and render the Fighter less effective than just standing there doing full attacks. And you speak of the extra attack and reach dismissively, yet it's a huge deal when you're not applying way too much Power Attack (and the use of Power Attack for the fire giant actually reduces damage dramatically in this case). There are also all those extra hit points. The fire giant's liable to have nearly double the Fighter's hit points, and can still take out the Fighter in two or three rounds on average to the Fighter's requisite six. The Fighter still loses in a big way.
Spring Attack negates the reach on round one, for the cost of 2 feats (hence why I dismissed the reach ability). Since there are so few useful ones it doesn't hurt to have it over, say, Iron Will. And yes, I'm assuming the fighter has invested in mithral full plate, or has better medium armor than +2.
As for hit points, the fighter likely averages 95 hit points (115 in Pathfinder, and we don't know the fire giant stats yet). A big difference for sure, but again the fighter should have the help of a cleric, rogue, and mage to assist with the kill. Alone, no the fighter doesn't have a good chance to win. Nor should he, as doing so would be a CR much higher than than 4 above his level (DMG says it would be about 14 but things get swingy in low-number partys). The better question is would the fire giant kill one fighter in a party of 4 fighters? Absolutely not unless he gets several lucky hits. The fighters will be pumping out between 2-4 times the damage with a better chance to hit and the advantage of teamwork. This is what I mean by inherently flawed, your math looks at one-on-one rather than 4-on-X which is the balance point.
Your basis for declaring it flawed is under the assumption that it's being used as something it isn't. It's evidence. It's perfectly valid evidence. It's being presented as evidence. Not being absolute proof is not a flaw.
It's evidence that proves a single case and doesn't extrapolate far beyond the parameters of the test. In this specific case, it tells us that a level 10 core fighter has a low chance of surviving a one-on-one fight with a CR 10 fire giant. That doesn't tell us much about the experience of the actual game, except that the same would be true for pretty much any class except perhaps spellcasters.
Except the fire giant is the standard for what they're supposed to be able to charge in and go toe-to-toe against in the first place. The fact that it is a bad idea to charge is the very reason they're underpowered.
Why are they the standard? Because they are a melee monster? Fire giants possess abilities that necessitate tactical decision making and teamwork. A better example would be a clay golem - wizard and rogue do nothing, fighter and cleric go to town.
You are making a contradictory argument. One one hand you argue that fighters are too weak because the fighter cannot win a straight up fight against a fire giant. On the other you equate that as a CR 10 creature the fire giant cannot be reduced in power or else it is not a CR 10, so what exactly is the giant doing? Is it killing the fighter alone or does it have other opponents (possibly deadlier than the fighter) to worry about and therefore the fighter is doing his job by going in and fighting it until it dies?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. The Fighter/Barbarian/Monk/Paladin is indeed underpowered because they aren't powerful enough to stand up against the fire giant, and taking the fire giant down in hit die it would cease to be a CR 10 creature because it fails to challenge everybody else, as well as every other monster. A 7 HD elephant wouldn't challenge a CR 7 character, as it doesn't really have any actual abilities (though trample is quite nice). A drider or a nymph with 7 HD, in comparison, get powerful spellcasting.
And for the purposes of assessing the power of the Fighter, the fire giant and the Fighter are having a duel, CR 10 melee creature to CR 10 melee creature.
First off the abilities granted by feats are certainly not comparable to class features in 3.5 core. I fully agree, that's why they get so many. And more in Pathfinder, plus new better feats, plus more regular feats, plus actual class features. The point is it's more than the fire giant gets.
Getting so many isn't an advantage, though. It's not just that they become less useful as levels advance, it's that they stop being useful at all, and the Fighter stops advancing. You could double, triple, quadruple the Fighter's feat supply, it wouldn't change the fact that the feats aren't helping her anymore.
And Pathfinder nerfs what few good feats existed before, then adds in large numbers of equally useless feats that oftentimes provide options less useful than the traditional fullattackfullattackfullattack, and Fighters still don't get actual class features; +4 AB across twenty levels is not a class feature. It doesn't provide any options that aren't available to a 1 HD kobold, and thus doesn't avoid the same fundamental problem as the original Fighter.
Spring Attack negates the reach on round one, for the cost of 2 feats (hence why I dismissed the reach ability). Since there are so few useful ones it doesn't hurt to have it over, say, Iron Will. And yes, I'm assuming the fighter has invested in mithral full plate, or has better medium armor than +2.
Spring Attack also negates the Fighter's ability to full attack for the same round, meaning it's not an advantage.
As for hit points, the fighter likely averages 95 hit points (115 in Pathfinder, and we don't know the fire giant stats yet). A big difference for sure, but again the fighter should have the help of a cleric, rogue, and mage to assist with the kill. Alone, no the fighter doesn't have a good chance to win. Nor should he, as doing so would be a CR much higher than than 4 above his level (DMG says it would be about 14 but things get swingy in low-number partys). The better question is would the fire giant kill one fighter in a party of 4 fighters? Absolutely not unless he gets several lucky hits. The fighters will be pumping out between 2-4 times the damage with a better chance to hit and the advantage of teamwork. This is what I mean by inherently flawed, your math looks at one-on-one rather than 4-on-X which is the balance point.
The fire giant's dealing 38.25 damage per full attack on average, assuming no critical hits, which is enough to take off 115 damage in three rounds.
And the Fighter should be able to stand a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one fight against the fire giant, as they're both CR 10 melee creatures. If I send a level 10 melee Fighter against the party, it should be just as dangerous as if I sent a fire giant. What's more, a CR 10 creature against the party is only supposed to be 'challenging' in the sense that it takes some actual effort and stands a legitimate chance of hurting you, not that it has any real chance of beating the party. A level 10 encounter against a level 10 party is defined as being about as difficult as everyone dogpiling on the Rogue. For an encounter at CR, "You win," is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You're supposed to be able to take on stuff considerably harder than that. In fact, a party (fully rested and refreshed) is supposed to be able to take on an encounter four levels above their actual level (after the early-level blahs) at the cost of 100% of their daily resources (which translates to a 50/50 chance of a TPK).
It's evidence that proves a single case and doesn't extrapolate far beyond the parameters of the test. In this specific case, it tells us that a level 10 core fighter has a low chance of surviving a one-on-one fight with a CR 10 fire giant. That doesn't tell us much about the experience of the actual game, except that the same would be true for pretty much any class except perhaps spellcasters.
"Spellcasters" defines most classes, ultimately, with the only thing remaining after melee and spellcasters being the Rogue and kinda the archery Ranger (who is technically a spellcaster). However, the Rogue isn't a fair comparison either, as pitting the Rogue in a duel against a fire giant doesn't test the Rogue's strengths; the Rogue isn't primarily a combat character. Though the Rogue probably would still win if she can afford a ring of invisibility at level 10. But pit the Rogue against a CR 10 trap, and that becomes a truly fair assessment, as that's a test that plays to the Rogue's strengths and purpose.
Archery Ranger would probably win, but it wouldn't be fair to the giant, as the Ranger would be kiting on horseback, which doesn't play to the giant's strengths at all, even though he can throw some damaging long-range rocks.
Bard would probably lose, but it's not a fair comparison as the Bard is primarily a support character and many of its best abilities are cut off at the knees without having anyone to support; solo operation does not play to their strengths... and on that note, you can't say the same about a Fighter as, while for Bard, "support others" is a valid party role, "be supported" is not.
The reason the Fighter versus the fire giant is fair is that combat is the only thing Fighters get, and a duel against a fire giant brings their sole strength to bear at the level they're meant to function at.
Why are they the standard? Because they are a melee monster? Fire giants possess abilities that necessitate tactical decision making and teamwork. A better example would be a clay golem - wizard and rogue do nothing, fighter and cleric go to town.
Fire giant is the standard because it is a vanilla melee character without other abilities conflating the matter; both the Fighter and the fire giant can bring their full abilities to bear.
Clay golem is not, because they have very potent abilities contributing to their CR that do not come to bear against the Fighter. Magic immunity (which actually doesn't remove the Wizard from play; there are plenty of SR: No spells out there, and Grease is as good as ever) isn't brought to bear against the Fighter. If you make the very large assumption that the Fighter's primary weapon is an adamantine bludgeoning weapon (which is about as big an assumption as assuming it's also construct bane), the DR goes away. Cursed Wound means little in a duel. All around, Fighter versus clay golem ignores most of the clay golem's most profound abilities, meaning it's not fair to the clay golem, while Fighter versus fire giant brings most of both sides' abilities to bear to their fullest, meaning it is fair.