Only thing I have to say is you win longest thread title ever I think
Only thing I have to say is you win longest thread title ever I think
I was just about to post the same thing.
I'm putting my money on Mr. Fishy.
Begins countdown to admins editing thread title...
Only thing I have to say is you win longest thread title ever I think
I think there was a longer one a while ago (that eventually got edited down, as alluded to by Mairkurion).
Gods above, who would want a longer title? It must have been changed before I saw it.
Begins countdown to admins editing thread title...
Thread title truncated.
Edits titles; removes posts. Got it down, now. ;)
EDIT: title kind of loses its bite, though.
Edits titles; removes posts. Got it down, now. ;)
EDIT: title kind of loses its bite, though.
It's okay, there's got to be some tortoises among the hares... ;P
Actually, Ross was pretty kind in his cut, length-wise.
EDIT: Changed my original post to Ghost of Malthus. More appropriate.
it's still massively long. Just outside the thread looks smaller.
EDIT: Changed my original post to Ghost of Malthus. More appropriate.
I've been meaning to ask - that's based off a Malthusian catastrophe, correct?
The Ghost is based on Malthus upon whose work was based the eponymous theories of Malthusian catastrophe. He's an interesting figure.
Ah. I confess that Malthus hasn't surfaced up much on my usual esoteric fluff readings. I wonder if there's an illustrated intro and/or dummies book out there as a starting point.
Nobody steps on a church in MY town!
????
Ghostbusters. *facepalm* Didn't get the connection right off the back.
Umm, OP guy.
Humans get an extra skill point at first level and an extra feat.
Half-elves get skill focus (free)and two favored classes for an extra point every level.
Just a think.
Half orcs are scary so that's a bonus...right.
Mr. Fishy just got here so he may be a little off base.
Ghostbusters. *facepalm* Didn't get the connection right off the back.
Hehe. I didn't catch the thread title before it was truncated. I assumed it was a Ghostbusters reference. :D
the other races may be nickle and dimed, but the human's bonus feat is fairly big. 1/2 elf if the optimal multiclassing race. human is better for rogues, as rogues lack feats, 1/2 orc for fighters. as fighters get plenty of feats, but that darkvision is sweet. i beleive redescription is fine as long as it can be justified in some way. that has minimal impact on mechnaics.
The responses started off sounding like an off-topic thread. I was hoping it would stay that way. What is this thread for anyway?
and see if one class was mechanically superior to the other. race is really extraneous to the issue since both can benefit from it.
P2: This question was answered eons ago.
P1: Why do these threads keep coming up?P2: Because someone does not beleive in the wisdom of various posters, so it must be proven again.
P1: Maybe we should start making an FAQ and/or a series of links to threads that have proof of certain things so we can get some new blood in here.
P2: Maybe, but that is a lot of work, and if we ran out of things to talk about the off-topic discussion would rule the website.
P1: What is so bad about off-topic discussions?
P2: Why do you ask so many questions?
P1: I only asked too, stop being so cranky.
P2: Anyway we need to find out how to measure the power of a class.
P1: That has come up in other threads.
P2: ...but the OP has not seen it, and this thread can be the first link thread in a line of many to come.
P1: So you are saying this thread can serve the purpose of stopping posters like Zurai, MiB, and VV from answering the same things over and over again.
P2: You can't just leave people out.
P1: Fine. You other posters that did not get mentioned are also great assets. As another example, Treantmonk.
P2: You can leave nonpeople out either.
P1: Fine, Sebastion, the poodle, and Mr.Fishy. I don't always agree with the Fish guy, but he is the most entertaining poster to disagree with.
P2: Are we still on topic?
P1:Close enough. Anyway we will see how this turns out. <sits back and decides to watch the show>, <throws a cold one to P2>
sigh. thanks for helping by like, i dunno, posting a link to the pathfinder threads where this has been answered.and see if one class was mechanically superior to the other. race is really extraneous to the issue since both can benefit from it.P2: This question was answered eons ago.
...snip...
I was just having fun, and waiting for the other posters to start pouring in. :)
On a more serious note most of the answers are on the now destroyed WoTC boards, so we may have to start over.
On a more serious note most of the answers are on the now destroyed WoTC boards, so we may have to start over.
WotC Boards self-destructed?
WotC Boards self-destructed?
On a more serious note most of the answers are on the now destroyed WoTC boards, so we may have to start over.
More like changed into a completely different format, and who knows what they did with the archives of Gleemax and the board before that.
More like changed into a completely different format, and who knows what they did with the archives of Gleemax and the board before that.WotC Boards self-destructed?
On a more serious note most of the answers are on the now destroyed WoTC boards, so we may have to start over.
This is what I was referring to. I went back to some old threads, or at least I tried to, but many of them are gone. :(
It's a lot easier to copy, and repost an old reply than it is to argue the same points over and over again.
well, we would need to start over anyway i think, because the fighter is quite different now. and just so you know, AMIB was one of the ones claiming fighters can't do much out of combat in that thread, so i figured this idea could use a debunking. 3.5 fighters really were just horrible, and while they're no spellcasters or anything now, they aren't a bad chassis to hang a character concept on.sigh. thanks for helping by like, i dunno, posting a link to the pathfinder threads where this has been answered.and see if one class was mechanically superior to the other. race is really extraneous to the issue since both can benefit from it.P2: This question was answered eons ago.
...snip...I was just having fun, and waiting for the other posters to start pouring in. :)
On a more serious note most of the answers are on the now destroyed WoTC boards, so we may have to start over.
The new skill system helps, but with only two skills they are still below average most of the time in a non class skill unless you take skill focus, which is probably unlikely.
I don't think its impossible to make a fighter that can do things outside of combat, but its not the norm*, and it may not be efficient to do so.
*The class was just not made to be useful outside of combat. If you spend your feats on noncombat issues it will have a noticeable impact on your ability to fight.
if you want skill based utility, play a rogue already!
if you want to dominate combat, and don't care about skills, there are 2 options, play a fighter with a greatsword (or falchion) or play a summoner with a kraken eidolon that has an unbuffed strength score in the low 70's (a +30 something modifier), huge size, an unbuffed con score in the mid 30's (Mods in the teens) and an infinitely huge amount of tentacle attacks.
I'm pretty sure the players of most Fighters don't really give a s+*! if they don't have a lot of built-in out-of-the-box utility. Let some other jagoff worry about it.
really? then why is there a thread about fighters being useless out of combat if players of fighters don't care?
It's the internet. There's always someone.
well the sucktastic 2 skills a level are not just a fighter issue. But he is the one that suffers more for it.
FWIW, I think the OP has it correct. Fighters can do what most others can, they just need to invest in that. That investment may take a toll over time, but you get more utility out of the character.
Kind of like, say, a RANGER, or a BARBARIAN? It bugs me that nobody says Rangers are really weak (some do say that of barbs), yet the Fighter in our RotRL game is an elf FIGHTER that is quite nearly indistinguishable from a ranger. I even joked he should take a raven familiar when he takes the wizard level (AA, of course) so people will actually MISTAKE him for a ranger. That is, till he fireballs.
Really, I see a lot more Rangers are weak than I see Bards are weak. Personally, I think they are the weakest and least useful of the melee combatants, but it still doesn't prevent me from playing one now. I loves me my skill points.
As a note, the fighter loses some combat utility when he focuses on OOC utility, but I don't think he loses much on his beat down potential.
2WF rangers were only made because of Drizz't. (did i get the spelling right) archery is the superior option but still suboptimal. but ask treantmonk about some build he calls the switch hitter. strength primary, wields a compisite bow as a secondary weapon (with archery combat style) main weapon is a falchion, feats from levels focused on making falchion better, such as getting that 15-20 crit chance and power attack. you want to hit hard with that darn falchion. so power attack, and 15-20 crit will increase your dpr, and you only need one weapon, maybe a spiked guantlet for dealing with grapple. i know greatsword is more common, but falchion if you don't care about the 25 gold piece difference is much better. and most magic items are bought at "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" anyway. multiclassing fighter works wonders. a falchion is a fighter's best friend too.
treantmonks reccomendation; Greatsword, more common
mine; Falchion, better crit, price difference becomes negligible early on, better total dpr, especially under keen or other crit doubling effects.
most equipment is bought at "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" or "Mage Mart" or "The Magic Market" which has everything in the allowed books up to city GP limits. local gp limit not sufficient? get the party wizard to teleport you to a richer city with a higher gp limit.
2WF rangers were only made because of Drizz't.Point of fact: Rangers were TWF'ers well before Drizz't. IIRC, rangers for 2nd Ed were the only class allowed to dual-wield longswords with no additional penalty.
i guess i didn't know better, sorry, but Drizz't seems to be one of the bigger reasons they kept the 2WF rangers. a trap option that rogues do better. (with shortswords or daggers + sneak attack) rangers make better archers, and better switch hitters, but fighters are better combat monsters than either. especially if they focus in the +5 falchion, Power attack, 30 str, greater wpn specializtion tree, improved critcal (falchion) weapon training (+5 heavy blades), melee mastery (slashing) (PH2) and slashing flurry (PH2)
attacks (w/ power attack) +30/+30/+25/+20/+15 Damage 2d4 + 49, crit 15-20x2 (30% chance)average of 54 per swing.
enchant price, 50,000 gold pieces
falchion 375 gold pieces
feats used; 8
fighter levels required; 20.
and this is a relatively easy fighter build to pull off.
...fighters are better combat monsters than either. especially if they focus in the +5 falchion, Power attack, 30 str, greater wpn specializtion tree, improved critcal (falchion) weapon training (+5 heavy blades), melee mastery (slashing) (PH2) and slashing flurry (PH2)
attacks (w/ power attack) +30/+30/+25/+20/+15 Damage 2d4 + 49, crit 15-20x2 (30% chance)average of 54 per swing.
enchant price, 50,000 gold pieces
falchion 375 gold pieces
feats used; 8
fighter levels required; 20.
and this is a relatively easy fighter build to pull off.
Unless of course you can't use v3.5 stuff.
Which some of use tend to disallow, even in 3.5 or allow in a limited way
the only 3.5 material i threw in there was slashing flurry and melee mastery (slashing)
without those 2 it becomes +31/+26+21+16 2d4+47 damage 15-20x2 crit range. but those 2 feats were from one of the few 3.5 books that almost everyone i knew (even online) allowed. the PHB2, deemed the most balanced single splatbook. the complete series was mostly, balanced, redundant or overpowered leaning towards the latter 2. any "Cheese" came from design flaws of certain base classes.
the big design flaw was the shortcoming of most casters. this shortcoming came in the form of no worthwhile features, which gave no justification to stay in the same class. the key was to find prcs that lost not even a caster level. as most of the minor losses from not sticking with the base could be mitigated, or even negated, familiars were optional, even swappable for a variety of things, turn undead was so useless that all it was good for was feat fuel, wizard bonus feats weren't as good as most class features a prc could provide. and the multiclassing system demands hybrid prcs. the only way, gishes, arcane rogues, hybrid casters and the like could even function at the bare minimum.
P1: Fine, Sebastion, the poodle, and Mr.Fishy. I don't always agree with the Fish guy, but he is the most entertaining poster to disagree with.
Um... thank you for that compliment, maybe. If you disagree with the Fishy feel free to argue your point Mr. Fishy enjoys bickering. If you have a valid point Mr. Fishy may concede and see the world your way for a while. Mr. Fishy is a never wrong. Because he's willing to actual think about your arguement instead of just stone walling your point. Some times Mr. Fishy misses one and needs to be called on it. please feel free to call a fishy out, Because Mr. Fishy isn't likely to hold back on you.
So anyway, thank you for the backhanded compliment.