Optimization for fighters is really more about feat choice then it is about stats - though, don't get me wrong, stats matter a lot.
A fighter who throws his feats around all willy nilly will do very poorly. Fighter ironically takes far more "optimization" then most other "more complex" classes do because of how variable on power feats are. It's hilariously one of the lesser new player friendly classes.
Well Cirno, point is that I never thought fighter as a newb class since 3.0.
IMHO, if you want a newb class, go barbarian. Level 1 power attack, cleave if human, and the rage power choice is delayed to level 2.
The 2 (3 if human) feats of the level 1 fighter could influence dramatically it's future gameplay (even if the fighter can retrain in PF).
Moreover, understand what weapon use, what maneuver are proper for the situation and how combine at best feat effects is far for being trivial.
First, standard point buy is 15, 20 becomes ridiculous and i won't even comment on 25.
Few things to consider, for 20 point optimized build i would lower Dex to 12 or dump wisdom to 11 and just grab Iron Will + trait instead (if you can work it into a story, otherwise forget it) and pump str to 18 base +2 race 20. This would make +12 on falchion damage and +8 to hit instead of +10 and +7 respectively.
Its late now, to search in DPR Olympics for Falchion Fred to see his exact build and rebuild him, but i do know he was made before APG - so furious focus, gloves of dueling and two handed fighter would all boost his DPR for at least 10, optimized Fred or not.
Allowing the sale of "dump stats" for SAD classes to run around
with multiple scores at basically physically and mentally handicap levels
is one change to Pathfinder I DON'T like.
Please note that it isn't a change.
Please note that it isn't a change.
It slightly is -- 3.0/3.5's buy only let you dump a stat down to 8. PF allowing you to drop to 7 and get 2 more points back for it is new and (IMHO) not a great idea.
stuff
Wait, what did that have to do with the post you were replying to?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. The standard deviation for a 3d6 distribution is 3.0, which means that 7.5 is exactly one SD away.
The SD for IQ is estimated at 15 points, so someone one SD below average has an IQ of 85.
Someone with an IQ of 85 is generally considered "dull" or "dim", but borderline retardation is usually put somewhere in the 70s (where we're actually getting near two SDs down). Someone with an IQ of 85 is mentally competant, just not very bright.
So I think you may be punishing the 7 Int fighter more than is proper.
First, standard point buy is 15, 20 becomes ridiculous and i won't even comment on 25.Roll 4d6 drop lowest averages on 21 points, so 15 points is a little bit low, actually.
The math doesn't work out exactly, there are some minor remainders, but 4d6 drop the lowest works out to about 15 or 16, not 21. That's why the standard is 15. If you play with the method any more, then yes you push the average points up, but 15 is mathematically correct. Many, many places on the intarwebs will demonstrate this. This post isn't meant to pick on you, specifically, but I keep seeing posts (lots o' them) that indicate that 4d6 drop the lowest is around 20 points or so. It isn't, it's around 15.
Previously, our friend was doing 59.25 DPR. Fred without any magic items was clocking in at 35.64.
Now let's consider Fred as statted by an unrepentant min-maxer.
The difference between "somewhat optimized" and "well-optimized" is much smaller than the difference between "somewhat optimized" and "not optimized at all".
Unfortunately, I've seen a number of level 10+ melee fighters who would do something like 15 damage per round.
Previously, our friend was doing 59.25 DPR. Fred without any magic items was clocking in at 35.64.
Now let's consider Fred as statted by an unrepentant min-maxer.
The difference between "somewhat optimized" and "well-optimized" is much smaller than the difference between "somewhat optimized" and "not optimized at all".
Unfortunately, I've seen a number of level 10+ melee fighters who would do something like 15 damage per round.
Its not even like the player has to be doing something foolish to pull it off. Something as simple as 'I want to have a guy that fences with a rapier in one hand' is a direct path to that 15 damage per round at level 10. Seriously, I am actually looking at playing that sort of character and it is VERY challenging to make that a worthwhile construct with our without optimization.
The math doesn't work out exactly, there are some minor remainders, but 4d6 drop the lowest works out to about 15 or 16, not 21. That's why the standard is 15. If you play with the method any more, then yes you push the average points up, but 15 is mathematically correct. Many, many places on the intarwebs will demonstrate this. This post isn't meant to pick on you, specifically, but I keep seeing posts (lots o' them) that indicate that 4d6 drop the lowest is around 20 points or so. It isn't, it's around 15.First, standard point buy is 15, 20 becomes ridiculous and i won't even comment on 25.Roll 4d6 drop lowest averages on 21 points, so 15 points is a little bit low, actually.
This has been discussed a lot. The general consensus is that it is between 18 and 21, depending on if you throw out stats considered not valid and how you adjust for stats below 7. 15 is if you roll average on all stats. The probability that you roll average 6 times is rather low. 16s 17s and 18s bring up the average point buy. To find the point buy, multiply the points for any given number by the probability that that number can occur:
roll / probability / points / weight
3 / 0.001 / -16 / -0.016
4 / 0.003 / -12 / -0.036
5 / 0.008 / -9 / -0.072
6 / 0.016 / -6 / -0.096
7 / 0.029 / -4 / -0.116
8 / 0.048 / -2 / -0.096
9 / 0.07 / -1 / -0.07
10 / 0.094 / 0 / 0
11 / 0.114 / 1 / 0.114
12 / 0.129 / 2 / 0.258
13 / 0.133 / 3 / 0.399
14 / 0.123 / 5 / 0.615
15 / 0.101 / 7 / 0.707
16 / 0.073 / 10 / 0.73
17 / 0.042 / 13 / 0.546
18 / 0.016 / 17 / 0.272
total of the weight = 3.139, multiply by 6 for total stats: 18.834
You can do more math to eliminate sets that are not valid because the don't have a total ability modifier that is positive, which will raise the number.
|
The difference is, strictly... 8 points. The GM says he takes a personal wrath to anyone who has negative stats, but that's not an in-game reason (I have similar sentiments, but I solve it by giving 5 extra points and disallowing dump stats).
So say the guy brings in Int and Chr up to 10, lowering Wus. and Str a bit. What did this gain him? The Int gave him 1 skill point, which fighters rarely care about (most cross-class the one they have for perception). Cha gives him... Literally nothing. Even with 10 he's not an effective party face, and Cha doesn't feed into any derived bonuses.
So given that +1 +1 to his primary role (or more often, +1 / +2, as he'll be either two-weaponing or two-handing), +1 hp / level and +1 will save / 1 to perception vs 1 skill point, I'd say off hand dumping is the way to go.
Again, given the impartial GM.
Now beyond that yes, PF did change the paradigm by charging more for a 14, 16 and 18 in a stat. I can believe that they believed that they were encouraging a more spread out set of stats while they didn't fully take into account the difference between SAD and MAD classes.
+1
|
|
Pathfinder does help MADs a bit; both by making 18s stupidly expensive and letting them dump what few stats they can. Trying to take a prejudice stance against 7s only helps the SADders gain even more of a lead; they don't need the extra precious points nearly as much.
So you're making the powerful more powerful by saying "take a dump stat and I'll be mean to you.". In essence you make the monk EVEN WORSE.
|
While this thread is generally accurate that optimization makes a decent difference, it's only accounting for one part of optimization. People overreacting to -2s vs 0s on a system where your skills improve by several RNGs over the course of the game aside the real point here is that a truly optimized melee character would make 'Falchion Fred' look like a tool.
So the answer to 'Just how much of a difference does being optimized make for a Fighter anyways?' is that the optimized character is at least three times better, if not more than that. As in about 200 damage a round, maybe higher. An only somewhat optimized build would do less than 200, but still more than 65 or so.
However it is also worth mentioning that the tools that do let you make genuinely effective melee characters do not exist in PF, and as such the guy doing 15 less damage per round than the bare minimum baseline for competence is about the best you can do. Which is half the reason why PF is called Caster Edition. They nerfed everyone else hard.
See, I just don't get this. In EVERY game my group has run or played in, the casters dink and plink away for maybe max 30 damage (and we are talking 10d6 fireball/lightningbolt) while even the lvl 5 fighters are doing way way WAY more damage consistently. Just the other night, lvl 11 characters, 5 players, 5 enemies, the fighter per capita blew the rest of us away. Granted, after dropping 2 selective fireballs, the flame oracle killed 3 guys to the fighters 2, but still. The fighter killed 2 bad guys by herself, while the oracle had to use the help of the bard, the inquisitor and the cleric to dispose of the 3 he killed.
Last night in PFS, the barbarian did WAY more damage than the sorceror. As a bone oracle, I did way more too, between me and the zombie I owned.
In every game that I have played in so far, melee consistently out damages and out performs casters, except for sheer versatility.
See, I just don't get this. In EVERY game my group has run or played in, the casters dink and plink away for maybe max 30 damage (and we are talking 10d6 fireball/lightningbolt) while even the lvl 5 fighters are doing way way WAY more damage consistently.
Essentially, your casters are doing it wrong. (For values of wrong such that wrong = not tactically smartest, not wrong = not fun).
About the best thing you can do as a caster player to try to improve your game is to avoid spells that deal or heal damage like the plague. There are some uses for these spells, but it's too easy to use them as a crutch and never get better unless you force yourself to make a clean break of it. Playing a specialist wizard that picks evocation as a barred school isn't a bad way to start.
|
|
Haste does far more damage; it even makes the front line's primaries do more (+1 to hit). Yes the line looks like heroes, but make no mistake, the spell does the damage.
Spells like web/black tentacles/ etc similarly "win", in the sense they eliminate damage, even with a save they cut people off.
Wall of stone properly placed can cut off half of the enemies, too. No save, nothing.
I reject the idea that casting "haste" kills an enemy, in much the same way that I reject the idea that full casters are more uber than melee.
Haste does not kill the enemy, but it does make them die faster. Haste is the ketchup to the french fry. It is not the meal itself, but it makes the meal better.
|
|
Oh, I understand perfectly what EWHM, Wraithstrike, and Thalin are saying. I have RP'd for years, I am 37, and a vet from even 1e days.
But the dijon mustard/ketchup argument is very apt here.
I contend that the chicken breast sammich/french fries are what kill the hunger, not the ketchup/mustard.
Granted, with ENOUGH mustard, you could kill just about anything.
Its the DD spells that do damage, and not the buff. Buffing spells simply add to the potential damage that can be created.
Damage kills things. Potential MAY kill things.
***EDIT***
And when it comes to damage, I find that melee characters, with static damage mods like STR and +/ weapons and PA feats and other things like that continually out damage the casters.
This is all I have to say about battlefield control VS buffs/debuffs VS direct damage. I suggest you all continue the discussion there as well, since it is off-topic here in a thread about fighter optimization.
Damage kills things. Potential MAY kill things.
***EDIT***
I wrote a more detailed response which the forum ate; I'll attempt to capture the essense of it though I apologize if it's more direct.
To turn your phrase around, damage will eventually kill things, but as long as they retain 1 hp they still can kill PCs; control / status spells remove them as a threat immediately.
Imagine a fight between a level 5 group and a pair of dire lions; compare the effects of casting Slow on both vs. casting Fireball on both. (There's almost no chance that both make the save.) The most likely outcome of the first is that both will fail their saves, and the fight is over -- there's no longer any reasonable chance of a PC being dropped, much less killed.
Does that honestly not seem more powerful to you than dealing damage?
Fighter optimization doesn't stop at abilities, and feats, as it extends into magical equipment, as they are on the opposite side of the spectrum in regards to a wizard, cleric or druid. It is true all classes use magic items, but it is even more important for a fighter.
Oh, I understand perfectly what EWHM, Wraithstrike, and Thalin are saying. I have RP'd for years, I am 37, and a vet from even 1e days.
And when it comes to damage, I find that melee characters, with static damage mods like STR and +/ weapons and PA feats and other things like that continually out damage the casters.
Okay, but if as you say (and you are correct) caster DD spell DPR is abysmal, WHY DO IT? Rather than something that no only contributes, but makes the encounter utterly trivial. Grease, Glitterdust, Web (as long as someone has a bow), Slow, Haste, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles. Those spells win combat, plain and simple. All DD does is tickle.
|
|
Okay, but if as you say (and you are correct) caster DD spell DPR is abysmal, WHY DO IT? Rather than something that no only contributes, but makes the encounter utterly trivial. Grease, Glitterdust, Web (as long as someone has a bow), Slow, Haste, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles. Those spells win combat, plain and simple. All DD does is tickle.Oh, I understand perfectly what EWHM, Wraithstrike, and Thalin are saying. I have RP'd for years, I am 37, and a vet from even 1e days.
And when it comes to damage, I find that melee characters, with static damage mods like STR and +/ weapons and PA feats and other things like that continually out damage the casters.
Right....nobody is arguing that DD spells "tickle" the bad dudes.
What you all seem to forget is the initial statement of "casters are way more OP than melee!" or that "melee is weaker than casting!".
When it comes to sheer damage output, hate to say it, but melee wins, pure and simple.
And its not as if melee doesn't have control options either. Tanglefoot bags, tripping, grappling, bull rushing, sundering, bleed, stunning, dazzling display, and any other variety of ways to make the BBEG kind of suck.
I am addressing the notion that melee somehow is weaker than casting, and I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks that.
My point again, succinctly is thus: On pure damage output, melee wins hands down. Both melee and casting have a variety of ways to control a battlefield/opponent and win combat.
Now, since Ravingdork has asked, I will drop the issue.
The french fries kill the hunger, not the ketchup, yes, but wizards don't have french fries. They have a few spots of nasty greasy batter left over.
Would you rather have that with your french fries, or some ketchup?
|
|
While this thread is generally accurate that optimization makes a decent difference, it's only accounting for one part of optimization. People overreacting to -2s vs 0s on a system where your skills improve by several RNGs over the course of the game aside the real point here is that a truly optimized melee character would make 'Falchion Fred' look like a tool.
So the answer to 'Just how much of a difference does being optimized make for a Fighter anyways?' is that the optimized character is at least three times better, if not more than that. As in about 200 damage a round, maybe higher. An only somewhat optimized build would do less than 200, but still more than 65 or so.
However it is also worth mentioning that the tools that do let you make genuinely effective melee characters do not exist in PF, and as such the guy doing 15 less damage per round than the bare minimum baseline for competence is about the best you can do. Which is half the reason why PF is called Caster Edition. They nerfed everyone else hard.
I agree.
In 3.5 you only need these feats to crush anyone...
Power attack / Power lunge / Leap attack / Combat brute and Shock trooper
that and 10 ft to charge.
The math doesn't work out exactly, there are some minor remainders, but 4d6 drop the lowest works out to about 15 or 16, not 21. That's why the standard is 15. If you play with the method any more, then yes you push the average points up, but 15 is mathematically correct. Many, many places on the intarwebs will demonstrate this. This post isn't meant to pick on you, specifically, but I keep seeing posts (lots o' them) that indicate that 4d6 drop the lowest is around 20 points or so. It isn't, it's around 15.First, standard point buy is 15, 20 becomes ridiculous and i won't even comment on 25.Roll 4d6 drop lowest averages on 21 points, so 15 points is a little bit low, actually.This has been discussed a lot. The general consensus is that it is between 18 and 21, depending on if you throw out stats considered not valid and how you adjust for stats below 7. 15 is if you roll average on all stats. The probability that you roll average 6 times is rather low. 16s 17s and 18s bring up the average point buy. To find the point buy, multiply the points for any given number by the probability that that number can occur:
** spoiler omitted **
You can do more math to eliminate sets that are not valid because the don't have a total ability modifier that is positive, which will raise the number.
Fair enough, and it look good. I don't like the part about eliminating the sets that don't have a positive ability modifier, though. I'm not saying you're wrong, just rolling one set of rolls that can be thrown out does not imply that the next set will be any better. I understand that it does, in fact, push the average up, I just don't like to include it in the math for a particular set of rolls. You have convinced me of the 18 point thing, though, relative to PF point buy. That being said, use of the strict (if not entirely accurate) mathematical average of 15 points is used as the basis for a great many things in the game. I would like to see some of the other threads on the math of this. Eh, no more threadjacking, I'm done here, have fun all.