|
If you cannot take a move action before readying a standard action, then you could never do this:
"I move 10 feet up to the door, and ready an action to close it when Joe comes through."
Or this:
"I draw my bow and aim it at the caster. If I see any signs of him casting a spell, I shoot him."
That makes no sense.
As a DM, I would rule you can't do the first one (but if you were within 5 feet you could, and if he comes in next round rather than in the current round you could) and you can do the second one as you are drawing your bow as part of the action.
If you are allowed to move and then ready an action, you can do the charge thing described above and negate difficult terrain or an obstacle.
Yet another way Slow isn't SoD.
You'll notice that in all my discussions of Slow, I accounted for creating difficult terrain if you didn't already have sufficient stuff to dodge around to negate charge as an option. I wasn't doing it just for my health, you know. :)
Stone Call in the APG is great for this and works "well enough" even as a wand.
Oh, and yes, that form of charge is clearly meant for stuff like zombies or slowed creatures. RAW, I don't see it applying to readied actions. You weren't limited to only a standard action on your turn, any more than a character can move first and say "well, I only have a standard left, so I can charge!".
Amazing ... it's pointed out that the rules do in fact allow for intercepting a charging creature, and everybody is up in arms about it despite the fact that doing so would make the melee classes more effective, which they were complaining melee characters were not a moment before.
I don't object to it on the grounds that it would make melee characters more effective; I object to it on the grounds that I don't believe the rules, as written, allow it.
Granted, I still very much have an organized play mindset, and the golden rule of character generation for organized play is: you never make a character that has to count on the least bit of ambiguous or "it clearly should work this way, even if it doesn't say that" rules calls in your favor, because you'll be playing that character with dozens of different GMs.
And it continues to be overlooked that the creature is losing it's full round attack if it moves before it attacks. With most melee creatures, this is a huge difference.
Addressed with examples =/= "overlooked." The creature is not "losing it is full round attack" if it has pounce, for example. Improved grab is another common ability; with constrict, you have a wizard who's having a hard time casting. I also mentioned Flyby Attack, giving the monster an attack and a getaway -- espcially if it simply angles the approach to avoid the fighter's threatened area.
And one of the main things I see at higher levels, when this discussion matters the most, are monsters at-will greater teleport self. Any bodyguard without a dimensional anchor aura, as I pointed out earlier, has a limited shelf-life of usefulness.
Amazing ... it's pointed out that the rules do in fact allow for intercepting a charging creature, and everybody is up in arms about it despite the fact that doing so would make the melee classes more effective, which they were complaining melee characters were not a moment before.
I don't object to it on the grounds that it would make melee characters more effective; I object to it on the grounds that I don't believe the rules, as written, allow it.
Granted, I still very much have an organized play mindset, and the golden rule of character generation for organized play is: you never make a character that has to count on the least bit of ambiguous or "it clearly should work this way, even if it doesn't say that" rules calls in your favor, because you'll be playing that character with dozens of different GMs.
I see your point, but I honestly think the RAW will allow you to do this with Delayed initiative or prepared actions, it's one of those common sense things that it doesn't need to be stated because it's obvious.
And it continues to be overlooked that the creature is losing it's full round attack if it moves before it attacks. With most melee creatures, this is a huge difference.Addressed with examples =/= "overlooked." The creature is not "losing it is full round attack" if it has pounce, for example. Improved grab is another common ability; with constrict, you have a wizard who's having a hard time casting. I also mentioned Flyby Attack, giving the monster an attack and a getaway -- espcially if it simply angles the approach to avoid the fighter's threatened area.
This is where the interception comes in though, the fighter delays acting until the monster commits, then gets in the way. Getting in the way stops pounce (except against the person getting in the way rather than the person intended) because pounce only works on a charge and a charge has to be a straight line, and it forces the Flyby Attack to trade one attack for two.
This is where the interception comes in though, the fighter delays acting until the monster commits, then gets in the way. Getting in the way stops pounce (except against the person getting in the way rather than the person intended) because pounce only works on a charge and a charge has to be a...
Yes; your previous replies were cogent. I repeated the initial points in response to ciretose's bald assertion that you and I had never had that conversation. I should have quoted the whole thing for him, but he'd likely still miss it.
I'm still concerned about the teleport self at will, though, which frankly has always been more of a problem for me than chargers. A missile attack that carried a temporary dimensional anchor effect would be a handy fighter feat --
"Anchoring Shot (Ex): Your missile attacks strike enemies so hard they're left reeling and unable to teleport for 1 round," for the benefit of all the people about to scream "NOOOO! That's magic! Fighters can't have magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Readying a charge is on-topic in this thread.
|
|
And it continues to be overlooked that the creature is losing it's full round attack if it moves before it attacks. With most melee creatures, this is a huge difference.Addressed with examples =/= "overlooked." The creature is not "losing it is full round attack" if it has pounce, for example. Improved grab is another common ability; with constrict, you have a wizard who's having a hard time casting. I also mentioned Flyby Attack, giving the monster an attack and a getaway -- espcially if it simply angles the approach to avoid the fighter's threatened area.
And one of the main things I see at higher levels, when this discussion matters the most, are monsters at-will greater teleport self. Any bodyguard without a dimensional anchor aura, as I pointed out earlier, has a limited shelf-life of usefulness.
Pounce:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Pounce-Ex- Only works on a charge, so if you (or anything else) are between them it doesn't work.
- Only 12 things in the bestiary have this. Of these 2 are dire variants of a base class that has it and one is a variant lizard.
Flyby:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-feats#TOC-Flyby -Attack
- Is a single attack, functionally a flying spring attack.
- Can generally be countered with a readied action.
Teleportation is negated by a feat
by http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combat
Improved Grab:
- Works both ways since most combat maneuvers can be used in AoO
- And is something casters are far more vulnerable to than Melee.
|
|
How is a flier angling it's approach to avoid a fighter's threatened area unless it has reach? I know the rules don't exactly come out and say it, but I've always ruled that the 'threatened area' to extend up an equal amount.And it continues to be overlooked that the creature is losing it's full round attack if it moves before it attacks. With most melee creatures, this is a huge difference.Addressed with examples =/= "overlooked." The creature is not "losing it is full round attack" if it has pounce, for example. Improved grab is another common ability; with constrict, you have a wizard who's having a hard time casting. I also mentioned Flyby Attack, giving the monster an attack and a getaway -- espcially if it simply angles the approach to avoid the fighter's threatened area.
Flyby works like spring attack. But as I said above, it's still only a single attack.
|
|
Right. My bad. I saw the phrase "avoid the fighter's threatened area" and forgot all about Flyby Attack in the paragraph lol.Flyby works like spring attack. But as I said above, it's still only a single attack.How is a flier angling it's approach to avoid a fighter's threatened area unless it has reach? I know the rules don't exactly come out and say it, but I've always ruled that the 'threatened area' to extend up an equal amount.And it continues to be overlooked that the creature is losing it's full round attack if it moves before it attacks. With most melee creatures, this is a huge difference.Addressed with examples =/= "overlooked." The creature is not "losing it is full round attack" if it has pounce, for example. Improved grab is another common ability; with constrict, you have a wizard who's having a hard time casting. I also mentioned Flyby Attack, giving the monster an attack and a getaway -- espcially if it simply angles the approach to avoid the fighter's threatened area.
No worries.
|
|
I come from the philosophy of a party should be tailored for campaigning.
The goal of a good party is to be able to handle anything that could reasonably happen.
If your DM has to tailor the game to your party, (aside from reasonable CR expectations) then your group hasn't built a very effective party.
As a DM if I think your party is poorly composed, I'll generally comment during the set up phase. But if you go in without any way to heal or with no party spokesman, etc...the game will play out as it plays out.
I tend to just try to follow logically what would occur based on party actions, within the framework of the big picture story. If you start catering to the party instead of the story, you serve neither.
As usual, ciretose is... wait, what? Nevermind, that actually makes sense.
+1.
Thank you.
Improved Grab:
- Works both ways since most combat maneuvers can be used in AoO
- And is something casters are far more vulnerable to than Melee.
I kind of agree with you, but also consider:
- There is a feat to get CMD based on level instead of BAB; in campaigns with lots of grapply opponents I think you'd be a little crazy not to take it, even if your subpar STR/DEX still do make your value lower
- There are some awfully useful spells here, depending on level (including Grease... yet another use for the MacGyver of Level 1 arcane spells)
and
- While a melee character is going to be a lot better at breaking a grapple if you go that route, overall, I think having to make the Concentration check to cast in a grapple is a less painful situation than many melee characters find themselves in -- you can attack with a one-handed light weapon at a penalty instead of trying to break the grapple, but let's be honest: that's not the kind of weapon most of the melee characters we have to build will be wielding when they're grabbed.
There's one grapple-happy PC in a game I'm running and while castery stuff struggles a bit with him, it's anything using a bigger weapon that seems to really take it in the junk, when you look at what their actual options are and what they manage to accomplish round by round.
The GM shouldn't customize encounters to screw the players, but if the game is boring because things are too easy, it is his job to increase the challenge somehow. A campaign needs maintenance.
This is where the interception comes in though, the fighter delays acting until the monster commits, then gets in the way. Getting in the way stops pounce (except against the person getting in the way rather than the person intended) because pounce only works on a charge and a charge has to be a...Yes; your previous replies were cogent. I repeated the initial points in response to ciretose's bald assertion that you and I had never had that conversation.
This is good. It seems we have demonstrated that a combat character can, if played intelligently, intercept incoming attackers using the existing RAW.
I'm still concerned about the teleport self at will, though, which frankly has always been more of a problem for me than chargers. A missile attack that carried a temporary dimensional anchor effect would be a handy fighter feat --
Only quickened teleport would be. Any other kind would be teleport in as standard action, and wait until everyone had beaten the sh1t out of you before you can actually do anything else. That said, if you can teleport as a move action then the Wizards vs The Balor becomes a case of the Balor teleporting into the wizards and Great Cleave with the Imrpoved Critical vorpal blade. In four full attack bonus attacks with Improved Crit or keen you are bound to get at least one confirmed ...
"Anchoring Shot (Ex): Your missile attacks strike enemies so hard they're left reeling and unable to teleport for 1 round," for the benefit of all the people about to scream "NOOOO! That's magic! Fighters can't have magic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Why? Blinding Critical, Stunning Critical, Disruptive, Stunning Fist, Disrupting Shot, Stunning Assault, Teleport Tactician ... plenty of toys already to mess up casters and teleport SLAs.
Teleportation is negated by a feat
Yes. But let's look at the feats that our fighters are assumed to have, per this thread:
That's already eight feats we're assuming, off the top of my head, and Dabbler just rattled off six more, many of which have their own additional prerequisites. Yeah, fighters get a lot of feats, but here's the thing:
Remember "The wizard is only good if he has the right spells prepared?" Remember all the screaming about people assuming the wizard would have the right spell? Many of those same people are now assuming the fighter always has all the right feats. And the fighter has (a) no access to divination spells, to help in planning which feats he'll need coming up; and (b) no way to swap out his feats, even if he did know.
I'm trying to show that attempts to establish the fighter as viable, using the same tactics as were used in trying to establish caster supremacy, are on even weaker ground, because the fighter lacks all of the tools the wizard has in order to make the base assumption more likely to hold true.
|
|
Teleportation is negated by a featYes. But let's look at the feats that our fighters are assumed to have, per this thread:
Iron Will (more or less a feat tax for all fighters)
Combat Reflexes (to address > 1 attacker, and prereq for SS)
Stand Still (with a very poor success rate, since relies on CMB roll)
Following Step (prerequisite for SU&S)
Step Up and Strike
Vital Strike
Improved Vital Strike
Greater Vital Strike
etc. That's already eight feats we're assuming, off the top of my head, and Dabbler just rattled off six more, many of which have their own additional prerequisites. Yeah, fighters get a lot of feats, but here's the thing:
Remember "The wizard is only good if he has the right spells prepared?" Remember all the screaming about people assuming the wizard would have the right spell? Many of those same people are now assuming the fighter always has all the right feats. And the fighter has (a) no access to divination spells, to help in planning which feats he'll need coming up; and (b) no way to swap out his feats, even if he did know.
I'm not trying to be snarky in pointing this out. I'm trying to show that attempts to establish the fighter as viable, using the same tactics as used in trying to establish caster supremacy, is on even weaker ground because the fighter lacks all of the tools the wizard has in order to make that assumption more likely to hold true.
Fighters have 8 feats by 7th level. By 6th level if they are human.
Look at the build I posted on the google docs. I got to that level of damage and didn't even fill half the feat slots. You can plug the above in to the fighter builds I posted without losing anything.
As far as other Melee classes, a lot of the feats are also barbarian rage powers. Hell, even monks and rogues bonus feats or talents above and beyond the one they get every other level.
Feats are much, much cheaper in pathfinder. No a fighter/barbarian can't do everything, but they have more feats than levels in PF.
Spells you have to have memorized that day, at the time you need them, and are expended after they are used. Feats you always have available, anytime you need them.
Back to my main point, which is that Casters can be the most powerful people on the board, if they have the right spells memorized and available for the situation that confronts them.
I'm not trying to be snarky either, but I've seen well build Melee characters who were not just keeping up with the party into the high teens, but central to it.
If you take a bunch of silly feats that don't work with your concept, sure you can suck. But if you memorize a bunch of non-complementary spells you'll suck too.
It's harder with Fighters because you can't change day to day and you have to plan ahead with your feat choices. But the same goes for sorcerers .
I agree with pretty much this whole post; it really is too hard to overstate the sheer power of being able to swap out a big chunk of your abilities day by day. This is why it's usually agreed that the prepared casters are a bit stronger than the spontaneous casters, despite the latter's advantages in other areas. (And if you don't agree, can we take it to another thread?)
But I wanted to comment on this in specific:
That's already eight feats we're assuming, off the top of my head, and Dabbler just rattled off six more, many of which have their own additional prerequisites. Yeah, fighters get a lot of feats, but here's the thing:
Feat costs do add up, and I've frequently been struck with the thought that while Pathfinder has added a lot of great options for a fighter who wants to build to be a pain in the ass of casters, the problem is that the opportunity cost of it mostly is just too high. It's fine to build an NPC villain fighter bodyguard who won't live to see a second encounter who goes all-in with the 'screw with casters' strategy, but you can't really do that with a PC fighter. It's just too important to be good in other ways and too hard to do both well enough.
I love most of the feats discussed here. I would love to play a fighter who goes crazy picking from this list -- but I'm pretty sure that both the other players and I would be frustrated as non-caster encounters come up and I'm not even really good at fighting (by PF Fighter standards, to ward off a tangent).
Edited to add: I do know that feats are more plentiful in PF, but my experience so far is that the fighters in my games never have a hard time picking a feat that adds pretty well to their central attack mode or concept. They're plentiful, but they're not THAT plentiful.
The GM shouldn't customize encounters to screw the players, but if the game is boring because things are too easy, it is his job to increase the challenge somehow. A campaign needs maintenance.
I think this is a great trueism that often gets neglected in discussions of balance. Optimized characters deserve optimized opponents. Unlike in a video game where you can figure out some AI weakness and exploit it, there is a thinking person who should be creative in coming up with challenges. One trick ponies might shine for a few encounters, but they will be useless in others.
Quote
"...I'm trying to show that attempts to establish the fighter as viable..."
I really don't see why a fighter needs to do all these things to be viable. Casters don't need constant protection, so why must fighters be able to prevent opponents from getting to the caster to be viable?
Except in Casterland, where nothing but high DC SoS is viable.
I really don't see why a fighter needs to do all these things to be viable. Casters don't need constant protection, so why must fighters be able to prevent opponents from getting to the caster to be viable?
This whole rathole of a side-discussion is around the idea that one of the reasons you really need fighters is to meat-shield for squishier targets, itself a rebuttal to the argument that since fighters don't neutralize opponents fast enough they're useless.
There's only 1500 posts, do try to keep up. :)
I really don't see why a fighter needs to do all these things to be viable. Casters don't need constant protection, so why must fighters be able to prevent opponents from getting to the caster to be viable?
This whole rathole of a side-discussion is around the idea that one of the reasons you really need fighters is to meat-shield for squishier targets, itself a rebuttal to the argument that since fighters don't neutralize opponents fast enough they're useless.
There's only 1500 posts, do try to keep up. :)
2 things:
1) I want to highlight the difference between adjusting the game to keep things fun and building around the PCs.I think building challengesfor specific PCs is tasteless. But I also think that player competence needs to be accounted for in CR, and creating balanced, exciting encounters is the GM's job. Yes, it taints the analysis to some extent, but the system's only stated goal is to be able to create encounters that are remotely balanced against cooperative parties, and mixed classes are presumed.
2) I take issue with the idea that Martial characters are meant to tank at all. I just never see it in play. Martial characters are there to deal direct damage, and the ones I have seen are very good at that. Some people are claiming that dealing direct damage is not glorious. That's fine, they shouldn't play martial characters. I beg to differ. I think that even if the wizard is in back making your job easier, direct damage is an incredibly fun style of play. That is a statement of opinion, so please, don't waste your breath contradicting it.
|
|
I really don't see why a fighter needs to do all these things to be viable. Casters don't need constant protection, so why must fighters be able to prevent opponents from getting to the caster to be viable?
This whole rathole of a side-discussion is around the idea that one of the reasons you really need fighters is to meat-shield for squishier targets, itself a rebuttal to the argument that since fighters don't neutralize opponents fast enough they're useless.
There's only 1500 posts, do try to keep up. :)
This is the War and Peace of threads :)
|
Sometimes martial characters would like to defend a target vs. a horde - that is also a very iconic fantasy image, say a Pally protecting a weaker innocent or wounded comrade. If you are on the run or falling back to a defensive position you have to be able to play a defensive role instead of being out there chopping the enemy to pieces.
sidetrack-
This is an observation somewhat related to AoO and a different game put out by Wotc.
In the Axis & Allies mini game they have a function similar to AoOs, it's called Defensive fire. So lets say you have a an enemy tank try to rush by your tank (an actual tank - a Panzer IV not a guy in armor) during the movement phase. The tank that is being rushed past gets an attack - any successful attack means the moving tank is disrupted an ends its move immediately.
I find it ironic that they got a function of AoOs in a tank game right but forgot to give something similar to defenders as a default ability in D&D.
Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.
Sorry for the sidetrack
|
|
But it's a good side-track. Thanks for the idea. Consider it stolen.
Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.
Sorry for the sidetrack
I'm going to add it in as standard for my game and let Combat Reflexes work the same as it does. Then going to change Stand Still to Improved Stand still (increase to CMD check) as a feat.
|
|
2 things:
1) I want to highlight the difference between adjusting the game to keep things fun and building around the PCs.I think building challenges for specific PCs is tasteless. But I also think that player competence needs to be accounted for in CR, and creating balanced, exciting encounters is the GM's job. Yes, it taints the analysis to some extent, but the system's only stated goal is to be able to create encounters that are remotely balanced against cooperative parties, and mixed classes are presumed.
I have a pretty strong group of players, several who also DM. So they both have good rule knowledge and are willing to dig into the books to self correct if they feel like they aren't contributing to the group in the way they would like.
We generally start from level 1, and everyone kind of grows up together and the characters kind of develop so they work well together and synergies emerge. Some of the builds that work in one group wouldn't work nearly as well in another group.
I think if you cater to the group, they don't evolve as a group. And if a group has a glaring weakness, in my experience they will generally recognize it and address it.
You shouldn't be out to get them, and they shouldn't feel railroaded. I find I am often surprised by the ingenuity of the group if I just don't worry about what they can or can't do and let the chips fall where they may.
2) I take issue with the idea that Martial characters are meant to tank at all. I just never see it in play. Martial characters are there to deal direct damage, and the ones I have seen are very good at that. Some people are claiming that dealing direct damage is not glorious. That's fine, they shouldn't play martial characters. I beg to differ. I think that even if the wizard is in back making your job easier, direct damage is an incredibly fun style of play. That is a statement of opinion, so please, don't waste your breath contradicting it.
I think characters, all characters, should be able to fill roles in a group. If a group needs a tank, someone should fill that role. If a group needs a damage dealer, someone should fill that role. Healer, scout, spokesman...whatever roles are needed for the group to accomplish a goal, someone should be able to fill it.
I think Martial characters can be great tanks. I also think you can have effect combat without tanks, if you choose to employ other strategies.
I can't say why the martial characters you have seen aren't very good at dealing direct damage. I posted a chart showing a single hit doing a large percentage of total hit point damage at equal CR level, even without Vital Strike and while barely optimizing.
I would suggest that perhaps you have seen poorly built damage dealers, but it's hard to say without seeing the builds. A lot of people miss a lot of the ways to improve damage output if they don't dive into the rules or play Martial classes often.
|
|
Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.
Sorry for the sidetrack
Combat reflexes is actually pretty useful in and of itself and, of course it is a prereq for a lot of other useful things.
|
But it's a good side-track. Thanks for the idea. Consider it stolen.
Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.
Sorry for the sidetrack
I'm going to add it in as standard for my game and let Combat Reflexes work the same as it does. Then going to change Stand Still to Improved Stand still (increase to CMD check) as a feat.
This is a combat maneuver, using the standard Pathfinder CMB vs. CMD mechanic. Any time someone moves past an area you can reach, you can attempt to stop that creature in its tracks (its movement ends, and any remaining movement for the round is lost rather than being held as a preemptive action). Checking an opponent is an attack action, made by spending an attack of opportunity or a Preemptive Action (q.v.). Checking provokes an attack of opportunity unless you have the Improved Forcing Maneuvers feat (q.v.).
This maneuver supercedes the “Stand Still” feat in the final Pathfinder rules.
Metagame Note: Tripping an opponent also stops his or her movement; however, checking is often preferrable because (a) if you fail to check your opponent, he or she cannot attempt to trip you in return; (b) checking attempts can be made with any weapon, not just weapons specifically described as allowing it; and (c) with the proper feat (Greater Forcing Maneuvers, q.v.) you can deal damage and also make a Check attempt using the same attack of opportunity or preemptive action.
Yup. I'm thinking about changing the name, though, so as not to confuse the "check" maneuver with a "skill check" or "ability check." Soliciting suggestions... "Halt," maybe?
|
|
Yup. I'm thinking about changing the name, though, so as not to confuse the "check" maneuver with a "skill check" or "ability check." Soliciting suggestions... "Halt," maybe?
Halt was EXACTLY the name I was going to use in my write-up.
Just checking the back of the APG the other day and seeing the list of new maneuvers I was thinking - how come there is no Halt type option?
Good work on the write-up.
Edit: on a sidetrack idea of feats which should be abilities/choices I like to think of Halt along the lines of Weapon Finesse -just something that should be a choice (with restrictions of course) vs. a feat tax.
Why are you going to tax a high dex guy with a feat to use his weapon the way he would be trained to use it. He doesn't get to stack two ability mods so there is no chance of things getting broken, it just seems petty to me.
Yup. I'm thinking about changing the name, though, so as not to confuse the "check" maneuver with a "skill check" or "ability check." Soliciting suggestions... "Halt," maybe?
So, you're changing Stand Still the feat back to the 3.5 format (reflected by the SHield cavaliar) where it requires a Reflex save to overcome, so it is actually effective?
==Aelryinth
Teleportation is negated by a featYes. But let's look at the feats that our fighters are assumed to have, per this thread:
Iron Will (more or less a feat tax for all fighters)
Combat Reflexes (to address > 1 attacker, and prereq for SS)
Stand Still (with a very poor success rate, since relies on CMB roll)
Following Step (prerequisite for SU&S)
Step Up and Strike
Vital Strike
Improved Vital Strike
Greater Vital Strike
etc. That's already eight feats we're assuming, off the top of my head, and Dabbler just rattled off six more, many of which have their own additional prerequisites. Yeah, fighters get a lot of feats, but here's the thing:
Yes but you don't need half of them for the intercept of one single monster - I rattled off a lot of feats to show that the options were there, not because you need them all. What do you need? Do deal out some good damage with a good hit, and if you can afford it Stand Still, and because you need to get the initiative Improved Initiative would help a lot. By the time you need anything to try and counter a teleporting foe you are going to be quite high level with lots more feats to spare.
Remember "The wizard is only good if he has the right spells prepared?" Remember all the screaming about people assuming the wizard would have the right spell? Many of those same people are now assuming the fighter always has all the right feats. And the fighter has (a) no access to divination spells, to help in planning which feats he'll need coming up; and (b) no way to swap out his feats, even if he did know.
The fighter, though, has a straightforward job: get in the way of the beasties if you can, and hit them with your beat-stick regardless. On top of this they can choose an 'extra theme' to follow, be it TWF or archery or mage-bashing with their other feats not used for this basic.
@ Kirth: How about "Intercept"?
|
|
Flyby works like spring attack. But as I said above, it's still only a single attack.Not really, in that it doesn't negate any AOOs and allows for any standard action (such as a spell or breath weapon) rather than a single attack.
All that said, I'm sorry it depends on the people you have in your group whether you are going to form an opinion on a given class and role.
If I judged what's considered here a powerful class (the Druid) by a great number of players I've seen playing them (cause they liked having a pet with them) I would say that druids were a WEAK and FLUFF based class. Now is this the case? Certainly not, but I've seen many that have made them thusly over the years.
One thing that playing in a slew of regions during Living Greyhawk's day taught me is that different areas have different paradigms for 'optimal' play.
I recall one region where the most offensive spell the wizard cast during a module was 'greater dimension door' which he proceeded to take the party blenders from one monster to another letting them obliterate them with full attacks immediately after they showed up. The wizard burned one 5th level spell, there was no save or SR involved, and then the poor things started exploding from damage.
-James
I used to do this with abundant step back in 3.5. Although I will take the trade for multiple uses a day.
Good catch on flyby.