It certainly can be -- if no one is holding back... which is also an assumption that isn't made by the core guidelines in the sections in question.
Of course this is why those parts are guidelines and not "The Rules!(tm)"
I just wanted to point out the 'baseline assumption' in the book is 4~5 party members as standard.
Of course I was part of a party that at level 2 took out a higher level wereleopard without taking any damage simply because the thing couldn't roll over a 3 to save its live (literally) so sometimes the dice do odd things at a table.
Its still suboptimal tactics. The kitty could have coup de graced the sleeping fighters before the oracle got them up. The fighters weren't saved by their awesomness, they were saved by poor tactics (which mightbe appropriate for the cat)You don't know the setup to be honest. There could have been attacks of opportunity because that's what happens when you try a coup, also it doesn't auto kill. If they survive then they have to make Fort saves, which they are good at. Also, it takes a full round action so the cat will have to walk up and stand there. Next round, deliver the coup and not be able to move. By this time the person may survive and the cat becomes surrounded.
What's the INT on this creature?
Let's be honest. At first level a CDG is very nearly an auto kill. If he CDGed with his bite, that's 2d6+6 damage, or 13 average. Then it requires a DC 33 Fortitude save. At that level that's a 5% chance of survival.
I'm a bit amused by the people that claim the fighter has to spend money on a weapon, and that as a result the wizard has more money to spend on fun magic items. Do these people have DMs that throw spellbooks at their party wizards? I haven't run the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my wizard has spent more money on scrolls to scribe into her spellbook and on scribing costs than the fighters have spent on their weapons, and that's with the rest of the party chipping in on a couple of the scrolls...
The cost of a series of spell books with all the spells in it is around 250k (core only, iirc) -- however you do not count the cost of the means of how you scribe the scrolls into the spell book against your wealth by level.
I'm a bit amused by the people that claim the fighter has to spend money on a weapon, and that as a result the wizard has more money to spend on fun magic items. Do these people have DMs that throw spellbooks at their party wizards? I haven't run the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my wizard has spent more money on scrolls to scribe into her spellbook and on scribing costs than the fighters have spent on their weapons, and that's with the rest of the party chipping in on a couple of the scrolls...
Well first off, you're getting spells in the least efficient way possible. The core rulebook notes that you can pay other wizards to copy spells from their spellbooks, and the prices are very fair for just letting you have the opportunity to learn a new spell from them.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.
...
Spell Level || Writing Cost
0 || 5 gp
1 || 10 gp
2 || 40 gp
3 || 90 gp
4 || 160 gp
5 || 250 gp
6 || 360 gp
7 || 490 gp
8 || 640 gp
9 || 810 gp
So the cost of copying AND writing is 15 gp for a 1st level, 60 gp for a 2nd level, 120 gp for a 3rd level, 240 gp for a 4th level, 375 gp for a 5th level, 540 gp for a 6th level, 735 gp for a 7th level, 960 gp for an 8th level, and 1,215 gp for a 9th level spell.
If you were to purchase 9 1st, 8 2nd, 7 3rd, 6 4th, 5 5th, 4 6th, 3 7th, 2 8th, and 1 9th level spell, it would cost you a grand total of: 12,270 gp, which is less than a +4 cloak of Resistance.
I admit to dipping into 2 levels of ranger with my fighter for reasons of "I felt like it" and "I wanted Perception as a class skill" but I play a character who primarily is a fighter.
Her favorite weapon is a bar stool.
And I certainly would play a single class fighter given the opportunity. So many character concepts, so little time...
You made a lot of assumptions. "you can" do not means "you always can".
Well first off, you're getting spells in the least efficient way possible. The core rulebook notes that you can pay other wizards to copy spells from their spellbooks, and the prices are very fair for just letting you have the opportunity to learn a new spell from them.
It's assumed that you can. Of course you can't always do so. I mean, it's not like you're going to suddenly going to evaporate X gp and add a spell to your book while in the middle of a dungeon, or trudging through Ye Old Swamp of Doom, etc. However, if you can get a 9th level scroll, there's someone who was making it, and that somebody is probably a wizard with a spellbook.
It's not more of an assumption than the ability to buy a scroll at all.
Full spellcaster becomes very powerfull in later levels, but I do not see how they outshine the rest of the classes every time in every encounter.
- Invisibility can be counter by contant true seeing
Which only spellcaster have unless you have access to spell-replicating magic items, many of which must either be quested for or made by a spellcaster for you.
- flying can be counterd by a flyer opponet,
Again, Fighters need 'em some winged boots or something that gives them flying. My point so far.
- the opponent can have freedom of movement so no things like black tentacles.
Yep, pretty much this. Which is why I've noted that Fighters are good if they have access to spell-mimicing magic items at higher levels, and often note freedom of movement as being one of the most important. This is one of the reasons that even in a pseudo-low magic game, Rangers come out ahead.
- the spellcaster can losse the initiative, and whitout someone to protect him would die in a couple of rounds ( unless every wizard is a diviner)
I get the feeling this is less about Fighters having problems and more about you trying to shoot down fullcasters. I don't mind, but you do know that this counts in reverse too, except the wizard could have also known that his foes are coming possibly cannot be struck at all when the combat begins. Also, contingency.
- caster do not have the infinite resourcer that seems to be implied every time.
Infinite resources are rarely needed.
- Spell resitance can be a pain, of course you can have high chance to succed your check but if you rely on a spell to win and the spell fail you can be very screw.
Spell resistance is basically AC vs spells. Of course, spellcasters have their own version of touch-attacks for this in the form of spells that read "SR: none".
- Greater dispel magic and destructive dispel can crush an arcane spell caster.
It's also pretty bad for non-casters too, who still rely on casting buffs. Here's one you might lick. Greater dispel magic, targeted, followed by a quickened shatter. Now let that sink in a bit.
- You can debuff a monster but whitout somebody to kill it ow do you win? I mean how do you always win? , It seems that the god wizard can becomes a god of blasting when he need it.
God wizards are assumed to have a party. That's why you have Boris the Strong and Fair at your side. In the event that you do not, you will generally prefer a strong regiment of undead minions and/or summoned or called monsters who shall do the finishing for you. This is far, far less efficient however, and should really be avoided if you can have a party (though in some cases it can be more effective, as using undead while spamming stuff like stinking cloud and cloudkill is just a barrel o' monkies).
- Area of dead magic.
AKA - GM fiat.
And much more.
Like I said. Due to Fighters' limited repertoire, your results may vary. :P
I don't know why I bother sometimes. But here goes.
Invisibility can be counter by contant true seeingWho has constant true seeing? There are a handful of monsters that have continual true seeing, IIRC, but very high level ones and not routinely encountered. True Seeing cannot be Permanency-ed. Much more likely is something with blindsight. Which is still very very rare.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. If there are no flying opponents (or those with archery), the caster ought to fly as not to be attacked. If there ARE flying opponents, he ought to fly as to be better able to retaliate. A fighter can't fly, sadly, without magic items that let him. And the fighter is already strapped for cash.
- flying can be counterd by a flyer opponet,
If the opponent had Freedom of Movement up before battle begins, then he's a caster or has a caster ally in all likelihood. Then you attack his caster ally. If he casts it or has it cast as a RESPONSE to Black Tentacles, then he's wasting a combat action and it's a wash.
- the opponent can have freedom of movement so no things like black tentacles.
The squishy caster trope is really played out. A good caster will have Toughness and a good Con. Assuming he doesn't have a good defense like Blink/Blur/Mirror Image up and gets auto hit, he can still take a beating as well as anyone.
- the spellcaster can losse the initiative, and whitout someone to protect him would die in a couple of rounds ( unless every wizard is a diviner)
It's not about infinite resources, it's about using them effectively. You don't invest in most of the "Big 6", Armor, Weapon, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Nat Armor. You just need a cloak of protection and a couple of dirt cheap metamagic rods.
- caster do not have the infinite resourcer that seems to be implied every time.
So don't use spells that have SR. If your opponent has really good saves, don't spam save or lose spells, it's a losing fight.
- Spell resitance can be a pain, of course you can have high chance to succed your check but if you rely on a spell to win and the spell fail you can be very screw.
Also crush any fighter who relies on magic items to allow him to hit/not be hit/fly/save against spells.
- Greater dispel magic and destructive dispel can crush an arcane spell caster.
Summons. Summon Monster III>any golem. There are some really damn good high level summons like Azatas that are both spellcasters and significant melee threats.
- You can debuff a monster but whitout somebody to kill it ow do you win? I mean how do you always win? , It seems that the god wizard can becomes a god of blasting when he need it.
- Area of dead magic.
This is a pretty common response. To be honest, in a dead magic/anti-magic zone EVERYONE is hosed. Typically the only recourse is to GTFO. It shuts down the fighter's xmas tree as much as it does the spellcaster's spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rock can beat scissors every time.
Rock is overpowered!
@ Ashield and metatrace
We are talking about hig level encountes because is when caster/martial diparity is more clear don´t it? so please do not asume is a fight that a figther Vs a spellcaster.
You may be talking about that. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm more than familiar with that conversation. I was speaking entirely about what sorts of considerations you need for higher level play, both when engaging humanoid NPCs and monsters. Truth be told, I agree with a lot of what you said. Things like freedom of movement, flight, death ward, etc, are all key for success.
- several outsiders fly or/and have constant true seeing. Outsiders becomes more and more common in higger levels, also enemies can have powerful range spells.
Agreed. One of the reasons I said Fighters need certain magic items to keep up, because there are certain critical conditions that you simply cannot deal with without very specific magic effects.
- opponent can have fredom of movement by several means, and if you do not know that beforehand casting somthing like black tentacles is a waste of action.
This is true, but generally only if the opponent is a caster or is sporting freedom on a piece of gear. If your GM won't allow such an item because he doesn't consider it a legal item (despite just being a spell effect), then this is moot, and that's a game where a Fighter will struggle more.
- melee, spellcaster or whatever you can always desing a fight that exploit his weakness, if you lose initiative there is a lot of ways of killing a spellcaster, or a group of spellcasters.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not fond of designing encounters specifically to exploit peoples' weaknesses, because I don't like metagaming on either side of the screen. That being said, I don't believe casters are invincible either. Just worthy of respect.
- only a cloack and a couple of rods? so why I see thins people assuming thing like demiplanes, called creatures and the like when the spellcaster need it. you can not always have the money or the time to do that.
To be fair, I have a standing challenge with my online group. If they can beat my 15th level conjurer NPC, who has been dubbed "Knot Opey". He is made with NPC WBL and uses a few core dirty tricks. I use him for two things. The first is proving to newbies that casters (especially wizards) are not underpowered. The second is to teach and train players in high level combat scenarios against wizards and such. He is a Pathfinder-core wizard, and has yet to be defeated. I don't change his spell selection before fights (because part of being a wizard is prep), and I don't even expect opponents to meet the same field of limitations this wizard has.
While the wizard is a standard 15 PB wizard, with NPC wealth, challengers are welcomed as PCs with 15-25 PB (player's choice) with PC wealth. In some occasions, he has been challenged by people outside of our little group, and one guy brought in some sort of 3.5 monk character with some crazy high damage rolls and the Wu-Jen giant spell that makes you colossal, but he forfeited the battle after round 4 or so, because he realized he couldn't defeat the wizard. In another instance of a challenger outside of our group, a girl we met challenged with a character with the Forgotten Realms Spellfire, but she quit the fight and threw a tantrum on round 1 because she couldn't absorb his spells and throw them back at him, etc.
He really doesn't have a whole lot in the way of equipment, since he is using NPC WBL and even has a good amount of his GP invested in spell components...
- so there exist spells that are not suceptible to SR, and that spells let you win every fight in every situation? and more important, actual spellcaster always have more than one memorized (or known if he is a sorcerer)
Reason #~ as to why sorcerers are bad and should feel bad.
- A summoned creature can´t do everyting, you summoned a deva and the enemi have magic circle against good, and minions do not strike as hard . And you are running out of spells very quickly.
Well actually most of your nice summons at higher levels have spells which they can use, and Magic Circle doesn't stop that at all. Some creatures, such as Erinyes, even have ranged weapon attacks which can be boosted (summon monster VIII can summon up to 5 erinyes who all have a +14/+14/+9 attack routine and deal 1d8+6+1d6 with each attack, in addition to having true-seeing, and a variety of cool spell-like abilities, before buffing, and if you chain haste into it, you can 20 attacks out of them per round, with 15 at +15, and 5 at +10).
There's also the fact that magic circle spells have to test vs spell resistance, which means that unless the magic circle effect is pretty current in terms of caster level, most higher level summons won't be affected by it (for example, if you have a continuous CL 5 circle vs evil, it will have little hope of protecting you from outsiders off the 6th or higher trees). It also doesn't work too well against called monsters.
Also, summoning prevents you from running out of spells quickly. Summons are actually one of the best actions a caster can take if they want to contribute to a battle without using many spells slots, because they keep giving the whole battle, and in many cases, can cast their own spells (ice devils can spam cone of cold each round and ice wall for example).
- an area of dead magic is something that ahigh level character could face sooner or later, and a fighter with a normal adamantine sword is much better than a wizard whitout nothing.
And simply because is a threat to spellcaste a GM should never use it? i guess he should use encounters that target the figthers weakness everytime.
Truthfully, a Fighter is just as doomed in a null magic zone. For example, what does a Fighter do when all his cool buffs are gone, but a creature's Damage Reduction remains?
Suddenly your strength bonus has dropped 6 points or so, your +5 to hit and damage just vanished, and you have to carve through a DR 15/good and silver? Sadly, that's just not going to happen very well. Meanwhile, that pit fiend is going to be tearing you a new orifice or fifty since you also lost your boosts to armor, shield, natural, deflection, luck, and similar bonuses derived from magic. God null-magic is just bad. Q.Q
DR 15/good and silver is supernatural and also suppressed in an antimagic zone. Fighter proceeds to ownerag3. Once it's dead, dunk it in holy water to kill it.
There are actually very few kinds of DR that stick around in A-M zones, mostly the blunt/slashing type, and dr /-.
==Aelryinth
DR 15/good and silver is supernatural and also suppressed in an antimagic zone. Fighter proceeds to ownerag3. Once it's dead, dunk it in holy water to kill it.
There are actually very few kinds of DR that stick around in A-M zones, mostly the blunt/slashing type, and dr /-.
==Aelryinth
I'd like a rule citation on this one. I checked the core glossary and the bestiary rules, and it doesn't specify Ex or Su based on DR type, and a pit fiends DR is not called out as Supernatural, so by RAW it doesn't wink out in an Antimagic Field, and you still need a blessed silver weapon to hurt them. Welcome to Hell.
Also, as far as I can tell, Holy Water doesn't stop a pit fiend's regeneration. It deals an untyped 2d4 damage and is neither a holy weapon, under the effects of an align weapon spell, nor is it a spell.
|
DR 15/good and silver is supernatural and also suppressed in an antimagic zone. Fighter proceeds to ownerag3. Once it's dead, dunk it in holy water to kill it.
There are actually very few kinds of DR that stick around in A-M zones, mostly the blunt/slashing type, and dr /-.
==Aelryinth
Fascinating. It's a DM call as to the DR being negated, as no entry specifies what type of ability it is. The holy water is not a good aligned weapon or spell, so that doesn't work.
I should know better than to get into a discussion on the usefulness of fighters compared to casters. Those who don't like playing fighters will never be convinced that it has nothing to do with the classes. It has everything to do with the style of game they are playing. Just like some games never see the problems that others claim, some only see the problems. It's all about play style. The classes work just fine.
Oh, and it's freaking irritating when someone counters with "GM fiat." The entire adventure is GM fiat. Someone has to write the adventure and run it. Someone has to decide what happens. Why is it GM fiat when a anti-magic field is up but it's not GM fiat when a a spell casting enemy targets the fighter's Will save. It's all GM fiat.
fighters are cooler than wizards, for the same reason that batman is cooler than superman: they're taking on the biggest nasties imaginable without magical superpowers or divine assistance, just their trusty old sword and maybe a plank of wood as a shield. fighters are epicly heroic in ways that no spellcaster will ever be, cos they are willing to play without those girly 'spells' and kick ass the old fashioned way.
I've never seen a high level fighter without magical gear.
Unless you're talking about 1st/2nd level fighters taking on ancient red dragons.
That's pretty badass, if completely foolish.
batman plays with cool gear, even xray goggles. does that give him xray vision? not exactly.
and i have done that, though it was an ancient green dragon. it didn't actually want to fight us, just use us to get some eggs back from kobolds. i failed my fear save and tried to run, then when it grabbed me my dm allowed me to start trying to hack my way free until it eventually decided to crush me into unconcousness. good times.
Batman has magical gear, too... (?)
You said 'trusty old sword and maybe a plank of wood as a shield'. That does not meet up to Batman's tech.
ok, i conceed defeat. i admit i exaggerated.
that said, a 20th level fighter with a plain longsword and wooden shield is still far from lousy. not up to speck with a fully equipped fighter of the same level, sure, but he's still got serious skills and a bad attitude to match.
i may have to try that at some point. my dm is notoriously stingy with magic items in any case, so running a fighter who just uses mundane gear and some alchemical tricks might be fun.
you don't have to nerf the spellcasters much, you just have to nerf the spells.
Remember, PF is an evolution of 3E, which was an evolution from 1 and 2E.
Casters received HUGE buff-ups from those additions, and Fighters received MAJOR nerfage.
If you want to equalize things, you have to hit both ends, and ignore the whining of the no longer uber casters.
It's noteworthy that wizard-lovers clamp up when the subject of 2e->3E buffing comes up. Casters didn't suffer in the earlier editions, but man, did they do well in 3E.
==Aelryinth
Wrong, hit point damage from spells has remained the same or gone down since 1st edition, as maximums have been instituted. Magic missiles did 1d4+level up to 10 missiles if I remember correctly without my 1e books with me.
Monster hit dice/hit points have gone WAY up. Dragons that had 120hp in 1E, now have 400+ hit points.
Save or die spells have been nerfed.
The damage that melee fighters can do has steadily increased, remember a fighter in 1e, with an 18/00 strength did +6 damage, only male human fighters could have an 18/00 strength if memory serves. Only fighters got 2 attacks per round. Today they can do 4 or more attacks have a 24 str power attacking, for a whopping +14 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should know better than to get into a discussion on the usefulness of fighters compared to casters. Those who don't like playing fighters will never be convinced that it has nothing to do with the classes. It has everything to do with the style of game they are playing. Just like some games never see the problems that others claim, some only see the problems. It's all about play style. The classes work just fine.
Oh, and it's freaking irritating when someone counters with "GM fiat." The entire adventure is GM fiat. Someone has to write the adventure and run it. Someone has to decide what happens. Why is it GM fiat when a anti-magic field is up but it's not GM fiat when a a spell casting enemy targets the fighter's Will save. It's all GM fiat.
No, it really isn't all GM fiat. When I look at you and say "Your class features don't work because I say so", then that's GM fiat. When I say "The make a DC 22 Will save against the Succubus' charm" that's playing the game. Anyone with a Wisdom score could make the DC 5 Perception check to see the difference.
EDIT: In fact, everything I've said has little to nothing to do with a Fighter vs Fullcaster scenario. It's Fighter vs the game. Y'know, monsters and stuff. I have repeatedly noted that I LIKE Fighters, but note that they are exceedingly vulnerable to playstyle differences that completely make or break them, moreso than other classes.
If we have to use turning off magic entirely as an example of the Fighter being good, we insult the Fighter more than any criticism of his limitations could. This very statement basically says that you have to remove 80% of the whole freakin' game to make them viable. That is sooooooooooooooooooooooo far beyond anything I would have marred the good name of Fighter with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter without magical gear can hit his opponent just fine. He's going to want some help with damage and with defense, but it's not all that much. I would say that a fighter going up against dragons is going to want magical gear anyway, just like any other character. I'm willing to bet that it would be roughly the same amount of wealth spent on gear as other characters.
Male Human Fighter (Weapon Master) 20, elite array
Melee Masterwork Greatclub +26 (1d10+28/19-20/x3) = 56/hit with Vital Strike/Devastating Strike Chain or 162 on a Crit. He only needs a 12 or better to hit the Ancient Red Dragon (not buffed, but neither is the fighter)
Ranged Masterwork Longbow, Composite (Str +4) +25 (1d8+8/20/x3) = 36.5/hit or 110.5 on a Crit
Special Attacks Critical Specialist, Deadly Critical (3/day), Reliable Strike (4/day), Unstoppable Strike, Weapon Training +5
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +20; CMB +24; CMD 36
Feats Bloody Assault, Critical Focus, Devastating Strike, Furious Focus, Greater Vital Strike, Greater Weapon Focus: Greatclub, Greater Weapon Focus: Longbow, Greater Weapon Specialization: Greatclub, Greater Weapon Specialization: Longbow, Improved Critical: Greatclub, Improved Devastating Strike, Improved Initiative, Improved Vital Strike, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack -6/+12, Toughness +20, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus: Greatclub, Weapon Focus: Longbow, Weapon Specialization: Greatclub, Weapon Specialization: Longbow
SQ Weapon Guard +5 (Ex), Weapon Mastery: Greatclub (Ex)
Combat Gear Masterwork Greatclub, Masterwork Longbow, Composite (Str +4);
--------------------
TRACKED RESOURCES
--------------------
Deadly Critical (3/day) (Ex) - 0/3
Reliable Strike (4/day) (Ex) - 0/4
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
Bloody Assault Take -5 to all attacks and maneuvers until your next turn to add 1d4 bleed damage to all weapon melee attacks.
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Critical Specialist (Ex) Increase the save DC of any critical hit effects by +4 for your chosen weapon.
Deadly Critical (3/day) (Ex) Increase the critical damage multiplier of your chosen weapon
Devastating Strike Deal extra damage when using Vital Strike bonus
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Improved Devastating Strike Gain bonus on rolls to confirm critical hits
Power Attack -6/+12 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Reliable Strike (4/day) (Ex) Reroll attack roll, critical confirmation, miss chance or damage roll for your chosen weapon
Unstoppable Strike (Ex) Standard action: a single attack with your chosen weapon is a touch attack that ignored DR or hardness.
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Weapon Guard +5 (Ex) +5 CMD vs. Disarm and Sunder or other effects targeting your chosen weapon.
Weapon Mastery: Greatclub (Ex) Chosen weapon has an improved critical multiplier, always confirms criticals, and cannot be disarmed.
Weapon Training +5 (Ex) +5 to hit and damage with your chosen weapon.
A fighter without magical gear can hit his opponent just fine. He's going to want some help with damage and with defense, but it's not all that much. I would say that a fighter going up against dragons is going to want magical gear anyway, just like any other character. I'm willing to bet that it would be roughly the same amount of wealth spent on gear as other characters.
Cool deal. Ancient Red Dragons have AC 38 and DR 15/magic. So the Fighter's damage output drops by 15 per hit, and his damage per round drops even more if he Power Attacks due to loss in accuracy.
Next, the Dragon has a 15 foot reach, the Fighter doesn't. The dragon has a +35 bonus to hit unbuffed, which is more than the Fighter. He auto-hits the Fighter whose AC caps out around 30 at best. The dragon lands one hit, dealing 77 average damage with Greater Vital Strike and then immediately grapples due to Snatch and auto-pins the Fighter with his +43 CMB vs the Fighter's CMD 36. He then unleashes his Breath weapon against the Fighter (who gets no saving throw) on the next turn, dealing an average of 110 damage to the Fighter with no saving throws. The Fighter is dead.
If it's dead-magic so that the dragon can't use his Breath weapon, he just drops the Fighter and then full-attacks, essentially auto-hitting with everything and dealing about 125 damage. The Fighter is still dead.
EDIT: On a side note, in a game where the Fighter has fair access to staples, the Fighter was probably sporting a bit of Fire Resistance which would soften stuff. He could have activated a freedom of movement effect to release himself from the dragon's grasp. His AC would not only have been better, but the dragon would have suffered a 20-50% miss chance or had to deal with mirror images, and the Fighter would trivially overcome his damage reduction, and probably have an additional attack or two every round (either via haste or even dual-wielding speed weapons). The Fighter would have been able to shrug more damage due to a higher Con bonus from a belt and inherent modifiers. Finally, if expecting a harsh battle, the Fighter could have used a consumable stoneskin item to give him a nice DR 10/adamantine which would heavily soften the dragon's full attack.
Re: that fighter.
Dragon flies.
Dragon casts wind wall.
Fighter misses reflex saves.
Dragon uses profession: BBQ chef.
I was so gonna respond, but Ashiel and BNW beat me to it.
Basically, your figher is toast in like a round, son. He can't even FLY. That's, like, absolutely necessary for adventuring 10 levels ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: that fighter.
Dragon flies.
Dragon casts wind wall.
Fighter misses reflex saves.
Dragon uses profession: BBQ chef.
Well I was being nice and assuming that the dragon couldn't use his magic either. If the dragon actually gets his goodies, the fight is even more one sided. I mean, the dragon could engage the Fighter while invisible the whole fight, or have just dropped a limited wish to give the Fighter a -7 to his saves before hitting him with a Flesh to Stone spell and adding him to his horde.
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.
If that's the case then he fails, because he's squashed in like 2 rounds. If the dragon is feeling playful.
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.
Ok, let's let's compare something similar. Oh, I know, how about a CR 13 Ice Devil. Oh look, it can fly. Oh look, it has DR 10/good so you can't pierce that (so your arrows are basically useless). It can spam Cone of Cold, Ice Storm, and Ice Wall on you all day long. Oh look, you can't get near it because it has greater teleport at will. Just to add insult to injury, it also has Regeneration so the Ice Devil could happily let you beat the ever loving crap out of it, reform like the T-1000, and then start over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should know better than to get into a discussion on the usefulness of fighters compared to casters. Those who don't like playing fighters will never be convinced that it has nothing to do with the classes. It has everything to do with the style of game they are playing. Just like some games never see the problems that others claim, some only see the problems. It's all about play style. The classes work just fine.
Oh, and it's freaking irritating when someone counters with "GM fiat." The entire adventure is GM fiat. Someone has to write the adventure and run it. Someone has to decide what happens. Why is it GM fiat when a anti-magic field is up but it's not GM fiat when a a spell casting enemy targets the fighter's Will save. It's all GM fiat.
No, it really isn't all GM fiat. When I look at you and say "Your class features don't work because I say so", then that's GM fiat. When I say "The make a DC 22 Will save against the Succubus' charm" that's playing the game. Anyone with a Wisdom score could make the DC 5 Perception check to see the difference.
EDIT: In fact, everything I've said has little to nothing to do with a Fighter vs Fullcaster scenario. It's Fighter vs the game. Y'know, monsters and stuff. I have repeatedly noted that I LIKE Fighters, but note that they are exceedingly vulnerable to playstyle differences that completely make or break them, moreso than other classes.
If we have to use turning off magic entirely as an example of the Fighter being good, we insult the Fighter more than any criticism of his limitations could. This very statement basically says that you have to remove 80% of the whole freakin' game to make them viable. That is sooooooooooooooooooooooo far beyond anything I would have marred the good name of Fighter with.
So if I throw an enemy caster at the party that tosses an anti-magic field into the mix, that's GM fiat. But if I throw a balor in that targets the fighter's will save, that's just too bad for the fighter?
I'm not advocating the use of anti-magic fields as a balancing factor. To me that's saying that sorcerers are better than fighters because there are rust monsters. What I am saying is that the GM should be able to throw things into the game, that are already part of the CRB/Bestiary without a player having to cry about GM fiat. If it happens too much, then there is a problem. However, sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles and you take the good with the bad.
My problem isn't with any particular class. It's with GMs and players that automatically assume that any particular class sucks in play because it doesn't fit their style. I hate playing druids and clerics. I can't get them to be useful because I find their spell lists annoying. I also dislike druids because one of the best ways to play them is to actually play the animal companion with the druid as a buffer. If I want to play an animal, I'll find another system. I don't assume that those classes are bad though. They don't fit my style of play.
Also, you cannot simply assume that the opponents in one game will be the same as in another. I can run a full campaign from levels 1 to 20 without having to bring in any opponents that you would bring into yours. That's the beauty of PnP RPGs in my opinion and one of the strengths compared to games like WoW. A campaign filled with humanoids and one filled with outsiders will have two very different feels and different classes or archetypes may work better than others. That's ok with me. I don't think that means any particular class needs work. I think it needs to fit into the precise campaign it's being played in.
In this discussions, we also tend to focus on a single class. I rarely have seen anyone play a class simply because of it's class. Most of the players I see build concepts. That means they might be multiclassed, prestiged, or just be playing something in a unique way. I'm currently working on a monk that flurries with a longsword. I'm trying to figure out how to get some rage in there without having to be non-lawful. To me it's about the character, not the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those criticizing that fighter build, did any of you read the part where he didn't have any magic? The point wasn't to show a fighter without magic being incredibly awesome. It was to show that he can hit is target and deal damage. I know that I mentioned that he is going to want some magic.
Instead of looking to argue, why not actually try something new? Try to see another point of view for a moment. Look at the point of the exercise, not what you want it to be but what it really was.
Can the fighter reasonably hit that AC and deal damage without magic? Not can he deal with the magic defenses (which I briefly mention are not in effect because the fighter also isn't using magic).
@Bob_Loblaw
Once and for all, we don't hate the fighter because it doesn't fit our style. I LOVE playing melee. HONESTLY! It's just that other classes are more effective at it. Like the Magus, or the Psychic Warrior, or the Synthesist Summoner. Or even the Barbarian, who at this point has better tools at his disposal in many ways, though he's still obviated by thinking 2d in a 3d game.
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.Ok, let's let's compare something similar. Oh, I know, how about a CR 13 Ice Devil. Oh look, it can fly. Oh look, it has DR 10/good so you can't pierce that (so your arrows are basically useless). It can spam Cone of Cold, Ice Storm, and Ice Wall on you all day long. Oh look, you can't get near it because it has greater teleport at will. Just to add insult to injury, it also has Regeneration so the Ice Devil could happily let you beat the ever loving crap out of it, reform like the T-1000, and then start over again.
That wasn't the point. It wasn't "see a fighter can handle CR appropriate challenges with only masterwork gear." It was "see, he can actually hit and deal damage reasonably well, except in a few cases."
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.If that's the case then he fails, because he's squashed in like 2 rounds. If the dragon is feeling playful.
Pfff. If the GM is playing the dragons right, they're probably gonna straight end virtually any PC in a straight up 1-on-1 fight.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my friends and I tend to play this as a cooperative game. And if I have been playing it wrong all this time, I don't think I'll stop.
@Bob_Loblaw
Once and for all, we don't hate the fighter because it doesn't fit our style. I LOVE playing melee. HONESTLY! It's just that other classes are more effective at it. Like the Magus, or the Psychic Warrior, or the Synthesist Summoner. Or even the Barbarian, who at this point has better tools at his disposal in many ways, though he's still obviated by thinking 2d in a 3d game.
You're opening sentence doesn't really match the rest of your argument. If using casting classes is your preference, even for melee, then the fighter doesn't fit your style. That's perfectly ok with me and isn't a flaw in any way. I don't like certain classes because they don't fit my style of play. I'll tell you right now that I don't care for the synthesist or psionics. I haven't really looked at the magus, but from what I've seen, it may fit my style.
So if I throw an enemy caster at the party that tosses an anti-magic field into the mix, that's GM fiat. But if I throw a balor in that targets the fighter's will save, that's just too bad for the fighter?
*deep breath* I'm trying really hard not to say anything ugly about this, so let me see if I can try to break it down for you.
ANTI-MAGIC-FIELD is a spell. It is a game effect. It's also really crappy for MOST things that can cast it, and fails against any wizard wearing a pointy hat*. That aside, it is a perfectly valid tactic if you wish to try and employ it. However, it is obviously not a "dead magic zone" where magic just doesn't work. Somebody had to use Antimagic field. Someone uses the 10ft radius AMF, good for them. Somebody says "the area that this adventure is taking place in is a dead magic zone" is GM fiat. See the difference? One is a game effect, one is because I said so.
I'm not advocating the use of anti-magic fields as a balancing factor. To me that's saying that sorcerers are better than fighters because there are rust monsters. What I am saying is that the GM should be able to throw things into the game, that are already part of the CRB/Bestiary without a player having to cry about GM fiat. If it happens too much, then there is a problem. However, sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles and you take the good with the bad.
It's good you don't advocate it. AMF sucks. There are almost always better ways to defend yourself, because it generally shuts down the useful protections without actually hindering any opponent who has considered that they may face something with either A) Spell Resistance or B) antimagic field.
You are arguing something no one else is. Nobody is whining that it's GM fiat when you use stuff that's part of the normal game. In fact, I'm 99% positive that it has only been typical game stuff used as examples for why you need certain things to remain viable. Y'know, citing monster stats and tactics and such.
My problem isn't with any particular class. It's with GMs and players that automatically assume that any particular class sucks in play because it doesn't fit their style. I hate playing druids and clerics. I can't get them to be useful because I find their spell lists annoying. I also dislike druids because one of the best ways to play them is to actually play the animal companion with the druid as a buffer. If I want to play an animal, I'll find another system. I don't assume that those classes are bad though. They don't fit my style of play.
Your entire argument, which is virtually non-existent as a pro-Fighter argument, could be applied to the Commoner class with literally no change at all. "It's not the class, it's the playstyle. It's not that a Commoner has trouble with typical adventure expectancies, it's that the GM isn't...", blah, blah, blah.
Also, you cannot simply assume that the opponents in one game will be the same as in another. I can run a full campaign from levels 1 to 20 without having to bring in any opponents that you would bring into yours. That's the beauty of PnP RPGs in my opinion and one of the strengths compared to games like WoW. A campaign filled with humanoids and one filled with outsiders will have two very different feels and different classes or archetypes may work better than others. That's ok with me. I don't think that means any particular class needs work. I think it needs to fit into the precise campaign it's being played in.
Yeah, but if that campaign has A) spellcasters, B) high level undead, C) outsiders, D) a myriad of magical creatures, we have the same issue. If I have to tailor the game to specifically ignore most of the high level monsters, classes, and so forth, or drastically dumb them down, then there is a problem. Plain and simple. There's no arguing that.
In this discussions, we also tend to focus on a single class. I rarely have seen anyone play a class simply because of it's class. Most of the players I see build concepts. That means they might be multiclassed, prestiged, or just be playing something in a unique way. I'm currently working on a monk that flurries with a longsword. I'm trying to figure out how to get some rage in there without having to be non-lawful. To me it's about the character, not the class.
OMGWTF!? Dude, seriously, stop it. Classes are nothing. Nothing. They are just a set of game statistics on a piece of paper. They have little to nothing to do with roleplaying or the like beyond just facilitating your concept. Roleplaying has absolutely 0% to do with the Fighter being good, bad, or successful in one game or another. Not even a teeny, tiny, bit! I've put together Rurouni Kenshin style samurai using Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue, because the abilities fit the theme.
What does this even have to do with this discussion?
Ancient Red Dragons have AC 38
Accounted for: need 12 or better to hit
DR 15/magic
Just subtract 15 from the damage
...his damage per round drops even more if he Power Attacks due to loss in accuracy.
Accounted for in the attacks already.
Next, the Dragon has a 15 foot reach, the Fighter doesn't. The dragon has a +35 bonus to hit unbuffed, which is more than the Fighter. He auto-hits the Fighter whose AC caps out around 30 at best. The dragon lands one hit, dealing 77 average damage with Greater Vital Strike and then immediately grapples due to Snatch and auto-pins the Fighter with his +43 CMB vs the Fighter's CMD 36. He then unleashes his Breath weapon against the Fighter (who gets no saving throw) on the next turn, dealing an average of 110 damage to the Fighter with no saving throws. The Fighter is dead.
Completely true, which is why I said this fighter was going to want help with defense. You may have noticed that he currently isn't even wearing clothing, let alone armor. I know that non-magical armor loses it's usefulness as protection rather quickly. Even adamantine full plate isn't really going to be useful after a certain point unless there is some magic.
If it's dead-magic so that the dragon can't use his Breath weapon, he just drops the Fighter and then full-attacks, essentially auto-hitting with everything and dealing about 125 damage. The Fighter is still dead.
That fighter would never survive that dragon. He's ill equipped.
EDIT: On a side note, in a game where the Fighter has fair access to staples, the Fighter was probably sporting a bit of Fire Resistance which would soften stuff. He could have activated a freedom of movement effect to release himself from the dragon's grasp. His AC would not only have been better, but the dragon would have suffered a 20-50% miss chance or had to deal with mirror images, and the Fighter would trivially overcome his damage reduction, and probably have an additional attack or two every round (either via haste or even dual-wielding speed weapons). The Fighter would have been able to shrug more damage due...
I would hope a fighter that knows he's going up against a dragon of any type spends as much time preparing for that battle as he can. I would recommend grabbing a few adventuring buddies to help out too.
stuff
Oh, relax. For real. This isn't a fight that needs had.
You're opening sentence doesn't really match the rest of your argument. If using casting classes is your preference, even for melee, then the fighter doesn't fit your style. That's perfectly ok with me and isn't a flaw in any way. I don't like certain classes because they don't fit my style of play. I'll tell you right now that I don't care for the synthesist or psionics. I haven't really looked at the magus, but from what I've seen, it may fit my style.@Bob_Loblaw
Once and for all, we don't hate the fighter because it doesn't fit our style. I LOVE playing melee. HONESTLY! It's just that other classes are more effective at it. Like the Magus, or the Psychic Warrior, or the Synthesist Summoner. Or even the Barbarian, who at this point has better tools at his disposal in many ways, though he's still obviated by thinking 2d in a 3d game.
Reading comprehension fail.
It fits my style just fine.It's just a horrible option and fails to do what it sets out to.
That wasn't the point. It wasn't "see a fighter can handle CR appropriate challenges with only masterwork gear." It was "see, he can actually hit and deal damage reasonably well, except in a few cases."if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.Ok, let's let's compare something similar. Oh, I know, how about a CR 13 Ice Devil. Oh look, it can fly. Oh look, it has DR 10/good so you can't pierce that (so your arrows are basically useless). It can spam Cone of Cold, Ice Storm, and Ice Wall on you all day long. Oh look, you can't get near it because it has greater teleport at will. Just to add insult to injury, it also has Regeneration so the Ice Devil could happily let you beat the ever loving crap out of it, reform like the T-1000, and then start over again.
What you completely fail to grasp is that hitting is INCONSEQUENTIAL in this scenario. I don't care that the fighter can theoretically hit and damage a threat, if they're both standing face to face a la Final Fantasy. The dragon isn't using his capabilities or else your fighter is DEAD DEAD DEAD. He fails to overcome a challenge, let along even begin to be equal to the task. THAT is why we don't like the fighter.
Those criticizing that fighter build, did any of you read the part where he didn't have any magic? The point wasn't to show a fighter without magic being incredibly awesome. It was to show that he can hit is target and deal damage. I know that I mentioned that he is going to want some magic.
Instead of looking to argue, why not actually try something new? Try to see another point of view for a moment. Look at the point of the exercise, not what you want it to be but what it really was.
Can the fighter reasonably hit that AC and deal damage without magic? Not can he deal with the magic defenses (which I briefly mention are not in effect because the fighter also isn't using magic).
Dude. Nobody has said the Fighter can't hit and deal damage without magic items. That is the opposite of what has been said. We have been saying the Fighter can't do anything else besides hit and deal damage without magic items, which is the problem it faces. Have I been touting ACs and Hps in my examples of why Fighters struggle in some games? NO.
Also, yeah, I also assumed the Dragon had no magic. The Fighter's damage without his weapons wasn't enough to threaten the dragon seriously, as the dragon would have needed several rounds of the dragon not killing him instantly to have dealt adequate damage, and plus the damage reduction, plus the Fighter not hitting automatically despite being knee-deep in specialization with his favorite weapon. So while I wasn't trying to make that argument, I guess we did accidentally. Go figure.
You're opening sentence doesn't really match the rest of your argument. If using casting classes is your preference, even for melee, then the fighter doesn't fit your style. That's perfectly ok with me and isn't a flaw in any way. I don't like certain classes because they don't fit my style of play. I'll tell you right now that I don't care for the synthesist or psionics. I haven't really looked at the magus, but from what I've seen, it may fit my style.
It fit his argument great. He likes hitting things too. He just like options beyond that. Melee = hitting things. Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, and even some 2nd martial tier classes like Summoners, Psychic Warriors, and Magi hit things. That's what they do. They're not off controlling the battlefield and such (usually, but even rangers can do that), they're whacking stuff. They just whack stuff with more options, and remain viable at higher levels.
Likewise, the idea that you have to not like a class even if you don't play it frequently is just ludicrous. I have a friend who won't even touch a wizard because of how complex it is to play one, but he loves them because he has seen them in the party with his Barbarian. He thinks they are really cool, and he really likes how they work with the group.
The worst part of all of this is I've actually said I like the fighter several times, and that it was perfectly viable in games where you are assured access to certain things, which is mostly a playstyle difference; only to constantly be called out for hating the Fighter, dissing somebody's hypothetical pseudo-imaginary playstyle, and listen to people babble on about how the class is A-OK because a class doesn't actually have to be valid in most forms of play with any competently ran enemies, because it's all up to the GM to make it work, and they're great because you can roleplay how you swing your sword at +6.
*sigh* I'm going to get some water...
EDIT: Hey, check this out. Want to see what I agree with 100%? Fighters are the mother-proud-making meat grinders of legend. Ever see a Fighter speccing double weapons, power attack, double-slice, full dual-wielding tree, with the speed-enhancement on each end of a weapon (or speed + haste off hand), wearing gloves of dualing? They have like 10/round attacks at huge full strength bonus benefits while getting +3 for every -1 from Power Attack, while being excessively accurate with their attacks. They make the Sohei-armor guy in that other thread look like pansies as they prance about in mithral full plate with a +7 Dexterity bonus as they slaughter stuff with their blades of dervish doom.
Ok, can we agree that the Fighter can hit and hit harder?
What you completely fail to grasp is that hitting is INCONSEQUENTIAL in this scenario. I don't care that the fighter can theoretically hit and damage a threat, if they're both standing face to face a la Final Fantasy. The dragon isn't using his capabilities or else your fighter is DEAD DEAD DEAD. He fails to overcome a challenge, let along even begin to be equal to the task. THAT is why we don't like the fighter.That wasn't the point. It wasn't "see a fighter can handle CR appropriate challenges with only masterwork gear." It was "see, he can actually hit and deal damage reasonably well, except in a few cases."if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.Ok, let's let's compare something similar. Oh, I know, how about a CR 13 Ice Devil. Oh look, it can fly. Oh look, it has DR 10/good so you can't pierce that (so your arrows are basically useless). It can spam Cone of Cold, Ice Storm, and Ice Wall on you all day long. Oh look, you can't get near it because it has greater teleport at will. Just to add insult to injury, it also has Regeneration so the Ice Devil could happily let you beat the ever loving crap out of it, reform like the T-1000, and then start over again.
I didn't actually mention that the Dragon can fly over him and just sit on him until he's dead. His crush Reflex DC is 30, and after that, he auto-succeeds vs the Fighter's CMD.
A flying or jumping Huge or larger dragon can land on foes as a standard action, using its whole body to crush them. Crush attacks are effective only against opponents three or more size categories smaller than the dragon. A crush attack affects as many creatures as fit in the dragon's space. Creatures in the affected area must succeed on a Reflex save (DC equal to that of the dragon's breath weapon) or be pinned, automatically taking bludgeoning damage during the next round unless the dragon moves off them. If the dragon chooses to maintain the pin, it must succeed at a combat maneuver check as normal. Pinned foes take damage from the crush each round if they don't escape. A crush attack deals the indicated damage plus 1-1/2 times the dragon's Strength bonus.