|
Ashiel posted for 20th level.
I read her post, she does make some good points in between the wild tangents and obfuscations. Throw enough at the wall, and some of it sticks.
But when you break down what she actually said and lay it out, a) it isn't a build and more importantly b) If you take what she put out and plug it into a build, it isn't effective relative to a fighter with a similar build.
In the ever moving argument, the facts are the fighter benefits from not having armor penalty over time and from being able to do more damage, not just in general, but with a wide variety of options. The skill versatility can be overcome by feats while still being superior in the damage dealing department.
The ranger is nice. It is neither better or worse. They are different. The ranger is more versatile with regards to skills, but less with regards to weapons and armor.
Trying to pin down the discussion, the argument was made the fighter can't be versatile relative to the ranger. Bob showed that to be false.
Nothing in the several walls of text showed otherwise. Much in the wall of text was misleading allusions to things not shown, such as we are discovering some of those skill numbers are based on not having any armor check penalties due to questionable reading of the equipment rules.
I've played this game many times in many threads. Proclamations of what you "can" do without showing your work at how you do it.
And then when the curtain is pulled back, the wizard isn't so grand after all.
If we want to set up some rules and some goals for the characters then I would be up for posting a fighter build. I know I said that I didn't want to post any more builds but it seems like it may be necessary.
If it were me, I would say:
1) 15 point buy (I'm even happier with the elite array because it's more limiting and I like that in a challenge). The system is predicated on 15 point buy characters being able to succeed.
2) Appropriate WBL for PCs. A little freedom with this. Maybe you lose a point for every 10% too high you are. It is just a set of guidelines but we should remain on equal footing.
3) No use of the crafting new items. You can craft but you can't take advantage of the Magic Item Creation rules. They require too much GM adjudication.
4) The PRD is allowed. Not d20Prd. The official one only. This way we don't accidentally use 3PP stuff and we both have the same rules to work with. No optional rules like armor as DR or words of power. We should solidify this more so we are all on the same page.
5) One level at a time and each level is graded before the next is posted. Both builds must be posted before grading.
6) The character must be able to handle CR appropriate encounters. They don't have to be able to solo them but they should be able to contribute in a party that also has a wizard, cleric, and rogue. CR appropriate does not have to mean CR = Level-1. It can mean being able to take on multiple opponents as well. They should also be able to contribute against CR +1 and +2. More than that and it's getting to the point where they may have too hard of a time depending on the opponent(s).
7) They should be able to fill similar roles. I don't know how we want to do this though. The fighter is meant as a front-liner and the ranger is meant as a skirmisher. The two work differently.
The grading could be:
1) 1 point for being able to handle CR appropriate encounter
2) 1 point for being able to contribute out of combat as well
3) -1 point for each 10% over WBL (remember crafting allows you to exceed this so please show your work)
4) -1 point for needing another party member to buff (healing is not buffing) unless you provide the item yourself (buying a wand of enlarge person is ok but expecting the wizard to cast it on you costs you a point)
This is just my own opinion though and I would welcome any other suggestions before the contest begins.
I do want to point out that this is really only going to show how well two competent players can build their characters. It really isn't going to show which class is "better."
Seeing as these are martial characters I was thinking mostly combat. Dealing with traps or non-combat encounters is harder to judge.
I can build a fighter to handle plenty of out of combat situations. It's a non-issue for me. How we judge it is an issue though. What is the appropriate challenge rating or DC needed for using Diplomacy? Intimidate? Climb? Appraise? Knowledge (geography)? When I build the character, I will make sure that he can do things in and out of combat. If people want, I can give some commentary as well.
i propose a human ronin
Level 1 Human Ronin Samurai
Ability Scores (15 point buy)
Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14
int 12
wis 12
cha 7
Feats; Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Traits; Indomitable Faith (+1 to will saves) Reactionary (+2 initiative)
Skills
Diplomacy +2 Climb +7 Swim +7 Sense Motive +5 perception +2 ride +6 Handle Animal +2 (+6 with horse)
Gear;
Kikko Armor
Guisarme
Cold iron Spiked Gauntlet
Sling
Backpack
Belt Pouch
Water skin
flint and steel
4 days rations
25 feet of fishing net
50 feet of hempen rope
silver weapon blanch
10 torches
sack
military saddle
bedroll
4 days animal feed
saddlebags
10 pieces of chalk
40 sling bullets
5 pounds of flour
swim fins
1 free outfit worth less than 10 gold pieces
8 silver pieces unspent
Combat Numbers;
HP 10 AC 17 Touch 12 FF 15 Speed 30 feet (20 feet in kikko armor)
CMB +4 CMD 16 Fort +4 ref +2 will +2
Challenge 1/day +1 damage, +1 to hit and AC when challenged, -2 ac against all other targets, mount, ronin order, resolve 1/day, FC bonus (skill point)
horse
size large
HP 16
AC 14 FF 14 Touch 10 CMB +5 CMD 16 Fort +5 Ref +4 will +1
Feats; Toughness, light armor proficiency
Attacks
Bite +2 1d4+3 2 Hooves; +2 1d6+3 each
Combat Trained
Tricks
Attack anything (2 tricks) bear rider, down, stay, flank, charge
That's why I mentioned the points for grading. I mentioned getting a point for being able to do things out of combat too.
|
I can build a fighter to handle plenty of out of combat situations. It's a non-issue for me. How we judge it is an issue though. What is the appropriate challenge rating or DC needed for using Diplomacy? Intimidate? Climb? Appraise? Knowledge (geography)? When I build the character, I will make sure that he can do things in and out of combat. If people want, I can give some commentary as well.I know you can, I saw some of your builds. but if the contest is jus fight then somebody would claim the competition is flawed because the figher just fight have zero out of combtat value etc etc...
This is why it's a waste of time. The goalposts are going to continuously be moved because some people "want" the fighter to suck. They don't want to accept the fact that they don't suck so no matter what you do they will not let up and admit defeat.
I'm going by the fact that celestial chainmail (and celestial full plate) don't have the same armor bonuses or arcane spell failure as regular chainmail, presumable because it isn't made out of the same material as regular chainmail since the only spell used is "fly" for the once a day command word.
I FAQ'ed it, so we'll find out from the Devs, but I feel pretty confident the Devs didn't intended to have +12 armor with no armor check penalty and at 10% spell failure chance for less than it would cost to make mithral full plate with the same command word spell.
Odd that you'd say that, since the devs actually did give us mundane armors with +10 AC, +4 maximum dex, a mere -4 armor class, for around 500 gp with their Piecemeal armor mechanics. Or the fact ultimate combat introduced armors that are flat-out better than core armors.
Even if it's not what was intended, RAW it's not made of mithral. Specific items that are made of unusual materials have to note it. Incidentally, all specific items that are DO note it. Neither Celestial Armor nor Celestial Plate Armor specify that they're made out of some sort of special material; so if it was an oversight they made the same oversight twice (once during editing where they were updating the 3.x material to PF, and the next time when they released an upgraded version).
But this is why people on the forums can't have nice things. Back on the Wizards of the Coast forums, or on Giant in the Playground, or other gaming sites, people assume RAW is in play when discussing classes and their balance. Not RAI, RAYWTTB (rules as you wish them to be), but what is legal. Because even if a Dev chimes in and says "Oops, well we intended for something else" it's still RAW until there's an errata.
That actually lets people on other forums have a civilized discussion. There sometimes is a disparity between what was intended and what is. It's not always a bad thing. For example, in some non-Golarion campaign settings (like Forgotten Realms) there are non-evil undead, and some of them might be Paladins and RAW undead Paladins can heal themselves just fine even if they can only harm other undead (perhaps not intended, but it works, and functions similarly to the Baelnorn from MoF who sometimes channel and heal with positive energy).
But we can't have a real discussion here, because every time someone surprises someone with something, or takes a route that implies optimization, or demonstrates something that is legally granting an advantage, then everyone gets into a 5 page argument over whether or not they should even be allowed to use the RAW in this comparison or discussion; which is really damned stupid.
The RAW gives us all even ground to work with. These sorts of discussions allow us as GMs to see where certain options lay in the metagame and consider if we wish to modify them. For example, there are people here who dislike that you can legally acquire or create these items, so they might disallow it. Then they might disallow Celestial Armor since it's arguably the best core armor (+5 celestial chain).
For example, some GMs might decided that...
Bestow Grace is too strong and they want to get rid of it (but in the RAW, Bestow Grace is a huge boon for the Paladin in these discussions). People will b+%%& that it wasn't intended to be as useful as it is.
But here we are, with another whole page of threads because we can't even discuss the game in a neutral field and argue over a passing comment that is ultimately rather irrelevant (to anyone who goes back and looks, I specifically said
I left it blank so that people could adapt it for their own uses. I personally feel that the less specifics you need for a build the better it is (that way you have room to wiggle with your concept, inventory, etc). I personally prefer +5 mithral celestial plate armor, which is around 50,000 gp and has a +14 to AC, max dex of +8, and -0 armor check penalty, and counts as light armor. Toss an armored kilt on it, and we can make it a medium armor with +15 AC.
I wasn't even counting the armor, because I was leaving it open since it's playable more or less as-is (completely mundane celestial armor is only 15% less evasion than mithral full plate of the same strength); but because it was asked, I said what would be my favorite armor. And lo and behold, we have 2 pages of trash detracting from anything else.
I miss Bob_Loblaw. We were getting further in our back and forth than we are now.
If we want to set up some rules and some goals for the characters then I would be up for posting a fighter build. I know I said that I didn't want to post any more builds but it seems like it may be necessary.
3) No use of the crafting new items. You can craft but you can't take advantage of the Magic Item Creation rules. They require too much GM adjudication.
Just to be clear, what constitutes as a new item? There are some rules that are very clear. It is legal - without GM judication - to combine effects of items together. It is legal - without GM judication - to increase things like enhancement bonuses (such as upgrading your +1 life drinker to a +5 life drinker of speed).
4) The PRD is allowed. Not d20Prd. The official one only. This way we don't accidentally use 3PP stuff and we both have the same rules to work with.
The d20pfsrd.com is more comprehensive. You can't mistake 3rd party material because they not only separate it from official material, but each item, spell, feat, or otherwise has its source listed as well; which tells you up front if it is a Paizo-published item.
5) One level at a time and each level is graded before the next is posted. Both builds must be posted before grading.
What are the measures by which it is graded? Are we going to use something like the same game test? Shall we have a panel of judges construct a series of scenes that are likely to show up over the course of the game? For example, stuff like...
Ambushed by Goblins.
Underground Lake w/ Hidden Treasures/Dangers.
An urban chase scene.
Avoiding an overpowering encounter.
A trapped dungeon.
Archers firing from a cliff.
Tracking someone.
Fighting a vampire and its thralls.
Realizing you're being lied to.
Getting past a very sturdy door with a lock.
Communicating with foreigners (can you speak goblin, magwi, or draconic?).
Fighting a mage post 10th level.
Going through a treacherous bog.
A spider and ettercap infested forest.
Attacked by drow armed with darkness and drow-poisoned weaponry.
Faced with a monster with a mix of brains and brawn (such as a neothelid).
Dealing with monsters with annoying tactical routines (such as ogremagi who have invisibility, regeneration, flying, cone of cold, etc).
Avoiding a nightime ambush in your camp (enemies sneaking up during your rest).
Helping a wounded friend (ally is in below 0 hp).
Helping a sick friend (ally has contracted a dangerous disease).
Helping a poisoned friend (say ally picked up an item laced with black lotus).
Ambushing opponents (the ogre guarding the door is asleep, what do you do?).
Fleeing from enemies (when things go bad, can you slow pursuers, trick them onto the wrong path, etc).
Can you get your treasure out of the dungeon (when you discover that the 3,000 gp worth of treasure is treasure at a 1:1 ratio of gold to pounds, such as finding lots of copper or iron bars, statues, copper pieces, or trade goods such as livestock, bolts of cloth, or suits of armor)?
Your wagon broke, how do you deal with it?
You have to reach X location overland in the shortest amount of time.
You find yourself in arial combat (maybe you decided it would be worth trying to drop the ring in the volcano from the sky, and are attacked by undead knights riding wyverns).
Your favorite weapon has been lost/broke/stolen.
One of your friends has been dominated by a vampire.
One of your friends has been turned into a vampire.
There is a spy in your midst (one of the people you saved is actually a simulacrum spy for the evil of the hour, or is actually a disguised drow assassin).
Sabotage an enemy from within (swallow hole doesn't count, but poisoning an army's food supplies might, or planting a sword in their leader while he sleeps, or stealing all their potions and consumables, or rigging their weapons to break or fail when used).
7) They should be able to fill similar roles. I don't know how we want to do this though. The fighter is meant as a front-liner and the ranger is meant as a skirmisher. The two work differently.
There's a lot of role overlap. The ranger is more than capable of tanking from levels 1-20. By higher levels, they can skirmish and front-line without the need to adjust equipment between activities.
These are the problems i have with martials
1) Hold still or suck.
In my experience fights tend to be mobile. people are always running around and doing things. The party guns down the critter you're standing in front of, the bad guy keeps moving away etc.
The lack of a full attack that the designers planned on adding more power to the martials as people level up does not seem to materialize.
2) Go big or go home.
If you are a melee martial though shalt use a two handed weapon. Because of 1, two weapon fighting styles never seem to work. You are spending feats to SOMETIMES be AS GOOD as the guy with the two hander.. who is of course spending his feats to get better all the time.
These are the problems i have with martials
1) Hold still or suck.
In my experience fights tend to be mobile. people are always running around and doing things. The party guns down the critter you're standing in front of, the bad guy keeps moving away etc.
The lack of a full attack that the designers planned on adding more power to the martials as people level up does not seem to materialize.
This was less of an issue in 3.0 where Haste allowed you to move + full attack. Ironically, when they were previewing changes from 3.0 to 3.5, they showed how the Fighter class itself was basically untouched because "it works great as is"; only for Fighter to be considered one of the worst classes in 3.5 with arguably no real way to function without tons of splat material.
Stealth-nerfs often hurt the most. In 3.0, martials always used haste at higher levels so they would move twice as far as normal with a move action, then full-attack. If they stood still, they got an extra action or might have gotten to quaff a potion or draw an extra item or something to that nature. They also had Keen + Imp. Critical stacking, which meant most Fighters were packing Improved Critical with their favorite weapons. In 3.5, they nerfed haste in the extreme but then made it multi-target (it was a powerful single-target buff in 3.0) but now Fighter-types (I mean all martials) had issues being able to move and attack. Most other classes got some way to get around this (pouncing barbarians were probably the most common later on). Fighters never really did though.
But I completely agree.
Why don't we just trust the judges to, you know, judge and you and I just make the builds.
Because I don't trust the judges to. Just having a panel of random folks look at some stat builds and pick a favorite means we don't know what they're judging it on, and it reeks of potential bias.
Hence why I suggested a test similar to the same game test. A gauntlet of many different adventuring scenarios plus different combat scenarios. That way we have something to compare to. If the game were only about combat numbers, then I'd be the first one in line saying "Dude, these fighters are the hax", but in 12+ years of experience with this game, Fighters are not the hax because they have a lot of problems that raw numbers don't address (and their raw numbers are limited mostly to hit & damage).
Do you have a reason to try and avoid a multi-scenario acid test like the one I mentioned earlier, or is it just 'cause I was the one who suggested it?
Oh, Bob,
The PFS druid I started as a result of our rogue convo is 5th level and doing fine (knock on wood)
Now for the Anklysaurus themed druid meatshield...
|
|
Because I don't trust the judges to. Just having a panel of random folks look at some stat builds and pick a favorite means we don't know what they're judging it on, and it reeks of potential bias.
Hence why I suggested a test similar to the same game test. A gauntlet of many different adventuring scenarios plus different combat scenarios. That way we have something to compare to. If the game were only about combat numbers, then I'd be the first one in line saying "Dude, these fighters are the hax", but in 12+ years of experience with this game, Fighters are not the hax because they have a lot of problems that raw numbers don't address (and their raw numbers are limited mostly to hit & damage).
Do you have a reason to try and avoid a multi-scenario acid test like the one I mentioned earlier, or is it just 'cause I was the one who suggested it?
Your multi-scenario acid test with scenarios selected by you is far from random. If you would like to go through an AP, I would be fine with that.
But since you don't trust any judges, the whole thing is moot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following this argument for a while now. Generally, I tend to agree with Ashiel, although I do get the point Ciretose is trying to make. This is mainly because of 2 facts.
1- I love fighters, but I do believe they need better toys ASAP. The "stay still or suck" is the part that irks me the most. And as I read somewhere in this forum "It does not matter how high is your DPR and AC if you are paralyzed, petrified or dominated" (in this last case, high DPR and AC are actually a bad thing!).
2- She makes a better presentation of her ideas.
In an ideal world, every idea and argument should be evaluated without bias, independent from who is talking or how it talks. But I can't help but feel compelled to disregard much of ciratose's points when I read things like "I am absolutely certain Ashiel will be arguing for 'clever' rules manipulation" or "My only real concern is Ashiel's history of "creative" reading of the rules", this sounds more like personal attacks and less like proper argumentation, which is mean and pointless.
What could be a very interesting debate quickly derails into rude bickering and accusations. I say this not to point finger or defend one or another PoV, but to clarify that the way you present your words has a great deal of influence on how well they are received.
Also, we all have different house rules, rule interpretations and personalities, so stick to RAW (erratas included), RAI and house rules are irrelevant on any discussion that involves more people than the ones with whom you play. RAW is not perfect but is the one thing all players have in common.
The "stay still or suck" is the part that irks me the most.
Damn you for improving my alliteration! :)
I had a feeling that this was going to fall apart quickly. It already feels like it is. I will restate that I don't think this will prove how good the classes are. Instead it will show what two competent character builders can accomplish.
I've been following this argument for a while now. Generally, I tend to agree with Ashiel, although I do get the point Ciretose is trying to make. This is mainly because of 2 facts.
1- I love fighters, but I do believe they need better toys ASAP. The "stay still or suck" is the part that irks me the most. And as I read somewhere in this forum "It does not matter how high is your DPR and AC if you are paralyzed, petrified or dominated" (in this last case, high DPR and AC are actually a bad thing!).
2- She makes a better presentation of her ideas.
In an ideal world, every idea and argument should be evaluated without bias, independent from who is talking or how it talks. But I can't help but feel compelled to disregard much of ciratose's points when I read things like "I am absolutely certain Ashiel will be arguing for 'clever' rules manipulation" or "My only real concern is Ashiel's history of "creative" reading of the rules", this sounds more like personal attacks and less like proper argumentation, which is mean and pointless.What could be a very interesting debate quickly derails into rude bickering and accusations. I say this not to point finger or defend one or another PoV, but to clarify that the way you present your words has a great deal of influence on how well they are received.
Also, we all have different house rules, rule interpretations and personalities, so stick to RAW (erratas included), RAI and house rules are irrelevant on any discussion that involves more people than the ones with whom you play. RAW is not perfect but is the one thing all players have in common.
+1 to everything here. So that's like +4 in one post. In particular, I especially would like to say that
What could be a very interesting debate quickly derails into rude bickering and accusations. I say this not to point finger or defend one or another PoV, but to clarify that the way you present your words has a great deal of influence on how well they are received.
This and...
Also, we all have different house rules, rule interpretations and personalities, so stick to RAW (erratas included), RAI and house rules are irrelevant on any discussion that involves more people than the ones with whom you play. RAW is not perfect but is the one thing all players have in common.
This are what I was trying to say, only better. Thank you Lemmy.
Fighters would be more like other classes if there were feats that gave limited use/duration "magical" abilities.
A couple examples: Indomitable - DR 10/all for 5 rounds once per day. Juggernaut - +5 AC/to hit/damage for 10 rounds once per day. I'm not proposing these as balanced feats, just suggesting limited use abilities.
This was the route 4th edition D&D went, with all classes having at will, encounter and daily use powers. Pathfinder's charm is that it has a different style. I accept that martial classes have linear power growth while spell casters have geometric growth.
I agree on Archetypes.
Most Archetypes spoon out dribbles of stuff that should be available to any fighter, not giving up class abilities. Sure, it's a control factor, but why can't every fighter have the option at level 19 to burn a standard action at -5 TH to do an auto crit on a foe?
Why isn't there a fighter only feat for improved power attack, instead only available for 2h'ers?
==========
Simple fixes to a fighter are:
All Good saves. Bravery stands as is. Suddenly, saves are not an issue. Anyone who doesn't rely on magic to get by in the world is basically FORCED to have great saves.
There is no reason the Paladin gets immunity to fear and +4 to everything in the area, AND Cha to saves AND a good Will save...by level 2...and the fighter gets Bravery at level 3 with a POOR will save.
BAH.
(I'd give the Rogue choice of good Fort or Will, too).
Auto Vital Strike chain. This eases a great deal of the move and strike problem. It's not Pounce, but it's better.
Weapon Focus tree auto-scales, costs one fighter feat, OR simply doubles weapon training from class.
Dual-Wielding is either one feat or two. Lower the feat tax.
The Armor Training bonus is a Dodge bonus. This means a fighter doesn't need a 24 Dex to max out a mithral BP. Like a monk, he gets his AC from superior training as he levels.
4 skill points a level. Come on, he doesn't have spells, he spends his time learning stuff he needs to learn. The line between a fighter and ranger should really blur. These guys are not WARRIORS...who are soldiers and grunts. Fighters are the Olympians of melee. They train all the time in learning what they need to learn. There's people who'd like to say Spec Ops guys like SEALS are rangers and not fighters, but regardless, these guys are some of the most highly trained people in the whole world.
If you aren't going to give them skill points, then give them bonus non-combat feats that affect skills, ie. extra skill focus style feats.
Magical Artisan should be a non-magic crafter feat. I.e. you take Magical Artisan (Craft magic Arms & Armor) to be able to craft stuff without spells. Craft Magic arms & ARmor is for spellcasters...this removes the feat tax for not being a spellcaster, and is thematic.
DR while in Armor should elevate by level, not suddenly be dropped on them, and should stack with Adamantine Armor, unlike a Barbarian's DR. This would mean that Adamantine Armor would be the endpoint of any and every fighter...which is only right.
==============
Those are my fast and dirty 'fighter fixes' which should address just about every perceived imbalance in the fighter class, without actually upping his DPR and 'killing ability' all that much, and staying true to the fact that the fighter is not a 'nova' build and should not be. Sure, a spellcaster can do better in a specific situation then any fighter...a Ranger spamming Instant Enemy is going to have better bonuses then a fighter with any weapon, and have some modularity.
But the fighter and the non-magic person should not be penalized for not having magic.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
