Let's try a dictionary since we're going to make accusations about accuracy in a statement:1. Admitting of comparison with another or others: "The satellite revolution is comparable to Gutenberg's invention of movable type" (Irvin Molotsky).
2. Similar or equivalent: pianists of comparable ability.I'm favoring definition 2 - equivalence. If you are hitting less often and doing less damage, you are not equivalent.
Is that not clear?
Oh yeah, buzzard. Abundantly clear. You are going to claim that definition #2 is more valid than definition #1 just so you can convince yourself that you've scored a rhetorical point when 95% of the people reading this are saying "what, really?"
Go ahead and claim that if it makes you feel better about yourself. I'll stick with the notion that in general conversation people tend to read and comprehend based on the FIRST definition of a word that shows up in a dictionary.
Next time if you mean "equivalent" do us all a favor and say "equivalent" OK?
Let's ignore the fact that if this is what you actually meant then you are saying that there is one and only one valid melee build, because nothing else will be "equivalent" to that one. So everything else is pointless apparently.
Speaking of reach and lockdown builds and such, IMHO the best method is to just strait out abuse Dazing Assault. It's a high level tactic, but adding a DC 21-32 save vs Daze to all your attacks each round is pretty goofy good. If you combine it with lunge, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, and the like...well you end up with what amounts to an at-will massive AoE lockdown attack that deals fair damage. If you can combine it with Combat Reflexes, well you can keep foes useless for a while.
I suppose it's all right, but it really doesn't impress me on paper. Maybe it's better in practice, but the DCs really are not that high compared to the opposition.
Try level 11 when you get it. The DC is 21.
Let's look at some CR 11 critters (which is low for your level, but we're taking it easy on the feat).
Hezrou Fort +16
Hamatula Devil +14
Adult Black Dragon +14
Cloud Giant +16
Naga (royal) +9 (finally a target)For giving up +5 to hit, having a 30% chance of daze (or worse) in most cases doesn't seem like a bargain. Sure against things with weak fortitude saves, it is sweet, but how common are those really? It will play hell on arcane casters (certainly better than the gimpy disruption chain), but those will have tricks to avoid this in the first place.
When I first saw you advocate it here, I immediately looked it up, but honestly I don't really think it is that shiny.
The biggest reason I think the feat is gnarly is because it is not keyed off ability scores or 1/2 HD as usual but purely BAB. DC 21 at 11th level is not insignificant. It's also applied to every attack you make during the round, which basically means every hit you land is a chance to stunlock a foe. I've advocated Dazing Spell for its exceptional kicker, and this one actually is an ability that makes martial consistency look good. Even a 30% chance per hit for a level-appropriate foe to lose their actions for 1 turn is pretty significant IMHO (actions are precious).
This is especially true when you also apply debuffs to the target(s). The whirlwind option is for mooks mainly. At high levels, mooks can be dangerous and most can't be one-shot effectively (but this tactic can rob a pretty large number of them of actions, which aids your economy pretty heavily). More powerful individuals (such as dragons) generally get the full-attack treatment.
Since the DC rises +1/level (which is very fast actually) the ability gets better. And if you really want to use it to its fullest the Ability Focus feat is a good way to bump the DC up by another 2 points. DC 30 is very meaningful even at 20th level to most classes. Adding a kicker effect that essentially is a save or lose your turn is pretty awesome.
Expanding on Ashiel's points...
Let's take 30% chance as a reasonable likelihood, and assume that you can get a full attack, probably hasted in a BBEG fight. Now you're probably getting four attacks per round minimum. Let's assume you have a 50% chance to hit. Now you've got two chances at 30% which is now a 51% chance to daze in a full attack.
That's pretty awesome. In a fight that lasts more than a couple rounds, you're going to daze the target 95% of the time.
The DC for Dazing/Stunning Assault is actually quite low for the levels that you have it.
What makes it really powerful is not the DC, but the fact that (1) if it works, you've all but eliminated the threat, and (2) you can force them to make that save up to a half dozen times a round, thereby ensuring that it will likely work out in your favor.
EDIT: Why is always Adamantine Dragon Ninjas that get me?
*starts fashioning a dragon-bane bow* ;D
The ranger begins and ends with...
...the pet with Scent, which is overly in a lot of my campaigns (mystery/horror/suspense).
Arguably*, a single feat can give the fighter the same thing: Eldritch Heritage (Sylvan). A second feat makes it like a druid animal companion.
*It is very much argued whether that feat will actually allow an animal companion, considering the Sylvan bloodline replaces both the bloodline arcana and the 1st level bloodline power. It will be up to your gaming group if you will allow this. Ours does.
RD, yeah, probability is cool.
A 20% chance of something succeeding sounds pretty terrible, unless you get six tries to make it work, then suddenly you have a 75% chance of success.
Oh yeah, buzzard. Abundantly clear. You are going to claim that definition #2 is more valid than definition #1 just so you can convince yourself that you've scored a rhetorical point when 95% of the people reading this are saying "what, really?"
Go ahead and claim that if it makes you feel better about yourself. I'll stick with the notion that in general conversation people tend to read and comprehend based on the FIRST definition of a word that shows up in a dictionary.
Next time if you mean "equivalent" do us all a favor and say "equivalent" OK?
Let's ignore the fact that if this is what you actually meant then you are saying that there is one and only one valid melee build, because nothing else will be "equivalent" to that one. So everything else is pointless apparently.
Well definition 1 doesn't apply any judgement. If you take an amateur pianist and a concert pianist, you can consider them comparable and hence definition 1 is applicable.
If we wish to make a value (or rather numerical) judgement on two things, then definition 2 is applicable.
Then we're back to you putting words in my mouth. Aren't you even capable of an argument not based on straw men?
I mean really? When was I even talking about melee builds? I pointed out at one point that archery was feat intensive, but never mentioned melee. You might want to brush up on that reading comprehension.
There's plenty of options out there for builds. heck, your versatile options are valid. They are just sub optimal given that other classes have better bases to start with.
Expanding on Ashiel's points...
Let's take 30% chance as a reasonable likelihood, and assume that you can get a full attack, probably hasted in a BBEG fight. Now you're probably getting four attacks per round minimum. Let's assume you have a 50% chance to hit. Now you've got two chances at 30% which is now a 51% chance to daze in a full attack.
That's pretty awesome. In a fight that lasts more than a couple rounds, you're going to daze the target 95% of the time.
I think the whirlwind attacks/dazing all the scrubs option would be far more devastating in games I run.
buzzard, as I always do in these situations, I will leave it as an exercise to the readers which of us is making sense, which of us is putting words in the other's mouth and which of us is personally insulting when they feel insecure in their arguments.
I feel pretty good that I've made my case far better than you've made yours. But, as I said, that's not for you nor me to decide, but the voiceless readers.
Expanding on Ashiel's points...
Let's take 30% chance as a reasonable likelihood, and assume that you can get a full attack, probably hasted in a BBEG fight. Now you're probably getting four attacks per round minimum. Let's assume you have a 50% chance to hit. Now you've got two chances at 30% which is now a 51% chance to daze in a full attack.
That's pretty awesome. In a fight that lasts more than a couple rounds, you're going to daze the target 95% of the time.
Yes, I would accede that the 30% is wonderful if it weren't for the -5 to hit.
This is especially manifest in the face of iterative attacks (and power attack).
Take an 11th level fighter. We'll assume PFS normal build (and wealth and all that rot).
To hit: +11 BAB +7 str +2 weapon +2 weapon training +2 gloves of dueling +2 weapon focus +1 gr weapon focus +1 (yes, it's one of my pesky optimized fighters) = +28. Now we power attack, and that's down to +25, then we subtract 5 more for dazing and it's 20. Sure that's great.
Take a barbed devil
So the first chance to daze is .75 (hitting on a 6) * 0.3 (devil needs a 7 to save) = .225
interative 2 .5 * .3 = .15
iterative 3 .25 * .3 = .075
iterative 4 .05 * .3 = .015
This sums to .465, which I do have to admit is pretty good. You have a high chance of taking out the baddy for a round. Better than a expect, but the math doesn't lie.
On something with higher AC this will hurt even more, but I can certainly see the benefit against lackeys of CR=level or CR<level.
Might have to consider that for some builds.
Think of using the dazing on a TWF build with improved TWF and haste...
I'm not sure I would allow this in my campaigns... Have to think about it.
Why would you power attack on a round you're trying to daze?
What exactly does a ranger, gunslinger or cavalier can do out of combat that is unique (AKA can not be replicated by some other class)?I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.
Agree or disagree with this statement:
Rangers have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Then, agree or disagree with this statement:
Fighters have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
What would be a more balanced version of Dazing Assault?
DC: 10 + 1/2 BAB + Str Modifier?
Only a -2 penalty, but applies only to the first successful hit?
These changes seem somehwat reasonable, but they cripple the feat really hard, and even if it's powerful, I'm not sure this feat is as broken as Ashiel says.
What would be a more balanced version of Dazing Assault?
DC: 10 + 1/2 BAB + Str Modifier?
Only a -2 penalty, but applies only to the first successful hit?
These seem more reasonable, but they cripple the feat really hard, and even if it's powerful, I'm not sure this feat is as broken as Ashiel says.
I would probably argue that it should only apply to the first hit per round. That way you can't cheese it up with cuisinart builds.
Why would you power attack on a round you're trying to daze?
Because if the critter does make the save (and they will 70% of the time) you don't want to gimp your damage. Power attack really is a large chunk of your DPR.
While the dazed condition is a nice one to inflict, the dead one is better.
I would probably argue that it should only apply to the first hit per round. That way you can't cheese it up with cuisinart builds.
Do you mean first hit in the sense of hitter or hitee? That makes a big difference in terms of crowd control.
I can see the logic in the latter since as you say if you just lay in enough hits, eventually the save will get botched.
I'd argue that, at the levels you can get it, Dazing/Stunning Assault are roughly balanced.
Why would you power attack on a round you're trying to daze?Because if the critter does make the save (and they will 70% of the time) you don't want to gimp your damage. Power attack really is a large chunk of your DPR.
While the dazed condition is a nice one to inflict, the dead one is better.
Fair enough. That +6 to damage really helps.
I would probably argue that it should only apply to the first hit per round. That way you can't cheese it up with cuisinart builds.
Do you mean first hit in the sense of hitter or hitee? That makes a big difference in terms of crowd control.
I can see the logic in the latter since as you say if you just lay in enough hits, eventually the save will get botched.
Hmm... good question. This is where game balance and verisimilitude collide for me.
I can make a case for the first hit being able to daze, but not subsequent hits from a single attacker. It's harder to make that case for multiple attackers. But that just leaves the door open for the entire party to spam dazing attacks... Making it the hittee solves that but it's difficult to visualize...
I dunno... I need to see this in action to decide if or how "broken" it is. I mean if you devote resources to pull it off.... maybe it's OK. Just not sure.
|
Agree or disagree with this statement:
Rangers have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Then, agree or disagree with this statement:
Fighters have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
I get what you're getting at here, and with the fairly minor exception of armor training, I agree with it as far as it goes. However, let me propose an experiment for you: try building a ranger using only its class abilities and see if you are happy with its combat performance. (You only get combat style feats for this purpose, you see.) And then try doing the same thing with a fighter.
The ranger has to use non-class abilities to maintain its in-combat utility. Why is it not therefore acceptable for the fighter to use non-class abilities to maintain its out of combat utility?
You are avoiding the question. You say fighter do not have and unique method to contribute out of combat (a true statement) and other martials do have and UNIQUE way to contribute out of combat. And I just want to know what are those totally unique ways of the other martials.What exactly does a ranger, gunslinger or cavalier can do out of combat that is unique (AKA can not be replicated by some other class)?I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.Agree or disagree with this statement:
Rangers have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Then, agree or disagree with this statement:
Fighters have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
If you want me to respond to exactly what you are saying, I would appreciate the same courtesy. Unfortunately, you failed to show that consideration with your question, so I do not feel obligated to return it. Reread the sentence with the word you've decided to focus on and figure out if there's part that you decided to ignore.
Hmm... good question. This is where game balance and verisimilitude collide for me.
I can make a case for the first hit being able to daze, but not subsequent hits from a single attacker. It's harder to make that case for multiple attackers. But that just leaves the door open for the entire party to spam dazing attacks... Making it the hittee solves that but it's difficult to visualize...
I dunno... I need to see this in action to decide if or how "broken" it is. I mean if you devote resources to pull it off.... maybe it's OK. Just not sure.
OK, it appears I communicated poorly.
I get from you that the first hit only applies to one guy. But what I would ask is that if I pull that whirlwind attack game does it only daze the first target it hits. If that is a no, it severely limits the crowd control aspect.
I didn't even consider the question of multiple dazers though I can certainly see how my phrasing could lead to that conclusion.
Hmm... good question. This is where game balance and verisimilitude collide for me.
I can make a case for the first hit being able to daze, but not subsequent hits from a single attacker. It's harder to make that case for multiple attackers. But that just leaves the door open for the entire party to spam dazing attacks... Making it the hittee solves that but it's difficult to visualize...
I dunno... I need to see this in action to decide if or how "broken" it is. I mean if you devote resources to pull it off.... maybe it's OK. Just not sure.
OK, it appears I communicated poorly.
I get from you that the first hit only applies to one guy. But what I would ask is that if I pull that whirlwind attack game does it only daze the first target it hits. If that is a no, it severely limits the crowd control aspect.
I didn't even consider the question of multiple dazers though I can certainly see how my phrasing could lead to that conclusion.
Hmm... yeah, now I see what you meant, but I think both situations deserve attention.
I'd be fine, I think, with it applying to multiple targets in one round. I mean in general that would be mooks or minions and that's pretty nicely cinematic without being an encounter breaker I don't think.
But again, I'd like to see this in action. I could be totally wrong, this could be an "I win" button in some cases.
That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.The whole fighter = commoner is based on the assertion that fighter do not bring something unique out of combat ( a true stament). I just want to know what unique thing do the other martials offers.
Yes rangers offers a lot of out of combat utility, but nothing they have is unique. I do not see why fighter out of combat options have to be unique either.
You're still fixating on a single word instead of the entire sentence. For example, the two words following unique in my original statement.
Man...took me a minute.
I couldn't remember being anti-fighter, then saw the dr part.
D:
Man...took me a minute.
I couldn't remember being anti-fighter, then saw the dr part.
D:
Heh, BuzzardB, had I known we had a flock of buzzards, I wouldn't have shortened drbuzzard as I did. My apologies for any confusion my shorthand caused.
But that word is important because you are asking the fighter something that no other martial have. Maybe you should present your argument without using that word, cause that make your case weaker.You're still fixating on a single word instead of the entire sentence. For example, the two words following unique in my original statement.
That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.The whole fighter = commoner is based on the assertion that fighter do not bring something unique out of combat ( a true stament). I just want to know what unique thing do the other martials offers.
Yes rangers offers a lot of out of combat utility, but nothing they have is unique. I do not see why fighter out of combat options have to be unique either.
I don't see the reason for the fixation on fighters not having pre-canned non-combat flavor anyway. So what? It has no bearing on any of the actual meaningful discussion of whether fighters can be perfectly fine out of combat contributors. It's just a way of saying that you have to come up with your own out of combat flavor instead of relying on tradition or game designer fiat.
Of course I dislike the class system pretty much in its entirety. In my own world all characters would be based on a base class of "PC" which had all of the basic mechanics baked in, but no flavor, and you would pick and choose your flavor as you built your character instead of being pigeon-holed into preset convention. "Oh you're a rogue. Go find some traps." "Oh, you're a ranger, go do some tracking." I like to build my own flavor.
Of course I dislike the class system pretty much in its entirety. In my own world all characters would be based on a base class of "PC" which had all of the basic mechanics baked in, but no flavor, and you would pick and choose your flavor as you built your character instead of being pigeon-holed into preset convention. "Oh you're a rogue. Go find some traps." "Oh, you're a ranger, go do some tracking." I like to build my own flavor.
That can work, however it multiplies the game master's work exponentially. Part of the appeal of using a system like pathfinder is saving 100's of hours of work over balancing the same story in, say GURPS 4.
That can work, however it multiplies the game master's work exponentially. Part of the appeal of using a system like pathfinder is saving 100's of hours of work over balancing the same story in, say GURPS 4.
Of course I dislike the class system pretty much in its entirety. In my own world all characters would be based on a base class of "PC" which had all of the basic mechanics baked in, but no flavor, and you would pick and choose your flavor as you built your character instead of being pigeon-holed into preset convention. "Oh you're a rogue. Go find some traps." "Oh, you're a ranger, go do some tracking." I like to build my own flavor.
I'm sure there are legitimate reasons to champion the class system, but GM effort doesn't seem to be one of them to me. I built an RPG and we played it for quite a while back in the 80s and it had no classes. I was the GM, I didn't notice any great increase in work.
GMs can have preset templates for specific flavor they want. Heck so can the players, but that's different than having classes baked into the game from the ground up.
Just give me options. That's what I like.
That can work, however it multiplies the game master's work exponentially. Part of the appeal of using a system like pathfinder is saving 100's of hours of work over balancing the same story in, say GURPS 4.
Of course I dislike the class system pretty much in its entirety. In my own world all characters would be based on a base class of "PC" which had all of the basic mechanics baked in, but no flavor, and you would pick and choose your flavor as you built your character instead of being pigeon-holed into preset convention. "Oh you're a rogue. Go find some traps." "Oh, you're a ranger, go do some tracking." I like to build my own flavor.I'm sure there are legitimate reasons to champion the class system, but GM effort doesn't seem to be one of them to me. I built an RPG and we played it for quite a while back in the 80s and it had no classes. I was the GM, I didn't notice any great increase in work.
GMs can have preset templates for specific flavor they want. Heck so can the players, but that's different than having classes baked into the game from the ground up.
Just give me options. That's what I like.
Having GMd both systems, built worlds in both systems, and ran from scratch campaigns in both systems, the work effort is about 30 - 40x time in GURPS or HERO. When it's all said and done, you still don't have an idea if a 65 point mad slasher in a kevlar vest will...
1.) chew the party up.
2.) be a fair challange. -or-
3.) be the next meal.
There is no accurate way to balance most other systems on-the-fly, and it is absolutely necessary to do that with the group I play with. The only other system I've ever been able to handle sandbox players who constantly make up their own agendas is ICE (Rolemaster/HARP).
There is no accurate way to balance most other systems on-the-fly, and it is absolutely necessary to do that with the group I play with. The only other system I've ever been able to handle sandbox players who constantly make up their own agendas is ICE (Rolemaster/HARP).
Huh. Interesting.
Balancing encounters has never been an issue for me in any game system I've ever run. If an encounter is too easy, I scale up the next one. It's good for the players to sometimes kick ass anyway. If it's too hard, the PCs generally know they better run away, and I can adjust the next encounter down or do something else to balance things out. I've never had a problem recognizing a Godzilla vs Bambi scenario in any system.
Just never been an issue. Much less an issue of orders of magnitude between systems.
There is no accurate way to balance most other systems on-the-fly, and it is absolutely necessary to do that with the group I play with. The only other system I've ever been able to handle sandbox players who constantly make up their own agendas is ICE (Rolemaster/HARP).Huh. Interesting.
Balancing encounters has never been an issue for me in any game system I've ever run. If an encounter is too easy, I scale up the next one. It's good for the players to sometimes kick ass anyway. If it's too hard, the PCs generally know they better run away, and I can adjust the next encounter down or do something else to balance things out. I've never had a problem recognizing a Godzilla vs Bambi scenario in any system.
Just never been an issue. Much less an issue of orders of magnitude between systems.
I find it sooooooooo much easier in 3.0/3.5/pf and rolemaster/HARP than GURPS or Hero, and RM (actually RMSS/RMFRP) isn't generally easy to GM, but so much easier than GURPS or Hero (or BRP for that matter, although BRP isn't really a good system).
Systems can be put into place to make a universal (like GURPS or hero) playable on-the-fly, but actually building those systems within the rules context is very, very time consuming. That same time can be spent fleshing out setting and scenario within a system that already has player templates (class in 3.5/pf, professsion in HARP) in place. With a system like HERO or GURPS, not only does every character have to be built from the ground up, every adversary does as well, depending on the rules set you are using. In a sandbox interpretation that means I have to come up with most eventualities before play starts. With 3.5/pf or RM/HARP, if I need a monster of challenge X, I can page through the Bestiary until I find one.
On the starting array, you're forgetting level boosts, and you're giving your character a higher Con than I did. The starting stats were Str 14, Dex 15 (+2 racial), Con 12, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 8. Level bumps went to Dex (4th) and Int (8th).
I didn't forget the level boosts, I thought they just both went into Dex. What I DID do, again, was forget racial bonuses.
As for the money, +3 composite (+2) longbow is 18600 gp, the halberd is 2310, the boots and cloak are 2500 gp each, the lens is 3500 gp, the gloves are 2500 gp, the +1 mithral full plate is 11500, the belt is 16000 and the headband is 4000. With the thieves' tools, that's a total of 63510 gp, which means I went over by about 500 gp, not counting the "1400 gp in various useful items" because I was rounding stuff off and throwing things together to post the character. Still, that's not using crafting costs and right around what the character at that level should have. I don't know where your numbers are coming from.
Because the belt is 36000 not 16000. You put down a +6 Belt of Dexterity, it's the +4 that's worth 16k.
No, the point, as has been repeated several times, is not to compare the fighter to other classes, it's to point out that fighters can be built quite easily to do things out of combat while maintaining combat effectiveness. Comparisons to other classes are completely irrelevant.
The comparisons to other classes are the MOST relevant. If you can do something with effort that another class can do easily that is an indicator of imbalance.
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC 25, touch 15, flat-footed 20
(armor +10, Dex +5)
hp 79 (10d10+20)
Fort +8, Ref +9, Will +8 (+10 vs fear)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 halberd +15/+10 (1d10+5, 20/x3)
Ranged +3 composite (+2) longbow +23/+18 (1d8+9, 20/x3) or
+3 composite (+2) longbow with Deadly Aim, Multishot and Rapid Shot +18 (1d8+15, 20/x3, plus 1d8+15) and +13/+18 (1d8+15, 20/x3)
Special Attacks weapon training (bows +2, polearms +1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Str 14 (+2), Dex 22 (+6), Con 12 (+1), Int 14 (+2), Wis 16 (+3), Cha 8 (-1)
Base Atk +10; CMB +12; CMD 28
Feats Alertness, Deadly Aim, Iron Will, Greater Weapon Focus (longbow), Multishot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus (Disable Device), Skill Focus (Perception), Skill Focus (Stealth), Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow)
Skills Acrobatics +20 (10 ranks), Disable Device +23 (+28 vs traps) (10 ranks), Perception +28 (10 ranks), Stealth +26 (10 ranks), Sense Motive +10 (5 ranks), Survival +11 (+16 following tracks) (5 ranks); armor check penalty -1.
Languages Common plus two more
SQ armor training 2, bravery +2, focused study
Gear +3 composite (+2) longbow, +1 halberd, +1 mithral full plate, belt of incredible dexterity +4, boots of elvenkind, headband of inspired wisdom +2, cloak of elvenkind, lenses of detection, masterwork thieves' tools, trapspringer's gloves, 1400 gp in various useful items.
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5 (+9/+7 FT); Senses Perception +26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC 23, touch 15, flat-footed 18
(armor +8, Dex +5)
hp 85 (10d10+30) FCB HP
Fort +9, Ref +13, Will +7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 Halberd +13/+8 (1d10+3)
Ranged +3 composite (+2) longbow +21/+16 (1d8+5, 20/x3) (FE: +27/+22, 1d8+11) OR +3 composite (+2) longbow with Deadly Aim, Manyshot and Rapid Shot +17/+12 (1d8+9, 20/x3 per arrow) (FE: +23/+18, 1d8+15)
Special Attacks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Str 14 (+2), Dex 22 (+6), Con 14 (+2), Int 10 (+0), Wis 14 (+2), Cha 8 (-1)
Base Atk +10; CMB 12; CMD 17
Feats Weapon Focus: Longbow, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Skill Focus: Perception, Improved Precise Shot, Manyshot, Deadly Aim, Iron Will, Endurance
Skills Acrobatics +20 (10 ranks), Disable Device +17 (+22 vs traps) (10 ranks), Kn. Nature +14 (10 ranks) Perception +26 (10 ranks), Stealth +23 (10 ranks), Sense Motive +12 (10 ranks), Spellcraft +14 (10 ranks) Survival +15 (+20 following tracks) (10 ranks); armor check penalty -1.
Languages Common
SQ Track, Evasion, Woodland Stride, Favored Enemy/Terrain, Swift Tracker
Gear +3 composite (+2) longbow, +1 halberd, +2 mithral breastplate, belt of incredible dexterity +4, boots of elvenkind, headband of inspired wisdom +2, cloak of elvenkind, lenses of detection, masterwork thieves' tools, trapspringer's gloves, 1200 gp in various useful items.
His stats are a bit lower because I've honestly used Point Buy a grand total of once before so I don't really know how to game the system as much, and I had to drop the Dex Belt down to the +4.
Edit:Wait, actually I forgot the racial bonus to Dex, I think. I started off with 14/14/14/10/14/8 before racial bonuses and stat boosts. Which means I dun goofed ALL up on stat allocation. So I should actually have something like 12 Int to make up the difference, then 16 Dex from racial, 18 from level boosts, and 4 from the Belt for a total of 22. BRB editing stuff.
Edit 2: Okay think I fixed it.
I put exactly one Feat into using skills and came out with an average of -2 or 3 below some of your skills, and significantly higher in one because of a class feature. I used no archetypes and put my favored class bonus into HP instead of skills, had only 10 Int instead of 14, and still had points to max out every skill you put any ranks into, unless I missed one, and then 2 more.
On the combat front, as expected, I am a few points behind you in to-hit and damage because of Weapon Training, but against Favored Enemy my to-hit outstrips yours and my damage matches it. I have never built an archer (or a Ranger for that matter) before so I'm not sure if my build is the optimal or not.
My saves come in at -1 to you on Will, +1 to you on Fort, and +4 to you on Ref.
I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.
Where do you keep getting this?
Fighters do not have more RP opportunities than any other class. RP is 90% fluff, 10% numbers. Fluff can ALWAYS be made up.
But that's getting off track. That's what I've been saying for a while now (since soon RD posted his build), that Fighters might be CAPABLE of doing things, it's harder for them to do it than it is for other classes.
Everything I talk about is from a design perspective, there's no purpose in talking about anything else when we're arguing mechanics.
My PF fighter had a cohort with a wand of enlarge (and some other wands) and it was standard operating procedure for my combat reflexes fighter with spiked chain to create a 40' diameter zone of control on the battlefield.
Yeah, he took an AC hit, but he also managed to trip a lot of those dudes trying to whack him, so they didn't get nearly as many hits. One of the main benefits I found from a 15' radius tripper is that he didn't take a whole lot of full attacks since most of his attackers were spending at least a move action standing back up.
However, having said that, yeah, he was a pretty big, juicy target and he did, indeed, spend a good bit of time getting pointy things removed from his hide. But he rarely was knocked unconscious.
How was he getting all that reach? Spiked chains don't get any reach in PF.
I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.[/i]Where do you keep getting this?
Fighters do not have more RP opportunities than any other class. RP is 90% fluff, 10% numbers. Fluff can ALWAYS be made up.
Where do you keep getting this?
I never said fighters have "more RP opportunities than any other class." I never even suggested anything that could remotely be twisted in some bizarro alternate universe into what you read Rynjin.
In fact I more or less am saying the OPPOSITE. I am conceding that fighters have fewer RP options than most other classes without sacrificing feats.
What I AM saying is that even in spite of them having fewer options, they still have far more opportunities for role playing than are necessary to create a compelling character with rich and varied role playing opportunities. I am also saying that a fighter with a couple of well-invested feats gives a player far, far more role playing opportunities than I see the vast majority of players take advantage of, regardless of how "versatile" that character actually is.
Or to put it another way, the threshold for out of combat abilities is very low to allow for rich and compelling role playing opportunities and while a ranger or druid might cross that threshold with their built in non-combat flavor, it is a trivial exercise to get a fighter across that threshold with a tiny investment of a feat. Maybe two.
How was he getting all that reach? Spiked chains don't get any reach in PF.My PF fighter had a cohort with a wand of enlarge (and some other wands) and it was standard operating procedure for my combat reflexes fighter with spiked chain to create a 40' diameter zone of control on the battlefield.
Yeah, he took an AC hit, but he also managed to trip a lot of those dudes trying to whack him, so they didn't get nearly as many hits. One of the main benefits I found from a 15' radius tripper is that he didn't take a whole lot of full attacks since most of his attackers were spending at least a move action standing back up.
However, having said that, yeah, he was a pretty big, juicy target and he did, indeed, spend a good bit of time getting pointy things removed from his hide. But he rarely was knocked unconscious.
He was a 3.5 conversion so the GM allowed the chain to continue to have reach. By then it didn't matter that much since we were soon past the point where tripping was doing that much anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that word is important because you are asking the fighter something that no other martial have. Maybe you should present your argument without using that word, cause that make your case weaker.You're still fixating on a single word instead of the entire sentence. For example, the two words following unique in my original statement.
That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.The whole fighter = commoner is based on the assertion that fighter do not bring something unique out of combat ( a true stament). I just want to know what unique thing do the other martials offers.
Yes rangers offers a lot of out of combat utility, but nothing they have is unique. I do not see why fighter out of combat options have to be unique either.
My case is more than just one word. Until you acknowledge that, I'm going to have to assume you don't actually want to talk to me, but at me, which I find very disrespectful.
I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.[/i]Where do you keep getting this?
Fighters do not have more RP opportunities than any other class. RP is 90% fluff, 10% numbers. Fluff can ALWAYS be made up.
Where do you keep getting this?
I never said fighters have "more RP opportunities than any other class." I never even suggested anything that could remotely be twisted in some bizarro alternate universe into what you read Rynjin.
In fact I more or less am saying the OPPOSITE. I am conceding that fighters have fewer RP options than most other classes without sacrificing feats.
Wait what
Maybe we read things differently but when I see a statement like "any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize" I take it at face value.
What I AM saying is that even in spite of them having fewer options, they still have far more opportunities for role playing than are necessary to create a compelling character with rich and varied role playing opportunities. I am also saying that a fighter with a couple of well-invested feats gives a player far, far more role playing opportunities than I see the vast majority of players take advantage of, regardless of how "versatile" that character actually is.
You're still losing me here. I don't see how Feats give the Fighter more roleplaying opportunities, you may have to break this one down for me.
Or to put it another way, the threshold for out of combat abilities is very low to allow for rich and compelling role playing opportunities and while a ranger or druid might cross that threshold with their built in non-combat flavor, it is a trivial exercise to get a fighter across that threshold with a tiny investment of a feat. Maybe two.
I'm just completely lost here now. Why do you need the Feats to RP again?
Geez Rynjin, seriously? I almost hope you are being disingenuous because the alternative is... disturbing.
Let's say, just for example, that I build a fighter and instead of taking another combat feat with one of my general feat slots, I take "extra traits" and pick two traits to make "UMD" and "Diplomacy" class skills. Now I've got a +1, and the +3 for them being class skills. That's a +4 before I put a single rank into them. Now I've got two skill ranks per level, so I put ranks into them every level. By level 4 I am at +8 in both skills. Now it's plausible for my fighter to use wands and interact favorably with NPCs to advance the party's agenda.
Ergo my role playing options have opened up outside of combat. Maybe I have a wand of CLW so I can be an extra healing resource. Or a wand of disguise so I can use my diplomacy to find information.
Anyway, this is way, way too obvious for me to be explaining it.
I believe you may be confusing me with some players who argue that role playing is not related at all to character mechanics. I am not one of those players. I believe role playing should be based on what your character can do. And the results of that role playing should doubly be based on your abilities.
Okay, serious question then, IT: what specifically is it about, say, a ranger's non-combat options that you find interesting? Not challenging the statement, I'm genuinely curious. I don't see a lot of distinction, but maybe I am missing something.
Favored Terrain is pretty cool. It helps combat slightly, Initiative and Perception, but it also helps a lot out of combat, such as with Survival. Their bonus to tracking as well as potential non-combat applications of AC's, for scouting and additional tracking mostly.
They have a lot of utilitarian spells, mostly for scouting and wilderness survival.
They're focused on their concept, but they have a broad array of abilities that provide methods and means to achieve things within that concept.
IMO RP is the character's personality and how he reacts in a given situation, not his abilities.
I keep a tight separation in my head between RP and mechanics because it makes it easier to discuss if you don't entangle the two, for one thing, but partly because that's how I've been taught to look at things so it's kind of stuck in my head that way.
Once you legit fail a class because you didn't do that, it strongly motivates you to remember the difference between Story/RP and Mechanics.
IMO RP is the character's personality and how he reacts in a given situation, not his abilities.
I keep a tight separation in my head between RP and mechanics because it makes it easier to discuss if you don't entangle the two, for one thing, but partly because that's how I've been taught to look at things so it's kind of stuck in my head that way.
Well, I don't like that definition at all and think it actually makes it hard to figure out how to role play a character.
I think anyone would agree that talking to a guard is "role playing" Rynjin.
I think most would agree that the likelihood of a PC talking to a guard should be based on how likely that interaction is to be successful. So a PC with a higher diplomacy would be more likely to engage the guard than one with a low or non-existent diplomacy score.
And more to the point, the success of the role playing itself should certainly be based on what the diplomacy score is.
I don't see how you can possibly separate the two.
"Here, take this wand and cast CLW".
"I don't have any ranks in UMD"
"Just role play it."
*waves wand ineffectually* "um... abra-cadabra?"