Or use a reach weapon.
Monsters get reach too and not all combat maneuvers can be performed with a weapon.
Who needs to invest in all of them? If I want a fighter that uses maneuvers, I want to control the battlefield, so I'll use a reach weapon and apply the feats I want with that - mainly trip and disarm. I'm not going to grapple with it, and I don't care about bull-rushing. That's a five feat investment, easily manageable.
Sorry. There was talk earlier in the thread about a fighter being able to invest in a lot of combat maneuvers. I confused you with someone else.
5 feats is a much more manageable investment. You still need the 13 Int, but that's not bad if you aren't playing at a really low point buy. That said, you'd better be able to do more than trip and disarm, because a lot of foes you fight will be immune to both.
The thing here is I want extra arrows for my bow, not a whole new bow.
They are situational. If you have the right maneuver in the right situation, it works just great.
I'm fine with combat maneuvers being situational. The problem I have with the rules for them is that defense rapidly outpaces offense and too many monsters get outright immunity to a lot of combat maneuvers. And they require too much investment for how situational they are. Fixing either of those would vastly improve them.
That is misleading. How many class can have the entire hamatula strike feat chain (including, of course, grearter grapple and rapid grapple), before level 10 and still rock at DPR?
Actually, feat chains hurt everyone, but they probably hurt fighters the most because they have so much of a dependency on feats. Feats are how they cover their weaknesses too, like low saves and skill points, and a lack of inherent combat options.
Anyways, probably off topic at this point if we're just talking about one class and its merits though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I missed rapid grappler. The 5 feats I was thinking of were improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, greater grapple, hamatula strike, and hamatula grasp. That gives us another feat we need to account for. So our paladin takes a 2 level dip of fighter then. Big deal.
I did say including greater grapple and rapid grapple that highly increase the damage potential in using the hamatula strike feats. You disagree that those are part of the chain? fine I would reprhase.So, no.
I think you're just upset my Paladin 7/Fighter 2 has all the hamatula strike chain (including rapid grappler) at 9th level, one level before your single-classed fighter gets everything. And she can smite things, heal herself as a swift action, cast some spells, and has great saves. In the immortal words of Thog: fighter level 3 is dumb level :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a somewhat related tangent: The strongest marital class is definitely Divorce Lawyer. They get insane favored enemy bonuses and their WBL is ridiculous compared to other classes.
1 Paladin - great saves, great damage*, good/great* armorclass, good/great** HP, can be the party face, remove negative status effects, spells, has helpful auras
2 Barbarian - great saves, great damage, great HP, ok armorclass, DR, ok skills, needs slightly more optimisation than the Paladin to be awesome
3 Ranger - ok saves, good/great*** damage, good HP, ok armorclass, good skills, spells
4 Cavalier - bad saves, great damage in the right scenario, good HP, good armorclass, ok skills, can depend a lot on his allies
5 Fighter - bad saves, great damage, good HP, great armorclass, bad skills
6 Monk**** - good saves, ok damage, ok HP, good armorclass, ok skills
*when smiting
**with LoH
***with a well built Animal Companion
****can get better with certain builds(Combat styles/ZenArcher)
Not anyone can take some feats.Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure everyone gets like... 10. At least 10.
Yes. I am 100% certain that there are some feats that not every class will qualify for.
Rage powers don't negate the usefulness that fighters find with their feats.I didn't say it negated the usefulness of feats, I said rage powers were better than most feats and that they could do more. Find me a feat that replicates eater of magic, CAGM, Beast Totem even! Meanwhile, there are very few fighter only feats, and what they do is usually not that amazing, and the rest of the feats are open to everyone else to take(prerequisites are still a thing mind you).
I don't need to find any feats that do those things. The fighter isn't supposed to have rage abilities. Is the fighter not good at his job because the ninja has talents he can't replicate? You're saying the fighter doesn't make a good barbarian. I agree with that. The fighter isn't supposed to.
You obviously don't play many fighters. There are some feats that are open to them that most others won't qualify for.
Yes. I am 100% certain that there are some feats that not every class will qualify for.Not anyone can take some feats.Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure everyone gets like... 10. At least 10.
Then phrase it differently. Say "Not everyone can take every feat" or something about qualifying, not even the fighter can do take every feat. Everyone can take some feats though! Like I said, everyone's going to take somewhere around 10, probably more.
I don't need to find any feats that do those things. The fighter isn't supposed to have rage abilities.
I think there's a miscommunication here. I didn't say anything about him having rage abilities. I was talking about how he didn't have feats to get free scaling AC, pounce, or natural attacks. Class features just do things feats can't. Things like style feats aren't just fighter feats, they're feats anyone else can take. He doesn't have a "I do feats better!" clause either, so the guy to the left of him is just as good at using power attack his him(though some class features may change power attack, like reckless abandon).
You obviously don't play many fighters. There are some feats that are open to them that most others won't qualify for.
Hey look, an insulting assumption! I actually have played plenty of fighters. I have a lot of experience because when I started I thought being a martial without spells was the best thing in the world! I also actually did say fighters have some fighter exclusive feats, but I'm pretty sure that the fighter doesn't have any chance that just no one else can take that his name isn't on.
Still, Afther Weapon training, power attack, improved critical and the weapon focus feat the fighter is better at damage and a better grappler (those +1 to attack with the weapon add to the CMB for maneuves that se the weapon).
Smite also adds to attack rolls. Sacred servant/oath of vengeance means a lot of smites.
THe fighter will have better AC and better mobility too (unless he is a lore warden in wich case the fighter do not have hte AC but he will have more skill than the paladin and be just a much better grappler).
AC is probably ahead by a few points due to higher Dex. But more mobility? The travel domain's pretty great for mobility. The lore warden definitely pulls ahead in CMB, though. I can't deny that.
Then phrase it differently. Say "Not everyone can take every feat" or something about qualifying, not even the fighter can do take every feat. Everyone can take some feats though! Like I said, everyone's going to take somewhere around 10, probably more.Yes. I am 100% certain that there are some feats that not every class will qualify for.Not anyone can take some feats.Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure everyone gets like... 10. At least 10.
There are some feats that are fighter only. There are a few classes that can take fighter only feats but they are limited due to their BAB and number of feats available to them.
I don't need to find any feats that do those things. The fighter isn't supposed to have rage abilities.I think there's a miscommunication here. I didn't say anything about him having rage abilities. I was talking about how he didn't have feats to get free scaling AC, pounce, or natural attacks. Class features just do things feats can't. Things like style feats aren't just fighter feats, they're feats anyone else can take. He doesn't have a "I do feats better!" clause either, so the guy to the left of him is just as good at using power attack his him(though some class features may change power attack, like reckless abandon).
There are some feats that work better if you can take additional ones in the chains. Some chains have branches. The fighter is better equipped for these types of feats because of the sheer number of feats it gets plus many of them have prerequisites like BAB, which will eliminate some classes immediately.
Just because another character can also use something does not diminish the quality of said something. How many spells are on multiple spell lists? Does that make those spells less valuable because anyone can use them (along with putting points into a skill, really anyone can use them)? The answer is "no."
You obviously don't play many fighters. There are some feats that are open to them that most others won't qualify for.Hey look, an insulting assumption! I actually have played plenty of fighters. I have a lot of experience because when I started I thought being a martial without spells was the best thing in the world! I also actually did say fighters have some fighter exclusive feats, but I'm pretty sure that the fighter doesn't have any chance that just no one else can take that his name isn't on.
It wasn't insulting. It was an observation. While I may be wrong, I still don't think that you appreciate what the fighter can do. Besides, it doesn't matter one bit if someone else can take Feat X. What matters is how many classes can take the same combination of feats? A character isn't any single ability. It's a combination of abilities.
I still don't think that you appreciate what the fighter can do.
Alternatively, I don't appreciate it or value it like you do. The way you phrase things makes a pretty big difference in their meaning. Saying that I don't appreciate what it can do infers that it has merit that I just don't want to accept, but saying I don't value it like you do keeps it subjective.
I still don't think that you appreciate what the fighter can do.Alternatively, I don't appreciate it or value it like you do. The way you phrase things makes a pretty big difference in their meaning. Saying that I don't appreciate what it can do infers that it has merit that I just don't want to accept, but saying I don't value it like you do keeps it subjective.
I don't write it off as easily as I see many others do. I see every class as a pile of options. I see some as better choices for some builds than others. I see some as more unique options for some builds than others. I see some as a challenge to put into builds they probably weren't meant for. At all times I want to have fun with the character. Some characters can do things others can't. I don't think that it's reasonable to rank them overall. I think it's fair to rank them according to specifics. For example, ranking non-casting classes by which ones have more non-combat utility or are better with skills is fair. Some classes have more skill points and more ways to boost their abilities with those skills. The fighter can be difficult to work with in this regard because it only gets two points (three if it's a favored class). There aren't very many combat feats that care about skills.
I don't have any of the same hang ups people have about the monk or rogue either. I see them for what they are and I work with that. I keep in mind the campaign, race, and other options that can make or break a character. While we would all like all the classes to be effective in any campaign we know that mounted characters aren't as good underground or indoors as they are outdoors. We know that crafting characters aren't as great if they can't get to a quiet place and have lots of downtime.
I don't write it off as easily as I see many others do.
Oh, so now your better than everyone else? That high horse.
I don't write it off as easily as I see many others do.Oh, so now your better than everyone else? That high horse.
I don't know how you got that from my statement. If you're offended by that then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time to step back a moment.
SO the paladin need to be smiting to be able to use (good enough) the tactic he have devoted 5 feats (sacrifizing an inmunity and spells)?
Not to mention that losing Divine bond (weapon) means a lot.
For weaker foes, the bonus from smite isn't necessary. It's for the more important or difficult foes. C'mon, this is the usual paradigm for playing a paladin. Losing the weapon bond isn't too big of a deal. It's a little harder to overcome some DR and I can't use holy or axiomatic for easy extra damage, but I can get quite a lot of extra smites out of the holy symbol bond. Delaying charm immunity and spells by a couple levels is a little obnoxious. That fly spell is rather helpful for mobility. Better than never having them, however.
I don't know how you got that from my statement. If you're offended by that then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time to step back a moment.I don't write it off as easily as I see many others do.Oh, so now your better than everyone else? That high horse.
Your missing the points so hard its absurd. I tell you how you phrase things matter, and your first thing you do is tell me that you do things better than others. I tell your to step off your high horse and you claim I'm offended and need to step away. Similarly up above where most of my responses are telling you that your reading things that aren't there. Think for a moment before you post.
Your missing the points so hard its absurd. I tell you how you phrase things matter, and your first thing you do is tell me that you do things better than others. I tell your to step off your high horse and you claim I'm offended and need to step away. Similarly up above where most of my responses are telling you that your reading things that aren't there. Think for a moment before you post.I don't know how you got that from my statement. If you're offended by that then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time to step back a moment.I don't write it off as easily as I see many others do.Oh, so now your better than everyone else? That high horse.
I really have no idea how you get that from my posts. No one is attacking you. I'm certainly not. You really need to step back a bit and reread what I said. There were no personal attacks and I never said I was better than anyone else.
No one is attacking you.
Never said anyone was. Those are your words. That might help clear it up. Your also quoting yourself saying your better than others in the same sentence your claiming to never have done it.
whatever, way off topic.
Because I don't write something off as easily as others that means I'm saying I'm better than others? Really?
MrSin, if you would kindly keep from trying to continue an argument nobody is interested in seeing pursued?
==Aelryinth
MrSin, if you would kindly keep from trying to continue an argument nobody is interested in seeing pursued?
That's why I quit responding after the last post. Just don't see it until you wait on it unfortunately. Not worth chasing things like that.
Just let me say this. I've been on these boards for several years and Bob Loblaw is probably the most mild-mannered and even-tempered person who posts here. Don't assume he's looking down his nose at you or dismissing you, because he's not. He's certainly a nicer person then I am. People constantly try to get him into arguments, and he either keeps his cool or apologetically leaves the argument rather then dirty up the boards.
I may not agree with everything he says, but he's so polite, I give him all the credit for showcasing an even-handed treatment of any question.
Extend him the same courtesy, and you'll find him quite open minded. Just don't condemn him for not thinking like you, and you'll be fine.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I want to know the OP's definition of 'strongest' before I make a class recommendation. There's several ways to approach it, and martials tend to get valued based on what the goal is, not generics.
==Aelryinth
|
It's easy! Just define "strongest" as having the most feats.i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.
Or as being the most combat-effective in ANY circumstances. Not every enemy is subject to a paladin's smite, not every enemy always happens to be a ranger's favored enemy, etc. The barbarian edges the fighter out...until he runs out of rage and becomes a poor substitute for the fighter.
The fighter is awesome because he doesn't need the circumstances to be tilted in his favor to be awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The barbarian edges the fighter out...until he runs out of rage
Why did he do that
|
|
Because some GMs might have more than 4-5 encounters per day. Because with the addition of some rage powers that are even useful in non-combat situation, the barbarian is chewing through even more of their rage rounds.
In short, because the GM isn't basing their entire campaign on how many rounds of rage the barbarian happens to have left at the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like saying bards run out of rounds of performance.
Yes, some GMs might run infinity encounters, therefore casters are crap because they run out of spells at <infinity.
*eyeroll*
Seriously though, why did this barbar run out of rage?
Or a caster actually runs out of spells. (which I have not seen in play after level 3. Even during dungeon crawls without rest. With >10 fights.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Armoured) Hulk is the strongest one there is! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because some GMs might have more than 4-5 encounters per day. Because with the addition of some rage powers that are even useful in non-combat situation, the barbarian is chewing through even more of their rage rounds.
In short, because the GM isn't basing their entire campaign on how many rounds of rage the barbarian happens to have left at the moment.
By level 8 a Barbarian with even 14 Con (which is pretty much the minimum for most martial characters) will have 20 Rage rounds.
That's plenty enough to carry you through 5 encounters of average length a day (which is high-average).
By level 12-13 you have a minimum of 28-30. That'll carry you through at least 7 encounters of average length.
How high does the encounter-o-meter have to go?
4 or 5 is the average. Maybe some games run 12 encounters a day. So? Some games might ban 7-9 level spells too, but that doesn't mean Wizards suck.
I'm playing a Barb 12/Fighter 2 in Rise of the Runelords AE right now. I have yet to dip below 10 Rage rounds. As the main trap dismantler of the group (meaning I burn a round of Rage on Spell Sunder and Strength Surge for magic traps). RotRL has plenty of encounters in a day, too.
also hamatula strike with a bow will prevent flying creatures, by raw it works, but your gm may ban the feat due to how flipin powerful it is.
I am sorry if i Sound naive, but does anybody use this feat like this? The ranged grabbeling part not the banning part.
If you ever plan on going unarchetyped ranger, seriously look at hippogriff rider, especially if you plan on being an archer.
A 3-4 level dip into samurai for archers is pretty sweet. The best orders for this dip is Land, Cockatrice, or Blue Rose.
I have seen full casters run out of spells at 8th level so it can happen, gaming groups have a lot of variance. I haven't seen a barbarian run out of rage but I assume this is also possible. A barbarian can also be prevented from entering a rage.
I would say Barbarian but it depends on what types of games you play.
Or use a reach weapon.Monsters get reach too and not all combat maneuvers can be performed with a weapon.
Indeed so, but the monsters with reach are usually the large ones that you don;t want to try maneuvers on anyway, and I'm not interested in all maneuvers, just a few that will help out now and again.
Who needs to invest in all of them? If I want a fighter that uses maneuvers, I want to control the battlefield, so I'll use a reach weapon and apply the feats I want with that - mainly trip and disarm. I'm not going to grapple with it, and I don't care about bull-rushing. That's a five feat investment, easily manageable.Sorry. There was talk earlier in the thread about a fighter being able to invest in a lot of combat maneuvers. I confused you with someone else.
No worries.
5 feats is a much more manageable investment. You still need the 13 Int, but that's not bad if you aren't playing at a really low point buy. That said, you'd better be able to do more than trip and disarm, because a lot of foes you fight will be immune to both.
Indeed, but with only 5 feats invested I can easily do a lot of nice DPR as well. DPR always works, in the end. But trip and disarm force an enemy to not attack me and my friends effectively. If they work, great, I can terminate the encounter without much danger to myself or my friends. If not, I can still dish out DPR and be hard to hit. The maneuvers are a bonus, not a staple.
They are situational. If you have the right maneuver in the right situation, it works just great.I'm fine with combat maneuvers being situational. The problem I have with the rules for them is that defense rapidly outpaces offense and too many monsters get outright immunity to a lot of combat maneuvers. And they require too much investment for how situational they are. Fixing either of those would vastly improve them.
To be honest, monsters SHOULD outpace maneuvers or be immune to them; big things are hard to grapple, many-legged things are hard to trip. My problem with maneuvers is that there are too many of them; and they are too restricted in function. For example, trip and reposition are almost identical in function and form, save reposition moves someone and trip puts them on the deck. They can be done with the same kind of weapon, and have the same pre-requisites. So why not just make reposition an alternative action to tripping, but working off the same feats? Another bugaboo of mine is throwing. Throws are a staple of many martial arts, yet they are all grouped under trip and do no damage. Why can't a throw be done under grapple, and inflict some damage when you pound the other guy into the deck?
I view maneuvers as "added extra" where they give you more options. The problem is, for some class options they seem intended to be more than that, and they aren't.
|
It's easy! Just define "strongest" as having the most feats.i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Or as being the most combat-effective in ANY circumstances. Not every enemy is subject to a paladin's smite, not every enemy always happens to be a ranger's favored enemy, etc. The barbarian edges the fighter out...until he runs out of rage and becomes a poor substitute for the fighter.
The fighter is awesome because he doesn't need the circumstances to be tilted in his favor to be awesome.
Pardon me, but isn't one of the BIGGEST complaints about fighters that for the supposed all-around killer, they're pretty dependent on using their favored weapon? One good sunder or disarm, and they're pretty much on the same level as a Barbarian minus his rage.
Magic doesn't solve all the problems with combat maneuvers. Enlarge person may allow you to bull rush huge foes, but it won't let you bull rush gargantuan foes. Magic doesn't let you trip a flying creature. It doesn't let you disarm a dragon of her claws. It doesn't let you grapple someone with freedom of movement.if i cant bull rush you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike)
if i cant trip you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike) or bull rush you
if i cant grapple you i can trip you, bull rush you, disarm you, reposition you. if i choose to have a spell storing cestus (+dispell) and punch you i can remove your freedom of movement or steal the ring (FoM) off your finger.if you only have one maneuver available then thats your fault for choosing that path with no alternate options. but dont make it seem like every monster in the game past level 10 is immune to every maneuver available to your character.
in conclusion maneuvers work at level 20, bad builds dont.
Spell storing dispels are cast at the level of the spell storing weapon (cl 12) so very limited. Logically unless you have detect magic or identify handy your not likely to steal the right ring.. or even see it and be able to steal it if its under gloves or a gauntlet!
Or if you have read the rules and don't cheat "Items that are closely worn (such as armor, backpacks, boots, clothing, or rings) cannot be taken with this maneuver."
Actually it doesn't say what level spells in a spell-storing weapon are cast at though I personally would assume they are cast at the caster level they were stored at. So if a 20th level casters stores a Dispel Magic, the blade will cast the 20th caster level Dispel Magic.
Its a use activated magic item. Activates at the items level.
Surprised samurai has not come up much.
A ronin gets 241 will saves, resolve to ignore conditions, ability to stay standing, consistant (non-aligned) damage bonuses and reliable standard static bonuses like weapon focus/specialization/penetrating strike etc and auto 20 1x per day at 15th (vorpal weapon anyone). They also get the best social skills and their one archetype (sword saint) gives a sneak attack equivalent and fear effects (avenging executioner style).
Order of the tome gives great save bonuses and the ability to use any cleric scrolls...sooner or later any martial needs restore and prob.some underwater or environmental protection. To be 'the strongest' you have to BE A MAN ..and not be reliant on how well you suck up to others!
It may activate at that level, but that doesn't change the fact that the spell its casting was cast by a 20th level caster and there is no rule that the spellstoring property overrides this. Think of it as a lower level caster using a scroll with a higher caster level. Sure the caster is lower caster level, but the spell is nonetheless cast at the higher caster level.