I see most equipment as flavor first, which is why I like things like spiked chains despite their not having the extra +5% you might want. As such, I mainly take tower shields when I want somebody to be able to stand in a 5-foot corridor and stop a horde of drow in their tracks.
I think you found that 5% of the time.
Did you just say I made a good build? Huzzah!
Reference my earlier post--eleven rounds gives the barbarian a chance to hit the fighter once at most, given the numbers I presented.
I never saw any numbers you posted. Mind reposting them? Because that seems way off.
Ah, there we go. I had a feeling that was what was driving this argument.
Anyways, I'm gonna drop this. I thought we (more-or-less) agreed right up until that last paragraph, but since it seems there's no way to resolve this short of a pointless, non-conclusive argument, it's really silly and not helpful. Cheers.
That particular argument has no real bearing on this one. Fighters are definitely good at fighting, which is what we're discussing, so other matters need not come into it.
My opinions on Fighter balance are 80% of the time issues with Fighter in non-combat scenarios.
All the same, this isn't the place for fighter vs. barbarian. If class vs. class matters for a BBEG, maybe you need to give him a few more levels. :P
Fighter's AC: 10 + 1 Dex + 9 Full plate + 5 tower shield + 6 total defense = 31 AC (25 without defensive fighting)
Barbarian's To-Hit: +3 BAB + 5 Str + 1 Mwk + 2 Rage Strength = +11 to-hit (+7 after rage expires)
During rage, this particular fighter goes on total defense. The barbarian has a 5% chance to hit every round for about eleven rounds, keeping in mind he's in a rage and unable to use more advanced tactics. In eleven rounds, odds are about 50-50 that he hits him once. Then the rage ends and the barbarian continues to have trouble hitting the fighter, while the fighter may well have an easy time of it.
Combat Maneuvers are a whole other matter. With the right obscure archetype, I'm sure the barbarian could crush the defensive fighter. I just prefer to work all-core when comparing classes.
Geez, what games are you playing in that people always take the same options?Pathfinder
BAd joke of the day: Also known as spellcasterfinder featuring longbows :)
All the same, this isn't the place for fighter vs. barbarian. If class vs. class matters for a BBEG, maybe you need to give him a few more levels. :P
=(
I was having fun though. Ah well.
I did add in the numbers in that post, just so you can see I wasn't pulling them outta me arse. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs are by definition running on narrative power.Hm...Narrative Power Character?
The NPCs are there to support the story, they are there for narrative reasons only. Narrative power is somthing a player can have if his character is defining the story that is being told. But the character dosent have any because he is a fiction. NPCs dosent have narrative power but the GM have not because of wizards but because he is the GM.
I was responding to some one that said that Fighters lag the narrative power a BBEG need.
Yeah, I just noticed that "NPC" has an alternative meaning.
I did add in the numbers in that post, just so you can see I wasn't pulling them outta me arse. :P
On an unrelated note, let's say this fighter is a kobold. Suddenly his AC shoots up to 33 while on total defense, and 27 while not. Funny how everything is better when it's small and descended from dragons.
Just sayin'.
By the other hand, perhaps the BBEG fighter use some kind of tactic that allow to slow deplete the powers of their enemies. Hps are easy to replendish for both sides, but afther 2 or 3 skirmishes the spells/rages and other stuff stuff of the party can be much lower, the fighter is still at full strengh.
yeah, the fighter will need minions, but every BBEG needs minions.
So, like I said, a Fighter built for defense?
And it doesn't take an obscure archetype...just his Rage Powers. Not allowing the Barbarian his Rage Powers is kinda unfair if you allow the Fighter his Feats.
But, lessee, 11 rounds is level...5 or less? 4+Con (probably at least 14) is 6, 8 at 2nd, 10 at 3rd. So 16 Con, level 3?
Well, yeah, the Fighter has an advantage there.
Though to be fair, the Fighter would have a lot of (even WORSE, technically, since his to-hit and damage are both lower, though the to-hit matters little since both only hit on a 20) trouble fighting HIMSELF, so that's not a class difference...it's a defensive build being good at defense (part of the reason why PvP in Pathfinder is not a good idea, since Defense builds will eventually win, even though that's not the case with actual encounters).
What I thought you were saying is a Fighter who goes Total Defense, just does it, will beat a Barbarian every time. Not "A Fighter who's spent most of his wealth on maxing AC will beat a character focused on offense".
I did say a "well-stocked, well-prepared" fighter. Bear in mind this was a talk about BBEGs, not typical PCs. My original intent was just to counter those saying a fighter had no way of leading anybody.
You use NPC wealth-by-level guidelines for BBEGs? Huh. Do you use the "Elite" array of abilities, too?Now, all this depends on plenty of factors. The point is, it's not hard for an NPC fighter to take over a tribe he's meant, plot-wise, to take over. Statistically, and story-wise, it works.It's worth noting that your NPC fighter is using about fourteen times the expected value of a third level NPC's protective gear,
A third level basic scores NPC is expected to have about 200 gp in protective gear. This guy has ~2800.
If I am incorrect about Basic scores, then the expected wealth for a heroic scores third level NPC is about 800 in protective gear according to the same table.
Either way, your point requires going pretty far outside the guidelines.
Still relies on significantly tilting wealth in the fighter's favor in order to make the scenario work. I gave the heroic (=PC/BBEG wealth) expectation in my post too, it is ~800 gp on defenses (as is right there in the post you quoted). Your fighter still uses 3-4 times that.
It's just an observation, though, ultimately. I also observe that the broad strokes version of this solution (fighters should get more and better wealth) has often been suggested by those who feel the class balance of the game doesn't need any changes but should rather be ad-hoced by DMs. It clearly has some merit if it works for so many people, though it also clearly does not work for everyone.
The last time I used a fighter specifically for a bbeg was about a year ago. It was a level 10 campaign and he was a demon-worshiping hobgoblin warlord that had just become a half-fiend. Admittedly, he did have the half fiend template to give him some cool options, but he also had more wealth to use for magic items and as a dictator, he most certainly had narrative power. Took all of that into account when making the CR for him. Had a strong retinue of hobgoblins to protect him.
As I recall, the fight went about five rounds, with the wizard and fighter player getting killed by the BBEG before being defeated closely by the party's alchemist. Was a fun and memorable fight for the players and they greatly enjoyed. And while yes, he did have a template and the wealth of a PC, I tend to do that for my BBEG anyways, caster or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tarquin is also higher-level than his opponents.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that BBEGs had to be equal in level to the party.
I've decided to try to make one of these. It's a tactician with the strategist archetype. I've made it a drow noble (better stats are better stats...) and I believe I'll experiment with them in a game.
Wizards have a completely different set of narrative tools. Many of their followers might be creations (zombies, simulacrum, etc) or Charmed into working for them. I wouldn't expect uncharismatic mages to lead large groups.
So you have no problem with GM fiat things for the wizard (money, enemies failed their saves, no undead have realeased from his control, etc)
But a 10 level fighter with +15 in intimidate can not handle a group of bandits?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the things I wanted to say in this thread have already been said, so a big thanks for that. I think that it's very easy to see the rules as your master instead of your tool, but in the end the mechanics are just there to keep combat scenarios balanced (at least primarily). You can have a BBEG with Int 7 who's still a tactical mastermind, so long as it's expressed through roleplaying elements rather than feats.
Just for fun, I decided to come up with a narrative explanation for the fighteriest fighter that ever fightered becoming an evil leader.
You start off with Gladius McSword, yet another disposable soldier in the army of Malevoland. He's as smart as a horse and half as charming, but he's physically fit and he knows how to use a weapon. He survives battle after battle, honing his martial talents along the way and climbing the ranks. It quickly becomes obvious that he's useless in a position of leadership, so his superiors decide to put his skills to use elsewhere: as the king's bodyguard. This works out, until the king is swayed by foreign diplomats to halt Malevoland's military conquest. War is all that Gladius has ever known, and he can't comprehend any reason to not kill people and take their stuff, so that's exactly what he does to the king. Naturally, Malevoland's royal vaults contain a number of powerful artifacts, and he has just enough cunning to use them as leverage and stay in power. Meanwhile, the royal adviser, who's actually quite brilliant and prefers to influence things indirectly, offers his services in guiding the kingdom towards Gladius's vision of glory.
And so you get King Fighter, an unsurpassed master of stabbing with the mind of a rabid dog, armed with the resources of an entire nation and hell-bent on taking over the world because he can. I think that would be an enjoyable BBEG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you have no problem with GM fiat things for the wizard (money, enemies failed their saves, no undead have realeased from his control, etc)
Wizards have a completely different set of narrative tools. Many of their followers might be creations (zombies, simulacrum, etc) or Charmed into working for them. I wouldn't expect uncharismatic mages to lead large groups.
All those things can happen, but not by themselves. Even better, PCs can ensure that happens to them. You could go around dispelling Charms, destroying undead, smashing his obsidian plot devices he uses to keep control of way more zombies than normal, stealing spell components, etc.
You could do the the same thing to a "warlord", breaking up his alliances, but that's ridiculously easy if the guy in question is just a dumb brute.
And asuming the DM wants to create a BBEG for his plot, why exactly is the fighter BIG dumb brute? Because Pc tend to dump charisma?
It is like sayign that bards can not be BBEG cause a lot of bards tend to dump wisdom (which irremediable make them do silly things that guarantee their doom)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My objections are mainly based on reading about history, as well as historical fiction. Leaders who just got their job because of their DNA (as I saw this sarcastically described on a Japanese website describing Oda Nobunaga's sons) still could often hold on because they got leadership training, which includes forming alliances with people who frankly might be smarter and more cunning than them. One could argue that giving someone something they want anyway is easy, but what if they want your job? (Good thing your "divine right of kingship" gives you an advantage there. You will likely need it.)
Althought I wholeheartly agree that paizo have given fighter and absurdly low amount of skill points, lets see
A human (or half-orc) level 10 fighter with 12 int (a reasonable amount), and cha 10 could easily have
+13 intimidate
+10 diplomacy
+12 sense motive
and two more skill to spend.
And that is asumming no feat,traits or magical item expent to improve his social skills. Skill focus intimidate) would rise the number to +19.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a fantasy setting, Boudicea is probably a reasonably leveled aristocrat with high Charisma and just above average Intelligence, maybe a 12. She has Diplomacy and was able to unite several tribes. (While she doesn't need to make those checks, being an NPC, I would feel bad as a DM if I didn't give her the ability to do so.) She had loads of poorly-equipped troops. Her opponents were far fewer, better trained, disciplined and equipped (higher level) and had a commander with lots of ranks in Profession (soldier) and a higher Intelligence score.
Honestly, I would not advise tacking Attribute scores onto actual people, historical or otherwise. In real life, things like how smart and skilled you are go far beyond a single numerical value, and you can't claim that anyone won or lost because of some fundamental difference in brain power.
My objections are mainly based on reading about history, as well as historical fiction. Leaders who just got their job because of their DNA (as I saw this sarcastically described on a Japanese website describing Oda Nobunaga's sons) still could often hold on because they got leadership training, which includes forming alliances with people who frankly might be smarter and more cunning than them. One could argue that giving someone something they want anyway is easy, but what if they want your job? (Good thing your "divine right of kingship" gives you an advantage there. You will likely need it.)Althought I wholeheartly agree that paizo have given fighter and absurdly low amount of skill points, lets see
A human (or half-orc) level 10 fighter with 12 int (a reasonable amount), and cha 10 could easily have
+13 intimidate
+10 diplomacy
+12 sense motiveand two more skill to spend.
And that is asumming no feat,traits or magical item expent to improve his social skills. Skill focus intimidate) would rise the number to +19.
A real debate :)
A fighter can do all these things. (Note that a wizard has pretty much the same skill limits, even though they tend to get more, plus narrative tools. And I don't think a wizard should be able to lead a large group without lots of tools!) But the fighter still fails against an aristocrat of the same level.
Perhaps here the fighter simply needs to work harder. A level 10 fighter isn't going to be taking over from a level 10 aristocrat with those stats (unless they're a better battlefield commander, that is) but a level 10 fighter might overthrow a level 5 aristocrat, for instance, with that kind of skill. And I'm sure something like that has happened in real life too :)
But the fighter can defends his bravado by killing enemies, being succesful at raiding, etc. A BBEG would have a entire sroty behind him, and it doe snot matter if the sorcerer have better diplomacy, what matter is to see if the fighter can be the social BBEG you envisioned it to be.
And, minions. THe fighter doe snot nened to make all the talking by himselfs. THe sorcerer have fighters as minions? the fighter have a bard and a cleric.
It fits. It is the kind of things you see in literature, and a bard will improve the fighter combat prowess and the cleric will make sure his master get not harmed.
That would be a failure to learn from history. Why did (so and so commander) win most of their battles? It tends to be things like they were a better strategist, they saw opportunities that others didn't, they flat-out tricked their opponents, and so forth. I think that's evidence that they were smarter than most of their opponents. Characters who can do this kind of thing in D&D are characterized by high Intelligence.
Your example is hardly cnclusive.
There are a lot of battelrs that were won by things outside the general intelligence. And batterls lost because no matter how smart the general wa somebody misunderstood something and the entire plan went down.
Perhaps, the high int general was blinded by overconfidence (low wis).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's still a pretty reductive viewpoint, but then again, this is a pretty reductive game (see: alignments). The nature of intelligence is far, far out of my areas of expertise, and even if it was, arguing about it would just cause derailment.
Now, if you want to make a mechanically smart fighter with a limited point build, here's something that can help you: there are literally magic hats in this world that can make you smarter, wiser, and more charming. I can actually see some random amoral adventurer putting on a headband he found in a dragon's lair and suddenly thinking, "Whoa, I've been going about this all the wrong way! Political power beats loot every time. Let's see, if I invest what I have wisely and start building support, then in a few years I might be able to organize a local coup and..."
I have to say, this thread has been a great source of ideas.
PvP are not htat helpfull, there are a lot of scrhodinger choised in that kind of examples...but, If i would go defense against a pouncing barbarian then I would consider crane style and use a heavy shield with one hand.
With dodge, armor training, crane style, defender of the society At level 10 the Ac would be like
+12 (armor) + 4 (shield) + 3 (dex) + 4 (dodge) +1 def +1 nat +1 luck = 36
Wich is high, the barbarian would have like a 50% chances of hitting with the first attack, 30% with crane style. And just 25% with the itterative.
The fighter is still atacking for
+21/+16 (1d6+12)
or
+18/+13 (1d6+18) If he see that the barb have low AC.
Let's not threadjack things. This ain't an argument about build vs. build--it was barely even an argument about class vs. class.
It's legal, but it feels like cheating. I'm not seeing many mage BBEGs with such good ability scores.
Agreed. I think 25 Point Buy (or perhaps 30 if you have a 20-PB party) is the way to go.
He obvious has Charisma and Intelligence. We don't know his stats or those of the OotS, but the OotS aren't very well optimized. Roy has Int but only for RP purposes. V never makes Concentration checks. Haley is a ranged rogue. Belkar's stats should be poor (but you can't tell from reading the comic). Tarquin is also higher-level than his opponents.
So in other words, a fighter BBEG works absolutely fine. That's a pretty normal setup.
Also, Belkar's stats shouldn't be poor. He has low Wisdom, but Strength isn't hard to raise. A -2 penalty really isn't that big of a deal, and the bonus to Dexterity helps make up for it. In addition, his Intelligence and Charisma are dumped, allowing him to max out his physical stats (assuming his stats aren't rolled, which is quite likely the case).
Still relies on significantly tilting wealth in the fighter's favor in order to make the scenario work. I gave the heroic (=PC/BBEG wealth) expectation in my post too, it is ~800 gp on defenses (as is right there in the post you quoted). Your fighter still uses 3-4 times that.
Actually, my question was a bit sarcastic. My apologies. As far as I'm concerned, if a BBEG is treated exactly like a PC, there's a big problem. Give him Point Buy and PC wealth standards, not an array.
Also, there's no hard-and-fast rule that a PC can't spend all his wealth on a couple items. The book states it's up to the GM. Guess who has an ulterior motive in outfitting this villain? ;)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that BBEGs had to be equal in level to the party.
Absolutely outrageous! What ever happened to GM fair play?!
I guess I'm saying I expect a BBEG to have leadership qualities, which the fighter class lacks.
Fair enough. But the only classes that explicitly have leadership abilities are...huh, nobody.
Sure, classes like Wizard and Sorcerer and Druid can create servants. But as many have said, we don't play the BBEG from level one (though it'd be neat if we did). He has his men. All we need is a logical reason, and plenty have been offered.
How does a wizard lead his cabal? How does a druid lead her cult? It's just a matter of Charisma and power.
Wizards have a completely different set of narrative tools. Many of their followers might be creations (zombies, simulacrum, etc) or Charmed into working for them. I wouldn't expect uncharismatic mages to lead large groups.
Which is why they aren't uncharismatic. How hard is it to give a fighter/wizard/ranger/druid a couple points in Charisma? Or Intimidating Prowess?
Also...
The fighter class doesn't "lack" the qualities any more than a wizard inherently has them. The organisation an NPC controls isn't determined by clsss levels or skill ranks, it's determined by history, which is entirely a matter of GM Fiat.
THIS.
Now, if you want to make a mechanically smart fighter with a limited point build, here's something that can help you: there are literally magic hats in this world that can make you smarter, wiser, and more charming. I can actually see some random amoral adventurer putting on a headband he found in a dragon's lair and suddenly thinking, "Whoa, I've been going about this all the wrong way! Political power beats loot every time. Let's see, if I invest what I have wisely and start building support, then in a few years I might be able to organize a local coup and..."
And that is the kind of things that you see all the time in sories. The brutish fighter found a magic item and bang he now have a lot of new powers, ambitions and the like. SUddenly the PC get comfronted by an army that seems to be conformed in no time and came from nowhere.
Helm of the horde Warlord
This Helmet is infused with the spirit of a Illithariutky the marilith. THe demon constantly talks to the wearer and give him adviced about rading and conquer.
* Insert cool, strong and thematically correct powers here*
=========
Kan the fighter was just a murderous hobo that adventuring. But all that changed when Kan found a magical helm and blah blah.
Kan rapidly defetaed the campions of the barbarians tribes and unify them under his command.
Illithariutky is his conselour, and althougth Kan have and average int (10), the demons have been unsuccesful at breaking his will (cause 16 wis and Iron will, yeah DM fiat here).
When Kan is planning an attack he likes to be all alone and kill everyone that disturb his solitude. His closer minions can hear him debate with himselfs. Debates that tend to end violently with Kan smashing every object in the room.
Kan (and Illithariutky) Enjoy looooong evenings of bloodshed, when the figther just keep fighting and killing while everyone else is already exhausted.
Absolutely. Or the commander had a cold (happened to Napoleon once!). But if a commander is consistently winning, they're doing something right, not just getting lucky.
You want to translate this things to PF mechanics. THe diferences between int 10 (average guy) and int 14 (a smarth guy) is a +2.
THe diference between level 1 and level 10 is a +10 (profesion (general?))
So, it is not htat straightforward.
However, note that--especially in a fantasy world--different cultures and demographics are going to value different things. A group of evil mercenaries will serve the guy who keeps them from killing each other with his Charisma, combat prowess and/or sheer badassitude. A horde of hobgoblins will end up serving the hobgoblin who combines the above with a healthy dosage of paranoia.
So sure, intellect and Charisma are important. But being tough and scary makes a huge difference for some groups. It's not that hard to give a BBEG a half-decent Charisma and let things slide.
When Kan is planning an attack he likes to be all alone and kill everyone that disturb his solitude. His closer minions can hear him debate with himselfs. Debates that tend to end violently with Kan smashing every object in the room.Kan (and Illithariutky) Enjoy looooong evenings of bloodshed, when the figther just keep fighting and killing while everyone else is already exhausted.
What is this, a personals ad?
"Kan enjoys loooong evenings of bloodshed, walks on the beach, and karaoke."
When Kan is planning an attack he likes to be all alone and kill everyone that disturb his solitude. His closer minions can hear him debate with himselfs. Debates that tend to end violently with Kan smashing every object in the room.Kan (and Illithariutky) Enjoy looooong evenings of bloodshed, when the figther just keep fighting and killing while everyone else is already exhausted.
What is this, a personals ad?
"Kan enjoys loooong evenings of bloodshed, walks on the beach, and karaoke."
Haha..it was just to make sure nobody say "but you can do all that with a barbarian"
A fighter with decent Int and Cha could afford the skill points for Profession (general) and have a high Intimidate score, so that bandit chieftain is sounding pretty relevant. He's still going to lose (on the battlefield, not in personal combat) against a level 10 aristocrat. Of course, being the Big Bad, he's not facing guys of his level on a regular basis :)
Absolutely. Or the commander had a cold (happened to Napoleon once!). But if a commander is consistently winning, they're doing something right, not just getting lucky.
You want to translate this things to PF mechanics. THe diferences between int 10 (average guy) and int 14 (a smarth guy) is a +2.
THe diference between level 1 and level 10 is a +10 (profesion (general?))
So, it is not htat straightforward.
Unless he does not. This just ignoring a myriad of things taht can change the tide of battle.
Or does the romans never lost a fight against much less ordered enemies?
A fighter with decent Int and Cha could afford the skill points for Profession (general) and have a high Intimidate score, so that bandit chieftain is sounding pretty relevant. He's still going to lose (on the battlefield, not in personal combat) against a level 10 aristocrat. Of course, being the Big Bad, he's not facing guys of his level on a regular basis :)
Hang on, why does the aristocrat win?
Let's keep in mind that we're not competing on optimizing the best tactician. That'd get weird fast, because strategy isn't steadily increased as Intelligence rises. Players and GMs decide how clever a "smart" guy asks, which is why a 28 Intelligence might as well be a 6 if played by the wrong guy.
I know that seems tangential, but I think saying "An aristocrat would be a better tactician" is just a slippery slope. The enemy army doesn't get to pick with handy character sheets the guy with the high intelligence and charisma. They just guess.
Kinda surprised no one has brought up this guy yet.
Also, having a tenth level fighter on the battlefield will make a pretty darn big difference. And his level of prowess makes it easier to command other powerful units, like druids and wizards, who can make huge impacts on the battle. In other words, a powerful leader is going to attract people who want to learn from him or take advantage of his sheer killing power. As long as they know he can still beat them one-on-one, he doesn't necessarily have to be smarter--just smart enough.
That's what makes a BBEG. Ultimately, the BBEG isn't the brainiest guy, or the wisest, or even the most Charismatic. He's the guy who kills a PC in one hit. He's the guy feared even by the people working for him. He's the guy who is utterly dreaded.
And all that fighter has to do is fight his way to the other side and kill the aristocrat. Who's gonna stop him? ;D
Or does the romans never lost a fight against much less ordered enemies?The Romans lost a bunch of battles against Attila, who while being a good warlord, wasn't quite as organized. (Attila was more organized than his Hun rivals, though.) They also beat him at least once, too. The Romans got beat in Teutonburg Forest (their opponent had been trained in the Roman army and lured them into a trap), and some other such battles. Roman organization gave them a consistent advantage, but no advantage is perfect.
There's obviously a long list of factors that can decide a battle, but things like strategy, seizing opportunities and keeping your troops disciplined play an obvious role.
And in a game when we rooll dice perhaps teh dices can decide the aristocrat to lose, even if he is a better general. (now that you mention attila, I think there was a fight were the roman and their goth allies were losing but the death of the goth leader make the goths to redouble efforts, besically the goths won by pure badassery, more or less what a high level martial bring to the battlefield).