Excellent, no need to buy it for me as I already own it. Should I open a PbP thread? Who do you want to GM this.Let's see if we can't grab ourselves a 3rd party and have them initiate the PbP.
Any chance we could talk you into it Ashiel?
Possibly, but I'd rather do it on MapTools because it would take less time than a PBP, supports maps, dice rolling, etc. Logs can be saved after the session and posted, etc. Might require participants to use Hamachi to connect.
However I'm kind of swamped with stuff already so I don't think I could GM anything until next Tuesday at the earliest. I still need to finish working on a major encounter for my party, make a character for my friend's Rise of the Runelord's Anniversary Edition game this Saturday, possibly helping my sister with catering on Thursdays for a few weeks, I'm playing in my friend's Reign of Winter game on Fridays, and my game is usually ran on Mondays but I've had to do a lot of side-sessions lately due to the party being split up with stuff so...phew. (o-o);
|
Why are paladins and barbarians every other class in the game?They're not. The Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ranger, Inquisitor, Magus, Bard, and more are all well balanced to each other. It's the Fighter who's the odd man out.I've heard a decent argument for the gunslinger, but Cavalier and non-comparable non-martials. Really?
Once again we're talking about combat balance.
Yep. Cavaliers can rock it hard in combat. Their ability to stick and move for 2, 3, or even 5x damage is very potent, their Challenge and Order abilities aren't limited to evil creatures like the Paladin's Smite, they have the ability to vastly improve a group's action economy using their Tactician ability and feats like Target of Opportunity or Coordinated Charge, and their Banner and Greater Banner abilities are like vastly improved versions the Fighter's Bravery that apply to all party members. They also have the advantage of having twice as many skill points as a Fighter and their own armored and combat trained mount.
|
|
Possibly, but I'd rather do it on MapTools because it would take less time than a PBP, supports maps, dice rolling, etc. Logs can be saved after the session and posted, etc. Might require participants to use Hamachi to connect.
However I'm kind of swamped with stuff already so I don't think I could GM anything until next Tuesday at the earliest. I still need to finish working on a major encounter for my party, make a character for my friend's Rise of the Runelord's Anniversary Edition game this Saturday, possibly helping my sister with catering on Thursdays for a few weeks, I'm playing in my friend's Reign of Winter game on Fridays, and my game is usually ran on Mondays but I've had to do a lot of side-sessions lately due to the party being split up with stuff so...phew. (o-o);
I will admit, I specifically singled you out because after the last couple years of reading your posts I've really wanted a chance to play in one of your games :)
Paladins, Barbarians, AND Rangers are well balanced IMHO. Each of these classes excel at martial combat, can perform tanking roles, and have good benefits that they bring to the party. Each of these three classes can carry much the same roles with specific specializations or benefits for each.
I will admit, I specifically singled you out because after the last couple years of reading your posts I've really wanted a chance to play in one of your games :)Possibly, but I'd rather do it on MapTools because it would take less time than a PBP, supports maps, dice rolling, etc. Logs can be saved after the session and posted, etc. Might require participants to use Hamachi to connect.
However I'm kind of swamped with stuff already so I don't think I could GM anything until next Tuesday at the earliest. I still need to finish working on a major encounter for my party, make a character for my friend's Rise of the Runelord's Anniversary Edition game this Saturday, possibly helping my sister with catering on Thursdays for a few weeks, I'm playing in my friend's Reign of Winter game on Fridays, and my game is usually ran on Mondays but I've had to do a lot of side-sessions lately due to the party being split up with stuff so...phew. (o-o);
Awww, thank you! Q.Q
Fighters don't really need more skill points either...
Look I fought tooth and nail defending the rogue, only to be proven objectively wrong.
The case against the fighter is just not that strong. All you guys are doing is convincing me that barbarians and paladins are OP.
Not sure how a coupe l of more skill points would make the fighter OP.
Why are paladins and barbarians every other class in the game?They're not. The Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ranger, Inquisitor, Magus, Bard, and more are all well balanced to each other. It's the Fighter who's the odd man out.
The satandard by now barbarian is pretty much heavily umbalanced compared to lesser barbarians (every other barbarian for the matter)
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"
We do not know?
Without any intent to be offensive have you been reading the other side arguments?
No one's given that answer. In fact, people have been pretty clear.
Give him one more good save and more skill points, and possibly an additional class skill, hopefully Perception.
Everyone's pretty resigned to the fact that there can't be any bigger changes than that in the system, so they're just asking for the simplest fix that helps shore the Fighter up and allow him to at least meet the same baseline as everyone else. The whiney people without solutions are not the ones asking for change in the Fighter. There are literally hundreds of proposed fixes that go more in depth than that, but that's a very widely agreed upon fix.
+1.
more skill points and saves (it coudl be willl or reflex) would be just easy to errate. It just need the change of a couple of numbers. The crane wing nerf needed much more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"We do not know?
Without any intent to be offensive have you been reading the other side arguments?
Don't try to be polite by asking a rhetorical question.
No, he hasn't read the other side's posts, or he's chosen to ignore them. That is very evident by that bit you quoted.
Awww, thank you! Q.QI will admit, I specifically singled you out because after the last couple years of reading your posts I've really wanted a chance to play in one of your games :)Possibly, but I'd rather do it on MapTools because it would take less time than a PBP, supports maps, dice rolling, etc. Logs can be saved after the session and posted, etc. Might require participants to use Hamachi to connect.
However I'm kind of swamped with stuff already so I don't think I could GM anything until next Tuesday at the earliest. I still need to finish working on a major encounter for my party, make a character for my friend's Rise of the Runelord's Anniversary Edition game this Saturday, possibly helping my sister with catering on Thursdays for a few weeks, I'm playing in my friend's Reign of Winter game on Fridays, and my game is usually ran on Mondays but I've had to do a lot of side-sessions lately due to the party being split up with stuff so...phew. (o-o);
So where do we stand? Do I need Map Tools as well or does it work like Roll 20?
Weapon specialization
A ranger could weapon spec the quarterstaff with the right feats.
Looks like Ashiel won't be able to do it. (And yes, if you were using Maptools you would have to download it and then direct-link with the other participants over the net.)
Can I take your participation as a sign of interest in GM'ing this for us?
Looks like Ashiel won't be able to do it. (And yes, if you were using Maptools you would have to download it and then direct-link with the other participants over the net.)Can I take your participation as a sign of interest in GM'ing this for us?
What exactly is the clallenge?
perhaps you need more than one DM, just to make sure the ghins is as fairest as posible.
Looks like Ashiel won't be able to do it. (And yes, if you were using Maptools you would have to download it and then direct-link with the other participants over the net.)Can I take your participation as a sign of interest in GM'ing this for us?What exactly is the clallenge?
perhaps you need more than one DM, just to make sure the ghins is as fairest as posible.
It's about running this module for ssalarns Ranger and my Fighter.One GM will do I think.
It's about running this module for ssalarns Ranger and my Fighter.One GM will do I think.Looks like Ashiel won't be able to do it. (And yes, if you were using Maptools you would have to download it and then direct-link with the other participants over the net.)Can I take your participation as a sign of interest in GM'ing this for us?What exactly is the clallenge?
perhaps you need more than one DM, just to make sure the ghins is as fairest as posible.
I would offer myself but I do nto have the time. It woudl be funny to wacth however.
I think it is important to note that thinking all the classes better than the fighter are overpowered is total nonsense.
Once again paladins and barbarians are EVERY class in the game. Great...
I think it is important to note that thinking all the classes better than the fighter are overpowered is total nonsense.Once again paladins and barbarians are EVERY class in the game. Great...
But what about Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Clerics, Druids, Oracles, Summoners, Magi, Inquisitors, Bards, Alchemists, and Rangers?
Ok here are fighter man and ranger fellow!
** spoiler omitted **
His dpr against an average cr 5 opponent is 19.14!
Here is his challenger, Ranger Fellow!
** spoiler omitted **...
Seems correct. Althought the diferent gear is weird. The ranger have a +1 armor but the fighter do not. Also, personally, I would take defender of the society instead of reactionary.
But what about Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Clerics, Druids, Oracles, Summoners, Magi, Inquisitors, Bards, Alchemists, and Rangers?I think it is important to note that thinking all the classes better than the fighter are overpowered is total nonsense.Once again paladins and barbarians are EVERY class in the game. Great...
Summoners might have problems. Aside from that, no.
Also CWheezy, as people will compare saves, I think we shoudl also compare AC and the DPR that monstes have agaisnt the fighter and the ranger.
And I also agree we should include the animal companion into the equation, and the DPR the mosnters do to that animal companion.
A brute type of enemy for CR 5 is the dire lion
Melee bite +12 (1d8+7 plus grab), 2 claws +13 (1d6+7)
What is the DPR agaisnt the ranger, agaisnt the fighter and against meow?
Wait, why would one not include the animal companion? Skimming the thread I assumed you already had :p
By the way,Do not hte ranger need to use a move action to handle animal for meow to attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.
We need a name for this. Something like "Theorycraft DPR Syndrome," except cool and catchy.
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Which doesn't address the fact that nobody is complaining about the fighter's ability to deal damage. It's everything else. People defending the fighter because he can hit things are steadfastly ignoring the fact that we're not talking about hitting things. Hitting things is FINE. Everything else, not so much.
==Aelryinth
I find myself in full agreement with Ael that archery is pretty well suited to the fighter.
I will add that while I don't think I could say that an archer fighter is likely a more formidable character overall than an archer ranger, I do suspect his archery, specifically, may be more formidable than the ranger's archery.
I still think the DPR agaisnt the Fighter/ranger/cat have to be computed, but I am too lazy so whatever.
To make a class comparison, you need to make a class comparison, not a race comparison, a 'who can spend WBL best on consumables ahead of time for an encounter' comparison, a 'general feats' comparison, a 'pick the spells ahead of time' comparison, an "I can assign stats on point buy better then you" comparison.
You need to break down what the class, and the class alone, can do. ANYTHING else, race, general feats and WBL, is something BOTH classes can do, and so is NOT a class comparison.
This is where class comparisons fall down...they continually move to things outside the class.
Bob Loblaw, bless his even temper, is the poster boy for this. He continually resorts to non-class comparisons to make his point on comparing classes.
I disagree with this because you are only looking at a single thing while completely ignoring the non-class parts that actually are important. For example, race-only combat feats are fighter features. We have to consider race. I don't really get into the gear and in fact I continuously say that all classes rely on gear so it should be ignored for the discussion. Also, people make blanket statements about why class X is better or worse but they are only looking at it from the standpoint of the campaign and play style they are in. If fighters truly weren't any good, there wouldn't be so many people enjoying playing them. When someone comes along and says that fighters suck at combat (Ashiel made that claim) it's easily shown to be false. When someone says that fighters can't do anything out of combat but even with a core fighter and Intelligence of 10 I can accomplish quite a bit, I fail to see anything other than people not understanding how skills work.
What this all boils down to is that a class is not a character. The character should be viewed in its entirety rather than just part of it. I wouldn't look at the chassis of a car and make a decision to buy it. I would check out all the options and see if everything combined is what I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if anyone still reading has an interest in changing their opinion but I'll just say again that the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Fighter have comparable damage capabilities. However this isn't everything about combat. To be a really good Martial you have to be able to solve problems outside of just doing more damage.
A Fighter brings to the encounter only his AC, HP, and DPR. Other classes do this as well and bring so much more.
When I mentioned the advantages a Ranger brings over a Fighter, you said the Fighter wasn't a scout Marthkus. This is true. A Ranger is simply the combat role PLUS a Scout. Just something he's doing more over the Fighter. And if you build for it, the Ranger can neutralize traps and use his Animal Companion to pinpoint Invisible enemies. This is a big deal. A Fighter is never going to be able to do these.
That's a big reason why the Ranger will always be on par with Paladins and Barbarians. He secures surprise rounds and prevents enemy ones. He does things that are outside the Barbarian's and Paladin's capabilities. Neither of them make good scouts. Barbarians CAN get access to scent but they'll never make as efficient use of it like a Ranger will due to the Ranger's better action economy with his Companion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you really making this argument Bob? How "unlocked" are Fighter options again? If I'm playing a Ranger, yes, I'm locking in X spell in my 1st level slot at 4th level. That spell may do one of many things such as increase my land speed by 10 ft. for an hour, or give me energy resistance 10 for a good while, or allow me to shoot unlimited quantities of special-material arrows for a bit, or make it so animals cannot perceive me (good for sneaking since it hoses scent), let me avoid leaving a trail (similar usage), or make someone immune to poison for 1 hour.
I get to choose 1 of those things for that day. All of those are pretty good options but they won't be ideal for all situations even if they are good in most situations. But here's the funny thing...all things considered, I can change them. If I pick up an amulet that makes me immune to poison 24/7, then I can switch to a different thing. If the we're going to be in a situation where I don't need more landspeed (say I'm riding my animal companion around) then I can use a different spell.
When was the last time a Fighter really got to switch his feats out? You took Improved Trip + Greater Trip and end up spending a lot of time fighting flying creatures? You took stuff for mounted combat and ended up inside narrow dungeons? You invested in Two-Weapon Fighting but everything kites you? Which of these feats are you switching out the next day?
Perhaps a better question would be, which of these feats are you able to buy in any thorpe-sized town or bigger to use when you really need to? Which of these feats are allowing you to adapt to...
I never said that fighters aren't locked in. I am saying that the very problem that people claim about the fighters is actually true for nearly every class. People are not complaining about the classes I mentioned being locked in being a weakness therefore they shouldn't make that claim about the fighter either. The arguments people make are not consistent from class to class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone comes along and says that fighters suck at combat (Ashiel made that claim) it's easily shown to be false.
I'll just point out that Ashiel's encounters are complex, tactical and challenging. Unless the encounter can be solved by hitting harder, the Fighter has no unique ability in getting through combats. If they are so easily defeated, the encounter was probably bland to begin with.
In this way, Fighters "suck" at combat due to their inability to solve problems in encounters aside from full-attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, remember that Rangers use the 6th level bonus feat for improved Precise shot and their level 7 feat for Manyshot. Also the feat boon companion exists. Invest in 2 3rd level pearls of power and you will have 3 instant enemies a day at 10th level, 4 at 11th. Assuming once per combat (to take out the primary target) or used even more sparingly, should be enough to last a player for all encounters of the day.
Ssalarn, you work for DSP right? On the Incarna stuff? I can't wait to see how that stuff turns out! I'm awaiting the subscription so I can throw my money at you!
When someone comes along and says that fighters suck at combat (Ashiel made that claim) it's easily shown to be false.I'll just point out that Ashiel's encounters are complex, tactical and challenging. Unless the encounter can be solved by hitting harder, the Fighter has no unique ability in getting through combats. If they are so easily defeated, the encounter was probably bland to begin with.
In this way, Fighters "suck" at combat due to their inability to solve problems in encounters aside from full-attacking.
Gear? I have seem Ashiel encounters before in anohter 1000+ fighter thread. He made the ecounters, posted a paladin and say what he would do to win the encounters. If not misremembering, Several encouters where dealed with gear, a potion of this, and oil of that.
I always liked to make a comparision like that, but fighters thread tend to end in nuclear flames.
When someone comes along and says that fighters suck at combat (Ashiel made that claim) it's easily shown to be false.I'll just point out that Ashiel's encounters are complex, tactical and challenging. Unless the encounter can be solved by hitting harder, the Fighter has no unique ability in getting through combats. If they are so easily defeated, the encounter was probably bland to begin with.
In this way, Fighters "suck" at combat due to their inability to solve problems in encounters aside from full-attacking.
Ashiel made a blanket statement a few pages back that fighters actually suck at combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel made a blanket statement a few pages back that fighters actually suck at combat.When someone comes along and says that fighters suck at combat (Ashiel made that claim) it's easily shown to be false.I'll just point out that Ashiel's encounters are complex, tactical and challenging. Unless the encounter can be solved by hitting harder, the Fighter has no unique ability in getting through combats. If they are so easily defeated, the encounter was probably bland to begin with.
In this way, Fighters "suck" at combat due to their inability to solve problems in encounters aside from full-attacking.
And you completely missed the point of his statement. He flat out says that combat is a lot more than DPR and AC which is the only thing a Fighter brings to Combat. That is why Ashiel and many others believe the Fighter(Including me) is actually pretty bad at combat.
Honestly, the only thing that the fighter (or any other martial) really needs to do is kill the enemy. That's their job. You may want something more fancy than that but the monsters are often defeated by taking out the enemy's hit points. So it is pretty much DPR and AC. How that's accomplished varied from character to character and encounter to encounter.
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"We do not know?
Without any intent to be offensive have you been reading the other side arguments?
Don't try to be polite by asking a rhetorical question.
No, he hasn't read the other side's posts, or he's chosen to ignore them. That is very evident by that bit you quoted.
All I've gotten is more skill points, but for what? It's not like the fighter has a big list of skills to use them on anyway.
What role do you want from your fighter? I don't really have a problem with 2+ skills per level, and imo everyone that says that all classes need 4+ are drinking too much out of the player entitlement cup.
Also I laughed when I read the bit about the cavalier buying the team action economy with his Tactician ability, and the fighter is 'giving up combat prowess' to do the same thing.
I don't even understand what each side of the argument is fighting for, it's literally a matter of fighter haters refusing to be pleased by anything. Does this thread even have a point anymore?
Cat dpr against the ranger and fighter are pretty similar: ~39.12 against the fighter with his fixed armor, and 42.53 against the ranger. Against poor meow meow the lion does 45.93
The thing is, that the cat has rake, and grapples the ranger and the fighter on a 4. If he lands his grapple,he gets rake, which pumps his dpr to: 65.21(!!!)against the fighter, 70.88 against the ranger, and 76.55 against poor, poor meow meow.
Initiative is pretty close, and I think whoever won initiative would win the fight, but dire lions are tough!
yeah, probably dire lions where not the best option. Perhaps the earth elemental
2 slams +14 (2d6+7)
A point I want to make is that the DPR of the animal companion is not guaranted, if the 10 level ranger do not invest in the companion then he can not just add hte DPR of his Animal companion to his own, because the animal companion could just die easily in a given fight.
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"We do not know?
Without any intent to be offensive have you been reading the other side arguments?
Don't try to be polite by asking a rhetorical question.
No, he hasn't read the other side's posts, or he's chosen to ignore them. That is very evident by that bit you quoted.
All I've gotten is more skill points, but for what? It's not like the fighter has a big list of skills to use them on anyway.
What role do you want from your fighter? I don't really have a problem with 2+ skills per level, and imo everyone that says that all classes need 4+ are drinking too much out of the player entitlement cup.
Also I laughed when I read the bit about the cavalier buying the team action economy with his Tactician ability, and the fighter is 'giving up combat prowess' to do the same thing.
I don't even understand what each side of the argument is fighting for, it's literally a matter of fighter haters refusing to be pleased by anything. Does this thread even have a point anymore?
To be fair the fighter just doesn't even begin to compare to the barbarian.
It seems to me that they both have advantages. I do not know if scrolls of instant enemie is a good option, it kills hte most importnat part of the spell, the action economy. Perhaps a pearl of power?
I would liek to know how much money do the ranger spend on his animal companion. Do the animal companion do survive the first fight? If not then that 8 to the DPR shoudl be taked with a grain of salt.
EDIT: can the animal companion bypass any DR?