A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 755 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Kain Darkwind wrote:
Nice straw man you've got there. Be a shame if someone were to set it on fire.

Perhaps... Doesn't matter, though. No one has.

Kain Darkwind wrote:
The point advanced was that you cannot assume non-core material, and you cannot assume houserules like 'fluff requirements don't exist'.

Rules citation needed. the point of "Advanced" was to sound cool. But ti doesn't matter. I could have been "You should eat bees"... I still don't see any rule saying that stuff designed with Golarion in mind is limited to campaings using the Golarion setting. I also don't see any definition of what is a core spell... Or anything saying they are more common than any other spells.

Kain Darkwind wrote:
In my experience, there were tons of 3.0/.5 DMs who banned you from using Eberron or FR material unless you were playing in that setting. When 3.5 opened up the archmage and red wizard to core, it was a big thing. And your experience might differ...but the assumption when you sit down at a table is not 'show me in the rules where I can't use this setting material'.

And in my experience... You're completely wrong. We can keep going round and round with this particular argument.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Rules Citation needed. I don't see the rule that says that anything that was designed for use in Golarion is automatically to be included in any non-Golarion setting.
Nor do I see the rule that anything designed for other game settings using the PFd20 rules is automatically appropriate for Pathfinder.

Could you cite both of those rules for me, please?

PFS has now designated a core campaign that does not use expansion books, and it follows pretty much what everyone would expect of a core campaign definition. Go look it up.

And in the experience of many, many people on the board, banning setting-inappropriate material is an ancient and wholly appropriate thing to happen. Banning specific material happens EVEN IN GOLARION (as in, many races in the Race Creation guide are NOT PRESENT in Golarion).

And so forth and so on.

You're basically arguing that rules people have used forever don't happen, Lemmy. It's called being willfully obtuse. Sure, some DM's will say 'anything goes', and that's fine by them.

But you cannot assume everyone is going to DO that. It's like the guy who claimed there's no problem with the Fighter because he could learn the level 2 Words of Power self-only Haste spell. Everyone on the boards was like, WTF, and he was totally like you, Paizo put it out, it was part of the rules, and it fixed everything, despite the fact VERY few people use those rules, and even fewer cite them.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Rules Citation needed. I don't see the rule that says that anything that was designed for use in Golarion is automatically to be included in any non-Golarion setting.

Nor do I see the rule that anything designed for other game settings using the PFd20 rules is automatically appropriate for Pathfinder.

Could you cite both of those rules for me, please?

I also don't see any rule saying that Power Attack should be included either...

Aelryinth wrote:
PFS has now designated a core campaign that does not use expansion books, and it follows pretty much what everyone would expect of a core campaign definition. Go look it up.

PFS is in no way closer to RAW than any toher set of house rules.

Aelryinth wrote:
And in the experience of many, many people on the board, banning setting-inappropriate material is an ancient and wholly appropriate thing to happen. Banning specific material happens EVEN IN GOLARION (as in, many races in the Race Creation guide are NOT PRESENT in Golarion).

So? I have a GM who bans Summoners and Gunslingers... Many other people do too. Does that mean they are not part of the rules?

Aelryinth wrote:
You're basically arguing that rules people have used forever don't happen, Lemmy. It's called being willfully obtuse. Sure, some DM's will say 'anything goes', and that's fine by them. But you cannot assume everyone is going to DO that.

If I'm being obtuse, so are you. Because you too can't assume everyone is going to ban something just because you do. Once again, you only adhere to RAW when it fits your argument.

Aelryinth wrote:
It's like the guy who claimed there's no problem with the Fighter because he could learn the level 2 Words of Power self-only Haste spell. Everyone on the boards was like, WTF, and he was totally like you, Paizo put it out, it was part of the rules, and it fixed everything, despite the fact VERY few people use those rules, and even fewer cite them.

Nope. words of Power are specifically called "alternate rules". Stuff created for Golarion is not specifically said to not be available at other settings.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This is mostly an unrelated question, but I'm not gonna go starting another "fighter bash" thread for it.

How would a typical geared up fighter fare against a druid? I know druids aren't quite as nuts in this edition, but how nuts are they?

Druids are part of CoDzilla.

Using core material only, they'll end up mauling a fighter one on one if they get any chance to buff, or they'll simply run away, heal up, THEN buff, come back and own him.

They can reach higher AC's and higher damage figures then the fighter can, if built right, because alternate forms give them massive stat boosts.

They have 9th level spells. That's it, right there.

They have an animal companion that, when buffed, serves admirably as a front rank fighter.

They have spontaneous summon spells.

A prepped druid played with any brains will own a fighter. It's just the way it is. They can attack, they can recover, and they can run away. The fighter doesn't have anything to match that versatility.

The druid would likely be a powerful and balanced class if you split it completely in two, one side getting wildshape and the animal companion, and the other side getting spellcasting.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:

What?

I ask again, what?

Since when is Power attack setting specific? That's called a strawman. It is also, by ANY stretch of the definition, a part of the Core Rules, perfectly defined or not.

PFS made a Core Campaign. You asked for a definition. I gave it to you. And now you are whining because someone could actually supply one that is backed by Paizo, so you build ANOTHER strawman?

Wait...so you have a GM who bans stuff...but you're saying banning stuff isn't right...so you're playing in a game with house rules...and we should assume all stuff is included because nobody plays with house rules, so...
WTH are you arguing, here?

I'm not being willfully obtuse. I'm not assuming people ban stuff because I do. You're inserting an opinion I don't have as another strawman, thank you, STOP DOING THAT.

You're assuming everyone INCLUDES SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU DO AND YOU THINK THEY SHOULD. And when people said you can't assume it's included you got all hot and bothered.
Which is completely the opposite of what you accusing me of. See where that strawman came in?

Stop building those.

And yes, setting-specific material is every bit as likely to be excluded/banned/not-used as alternate rules. Alternate campaign and alternate rules are basically the same thing. Both require the permission of the DM to let through.

===Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nerds! Nerds! You're both petty!

... keep it up! This is delicious!

As previously noted, I like both of you, buuuuuuuu~t I'm pretty sure we're mis-communicating about what "Core" actually is.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Rarrgh!

Sorry, I just get pissed when someone states that I have an opinion that I don't have.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
PFS made a Core Campaign. You asked for a definition. I gave it to you.

I don't accept that definition and don't see anything in the rules that says I should. PFS has lots of its own house rules, after all. Youc an't craft stuff, you can't use a lot of archetypes, feats and races, you don't roll for hp... House rules.

Aelryinth wrote:
You're assuming everyone INCLUDES SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU DO AND YOU THINK THEY SHOULD.

Nope. I'm saying that if you want to use RAW for this discussion, then we use RAW. And according to RAW, spells aren't restricted to an specific setting just because they were made with that setting in mind.

Or we can use "common sense" or whatever. One common rule is banning Golarion-specific stuff in othe settings... Another common rule is allowing it. Either way, saying the spell is available is just as valid as saying it's not. And an even more common rule is... playing in Golarion, which is definitely a default assumption of the game, making the whole point moot.

The Exchange

Didn't read the whole thread, just responding with my initial instinct on this.

Level 20 means access to lots of gear.

Called armour means he's no longer unarmoured.
He would still have rings and amulets on while bathing. Absolutely no reason not to. Likely one of those will protect him against domination or at least buff his saves.

If in a bathtub, weapon would be at hand. Fighters keep their beats ticks close by.

If in a pond or lake, dive under water to prevent targeting. Use massive con and swim ability to get out of danger zone (though unlikely to work if party has a caster with fly abilities. That's a fairly safe bet at level 10)

If no weapon, go bare hand on casters first. Grapple and choke to death, using their body as a shield.

Most likely no fighter at that level gets left like that. Even swimming he'd have a dagger or short sword strapped to his leg.

Interestingly, a caster completely naked swimming is just as boned assuming a level 10 caster in the party. Dimensional lock or anchor to prevent contingent spell teleporting for escape. Then melee kill him in one round. He has no component pouch or gear other than ring and amulet. Even worse, if we go by the premise of completely naked, he's got nothing.

A silly premise.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
You're assuming everyone INCLUDES SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU DO AND YOU THINK THEY SHOULD.

Nope. I'm saying that if youw ant to use RAW for this discussion, then we use RAW. And according to RAW, spells aren't restricted to an specific setting just because they were made with that setting in mind.

Or we can use "common sense" or whatever. One common rule is banning Golarion-specific stuff in othe settings... Another common rule is allowing it. Either way, saying the spell is available is just as valid as saying it's not.

Lemmy.

No one is saying the spell is not available for consideration, and cannot POTENTIALLY be included.

But assuming it is included BY FIAT is incorrect.

Just because you want to assume this material is included, does not mean it is, and that's the whole argument you are trying to shoot down. Your whole argument is "I think it should be automatically assumed as being there," other people are, "Like, No." and you're like, "Well, you're wrong." And then you went off chasing straw men.

You're basically trying to argue that people can't have opinions and exclude stuff, because you have a different opinion.

It's setting-specific material. OF COURSE some people are going to exclude it. JUst like they'll exclude FR and Oerth and Dark Sun and Green Ronin and tons of other material.

It's like, ugh. What exactly are you arguing? That your definition of RAW trumps everybody elses? Because you lose that argument before it began.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Just because you want to assume this material is included, does not mean it is, and that's the whole argument you are trying to shoot down. Your whole argument is "I think it should be automatically assumed as being there," other people are, "Like, No." and you're like, "Well, you're wrong." And then you went off chasing straw men.

Nope. I'm assuming that if you're using RAW, then we should stick to RAW. If we are using "commonly used rules", then your banning something is in no way more valid than my allowing it.

Aelryinth wrote:
You're basically trying to argue that people can't have opinions and exclude stuff, because you have a different opinion.

And you say I am the one using straw men?

Aelryinth wrote:
It's setting-specific material. OF COURSE some people are going to exclude it. JUst like they'll exclude FR and Oerth and Dark Sun and Green Ronin and tons of other material.

Or not. I know many GM who would say "OF COURSE I won't ban a feat/spell/whatever just because it's made with an specific setting in mind. There are no rules saying it isn't available anywhere else!"

You keep acting like your definition of what is avialable or not is more valid than mine... It isn't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Wrath wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, just responding with my initial instinct on this.

Level 20 means access to lots of gear.

Called armour means he's no longer unarmoured.
He would still have rings and amulets on while bathing. Absolutely no reason not to. Likely one of those will protect him against domination or at least buff his saves.

If in a bathtub, weapon would be at hand. Fighters keep their beats ticks close by.

If in a pond or lake, dive under water to prevent targeting. Use massive con and swim ability to get out of danger zone (though unlikely to work if party has a caster with fly abilities. That's a fairly safe bet at level 10)

If no weapon, go bare hand on casters first. Grapple and choke to death, using their body as a shield.

Most likely no fighter at that level gets left like that. Even swimming he'd have a dagger or short sword strapped to his leg.

Interestingly, a caster completely naked swimming is just as boned assuming a level 10 caster in the party. Dimensional lock or anchor to prevent contingent spell teleporting for escape. Then melee kill him in one round. He has no component pouch or gear other than ring and amulet. Even worse, if we go by the premise of completely naked, he's got nothing.

A silly premise.

Yeah, we ran through multiple scenarios and arguments based on this.

With even a little bit of wearable gear, the f/20 will likely survive and smoke the level 10's.

But without gear, he's screwed.

Contingent spell can get off a LOT more spells then a teleport. And there's plenty of spells with no material component to speak of.

The fighter can't case buffs. He has to have gear, pay gold. The wizard not only gets buffs, he gets spells more powerful then any gear the fighter can buy. Having several of those up is something he can do with his class features, that the fighter cannot.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Just because you want to assume this material is included, does not mean it is, and that's the whole argument you are trying to shoot down. Your whole argument is "I think it should be automatically assumed as being there," other people are, "Like, No." and you're like, "Well, you're wrong." And then you went off chasing straw men.

Nope. I'm assuming that if you're using RAW, then we should stick to RAW. If we are using "commonly used rules", then your banning something is in no way more valid than my allowing it.

Aelryinth wrote:
You're basically trying to argue that people can't have opinions and exclude stuff, because you have a different opinion.

And you say I am the one using straw men?

Aelryinth wrote:
It's setting-specific material. OF COURSE some people are going to exclude it. JUst like they'll exclude FR and Oerth and Dark Sun and Green Ronin and tons of other material.

Or not. I know many GM who would say "OF COURSE I won't ban a feat/spell/whatever just because it's made with an specific setting in mind. There are no rules saying it isn't available anywhere else!"

You keep acting like your definition of what is avialable or not is more valid than mine... It isn't.

Do you realize that you agreed with me while trying to argue that you didn't? Because I didn't deny that material could be used elsewhere, but you're STILL protesting that people may NOT use them? We just aren't assuming it is automatically FIAT, and the whole argument you're using seems to be based around the fact they ARE, and its bad/wrong/not fun/invalid to assume they aren't, and Ael is a meanie for saying otherwise.

I.e. we're arguing alternate-setting and alternate rule stuff is optional and may be included at the GM's pleasure.
You're trying to argue that alternate setting stuff is automatically fiat, and then drawing a line out of nowhere with alternate rules, somehow making a disconnect in that they are THE SAME THING.

You also realize that you built another strawman declaring what my opinion is, again? (and it's wrong, of course.) STOP DOING THAT, thank you.

And you do know that Aroden's Spellbane is a spell, right? And Words of Power is nothing but a bunch of spells mumblejumbled up?

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Do you realize that you agreed with me while trying to argue that you didn't? Because I didn't deny that material could be used elsewhere, but you're STILL protesting that people may NOT use them? We just aren't assuming it is automatically FIAT, and the whole argument you're using seems to be based around the fact they ARE, and its bad/wrong/not fun/invalid to assume they aren't, and Ael is a meanie for saying otherwise.

I.e. we're arguing alternate-setting and alternate rule stuff is optional and may be included at the GM's pleasure.
You're trying to argue that alternate setting stuff is automatically fiat, and then drawing a line out of nowhere with alternate rules, somehow making a disconnect in that they are THE SAME THING.

Nope. All I'm arguing is that RAW, no spell is limited to any one setting. And if you're fiating them away, I'll fiat them back in.

Aelryinth wrote:
You also realize that you built another strawman declaring what my opinion is, again? (and it's wrong, of course.) STOP DOING THAT, thank you.

This is hilarious, coming from you.

Liberty's Edge

Thinking this thread has just about run its course, guys.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Do you realize that you agreed with me while trying to argue that you didn't? Because I didn't deny that material could be used elsewhere, but you're STILL protesting that people may NOT use them? We just aren't assuming it is automatically FIAT, and the whole argument you're using seems to be based around the fact they ARE, and its bad/wrong/not fun/invalid to assume they aren't, and Ael is a meanie for saying otherwise.

I.e. we're arguing alternate-setting and alternate rule stuff is optional and may be included at the GM's pleasure.
You're trying to argue that alternate setting stuff is automatically fiat, and then drawing a line out of nowhere with alternate rules, somehow making a disconnect in that they are THE SAME THING.

Nope. All I'm arguing is that RAW, no spell is limited to any one setting. And if you're fiating them away, I'll fiat them back in.

Aelryinth wrote:
You also realize that you built another strawman declaring what my opinion is, again? (and it's wrong, of course.) STOP DOING THAT, thank you.
This is hilarious, coming from you.

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth


Rynjin wrote:

Druids get Pounce.

Fighters don't

True, but an archer fighter won't care about that, and the Pounce only changes things if the druid wins initiative.

Rynjin wrote:
Druids have about the same attack bonuses and damage or better, and don't really need to spend money on an AoMF because of Greater Magic Fang.

The druid gets a net -10 penalty to-hit (and -5 to damage) just on Weapon Training and BAB alone. Even accounting for their Strength being about as good as the fighter's (which is a bit generous, since it's assuming the druid has put similar investment into a score other than Wisdom), their bonuses to-hit should still be lower.

Rynjin wrote:
They also get a second attacker as a class feature. If nothing else, free Flanking.

Yeah, that much does suck. As does spells (though the fighter would ideally be able to inhibit once combat stars). This would probably be the end of things. I would say a Wild Shaped druid, lacking an animal companion, could maybe be challenged by a fighter. Without spells, they'd probably lose just because of how Pathfinder's Wild Shape works. But that's not exactly much to talk about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Thinking this thread has just about run its course, guys.

Yeah, we've reached the final form of this type of thread. Most people from one side have gotten bored or frustrated, and the real debatable points (like Disarm fighter or Martial Master) have already been settled. Now we're just spiking up a bit whenever someone new discovers the thread and decides they have things to say that haven't already been said. Which, generally, have been said.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Druids get Pounce.

Fighters don't

True, but an archer fighter won't care about that, and the Pounce only changes things if the druid wins initiative.

Rynjin wrote:
Druids have about the same attack bonuses and damage or better, and don't really need to spend money on an AoMF because of Greater Magic Fang.

The druid gets a net -10 penalty to-hit (and -5 to damage) just on Weapon Training and BAB alone. Even accounting for their Strength being about as good as the fighter's (which is a bit generous, since it's assuming the druid has put similar investment into a score other than Wisdom), their bonuses to-hit should still be lower.

Rynjin wrote:
They also get a second attacker as a class feature. If nothing else, free Flanking.
Yeah, that much does suck. As does spells (though the fighter would ideally be able to inhibit once combat stars). This would probably be the end of things. I would say a Wild Shaped druid, lacking an animal companion, could maybe be challenged by a fighter. Without spells, they'd probably lose just because of how Pathfinder's Wild Shape works. But that's not exactly much to talk about.

An Archer Fighter has to be able to shoot. There's a LOT of ways around that for a Druid.

The Druid, buffed, can easily reach Strength scores in excess of 40+ without too much of a problem by tacking buffs and gear onto wildshape or shapechanged forms. They don't have problems with TH or dmg. They can combine this with the natural attack rules, which means they don't take -5 on successive attacks...they maul you with 4 attacks, all at primary.

Add on summonings, animal companions and plain offensive spells, and its curtains for a fighter unless the druid is VERY dumb.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Also, the definition that Paizo uses for core rules is anything that is in the d20 PF SRD and is open content is 'core rules'. Anything that is world-specific is not included in the core rules. Just saw a quote from James Jacobs on that, in fact.

It should be noted that Aroden's Spellbane is not in the PFSRD, as it is world specific material. I just went and checked.

It's in the alternate sites under Spellbane. They shaved off the name so they could post it.

The Nethys Website does something similar.

==Aerlyinth


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Druids get Pounce.

Fighters don't

True, but an archer fighter won't care about that, and the Pounce only changes things if the druid wins initiative.

Rynjin wrote:
Druids have about the same attack bonuses and damage or better, and don't really need to spend money on an AoMF because of Greater Magic Fang.

The druid gets a net -10 penalty to-hit (and -5 to damage) just on Weapon Training and BAB alone. Even accounting for their Strength being about as good as the fighter's (which is a bit generous, since it's assuming the druid has put similar investment into a score other than Wisdom), their bonuses to-hit should still be lower.

Rynjin wrote:
They also get a second attacker as a class feature. If nothing else, free Flanking.
Yeah, that much does suck. As does spells (though the fighter would ideally be able to inhibit once combat stars). This would probably be the end of things.

We may be speaking of different things. A Wild Shape fighting based Druid has Strength (or Dex, for "Hummingbird of Doom") as his main stat, making a minimum of Wis for casting spells. Most spells used for buffs.

So, to-hit wise we have:

Fighter: Full BaB, +5 Weapon Training, ~34 Str (+12 to-hit), so total +37 (weapon +5 on both sides, so point moot)

Druid: +15 BaB, 40 Str (he gets +6 from Beast Shape on top of everything Fighter gets. Call it 44 if he uses Shape Change for a Dragon shape instead of Wild Shape), potentially Smite Evil OR Good (TN Druid + Planar Wild Shape), but even without it that's +30 to-hit BUT all of his attacks are at full BaB, while the Fighter's are not. This is excluding any other buffs the Druid can whip out, because I don't know the Druid list very well.

And the Druid can Reverse Gravity on the Fighter to make the fight pretty one-sided.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ryn, you gotta assume both have flight at that level. Rev Gravity isn't going to do anything.

==Aelryinth


It's a little silly how easy the fighter loses in this situation. The only real counter argument going on is some people saying a wizard would lose in this situation too (which is laughably untrue). Just about any big-6 removal houserules skews this situation way back towards the fighter.


Aelryinth wrote:

Ryn, you gotta assume both have flight at that level. Rev Gravity isn't going to do anything.

==Aelryinth

Eh, sure. But would the Fighter necessarily have it GOING at the time, or would he need to drink a potion/activate Boots?

Good way to eat his Standard if you need a second to regroup if nothing else.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You're assuming the fighter doesn't tap his boots before combat starts. Naughty naughty. If the Druid can wildshape before the fight, the fighter can have his fly, ah, up.

==Aelryinth


Rhedyn wrote:
It's a little silly how easy the fighter loses in this situation. The only real counter argument going on is some people saying a wizard would lose in this situation too (which is laughably untrue). Just about any big-6 removal houserules skews this situation way back towards the fighter.

I wouldn't say a wizard would lose. I would say a wizard could lose, depending on his opposition. A wizard who loses initiative tends to suffer, and there are classes of similar power that can challenge him. I believe someone brought up the synthesist summoner.

Obviously, shapechange tends to invalidate all of this, but that's why we're talking about "could" and not "would". Maybe he barred transmutation, or just didn't prepare shapechange today. Or say he didn't cast an extended freedom of movement earlier in the day for similar reasons, and he runs into a grappler.

Yeah, this is splitting hairs. That's basically all that's left for us, though. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

You're assuming the fighter doesn't tap his boots before combat starts. Naughty naughty. If the Druid can wildshape before the fight, the fighter can have his fly, ah, up.

==Aelryinth

Wild Shape: 20 hours, at-will.

Winged Boots: 15 minutes, 5 minutes at a time 3 times per day.

Though we can call it a Cloak of Flying attached to his Cloak of Resistance, I forgot that was a thing.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, whew, thanks for starting the argument back up, guys. It was looking a little hairy there for a while with all that agreeing going on.

Now - seriously - I'm not going to follow the discussion of the high level wizard scenario any more, it seems to have degenerated further. However, a small comment about the party attacking the high level fighter:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'd say the fighter has a pretty good chance of killing the mage before he has to make a second save if he's built as a disarm/Martial Master sort of character. And Improved Iron Will makes it decent odds he'll make that first save. As such, I'd put his odds a bit above 15%.

Of course, the cleric has a good chance of screwing this scenario up if he comes with a lot of good Will-based spells. I like to think the cleric will be busy trying to bring the mage back up, though.

Because of tactical concerns a fighter whose schtick is disarming is almost certain not to kill the party mage in a round. The sequence of actions he has to complete is impossible to carry out in one round unless the mage willingly advances into close quarters, which I don't think the mage would have any reason to do.

He has to take a weapon from an armed character, move to threaten the mage, and then attack the mage.

Attack-move action-attack is a sequence that requires at least two rounds, even assuming fairly ideal conditions otherwise (no mirror images, bane of fighters everywhere, no any other type of magic defense). It's even less likely than even the (quite unlikely, as we saw earlier) rogue kill, because you aren't trying to kill the same character you take the weapon from, so you can't just stand in place and continue the full attack.


My Fighter can actually deal with mirror image pretty well. If he closes his eyes there's a very low chance he misses with Greater Blind Fight (2d100, aiming for a 20% chance is what, a 10% chance to miss?).

The problem is more Overland Flight and actual AC boosters and such.


Your fighter could certainly justify assuming ideal conditions as far as mirror images and such, then (although such defenses will still work off-turn). A flying enemy is probably fairly difficult, though. Disarming, e.g. a bow isn't much good without arrows.

(Also because a non specialized archer choosing to try ranged attacks against a flyer rather than deal with the guys in melee with him is a good way to get AoOed to death by the rest of the party before he deals enough damage to a flyer to bring him down).


Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.


Why are people claiming such things yet again?

Quote:


Because of tactical concerns a fighter whose schtick is disarming is almost certain not to kill the party mage in a round. The sequence of actions he has to complete is impossible to carry out in one round unless the mage willingly advances into close quarters, which I don't think the mage would have any reason to do.

He has to take a weapon from an armed character, move to threaten the mage, and then attack the mage.

It does not take that many feats to be good at disarming, especially not at level 20. It's not a one-trick pony by a long shot. He does not have to disarm the rogue or opposite fighter before doing anything else. In fact, if those two are not next to the mage, going for that mage might be a damn smart move.

I actually started rebuilding that Drow fighter I mentioned earlier at level 20. Among the build im favouring right now is Greater Grapple (and thus, IUS, Greater Disarm (and Disarming Strike) and Dazing Assault - her second weapon training went into Close weapons, which includes unarmed.

Assuming she goes first (or her attackers fail to pin her down) and she can reach the mage, she has the option to move and grapple or move up and daze. Hitting is nigh certain, though prepared defenses can, of course, change that - and a level 10 wizard is more likely to fail a DC30 Fort Save than her failing SR *and* will save against compulsion spells from a level 10 wizard.

Any melee characters would then have to move into melee on their own, preventing their full attack, and NEXT round she could maintain the grapple as a move action (and probably pin the mage too, and leave him unable to speak), and disarm the first of her attackers as a standard action - another fairly certain bet at an unarmed disarm CMB of around +39. Certain enough to probably even disarm a two-weapon wielder completely.

I can still think of many things to go horribly wrong, and even of situations of that particular naked fighter dying without the slightest chance, but most require luck or preparation. And, of course, this is all assuming that for some reason you'd get her in a situation like this in the first place... Which is rather unlikely.

And again - prepared assassins that know your abilities are dangerous for *any* class.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

If the fighter is bathing in a river, his best bet is probably to dive under the water, kick up a bunch of silt from the bottom to create total concealment, then swim away in a random direction. One rank in Swim(not unreasonable for a lv20 fighter) gives him like a +12 or so Swim skill, and he can hold his breath for a good while. Depending on the current he could get pretty far downstream, using the murk as concealment the whole time.


Darkheyr wrote:
Why are people claiming such things yet again?

I'm not claiming whatever you thought, but I was commenting that in the context of a fighter taking someone's weapon and using it to kill the party wizard, I don't think that is likely to happen in a single round.

I'm not actually claiming that a martial master couldn't win the fight, especially a drow one, just commenting on the order of actions necessary to take someone's weapon and kill the mage in one round. Thus it being a 'small comment' rather than, uh, whatever is ordinary.

A dazing assault fighter specialized in grappling and disarming is one of those fighter builds that would have an easier time in the scenario (or a martial master who can get the feats with his ability). Add in a drow and thus high SR, and you look pretty solid for this scenario.

(although it won't make me stop hating SR on a PC in general terms)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
If the fighter is bathing in a river, his best bet is probably to dive under the water, kick up a bunch of silt from the bottom to create total concealment, then swim away in a random direction. One rank in Swim(not unreasonable for a lv20 fighter) gives him like a +12 or so Swim skill, and he can hold his breath for a good while. Depending on the current he could get pretty far downstream, using the murk as concealment the whole time.

Depends on the rivers. The more clear and refreshing the river he's bathing in, the worse off he is. The siltier and muddier, the better. Maybe no kicking required!

I know I would rather bathe in the cool mountain waters, but, until 20th level fighters get to cover some ground, maybe he's stuck bathing in whatever local pool of silt and frog s$#+ is available. Lack of narrative power for the win! ;)

Trying to escape underwater in a river is probably a fairly promising tactic overall - depending on the environment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)

Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.


Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.

Eh, Create Water would do fine. Or hell, maybe even Mage Hand depending on how fine you're allowed to control it. Or you could cast Resist Energy on yourself and then take fire baths with repeated uses of Spark (or a single use of Burning Hands). Doubt many germs will survive that.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.

Well, given your eyes wide shut, total lack of consistency, and self-contradictions, I'm not surprised. Honest and consistent arguments are going to look quite strange to you, as exemplified by your continuous construction of straw men to warp what they are actually saying.

You shouldn't be impressed. You should be honest, consistent, clear, and able to post that way. As it is, you're none of those, and you twist what others say and then restate it erroneously while assigning beliefs to others that they don't have with strawmen and blanket statements.

You really need to clean up your posts and reading comprehension. You seem unable to understand what people are actually saying, and when you post, your erratic wording or explanations is NOT helping your cause.

==Aelryinth


Coriat wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
Why are people claiming such things yet again?

I'm not claiming whatever you thought, but I was commenting that in the context of a fighter taking someone's weapon and using it to kill the party wizard, I don't think that is likely to happen in a single round.

I'm not actually claiming that a martial master couldn't win the fight, especially a drow one, just commenting on the order of actions necessary to take someone's weapon and kill the mage in one round. Thus it being a 'small comment' rather than, uh, whatever is ordinary.

A dazing assault fighter specialized in grappling and disarming is one of those fighter builds that would have an easier time in the scenario (or a martial master who can get the feats with his ability). Add in a drow and thus high SR, and you look pretty solid for this scenario.

(although it won't make me stop hating SR on a PC in general terms)

I misunderstood then, sorry.

And actually, I agree on the SR thing. I don't think it's a particularily good mechanic, not even on NPCs.


Kaouse wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.

Eh, Create Water would do fine. Or hell, maybe even Mage Hand depending on how fine you're allowed to control it. Or you could cast Resist Energy on yourself and then take fire baths with repeated uses of Spark (or a single use of Burning Hands). Doubt many germs will survive that.

Create Water is fine. I have a more potent, technological based form of that spell called 'turning on the shower'. I still have to bathe in said water. Creating water is for priests though, and not wizards.

The resist energy idea is cool, but requires 3rd level and your high level spell slot, so I think casters will be bathing well past level 1. Although given the outrage that my fighter's player expressed over prestidigitation not being able to clean him off, I suspect your original solution applies in most games as an unsaid houserule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.

Well, given your eyes wide shut, total lack of consistency, and self-contradictions, I'm not surprised. Honest and consistent arguments are going to look quite strange to you, as exemplified by your continuous construction of straw men to warp what they are actually saying.

You shouldn't be impressed. You should be honest, consistent, clear, and able to post that way. As it is, you're none of those, and you twist what others say and then restate it erroneously while assigning beliefs to others that they don't have with strawmen and blanket statements.

You really need to clean up your posts and reading comprehension. You seem unable to understand what people are actually saying, and when you post, your erratic wording or explanations is NOT helping your cause.

You, of all people, making those accusations about anyone else is actually pretty funny.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ayup, everyone is just laughing hilariously, they are.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kaouse wrote:
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

My 18th level fey bloodline sorcerer most certainly does, often while in the company of a beautiful lady. In fact one of his girlfriends is a neried, which kind of makes bathing a key activity in the relationship.


All I said is that there is no rule saying stuff is banned because its made with a setting in mind. Therefore, by RAW, those spells are available. You can argue that a GM would ban them... And I can just as well argue that a GM would allow them. But for you, somehow (either because you failed to understand my point or because you're being dishonest about it), that equals me saying my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

You've literally misconstrued my point time and time again while keeping your arguments highly inconsistent, using RAW only when it benefits your argument and ignoring it whenever it doesn't... And sadly, I can't say I'm surprised...

But I bow out. I've seen display that kind of inconsistency, dishonesty and hypocrisy far too many times to believe there is any point in this discussion. As usual, you "win" the discussion by wearing down not the opponent's argument, but his interest in continuing the debate.

Enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Ok, so in a (probably ineffective) attempt to push this thread back on topic, I have a question for consideration, given the discussion around martial mastery fighers: Which fighter archetypes would stand a better chance of survival [than the core fighter]?

If we consider what feats a given archetype is likely to take, you can make I think a more reasonable case for what options the fighter would likely to have. Here's what I think:

Martial Master - as other people have already said, the martial master would be able to pick up to 13 feats to use for the situation, giving him options.

Mobile Fighter - He can full attack as a standard action, effectively giving him pounce. He trades bravery for agility, giving him +5 against SoS spells that the assassins might throw at him, such as Hold Person. If he took Dazing Assault, he can use his Rapid Attack ability to potentially daze three of his four assailants.

Mutation Fighter - Might very likely have a set of natural attacks - negating his dependence on a weapon - the ability to fly, and buffed stats.

Viking - Can rage and have rage powers.

Lore Warden - Will almost certainly have combat maneuvers.

Unbreakable - Immune to mind-affecting effects, so SoD & SoS spells are likely ineffective.

Unarmed Fighter - Doesn't need a weapon, has a bunch of maneuver tricks he can do.

I think most of the other archetypes are very focused around a weapon, so they're in the same boat as the core fighter.


I'd say Viking as it fixes the Fighter's glaring weakness and also combines the benefits you listed of Mobile Fighter and Mutegenic. What really wrecks the naked Fighter is that he has a piss poor Will save. He is essentially racing the clock to to take down his enemies before he fails one. Superstition and Eater of Magic would go a long way toward helping there. Taking Beast Totem he would also have claws (in case he doesn't have improved unarmed), pounce, and natural armor. The Elemental bloodline rage powers can give a fly speed.... so yeah, in this scenario (and in general), the best Fighter is a Barbarian.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.

Dirt and grime is an object.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not removing any posts, but guys, knock it off. Personal insults add absolutely nothing, and if you find yourself unable to comment on others in the conversation, then it's probably time to take a step back and move on.

551 to 600 of 755 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.