Fighters, Meet Allip. Sword, Meet Immunity :smalltongue:.Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldstreak
Hey, I remember you.Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldstreak
Printable View
Fighters, Meet Allip. Sword, Meet Immunity :smalltongue:.Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldstreak
Hey, I remember you.Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldstreak
Incidentally, I think I have the first column, second column, and third row so far. Keep up the good work, guys!
Although unfortunately the bingo in question was made for PF, but it still works fairly well.
Allip, meet Ghost Touch. :smallbiggrin: It's actually one of the first abilities that I get on my weapons for this exact reason. That, and, I once had to use my equipment as a ghost... it was difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coretron03
You're missing "Theorycrafting" (whatever that is), and "Skills" from the first column, "Optimizers are one trick ponies" from the second column, and "Theorycrafting" "Rule Zero" "Fine it exists" and "the Playtest complaint" from the third row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormengand
I'm counting more threads than just this one. This argument has been going on longer than you may know.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
So, you want to take this on a very primitive level and possible feel vindicated by people lashing out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormengand
Well, ok, drop me a hint on some appropriate swear words and demeaning phrases to throw your way and I might actually comply.
There's no need for that. This isn't personal. It's a forum for discussing a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
Good luck affording a 8000+ gold weapon at level 2-3.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
You know, with that 900-2,700 gold.:smalltongue:
Nah, "Fine it exists" was called by me (to an extent) and Psyern. No dice on "skills" and "Optimizer's are one trick ponies" as far as I can tell, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
Employing hyperbole generally leads to frustration and short tempers.
Fighters have problems, but are far from "useless," even in 3.5. Any PC brings with it PC wealth and a PC's tactics. Open it up to PF and the problem all but vanishes.
Also, I'm not sure how putting valid objections on a bingo card somehow makes them stop being valid. Maybe if the person who drew it argued better they wouldn't have to hear the same thing repeatedly?
I mean, I didn't claim that they were useless. The words I used all those threads ago were that a fighter "Does not have a level-appropriate response to situations".Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyren
Well, I think the point is that responding to tone (for example) isn't a valid argument and this is generally understood in debate, and that "Fighters don't have resources which they lose as the day goes on" is patently untrue, and so forth. So, the point is that they're invalid objections on a bingo card. The bingo part of it is a general metaphor for "These incorrect arguments are so common that if I take 25 of them, it's likely that five of them will be mentioned which also conform to an arbitrary rule about which five those have to be."Quote:
Also, I'm not sure how putting valid objections on a bingo card somehow makes them stop being valid. Maybe if the person who drew it argued better they wouldn't have to hear the same thing repeatedly?
Admirable, Jette. But I tried to get something to that forumite, enforcing what should be considered BadWrongFun is not cool, not cool at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
Allips and shadows are where the newbie participants in gauntlet challenges die and the pros smirk. I've never lost to them in a gauntlet (or lost a gauntlet for that matter). By the way, among people who lost to shadows were the participants of "Casters v Everything" on these boards (I wasn't surprised).Quote:
Originally Posted by Coretron03
While early levels can be rough against certain draws, this is an observation not necessarily limited to a UMD Fighter party. Overall, chances are they'll make it past to wealthier levels, eventually fulfilling their gameplay role and putting to rest this side of the argument.
Does he not have wealth either? You don't even need custom items, printed ones are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormengand
"They don't have resources" is indeed untrue, but "their resources are different" is not. Their main resources are hit points and daily uses of feats/items. You can build around the last two (choosing gear and builds that aren't limited by a daily supply) and as for hit points, the only one that actually matters is your last one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormengand
The main one I was objecting to though was the one ascribed to me - "Fine, it exists." Which to me is a valid response if someone isn't actually looking for solutions but merely wants to gripe aimlessly. (Not saying that's you, rather I'm saying that's where I have used that response before.)
So, let's look at this bingo card. Is it just "bad arguments in a square" as some people are suggesting? Numbering is left to right and then top to bottom:
1. Trivially false, characters are (with relatively few exceptions) limited by at the very least HP. In any case, the ability to go longer than Wizards wouldn't necessarily be valuable even if it was real. You can deal 4 damage to something with DR 5/- as often as you want and you still won't kill it, but if you can do enough damage to kill it once, you will kill it.
2. Use Magic Device misses the point in a few ways. Most obviously, it is not a Fighter class feature. Anything a UMD Fighter can do a UMD Commoner can do just as well. It also essentially concedes that the gap between the Fighters abilities (having feats and full BAB) and the Wizard's is insurmountable, and the Fighter is better off aping the Wizard. Perhaps he can do so effectively, but that's hardly the Fighter doing anything impressive. Finally, while this may get you to some fixed standard, it clearly still leaves you wanting overall, as the Wizard has the same WBL the Fighter does and also better class features.
3. I think this is the most legitimate argument thus far, but it still falls pretty far short of being "good" in any real sense. For every Schrödinger's Wizard, there's a Schrödinger's Fighter on the other side. Wizards also have tools like Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster to allow them to actually be Schrödinger's Wizard. While it is true that people will often point out more defenses than any given Wizard will have, this is because you aren't supposed to be able to beat some particular Wizard, you're supposed to be able to reasonably acquit yourself across a representative sample of encounters at whatever balance point is considered appropriate.
4. I should hope the Stormwind Fallacy is reasonably well understood. The power of a character bears no connection to the ability to tell compelling stories about them. Anyone who doubts this should read Lord of Light, or almost any other book by Zelazny. Or Malazan. Or many of Sanderson's books. I assume someone more interested than I in terrible fantasy can prove this point in reverse by telling everyone about some atrocious books featuring weak protagonists.
5. Realism can mean one of two things -- what is possible in our world, or what is possible in the game world. The first is obviously crippling and puts you directly at the mercy of the Guy at the Gym fallacy. The second is meaningless, as anything any character does in the game world is, by definition, possible in the game world.
6. Fighters and Wizards get the same number of skill points. Wizards get better skills, and have more incentive to invest in INT. This argument is obviously stupid without examining any of the spells that obsolete skills.
7. While not strictly pertinent to Wizards v Fighters, the Cleric Archer put paid to this argument before Obama was president. You can be a better Fighter than the Fighter while also having the resources to see the future and summon angels. Faced with that the Fighter is, as the creator of the Cleric Archer put it, essentially like going out to dinner with your friends and refusing to pay. While it is true that the Wizard cannot be a Cleric Archer, an Incantatrix (or even a Gish) can prove the point just as well.
8. I will readily concede that low level play is, if not perfectly balanced, much more balanced than high level play. Indeed, I'm a strong proponent of solutions like E6 for people who don't want to deal with high level content. But that misses the point. If I'm concerned that my dog might be in danger because he ate some chocolate, telling me that cats can eat chocolate without health risks isn't very helpful to me.
9. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
10. This isn't really an argument. It's a preference. You are totally free to not want anime Fighters. That said, if you don't want anime Fighters, and consider the abilities that Fighters need to be valuable at high level universally "anime", then you should realize that you are not going to be happy (assuming you want Fighters to be good, and the game to be high level -- if you don't want those things, you can still be happy).
11. Honestly, this is too vague for me to have a good feeling of what the bad argument we're talking about here is. It sounds like a different way of making the same argument as 9 does.
12. This doesn't really mean anything. The game can require as many players as you want, but if there is a class that dominates the Fighter, any Fighters in the game are still a waste of space.
13. I once saw someone say that Rule Zero is the best solution for a game, but the worst solution for the game. I agree. It is necessary, helpful, and completely acceptable to make changes to the rules in the books when playing your game at the table for any number of reasons. But those changes don't fix the problems the game has, and are meaningless in a discussion of game design, as they are absolute independent from whatever product you have been sold.
14. This is another one that is so vacuous as to be impossible to evaluate. People say this a lot, but they say it for different reasons. "It doesn't matter, because I like it" is a dumb argument, but it's dumb for different reasons than "it doesn't matter, because the game is still fun", which is different in its turn from "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't happen at Real Tables".
15. See 9.
16. Again, this can be trivially demonstrated to be false. If anyone is confused about this, I will elaborate, but I doubt anyone here genuinely doesn't know about defensive buffs.
17. Optimized Fighters are one-trick ponies. Optimized Wizards take Spontaneous Divination and Versatile Spellcaster and laugh all the way to casting any spell they know whenever they want.
18. To some degree, see 8. However, Low Magic Campaigns are actually worse for Fighters, as the usually manifest as low magic item campaigns, which means that Fighters don't get to hurt monsters (because they don't have magic swords) and Wizards don't care because even having "only" four spells of each level is enough to make Fighters cry.
19. gate. shapechange. SLA wish.
20. See 18.
21. I'm sure there is a formal name for this fallacy, but I don't know it. Still, I hope no one thinks this is a good argument.
22. You know how much this is worth? One second level spell slot (heroics).
23. This is making a similar error to 8 and 18. Of course there are ways to play the game that are more balanced than using core Fighters. For example, you can take only personal buffs as a Sorcerer, take the "war Sorcerer" ACFs, and make up cool fighting style names. This doesn't fix the issues with the Fighter. It might make those issues less important, but it's not relevant to the Wizards v Fighters debate.
24. 4e was a terrible game, but it was way worse as a scientific experiment. 4e changed lots of things, not just class balance. It unified resource management. Was that the problem? It implemented skill challenges. Was that the problem? It implemented skill challenges really badly. Was that the problem? I don't know, and you don't know either. Any agenda can point to something 4e did as a reason that agenda is correct. For example, I might observe that 4e reduce the ability to do the crazy awesome stuff 3e Wizards did, and that was bad (effectively, that the issue was not "balance" but balancing down instead of up).
25. If every adventure has to negate the Wizard, and no adventures have to negate the Fighter, the Wizard is clearly better than the Fighter.
Overall, I think pretty much every point that is articulated well enough to be identifiable is a pretty bad to very bad argument. There are issues with the board -- redundant spaces, a Hitler comparison that seems kind of tasteless, saying "Rule Zero" instead of "Oberoni" which I think captures the point better -- but I don't think "those are good arguments" is one of them. If this is the best Team Fighter can muster, they should go home.
Arguing that a Fighter is useful because he brings to the table abilities available to a PC Commoner is absurd. For a class to be useful, the marginal benefit it brings to the party should be roughly equal to that of another Wizard (or Beguiler, or Cleric, or Druid, or other valuable class*). This is high school level economics, and the fact that people on this board don't understand it is deeply disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyren
*: Of course, you can substitute a bunch of classes at whatever balance point you want if you happen to disagree with the Wizard.
Alternatively we could be be disapointed that you think this is something that can either be solved or explained by high school math. Just because you can put up an equation showing its the case does not mean its true.Quote:
Arguing that a Fighter is useful because he brings to the table abilities available to a PC Commoner is absurd. For a class to be useful, the marginal benefit it brings to the party should be roughly equal to that of another Wizard (or Beguiler, or Cleric, or Druid, or other valuable class*). This is high school level economics, and the fact that people on this board don't understand it is deeply disappointing.
Because another way to judge that would be Wizard+Rogue+Cleric < Wizard+Rogue+Cleric+Class X. If the equation is true then Class X is in fact useful.
"Valuable classes" are irrelevant if Bob simply wants to be a fighter. Though I can certainly see how someone who would rather spend their playtime trying to teach Bob economics instead of playing a game with him would end up with few friends at all.
Okay, so Commoners are useful? Having a PC play an awakened rat with no class levels is useful? Because those both satisfy the inequality in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_khaine
"People who disagree with me are friendless losers."Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyren
Why should Bob be punished for having different preferences than you? Maybe he wants to play a Fighter that competes with optimized 20th level Wizards. Why should the game be harder for all of Bob's friends because Bob wanted to play a Fighter? Why should Bob's DM have to do extra work planning their encounters around a gimp? Why shouldn't things that have equal costs provide equal benefits?
Of course, Psyren has no answers to these questions, so he will simply ignore this post and continue to snipe passive-aggressively at me because he doesn't have the intellectual fortitude, integrity, or ability to defend the things he professes to believe are true.
I'm finding today's discussion rather heated so I want to state my position rather carefully.
Is a fighter as capable as a spellcaster? Generally no. In this sense, having someone choose a Fighter over a spellcaster has an opportunity cost for the party.
Is a fighter as capable as MM-style CR appropriate enemies? Generally yes. There are some well known exceptions but with appropriate choices Fighters can generally keep up.
I could however imagine that if a DM is playing with optimized spellcasters using CR-inappropriate (or "CR-appropriate" with well beyond MM-level optimization), then a Fighter would have real difficulty. Maybe this is a point of divergence in experience?
Is a commoner as valuable as a fighter? No. I quantified this earlier. Using all the same tricks, I can get a commoner to crank out 40% of the damage of the fighter against a Pit Fiend. This matters quite a bit: Does the Pit Fiend get to act or not? With a fighter no, but with a Commoner yes. When they can act, they are certainly dangerous.
Is a summons as valuable as a fighter? Generally no. Particularly in core they have a low attack bonus, a low AC, and a short duration. They are however good for triggering traps or as bait. One measure of this: I think you will find it quite difficult to challenge a Pit Fiend with core summons. Consider this a challenge.
Are most fighters as optimized as this one? It's not far off my real game experience although the way real-game fighter are optimized differs. Many parties function as a team rather than as a bunch of solos, and many fighters have useful access to more sourcebooks than just core.
Should all choices lead to a character of the same capability? I'd say no personally, but this is a matter of taste. I like games where there are right and wrong decisions.
Is a Fighter as capable as other fighter-style classes (Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, etc...)? Typically it's somewhat worse. The Generic Warrior frankly seems like a better design for a baseline Fighter to me as you aren't locked into crappy skills and get access to many class abilities as feats.
This is the issue. Your Fighter is not a stock Fighter. The stock Fighter is the one depicted on the "Fighter" NPC table in the DMG. If you want to fight a stock Pit Fiend (as opposed to one that has used its SLAs, treasure and other resources to enhance its threat level), you need to use a stock Fighter. Otherwise the whole comparison is meaningless because you aren't comparing like to like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrowhale
@Cosi:
Let´s take a pure designers POV on this, as most discussions happen in a vacuum with no common ground to work with. To do this, we should analyze it from top to bottom, meaning system > rules > individual rules elements.
Thesis: D&D is designed as a reactionary system with the gm setting up the "encounter" and the players using what they have at hand to "solve" that "encounter", whatever that might be. D&D is also designed towards a formalized way to use it, showcased by having an internal system for handling "balance" and "challenge", leading to the assumption that "combat as sports" is a heavy part of it, or, to rephrase it a bit, its a "permissive system" as you're mainly permitted to interact with the "encounter", whatever that might be.
This gives us the boundary conditions for what "act or affect the game world in a meaningful way" should mean.
If we work in reverse, individual rules element > rules > system and want every available element to be a meaningful choice and integrated into an "encounter", then we end up with the situation we´re often arguing about, judging the apparent worth of a class based on how many options it has available to act and affect the game world. This´ll lead to totally different boundary conditions and also promote the view that all classes should have an more or less equal number of options that are on a level compared to each other.
Both stances are mutually exclusive and can´t be combined.
Edit: Understanding that difference is extremely important. The former uses a neutral and system-centric bar for expected performance, the later uses a player-centric bar for expected performance.
... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.
Clearly they are? Its straight in the word. Use-ful. Having a use. And they both do that. Perhaps not as much as a lot of other classes. But then you need to change your argumentation to less or more useful. Instead of the binary useful or not useful.Quote:
Okay, so Commoners are useful? Having a PC play an awakened rat with no class levels is useful? Because those both satisfy the inequality in question.
Yeah i already made the point that none of the standard NPC classes can handle a Balor on their own. Or at least are highly unlikely to be able to do so. PW-Stun and the save-or-die abilities will handle the casters, and it can chop everyone else up easily.Quote:
... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.
As always, your point seems fairly opaque here. Why do I care? What about a permissive system versus a restrictive system implicates either the stupidity of the arguments Fighter Bingo is mocking, or the absurdity of comparing an optimized character to stock monsters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
My point is that if you only want to face a stock Balor, you should only use a stock Fighter. If you want to use an optimized Fighter, you should be prepared for an optimized Balor.Quote:
... and do you really want to argue that the NPC fighter should be the model to aim for? Then try to argue with the NPC Wizard and the preselected spells and equipment as a counterpoint. That´ll get funny fast.
You've defined the word "useful" so broadly as to be meaningless, then. Yes, the Fighter literally has a use, but there's clearly a contextual component to what is meant by "useful" that he does not fulfill.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_khaine
First, I don't know that you're right. The Wizard table doesn't include spells, and the highest level sample Wizard is only 10th level. Even if you're locked into progressing him and complying with the table, I think a reasonable Wizard can be made. I don't think the same is true for a Fighter, but I think it would be better for someone to actually see if that's true.Quote:
Yeah i already made the point that none of the standard NPC classes can handle a Balor on their own. Or at least are highly unlikely to be able to do so. PW-Stun and the save-or-die abilities will handle the casters, and it can chop everyone else up easily.
Second, that's not necessarily the point. The point is that if you are going to demand to face stock enemies, you should use stock characters. If you want to play the Fighter Anthrowhale suggested, you should have to face an equivalently optimized Pit Fiend, which Anthrowhale doesn't seem to think you can do.
All of this discussion of magic items and UMD seems to be entirely missing the point, because at no point in that equation is the fighter actually contributing much of anything. Sure, they'd do better than a commoner or a warrior, but those classes could still use the same tactics to achieve the same ends. What is actually being argued is, "can 20th level WBL beat a Pit Fiend?"
You mean there is a contextual component you dont think he fulfill. And thats also fair enough. But since this thread is still alive then there are clearly a large number of people who disagree about that.Quote:
You've defined the word "useful" so broadly as to be meaningless, then. Yes, the Fighter literally has a use, but there's clearly a contextual component to what is meant by "useful" that he does not fulfill.
But for that matter, said contextual component has not really been defined either, so here, i will expand upon it.
Useful is also when your presence in the party increases the overall survival chance of the party against its encounters by a measurable degree, versus a situation where you had not been there, and your wealth instead divided among the remaining party members.
Well yes. But you cant make a reasonable wizard that stand that much better of a chance against the Balor. Not while remaining true to the sample Wizard who are clearly a blaster. Case in point. It has prepared 2 uses of Ice storm. Shout, and cone of cold. Thats the sort of spells it would take against the Balor for it to be a fair comparison with the NPC fighter.Quote:
First, I don't know that you're right. The Wizard table doesn't include spells, and the highest level sample Wizard is only 10th level. Even if you're locked into progressing him and complying with the table, I think a reasonable Wizard can be made. I don't think the same is true for a Fighter, but I think it would be better for someone to actually see if that's true.
Second, that's not necessarily the point. The point is that if you are going to demand to face stock enemies, you should use stock characters. If you want to play the Fighter Anthrowhale suggested, you should have to face an equivalently optimized Pit Fiend, which Anthrowhale doesn't seem to think you can do.
So the point im making is mainly that none of the stock characters really have a reasoanble chance against a Balor. It is of course also CR 20. They are kinda meant to have 3 buddies to help them with it.
You are missing a point that was already made a few times. That no, a commoner cant make that work. The drop in BAB leads to a huge drop in damage.Quote:
All of this discussion of magic items and UMD seems to be entirely missing the point, because at no point in that equation is the fighter actually contributing much of anything. Sure, they'd do better than a commoner or a warrior, but those classes could still use the same tactics to achieve the same ends. What is actually being argued is, "can 20th level WBL beat a Pit Fiend?"
On a Fighter's chassis, it can. So let Bob play one if he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by gkathellar
This thread stopped being about the Fighter's ability to contribute meaningfully to a fight a long time ago. When you start throwing around ideas like "Fighter's are useless because an optimized Fighter can't kill an Optimized Pit Fiend/Balor/other CR 20" and "PF Bingo for general arguing points" then the thread has definitely jumped the rails. If you don't think Fighters are useful, don't play one. If your idea is that anyone playing a Fighter is bringing down the group as a whole, don't play in a group with a Fighter. Meanwhile, yes, the Fighter as a class could definitely use some focus by the developers. I think the PF Fighter is a strong move in the right direction, personally.
It continues to evolve as well - see Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training (both conveniently consolidated right onto the Fighter page) whereby the Fighter can trade these moderate bonuses for skill boosts and other class features.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
The main focus on any martial class is using gear and items, improving that with feats. That´s why they are "mundane". So, yes, Bob the Fighter will use WBL, which is part of the basic rules for this game, outfit himself with it and go into battle with it. That´s the whole point of the mundane classes, after all. And unlike the Commoner or Warrior, they are good at that and will get results.Quote:
Originally Posted by gkathellar
At some point it was pointed out (by you) that the job of the Bow Fighter (which is what is being discussed) is to stand between the enemy and their party and absorb damage for the other members of the party. That makes absolutely zero sense at all. Using a bow provokes an attack of opportunity and a Bow Fighter isn't guaranteed to be sturdier than any other member of the party. Quite frankly, they should be at the back of the party so they can use their range effectively and don't bring their pathetic saves into the equation of combat as frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jette
Also: Real Game Fighters are immune to fear effects. Failing your save 40% of the time is really dumb. Bad Fighter. Bad. Get a fear immunity from somewhere.
Actually, I said that the job of the Fighter was to stand between the enemy of the party. If a person wants to play a ranged Fighter, so be it. But, you should always bring a backup melee weapon for situations where you need to take the fight to the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Aegis
Edit: And, it should be pointed out that this thread had stopped being about the bow, and became about the class long before I said anything.