Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[Beheld]

Party wasn't locked. They had spell immunity. Try again and stick to the scenario. Plus if the party was locked this doesn't hurt the argument for the fighter. Know why? The wizard is included in that. This would be a party problem not a fighter problem. Regardless, in this scenario, the fighter would have contributed as much as the other PC's. Thanks to the wizard's knowledge check they knew what the balor was capable of, thanks to the spell immunity, they didn't get locked, thanks to the fighter's damage the balor died before it could contribute significant damage.

Even without replacing the fighter the writer noted that the barbarian was a key player in this scenario. Doesn't sound like anyone finds the martial useless and a Fighter easily could have replaced the barbarian. An optimized one even more so.

"Look, in this one game, the party stumbled across a Pit Fiend who was wearing Dimensional Shackles, had already been beaten to -8HP, was unconscious, and stunned. And the party handled that Pit Fiend easily! This proves that the fighter can handle the Pit Fiend no problem!"

"But that isn't how you run into Pit Fiends."

"Stick to the scenario!"

The entire point I've made all along is that PCs don't have magic foreknowledge of all enemies abilities and don't know exactly what they are facing in advance, saying "but what if they did" is worse than meaningless, it's actively refusing to deal with the argument being presented.

If the answer is "The entire party dies unless they know specifically in advance exactly what they are facing and all of it's abilities" then the answer is "the entire party dies" because that's how that works.

I'm not sure my point, that D&D is not a game of just comparing numbers, and that the PCs are usually adventuring in a way that precludes perfect advanced knowledge, and provides enemies with the ability to set the terms of engagement, is refuted by "but the unoptimized level 17 Wizard also dies to Blasphemy."

[Rhyltran]

Talk is cheap, you can't just assert your point and expect people to take you seriously.

Not to mention your scenario is incredibly contrived.

Nothing cheap about it. Just simple logic. Getting in schrodinger debates prove nothing.

"Look, in this one game, the party stumbled across a Pit Fiend who was wearing Dimensional Shackles, had already been beaten to -8HP, was unconscious, and stunned. And the party handled that Pit Fiend easily! This proves that the fighter can handle the Pit Fiend no problem!"

"But that isn't how you run into Pit Fiends."

"Stick to the scenario!"

The entire point I've made all along is that PCs don't have magic foreknowledge of all enemies abilities and don't know exactly what they are facing in advance, saying "but what if they did" is worse than meaningless, it's actively refusing to deal with the argument being presented.

If the answer is "The entire party dies unless they know specifically in advance exactly what they are facing and all of it's abilities" then the answer is "the entire party dies" because that's how that works.

I'm not sure my point, that D&D is not a game of just comparing numbers, and that the PCs are usually adventuring in a way that precludes perfect advanced knowledge, and provides enemies with the ability to set the terms of engagement, is refuted by "but the unoptimized level 17 Wizard also dies to Blasphemy."

But that's just it isn't it? In some games it really is that simple and the balor got weakened to such a degree that he was effortlesly beaten. Can a fighter beat a balor or pit fiend? The answer is quite obviously yes and in this scenario that I showcased above you can replace that barbarian with any optimized fighter and they'd contribute, in the damage department, more than the entire group combined. Might even be hailed as the hero of the party. What if the pit fiend, under the logic that it thinks the fighter can't possibly be a threat, decides to go in for a bite attack only to realize that under a full attack the fighter can one shot it? Would that be an optimal way of playing a pit fiend? Most certainly not but some DM's would play them in such a manner. Certainly in the scenario I showcased above the wizard would fall to blasphemy just as well as the fighter. Does this mean the game is balanced between wizards and fighters? Not really.

So what's the point what does all of this mean? An optimized fighter will do more than okay in most games. In most games the fighter doesn't need to be the one to get foreknowledge on his foes because that can be handled by someone else. As long as the fighter isn't taken out early in the fight, contributes to high damage, and takes out threatening foes people will be satisfied that their character wasn't just useful but entirely relevant. In some games the martial character ends up the most relevant character due to the player building him in such a way that he contributes to ending encounters more so than anyone else in the party.

What about the games where the fighter is useless? Fighter is a bad choice for those games but not every game is one of those games.

[Beheld]

in the end it comes down to schrodinger's fighters vs Schrodinger's pit fiends/balors. Real games have real players with real party make ups which makes the real scenarios and situations unpredictable.

I've literally described one specific set of tactics over and over and over for prior engagement, and changed the post engagement tactics and the build 0% except in response to changed fighter responses. Saying "The Pit Fiend will probably create defenses to wait out a short term buff and ready an action to do the thing that wins the fight instead of doing the thing that wins the fight" when the Fighter goes invisible instead of shooting him is not "Schroedinger" it's not my fault Anthro refused to engage in any actual test.

Nothing cheap about it. Just simple logic. Getting in schrodinger debates prove nothing.

You could always just not get in a Schroedinger debate by actually running the test, as I offered. Anthro's blanket assertion that I'm a filthy cheater isn't actually a requirement that everyone else pick up the same call.

[Rhyltran]

I've literally described one specific set of tactics over and over and over for prior engagement, and changed the post engagement tactics and the build 0% except in response to changed fighter responses. Saying "The Pit Fiend will probably create defenses to wait out a short term buff and ready an action to do the thing that wins the fight instead of doing the thing that wins the fight" when the Fighter goes invisible instead of shooting him is not "Schroedinger" it's not my fault Anthro refused to engage in any actual test.



You could always just not get in a Schroedinger debate by actually running the test, as I offered. Anthro's blanket assertion that I'm a filthy cheater isn't actually a requirement that everyone else pick up the same call.

I'm not calling you a cheater. I'm arguing that actual games are more complicated than that. I even said "could a fighter beat your pit fiend? Maybe. Probably not." See, I'm arguing in your campaigns playing a fighter might be a bad idea but not all campaigns are your campaigns.

Everyone here knows Wizards >>>>> Fighters. This is never a debate here.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Nothing cheap about it. Just simple logic. Getting in schrodinger debates prove nothing.

If you aren't prepared to back up your arguments, I remain unconvinced.

[Rhyltran]

If you aren't prepared to back up your arguments, I remain unconvinced.

You need proof that games are complicated and people can DM very differently, having different takes on the same creatures in the monster manual, as well as playing them differently utilizing different tactics in different scenarios? Okay..

[Beheld]

I'm not calling you a cheater. I'm arguing that actual games are more complicated than that. I even said "could a fighter beat your pit fiend? Maybe. Probably not." See, I'm arguing in your campaigns playing a fighter might be a bad idea but not all campaigns are your campaigns.

Everyone here knows Wizards >>>>> Fighters. This is never a debate here.

I never said you were, I pointed out that I have an open offer to run an encounter or 12, and that anyone can take me up on that, and that Anthro won't because his official position is that I'm a dirty cheater. But if you don't have that same position, then you could just run one of those encounters and it wouldn't be a Schroedinger debate at all.

[Rhyltran]

I never said you were, I pointed out that I have an open offer to run an encounter or 12, and that anyone can take me up on that, and that Anthro won't because his official position is that I'm a dirty cheater. But if you don't have that same position, then you could just run one of those encounters and it wouldn't be a Schroedinger debate at all.

My problem is I don't care about any of that. Let me ask you the question differently. Let's take Anthro's character, alright? Do you think his fighter would perform badly in every high level DM campaign run by every DM? Do you think it will perform badly in most DM's settings or the average DM's settings?

Do you think that his character, in every one of these campaigns, will be dead weight and hailed as useless by most of the party?

[ColorBlindNinja]

You need proof that games are complicated and people can DM very differently, having different takes on the same creatures in the monster manual, as well as playing them differently utilizing different tactics in different scenarios? Okay..

You claimed that a Fighter could kill a Pit Fiend/Balor, and you provided no evidence for that claim.

[Rhyltran]

You claimed that a Fighter could kill a Pit Fiend/Balor, and you provided no evidence for that claim.

In the scenario I linked the fighter and barbarian do fine (even the writer admits that.). In beheld's scenario the shackled balor/pit fiend dies in his unconscious state. In both of these scenarios the fighter does fine. Yes the pitfiend in scenario two is unconscious. Doesn't remove my point.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In the scenario I linked the fighter and barbarian do fine (even the writer admits that.). In beheld's scenario the shackled balor/pit fiend dies in his unconscious state. In both of these scenarios the fighter does fine. Yes the pitfiend in scenario two is unconscious. Doesn't remove my point.

Your point relies on an implausible scenario.

[Rhyltran]

Your point relies on an implausible scenario.

The first scenario is implausible? I mean, if run by Beheld or I it would be implausible but I don't think it's implausible as written by most DM's.

Let me showcase what I mean. In the scenario I linked the fighter does fine. If it was Anthro's fighter it does more than fine. If it was an optimized charger it potentially one shots the Balor.

If I was DMing the scenario that party would likely be wiped out at worse. At best the Balor is getting away. Several things the Balor is smarter than just about any human alive. It's not going to sit there and watch it's minions get slaughtered. It's also likely, since the players knew it would be there, that the Balor would assume the same. This Balor would be ready for the party and have researched what the party is capable of. The balor wouldn't flounder about for two rounds literally accomplishing nothing. Upon knowing the battle was going poorly the balor wouldn't stick around to be destroyed. The balor is going to retreat. How I play a Balor would likely have wiped out that entire party in this scenario. Even with their preparations. The same with Beheld's balor. Here's the deal though, it isn't my balor nor is it Beheld's balor.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The first scenario is implausible?

They party knew they were facing a Balor; how often is that the case?

[Beheld]

My problem is I don't care about any of that. Let me ask you the question differently. Let's take Anthro's character, alright? Do you think his fighter would perform badly in every high level DM campaign run by every DM? Do you think it will perform badly in most DM's settings or the average DM's settings?

Do you think that his character, in every one of these campaigns, will be dead weight and hailed as useless by most of the party?

I don't know what "most" campaign look like, I doubt anyone ever has, and I think anyone who says they do is probably wrong. I also think that what "most" campaigns look like in 2017, 9 years after the last 3.5 book was published is probably different than in 2004.

I think that I'd rather talk about something useful like what Pit Fiends should be doing, and what the rules generally say they should be doing, and what the logical outcome of writing "Persistent Image at will" does to the way a monster is run.

In the scenario I linked the fighter and barbarian do fine (even the writer admits that.). In beheld's scenario the shackled balor/pit fiend dies in his unconscious state. In both of these scenarios the fighter does fine. Yes the pitfiend in scenario two is unconscious. Doesn't remove my point.

"Even the person who is literally paid to pretend that D&D is well designed, who has a vested interest in pretending that, agrees!"

[Rhyltran]

I don't know what "most" campaign look like, I doubt anyone ever has, and I think anyone who says they do is probably wrong. I also think that what "most" campaigns look like in 2017, 9 years after the last 3.5 book was published is probably different than in 2004.

I think that I'd rather talk about something useful like what Pit Fiends should be doing, and what the rules generally say they should be doing, and what the logical outcome of writing "Persistent Image at will" does to the way a monster is run.



"Even the person who is literally paid to pretend that D&D is well designed, who has a vested interest in pretending that, agrees!"

I think the bold is less of a reality than you think. Do you play competitive video games? Have you seen video game designers occasionally take part in versus matches against the community? Let me tell you something it usually results in them being annihilated. The occasion when most designers stream, play with the community, etc usually reveals that they're above average at best or casual at worst. Most designers put more time in developing their content than they do at mastering the competitive aspects of it. Let's take a look at Pathfinder. 3.5 had been out for awhile by the time Pathfinder came around and some of the pathfinder designers are the same as the 3.5 designers. Yet despite all of that some of the imbalances (despite them trying to fix or nerf aspects of it) are still there. Even some of the most egregious of those issues.

Regardless that it's year 2017 there are people who have never visited these forums. People who still don't know what optimized play is. There are still newbies to 3.5 and pathfinder. Pathfinder have brought in people who have tried both systems. I have DM's and potential players on my skype with all levels of experience. Ones, that I have mentioned, have admitted the least knowledgeable of our players are superior to their entire groups. There are people who come in these forums every now and then claiming they can't balance around warblades or that even low op characters (in our standards) are completely trivializing their game and ask for help. You can't assume that just because it's year 2017 that everyone still playing has as much knowledge that the regulars on these boards do.

Let me provide you an example. To challenge their fanbase the Resident Evil 1 Remake has invisible monster mode. The creators of the game admitted they couldn't beat Invisible Monster Mode. They did it solely as a challenge to their hardcore fans. I can speed run invisible monster mode (because I love resident evil) in 2 hours. I know every spawn, every item, and where every monster is. I can beat it, including the bosses, with a knife only run. Developers aren't always the best or most knowledgeable about the things they develop. It's why we notice overpowered combos, items, and abilities and think "How did they miss it?"

[Zanos]

I do think that 25 pages of debate does show, at the very least, that fighters are capable of fulfilling their intended role as part of a 4 man party against monsters optimized to WotC standards well enough to be functional. They might not be as good as it as other classes, but they aren't non-functional.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Regardless that it's year 2017 there are people who have never visited these forums. People who still don't know what optimized play is. There are still newbies to 3.5 and pathfinder. Pathfinder have brought in people who have tried both systems. I have DM's and potential players on my skype with all levels of experience. Ones, that I have mentioned, have admitted the least knowledgeable of our players are superior to their entire groups. There are people who come in these forums every now and then claiming they can't balance around warblades or that even low op characters (in our standards) are completely trivializing their game and ask for help. You can't assume that just because it's year 2017 that everyone still playing has as much knowledge that the regulars on these boards do.

These are exactly the sort of parties that get TPK'd by Balors and Pit Fiends.

[Beheld]

I think the bold is less of a reality than you think. Do you play competitive video games? Have you seen video game designers occasionally take part in versus matches against the community? Let me tell you something it usually results in them being annihilated. The occasion when most designers stream, play with the community, etc usually reveals that they're above average at best or casual at worst. Most designers put more time in developing their content than they do at mastering the competitive aspects of it. Let's take a look at Pathfinder. 3.5 had been out for awhile by the time Pathfinder came around and some of the pathfinder designers are the same as the 3.5 designers. Yet despite all of that some of the imbalances (despite them trying to fix or nerf aspects of it) are still there. Even some of the most egregious of those issues.

Regardless that it's year 2017 there are people who have never visited these forums. People who still don't know what optimized play is. There are still newbies to 3.5 and pathfinder. Pathfinder have brought in people who have tried both systems. I have DM's and potential players on my skype with all levels of experience. Ones, that I have mentioned, have admitted the least knowledgeable of our players are superior to their entire groups. There are people who come in these forums every now and then claiming they can't balance around warblades or that even low op characters (in our standards) are completely trivializing their game and ask for help. You can't assume that just because it's year 2017 that everyone still playing has as much knowledge that the regulars on these boards do.

Let me provide you an example. To challenge their fanbase the Resident Evil 1 Remake has invisible monster mode. The creators of the game admitted they couldn't beat Invisible Monster Mode. They did it solely as a challenge to their hardcore fans. I can speed run invisible monster mode (because I love resident evil) in 2 hours. I know every spawn, every item, and where every monster is. I can beat it, including the bosses, with a knife only run. Developers aren't always the best or most knowledgeable about the things they develop. It's why we notice overpowered combos, items, and abilities and think "How did they miss it?"

I think you didn't understand the bolded part? I said they have a vested interest in pretending it was balanced, not that they are better than other people at the game. Vested interest means they would deliberately only use examples that support their point, and maybe lie about the results a bit, not that they are good at the game.

It has nothing to do with being good at the game.

Also, as I stated, I never said that everyone played in one specific way or "with the knowledge of these boards" (knowledge which is mostly not very much and not very good in my experience) I specifically said that I don't know what the average group is, neither do you, and there probably is no meaningful definition of average group.

I feel like you have a huge problem where you keep quoting me and making posts to some completely other person in another universe making different arguments.

[Rhyltran]

I think you didn't understand the bolded part? I said they have a vested interest in pretending it was balanced, not that they are better than other people at the game. Vested interest means they would deliberately only use examples that support their point, and maybe lie about the results a bit, not that they are good at the game.

It has nothing to do with being good at the game.

I'm arguing it's possible that they really do believed it was balanced. I mean, it was written as one of their tips and tricks article. The scenario was designed to help players learn D&D tactics. They even wrote articles on how to beat certain monsters and some build advice which is.. really bad.

[Beheld]

I'm arguing it's possible that they really do believed it was balanced. I mean, it was written as one of their tips and tricks article. The scenario was designed to help players learn D&D tactics. They even wrote articles on how to beat certain monsters and some build advice which is.. really bad.

YESSSSS! That has nothing to do with what I said. Confirmation bias doesn't mean people are right, and designers of the game have confirmation bias. Yes, designers of the game are bad at the game, that has literally nothing to do with what I said though. Because I never once claimed they were good at the game and in fact said the exact opposite, I can only repeat, you have a tremendously annoying habit of quoting me and then responding to a completely non existent alternate set of arguments I never made.

[Rhyltran]

YESSSSS! That has nothing to do with what I said. Confirmation bias doesn't mean people are right, and designers of the game have confirmation bias. Yes, designers of the game are bad at the game, that has literally nothing to do with what I said though. Because I never once claimed they were good at the game and in fact said the exact opposite, I can only repeat, you have a tremendously annoying habit of quoting me and then responding to a completely non existent alternate set of arguments I never made.

Considering you say this a lot about people who disagree with you or argue against you I think you have trouble getting your point across and/or understood.

Not to mention you also said "Maybe even lie." which I was addressing. I used their poor attempt at offering build advice as evidence that I don't think that they lie but truly believe what they've said. I never addressed your arguments falsely. If you think that I have I ask that you make your points more clear next time.

The post I quoted and commented on I answered very clearly. In fact my response to the quote is fair and addresses the points made. Maybe re-reading your post a few times will help.

I mean unless you can tell me how:

I'm arguing it's possible that they really do believed it was balanced. I mean, it was written as one of their tips and tricks article. The scenario was designed to help players learn D&D tactics. They even wrote articles on how to beat certain monsters and some build advice which is.. really bad.

Is a bad reply to this:

I think you didn't understand the bolded part? I said they have a vested interest in pretending it was balanced, not that they are better than other people at the game. Vested interest means they would deliberately only use examples that support their point, and maybe lie about the results a bit, not that they are good at the game.

It has nothing to do with being good at the game.

You can help me understand.

I mean I can break it down for you if you'd like.

"They have a vested interest pretending it was balanced." You're implying they're lying. Pretending.

You clarify.

"Vested interest means they would deliberately only use examples that support their point."

They are being deceptive. Trying to deceive their customers.

"And may lie about the results."

Again, you're telling me you believe they're lying. So now let's look at my post:

"I'm arguing it's possible that they really do believed it was balanced. I mean, it was written as one of their tips and tricks article. The scenario was designed to help players learn D&D tactics. They even wrote articles on how to beat certain monsters and some build advice which is.. really bad."

I'm providing evidence that they may not be lying and may truly believe it. They aren't being deceptive. They aren't lying. That they have been known to provide bad advice and bad tactics.

You then proceed to claim that my response had nothing to do with your response. Are you typing responses that are coming out entirely different from what you're actually saying?

[Beheld]

If you don't understand that people can be wrong and argue deceptively for things they believe to be true, then I can see why you would believe your points address mine. But they don't.

Also the whole thing where 95% of your one post was talking about designers being bad at the game about other games, and about D&D, in response to a statement that had nothing to do with them being good at the game. I have no idea why you think "designers are stupid" is a counterpoint to something that never claimed they were smart.

[Rhyltran]

If you don't understand that people can be wrong and argue deceptively for things they believe to be true, then I can see why you would believe your points address mine. But they don't.

Also the whole thing where 95% of your one post was talking about designers being bad at the game about other games, and about D&D, in response to a statement that had nothing to do with them being good at the game. I have no idea why you think "designers are stupid" is a counterpoint to something that never claimed they were smart.

It wasn't about counter points. I also responded before your edits. I was merely stating that I don't think they are actively lying. Never claimed they were stupid either. They just focused more on game design than they did at mastering their own system and accounting for different combinations and probabilities. Your post, from my point of understanding, implied they were doing it on purpose. You didn't bring confirmation bias until the next post you made. We're not mind readers here on the forums and at this point we're talking past each other anyway.

So we can chalk it up as a misunderstanding. My point still stands that every game is different and people play monsters differently. How relevant a fighter is depends on the setting, situation, the dm, and how the monster is played. Really that's all that matters. As I said, in the scenario I linked you a fighter in place of that barbarian would have been just as relevant. With better optimization it'd have only become more relevant. With high optimization the fighter would have, in the fight, been more relevant than any other party member in the damage department. Both of us would have played the Balor very differently and there's a high chance that entire party would have been wiped.

This is my main point. An arena between a fighter/balor/pitfiend/dragon doesn't matter. Because rarely would the fighter go up alone. His lack of knowledge about Balors is irrelevant because he'd likely have access to someone who does have that knowledge. In most situations it would come down to "Can he reliably hit the pit fiend? Can he reliably damage the pit fiend?" and in many parties that fighter could probably fit that criteria. In some parties he couldn't. In some games the fighter stays relevant to the end in other games he doesn't.

To be honest with you I've played games with other people dming. I've made monks that carry the team. Are the dm's good at displaying monster tactics? Some are. Most aren't. I can say from experience most DM's have no idea what to do with a monk that has 240 HP, 41 AC, 12d8 damage, and reliably hit with all their attacks in flurry of blows while also having flight, true seeing, and their lowest save being an 18.

This doesn't even begin to touch the highest levels of optimization. This is my problem. My other problem is that even with as powerful as they are. A high level wizard doesn't solo a balor or pit fiend either in most games.

My point and it hasn't changed. My answer to most of your questions "Depends on the DM. Depends on the game." this is my answer to most "Can I", "Can he", "Can they."

[Beheld]

My point remains all the things I said in the past, but in response to this especially:

"Most games are exactly like I want them to be for me to make this point."

When I say it, it is no more or less true than when you do. You have no idea what most games are like, and your repeated claim to do so makes the conversation pointless.

[Rhyltran]

When I say it, it is no more or less true than when you do. You have no idea what most games are like, and your repeated claim to do so makes the conversation pointless.

I completely agree. It's why absolute statements like "Fighters can't beat pit fiends." is wrong because that is a subjective statement. Regardless if most games are high op, mid op, or low op these three categories exist. Regardless if the average player can play a Pit Fiend as a tactical mastermind or a blithering idiot doesn't change that not only do these two extremes exist but every possible variation in-between.

Just like when you ask people to make a fighter to fight a Pit Fiend in an arena it makes the conversation equally pointless because the result has no meaning.

[Beheld]

I completely agree.

Then why do you keep claiming to know what most games are like?

It's why absolute statements like "Fighters can't beat pit fiends." is wrong because

Statements aren't wrong just because you deliberately misinterpret them.

Just like when you ask people to make a fighter to fight a Pit Fiend in an arena it makes the conversation equally pointless because the result has no meaning.

You should probably read the thread, no one ever asked anyone to make an arena fighter. In fact my ongoing point for 25 pages has always been that the arena fight method of analysis is worthless.

[Rhyltran]

Then why do you keep claiming to know what most games are like?

I claim that the average game table does not play Pit Fiends as tactical masterminds and the average table doesn't have a high level of system mastery. I think most would agree with this assessment. So why do I keep claiming that? Because it's not an unrealistic point of view. Could I be wrong? I absolutely accept that but I don't think that I am.

Short answer? Because my experiences tell me that I am correct. Even if your experiences tell me that I'm wrong we can't reliably prove it one way or another. I'll stick to my beliefs. You can stick to yours.

Statements aren't wrong just because you deliberately misinterpret them.

You would be right if I'd misinterpreted them. Except in this case I'm not. Fighters can beat pit fiends in some games. They can't in others. In some scenarios they can. In some scenarios they can't. Depends how they're played. A few people in the "can't" camp switched to the "can" camp in this thread. I don't need to say who. Even if no one was convinced it's not relevant.

There's lots of anecdotal evidence for "Fighters are fine." as well as plenty more saying "They aren't."

You should probably read the thread, no one ever asked anyone to make an arena fighter. In fact my ongoing point for 25 pages has always been that the arena fight method of analysis is worthless.

I did read the thread. I also saw people constantly try to get people to fight arbitrary pit fiends in various scenarios. Including a cage fight at one point. Any fight between a player vs a pit fiend controlled by anyone on this board is irrelevant and useless for determining whether or not a Fighter can beat a Pit Fiend or not.

[Beheld]

I'll stick to my beliefs. You can stick to yours.

1) I'm not "sticking to my beliefs." because unlike you, I don't assert things to be true based on no competent evidence and on wishful thinking only, which is why I say things like:

"I don't know what "most" campaign look like, I doubt anyone ever has, and I think anyone who says they do is probably wrong. I also think that what "most" campaigns look like in 2017, 9 years after the last 3.5 book was published is probably different than in 2004."

And you say things like:

"Are the dm's good at displaying monster tactics? Some are. Most aren't. I can say from experience most DM's have no idea what to do ... A high level wizard doesn't solo a balor or pit fiend either in most games."

That in fact makes me correct, and you incorrect, because my statements are true and justified, and your statements are completely unjustified.

2) Contrast your position now with:

I completely agree. It's why absolute statements like "Fighters can't beat pit fiends." is wrong because that is a subjective statement.

You would be right if I'd misinterpreted them. Except in this case I'm not. Fighters can beat pit fiends in some games. They can't in others. In some scenarios they can. In some scenarios they can't. Depends how they're played. A few people in the "can't" camp switched to the "can" camp in this thread. I don't need to say who. Even if no one was convinced it's not relevant.

......................

You can literally read every single person on the Pit Fiend side of the argument, from me, to Cosi, to Jormengand explaining that we never said "All fighters in all situations with all DMs and all players." You can read it on page 1, you can read it on page 24.

No one in the history of the universe has ever tried as hard to intentionally misinterpret an issue as you are right now.

I did read the thread. I also saw people constantly try to get people to fight arbitrary pit fiends in various scenarios. Including a cage fight at one point. Any fight between a player vs a pit fiend controlled by anyone on this board is irrelevant and useless for determining whether or not a Fighter can beat a Pit Fiend or not.

1) That was literally the fighter player's choice because he thought it could be run with no DM intervention.

2) Again, just because you choose to misinterpret literally every single thing that every single person in the argument has to say about the issue in question, that doesn't make your blatantly false misrepresentation true. The question I posed is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. The question Jormengand asked is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. That you refuse to address the things we have actually said in exchange for you delusional strawman does not in fact make that reality.

[Menzath]

Seems like a missed two pages of stuff that should be scrubbed....

I think that the biggest point I can make with the core fighter vs pit fiend, is that it is hard to make a fighter that can win, that also couldn't be done the exact same way by a commoner.

That a commoner could do the same thing and win means that the core fighter doesn't have the class features to support it actually being a class until you add splat books.

And also as a sample, the proposed fighter by anthro would have a hard, if not impossible time fighting a marut. 100% stock.
Why? Because his weapon is specialized for evil outsiders. And that is the majority of his damage. If those properties, or the weapon itself is ignored, it all falls apart.


And to also be fair a few years back now a buddy of mine did play an Archer fighter in a 3.5 campaign. He had 2bows, and a crossbow. Being disarmed once or twice wasn't an issue. Heck he even had a backup great sword and longsword.
He wasn't singular in how he fought, because being an Archer all the time wasn't always the best choice to help out the party.

That's how "real" play differs from a Schrodinger fighter that has the right gear for what he is fighting.

[Rhyltran]

1) I'm not "sticking to my beliefs." because unlike you, I don't assert things to be true based on no competent evidence and on wishful thinking only, which is why I say things like:

"I don't know what "most" campaign look like, I doubt anyone ever has, and I think anyone who says they do is probably wrong. I also think that what "most" campaigns look like in 2017, 9 years after the last 3.5 book was published is probably different than in 2004."

And you say things like:

"Are the dm's good at displaying monster tactics? Some are. Most aren't. I can say from experience most DM's have no idea what to do ... A high level wizard doesn't solo a balor or pit fiend either in most games."

That in fact makes me correct, and you incorrect, because my statements are true and justified, and your statements are completely unjustified.

2) Contrast your position now with:





......................

You can literally read every single person on the Pit Fiend side of the argument, from me, to Cosi, to Jormengand explaining that we never said "All fighters in all situations with all DMs and all players." You can read it on page 1, you can read it on page 24.

No one in the history of the universe has ever tried as hard to intentionally misinterpret an issue as you are right now.



1) That was literally the fighter player's choice because he thought it could be run with no DM intervention.

2) Again, just because you choose to misinterpret literally every single thing that every single person in the argument has to say about the issue in question, that doesn't make your blatantly false misrepresentation true. The question I posed is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. The question Jormengand asked is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. That you refuse to address the things we have actually said in exchange for you delusional strawman does not in fact make that reality.

No one is "purposely interpreting" anything. In fact, you have been making strawmen the entire time you have been debating with me and have continuously put words into my mouth I have never said. I just let them go. No matter how many times you insinuate I'm wrong doesn't make it true. The pit fiend you ran is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't answer anything. Which is my point. You claim it's the fighter player's choice when you were the one who complained about how nobody here would actually test their theories or assertions. My problem is any such tests are utterly pointless. The question was answered. Fighters can beat pit fiends, balor, dragons, and everything else depending how they're run.

This is a completely true statement. No matter how much you twist and squirm this fact isn't going to change.

Seems like a missed two pages of stuff that should be scrubbed....

I think that the biggest point I can make with the core fighter vs pit fiend, is that it is hard to make a fighter that can win, that also couldn't be done the exact same way by a commoner.

That a commoner could do the same thing and win means that the core fighter doesn't have the class features to support it actually being a class until you add splat books.

And also as a sample, the proposed fighter by anthro would have a hard, if not impossible time fighting a marut. 100% stock.
Why? Because his weapon is specialized for evil outsiders. And that is the majority of his damage. If those properties, or the weapon itself is ignored, it all falls apart.


And to also be fair a few years back now a buddy of mine did play an Archer fighter in a 3.5 campaign. He had 2bows, and a crossbow. Being disarmed once or twice wasn't an issue. Heck he even had a backup great sword and longsword.
He wasn't singular in how he fought, because being an Archer all the time wasn't always the best choice to help out the party.

That's how "real" play differs from a Schrodinger fighter that has the right gear for what he is fighting.

My contention with this, even if a lot of it is true, is that a real fighter is not going to be fighting alone and will likely be built to deal with the things that are common in his campaign or what the player believes the big bad might actually be (if there is one.). Real characters likely would have an idea of what they're going to be fighting.