Page 4 of 52 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1532
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Jette View Post
    The point is that you don't like the Fighter, and have given no real reason why.
    You literally just made that up. Stop it.

    The point of the Fighter is to fight, to defend, and to absorb damage. All of that is useful.
    And none of it is actually doable by the fighter.

    So, answer me this, and don't deflect: when your Wizard is out of spells for the day, and all their contingencies are gone; no more summoning, or buffing, or teleporting away; would you rather have a Fighter standing between your Wizard and the enemy, or just get killed? Because even at level 20, the Wizard only has between 23 and 83 hit points, plus Con. And, we all know that enemies can tear through that in a single round with ease.
    When my wizard is out of spells for the day, the last spell they cast was probably rope trick. I would rather be in an extradimensional space than protected by a schmuck with a sword. Or a bow.

    That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    But in order to make the solution work you do at least somewhat have to convince people there's a problem.
    You have done a fairly poor job of that in this thread, considering that each time someone manages to make a build that can defeat a pit fiend using core resources, you complain that it counters pit fiends specifically when it has fairly wide-ranging defenses like see invisibility and freedom of movement.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    You have done a fairly poor job of that in this thread, considering that each time someone manages to make a build that can defeat a pit fiend using core resources, you complain that it counters pit fiends specifically when it has fairly wide-ranging defenses like see invisibility and freedom of movement.
    Well, to be fair, the all-18s fighter with anarchic holy lawful-outsider-bane evil-outsider-bane arrows and subsequent nonsense with intelligent items haven't really put me in the mood to check exactly how much of each pile-of-magic-items-with-a-fighter-in-it is tailored to fight pit fiends. The point is that a fighter which wasn't built by someone who optimises fighters as apparently their sole hobby isn't generally effective. Given the number of iterations of fighter optimisation it took to make one which was even approaching rules-legal and which could actually beat the pit fiend in question, I stand by that.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You literally just made that up. Stop it.
    I didn't. You've been demonstrating a dislike of the Fighter in general over many different threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    And none of it is actually doable by the fighter.
    The Fighter can, and does this. Tripping opponents. Literally standing between enemies and allies. Grappling. These are all things that Fighters can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    When my wizard is out of spells for the day, the last spell they cast was probably rope trick. I would rather be in an extradimensional space than protected by a schmuck with a sword. Or a bow.

    That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.
    First off, yes Wizards do run out of spells. Second off, what do you do when your last Rope Trick is countered by the enemy? You keep trying to deflect, but the fact is, an enemy caster is the bane of a Wizard, because the war of attrition is harder on you when your spells can be countered. So, in the situation described, having an ally who can just hit someone with a sword, club, or what have you, and just continue to do that all day, is much better than having to rely on something that can be dispelled.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Well, to be fair, the all-18s fighter with anarchic holy lawful-outsider-bane evil-outsider-bane arrows and subsequent nonsense with intelligent items haven't really put me in the mood to check exactly how much of each pile-of-magic-items-with-a-fighter-in-it is tailored to fight pit fiends. The point is that a fighter which wasn't built by someone who optimises fighters as apparently their sole hobby isn't generally effective. Given the number of iterations of fighter optimisation it took to make one which was even approaching rules-legal and which could actually beat the pit fiend in question, I stand by that.
    I agreed with you on those points, but the creator of those builds made variants that addressed those specific complaints and you fell back on other ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    That, and wizards really don't run out of spells.
    Are we arguing about "real" fighters in the same breath as wizards with unlimited spell slots hiding in rope tricks?
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    I agreed with you on those points, but the creator of those builds made variants that addressed those specific complaints and you fell back on other ones.
    Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of "Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."

    Are we arguing about "real" fighters in the same breath as wizards with unlimited spell slots hiding in rope tricks?
    A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Jette View Post
    an enemy caster is the bane of a Wizard
    And here I was thinking it was a fighter.

    (No, I'm not going to respond to your post which is basically just saying overt falsehoods until you're blue in the face. Why would I do that?)
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of -"Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."
    Moving the goalposts would definitely be levied against you as a fair criticism if that's your methodology. You should present all of your initial objections in one post.

    You don't seem to have any love for fighters, certainly.

    A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.
    They can run out of level appropriate spells depending on material on prep choices. I won't make any argument that a Wizard isn't better at pretty much everything than a fighter, but wizards do not have unlimited endurance against actually challenging encounters. Neither do fighters, with hit points and all, but still.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Oh, it´s brain-farting time again. Reminds me how perplexed I was when a certain person burst into a PF-tagged thread, at a point discussing what AMH/WMH did for the Fighter and the "subtle" fineries (:P) of your regular mounted fury/superstitious AM-B builds, pouring hot rage over martial classes.
    I think it´s actually cool to be called a "liar" while explaining how using those builds is pretty easy to one-shot high-level opponents, especially with AM-B.

    Edit: Oh, and I´m still looking for the All-18s Fighter that person is rambling on about.
    Last edited by Florian; 2017-06-26 at 03:29 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DEMON's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Let's murder each other over a base class in a more than decade old tabletop game.

    On a more serious note, I think nobody with a decent system knowledge argues that Fighters are more powerful than Wizards. Even the devs have acknowledged that, mostly by giving us the Warblade and dropping a ton of ACFs for the fighter in books like CC and PHB2 (not necessarily their best ACFs, mind you, but those books have the highest number of them).

    That being said, Jormengand, your attitude does wonders for making people side with whoever is on the other side of the argument, because you mostly seem like you've thrown a tantrum and turned it into a shouting match.

    Is fighter a bad class? Perhaps... it certainly is a lot weaker than many other base classes in DnD 3.5, but at the same time, it lends quite well to both low/no-magic campaigns and multi-classing. They are the poster child for being a "mundane hero", for better or worse (mostly worse, when you look at if from an optimizer's POV).

    Yes, it is a 20-levels long base class, but at the same time, v3.5 is an incredibly modular system allowing for all sorts of customization. At some level of that, Fighters work just fine. At top levels, they do not, but that's true for many other classes.
    Fantabulous Duskblade avatar by linklele, for which I am eternally grateful.
    Previous avatars composed by Nathan, Ivius and Threeshades, for what I am eternally grateful, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buufreak View Post
    Cookie cutter racial cheese aside, we should probably keep an eye on the whole "Dwarf only" bit of the OP. But hey, that's just me. Everyone feel free to throw out more op tricks that are 100% topic irrelevant. :P

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Yes, it's almost as though the most pressing problem with a build changes as that build changes. Like, if a build is illegal, high-OP and doesn't deal with the problem, then I'll point out that it's illegal first. If they fix that, I'm not suddenly disallowed by some unspoken rule of debate to point out that it doesn't deal with the problem, and if they patch up the problems in their build - the problems pointed out by a forumite in a build made by a forumite - then I will point out it's ridiculous to put that forward as a build that addresses the original problem of "Most fighters are useless", and it's also ridiculous to reframe that problem - as a poster has done - as "Jormengand hates fighters."



    A wizard gets forty-something spell slots to split between four encounters. The wizard nigh-on can't run out of spells, let alone doesn't. And the wizard actually has defences like rope trick which they can - and do - use in places where it's dangerous to rest, if not actually necessarily using rope trick the spell itself. In any case, the fighter can be coup de grace'd during his sleep pretty much as easily as the wizard - and by a pit fiend, no less.



    And here I was thinking it was a fighter.

    (No, I'm not going to respond to your post which is basically just saying overt falsehoods until you're blue in the face. Why would I do that?)
    Would you point out the falsehoods that I have supposedly said, at least, then? Because, as far as I know, a Fighter does in fact have more hit points; a wizard does have a finite amount of spells per day; and, a Wizard is most vulnerable to other spellcasters who can counter, or dispel, the spells that a Wizard tries to cast. I've never claimed that a Fighter is the greatest threat to anything. Your claim was that they are completely useless and can't even do what they're built to do. I've pointed out things in your claim that are false.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Moving the goalposts would definitely be levied against you as a fair criticism if that's your methodology. You should present all of your initial objections in one post.
    And what if my objections to an illegal build which isn't that high-OP and can kill pit fiends, a legal build which is nearing TO and can kill pit fiends, and a legal build which isn't that high-OP and can't kill pit fiends, are all different? I don't see how raising different objections to different phony arguments which are wrong in different ways is "Moving the goalposts". If anything, saying "Ah, maybe that build didn't work, but THIS one will!" over and over again until you have one which eventually works is moving the goalposts.

    Not that any of this is relevant when I specified 3.5 fighters in core in a thread about real games, which is when the ravening hordes of imbalance-deniers descended.

    You don't seem to have any love for fighters, certainly.
    You know what I really hate? Warblades. You know what's better than fighters? Warblades.
    You know what I really love? Truenamers. Guess what isn't as good as a wizard!

    To be clear, I don't hate soulknives, samurai or monks either. I mean, I don't really like any of them because they're boring, one-dimensional and not really that fun to play, but I don't have this massive vendetta against them. I didn't follow another poster to another thread which had nothing to do with the topic and bring it up, twice, nor did I start a whole new thread solely to argue about it.

    They can run out of level appropriate spells depending on material on prep choices. I won't make any argument that a Wizard isn't better at pretty much everything than a fighter, but wizards do not have unlimited endurance against actually challenging encounters. Neither do fighters, with hit points and all, but still.
    Well, no, but the argument in question was "What if the wizard's run out of spells entirely!" which seems more than a little unfair when the fighter would have run out of existence entirely by this point.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    I created the Veteran. I think I have a solution: play something which isn't a fighter. But in order to make the solution work you do at least somewhat have to convince people there's a problem.
    Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Alphonse by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    I fear Jorg is being treated unfairly. First of all, this thread is a patent illustration of a strawman. Jorg entered this debate way back where the Pit Fiend was just an example of how high CR encounters are difficult to impossible for mundanes. Jorg and others have been at that since ages and I can only testify that Jorg has been bearing the brunt of that assault alone against many. That itself can sour attitude of the lone person if people refuse to let go.
    Last edited by logic_error; 2017-06-26 at 03:39 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?
    He does seem to think that an argument against the Fighter being worthless is the same as an argument that the Fighter is the greatest class ever.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    And what if my objections to an illegal build which isn't that high-OP and can kill pit fiends, a legal build which is nearing TO and can kill pit fiends, and a legal build which isn't that high-OP and can't kill pit fiends, are all different? I don't see how raising different objections to different phony arguments which are wrong in different ways is "Moving the goalposts".
    Because you presented the secondary arguments sequentially after the initial problems were corrected, shifting what it would take to satisfy you.

    If anything, saying "Ah, maybe that build didn't work, but THIS one will!" over and over again until you have one which eventually works is moving the goalposts.
    You suggested that a "real" fighter build doesn't exist that could reliably defeat a pit fiend. If any "real" fighter build exists that meets that criteria, then your point is countered. So making multiple builds that approach the problem from different angles is legitimate.

    Not that any of this is relevant when I specified 3.5 fighters in core in a thread about real games, which is when the ravening hordes of imbalance-deniers descended.
    Hey, we're on a tangent of a tangent here. Don't try to refocus me, I'm trying to ARGUE on the INTERNET.

    You know what I really hate? Warblades. You know what's better than fighters? Warblades.
    You know what I really love? Truenamers. Guess what isn't as good as a wizard!

    To be clear, I don't hate soulknives, samurai or monks either. I mean, I don't really like any of them because they're boring, one-dimensional and not really that fun to play, but I don't have this massive vendetta against them. I didn't follow another poster to another thread which had nothing to do with the topic and bring it up, twice, nor did I start a whole new thread solely to argue about it.
    Okay, fair. I'll pencil you in for "doesn't really like fighters" then.

    Well, no, but the argument in question was "What if the wizard's run out of spells entirely!" which seems more than a little unfair when the fighter would have run out of existence entirely by this point.
    Again fair, but you shouldn't counter with something that isn't really true. I think most people agree that wizards are better than fighters.

    Quote Originally Posted by logic_error View Post
    I fear Jorg is being treated unfairly. First of all, this thread is a patent illustration of a strawman. Jorg entered this debate way back where the Pit Fiend was just an example of how high CR encounters are difficult to impossible for mundanes. Jorg and others have been at that since ages and I can only testify that Jorg has been bearing the brunt of that assault alone against many. That itself can sour attitude of the lone person if people refuse to let go.
    I think I've been uncharacteristically fair here. I usually just tell people they're wrong. And I was on Jormengand's side for a little bit.
    Last edited by Zanos; 2017-06-26 at 03:41 PM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Wait, so let me get this straight - you reject the PF solution because you see it as homebrew, and then introduce your own solution, which is actually homebrew? Is that all this is then, a promotional tour?
    No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

    Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Because you presented the secondary arguments sequentially after the initial problems were corrected, shifting what it would take to satisfy you.
    Well, no, I presented them immediately and then pointed out the most obvious failing of each build as it arrived. Though I did point out quite a lot of the failings of the original all-18s fighter of pitfiendbane arrows immediately (namely that it was illegal, massively optimised, tailor-made, and didn't even work)

    You suggested that a "real" fighter build doesn't exist that could reliably defeat a pit fiend. If any "real" fighter build exists that meets that criteria, then your point is countered. So making multiple builds that approach the problem from different angles is legitimate.
    I did clarify at length fairly early on what exactly I mean by a real fighter build. Or are you seriously suggesting that these are the kinds of fighter builds that you would normally see in a normal game run by people who don't optimise as their hobby, and which haven't been painstakingly iterated upon?

    Hey, we're on a tangent of a tangent here. Don't try to refocus me, I'm trying to ARGUE on the INTERNET.
    I CAN AND I WILL.

    Okay, fair. I'll pencil you in for "doesn't really like fighters" then.
    Not that my argument has anything to do with my personal opinion of fighters (whether they're interesting to play or not is another major issue they have, but...)

    Again fair, but you shouldn't counter with something that isn't really true. I think most people agree that wizards are better than fighters.
    Well... I think it pretty much is true and you pretty much admitted it was true that wizards practically never actually run out of spells, so responding to "WHAT IF THE WIZARD RUNS OUT OF SPELLS" with "He probably won't" is pretty fair, IMO.
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2017-06-26 at 03:49 PM.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

    Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.
    Except that you haven't been saying that there's a problem with the Fighter. You've been saying that they're worthless as a class, and can't do the one thing that they were built for; which has been shown repeatedly to be false. If what you want to say is that there's a problem with the class, then say that. You'll be greeted by a cacophony of people stumbling over themselves to agree with you. Don't say that they're useless, or you'll be shown how they can be used.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    No, my argument is that there is a problem with 3.5 fighter. PF is a solution, but I'm rejecting the assertion that PF fighter means there was never a problem with the fighter.

    Similarly, the veteran's existence may be a solution to the fighter's problems, and so might the warblade's. But that doesn't actually change the fact that there is a problem with the fighter. It's like saying "There isn't a hole in the wall because I have a roll of duck tape." That's a solution, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Whether the PF fighter is really the solution we're looking for is a different question, but either way it doesn't mean that the 3.5 fighter doesn't have problems.
    Yes, fine. The 3.5 fighter has problems. I totally agree. It's a rather banal point to make but consider it truly, thoroughly made. So now what?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Alphonse by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Jette View Post
    Except that you haven't been saying that there's a problem with the Fighter. You've been saying that they're worthless as a class, and can't do the one thing that they were built for; which has been shown repeatedly to be false. If what you want to say is that there's a problem with the class, then say that. You'll be greeted by a cacophony of people stumbling over themselves to agree with you. Don't say that they're useless, or you'll be shown how they can be used.
    What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

    Is that now clear?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Yes, fine. The 3.5 fighter has problems. I totally agree. It's a rather banal point to make but consider it truly, thoroughly made. So now what?
    Great, Psyren is convinced!

    Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.

    Quote Originally Posted by DEMON View Post
    That being said, Jormengand, your attitude does wonders for making people side with whoever is on the other side of the argument, because you mostly seem like you've thrown a tantrum and turned it into a shouting match.
    To be fair, these people hounded me in two threads and made a third thread to have this argument. My attitude started a lot more affiable and slowly turned more and more irritable as I found out that I couldn't mention the word "Fighter" without the hordes descending on me to remind me that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters.

    EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2017-06-26 at 04:00 PM.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

    Is that now clear?
    No.

    What you say is that being presented with a Fighter, build using the CRB and DMG, based to confront anything from the MM on a serious level just doesn´t exist.
    Now what you do is moving goal-posts, in trying to say that a Fighter that is not build by a noob but by persons that have a clue about how to handle that class is TO.
    In that, you´re either delusional or in denial, because all builds so far have refrained from actually using WBL to simulate caster shenanigans, even if that was at their fingertips and stayed with a pure weapon-based class.

    It is not about comparison between classes. It is only about what height that specific class can reach, which is, frankly, way above what a summons or animal companion can do.
    Last edited by Florian; 2017-06-26 at 04:07 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Well, no, I presented them immediately and then pointed out the most obvious failing of each build as it arrived. Though I did point out quite a lot of the failings of the original all-18s fighter of pitfiendbane arrows immediately (namely that it was illegal, massively optimised, tailor-made, and didn't even work)
    I did too, I thought the all 18s intelligent item with 4 of everything in each slot was silly. The ensuing corrections and variants mostly satisfied my complaints, at least as far as I was willing to admit that a fighter had a significant chance of killing a pit fiend on it's own.

    I did clarify at length fairly early on what exactly I mean by a real fighter build. Or are you seriously suggesting that these are the kinds of fighter builds that you would normally see in a normal game run by people who don't optimise as their hobby, and which haven't been painstakingly iterated upon?
    I don't really consider those builds unusual, no. They've taken pretty obvious feat choices that make them good archers. They bow itself is pretty normal, and usually ammo is "cheap" enough that you can buy a different set for a variety of threats without breaking the bank insanely. Melee characters actually have a harder time golf bagging than archers because they have to switch weapons and can't use baseline bow enchantments. I think I would take more issue with it if we were fighting a more obscure threat, but you generally know if you're going to Hell unless something really bad happens. The author also took pains to buy other ammo types for other major enemies. Holy Axiomatic Bane arrows are probably a bit much, but Holy and Bane(Evil Outsiders) are both pretty good arrow enchantments, since those types of enemies are a pretty much cross-section of the creatures a high level character will be facing. I didn't consider the defenses unreasonable either. Ring of Freedom of movement protects a character against a lot of nasty stuff at higher levels, like being swallowed whole or having your brain eaten by illithids and being crushed under a dragon, and at those levels unless you're similarly large you probably aren't going to be within spitting distance of the monsters check. Similarly invisible foes are pretty common at lower levels, so a Robe of Eyes or another item that lets you deal with that is very good to have. I wouldn't expect something like this from a brand new player, but I don't think it approaches TO at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.
    Oh, I agree that the fighter is bad, I just don't think it's bad in comparison to WotC tier optimization. Most of the time. Damned Adamantine Horrors.
    Last edited by Zanos; 2017-06-26 at 04:06 PM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    What I am saying is that a fighter, built using the rules of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players' Handbook and Monster Manual, for Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition, will in the majority of instances be unable to do the job that they are meant to do as a class, without ignoring the rules or asking the DM or a wizard for help. I don't make any claims about what fighters can do in the Pathfinder Roleplaying System, or with the custom item guidelines being treated as rules, or with the help of a wizard, or what they can do if built over the course of a week or so over multiple iterations by the kind of person who is deliberately trying to make an exceptionally optimised character, and I am saying that if the fighter builds - which have been multiple variations on illegal, ineffective and borderline-TO - are claimed as the kind of fighter which is representative of the normal fighter, I do not believe the person making that claim.

    Is that now clear?



    Great, Psyren is convinced!

    Now, let's work on Florian, The_Jette, Zanos and Lans.



    To be fair, these people hounded me in two threads and made a third thread to have this argument. My attitude started a lot more affiable and slowly turned more and more irritable as I found out that I couldn't mention the word "Fighter" without the hordes descending on me to remind me that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters.

    EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.
    I have to agree with Florian. No, what you're saying isn't clear, since it's not what you've been saying. If you want to go back and edit all of your posts to say that the Fighter isn't a good class, I'll completely withdraw my point. If you want to say that Fighters are useless, as you've been saying, then you're just wrong. I've never made any of the points that you're claiming to be raging against. I've simply claimed that your point of the Fighter being useless is wrong, then showed how they can be used. You've yet to do anything other than say "well, you're wrong. Fighters are useless."

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Alright. I have been reluctant to delve too deeply into this debate. But let me lay out the details in simple terms:

    Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?
    A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).

    What does this tell us?

    This tells us that the prime argument that was being made, that fighters are spectators in an optimally built party with casters, is probably right.



    Q2) What is the role of the fighter?
    A: It is dealing damage and absorbing it, chiefly. On top of that, the fighter can lay down tactical battlefield control. He can trip, bull rush, overrun and grapple opponents and keep them at bay. Assuming that these options cover all the fighter bases, one can safely argue that casters will do these things significantly, if not incomparably better than the fighter. Summons are known to be better at some things that a fighter can do, and there I believe should be little debate about this. Summons simply make the best damage absorbents for the obvious reason. They are expendable. Be very careful *even* to reason that a fighter does this job better. Aspects that the summons might not be able to cover, such as battlefield control or damage dealing, a caster can easily cover via spells and do so far more devastatingly to the opposition.

    This is the second problem. A fighter's core role is easily usurped by full casters. In some cases, even by half casters or other mundanes such barbarians, who can do more damage and absorb more punishment!



    Q3) Is there anything that the fighter can do better than other classes?
    A: A fighter can go all day given the right supply of HP regeneration without suffering from intermediate penalties that accrue in other mundanes such a barbarians even if they occur temporarily. This is the core argument used to justify the fighter's raison de etre. Unfortunately, there the Rogue outdoes a fighter by being much more capable of avoiding and dealing damage *while* going all day. A fighter *does* shine here, but is outshone by another mundane!

    In the verdict, I would say that the real problem is that the Fighter feats are simply not versatile enough. They do not compensate for the lack of spells. A fighter simply can not solve most plot problems that do not involve direct confrontation. He can easily get pigeonholed and thus become dangerously susceptible to *obvious* weaknesses.

    This is what is really summarised when someone makes a passing remark "Fighters are useless". Taken in context, they mean "Fighters are useless when full casters, equally optimally built and sensibly played, are present". If you want to play fighters, sure, be my guest. D&D is Role Play and you should be playing what concept you wish to see materialise at the table.
    Last edited by logic_error; 2017-06-26 at 04:15 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Yeah, I do think the problem here is one of hyperbole.

    Also, "not as good as other classes" does not equate to "useless." We can resort to the hypothetical question of "why would I bring any other class," but the fact remains that if your friend Bob wants to play a Fighter and not a Barbarian or Duskblade, he is going to play Fighter. You are within your rights to try and convince him once, but holding up the entire game with a line in the sand is just silly and disruptive.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2017-06-26 at 04:17 PM.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Alphonse by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    No.

    What you say is that being presented with a Fighter, build using the CRB and DMG, based to confront anything from the MM on a serious level just doesn´t exist.
    Now what you do is moving goal-posts, in trying to say that a Fighter that is not build by a noob but by persons that have a clue about how to handle that class is TO.
    In that, you´re either delusional or in denial, because all builds so far have refrained from actually using WBL to simulate caster shenanigans, even if that was at their fingertips and stayed with a pure weapon-based class.
    I will remind you that this argument started in the "What notable discrepencies have you noticed in optimization theory and your games?" thread in which I said:

    "The standard martial classes stand no real chance against spellcasters or even lucky rogues in any game I've actually seen played."

    That was, to be clear, in the first post I made in the first thread in which this argument was had.

    I made consistent references to "In real games" throughout the thread. I continually implied that builds like the 3.0 buff-pony and the all-18s archer didn't qualify. I've been clear on this from the start: hell, it was in the title of the thread I first posted in, that I was talking about what fighters do in the majority of real games. You should know this, because you were the first to respond. You were there when we discussed the many steves and the greg, the fighters of various levels of ineffectuality and rules-breaking. And yet you continued to claim never to have seen one of the builds.

    Are you done lying, sir?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    I don't really consider those builds unusual, no. They've taken pretty obvious feat choices that make them good archers. They bow itself is pretty normal, and usually ammo is "cheap" enough that you can buy a different set for a variety of threats without breaking the bank insanely. Melee characters actually have a harder time golf bagging than archers because they have to switch weapons and can't use baseline bow enchantments. I think I would take more issue with it if we were fighting a more obscure threat, but you generally know if you're going to Hell unless something really bad happens. The author also took pains to buy other ammo types for other major enemies. Holy Axiomatic Bane arrows are probably a bit much, but Holy and Bane(Evil Outsiders) are both pretty good arrow enchantments, since those types of enemies are a pretty much cross-section of the creatures a high level character will be facing. I didn't consider the defenses unreasonable either. Ring of Freedom of movement protects a character against a lot of nasty stuff at higher levels, like being swallowed whole or having your brain eaten by illithids and being crushed under a dragon, and at those levels unless you're similarly large you probably aren't going to be within spitting distance of the monsters check. Similarly invisible foes are pretty common at lower levels, so a Robe of Eyes or another item that lets you deal with that is very good to have. I wouldn't expect something like this from a brand new player, but I don't think it approaches TO at all.
    I certainly consider the build in question exceptionally high-OP. I've never seen a player play anything even in the same vague strata as that.
    Blood, Sweat and Tiers: Epic Adventures in a World of Grievous Power Imbalance My homebrew.
    If I wanted you to use gendered pronouns for me, I'd have a gender marker. Avatar by Pessimismrocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You know, it would be really meta if I sigged this.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by logic_error View Post
    Alright. I have been reluctant to delve too deeply into this debate. But let me lay out the details in simple terms:

    Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?
    A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).

    What does this tell us?

    This tells us that the prime argument that was being made, that fighters are spectators in an optimally built party with casters, is probably right.



    Q2) What is the role of the fighter?
    A: It is dealing damage and absorbing it, chiefly. On top of that, the fighter can lay down tactical battlefield control. He can trip, bull rush, overrun and grapple opponents and keep them at bay. Assuming that these options cover all the fighter bases, one can safely argue that casters will do these things significantly, if not incomparably better than the fighter. Summons are known to be better at some things that a fighter can do, and there I believe should be little debate about this. Summons simply make the best damage absorbents for the obvious reason. They are expendable. Be very careful *even* to reason that a fighter does this job better. Aspects that the summons might not be able to cover, such as battlefield control or damage dealing, a caster can easily cover via spells and do so far more devastatingly to the opposition.

    This is the second problem. A fighter's core role is easily usurped by full casters. In some cases, even by half casters or other mundanes such barbarians, who can do more damage and absorb more punishment!



    Q3) Is there anything that the fighter can do better than other classes?
    A: A fighter can go all day given the right supply of HP regeneration without suffering from intermediate penalties that accrue in other mundanes such a barbarians even if they occur temporarily. This is the core argument used to justify the fighter's raison de etre. Unfortunately, there the Rogue outdoes a fighter by being much more capable of avoiding and dealing damage *while* going all day. A fighter *does* shine here, but is outshone by another mundane!

    In the verdict, I would say that the real problem is that the Fighter feats are simply not versatile enough. They do not compensate for the lack of spells. A fighter simply can not solve most plot problems that do not involve direct confrontation. He can easily get pigeonholed and thus become dangerously susceptible to *obvious* weaknesses.

    This is what is really summarised when someone makes a passing remark "Fighters are useless". Taken in context, they mean "Fighters are useless when full casters, equally optimally built and sensibly played, are present". If you want to play fighters, sure, be my guest. D&D is Role Play and you should be playing what concept you wish to see materialise at the table.
    I accept your assessment without agreeing with your conclusion. Just because a Fighter isn't the best at battlefield control, or taking damage, doesn't mean that he's not out there. And, as I've said before, a Fighter can't be dispelled.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DEMON's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post

    EDIT: Although I do now know where they're descending from, so thanks for that at least.
    By all means, you're welcome
    Fantabulous Duskblade avatar by linklele, for which I am eternally grateful.
    Previous avatars composed by Nathan, Ivius and Threeshades, for what I am eternally grateful, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buufreak View Post
    Cookie cutter racial cheese aside, we should probably keep an eye on the whole "Dwarf only" bit of the OP. But hey, that's just me. Everyone feel free to throw out more op tricks that are 100% topic irrelevant. :P

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by logic_error View Post

    Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?

    A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).
    That doesn't make any sense.

    First of all, you pin your argument on the word useless without ever defining what it is. That's how forumite time is wasted.

    Second of all, four Core UMD Fighters will crush, obliterate, annihilate any remotely Core CR-appropriate encounter you can throw at them. Therefore, they are good enough to fulfill the role the game envisions for Player Classes.

    PS. And for heaven's sake, do learn how to optimize unarmed strike already!

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by emeraldstreak View Post
    That doesn't make any sense.

    First of all, you pin your argument on the word useless without ever defining what it is. That's how forumite time is wasted.

    Second of all, four Core UMD Fighters will crush, obliterate, annihilate any remotely Core CR-appropriate encounter you can throw at them. Therefore, they are good enough to fulfill the role the game envisions for Player Classes.

    PS. And for heaven's sake, do learn how to optimize unarmed strike already!
    You just mentioned the word Define without defining it. Please, enlighten.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Are you done lying, sir?
    Trying to shift stance and move the blame at the certain time? Slick move.
    Still, you wrote what you wrote and apparently a lot of people don´t agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by logic_error View Post
    You just mentioned the word Define without defining it. Please, enlighten.
    Why, we have that. The outline of the whole d20 system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •