Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[Anthrowhale]

The first time you snipe an undead, you break your invisibility, and then all the other undead, and the Pit Fiend see you, and then you die.

This is a puzzling claim. Have you read the sniping rules? A Mummy (spot 8) literally cannot hope to observe a sniper with a hide of 51. Perhaps you are confused about how invisibility is useful? It allows you to reach a good sniping position with some natural cover or concealment.

It never works. I hate to break this to you, but your character has literally zero methods of obtaining cover or concealment after making an attack roll. You are 100% saying "I sure hope literally every location in the entire universe has a convenient hiding place within 20ft for me!"

This is an incomprehensible chain of reasoning to me. In natural settings it is often quite feasible to find some cover within LOS of a target. The nice thing about a sniper build is that patience works. Is the Pit Fiend going to avoid any locations with nearby cover forever? That's a disabling level of paranoia that will systematically prevent it from assigned tasks.

You still don't understand how detect magic works. You have to spend your standard action concentrating for 1 round to even know if magic is there, unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged" by illusions of walls

That is simply incorrect as Zanos points out. The duration becomes permanent and the effects of concentration are as per the spell description. Hence, it's quite possible to move, concentrate, move, concentrate, snipe, move, move, concentrate, etc...

Even if you did spend every single round concentrating, it would still only tell you that there are a bunch of illusions, which would do you pretty much no good, since you 1) would just have to pick one at random to shoot, 2) Would have already given yourself away by shooting a Mummy.

Again, I really think you should read the sniping rules. It's not at all clear to me that you understand them. Are you assuming that no natural cover exists to ever snipe from? That certainly can exist in some settings, but it's nothing like the games I've played and seems deeply unrealistic.

@everyone: I present an open challenge, that I will run any "totally standard fighter" against one of a very small set of core EL 20 encounters. Because it sure looks like pretty much every technique for fighter victory relies on enemies just not actually using their abilities, and/or nonsense rules interactions, and also for some reason spending 3kgp on a "permanent" effect that will last less long than a wand, because the first time your level 20 PC runs into a CR 12 enemy he will lose it forever.

It could only be done with a neutral 3rd party as I have no trust in your ability to either create a plausible setting or to execute the rules effectively. You've been verifiably wrong at least twice (asserting the Pit Fiend's caster level 18 Blasphemy would cripple a fighter 20 and misunderstanding how permanency detect magic works).

[Dagroth]

No. In the context of limited resources, "useful" means that you are using resources comparably efficiently to other options, and the Fighter isn't. Also, if you're dividing wealth among the rest of the party, also divide XP. I have no trouble believing that Wizard/Beguiler/Druid with +1/3 resources each is better than Wizard/Beguiler/Druid/Fighter.

You do understand Economy of Actions, right?

What about a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue with +1/3 resources vs. Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter?

I'm pretty sure the focus of a martial class is "prowess as a warrior" the classes focused on gear are gadgeteers like the Artificer. The fact that the Fighter needs gear to not suck doesn't make that his concept. It just means he sucks.

So a Rogue doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Barbarian doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Duskblade doesn't need gear to not suck?

Need I go on?

If you're not bringing a character that's in line with the standard the rest of the party is setting, you're doing something wrong.

So we should ban the use of Wizards and Clerics because most character classes fall into Tier 3, clearly.

Because even if you can contrive a Fighter to beat a Pit Fiend (and you certainly can, because Candles of Invocation can be bought for gold), you haven't proved the Fighter is "useful". For that to happen, there needs to be some reason for me to have a Fighter instead of a second Cleric.

No, it doesn't. The reason to have a Fighter is because someone wants to play a Fighter. Full Stop. It's not the GM's job to tell players that the character they want to play "isn't good enough".

A Good GM won't let players make characters that need to warp their build to beat a single level appropriate encounter.

You didn't read what I wrote. If the goal of the game is to battle high level Devils, then the players are given a lot of build-up to that point so that their builds will end up good at beating high level Devils eventually.

Unless you're flat-out insisting that you can't have GM driven campaign goals and only the player's goals matter... Which doesn't work if you have players who just want their characters to "become powerful", "become heroes" or "go on adventures".

A DM also adjusts encounters to match PC capability -- so say several posters in this thread. Or is that just adjusting down because otherwise we make Fighters sad?

Or is that just adjusting encounters up because otherwise things are too easy for the Wizards?

[Cosi]

Yes, there have been many references to real gaming.

But where are we drawing the line for "real gaming". Why is "I have a huge pile of permanency spells" Real Gaming but "I have a Candle of Invocation" not?

You do understand Economy of Actions, right?

Sure. But Fighter actions are crap.

What about a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue with +1/3 resources vs. Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter?

From 7th on the three-person party is a level ahead. From 16th on they're two levels ahead. I'll take 9th level spells over a Fighter any day of the week.

So a Rogue doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Barbarian doesn't need gear to not suck?

So a Duskblade doesn't need gear to not suck?

Need I go on?

I don't see what your point is. The Rogue's concept is "be like Han Solo or Jack Sparrow", and is admittedly the closest to being gear based. The Barbarian's concept is that he gets really angry and hits things hard, which is not at all gear based -- the Hulk doesn't wear anything but pants and even that's only so you don't see his giant green dong. The Duskblade's concept is that he fights with sword and spell, not with really expensive sword and spell.

So we should ban the use of Wizards and Clerics because most character classes fall into Tier 3, clearly.

You should ban whatever your group wants to ban. If you want to do Lord of Light, you should ban anything that doesn't fall within striking distance of a god. If you want to do Lord of the Rings, you should ban anything that's more powerful than Gandalf.

The game is a social activity, and by joining a group you agree that you will sometimes not get all of what you want. If it is unacceptable to you to not play a Fighter, don't join the group that wants a character to play with their Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, and Planar Shepherd. If it is unacceptable to you to not play an Incantatrix, don't join the group that wants a character to play with their Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian. If it is unacceptable to you to not play a Jedi, don't join the group playing a Weird West campaign. This is not complicated.

You didn't read what I wrote. If the goal of the game is to battle high level Devils, then the players are given a lot of build-up to that point so that their builds will end up good at beating high level Devils eventually.

Maybe the goal of the game is to defeat an evil Wizard and the Pit Fiend is just guarding something of his. Maybe the goal is to protect the multiverse from danger and the Pit Fiend is just part of the party necromancer's backstory. A Pit Fiend at level 20 is just an encounter. It doesn't need any fanfare, and indeed if players take special precautions against it (particularly at the level of their build), it comes down in threat.

Unless you're flat-out insisting that you can't have GM driven campaign goals and only the player's goals matter... Which doesn't work if you have players who just want their characters to "become powerful", "become heroes" or "go on adventures".

You can have DM driven goals. But the DM isn't required to telegraph challenges in advance. You should be able to beat any EL 20 encounter at 20th level, regardless of whether it was foreshadowed or not. If you can't, either it is not EL 20 or you are not 20th level.

[lord_khaine]

No one has ever contended that a Fighter is less present than nothingness. I mean, a single mirror image from a casting of mirror image is not "useless" by your definition. But I don't tell players they have the choice to play an equal part as the other players, and then make them play a single mirror image. If you have a bunch of a PC classes, implicitly, they are supposed to be equally as reasonable options. If one of them is objectively much worse, and doesn't manage to conform to the rules that are actually present for what a PC class should be balanced for, that's a problem.

Actually, that is straight up what people said when they called the fighter useless. Even if its not what they meant. Its why i extended my definition of useful.

From 7th on the three-person party is a level ahead. From 16th on they're two levels ahead. I'll take 9th level spells over a Fighter any day of the week.

Not everyone consider xp an resource. The three-person party was just meant to get the same amount of treasure as the 4 man party.

You can have DM driven goals. But the DM isn't required to telegraph challenges in advance. You should be able to beat any EL 20 encounter at 20th level, regardless of whether it was foreshadowed or not. If you can't, either it is not EL 20 or you are not 20th level.

The sample fighter does seem able to beat a large amount of evil EL 20 encounters if nothing else.

[Beheld]

This is a puzzling claim. Have you read the sniping rules? A Mummy (spot 8) literally cannot hope to observe a sniper with a hide of 51. Perhaps you are confused about how invisibility is useful? It allows you to reach a good sniping position with some natural cover or concealment.

This is an incomprehensible chain of reasoning to me. In natural settings it is often quite feasible to find some cover within LOS of a target. The nice thing about a sniper build is that patience works. Is the Pit Fiend going to avoid any locations with nearby cover forever? That's a disabling level of paranoia that will systematically prevent it from assigned tasks.

Again, I really think you should read the sniping rules. It's not at all clear to me that you understand them. Are you assuming that no natural cover exists to ever snipe from? That certainly can exist in some settings, but it's nothing like the games I've played and seems deeply unrealistic.

Again, yes I have, including the part where they reference the hide skill, which requires cover or concealment you don't have. Specifically "If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

Your contention that there is cover or concealment within 10ft of every enemy ever is silly. There isn't. The Pit Fiend can fly, he can be 30ft in the air, ensuring that there is no cover or concealment for you to be standing in when you shoot at him or his persistent images. And the moment your plan involves refreshing invisibility, you are literally speaking a word outloud.

That is simply incorrect as Zanos points out. The duration becomes permanent and the effects of concentration are as per the spell description. Hence, it's quite possible to move, concentrate, move, concentrate, snipe, move, move, concentrate, etc...

Except that the rules don't say that anywhere, and that's wrong. They don't say that under Permanency, they don't say that under Detect Magic, they don't say that under the Magic Overview. I mean, you might as well just claim that Fighters can cast Shapechange at will if you are going to make up rules that don't exist.

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

[Florian]

Well, what _is_ CR? It´s a short-hand for the expected performance level both side of an encounter should bing to the table. Wading through the MM appendices, you´ll come to the conclusion that it´ll actually lead to concrete data which hp, AC, to hit, damages, saves, etc., are expected to be dealt with at each level.
The only way to "grow" in core D20 is by using items, which in turn is tied to WBL, which in turn is tied to the performance expectations set up by the CR system. Non-core, we see things like the Automatic Bonus Progression (PF), Vow of Poverty (3E) and the build-in progression into the basic character chart (4E), which all, including WBL, touch on how "growth" is handles.

So talk about how a class should be imagined and how that is actually supported by the underlying system is pretty off the mark.

[lord_khaine]

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

Thats assuming there is a horde of Morgs and Mummies though. But there is not agreement on if those would increase the CR of the encounter or not.

[DEMON]

Your contention that there is cover or concealment within 10ft of every enemy ever is silly.

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

EDIT: While we are talking about sniping rules, you get that no matter what you roll on a hide check they all see you right? Like, you make an attack, and during that time, every single mummy and morg and Pit Fiend can see you, and then you hide after that. And then, since they all know you are around, sniping them, they can all make readied actions to partially charge you as soon as you become visible again, and then when you snipe the second mummy, they all charge you and you can't even move, and you can't hide again, and then the Pit Fiend can fire off SLAs from behind total concealment with you having no way to even attack him until you kill all the morgs and mummies mobbing you. (Unless you are really really good at guessing one of hundreds of squares he might be in.)

FWIW Woodland Archer's Moving Sniper ability suggests that when you successfully hide when sniping, you avoid detection from an enemy. I'm sure the meaning can be argued, but I read it as you're not really revealed to everyone after the hit and before the hide - it's all part of the sniping (shoot+hide).

[Beheld]

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

Well within 10ft is of every enemy is being a little hyperbolic, but the issue here is that the handling has a move speed of 10ft, so he has to have cover or concealment relative to all enemies in his current location, then he makes the attack and moves 10ft to a new location that also has cover or concealment relative to all enemies. He can occasionally move 20ft when he wants to take a break from sniping, so he doesn't need 10ft of everything. But literally at any time the pit fiend can put up an image that blocks off far away cover from sight, and the fighter will be unable to continue to snipe morgs or illusions until he gets closer

[Beheld]

Thats assuming there is a horde of Morgs and Mummies though. But there is not agreement on if those would increase the CR of the encounter or not.

I mean, I think its pretty clear that "the rules say so" is a better argument than "but then the fighter loses, so lets ignore the rules"

[Anthrowhale]

Why within 10ft? You need to be at least 10ft away from the enemy you are trying to snipe.

Indeed.

Beheld doesn't seem to understand how cover works. A 1 ft tall boulder provides cover. The boulder can 30', 100', or more away from the Mummy.

Beheld also doesn't understand how sniping works.

It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

Since we are paying the -20 penalty the hide stays on for the snipe attack.

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

This spell makes certain other spells permanent.

Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make Detect Magic says:

The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

Study is not formally defined, so I was interpreting it as a standard action and calling it "concentrate". But that's provably incorrect because the spell itself requires concentration which consumes a standard action. Hence, "Study" can at most be a move action. It may also be a free action or no action. Regardless, the combination of these two spells means the Fighter can sleep, then wake up, then study an area and detect magic.

[Anthrowhale]

But where are we drawing the line for "real gaming". Why is "I have a huge pile of permanency spells" Real Gaming but "I have a Candle of Invocation" not?

I don't know where to draw the line, but a "pile" of a 0th level and 1st level permanency spell seem fairly plausible for a 20th level character to me while Candle of Invocation abuse seems implausible at all levels in a real game.

[ryu]

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make Detect Magic says:

Study is not formally defined, so I was interpreting it as a standard action and calling it "concentrate". But that's provably incorrect because the spell itself requires concentration which consumes a standard action. Hence, "Study" can at most be a move action. It may also be a free action or no action. Regardless, the combination of these two spells means the Fighter can sleep, then wake up, then study an area and detect magic.

I find it cute that you think that, but no. Without permanency the spell literally requires your entire turn just to look at something. With it you're still using standard actions because you can explicitly only do it once per round which doesn't work with move actions because you can convert standards to moves. This is a 0th level spell and, no, it won't solve all your problems for you.

[Anthrowhale]

I find it cute that you think that, but no. Without permanency the spell literally requires your entire turn just to look at something. With it you're still using standard actions because you can explicitly only do it once per round which doesn't work with move actions because you can convert standards to moves....

But, it's also the case that you don't get two standard actions (one to concentrate and one to study) for the normal spell. Hence "study is a standard action" is just wrong...

[ryu]

But, it's also the case that you don't get two standard actions (one to concentrate and one to study) for the normal spell. Hence "study is a standard action" is just wrong...

Which is why the spell is USELESS without permanency or a concentration replacement RAW. It's a common houserule to let you take your entire turn just to look at something. This is a privilege. Not a right.

[Beheld]

I don't know where to draw the line, but a "pile" of a 0th level and 1st level permanency spell seem fairly plausible for a 20th level character to me while Candle of Invocation abuse seems implausible at all levels in a real game.

While no one actually uses candles of invocation in real games, only someone who has never tried to buy permanencied spells in real games would ever actually contend that they are fairly plausible. Anyone who has actually tried would have quickly discovered how incredibly worthless they are, since they get auto dispelled by anything even vaguely approaching level appropriate.

Beheld doesn't seem to understand how cover works. A 1 ft tall boulder provides cover. The boulder can 30', 100', or more away from the Mummy.

Actually, it only gives cover if a line from your square passes through an object that provides cover. So you know, if the mummies don't line up in a nice long line, and the Pit Fiend is in the air, then you probably don't have cover with respect to all of them from many locations.

Beheld also doesn't understand how sniping works. Since we are paying the -20 penalty the hide stays on for the snipe attack.

Or you know, you could quote the actual rules: "you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

Which makes it clear that you are hiding again, after the shot, because you aren't hiding during the shot, they can see you.

As far as Permanency Detect Magic, Permanency says:

Any interpretation of Permanency and Detect Magic which does not involve Detect Magic being permanent is simply wrong.

W.r.t. Detect Magic, you do have a point although I don't think it's the one that you want to make Detect Magic says:

Except that you declare studying to be a move action for no reason, this has always been my point. You can have a permanent detect magic, but it provides no benefits unless you spend standard actions, so you don't get automatic pings when illusions are nearby.

But while we are on the subject, you actually can't Permanency Detect Magic on your fighter at all. It's literally against the rules.

[The_Jette]

But while we are on the subject, you actually can't Permanency Detect Magic on your fighter at all. It's literally against the rules.

True. You can only make Detect Magic permanent, via Permanency, on yourself by RAW.

[ryu]

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

[The_Jette]

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

[Beheld]

Pretty sure you can turn personal buffs into occular spells to help this, but we're starting to get REAL specific for this fighter. It would also cost more of course.

Well that wouldn't even help in this circumstance, since the Permanency spell specifically says you can only make Detect Magic permanent on yourself. The only way around that would be to UMD a scroll of permanency himself or buy a Ring of Spell Storing. But the idea that you would put that much money and effort into a spell that gets dispelled the first time you fight something that is so low level you don't even get XP for it, is a little silly.

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

Wait, who's bashing the game system? The people who think that the game is really good without fighters, or the people who think the game is really good with fighters?

[ryu]

It has to do with the Permanency spell specifically calling out certain spells that you can only make permanent on yourself, versus those you can make permanent on others. But, let's face it: this hasn't been about whether or not a Fighter can hold its own in a long time. It's at the point that they're bashing the game system itself. So, grab some popcorn.

Oh I agree with them, but it's not the system that's the problem. Fighters just suck. Even compared to most other mundanes, fighters suck. Most of those same mundanes also suck a bit, just not as much as the fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why Detect Magic and not Arcane Sight? It's more expensive, but a far better spell.

[Beheld]

Why Detect Magic and not Arcane Sight? It's more expensive, but a far better spell.

Well mostly because like Detect Magic, it's impossible to actually get on the Fighter, but also because it costs 8kgp for a spell that disappears as soon as you fight a monster that is CR 12.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well mostly because like Detect Magic, it's impossible to actually get on the Fighter, but also because it costs 8kgp for a spell that disappears as soon as you fight a monster that is CR 12.

True, but Detect Magic seems so, blah, that I question if it's worth the effort.

I guess the Fighter could pay a Spellcaster to cast Detect Magic and Permanency on him.

[Anthrowhale]

Which is why the spell is USELESS without permanency or a concentration replacement RAW. It's a common houserule to let you take your entire turn just to look at something. This is a privilege. Not a right.

Ok, it's probably good to be explicit when you are talking about house rules in this conversation. Anyways, I think we are in agreement that this:

...unless you use your standard action to detect magic every round of your life, you don't get "pinged"...

is simply wrong. In particular, you can have many rounds when you do not spend a standard action interspersed amongst those that do.

Whether or not detect magic only works with permanency is unclear to me and it does at least seem rules ambiguous as 'study' has no assigned action cost.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I double checked the rules for Permanency, the Fighter would have to cast the spell himself, he can't pay anyone to do it for him. Same for Arcane Sight.

[logic_error]

There is a simple way to resolve this:

How about Beheld plays a PitFiend. Any other guy voluntarily plays the optimised fighter. Both get same prep time and full idea of each other's capabilities. Just decide on the WBL and the features allowed within the strict rules of Core.

[emeraldstreak]

I double checked the rules for Permanency, the Fighter would have to cast the spell himself, he can't pay anyone to do it for him. Same for Arcane Sight.

Always better to spellstore/umd/etc.

Remember: spells are powerful. Casters are service.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Always better to spellstore/umd/etc.

Remember: spells are powerful. Casters are service.

Why be a Fighter then? Why not be a Rogue, or a Bard, or a Commoner?

Also, magic items are expensive; are you planning on using them throughout your whole career?

[Beheld]

Anyways, I think we are in agreement that this:

is simply wrong. In particular, you can have many rounds when you do not spend a standard action interspersed amongst those that do.

Whether or not detect magic only works with permanency is unclear to me and it does at least seem rules ambiguous as 'study' has no assigned action cost.

I don't think anyone is, because we all agree that if you aren't spending your standard actions concentrating on detect magic, then you aren't getting "pinged" with knowledge of magical auras. If you stop concentrating, you stop getting information.