The Role of the Fighter in a Party

[SorO_Lost]

That seems very circular... if you deal damage you either "deal too much" or "Not enough" there has to be a point where damage is viable.

Too little is not killing the monster in one round, too much is using charging to deal enough but then you have over 4,000 left over damage and nothing to use it on >.>

This is not a problem if you make regular use of the Sadism spell.

Smartest genealogist in the world is just an illiterate savage

[LordBlades]

Ok, how long does it take for a Cleric under the effects of FoM and no other spells to take down a colossal animated object?  The answer is: IT DOESN'T.

Yes, anything can benefit from buffs.  The thing is, a 14 Con Cleric and an 18 Con Fighter are not exactly the same after you throw Bear's Endurance on them, and it's completely fucking retarded to say otherwise.

Except the cleric(and druid as well come to think of it) have a bunch of awesome personal range spells they can put on themselves and that the fighter can't get. A base stats cleric might be a worse buff platform than a base stats fighter, but a cleric with DMM: Persist Divine Power and whatnot definitely isn't.

Also, why would a cleric fight a colossal animated object with no spells active whatsoever? Worst case scenario (assuming the most basic optimization) a 10th level cleric should have at least a couple of hours/level buffs and extended 10 min/level buffs active.

[veekie]

^^
Action efficiency. Until you have long duration, or persistent personal buffs, the action spent buffing yourself instead of an ally, means you take advantage of the buff starting from the next round, while placing an appropriate buff on the Fighter means the advantage begins this round, while also having a feat chassis that is more conducive to close combat.

Of course, if you're a druid and have a mount that kicks more ass than their whole class, theres no argument when you slap the buff on it instead.

[LordBlades]

^^
Action efficiency. Until you have long duration, or persistent personal buffs, the action spent buffing yourself instead of an ally, means you take advantage of the buff starting from the next round, while placing an appropriate buff on the Fighter means the advantage begins this round, while also having a feat chassis that is more conducive to close combat.

Of course, if you're a druid and have a mount that kicks more ass than their whole class, theres no argument when you slap the buff on it instead.

On the other hand, placing a buff on the fighter spends an action from a full caster. Consider the following 2 situations:
a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions
b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions

Since wizard can usually do much more in a given round than a fighter can I think you're much better off in situation b.

[Mooncrow]

^^
Action efficiency. Until you have long duration, or persistent personal buffs, the action spent buffing yourself instead of an ally, means you take advantage of the buff starting from the next round, while placing an appropriate buff on the Fighter means the advantage begins this round, while also having a feat chassis that is more conducive to close combat.

Of course, if you're a druid and have a mount that kicks more ass than their whole class, theres no argument when you slap the buff on it instead.

On the other hand, placing a buff on the fighter spends an action from a full caster. Consider the following 2 situations:
a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions
b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions

Since wizard can usually do much more in a given round than a fighter can I think you're much better off in situation b.

Perhaps, but that's a completely different argument. 

"Is a caster's time better spent buffing someone else or the caster?" is not the same as:

"The fighter should be replaced by a wizard"

[LordBlades]

Perhaps, but that's a completely different argument. 

"Is a caster's time better spent buffing someone else or the caster?" is not the same as:

"The fighter should be replaced by a wizard"

That's not exactly the argument I was trying to make. My point was supposed to be something along the lines of 'it's not worth trading a caster action for a fighter action' (which should be pretty obvious) and self buffing melee characters help the party as a whole do more.

Some situations (like meleeing a colossal animated object) require specific effects to overcome (freedom of movement in this case) that usually require the casting of one or more spells by someone in the party.
Fighter's aren't necessarily the best 'base chassis' for melee-centric buffs. Even at low levels of optimization they're probably around same level as druids (better than gishes and clerics though) and as optimization levels rise, they get worse and worse by comparison (main reason being persisting personal range spells).

Let's say we have a party of 2 guys: primary caster (call it wizard for simplicity's sake) with X spell slots per day and the 2nd guy can either be a fighter or a melee caster (call it cleric) with Y spell slots per day (Y<X usually, due to melee casters sometimes placing a lower priority on casting stat and reserving a few slots for long duration buffs cast at the start of the day).

If the wizard/fighter party meets the challenge of the animated object, the wizard buffs the fighter (expending 1/x of the total amount of spells this party can cast every day) and then the fighter steps into melee.
If the wizard/cleric party is in the same situation the wizard can either buff the cleric(expending 1/(x+y) of the total amount of spells this party can cast every day, so a smaller % of the resources)and let him melee, or the cleric can buff himself and free the wizard to cast a different spell should they decide another spell can have a greater effect on the battle than a round of melee(which in 9/10 cases is true).

So, having another caster as the front-line provides you with both more flexibility in approach and more resources to pick from.

[Mooncrow]

Right, but what veekie was talking about had nothing to do with the wizard, it was about the cleric.

Taking your example:
"a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions" - both members have actively contributed this round, and enter the next round with the object meleeing the fighter and the cleric able to do whatever/

"b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions" - the cleric has contributed exactly nothing in the first round, and unless the wizard did something to stop it (with no help from the cleric) the object very well may be beating on a squishy.

So, the opportunity cost of the buff is much lower in the first example, as it's affecting the battle a round early. 

That's the idea of action economy.

[LordBlades]

Right, but what veekie was talking about had nothing to do with the wizard, it was about the cleric.

Taking your example:
"a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions" - both members have actively contributed this round, and enter the next round with the object meleeing the fighter and the cleric able to do whatever/

"b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions" - the cleric has contributed exactly nothing in the first round, and unless the wizard did something to stop it (with no help from the cleric) the object very well may be beating on a squishy.

So, the opportunity cost of the buff is much lower in the first example, as it's affecting the battle a round early. 

That's the idea of action economy.

I disagree with saying the opportunity cost is much lower in the first scenario. It does come into effect a round earlier, but the price for that is depriving the wizard of the possibility to cast another spell, potentially with much stronger effects than anything the fighter can do. I think that raises it's opportunity cost considerably.

By looking at the whole combat round in terms of action economy, the number of actions that had a direct effect on the enemy (and therefore on ending the battle faster) was one in both cases: in case a the fighter attacked it, in case b the wizard cast a spell at it.

[Basket Burner]

Dungeoncrasher ha a cost but is worth it.  Zhentarim Fighter is basically just free bonuses any Fighter can have if they don't mind the association.  Thug, I'd skip.  It has one hell of a cost for pretty crappy benefit.

Hit and Run Fighter is much better if doing a dextrous light armored Fighter, and can also be combined with Zhent and Dungeoncrasher.

I still think looking at it as a "Fighter 20" is silly, though.  3E has a wonderful (for noncaster humans, at least) multiclassing system, I don't think I've made a noncaster single classed since the first time I played and learned the game.  Nothing forces you to stay single classed, and it's not a very good idea to do so.  And that goes for all the martial classes.

All of this is true. But there's still a difference between a Fighter that loses nearly all of his bonus feats to get these other things normally, and one that gets them as class features in addition to those feats. I wanted to know which he meant before responding.

[RobbyPants]

4 fire giants aren't a level-appropriate encounter for 4 10th level characters.

4 fire giants aren't a level-appropriate encounter for 4 10th level characters.

IIRC, that's EL 14, so it's not level-appropriate, but it's not out of the ballpark for a party to encounter.

Of course, Fire Giants are made to go toe-to-toe with Fighters and come out better for it.  Of course, if the party Wizard casts Boreal Wind... That's 40 DPR on each giant, plus the Giants can't move towards the caster.

I'm too lazy to open my DMG, but I'm pretty sure that a notable percentage of encounters are supposed to fall into the "overpowering range", which is party level +4. It's something small, like 5%, but it is a non-zero number.

2 Fire Giants is level +2. 3 is level +3, 4 is level +4. Levels +1-4 occur 15% of the time. Not only is it level appropriate, it has an almost 50% chance to occur on any given day. Perhaps not those specific enemies, but an encounter along the same parameters.

Now, what you're supposed to do in those encounters depends on the situation. Running is prudent (if it's even possible), but if you have a well optimized group and you didn't get surprised/ambushed, it might not be that bad of a fight. Of course, if you're not prepared, or if you've already fought earlier that day, it could just be a death sentence for the party.

What you are supposed to do is beat them, as you have an almost even chance of fighting something like this every single day.

I think this right here shows a serious disconnect in the CR system and encounter guidelines in the DMG, and it's likely none of the designers thought of it. You have two pretty much contradictory parts:

1) encounter strength
So, the idea here is a solo CR X vs CR X is supposed to be a 50-50 toss up. This much makes sense. Supposedly, level 10 PC A fights a fire giant with a 50% chance of victory. Level 10 PC B fights the fire giant with the same chance. PCs A and B fight each other with the same odds and two fire giants fight each other with the same odds. Cool.

Now, the "normal" speed bump encounters are four PCs against one CR monster. This is supposed to be a minor drain. Also, cool.

It stands to reason if 1 CR 10 vs 1 CR 10 is a 50-50 toss up, then 4 CR 10s vs 4 others is also a 50-50 toss up.


2) encounter per day guidelines
They want you to fight encounters that would be a 50-50 toss up fairly often. This is in a world where running from combat can be impossible through no fault of your own.


And that's the disconnect. The system posits both of those are true. That's why I said I'm not sure what you're supposed to do in those encounters. Knowing that the fight is supposed to be a 50-50, I'd want to run. Personally, I'm too risk adverse to throw my PCs up to a coin flip toss.

Of course, one example can be to optimize the crap out of your PCs to be able to handle this, but then you're really not functioning at CR X anymore. You're basically trying to subvert the encounter guidelines by functioning above your level so that you curbstomp all of the normal speed bump encounters and you have a moderate challenge on the deadly ones. It's workable so long as the DM isn't optimizing too.

[skydragonknight]

Fighters are very useful in dungeon play. In narrow hallways with crowd control, they can force bottlenecks and crowding allowing ranged characters (mundane or spellcaster) to attack in safety and area spells to have good effect. They can also Dungeoncrash for respectable damage with Shocktrooper + Knockback to direct enemies into the walls while keeping them at a distance. And in larger rooms they can switch tactics to a standard charger against a solo boss, or be the vanguard against the mooks.

All that said, many BBEG's are literal on the first "B": they're big, have the reach that comes with it, and they can hit your AC. So, while actually pretty good against normal dungeon encounters, they tend to die quickly to (literally) larger threats.

Outside dungeons/buildings it becomes enormously harder to always between your party and the baddies, and dungeoncrashing becomes much harder as well. Really it's charging on a flying mount with a lance or going home at that point. And at that point you're just a Paladin knockoff.

[Basket Burner]

I think this right here shows a serious disconnect in the CR system and encounter guidelines in the DMG, and it's likely none of the designers thought of it. You have two pretty much contradictory parts:

1) encounter strength
So, the idea here is a solo CR X vs CR X is supposed to be a 50-50 toss up. This much makes sense. Supposedly, level 10 PC A fights a fire giant with a 50% chance of victory. Level 10 PC B fights the fire giant with the same chance. PCs A and B fight each other with the same odds and two fire giants fight each other with the same odds. Cool.

Now, the "normal" speed bump encounters are four PCs against one CR monster. This is supposed to be a minor drain. Also, cool.

It stands to reason if 1 CR 10 vs 1 CR 10 is a 50-50 toss up, then 4 CR 10s vs 4 others is also a 50-50 toss up.

2) encounter per day guidelines
They want you to fight encounters that would be a 50-50 toss up fairly often. This is in a world where running from combat can be impossible through no fault of your own.

And that's the disconnect. The system posits both of those are true. That's why I said I'm not sure what you're supposed to do in those encounters. Knowing that the fight is supposed to be a 50-50, I'd want to run. Personally, I'm too risk adverse to throw my PCs up to a coin flip toss.

Of course, one example can be to optimize the crap out of your PCs to be able to handle this, but then you're really not functioning at CR X anymore. You're basically trying to subvert the encounter guidelines by functioning above your level so that you curbstomp all of the normal speed bump encounters and you have a moderate challenge on the deadly ones. It's workable so long as the DM isn't optimizing too.

They really didn't understand the words that they are writing. Fortunately, there are a few things that make a difference here.

1: While even CR 1 on 1s are supposed to be a mirror match, they really aren't because PCs have more resources in the form of items and the like.
2: The same applies for party vs ECL +4 encounter, which could be a mirror party or one big thing or something in between.
3: The 4 on 1 gangups are supposed to use 20% of resources. Not only do they not do that, they can't do that as you physically will not have enough actions to use that many resources. Not to mention, where do you define 20%? If it's HP, is that before or after accounting for healing? If before it is nowhere near 20%. If after, people will literally be dropping dead several times a day as there is no way you can heal them fast enough to compensate for that kind of damage. Mostly because the kind of damage it would take to make the party lose 20% of their HP after accounting for healing would flat out kill at least 1 PC a round every round before they even have an action to heal with.

So when you do encounter your 2-4 Fire Giants at a time, which has a nearly 50% chance of occurring at least once on any given day you have more of an edge over them than the system lets on due to you having more resources and such. At the same time though they still kill 1, possibly 2 of you a round every round. Which means you really need to get in there and take them out incredibly quickly. If you haven't taken out all of them, or at least all but one before they get a turn, someone will die.

There are plenty of ways of doing this. But if you're a Fighter, you're stuck trying to get at that last HP. To do that you have to knock the others out of the way. At this point either you're optimizing enough to one round the Fire Giants, or you're not really helping.

You're not expected to run from encounters unless the ECL is yours +5 or higher. Everything you said about running not being possible is true though. Beating the two to four Fire Giants, even accounting for the strict time limit is not especially difficult.

Contributing to their defeat as a Fighter however is. And Fire Giants are a weak CR 10 enemy. This gets worse if you make the encounter out of better stuff.

skydragonknight: Having someone in the way means a -8 to ranged attacks. 4 for cover, 4 for firing into melee. You can get around those, but I wouldn't really say it helps ranged to have something in the way be it a Fighter, summon, pet...

[Mooncrow]

Right, but what veekie was talking about had nothing to do with the wizard, it was about the cleric.

Taking your example:
"a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions" - both members have actively contributed this round, and enter the next round with the object meleeing the fighter and the cleric able to do whatever/

"b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions" - the cleric has contributed exactly nothing in the first round, and unless the wizard did something to stop it (with no help from the cleric) the object very well may be beating on a squishy.

So, the opportunity cost of the buff is much lower in the first example, as it's affecting the battle a round early. 

That's the idea of action economy.

I disagree with saying the opportunity cost is much lower in the first scenario. It does come into effect a round earlier, but the price for that is depriving the wizard of the possibility to cast another spell, potentially with much stronger effects than anything the fighter can do. I think that raises it's opportunity cost considerably.

By looking at the whole combat round in terms of action economy, the number of actions that had a direct effect on the enemy (and therefore on ending the battle faster) was one in both cases: in case a the fighter attacked it, in case b the wizard cast a spell at it.

Alright, I guess I'll just consider your assertion changed then.  Yes, I agree with you that the wizard is a stronger character than the fighter.  I'm still trying to figure how that makes a difference to "the fighter is a stronger melee chassis for buffs than a cleric." discussion, but w/e.

[midnight_v]

I just think: "If the role is really supposed to be speed bump"
1.  Thats a really shitty role.
2. Who makes the best speed bump.

If its something else, then it should be pointed out.
I'm not saying of course that we can't build a fighter bit by bit thats bad ass, given enough resources, but if it comes down to binary number patterns, anyway, then the folks using shocktropper, and pounce/valorous weapons seem much less cheesy, and more appropriate.
I guess this is really just a retread of things people pointed out years ago.

[skydragonknight]

Psywar makes a better speedbump, as does Crusader. The advantage of a Fighter is getting access to certain feats earlier than Psywar and whole feat chains earlier than Crusader. In games starting at low levels, that's not irrelevant. In games starting at higher levels, when there's enough normal feat slots available and when magic is starting to take over, very few builds would want Fighter, and even then just as a dip to overcome a feat tax.

Also, without Fighters there would be no Heroics spell. Seriously, read the material component.

[Unbeliever]

I just think: "If the role is really supposed to be speed bump"
1.  Thats a really shitty role.
...

Does "speed bump" mean "shut down opposing melee'ers"?  If so, then that's not so bad.  He's like Solid Fog or Evard's Black Tentacles, etc.  And, ideally, he'd be more effective than mid-level spells, even good ones, of course. 

I mean, doing that is at least part of what makes the God Wizard so awesome.  I also think the point of fighter-types would be to provide reliable hp damage.

[Basket Burner]

I would assume speed bump means the same as an actual speed bump. You slow down a little, get past it easily, and continue on. Given that he described it as a terrible role, and it is I think it fits.

[X-Codes]

^^
Action efficiency. Until you have long duration, or persistent personal buffs, the action spent buffing yourself instead of an ally, means you take advantage of the buff starting from the next round, while placing an appropriate buff on the Fighter means the advantage begins this round, while also having a feat chassis that is more conducive to close combat.

Of course, if you're a druid and have a mount that kicks more ass than their whole class, theres no argument when you slap the buff on it instead.

On the other hand, placing a buff on the fighter spends an action from a full caster. Consider the following 2 situations:
a) fighter+wizard: wizard buffs fighter, fighter does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of fighter actions
b)cleric(or any other caster that can buff himself and melee)+wizard: cleric buffs himself, wizard does his action. Net result at the end of round: 1 buffed melee, 1 round worth of wizard actions

Since wizard can usually do much more in a given round than a fighter can I think you're much better off in situation b.

Perhaps, but that's a completely different argument. 

"Is a caster's time better spent buffing someone else or the caster?" is not the same as:

"The fighter should be replaced by a wizard"

It's not just that.  A Cleric with 1 relevant buff is absolutely NOT the same kind of melee that a Fighter with 1 relevant buff is.  Divine Power isn't some awesome buff that the Cleric casts that makes him better than the Fighter, it's a buff the Cleric casts just to put himself on-par with the Fighter.  As such, every time the Cleric doesn't have to cast Divine Power, the Fighter effectively saves someone else a 4th-level spell.

[Mooncrow]

It's not just that.  A Cleric with 1 relevant buff is absolutely NOT the same kind of melee that a Fighter with 1 relevant buff is.  Divine Power isn't some awesome buff that the Cleric casts that makes him better than the Fighter, it's a buff the Cleric casts just to put himself on-par with the Fighter.  As such, every time the Cleric doesn't have to cast Divine Power, the Fighter effectively saves someone else a 4th-level spell.

Right, I was just trying to pare it down to essentials, since there still seemed to be some confusion^^

[Basket Burner]

Draconic Polymorph. You are now a 39 Str 35 Con War Troll. You can't cast it on others. It's also Persistable. Clerics get it via Greater Anyspell.