Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Double post. I blame Pac Man.
3e->4e: The origin of the Defender Class
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Considering the stack of feats in the 3.5 PHB2 they gave for making shields useful again (which you've seen my current PC employ to good effect) and the Knight class abilities along those lines, I'm inclined to believe the suckiness of 3.x core sword and shield fighters was unintentional as well.
Amphimir Míriel
Explorer
I think we could benefit from having both a "Tank" Fighter and a "Striker" Fighter
So, if there's not a two-handed weapon striker in Martial Power (a class variant would be enough, no need for a whole new class), I might get around to design one, powers and everything.
I am thinking of both the Spear-Wielding Ranger and the Katana+trenchcoat guy (Fighter with light armor & big weapon).
So, if there's not a two-handed weapon striker in Martial Power (a class variant would be enough, no need for a whole new class), I might get around to design one, powers and everything.
I am thinking of both the Spear-Wielding Ranger and the Katana+trenchcoat guy (Fighter with light armor & big weapon).
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
The fighter was you party's primary damage dealer? Without buffs?
How was he pumping in power attack and still hitting? At those low levels, he doesn't have a whole lot going for his hit bonus other than his BAB and STR. +1 weapon at best, maybe a +2 Str buff item, weapon focus and that's about it. Draining out 4 or 5 points of attack for Power Attack and his initial attack might hit but his secondary attacks are whiffing air most of the time.
To me, fighters only became big time damage dealers if the cleric and the wizard decided that he should be.
How was he pumping in power attack and still hitting? At those low levels, he doesn't have a whole lot going for his hit bonus other than his BAB and STR. +1 weapon at best, maybe a +2 Str buff item, weapon focus and that's about it. Draining out 4 or 5 points of attack for Power Attack and his initial attack might hit but his secondary attacks are whiffing air most of the time.
To me, fighters only became big time damage dealers if the cleric and the wizard decided that he should be.
No, he has it (basically) right: TWF w/ short swords: 1d6+1d6(SA)+Str, and then 1d6+1d6(SA)+(Str/2), flank bonus cancels out TWF penalty. Two separate attacks=2 doses of sneak attack. Strikey!
Phaezen
Adventurer
The the Martial Power handbook will be for you apparently
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080815
Phaezen
Let's look at a build. Take a 4th level rogue with 18 dex and 12 strength, vs a fighter with 18 strength. We'll give the fighter weapon focus and weapon spec, and the rogue will have twf and weapon finesse. The fighter will use a greatsword, and the rogue two short swords. We will assume the fighter and rogue are flanking with each other.
The rogue has a +7 to hit (3 from BAB, 4 from dex, 2 from flanking, -2 for TWF). The fighter has a +11 to hit (4 from BAB, 1 from weapon focus, 4 from strength, 2 from flanking).
Dusting off my 3.5 monster manual, I flipped through some pages, and found the gargoyle as a CR 4 monster, a good classic monster to fight. It has an AC 16.
I'll spare everyone the math for now, but the rogue does on average about 1.4 points of damage more than the fighter. So the rogue getting his most optimal position (and remember, if he had to move to get into that flanking position, no two swings for him) does barely more damage than the fighter. And that's with no power attack, which I could add in, the fighter has feats to spare. And of course this number will change depending on the monster you fight. Against something with a lower AC, the rogue does better. Against something immune to sneak attacks, the fighter wins the day.
Now of course, you can make a rogue with more strength or weapon focus, and you could make a fighter with less strength back and forth again...but the fighter really is right there with the rogue in terms of damage, and with all the added benefits of better AC and better hitpoints.
So I think my point about a fighter being a "striker" at low levels is valid.
Fifth Element
Legend
Yeah, if you need one specific character build in order to be able to defend the squishies, then something's wrong.
Especially if that build is a pure D&D-ism, and does not reflect typical fantasy inspirational sources.
johnsemlak
First Post
The other important limiting factor for a rogue is that he only does good damage on sneak attacks, and there's all sorts of situations where sneak attacks are not possible. My experience with rogues, given monsters immune to SA and all the flanking issues, is that Rogues benefit from SA far less than half the time, and an average fighter will deal far more optimised attacks than a rogue over the course of an adventure. Now, perhaps I've played alongside rogues where were played poorly tactics-wise, but that was my experience.
