The_DarkAngel said:
Ketjak said:
Multi-classing support character concept building. Pick the classes that support your concept. Don't expect to have everything, as this is a game that's relatively well-balanced and no one person or character should dominate game play.
Multi-classing is not a solution to balancing classes.
I never said or posted that multi-classing is a solution to balancing classes. I said, as you quoted, that multi-classing is the key to developing a character that fits a concept. There is a huge difference between the two.
The_DarkAngel said:
Balanced classes and "then" multi-classing is a solution.
So... balancing the classes and then multi-classing is a solution to balancing classes? That's recursive and doesn't make sense. Can you clarify your position?
The_DarkAngel said:
And how is it, you know the boys made such balanced classes. Did they personally give you a formula that shows you they are? By all means share with it us. Please prove me in my opinion is wrong because I cant follow peeps with out challenging thier reasoning.
Er, I
believe the classes are fairly well-balanced because of the following reasons:
- I play the game
- I know others who play the game
- no single character class can dominate the game, albeit that's more true in 3.5 than it was in 3.0
- I am a game designer, and I see the balance trade-offs these designers made.
No, I don't claim it's perfect, or that I am. I make mistakes of perception, and these designers made mistakes of design. Neither case invalidates the Fighter class's being a well-balanced class that can stand on its own, but it
cannot be most of the concepts described in the Fighter class fluff descriptions or any literary character.
Those are either impossible to build or are multi-classed Fighter/somethings.
The_DarkAngel said:
And lastly, yes classes have thier weakness in the general sesne of no class is "perfect" nor should it. The Fighter cant use armor in all enviorments, he isnt good at willfull magic, or vs traps, or skills. Hes good at one thing by a smidge compared to the Barbarian directly. Tell me "how" 2 other skill points per level off sets this class, becuase I dont see it.
I understand that you don't see it. From my perspective, that is the fundamental problem.
This is not an insult, I merely recognize where the core discrepancy is.
Saying the Fighter can't use armor in all environments is as useful as saying Wizards can't cast spells in all environments. The other categories of things the Fighter "isn't good at" are as relevant - that is, not at all. The Fighter is a career choice made by those people who want to master not just one form of combat, but all combat situations and, if he specializes, all situations in which he can use a chosen weapon.
This combat specialist is not a jack-of-all-trades. He's not a scout or wilderness survivalist, nor even a war historian. He's a professional weapon-wielder who is able to apply his ability with a weapon - or all weapons - effectively in a wide variety of situations. The Fighter class is very good at being that kind of character. Think of the Fighter as the "combat damage" specialist, since "combat specialist" is still a little vague.
BAB and raw feat counts and feat equivalents don't tell the whole story. Here's a quick "every five levels" snapshot, assuming all stats are high enough for each character to qualify for each feat as needed. For fun, the Fighter chose feats to match the Ranger's combat style.
By level 5, the human Ranger has Endurance over the human Fighter. The Fighter has all the same "combat style" feats as the Ranger, the same Weapon Focus, and has Dodge and does more damage (than Joe Commoner) to everyone with his chosen weapon; the Ranger does more damage (than Joe Commoner) to a restricted group of targets, but with any weapon he wields. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.
By level 10, the Fighter is hitting with his chosen weapon more often than the Ranger is with any weapon unless the Ranger is fighting a member of his restricted group, at which point it's equal damage - or the damage is greater, but for a very specialized group of opponents. If the Ranger chose ranged combat style, the fighter has all the same feats, is more accurate with his chosen weapon, and is most of the way down the path to Whirlwind Attack (he's got the entire Dodge tree), because he wants to do well in both melee and ranged combat. If the Ranger and fighter chose two-weapon style, the fighter also has Whirlwind Attack. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.
By level 15, the Ranger has mastered his combat style. The Fighter, in the meantime, has mastered the same combat style (earning the final feat one level later than the Ranger). The Ranger has either increased the number of targets to which he does extra damage or has made one group quite unhappy. The Fighter is doing more damage with his chosen weapon to all targets. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.
By level 20, the Ranger can Whirlwind Attack. The Fighter, in the meantime, has mastered the other ranger combat style, or gone up the Power Attack tree, or the Mounted Combat tree,
and has a general utility feat like Combat Reflexes, Blind-Fight, Improved Critical, Improved Shield Bash (especially for the TW Fighter), or Quick Draw. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.
At any time, the Fighter may choose Endurance and either delay his Whirlwind Attack (not worth it, IMO) or delay his mastery of another combat style (probably not worth it).
I haven't done an analysis of average damage. I am certain the Fighter does more damage, though I'm not sure about the damage comparison when one includes an animal companion. My guess is it's about equal.
The Fighter has +1 hit point average per level. His AC generally starts out better and generally maintains that edge, especially when magic and money start to compensate for the Ranger's Light Armor's higher Max DEX bonus.
The Ranger class is designed to be versatile and certainly makes a much better scout, while the Fighter class is designed to be really good at combat. The Fighter owns combat, and nothing else. But he's really, really good at it, even if his weapon of choice is taken away. The Ranger is pretty good at combat and has a lot of skills to rely on for overall versatility, but when it comes to being prepared for anything in combat he can't match the career Fighter.
Magius del Cotto said:
This is all well and good, except for the fact that in this case, the skilled warrior is just as good as the combat specialist in most combat situations (and if you're going ranger, you'll probably be going with either the two-weapon tree or the ranged tree anyways), and he excels in stealth, detection, and survival, as well as a few other things.
Magius, see my analysis above. The skilled warrior is not as effective as the combat specialist in most combat situations. At higher levels, if the skilled warrior has channeled his favored enemy feature into one group of bad guys, he's doing more damage than the combat specialist
to that group, but no better than the same to everyone else.
Certainly, the skilled warrior excels in these other areas. That's OK - the combat specialist is concerned about
combat, not sneaking around.
Magius del Cotto said:
IMO, this isn't a balanced state of affairs.
I recognize that. I see that as the fundamental source of disagreement between "Is balanced" and "is not balanced" folks.
Magius del Cotto said:
Yes, the fighter gets an ungodly number of feats to play with, but you need to know how to place them, and most feats are combat oriented; those the fighter gets are almost exclusively so. In the end, we have two characters that are good in most combat situations; one that can do well with several different attacks, the other that can do well with dual wielding/ranged combat.
Two weapons
or ranged combat, not both. Or, more accurately, perhaps both - if the Ranger dumps all his feat choices into the second style. The Fighter can master both and has feats to spare to master a third, with some extra flair thrown in.
That's a very important difference.
Magius del Cotto said:
Is this difference worth 4 SP a level?
Hell yes. The Ranger can sneak around all he wants. Once he gets into combat with the Fighter, the Fighter picks a way to tan the Ranger's hide and gets down to it. If the Ranger chooses a style of combat, the Fighter will choose a way to counter it or beat the Ranger at his game. The 15th-level Ranger must choose the Fighter's race as his Favored Enemy three times to score more damage than the Fighter, assuming equivalent hit chances (not realistic, given the Fighter's Improved Weapon Focus and Armor Class effects like Combat Expertise) and combat styles.
Magius del Cotto said:
Let's have a look at what each starts with:
Fighter: +1 attack, +2 save, one bonus feat, 2/N weapon feats, 5 armor feats (light, medium, heavy, shields, and tower shields), 2 SP/level, and d10 HP.
Ranger: +1 attack, +4 save, 3 feats/abilities, 2/N weapon feats, 3 armor feats (light, medium, shields), 6 SP/level, d8 HP.
So what does the fighter have in this?
Up: +2 HP and 2 more armor feats.
Down: 2 on saves, 4 SP/Level, and 2 feats/abilities, one of which is exclusively ranger, the other of which is ranger/druid.
Tied: BAB
This doesn't look too good, does it?
This is a myopic look at the capabilities of both classes. In the first 5 levels, the Fighter and Ranger look similar. In the long haul the Fighter exceeds the Ranger in combat ability, favored enemy focus exception noted.
Magius del Cotto said:
What about Paladin and Barbarian? Well, the Paladin comes out a bit ahead, but not too much, and the barbarian starts off about equal, I'd say. But what happens as you go up levels? Well, Rangers and Paladins get spells, Rangers get an ability every level until 11th level, and barbarians get something every level. Oh yeah; the Ranger and the Barbarian both have more skill points than the fighter does, and they all have a much more sensible skill list.
Hm... Think the fact the fighter can chose his feats every time he gets them makes up for all that? I don't.
Magius out.
The fact that the Fighter can master so many aspects of the fight makes up for all the other abilities. None of these combat classes matches the Fighter in overall combat mastery. I'll work out a Paladin and Barbarian comparison another time.
Humanophile's expanded skill list is very, very good. The skills added are not class-defining like detection and stealth skills are. Adding skill points per level is the real problem related to balance, whereas Humanophile adds flavor without changing balance significantly. Very nice!
FrankTheTrollman's comparison of the Fighter to any PrC combo is silly, almost pure... troll.
PrCs are designed to be more powerful than core classes, particularly in a narrow field of expertise. All of the feat pre-req's needed still yield a character that's about as good as a straight Fighter in most areas of combat and perhaps slightly more powerful in a few others, notably in skill points and selection range. They are, after all, Prestige Classes.
- Ket
