Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ketjak" data-source="post: 1134759" data-attributes="member: 1083">Ah, I think I see now. You assume most campaigns start at 1st level and progress from there. That's probably true - but I know of many personal campaigns that start higher - and there were campaigns that were in the high-teens within a week or two of the books being made available, so either XP was off the scale or they started at a higher level than 1.It seems your problem with the Fighter class is more one of myopia, rather than actual play experience. I have experience with high-level Fighter class characters and they hold their own against the other classes. In particular, a 12th level Fighter great axe specialist routinely deals more damage than the party wizard. The wizard's advantages are:- being able to hit scattered mobs more easily, but a well-positioned Great Cleave attack sequence can clear a room (and has!)- being able to hit things by using force-effect spells- having solutions for and counters to hostile magical effectsBut the 11th level Wizard doesn't do 50+ points of damage each round, even with his cones of cold, fireballs, and so forth. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Even low-level the Fighter class compares favorably to the Ranger class. See my 5th-level comparison between humans of those classes. Keep in mind both classes are using their first- and third-level feats to support their combat styles. In detail for ranged combat stylists, it's[code]  FTR                      RGR1 PB Shot, Rapid Shot,   | PB Shot, Weap Focus (any, likely bow)  Weap Focus (any)       | Track, Favored Enemy 12 Precise Shot           | Rapid Shot3 Dodge                  | Precise Shot, Endurance4 Weap Spec (any)        | 5                        | Favored Enemy 2[/code](Please forgive the formatting - I'm not good with UBB format commands, so I'll edit this if I figure out how to make the tables look better.)So - if both classes choose the same weapon to Focus on, and Specialize in the case of the Fighter class, the Fighter class ranged combat stylist has the edge in number of combat feats (if only in Dodge). If Dodge isn't your style, choose a general-purpose combat feat, the base of another chain, or any feat you want since it's a 3rd level "universal" feat. (To be honest, I'm not sure if I'd focus/specialize in a ranged weapon were I the Fighter class player. The next 15 levels' worth of feats are going to be rich with melee combat goodness, and the overall effectiveness of melee combat is greater than ranged combat. Whatever - the Fighter class chooses whatever the Ranger class does, it's all good.)In detail for two-weapon fighting stylists, it's[code]  FTR                       RGR1 Dodge, Combat          | Dodge, Weap Focus (any)  Expertise, Weap Focus  | Track, Favored Enemy 12 Two-Weapon Fighting    | Two-Weapon Fighting3 Two-Weapon Defense     | Two-Weapon Defense, Endurance4 Weap Spec              | 5                        | Favored Enemy 2[/code]It's worth noting that the Fighter class can match the Ranger Class' two-weapon stylist more easily. I chose Combat Expertise because it's a nice defensive feat that's required for Whirlwind Attack, which I believe is worth the prerequisites. If you don't care for Whirlwind Attack and you think Two-Weapon defense is unnecessary, change those feats. Keep the 3rd-level feat the same for both classes and go wild picking a different combat feat for the Fighter class at first. The differences only grow more profound as the Fighter class gets higher in level. The Fighter class maintains a higher average damage output after fourth level, except if the Ranger class chooses the same favored enemy at fifth level. Then the Ranger class deals more average damage to that particular creature type, but the Fighter class is dealing more average damage overall. If the Ranger class splits his favored enemy bonus, the Fighter maintains the advantage overall and the Ranger merely ties against those two creature types. At 12th level, the Fighter class does even better in comparison, and the Ranger class has to double-up to match average damage output against those particular creatures, and has to wait to 15th to attain parity against another group - and the Ranger is then forever behind the curve in terms of damage output against everyone else.Now, given the importance the D&D rules place on combat, superiority in combat is the character balancing factor held against all the non-combat stuff the Ranger and others get... including extra skill points, Track, Endurance, and other features. Not that combat effects should be balanced by non-combat effects, but it seems to be a major part of your complaint about the Fighter class.So - show me a way in which the Ranger class trumps the Fighter class in overall combat effectiveness. If you wish, I can extend the "feat choice" tables I included above. The Fighter class is certainly less glamorous than many classes, but it's not less effective at fulfilling its role as combat specialist.Another point:Not at all, Frank. The game designers intended for PrCs to be better than core classes at many aspects of combat. The Fighter and Ranger classes are as powerful as any core classes should be at 6th level - less powerful than Prestige Classes, albeit with perhaps more flexibility than PrCs offer (since PrCs channel character career down a single path, unless someone intentionally min/maxes PrC choices).You phrase that like recognizing the designer's intent, as stated by the designers, is in some way a concession to your argument. It's not, to be clear.dcollins: <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />edit: cleaned up some clumsy grammar at the end there - "at many aspects" moved around a little.</blockquote>

Verification