Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[ForeverSlayer]

Oh no it can't. Any 4e character can make one opportunity attack per turn - stopping everyone who tries to go past. Any 4e PHB fighter stops anyone moving with an opportunity attack as well as doing damage. Any 4e fighter marks whoever he attacks. Any 4e fighter gets an interrupt when a marked enemy attacks an ally. And that's with neither powers nor feats. A Pathfighter fighter can do none of this. When your fighter can't do what a 4e fighter can without either feats or powers, your claim is show to be false.



Higher level monsters are normally bigger and stronger - which means that their CMB and CMD scale faster than humanoids do.



You mean that we want things to be effective? Rather than just some vague nod that allows you to claim you can do something while being normally less effective when you use it than if you didn't?

They actually are effective, you just choose to engage in self inflicted blindness to try and make your argument valid. If you want a lockdown type of fighter in Pathfinder then you can easily do it with no problem. Now if you can't because of something personal then that's on you and not on the system.

So would you like to try and argue some more or are you just going to sit there and sing la la la while you ignore what proves your point as incorrect?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], I think you may be missing Neonchameleon's point: the 4e fighter controls enemies by marking them, and then punishing them for violating the mark; as well as, as an automatic feature, getting to stop enemies moving when hitting them with an OA - which also combines control and punishment.

The two feats posted - Stand Still and Step Up - look weak to me by comparison. Stand Still means no damage, so the fighter has to sacrifice punishment for control. And Step Up limits the fighter's movement in the following round, whereas comparable 4e powers would grant additional movement as a free action or immediate reaction.

My understanding of 3E/PF is that if you want to combine control and punishment then you need to go with an improved trip + reach build - which would be either spiked chain or some varieties of polearm, wouldn't it?

 

[Neonchameleon]

They actually are effective, you just choose to engage in self inflicted blindness to try and make your argument valid.

I've shown why they aren't. Your "lockdown" actively encourages people to challenge it by removing the punishment. This is a world away from a 4e Defender. As for self inflicted blindness, this appears to be an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

If you want a lockdown type of fighter in Pathfinder

The original claim was a defender. There's a difference. A defender gets attacked not just through lockdown but because attacking the fighter is the monster's least bad option. You can lockdown with a spiked chain fighter - this I will grant. (The 4e version would be the Polearm Momentum batter - and again it involves a specific chain of feats). And it's better at it than one that gives up all its damage from opportunity attacks. This does not make it a defender - there's no lose/lose choices involved. Especially not with the lockdown feat you chose that actively encourages monsters to try to walk away by removing the punishment. Apparently you don't understand what a defender is or does.

So would you like to try and argue some more or are you just going to sit there and sing la la la while you ignore what proves your point as incorrect?

Given you've been shown to be incorrect about a defender, incorrect about the PF fighter being able to do anything a 4e fighter can by me, and incredibly incorrect about the PF fighter being able to do anything a 4e fighter can by @Pmerton invoking Come and Get It, I'm wondering what exactly you've got left on the table that you think is correct.

Abilities you need to match to just reach the 4e fighter baseline:

Combat Challenge
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target.

• The mark lasts until the end of your next turn.
• While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target.
• A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
• In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt

and

Combat Superiority

• You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your Wisdom modifier.
• An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.

​

Note that

1. A 4e character gets an unlimited number of opportunity attacks - 1/turn. (Yes, this means there are a very few cases where a Pathfinder fighter will be able to make two attacks of opportunity on the same enemy)
2. Combat Challenge is not an opportunity attack. It's an immediate action. So the fighter can in rare cases make an OA and a Combat Challenge attack on the same enemy in the same turn.
3. A shift is the same type of movement as a 5ft step. So where your fighter gets a follow up step mine gets a free swing - and then to make a 5ft step on his turn (which yours has given up).

And when you're done with that, show me how a Pathfinder fighter can try for Come and Get It, sucking all enemies to around the fighter - or Rain of Steel, a daily power that for 1 fight/day damages every enemy who starts next to the fighter.

 

[Obryn]

Where are you getting this fails at higher level stuff? You might want to try and actually play the game for a while before coming up with stuff like this. Besides, feat expenditure is part of what makes the fighter a fighter. When bonus feats are one of your class features then it's okay to spend feats because that is what they are there for.

I thought the math issues with super-large and super-strong (or super-dextrous) non-humanoids at higher levels were apparent, but I don't need to argue this. I'll concede that point... (Besides, by that level Fighters are already obsolete.)

And the feat is *still* sub-par defending.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I thought the math issues with super-large and super-strong (or super-dextrous) non-humanoids at higher levels were apparent, but I don't need to argue this. I'll concede that point... (Besides, by that level Fighters are already obsolete.)

And the feat is *still* sub-par defending.

Again, your responses show your lack of experience playing Pathfinder when you mention stuff about them being obsolete at high levels. You really shouldn't jump into an argument that you lack experience in.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I've shown why they aren't. Your "lockdown" actively encourages people to challenge it by removing the punishment. This is a world away from a 4e Defender. As for self inflicted blindness, this appears to be an example of the pot calling the kettle black.



The original claim was a defender. There's a difference. A defender gets attacked not just through lockdown but because attacking the fighter is the monster's least bad option. You can lockdown with a spiked chain fighter - this I will grant. (The 4e version would be the Polearm Momentum batter - and again it involves a specific chain of feats). And it's better at it than one that gives up all its damage from opportunity attacks. This does not make it a defender - there's no lose/lose choices involved. Especially not with the lockdown feat you chose that actively encourages monsters to try to walk away by removing the punishment. Apparently you don't understand what a defender is or does.



Given you've been shown to be incorrect about a defender, incorrect about the PF fighter being able to do anything a 4e fighter can by me, and incredibly incorrect about the PF fighter being able to do anything a 4e fighter can by @Pmerton invoking Come and Get It, I'm wondering what exactly you've got left on the table that you think is correct.

Abilities you need to match to just reach the 4e fighter baseline:

Combat Challenge
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target.

• The mark lasts until the end of your next turn.
• While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target.
• A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
• In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt

and

Combat Superiority

• You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your Wisdom modifier.
• An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.

​

Note that

1. A 4e character gets an unlimited number of opportunity attacks - 1/turn. (Yes, this means there are a very few cases where a Pathfinder fighter will be able to make two attacks of opportunity on the same enemy)
2. Combat Challenge is not an opportunity attack. It's an immediate action. So the fighter can in rare cases make an OA and a Combat Challenge attack on the same enemy in the same turn.
3. A shift is the same type of movement as a 5ft step. So where your fighter gets a follow up step mine gets a free swing - and then to make a 5ft step on his turn (which yours has given up).

And when you're done with that, show me how a Pathfinder fighter can try for Come and Get It, sucking all enemies to around the fighter - or Rain of Steel, a daily power that for 1 fight/day damages every enemy who starts next to the fighter.

Once again, you haven't shown anything but your lack of experience with Pathfinder. All you have done is show us 4th edition fighter abilities which does nothing for your argument. We aren't arguing about the 4th edition's fighter's abilities and how they work so posting them is just moot.

Your arguments have already been debunked and now you want to move the goalposts in order to be right.

 

[Remathilis]

That is the basic dnd method, absolutely.

But that doesn't mean that, if not for a bit of fate, we wouldn't instead have:
Wizards wave their wand and use one of their couple of spells chosen at character creation every round. They don't have to think about it, and they never run out.

Fighters need to worry about their stance, their opponent's stance, their weapon's reach and characteristics, their enemy's defenses and characteristics, their positioning with respect to other combatants, enemy's insight into their tactics, and their level of fatigue.

You know, the stuff I read about when I read fantasy books and there's a fight scene.

I wish I can remember the name of it, but there used to be little booklets where you could fight against someone with a variety of moves, and they had different results depending on the actions they took. The equivalent of declaring "I swing high and dodge left" and the other guy blocks high and lunges, and lots of permutations therein. Or - if anyone's read Wheel of Time, things like the blademaster styles used at one point in those books:

"I shift into Water over the Cliff stance, feinting briefly with Barrel Tottering, then smashing downward with an Owl seizes the Rat." (though I think we're all better off using a system more like expertise than that level of complexity

Anyhow, the point is that there are always options. Failure of imagination doesn't change that. There are so many options, in fact, that I'm glad that some people get paid to consider them all and try a variety out in different packets.

Ack! Kill it with fire!

I never want to see D&D combat full of feints, ripostes, circles, and parry choices every round. There are plenty of good RPGs that do that. D&D has never (nor should it be) one of them. I want less complexity, not more and forcing combat into a collection of stances and maneuvers every round (along with the requisite feats, and dice rolls). Add all that stuff to a typical goblin-horde combat and then give the wizard all HIS toys (along with the rogue, the cleric, the bard, etc) and you have a recipe that will make 2008 4e combats feel grind free.

 

[Meatboy]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Thanks guys! I really like what 4e added in terms of capability for non casting classes. I think however that this list, which I'm assuming has stat blocks attatched to all theses powers or feats, just illustrates the idea that game has gotten to complex. I want my fighter to be able to do all that stuff but I don't want to have reams of pages dedicated to explicit rulings that I can only do if I've chosen the right power. I think this goes double for casters. The desingers of DDN need to figure out how to pack the most awesome into the smallest sleakest package they can. I want my fighter to be as spectacular as a 4e fighter but I want it to be as close to easy to play as earlier edition fighters. The same goes for every class though, they should all allow me to create fantastic heroes but I shouldn't need to do homework.

As for the guys arguing about 4e fighter vs PF fighter. Even though that is somewhat related to the idea of class complexity as a barrier to entry for new players entering the hobby. I would ask that if you want to continue debating the subject that you please start another thread.

 

[Remathilis]

@ForeverSlayer, I think you may be missing Neonchameleon's point: the 4e fighter controls enemies by marking them, and then punishing them for violating the mark; as well as, as an automatic feature, getting to stop enemies moving when hitting them with an OA - which also combines control and punishment.

The two feats posted - Stand Still and Step Up - look weak to me by comparison. Stand Still means no damage, so the fighter has to sacrifice punishment for control. And Step Up limits the fighter's movement in the following round, whereas comparable 4e powers would grant additional movement as a free action or immediate reaction.

My understanding of 3E/PF is that if you want to combine control and punishment then you need to go with an improved trip + reach build - which would be either spiked chain or some varieties of polearm, wouldn't it?

How are you figure. A fighter stands between the foe and a squishie. The foe uses his move to get to squishie, but is stopped by the fighter's Stand Still (during the foe's turn). Now on the fighter's turn, he has a foe within 5' of him. Hello Full-attack! If the foe is still standing, if he tries to move away; he get's stand-stilled again. If he 5' steps, then Step Up give the fighter the ability to keep locked down and in full-attack range.

And a PF fighter gets 40 feats (1 every odd level, 1 bonus for every even fighter level). 4 feats is nothing to him.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

How are you figure. A fighter stands between the foe and a squishie. The foe uses his move to get to squishie, but is stopped by the fighter's Stand Still (during the foe's turn). Now on the fighter's turn, he has a foe within 5' of him. Hello Full-attack! If the foe is still standing, if he tries to move away; he get's stand-stilled again. If he 5' steps, then Step Up give the fighter the ability to keep locked down and in full-attack range.

And a PF fighter gets 40 feats (1 every odd level, 1 bonus for every even fighter level). 4 feats is nothing to him.

The fact of the matter is nobody likes for their argument to be debunked and some people can handle it better than others.