Psychic Warrior vs. Fighter

[Scion]

Well, magic gives the most options, right? I mean nothing is even close to how much magic gives in terms of options. More options = harder to assess a situation, thus it takes more effort to plan with that in mind.

Only a certain number of spells may be cast usefully at any one time. But then, 'most options' is incredibly difficult to determine. For the most part magic only does certain things, especially given by level. Same with most anything else, pretty much a wash. Combinations of skills can definately cause a major hassle for a dm that is not prepared for them, especially the ones that arent clearly defined.

Generally speaking you will know what your pc's have and will know their general strengths and weaknesses. It doesnt matter if pc 1 has memorized either protection from fire or acid arrow, general power levels are pretty well established. Higher level pc's can be assumed to be able to find some way around most challenges. It is simply a nonissue.

Along with that, a higher number of feats (necissary to have the fighter even pretend to be a worthwhile class) comes a larger amount of diversity. Having hundreds upon hundreds of different feats means combinations that the dm has to think ahead for. This is no different than spells certainly. It can make it even harder on the dm though, especially with certain feat choices. For the most part being able to tell which spell wont fit properly in your game is easy enough, but being able to figure out which feats in combination with these other feats interacting with that feat and in that combo.. that can get very hard indeed.

So no, all of the parts are pretty much equal when it comes right down to it. Some people simply have a harder time with some things and an easier time with others.

I definitely notice, that in high level play, while I am surely very able to handle that, magic takes a considerable amount of time in the planning. Actually it's about the only thing, which requires any sort of effort at all.

Then you are good at skills and feats and other abilities but bad at magic? sure, go for it. Personally I have had zero problem with high level magic and have been able to ignore it as an issue. Of course I knew ahead of time what the campaign flavor was going to be and got rid of a few problem spells that would have interfered.. but that is no different than banning something like the vorpal enhancement or changing a few feats. A few ounces of prep time in each aspect of the game and many later issues simply never come up.

Please note the "...". I mean free only in terms of actions, really.

Ahh.. so you admit that the opportunity cost of taking the power and the feat, along with the cost of the pp's is still there but they dont matter? Also, you dont feel that free actions are actions? wow..

Well, that is obviously not the case. If nothing else it is easy enough to see that if you are burning your extra action (either hustle or burning your move) to get focus to throw off a quicken then you are losing extra pp and actions that could have been used for something else (then again, you cannot hustle and use a quickened power in the same round anyway, so your 'free only in terms of actions' is just completely unfounded, the cost there is high as well).

Actually I have a very big problem agreeing with it... but I also know where the difference comes from... you are not taking non-combat into account.

The fighter has zero non-combat usefulness in and of himself.

The psychic warrior only gets 20 powers total at level 20. Most/all of those will have a primary purpose of 'in battle'.

In any event though, we know that the psychic warrior will have the potential to be better out of combat simply because the fighter has no ability out of combat.

Unbuffed psychic warrior is much weaker than a fighter in combat. A fully buffed psychic warrior (this is a rarity for many reasons) are better in combat. However, given the limited time of being better and the limited occurances possible in a given day (it is possible for the psychic warrior to only have enough pp for a single battle) the two come out about even.

Which is sad for the psychic warrior.

But then, even as the psychic warrior can pick powers/feats that are more useful out of combat the fighter can spend some prescious feat slots on something of non-combat use. But then most feats are combat related to begin with in some fashion.

Also, just because a psychic warrior is unbuffed at the beginning, doesn't mean he or she cannot make use of them in a combat, even if the manifestations actually cost actions, as it should be (IMHO).

Of course it costs actions either way. Even with quicken and schism both it still costs quite a few actions to get buffed up enough to matter. It takes at least 3 buffs to simply catch up, which means something like 6 rounds minimum. Talk about an ouch, I believe there was a poll on this site awhile back talking about average combat length.. I think that the answer came out to be around 6.

But then we tend to use more tactics in my games, an actual battle could be stretched out over the course of several hours of in game time with any particular piece ranging from 1 round to about 9 rounds.

I'm actually not quite sure, what they mean there... can you use Schism to manifest an extra power (i.e. Dispel Psionics), 6 PP below your maximum (can you use Overchannel/Talented with it?), without any metapsionics or anything else, which requires the use of psionic focus, once per round?

If so, then it's too much already.

So you want to use dispel psionics with your schismed mind? I guess you dont actually want to really dispel anything. Start at dispel level 10, pump in 5 pp and drop a full overchannel to manifest a dispel of level 17 (or +20 if we assume the other way of reading it). Woo. Not impressive, especially for the cost.

But with the designers 'clarification' the other mind cannot gain focus or use focus. Plus, with the way he said it there definately seemed to be a houserule involved if you wanted to allow it to target something, as it has no control overy any physical piece of your body (hard to aim if you cannot see your target). Along with personal only powers not working.

Effectively does nothing.

BTW, I don't expect you to agree here, since you think it's fine, that haste effectively doubles the spellcasting power of a wizard or sorcerer (even if it cannot be cast "for free", aka starts to take effect one round later as you house ruled it).

There is a general interpretation saying that haste comes into play right after you cast the spell and get to use that action right then. I consider that interpretation to be a houserule really. Just like if someone tried to tack sneak attack damage onto a fireball. If you go out of your way to make something overpowered then that is the problem.

If you have 18 available? If fighting is your primary purpose? No, not at all.

A major investment, yes, but "overspecialization" means to go beyond such reasonable borders to me (as clarified above). Major investment is completely fine.

I'd still have to say that useing about 1/4 of your feat choices for a single weapon is more than just 'specialized'. Especially since you already went that far you are likely to get more feats to go with it. Effectively you 'will' be useing that weapon at every given opportunity. To do otherwise means that you ignore about 1/4 of your feats (likely more).

But if you wish to mix and match terms of 'major investment', 'overspecialized' and whatever else.. while making them all worth varying amounts to you fine, but realize that it wont make for a useful conversation. That is the slippery slope that makes talking about alignment more or less impossible, the terms keep on changing from person to person.

Take fighter (or whatever) levels 1 through 20.

Now look at the "usefulness" (i.e. on a scale of 1 to 10) of the class as a whole (taking some guesstimates, of course) for each of those levels.

Ok, lets see. Paladin at low levels has incredibly high saves, good skills, and a few interesting abilities. Plus gains a warhorse that can be as tough as the fighter is anyway (sans the feats of course). So this guy ranks pretty high.

Ranger. No comparison here, he gets at least double the point value of the fighter on the usefulness chart.

Barb. Better hd, same bab, same save, trades in fighter feats for a list of abilities that are mainly better than any feats.

Ok, given the above I will rank the fighter as a 2 (or a 3 if I am feeling generous).

Now multiply this "usefulness" by 1.5 for levels 6-10 and by 0.5 for levels 16-20, taking into account, at what levels this game is played the most (tho, actually, then the lowest levels should be weighed higher, but I specifically stay away from that, since they usually fly by faster than the higher levels (altho the system is not built like this, but also somewhat because set backs (level loss)), and any differences are still not very high at the lowest levels).

Umm.. no. Why multiply by 1.5 for these levels? are those the only levels he is good for? Does his power level drop by a third at level 11? If so then you have just proven my entire point. Worthless class. If all the class is used for is a stepping stone to a prc then the fighter is not a good class. It has to be good in and of itself to be good, not just, 'well, it is good for two levels sortof and then fades out rapidly.. but I got to prc X faster!'.

Seriously, have you seen any wizard x who can easily keep up with a wizard x/prestige class y ? Any at all ?

Yep, but then you are apparently working under the assumption that prc's increase overall power. They do not, or at least should not. They typically make one better at a certain area to the detriment of others. If all it does is make one better all around then something is wrong with the prc.

But it is a tricky scale to work with really. Some things work out better in certain ways, others not so much. Much like cutting off a level of caster. A single level taken away from manifestor level makes most prc's pretty much useless. So the vast majority of prc's for casters arent even worth the ink they are printed on. It is probably the case that you have only seen the few in action that are worth taking but also push the bubble too much for giving things back. If only 5% of the caster prc's are worth taking and 10% of those are overpowered and you have only seen that last 10% in action then obviously you will feel that caster prc's are overpowered. Even though for the most part they are garbage.

Well, I wouldn't call Spell Focus a thrown away feat, most wizards tend to pick that up, anyways, and they need only 3 feats, really, 2 of which are Spell Focus. And at least for one specific character concept, Skill Focus: Spellcraft is also highly useful.

Spell focus is a pretty worthless feat. It was weak at +2, now it isnt even a blip on the radar.

Skill focus is a very flavorful, but generally weak, feat as well. Mostly useful for really maxing out a needed skill or for npc's. It doesnt really do much for this sort of character. They already will put skill points into spellcraft anyway, they are already going to have a high int, so for most checks they will only have to roll a negative number to fail anyway (or a 1, depending on the dm). Having a +3 wont even do anything most of the time.

Effectively 3 placeholder feats, loss of a bonus feat, and losing a bunch of spell slots for some power in return. ::shrugs::


Overall though, you have heard not only from me but also from the guys at the character optimization board. If hearing what they have to say doesnt convince you then it isnt likely anything else will either.

The fighter needs a good fixing, even more than the 3.0 bard and ranger did. Someday he might even get it.

 

[Shazman]

Well, I know for a fact that fighters are tough combatants. In both of the games I've DM'd the fighters were one of, if not "the" most dangerous PC's. They consistantly hit and deal significant damage to their foes. Of course, I've only seen a fighter up to 9th level in 3.5 and never saw a single-classed fighter in 3.0 in action. I can definitely see how they could be considered weaker than the spellcasters at high levels and don't have much to look forward to after 12th level, but I don't see how they are weaker than the other non-spellcasters. Spellcasters rule the day at high levels, but it's always been that way. That's why there is such a high reliance on magic items at higher levels. Just my two cents.

 

[Scion]

Have you seen other fighter types at work? useing similar builds?

If not then you have no basis for comparison.

Also, how many suppliments were used? and 9th is still within thanee's limits of the fighter still being sortof useful sometimes.

Comparison points are needed otherwise anything can look good/bad. Comparing an equally made fighter type class of level X with a fighter of level X and saying what all of the base conditions are is very necissary to see if the opinion has any weight at all.

 

[Thanee]

Then you are good at skills and feats and other abilities but bad at magic?

No, I'm especially good at magic, actually, playing mostly spellcasters as PCs.

Ahh.. so you admit that the opportunity cost of taking the power and the feat, along with the cost of the pp's is still there but they dont matter?

Never said anything like that. It's just besides the point.

Also, you dont feel that free actions are actions? wow..

LOL, c'mon, you are smarter than that.

(then again, you cannot hustle and use a quickened power in the same round anyway, so your 'free only in terms of actions' is just completely unfounded, the cost there is high as well).

Yeah, in this single, specific case, unlike every other case, of which there are plenty, especially for the psychic warrior with the psionic feats.

The fighter has zero non-combat usefulness in and of himself.

This is false. Can a fighter bash open a stuck door? Yes, he can.
So, there is at least something.

The psychic warrior only gets 20 powers total at level 20.

Much like the 7 versus 11 feats you were stating. Just using your example there.

Most/all of those will have a primary purpose of 'in battle'.

I wouldn't think so, but well... not that it is of any importance.

In any event though, we know that the psychic warrior will have the potential to be better out of combat simply because the fighter has no ability out of combat.

Let's settle with "very little" instead of "no", that I can agree with.

Which is sad for the psychic warrior.

The person from the WotC character optimization board seems to have a very different opinion here.

It takes at least 3 buffs to simply catch up, which means something like 6 rounds minimum.

Uhm... 3 buffs in 6 rounds is rather slow.

So you want to use dispel psionics with your schismed mind? I guess you dont actually want to really dispel anything. Start at dispel level 10, pump in 5 pp and drop a full overchannel to manifest a dispel of level 17 (or +20 if we assume the other way of reading it). Woo. Not impressive, especially for the cost.

Erm... at 11th level you can (w/o Overchannel) dispel for +10.

Sounds pretty good for a "free" action each round, where a wizard would need a 7th level spell every round to get even.

Not that it is very useful to cast dispel once per round, just to show you the potential. It's not limited to dispel, anyways.

But with the designers 'clarification' the other mind cannot gain focus or use focus. Plus, with the way he said it there definately seemed to be a houserule involved if you wanted to allow it to target something, as it has no control overy any physical piece of your body (hard to aim if you cannot see your target). Along with personal only powers not working.

The part with the targeting would make it kinda useless, yeah.
If that is removed, that it can target just fine, which it probably can, it's what I'd expect it to do.

There is a general interpretation saying that haste comes into play right after you cast the spell and get to use that action right then. I consider that interpretation to be a houserule really.

It is one. Spells take effect immediately. That's how it works.

Just like if someone tried to tack sneak attack damage onto a fireball. If you go out of your way to make something overpowered then that is the problem.

Ok, now you have confused me...

What has this to do with haste allowing two spells per round?

I'd still have to say that useing about 1/4 of your feat choices for a single weapon is more than just 'specialized'.

What is specialized for you? Using one tenth of your resources!?

Weird scale, but it's just terminology, you certainly know what I meant by now.

Ok, given the above I will rank the fighter as a 2 (or a 3 if I am feeling generous).

At low levels? Geez! You have a lower opinion on fighters than I thought.

I'd rank them at 8 (roughly, going by steps of five) for levels 1-5, at 6 for 6-10, at 4 for 11-15 and at 2 for 16-20, I guess.

Umm.. no. Why multiply by 1.5 for these levels? are those the only levels he is good for?

Has nothing to do with the fighter, but the way the game works. Those levels see much, much more play than the others, so it seems reasonable to weigh them higher.

Like it doesn't help you much, if your character is the uber god at level 20, if you never play at level 20.

It has to be good in and of itself...

Why?

I mean, yeah, it's surely better if it is like that, but does it really have to be?
Must every class be good at every level? This is an ideal, which is very hard to achieve.

Yep, but then you are apparently working under the assumption that prc's increase overall power.

Which they most certainly do.

They do not, or at least should not.

...they should not.

They typically make one better at a certain area to the detriment of others.

Which - as you have claimed somewhere above, while talking about specialization - makes one better overall, which I agree with, at least to a point (until you overspecialize (term used in my fashion as explained above ))

Just to get back to that consistency thing and all that.

If all it does is make one better all around then something is wrong with the prc.

Well, many PrC (especially those for the arcane casters), give you full spellcasting progression, have next to neglectible prerequisites and give you extra stuff, which more than makes up for what you paid as an entry cost, thus making you clearly better overall, since you retain your full abilities (well, 'cept for the familiar and the odd bonus feat for the wizard) and gain something on top.

It's not as easy to see with the other classes, but I'm pretty sure, that many are similar, or at least there are plenty similar choices available.

If only 5% of the caster prc's are worth taking and 10% of those are overpowered and you have only seen that last 10% in action then obviously you will feel that caster prc's are overpowered. Even though for the most part they are garbage.

Well, how much does it matter how much garbage PrC are there (enough of them for sure), if they never see play? Those, that are used, are the ones, which work well, and from those a high percentage is very powerful. And those are the only ones of any importance. The rest can be ignored, really.

Spell focus is a pretty worthless feat.

Worthless, just because it is weaker as before?

It was weak at +2, now it isnt even a blip on the radar.

Weak!? Uhm... if you say so...

Skill focus is a very flavorful, but generally weak, feat as well.

Absolutely. It's the only real cost they have there.

Overall though, you have heard not only from me but also from the guys at the character optimization board. If hearing what they have to say doesnt convince you then it isnt likely anything else will either.

The guy from the character optimization board said, that a 20th level psychic warrior is better than a 20th level fighter, and that fighters are not so strong in high level play.

I fully agree with that, but it has not much relevance on this discussion.

The fighter needs a good fixing, even more than the 3.0 bard and ranger did. Someday he might even get it.

That is something I do not deny. Especially to remove that "dull" part.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

Never said anything like that. It's just besides the point.

you said that the costs dont matter. If you ignore the costs then of course it will look overpowered. But since you ignored the costs then your conclusion is suspect. In this case it is wrong because you ignored them.

LOL, c'mon, you are smarter than that.

So when you said that they were free in terms of actions, you did not mean that they were free in terms of actions? Perhaps you should be a bit clearer

Yeah, in this single, specific case, unlike every other case, of which there are plenty, especially for the psychic warrior with the psionic feats.

In the specific case of useing them in combat? Yeah, that is pretty specific.

Of course, since you cannot always assume you will know exactly when and where the battle will be, against what, and have time before the battle starts to put up your short term buffs then it would be one of only 2 options.

Option 1) before battle
Option 2) during battle

So obviously it is easily justifiable to assume they will need to be put up during battle. It is one of only two options and the first can be very rare indeed, which nearly narrows the choices down to one.

Because of that only being able to put up a buff every other round (as the free action) is definately rough. Turn 6 to have up the minimum required buffs.

Sounds pretty rough really.

Of course this has little to nothing to do with the thread at hand, just more attempting to show you that several bad changes equals and ugly mark.

This is false. Can a fighter bash open a stuck door? Yes, he can.
So, there is at least something.

So.. he attacked the door.. how is this not combat? I realize you were trying to make a joke, but useing a combat to discuss out of combat.. well

Poor guy.. he thinks that his sword is a lock pick. 'I am a rogue! my massive lock pick (adamantine 2-handed sword) will get us through any door, my massive trap finding power (stomping) will find any trap, and my incredible diplomacy (kicking their dead body) will win us the day'

Remember that, 'fighters need help' I posted earlier?

Still, none of this is helping the topic at hand at all. Very little of that for several posts now.

How about you put up some things that make a fighter better than other fighter types? Especially the psychic warrior, most of the discussion about psychic warrior powers and types just arent useful here, they would be more for a seperate thread.



You then go on to a lot of different things that also dont really matter for this.

The fighter has full BAB, one good save, d10 hd, 11 bonus feats, and 2 skill points.

The bonus feats just arent terribly impressive. Feats tend to be up to a certain strength and no higher, even top tier feats suffer from that.

So with enough sources of feats a fighter type can pick and choose well enough to simulate being a good class. Without that they fail horribly.

I can only assume that those who say that the fighter is so great have no other real fighter types in the party, or the fighter is highly min/maxed whereas the others are very much not so (such as the earlier fighter doing 3x damage the paladin in the battle.. must be a fighter with a very high str with thw and a lot of feat choices vs a paladin with a very low str and a one handed weapon).

Psychic warrior is generally better. His base stats are worse (d8 hd, 3/4 bab, one good save, 7 bonus feats, 2 skill points) but he has powers to help make up for it.

This gives him more options overall, which is nice. That is why psychic warrior is a better choice.

However, at its base the fighter is underpowered. He usually has a couple more minor options in combat (minor in that usually others can do them also, but he does them slightly better.. usually through not provoking aoo.. but getting around the aoo can be handled in other ways), but overall his fighting strength is the same as others. But others have other bonuses that come into play in combat which take them a step up, plus they have out of combat uses.

Compare with a ranger. d8 hd, full BAB, 2 good saves, 6 skill points, 4 levels of spells, and a host of special abilities.


In order to be the Fighter of the party he should be better than the other fighter types. He is not.

Given the choice between the fighter and the psychic warrior the psychic wins every time. Because it can be better when needed and it simply has more flavor.

The Fighter doesnt fill any roll for the party that someone else couldnt fill better, as such he doesnt count for much. The iconic party would be much better off with a Barb, Paladin, or Ranger. Possibly even a monk depending on the campaign style.

If you want to dump enough feats at the feet of the fighter so that he can simulate being a good class fine. He'll have to go through and pick out as min/maxed a combination as possible to be useful. Generally picking out the strongest feats available (improved trip comes to mind) just to try and keep up.

I have yet to see a game where this was not the case. Other people say their experiences differ but fail to say if they actually have anything to compare with. Or if other classes would be able to do the exact same job. If they can then the fighter is just that much worse.

More skills, more feats, more options. He just needs more to be a good class. More more more.

Someday he might get it.

If you wish to discuss the other things in your post feel free to start another thread, this one has been hijacked too much.

 

[rowport]

At least Thanee is very polite in his intransigence.

Quite notably unlike Scion, I might add...

 

[Scion]

Do not mistake directness with being impolite.

Most of the way some people on here say things I find highly offensive because of the way they are worded, but I figure I am just from a different part of the world than him. Different upbringings, different exposure to connotations.

Remember, not everyone does things in the same way. I'd rather have someone be to the point rather than much of what goes on here, I try to respect the way they do things anyway. I would appreciate the same in return.

 

[Thanee]

you said that the costs dont matter.

Where did you get that from?

So when you said that they were free in terms of actions, you did not mean that they were free in terms of actions? Perhaps you should be a bit clearer

I meant, that it does not need an action (free actions don't count ) to use.

Because of that only being able to put up a buff every other round (as the free action) is definately rough.

I have no idea what you mean.

So.. he attacked the door.. how is this not combat? I realize you were trying to make a joke, but useing a combat to discuss out of combat.. well

You count bashing open a stuck door as combat?

How about you put up some things that make a fighter better than other fighter types?

I never said they are, so why should I?

Especially the psychic warrior, most of the discussion about psychic warrior powers and types just arent useful here, they would be more for a seperate thread.

I think this thread is actually about the psychic warrior more than the fighter.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

See? the fighter sucks so much he cant even hold a place in his own thread for long

 

[ForceUser]

I guess that's my cue to reiterate the mantra "as it turns out, fighters are the best fighters."

Psychic warriors are tres cool, you don't have to sell me on them. But when it comes to the act of dropping initiative and applying damage, fighters they ain't. They're more like "Wait, wait! In two rounds after I buff I'll be completely bad-arse! And if I expend my psionic focus to make one really big attack in a single round, I'll roughly equal fighter damage for that one hit!"