Psychic Warrior vs. Fighter

[Thanee]

That is a problem with the base rules, making psions change to work with a rule that is dumb isnt useful.

Haste wasnt broken and schism is 'much' less useful.

That's your opinion and fine as such, but it is obviously not the opinion of the designers of the D&D rules (the XPH does not follow these, and if they changed them, because they found them non-fitting, they should errata them completely, not just partially, so in either way, it's just crap as it is now) and also not the opinion of the majority of gamers as far as I can tell.

And 'broken' means to me, that it does not fit into the system, or breaks its limits, which 3.0 Haste and Schism both do, and also Hustle seems wrong there, actually, since it should not be that easy to gain extra actions in 3.5, that's why they removed pretty much all that stuff in the transition.

So you dont like being able to put up short term buffs quickly and you dont like long term buffs.

Interesting interpretation, but completely false.

I absolutely do like it, but I am aware, that it shouldn't be made too easy, since that would make fighters obsolete, as it was in 3.0, thanks to Haste mostly.

I do not make the rules. In fact, we changed some of the buffs to 10 min/lvl (the +4 stat buffs), because the duration is a bit low now, making them pretty useless as they are, altho we do agree, that they were ridiculously overpowered in 3.0 and had to be toned down.

Effectively, you simply hate buffing spells and feel that they should never be used.

Since the only other alternative is that you like the attackers to have such massive advantages over defenders that there is no real chance. Further destroying the CR system and forcing people to use certain narrow tactics.

Something is seriously wrong there, it sounds like you'd be happier if there just werent any buffs in the game.

Wow man, you really should spend more skill points on Sense Motive.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

Broken can mean different things to different people. But with only a slight difference in interpretation (when the extra action comes into play) the spell goes from being troublesome to being benign. As I have been playing that way since just before 3rd came out and have seen no problem with haste then my opinion is that it is fine. Yours is that it isnt. But since you kept on saying it then I felt compelled to keep saying the opposite.

Fighters are obsolete already. Simply by not being made into a class that is far enough away from an npc class to matter. They get a lot of fighter feats that is true, but feats dont scale properly to keep the fighter up and running. Springboard for other classes, sure. Useful class in its own right? not even close.

That is the problem here. There is a comparison being done between the psychic warrior and a useless class. If the psychic warrior comes up being close in overall power to the fighter then that is a definate sign that the psychic warrior needs a big boost in power.

The psychic warrior is behind in BAB and hp, the first is a very big hit. Being behind by this major constant source of power is why they get all of the other powers. However, with the very short durations and low pp total for the psychic warrior they are in trouble. Giving them a few very short term buffs in trade for what they lost is a significant hit.

You said before that you dont like any ways to put up more buffs at once and since you said nothing before about the buffs themselves then the only interpretation to make with that information is that you simply dont like buffing. If that isnt the case fine, but even changing the duration of the anibuffs to 10min/level doesnt fix the base problem. Especially with so many powers having such a short duration to begin with.

If the psychic warrior needs at least 3 different powers up just to compete with an underpowered class then something is wrong. Fighters are incredibly inferior. Not because of haste, or because casters are strong, but simply because of how they are designed. They need more skill points, feat trees designed for them, and a few other things. At that point they would be worthwhile.

So, since the psychic warrior is vastly inferior without buffing and buffing isnt always incredibly useful and even when fully buffed they just arent that much better than a fighter then the psychic warrior also needs a bit of help.

Taking away basic helping points only further hurts them. They do not need the extra pain.

While I havent seen the new psychic warrior in action (and so it may have some interesting tricks that help flesh it out better) I have seen the fighter in action for years. They suck. Horribly. Even more than the 3.0 bard.

If the psychic warrior doesnt win this competition for which would be a better character to play then it is very, very sad.

 

[Thanee]

Broken can mean different things to different people.

Yeah, that's why I included that part, to avoid confusion because of this.

But with only a slight difference in interpretation (when the extra action comes into play) the spell goes from being troublesome to being benign. As I have been playing that way ...

Erm... I can't follow you there... which way!?

Fighters are obsolete already.

Fighters are incredibly inferior. Not because of haste, or because casters are strong, but simply because of how they are designed. They need more skill points, feat trees designed for them, and a few other things. At that point they would be worthwhile.

A lot of people (taken from polls on this board) share the experience, that the fighter is actually pretty strong.

I do agree, however, that they are pretty boring and more suited for multiclassing (which, I believe, is actually one reason, why they are not so strong as a class by itself, since they are better for multiclassing. IIRC there even was something like this being said by the designers. That doesn't mean, that I agree with this logic, BTW).

You said before that you dont like any ways to put up more buffs at once and since you said nothing before about the buffs themselves then the only interpretation to make with that information is that you simply dont like buffing.

A weird conclusion IMHO. What I meant is, that buffing has a cost and should have a cost, which is the time needed to buff. If that cost is taken away, buffing, which results in a better ability than what others have unbuffed (which is fair, since it is temporary and costs time to put up), becomes the superior ability, and thus is not balanced anymore.

Especially with so many powers having such a short duration to begin with.

Well, we've seen in 3.0 (cleric), how things turn out, if that cost is taken away (persistent, 1h/lvl durations, etc).

If the psychic warrior needs at least 3 different powers up just to compete with an underpowered class then something is wrong.

Not at all, since the psychic warrior also has other abilities beyond that, which compensate for this lack. If the psychic warrior can compete with a pure warrior class (fighter, barbarian, etc) without any such cost, and also has the additional abilities, then something is wrong.

So, since the psychic warrior is vastly inferior without buffing ...

Vastly inferior is a bit much for sure, since the Fighter is only marginally better than a Warrior (you said that), right?

...and even when fully buffed they just arent that much better than a fighter...

Erm... yeah, right!

Do you have the same book I have?

It really looks like you have never seen a Psychic Warrior in action.
Fully buffed they are about as powerful as buffed up Clerics.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

Making the extra haste action first come into play the next time you get a round. No problems.

Also, fighters are only even marginally all right if just about every source of feats is brought into play. Otherwise very bad. Especially at higher levels. I have never seen anyone come up with a comparison of a higher level fighter being worthwhile to take vs any other character class. A couple/few of levels, maybe, more? nah.

Spending a round for the benefit is usually just too high of a cost for many of those. Having a decent duration is a good choice, having a way to put them up without having to spend a round is good also.

A psychic warrior with no buffs is a fighter with less feats, less hp, and many less BAB. With enough powers up they can make up for each of these deficiencies, so one buff isnt likely to make up for it all.

The hour long buffs were nice but all they did was trade one resource for another, usually in a slightly inferior fashion.

The cleric has all 10 levels of casting so isnt a very good comparison. They have the same BAB and hp sure, but the cleric has a pile of special abilities plus full casting potential.

Persistant had and has problems, not because of its duration but because of just how horrible it is to use. It should be changed to be more like permanency, having a list of what spells it effects and what the plus to level is. That would make it infinately better.

So, with your given arguements my conclusions were the only real ones to draw, if you feel differently then feel free to present information that actually supports your shifting position (shifting not from your point of view in all likelyhood, but definately from what is presented here).


In any event, the psychic warrior had better win on every front in most/all cases vs the fighter because otherwise it would be a very sucky class.

 

[ForceUser]

Scion said: Fighters are obsolete already. Simply by not being made into a class that is far enough away from an npc class to matter. They get a lot of fighter feats that is true, but feats dont scale properly to keep the fighter up and running. Springboard for other classes, sure. Useful class in its own right? not even close.

You're so wrong it's not even funny. Let's see: last session my 10th-level fighter stood toe to toe with three fire giants and a hell hound, by himself, for three rounds. In that time he single-handedly killed the hellhound and one of the giants (I'll say that another way: he soloed a fire giant in the first two rounds & dropped 80 damage on a second giant in the third.) He got tooled, sure, but he didn't die. When I totaled up the damage he dealt in that fight, it was in the 300+ range. At 10th-level, on a 28-point build with level-appropriate gear.

I play a fighter. They don't suck.

 

[Scion]

I dont know any other way to say this, you either got incredibly, obscenely lucky or you are lieing. Hopefully it is the first.

In any event, I would have to see your whole build to see just how this might have happened.

But, nothing you have said disproves that fighters suck compared with other classes. Other classes would have done the same thing given your incredible luck, done it as good or better, and still had out of combat uses.

Fighters suck. Horribly.


(for reference, fire giants are CR 10 each, have more attacks than this fighter in all likelyhood, each attack has a higher attack bonus, does more damage, more hp, and a comprable ac to the 10th level fighter)

 

[ForceUser]

Wow. You are really coming from left field with this "fighters suck" business, my friend. I play one, I know the opposite to be true. I'm interested to hear how you got this idea.

It's true that fighters are the most group-dependant class in the game. They need buffs & they need healing from other characters. They have low saving throws. But in sheer consistent damage output, which is the only point I am refuting, there is no substitute for a well-crafted fighter. With my character, I typically power attack for 2-4 with a two-handed weapon and I typically have haste, shield & bull's strength going. I typically triple the damage output of the other melee character in the group, the paladin. The only other character who comes close is the ranger (archer), who can't match me blow for blow, but makes up for it in that consistency only an archer possesses (while I'm running toward the next foe, he's leasing a volley of arrows).

The build I threw up for the 16th-level dwarf fighter above is an extrapolation of my character. I'll post the actual character tomorrow if you're actually interested in the build. Do not doubt; in the above scenario my fighter dished out about 300 damage in six rounds of combat. With buffs running, dwarf vs. giants, his 32 AC protected him from the brunt of the giants' attacks. He killed one & badly wounded another before being dimension door'd away by the travel cleric for healing.

 

[Scion]

I have seen several well made fighters in play, and they always have given up and made new characters after a time because they were tired of how much they were behind the curve.

It sounds like you are a thf vs the paladin sword and board. If so then there is no real comparison to begin with. But, how about the paladin + his mount in overall damage/usefulness/everything else and even with being sword and board I would expect the paladin to be more useful in most situations.

Barbs and rangers should be able to outdamage him in a consistant manner. Just by going what you have already said the barb would be outdamaging easily. Along with having other useful abilities and skills and hp.

You have just changed your scenario damage from 3 rounds to 6 rounds. That is a pretty massive difference.

Still though, even with an ac of 32 you have 9+ attacks against you in the first round. Three at +20, three at +15, three at +10. Any of these could have been used to destroy your weapon (they have improved sunder) or going just against you the first that is an average damage of 53.55 (ignoring crits). This alone should be at least half of your hp. You have 2 attacks, lets say +10 base, +2 greater weapon focus, +7 str (very unlikely), +3 weapon, -2 power attack = +20/+15. vs ac 23 your first is likely to hit but the second much less so, still, both could hit pretty easily. say an average damage of 30 for a hit means 60 damage a round. After 6 rounds you could indeed hit 300+, but not in 3. Of course by the end of the second round you are dead on average. (haste ups this, but then I also have not given the fire giant any equpment yet, of which he has over 15k not accounted for)

But then, none of this takes into account that the barb would very likely be much better at doing all of this. More damage, better chance to hit = more likely to take them out before being taken out

So, I know that fighters are bad. Through play experience, test runs, and various threads on here are all large amounts of correlation.

The feats they get to choose from are generally just not good enough. They dont increase in power properly. Along with the base class lacking in power.

It is all right for a level or two, but after that? nah. Much better off going to some other class and/or prc. Being good at letting one enter prc's does not a good class make.

Compare your fighter with an equally well made barb. Chances are very good that the fighter will come up seriously lacking. If not maybe you are chooseing from a large enough pool of feats to be able to fake it, but that also does not a good class make.

 

[Thanee]

Making the extra haste action first come into play the next time you get a round. No problems.

Ah, yeah, we did that, too, actually, back in 3.0 before we house ruled Haste to the modern version, which is like 3.5 but with a single target only, since it was still way too strong for our tastes.

Also, fighters are only even marginally all right if just about every source of feats is brought into play. Otherwise very bad. Especially at higher levels.

Yep, at higher level, they absolutely lose out to any kind of spellcaster. Well, everyone does.

A psychic warrior with no buffs is a fighter with less feats, less hp, and many less BAB, ...

... and up to 20 psionic powers, direct access to psionic feats, ...

The cleric has all 10 levels of casting so isnt a very good comparison. They have the same BAB and hp sure, but the cleric has a pile of special abilities plus full casting potential.

Well, the cleric is kinda similar, if you are following a melee buff character concept. Basically trades better spells for the bonus feats.

In any event, the psychic warrior had better win on every front in most/all cases vs the fighter because otherwise it would be a very sucky class.

As I said, that's just your personal opinion and surely doesn't match that of the majority of gamers and the designers.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

So, I know that fighters are bad. Through play experience, test runs, and various threads on here are all large amounts of correlation.

Well, as I said, I have seen plenty polls here of various kinds, where pretty much always the fighter came out above average.

Polls for best classes have cleric, druid, wizard on top, but after that, often the fighter follows.

Your experiences probably come mostly from 3.0, in 3.5 fighters got a lot better in comparison.

Bye
Thanee