Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5967589" data-attributes="member: 8461">Leaving aside how having fun is the primary purpose of playing a game, the issue of "useful" is one that's subjective, rather than objective. That's why questions of "builds" to show how "useless" a fighter is are a waste of time - it's going to come down to the situations experienced in during game-play.Even if I accepted the premise there, which I don't (you don't need reach weapons, you don't have to spend every feat slot on feat chains, etc.), there's also the question of how much damage is "significant," not to mention the issue that there's a lot that can be done in combat; a fighter is not "useless" if he's not performing his "specialized role" every turn.Quite a few combats don't end in under five rounds. Likewise, there can be multiple combats in a day.This is your experience, which seems to largely be based off of min-maxing, but that doesn't make it an objective truth. It's just your opinion.The DC there is 10, which means that on the die roll, they have a greater than 50% chance of succeeding. Likewise, not every fighter wears heavy armor, and there's no particular reason to say that they wouldn't spend their skill points in a cross-class skill. This entire line of logic is based off of the "optimized" build, which showcases - again - how it falls apart as soon as those expectations are disrupted.Which is not at all a big assumption.You're confusing your terms here. Assuming that the rules are some sort of straitjacket for how the game is "supposed" to be played does not mean that you're playing it "by the book." Acting as though failing to optimize is some sort of aberrant way of playing is, in fact, bending the rules.See, this again proves the problem with this line of thinking. It presumes that the wizard has teleport, is willing to teleport away (abandoning the party), manages to successfully teleport (chance of off-target arrival), that home is a safe location, won't be followed or scryed on, etc. Not to mention the idea that losing 80% of aggregated resources will mean that hit points are likewise down to exactly 20% (and, for that matter, that the adventuring day will follow such strictly-measured percentages to begin with).All assumptions that don't always, and indeed rarely, hold true.This is the same flawed reasoning. You presume that having a good save progression means that anything that uses that save is somehow ineffective. That's not only not true, but it ignores the rest of ways possible to use even one spell (e.g. put silence near a spellcaster, which allows no save).I like that you're missing the larger point, which is that spellcasters won't always render a fighter ineffective with even a slight change to those optimized scenarios and builds you keep presenting - how that happens doesn't really matter (since it can happen a virtually infinite number of ways).</blockquote>

Verification