Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheRelinquished" data-source="post: 2772649" data-attributes="member: 33150">Thank you very much for the constructive input. I appreciate your criticisms, and I'm most inrigued by the idea of javelins as a ranged weapon (though I admit that I'm a greater fan of the bow which requires no additional feats ^_^). But I think I should point out a few details that should clear things up:His armor is a +1 Mithral Breastplate with Medium fortification. Thus his armor is considered light, and it does not encumber his movement at all. I'm sorry I failed to mention that.Also, I did not use a point-buy system for this fighter's abilities (though I've learned more about such systems recently and I'm interested in trying it). As crazy as it sounds, I rolled these stats with a roll-4-drop-lowest system some time ago. Thus I understand his stats are otherworldly. But to be fair, this is the kind of character I've been saving them for. ^_^Now, I understand that the entire build for this fighter is....unorthodox. Having obviously concentrated on skills and feats that most might consider secondary when compared to feats like Quick Draw or Weapon Focus. However, it is my belief that there are (primarily) two sorts of fighters: the tacticians, and the tanks (not to be confused with the common term for high HP, combat-oriented characters).The latter is the classic interpretation of a fighter, often relying on ol' faithful (the board and sword) and feats that make it easier to dish out death with that lovely set of equipment. They rely on brute strength and "direct solutions" to solve their problems. This also usually means that Intelligence and Charisma become dump stats, and every day is a quest for a better suit of Full Plate. What you usually end up with is something that scoffs at a sword in the gut, and that spells death to anything less than a d8 within reach of his swordarm. A more than formidable opponent.On the other end of the spectrum lies the aforementioned tactician. The tacticianis an opportunist, of sorts, preferring to focus on not getting hit and rearranging the situation so that his opponent becomes an easy target. This form of fighter relies on a balance of skills and abilities that can allow him to change tactics in a battle at the last moment, and secure victory over opponents of any kind. Particular weapons are usually not as important to this sort of fighter, since they focus on what they can do besides attack to win a battle. Nor are particular armors important, except that they tend to lean towards lighter armors, or at least those which will encumber them less.Obviously, I lean more towards the tactician end of the spectrum. I've found in my experience that alternative tactics, such as feinting, tripping, and the use of the Tumble skill, are remarkably effective against your average brute. But coming from a primarily caster PC background, you can understand why I take such a toolbox approach to things.As to your comment about the reliability of the shield and sword compared to TWF, I think I tried to mimic that here. I understand it seems inefficient to use four feats on this aspect of my fighter, however, playing the devil's advocate, I would argue it is inefficient to spend so many feats that rely on the idea that you will always have your choice weapon(s).Even stark naked my fighter can use unarmed attacks (both fists) for lethal damage and can set his AC anywhere from 10 to 20 (11 to 21 including Dodge), while still benefitting from his Defensive Throw feat to additionally thwart unsuccessful aggressors. ^_^But that's an extreme example. I'm glad you liked the fighter, and I will take your ideas to heart for any future tank builds.If you'd really like to see what I can cook up on a point-buy with any kind of character, let me know. Among my groups I'm infamous for making extremely well engineered characters--even under far more restricted conditions.Thanks again for the feedback.</blockquote>

Verification