Why do they hold back the cool toys until level 25-30?

[Quantumboost]

A fighter in 4e can fight with two weapons and with ranged weapons.

Do fighters actually have any abilities that let you attack with both weapons in the same round, beyond spending an action point to get an extra round? I've seen only one such ability at all in the game (ranger's Twin Strike).

If a 3rd edition fighter wants to burn a feat on it, they can actually gain *something* beyond "oh hey it's a giant skeletal velociraptor, good thing I have this mace in my off-hand instead of just a sword" from holding two different weapons rather than one.

[Voss]

No they do not. They can set a feat on fire to get a *+1* to damage rolls if they happen to be holding a second weapon, but thats it. Ranged weapons are similar... they can do a basic attack with one, but in 4e you never want to do that. And unless the DM is being a dick and putting creatures where you can't actually get to them, it isn't worthwhile to even try.

[Talisman]

A fighter in 4e can fight with two weapons

Balderdash. This is quite simply not true in any meaningful way.

He can also afford to put a few skill ranks in a skill (Craft, say) without shooting himself in the foot.

The 4e fighter can put "I know how to build ships" in his back story, with rather better results. Not that Craft (shipbuilding) gives combat options in either system.

Now who needs a houserule? By RAW, saying "I know how to build ships" does exactly jack shit. Putting a few ranks in craft (shipbuilding), OTOH, provides an actual, mechanical ability. It's not terrific, but again, we're not discussing raw power: just options.

Do you really want a full list of the magic items a 3.x fighter could take to improve his combat options?

I'm more interested in the reality than the theoretical min/max exercise. 3e wins the theoretical exercise because it has vastly more flexibility in character creation and in magic item selection. But I'm more interested in the typical magic items that a 3.x fighter with the build you posted might actually have.

Point the First: This entire debate is a "theoretical...exercise."

Point the Second: A typical 3.x fighter is likely to have a magic weapon, magic armor, and a strength booster. Beyond that, there are no universal rules. Ring of deflection? Cloak of resistance? Gloves of Dex? Nice, but you're not guaranteed to have them, nor am I guaranteed to want them.

The items I mentioned are relatively cheap items that a fighter can use. Unless you want to resolve it with a random die-roll or use a ouija board to contact the ghost of Gary Gygax, any choices like this will be debatable.

For instance, RC mentioned a terror weapon. A 4e fighter is just as likely to have a vicious weapon, which deals extra damage on a crit. that's not an option, since it happens randomly and only does extra damage.

The challenge was "options," not "power." Therefore, I quite deliberately made feat and magic item choices that would give me more *options.*

I could dump those other SPs into it, for a +5...how many monsters have Sense Motive?

The monsters get their BAB modifier on top of their wisdom bonus, and and it's still worthless without feats, because it takes too long. An option with a 0% success rate is not an option. The 4e fighter has a 0% success rate at pulling monkeys out of his backside, and that's not an option either.

A 4e fighter can feint too, and will probably succeed about half the time. Mind you, it's still mostly worthless, because it takes a standard action. But you might do it if you want to Stealth, I guess, given that 4e fighters can succeed at that too.

Fair enough; we'll drop feint. But even if I count immobilize, slow, knock prone, and two different flavors of healing as separate options (which I don't), that's still only 8 options to the 3.x fighter's 11. And that's without magic items.

[Ravengm]

Saying that a fighter can use two weapons in 4e is like saying that you can kick out the windows on an airplane: sure, it's possible, but YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR DOING IT.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, you are so utterly and completely wrong it is sad. This tirade about Twf is the perfect example of your idiotic arguments.

Heh, you're the one advocating using a style your'e not proficient with. What next? wielding a weapon you don't know how to use? The heavy armored wizard wtih a tower shield and 80% ASF? Technicalyl it's an option!

Lets use an example of a level 5 3.x Fighter with a 14 dex. He has a ranged attack bonus of +7. He is twf with light thrown weapons, so he is at -4/-8 on his attacks. That means his total attack bonus is +3/-1. The average touch Ac for a Cr 5 monster is 10-11. That means that the Fighter has a ~70% to hit with his primary, and ~45% to hit with his off hand. One attack without twf would have ~85% hit with one weapon. Mathematically, there isn't much difference there. When you consider the extremes, the edge goes to Twf. At the extreme range, the single attack has one 5% chance to hit, while the Twf has two 5% chances to hit. At the other extreme, the single attack would have 95% chance to hit, while the Twf would have two 95% chances to hit.

Yeah, only you're doing more damage with your greatsword on a power attack and you aren't flushing money down the drain like crazy on alchemists fire. That's 40 gp you're burning per full attack at least. More if you want to use your primary attack more often. If you hit, you deal 1d6 damage, no strength mod. Then 1d6 the next turn. So lets say 2d6, average of 7.

Your greatsword is going to be doing 2d6+10 or so. Your greatsword is doing 3 damage more than that, and you're getting two swings. And I haven't even considered power attack yet. Also you're not burning 60 gp per full attack.Lets say you attack twice per combat and fight 4 combats. That means you just blew 480 gp to do less damage than you could with your greatsword.

Chucking alchemist's fire is a decent strategy only for a rogue if your DM happens to allow sneak attack with a grenadelike weapon (most DMs don't). For a fighter, it's just flushing your money down the toilet. And not only that, but you're less effective than you would be if you just attacked normally.

In sum: The fact is a low-level Fighter in 3.x can sometimes fight with twf without the feats effectively (more effectively than one attack). The 3.x Fighter can: do damage in a splash area and set two enemies on fire (AF), Deafen two groups of creatures in a 10ft radius spread (Thunderstone), and glue two enemies to the floor (Tanglefoot bag).

Ok first, the splash damage is a joke. What are you fighting at 9th level that you'd even care about 1 splash damage?

This is just plain and simple creating an argument out of nothing. You're exaggerating everything the 3.5 guy can do and trying to put spin on it to make it seem useful.

"OMG, 1 splash damage, I am an AoE god!!!"

RC, you have lost every argument in this thread. Badly.

WHen I get to the level of pulling out inefficient 4E tactics for my sample character, well then I may concede that I've lost.

Until then, I'm the one arguing reasonable uses of powers, you guys are the ones saying "I could waste my action to aid another" or "I can do 1 splash damage at 9th level, SEE I can do area damage too!"

It strikes me as the advertising tactics of someone advertising a shit product and trying to make it seem better than it is. You're trying to pass off inconsequential, wasteful and inefficient tactics as being useful features.

Saying that I've lost won't make it true, and your argument tactics right now reek of desperation. If 3.5 had so many options, you wouldn't have to pull ridiculous edge cases out of your ass like this. As you'll see back in my 4E example all my stuff was powers. I didn't even use any feats. Nor did I even mention that my character could carry a backup bow for ranged attacks.

If indeed, your argument is so apparently strong as you think it is, you shouldn't be fumbling around to come up with these crazy fringe arguments like two weapon fighting or aid another. The very fact that I've sent you frantically digging for any unlikely action or option you can use, no matter how crazy, inefficient or just plain unsound says something.

Your point isn't nearly as strong as you think it is.

[Talisman]

For the last fvcking time - this isn't about raw power. It's about options.

A 3.x fighter can TWF. A 4e fighter cannot.

A 3.x fighter can spread his skill points around. A 4e fighter cannot.

RC, how about if you offer some effective tactics for the 4e fighter? So far, all you've done is attack the 3.x fighter and badmouth the options we have offered. Talk about "reeking of desperation" - you're the one who claimed that healing and regeneration count as two separate options, despite the fact that there's not much meaningful difference between them. By that logic, I could claim each point of Power Attack as a separate option - which is complete malarky.

At bare minimum, a 3.x fighter has at least as many effective options as a 4e fighter, and he can use them all day long. Stop bashing on options as being subpar and put it up. If you want to compare raw power we can do that...but that wasn't the premise of this debate.

[RandomCasualty2]

For the last fvcking time - this isn't about raw power. It's about options.

It's about viable options. An option that's something obscure and stupid isn't an option at all. For it to even be considered, it muist be something you would use in a real game. If your other options are just better and there's no reason to ever use the other ability, then it's not a viable option.

Merely being able to do something inefficiently doesn't make it an option. It has to be an effective tactic that you can use in a game at some point. it can be somewhat situational, but it must be a good choice. Now if you have expendable resources, sometimes a weaker choice that doesn't expend resources may be the best choice in a situation, because for whatever reason you need to conserve that ability. Also, if you've already expended a resource earlier in the day, then what choices you have remaining become best choices.

The 4E fighter gains an advantage in options with expendable powers because it creates situations where he may not be able to use his bigger powers and must resort to a lower one in a realistic scenario and thus options that he wouldn't consider if everything becomes at will are now viable options. I think it's already pretty well accepted that 4E battles go on long enough that you will likely burn yourself out of encounter powers before the battle is finished and must resort to at wills. Thus the 4E fighter is not allowed to spam one power.

The 3.5 fighter, where everything is at will, has a much higher standard, in that he will ALWAYS select the most useful tactic in a given situation. Without powers that deplete it means that his viable options are more limited. Because to be viable, an option has to be the best of all his options in that given situation.

My complaint is that the best way to play a 3.5 fighter is to constantly spam your best power. We already know you can do this, because all of the 3.5's abilities are at will. The only question is if you can come up with a list of at least equally useful or better options than just spamming your main attack.

When you bring up crap like TWF without proficiency, it just doesn't count because it's not something I would use instead of my main attack, regardless of circumstance.

Now of all my 4E fighter's powers, I can give you a situation where I'd want to use them over any other choice I may have (in some cases this situation involves other powers being gone, or facing off against a minion or group of minions).

Can you do the same for all the 3.5 fighter options you listed?

Seriously I'm curious as to what realistic scenario where you'd want to use Aid another or fight with two weapons as a 3.5 fighter?

RC, how about if you offer some effective tactics for the 4e fighter? So far, all you've done is attack the 3.x fighter and badmouth the options we have offered. Talk about "reeking of desperation" - you're the one who claimed that healing and regeneration count as two separate options, despite the fact that there's not much meaningful difference between them. By that logic, I could claim each point of Power Attack as a separate option - which is complete malarky.

healing and regeneration are somewhat different. Regeneration is going to heal you back up to some fixed amount between battles. It's only like regeneration 2 or something. A healing surge is an instant burst of health. Now the end result is similar, but the speed and amount that it happens isn't. And they have two distinct tactical uses. You probably want to blow your regeneration at the end of a battle to save surges. While the true healing power is something you wnat to use when you're badly beat up.

Remember that we're talking about tactical options, so yes, even if similar, if they fit in different spots in your tactical situation, then they are different options.

[Maxus]

The 4E fighter gains an advantage by expendable powers because it creates situations where he may not be able to use his bigger powers and must resort to a lower one in a realistic scenario and thus options that he wouldn't consider if everything becomes at will are now viable options. I think it's already pretty well accepted that 4E battles go on long enough that you will likely burn yourself out of encounter powers before the battle is finished and must resort to at wills.

The 3.5 fighter, where everything is at will, has a much higher standard, in that he will ALWAYS select the most useful tactic in a given situation. Without powers that deplete it means that his viable options are more limited. Because to be viable, an option has to be the best of all his options in that given situation.

Wait, wait, I think I know this one.

See, I'd be liking the 4e 'options' if the effects you could cause were a wider variety, maybe even situational--maybe an attack/damage/effect bonus against specific enemies. One could even look at games like Final Fantasy Tactics (or Tactics Advance) for inspiration about what the at-will, encounter, and daily powers could be doing. (Idea...)

Anyway, your definition of viable for the the 3e fighter is open to question. A viable option doesn't have to be your best option, it just has to be one which may cause an outcome that'd be advantageous to you.

[Psychic Robot]

To be fair, the idea that the fighter can do splash damage with alchemist's weaponry is a joke.

[RandomCasualty2]

Anyway, your definition of viable for the the 3e fighter is open to question. A viable option doesn't have to be your best option, it just has to be one which may cause an outcome that'd be advantageous to you.

Yeah it does. Because I'm going to try to choose the best option available to me. Now if I can perform both options at the same time, then sure I'll do it. But usually I have to choose between two.

So if my secondary option isn't as good, then it won't get used.

It's really that simple.

That's the drawback of having all at will abilities. If your main ability is so awesome that it's better than all the others in all situations, then you might as well not even have the others.

[MartinHarper]

No they do not. They can set a feat on fire to get a *+1* to damage rolls if they happen to be holding a second weapon, but thats it.

There are very obscure situations where it's worthwhile, but mostly it's just throwing away +2ac and +2reflex. I'm talking to Talisman, and apparently being suboptimal doesn't matter to him. Hence the feint discussion.

Ranged weapons are similar... they can do a basic attack with one, but in 4e you never want to do that.

I think this one is legit. The 4e fighter prefers melee to ranged, but if the enemy are spotted at a distance, for example, then a heavy thrown weapon is a sensible addition to the available options. Certainly I wouldn't make a 4e fighter without giving him some way to make ranged attacks.

By RAW, saying "I know how to build ships" does exactly jack shit.

DMG p11 talks about precisely how a character's background can let them do stuff. The example is a blacksmith's child, not a shipbuilder's child, but the same applies. If a character's background does jack shit in 4e, the DM is doing it wrong.

RC mentioned a terror weapon. A 4e fighter is just as likely to have a vicious weapon, which deals extra damage on a crit. that's not an option, since it happens randomly and only does extra damage.

I mentioned a terror weapon, as it happens. I think it's reasonable that, out of 5/6 magic items at level 9, a 4e character will likely have some that increase his options. Of 20 sample magic weapons, just four don't provide options: vicious, pact blade, magic, and lifedrinker.

----

4e combat options for the 9th level fighter.
Note that I'm taking Reaping Strike as the human at-will, rather than Sure Strike, since RC already picked Precise Strike as an encounter power. It's not optimal, but I don't want to confuse.
I'm not including movement and such.

Powers, Feats, and general actions:
1. Immobilise.
2. Slow.
3. Knock Prone.
4. Push single target.
5. Pull multiple targets.
6. Whirlwind attack.
7. Attack two mobs at once.
8. Self-heal for temporary hit points.
9. Self-heal for real hit points.
10. Gain regeneration.
11. Activate a defensive stance.
12. Sacrifice accuracy for damage.
13. Sacrifice damage for accuracy.
14. Do guaranteed damage.
15. Charge.
16. Apply extra damage to a single target of his choice.
17. Push people around on an opportunity attack.
18. Take a defensive stance.
19. Increase defences by losing an attack.
20. Grab.
21. Spend an action point.
22. Make ranged attacks.
23. Fight with two weapons.

Skills:
24. Stabilise a dying ally.
25. Bring a dying ally right back into the fight.
26. Grant ally a free saving throw.
27. Somersault over an enemy (or perform another acrobatic stunt)
28. Climb, Jump, Swim.
29. Force a bloodied enemy to surrender (or otherwise intimidate them)
30. Stealth
31. Disable a trap (as part of a larger combat).
32. Feint
33. Know a monster's name, type, keyword, and powers.
34. Combat diplomacy.
35. Active perception against stealthy monsters.
36. Aid Another.

Magic items: 6 magic items. Per the discussion above, 80% of magic items provide an option of some kind, so around 5 options.

Total: 41.
Now, some of these are bullshit, or you might consider as variations of the same thing, or just sub-optimal. Plus, I've stacked the deck a little by not being stupid and taking Brute Strike, Bruter Strike, and Even Bruter Strike as my daily powers. Regardless, most of them aren't bullshit, and they're all better than feint at a -1 modifier.

[Maxus]

Anyway, your definition of viable for the the 3e fighter is open to question. A viable option doesn't have to be your best option, it just has to be one which may cause an outcome that'd be advantageous to you.

Yeah it does. Because I'm going to try to choose the best option available to me. Now if I can perform both options at the same time, then sure I'll do it. But usually I have to choose between two.

So if my secondary option isn't as good, then it won't get used.

It's really that simple.

That's the drawback of having all at will abilities. If your main ability is so awesome that it's better than all the others in all situations, then you might as well not even have the others.

So, yes, in the hypothetical situation of having an ability that is indeed so awesome it fits all situations, you'd be right.

Apart from maxxing your ability at a combat maneuver such as grappling, I don't see having an ability like that, though.

[Tydanosaurus]

The 4e fighter prefers melee to ranged, but if the enemy are spotted at a distance, for example, then a heavy thrown weapon is a sensible addition to the available options.

Beyond the early levels, there is virtually no benefit to a fighter using a ranged weapon. Do the math, and you'll see that.

DMG p11 talks about precisely how a character's background can let them do stuff. The example is a blacksmith's child, not a shipbuilder's child, but the same applies. If a character's background does jack shit in 4e, the DM is doing it wrong.

Relies far too much on the DM's discretion. Anything that vague might as well say, "And the DM can let you do stuff that seems reasonable." Which is all the rule says.

4e combat options for the 9th level fighter.
Note that I'm taking Reaping Strike as the human at-will, rather than Sure Strike, since RC already picked Precise Strike as an encounter power. It's not optimal, but I don't want to confuse.
I'm not including movement and such.

Powers, Feats, and general actions:
1. Immobilise.
2. Slow.
3. Knock Prone.
4. Push single target.
5. Pull multiple targets.
6. Whirlwind attack.
7. Attack two mobs at once.
8. Self-heal for temporary hit points.
9. Self-heal for real hit points.
10. Gain regeneration.
11. Activate a defensive stance.
12. Sacrifice accuracy for damage.
13. Sacrifice damage for accuracy.
14. Do guaranteed damage.
15. Charge.
16. Apply extra damage to a single target of his choice.
17. Push people around on an opportunity attack.
18. Take a defensive stance.
19. Increase defences by losing an attack.
20. Grab.
21. Spend an action point.
22. Make ranged attacks.
23. Fight with two weapons.

Skills:
24. Stabilise a dying ally.
25. Bring a dying ally right back into the fight.
26. Grant ally a free saving throw.
27. Somersault over an enemy (or perform another acrobatic stunt)
28. Climb, Jump, Swim.
29. Force a bloodied enemy to surrender (or otherwise intimidate them)
30. Stealth
31. Disable a trap (as part of a larger combat).
32. Feint
33. Know a monster's name, type, keyword, and powers.
34. Combat diplomacy.
35. Active perception against stealthy monsters.
36. Aid Another.

Magic items: 6 magic items. Per the discussion above, 80% of magic items provide an option of some kind, so around 5 options.

Total: 41.
Now, some of these are bullshit, or you might consider as variations of the same thing, or just sub-optimal. Plus, I've stacked the deck a little by not being stupid and taking Brute Strike, Bruter Strike, and Even Bruter Strike as my daily powers. Regardless, most of them aren't bullshit, and they're all better than feint at a -1 modifier.

Wowzers, that IS impressive. And full of more bullshit that a thousand rodeos.

I can play that game, too. My 3.5 fighter simply takes Use Magic Device and quite literally has <b>the entire arcane and divine spell list</b> as an "option." I can Gate in a Solar, biatch! Eat Me!

Let's get real. Yes, of course a Fighter can do all of the basic actions that the rules allow. And?

[Psychic Robot]

Lol, I forgot that monsters had keywords. That's embarrassing.

[Neeeek]

Wowzers, that IS impressive. And full of more bullshit that a thousand rodeos.

I can play that game, too. My 3.5 fighter simply takes Use Magic Device and quite literally has <b>the entire arcane and divine spell list</b> as an "option." I can Gate in a Solar, biatch! Eat Me!

Let's get real. Yes, of course a Fighter can do all of the basic actions that the rules allow. And?

Hey, why go with UMD, when a 6th level human fighter with 13 Int has a total of 36 skill points? There are several skills, such as Heal, that allow several options just by having the skill. Add that to the 40 or so different things any character can do just by existing, and 41 is pretty pathetic.

[RandomCasualty2]

So, yes, in the hypothetical situation of having an ability that is indeed so awesome it fits all situations, you'd be right.

Apart from maxxing your ability at a combat maneuver such as grappling, I don't see having an ability like that, though.

Well it's not practically going to be one ability, but it may well be only 3-4.

Basically it amounts to.

-An ability you can use as a full melee attack.
-An ability you can use as part of a charge or a standard action
-An ability you can use at range.

If you're an archer, well you probably just always use the ranged one all the time.

A melee character probably wants an option for all of those.

Then maybe you've got a couple options like grapple, sunder or disarm that are optimal in specific situations, like when you're fighting casters or your'e fighting wizards or something.

But based on how 3.5 is set up, you aren't innately going to have many viable choices.

[Talisman]

Okay, I don't have the time just dow to deal with MartinHarper's list of options, but I will answer this:

Seriously I'm curious as to what realistic scenario where you'd want to use Aid another or fight with two weapons as a 3.5 fighter?

Aid Another: You're fighting something with high AC and high DR. Your buddy has a weapon that can bypass its DR; you don't. Your attacks do crap. Your buddy's attacks hurt it, but he's having a hard time hitting.

TWF: You're fighting a large number of opponents with crap AC and hp (the 3.5 version of mooks), and you don't have Cleave. Or some damn homebrew monster that takes 1 hp damage per hit, regardless of the power of that hit.

Are these situations common? No. Do they come up! Absolutely; I've experienced the first two myself.

The first was a gargoyle-thingy, and the barbarian had the only weapon that could hut it. My archer pulled his short sword and went to flank + aid another.

The second involved our low-level party against a horde of rats. The only reason my fighter didn't TWF was that my weapons at hand were a greatsword and a dagger...hard to TWF with a greatsword.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

...and you aren't flushing money down the drain like crazy on alchemists fire.

Alchemists fire costs 20 gp each, so 40 gp for a twf round. A 3.x character has 13 encounters to level up. You yourself say that 3e fights last an incredibly short amount of time, like 3-5 rounds (avg 4). Lets make the unreasonable assumption (as you always do) that you must use twf with thrown weapons one quarter of the time(1 rnd) to be an “effective option.” So that is a total of 40 gp x 13 encounters = 520 gp. A lvl 5 3e character has 9,000 gp. So in conclusion: The 3e Fighter can attack with twf thrown weapons ¼ of the time, doing more effective things than the 4e fighter can. The 3e fighter spends 5.7% of his gold on expendable items. A level appropriate 4e ritual costs 10% of a 4e characters wealth.

So, this 3e “flushing money down the drain” is 5.7% of his wealth when the 3e fighter uses ¼ of all his attacks for an entire level. The 4e fighter has padded sumo to contend with, and would spend 10% of his wealth to use a ritual once across possibly hundreds of rounds of attacks during one level. The 3e fighter wins by a fucking landslide.

My complaint is that the best way to play a 3.5 fighter is to constantly spam your best power. We already know you can do this, because all of the 3.5's abilities are at will. The only question is if you can come up with a list of at least equally useful or better options than just spamming your main attack.

When you bring up crap like TWF without proficiency, it just doesn't count because it's not something I would use instead of my main attack, regardless of circumstance.
…
Can you do the same for all the 3.5 fighter options you listed

Yes. You are missing the point. You see, a ranged attack is a ranged attack. 2 alchemists fire attacks average 14 damage across 2 rounds, plus splash damage, plus forced concentration checks from ongoing damage, plus illuminating the enemy. A Fighter longbow does 1d8+4, or an average of 8.5 damage to the alchemist fires 14. The alchemists fire is almost doubly effective damage wise, and you are also more likely to hit.

Your greatsword is going to be doing 2d6+10

An average of 2 Alchemists fire is 14 damage. Your greatsword average is 17 damage. There need to be 3 or more people in the splash area to exceed your greatsword damage with the alchemists fire. Your best example, is worse both at range, and situational in melee. And alchemists fire is the least effective compared to Tanglefoot bags and situational thunderstones.

Ok first, the splash damage is a joke. What are you fighting at 9th level that you'd even care about 1 splash damage?

I said low level. That is levels 1 to ~5. My example was level 5. How did you spring to lvl 9 when I stated low level? See my next comment about this “joke.”

This is just plain and simple creating an argument out of nothing. You're exaggerating everything the 3.5 guy can do and trying to put spin on it to make it seem useful.

"OMG, 1 splash damage, I am an AoE god!!!"

Your arguments are shit. A 4e level 1 skirmisher kobold has 27 hp. A 4e fighters cleave splash damage is 3. That would require 9 splash hits to adjacent enemies only to kill the kobold. A 3e kobold has 4 hp. Twf with alchemist fire does 2 splash damage plus lighting two kobolds on fire. So this “exaggerating everything the 3.5 guy can do” is actually 4 times more effective than the 4e fighter splash damage wise. Also, the 3e Fighter is outright killing 2 kobolds with direct hits.

The very fact that I've sent you frantically digging for any unlikely action or option you can use, no matter how crazy, inefficient or just plain unsound says something.

I have just proven you wrong on every point, and proven that the twf with thrown weapons at low level (1-5) is often more effective than other combat options including your greatsword attack.

To be clear, you consider the following to be “crazy fringe arguments like two weapon fighting” about the 3e Fighters effectiveness:
-The 3e Fighter doing more relative splash damage than the 4e fighter while using no class abilities. (And killing 2 opponents)
-The 3e Fighter Immobilizing 2 creatures in 1 full attack for an average of 5 rounds, while the 4e Fighters immobilization's usually last 1 round, and often affect only 1 target, and often are 1/daily or 1/encounter.
-The 3e Fighter Deafening 2 groups of enemies and possibly drastically reducing the effectiveness of groups of enemy casters (along with other tactics). The 4e Fighter can’t do this.

Also, keep in mind the following: I am scraping from the goddamn bottom of the shit pile of 3e here. I am using an example of a 3e Fighter two-weapon-fighting without the feats, and being more effective, more interesting, and having more options than a 4e Fighters class abilities. Additionally, these twf options are real, effective, valid, options for the 3e Fighter. End of argument.

RC, you have been proven wrong on every point. Your mocking "Omg" dumbass speak that you try to use to emphasize "obvious" points is just sad. You are dead wrong when you think you are making blantant idiot-proof statements. Hopefully collectives of other people who can think rationally and objectively will continue to correct you in my stead. It isn’t worth my time to keep up with your lies and misrepresentations.

[RandomCasualty2]

Aid Another: You're fighting something with high AC and high DR. Your buddy has a weapon that can bypass its DR; you don't. Your attacks do crap. Your buddy's attacks hurt it, but he's having a hard time hitting.

Give me a monster from the monster manual (any monster manual) where this is true. Cause honestly a well built 3.5 figther should almost always be better attacking.

I mean sure you can run into some kind of custom monster, but I don't want to justify options with weird aberrant puzzle monsters the DM created.

TWF: You're fighting a large number of opponents with crap AC and hp (the 3.5 version of mooks), and you don't have Cleave. Or some damn homebrew monster that takes 1 hp damage per hit, regardless of the power of that hit.

1 hit point monsters at level 9? I mean sure at level 1-2 you may fight rats or weak kobolds or something.. but at level 9?! seriously?

In 4E this would be valid since minions exist along all levels, but 3.5 there are no minions, at level 9 you're going to be fighting real monsters with a bunch of hp all the time.

And at low levels you don't even have the cash for a lot of alchemists fire, so you probably won't have it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Yes. You are missing the point. You see, a ranged attack is a ranged attack. 2 alchemists fire attacks average 14 damage across 2 rounds, plus splash damage, plus forced concentration checks from ongoing damage, plus illuminating the enemy. A Fighter longbow does 1d8+4, or an average of 8.5 damage to the alchemist fires 14. The alchemists fire is almost doubly effective damage wise, and you are also more likely to hit.

The problem is that if you're close enough to toss alchemists fire, you're close enough to charge. Alchemists fire has a godawful range increment.

And your greatsword will do more than 14 damage, and it'll do that much in one attack. Also you won't pay money to do that. And there's another concern. If you've got your sword out, which most fighters will. Are you just going to drop it to toss the alchemists fire? Cause seriously even if you've got quickdraw you can't sheath the blade, and you need your full attack to throw the weapons with WTF. If you're that close to your foe, you're going to just use your sword.

Maybe there's some weird edge case where this may be useful, like the enemy is on the edge of a 10 ft chasm and you don't want to risk jumping it, but it's going to be an ultrarare situation. So rare that it's doubtful you're going to bother preparing for it by buying the alchemist fire in the first place.

An average of 2 Alchemists fire is 14 damage. Your greatsword average is 17 damage. There need to be 3 or more people in the splash area to exceed your greatsword damage with the alchemists fire. Your best example, is worse both at range, and situational in melee. And alchemists fire is the least effective compared to Tanglefoot bags and situational thunderstones.

Even then, it's not very useful. In 3.5 you're better off killing a foe rather than just wounding him, so I'd rather do more direct damage to one foe, rather than a lot of inconsequential 1 pt splashes.

I said low level. That is levels 1 to ~5. My example was level 5. How did you spring to lvl 9 when I stated low level?

The fighter sample character I made that I'm using as a base of comparison was level 9. So I figured we'd be using a level 9 3.5 character against him. That only makes sense.

Here's a better question... how did you spring to level 5?

Your arguments are shit. A 4e level 1 skirmisher kobold has 27 hp. A 4e fighters cleave splash damage is 3.

Cleave isn't for main monsters it's for minions. Hit the big guy and then whack a minion, or kill two minions.

In case you're not familiar with 4E, minions always have 1 hp. Even at 9th level.

I have just proven you wrong on every point, and proven that the twf with thrown weapons at low level (1-5) is often more effective than other combat options including your greatsword attack.

You've shown that in an edge case the alchemists fires could be useful at low levels (which I wasn't even talking about).

Try showing the alchemists fire is good at level 9.

-The 3e Fighter doing more relative splash damage than the 4e fighter while using no class abilities. (And killing 2 opponents)

If you're a dragonborn fighter, you even get an area breathweapon, I mean I didn't even include racial powers either. And the 4E fighter gets whirlwind style attacks. Come and Get it power lets you actually suck in enemies and then attakc them all. You could drop a lot of minions that way.

-The 3e Fighter Immobilizing 2 creatures in 1 full attack for an average of 5 rounds, while the 4e Fighters immobilization's usually last 1 round, and often affect only 1 target, and often are 1/daily or 1/encounter.

And burning a lot of gold to do it. Note that my fighter didn't have to use any special equipment to do what he does. Your guy is blowing through consumables to utilize his options. Where are you getting the 50 gp to burn through like water? Are you saving up your money for magic items or full plate?

Not to mention a tanglefoot bag ain't gonna hold someone for an average of 5 rounds. Deal 15 damage to the goo and the hold breaks. What exactly are you trapping that can't do 15 damage in 2 rounds? Even at low levels, unless you're tanglefooting kobolds and rats... it isn't much of an issue.

-The 3e Fighter Deafening 2 groups of enemies and possibly drastically reducing the effectiveness of groups of enemy casters (along with other tactics). The 4e Fighter can’t do this.

I've honestly never found deafening people to be useful at all. A save for a 20% spell failure, you're seriously better off just readying a spell disruption wtih your bow, or just killing the wizard, at low levels one hit is likely going to do it.

RC, you have been proven wrong on every point. Your mocking "Omg" dumbass speak that you try to use to emphasize "obvious" points is just sad. You are dead wrong when you think you are making blantant idiot-proof statements. Hopefully collectives of other people who can think rationally and objectively will continue to correct you in my stead. It isn’t worth my time to keep up with your lies and misrepresentations.

What have I misrepresented. My build at least presents realistic choices that real people make while playing 4E.

Oh and if you want to get really technical, it takes a full round action to even prepare to throw a splash weapon (PHB 141) so the alchemists fire thing dual wielded would take 2 whole rounds to set up, even with quickdraw.

[Quantumboost]

Aid Another: You're fighting something with high AC and high DR. Your buddy has a weapon that can bypass its DR; you don't. Your attacks do crap. Your buddy's attacks hurt it, but he's having a hard time hitting.

Give me a monster from the monster manual (any monster manual) where this is true. Cause honestly a well built 3.5 figther should almost always be better attacking.

I mean sure you can run into some kind of custom monster, but I don't want to justify options with weird aberrant puzzle monsters the DM created.

Gargoyle. Monster Manual, page 113. Suppose a 2nd level party of 3-4 (CR 2 above makes this a reasonable fight according to the encounter system). You have two fighters (low-level only campaign, making fighter classes reasonable choices). One of them is an archer fighter, the other is a dwarf barbarian with maxed strength. There is also a noob cleric who they've given the pointer "dood cast magic weapon when we tell you to". The barbarian has a greatsword and 18 strength, and he chose power attack as his feat. Perhaps not the most optimized character, but whatever. The barbarian has a base +6 bonus to attack and has magic weapon on his greatsword. The barbarian has a 55% chance to hit the gargoyle's AC 16.

The archer has a nonmagical longbow and nonmagical arrows. He has a perfectly reasonable chance of hitting the gargoyle, but the DR 10/magic is severely cramping his style. He can (a) attack with the longbow, doing on average not many damage, or (b) assist the barbarian, giving a 60% chance (assuming 10 strength and no weapon finesse, meaning +2 to hit AC 10) to give +2 hit. This can be used to give effectively either 1.65 (3 from power attack * 55% chance to hit) damage or 10% of the barbarian's damage ( a solid 0.8 to 1.8 ). Aid Another, in that case, is a valid tactical option that gives reliable damage.

This isn't counting benefits from flanking either.

Now, in this particular case the alchemist's fire approach is even better, but the challenge was for a situation where it's better than straight attacking for a well-built fighter, and you don't seem to take an alchemist's fighter as "well-built".

TWF: You're fighting a large number of opponents with crap AC and hp (the 3.5 version of mooks), and you don't have Cleave. Or some damn homebrew monster that takes 1 hp damage per hit, regardless of the power of that hit.

1 hit point monsters at level 9? I mean sure at level 1-2 you may fight rats or weak kobolds or something.. but at level 9?! seriously?

He didn't say homebrew monsters that have one hit point.

He said homebrew monsters that take one damage from any hit regardless of power.

So a 9th-level Enlarged Magic Fanged Power Attacking Awakened Dire Velociraptor Rogue Sneak Attacking while on fire would still deal only 1 damage to said monster.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The problem is that if you're close enough to toss alchemists fire, you're close enough to charge. Alchemists fire has a godawful range increment.

And your greatsword will do more than 14 damage, and it'll do that much in one attack. Also you won't pay money to do that. And there's another concern. If you've got your sword out, which most fighters will. Are you just going to drop it to toss the alchemists fire? Cause seriously even if you've got quickdraw you can't sheath the blade, and you need your full attack to throw the weapons with WTF. If you're that close to your foe, you're going to just use your sword.

Maybe there's some weird edge case where this may be useful, like the enemy is on the edge of a 10 ft chasm and you don't want to risk jumping it, but it's going to be an ultrarare situation. So rare that it's doubtful ou're going to bother preparing for it by buying the alchemist fire in the first place.

Apparently you haven’t played any published adventures. Half-walls, smalls chasms, rope bridges, etc all are commonplace in low level 3e adventures. Your anecdotal evidence about it being “ultrarare” is irrelevant. It is a common convention.

Even then, it's not very useful. In 3.5 you're better off killing a foe rather than just wounding him, so I'd rather do more direct damage to one foe, rather than a lot of inconsequential 1 pt splashes.

At low levels: With a greatsword you kill one guy. With 2 alchemist fires you kill 2 guys and get splash damage.

You've shown that in an edge case the alchemists fires could be useful at low levels (which I wasn't even talking about).

I’ve shown that it isn’t an edge case. So you’ve admitted that a 3e fighter twfing without the feats can be useful. Done.

Try showing the alchemists fire is good at level 9.

At levels 6+ the Fighter does not get ItwF or Gtwf. That is the fault with the Twf mechanic itself, and not the fact that the 3e Fighter is Twf without the Twf feat. As proof of this levels 1-5 are still viable to Twf without the feats. If the fighter could attack at –4/-8 and still get the iterative off hand attacks, it would remain good. That said:

My math isn’t pretty, but I think this gets the point across:

-The average CR 9 monster has a Ac of 21-22. The Fighter 9 with a 2 dex mod has a +11/+6 hit bonus with a longbow. That means his attacks are at ~55%/~30%. The damage is 1d8+4 (avg 8.5). 55%x8.5 =4.7. 30%x8.5=2.55 For a total ~average of: 7.25 damage.
-The average CR 9 monster has a touch Ac of 10-11. The Fighter 9 with a 2 dex mod has a +11/+6 hit bonus with ranged touch attack. Twf (-4,-4,-8 ) he has attacks at: +7/+3/+2 That means his attacks are at ~90%/~70%/60%. The average damage is 7. 90%x7 =6.3.+ 70%x7=4.9.+60%x7=4.2 For a total ~average of: 15.4 damage. Plus splash, plus illumination, plus concentration checks.

Yes this is a ridiculous example. The damage values are so small that either choice is meaningless. But the point is, the alchemist fire is the better option over the bow. And that is all you care about, what the best option is. In any case the Fighter would be better off throwing tanglefoot bags, and gluing 3 people to the floor. Gluing 3 people is a better option than doing dumbass damage with a longbow. So Twf without the feats can be viable for at least half of the game.

And burning a lot of gold to do it.

We disagree then. I don’t think it is “a lot of gold” when a lvl 5 fighter makes ¼ of all his attacks during a level with consumables, and spends less than 10% of his gold to do so. As opposed to 4e where using a ritual once takes 10% of your gold (and is never regained).

Not to mention a tanglefoot bag ain't gonna hold someone for an average of 5 rounds. Deal 15 damage to the goo and the hold breaks. What exactly are you trapping that can't do 15 damage in 2 rounds? Even at low levels, unless you're tanglefooting kobolds and rats... it isn't much of an issue.

It isn’t much of an issue that your single Fighter spends 1 round to negate 2-4 rounds of enemy actions? You are flat out wrong here. Anytime the party outnumbers their enemies (and sometimes when they don’t) throwing tanglefoot bags is an effective tactic.

I've honestly never found deafening people to be useful at all. A save for a 20% spell failure, you're seriously better off just readying a spell disruption wtih your bow, or just killing the wizard, at low levels one hit is likely going to do it.

In some adventures and campaigns it is common to encounter cults. Cults are often made up of low level casters. Spending 1 turn to Deafen 6+, or even a dozen casters is a good deal. Especially if you can’t close to melee with them on the first round. Also, thunderstones are useful when using team tactics. Silent Image or Obscuring Mist +Thunderstones = effectively blind and deaf enemies. That can be a worthy contribution by the fighter.

Oh and if you want to get really technical, it takes a full round action to even prepare to throw a splash weapon (PHB 141) so the alchemists fire thing dual wielded would take 2 whole rounds to set up, even with quickdraw.

I’ll just make a list of possible response to that:
-I can find nowhere that says what "preparing" is. There is no stipulation on how or when it must be "prepared." RAW, it appears you could "prepare" the splash weapons before the adventure, long before you got into a fight.
-Text trumps table. It is not mentioned anywhere else, so one might argue that it isn’t valid (I wouldn’t, but it is an argument. I also haven't checked the errata to see if it is changed)
-3.0 doesn’t have that restriction. We are arguing 3e/3.x/3.5, so its half wrong/half right.
-I argued using it once a fight. You simply “prepare” it before the fight, and hold it in your hands. As you are most likely to use splash weapons on round 1 (ranged, can’t reach with melee, concentration checks) it is mostly irrelevant.
-That still leaves Tanglefoot bags (which are the best anyways) and Thunderstones.

Other arguments: We are not even discussing damage reduction with alchemist fire yet. Fire vs cold subtype creatures. Holy water vs undead and outsiders with damage reduction. Incoporeal undead. Yes, it is a valid tactic.

[Draco_Argentum]

7. Attack two mobs at once.

You mean like the 3.x fighter at level 6+? Attack one guy twice or two guys once but only if you don't move. Which one should I hit with the +6 and which with the +1?

I really don't think you're helping your case since a lot of your listed options are things that every 3.x fighter gets.

Essentially the two have similar numbers of options, most of which aren't that exciting.

[Edit] Tags [/Edit]

[Kaelik]

Just to add in on the whole "Are you going to drop you Greatsword to pull out those throwing weapons?" Note.

What 3.5 Fighter with Quickdraw and half a brain ever has a weapon drawn when the fight starts? Seriously now.

EDIT: Thought of an answer to my own question, A spiked Chain wielder with Combat Reflexes.

Can we add, making AoO at range greater then 5ft to our list of super awesome options that a 3.5 Fighter has?

[RandomCasualty2]

At low levels: With a greatsword you kill one guy. With 2 alchemist fires you kill 2 guys and get splash damage.

Actually, that's pretty unlikely. Unless you want to burn alchemist's fire on really weak creatures. But honestly, if you're fighting kobolds why waste the 40 gold for two alchemist fires?

I’ve shown that it isn’t an edge case. So you’ve admitted that a 3e fighter twfing without the feats can be useful. Done.

I still say it's a very rare edge case. Because you have to have:

-Some kind of terrain feature that leaves you 10-20 ft away at the start of your turn, yet unable to charge or move into melee (remember it takes a FULL attack to throw two fires), and the range increment is horrible.

-You have to be at low level, but somehow have burned lots of money on alchemists fires. While conceivable, it's pretty unlikely. Fighters generally have much better stuff to save up for and can't afford to frivalously light gold on fire.

-You assume your DM ignores the rule that it's full action to prepare a splash weapon. Granted most DMs do this, but if you want to toss out anecdotal evidence, then we just have to go by the RAW. And technically full action to prepare a splash weapon is RAW. It is uncontradicted anywhere in the rules that I could find.

-The average CR 9 monster has a Ac of 21-22. The Fighter 9 with a 2 dex mod has a +11/+6 hit bonus with a longbow. That means his attacks are at ~55%/~30%. The damage is 1d8+4 (avg 8.5). 55%x8.5 =4.7. 30%x8.5=2.55 For a total ~average of: 7.25 damage.

Only 1d8+4? Surely he will have a belt to boost his strength by then. So he's going to do at least 1d8+6.

Yes this is a ridiculous example. The damage values are so small that either choice is meaningless. But the point is, the alchemist fire is the better option over the bow. And that is all you care about, what the best option is. In any case the Fighter would be better off throwing tanglefoot bags, and gluing 3 people to the floor. Gluing 3 people is a better option than doing dumbass damage with a longbow. So Twf without the feats can be viable for at least half of the game.

Tanglefoot bags again aren't nearly as good as you thin, because of the weak range involved. You've got to start your turn within 10-20 ft but not in melee. That's not going to happen often, in fact, I very rarely ever see it happen for a fighter, who is going to be a frontliner.

But I'm going to give it to you that in some rare circumstances they might be useful, assuming you could meet the criteria, but honestly, that's more of a rogue option instead of a fighter option, because rogues have better dex and are more likely to not be directly on the front lines. So it's pretty likely that your group will give the rogue the tanglefoots.

But because it is technically plausible but unlikely, I'll let you add immobilized as one of the status conditions that your fighter can dish out.

Other arguments: We are not even discussing damage reduction with alchemist fire yet. Fire vs cold subtype creatures. Holy water vs undead and outsiders with damage reduction. Incoporeal undead. Yes, it is a valid tactic.

DR actually isn't relevant here, because it isn't necessary that alchemists fire is effective in every case, only that it's your most effective thing to do in some cases that could plausibly happen enough that we care about.