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

[Talisman]

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.

All right; I'm done arguing with you. You've clearly made up your mind, and to hell with silly things like "facts" or "logic." You seem determined to deny any and all arguments that contradict yours, no matter how well-reasoned.

You asked for examples; I gave you examples (from games I've actually played, no less...these aren't even theoretical). Your response is to deny that these situations - which, again, actually happened to me personally - could ever come about.

Have fun in Magical 4e Happy Sunshine Land.

[CatharzGodfoot]

-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.

"Prepare to throw a splash weapon" is listed as a full-round action in the 3.5e PHB, but there is never a description of what 'preparing to throw a splash weapon' does. There is a note on the actions table, "(page 158)". On page 158, we are told that "To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don't take the -4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target". Nothing is said about preparing anything. Preparing to throw a splash weapon is unfortunately also not described as an action in the SRD.

Preparation of a splash weapon is only described one in the PHB, and that is under the description of "oil":

A pint of oil burns for 6 hours in a lantern. You can use a flask of oil as a splash weapon. Use the rules for alchemist’s fire, except that it takes a full round action to prepare a flask with a fuse. Once it is thrown, there is a 50% chance of the flask igniting successfully.

From this it seems reasonable to conclude that the "prepare to throw a splash weapon" action applies only to using a flask of oil, as the 'preparation' is an explicit exception to the general rule. Perhaps the description on the actions table should have been "prepare to throw as[/i] a splash weapon".

[MartinHarper]

Can we either compare level 1 or level 9, but not both at once?

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

[W]+str damage is still better than zero, so you still want a ranged weapon for open battles, being immobilised, and awkward terrain. It's a once-per-level type of option, though, rather than a once-per-fight type of option. DM-dependant too.

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?

Yep, mostly like that. You can take a minor and a move action too (and an action point action) but otherwise the same deal.
One difference is that the 3e fighter will almost always use that full attack to focus on a single target till it drops. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.The 4e fighter might legitimately use cleave to drop minions while keeping the boss marked, and so forth.

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.

Right. And a lot of the options Talisman listed for the 3e fighter are things that every 4e fighter gets. Like feint. So, meh.

The 4e design goal, as I recall, was that every character had realistic options, but no character was "overwhelmed by options". Which is fine, unless you're a d&d veteran, and you weren't overwhelmed each morning by playing a 3e cleric, in which case 4e sucks.

[Tydanosaurus]

Can we either compare level 1 or level 9, but not both at once?

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

[W]+str damage is still better than zero, so you still want a ranged weapon for open battles, being immobilised, and awkward terrain. It's a once-per-level type of option, though, rather than a once-per-fight type of option. DM-dependant too.

First, no, it's not really much better than zero. Once you're past the early levels, you're just making the game take longer, and it takes long enough as it is. The Warlock will just look hot death at you, and say, "Really? You wasted 30 second of my life for THAT?"

Second, wrong math. Because you're not using your +6 Bastard Sword of Ass-Kicking, you're off the RNG. That means you lose. You hit on, oh, a 15 or better. Maybe. You also had to blow an extra feat to get proficient in another weapon, or go even further off the RNG. Which means, yet again, you lose.

And then, finally, any opponent for which range matters stays either at long range, putting you further off the RNG, or out of range completely.

* * *

To sum up:

RANGED FIGHTERS SUCK. Sorry to shout, but you don't seem to get it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Right. And a lot of the options Talisman listed for the 3e fighter are things that every 4e fighter gets. Like feint. So, meh.

The 4e design goal, as I recall, was that every character had realistic options, but no character was "overwhelmed by options". Which is fine, unless you're a d&d veteran, and you weren't overwhelmed each morning by playing a 3e cleric, in which case 4e sucks.

Yeah, pretty much the 3.5 fighter had a lot of options if you just want to count the raw number, but most of them were just crap or used in such a specialized situation that they may come up like once or twice in your character's career.

The bottom line is that the 4E fighter has probably like 6-10 options that he's using each adventure and the 3.5 fighter is going to 95% of the time just spam either full attack or charge. Yeah, in theory, there's other things you could do, but realistically, full attack or charge is going to account for almost all your actions.

[Neeeek]

Yep, mostly like that. You can take a minor and a move action too (and an action point action) but otherwise the same deal.
One difference is that the 3e fighter will almost always use that full attack to focus on a single target till it drops. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.The 4e fighter might legitimately use cleave to drop minions while keeping the boss marked, and so forth.

It depends heavily on the 3e fighter. If they have Cleave, they could very well smack someone else then hit the big boss. Other feats might produce other tactics.

[MartinHarper]

We're talking about level 9, so no +6 swords. More like +1/+2.
Fighters are proficient at all ranged weapons except shuriken (which suck). The only feat you might spend is Quick Draw, so you can switch to your Longbow/Javelin more easily.

Ranged fighters suck. I'm talking about a melee fighter who carries a ranged weapon, and uses it when there's nothing better to do.

Edit: Cleave still isn't an option, because it's always-on. The 3e fighter does have options like "do I hit the boss, or his unnamed henchman". So does the 4e fighter.

[Neeeek]

The bottom line is that the 4E fighter has probably like 6-10 options that he's using each adventure and the 3.5 fighter is going to 95% of the time just spam either full attack or charge. Yeah, in theory, there's other things you could do, but realistically, full attack or charge is going to account for almost all your actions.

Not in my experience with 3e. Have you ever considered that maybe you are just tactically inept?

[RandomCasualty2]

Not in my experience with 3e. Have you ever considered that maybe you are just tactically inept?

Well, I myself haven't played a fighter in 3.5 at all. I personally find them shitty and not worth playing. I do have PCs though who play in my games who use fighter types and pretty much it involves spamming the same few tactics.

I've seen some of the following archetypes:

-The shock trooper charger : effective charge + full attacks after he had closed.

-The spring attack mobility fighter : a crap ton of speed and the spring attack tree from PHB2, so he was making effectively full attacks while moving. Combined with massive movement, he could be out of the room by the time the other guy acted.

-The straight up bruiser: His main strength was just full attacks. Charge into battle, then start full attacking.

-Spiked chain tripmonkey: He spammed trips. Big surprise there.

Now these were all high level characters. It's been awhile since i've done low level stuff. At high levels, I have to say I just don't see many options being employed and all the 3.5 fighters I've seen spammed.

And these weren't ineffective characters, they actually did quite well, so I'm not inclined to write off the players as just doing a shitty job. They were beating stuff of their CR with basically minimal help from the wizard, and at high levels. So that wasn't too bad.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Edit: Cleave still isn't an option, because it's always-on. The 3e fighter does have options like "do I hit the boss, or his unnamed henchman". So does the 4e fighter.

Is it really? Don't you have to declare which attack power you're using before rolling?

EDIT: And there's no trigger listed for Cleave, either.

[Talisman]

EDIT: And there's no trigger listed for Cleave, either.

Cleave is triggered when you "drop" an opponent. However...

..."Drop" is never defined. Most GMs assume it means "reduce to -1 hp or less," but "trip" seems to be a semi-valid interpretation.

Here's a thought. 3.x fighters appear to have fewer options because it's actually possible to keep repeating an effective tactic.

4e fighters appear to have more options because, due to encounter/daily powers, you are forced to vary your tactics. You can't spam attacks (aside from at-wills), even if that would be the best thing to do.

Conclusion: 4e provides the enforced illusion of more options.

[Voss]

The 4e design goal, as I recall, was that every character had realistic options, but no character was "overwhelmed by options". Which is fine, unless you're a d&d veteran, and you weren't overwhelmed each morning by playing a 3e cleric, in which case 4e sucks.

Feel free to change 'D&D veteran' to 'not a fucking moron' and I think you've got an argument.

4e: D&D for Morons.

[RandomCasualty2]

Here's a thought. 3.x fighters appear to have fewer options because it's actually possible to keep repeating an effective tactic.

4e fighters appear to have more options because, due to encounter/daily powers, you are forced to vary your tactics. You can't spam attacks (aside from at-wills), even if that would be the best thing to do.

Conclusion: 4e provides the enforced illusion of more options.

I wouldn't say it's exactly an illusion. Literally speaking, you have a greater number of options. But on a practical level, many of those options just aren't useful.

It's muhc like saying that a sorceress specialized in fire wall in Diablo 2 can also use her rank 1 firebolt and fireball. That statement is of course true in a purely literal sense, however making use of either of those would be just plain stupid.

So yeah, you could cast other stuff if you wanted to, but in the actual game, you just spam firewalls.

And that's what usually happens in a game that has all at will powers. You're just going to keep spamming the same thing.

Resource depletion forces more options in its very nature, because when certain options can "run out" you're automatically forced to use other options.

There are various of systems out there to try to add more options to the game to try to prevent the spamming issue. Card drawing is one of them. instead of having all your options up front, you have to draw the right card to activate your option. This effectively forces you to use different things as well.

Unfortunately 3.5 fighters don't have any antispam controls. This does mean that they're going to use a much less wide range of options because they can take something that works well and just spam it.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

EDIT: And there's no trigger listed for Cleave, either.

Cleave is triggered when you "drop" an opponent. However...

..."Drop" is never defined. Most GMs assume it means "reduce to -1 hp or less," but "trip" seems to be a semi-valid interpretation.

I was confused about whether we were talking about 3.x or 4e. Apparently, Martin was arguing that Cleave is an option for 4e fighters but not for 3.x fighters because Cleave kicks in after a triggering event, rather than being a choice. On that point, he's right.

Here's a thought. 3.x fighters appear to have fewer options because it's actually possible to keep repeating an effective tactic.

4e fighters appear to have more options because, due to encounter/daily powers, you are forced to vary your tactics. You can't spam attacks (aside from at-wills), even if that would be the best thing to do.

Conclusion: 4e provides the enforced illusion of more options.

I would agree with this analysis. Under RC's logic (an option must be your best choice in some commonly occurring situation to count), nobody is ever going to have a huge number of "valid options." 4e creates variety by keeping you from spamming your most awesome attack, but variety doesn't necessarily mean options.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

4e creates variety by keeping you from spamming your most awesome attack, but variety doesn't necessarily mean options.

But then we showed how as levels progress, you're going to more often spend several rounds making the choice between one o two at-wills you're going to spam for the rest of combat. Once you hit paragon tier, as levels go up you spend more time in combat doing the same bullshit over and over.

So, what the fuck?

[RandomCasualty2]

But then we showed how as levels progress, you're going to more often spend several rounds making the choice between one o two at-wills you're going to spam for the rest of combat. Once you hit paragon tier, as levels go up you spend more time in combat doing the same bullshit over and over.

So, what the fuck?

There's a point after 3-5 rounds of combat where you're tapped out of encounter and daily, and now you're stuck with at wills. So yeah, rounds 5-8 may be spent spamming at wills.

But that's actually where the 3.5 fighter begins. He only has at wills, so right at the start of round 1 he's stuck spamming them.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

4e creates variety by keeping you from spamming your most awesome attack, but variety doesn't necessarily mean options.

But then we showed how as levels progress, you're going to more often spend several rounds making the choice between one o two at-wills you're going to spam for the rest of combat. Once you hit paragon tier, as levels go up you spend more time in combat doing the same bullshit over and over.

So, what the fuck?

I was actually agreeing with you and saying that RC's "more options" aren't really "options" in the sense of choices. Basically, RC is arguing that being forced to use different powers because your objectively best option is taken off the table equals more tactical options. I'm arguing that variety != options, or at least that this is not automatically so.

[Bigode]

Resource depletion forces more options in its very nature, because when certain options can "run out" you're automatically forced to use other options.

(emphasis mine)

---

Also, I suggest (may do myself if nobody takes it until I get a decent copy of the 4E PHB) a comparison between a 3.5 fighter 20 and a 4E fighter 30, with everything they have. That conserves the level scale, while pushing both where they supposedly have the most options.

Part of the reason's that, IIRC, the 4E ability gain rate sucks, so I think 3.5 would win. And if the 3.5 fighter does win, think about this: 4E could've made by kicking spellcasters and monsters down to the 3.5 fighter's level, and that might be an interesting tactical game. But it seems everyone was kicked to below the least interesting classes of the past edition, and I'd wager below the most interesting classes of any previous edition.

[Psychic Robot]

But that's actually where the 3.5 fighter begins. He only has at wills, so right at the start of round 1 he's stuck spamming them.

What if those at-wills are better than the 4e fighter's dailies?

[Tydanosaurus]

But then we showed how as levels progress, you're going to more often spend several rounds making the choice between one o two at-wills you're going to spam for the rest of combat. Once you hit paragon tier, as levels go up you spend more time in combat doing the same bullshit over and over.

So, what the fuck?

There's a point after 3-5 rounds of combat where you're tapped out of encounter and daily, and now you're stuck with at wills. So yeah, rounds 5-8 may be spent spamming at wills.

But that's actually where the 3.5 fighter begins. He only has at wills, so right at the start of round 1 he's stuck spamming them.

So really, the quick fix to 3.5 was to quadruple the effects of all the Fighter abilites, and make them usable only once per day. That's what everybody was screaming for at the time, right?

[Bigode]

The more I look at the Demigod, the more I like it. The crowning level 30 ability, that to never run out of encounter powers, is as sweet and flavorful as anything you're ever going to get in 4th Edition D&D.

The game doesn't work at level 30 as long as the Demigod's epic power isn't errataed to something more reasonable.

[Psychic Robot]

Yeah, he's an idiot. I think he's the 4equivalent of Lich-Loved.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Not really. Lich-Loved only thought fighters should be underpowered. I doubt he'd have a problem with people one step from apotheosis doing something useful.

[Psychic Robot]

Not really. Lich-Loved only thought fighters should be underpowered. I doubt he'd have a problem with people one step from apotheosis doing something useful.

I just meant in terms of general retardation. Lots of words, no...anything else.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

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?

Fighting things like kobolds, orcs, goblins, and skeletons at low level is “pretty unlikely?” Now I know you are not judging the situation in a default dnd setting. Why waste the gold? Either because the situation appears dire enough, or the “wasted” gold wouldn’t put much of a dent in your pocket (lvl 5 gold example again).

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.
…
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.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be in the first range increment. Lets use a specific real example of a 3e Fighter. Basically, with few exceptions, only chargers keep up. Small sized chargers are common, so lets use an example of a level 5 mounted halfling charger. He puts an 18 into Str and a 16 into dex. Racial mods change it to a 16 Str and a 18 dex.

His ranged thrown attack bonus is: 5 bab +1 size +4 dex +1 racial= +11. If you wanted to keep similar %’s as my first post on the subject, you could go down to +3/-1. This allows you to use touch thrown weapons effectively up to 30 ft. Remember, the average damage with the alchemist fire is 14+splash, while the composite shortbow is 7.5.

Yes, this example is specific. But it is also real and common, and it isn’t the only way to nudge your ranged attack bonus a few notches.

-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.

See level 5 gold example. Again.

-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.

See Catharz’s post. Also read my counterarguments again. Your argument is the weaker one.

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.

Fine. The alchemist fire still does more damage.

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.

Your counterargument to the fact that it is sometimes effective for a Fighter to Twf without the feat, is to compare it to the Rogue.

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.

Yay. So our shit 3e example of a low lvl Fighter Twf without the feats allows him to immobilize two creatures at range (possibly for multiple rounds). Which is better than what a low level 4e Fighter can do.

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.

…Ok. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Sometimes you fight creatures with DR, and your greatsword damage is lessened, making alchemist fire more effective. So why isn’t it relevant?