<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">a) Feats can give balance - ie I take "Iron will", "Lightning reflexes", Mobility etc ... <br/>suddenly my saving throws are hot - also exotic weapon profficency - Repeating X-bow - and perhaps a feat or two to be nastier with it - and spend some cash on nasty bolts.<br/>Suddenly what I can dish out at range very accurately mind you - is brutal.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Using the feats to fan out and cover weaknesses is only an asset if a character first has an ability that can contribute in a level-appropriate manner.  Shoring up the will saves of a competent melee force is one thing.  Shoring up the will saves of someone who is incapable of melee, and who doesn't have anything she's actually good at?  Not so much.  There's a mile's difference between, "Here is a defensive juggernaut, and now, we shall patch up one of the biggest chinks in her armor with a boost to will saves," and, "Here's +2 to saves, but you still can't fight worth anything."<br/><br/>And the repeating crossbow ain't much of an asset; the rules really screw over crossbows a great deal if you don't go all out in making them work.  Just having one with possibly a couple feats?  Not much.  Let's say you grab Point Blank Shot and Crossbow Sniper.  You're dealing 1d8+2 damage at long range, 1d8+3 close, with good accuracy.  That's a trick appropriate for a level 1 or 2 character.  It's comparable to Magic Missile.  But at level 6?  Level 10?  Level 14?  Unless you're pouring a lot more into making that repeating crossbow effective, it's going to become obsolete<em>fast</em>.  And that's the problem.  Fighters who diversify end up with two or three tricks appropriate for level 8 characters at level 16, with a net result of inefficacy.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">b) My armor class I can get nasty ... and 1 or 2 points difference means a lot.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Decent armor class is of some use at low levels, but fast becomes obsolete and requires more and more investment to stay relevant until, eventually, you get to the point where if you don't have some serious spell power boosting your AC, it's pretty much impossible to keep pace against monsters that are actually dangerous.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">c) I can get the feat "leadership" ... where people start being loyal under me - like a bunch of henchmen..  if i equip them and tell them to specialise this way or that.... is me and bunch of nasties I can round out however which way compliments my weaknesses<br/>ie they are all experts using repeating xboxs and have point blank shot, precise shot, fast reload / shot on the run / whatever and a bunch of nasty arrows to boot (if they are fighters )... if they are different classes - all the better</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>You could use Leadership to excuse a Commoner.  It's not that the character is any good.  It's that Leadership is a ridiculously powerful feat.  What's more, even then, the mob of archers ain't much good.  They're going to get killed en masse, and they're very easily shut down.  A spot of DR they can't get past and those arrows are useless.  At higher levels, those level 1 and 2 minions stop being relevant at all.  Plus, Leadership as a combat feat has the<em>massive</em>drawback in that it strangles the game.  Throwing in an extra dozen characters who need to be directed and have their turns?  Yeah, that slows things down.  It's a logistical feat, save for the cohort.  And if the Fighter can only fight because of the Cleric cohort, guess who the<em>actual</em>effective character is in that relationship.<br/><br/>Besides, Benny's stated goal is to build up her clan.  If the feat's allowed, she's taking Leadership for that, herself.  Toss in Might Makes Right and she can get a pretty hefty leadership score.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">d) I <strong>want </strong>to play a character that isn't disciplined, with a fighting style that is very impromptu and doesn't really look graceful but more opportunistic and dirty, just shy of a barbarian - as doing so gives me a lot of RP freedom. I can "let my hair down".</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Irrelevant.  Such a fighting style does not require inefficacy.  You can have that fighting style and still have a character who's actually effective, you can have that RP freedom with a character who's capable of fighting.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">e) Nara's attitude will outshine and outlook of life is her ability. If it she liked by other players .. then her abilities happen to be what they do which is in her best interest.... <br/><br/>"hey witch can you blast this beasty please ? My swords wont do much against something like that"<br/><br/>"Sure hon take that beasty !"</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>"Active liability," "XP sponge," and, "load," are not contributions.  Nara is not the other party members.  The other party members' contributions are not Nara.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">f) What do I add to a team as I am ? - well when my team is walking through a confined cave or building ... my two short swords have options... if your character can't have the room to swing she aint that hot, if others get under your guard - loose your sword - you character is disadvantaged. </blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>While those scenes have basis in real-world logic, they have little to no basis within the rules.  If I have my five-foot square, I can swing my sword.  The only version of getting "under her guard" that exists is her low AC.  If your character loses<em>her</em>swords, she'd be even more disadvantaged than Benny, which is a non-issue, and she carries extra weapons anyways.  And the two short swords<em>don't</em>give any options; Nara has the same full attack/trip/disarm/bull rush/charge/blah array as everyone else.  She's just not any good at it because the rules actively screw dual-wielders who don't have a solid source of extra damage.  The vision may be good, but the way it's translated in the rules?  Not so much.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Even if your character has the advantage of position - like on top of a hill and can swing like there is no tomorrow ... I can try and keep a distance and start throwing daggers.... until I have my repeating xbow.... then lights-out-lady :)</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Except Nara isn't very good at either.  Yes, she<em>can</em>do ranged combat, but she doesn't have any abilities that make her<em>good</em>at ranged combat.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Your warblade is powerful - and outclasses mine under many conditions yes ! <br/>But all things battle related ? No.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>That Nara outperforms Benny in things Benny is absolutely terrible at and doesn't even care about does not mean she is decent at them.  Yes, Benny has weaknesses.  That's not what's being discussed.  Benny has actual<em>strengths</em>that can be brought to bear and that can actually win.  Namely, lots and lots of damage.  Nara is in a weak class using the weakest fighting style available to that class and fanning out to marginal effectiveness in unrelated fields, to the point where she doesn't<em>have</em>strengths to capitalize on.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359513#msg2359513">Quote from: Kate on 20-10-2009, 05:49:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">if intelligent creatures have seen you drop 4 of their buddies and saw me only drop 1 ... <br/>andyour sword is like a whirlind of "hello give me attention" ... to your way <br/>they send their nastiest options ... and with a sword 10 feet tall ... <br/>sneaking about doing cloak and dagger stuff aint easy....</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Except that's<em>not</em>a weakness for Benny, nor is it a strength for Nara..  It's a case where Benny's actually a threat, and Nara isn't.  Being ignored because you're irrelevant is not an advantage; it means you're irrelevant.  It's a manifestation of weakness.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359920#msg2359920">Quote from: Odin on 20-10-2009, 10:54:44</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Meet my friend's fighter, Ginny, she was like a mountain of Mithral at level 5. Basically I have to agree. More over I have found out some things. </blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Looking at the build (and ignoring the fact that Powerful Build is not a feat and cannot be taken as such), she's taking the conventional path that is punished least for Fighters; zweihander slaughterbot.  And she's at the very tail end of conventional Fighter effectiveness, even in that niche.  Even then, I doubt she could manage a 50/50 success rate against an elephant, which is about where a melee character should be by that level.  A few more levels, and she won't be able to stand against level-appropriate enemies.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359920#msg2359920">Quote from: Odin on 20-10-2009, 10:54:44</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">1. CR is meant for a 4 person party, so your example about a character standing alone toe to toe with an enemy of equal level is wrong. After all, how many level 20 characters can solo level 20 monsters? This is pretty much stated in the DMG. </blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Actually,<em>many</em>level 20 characters can solo level 20 monsters.  You have the classic level 10 character casting Fly and sniping the tarrasque to death.  Though at level 20, the CR system tends to fall apart, and ninth-level spells are pretty godlike; level 16 or so is a better cutoff.<br/><br/>The CR system is meant for parties.  Period.  Whether they're one-person parties or twelve-person parties.  In short?  A lone level X character (above a certain level) is a level X-4 party, and thus they're supposed to be able to take on a CR X challenge with a 50% success rate, assuming it's a reasonable test of their abilities (such as a melee type going against a melee monster).<br/><br/>In long?  A CR X encounter is not meant to stand a legitimate chance of defeating the party; rather, it's supposed to stand a legitimate chance of mildly inconveniencing the party.  The CR of an encounter that can meet the party on equal footing and stand an even chance of defeating them is X+4, which is the encounter level of four CR X creatures.<br/><br/>So, four CR X creatures against four party members is an extremely difficult encounter that ought to stand an even chance of winning against the party.  This party may have their own synergies and cooperation, but so might the monsters; the party may have a melee type, a ranged type, a support type, and a spell slinger, but so might the monsters.  Thus, in this situation, every party member ought to contribute as much to their party's success as the monster that best corresponds to their own role.  As such, a level 10 Fighter ought to be able to contribute as much as a melee'r as a CR10 fire giant.  They should be approximate equals.<br/><br/>Now, if you remove the allies from the equation, and make it a straight duel between the Fighter and the fire giant, then<em>yes</em>the Fighter has lost her party's support, but so has the fire giant.  That's fair.  They're both melee types, they're both playing to each others' strengths.  That's fair.  The Fighter ought to have about a 50/50 chance of winning that duel.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2359920#msg2359920">Quote from: Odin on 20-10-2009, 10:54:44</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">2. Prestige classes wouldn't exist if other classes didn't lose their usefulness in some campaign. Its a way for classes to become diverse and branch out from their original path. Fighters, for instance can take many paths, a prestige class is just one of them (and many classes can take them) but if you didn't start out a fighter in some cases you might never earn enough feats to do so.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>Except, if other classes were supposed to lose steam after a few levels, why would they have twenty levels?  And very few classes require a huge number of feats, enough to justify more than two levels of Fighter, particularly when flaws come into play.  And even<em>with</em>prestige classes, conventional melee has very few options to actually succeed; they need some<em>serious</em>optimization to even work; more and more at every level.<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2360202#msg2360202">Quote from: Zylvyn on 20-10-2009, 16:00:27</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I do sort of agree that splitting between ranged and melee abilities is sort of lackluster, more oft than not, especially since fighters tend to be the meat shields for the party.  But in a group that doesn't have much range, and perhaps does have more melee (other melee) it would be more justified to start training your ranged abilities...but I'd probably do that by taking a level in another class...<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>"Meat shield" ultimately isn't a party role in D&D.  At least, not one that's performed by anyone whose life you value.  The meat shield ultimately<em>will</em>die against anything that can actually threaten the party, if only due to the law of averages.  It's something you use expendable mooks to do, like summons.  Battlefield control spells, like Web and Grease are<em>much</em>better at it because no one has the job of eating attack after attack, then.  And D&D favors offense over defense tremendously; the best way to protect yourself from the enemy is to kill/disable the enemy.<br/><br/>One thing the Fighter actually does pretty well is dedicated archery.  The problem is, the Fighter's competing with the vanilla Ranger for status as a decent archer, may just<em>barely</em>squeak ahead in that one field, while Rangers bring all these other things to the table and<em>still</em>end up lackluster past the early levels without something big (like, say, Swift Hunter).