PDA

View Full Version : A honest question about the Fighter?



DrewVolker
2010-07-13, 07:04 PM
I see a lot of people saying fighter is the weakest class.
And even when it got upgraded in pathfinder, people still say its pretty weak.

I just want to know, why specificly is the fighter weak?
If someone could give me a reason for both normal 3.5 dnd, and one for pathfinder, I'd be most apreciative.

Thanks in advance ;D

mrcarter11
2010-07-13, 07:09 PM
in 3.5 its the fact that the fighter's main job is to kill things. Which many other classes do a lot better then him in upper levels. And then you add the fact that a fighter can't do much outside of combat while other classes have many uses outside of combat. So I guess it's the lack of versatility and being worse then others at his prime job.

PId6
2010-07-13, 07:11 PM
Fighter is not the weakest class. In core, that honor belongs to the monk. Out of core, probably the truenamer. It's actually a pretty high tier 5, which can become tier 4 with ACFs.

However, the problem of fighter is that it's A) fairly boring (its class feature consists entirely of feats, and all it does is full attack every round), and B) not very versatile (again, all it does is attack). Ultimately, a fighter can charge to deal lots and lots of damage, or control the battlefield with Standstill/trip, or bull rush everything into pieces, but it can only focus on one trick at a time and can rarely do more than one or two things all that well.

Pathfinder doesn't really change much about this. It gives a few boosts, but all of those are simple and minor numerical boosts; the lack of options doesn't really change at all.

lsfreak
2010-07-13, 07:13 PM
You options. If you face someone who teleports, what do you do? If you face someone who's flying, what do you do? If you get a solid fog dropped on you, what do you do? How about negotiation between rival nations? Someone with untouchable AC? Hits so hard you can't face it directly? Finding someone invisible?

The problem with a fighter is that he does one thing and one thing only - hits someone with a big stick. If the situation can be solved by beating someone with a stick, but it's just someone standing there in the open willing to trade hits back, fighters are effectively useless. If it's can't be solved by hitting it with a big stick, fighters are useless.

Take someone like a bard, though. They've got the skills to fight decently in hand-to-hand, but they've also got got spells and skill points to spend on social stuff. They've got the skill points to spend on things like Spot and Listen - even cross-class - to pinpoint people who are hiding. If they find themselves in a situation where they can't use all that other stuff, they can buff their allies (and they can buff their allies with everything else, as well).

Weakness in D&D isn't about number. A fighter can drop enough damage to one-shot the tarrasque. It's all about versatility, being able to do a lot of things, and fighters just don't do that. The closest you get is a fighter with Dungeoncrasher (Dungeonscape) and Zhentarim (Champions of Valor), which can target regular AC, can do damage with an opposed Strength check, and can lock someone out of a fight with Intimidation.

EDIT: The fact that everything comes down to "I charge and hit something" and "I full attack and hit something" gets very boring too. Guys like ToB classes basically still just hit stuff, but they've got more options when hitting stuff.

gallagher
2010-07-13, 07:15 PM
the Fighter is actually one of the strongest classes when played correctly

and by playing it correctly, i mean rolling up a warblade and call it a fighter.

Yorrin
2010-07-13, 07:18 PM
To echo Pid6, fighters are very limited. There are only a small handful of decent builds that will take more than two levels of the class.

In their areas of expertise they shine. Tripping or Bull Rushing, for example, is something Fighters can specialize in and excel at. But a Fighter can easily be replaced by a summoned dinosaur or Celestial Elephant in most cases. Or a Druid who chooses smart wildshapes. Or a Cleric who prepares the correct spells.

You begin to get the idea.

PId6
2010-07-13, 07:20 PM
the Fighter is actually one of the strongest classes when played correctly

and by playing it correctly, i mean rolling up a warblade and call it a fighter.
Even with the white text, that's not true.

oxybe
2010-07-13, 07:23 PM
the fighter can fight, but that's about it.

the fighter's lack of skill points and skills that aren't "jump/climb/swim", plus the fact that he doesn't get much benefit from Int or Cha means the fighter is usually the big dumb brute. the exception is the fighter who has 13 (no more, no less) int so he can take advantage of Combat Reflexes for extra AoO.

now the fighter gets feats, this allows him to spread his skill in separate weapon styles (2-handed power attacker, bowman, ect...) or in separate combat styles (trip, grapple, disarm)

the other problem is that there are other classes who fight just as well as he does, and better, with less effort.

now, a druid comes with a built in-pet (and upgrade funtion) and can shapeshift and share buffs. a druid doesn't need to spend feats to get multiple combat styles... wild shape into a dire bear and you're an instant grapple-monster. have a dire wolf as a pet and you can trip AND grapple. get natural spell... you get the picture.

wizards are in the same boat. the polymorph line of spells can allow the wizard to turn into forms that emulate the fighter's capabilities and, like the druid, self buff himself. for things he can't properly polymorph into, the higher level summon monster spells are pretty nasty. summon 1d4 or 1d4+1 decent combat monsters and you can emulate the fighter easily. ditto for sorcerors if they go that way

clerics are the king of the self-buffs. divine metamagic+persist spell means going by base stats alone you can be better then the fighter, but like the wizard and druid, you have full access to your spell list. and like the wizard, the cleric can summon.

barbarians share a fighter's full BAB but have the bonus of the Rage class feature. Barbs usually don't have the full gamut of styles the fighter has, but these guys really only need to know how to charge+power attack and one alternate feature gives them the ability to pounce, or full attack on a charge.

the list goes on but again, the fighter can fight, but that's about it. and he's not even the best at doing that.

FMArthur
2010-07-13, 07:35 PM
The fighter is bringing a knife to an airplane fight. It's generally regarded as a pretty manly thing to do, but it gets harder and harder as the planes get faster and deadlier. His sword arm getting stronger doesn't aid him significantly in his war against aeronautics.

derfenrirwolv
2010-07-13, 07:38 PM
These are the problems with the fighter in 3.5

1) full attack is supposed to increase your damage output as you continue to level up. This doesn't happen.

The main advantage of the fighters full BAB is more iterative attacks. Unfortunately, in order to get them you need to hold still, getting next to your opponent and STAYING next to your opponent. In most fights, the fighter winds up spending the first round moving up to a mook to attack it, the second round moving up to the big bad to attack him, and then finally attacks for a full attack in round three... assuming the big bad hasn't negated this somehow.

2) Wizards are quadratic, warrior damage is linear.

Even WITH the extra attacks, they're at -5 per extra attack. With extra damage from specialization and magic items as the party levels up they do SOME more damage.. but not much.

Spellcasters on the other hand not only gain access to more powerful spells, but their other spells increase in power. As the wizard levels, not only does her earn more powerful spells like dominate, dominate monster, but his lower level spells increase in power, such as his fireball upgrading from 5d6 to 10d6.

3) Wizard damage is Spikey, warrior damage is constant:

Baring a warrior with a scythe, the chances of the warrior killing you in 1 round of combat is negligible. A wizard on the other hand, has a number of save or die spells that can whipe you out in a single hit.

4) Warrior feats are regressive

forget linear. Warrior feats past 8th level are complete and total garbage. Most of the time you don't have any choice BUT to branch out, diversify, and pick feats that were balanced for 1st level characters. For example, once your fighter hits 6th level, whats the point of being a fighter anymore? If you have power attack, cleave, and great cleave you're stuck taking something balanced for 1st level characters.

5) The armor, like the goggles, does nothing at higher levels.

At low level plate mail is a pretty good deal. It makes you almost immune to the orcs, skeletons, and hobgoblins that you run accross.

At higher levels, its just a nice crunchy outer shell when you get served up like an ordeurve to a high level beasty. As mentioned above fighters take a -5 on each iterative attack, -0,-5,-10. Monsters on the other hand take a flat -5 for extra claws/tentacles unless they take multi attack.. and guesse what.. EVERYTHING takes multi attack. So when that dragon pounds you with the bite claw claw wing wing tail ? Even if you max out armor, things are only going to miss you on a roll of a 1 or a 2 anyway because its strength bonus is so high.

This is assuming that the thing is even using normal attacks. If its doing ranged touch attacks forget about it.

6) 5 foot step and cast.

Its almost impossible to interupt spellcasting in 3.5. The wizard can always take a 5 foot step away from you and cast a spell, and there's not much you can do about it.

Defiant
2010-07-13, 07:44 PM
I see a lot of people saying fighter is the weakest class.
And even when it got upgraded in pathfinder, people still say its pretty weak.

I just want to know, why specificly is the fighter weak?
If someone could give me a reason for both normal 3.5 dnd, and one for pathfinder, I'd be most apreciative.

Thanks in advance ;D

Think about simple damage. How does a fighter do damage?

Let's say his weapon does 1d10 or 1d12 or 2d6. You add strength on top of that, and amplify it with Power Attack, and so on.

How much damage does the wizard/sorcerer's weapon do? Let's take fireball. It does 1d6. Except it goes up 1d6 for every level up for the wizard/sorcerer.

The fighter doesn't get to do double the damage of his weapon when he goes from level 1 to level 2. The fighter doesn't do ECL*weapon hit dice. The wizard, however, does. And in an area-of-effect attack. Fireball: Caster Level * d6.

This means your level 10 fighter is left behind with his 2d6 greatsword + STR and various bonuses, while the level 10 wizard is flinging around 10d6 fireballs.


And this is just from a very simplistic, non-optimization viewpoint. I haven't even touched Save-or-Die/Lose spells - i.e. the ones where doing damage is rendered irrelevant.

...You hear that? Doing damage to an enemy is the biggest waste of time you could have, in comparison.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-13, 08:01 PM
Also, one must note that some of the "buffs" in Pathfinder aren't. Main source of damage for non Dungeoncrashers? Power Attack, which was nerfed in PF. The checks for tripping and the like were also hindered slightly.

Other than that, what PId6 said.

Another_Poet
2010-07-13, 08:27 PM
Pretty much what everyone above me (except the warblade guy) said. To which I would add one well-considered insight that I read somewhere.

When WotC made 3rd edition, they basically updated almost every class to have more variety of options than ever before. The main exception to this is the fighter. The fighter does the same thing it did in previous editions, about as well as it did then, but every other class can do more than ever before.

3.5 made the rules better but didn't address this problem.

Pathfinder made the rules even better but still didn't address this problem.

ap

lsfreak
2010-07-13, 08:48 PM
One nitpick: fighters do damage. They can do damage better than most wizards, barring a few specific builds. It's fairly arbitrary to get a fighter (or fighter-ish - paladin and barbarian are best) class to drop between 500 and 1000 damage a round by level 10. The problem is that's all they do, and if they can't charge, they're screwed. If someone has unhittable AC, they're screwed. If someone's flying, they're screwed. Damage, at least if you're willing to stick with specific builds, is easy.

Which does lead to another problem. There are an extremely limited number of ways to build a fighter effectively: charging with a 2-hander, attacking back when someone attacks you (Jack B. Quick build), chaintripper, Dungeoncrasher (bullrushing), and to some extent, archery. One weapon? Nope. Sword-and-board? Nope. Two weapons? Even bigger nope. Not charging? Nope. Spring attack? Nope. This applies to most melee classes; a very, very limited number of fighting style actually work, and even then they only work if you focus on them. Tome of Battle does all of those, and does them well (though archery is iffy until high levels, barring homebrewed disciplines, but ToB does do a mix of archery and melee much better than fighters).

Rhavin
2010-07-13, 08:55 PM
Since I play in a group that rarely gets above 8th level before we stop one campaign and start another, the fighter is a pretty good class for us. Once you start getting beyond that level though, the fighter gets left behind.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-13, 08:57 PM
There's a reason E6 stops at 6, and that reason is because 7 ate 9 means 4th level spells. You can probably get to 8-ish before you notice how bad things have gotten, but even by 7, a Fighter is well behind his casting buddies.

Grommen
2010-07-13, 08:58 PM
Think about simple damage. How does a fighter do damage?

Let's say his weapon does 1d10 or 1d12 or 2d6. You add strength on top of that, and amplify it with Power Attack, and so on.

How much damage does the wizard/sorcerer's weapon do? Let's take fireball. It does 1d6. Except it goes up 1d6 for every level up for the wizard/sorcerer.



Gonna have to call you on this one. Here is the problem with fireball.

they do 1d6 per level max 10d6. So on average that is 30 points of damage. Now the bad guy gets to make a save for half. My experience is that most people make this save. Not always but better than half the time. So classes with evasion (their are several) don't get damaged. Those that saved take half damage. Now were down to 15 points of damage. You just blew a 3rd level spell and did what a fighter does on an average attack.

Fighters do have it tuff these days though. It is not really their fault. People don't play them correctly, and a lot of DM's are spell caster crazy and over populate their worlds with spell casters. That makes the problems worse.

Pathfinder is a lot better to the fighter than 3.5 was. In addition to the better skills sets and rules, their game world allows fighters to have 4 skill points instead of 2. With the right amount of brains, you can get a fighter that has decent, but not legendary skills.

Magic items make up for the rest.

In my campaign worlds we have several fighters that do well. Not that we play at the top of the optimization game mind you, so that helps.

lsfreak
2010-07-13, 09:04 PM
Since I play in a group that rarely gets above 8th level before we stop one campaign and start another, the fighter is a pretty good class for us. Once you start getting beyond that level though, the fighter gets left behind.

Even then, you've got wizards regularly flying or teleporting around the battlefield, no way of getting your iterative attacks, and skill checks high enough that the fighter sucks at them all.


Pathfinder is a lot better to the fighter than 3.5 was.
And I'm going to have to call you on that. They nerfed the single best thing the fighter had (Power Attack), went and gave full casters more class features, and nerfed none but a very small handful of the most obvious and abusive of spells. Pathfinder made some things better, but fighter really wasn't one of them. He still suffers essentially all the problems of a Core fighter. Hell, they didn't even give him Spot.

true_shinken
2010-07-13, 09:14 PM
And I'm going to have to call you on that. They nerfed the single best thing the fighter had (Power Attack), went and gave full casters more class features, and nerfed none but a very small handful of the most obvious and abusive of spells. Pathfinder made some things better, but fighter really wasn't one of them. He still suffers essentially all the problems of a Core fighter. Hell, they didn't even give him Spot.
Pathfinder skill system basically means 'if you want Perception, you have perception'.
He does get bravery and more flexibility on focus/specialization that might actually make people take those feats.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 09:24 PM
Gonna have to call you on this one. Here is the problem with fireball.

they do 1d6 per level max 10d6. So on average that is 30 points of damage. Now the bad guy gets to make a save for half. My experience is that most people make this save. Not always but better than half the time. So classes with evasion (their are several) don't get damaged. Those that saved take half damage. Now were down to 15 points of damage. You just blew a 3rd level spell and did what a fighter does on an average attack.

Except you're doing it to a 20' radius area. Have you drawn a 20' radius area on a 5' square grid? It's freaking huge. You might as well just say "If it's on the battlefield, it is now on fire." The fighter gets to do his swing to one dude pretty hard, sure. A blaster wizard gets to hit just as hard over a gigantic area.

Nonblaster casters are even further above fighter-types: one spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) can render (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm) large swaths (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm) of enemies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hypnoticPattern.htm) useless and (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfFear.htm) usually in (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) a position (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm) to just (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm) be coup (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) de graced. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorImage.htm)

Defiant
2010-07-13, 09:29 PM
My point was simply from an equally non-optimization point of view.

Sure, bring out 500-1000 damage fighters, and I'll bring out Incantatrix death-machine wizards.

From the most basic and simplistic point of view, the difference is already apparent.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-13, 10:07 PM
For some reason, in 3.0 and even into early 3.5, I think Wizards of the Coast feared the power of the all-mighty Full Base Attack Bonus. You can almost hear them quivering in their collective huddled fear in the Player's Handbook and Complete Warrior. "He has a full BAB! And a d10 HD! He's got lots of HP, and a high chance of hitting! We can't give him skill points! That's what the rogue does! What's that? Spells and full BAB? Are you insane? He has a full BAB! It's bad enough we're giving the paladin those few spells, and I was personally against giving him free Remove Diseases X times per week!"

At the same time, they underestimated the power of spells. I think the druid got all of those fun toys like an animal companion and wild shape because they weren't allowed to have metal armor! And they had limited weapon selection! If they can't wear full plate, then we've got to give them something to compensate... I KNOW! A FREE GIANT BEAR! AND THE POWER TO TURN INTO A GIANT BEAR!

Nobody wants to play the bandaid box, so you could see WotC tossing the Cleric some shiny goodies, like a d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, and access to heavy armor. Never mind that the cleric spell list alone makes them easily one of the most powerful classes, but they expected people to prepare cure spells, despite the fact that there is a built-in mechanic to avoid doing this.

By a similar token, the wizard was 'balanced' with 1d4 HD, poor BAB, and no armor proficiency. Nevermind that by level 7+ or so, HP means increasingly less, AC loses significance, and wizards don't even need to make attack rolls to win battles.

It seems that WotC was placing too much value on their core mechanic, that is, modified d20 roll vs. static DC, most typically Attack vs. AC. The Fighter and similar classes were built to excel at what was supposedly one of the most important rolls in the game: attack vs. AC.

Over time, WotC slowly realized that they had given the spell writers enough freedom to effectively make their core mechanic obsolete. Forget splat books, just read the chapter on spell descriptions. Summon some monsters. Turn lead into gold. Freeze time. Steal someone's soul. Steal someone's mind. Turn their corpse into your slave forever.

Perhaps the best example of this shift in ideology is the Duskblade and the Hexblade. The Hexblade, earlier in 3.5's life, was a full BAB class with arcane spellcasting. Oh, heinous union! Oh, abuse potential. Thus, they give it laughable casting, crappy abilities, and light armor, believing it balanced when the core cleric is already making a mockery of the Fighter with core spells alone.

Then, later in 3.5's life, the Duskblade. Full BAB. Better casting. Heavier armor. A cool spell-channeling mechanic. Even a decent class skill selection. They learned.

The same occurred with Tome of Battle, and even to a certain extent with Tome of Magic (foreshadowed by Expanded Psionic Handbook). Eliminate the core casters, replace them with ToM 'casters,' and suddenly the gap between melee and 'magic' has closed significantly. (unfortunately, the way they designed monsters is such that without core casters or their close relatives, you're basically doomed)

Thus, the appeal of E6 to some. I personally enjoy the reward of rules mastery that vancian magic provides; a knowledgeable group with a good DM can create an interesting, strategic game of edge-of-your-seat magical rocket tag. However, for the poor fighter, he'll never really be able to partake in that game, except as a mannequin upon which to place buffs. Even ToB will never reach that next level, and that's just the way it is.

Blame WotC, blame the spell writers, blame Jack Vance, blame Vecna, blame Canada, blame whoever you want. Realistically, you can probably blame a mixture of ignorance and poor communication between the writers, but they had to salvage what they had created in what ways they could. It would seem 3.5's philosophy wasn't to fix what was broken, but rather just add more potential for insanity. This has made a titanic, bloated, ponderous, preposterous, ridiculous game.

And yet, when you kill five half-white dragon wyverns in one round with your wizard/warmage/ultimate magus... well, you just can't do that with many RPG systems. In most games, you can improve your numbers, stats, modifiers, or dice pools, but with 3.5... there's always that possibility that you'll get high enough level to become a friggin' god. And I think it's that possibility that makes me addicted to the system. It's that promise of stupid, ridiculous power... in an imaginary, pen and paper game.

Another_Poet
2010-07-13, 10:24 PM
This has made a titanic, bloated, ponderous, preposterous, ridiculous game.

And I absolutely love that game.

I approve of your post, Mr. Cockroach. I approve.

Yorrin
2010-07-13, 10:24 PM
Pure Awesomeness

If this wasn't so long I'd request to put it in my sig. This is the best answer I've ever heard given to this question, while simultaneously summing up while the unbalance doesn't destroy the game. You, sir, have gained my respect and a three dozen cookies.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-13, 10:32 PM
*hoards the cookies*

These cookies are MINE! MINE YOU F****** *** ****!!

*Does lurid praise receiving jig*

Maeglin_Dubh
2010-07-13, 11:32 PM
*hoards the cookies*

These cookies are MINE! MINE YOU F****** *** ****!!

*Does lurid praise receiving jig*

You deserve them.

Lans
2010-07-13, 11:41 PM
You options. If you face someone who teleports, what do you do? If you face someone who's flying, what do you do? If you get a solid fog dropped on you, what do you do? How about negotiation between rival nations? Someone with untouchable AC? Hits so hard you can't face it directly? Finding someone invisible?

Almost every class has problems with somebody that teleports. If you face somebody thats flying you throw a weapon aptitudes boomerants at them.
If get solid fog dropped on you you Use your blink shirt to get out. Against untouchable AC you throw oil or acid on it, with negotiations with rival nations use lasting intimidate on various higher ups. And when you face something that hits so hard you can't face it directly you throw boomerangs at it.
Finding an invisible person you make pact with a partially real being giving you see invisibility. For traps you take the trainee feat from DMG2 and bind theft gloves.

The main problem is that its very hard to get all of these, I think it involves selling your soul, flaws, and worshiping an elder evil, and meticulaously choosing feats, skills, ACFs, and arranging stats. Spending hours to make sure you have every thing covered that you can covered.

With the Tier 1-3 classes use a bit of common sense and you will be fine.



Which does lead to another problem. There are an extremely limited number of ways to build a fighter effectively: charging with a 2-hander, attacking back when someone attacks you (Jack B. Quick build), chaintripper, Dungeoncrasher (bullrushing), and to some extent, archery. One weapon? Nope. Sword-and-board? Nope. Two weapons? Even bigger nope. Not charging? Nope. Spring attack? Nope. This applies to most melee classes; a very, very limited number of fighting style actually work, and even then they only work if you focus on them. Tome of Battle does all of those, and does them well (though archery is iffy until high levels, barring homebrewed disciplines, but ToB does do a mix of archery and melee much better than fighters).
Jack B quick is very much a two weapon build.
Not sure what you mean by one weapon, but a two-hander is one weapon usually.
Sword and Board works, better as just Board. Various shield daze feats make it useful. Spring Attack works with Lockdown.


My point was simply from an equally non-optimization point of view.

Sure, bring out 500-1000 damage fighters, and I'll bring out Incantatrix death-machine wizards.

From the most basic and simplistic point of view, the difference is already apparent.

Using Prestige classes don't count. The right answer is Gate, always going first, armies of undead, double actions a round, and eleventy fifty Explosive runes with dispel magic, omnisciences, and
Fred over there. He's kind of like only the party's fighter only he's free and I don't care about him. He's also a giant at higher levels, or when I want him to be, also I have the easy button to any problem we could come against.

I also have to reiterate what other people have said that wizards don't know the game that they made. I'd bet that I could run a party of 4-5 fighters through just about any adventure published by Wizards, even with them being as weak as they are.

Tedesche
2010-07-14, 12:12 AM
As much as I think we can all (or at least most of us) agree that fighters are crap in most campaigns, has anyone ever played in a campaign where there wasn't one in the party, if only as a meat shield? I'm sure there are better classes that can still serve as a mobile HP buffer, but is it reasonable to expect a party to survive long enough for the casters to become omnipotent without said flank of beefsteak to get them there?

Also, as I noted in another thread, I think fighters (and other pure melee types in general) become more useful when you play the game in the style it was originally intended to be played: as a dungeon crawl. The limitation on most casters is that they have a limited amount of spells. Sooner or later, they will run out. Fighters, on the other hand, never run out of hits. In a sufficiently long dungeon crawl, a mage will have to conserve his spells or risk having nothing left by the time the party reaches the dragon's chamber. This circumstantial limitation changes things such that fighters and other melee types with unlimited ability to deal HP damage take the front lines, with the wizards and sorcerers holding their powerful spells in reserve for situations which truly call for their use.

For both good and bad reasons, most campaigns don't tend to feature too many labyrinthine dungeons anymore. You tend to have at best about 3-5 encounters a day, not all of which call for fighting. But even if they all do, a 10th-level sorcerer or wizard has more than enough spells to get them through the day, with plenty of room to spare.

Fighters were made for a different game setting, in my opinion. And that setting has (perhaps sadly) gone the way of the dragon for the most part.

Malakar
2010-07-14, 12:15 AM
I also have to reiterate what other people have said that wizards don't know the game that they made. I'd bet that I could run a party of 4-5 fighters through just about any adventure published by Wizards, even with them being as weak as they are.

Wizards doesn't publish adventures, so you are technically correct.

You would also be correct in that you could run 4-5 fighters, but I think you would quickly find them dead in some modules. Care to take the challenge?


As much as I think we can all (or at least most of us) agree that fighters are crap in most campaigns, has anyone ever played in a campaign where there wasn't one in the party, if only as a meat shield? I'm sure there are better classes that can still serve as a mobile HP buffer, but is it reasonable to expect a party to survive long enough for the casters to become omnipotent without said flank of beefsteak to get them there?

I don't think I've ever played in a game with a Fighter. Maybe two levels on the way to something else. But no, I've played many a game without a fighter, and many a game without any big HP buffers either. It's very reasonable to expect a party to survive. If for example they are Druid, Wizard, Rogue/Beguiler, Wizard/Druid/Other Caster type, then they can be expected to survive just fine.

Evard
2010-07-14, 01:02 AM
One of the reasons I love 4e is how they fixed this problem (well mostly). You have your different roles and each does their own thing pretty fricken well with some minor exceptions (avengers and shamans *glares at them*).

A defender such as a fighter will have just as much value as a controller such as a wizard.

Malakar
2010-07-14, 01:17 AM
One of the reasons I love 4e is how they fixed this problem (well mostly). You have your different roles and each does their own thing pretty fricken well with some minor exceptions (avengers and shamans *glares at them*).

A defender such as a fighter will have just as much value as a controller such as a wizard.

Uck, why would someone want to start throwing around 4e propaganda like this looking for an argument.

I mean, at least use the propaganda that is actually true, not "Roles."

Evard
2010-07-14, 01:23 AM
Its not propaganda and wither you like 4e or not they DID fix the very problem that people have been talking about on here. You no longer have one class that can do everything that you can think possible whereas another class can swing a sword.

bobspldbckwrds
2010-07-14, 01:29 AM
for fighter class features, open your PHB to page 133 and read through page 160

nyjastul69
2010-07-14, 01:45 AM
Pretty much what everyone above me (except the warblade guy) said. To which I would add one well-considered insight that I read somewhere.

When WotC made 3rd edition, they basically updated almost every class to have more variety of options than ever before. The main exception to this is the fighter. The fighter does the same thing it did in previous editions, about as well as it did then, but every other class can do more than ever before.

3.5 made the rules better but didn't address this problem.

Pathfinder made the rules even better but still didn't address this problem.

ap

Fighters have far more options in 3.x than any other edition of the game. They were weaker, by comparison, in all other editions.

The Shadowmind
2010-07-14, 02:05 AM
And, when Complete Mage came out, the spellcaster doesn't even need to stop to rest to technically be effective, due to a few Reserve feats. Mini fireball, that deals damage close to that of a warlock and has a area effect? Check! Want to fly to get to high places? Check! Want a chance to make the opponent effectively immobile? Narrow, but still Check!. The reserve feats are weak, and even then they beat the fighter.

Eric Tolle
2010-07-14, 02:56 AM
Fighters have far more options in 3.x than any other edition of the game. They were weaker, by comparison, in all other editions.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. IIRC what the fighters had going for them in AD&D and before, was excellent saves. In the games I was in, after a certain level in AD&D, mages had to seriously consider whether they would use a save-or-die spell, because against a fighter they had something like a 70-80% chance of failing. I remember as a mage in AD&D I concentrated on utility spells rather than direct save-based spells, because the latter were an exercise in frustration.

In addition, with proficiencies rather than skills, and rolled attributes, fighters could be equally as skilled as other classes in non-combat tasks. A fighter could be a decent survivalist, diplomat or craftsman, simply because they had a proficiency and good base attributes.

Really, fighters never felt as marginalized as they did in 3.X. If anything, the weak class in AD&D was the rogue- which is another story altogether.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 04:10 AM
I couldn't disagree more strongly. IIRC what the fighters had going for them in AD&D and before, was excellent saves. In the games I was in, after a certain level in AD&D, mages had to seriously consider whether they would use a save-or-die spell, because against a fighter they had something like a 70-80% chance of failing. I remember as a mage in AD&D I concentrated on utility spells rather than direct save-based spells, because the latter were an exercise in frustration.

In addition, with proficiencies rather than skills, and rolled attributes, fighters could be equally as skilled as other classes in non-combat tasks. A fighter could be a decent survivalist, diplomat or craftsman, simply because they had a proficiency and good base attributes.

Really, fighters never felt as marginalized as they did in 3.X. If anything, the weak class in AD&D was the rogue- which is another story altogether.

This is correct. Moreover, monster had less HP overall, so each blow meant more (see Evocation school problems).

I don't see Fighter as weak or unplayable or boring as most people here, but you nail the problems pretty well.

Few Things from above posts, and about PF:

- Retroactive skill points for Int increases can help out of combat. Pathfinder made official this rule (even if raise the Sp/level to 4 wouldn't be bad too:smallyuk::smalltongue:). Int 14 (you need 13 for combat expertise, so an int 14 fighter is not impossible), human, favored class skill, you reach 6 skill points /level. Not a skill monkey but is something.

- I don't see how feat can be class features by themselves. Ok they scale badly, but I don't see them as bland because are feats. Moreover, Pathfinder has a lot of feat that require X levels of fighter (from 4 to 12 generally). This makes them, de facto, class feature.

- Power Attack now is weaker for a shock trooper, but stronger for a causal user. TH now is 1:3, MH is 1:2 and OH is 1:1. You caouldn't OH and PA before.

Killer Angel
2010-07-14, 05:25 AM
As much as I think we can all (or at least most of us) agree that fighters are crap in most campaigns, has anyone ever played in a campaign where there wasn't one in the party, if only as a meat shield? I'm sure there are better classes that can still serve as a mobile HP buffer, but is it reasonable to expect a party to survive long enough for the casters to become omnipotent without said flank of beefsteak to get them there?


I concede that this is not totally false. I've played with groups of "basic" players. Core only, wizards with fireball as first choice of spell , clerics with no active buffs that in combat must rolls for initiative, to decide what is the first spell to cast, and need 3 round to became melee-active...
In that case, yes, the group is so totally unprepared that they need even a fighter.


The limitation on most casters is that they have a limited amount of spells. Sooner or later, they will run out. Fighters, on the other hand, never run out of hits. In a sufficiently long dungeon crawl, a mage will have to conserve his spells or risk having nothing left by the time the party reaches the dragon's chamber. This circumstantial limitation changes things such that fighters and other melee types with unlimited ability to deal HP damage take the front lines, with the wizards and sorcerers holding their powerful spells in reserve for situations which truly call for their use.


This is simply not true.
Take a wizard, lev. 8-10. How many spells can he cast? translate them in combat round. The answer is: a lot.
The fighter can always swing a sword, yes... 'til he's alive. How many combat round do you think he can stand, before running out of hp? The answer is: not so many.

Hironomus
2010-07-14, 05:45 AM
This gets a little ranty and long winded. I do not advise you to read it.

The fighter isn't that bad. Now I am not what you could call a power gamer but I have played a fighter character AND a wizard character extensively.
In an average dungeon the Wizard was constantly struggling to survive, he couldn't go off on his own or he would die. He couldn't make decisions or he would die. Any thing he did that would make him looke cool also had a fifty percent chance of leading to his death. Maybe it was just the close quarters i frequently found myself in, or maybe our dm was just a tad harsh. Still most encounters boiled down to me desperately spamming all of my spells then needing to rest.

A fighter on the other hand can keep going almost unsupported no matter what. He doesn't run out of 'sword swings/day' and if he gets into trouble chances are he can survive it or at least the consequences will be so cool you don't care that they are bad (getting dominated is always fun).

Sure maybe other combat classes are better. the barbarian gets to rage and the paladin gets to smite. thats pretty neat. but if you don't want to play a rabid beastman or a zealous prick, a fighter is definitely the right class for you. people say that fighters aren't versatile, but i beg to differ. there are a vast array of interesting weapons out there, all of which a fighter has access too and his feats mean you can give him unique style. from a more roleplaying standpoint too, fighters are very flexible. A fighter is anyone who fights. a fighter character you play can be almost anything. at all. I think its important to remember that not every character is striving for ultimate power, some are just living their lives.

in conclusion remember: chances are every epic level wizard got to where he is today by standing behind a level 1 fighter.

Prime32
2010-07-14, 06:01 AM
people say that fighters aren't versatile, but i beg to differ. there are a vast array of interesting weapons out there, all of which a fighter has access too and his feats mean you can give him unique style.That's not what they meant by versatile. An individual fighter can only use one weapon competently, and many of those weapons suck. I mean, have you ever seen anyone take Weapon Specialisation (sai)?

Plus there aren't that many effective builds other than chain-tripping and ubercharging (which other classes can do too). If you want your fighting style to be "unique" then it will suck as much as a modern-day soldier who decides to be unique by hitting his enemies on the head with his gun instead of firing it.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 06:03 AM
This gets a little ranty and long winded. I do not advise you to read it.

The fighter isn't that bad. Now I am not what you could call a power gamer but I have played a fighter character AND a wizard character extensively.
In an average dungeon the Wizard was constantly struggling to survive, he couldn't go off on his own or he would die. He couldn't make decisions or he would die. Any thing he did that would make him looke cool also had a fifty percent chance of leading to his death. Maybe it was just the close quarters i frequently found myself in, or maybe our dm was just a tad harsh. Still most encounters boiled down to me desperately spamming all of my spells then needing to rest.

A fighter on the other hand can keep going almost unsupported no matter what. He doesn't run out of 'sword swings/day' and if he gets into trouble chances are he can survive it or at least the consequences will be so cool you don't care that they are bad (getting dominated is always fun).

A fighter ordinarily runs out of HP faster than a wizard runs out of spells. Sword swings are not the limiting factor.


Sure maybe other combat classes are better. the barbarian gets to rage and the paladin gets to smite. thats pretty neat. but if you don't want to play a rabid beastman or a zealous prick, a fighter is definitely the right class for you. people say that fighters aren't versatile, but i beg to differ. there are a vast array of interesting weapons out there, all of which a fighter has access too and his feats mean you can give him unique style. from a more roleplaying standpoint too, fighters are very flexible. A fighter is anyone who fights. a fighter character you play can be almost anything. at all. I think its important to remember that not every character is striving for ultimate power, some are just living their lives.

That's great for hitting things. If you want to do anything else...?


in conclusion remember: chances are every epic level wizard got to where he is today by standing behind a level 1 fighter.

Or a Summon Monster of the appropriate level. Or a Grease trap. Or a Silent Image, so he wouldn't have to fight.

Yora
2010-07-14, 06:08 AM
Or a Summon Monster of the appropriate level. Or a Grease trap. Or a Silent Image, so he wouldn't have to fight.
But at early levels, you can do that three or maybe four times per day. And if you do not have unlimited time and anyone attacks the party without waiting to be attacked first, that will be a problem.

Not that it changes anything that the fighter is no longer needed at higher levels.

nyjastul69
2010-07-14, 06:27 AM
I couldn't disagree more strongly. IIRC what the fighters had going for them in AD&D and before, was excellent saves. In the games I was in, after a certain level in AD&D, mages had to seriously consider whether they would use a save-or-die spell, because against a fighter they had something like a 70-80% chance of failing. I remember as a mage in AD&D I concentrated on utility spells rather than direct save-based spells, because the latter were an exercise in frustration.

In addition, with proficiencies rather than skills, and rolled attributes, fighters could be equally as skilled as other classes in non-combat tasks. A fighter could be a decent survivalist, diplomat or craftsman, simply because they had a proficiency and good base attributes.

Really, fighters never felt as marginalized as they did in 3.X. If anything, the weak class in AD&D was the rogue- which is another story altogether.

Magic-Users have always been quadratic. Fighters have always been linear. I might have been too hasty saying all editions, although I still belive it to be so. I was also thinking about AD&D not 2e, but I'll have to check my 2e books to confirm. My main point was that M-U's have always had more options than fighters, mostly because fighters get 0 options in AD&D outside of their weapon proficiencies. I'll PM my thoughts so as not to further derail this thread.

Tshern
2010-07-14, 06:41 AM
But at early levels, you can do that three or maybe four times per day. And if you do not have unlimited time and anyone attacks the party without waiting to be attacked first, that will be a problem.

Not that it changes anything that the fighter is no longer needed at higher levels.
Then you use Color spray. An area of effect spell that is effectively a Save-or-Die. Cast once, proceed to the coup de grace part of the encounter.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 06:59 AM
Then you use Color spray. An area of effect spell that is effectively a Save-or-Die. Cast once, proceed to the coup de grace part of the encounter.

Great spell versus grimlocks.

Tshern
2010-07-14, 07:07 AM
Great spell versus grimlocks.
Too true. Luckily that's not the only option.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 07:15 AM
Then you use Color spray. An area of effect spell that is effectively a Save-or-Die. Cast once, proceed to the coup de grace part of the encounter.

While effective, that's kind of missing the point Yora was getting at, which is that at such low levels a supplementary meat-shield is a significant boost to survivability with one spell per encounter to consider.

(Altho a wizard is also a significant boost to survivability with 3 hp per encounter to consider, for a fighter.)

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-14, 07:24 AM
Fighters are great, if all you do is old school dungeon crawls. the old school dungeon crawl is the perfect enviornment for the fighter to shine in the party that consists of him, a rogue, a wizard and a cleric.

somthing comes out of the room, he hits it. somthing comes down the hall, he hits it. the rogue disables the trap and opens the door, a monster comes out and the firghter hits it. a swarm comes out and the fighter jumps in the middle and takes all the damage, the wizard AOE's everything. the cleric heals the fighter. . . another somthing comes out of the room and the fighter hits it. . .

yup, they work great for old school dungeon crawls, but as soon as people got creative with what you could do with DND the fighter kind of got overshadowed by his more versitile buddies. . .

not that i dont like fighter. . .it makes a decent dip if you need an extra feat or extra point of bab to get into a gish prestige class or something

Tshern
2010-07-14, 07:27 AM
While effective, that's kind of missing the point Yora was getting at, which is that at such low levels a supplementary meat-shield is a significant boost to survivability with one spell per encounter to consider.

(Altho a wizard is also a significant boost to survivability with 3 hp per encounter to consider, for a fighter.)
Certainly a boost, there is no argument against that, but as you pointed out, that is not Fighters' exclusive domain.

Yora
2010-07-14, 07:41 AM
If you're talking about optimization, it's probably best to just write the fighter off as hopeless and play a cleric instead.

But when you're looking for ways to make fighters fun to play in a game in which you've already chosen to play a fighter because of the fluff, the real question should be this: What else could a fighter do beside beating things with a stick?

Interestingly, few mythological or fantasy stories are about wizards or shamans, but about a guy with a big weapon. And they are not just about that guy beating things to death. There has to be a lot more things someone playing a fighter could do.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 07:43 AM
If you're talking about optimization, it's probably best to just write the fighter off as hopeless and play a cleric instead.

But when you're looking for ways to make fighters fun to play in a game in which you've already chosen to play a fighter because of the fluff, the real question should be this: What else could a fighter do beside beating things with a stick?

Interestingly, few mythological or fantasy stories are about wizards or shamans, but about a guy with a big weapon. And they are not just about that guy beating things to death. There has to be a lot more things someone playing a fighter could do.

But most of those characters are represented as poorly by the Fighter class as by the Wizard or Sorcerer classes, precisely because of what they can do outside of combat. No?

Tshern
2010-07-14, 07:48 AM
But when you're looking for ways to make fighters fun to play in a game in which you've already chosen to play a fighter because of the fluff, the real question should be this: What else could a fighter do beside beating things with a stick?.
I have seen a number of decent Intimidate builds using Zhentarim Soldier substitution levels, Imperious command and other synergetic tools. However, the field on which such a Fighter excels is still desperately narrow.

Yora
2010-07-14, 07:53 AM
Now that there are about 2000 base and prestige class, there will almost always be a very specific class combination to match most ficutional characters. But looking for ways to make fighters good only makes sense if you have allready decided that you want to use generic classes.

I may be a bit old school here, but back in 2nd Edition you had your 8 generic base classes and used those to represent any character concept you came up with. I think it's mostly people who want to play with a limited amount of generic classes who are really interested in making fighters work. If you're really looking for crunch, you can just say "Warblade" and kick the fighter out. Lots of people seem to do that.

nyjastul69
2010-07-14, 08:17 AM
Now that there are about 2000 base and prestige class, there will almost always be a very specific class combination to match most ficutional characters. But looking for ways to make fighters good only makes sense if you have allready decided that you want to use generic classes.

I may be a bit old school here, but back in 2nd Edition you had your 8 generic base classes and used those to represent any character concept you came up with. I think it's mostly people who want to play with a limited amount of generic classes who are really interested in making fighters work. If you're really looking for crunch, you can just say "Warblade" and kick the fighter out. Lots of people seem to do that.

Poorly balanced kits were the problem in 2e. Firp ding blast! were those poorly designed books. Sorry for the rant. Yora, as usual, you make an excellent point.

Malakar
2010-07-14, 08:22 AM
Its not propaganda and wither you like 4e or not they DID fix the very problem that people have been talking about on here. You no longer have one class that can do everything that you can think possible whereas another class can swing a sword.

1) It is propaganda. To whit: "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" Since Roles is an official 4e talking point developed by the Wizards of the Coast. Yes, it is in fact propaganda.

2) That's not what you said. Yes, in 4e you no longer have one class that can do everything while another class swings a sword, because in 4e everyone swings a sword and no one can do anything else. Sometimes your sword is made of magic missile or disintegrate. And sometimes your sword stunlocks, but you are right, there is no dichotomy between hobos and heroes, because everyone is a hobo.

3) What you did say, "You have your different roles and each does their own thing pretty fricken well with some minor exceptions" and "A defender such as a fighter will have just as much value as a controller such as a wizard."

are false. Rolls don't actually exist, its just a slider. You do X damage to opponents and reduce opponent damage by Y. Wizards do X damage, and reduce opponent damage by Y. Fighters do the same thing. The Aggro mechanic itself admits to this, as aside from one aspect of Sword Sages, all defenders only reduce incoming damage at all by, if the enemy refuses to attack them, getting to do more damage.

And certainly the role equivalence can be negated by comparing any class that is good against a bad class of another role.

In a party of Wizard/(Lazer) Cleric/Wizard/(Bow) Ranger, who do you want more in your party, a Paladin or another Wizard? Wizard.

Likewise, who do you want more in your party of Fighter/(Melee) Ranger/Warlord/(Melee) Cleric, another Fighter or an Invoker?

Ormagoden
2010-07-14, 09:05 AM
flame/troll bait?

Lans
2010-07-14, 12:03 PM
Wizards doesn't publish adventures, so you are technically correct.
I thought the published several adventures through Dungeon and things like Red Hand of Doom.


You would also be correct in that you could run 4-5 fighters, but I think you would quickly find them dead in some modules. Care to take the challenge?
Sure, as long as you realize I will be doing what I said about eking out every drop of power I can.



I don't think I've ever played in a game with a Fighter. Maybe two levels on the way to something else. But no, I've played many a game without a fighter, and many a game without any big HP buffers either. It's very reasonable to expect a party to survive. If for example they are Druid, Wizard, Rogue/Beguiler, Wizard/Druid/Other Caster type, then they can be expected to survive just fine.
Druids are big HP buffers, but your right. The fighter can protect the squishies pretty effectively by simply running away lots of time, because he is one of the squishiest members of the party as they level up.

Malakar
2010-07-14, 12:42 PM
I thought the published several adventures through Dungeon and things like Red Hand of Doom.

I'm pretty sure Red Hand of Doom was TSR, but maybe I'm wrong.


Sure, as long as you realize I will be doing what I said about eking out every drop of power I can.

No things like Leadership for sure, any probably some other stuff, but yeah. Also, Uber chargers will be annoying, and basically just write off large sections of each module, but oh well.


Druids are big HP buffers, but your right. The fighter can protect the squishies pretty effectively by simply running away lots of time, because he is one of the squishiest members of the party as they level up.

My point is that spells are better HP buffers than Fighters. I'd rather have entangle + glitterdust + wall of X + solid fog + ect than a whole character devoted to having twice the HP of my Wizard but not having any of those abilities.

Kythorian
2010-07-14, 12:47 PM
I don't think I've ever played in a game with a Fighter. Maybe two levels on the way to something else. But no, I've played many a game without a fighter, and many a game without any big HP buffers either. It's very reasonable to expect a party to survive. If for example they are Druid, Wizard, Rogue/Beguiler, Wizard/Druid/Other Caster type, then they can be expected to survive just fine.

I played a game with a save-or-die incantatrix, a conjuration master specialist(battlefield control and summoning, mostly), and a blaster sorc once. They did quite well with no meat shield. By lvl 15, they were trashing epics monsters.

Assuming you were fighting CR monsters not too much above your ECL, such a party could generally solve the encounter with just one or two spells, almost always before the enemy acts, much less damages someone. Even if they are much higher CR forcing the battle to last a little longer, its not that hard for a pure caster to just avoid getting hit(celerity and...well, a whole bunch of stuff can not only prevent someone from completing a charge(or whatever), but go ahead and take care of that threat for the rest of the battle while you are at it), abrupt jaunt, before things start getting truesight--greater mirror image, blink, displacement so nothing hits you, etc. So many ways. Besides, then you can just avoid the need for a cleric too, which is nice(though if you REALLY want a meat shield, just have someone make a cleric, for that matter)

Yora
2010-07-14, 12:47 PM
I'm pretty sure Red Hand of Doom was TSR, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, you definately are.
There were a couple of others as well, like City of the Spiderqueen and the Expeditions to...

nyjastul69
2010-07-14, 08:15 PM
Wizards doesn't publish adventures...

WotC has produced about 30 adventures for 3e/3.5.

Coidzor
2010-07-14, 08:18 PM
WotC has produced about 30 adventures for 3e/3.5.

Indeed. Here's a link to some of the stuff they've made freely available online, even. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b&page=1):smallcool:

Lans
2010-07-16, 02:13 AM
No things like Leadership for sure, any probably some other stuff, but yeah. Also, Uber chargers will be annoying, and basically just write off large sections of each module, but oh well.
How do you feel about level dipping? Would Fighter18/XXX2 be reasonable?




My point is that spells are better HP buffers than Fighters. I'd rather have entangle + glitterdust + wall of X + solid fog + ect than a whole character devoted to having twice the HP of my Wizard but not having any of those abilities.

Couple of builds work out pretty well, like Lockdown and Daze lock. Granted we are still equating a whole another character to pieces of a differant character

Malakar
2010-07-16, 02:49 AM
How do you feel about level dipping? Would Fighter18/XXX2 be reasonable?

Um, A) No. B) do you expect to be level 20 at much of any point?

C) (A) is provisional, what are you thinking of dipping. I mean, Barbarian Pounce is great, it's also Barbarian. And Sure, Barbarian 1/Bard 1/Fighter 3/Ur-Priest is great, it's also not a Fighter.

And Yes, Fighter 18/Warblade 2 is good, mostly because it's like Warblade 10/Fighter 10, and the Warblade is contributing more.


Couple of builds work out pretty well, like Lockdown and Daze lock. Granted we are still equating a whole another character to pieces of a differant character

Yes, some excessive dumpster diving can almost kind of produce the effect of a level 3 Wizard casting a level 2 Core spell.

But this is a comparison of what can be expected, and Glitterdust can be expected to compete with a Core Fighter, or even some books, for Daze Fighters you are starting to look at MS into Incantatrix Conjurers with Abrupt Jaunt and Cloudy Conjuration giving spells to their familiar.

Lans
2010-07-16, 05:30 AM
Um, A) No. B) do you expect to be level 20 at much of any point?

C) (A) is provisional, what are you thinking of dipping. I mean, Barbarian Pounce is great, it's also Barbarian. And Sure, Barbarian 1/Bard 1/Fighter 3/Ur-Priest is great, it's also not ad Fighter.
I was doing the overall build that people tend to do when designing characters.
I was Level dipping for essentially more bonus feats to make the builds come to fruition earlier and had the intention of keeping it at 2 levels of a non fighter class. Kind of the opposite of people taking a two level dip into fighter.

Example One of the characters taking 2 levels of psychic warrior is worth 4 feats, because it means the character doesn't have to take the feat where he gets power points, and doesn't have to take the feat that makes concentration a class skill.
Or Taking a level of warblade to get Iron Heart Surge and Thicket of blades, when normally I'd just spend 3 feat to pick those up.
Incarnate and orTotemist would be the other choice. For Blink Shirt and Phase Cloak.

Tedesche
2010-07-16, 06:51 AM
Fighters are great, if all you do is old school dungeon crawls. the old school dungeon crawl is the perfect enviornment for the fighter to shine in the party that consists of him, a rogue, a wizard and a cleric.

somthing comes out of the room, he hits it. somthing comes down the hall, he hits it. the rogue disables the trap and opens the door, a monster comes out and the firghter hits it. a swarm comes out and the fighter jumps in the middle and takes all the damage, the wizard AOE's everything. the cleric heals the fighter. . . another somthing comes out of the room and the fighter hits it. . .

yup, they work great for old school dungeon crawls, but as soon as people got creative with what you could do with DND the fighter kind of got overshadowed by his more versitile buddies. . .

not that i dont like fighter. . .it makes a decent dip if you need an extra feat or extra point of bab to get into a gish prestige class or something

I made this same point earlier in this thread, but I would hasten to add that there is no real reason the game (or at least the class) couldn't have been designed be more balanced across a larger array of scenarios. For one, there's really no reason for the whole linear vs. quadratic damage progression that fighers end up on the losing end of. The main problem in balancing them with spellcasters, is that if you make the fighter capable of damage comparable with a wizard's meteor swarm, the wizard ends up being gimped, because whereas he can only cast the spell a few times per day, the fighter can hit things all day long. Even if you only upped the fighter's damage to moderate levels, it still wouldn't really balance out IMO.

4e's solution was to essentially make all characters work off the same gaming dynamic—at-will, 1/encounter, and 1/day abilities—and simply change the name of the "power" source. Simple, but boring, in my opinion.

Personally, I would say you'd have to add some versatility to the fighter's list of skills and probably up his skill points per level. That, and I've always thought it was sort of stupid that wizard's (and to a slightly lesser extent, druids and clerics) can learn pretty much any and every spell in the game, thus being able to tailor themselves for virtually any situation that comes to the fore. If you're going to allow some classes unlimited versatility and ultimate power in the same package, you need to do that for every class—or none at all.

Anyway, I could go on, but I don't have the time right now. My point is this though: there's no reason fighters have to suck—that's just how the developers did things.

Yora
2010-07-16, 07:51 AM
For one, there's really no reason for the whole linear vs. quadratic damage progression that fighers end up on the losing end of. The main problem in balancing them with spellcasters, is that if you make the fighter capable of damage comparable with a wizard's meteor swarm, the wizard ends up being gimped, because whereas he can only cast the spell a few times per day, the fighter can hit things all day long. Even if you only upped the fighter's damage to moderate levels, it still wouldn't really balance out IMO.
Damage isn't really the problem here. When it comes to dealing damage fighters are actually quite good. But it's not damage that makes spellcasters so powerful. Damage isn't the fighters problem, so increasing damage wouldn't help them in any way.
Also, since the real power of spellcasters is not in damage, it wouldn't reduce their value to the party at all.

ericgrau
2010-07-16, 09:40 AM
Because it doesn't provide much fuel for theoretical optimization. When dealing 1000+ damage is a piece of cake, the question is not whether you can kill your opponent but how many different ways you can do it (or shut it down in enemies, or not get shut down yourself). In a friendly game that doesn't get too crazy the class is fine, though some find it boring or not versatile. Others love what they can build and customize. The expected way around the versatility issue at high levels is magic items, though special attacks and combat modifiers provide some options too (see combat section of rules or my sig cheat sheets).