Why is the Barbarian better than the Fighter?

[Jack Zander]

Just as the title asks. Why is the barbarian generally considered to be better than the fighter? I don't really see anything that barbarians get that gives them any more options than fighters have. When it comes down to it, both classes are pretty much, charge/attack, full-attack.

[Sinfonian]

For one thing, they have the option for the ACF Spirit Lion totem that trades (fast movement, I think?) for pounce. That helps solve one of the basic melee problems of being able to both move and attack effectively in the same turn.

Other things: better HD, more skills per level, and rage is quite handy (often even more so when you trade it for something like Whirling Frenzy).

I'm sure others have better answers.

[Jack Zander]

Sure, so when a barbarian fights a fighter, the barbarian wins. But both of them are helpless to spellcasters it seems. If neither of them have any control options available to them then they should both be considered pretty bad I'd think.

[The Glyphstone]

The Barbarian also has class features. Particularly in core, the only "feature" a Fighter has is his bonus feats, which a Barbarian can also get, and there's not enough good feats in Core for the Fighter's surplus to give him an advantage. Even the "fighter-only" feats like Weapon Focus/Specialization barely break even against Rage bonuses.

[gomipile]

Sure, so when a barbarian fights a fighter, the barbarian wins. But both of them are helpless to spellcasters it seems. If neither of them have any control options available to them then they should both be considered pretty bad I'd think.

True, but when you compare barbarian and fighter side-by-side against other non-caster types, the barbarian generally comes out ahead.

[DragoonWraith]

Class Features. The Barbarian has them, the Fighter does not.

[Jack Zander]

Alright so the barbarian really isn't a better class than the fighter, he's just the best of his class.

What could you do to fix the class so that it could compete with spellcasters?

Make higher levels of rage let the barbarian ignore negative effects of spells until the duration is over?
Make higher levels of rage prevent the barbarian from dying no matter how much damage he has taken until the rage ends (his hit points would need to be healed so he is back into the positives before the rage ends or he will die then)?

These are just some ideas I have for a melee fix, but they still do not address the problem of fly + wind wall or similar = non-magic people lose.

[Thurbane]

...I find it a little odd that so many discussions about the shortcomings of Fighters focus on the lack of good feats in core-only games, yet almost always include non-core ACFs when comparing them to Barbarians (i.e. pounce).

It's more productive to compare like for like - core-only vs. core-only, or open source vs. open source.

[Admiral Squish]

Looking for better barbarians? I got you covered, if you're open to homebrew! Greater Totem Barbarians. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157302)

[/shamelessplug]

[InkEyes]

...I find it a little odd that so many discussions about the shortcomings of Fighters focus on the lack of good feats in core-only games, yet almost always include non-core ACFs when comparing them to Barbarians (i.e. pounce).

It's more productive to compare like for like - core-only vs. core-only, or open source vs. open source.

I see one post about non-core and one about how core fighters can do nothing besides specializing in twiddling their thumbs. Is there supposed to be a unified narrative in the separate minds of posters in a thread?

Fighters also have really bland flavor compared to the Barbarian. One class is trained to hit things add background to taste, and one is a wild man from uncivilized lands who dissolves into a fierce rage in combat.

[Gavinfoxx]

So I'd say it's a few options. How does the fighter 20 and barbarian 20 compare in 1.) A 1 on 1 fight with each other, 2.) At doing their main job of hitting things, 3.) In party usefulness and versatility in general under these conditions:

MM / DMG / PHB only, with mild optimization
MM / DMG / PHB only, with full optimization

MM / DMG / PHB / SRD only, with mild optimization
MM / DMG / PHB / SRD only, with full optimization

MM / DMG / PHB / SRD / Completes, with mild optimization
MM / DMG / PHB / SRD / Completes, with full optimization

All 3.5e non setting specific wotc books open, with mild optimization
All 3.5e non setting specific wotc books open, with full optimization

All 3.5e wotc books open, including 3.5e setting specific, like Eberron, the updated parts of FR, but not the 3.5e update for Oriental Adventuers (it's from Dragon Magazine), with mild optimization
All 3.5e wotc books open, including 3.5e setting specific, like Eberron, the updated parts of FR, but not the 3.5e update for Oriental Adventuers (it's from Dragon Magazine), with full optimization

All 3.Xe wotc books, including all the setting specific ones, including the obscure ones like dragonlance and the other obscure "kinda sorta a wotc affiliate" setting books, and dragon and dungeon magazine completely open, with mild optimization
All 3.Xe wotc books, including all the setting specific ones, including the obscure ones like dragonlance and the other obscure "kinda sorta a wotc affiliate" setting books, and dragon and dungeon magazine completely open, with mild optimization

[Jack Zander]

3.) In party usefulness and versatility in general

This is really the only one I'm concerned about.

[742]

in general party usefulness barbarian has twice the skill points as the fighter, and i guess an ability to make him slightly better at smashing in doors?

nothing compared to the wizard or rogue (but then comparing anything to wizard is like comparing pre-roman weapons and tactics to a stealth bomber with a full crew of modern soldiers), but fighter is generally assumed to suck.

[Thurbane]

I see one post about non-core and one about how core fighters can do nothing besides specializing in twiddling their thumbs. Is there supposed to be a unified narrative in the separate minds of posters in a thread?

Fighters also have really bland flavor compared to the Barbarian. One class is trained to hit things add background to taste, and one is a wild man from uncivilized lands who dissolves into a fierce rage in combat.
It was more of a general comment on these type of discussions, rather than specific to this thread...

I suppose I should add that I have no problems with the Fighter in games I've played in, either fluff or crunch wise, but I realize that isn't indicative of everyone's game. The only "wish list" I'd have for the Fighter is 4 skills/level instead of only 2, and a better skill list (including spot & listen) - skills are the only shortfall of the Fighter that irks me.

[Flickerdart]

Barbarian gets Listen - Fighter doesn't. Thus, Barbarians will not be ambushed as often. They also get extra skill points, so they can pick, say, Ride and Handle Animal (absurdly broken skill) and train themselves some fancy mounts, and then Intimidate to scare people, leaving them with a free skill point. Maybe in Survival so they don't starve. Fighters have a worse skill list and a smaller number of skill points, so they can't take advantage of this as easily.

The barbarian, with his fat stack of HP, trap sense, and rage (which gives him a fatter stack of HP) can also act as a secondary trap monkey, and his fat stack of strength (due, again, to rage) lets him punch through doors faster than the Fighter, too, meaning he can also act as the secondary lockpicker.

The movement bonus, combined with barbarians not wearing heavy armour (because, well, they can't) will give them +20 feet on most fighters, which is a pretty serious difference, and also lets barbarians jump higher when in pursuit of flying foes.

Granted, these are fairly minor advantages compared to the wizard, but the fighter doesn't even have those.

[gomipile]

One area that the fighter shines in is qualifying for feat chains at low levels. If you have a preferred combat style for your character and the game likely will never see level 7, the fighter is the easiest to qualify for the feats, often times.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What could you do to fix the class so that it could compete with spellcasters?

Is it Wednesday already?

Seriously, man. Barbarian is the best melee out of Core. Once you get out of Core, he gets better. Barring ToB stuff, I'd say it's probably the most powerful non-caster class in the game.

Barbarian gets good battlefield control options. Intimidating Rage + Never Outnumbered.

Barbarian gets stat bonuses, which cannot be duplicated with feats

Barbarian can use ACF's to get Pounce so they can get a full attack on a charge. When combined with Power Attack/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack/Frenzied Berserker, this shoots his damage up into the THOUSANDS per hit. The fighter simply cannot compete with this.

And with that damage potential, STILL has the battlefield control utility. Even more so if he wants to pick up Improved Trip and EWP: Spiked Chain. Then he has all the utility of a Fighter... and ten times the damage output.

He still can't even so much as land a single blow on any appropriately-leveled intelligently played caster.

[Jack Zander]

He still can't even so much as land a single blow on any appropriately-leveled intelligently played caster.

Ya, so how do we take away that damage potential in favor of giving him some options against casters?

[mobdrazhar]

Ya, so how do we take away that damage potential in favor of giving him some options against casters?

you take levels in Occult Slayer :smalltongue:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ya, so how do we take away that damage potential in favor of giving him some options against casters?

How do you propose to give him options against a class who have spells more powerful than entire classes?

Seriously, look at it:

Low levels is when the caster is most vulnerable. That's what Sleep is for. Will save or fall asleep. And Barbarians have notoriously low Will saves. Or Grease... Reflex save or Prone. Again, Barbarians are not noted for their Reflex save.

Then they pick up Glitterdust... Will save or be Blinded. Web... Reflex save or be stuck. They also get Mirror Image. So even if you do manage to close, you have a 1 in 8 chance of actually hitting the right one. Or simply Invisibility so you can't see him at all.

At 3rd they get Slow... Will save or pick between either a standard action or a move action. Fly prevents the Barbarian from being able to touch him at all.

By the time a Wizard gets access to 4th level spells, at level 7, the Barbarian is no longer able to effectively threaten a Wizard, due to DimDoor and Enervation. It only gets worse from here on out.

The wizard simply has too many options which will completely negate the Barbarian from the equation. Period.

[gomipile]

Ya, so how do we take away that damage potential in favor of giving him some options against casters?

Play a different game, like 4e?

Seriously, this is starting to sound like a game balance discussion from the World of Warcraft damage dealing forum.

3.5 is in no way about balance. It would take such a concerted effort to make a game less balanced than 3.5, that it might as well have been designed to be unbalanced.

But balance is not why we play 3.5. I, for one, play 3.5 because it feels epic. If the things that make it that way make it rather top-heavy, I'm okay with that.

[Hague]

Well, how do we define "Melee Character?"

Is it any class that gets full BAB progression? We have Rangers, Hexblades, Paladins, Knights, Fighters, Swashbucklers, Samurai and Barbarians all with full base attack bonus progression if you don't wander out of Wizards products (maybe more, not sure)

[DragoonWraith]

The best Fighter fix I have seen, and I've read a few, is still the Warblade from Tome of Battle. It's still not going to compete with the Wizard (see Shneekey's post), but it's a massively better-designed class, and works quite nicely.


Play a different game, like 4e?

Seriously, this is starting to sound like a game balance discussion from the World of Warcraft damage dealing forum.

3.5 is in no way about balance. It would take such a concerted effort to make a game less balanced than 3.5, that it might as well have been designed to be unbalanced.

But balance is not why we play 3.5. I, for one, play 3.5 because it feels epic. If the things that make it that way make it rather top-heavy, I'm okay with that.
There's no reason why epicness requires wildly imbalanced classes - and I'm talking about the Fighter as much as the Wizard. 4e changed a lot of things, and not all of it was purely for balance - and at least some of it that was for balance, doesn't have to be the only way of balancing things.


Well, how do we define "Melee Character?"

Is it any class that gets full BAB progression? We have Rangers, Hexblades, Paladins, Knights, Fighters, Swashbucklers, Samurai and Barbarians all with full base attack bonus progression if you don't wander out of Wizards products (maybe more, not sure)
You missed Crusader, Duskblade, Soulborn, and Warblade, as far as I can tell. Amusingly, 3/4 of them are better than any of the ones you mentioned (and the Soulborn's worse than any of them except Fighter and Samurai, probably).

[gomipile]

There's no reason why epicness requires wildly imbalanced classes - and I'm talking about the Fighter as much as the Wizard. 4e changed a lot of things, and not all of it was purely for balance - and at least some of it that was for balance, doesn't have to be the only way of balancing things.

The best Fighter fix I have seen, and I've read a few, is still the Warblade from Tome of Battle. It's still not going to compete with the Wizard (see Shneekey's post), but it's a massively better-designed class, and works quite nicely.

You are right, of course. For me, however, part of what makes 3.5 feel epic is the vast, world changing power tier 1 and 2 characters can attain. In 4e, that sort of stuff is right out.

[DragoonWraith]

You are right, of course. For me, however, part of what makes 3.5 feel epic is the vast, world changing power tier 1 and 2 characters can attain. In 4e, that sort of stuff is right out.
You might be interested in the "Tomes" series of homebrew by Frank & K. It's... interesting reading, anyway. It was an attempt to create a full system balanced around Tier-1, basically. Making martial characters and the like who could compete with full-casters. It's incomplete and the desirability of that balance point is debatable, but if that's what you're looking for, you'll likely enjoy them.

Not to be confused, obviously, with the Tomes, as in Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic.

[Jack Zander]

Well what about class features that have magic in mind? Like SR, or the ability to ignore the effects of spells for a time? For something offensive, can't we give non-magic characters the ability to fire anti-magic arrows that have an anti-magic field with a 5 foot radius around them? The arrow would travel right through any magical barriers and would negate everything the caster could do if it hit him. I mean, there has to be an easy way to level the field a bit.

[DragoonWraith]

Well what about class features that have magic in mind?
Doesn't really fit what little fluff the Fighter has, but OK, suppose we did.


Like SR
Too easy to ignore/bypass.


the ability to ignore the effects of spells for a time?
See Iron Heart Surge in Tome of Battle.


For something offensive, can't we give non-magic characters the ability to fire anti-magic arrows that have an anti-magic field with a 5 foot radius around them? The arrow would travel right through any magical barriers and would negate everything the caster could do if it hit him.
And what would those cost? How would the Fighter get them?

And what the hell would a Wizard do if you had them? Hard counters are bad, too - if the Fighter can turn a Wizard into a Commoner at will, then suddenly Wizards are the ones who are underpowered - so long as the Fighter has those arrows.


I mean, there has to be an easy way to level the field a bit.
Err... no, there doesn't. There isn't. It would most likely take overhauling the spell system, to begin with, or to give the melee characters something similar.

[gomipile]

Well what about class features that have magic in mind? Like SR, or the ability to ignore the effects of spells for a time? For something offensive, can't we give non-magic characters the ability to fire anti-magic arrows that have an anti-magic field with a 5 foot radius around them? The arrow would travel right through any magical barriers and would negate everything the caster could do if it hit him. I mean, there has to be an easy way to level the field a bit.

Sure, it would be pretty easy to whip up a custom magic item using the item creation guidelines which does that.

As for a class which has that feature, arcane archer can do it, so there's no reason it would be imbalanced for it to be a more restrictive class feature for a martial class along the lines you suggested.

[lsfreak]

I mean, there has to be an easy way to level the field a bit.

Not particularly. The only easy way of leveling the field I've seen is to ban everything that's not ToB, psionics, and incarnum. Or gestalt everyone with sorcerer/psion.

A random thought might be removing all 5-foot stepping that's not made as part of an attack action, increasing spell cast times to at least '1 round' if not 'one full round,' increasing skill points across the board (wizards 4/lvl, fighters 6/lvl, skillmonkeys 14/lvl). That's still not going to do it. It still leaves you painfully short on the utility, and doesn't entirely fix defenses.

[Jack Zander]

Too easy to ignore/bypass.

If the ability is easy to bypass, then increase the SR. If it's being ignored, then the wizard is purposefully limiting his spell selection to cast spells that don't allow for SR, and the more limits a caster puts on himself, the less of a batman he becomes.


See Iron Heart Surge in Tome of Battle.

So the ability does exist then? How does it work? Does it keep melee characters from being unable to do anything due to a few well-placed spells?


And what would those cost? How would the Fighter get them?

And what the hell would a Wizard do if you had them? Hard counters are bad, too - if the Fighter can turn a Wizard into a Commoner at will, then suddenly Wizards are the ones who are underpowered - so long as the Fighter has those arrows.

So its okay for wizards to turn fighters into comatose babies, but fighters shouldn't have something that stops the wizards?

[Augmented Lurk]

There's no real point in arguing about whether a fighter or barbarian is better when a multiclass fighter/barbarian is better than either of them.

[Koury]

So its okay for wizards to turn fighters into comatose babies, but fighters shouldn't have something that stops the wizards?

Well, the arrow idea wouldn't really shut them down anyway (AMF doesn't really shut Wizards down, after all). Plus if they're Invisible, Displaced or affected by Mirror Image you still deal with those issues as normal when trying to hit.

[Otodetu]

Class balance even in core is quite okay if your champaign (and you as the dm) include the common knowledge that spellcasters are powerful, and you limit their presence and/or add social stigmata to them, maybe all wizards are evil making it quite hard to be a neutral one, clerics are a few holy ones, and just don't let people play druids.

Add more role-play and social situations, and remember to subtly add in challenges for everyone.


Try not to level up over level 10.


With a few precautions like these you will soon find the game much more enjoyable, class imbalance or not.

[Philistine]

So its okay for wizards to turn fighters into comatose babies, but fighters shouldn't have something that stops the wizards?
Who said it was okay for Wizards to turn Fighters into comatose babies? Apart from WotC, I mean. Obviously.


I mean, there has to be an easy way to level the field a bit.
Sure there is. It's called "go back to 2E, or move on to 4E, or forget about D&D altogether," because the brokenness is built into 3E from the ground up.

Keep in mind that getting spanked by Wizards in 1v1 PvP play is the least of the Fighter's problems. The real problem is that the Fighter isn't particularly good at anything, including his "designed role" (which was already weaker than the Wizard's "designed role" to start with).

[Aran Banks]

Sorry, was someone looking fora wizard-balanced barbarian (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Barbarian%2C_Tome_(3.5e_Class))?

Races of War (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29). Check it out.

[Hague]

See. Therein lies the problem. Magic is not balanced because it's not meant to be balanced. (Granted, if you make clerics have spellbooks, they get less powerful) Fighters are meant to be the easy class to get into.

If you look at the average array for NPCs, you'll see that the stats: 11/10/11/10/11/10 don't work too well for Wizards, Clerics or other tricksters. Conventional classes that don't require hard attribute limits for their effectiveness imply that on average there are simply more and better fighters among the average array, barbarians and other non-casters because fighter is a more accessible class for commoners. Without the elite array, fighters become a more prolific class for their various bonus feats. Fighter is the class for the unfortunate people with no choices, like people who don't use point-buy systems :P

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...Snip...(Granted, if you make clerics have spellbooks, they get less powerful)Snip...

Check out the Archivist, in Heroes of Horror. It's essentially a Cleric who uses a Spell(Prayer)book, and it's one of the most broken classes in the game.

[Jack Zander]

Check out the Archivist, in Heroes of Horror. It's essentially a Cleric who uses a Spell(Prayer)book, and it's one of the most broken classes in the game.

That's not because of the spellbook though. Its because they can have whatever spell they want from anyone's list.

[TheAzrael]

It should also be stated that Barbarian has good prestige class options available to him. Against spellcaster lets say there is Runescarred Berserker [UE] that gives you at some point antimagic field and heal ! combine that with the race dragonborn and choose to have winds and you stand a good chance against thouse spellcasters ( ok so you cast a few spells yourself but they are more like drinking potions in action and are fluffed as runes you scribe in your body). And thats only one of the options. Even if you stick to barbarian 20 there are so many abilities you could trade for others better ones that makes the class fun to play. Plus you can play the berserker from Lodus War :P i mean come on he was awesome when in rage... I still pity Pan when he faught him.

here is a guide for Barbarians that i come to love :P
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105525

[Hague]

Well, I just make it so Clerics have instant spell-learning progression like wizards and then have to buy and study new "rituals" in order to have access to them. It helps me limit the power-creep on clerics and ties it all together. Same applies to druids as well, of course. Players who want access like a cleric used to have can play a shaman and request those spells from the spirits. Clerics always have access to their domain spells, of course, they don't need to learn them.

In Drow of the Underdark Fighters can get Hit-and-Run tactics as an alternate class-feature which gives them a flat bonus to initiative, and a bonus on damage to flat-footed characters. The surprising Riposte feat in the same book lets you make an opponent flat-footed if you damage them after feinting them.

In the end, Fighter is a good class with low requirements that is useful for multi-classing but not great for people with decent attributes. The Fighter should get 4x skill points and leadership as a bonus feat at level 9 like the Fighters of yore.

[icefractal]

What could you do to fix the class so that it could compete with spellcasters?Well the Races of War (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Barbarian is pretty balanced against casters. The Tomes assume moderately optimal play, so this would actually be a lot stronger than a "blaster" Wizard, but should be a good fit for a party with a "Batman" Wizard.

That particular class is geared for players who want straightforward tactics, so it still has less options than a caster. For more complex tactics, use a Tome Fighter (although note that if Tome feats are in use, you probably want to reduce the amount the Fighter gets).

[Reis Tahlen]

I still think the Fighter is a decent class choice; better AC, better fighting options, better utility in group.

Doing HUGE damage means nothing if you can't save the squishies in your group because the BBEG has tons of hit points; better pin him down, push him, etc...

Yeah, the Barbarian could do that. But without feat, he'll do that less effectively, and he already needs his few feats for other things, like... doing better damages, strenghten his Rage, and so on...

Yup, he has tons of HP. So has the Fighter. As far as I'm concerned, Constitution is ALSO a prime for Fighter. With equal Con, Barbarians have... 2hp per level more than the Fighter. And for that? No Heavy Armor and no Tower Shield. Yay, that's a BIG advantage, surely.

Turn the other way around: the Fighter can also do decent damage: he has ALSO access to all the damage-related Feats (Power Attack, Jumping Attack, Brute Tactics, and so on...). Oh, yes, he doesn't have the thrice and so per day strenght boost. Big deal. Doing monstruous damage means nothing if you're beaten into a pulp in no time.

[2xMachina]

It doesn't matter that a Wizard can beat a fighter.

We're not playing a PvP game here. We're playing a team game. For fun.

Most important question is: Can they do their job? and Can the players have fun playing them?
If yes, that's all you could want from them.

And the DM can tweak the encounters so that the strengths of the PC's are tested and used.

[Otodetu]

I do have to say that the fighter class only has wealth by level as a means to become interesting, in core the class is horrible, splats help alot, but core; the fighter is a un-class worthy of becoming a npc class just because of being boring.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, look at it this way. There is no level in fighter that would not be better replaced by dipping barbarian.

More hp, sweet, delicious rage, actual class features, skill points. Oh no, no heavy armor. Meh.

Granted, the class is somewhat front loaded, so it's rather dip-friendly, but you could do worse than dipping fighter for two levels, dipping barbarian for rage, then heading off to pick up some other interesting full bab class. If you want to play melee, dips are your best friend.

[Gavinfoxx]

Lets not forget that "general usefulness to a party" also includes, "ability to be useful and pull their own weight when encountering various sorts of hostile creatures that require a violent confrontation". Just remember, there are many different situations where violence is required, and versatility in being able to do something useful in many types of these situations is important..

[Reis Tahlen]

Mmmh, yes, my bad. I tend to be straightforward (read: 2nd and 4th Edition) when I visualize a character; even though I'm playing since a few month, in my mind I don't "dip", I "multiclass". I don't know if I'm clear...

So, yes, with this in mind, Fighter is only a way to receive quick Feats, heavy armor and tower shield proficiency, martial weapons proficiency, aaaand... That's it.

But that saddens me a bit.

[Tyndmyr]

Proficiencies are easy to get, unless they're exotic. One level is all you ever need for armor, shield and weapon proficiencies. Even then, you have a number of options for choices. Is psiwar a better choice than fighter? Probably. You still get bonus feats.

[Milskidasith]

I never really liked the tomes, if only because of the fighter feature that was, IIRC, a free/immediate action (out of turn) that automatically stopped all of a foes actions for that round, no save, ranged touch attack maybe?

While I'm all for assuming people are optimized, that feature was so incredibly poorly designed it got hard to take anything else in there seriously. They certainly are powerful, but I don't really think the tome classes do much besides make it much more "razors edge" balance; instead of having casters just win, it's now either side will win without much of any risk, or they'll die without doing much. That may be more balanced, but balanced rocket tag is still poor design.

I haven't read them in a long time, though, so I could be entirely incorrect on the fixes. Still, it would be better (though not easier) to lower the power of wizards, but for real game, all you need is to play effective (T3 or well built T4) melee while the casters agree not to do too much brokenness, and you should contribute well.

[Gerrtt]

Well, which would you rather hang out with at a party?

http://suvudu.com/files/mt-files/Conan%20the%20Barbarian.jpg

or

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/knight-medieval/images/knight-medieval-1.jpg

It's a pretty clear choice for me which is having more fun at their job.

[Person_Man]

Arguing about the Fighter vs. Barbarian is like arguing over M. Night Shyamalan vs Uwe Boll. Neither is particularly good at what they do.

Having said that, I prefer the Fighter over the Barbarian. The Fighter gets better armor (including free Exotic Shield Proficiency), Dungeoncrasher (8d6+ 3*Str damage when you Bull Rush someone into a wall or solid object), and Zhentarim Fighter (Swift Action Demoralize). The Barbarian gets a poorly scaled bonus to Str and Con, plus Pounce or Fast Movement (either of which can be purchased with feats or magic items).

[The Glyphstone]

Well, which would you rather hang out with at a party?

{snip}

It's a pretty clear choice for me which is having more fun at their job.

I'll let the two warriors compare their weapon size and pick Option 3, the babe Conan has clinging to his leg there.:smallcool:

[Gerrtt]

Touche salesman, touche.

[JaxGaret]

I never really liked the tomes, if only because of the fighter feature that was, IIRC, a free/immediate action (out of turn) that automatically stopped all of a foes actions for that round, no save, ranged touch attack maybe?

It's a 9th level ability that only works within 30 feet (60' at 17th level), can only be used once per round, only stops one action, uses up your Swift action for the next round, and can be blocked by such things as Blur, Mirror Image, etc.

Yes, it's good, but it's not game-breaking.


While I'm all for assuming people are optimized, that feature was so incredibly poorly designed it got hard to take anything else in there seriously. They certainly are powerful, but I don't really think the tome classes do much besides make it much more "razors edge" balance; instead of having casters just win, it's now either side will win without much of any risk, or they'll die without doing much. That may be more balanced, but balanced rocket tag is still poor design.

If you want to play rocket tag, it's good design. You're assuming that your personal preference of "rocket tag is bad" is universal. In a D&Dverse where being raised from the dead is common, rocket tag is less of a poor design choice than it would be if death is always permanent.


I haven't read them in a long time, though, so I could be entirely incorrect on the fixes. Still, it would be better (though not easier) to lower the power of wizards, but for real game, all you need is to play effective (T3 or well built T4) melee while the casters agree not to do too much brokenness, and you should contribute well.

You can try E6 if you want to have balanced casters and non-casters. Or simply enforce the Tier System, and use Druids and Summoners for melee if you're going Tier 1.

[Eldariel]

Core Barbarian vs. Core Fighter

Barbarian has an increasingly large amount of extra HP. As Rage improves and becomes more frequent, you end up with eventual +8 Con and D12 vs. D10 (average 1 point per level, 2 on 1st) for a total of 100 HP on 20. On level 1, the difference is 2 points (4 when Raging).
Barbarian gains Strength-bonuses that grant him +2 to hit and +3 to damage initially, scaling up to +4 to hit and +6 to damage. Fighter gets +1 to hit and +4 to damage that the Barbarian cannot access (it's not a horrible call to pick Weapon Focus in core as a Barbarian). Potentially +2 to hit and +4 to damage.
Fighter starts off with better AC and when Raging this is only polarized. Fighter should have anywhere from 10% to 20% lesser chance of being hit when attacked on low level. Once Mithril gear becomes available, this standardizes to the 10% region.
Barbarian gains movement speed bonus (and for 1 point of AC, Barb can wear light armor which further emphasizes the advantage), being dangerous from far greater distances than the Fighter and being better able to position himself to protect the squishier party members.
Barbarian gets Trap Sense, so...whatever.
Barbarian gets Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge which amount to a practical immunity to the most common ways of delivering Sneak Attack, along with improved AC before combat starts.
Barbarian gets Damage Reduction, which somewhat increases the amount of HP differential for the purposes of a pure brawl.
Fighter gets more feats which means he can learn stuff like Improved Sunder for the one time you face a Hydra, Improved Bull Rush when you have the obligatory bridge fight scene and so on; so he'll use them one-twice a campaign. Or he can pick a dozen Weapon Focuses. Bleh.
Barbarian has notable Will-save bonuses while Fighter probably picks Iron Will. Barbarian's bonuses are far larger but not active all the time, notably not at the beginning of the combat. On the other hand, when they are active he actually does have a respectable Will-save.
Barbarian has more skill points and a not-totally-fail list.


I'd say Barbarian comes out rather clearly ahead there; less vulnerable to surprises and traps, way more HP (which means able to take more...everything), superior offense and mobility with inferior physical protection (and superior fort saves).


3.5 Barbarian vs. 3.5 Fighter

Barbarian has Pounce [Lion Spirit Totem], an extra attack while Raging [Whirling Frenzy] and various charge-related bonuses [Street Fighter (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)]. Fighter has +½ BAB to Will-saves [Resolute], Swift Action Intimidation (though this is specifically Tier 4 version of a Fighter) [Zhentarim Fighter (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060327a) & ability to inflict massive damage by pushing things to walls, along with various defenses against traps and such [Dungeoncrasher].
Fighter's feats are suddenly useful. Shock Trooper and Leap Attack on 6 means that if Barbarian wasn't so vastly superior in Charging, Fighter would be better. Suddenly Barbarian can gain bonus feats too though and skip some prerequisites so this benefit is very delayed, comparatively.


Damage-wise, the additions mean Barbarian is now vastly more dangerous especially as a charger, while Fighter does less damage but is a bit more versatile. Make no mistake, if Zhentarim Fighter is allowed and we're using Thug chassis, Fighter pulls even as it gains versatility in combat and out of it while matching many of Barbarian's strengths.

Still, it's worth noting that Barbarian's class features up on higher levels are way superior to Fighter's thanks to Street Fighter & co. and thus, if you single-class Barbarian keeps getting nice stuff while Fighter...well, not so much. Basically, level 9 is the last level Fighter gains an interesting ability on and then it's steadily worse and worse feats (aside from Robilar's Gambit on level 12).

[Tiki Snakes]

Note - Conan the Barbarian isn't even a Barbarian (Class-wise), so yeah. :smallsmile:

[Greenish]

Fighters are meant to be the easy class to get into.Yet they aren't, really. Making a competent fighter (as competent as they get, anyway) requires some time and thinking. Contrast barbarian or druid.



If you look at the average array for NPCs, you'll see that the stats: 11/10/11/10/11/10 don't work too well for Wizards, Clerics or other tricksters. Conventional classes that don't require hard attribute limits for their effectiveness imply that on average there are simply more and better fighters among the average array, barbarians and other non-casters because fighter is a more accessible class for commoners. Without the elite array, fighters become a more prolific class for their various bonus feats. Fighter is the class for the unfortunate people with no choices, like people who don't use point-buy systems :PSo Fighter is an NPC class? :smallamused:

[Jack Zander]

It doesn't matter that a Wizard can beat a fighter.

We're not playing a PvP game here. We're playing a team game. For fun.

Most important question is: Can they do their job? and Can the players have fun playing them?
If yes, that's all you could want from them.

And the DM can tweak the encounters so that the strengths of the PC's are tested and used.

Except NPCs can have class levels. And it's no fun when the wizard and cleric get to go toe to toe with the bad guy and all you can do is look up at their epic air battle.

[FMArthur]

Either way, both are just short dips to make actually interesting warriors more powerful. I guess the 1-level Barbarian dip is more common than the 1-or-2 Fighter dip though.

[Greenish]

Either way, both are just short dips to make actually interesting warriors more powerful. I guess the 1-level Barbarian dip is more common than the 1-or-2 Fighter dip though.I like barb 2, actually. Two levels of either can get you Imp. Trip, but the other also gives you better skills, Pounce and Whirling Frenzy.

If going for other feats, psywarr and monk are more likely suspects. Two levels in 3/4 BAB class along with the traditional cloistered cleric dip only loses you one point of BAB.

[Fax Celestis]

As I've said before:



I do a lot of homebrew. I put a lot of effort into them, and I am very concerned about the playability and balance of the classes that I write. I want them to be fun, both to have in the party and to play. I think about design quite a bit. And one thing I've learned from this is that the Fighter is a poorly designed class. And players can tell.
This argument, right here, is why we have these fighter arguments. The reason the barbarian is better than the fighter is because he gets to do something a fighter never can: rage. He has an option that is inaccessible to the fighter, but still has access to everything that makes the fighter a fighter: sure, he gets less of them, but he still gets feats.

Aside from Weapon Specialization and some PHB-II omg-you-really-took-fifteen-levels-of-fighter feats, there is nothing that a fighter can do that a barbarian cannot also do. This makes a very poorly designed class.

Frankly, the fighter itself offends me as a designer: it has no unique features, and its only ability is an evenly paced "pick it yourself" ability. To me, it says, "here, we were too lazy to come up with a class that actually had features, so we thought we'd just toss this together and call it done. Hope that's okay!"

Well, in my book, it's not. The fighter disgusts me, not because it mechanically sucks (which it does, but this can be compensated for with some work), but because it is a jury-rigged piece of garbage, a poor excuse for a class, and not worth the paper it is printed on. I would rather play a truenamer or a healer or a monk or a samurai before I would play a fighter, because at least the people who wrote those classes had the imagination to come up with unique and interesting (if not well-thought out or mechanically balanced) things for those classes to do! And in a game fundamentally based around imagination, lacking the imagination to come up with something interesting and dynamic is a very, very poor mark.


Wizard is also a poorly designed class. And Artificer. And Cleric. And Druid. And Archivist. They just can do so much stuff and break the game in so much ways that the system can't support'em em provide apropriate challenges (other than completly over-CRed monsters or other members of the big five).
But don't people don't say 'don't play a Wizard, it's bad design, they are broken'. Is it only bad design if it is weak? Then we should all the playing Pun-Pun.

It is not bad design because it mechanically sucks. It is bad design because it lacks creativity and imagination. The wizard, at least, has interesting spells that can be used in a variety of ways: more than anything else, these are his class features. The cleric and druid also get interesting features: the former gets domains, the latter gets wildshape and venom immunity and timeless body and trackless step. While some of these are very very powerful (wildshape) and others are largely fluff (timeless body), at least they are not "Bonus Feat". The person who made the druid took time and thought about neat and interesting things that would make this character into a "druid", rather than "a dude with a bear".

I am going to be shot for this, but the monk is an example of good design in theory. It has interesting, unique class features you cannot get anywhere else. It has thematically appropriate abilities that are not be-all-end-all abilities. It has very very few things that overlap with other classes. Nobody else gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon: despite it coming too late and not really being worth anything mechanically, it is more interesting and thought-out than "Bonus Feat".

[2xMachina]

Except NPCs can have class levels. And it's no fun when the wizard and cleric get to go toe to toe with the bad guy and all you can do is look up at their epic air battle.

The DM should not have used a flying enemy then. Or you should get a bow to shoot them. Or some options of flying yourself. Or the Wizard could Dispel him.

But mostly, the Dm shouldn't have set up a situation where a PC can't do a thing. NPC wizard blaster is still a wizard.

[Tyndmyr]

The DM should not have used a flying enemy then. Or you should get a bow to shoot them. Or some options of flying yourself. Or the Wizard could Dispel him.

But mostly, the Dm shouldn't have set up a situation where a PC can't do a thing. NPC wizard blaster is still a wizard.

The NPCs in my campaigns do not get stupider merely because a PC chooses not to optimize. If you failed to have any ranged options whatsoever, well, flying enemies are going to suck for you. The world is not suddenly devoid of them.

[Dr.Epic]

Barbarians have some kick-ass prestige classes while fighters have such a huge diversity that it isn't really fair to compare them all to a barb.

[Argentum74]

Just to chime in:

Regarding "levelling the playing field between barbarians/fighters and spellcasters," in every D&D campaign I've ever run or played in, the barbarians and fighters were part of a group of PC's, not off on their own. And these groups of PC's (or parties, as they are commonly called) usually included spellcasters of their own, who served to counter the powers of enemy spellcasters quite effectively. Call me crazy, but it works.

Regarding the relative value of barbarians vs. fighters, yes, the barbarian has an impressive array of class abilities, whereas the fighter has superior feat progression and more feat chains available. What ultimately makes them effective is HOW THEY ARE PLAYED, not just as individuals, but in the context of the party as well. A well-played barbarian is an asset in combat, but is often a liability in non-combat situations (as I'm learning in my current campaign:smallwink:).

Either class can be just as interesting and/or effective, depending on how you build them and play them. Though I definitely agree that the skill points and class skills for fighters are terrible and very unrealistic. I'd trade Craft for Spot in a cinch.

[Zeful]

We're not playing a PvP game here.

So you encounter no enemies with PC class levels?
3.5 is a PVP game, player classes are assumed to fight other player classes or the option wouldn't be available to the DM in the first place (like in 4e). And because of that, classes should be more balanced in a PVP environment, rather than the current system. Currently there is no sensible explanation as to why you shouldn't be a caster of some flavor, because the options available to them are simply better in every way to non-caster options.

[Eldariel]

Either class can be just as interesting and/or effective, depending on how you build them and play them.

But see, that's not productive; it's completely useless to say "all these classes are fine if built correctly" or some such if we are interested in actually evaluating the abilities the classes grant and comparing them side-by-side. The feats Fighter gives are fine...outside Core.

In Core, you'll find you quickly really have nothing amazing to pick. I would know, my first 3.X character was a mostly-core Fighter. I unsurprisingly multiclassed to Wizard after concluding I get nothing from staying Fighter and going through the books and going "huh" when I read what level 9 spells can do. I also had a player go straight Fighter until like level 12 and when we started looking at what he's getting we kinda just realized the system sucks (for Fighters). I also realized I shoulda just been a Ranger from the start for skill points and magic and...well, basically class features.

And outside Core, Barbarian gains more goodies and probably better stuff than the Fighter (Pounce is so key).

[Lans]

At high levels of optimization fighters and barbarians are about equal, provided splat gets allowed. Barbarian being the better damage dealer and the fighter finding good synergistic feat line. Barbarian can have the edge here, but it won't be like it is at lower optimization levels or when its just core.

In core only the fighter loses out largely due to the low level of effect of many feats, with no synergy. Outside of ACFs and racial sub levels the only thing a fighter gets is feats, and the only thing he can do with them that another class can't do just as well is to get synergy between the feats.

Getting early access helps, also, which in core is pretty much just cleave which is awesome at levels 1-2. Rapid shot too I guess.

[Curmudgeon]

Just as the title asks. Why is the barbarian generally considered to be better than the fighter? I don't really see anything that barbarians get that gives them any more options than fighters have. When it comes down to it, both classes are pretty much, charge/attack, full-attack. Most feats can be taken by anyone. There are just a very few feats that only Fighters can take. On the other hand, Fighters have a hard time qualifying for the class abilities that Barbarians get. Fighters really only get feats, and there are so very many poor choices there that Fighters usually compare poorly to other martial classes. However, in a setting with enough nearby walls, the Dungeoncrasher Fighter variant holds its own against the Barbarian.

[2xMachina]

The NPCs in my campaigns do not get stupider merely because a PC chooses not to optimize. If you failed to have any ranged options whatsoever, well, flying enemies are going to suck for you. The world is not suddenly devoid of them.

I suppose you could do that. I suppose we just look for different things.

And yes, everyone should get flight or ranged.


So you encounter no enemies with PC class levels?
3.5 is a PVP game, player classes are assumed to fight other player classes or the option wouldn't be available to the DM in the first place (like in 4e). And because of that, classes should be more balanced in a PVP environment, rather than the current system. Currently there is no sensible explanation as to why you shouldn't be a caster of some flavor, because the options available to them are simply better in every way to non-caster options.

Well... less? I'm more for the stock enemies, and then the BBEG has class lvls. But even in the case of a Wizard BBEG, you're not alone.

Your team of 4 vs the BBEG + mooks. You're not going 1 on 1, so your CoDzilla could also buff you, and the wizard can do some counter battlefield control.

It has less options, sure. But sometimes, less options is easier to play. I've been making Clerics recently and they're a bloody pain to do. What spells prepared, what buffs to apply, how many Cures I can spare. Sometimes, you want to be lazy, and go for the ones where you just roll the dice.

[Zeful]

Well... less? I'm more for the stock enemies, and then the BBEG has class lvls. But even in the case of a Wizard BBEG, you're not alone.So few humanoid opponents then? That's fine, but when you want a human villain, odds are good that he's got some PC levels to keep him at a more even parity between him and the PCs themselves. Humanoids need some class levels to be effective villains. This points out the underlying fact that there is some PVP element built into the game, but there's no balance to it, so a competently played Wizard invalidates pretty much everything that can't cast spells. This pretty much destroys many concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. You can't play a fighter and be Beowulf or Heracles or Achilles without being decked out in magic items from head to toe and glowing like a spotlight under detect magic.


It has less options, sure. But sometimes, less options is easier to play. I've been making Clerics recently and they're a bloody pain to do. What spells prepared, what buffs to apply, how many Cures I can spare. Sometimes, you want to be lazy, and go for the ones where you just roll the dice.
But would the fighter be less rolling dice if they had a class feature that made weapons more powerful in their hands? The class can be mechanically simple, that's fine, but this mechanical simplicity need not come at the expense of his power or uniqueness.

For example, say at Fifth level the Fighter gained a class feature that gave all weapons with a Damage die up to d6 gain one extra die of damage, at Tenth level it expanded to include weapons up to d10, and at 20th include all weapons and gave all weapons 2 extra dice. Would the class still be simple?

[DanReiv]

Barbs got better stuff than fighter in core, as stated above.

Add core ACF (pounce/imp grab variant mostly), and the only reason to take fighter is full BAB/feat for 2 levels.

I say full BAB cuz otherwise most people are gonna go Psywar for feats + power (mostly expansion, cuz self abilty to get true reach is nice for a warrior build)

Poor fighters really got a tiny tiney niche.

Outside of core there's one Fighter ACF noteworthy tho : Dungeon Crasher.

It's so awesome :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

Barbs got better stuff than fighter in core, as stated above.

Add core ACF (pounce/imp grab variant mostly), and the only reason to take fighter is full BAB/feat for 2 levels.

I say full BAB cuz otherwise most people are gonna go Psywar for feats + power (mostly expansion, cuz self abilty to get true reach is nice for a warrior build)

Poor fighters really got a tiny tiney niche.

Outside of core there's one Fighter ACF noteworthy tho : Dungeon Crasher.

It's so awesome :smallbiggrin:

Resolute and Zhentarim are definitely worth your attention...

[DanReiv]

Well not really, on most warrior heavy build I'd rather take Steadfast determination than Resolute ACF (or even better, find a way to be immune to mind-affecting)

Swift intimidate is nice okay, but it comes way too late. 9th level fighter ? c'mon.

Even for a fear-inducing build, there's much easier and more powerfull way to do it. (see the fear handbook, somewhere, brilliant or wizard don't remember :smallwink:)

[Eldariel]

Well not really, on most warrior heavy build I'd rather take Steadfast determination than Resolute ACF (or even better, find a way to be immune to mind-affecting)

Steadfast is two feats and might be a lesser boost. Thanks to Resolute, Fighter Will-saves are very good for an affordable price. Though if you plan on using your swift actions otherwise, it of course loses some value and Steadfast is certainly fine. Still, Resolute has its own merit.


Swift intimidate is nice okay, but it comes way too late. 9th level fighter ? c'mon.

Even for a fear-inducing build, there's much easier and more powerfull way to do it. (see the fear handbook, somewhere, brilliant or wizard don't remember :smallwink:)

It's the only class feature based means of doing it, which actually means quite a bit. Gives Fighters something unique to do. Combine with DC and it's real nice.

[Aldizog]

I think the tier system, or JaronK's version of it, has a note that fighter is at the high end of 5, and barbarian at the low end of 4. So they're close. And that's overall effectiveness; it's not saying that a barbarian will necessarily beat a fighter in a toe-to-toe fight. The barbarian gets a number of things to let him help out the party in other capacities, such as his skills.

In general, I think low-to-mid levels are way more relevant than what a level-20 build can look like; I'd guess that the median PC level in all 3.5 game sessions ever played is something like 6. With 7-8 feats, the fighter can complete two good feat chains by this time (Shock Trooper and Elusive Target; Mage Slayer and Chain Tripper; many others) and therefore have a fair number of interesting and useful things to do. The barbarian will have 3-4 feats, enough for one chain. Suppose the campaign ends at 11; the barbarian gets a new feat exactly once in the last half of the campaign. If he's happy raging and smashing, that's fine. If he's looking for options and different things to do, the fighter class offers somewhat more of that. Specializing is all well and good for internet boards; IME, many players in actual games like having a range of things to do, and DMs like throwing a range of different challenges at the party.

Also, in my experience, there can be a HUGE gap in PC effectiveness based on adventure and encounter design. A low-mid-level adventure designed to make the melee types shine might feature 4 or more encounters per day; unfortunately, at low levels, the barbarian can only rage once (yes, I know there's Extra Rage, but that has a hefty opportunity cost). Without his rage, he's a fighter in medium armor with Toughness as his bonus feats. Groups of enemies spread out with missile weapons are also a good way to keep the casters from dominating at low levels; unfortunately, numerous foes with inferior attacks are going to shred the barbarian much more than the fighter. *IF* the difference in AC were 5 points, then foes that need an 18+ to hit the fighter (15%) would need a 13+ to hit the barbarian (40%), or 2.7x as many hits. A single foe that hits the fighter on an 11+ only hits the barbarian 1.5x as many times. Obviously individual cases will differ; this is not a mathematical proof. High-point-buy (over 25) favors the barbarian more; if he can afford more than a 13 Dex, his AC margin shrinks. Mithral fullplate eventually closes the gap (though not until 10th level is this one-quarter of his WBL). Also, allowing retraining of feats makes Extra Rage a lot more palatable. So there are many DM decisions that affect this comparison.

The barbarian isn't a bad 1- or 2-level dip (it is VERY front-loaded), though overall I prefer the fighter class. I *like* the design of the fighter class, but then again I'd love to play d20 with generic classes, where all "class features" are just feat chains.

[Eldariel]

Also, in my experience, there can be a HUGE gap in PC effectiveness based on adventure and encounter design. A low-mid-level adventure designed to make the melee types shine might feature 4 or more encounters per day; unfortunately, at low levels, the barbarian can only rage once (yes, I know there's Extra Rage, but that has a hefty opportunity cost). Without his rage, he's a fighter in medium armor with Toughness as his bonus feats. Groups of enemies spread out with missile weapons are also a good way to keep the casters from dominating at low levels; unfortunately, numerous foes with inferior attacks are going to shred the barbarian much more than the fighter. *IF* the difference in AC were 5 points, then foes that need an 18+ to hit the fighter (15%) would need a 13+ to hit the barbarian (40%), or 2.7x as many hits. A single foe that hits the fighter on an 11+ only hits the barbarian 1.5x as many times. Obviously individual cases will differ; this is not a mathematical proof. High-point-buy (over 25) favors the barbarian more; if he can afford more than a 13 Dex, his AC margin shrinks. Mithral fullplate eventually closes the gap (though not until 10th level is this one-quarter of his WBL). Also, allowing retraining of feats makes Extra Rage a lot more palatable. So there are many DM decisions that affect this comparison.

Don't forget Barbarian's Fast Movement which is a huge deal if dealing with e.g. Archers as you suggested and especially on level 1; Archers can target anyone so targeting the party Fighter seems unlikely but the Barbarian, who might just be wearing light armor for all it matters, with 30'-40' movement speed is surprisingly able to reach them while the Fighter with likely 20' speed won't really have an option other than whipping out a bow of his own.

Of course, if the Barb has Pounce (that is, if we're talking non-core) he'll probably also have Whirling Frenzy + Extra Rage (standard starting package; it's costly but it addresses that particular issue and thus is more or less Natural Spell) which equals to better AC and multiple attacks on charge making him formidable against archers anyways.

[Aldizog]

Of course, if the Barb has Pounce (that is, if we're talking non-core) he'll probably also have Whirling Frenzy + Extra Rage (standard starting package; it's costly but it addresses that particular issue and thus is more or less Natural Spell) which equals to better AC and multiple attacks on charge making him formidable against archers anyways.
I haven't actually seen Pounce and Whirling Frenzy as standard. Internet yes, IRL no. Though I haven't been in a 3.5 campaign with barbarian PCs in a while -- not since Complete Champion came out. And I've never been in a game that used any UA material (oddly, the Completes and Races series seem more common, despite much of UA being OGL). Your points are certainly solid, but I'd just note that actual games don't always feature all ACFs being allowed or even acknowledged. Whirling Frenzy does look much, much, much better than rage.

[MarkusWolfe]

Barbarian gets Listen - Fighter doesn't. Thus, Barbarians will not be ambushed as often. They also get extra skill points, so they can pick, say, Ride and Handle Animal (absurdly broken skill) and train themselves some fancy mounts, and then Intimidate to scare people, leaving them with a free skill point. Maybe in Survival so they don't starve. Fighters have a worse skill list and a smaller number of skill points, so they can't take advantage of this as easily.

The barbarian, with his fat stack of HP, trap sense, and rage (which gives him a fatter stack of HP) can also act as a secondary trap monkey, and his fat stack of strength (due, again, to rage) lets him punch through doors faster than the Fighter, too, meaning he can also act as the secondary lockpicker.

The movement bonus, combined with barbarians not wearing heavy armour (because, well, they can't) will give them +20 feet on most fighters, which is a pretty serious difference, and also lets barbarians jump higher when in pursuit of flying foes.

Granted, these are fairly minor advantages compared to the wizard, but the fighter doesn't even have those.

This, to me, is why I prefer to play the barbarian class.


Class balance even in core is quite okay if your champaign (and you as the dm) include the common knowledge that spellcasters are powerful, and you limit their presence and/or add social stigmata to them, maybe all wizards are evil making it quite hard to be a neutral one, clerics are a few holy ones, and just don't let people play druids.

Add more role-play and social situations, and remember to subtly add in challenges for everyone.

Try not to level up over level 10.

With a few precautions like these you will soon find the game much more enjoyable, class imbalance or not.

Agreed, though I have no idea what skills checks or roleplaying things you can do for a fighter, as I am no DM.

If you really want to play a fighter for the fluff/roleplay, but still want to be mechanically strong as a barbarian, talk with your DM and between the 2 of you, a strategy of homebrew feats can be formed. Remember, a fighter is always useless without strategy.

A thought here; some fighters should be the meatshield and offensive melee master of their party. However, if a fighter should find himself in a party with a barbarian, he should take advantage of his class's flexibility and go for a role other than pure damage and tanking. Take the Spiked Chain Fighter. Even if you don't go for the tripping, spring attack and disarm portion of it (which means you just invest in Spiked Chain Proficiency, Combat Reflexes and Hold the Line) portion of it and play it as a human, you're still defending a large area and get many attacks of opportunity. This allows you limited control over the positioning of your enemies, as well as occasionally giving allies attacks of opportunity. And think what that can do! If you still hunger for damage dealing in such a role, take out all the tripping, spring attack and disarming stuff and replace it with Power Attack, Cleave and Great Cleave. This is particularly effective against hordes of enemies that usually/always die in a single hit. If you still want MOAR damage, look into Improved Power Attack (For every 2 taken off your attack bonus, you gain 3 to damage, damage bonus doubles with 2handers like Power Attack, does not stack with Power Attack) and Supreme Power Attack (For every 1 taken off your attack bonus, you gain 2 to damage, damage bonus doubles with 2handers like Power Attack and Improved Power Attack, does not stack with Power Attack and/or Improved Power Attack). Note that the last 6 feats I mentioned are the key to success for barbarians who wish to eventually become or even just play like the prestige class Frenzied Berserker. Alternatively, consider the Weapon Focus Feat, and all the feats that can be taken with it.

That is all.

[claricorp]

I know people have alot of aversion to pathfinder, but the pathinder fighter gets a few interesting new abilities and such that seem like they would fit alright into a 3.5 campaign. Also there are more feats in the pathfinder core book which make them pretty excellent also.

Specifically fighters get a few buffs focused specifically to them, here are a few.

as they increase in level, armor check penalties and maximum dex bonuses for armor decrease and increase respectively

they select a group of weapons which they recieve a bonus to, kind of like weapon focus and weapon specialization. that increases as they level.

they also recieve a slight will save boost against fear called bravery.


If you want to make fighters more interesting in your campaign, it could be worth it to take a look in the pathfinder core book.

[Thurbane]

Trailblazer has some "fixes" for the Fighter too: Punishing Strike (+4 to hit on AoO, extra dice of damage that increase with level - to a max +5d6) and Expert Weapon Proficiency (you choose a specific weapon type, and can increase base damage, threat range, threat multiplier, or add abilitities like reach, trip etc.).

For instance, you could apply Expert Weapon Proficiency to a greatword 4 times to have a 2d6, 18-20/x3 weapon with reach and the abiliity to make trip attempts.

[Da Beast]

Just to chime in:

Regarding "levelling the playing field between barbarians/fighters and spellcasters," in every D&D campaign I've ever run or played in, the barbarians and fighters were part of a group of PC's, not off on their own. And these groups of PC's (or parties, as they are commonly called) usually included spellcasters of their own, who served to counter the powers of enemy spellcasters quite effectively. Call me crazy, but it works.

I hate to see this argument because the person making it never explores the implications or follows it to the next logical point. If the party spell casters are trying to counter enemy casters so the warriors have a chance to do their thing then this means that the warriors are effectively dragging the casters down and draining another player's resources so you can have fun. The logical conclusion being that the party should just leave behind the fighter or barbarian and bring alone a second cleric/wizard/whatever. Now the casters don't have to waste their time babysitting the fighter because the cleric standing in for him has abilities that let him look after himself. Yes, it's a team game but why should the most useful party members have to accept a backseat role just to make the guy who thinks swords are cool feel special? The fact that these problems can be addressed through play style and careful DMing doesn't change the fact that it's a problem with the system in the first place.

[Thurbane]

I hate to see this argument because the person making it never explores the implications or follows it to the next logical point. If the party spell casters are trying to counter enemy casters so the warriors have a chance to do their thing then this means that the warriors are effectively dragging the casters down and draining another player's resources so you can have fun. The logical conclusion being that the party should just leave behind the fighter or barbarian and bring alone a second cleric/wizard/whatever. Now the casters don't have to waste their time babysitting the fighter because the cleric standing in for him has abilities that let him look after himself. Yes, it's a team game but why should the most useful party members have to accept a backseat role just to make the guy who thinks swords are cool feel special? The fact that these problems can be addressed through play style and careful DMing doesn't change the fact that it's a problem with the system in the first place.
I have to agree with Argentum74, in that from my peronal gaming experience, the games I've been involved with play out much more like he describes, than casters finishing every encounter while the non-casters sit about twiddling their thumbs.

In a co-op game, where the DM can taylor adventures to the group, I've always found that everyone has something to contribute (to varying degrees, of course). The disparity of casters and non-casters is far more pronounced in high level PvP arena games than in stock standard, co-op type gaming. It all hinges on the play style of the group, as much as anything else.

...and there's that often unspoken, "gentlemens agreement" that players of characters with the potential to be obscenely powerful within RAW will tend to curb their power level somewhat to be more inline with the rest of their party - if that wasn't the case, wouldn't every party out there be made up exclusively of Pun Puns?

My 2 cents, anyway.

[OracleofWuffing]

I didn't see this get directly answered, so I'll just waltz in...


So the ability does exist then? How does it work? Does it keep melee characters from being unable to do anything due to a few well-placed spells?
Iron Heart Surge is a Maneuver that lets you make a melee attack and remove an effect, spell, or condition with a duration greater than 1 round (then gives some bonus to attacks until your next round that really isn't important). There are some applications that utilize the "vague" wording of the text to do some out-there things, but a good number of DMs won't let it get too out of control.

But to directly answer the question of how to buff the Barbarian/Fighter...

If you're talking about theoretical-optimization-play, you'd probably have to give them both some sort of near-full spellcasting progression, and with that, probably some way of ignoring arcane casting failure. In TO, spells can effectively do what fighting does, and more. Even maneuvers aren't quite enough to match the abuse you can do with spells.

As a side-note, do not try giving them antimagic fields. Often enough, those melee classes love their magic equipment too much for that.

If you're talking about practical-optimization-play, get the DM to throw something at the wizard if he renders the melee guys unnecessary and remind him that he can always buff the melee people, too. Otherwise, he's paying for the pizza, cheetos, and mountain dew. And he might have his spellbook eaten by a grue tomorrow.

[Boci]

I have to agree with Argentum74, in that from my peronal gaming experience, the games I've been involved with play out much more like he describes, than casters finishing every encounter while the non-casters sit about twiddling their thumbs.

I think Brennus point might have specifically been dealing the "casters vs. casters, melee vs. melee" solution, which falls apart when you consider that casters can easily handle melee, but melee cannot always handle casters.


...and there's that often unspoken, "gentlemens agreement" that players of characters with the potential to be obscenely powerful within RAW will tend to curb their power level somewhat to be more inline with the rest of their party - if that wasn't the case, wouldn't every party out there be made up exclusively of Pun Puns?

Problem is even if I'm not powergaming my caster, melee is usually limited to hit die damage, which does nothing until the monster is reduced to 0. Casters can weaken a monster in round 1.
Also, exactly what does the gentleman agreement allow me to do? Is my wizard allowed to use ray of exhaustion and solid fog?

[Thurbane]

Also, exactly what does the gentleman agreement allow me to do? Is my wizard allowed to use ray of exhaustion and solid fog?
The exact agreement would depend on the particular group, obviously, and what power level/optimization level they are comfortable with.

[holywhippet]

Check out the Archivist, in Heroes of Horror. It's essentially a Cleric who uses a Spell(Prayer)book, and it's one of the most broken classes in the game.

Sort of true. It's more that they are potentially broken depending on the campaign they are playing in. If the DM doesn't let them get hold of a lot of divine scrolls then they aren't going to have a heap of spells at their fingertips. This is easily justifiable - the DM could rule that certain temples don't sell scrolls or only sell them to their faithful or that there simply aren't any temples to a certain god nearby. If the game is a pure dungeon romp then there won't even be any stores.

The main theory with spellcaster vs. fighters is that a spellcaster will run out of spells while a sword never runs out of times it can hit. If you want to highlight the weaknesses of a spellcaster you need to run a war of attrition - force the caster to expend most or all of their spells with repeated waves of attackers.

[Boci]

The exact agreement would depend on the particular group, obviously, and what power level/optimization level they are comfortable with.

But thats my point. The agreement is good, but it has its limits. The caster clearly isn't going to pass around an exhaustative list of spell combination and ask the other players to okay them. Sometimes something on paper may seem fine but then turns out to be a spot light stealer. Other times a caster realizes a spell combo mid fight. Are they supose to derail the action to ask everyone OOC?



The main theory with spellcaster vs. fighters is that a spellcaster will run out of spells while a sword never runs out of times it can hit. If you want to highlight the weaknesses of a spellcaster you need to run a war of attrition - force the caster to expend most or all of their spells with repeated waves of attackers.

The counter argument is: count how many spells the caster has, break that down into rounds and ask yourself is melee has enough HP to surive that long.

[Thurbane]

But thats my point. The agreement is good, but it has its limits. The caster clearly isn't going to pass around an exhaustative list of spell combination and ask the other players to okay them. Sometimes something on paper may seem fine but then turns out to be a spot light stealer. Other times a caster realizes a spell combo mid fight. Are they supose to derail the action to ask everyone OOC?
Well, speaking for my own experience the "unspoken agreement" seems to work fine, and doesn't seem to bog down play or cause disputes. Maybe I've just been lucky with the groups I've gamed with.

[holywhippet]

The counter argument is: count how many spells the caster has, break that down into rounds and ask yourself is melee has enough HP to surive that long.

That assumes the players know what is going to happen. The BBEG could send in some lower level attackers to make the party use up their spells before stepping in with their elite guard.

[Philistine]

That assumes the players know what is going to happen. The BBEG could send in some lower level attackers to make the party use up their spells before stepping in with their elite guard.

That still doesn't make things better for the mundanes. If the waves of mooks aren't dangerous enough to sap the mundanes' HP, they probably aren't worth the casters blowing a bunch of spells on either - particularly not "highest-level-known" slots. If the mooks are dangerous enough to merit the casters' attention, then they're just starting the HP attrition of the mundanes that much earlier.

And if things really start going pear-shaped, from mid-levels on casters have Get the Heck Out of Dodge-type spells to let them run away and fight another day.

[Koury]

That assumes the players know what is going to happen. The BBEG could send in some lower level attackers to make the party use up their spells before stepping in with their elite guard.

To further illustrate the point, here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=236170) is a level 14 Wizard of mine. She has 52 spells per day, not counting cantrips. Is the melee guy going to last long enough for me to run out of spells? Odds are against it.

[balistafreak]

To further illustrate the point, here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=236170) is a level 14 Wizard of mine. She has 52 spells per day, not counting cantrips. Is the melee guy going to last long enough for me to run out of spells? Odds are against it.

To whit, should a DM throw so many encounters and mooks at you as to require the majority of these 52 spells to be used, it's seriously time to metagame.

It is absolutely ridiculous to presume you were stupid enough to take on enough enemies to risk depletion of all resources head-on on purpose. Heck, you could probably bypass many of them with one or two well-chosen spells.

And the sheer body-count alone would be enough to dam small rivers. A DM who has this many "elite guardsmen" pile out of a broom closet (Modern Warfare nooooooo) needs to reexamine his encounter styles. (Although that would make a neat magic item, if streamlined a bit beyond "Bag of Holding".)

The oft-proposed "wear down a Vancian spellcaster with attrition, hur-dur" is ridiculous at higher levels of play - it would literally take hours of real-life gameplay, and any DM who wastes this much of his players' time on mook-slaying merely to "deter a caster" no longer deserves his position. If I wanted to play a game about mook-mashing I'd go play Dynasty Warriors. Far more gratuitous. :smalltongue:

And we haven't even gotten onto the subject of wands of commonly-cast low-level spells and scrolls of useful utility spells anything.

http://nintendorks.com/media/8/20080708-MoreYouKnow.jpg

tl;dr: To repeat what's being said over and over again, consumable resources and X/day abilities (including especially spellcasting) generally don't run out before HP does... seeing as HP can be bought at the low, low price of less than 2gp each.

This is why I prefer middle levels (4th-10th) of play. And I still think the balance is too easily catapulted out the window at 8th+.

[Koury]

To whit, should a DM throw so many encounters and mooks at you as to require the majority of these 52 spells to be used, it's seriously time to metagame.

It is absolutely ridiculous to presume you were stupid enough to take on enough enemies to risk depletion of all resources head-on on purpose. Heck, you could probably bypass many of them with one or two well-chosen spells.

And the sheer body-count alone would be enough to dam small rivers. A DM who has this many "elite guardsmen" pile out of a broom closet (Modern Warfare nooooooo) needs to reexamine his encounter styles. (Although that would make a neat magic item, if streamlined a bit beyond "Bag of Holding".)

The oft-proposed "wear down a Vancian spellcaster with attrition, hur-dur" is ridiculous at higher levels of play - it would literally take hours of real-life gameplay, and any DM who wastes this much of his players' time on mook-slaying merely to "deter a caster" no longer deserves his position. If I wanted to play a game about mook-mashing I'd go play Dynasty Warriors. Far more gratuitous. :smalltongue:

And we haven't even gotten onto the subject of wands of commonly-cast low-level spells and scrolls of useful utility spells anything.

http://nintendorks.com/media/8/20080708-MoreYouKnow.jpg

tl;dr: To repeat what's being said over and over again, consumable resources and X/day abilities (including especially spellcasting) generally don't run out before HP does... seeing as HP can be bought at the low, low price of less than 2gp each.

This is why I prefer middle levels (4th-10th) of play. And I still think the balance is too easily catapulted out the window at 8th+.

In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with Boci. :smallredface:

[Thurbane]

This is a large part of the reason some people enjoy E6 - the higher level games go to, the more wonky class disparity becomes.

[Hague]

There are other ways of defeating casters. Sunder their component pouch, entangle them with a lasso (good luck avoiding my full BAB touch attack) and grappling. Readying ranged attacks with brilliant energy weapons works too. Let's not forget that wizards with their typically low skill checks in spot and listen could easily be ambushed in unfamiliar territory. Concealment generated by cheap magical items renders many spells useless and readied actions to charge 5-foot step wizards in melee open the way for lots of fizzles. It's not hard to defeat an average spell caster with the proper tactics.

Also, depending on the power level of a particular game, certain spells may simply not be available. Realistically, a spell-caster needs to spend a significant amount of their wealth on improving their abilities. Ignoring the magical items that make "mundane" classes useful is rather short-sighted.

Let's not forget retraining (If your DM allows it. I do.) A fighter has a huge potential to retrain all of their individual feats, allowing them to constantly change their fighting style to suit their needs. For a wizard (or any spell caster in my games) to retrain all their powers, they'd need access to libraries and scrolls to learn those new spells but they can also change their feat selection, provided they can find someone or somewhere to learn the feats from. Since Fighters are typically more prevalent than wizards (and consequentally, have a friendlier attitude about trade secrets than spellcasters) they have more opportunities to retrain than nearly any other class.

[Koury]

There are other ways of defeating casters. Sunder their component pouch, Why do they only have one?
entangle them with a lasso (good luck avoiding my full BAB touch attack) and grappling. Wizards avoid this the same way they avoid everything else. Blur, Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc, etc. And if they get caught? Dim Door, Abrupt Jaunt, Anklets of Translocation, Baleful Transposition, Freedom of Movement, etc, etc.
Readying ranged attacks with brilliant energy weapons works too. Same problem here with trying to hit the wizard in the first place. Also, you basically give up your turn when you ready an action.
Let's not forget that wizards with their typically low skill checks in spot and listen could easily be ambushed in unfamiliar territory. Yep, Wizards not having Spot and Listen put them at a disadvantage against Fighters, who are good at both Hiding and Moving Silently. How was it, again, the melee dude found the Wizard?
Concealment generated by cheap magical items renders many spells useless Which spells were that again?
and readied actions to charge 5-foot step wizards in melee open the way for lots of fizzles. Of course, you can't charge from 5 feet away, so that doesn't exactly work. And then, of course, theres that whole difficult to hit thing.
It's not hard to defeat an average spell caster with the proper tactics. Now here I agree. Its just, those are all the wrong tactics.


Also, depending on the power level of a particular game, certain spells may simply not be available. Yes, house rules can fix balance issues. I encourage this.
Realistically, a spell-caster needs to spend a significant amount of their wealth on improving their abilities. Ignoring the magical items that make "mundane" classes useful is rather short-sighted. Casters should spend their money improving themselves. I agree again. However, that applies to everyone. Casters need much less gear to function, comparitively.


Let's not forget retraining (If your DM allows it. I do.) A fighter has a huge potential to retrain all of their individual feats, allowing them to constantly change their fighting style to suit their needs. For a wizard (or any spell caster in my games) to retrain all their powers, they'd need access to libraries and scrolls to learn those new spells but they can also change their feat selection, provided they can find someone or somewhere to learn the feats from. Since Fighters are typically more prevalent than wizards (and consequentally, have a friendlier attitude about trade secrets than spellcasters) they have more opportunities to retrain than nearly any other class. Again, houserules can help. They are not default, however.

[Deadmeat.GW]

To further illustrate the point, here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=236170) is a level 14 Wizard of mine. She has 52 spells per day, not counting cantrips. Is the melee guy going to last long enough for me to run out of spells? Odds are against it.

Hum, ''level 14'' yes?

Perhaps you could mention that your ''level 14'' is a gestalt character?

102hp at lvl 14 for a 'wizard' is not exactly standard nor is having 52 spells not counting cantrips...
A standard lvl 14 wizard without any funky +hp feats would have with +4 Con bonus at most 112 hp...

Heck when you throw in Gestalt characters you can actually make fighters that are usefull at the higher levels by starting feat chains and combat school feat chains from OGL books.
Some of the combat schools they made under OGL require...9 feats just for the school, and this does not count any of the Pre-requisites for these feats...

Making the schools absolutely useless unless you can use gestalt rules as you only get to the end of the school when you are way into epic levels...

Edit:

Actually, do you have all of your spell components multiple times in several identical spellcomponent pouches?

Making me think of this http://www.gucomics.com/comic/?cdate=20000915

[Tyndmyr]

This is a large part of the reason some people enjoy E6 - the higher level games go to, the more wonky class disparity becomes.

Even there, caster endurance isn't a serious problem. At least, not for long. We're a whopping four bonus feats into E6, and my wizzie can manage eight third level spells per day. Plus an assortment of lesser ones, and of course, other abilities such as abrupt jaunt. And there's always scrolls if I run low.

Balance comes by spell levels being somewhat limited. Nova characters are almost never balanced.

102 HP is not at all unusual for level 14, either. Assuming you start with a 14 con(this probably only happens if you choose grey elf, since con is your secondary stat). At level 14, you have 32+13d4 hp. Not bad. Assume a +4 enhancement bonus, either via reasonably priced items, or a second level core spell. Whichever. That's another 28. So, without anything special whatsoever, you have 50+13d4 hp, for an AVERAGE of 82.5. With feat investment, well...improved toughness adds 14. That or being a non-grey elf is easily enough to explain it.

[Boci]

Hum, ''level 14'' yes?

Perhaps you could mention that your ''level 14'' is a gestalt character?

Even without gestalt, a 14th level specialist wizard with 20 intelligence has 37 spells not counting cantrips. Then there's also focused specialist and pearls of power to consider...


Actually, do you have all of your spell components multiple times in several identical spellcomponent pouches?

Why not have multiple version of a cheap mundane item that allows hyou to cast many of your spells far more easily?

[Tyndmyr]

They're what, 5 gp? I buy three with my starting gold at WBL, mark them on my char sheet, and forget about them unless some clever DM thinks he's managed to screw me over.

The book I carry at my side, in an expensive cover, and marked "Tyndmyr's spellbook" is also, obviously, not my spellbook. Or my backup spellbook. Just a book with a remarkable number of traps.

If EVERYTHING you can do relies on a cheap item, get spares. It's silly not to.

[lsfreak]

Hum, ''level 14'' yes?

Perhaps you could mention that your ''level 14'' is a gestalt character?


Gestalt has nothing to do with it. 52 spell slots as a Focused Specialist, forget the entire second half of the character. The only thing I can't quite figure out is the 24 Int, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility had it not been gestalt (i.e. been able to afford a tome of +1 int). An op-standard FS gray elf would have the same number of spells per day.

[Hague]

A lasso is a touch attack. There's also thunderstones for easy deafness (without needing a touch attack), blinding powder and blowpipes (Secrets of Xen'drik) to provide cones of Reflex saving blinding powder in a 15' cone.


Brilliant energy weapons ignore all armor bonuses. Also, when you ready your charge attack, you do it further away. As soon as the caster attempts to move, you do your charge attack. Otherwise you ready your action to throw something at them. Any kind of damaging grenade readied to interrupt a spell caster is a good tactic. In this instance, the best grenade would be an alchemist's frost mixed with a spellvial of magical backlash both of which are Fortitude saves. The alchemist's frost allows it to be used as a grenade while magical backlash is a 2nd level single-target spell that deals 2 damage for each level of every spell affecting the target. All those spells are suddenly a huge DC concentration check.

[dextercorvia]

A lasso is a touch attack. There's also thunderstones for easy deafness (without needing a touch attack), blinding powder and blowpipes (Secrets of Xen'drik) to provide cones of Reflex saving blinding powder in a 15' cone.


Brilliant energy weapons ignore all armor bonuses. Also, when you ready your charge attack, you do it further away. As soon as the caster attempts to move, you do your charge attack. Otherwise you ready your action to throw something at them. Any kind of damaging grenade readied to interrupt a spell caster is a good tactic. In this instance, the best grenade would be an alchemist's frost mixed with a spellvial of magical backlash both of which are Fortitude saves. The alchemist's frost allows it to be used as a grenade while magical backlash is a 2nd level single-target spell that deals 2 damage for each level of every spell affecting the target. All those spells are suddenly a huge DC concentration check.

Actually, Brilliant energy weapons ignore non-living matter (and the armor bonuses provided by such materials). Mage Armor is a force effect, so that probably wouldn't help you very much.

[DragoonWraith]

spellvial
Wait wait wait.

You're suggesting that the Fighter's answer to the Wizard is the product of a unique class feature of a setting-specific Wizard prestige class?

[Jack Zander]

Wait wait wait.

You're suggesting that the Fighter's answer to the Wizard is the product of a unique class feature of a setting-specific Wizard prestige class?

Just the fact that fighters have to rely on items at all is a poor design function of the fighter. A penny-less wizard is still unthreatened by melee characters.

[Curmudgeon]

A penny-less wizard is still unthreatened by melee characters.
Are you sure about that? Spellbooks and spell component pouches are worth quite a few pennies (cp). Strip those away and it's just chance whether the Wizard has already prepared spells without any material components, and if those spells alone can guarantee survival in melee.

[Jack Zander]

Are you sure about that? Spellbooks and spell component pouches are worth quite a few pennies (cp). Strip those away and it's just chance whether the Wizard has already prepared spells without any material components, and if those spells alone can guarantee survival in melee.

Now your just being smart. The intended meaning was a wizard who never spent any money, but still added two spells a level to their spell book. And most spell components don't even have a cost, and the component pouch isn't really required. I can fill the pockets of my robes full of bat guano and tarts if i want to.

Speaking of which, would spellcasters be more balanced if you required them to spend a standard action retrieving their components? I would guess no, since all that does is make eschew materials mandatory.

[Lans]

That still doesn't make things better for the mundanes. If the waves of mooks aren't dangerous enough to sap the mundanes' HP

If the mundanes can function at half hp and there is 10 minutes between waves then their hp can easily not be a problem due to draconic aura.

For the five foot step, I think Quick Draw and a reach weapon hinders it. Or just having a surprising reach(abberant limbs or being tall).

[Jack Zander]

If the mundanes can function at half hp and there is 10 minutes between waves then their hp can easily not be a problem due to draconic aura.

So now every party absolutely must have class x in it to function?

[Lans]

So now every party absolutely must have class x in it to function?

Or take a feat.

The proper counter argument would probably be reserve feats or all day buffs, bindings, undead, constructs or a number of other things

[Zaydos]

So now every party absolutely must have class x in it to function?

There's a feat that grants a Draconic Aura too. Also anybody capable of casting 2nd level healing spells can take Touch of Healing for infinite healing to half health.

[Tiki Snakes]

Infinite aura-based healing, for a single feat? That would have been pretty tasty on my old 3.5 martial types.

Kind of makes the whole healing-wand thing seem a bit redundant.

[Hague]

Wait wait wait.

You're suggesting that the Fighter's answer to the Wizard is the product of a unique class feature of a setting-specific Wizard prestige class?

Sure. Are you telling me that an Alchemist Savant working for House Cannith wouldn't sell a spellvial to a fighter fighting X threat? I'm pretty sure that would be a violation of House charter for sure. An item is an item is an item. It doesn't require any skills or special abilities to use and the fighter's high BAB makes him ideal for nailing the squirmy little worm. If anything, the wizard is more likely to assume the fighter isn't a threat and focus on other threats and take a vial to the face or nearest corner :P

Fighting magic without magic is just silly, so to even the odds a fighter has to use magic items, even if it's throwing holy water, glitterdust powder or the occasional rod of absorption. Not doing so in a world full of magic would be stupid.


Actually, Brilliant energy weapons ignore non-living matter (and the armor bonuses provided by such materials). Mage Armor is a force effect, so that probably wouldn't help you very much.

Bluh what? Are you telling me that force effects are alive? No, they are not, and brilliant energy weapons move right through them. Better hope your wizard has other AC bonuses than armor and shield bonuses. I'd really hate to deal with a tethered brilliant energy harpoon.

[Lans]

Yes, house rules can fix balance issues. I encourage this. Casters should spend their money improving themselves. I agree again. However, that applies to everyone. Casters need much less gear to function, comparitively.

Again, houserules can help. They are not default, however.
Retraining isn't a house rule, its in the PHB2.


Infinite aura-based healing, for a single feat? That would have been pretty tasty on my old 3.5 martial types.

Kind of makes the whole healing-wand thing seem a bit redundant.

It only takes you to half+1-4 so the healing wand might be good to get you the rest of the way.

[Jack Zander]

Still, my point remains that you shouldn't be required to have someone in your party with x class or x feat or x spell just to function. Its bad design and its why the Rogue ability "Trapfinding" makes a lot of people upset.

[dextercorvia]

Bluh what? Are you telling me that force effects are alive? No, they are not, and brilliant energy weapons move right through them. Better hope your wizard has other AC bonuses than armor and shield bonuses. I'd really hate to deal with a tethered brilliant energy harpoon.

You are suggesting that Brilliant Energy weapons bypass Wall of Force? Force is not matter.

[Hague]

Yes, I am, in fact. The brilliant energy weapon will go right through it. Your hand and anything else, on the other hand, will not. If force is not matter then it shouldn't function like matter. If it acts as a physical barrier, then it functionally exists as matter. Force effects are matter, matter made of "force" Would you argue that acid is not matter even though we call it "acid energy?" If you can touch it, move it or manipulate it, it's matter. Whether it's made of stone, ice, shadow, or force it doesn't matter, it is matter.

[Tyndmyr]

Force is not matter.

Trying to force force to follow the existing rules of physics is...odd. It's specifically made to be an exception to them.

[Hague]

So it's neither matter nor energy? Or is it both? Either way, brilliant energy weapons are no longer made of matter either, nor are they incorporeal, they are made of brilliant energy so unless the wall of force is made of brilliant energy (ie positive energy) it cannot stop a brilliant energy weapon.

[DragoonWraith]

Sure. Are you telling me that an Alchemist Savant working for House Cannith wouldn't sell a spellvial to a fighter fighting X threat? I'm pretty sure that would be a violation of House charter for sure. An item is an item is an item. It doesn't require any skills or special abilities to use and the fighter's high BAB makes him ideal for nailing the squirmy little worm. If anything, the wizard is more likely to assume the fighter isn't a threat and focus on other threats and take a vial to the face or nearest corner :P
It's an oscure PrC from a setting-specific splatbook (not even the Campaign Setting). I think it's preposterous to assume that Alcemist Savants will necessarily exist in the game world at all. Spellvials are also prohibitively expensive.


Fighting magic without magic is just silly, so to even the odds a fighter has to use magic items, even if it's throwing holy water, glitterdust powder or the occasional rod of absorption. Not doing so in a world full of magic would be stupid.
Agreed, but then so would training yourself in purely non-magical techniques. By your own statements, taking levels in Fighter is stupid.


Yes, I am, in fact. The brilliant energy weapon will go right through it. Your hand and anything else, on the other hand, will not. If force is not matter then it shouldn't function like matter. If it acts as a physical barrier, then it functionally exists as matter. Force effects are matter, matter made of "force" Would you argue that acid is not matter even though we call it "acid energy?" If you can touch it, move it or manipulate it, it's matter. Whether it's made of stone, ice, shadow, or force it doesn't matter, it is matter.
Uhm, no. Matter can exert a force (several kinds of forces, even), but it is not a force itself. A wall of force exerts a force sufficient to stop a projectile striking it. Brilliant energy weapons must interact with forces, or they wouldn't be able to be swung, thrown, or shot, nor would they be able to deal physical damage to living tissue. Last I checked, a Brilliant Energy Sword still cuts, it just only cuts living tissue.

[Philistine]

Yes, I am, in fact. The brilliant energy weapon will go right through it. Your hand and anything else, on the other hand, will not. If force is not matter then it shouldn't function like matter. If it acts as a physical barrier, then it functionally exists as matter. Force effects are matter, matter made of "force" Would you argue that acid is not matter even though we call it "acid energy?" If you can touch it, move it or manipulate it, it's matter. Whether it's made of stone, ice, shadow, or force it doesn't matter, it is matter.

In game terms, Acid "energy" effects (or any other elemental damage type) don't ignore the miss chance of incorporeal creatures, whereas Force effects do. Force Effects Are Special.

In RL terms, electromagnetic fields (for one example) interact with matter all the time. We can create them, move them, and manipulate them in many exciting and useful ways - but that does not mean that they are matter.

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, I am, in fact. The brilliant energy weapon will go right through it. Your hand and anything else, on the other hand, will not. If force is not matter then it shouldn't function like matter. If it acts as a physical barrier, then it functionally exists as matter. Force effects are matter, matter made of "force" Would you argue that acid is not matter even though we call it "acid energy?" If you can touch it, move it or manipulate it, it's matter. Whether it's made of stone, ice, shadow, or force it doesn't matter, it is matter.

Force is not matter. But it doesn't matter because force armor is an ARMOR bonus, and Brilliant energy specifically ignores armor bonuses:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition.

Unfortunately brilliant energy still fails against mirror image, displacement, invisible, out of range, ext....

And you've spent a minimum of 48,000 extra GP on your weapon to get an enhancement that works FAR BETTER against tanks than against wizards. How does this demonstrate that wizards aren't grossly superior to tanks or that fighters can deal with wizards? If the wizard wants to blast he's got all sorts of attacks without spending a dime that target touch AC, that's even better than brilliant energy. Basically, 50,000 GP brilliant energy weapons let the party tank be about as good at hitting really stupid or unprepared opposing arcanists as a really weak wizard would be.

Why is this an argument for including the tank in the party?

[Tyndmyr]

So it's neither matter nor energy? Or is it both? Either way, brilliant energy weapons are no longer made of matter either, nor are they incorporeal, they are made of brilliant energy so unless the wall of force is made of brilliant energy (ie positive energy) it cannot stop a brilliant energy weapon.

Im pretty sure that's not part of it. You can get bonuses to AC that are neither from matter nor energy that will affect a brilliant energy weapon.

For instance, size.

[Hague]

You're right, it's absolutely not in the description of brilliant energy weapons but if you have a weapon that ignores non-living matter, it's safe to say that things that are not living matter, cannot exert force on a brilliant energy weapon. An undead character, for instance, cannot even pick up a brilliant energy weapon (unless say, some part of it were not brilliant energy) likewise with a construct. It's not RAW to say that you can shoot brilliant energy arrows through a wall, but as most walls are non-living matter, RAI says they do.

In game terms, Acid "energy" effects (or any other elemental damage type) don't ignore the miss chance of incorporeal creatures, whereas Force effects do. Force Effects Are Special.


So you agree then, that force effects would be considered both matter, ethereal and energy at the same time then. Afterall, I can push Bigby's interposing hand so clearly I can exert force upon it. If I struck a Bigby's hand with a brilliant energy weapon, what would happen? Since force effects have hardness and hitpoints, I'd wager that they are indeed matter or enough of a matter analogue to apply as non-living matter in the sense of brilliant energy weapons.

[Koury]

Hum, ''level 14'' yes?

Perhaps you could mention that your ''level 14'' is a gestalt character? Hum, perhaps you could point out where being gestalt mattered to how many wizard spells she had? She has 52 spells per day (sans cantrips), purely as a wizard. Shes pushing 100 if you count her cleric side.


102hp at lvl 14 for a 'wizard' is not exactly standard nor is having 52 spells not counting cantrips...
A standard lvl 14 wizard without any funky +hp feats would have with +4 Con bonus at most 112 hp... Er, who was talking about hp?


Edit:

Actually, do you have all of your spell components multiple times in several identical spellcomponent pouches? Yes? Are you unfamiliar with how they work?


Retraining isn't a house rule, its in the PHB2.
Quite right, no argument there. However, all that stuff about it being harder for Wizards then Fighters? Yeah, not so much. Wizards can retrain two spells per level. Cost? 5 gp/spell level and 1 day.

Fighter retraining his feat (which he can do once per level)? 50 gp and two weeks. Which one was easier again?

Do retraining Fighter Bonus Feats count as retraining a class feature? If so, its even worse.

[quiet1mi]

Bonus feats are a Class feature...
Addition things like blind sight are covered with WBL...

If you do not include WBL, Fighter is still superior with the ability of being more diversified...

Dungeon Crasher allows the Fighter to damage things that have an AC that is too high to hit.

Resolute give him a large boost to his will save as an immediate action.

Shocktrooper, Combat Brute, and Leap attack ensure that massive damage is dealt on the charge and the turn after the charge.

Cleave and great cleave allows the Fighter to deal with hordes and Exotic Weapon proficiency: Chain Spike allows the Fighter to hit tons of people at once.

The barbarian could potentially have shock trooper, combat brute, and leap attack but he would have to be 15th level (12th level human) at the earliest and would have to take power attack, Imp. Bullrush, Imp. Overrun. By doing so, the Barbarian would limit his options to pounce on the charge for massive damage. By 15th level, I would imagine that enemies would be making terrain difficult (cannot charge through difficult terrain, but you can leap over it) or have ways of ensuring that there is someone if front of them to foil the charge (My beguiler kept the party fighter surrounded by unseen servants to prevent people from inta-gibbing him with a charge).

By 15th level fighter would have 14 feats (15 feats if human). Off the top of my head these would be:

Power Attack, Imp. Bullrush, Imp. Sunder, Imp. Overrun, Dungeon Crasher I,
Dungeon Crasher II, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, Resolute, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Chainspike, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Leap Attack...

I am ignoring non-bonus strength because I assume the Fighter and the Barbarian both put their points into strength and have strength boosting items.

At 15th level this fighter would deal 60 damage on the charge, while the Barbarian would deal 69 during his rage. The barbarian would benefit from Pounce so his damage is in fact be 207 to a single target.

But if the Charge is taken away, the barbarian is left with straight attacks and having to live through taking the power attack penalties... The Fighter on the other hand has many more options he could take. He could bull rush the target (bull rush does not care if people are in the way thanks to shock trooper) into the wall for a respectable amount of damage, Knock a target prone with overrun, sunder a weapon/wand of an opponent and then hit them thanks to combat brute.

If the fodder problem comes up, he charges one of the fodder and deals ~60 to another person up to 10' away, potentially wiping the said fodder.

IMHO, the difference between fighter and barbarian is the difference between wizard and sorcerer. Sorcerers technically have more spells per day and thus would have more raw power, but the wizard has more versatility and thus has a more appropriate answer to a given problem.

But I digress, Both the Fighter and the Barbarian belong where they are... Tier 4 and no higher.

[Boci]

But I digress, Both the Fighter and the Barbarian belong where they are... Tier 4 and no higher.

Isn't a fighter tier 5 and a barbarian and the dungeoncrasher fighter tier 4?

[Tyndmyr]

You're right, it's absolutely not in the description of brilliant energy weapons but if you have a weapon that ignores non-living matter, it's safe to say that things that are not living matter, cannot exert force on a brilliant energy weapon.

No, that doesn't follow. Let's look at the words closely.

It ignores matter that is not living.

It does not ignore non-matter.

Therefore, ignoring "non-living matter" is not equivalent to ignoring "everything but living matter".

[Shademan]

ok, so how would we make the fighter better then?

[Hague]

All it takes is one grapple check in Living Coral armor (Stormwrack) and Living Polyps. One fort check and the grappled target is paralyzed for 1d4 rounds. Free the grapple, CdG target until dead. Too bad Living Coral is pretty darn expensive.

I kinda like the idea of a Living Coral plating for Warforged fighters and monks though... I mean, they don't breathe, so an aquatic environment might seem downright homey to a warforged ya think?


No, that doesn't follow. Let's look at the words closely.

It ignores matter that is not living.

It does not ignore non-matter.

Therefore, ignoring "non-living matter" is not equivalent to ignoring "everything but living matter".

You haven't proven that force isn't matter. In fact, nowhere can it be cited that force effects aren't or are matter so it's clearly a DM issue. I'd say it does ignore force effects because they aren't living and they have enough properties of matter to work to that effect.

Lets also not forget that heat is the motion of matter. Cold is the absence of that motion. Acid burns are reactions between two types of matter. Electromagnetic radiation is made of sub-atomic particles which are consequently, matter. Force effects must either be their own matter or they must interact with other matter to affect the environment.

[Curmudgeon]

All it takes is one grapple check in Living Coral armor (Stormwrack) and Living Polyps. One fort check and the grappled target is paralyzed for 1d4 rounds. Free the grapple, CdG target until dead.
The DC to resist the paralysis is only 14. And the Living Polyps graft can only be used once a day. So depending on this strategem is a very dicey proposition.

[quiet1mi]

Both the Barbarian and the Fighter are Tier 4... the only way to raise them higher is to delete everything above them...

The tier system is there to gauge relative power... A Rogue, A Barbarian, and a Fighter all have relatively the same power...

I would Teak the Fighter by picking up a book called Tome of Battle and flipping to the Warblade...:smalltongue:

If the party is Tier 4: Fighter, a Barbarian, an Adept, and a Rogue I would say that your party is balanced and no one is really being overshadowed... The problem only arises when the rogue is a beguiler, and the adept is a Nightstick eating cleric...

[Shademan]

yeah, but thats just essentially saying "play something else"
how do we improve the fighter so he is on par with the barbarian

[Zeful]

yeah, but thats just essentially saying "play something else"
how do we improve the fighter so he is on par with the barbarian

You remove the idiotic Bonus feats the fighter gets and give him some actual class features. Adding feats won't work because at least one other class can get them (either the barbarian if their not Fighter only feats and Warblades if they are) and they don't directly make the Fighter better, it just creates a harsher feat tax to play a competent one.

[Skorj]

You haven't proven that force isn't matter. In fact, nowhere can it be cited that force effects aren't or are matter so it's clearly a DM issue. I'd say it does ignore force effects because they aren't living and they have enough properties of matter to work to that effect.

Lets also not forget that heat is the motion of matter. Cold is the absence of that motion. Acid burns are reactions between two types of matter. Electromagnetic radiation is made of sub-atomic particles which are consequently, matter. Force effects must either be their own matter or they must interact with other matter to affect the environment.

A brilliant energy weapon weighs the same as a normal weapon, therefore it is affected by the force of non-living matter. QED.

And while we're killing catgirls, EM radiation (aka light) is your basic textbook example of energy without matter. Tune your (analog) TV to an empty station, and the static you see is the light of early days, when the universe was made of mostly light.

Amusingly, by RAW a Wall of Force doesn't actually stop ordinary arrows, so, yeah, it's going to be a DM ruling. (It stops breath weapons, spells, ethereal, and material creatures, but objects aren't mentioned - the RAI is pretty clear, but it's a humorous oversight - errata maybe?).

[Hague]

Does a wall of force stop light from passing through it?

To make the fighter better, you just need to add some more "Fighter-only" feats. They're functionally the same as class features. For instance, adding stackable fast movement feats for fighter levels 1,6,11, and 16 allows a fighter to outpace the fast movement abilities of a barbarian while still giving the player a choice if they'd like to play that way.

Alternately, at levels 4, 9, 14, and 19, you can give the fighter Bonus Feats that can be selected from the normal list instead of the normal bonus fighter feats. This would make a 20th level human fighter one of the most varied feat-wise while still maintaining the martial aspect. Also, Fighters do get some decent ACFs otherwise. Also, the fighter should get 4x instead of 2x skill points per level.



And while we're killing catgirls, EM radiation (aka light) is your basic textbook example of energy without matter. Tune your (analog) TV to an empty station, and the static you see is the light of early days, when the universe was made of mostly light.


Certainly, I'll agree with that. However, since force effects can exist as stationary, they must consist of some kind of matter as light (the primary example of non-mass energy) must be in constant motion in order to functionally exist. If light did not move, then it wouldn't exist. Since a wall of force is not totally unstable and is capable of stopping things (existing in a transient state) it must have mass and energy and therefore it is matter.

[Zeful]

To make the fighter better, you just need to add some more "Fighter-only" feats. They're functionally the same as class features.
No they're not. A class feature is something like Rage, part of one class that you can't get through feats. Further making the Fighter's class features Feats doesn't really help the fighter any, especially since that one of the ToB classes actually can take Fighter-only feats, making the concept useless.

If you want to improve the fighter, don't go just half-way (more feats mean that the class becomes more of a trap, not less of one), sit down and write up actual class features.

[Shademan]

any ideas for class features? I mean, the fighter is a VERY broad class.
It is supposed to be knights, proffessional soldiers, gladiators, town sheriff etc etc etc.
Making features is gonna be abit tricky.
I think I would steal some from other classes and let players choose between them

[Koury]

any ideas for class features? I mean, the fighter is a VERY broad class.
It is supposed to be knights, proffessional soldiers, gladiators, town sheriff etc etc etc.
Making features is gonna be abit tricky.
I think I would steal some from other classes and let players choose between them

You mean like they could through, you know, multiclassing? :smallconfused:

[Zeful]

[A]t Fifth level the Fighter gained a class feature that gave all weapons with a Damage die up to d6 gain one extra die of damage, at Tenth level it expanded to include weapons up to d10, and at 20th include all weapons and gave all weapons 2 extra dice.

My example feature from page 3 of this thread.

[Shademan]

no, 'cus that would mess with saves and BaB etc etc etc.
I'm thinking we're trying to make the fighter more effective.
and multiclassing can, by raw, also mess with your xp and skill gain

EDIT: didnt read page three. going there now

[Hague]

By "Fighter only" I meant feats that have the requirement "Fighter level x"

Also, I don't see where in BoNS:ToB it says that any of those classes are considered fighters for weapon specialization and the like.

One class feature I can think of is allowing the Fighter to change his weapon focus, imp. weapon focus and specialization feats to another weapon daily. Another is to allow them to change their fighter feats quickly over a period of time or perhaps an daily extraordinary version of heroism.

[Zaydos]

I like the idea behind your suggestion Zeful, but not the implementation. It would be better to give something like a flat +1dX (capped at weapon's based dice size) to all weapons to avoid a shortsword dealing more damage than a longsword and also it needs definition on how it works with weapons that deal 2+dX damage (as written it would eventually make greataxe be 3d12, and greatsword be 4d6; although until then it adds +1d6 to greatsword and none to greataxe).

@Hague: It's warblade, it's one of its class features that makes them count as a fighter of their level -2 for fighter bonus feats.

[Tyndmyr]

By "Fighter only" I meant feats that have the requirement "Fighter level x"

Also, I don't see where in BoNS:ToB it says that any of those classes are considered fighters for weapon specialization and the like.

Warblades are considered as fighters two levels below their level for the purpose of feat qualification.

Besides, it's not like Weapon Specialization is awesome.

[Zeful]

I like the idea behind your suggestion Zeful, but not the implementation. It would be better to give something like a flat +1dX (capped at weapon's based dice size) to all weapons to avoid a shortsword dealing more damage than a longsword and also it needs definition on how it works with weapons that deal 2+dX damage (as written it would eventually make greataxe be 3d12, and greatsword be 4d6; although until then it adds +1d6 to greatsword and none to greataxe).

It was a spur of the moment Idea but the purpose is to make the fighter better at fighting by giving him improvements to his weapon's damage. It's not particularly balanced or smooth in it's implementation but it's an example of how a class feature can be useful while still being generic.

[Tyndmyr]

Level 7: You may add half your fighter level, rounded down, to your melee damage rolls.

Level 9: You may select two class skills that you have at least one rank in to specialize in. Both receive an untyped +2 bonus.

Level 13: You may ignore points of hardness or DR equal to half your fighter level, rounded down.

Level 15: The bonus to the skills selected at level 9 increases to +4



Fill in the other dead levels higher than 6 as appropriate.

[quiet1mi]

Alright, I misread what you said... I thought you said make the fighter better... you said make it on par with the barbarian...

The Fighter is already on par with the barbarian...

Bonus feats are way better the the suggestions presented... I would much rather be able to keep my power attacking bonuses (combat brute) then get +2 strength...

If it makes you feel better say this... First level and every other level afterwords, I can sculpt my character into doing either one thing well or multiple things well... At third level instead of "I take cleave" say whenever I drop someone, I can hit another person... congrats that is much better then trapsense...

The barbarian's class features are terrible when compared to being able to take bonus feats... On the 2 more skills per level, would you take open minded? If you would not trade a feat for 5 more skill points, then why wouldn't bonus feats be better then 2 more skill points per level. If 4+ skill points mean that much, take the Thug class out of UA. It trades 1 feat, heavy armor proficiency for 4+ skill points.

On the pounce, how long would it take for a GM to change how their monsters fight... to adapt to this missile of destruction. Difficult terrain, people in the way, caltrops, all easy ways to negate the charge action and thus the bonus of pounce. With the fighter, you have the opportunity to be either specialized in something and have fall back.

But as I said, both are Tier 4... Muggles are muggles no matter how hard they can hit people with a large stick...

[Koury]

But as I said, both are Tier 4... Muggles are muggles no matter how hard they can hit people with a large stick...

Fighter is tier 5 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0).

[Zaydos]

Also 4+ skill points per level is 46 more skill points than 2+... or 9 feats.

[Zeful]

Muggles are muggles no matter how hard they can hit people with a large stick...

So why bother having the Fighter class exist beyond level 10? Or for that matter exist at all? Due to the prevalence of (IMHO badly designed) Prestige Classes there is no reason to take any base class beyond level 5, and if the Fighter's always going to be a muggle despite having no mythological equivalent past about level 10 why bother having the class go beyond that?

When you consider the ease and power of spellcasting classes in D&D there is no reason for a character to not choose spellcasting from an in-universe perspective unless he doesn't have an 11 in any of the mental stats. So there's really no reason for non-caster classes to exist in a setting.

[Frosty]

So why bother having the Fighter class exist beyond level 10? Or for that matter exist at all? Due to the prevalence of (IMHO badly designed) Prestige Classes there is no reason to take any base class beyond level 5, and if the Fighter's always going to be a muggle despite having no mythological equivalent past about level 10 why bother having the class go beyond that?

When you consider the ease and power of spellcasting classes in D&D there is no reason for a character to not choose spellcasting from an in-universe perspective unless he doesn't have an 11 in any of the mental stats. So there's really no reason for non-caster classes to exist in a setting.
Welcome to Tippyverse?

And yes, there are some who suggest that the Fighter become a 2 level prestige class. Maybe 6 levels for Dungeoncrasher.

[Aldizog]

Level 7: You may add half your fighter level, rounded down, to your melee damage rolls.

Level 9: You may select two class skills that you have at least one rank in to specialize in. Both receive an untyped +2 bonus.

Level 13: You may ignore points of hardness or DR equal to half your fighter level, rounded down.

Level 15: The bonus to the skills selected at level 9 increases to +4

Some other ideas, meant to be generic enough that "fighter" remains the broad, customizable class that it is meant to be:

A fighter may add a bonus equal to his fighter level to his ability scores for the purpose of qualifying for feats. He divides this among his six ability scores. For example, a 6th-level fighter with 10 Int and 10 Wis may allocate +3 to Int and +3 to Wis for feat selection purposes, thus qualifying for Combat Expertise and Combat Focus. [Alternatively: add Ftr lvl/2 to all ability scores]. More useful in low-point-buy and low-wealth games.

A fighter may select certain (Ex) abilities from other base classes as bonus feats, if his fighter level is at least two higher than the character level at which the ability becomes available. Only bonus feat slots may be used for these abilities. For example, a Ftr6 may select the knight ability "Bulwark of Defense" as a bonus feat, or a Ftr4 may select "Rage" as a bonus feat. The list of eligible abilities is determined by the DM. For escalating abilities such as Sneak Attack or Skirmish, the fighter gains one improvement of the ability each time he dedicates a bonus feat to it. (Don't have Dungeonscape myself, but the factotum ability sounds like a fighter should have a limited version of it.) Improved versions of abilities require the previous version. Racial substitution abilities may also be gained, but at four levels higher if the fighter is not of that race. A human Ftr6 could pick "Mettle of Mountains" as a bonus feat, then "Improved Mettle of Mountains" at level 14 (since a Goliath Rogue could receive these abilities at 2nd and 10th). Prestige class (Ex) abilities may be gained at ten levels higher than the prestige class level at which they are gained.

(Yes, I mean that the fighter can mug everybody else and take their stuff.)

Beginning at 1st level, and every four levels thereafter, the fighter may select one skill from the following list to add to his class skills: Balance, Diplomacy, Heal, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival, Tumble. Others may be added based on DM approval.

[Zeful]

Welcome to Tippyverse?

And yes, there are some who suggest that the Fighter become a 2 level prestige class. Maybe 6 levels for Dungeoncrasher.

And those people are in my opinion the second greatest problem in D&D (right behind rules lawyers). Especially when you consider that in 2e fighters had actual class features (they were the only class to be able to specialize in any weapon group).

[Frosty]

And those people are in my opinion the second greatest problem in D&D (right behind rules lawyers). Especially when you consider that in 2e fighters had actual class features (they were the only class to be able to specialize in any weapon group).
It's really 3.5's problem.

[Eric Tolle]

Aren't we dancing around the real problem here? It's not so much that the fighter is inherently weaker than the barbarian (though he could use some bennies- like a free keep at 10th level), but that casters are massively imbalanced, because 3.X took away the balancing elements that AD&D had.

Instead of just working over the fighter, I suggest we do some overall mods to make spellcasters properly fearful of getting involved in melee combat. Something like:
Increasing casting time
Raising the difficulty of Concentration in retaining spells
Measure all spell durations in rounds/level or minutes/level.

Above all: Increase saves across the board.
I haven't done the math yet to get an exact determination, but if we gave all classes something +1/2 levels to all saves, and maybe a +4 to their primary saves, it would be a start in making spellcasters worry if their spells would have an effect.

Can someone toss off some average save DCs for say, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level spallcasters (optimized, not by the book)? That would give an idea of what we want the saves to aim for.

[Zeful]

Aren't we dancing around the real problem here? It's not so much that the fighter is inherently weaker than the barbarian (though he could use some bennies- like a free keep at 10th level), but that casters are massively imbalanced, because 3.X took away the balancing elements that AD&D had.

Instead of just working over the fighter, I suggest we do some overall mods to make magic users properly fearful of getting involved in melee combat. Something like:
Increasing casting time
Raising the difficulty of Concentration in retaining spells
Measure all spell durations in rounds/level or minutes/level.
True, casters are a big problem in 3.5 though there's only so much you can do without removing entire archetypes.

My suggestions around weakening casters is to tie DC or bonus spells to something other than their primary attribute (Clerics need Charisma for bonus spells, Wizards need Wisdom for Spell DC etc.), shuffling around spells (Conjuration spells lose all spells that target creatures to Evocation, the six animal buff are split between Transmutation (Str, Dex, Con) and Enchantment (Int, Wis, Cha), and many many more.) Making some spells Multi-school (a spell that teleports you and deals damage to everything between the two points? Evocation and Conjuration, you can't ditch either school to cast this one.), make all Metamagic apply simultaneously rather than in-sequence. I'd probably make spells that have a duration of Concentration require a Concentration check for every action you take while concentrating on the spell (though I'd probably include a synergy for auto-hypnosis if I did that).

But this is a thread about Fighters, because frankly even if you buffed the Fighter, the Wizard could invalidate him with two spells of lower than third level. Buffing the Fighter lets him feel like he's earning something for his levels in Fighter.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd probably make spells that have a duration of Concentration require a Concentration check for every action you take while concentrating on the spell (though I'd probably include a synergy for auto-hypnosis if I did that).

Uuuuuuuuuuuhm, concentrating on a spell is a standard action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)

Concentration
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end.

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Sometimes a spell lasts for a short time after you cease concentrating. ...so it already contains a concentration clause like you described.

[Zeful]

It's been a while since it came up so I thought it was a free action for some reason.

[wayfare]

I've spent most of my D&D gaming in AD&D, but one thing that has always evened the odd for me when it came to the Spellcaster/combat person debate is how obviously supernatural fighter and barbarian HP is -- especially in 3.5.

A 1st level Fighter with only average Constitution (lest say 15) starts out with 12 hp and will average 7-8 additional hp per level. Going conservative, a 5th level fighter should be able to consistently pull off 42 hp. A mage of similar level (and similar constitution bonus) pulls off 25 hp. Now all this HP certainly won't save you if you fail your save against Fireball, but the fact remains that you have to stab a fighter a lot in order to kill him.

One thing i've always wondered, though, is why there doesn't seem to be an intermediate save category: there's only good saves (+12) and bad ones (+6). Can't there be a +9 save category? And why do fighters have awful Reflex saves -- they fight a lot, isn't getting out of the way a big part of their jobs?

[lsfreak]

I've spent most of my D&D gaming in AD&D, but one thing that has always evened the odd for me when it came to the Spellcaster/combat person debate is how obviously supernatural fighter and barbarian HP is -- especially in 3.5.


The problem here is the understanding of "hit points" as "amount of times he can be stabbed." "Hit points" for me, and quite a few others, is not ever actually making contact with the person - they parry, they dodge, they let the armor take a hit. But they're still wearied by the effort. Hit points are not actual physical wounds, but the level of energy a combatant has to keep dodging, blocking, and otherwise avoiding a lethal blow. The first time a fighter with 200 hit points is actually cut with a sword might only be the blow that drops him below 0.

EDIT: And, IIRC, hit points themselves are even described as possibly being supernatural luck or the blessing of some divine being.

[wayfare]

The problem here is the understanding of "hit points" as "amount of times he can be stabbed." "Hit points" for me, and quite a few others, is not ever actually making contact with the person - they parry, they dodge, they let the armor take a hit. But they're still wearied by the effort. Hit points are not actual physical wounds, but the level of energy a combatant has to keep dodging, blocking, and otherwise avoiding a lethal blow. The first time a fighter with 200 hit points is actually cut with a sword might only be the blow that drops him below 0.

EDIT: And, IIRC, hit points themselves are even described as possibly being supernatural luck or the blessing of some divine being.

Certainly this is similar to how the StarWars rpg handled it -- really needed seeing as getting hit by a lightsabre = death.

But i think D&D has always been pretty loose with what hit-points actually mean. You can't really parry a chain lightning, and a lower level character who is struck by a secondary lightning bolt will die while a high level fighter might survive taking the full blast from the primary attack.

[Tyndmyr]

The barbarian's class features are terrible when compared to being able to take bonus feats... On the 2 more skills per level, would you take open minded? If you would not trade a feat for 5 more skill points, then why wouldn't bonus feats be better then 2 more skill points per level.

Because the feats are the ONLY thing a fighter has. Swapping two levels of fighter for two levels of barbarian nets you an additional 4 skill points. You lose only one feat. This is already almost as good as open minded. But, you get a coupla more hp as well. This is almost as good as toughness.

You then ALSO get abilities.

You can't compare a bonus feat to each barbarian advantage individually. The fighter gets nowhere near that many bonus feats.


But as I said, both are Tier 4... Muggles are muggles no matter how hard they can hit people with a large stick...

Er, no. And there are completely melee classes that are solidly tier 3. Sure, magic can be awesome, but the lack of magic is not the only thing making fighter suck.

[The Big Dice]

The problem here is the understanding of "hit points" as "amount of times he can be stabbed." "Hit points" for me, and quite a few others, is not ever actually making contact with the person - they parry, they dodge, they let the armor take a hit. But they're still wearied by the effort. Hit points are not actual physical wounds, but the level of energy a combatant has to keep dodging, blocking, and otherwise avoiding a lethal blow. The first time a fighter with 200 hit points is actually cut with a sword might only be the blow that drops him below 0.

EDIT: And, IIRC, hit points themselves are even described as possibly being supernatural luck or the blessing of some divine being.

Then you're dodging the ground when you fall off a cliff and letting your armour take the hit for you when you get set on fire by Tucker's Kobolds... Hit points are a pain to define because no matter waht you try and explain them away as, there's always three other things that they are representing.

As for melee vs caster, caster has to sleep for eight hours a day or he's not recovering his spells. All you need to do is wake the caster up, keep him from getting the 8 hours consecutive that he needs.

[Orbin Dules]

I would like to point out that the barbarian and the fighter are roughly on par with each other. A fighter with well chosen feats will usually outshine a barbarian in a rage. That is why the barbarian has a d12 hit die, more skill points, fast movement, etc.

Now about the melee classes being incredibly underpowered against spell casters, I made just the character to stop most pesky spell casters. Currently, he is a 10th level fighter, 2nd level expert. He recently obtained two wands of antimagic field, and a wand of dimensional anchor. He can use the wands thanks to his two levels in expert where one of the ten class skills was Use magic Device. I won't burden you with all the technical details, unless you want them, in which you just have to ask for them. His main strategy when fighting spell casters is: quick draw his wand of antimagic field, antimagic field, quick draw his greataxe again. He will then move towards the spell caster. If the spell caster is flying, and not within range of the antimagic field, he will fire +2 flaming arrows from his mighty composite longbow +3. The arrow's magic will resume when they leave the field. If the spell caster has protection from arrows, it becomes a war of attrition. Unfortunately for the spell caster, He can currently keep an anti magic field going for 3,960 minutes and that's just on the wand he's been using. When they get within melee distance, he will try to grapple them, knock them unconscious, Coup de gras, then go through their spell component pouch and try to find anything inside it to make tea out of. This often results in him drinking very strange teas. Such as carrot and tear tea. He managed to single handedly kill a 14th level wizard. His only real problem is when going up against something that has no spell casting, and only extraordinary abilities, he becomes incredibly sub-par, because most of his money was spent on wands instead of the usual magic protection.

Please note that this character was constructed using 3.5 core rules, and only core rules. I would like you to bear that in mind before you go and tell me about some mage hunter Prc from some source book.

[Gavinfoxx]

No that's ARCANE Caster, Divine casters get their spells at a certain time of day, every day.

[Tyndmyr]

So...this 14th level wizard just sat there and took the arrows, eh? He didn't say, hang on, I'll be right back, then fetch his scroll of wind wall? And didn't know protective spells OR instantaneous conjurations? And they try to get INTO melee range without FoM? Huh.

That has nothing to do with being core, just the wizard being an idiot.


As for melee vs caster, caster has to sleep for eight hours a day or he's not recovering his spells. All you need to do is wake the caster up, keep him from getting the 8 hours consecutive that he needs.

Negative. They need not sleep, only rest. And they need not do so on this plane of existence. So, after the first couple of levels, this ceases to be a valid tactic against any wizard that isn't stupid enough to chase down the fighter in an AMF looking for a hug.

[Coidzor]

Isn't another big problem the fact that the fighter, more so than any other character is tied at the hip to the flaws of the feat system?

[The Big Dice]

Negative. They need not sleep, only rest. And they need not do so on this plane of existence. So, after the first couple of levels, this ceases to be a valid tactic against any wizard that isn't stupid enough to chase down the fighter in an AMF looking for a hug.
Semantics. Sleep or rest it's all the same. If you're going to hide in your Rope Trick, I'm going to march a parade up and down outside it. Complete with bagpipes. The spell doesn't mention blocking sound, after all, and I dare anyone to sleep through a pipe and drums parade.

Heck, I can hold a parade within a mile of where your caster is hiding and it's still going to keep him awake.

Or if you're in a building when you hide, I'll burn the place down around you. Or rig traps while you watch through your interdimensional window. There's all kinds of ways of preventing someone from resting and if you're hiding from me, I can prepare the battlefield for you.

Despite popular opinion, casters aren't invincible. You just need to prepare and have an idea of what spells the caster has. There's a counter for everything.

[DragoonWraith]

Semantics. Sleep or rest it's all the same. If you're going to hide in your Rope Trick, I'm going to march a parade up and down outside it. Complete with bagpipes. The spell doesn't mention blocking sound, after all, and I dare anyone to sleep through a pipe and drums parade.

Heck, I can hold a parade within a mile of where your caster is hiding and it's still going to keep him awake.

Or if you're in a building when you hide, I'll burn the place down around you. Or rig traps while you watch through your interdimensional window. There's all kinds of ways of preventing someone from resting and if you're hiding from me, I can prepare the battlefield for you.

Despite popular opinion, casters aren't invincible. You just need to prepare and have an idea of what spells the caster has. There's a counter for everything.
A magic item of continual Silence doesn't seem that expensive.

Casters are not invincible. But you'll have to do a lot more than you describe to get past their defenses. And frankly, the Fighter is not equipped for the job. Basically nothing but another Caster is. This has been demonstrated in countless tests, both of the arena variety and of the "try to complete the same dungeon" variety. This has been shown theoretically based on what the rules allow you to do. This has been reported anecdotally from actual games. The evidence strongly supports the Tier ratings, and the idea that Wizards are damn-near indestructable, especially when they approach 20th level. Once they get Epic Spellcasting, of course, everything becomes a joke.

[Orbin Dules]

So...this 14th level wizard just sat there and took the arrows, eh? He didn't say, hang on, I'll be right back, then fetch his scroll of wind wall? And didn't know protective spells OR instantaneous conjurations? And they try to get INTO melee range without FoM? Huh.

That has nothing to do with being core, just the wizard being an idiot.

Negative. They need not sleep, only rest. And they need not do so on this plane of existence. So, after the first couple of levels, this ceases to be a valid tactic against any wizard that isn't stupid enough to chase down the fighter in an AMF looking for a hug.

First of all, He did use wind wall, or some other similar spell to make projectiles useless. and it did degenerate into a battle of attrition. Secondly, conjured creatures will wink out when entering an antimagic field. Third, Freedom of movement is not a wizard spell. Finally, the wand of dimensional anchor was there to stop them from running away to another plane, or anywhere else through magical means. The wizard didn't come to my antimagic field, the field came to the wizard. He tried to run away on foot, I threw a tangle foot bag to stall him, until I caught up and killed him.

[Koury]

First of all, He did use wind wall, or some other similar spell to make projectiles useless. and it did degenerate into a battle of attrition. Secondly, conjured creatures will wink out when entering an antimagic field. Third, Freedom of movement is not a wizard spell. Finally, the wand of dimensional anchor was there to stop them from running away to another plane, or anywhere else through magical means. The wizard didn't come to my antimagic field, the field came to the wizard. He tried to run away on foot, I threw a tangle foot bag to stall him, until I caught up and killed him.

So the wizard had no Dispel Magics, for some reason. It was already said, but the wizard wasn't played well.

Which is good, its no fun to play against someone you can't win against.

[Esser-Z]

As for melee vs caster, caster has to sleep for eight hours a day or he's not recovering his spells. All you need to do is wake the caster up, keep him from getting the 8 hours consecutive that he needs.

Again, you don't need to wake him up, because he doesn't actually need to sleep. Just rest. And as was mentioned, Silence.

[Orbin Dules]

So the wizard had no Dispel Magics, for some reason. It was already said, but the wizard wasn't played well.

Which is good, its no fun to play against someone you can't win against.

Well, you cannot dispel an antimagic field with Dispel Magic. It's in the spell description. Secondly, I made this character to mainly point out that Wizards are not all powerful masters of magic, and that with just a little creativity, you can level the playing field between Fighter and magic user even i a game that allows no source books.

[dextercorvia]

First of all, He did use wind wall, or some other similar spell to make projectiles useless. and it did degenerate into a battle of attrition. Secondly, conjured creatures will wink out when entering an antimagic field. Third, Freedom of movement is not a wizard spell. Finally, the wand of dimensional anchor was there to stop them from running away to another plane, or anywhere else through magical means. The wizard didn't come to my antimagic field, the field came to the wizard. He tried to run away on foot, I threw a tangle foot bag to stall him, until I caught up and killed him.


Orb of X works just fine in an AMF. I also fail to see how your mere possession of an Wand of Dimensional Anchor could stop a Wizard from porting away. Seriously if a guy drops an AMF on himself and starts shooting at me, and I don't have any spells prepared that can penetrate an AMF, then my first response is BAMF.

You can only choose to AMF or Anchor in the first round. If you AMF in the first round, then Wiz can port. If you Anchor in the first round, then you are dead.

Not to mention that a Wand of Antimagic Field is not a legal item -- wands can only contain spells of 4th level or lower.

[Koury]

Well, you cannot dispel an antimagic field with Dispel Magic. It's in the spell description. Secondly, I made this character to mainly point out that Wizards are not all powerful masters of magic, and that with just a little creativity, you can level the playing field between Fighter and magic user even i a game that allows no source books.

I actually meant the Dim Anchor. And in a straight fight, they ARE the masters of magic. Arena fights will, outside of contrived circumstances, go to the wizard.

[Orbin Dules]

Orb of X works just fine in an AMF. I also fail to see how your mere possession of an Wand of Dimensional Anchor could stop a Wizard from porting away. Seriously if a guy drops an AMF on himself and starts shooting at me, and I don't have any spells prepared that can penetrate an AMF, then my first response is BAMF.

You can only choose to AMF or Anchor in the first round. If you AMF in the first round, then Wiz can port. If you Anchor in the first round, then you are dead.

Not to mention that a Wand of Antimagic Field is not a legal item -- wands can only contain spells of 4th level or lower.

Well, you got me there, I suppose they aren't legal, but my DM put one in as loot, and I asked him if I could purchase another. He gave me the O.K. and I took my next two levels as expert to create the anti-spellcaster. But about you porting away when you noticed I cast AMF? You'd have to succeed at a spellcraft check, to identify it as AMF. If you don't then you see a person wave a wand in the air, and then started shooting you. If I were in your shoes, then I would fire back. Only after the first couple spells stopped, then I would have teleported.

[Awnetu]

Can I counterspell your wand? If so, I do that, and laugh at you.

Do I have a intelligently played wizard? If so, Lead Hat for the win.

Where was contingency?

Gated creatures would not wink out.

[Orbin Dules]

I actually meant the Dim Anchor. And in a straight fight, they ARE the masters of magic. Arena fights will, outside of contrived circumstances, go to the wizard.

Not always. If we are talking about the DMG wizard against the DMG fighter. A lvl 1 wizard against a level 1 fighter, the win would go to the fighter. Level 2, win to fighter. level 3, win to fighter. At around level seven the win is more likely to go to the wizard, but it's about even. From eighth on, the win is more likely to go to the wizard. With no equipment however, The win will probably go to the fighter regardless because the wizard is lacking his precious spell book, and thus cannot prepare spells.

[Math_Mage]

Now about the melee classes being incredibly underpowered against spell casters, I made just the character to stop most pesky spell casters.
[...]
His main strategy when fighting spell casters is: quick draw his wand of antimagic field


A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower.

I think your strategy needs work.


Not always. If we are talking about the DMG wizard against the DMG fighter. A lvl 1 wizard against a level 1 fighter, the win would go to the fighter. Level 2, win to fighter. level 3, win to fighter. At around level seven the win is more likely to go to the wizard, but it's about even. From eighth on, the win is more likely to go to the wizard. With no equipment however, The win will probably go to the fighter regardless because the wizard is lacking his precious spell book, and thus cannot prepare spells.

Level 1 wizard can cast color spray just as well as a fighter can use his greatsword. Level 3 wizard can go invisible to avoid losing, or Alter Self to avoid any chance of not winning. Level 5 wizard can just fly away and Wind Wall your projectile weapons. All of these spells are right out of the PHB. The majority have significant out-of-combat utility, unlike a fighter. So no, I don't see how you're winning these matchups.

Of course, if you take away the wizard's spells, you win. Congratulations. *cough Spell Mastery cough* Now, what do you suppose that arbitrary corner case adds to the discussion?

[vrellum]

The problem is really 3rd edition. Here are some fixes.

Let fighters use noncore feats (if you aren't already doing so)

Remove the int requirement from combat expertise

Give fighters more skill points, somewhere in the range of 4 to 6
expand their skill list to include some useful skills like spot/listen, etc.

Allow fighters (and other melee types) to pounce or some way to get more than one attack on a charge.

Buffs help fighters more. For example haste increases your attacks per round by 50%. Bulls strength increases strength by 25%, etc.

Change the rules for stacking so you could have a belt that increases strength and still use a potion to increase it.



Remove broken stuff
shock trooper
frenzied beserker

Biggest problem in the game follows:
A lot of the wizard (and cleric) spells should be removed or heavily, heavily modified to make them less effective, such as teleport, polymorph line, blindness/deafness, improved invisibility, gate, time stop, glitterdust, enervation, fly, etc (There are a bunch). Do the same thing to the cleric list. Try to reduce their spell casting to that of a moderately optimized bard, with more spells perday.

Make it hard to make that concentration check. For example, you add all of the damage you took since your last action. This fits the flavor better anyway.

In return give the wizard more hp (d6), reduced arcane failure, and/or some other minor changes.

Get rid of persistant spell, night sticks, and turn undead cheese.

[Orbin Dules]

Can I counterspell your wand? If so, I do that, and laugh at you.

Do I have a intelligently played wizard? If so, Lead Hat for the win.

Where was contingency?

Gated creatures would not wink out.

Of course, never mind the fact that Gate is a ninth level spell, and that the wizard is only 14th level. I think my DM played the wizard, not as intelligibly as he could have, but he played the wizard as he should have. The wizard was an arrogant spell-caster who believed that he was an unstoppable master of magic, and that no one could kill him. So I think acted as he should have. It was fun for everyone, and satisfying for me. I fail to see what the problem was.

[Awnetu]

Frenzied Berserker isnt broken boss.

Stacking rules changes would benefit casters just as much, and they have spells to boost their stats. I guess you could knock the spell list down to Fireball and teleport (10 feet), sounds fun to me.

Druids <3 your changes as outlined there.

I don't really see anything broken with fly, these are wizards Harry, not muggles.

I do agree Save or Dies, and some of the more... extreme Save or Sucks should prolly be nerfed.

[Orbin Dules]

I think your strategy needs work.

Did you read one of my previous posts where someone already called me out on that?

[Awnetu]

Of course, never mind the fact that Gate is a ninth level spell, and that the wizard is only 14th level. I think my DM played the wizard, not as intelligibly as he could have, but he played the wizard as he should have. The wizard was an arrogant spell-caster who believed that he was an unstoppable master of magic, and that no one could kill him. So I think acted as he should have. It was fun for everyone, and satisfying for me. I fail to see what the problem was.

Didn't catch the level, was just pointing out some of the answers a wizard would have had.

The others still would have worked.

Though fighters(fill in the blank with your class if not a fighter) throwing around 9th level spells while the wizard had no access to them is... interesting.

[Jack Zander]

Not always. If we are talking about the DMG wizard against the DMG fighter. A lvl 1 wizard against a level 1 fighter, the win would go to the fighter. Level 2, win to fighter. level 3, win to fighter. At around level seven the win is more likely to go to the wizard, but it's about even. From eighth on, the win is more likely to go to the wizard. With no equipment however, The win will probably go to the fighter regardless because the wizard is lacking his precious spell book, and thus cannot prepare spells.

Actually level one is more like "Color Spray" or "Sleep" or "Charm Person." Hell, even without relying on save or lose spells a wizard could prepare mage armor and shield so fighter is going to have a hard time even hitting the wizard, especially if he combines those with other buffs/debuffs such as reduce person (self) and ray of enfeeblement (fighter). I've actually made wizard characters who acted as the party fighter, and buffed themselves with spells to the point of being stronger than a fighter of equal level, right from the get go at level 1. Honestly, any sort of wizard except for a blaster is going to take down the fighter at level one.

[balistafreak]

Well, you got me there, I suppose they aren't legal, but my DM put one in as loot, and I asked him if I could purchase another. He gave me the O.K. and I took my next two levels as expert to create the anti-spellcaster. But about you porting away when you noticed I cast AMF? You'd have to succeed at a spellcraft check, to identify it as AMF. If you don't then you see a person wave a wand in the air, and then started shooting you. If I were in your shoes, then I would fire back. Only after the first couple spells stopped, then I would have teleported.

As long as you discuss from an illegal premise (Wand of AMF), this really doesn't mean anything. :smalltongue:

However, I'm bored, so I'll play along. :smallbiggrin:

I believe at the level at which AMF can be cast, much less a (illegal) Wand of it, a Wizard can basically nail the Spellcraft DC, or at least have an extremely high, not-insignificant chance. If so, bamf away, for obvious reasons.

Also, anyone who reattempts something that auto-failed twice wasted one action too many. I believe the AMF is pretty recognizable for its purpose. Just saying.

Barring the AMF over both the aggressor and the Wizard (in which case something has gone terribly, terribly wrong already), the Wizard would most likely attempt one action, fail, and withdraw to a safe distance/prepare defenses against an avenue of attack. Even if you've protected yourself, you still haven't proved how you're going to kill him. Moderately inconvenience him? Definitely, but nothing that could be considered "victory".


Secondly, I made this character to mainly point out that Wizards are not all powerful masters of magic, and that with just a little creativity, you can level the playing field between Fighter and magic user even i a game that allows no source books.

I am extremely annoyed at seeing this myth repeated again, and again, and again. :smallannoyed:

Wizards by default are all-powerful masters of magic. It's kind of in their job description. As long as we subscribe to even so much as the basic existing 3.5 ruleset for magic, Wizards are going to be outrageous.

(Negate all houserules of "Wizard nerf" here.)

No amount of "creativity" backed by only the power of a mundane is going to change that. Why?

Well, put it this way. The ability to whip a wand does not in any way obsolete or even challenge a Wizard's versatility and raw power. (The opposite is true for HP healing, something that many players still have yet to learn, but that's another story for another time.) Better, where did you think that wand came from? A Wand Spider? No, that means that somewhere a Wizard made one.

Also, note that magic allows one to exploit one's creativity to a far greater degree. Ever heard of the infamous Adamantine Hat? I defy you to show me a mundane with that kind of defensive power. The spell Contingency basically reads "run wild with your plans".


I think my DM played the wizard, not as intelligibly as he could have, but he played the wizard as he should have. The wizard was an arrogant spell-caster who believed that he was an unstoppable master of magic, and that no one could kill him. So I think acted as he should have. It was fun for everyone, and satisfying for me. I fail to see what the problem was.

Well, see here. You have someone who, by all established guidelines both flavorful and mechanical, gains power through application of his intelligence.

It sounds like your Wizard was repeatedly running up against the same failures, which crosses the boundary of "realization through inner wisdom" and "failure to notice a pattern". The second part is a clear Intelligence trait. To roleplay that is to break the verisimilitude of an intelligent Wizard.

(Now, there is the Mad Wizard archetype... but that's a different story.)

The problem is not that you had fun. :smallsmile: The problem is rather your insistence that because you had fun, there are no problems and everyone else won't trip over any problems either.

You can run a game where stuff runs "sub-optimally" beneath some level of power, whether that level is "don't take Toughness 9 times" or "Pun-Pun". Every game is under some line - but that won't preclude people from having fun. However, just because you had fun, does not mean that line is nonexistent and therefore not a problem.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm reading into your discourse.

[Awnetu]

I urge you to look at a level one spell, its hilarious. the spell? Color Spray. Assume the wizard has an int of 18. He casts it as a DC 15 will save, <3 that fighter with his terrible will save. He just got destroyed by a wizard.

Clarification: this was for the level 1 example.

[Orbin Dules]

Didn't catch the level, was just pointing out some of the answers a wizard would have had.

The others still would have worked.

Though fighters(fill in the blank with your class if not a fighter) throwing around 9th level spells while the wizard had no access to them is... interesting.

The only spells he threw around were antimagic field (6th level) and dimensional anchor (4th level.) I used tangle foot bags, and +2 flaming arrows. I don't think any of those were 9th level spells.

[Awnetu]

Oops, forgot my spell level. Was thinking Cleric spell levels, but even then its only level 8.

[Math_Mage]

Did you read one of my previous posts where someone already called me out on that?

It's worth mentioning again. I mean, a strategy dependent on custom magic items that have been houseruled into the game is not generally applicable. How much did that wand cost you, by the way? A 4th-level wand is 21,000 gp. A wand of AMF would set you back a pretty penny.

[Orbin Dules]

Why do I get the feeling that you all seem to favor wizards much more than your average joe fighter?

[balistafreak]

A Fighter utilizing a tactic that relies personally activating a 6th level spell makes me question the wisdom of using a Fighter as the operator of the tactic.

Did your party not have your own Wizard to help you out? Just curious. :smallwink:


Why do I get the feeling that you all seem to favor wizards much more than your average joe fighter?

Define favor.

If we're talking about raw power, then yes, we are certainly favoring Wizards for more than Fighters, because it's true.

If we're talking about what we personally think of Wizards, then I'll say right now I really, really hate Wizards... because of everything we've said and pointed out. A class shouldn't be this ridiculously broken and require this much work to "balance", but it is and does.

I DM'd a party with a high level Wizard in it, once. We ended the session with the gentleman's agreement of, "Never again."

[Awnetu]

Why do I get the feeling that you all seem to favor wizards much more than your average joe fighter?

It's not so much that we favor wizards so much as the game as written, is hell for a fighter. My favorite class is a barbarian, but if you had asked me what the most powerful class is? It's a Wizard/Druid/Artificer/Cleric. Sadly, that's just how Dungeons and Dragons (3.5) works.

As much as I wish you could be crazy creative and destroy a wizard with a fighter, it's really not going to happen without some crazy shenanigans on the fighters part and the wizard making a mistake, and even then, the wizard has the ability to correct his mistakes.

[Math_Mage]

Why do I get the feeling that you all seem to favor wizards much more than your average joe fighter?

The wizard is objectively stronger than the fighter. Which one we favor has nothing to do with it.

[Orbin Dules]

A Fighter utilizing a tactic that relies personally activating a 6th level spell makes me question the wisdom of using a Fighter as the operator of the tactic.

Did your party not have your own Wizard to help you out? Just curious. :smallwink:

Yes we did have a wizard, but no he could not back my character up, because my character had challenged the 14th level wizard to a duel.

[Jack Zander]

Why do I get the feeling that you all seem to favor wizards much more than your average joe fighter?

A lot of us would like to root for the fighter, but he's not just the underdog, he's a cockroach under a boot.

[Orbin Dules]

By the way, In my opinion, The cleric is more powerful than the wizard. Simply because the clerical equivalent of wish has no XP cost to duplicate spells

[balistafreak]

By the way, In my opinion, The cleric is more powerful than the wizard. Simply because the clerical equivalent of wish has no XP cost to duplicate spells

Please let us not derail into ye olde Cleric vs. Wizard debate. :smalleek:

http://tohuw.net/wp-content/uploads/train-derail.jpg

Anyways, I think we answered the OP's question a long time ago - I don't think it had anything to do with the magic system. :smallamused:

[Orbin Dules]

Good point. I guess I'll have to work on a different anti spell caster fighter build.

[Koury]

Well, you got me there, I suppose they aren't legal, but my DM put one in as loot, and I asked him if I could purchase another. He gave me the O.K. and I took my next two levels as expert to create the anti-spellcaster. But about you porting away when you noticed I cast AMF? You'd have to succeed at a spellcraft check, to identify it as AMF. If you don't then you see a person wave a wand in the air, and then started shooting you. If I were in your shoes, then I would fire back. Only after the first couple spells stopped, then I would have teleported.

I assume this is a joke? DC 24 for 9th level spells.


Level 12 Wizard:
15 Ranks Spellcraft
+2 Synergy (K: Arcana)
+6 Int (16 Base, +2 levels, +4 Item)

Autopass even on a one. Even earlier with an 18 starting Int.


Not always. If we are talking about the DMG wizard against the DMG fighter. A lvl 1 wizard against a level 1 fighter, the win would go to the fighter. Level 2, win to fighter. level 3, win to fighter. At around level seven the win is more likely to go to the wizard, but it's about even. From eighth on, the win is more likely to go to the wizard. With no equipment however, The win will probably go to the fighter regardless because the wizard is lacking his precious spell book, and thus cannot prepare spells.

The fighter loses about 65% of the time at level 1 and 2 due to the DC 14 (10 base +1 spell level+3 Int) Will save vs Color Spray. It only gets worse from this point on.

[Math_Mage]

By the way, In my opinion, The cleric is more powerful than the wizard. Simply because the clerical equivalent of wish has no XP cost to duplicate spells

Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Archivist, Artificer are the Big Five. Trying to determine which of them is stronger is a futile exercise.

EDIT: Koury, and others who mention the Spellcraft check. I gotta nitpick:


15 + spell level: Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.


Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken.

You do not hear the verbal or somatic components of the spell being cast, only a word used to activate the wand, so you do not get a chance to identify the spell as it is being cast. Once the AMF is in place, however, you could make a DC 26 Spellcraft check to notice it, provided you have magic items that have been affected, or spells that have been suppressed:


20 + spell level: Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

[vrellum]

Frenzied Berserker isnt broken boss.

Stacking rules changes would benefit casters just as much, and they have spells to boost their stats. I guess you could knock the spell list down to Fireball and teleport (10 feet), sounds fun to me.

Druids <3 your changes as outlined there.

I don't really see anything broken with fly, these are wizards Harry, not muggles.

I do agree Save or Dies, and some of the more... extreme Save or Sucks should prolly be nerfed.

I disagree about frenzied beserker. It's part of the rocket tag problem of higher level games. Plus there really isn't any way for a noncaster to expect to kill one, once they get the ability to not die until they leave frenzy.

Stacking rules would benefit casters, true. And that becomes a problem when they boost DCs through the roof. So that idea needs some work.

Druids might like it, but most of their abuse comes from their ability to effectively polymorph and polymorph is one of the things that need to be fixed. For example, limit their options, officially. Reduce the maximum size, make sure they lose all of their equipment when they polymorph. No wilding clasps, etc.

The trouble with fly isn't so much as what it does by itself. It's a combination. 1st wizards get it as low as 5th level. 2nd it can be combined with things like windwall that make wizards too hard to neutralize. And Harry Potter couldn't fly with out a magic item...

Teleport and the raise/ressurect line of spells have he potential to ruin the game in a lot of ways. Scry and die, for example.

I'm assuming your fireball and 10' teleport comments are made in jest becauses you do agree that many of the spells need to be nerfed.

[Koury]

The trouble with fly isn't so much as what it does by itself. It's a combination. 1st wizards get it as low as 5th level.

Wizards can fly at 3rd level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterself.htm). For 10 min/level.

[Jack Zander]

Anyways, I think we answered the OP's question a long time ago - I don't think it had anything to do with the magic system. :smallamused:

Actually, my original concern did have to do with the magic system in a way. Basically, since both fighters and barbarians are both equally bad at overall party usefulness and having options such as a wizard, why are barbarians so often said to be so much better than fighters?

[Math_Mage]

Actually, my original concern did have to do with the magic system in a way. Basically, since both fighters and barbarians are both equally bad at overall party usefulness and having options such as a wizard, why are barbarians so often said to be so much better than fighters?

Are they? Barbarians are Tier 4. Fighters are Tier 5. (Dungeoncrashers and Zhentarim Fighters are also Tier 4, actually.)


Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

So a Barbarian will not, in general, outdo the Fighter by a great amount relative to the class system as a whole.

[balistafreak]

I thought the discussion of class features (Pounce, Whirling Frenzy? yesssssss) > bonus feats and those 2 extra skillpoints + better skill list did it.

And put it this way. Let's assign arbitrary power values. Fighter is 100. Barbarian is 125. Wizard is >9000.

As long as we include Wizard in the equation, Fighter and Barbarian are basically equal. Remove Wizard as a statistical outlier, and I think it's safe to say that 125 is significantly greater than 100.

[Awnetu]

Marbles say Frenzied Berserker sits there like a little child, throwing a tantrum, proceed to beat the snot out of it. Also, only 1 frenzy a fight, and it doesn't last forever.

Wand of Grease? Trip? Sunder his weapon? He still isn't immune to the other forms of CC available. Scroll or potion of greater invisibility?

You are going to remove my dire bear? Killjoy =(.

Harry might have used a broom, nothing in HP said he couldn't put that on his robes.

The fireball comment was more along the lines of the list you gave felt like it was removing everything but nuking, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but seems like a lame way to have spellcasters. I'm all for nerfing the broken combos, knocking down the power of Save or Sucks so horrible you are dead anyways, but at the same time, I would like to be able to fly or teleport. Though I guess you could introduce items which allow you to focus your casting power or something for more extraordinary feats, but meh, way off topic.

[vrellum]

Wizards can fly at 3rd level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterself.htm). For 10 min/level.

True, but I said the trouble with "fly", by which I meant the spell. Not the ability flight.

Alterself is in the polymorph line and needs to be redone or removed. For example, alter self could become polymorph self. Polymorph self could replace shape change, they might be OK as a substatially higher level spells. Maybe not, it would take a lot of playtesting and the char-op folks to examine it to see if it would work.

[Hague]

I believe Rich has some very nice well-thought out rules to replace polymorphing. I suggest you read them. While I don't agree with all of them, I'll agree that separating the different types of creatures you can polymorph into different level spells goes a long way toward balancing it.

Again, limiting what spells are available to learn and adding gp costs to learning them (for all casters and manifesters) goes a long way toward curbing the power-creep. If a wizard has to pay (or acquire wealth the equivalent of) the actual cost of having the spell cast, you'd see far fewer combinations of high-powered gear and uber spells. Even then, I doubt any spell caster is going to want to sell their secrets to anyone whom could be considered competition. This means the caster needs to spend time to research a new spell (or a copy of a 'known' spell) or buy a scroll and hope they make the spellcraft check. I guess the rub in this plan is that even 9th level scrolls aren't expensive enough to dent the pocketbook of a high-level character but it should provide a small enough dent for other non-caster classes to fill with gear to make them a touch less potent.

My biggest gripe with divine casters is that their spell lists are always available. Forcing them to learn their spells as wizards (even if you don't require spellbooks) can keep their power levels in check. Also, with all casters, some of the ingredients listed don't seem like they should be mundane or should at least have some gp cost associated with them: Dragon scales, rare earth elements, etc.

Back to fighters and barbarians though, the Fighter should definitely get Leadership (or a bonus feat) at level 9, like they did in 2e.

Here's an idea for a fighter class feature:


Expanded Aptitude
Fighters eventually begin to fall into their own with regards to their own capabilities, allowing them to surpass many others even without natural talent due to rigorous and versatile training. At third level a fighter gains a +1 bonus to all of his or her attribute scores for the purposes of qualifying for feats. This bonus increases by one for every three levels after 3rd: +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th, and so on up to a maximum bonus of +6 at level 18. For instance, a 9th level fighter with 10 intelligence would qualify for Combat Expertise. This ability applies for all feats, not just feats from the fighter's list of bonus feats.

[Lans]

I urge you to look at a level one spell, its hilarious. the spell? Color Spray. Assume the wizard has an int of 18. He casts it as a DC 15 will save, <3 that fighter with his terrible will save. He just got destroyed by a wizard.

Clarification: this was for the level 1 example.
One problem is that mind affecting effects are ridiculously easy to become immune to. Especially if there evil. And by Especially I mean mostly Evil. And by Mostly evil I mean get your shoes were going to see the Robot Devil.

One advantage a fighter has over Barbarians, Druids, Paladins, and Bards is that he has less of an opportunity cost for a Pact Infernus for +65% wealth. Or two bonus feats.

[Awnetu]

One problem is that mind affecting effects are ridiculously easy to become immune to. Especially if there evil. And by Especially I mean mostly Evil. And by Mostly evil I mean get your shoes were going to see the Robot Devil.

One advantage a fighter has over Barbarians, Druids, Paladins, and Bards is that he has less of an opportunity cost for a Pact Infernus for +65% wealth. Or two bonus feats.

To what are you referring to? I have been looking for ways to become immune to mind affecting effects for the game Im currently in, and so far my search through items has been less than fruitful. I also do not know of any feats which do this. Either way, the Wizard has grease, which will still work at level 1.

[olentu]

To what are you referring to? I have been looking for ways to become immune to mind affecting effects for the game Im currently in, and so far my search through items has been less than fruitful. I also do not know of any feats which do this. Either way, the Wizard has grease, which will still work at level 1.

Well if you happen to be evil I think deformity (madness) from elder evils gives immunity to mind affecting abilities but also gives some penalty and does require the willing deformity entry feat.

[Awnetu]

Ah... not quite so useful.

[Cogidubnus]

Protection from Evil prevents all mind control, which is half the battle.

Talking about melee classes, this Paladin fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160730) is good. Not a barbarian or a fighter, but flat out better than both if you ask me.

[Lans]

To what are you referring to? I have been looking for ways to become immune to mind affecting effects for the game Im currently in, and so far my search through items has been less than fruitful. I also do not know of any feats which do this. Either way, the Wizard has grease, which will still work at level 1.

Willing Deformity mind, and I think one of the incarnum melds. You get a free vile feat for worshiping and elder evil at first and every 5hd afterwords.

Grease isn't nearly as good at disabling a person as color spray is.

[dextercorvia]

Well, you got me there, I suppose they aren't legal, but my DM put one in as loot, and I asked him if I could purchase another. He gave me the O.K. and I took my next two levels as expert to create the anti-spellcaster. But about you porting away when you noticed I cast AMF? You'd have to succeed at a spellcraft check, to identify it as AMF. If you don't then you see a person wave a wand in the air, and then started shooting you. If I were in your shoes, then I would fire back. Only after the first couple spells stopped, then I would have teleported.

One additional point (and I'm really not trying to beat up on you personally, just showing you that your win had more to do with your DM letting you, than with your tactics -- Not saying this is a bad thing either. As the protagonist, once and a while you should pull one over on the BBEG wizard Conan style.):

Once you have your AMF up, you have no way to target the Wizard with your Dimensional Lock. So while an unprepared (ie no Instantaneous Duration Conjurations in memory) wizard may not be able to do much to you in an AMF -- he should have no trouble getting away and getting the drop on you next time.

[Orbin Dules]

On the subject of the barbarian vs. fighter, I realized why I prefer fighters. On a mechanical perspective, fighters are one of the most diverse classes. The sheer variation of class features is staggering, and two fighters could be drastically different from each other. For example, I had a character who was a dwarf fighter, wearing heavy armor, boots of striding and springing, and under the effects of a potion expeditious retreat made for him by the party wizard. He had a land speed of fifty feet with ER, and thirty without. Combine that with Mobility, and spring attack, and you have a character who will never stand still. To bring this back to my main point, you could also have a fighter who never fought except on a mount, but his build was optimized for mounted combat. The fighters class features are his feats. It is one of the only fully customizable classes.

[dextercorvia]

On the subject of the barbarian vs. fighter, I realized why I prefer fighters. On a mechanical perspective, fighters are one of the most diverse classes. The sheer variation of class features is staggering, and two fighters could be drastically different from each other. For example, I had a character who was a dwarf fighter, wearing heavy armor, boots of striding and springing, and under the effects of a potion expeditious retreat made for him by the party wizard. He had a land speed of fifty feet with ER, and thirty without. Combine that with Mobility, and spring attack, and you have a character who will never stand still. To bring this back to my main point, you could also have a fighter who never fought except on a mount, but his build was optimized for mounted combat. The fighters class features are his feats. It is one of the only fully customizable classes.

Have you considered getting him a potion of Shield to go with that Expeditions Retreat?

Yes, I know it doesn't work that way.

[Math_Mage]

On the subject of the barbarian vs. fighter, I realized why I prefer fighters. On a mechanical perspective, fighters are one of the most diverse classes. The sheer variation of class features is staggering, and two fighters could be drastically different from each other. For example, I had a character who was a dwarf fighter, wearing heavy armor, boots of striding and springing, and under the effects of a potion expeditious retreat made for him by the party wizard. He had a land speed of fifty feet with ER, and thirty without. Combine that with Mobility, and spring attack, and you have a character who will never stand still. To bring this back to my main point, you could also have a fighter who never fought except on a mount, but his build was optimized for mounted combat. The fighters class features are his feats. It is one of the only fully customizable classes.

A caster's spells are far more diverse and customizable than a fighter's feats...

Also, your character could have benefited from a level in Barbarian for the speed boost. :smallwink: Oh, and did you say heavy armor? Then no Spring Attack for you.

[Flickerdart]

A caster's spells are far more diverse and customizable than a fighter's feats...

Also, your character could have benefited from a level in Barbarian for the speed boost. :smallwink: Oh, and did you say heavy armor? Then no Spring Attack for you.
No, you don't understand. Being a drain on party resources to perform basic functions of its role is a Fighter class feature!

[Gavinfoxx]

Whyever would a wizard make potions for a dumb stupid fighter? Seriously, he could just buy a few fighting animals and pay some commoners to handle then and have all the meat shields he wants.

If a wizard seriously wants to waste XP and GP with the massive xp and gp sink that is potions, he should maybe make two "emergency healing" potions for each important person (potions of Faith Healing, tailored to each deity, if possible), and be done with it. Alternately, he could make, say, a bunch of tiny darts of spell storing and use those for emergency healing...

But potions for a fighter? That's just... stupid... why is he wasting party resources so you can do your job that you should be able to do without those resources?

[Orbin Dules]

Whyever would a wizard make potions for a dumb stupid fighter? Seriously, he could just buy a few fighting animals and pay some commoners to handle then and have all the meat shields he wants.

If a wizard seriously wants to waste XP and GP with the massive xp and gp sink that is potions, he should maybe make two "emergency healing" potions for each important person (potions of Faith Healing, tailored to each deity, if possible), and be done with it. Alternately, he could make, say, a bunch of tiny darts of spell storing and use those for emergency healing...

But potions for a fighter? That's just... stupid... why is he wasting party resources so you can do your job that you should be able to do without those resources?

Because we all know how much 25 gp and 2 xp is such a waste of party resources, and the fact that you can't discuss tactics to a fighting animal. The Commoners handling the animal will most likely die first. Above all, a fighting' animal cannot usually move,attack, then move again. Also, if a wizard can't create potions or other things to benefit those who cannot reshape reality with their minds, then they aren't really doing their job to support the party. Being in a party is a group effort. Everyone helps keep everyone else alive. There is a reason wizards don't get healing magic.

[Awnetu]

In before: If the fighter was a wizard, the wizard need not waste resources protecting him.

As far as barbarian versus fighters go?

<3 Barbarians becuase they are good at what they are supposed to do, (Damage, damage, and lots more damage).

Fighters have alot harder time meeting the fluff due to Skill Sets and mechanics.

[Flickerdart]

Because we all know how much 25 gp and 2 xp is such a waste of party resources, and the fact that you can't discuss tactics to a fighting animal. The Commoners handling the animal will most likely die first. Above all, a fighting' animal cannot usually move,attack, then move again. Also, if a wizard can't create potions or other things to benefit those who cannot reshape reality with their minds, then they aren't really doing their job to support the party. Being in a party is a group effort. Everyone helps keep everyone else alive. There is a reason wizards don't get healing magic.
So you're saying that one of the players should waste a feat, their hard-earned XP, and downtime that could be spent doing better things, just so your character can, after wasting rounds to buff, perform in combat in a mediocre fashion.

Good luck with that.

[Math_Mage]

Because we all know how much 25 gp and 2 xp is such a waste of party resources, and the fact that you can't discuss tactics to a fighting animal. The Commoners handling the animal will most likely die first. Above all, a fighting' animal cannot usually move,attack, then move again. Also, if a wizard can't create potions or other things to benefit those who cannot reshape reality with their minds, then they aren't really doing their job to support the party. Being in a party is a group effort. Everyone helps keep everyone else alive. There is a reason wizards don't get healing magic.

Again, I'll note that your Fighter can't actually move, attack, then move again, due to being in heavy armor. Meanwhile, a Barbarian wouldn't need to move again, since whatever he just hit would be splattered across the ground. A build whose only remarkable feature is a buff granted by another character is not great strategy. And the wizard can be supporting the party far more with effective strategies than with potion crafting.

Oh, healing magic? The Rogue's job. :smallamused:

[Orbin Dules]

So you're saying that one of the players should waste a feat, their hard-earned XP, and downtime that could be spent doing better things, just so your character can, after wasting rounds to buff, perform in combat in a mediocre fashion.

Good luck with that.

Exactly that. It's using a wizard bonus feat, which most wizards already have, a negligible amount of xp and gp, to improve the fighter's combat capabilities. After all, while a wizard has a limit on spells per day, a Fighter can swing a weapon for an infinite amount of time. Besides, in a group that consists of both a wizard and a fighter, the fighter's job is to kill the things that the wizard wouldn't need to burn a spell on. Having a fighter in the party actually lengthens the usefulness of the spell caster.

[Math_Mage]

Having a fighter in the party actually lengthens the usefulness of the spell caster.

Yes, because the fighter can buy Pearls of Power with his WBL. :smallamused: Sorry, but when you throw it over the plate like that, I have to take a swing...

[Tyndmyr]

Because we all know how much 25 gp and 2 xp is such a waste of party resources, and the fact that you can't discuss tactics to a fighting animal. The Commoners handling the animal will most likely die first. Above all, a fighting' animal cannot usually move,attack, then move again. Also, if a wizard can't create potions or other things to benefit those who cannot reshape reality with their minds, then they aren't really doing their job to support the party. Being in a party is a group effort. Everyone helps keep everyone else alive. There is a reason wizards don't get healing magic.

There's the feat, too. There's generally little reason for a wizard to take Brew Potions.

And supporting the party? This sounds like a buncha deadbeat roommates demanding freebies from the guy with the job. Why wouldn't the wizard eventually say "screw you guys, I'll be better off doing this on my own" to these moochers? Because yknow, he would be.

[Coidzor]

Yes, because the fighter can buy Pearls of Power with his WBL. :smallamused: Sorry, but when you throw it over the plate like that, I have to take a swing...

Don't forget spell-storing lassos and arrows for spell batteries.

[Tyndmyr]

I love all the endless attempts to show that a fighter is as powerful than a wizard, because he can benefit from some of the wizard's abilities.

"Please sir, can I have some more?" is not equality.

[Coidzor]

I love all the endless attempts to show that a fighter is as powerful than a wizard, because he can benefit from some of the wizard's abilities.

"Please sir, can I have some more?" is not equality.

Well, y'know, he's the magic-dependent mobile weapons platform for the wizard after all. Actually that describes...

Most of the classes... Well, the magic-dependent mobile weapons platform bit anyway. Some more literally than others.

[The Big Dice]

I love all the endless attempts to show that a fighter is as powerful than a wizard, because he can benefit from some of the wizard's abilities.

"Please sir, can I have some more?" is not equality.

If by "powerful" you mean "can do more damage or otherwise incapacitate more enemies in a given period of time" then after about 3rd level, a Fighter loses the arms race.

If by "powerful" you mean "has more than twice as much ability to soak up damage and can potentially kill with a single good hit if Turn 1 initiative is won" then things aren't quite as one sided.

Of course, Schroedinger's Wizard is going to win every time. And that is the default assumption for any Wizard on these forums. That he's going to have exactly the spell needed prepped, contingent and ready to go.

The truth of the matter is less clear cut. It's easy to say "Ah, but..." in an internet debate. It's less easy to be prepared for anything that might be coming your way. And with a Potion of Nondetection only costing 750gp, scry-and-die tactics against those annoying gnats that call themselves Fighters are pretty much useless.

The muggle who doesn't invest in a few of those deserves what he gets, by the way.

Yes you can call that "Please sir, can I have some more," but then if we assume a condition other than Schroedinger's Wizard, who is really making the magic items for the caster? I've certainly never seen a player that was actually willing to spend precious XP and coin on making items for himself. Sock full of dice to the head, anyone? Not when there's Metamagic feats that can be used every battle instead of Item Creation feats that get used now and then AND they have what most players I've known see as an unnacceptable cost.

[Awnetu]

Depends on the playgroup for you I guess, but the way I see it? Having the spell ready in some fashion, whether it be through crafting or preparing the spell, is worth alot of xp, you typically cant level while dead. The problems I end up having in the campaigns I have been in are not being given enough time to craft by the dm, because everything HAS to happen now.

[wayfare]

I am a bit confused.

The fighter is clearly reliant upon magic.

A good fighter needs magic weapons and armor hit often and deal damage. I have never seen a fighter above level 8 w/o some kind of magic weapon or armor.

Now if I make a breastplate of Spell Resistance +25 (i don't know if you can do this, but lets just say), and I am a wizard, clearly this won't really benefit me all that well. But it will benefit my fighter friend just fine, and he will do pretty well against most mages because of my efforts. He couldn't have the armor without me, but I couldn't use it.

This seems to be the fighter from word 1 in 1st edition.

[Boci]

The truth of the matter is less clear cut. It's easy to say "Ah, but..."

Yes, obviously wizards are not spontenous casters, but the fact that almost any situation in which they die could have been prevented with the right spells says a lot about the class's power.

[olentu]

I am a bit confused.

The fighter is clearly reliant upon magic.

A good fighter needs magic weapons and armor hit often and deal damage. I have never seen a fighter above level 8 w/o some kind of magic weapon or armor.

Now if I make a breastplate of Spell Resistance +25 (i don't know if you can do this, but lets just say), and I am a wizard, clearly this won't really benefit me all that well. But it will benefit my fighter friend just fine, and he will do pretty well against most mages because of my efforts. He couldn't have the armor without me, but I couldn't use it.

This seems to be the fighter from word 1 in 1st edition.

So why again is the character making something they have no reason to even bother making.

[The Big Dice]

Yes, obviously wizards are not spontenous casters, but the fact that almost any situation in which they die could have been prevented with the right spells says a lot about the class's power.

There's the keywords here. In an internet argument, obviously the caster is going to be prepared with exactly what he needs at a given time to counter well, anything really.

In actual play, you've got to be a lot more carefu' After all, other than a bucket load of 0 and 1st level spells, you're only getting 2 per level. And that means you have to pick the most useful spells each and every time. Which is a massively limiting factor, even if you're buying scrolls and spending the neccessary cash to transcribe them.

[Flickerdart]

Yes you can call that "Please sir, can I have some more," but then if we assume a condition other than Schroedinger's Wizard, who is really making the magic items for the caster? I've certainly never seen a player that was actually willing to spend precious XP and coin on making items for himself. Sock full of dice to the head, anyone? Not when there's Metamagic feats that can be used every battle instead of Item Creation feats that get used now and then AND they have what most players I've known see as an unnacceptable cost.
Yes, the fighter is free to use his own WBL to buy himself magic items and pretend that he's contributing. Orbin Dules is suggesting that the wizard is supposed to be at the fighter's beck and call for his junk, however, which is not good strategy, party dynamic or anything else.

[wayfare]

So why again is the character making something they have no reason to even bother making.

Ummm...party balance? Because I want to help my fighter buddy? Because he got a ton of gold and paid me really well. Because I'm an NPC and I don't have anything better to do. Because its equipment that is readily available if you've got the gold?

[olentu]

Ummm...party balance? Because I want to help my fighter buddy? Because he got a ton of gold and paid me really well. Because I'm an NPC and I don't have anything better to do. Because its equipment that is readily available if you've got the gold?

So what does this have to do with the party wizard. The fighter could have just bought that item without involving the wizard in the party.

Basically I am not understanding what you are trying to get at and so know not if we even disagree currently. Is it perhaps that much of the power of a straight fighter comes from equipment while the class itself brings little.

[Jack Zander]

There's the keywords here. In an internet argument, obviously the caster is going to be prepared with exactly what he needs at a given time to counter well, anything really.

In actual play, you've got to be a lot more carefu' After all, other than a bucket load of 0 and 1st level spells, you're only getting 2 per level. And that means you have to pick the most useful spells each and every time. Which is a massively limiting factor, even if you're buying scrolls and spending the neccessary cash to transcribe them.

Its not even about being prepare for a specific encounter. Its being prepared for any encounter. Buying and scribing scrolls to your spell book is cheap. Even if you only scribe an extra 4 per spell level you've hardly used any of your WBL (less the higher in levels you go). Any competent wizard can have a handful of spells that will solve his current problem, so it hardly matter which ones he prepares, just so long as he has a wide variety prepared and a few more backups on scrolls.

[Tyndmyr]

There's the keywords here. In an internet argument, obviously the caster is going to be prepared with exactly what he needs at a given time to counter well, anything really.

In actual play, you've got to be a lot more carefu' After all, other than a bucket load of 0 and 1st level spells, you're only getting 2 per level. And that means you have to pick the most useful spells each and every time. Which is a massively limiting factor, even if you're buying scrolls and spending the neccessary cash to transcribe them.

Er, scribe scroll is a bonus feat. Since you can sell off scrolls for what it cost you to make them, and spent xp replaces itself, there is literally no reason NOT to keep any excess WBL in a giant pile of scrolls.

Plus, as we've already established, a moderately leveled wizard prepares a few dozen spells each day.

And buying scrolls for spells? That is...not massively limiting. However, it's still horribly suboptimal. You pay other wizards to allow you to copy from their spellbook, as per the DMG. It was what, 25g per spell level or some such? Then, another 100gp per spell level for the ink? Er, whatever. That's not much of a dent in WBL.

[Gametime]

I think some of the discussion is getting muddled. One side is arguing, broadly, that fighters are capable of contributing meaningfully to a party, and that their contribution is increased substantially by magical support, and that it is in the best interests of the party spellcasters to provide some magical support.

The other side is arguing, again broadly, that fighters are not worth choosing as a character class because of their ability to contribute to a party's efforts relative to other, similar classes.

The two lines of discussion, though related, are still quite different. One involves what a fighter should do, and the other involves whether it's worth doing what a fighter should do when you can roll up some other class instead.

I don't think many people here would argue that fighters are useless. They're certainly good enough to help the party within their area of expertise (i.e. combat). I don't think many people here would argue that crafting and buffing for the fighter is a waste of time or resources for the spellcasters; as is often pointed out, experience is a river, and crafting is worth it in large amounts indeed. Further, buffs are a great way to contribute to fights; they won't always be the best way, but haste, say, is a better use of a standard action that most other 3rd level spells in a huge number of fights. It's almost always worth preparing, and almost always worth casting.

Fighters do have some advantages over wizards, slim though they may be. A buffed up wizard can beat a fighter at fightering. A buffed up fighter is much better than either.

The problem isn't that fighters are worthless - they aren't - or that people should always play casters - they shouldn't - but that there are classes that do what the fighter does so much better without resorting to the Ubermenschity of the wizard. When someone is picking a character class, there are any number of questions they might ask themselves; many don't just ask "Can I fulfill this role?", but "How efficiently can I fulfill this role?"

The fighter is a perfectly valid choice, if you're asking the first question, but if you're asking the second you should probably look elsewhere. There are lots of options without dipping into the Pun-Pun end of the pool.

[Tyndmyr]

The objection is not to the idea that the fighter can be a contribution, but that you should compare the fighter to the wizard who is donating him a pile of magic items out of the goodness of his heart.

That's blatantly silly.

[Boci]

There's the keywords here. In an internet argument, obviously the caster is going to be prepared with exactly what he needs at a given time to counter well, anything really.

Yes, but it says a lot about the wizard that such claims can actually be made. You cannot say the same about a fighter.

[Flickerdart]

Its not even about being prepare for a specific encounter. Its being prepared for any encounter. Buying and scribing scrolls to your spell book is cheap. Even if you only scribe an extra 4 per spell level you've hardly used any of your WBL (less the higher in levels you go). Any competent wizard can have a handful of spells that will solve his current problem, so it hardly matter which ones he prepares, just so long as he has a wide variety prepared and a few more backups on scrolls.
You could also just take Collegiate Wizard, and get a huge chunk of spells absolutely free.

To elaborate on the prepared caster VS Schroedinger's caster. The former doesn't always have Mordenkainen's Ogre Decapitator prepared when he meets some ogres that need decapitating. But that doesn't mean he can't decapitate the ogres with a more general tool, such as a lightning bolt or a summon. It also doesn't mean he couldn't have taken some time off to prepare a scroll of Ogre Decapitation in the past, specifically for an emergency.
If a caster doesn't know what he'll be facing, he can leave a slot free and then take 10 minutes to fill it. He can carry around a wand of mnemonic enhancer and have 150 spell levels at his fingertips. He can summon a monster with SLAs that replicate what he needs done. he can rope trick or teleport away and come back more prepared.

No matter how hard the fighter prepares, he's only pretty much got one option - sword (axe, lance, bow, etc). The amount of situations that can be solved by sword are remarkably fewer than the amount of situations solvable by any random bunch of spells that a wizard (or as it may be, adept) decides to prepare in the morning.

[Gametime]

The objection is not to the idea that the fighter can be a contribution, but that you should compare the fighter to the wizard who is donating him a pile of magic items out of the goodness of his heart.

That's blatantly silly.

Agreed. But I think that some of the people arguing on the fighter's behalf are under the impression that the people emphasizing the fighter's weakness do not think the fighter is any good, ever - which obviously isn't the case. The fact that some admittedly hyperbolic comments with regard to the viability of crafting and buffing for fighters have been made probably did not help with the gap in communication.

There certainly isn't much merit to the idea that a fighter is a wizard's equal.

[Lans]

A fighter or other nub class, in a party with a wizard should be able to expect some support from the wizard, but not things like potion of expiditious retreat. Expecially if the support is A: paid for through something like a PoP, B comes in the form of a debuff on the other guy, or C through highly efficient spell use.

For A its just simple equivalent exchange, the nub is getting the better end of the deal, but its with in a margin where the wizard feels he is doing his job and the nub is not being a total leech.

For B This is pretty much the role that the wizard follows and it allows the fighter to do his job. A level 7 fighter is going to have problems with a CR 7 elemental, but if the elementals Strength drops by 7-15? Not so much of a problem anymore.

For C The wizard is frankly going to Polymorph any object the fighter whether he likes it or not. Other spells in this category are things like greater mighty wallop on the monk, or grease for the rogue.

[wayfare]

So what does this have to do with the party wizard. The fighter could have just bought that item without involving the wizard in the party.

Basically I am not understanding what you are trying to get at and so know not if we even disagree currently. Is it perhaps that much of the power of a straight fighter comes from equipment while the class itself brings little.

I guess I'm arguing that the power a fighter brings to a party is the stuff he can wear. The class doesn't do much aside from allow the fighter to use specialized magical equipment -- equipment that requires mighty thews and an ounce of stamina to use.

I fully agree that the fighter is reliant upon equipment that the mage creates, and for may wizards thats not a wise investment. But if you do invest in a fighter, you can expect a significant return.

And let's face it -- just because equipment does exist and you can have it doesn't mean you will. In a low magic world, the fighter will come off pretty strong whereas a mage will struggle to find every scroll and will count himself damn lucky to find the ingredients necessary to make a wand or staff.