Would anyone take Fighter over Warblade?

[danzibr]

{Scrubbed}

[Starbuck_II]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Figher Alternate Class features? Zentariam isn't bad.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Hoo boy, I'm just gonna sit back and watch this devolve into another ToB debate...

[Seerow]

I'd take it in a low-mid op game. It's actually kind of fun to try to optimize a straight fighter to fight on a tier 4 level, as long as you have splat books available.

[Shadowknight12]

This thread is not biased at all, no sir.

On topic: Because the DM banned ToB. Because maybe two levels of fighter are not that bad for the extra feats on a feat-intensive build. Because someone will shoot you if you don't. Because the stars have deemed it so. Maybe the fighter is better in bed.

Many, many reasons.

[The-Mage-King]

I do it on occasion.

...

Oh, you mean for a full build, not individual levels...


Nope.

Well, unless I wanted to play a specific fighter build, that is.

[Seatbelt]

Nothing wrong with a 2-level fighter dip.

[Coidzor]

Only for a fear-based build and then only for 9 levels for Zhentarim Fighter, maybe Dungeoncrasher too, before PrCing into something else.

Maybe dipping Barbarian 1 for pounce and whirling frenzy or picking up something like Divine Crusader or Suel Arcanamach afterwards or to space it out a bit.

[PollyOliver]

Depends on the build. Hit-and-run, zhentarim, dungeoncrasher, and targeteer are all useful ACFs for certain types. Or, barring ACFs, if you need a couple feats I guess.

[tyckspoon]

^what they all said. A Fighter dip works well in most melee builds, because even the better base classes greatly appreciate the bonus feats (and in regards to Tome of Battle in particular a 2-level dip fixes your Stance progression.) Otherwise? No, if the option is available, I'll choose Warblade over Fighter as the primary class every time.

[Halae]

I like fighter for the fact that it can get Dungeoncrasher and it has every proficiency bar Exotic. This means it's a good two level dip, maybe six levels for the full dungeoncrashing if I'm playing a high-strength build. In fact, a dungeoncrasher warhulk is something I can optimize better than a warblade.

That said, Warblade in itself is good and fun, and difficult to screw up, so despite being more complex it can be a good class for beginning plays, as it gives them options enough to keep up with almost everybody in the game without needing the extensive rules knowledge it takes to optimize.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Common guys, fighter is quite good.... for 6 levels or at most 9 (Dungeon Crasher and Zentarim respectively), though if that is not the focus of the build I tend to keep to a 2 level dip at most.

[Tvtyrant]

Yup ^^ Given enough splat books feats become useful again. It also has some really good ACFs that I want to play.

[Fineous Orlon]

Re: Would anyone take Fighter over Warblade?


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

To harvest and sell the material component for the spell Heroics. That's gotta be a goldmine if supply and demand rule the pricing!

[Kantolin]

I totally would. ^_^ I love fighters! They're one of my favorite classes.

I make no pretenses that they are as potent as warblades. That doesn't negate the fact that I simply like playing them.

[Divide by Zero]

Even in a weird core+ToB game, Fighter would still be good as a dip for feat-heavy builds.

[big teej]

-raises hand-

for starters, don't have the TOB, but that's not my biggest reason.

from what I understand, the TOB has alot of eastern and quasi-magical fluff about it.

niether of which may fit what I'm after.


that and the warblade would OP my group.

but they're new.

[King Atticus]

Absolutely, I love the ability to customize that all those feats allow. I'd even do it without ACF. I would give up optimization for customization and thank you for the opportunity. Although I will say I don't know if I would do it on a regular basis. :smallwink:

[Hiro Protagonest]

-raises hand-

for starters, don't have the TOB, but that's not my biggest reason.

from what I understand, the TOB has alot of eastern and quasi-magical fluff about it.

niether of which may fit what I'm after.


that and the warblade would OP my group.

but they're new.

Alright, first classes can be refluffed! Think warblade is too eastern? Don't have the maneuvers be named in-game and call it a fighter!

For the OPing your group thing, my group's the same way. I managed to beat a third level Druid with my two-handed bastard sword wielding half-orc fighter without power attack.

[Godskook]

Fighter was made *YEARS* before Warblade, so take that into account when asking 'why'.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Goliath Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 + Spirit Lion Totem + Dungeoncrasher + Knock-back + Shock Trooper = less versatile, but more ridiculous than straight Warblade. Also, fun times.

[Eldariel]

I probably wouldn't since Warblade is simply more fun. I mean, yeah, I love Fighter ACF stacking as much as the next guy and I do it quite a bit. But when it ultimately comes down to it, Warblade just simply is a more engaging experience to play.

[Leon]

For many reasons - some stated above and others not.

Tome of Battle adds some nice stuff but its not a core book which is a big things for some groups, the basic fighter is very customizable to what you want do with and some people don't have a need to rely on pre-set maneuvers to deal damage - hitting things with a weapon is advanced enough for what they want.

I like both for different reasons and different interactions with other classes/PrCs - Some PrCs would work really nice with ToB classes except that most of them are only proficient with Melee weapons and not ranged and those PrCs require you to have all weapons open.

[SuperFerret]

I just plain don't like the Tome of Battle.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I dig that. I refuse to play druids, not because they're too powerful or the shapes/summons are too much bookwork; I just don't like the feel.

[Aemoh87]

Fighter is a better class when optimized...
Fighter has access to a whole heap of ACF that can be very interesting and allow you to build very specific kinds of fighters, so even though once built it is very narrow minded, in design it is far more open than anything in the ToB.
Finally, because fighter allows you to go deep into feat trees.

[The-Mage-King]

I just plain don't like the Tome of Battle.

Well then, care to explain? Or should those of us who do start flaming you and those few other people who dislike it, as per the last 43 threads that devolved to the same arguement?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Sort-of. Fighter 2-6/Warblade X is a solid build. I personally adore the Dungeoncrasher Fighter ACF, so I'm cool taking six levels of Fighter before going into something else. Usually Barbarian or Warblade or Exotic Weapon Master. Something, anything else, really.

[Zonugal]

If I need a character who can dish out damage and control a battlefield than a fighter is going to beat a warblade any day. Warblade brings a lot to the table in the form of maneuvers and in general is a better built class, but few things can stand toe to toe with a fighter utilizing Zhentarim intimidation techniques and dungeon crasher charges.

[Cerlis]

id say if your picking fighter for a particular trick (dunegon crasher) you are picking that trick, not fighter

[Godskook]

id say if your picking fighter for a particular trick (dunegon crasher) you are picking that trick, not fighter

That's like saying you're not picking wizard, you're picking int-based prepared arcane casting. The two are intrinsically linked.

[gbprime]

There are certain combinations and concepts that either require fighter or are much easier to implement with fighter thanks to all those bonus feats. Examples include bringing Lightning Mace or Three Mountains styles on line by level 6.

Generally speaking, I use fighter for a feat intensive build and then treat Tome of Battle as a PrC source. Starting with 8 levels of Fighter and then taking 12 levels of Warblade doesn't lose you much in the way of maneuvers and gains quite a lot in early levels if your feats are well spent.

[Terazul]

ACFs, Dips, ACF Dips, Archery, Using that one ACF Fax made that gives them maneuvers and basically playing a warblade (With Lower HD, Lower Skills, More Feats) anyway. Uberchargers, Lightning Maces, Jack B. Quick, other feat intensive/specific builds.

That kinda stuff.

[Thurbane]

Hoo boy, I'm just gonna sit back and watch this devolve into another ToB debate...
Yeah, pretty much.

Anyhow, yes, I for one would take Fighter over Warblade (asuming ToB was used in my games), assuming it was for a build that was feat intensive.

It's a very broad and open-ended question though...

[Divide by Zero]

It's a very broad and open-ended question though...

It's kind of a silly one, too. Aside from comparisons where one choice is strictly better (fighter vs warrior, for example), there will always be cases where an ability of the weaker class fits the character better.

[CrashTestGenius]

I once made a fighter set-up that got a +19 to hit on its first attack every round.

At level 8.

All from PHB I.

Let's see your warblade do that, sucka.

(... Well, obviously it can't because it's not a class from PHB I, but you get the idea.)

[Terazul]

8 BAB + 5 Strength + 1 Weapon Focus + 1 Magic Weapon + 4 Steely Strike.

Or just use Emerald Razor or something for a touch attack. Not even trying here. :smalltongue:

[The-Mage-King]

Easy peasy. You don't even need weapon focus for that.


To continue... Assuming Str 18 (not unreasonable for a level 8 melee character), that's +12 right there. Add in a +1 Martial Aptitude weapon for the Tiger Claw, another +4. Initiate Bounding Wolf Strike, another +4.

And that +20 can be used at any time the maneuver is readied, not just the first round.

All from ToB, too.

[Godskook]

I once made a fighter set-up that got a +19 to hit on its first attack every round.

At level 8.

All from PHB I.

Let's see your warblade do that, sucka.

Considering you've got +8 from BAB and approximately +5 from Str(starting 18 + lvl ups), we only need +6 from other things. Too early to reliably have +2 equivalent weapons, so I'll assume mwk/+1 area. Weapon focus gives another +1, just for the obvious. Otoh, a +2 Str weapon is affordable, so another +1. We're up to +16, and if you had said level 9 I'd have it casually with discipline weapon. Instead, I'll go with (melee) Weapon mastery and Blade Meditation. You have just enough feats to do it too, thanks to the bonus feat warblades get.

[Thurbane]

It's kind of a silly one, too. Aside from comparisons where one choice is strictly better (fighter vs warrior, for example), there will always be cases where an ability of the weaker class fits the character better.
Indeed - you might as well ask the question "Why would anyone take Warblade over Druid?". :smalltongue:

[SuperFerret]

Well then, care to explain? Or should those of us who do start flaming you and those few other people who dislike it, as per the last 43 threads that devolved to the same arguement?

It's like Psionics in a lot of ways, from the major point that it's an additional system added to an already cluttered game that doesn't fit my view of medieval fantasy, to the minor (and petty) annoyance that both were in the stack of books one of my friends (with more disposable income) presented me with about a week or two after we decided to learn D&D 3rd Edition and then threw a hissy fit about me being a "control freak" when I said that I didn't want to go beyond core.

But, hey, if you like it, that's cool. I don't.

[Aemoh87]

id say if your picking fighter for a particular trick (dunegon crasher) you are picking that trick, not fighter

Is this the same for rogues, binders, casters... so on? It's part of the class.

[Greenish]

I like fighter for the fact that it can get Dungeoncrasher and it has every proficiency bar Exotic.And with right ACFs, exotics are pretty easy to dip for. Targeteer, two ranged exotic weapons. Exoticist, four exotic weapons. Any fighter can swap Tower Shield proficiency for Exotic Shield proficiency.


Speaking of those, fighters are an iconic core class, so they've accumulated piles of variants, substitution levels and alternate class features. And due to their modular nature, they have stuff to trade out (unlike, say, sorcerer or cleric). All that conspires to make them absolutely wonderful building blocks.

Still, like most core and core-style melee classes, they work less well as a straight class.


[Edit]:
Instead, I'll go with (melee) Weapon mastery and Blade Meditation. You have just enough feats to do it too, thanks to the bonus feat warblades get.Can't fit Melee Weapon Mastery into 8-level warblade build, since you only get Weapon Specialization at level 6.

[Aemoh87]

And with right ACFs, exotics are pretty easy to dip for. Targeteer, two ranged exotic weapons. Exoticist, four exotic weapons. Any fighter can swap Tower Shield proficiency for Exotic Shield proficiency.


Speaking of those, fighters are an iconic core class, so they've accumulated piles of variants, substitution levels and alternate class features. And due to their modular nature, they have stuff to trade out (unlike, say, sorcerer or cleric). All that conspires to make them absolutely wonderful building blocks.

Still, like most core and core-style melee classes, they work less well as a straight class.

This brings me to the question, are we talking 20 straight levels of either class?

[Greenish]

This brings me to the question, are we talking 20 straight levels of either class?Maybe.

Then I probably wouldn't take warblade over fighter, I detest 2+int skillpoints and poor list. Thug I might consider, but then I'd probably do a rogue instead.

[MeeposFire]

Maybe.

Then I probably wouldn't take warblade over fighter, I detest 2+int skillpoints and poor list. Thug I might consider, but then I'd probably do a rogue instead.

Oddly that is my biggest problem with the fighter. Give me more skill points with a decent list (ACFs help here I admit make those standard and I would be happy). Just add that and a default decent standard action attack option (or an ability to make full attacks even after I move) I would be more than happy playing a fighter. The feats themselves as my only class feature does not bother me. Heck a fighter is just as good as a barbarian outside of skills and an ACF with pounce so if I could play a fighter with better skills and decent movement+ attack options I would be fine.

[Optimator]

Is this the same for rogues, binders, casters... so on? It's part of the class.

I don't think that's an entirely accurate comparison since a Fighter's trick would be largely feat based (and theoretically available to others). I certainly see your point though--hence the qualifier "entirely" up there.

[Coidzor]

Is this the same for rogues, binders, casters... so on? It's part of the class.

There's no real reason to stay in the class after getting what you want out of dungeoncrasher or zhentarim fighter though, so it's more like an extended stay than a dip, yes, but it's still not a dedicated build in many cases, since PrCs would then offer some significant draw to taking them without as much keeping one in Fighter.

[Godskook]

[Edit]: Can't fit Melee Weapon Mastery into 8-level warblade build, since you only get Weapon Specialization at level 6.

So I'm coming up at +17 without maneuvers? Darn. Well, as others pointed out, maneuvers totally blow that number out of the water.

[Greenish]

So I'm coming up at +17 without maneuvers? Darn. Well, as others pointed out, maneuvers totally blow that number out of the water.I wasn't arguing against the general point, just pointing out a flaw in the specific example. :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread locked.