Why Play a Fighter? (DND/Pathfinder) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

StoryKeeper

2011-09-02, 01:54 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-02, 01:58 PM

Play a warblade, crusader, or druid.

/thread

Wings of Peace

2011-09-02, 02:00 PM

I find them fun to rp. Complexity doesn't equal fun for me all the time.

Remmirath

2011-09-02, 02:15 PM

I like playing fighters for the same reason I like playing any other character: the roleplaying. I also don't get bored with doing more or less the same thing over and over in combat, because to me the interesting part in combat is deciding who to attack and what angle to come at them from and things like that. It's not more boring to me to roll for attack and damage than it is to ask for a save for a spell (less, in fact, often).

I can see that if you like to do something radically different in every single fight, playing a fighter would get boring. I'm not sure how, if that is the case, you would keep from getting bored. Perhaps carry more than one weapon, such as a melee weapon and a bow, and switch up your strategy every so often?

Zombimode

2011-09-02, 02:16 PM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

I like killing things with just a roll of a D20. I like beeing mundane. I like beeing the badass normal.

I think for D&D the Fighter was at its height in AD&D 2e. But the above can still be true in 3.5 in a low OP, low level environment.

Silva Stormrage

2011-09-02, 02:19 PM

Play a warblade, crusader, or druid.

/thread

You do mean make this thread last 20 pages as people discuss wether or not warblade is meant to replace fighter and wether it does a good job of it right? :smallbiggrin:

Bearpunch

2011-09-02, 02:19 PM

Well, I don't think you are playing 4e, but they have a jillion powers in 4e.

I suggest making your stats weird and roleplay him as such.

Maybe make his intelligence low and eff up in combat every now and again.
Maybe make his charisma low and have him be a socially awkward drunk.
MAybe just give him a really, really cool backstory.

(Maybe multiclass in something a little more interesting)

Frosty

2011-09-02, 02:37 PM

(Maybe multiclass in something a little more interesting)That is exactly the problem we're talking about :smallmad: The solution to fighter problems is multiclass out?

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-02, 02:45 PM

Even Thog knows fighter is a two level PrC with no prerequisites. Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim are longer versions.

Bearpunch

2011-09-02, 03:14 PM

That is exactly the problem we're talking about :smallmad: The solution to fighter problems is multiclass out?

Touche. I suggest roleplaying well, then, honestly. I don't have much experience with 3.5/3e, so I can't help you much besides that.

Kelb_Panthera

2011-09-02, 03:33 PM

IMHO the key to playing a fun fighter is this: don't get suckered into thinking that you can only play a fighter that's really good at one thing. Spread those bonus feats around. A straight fighter gets 17 feats to develop a fighting style that is his alone. With the massive variety of fighter bonus feats, why would you want to pigeon-hole him into one tactic? Especially since he'll be completely hosed if your dm has selected a foe that is resistant or imune to that tactic. Even a DM that's not being malicious will occasionally choose a monster that's immune to tripping, or one that's too big and strong to grapple effectively.

Provengreil

2011-09-02, 03:33 PM

Since our group keeps changing its composition in preparation of our next campaign (the Jade Regeant adventure path,) I've decided to make a few different characters to choose from. In looking at possible roles to fill, I've started considering playing a fighter or other melee class. The thing that I always come back to with fighters is that I see myself having fun shrugging off damage for a couple rounds or swinging a big greatsword for a session or two, but then growing bored with it.

It seems like I would have to invest multiple levels and feats into a fighter to make him good at any one thing, such as qualifying for Spring Attack to make him a mobile combatant, while I could get so many more options in a single level with a spell caster.

It seems like I can make a fighter who's good at hitting things hard and then hitting them harder or who can block an attack and then block an attack slightly better, but I can make a wizard who can burn things, hide things, transfrom things, and summon other creatures to do all sorts of other things. I suppose I can always try to interact with my environment to shake thngs up and give myself more options, but casters seem like they'd be better at that as well (mage hand, telekinesis, fire on demand, etc.)

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

try the combat techniques. not ToB, i mean, sundering, disarming and the like. this works better in PF because they have extra feats for it, but you can do it in 3.5 too. for instance, IIRC a ranseur has reach and a disarming bonus. as they come in, use your AoO to disarm them. if they leave their weapon behind, grab your longsword and slash the heck out of them. if they stay to grab it, stab them a few times and step back to do the same. with the same fighter build, you could fail the first disarm and drop your weapon, but then make the next unarmed disarm check and take theirs. or just have that one be plan A: you don't fight with your weapon when you can just use your enemy's.

Another option is to have your fighter be dex based, and use rules for aimed shots. take out his legs and kite him around. If you think less about pure damage/tripping and more about being interesting, a lot of extra options open up.

As for sundering, tell your DM to plan for enemy weapons to be in a ruined state. ask him not to put too much wealth into weapons for treasure, and maybe he'll respond. the main argument against sundering is usually pretty much that you lose out on treasure or it's a waste of actions. or both. stop worrying about effectiveness, i had fun with my monk that taught me why they were comparably ineffective. as for treasure, think about the point: you get stronger, basically. but if your +1 adamantine bastard sword of sundering(i think MIC has that as a property) can get rid of any opponent's armor and weapons and magical gear and whatever else, why do you need to be that well protected? (and yes, i know monsters aren't always subject to this trick. that's why it's encompassed in one feat, which your fighter can totally spare.)

EDIT:

IMHO the key to playing a fun fighter is this: don't get suckered into thinking that you can only play a fighter that's really good at one thing. Spread those bonus feats around. A straight fighter gets 17 feats to develop a fighting style that is his alone. With the massive variety of fighter bonus feats, why would you want to pigeon-hole him into one tactic? Especially since he'll be completely hosed if your dm has selected a foe that is resistant or imune to that tactic. Even a DM that's not being malicious will occasionally choose a monster that's immune to tripping, or one that's too big and strong to grapple effectively.
Also, this. this this this. a feat may not make a class ability, but no other class gets that many feats. burn a couple on power attack and other basic necessities, then go wild.

Prime32

2011-09-02, 03:40 PM

try the combat techniques. not ToB, i mean, sundering, disarming and the like. this works better in PF because they have extra feats for it, but you can do it in 3.5 too.Huh? PF gives you +43% the number of feats, then requires you to take +100% the number of feats to do the same stuff as 3.5. (eg. Improved Trip was split into Improved Trip and Greater Trip) That's a net loss of feats.

Frosty

2011-09-02, 03:42 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-02, 03:49 PM

Yes, but Greater Trip now makes the target provoke from EVERYONE within range, so it's arguably a bit better.

Except then your AoOs are wasted when he provokes by standing up. And you no longer get a free attack.

Frozen_Feet

2011-09-02, 03:49 PM

Terazul

2011-09-02, 03:56 PM

I find them fun to rp. Complexity doesn't equal fun for me all the time.

I like playing fighters for the same reason I like playing any other character: the roleplaying.

Every time this discussion comes up I always see these responses, and continue to wonder what special RP comes from being a fighter as opposed to anybody else from an even sparsely martial background. :smallconfused: Last I checked he's "a dude who fights".

With another look-over though, it seems the OPs problem is more with one trick pony martial characters rather than just fighter imparticular (though it's one of the most obvious examples). In which case yeah, ToB fixes a bit of that. Alternatively, play a Gish and get the best of both worlds!

Provengreil

2011-09-02, 03:59 PM

Huh? PF gives you +43% the number of feats, then requires you to take +100% the number of feats to do the same stuff as 3.5. (eg. Improved Trip was split into Improved Trip and Greater Trip) That's a net loss of feats.

big deal, you're a fighter. what they did, or at least tried to do, was give fighter a way to be good at more things while not simply taking those same things away from other classes completely. when I said you can do more, i meant they added feats like, say, sundering strike(free sunder attack on a critical hit). when i said it works better, i meant that specializing in something like sundering works better because you have more options and therefore more specialization ability. you may need to take those two feats to get the same numbers as before, but so does your opponent and you have 17 feats to throw around. he has 7.

Terazul

2011-09-02, 04:01 PM

you may need to take those two feats to get the same numbers as before, but so does your opponent and you have 17 feats to throw around. he has 7.

The difference is the opponent has 7 feats and Class Features.

AmberVael

2011-09-02, 04:01 PM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

Well, you ask a person specific question, so here is a person specific answer: I don't. I've tried various combinations on the basic melee classes, tried to add in more unusual mechanics and options, but it doesn't work for me. There is no appeal to me, so I've just stopped playing fighters altogether.

Now, some people can play a fighter and be fine with what the class offers (as we can see in this thread), but I prefer a bit more complexity, and more options, and I'm willing to wager (particularly because given what has been said here, it is a bet I can only win) there are quite a few people like me, particularly on these forums.

And, given the way you're describing it, it seems to me that you have a fairly similar mindset. I don't think you'll necessarily get a satisfactory answer to this question, if what you're really looking for is "how can I make the fighter class not be boring to me?"

A class doesn't have to be universally appealing though, that's one of the reasons why we have a number of them to choose from. Some people can be fine playing fighters, some people can decide they aren't fine with playing a fighter, and choose something else. If you can't get into the fighter, but still want to play melee, go try out Incarnum (Incarnate and Totemist, despite initial appearances, are both capable of being combat beasts, and have some more options and activity to them, though not as much as the wizard). You might also try a Cleric or Druid, who can be great archers or good frontliners, while also having a variety of spells for the day. I'd suggest Tome of Battle, but everyone else does that all the time, so you probably know what there is to be said for it.

Yora

2011-09-02, 04:04 PM

Simplicity. You don't need hugely complicated and powerful characters for all sorts of games. For those, using classes that rely on the simple core mechanics more than convoluted subsystems is preferable. There's still a lot of room in the class to customize your character to suit your needs.

Same here. Fighters are a good choice for when you want to play a warrior in a game that doesn't bother to much with special abilities. Grab your sword and beat people to death with it, everything else is roleplaying.
It's the same reason why one would play wizards with more than 5 levels.

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 04:11 PM

OP: Well, from what I hear, Pathfinder did finally start incorporating something of the lesson of ToB in Ultimate Combat. Mostly by feats that it's easier to take as a monk, from what I've heard.

And in case you haven't run into it before, the Incarnum Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=551.0).

Simplicity. You don't need hugely complicated and powerful characters for all sorts of games. For those, using classes that rely on the simple core mechanics more than convoluted subsystems is preferable. There's still a lot of room in the class to customize your character to suit your needs.

:smallconfused: Building an effective fighter is more complex than a barbarian or rogue.

Touche. I suggest roleplaying well, then, honestly. I don't have much experience with 3.5/3e, so I can't help you much besides that.

Not a reason to play or stay Fighter though. Barbarians, Rangers, and even Paladins can roleplay well. Maybe even Monks.

That is exactly the problem we're talking about :smallmad: The solution to fighter problems is multiclass out?

I must admit that I prefer a more final solution myself. And by that I mean re-writing the system so they no longer exist and so no longer muck up the feat system for everyone else and their grandmother (I'm looking at you, feat trees that only exist to delay Fighters) or replace the fighter class with one with actual abilities.

I like killing things with just a roll of a D20. I like beeing mundane. I like beeing the badass normal.

So you like being a barbarian then? :smallamused:

Frozen_Feet

2011-09-02, 04:38 PM

:smallconfused: Building an effective fighter is more complex than a barbarian or rogue.

Effective in contrast to what? I'm talking of games that stay arm's lenght away from complex special abilities and other things that stray away from the core mechanics, so many of the things that'd obsolete a fighter and necessitate precise optimization flat-out won't appear in a game. Nevertheless, building a fighter isn't that hard, and playing one is still simple. Rogue and Barbarian might be simpler, but also might not offer something eelse that makes Fighter an atractive option on that occasion.

Dr.Epic

2011-09-02, 05:04 PM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

Enter a PrC ASAP.:smallwink:

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-02, 05:23 PM

When I envision 'Fighter', images are brought to my mind of someone who is skilled with weapons, probably a lot of them, and can use them in combat against opponents who are also skilled.

That's why I almost never use the class Fighter, since he cannot achieve this goal.

PsyWar, Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, even Ranger... but Fighter just... mechanically doesn't function.

It's hard to develop the cognitive dissonance and imagine my character as 'one of the world's finest swordsmen' when, in fact, he's the weakest character in the party, and can be bested by a character half his level with pathetic ease.

navar100

2011-09-02, 06:10 PM

Part of the fun is the roleplay, and the DM is a partner in it. If all you and the DM think the fighter is is a guy with a pointy stick who stabs things, then you will get bored. Rogues have guilds. Wizards have schools. Clerics have temples. What do Fighters get? Fighter get academies. Have feats and feat chains be particular techniques that are taught. One acadamey can teach the Power Attack route. Their rival teaches the Combat Expertise route. One favors brute force and charges. Another favors mobility with Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack. Some may prefer combat maneuvers like disarming, sundering, and bull rush. Others may stress balancing your skills other than fighting such as learning Iron Will, Leadership qualities, and in 3E feats to make skills class skills while in Pathfinder encourage taking Skill Focus even for a non-class skill like Perception, which is worth a feat in Pathfinder.

Aside from game mechanics roleplay, engage your character roleplay. You're not just some fighter in a party. Even saying you're a mercenary is cliche and boring. Give yourself a nickname, like The Wall or Steelblade. Call your sword "god meeter", i.e. when you kill someone they meet their god. Seek titles of nobility. Become a Knight of the realm. Strive to become Baron of a city. You can make it your quest to become King, something you accomplish at the end of the campaign after defeating the Ultimate BBEG, possibly becoming an important NPC in the next campaign.

You're not just some guy with a pointy stick who stabs things.

Gavinfoxx

2011-09-02, 06:16 PM

StoryKeeper

2011-09-02, 06:34 PM

A fighter is worth it in a game where EVERYONE is restricted to other low power classes. I'm about to join a game like that, personally. It's just Tier 5 and Nerfed Tier 4, and everyone is SRD Kobolds without the RotD or Web enhancement powers.

Hooray! I love kobolds and games consisting entirely of monstrous PCs. Especially when the monsters are things like goblins and kobolds.

It sounds like what I'm really looking for is a remake of the fighter that will allow me more flexibility than the current fighter. Maybe I'll take a stab at brewing such a redo sometime. Thanks for the discussion, folks. :)

byaku rai

2011-09-02, 06:40 PM

The character I played which I enjoyed most was a half-Drow fighter. He took a Mongoose prestige class to get to use an incredibly awesome weapon, and he took a couple of levels of Warblade toward the end of his career, but I still played him mostly as a straight fighter. In combat, he hit things and did his best to soak up the damage intended for the squishy casters. Out of combat, he was a well-fleshed-out character, with a simple but compelling backstory and a fully developed personality. Combat is only half the fun of an RPG (ROLEPLAYING game).

Also, I enjoyed using this almost completely mundane character to do things which the casters had to use a spell to do. Sure, it was more difficult and complicated, but where's the fun in something when you can just go "poof" and do whatever you want?

Also, thanks to the Mongoose PrC, it got to the point where he would instantly kill any crit-able opponent a fifth of the time. This generally happened at the best possible moments, so my character was kept on good footing with the casters. It was a low-op group (me, sorcerer, druid, warlock, ranger), and it was fun for everyone despite the power differences at times.

tl;dr: play a fighter because of the character, not because of the combat.

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 06:47 PM

Combat is only half the fun of an RPG (ROLEPLAYING game).

Too bad D&D is a game that has any useful social interaction governed by the skill system.

It's not one where just conversing about the weather is determined in-system, but it certainly does put a crimp on this explanation.

The fact that there's more to the game than combat is part of the reason to be dissatisfied with playing a Fighter, not a reason or incentive to play one.

A fighter is worth it in a game where EVERYONE is restricted to other low power classes. I'm about to join a game like that, personally. It's just Tier 5 and Nerfed Tier 4, and everyone is SRD Kobolds without the RotD or Web enhancement powers.

That's... a rather self-evident statement. Of course it's relatively worthwhile if you axe everything better than it.

Strive to become Baron of a city. You can make it your quest to become King, something you accomplish at the end of the campaign after defeating the Ultimate BBEG, possibly becoming an important NPC in the next campaign.

Possibly because the Fighter ran the kingdom into the ground with his poor ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) to listen to good advisers over bad ones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) and make good appointments (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) to positions of power under him, lack of knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)of good governance, and susceptibility to magical domination.

(For reference (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=tYe&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D%2C+jaronk&pbx=1&oq=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D%2C+jaronk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4421l5170l0l5320l8l6l0l0l0l0l484l1104l0.1.4-2l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fe4d51c11f0a28fa&biw=1152&bih=771) see JaronK's "Leadership Mechanics in D&D" over on BG)

You can't just throw gold at a kingdom and expect it to be ruled well, and that's about the only thing the Fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm)has, well, other than having exotic pets and being able to scare people into doing what he wants while he's breathing down their neck.

It does give the next campaign's adventurers job security though, I must admit... :smallamused:

EvilDM

2011-09-02, 06:48 PM

When I make a character I usually already have an image of them in my head and then pick the class that best represents that, no matter what it is. If Fighter fits my needs then it's what I'll use.

Dreadn4ught

2011-09-02, 07:07 PM

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-02, 07:19 PM

I'm going to respond to this the same way I did to the "why play a rogue?" thread: You play a fighter so your character can look completely awesome. Fluffing attacks to have yourself jumping off high objects, swinging a keen falchion (1/4 crit chance ftw!) over your head and cleaving an ice giant in two can get pretty awesome.

Not when, even with a crit, you deal less than a tenth of your opponent's hit points... then the rogue comes up and flanks opposite you and drops it in a single hit. Or the Wizard decides he's bored now and makes it fall over dead. Or the cleric gets bored and uses Holy Word to insta-gib it with no save.

The problem is that the Fighter is supposed to be able to fight... and yet every other class in the game, including the pencil-necked wizard can fight better than he can.

WitchSlayer

2011-09-02, 07:24 PM

Shouldn't this be in the 3e/3.5e/pathfinder forum? Because apart from those systems (Although in Pathfinder you can play an archer fighter pretty effectively) there are plenty of reasons to play fighter.

Eldariel

2011-09-02, 07:34 PM

How I make Fighter enjoyable?

Well:
- I take a couple of levels of Ranger to open up more useful class skills, and to get free Rapid Shot without needing to waste feats.
- I take a level of Barbarian for Fast Movement/Pounce depending on how much damage I wish to be able to do.
- I take Dungeoncrasher Fighter variant.
- I take Zhentarim Fighter Substitution Levels.
- I spend my feats mostly on tactical feats (Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, Elusive Target) with generic boosts (such as Knowledge Devotion).
- I use the Thug-variant which gives me more skillpoints in exchange for my level 1 feat.

What I'm left with is a character that can:
- Competently use any two-handed weapon or a bow.
- Decent area control capability with any reach weapon.
- Solid damage in straight-up stand-up fighting and while charging.
- Capable of intimidating most weaker opponents into submission.
- Decent skill access allowing for actually interesting skill use.

Of course, I'm multiclassing, I'm still missing some key proficiencies and I could do much better as a Warblade. And I wouldn't need to multiclass then. But if I was forced to play a Fighter I'd take what Fighter does well and do all of it reasonably and get a rounded Fighter with lots of useful abilities and even competency in Bull Rushing and Tripping (yes, really!) in addition to straight-up fighting and charging. Oh, and intimidating. What a multitalented Fighter. And one with some skillpoints to boot, and ability to use two different classes of weapons somewhat reasonably!

The Glyphstone

2011-09-02, 07:43 PM

Not when, even with a crit, you deal less than a tenth of your opponent's hit points... then the rogue comes up and flanks opposite you and drops it in a single hit. Or the Wizard decides he's bored now and makes it fall over dead. Or the cleric gets bored and uses Holy Word to insta-gib it with no save.

The problem is that the Fighter is supposed to be able to fight... and yet every other class in the game, including the pencil-necked wizard can fight better than he can.

It's kinda unfair when you optimize the Rogue to be capable of oneshotting a Frost Giant (133 HP) in a single attack, but stick your Fighter with such an awful Strength he can only do 13 HP with a Falchion Crit...

Fighters can be Uberchargers as well as anyone else, and Uberchargers beat out anything else in the game on raw damage except a max-tooled blaster-caster. The problem isn't that they can't fight, it's that they can only fight. Which, if that's all you want to do, is no problem at all.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-02, 07:43 PM

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 07:59 PM

The problem isn't that they can't fight, it's that they can only fight. Which, if that's all you want to do, is no problem at all.

Funnily enough though, I don't think anyone's said that was all they wanted to do.

Engine

2011-09-02, 08:14 PM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

A good DM. The Fighter is, at least for me, a boring class. Really boring.
Me and my group will participate in a PF tournament this week-end using pre-gen characters: a Sorcerer, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Fighter. No one wanted to play the Fighter. The pre-gen characters are really unoptimized so isn't a problem of raw power, but of mere fun.

But. If you have a low-op group and the DM is a capable one, one that let every character shine and use the backstory you wrote to tell a great story then you could play a Fighter and have fun.
I hate WotC and Paizo for that: I love Fighters, but they designed them in a really awful way.

Anyway if you want to play a mundane class who goes in melee and dish out a good damage (and you play PF) you could use something else: a Skirmisher Ranger or a Trapper Ranger could be a good frontliner, and have more tools under their belt other than "I stab with my sword".

Seerow

2011-09-02, 08:14 PM

It's kinda unfair when you optimize the Rogue to be capable of oneshotting a Frost Giant (133 HP) in a single attack, but stick your Fighter with such an awful Strength he can only do 13 HP with a Falchion Crit...

Fighters can be Uberchargers as well as anyone else, and Uberchargers beat out anything else in the game on raw damage except a max-tooled blaster-caster. The problem isn't that they can't fight, it's that they can only fight. Which, if that's all you want to do, is no problem at all.

Well it's not JUST that all they can do is fight. They are lacking in fighting, just not in damage. Fighting is not just all damage. For example I'd consider Fighter's far better if they had more mobility. They also typically last the ability to inflict status effects/use save or sucks, and are generally restricted to attacking a single enemy at a time (cleave is pretty situational, whirlwind is huge on prerequisites, and that's pretty much it as far as multitarget abilities for a fighter goes).

Also, they're pretty much restricted to only ranged OR melee combat (typically melee since ranged can be done better from other classes, like Ranger), so if the fight becomes focused at a range the Fighter isn't built for, he gets to sit useless. Last, they lack any meaningful access to the action economy. They have nothing they are able to do as a swift action, or immediate action, and even their standard action options are pretty sub par. They pretty much need to stand in one place and full attack to be effective, which is a huge failing.

There's also the complaints that they're boring and have no real options or any sort of resource to manage, but that is something that is more a matter of taste than balance.

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 08:40 PM

I hate WotC and Paizo for that: I love Fighters, but they designed them in a really awful way.

So what is it that you love then?

Zonugal

2011-09-02, 08:45 PM

I tend to be able to enjoy fighters but I have to throw on a lot of alternate class features. It is like a salad in a lot of ways, the extras like dressing or croutons make a meal.

Generally a fighter properly utilizing the dungeoncrasher, Zhentarim and thug acfs is enjoyable as they bring much more utility than a standard fighter. You can take your average warrior and transform him into a mercenary who can track down his mark, kick down the door and smash their face into the wall.

The joy is found in amplifying that level of extraordinary, mundane power. Instead of throwing around spells and such you are simply a scary dude who will get to you & destroy you. This is fun found in grounding a character like that.

Rogue: "So how do we do this job?"
Wizard: "Well I could teleport us in, and throw around some orbs or summon a monster?"
Fighter: "Or we could kick in the door and break some faces?"
Rogue: "That's every solution to you."
Fighter: "Its every solution to me because it is always awesome."

The Glyphstone

2011-09-02, 08:49 PM

Zonugal

2011-09-02, 08:55 PM

When all you have is a +5 Eager Wounding Minotaur Greathammer of Impact, everything looks like a soft and defenseless skull?

There is nothing wrong with speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-02, 09:05 PM

There is nothing wrong with speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Though speaking loudly and carrying a very big stick is better.

Zonugal

2011-09-02, 09:09 PM

Though speaking loudly and carrying a very big stick is better.

Someone's over-compensating...

Bluepaw

2011-09-02, 09:12 PM

One of my favorite characters is a half-dwarf, single-classed fighter -- specifically, a brawler fighter. It's a build from the 4e book Martial Power 2, but there's no reason you can't port it into other systems. MP2 provides some powers, but it's the style that's incredibly fun.

You wield a one-handed weapon with no shield (so, my guy's got a versatile weapon, that is, a warhammer, plus a couple of throwing axes on his belt), so he can grab/drag/throw/pummel enemies with his free hand. 4e has with a bunch of powers that let this actually be mechanically good, but with a good DM or a combat system that rewards roleplaying (not sure how Pathfinder is, I know Story Engine does it well), you can apply these things in other systems.

Things brawlers are good at:

-Punching. Muthatruckin. Monsters. How often have you wanted to do this? Trust me, it is way satisfying to get up in some cultist of Orcus' ritual-performing face and save the day by laying him out with a belt in the gob.

That's enough, in my opinion, to make it hugely fun, but they also:

-Grab and drag enemies, then leave them prone (giving them a control function -- that coveted martial controller at last?)
-Thow/push enemies into other enemies, doing damage and stunning effects -- more control
-Attack multiple adjacent enemies: hit one with the weapon, one with a fist
-Use improvised weapons: broken bottles, mystic statuettes that the rest of the party is going to be real cheesed if you use to stove in the face of a vampire, stockings full of GP...
-Drink copiously and start bar fights. Seriously. The 4e build, at least, has some feats for crowd-fighting with shifting and enemies doing damage to each other, and again, with a good DM this stuff can all port around.
-Bonuses to intimidate and streetwise

And, as loads of people above have mentioned for fighters of all stripes, they can:

-Roleplay like a boss. With a brawler you'll have those over-serious characters jealous in no time.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-02, 09:42 PM

Someone's over-compensating...

*thwacks Zonugal with a Monkey Gripped Greathammer*

Provengreil

2011-09-02, 09:42 PM

Well it's not JUST that all they can do is fight. They are lacking in fighting, just not in damage. Fighting is not just all damage. For example I'd consider Fighter's far better if they had more mobility. They also typically last the ability to inflict status effects/use save or sucks, and are generally restricted to attacking a single enemy at a time (cleave is pretty situational, whirlwind is huge on prerequisites, and that's pretty much it as far as multitarget abilities for a fighter goes).

Also, they're pretty much restricted to only ranged OR melee combat (typically melee since ranged can be done better from other classes, like Ranger), so if the fight becomes focused at a range the Fighter isn't built for, he gets to sit useless. Last, they lack any meaningful access to the action economy. They have nothing they are able to do as a swift action, or immediate action, and even their standard action options are pretty sub par. They pretty much need to stand in one place and full attack to be effective, which is a huge failing.

There's also the complaints that they're boring and have no real options or any sort of resource to manage, but that is something that is more a matter of taste than balance.

emphasis mine.

By and large I agree with you, but I would like to simply point out that fighters have access to these, most players just never think to use them because that's not what they've identified as the best. sundered spell component pouches, disarmed weapons, and prone opponents are all forms of debuffs. spells can be more effective at some of this, but magic has like 4 different fog engines, so I'm just saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. not to mention, it is in fact possible to put up meaningful armor class and absorb a lot more damage than your HP by not getting hit, few people bother though because it gets in the way of damage.

10 + 1-3(dex)+13(+5 mithral full plate)+9(+5 tower shield)+5(ring of protection+5)+5(amulet of natural armor+5) = 43-45 for a little more than 200,000gp, meaning level 15, and with 13 INT combat expertise can push this even higher. mature adult blue dragon gets +24, so he needs a natural 20 to hit you(I know dragons don't fight this way, it was just the first CR appropriate statblock i found).

So yes, I'd say fighters have their options provided 2 things:
1. ToB is not in use. if it is, there is very little reason to use anything else for melee.
2. you let yourself have more than a couple tricks. look into a jack of all trades, but with combat styles instead of skills. i think fighters do this better than anyone else, given that 1 is in effect.

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 09:44 PM

Though speaking loudly and carrying a very big stick is better.

Someone's over-compensating...

DID SOMEBODY ORDER A LARGE HAM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrianBlessed)!?

FLY MY HAWKMEN, FLY! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTHypbLlkE)
:amused:

The Glyphstone

2011-09-02, 09:44 PM

Seerow

2011-09-02, 10:08 PM

emphasis mine.

By and large I agree with you, but I would like to simply point out that fighters have access to these, most players just never think to use them because that's not what they've identified as the best. sundered spell component pouches, disarmed weapons, and prone opponents are all forms of debuffs. spells can be more effective at some of this, but magic has like 4 different fog engines, so I'm just saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. not to mention, it is in fact possible to put up meaningful armor class and absorb a lot more damage than your HP by not getting hit, few people bother though because it gets in the way of damage.

Sundering component pouches is useful until it becomes a widespread tactic and mages start buying hundreds of them, because they're dirt cheap and weigh almost nothing, so why not? Tripping is a form of control that is both pretty overrated, and becomes less useful as you start running into things larger than you with more legs and more strength. Disarming isn't even worth considering since most of the things you fight don't even care about weapons.

I'll address AC below.

10 + 1-3(dex)+13(+5 mithral full plate)+9(+5 tower shield)+5(ring of protection+5)+5(amulet of natural armor+5) = 43-45 for a little more than 200,000gp, meaning level 15, and with 13 INT combat expertise can push this even higher. mature adult blue dragon gets +24, so he needs a natural 20 to hit you(I know dragons don't fight this way, it was just the first CR appropriate statblock i found).

All that AC, and you know what happens? The enemy ignores you, as Glyph said. Alternatively, the enemy hits you with a touch attack (oops there goes almost all of that armor). Or he hits you with a reflex save. Or a Will save. Both of which are going to be abysmal.

I didn't mention a Fighter's defense, but I meant to when I started writing my first post. Fighter's defenses aren't the best in the game. They're among the worst. They have **** for saves, and no non-armor defenses at all. Part of that ties into mobility (best defense is not being able to be hit by the target), often a mage's best defense is just flying above the melee guy. But caster's have other defenses. Archers? Sorry, Wind Wall. Elemental attacks? Sorry high resistance or immunity to it. Most status effects? There's a spell for immunity to that. Even against melee attacks, AC is typically a pretty bad way to avoid them, and it's far more efficient to stack up miss chances and concealment, which the fighter lacks access to.

Fighters have decent HP. By decent I mean 3 hp per level more than the worst in the game. It'll make the difference of an extra round on the front lines, maybe. They have decent AC, but the majority of AC bonuses would be coming from gear, not the Fighter, so about the only point you could give it is for having access to full plate. But every sort of defense that's actually meaningful? Fighter's don't have it, other people do. That's part of the problem.

So yes, I'd say fighters have their options provided 2 things:
1. ToB is not in use. if it is, there is very little reason to use anything else for melee.
2. you let yourself have more than a couple tricks. look into a jack of all trades, but with combat styles instead of skills. i think fighters do this better than anyone else, given that 1 is in effect.

I actually agree with the jack of all trades vision of the fighter. (Indeed, my personal fighter fix includes giving the fighter basically extra sets of fighter bonus feats he can swap between at will to increase his diversity), but the problem is that it's simply not enough. You could give the Fighter every fighter bonus feat in existence simultaneously and his power level wouldn't actually budge all that much. Throw in the epic Fighter Bonus feats and he might make it to a high tier 4, maybe very low tier 3. But the point is that the Fighter needs more than feats. Feats simply don't provide options that are good enough to compete with what people actually get as class features.

Coidzor

2011-09-02, 10:17 PM

Feats simply don't provide options that are good enough to compete with what people actually get as class features.

Well, if you wanted to outdo a Soulborn at Incarnumancy, there's a slight case to be made there, but beyond that...

V: I'm so glad I went to that page. Last time I was there, they didn't have anything about Henry 8.0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PAin6uujEY&feature=relmfu). :smallbiggrin:

Zonugal

2011-09-02, 10:23 PM

DID SOMEBODY ORDER A LARGE HAM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrianBlessed)!?

FLY MY HAWKMEN, FLY! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTHypbLlkE)
:amused:

I love ham! Its like its Christmas day, yay!!!

Explodingcube

2011-09-02, 10:42 PM

Personally, I love playing fighters. The idea that I don't need magic or divine and ragerific powers makes me feel like more skill is involved. Now, I have been known to use archetypes, but I think that it's a lot better than just multiclassing out.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-02, 10:45 PM

Play a warblade, crusader, or druid.

/thread

This. However, a couple of levels of fighter are a common addition to a lot of builds. Feats are handy toys, everyone always wants more.

navar100

2011-09-03, 12:46 AM

Possibly because the Fighter ran the kingdom into the ground with his poor ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) to listen to good advisers over bad ones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) and make good appointments (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) to positions of power under him, lack of knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)of good governance, and susceptibility to magical domination.

(For reference (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=tYe&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D%2C+jaronk&pbx=1&oq=leadership+mechanics+in+D%26D%2C+jaronk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4421l5170l0l5320l8l6l0l0l0l0l484l1104l0.1.4-2l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fe4d51c11f0a28fa&biw=1152&bih=771) see JaronK's "Leadership Mechanics in D&D" over on BG)

You can't just throw gold at a kingdom and expect it to be ruled well, and that's about the only thing the Fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm)has, well, other than having exotic pets and being able to scare people into doing what he wants while he's breathing down their neck.

It does give the next campaign's adventurers job security though, I must admit... :smallamused:

I don't take JaronK's word on fighters for anything. Long story.

You don't need high skill scores in everything. If you really want them, you can get them easier in Pathfinder. In any case, argument about the game mechanics of fighters have been done to death. I've heard it all before, and it's still garbage. Those who think the fighter sucks donkey aren't going to change their mind no matter what any differing opinion is offered. Case in point right here since I wasn't really talking about the game mechanics at all but rather roleplaying ideas to make playing a fighter more interesting, to get the feel of what it is to be a fighter. Immerse yourself into the role so that you're not just some guy with a pointy stick.

Whether one is having hysterical temper tamtrums because the wizard is casting Gate, Force Cage, Glitterdust, and Rope Trick is something else altogether.

Engine

2011-09-03, 12:49 AM

So what is it that you love then?

I love the fluff, I dislike the crunch.

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 12:54 AM

Whether one is having hysterical temper tamtrums because the wizard is casting Gate, Force Cage, Glitterdust, and Rope Trick is something else altogether.

Indeed. Something that has nothing to do with what I said. So I must admit I'm rather confused as to why you felt the need to point this out.

Besides, Rope Trick is generally something that DMs get antsy about, not Fighters.

You don't need high skill scores in everything. If you really want them, you can get them easier in Pathfinder.

No, but it certainly helps to actually have skill ranks. And your run of the mill plate-posteriored goblinthwacker is decidedly lacking in skillpoints to pay even lip service to such things that make Kinging easier or improve the quality of one's Kinging.

Well, unless they want to take after Robert Baratheon, anyway.

Generally lacks the stats to really back up most roleplay along those lines anyway, unless one wants to sacrifice one's combat abilities entirely

I wasn't really talking about the game mechanics at all but rather roleplaying ideas to make playing a fighter more interesting, to get the feel of what it is to be a fighter. Immerse yourself into the role so that you're not just some guy with a pointy stick.

If you're going to roleplay, it's generally best to actually have something in the character to back it up if the system has things to account for it. And I was pointing out the logical conclusion of such an individual actually obtaining the throne as a tongue-in-cheek observation anyway. :smallwink:

Seriously. A man who is not very persuasive, cunning, or wise. A man who has no actual training in leadership or knowledge of political intrigue and how to use it or at least defend against it or, indeed, kinging in general. Aye, a man whose main recommendation to the position is murdering people in the face lots.

That's not a recipe for anything good for the kingdom, unless he's a puppet and whoever controls his strings is either altruistic or has enlightened self-interest. And between the low will save and sense motive... He's going to be someone's puppet.

If we want to address the real meat and potatoes of your post about roleplay to covereth the fighter's flanks, well, from what I've read of the OP's posts, it doesn't seem like the arena of roleplay is really what's at issue here.

I love the fluff, I dislike the crunch.

What fluff in particular is that?

Engine

2011-09-03, 12:58 AM

What fluff in particular is that?

From PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter)

Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 01:21 AM

Hmm, definitely better than average in terms of how enjoyable it was to read. I'd give it about a 4 out of 5.

Lord_Gareth

2011-09-03, 01:24 AM

Hmm, definitely better than average in terms of how enjoyable it was to read. I'd give it about a 4 out of 5.

You forgot to dock it points for having no relation whatsoever to the mechanics.

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 01:28 AM

You forgot to dock it points for having no relation whatsoever to the mechanics.

Well, we'd already established that as a handicap earlier, so I figured I'd go easy on the writing itself.

The writer, on the other hand, needs to be savaged by ferrets that are covered in peeps.

Nero24200

2011-09-03, 07:28 AM

Because people like feats. It's one of the reasons humans are popular (though there are other reasons). It's also why you may notice that almost all "fighter fixes" retain the feats.

If you shelled out bonus feats to everyone you may suddenly find no one bothering with the fighter.

KnightDisciple

2011-09-03, 10:07 AM

I'm going to both agree, and disagree, with the common consensus about "fighters are totally useless lol". At least so far as Pathfinder goes.

I will state that I like ToB, though I haven't had a huge personal sample size to build off of (one IRC-based game for a yearish now).

Anyways. Pathfinder Fighter.

I'm in a Pathfinder game, level 10 at the moment, with a party of 5 (counting myself) that consists of the following:
Half Elf Barbarian with a Large Greatsword; has got nearly 200 HP and seems to be able to easily do 30-40 damage on a hit (before vital strike). Hits probably 75% of the time (or more).
Human Paladin with a Greatsword; he's not terribly far behind the barbarian on damage and hit ratio, and against evil things he's (obviously) quite potent.
Half-Elf Cavalier who...well, this character frankly was built to be a horse charger, but we've mostly fought in the city. Add onto that Paizo's seeming hatred for this class (when they super-nerfed it from the beta version), and she hits a decent amount of the time, but without a huge amount of damage.
Gnome Summoner who really likes UMD, so he's got lots of tricks up his sleeve. Also, we're at the point he can summon Large elementals, so that's fun. Definitely shows that the class is more "support" oriented, though.
And me, the Half-Orc Archer Fighter. Any one non-VS hit does something in the 20s, especially if I Deadly Aim (ranged PA). And my to-hit is stupid high. As in, +21 at level 10. I've hit guys while carrying a -2 on my hits and rolling a 2. :smallbiggrin:

Anyways. Yes, I'm sure a Cleric or Wizard would start oushining us about now. A druid, not quite as much. A sorc most likely.

But it wouldn't be the gulf of "we can't even approach that shadow", it would be "they're doing about 25% to 50% more, but we can go all day".

Basically, while it's still a caster-favoring game, Pathfinder at least gives some fun times to playing a Fighter or similar class.

*Prepares to be told by a legion of people how he's wrong or something*

AmberVael

2011-09-03, 10:15 AM

*Prepares to be told by a legion of people how he's wrong or something*

You're not really wrong at all, you just never said anything that would demonstrate how your character has more options than "shoot someone in the face," which was the primary purpose of this thread (as the OP felt that continually using such an option was boring).

This thread has nothing to do with optimization at all, in fact, just about whether something is interesting to play. And it seems that for the fighter to be more interesting to the OP, he needs more options... and it isn't really tailored to provide that.

It just happens that having more options tends to make you more powerful.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-03, 10:24 AM

Anyways. Yes, I'm sure a Cleric or Wizard would start oushining us about now. A druid, not quite as much. A sorc most likely.

But it wouldn't be the gulf of "we can't even approach that shadow", it would be "they're doing about 25% to 50% more, but we can go all day".

Basically, while it's still a caster-favoring game, Pathfinder at least gives some fun times to playing a Fighter or similar class.

*Prepares to be told by a legion of people how he's wrong or something*

The only way you could possibly be 'wrong' here is the statement of going all day - I suppose the Paladin could Lay on a few Hands or throw a couple Cure Lights, but you're an almost all-Martial party without magical healing, you must be spending money hand over fist for potions/wands. That issue aside, you've got an excellent party balance dynamic...Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Cavalier are all cheerful T4s, with your only T2 (Summoner) happily playing support (which is a question, what's he going with his Eidolon)?

KnightDisciple

2011-09-03, 10:36 AM

You're not really wrong at all, you just never said anything that would demonstrate how your character has more options than "shoot someone in the face," which was the primary purpose of this thread (as the OP felt that continually using such an option was boring).

This thread has nothing to do with optimization at all, in fact, just about whether something is interesting to play. And it seems that for the fighter to be more interesting to the OP, he needs more options... and it isn't really tailored to provide that.

It just happens that having more options tends to make you more powerful.That's a fair enough statement.

Though, that said, there's at least a little bit more breadth of options in Pathfinder, since you aren't punished for taking non-class skills. If nothing else, your Fighter can do a couple extra things.

The only way you could possibly be 'wrong' here is the statement of going all day - I suppose the Paladin could Lay on a few Hands or throw a couple Cure Lights, but you're an almost all-Martial party without magical healing, you must be spending money hand over fist for potions/wands. That issue aside, you've got an excellent party balance dynamic...Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Cavalier are all cheerful T4s, with your only T2 (Summoner) happily playing support (which is a question, what's he going with his Eidolon)?We do spend some on potions and wands, but we've gotten pretty good loots, so it's not crippling. And we've gotten some as loot more than once. It helps that after fighting the weakened Pit Fiend, we've mostly faced mooks.

I'd put the Cavalier at the bottom of the tier, or at least how I'm seeing it played. Part of that's on the player, though; he has an odd like for concepts that are mechanically weak. I 'unno.

The Eidolon is a combination walking shield and sensor. Our Summoner knows he could build a combat monster, but he likes getting +20something to Perceptions instead. Maybe it's almost +30 now, I don't remember. But yeah, Eidolon's less combat-focused.

He's starting to throw out mystic hurt, though. He's got some wands of attack spells and such, and his Cha+UMD is high enough he can auto-used them.

Icestorm245

2011-09-03, 10:49 AM

Would it be fair to give fighters a bonus feat of their choice that they need not have the preresiquites for? Every 6 levels maybe? Within reason, of course. I just couldn't justify giving a 6th level fighter weapon supremacy =P

Legendairy

2011-09-03, 11:11 AM

Don't forget the alternate fighters and such they add to it alot so you can be a sneaky fighter and whatnot. The biggest thing is roleplay and also race if you are worried about getting bored and that alone or versatility they are two different things. Think about a race with SR so even if the mage is blasting its less of a threat and fortified armors and such. One of my favorite characters was a straight fighter and we had a cleric that knew how to buff with fortified armor and SR and things like Divine Might and whatnot. The ultimate scary meat shield from the core books. If its just a Melee class issue Barbians can be a blast aswell.

Wanna make the party hate you? Be a fighter and try to get an adamantine weapon and sunder everything. Another fun thing was using 3 different great swords i had one that was an animated one and attacked then quick draw the biting one hit them and command it to bite (think its a dc 25 str to pull it out AFB so i don't recall exactly) then pull out the last one and sunder. You will have one floating and attacking one attached to them giving them penalties on everything, and another you are sundering whatever they are using to hit. Fighters can be fun if not OP gear helps a lot the race helps a lot but in the end its your RP style and what you want the character to be.(had one that talked to his weapon as if it were alive, it wasnt) so be creative. Boredom in combat? why with soooo many options. Do not be afraid to be screwed with so many feats venture out.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-03, 11:21 AM

Seerow

2011-09-03, 11:26 AM

The last thing a fighter needs is more feats.

Yo dawg, I heard you liked feats, so I gave you some feats, so you can have feats while using your feats.

But seriously, more feats isn't a BAD deal, and there is a benefit to giving more of them. As long as you realize it's not going to be a complete solution, and still more will be needed.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-03, 01:26 PM

It's kinda unfair when you optimize the Rogue to be capable of oneshotting a Frost Giant (133 HP) in a single attack, but stick your Fighter with such an awful Strength he can only do 13 HP with a Falchion Crit...

Fighters can be Uberchargers as well as anyone else, and Uberchargers beat out anything else in the game on raw damage except a max-tooled blaster-caster. The problem isn't that they can't fight, it's that they can only fight. Which, if that's all you want to do, is no problem at all.

Actually, straight fighter can't ubercharge worth anything, considering they have no access to pounce, and thus can only take one swing on a charge.

Even so, let's just say that you get that one really big hit. Fine. A level 20 Fighter can one-hit something CR 9... and this is supposed to be an accomplishment?

Meanwhile, what he cannot do:

* effectively threaten flying opponents
* effectively threaten opponents with miss chance
* effectively threaten opponents with reach

Sure, he's gonna charge that giant... then the giant gets an AoO against him before he can finish his charge, prevents him from closing with Stand Still, and laughs as the Fighter just wasted his entire action.

Rogues at least have UMD and can do things like UMD Wand of Flight, or wand of True Strike to negate concealment, or wand of grease to make target vulnerable to sneak attacks AND reduce his AC in some cases.

Your problem is that most encounters after around level 12 end up being ones that 'hulk smash' doesn't really work all that well on.

As far as Zhent Fighter... if a Samurai (see sig) can do it better than you can, that's a pretty low bar you just slid under.

NNescio

2011-09-03, 01:33 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 01:46 PM

MUST...resist...temptation...to quote... BMX Bandit...

Or I could just summon a horde of angels.

Dralnu

2011-09-03, 02:28 PM

Because you want to play a character who is mundane and can hurt things with a weapon. Because you like the simplicity and don't want to be bothered with convoluted fighting mechanics when DnD is complicated enough. Because not every gaming group is optimized and sometimes having high STR, a two-handed weapon, full BAB and Power Attack is enough to be the primary damage dealer in the party and kick some ass. Because you like lots of bonus feats. Because you want to play a fighter.

In the campaign I'm in, we have a Fighter. We're not optimized. He's the primary tank and damage dealer. He likes his character. He doesn't care for anything more complicated than "I power attack." He has fun and nobody complains.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 02:49 PM

Even so, let's just say that you get that one really big hit. Fine. A level 20 Fighter can one-hit something CR 9... and this is supposed to be an accomplishment?

Meanwhile, what he cannot do:

* effectively threaten flying opponents
* effectively threaten opponents with miss chance
* effectively threaten opponents with reach

Man, fighters have the same difficulties other melee characters do? Hu-wha!?!

Sure, he's gonna charge that giant... then the giant gets an AoO against him before he can finish his charge, prevents him from closing with Stand Still, and laughs as the Fighter just wasted his entire action.

Sure is nice being biased in a way as to pre-select a monster's feats to lock-down a character.

Rogues at least have UMD and can do things like UMD Wand of Flight, or wand of True Strike to negate concealment, or wand of grease to make target vulnerable to sneak attacks AND reduce his AC in some cases.

A fighter can easily get access to UMD as early as first level and have it for their entire career. It is a trivial pursuit at best for them.

As far as Zhent Fighter... if a Samurai (see sig) can do it better than you can, that's a pretty low bar you just slid under.

It doesn't matter if the Samurai can do it better, the Zhent Fighter has literally spent nothing to gain the ability while your samurai had to be built to do it. I'll take good & free over great & expensive any day...

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 02:50 PM

A fighter can easily get access to UMD as early as first level and have it for their entire career. It is a trivial pursuit at best for them.

But now you are no longer playing a fighter. You are playing a WBL dependent gish.

Greenish

2011-09-03, 02:55 PM

the Zhent Fighter has literally spent nothing to gain the ability9 levels of fighter is quite a sacrifice. :smalltongue:

NNescio

2011-09-03, 02:59 PM

Man, fighters have the same difficulties other melee characters do? Hu-wha!?!
Warblades, Crusaders, Swordsages, Duskblades, Battledancing Bards, TWF Rangers*, TWF Rogues, Paladins*, Psionic Warriors, Quickdraw Factotums, Hexblades, Meleeficers, CoDzillas...

(*With ACFs or the SpC.)

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 03:04 PM

Yo dawg, I heard you liked feats, so I gave you some feats, so you can have feats while using your feats.

But seriously, more feats isn't a BAD deal, and there is a benefit to giving more of them. As long as you realize it's not going to be a complete solution, and still more will be needed.

Unless you mess with the feat system's paradigm in order to compensate for it.

Like how the current feat system is set up with feat chains in order to limit the efficacy of fighter bonus feats.

Which has recently become my biggest objection to the Fighter, they actively devalue the piddly number of feats everyone else gets in their career, directly for martially inclined characters and indirectly for the rest.

The only way you could possibly be 'wrong' here is the statement of going all day - I suppose the Paladin could Lay on a few Hands or throw a couple Cure Lights, but you're an almost all-Martial party without magical healing, you must be spending money hand over fist for potions/wands.

Indeed, Pathfinder even does away with most of the convenient options for topping yourself off between fights for mundanes.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-03, 03:10 PM

Man, fighters have the same difficulties other melee characters do? Hu-wha!?! Only they have no way to overcome those difficulties

Sure is nice being biased in a way as to pre-select a monster's feats to lock-down a character. What, you mean you only want to fight encounters that can't challenge a guy half their CR? Hey, if that's what ya wanna do, go right on with that.

A fighter can easily get access to UMD as early as first level and have it for their entire career. It is a trivial pursuit at best for them. As opposed to having it in-house.

It doesn't matter if the Samurai can do it better, the Zhent Fighter has literally spent nothing to gain the ability while your samurai had to be built to do it. I'll take good & free over great & expensive any day...Wait, you mean a 10th level ability isn't free when you get 10th level? Could've fooled me. In fact, it's even EASIER because at least he doesn't need an ACF from an obscure sourcebook to manage the task.

Samurai 10 out of the box... intimidates everyone within 30' of him. Throw on Imperious Command and Fearful Armor. Now he does it as a move action, and forces all opponents who fail to Cower.

Zhent... can intimidate a single target. Doesn't need Fearful armor, at least, and can easily pick up Imperious Command, but can still only single-target. Samurai is locking down half the battlefield.

Krazzman

2011-09-03, 03:20 PM

I just overread the first page, but from what I read I would say: Optimize the **** out of this Char. The Fighter can be fun, if you roleplay. In Fight it's jsut the same. Charge in make maneuver x and smash head z with weapon y.

I thought about playing one as well, until another one wanted to play one (therefore I will play an Paladin).

In Pathfinder they are a bit buffed instead of somethings like druid got straigth nerfed.

Have fun with splitting heads, read the optimizations and then roleplay the hell out of it :D

Have a nice day, Krazzman

noparlpf

2011-09-03, 03:36 PM

Personally I prefer the UA generic Warrior if I want a "Fighter", but same difference. Otherwise I like Barbarian better.

Anyway, I like the Fighter for simplicity. I don't like having a big old spell list to pick from, or maneuvers to choose from, or all that. I've decided I prefer melee just because it's quick and easy.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 03:49 PM

But now you are no longer playing a fighter. You are playing a WBL dependent gish.

Same could be said for a rogue. Greater versatility does not come with a huge, necessary price tag. Should your party come across a wand, you being able to activate brings greater versatility to the situation.

Also I don't know why we are focusing so intently on WBL when any standard fighter should already by allocating a portion of his budget to a party caster as to purchase suitable buff wands. In a way you are cutting out that middle man.

9 levels of fighter is quite a sacrifice. :smalltongue:

I'd say any levels of a samurai to be a worse one though.

Warblades, Crusaders, Swordsages, Duskblades, Battledancing Bards, TWF Rangers*, TWF Rogues, Paladins*, Psionic Warriors, Quickdraw Factotums, Hexblades, Meleeficers, CoDzillas...

(*With ACFs or the SpC.)

Warblades and Swordsages, those melee classes that don't have any reasonable ranged weaponry? Perhaps with a Bloodstorm Blade but then we are escaping into a prestige class. Those other classes are suitable for the task just as any fighter is although some are naturally going to be better. A ranger is going to have superb spells for the situation and a rogue will have sneak attack (if his foe is within 30ft, 60ft. if using acfs).

And good to see you couldn't hold off from bringing in an artificer or cleric into the situation. Nice way to ground the conversation to melee classes...

Only they have no way to overcome those difficulties

You listed common obstacles to nearly any mundane class in DnD, so let us perhaps see what we have. With range any fighter will be okay as it takes no skill for them to be reasonable at a longbow. They aren't rangers or rogues in this department, but they aren't designed to be (although with enough specialization will match them). Miss chance? That thing that is better than AC in almost every practical way? Well I guess when you are shooting for the moon everyone has better be an astronaut. Any standard fighter is going to have a ghost-touch weapon whenever they can (and if they really have the cash a Jade weapon) so let us address the obvious solution. But beyond that every mundane class has problems with this, rogues lose their precision damage and rangers are just as screwed as the fighter.

What, you mean you only want to fight encounters that can't challenge a guy half their CR? Hey, if that's what ya wanna do, go right on with that.

Maybe you could stick to the reasonably selected feats for a giant as opposed to cherry-picking feats specifically for your desired reason? Maybe we could do that?

As opposed to having it in-house.

Wait, you mean a 10th level ability isn't free when you get 10th level? Could've fooled me. In fact, it's even EASIER because at least he doesn't need an ACF from an obscure sourcebook to manage the task.

Samurai 10 out of the box... intimidates everyone within 30' of him. Throw on Imperious Command and Fearful Armor. Now he does it as a move action, and forces all opponents who fail to Cower.

Zhent... can intimidate a single target. Doesn't need Fearful armor, at least, and can easily pick up Imperious Command, but can still only single-target. Samurai is locking down half the battlefield.

My fighter can literally become anything it wants to a reasonable degree while maintaining strong intimidation skills/techniques. Your samurai, well we should revise this, every samurai literally only has that one thing going for it. Every samurai build is built around intimidation. So yes, for any fighter it is easier, and cheaper, to pick up intimidation skills.

You have a charger, an archer or a tripper? Guess what, they all can be good at intimidating for absolutely no loss to their own specialization. And you know what the best thing is, they have other things to do as well besides intimidate (which is a nice technique in battle but not the absolute strongest).

Oh and with Never Outnumbered your samurai is going to beat my fighter by twenty feet, which is nice but not absolutely game breaking. That cost my guy two skill points, which is still an easier/cheaper investment than any levels in one of the worst designed classes in the game.

So let us perhaps compare what we have here. You brought a samurai who is great at intimidation and I brought a fighter who is good at intimidation but can do other things too.

Man, how did I ever stand a chance...

NNescio

2011-09-03, 04:14 PM

Warblades and Swordsages, those melee classes that don't have any reasonable ranged weaponry? Perhaps with a Bloodstorm Blade but then we are escaping into a prestige class. Those other classes are suitable for the task just as any fighter is although some are naturally going to be better. A ranger is going to have superb spells for the situation and a rogue will have sneak attack (if his foe is within 30ft, 60ft. if using acfs).

And good to see you couldn't hold off from bringing in an artificer or cleric into the situation. Nice way to ground the conversation to melee classes...

Here's the original post you were replying to:

Meanwhile, what he cannot do:

* effectively threaten flying opponents
* effectively threaten opponents with miss chance
* effectively threaten opponents with reach

Man, fighters have the same difficulties other melee characters do? Hu-wha!?!

Flying targets: Lightning Throw. Also most of the Tiger Claw discipline, and some Shadow Hand as well.
Miss chance: Close eyes - > Hear The Air. Also, some others from Diamond Mind.
Opponents with reach -> Tiger Claw, White Raven Tactics, Shadow Hand... take your pick.

And really, pure Meleeficers and CoDzilla builds can do nothing but buff and melee. If those aren't melee characters I don't know what is. At least they get to still melee instead of -well- take out the unenchanted longbow and plink at targets.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 04:16 PM

As much as I would love to believe in Samurai Jack, jumping is really not a viable form to attack flying foes...

And really, pure Meleeficers and CoDzilla builds can do nothing but buff and melee. If those aren't melee characters I don't know what is.

What? Ahaha, WHAT!?!

Provengreil

2011-09-03, 04:17 PM

Only they have no way to overcome those difficulties

how about the monk? the samurai? the rogue? the barbarian? the paladin? or any other melee class? dude, none of them have class abilities that function against flying enemies they can't reach, ghosts they can't damage, or miss chances they can't penetrate. why is fighter singled out here?

What, you mean you only want to fight encounters that can't challenge a guy half their CR? Hey, if that's what ya wanna do, go right on with that.

what if, perchance, you didn't just pick a feat giants aren't listed as having and give every giant in the game this feat on the chance that a charger build appeared?

As opposed to having it in-house.

not seeing the issue. fighters are in no way magic users, why should they get UMD as a class skill?

Wait, you mean a 10th level ability isn't free when you get 10th level? Could've fooled me. In fact, it's even EASIER because at least he doesn't need an ACF from an obscure sourcebook to manage the task.

Samurai 10 out of the box... intimidates everyone within 30' of him. Throw on Imperious Command and Fearful Armor. Now he does it as a move action, and forces all opponents who fail to Cower.

Zhent... can intimidate a single target. Doesn't need Fearful armor, at least, and can easily pick up Imperious Command, but can still only single-target. Samurai is locking down half the battlefield.

since we're also pointing out weaknesses...
Dragons. undead. constructs. oozes. plants. things with significantly higher level than you. things with access to protection of your alignment. things with access to remove fear. paladins. anyone near said paladins. all of these things are immune or at least extra resistant to your intimidation. the fighter will still be pretty effective without it, at least as far as effective fighters go. Samurai are known for not being so good.

Greenish

2011-09-03, 04:18 PM

Miss chance: Close eyes - > Hear The Air.That's still 50% miss chance.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 04:19 PM

As much as I would love to believe in Samurai Jack, jumping is really not a viable form to attack flying foes...

Leaping Dragon Stance + any Tiger Claw maneuver that requires you to jump.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 04:25 PM

Leaping Dragon Stance + any Tiger Claw maneuver that requires you to jump.

Are your flying foes buffoons? Because no way are you managing to hit any reasonable flyer with a jump check.

ranagrande

2011-09-03, 04:55 PM

The problem is that feats scale horribly when compared with other class features, especially spellcasting.

The best solution, I think, would be a complete reworking of the pool of fighter feats to choose from.

As I have said before, by 20th level, a Fighter should be deciding whether he wants to wield two weapons in each hand or to wear a suit of light armor under a suit of medium armor under a suit of heavy armor with all of the bonuses stacking.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 04:56 PM

Are your flying foes buffoons? Because no way are you managing to hit any reasonable flyer with a jump check.

You can only ascend at half speed, so those guys with flyby attack aren't gonna be that far away if they decide to go straight up after attacking.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 05:00 PM

You can only ascend at half speed, so those guys with flyby attack aren't gonna be that far away if they decide to go straight up after attacking.

We're assuming they are using melee weapons?

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 05:13 PM

We're assuming they are using melee weapons?

The majority of non-caster enemies with fly don't have ranged weapons. Even manticores can only use four spike volleys each day.

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 05:40 PM

Maybe you could stick to the reasonably selected feats for a giant as opposed to cherry-picking feats specifically for your desired reason? Maybe we could do that?

So giants have to be built worse than the fighter now for it to be fair to the ubercharger? :smallamused:

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 05:41 PM

So giants have to be built worse than the fighter now for it to be fair? :smallamused:

Every giant should have stand still?

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-03, 05:44 PM

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

Those got thrown out the window a long time ago. Every sane DM gives orcs Power Attack or Weapon Focus instead.

Zonugal

2011-09-03, 05:50 PM

Those got thrown out the window a long time ago. Every sane DM gives orcs Power Attack or Weapon Focus instead.

Then why are giants be afforded Stand Still and not the feats they currently have?

Coidzor

2011-09-03, 06:08 PM

Every giant should have stand still?

Pointing out an easy counter to the ubercharger is not the same thing as saying what you claim has been said. :smallwink:

Especially when said ubercharger was brought up to win an internet debate in the first place. How, I'm not exactly sure, but that certainly seemed to be the intent, at any rate.

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

Alertness probably should not be a feat in light of the changes made to the system over time, but that's rather secondary... A side discussion, more part of how to fix the feat system which is only partially to blame upon the design decisions that lead to the Fighter anyway, than part of the Fighter proper.

Then why are giants be afforded Stand Still and not the feats they currently have?

I imagine because they were serving as a rhetorical device if you're talking about the discussion.

If you're talking about any given game, the reasons are so varied the question you ask is ultimately unanswerable in general and ultimately pointless in the specific case.

Zeta Kai

2011-09-03, 06:35 PM

One way to make a Fighter interesting is to get more interesting feats. The feat choices from the PHB are a bit... under powered, at least compared to later offerings from splatbooks. This is one area where homebrew tends to excel, as melee combatants are often given very nice things that are still not out of balance with lower-Tier classes (read: full casters).

For instance, [blatant plug] the Hourglass of Zihaja project, which started out as "just" a campaign setting, has produced many viable options (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10076825) for melee combatants. One of the most obvious are the Style feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10124237#post10124237), each of which give the PC more options as the character gains BAB. That way, with only a single feat, a Fighter can easily specialize in Sword-&-Board, Einhander, Archery, Dirty Fighting, Swashbuckling, Wrestling, &/or several other combat styles.

Also, HoZ feats can allow a Fighter to easily counterattack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10076980#post10076980), parry (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10083599#post10083599), reduce iterative attack penalties (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10089408#post10089408), & survive fatal injuries (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10080532#post10080532).[/blatant plug] Later splats, like the Complete series, have other melee-related feats, so a Fighter doesn't really have an excuse not to be effective & interesting in combat. Ask your DM if you can use supplemental materials &/or homebrew.

TheJake

2011-09-04, 06:34 AM

faceroll

2011-09-04, 07:07 AM

The problem is that when you do that, your damage output is nil (as you pointed out yourself) - at which point, there's very little reason for any monster of above animal intelligence...and even some smarter animals...to spend more than one round flailing away at you, when they can just walk past and munch on the softer people who are actually hurting them.

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

The only way you could possibly be 'wrong' here is the statement of going all day - I suppose the Paladin could Lay on a few Hands or throw a couple Cure Lights, but you're an almost all-Martial party without magical healing, you must be spending money hand over fist for potions/wands. That issue aside, you've got an excellent party balance dynamic...Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Cavalier are all cheerful T4s, with your only T2 (Summoner) happily playing support (which is a question, what's he going with his Eidolon)?

2 gold 7 silver for 1 HP isn't exactly "hand over fist" at level 10. If they lose 200 HP an encounter (20% of 1000 total HP), that only costs 540 gp to heal.

Out of combat healing is entirely trivial beyond level 2 with a party of size greater than 1.

Meanwhile, what he cannot do:

* effectively threaten flying opponents
* effectively threaten opponents with miss chance
* effectively threaten opponents with reach

Itemization brah.
For instance:
*use a throwing stick
*use a more accurate stick
*use a longer stick

KnightDisciple

2011-09-04, 07:31 AM

As a Fighter, your job is to act as a meatshield for the rest of the party, especially the squishies. That's it. If you measure your job by your damage output (compared to the cleric, rogue, wizard, etc) you're doing it wrong.

- J.

The problem is, in 3.5 and Pathfinder, being a "meatshield" doesn't work very well. Just standing there gives no incentive for the enemy to attack you, instead of the guy flinging metric tons of arcane and/or divine energy around. By the time they're flying, they can totally bypass you.

Unless you want to introduce a "taunt" mechanic? :smallwink:

If you don't, making yourself a viable target via damage is one of your few options. That, or things like trip, disarm, etc that can inconvenience enemies.

Of course, that's all putting aside the fact that that's a very narrow view where you're telling other that they're "doing it wrong", when the class itself, especially in Pathfinder, is geared toward making a very wide range of archetypes and playstyles, only some of which would work as a "meatshield".

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 08:07 AM

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

That's kinda the point - if you're contributing nothing (low damage, inability to force monsters to engage you), why are you still in the party? Wizards don't 'never get hurt', they 'never get hurt' by anything that the base Fighter would have a monkey's prayer of stopping from hurting them. If the Wizard's own defenses fail, he's almost certainly facing another caster, against whom the Fighter would be toast.

2 gold 7 silver for 1 HP isn't exactly "hand over fist" at level 10. If they lose 200 HP an encounter (20% of 1000 total HP), that only costs 540 gp to heal.

Out of combat healing is entirely trivial beyond level 2 with a party of size greater than 1.

Point conceded on the HP/GP ratio (though it's worth noting that you don't always have the time to sit and laze about while your Vigor ticks for 20 minutes to repair that damage), but they're still spending money constantly, even if it's not in huge gobs. Then there's poisons, diseases, occasional resurrections...

Itemization brah.
For instance:
*use a throwing stick
*use a more accurate stick
*use a longer stick

Putting aside the 'more accurate stick' thing (because there is no such thing when it comes to miss chances), you're suggesting either having a pet caster to supply you with Greater Magic Weapon spells, or shelling out triple to quadruple your normal expenditure of GP just to be able to contribute against assorted enemies. This isn't a problem?

Lord_Gareth

2011-09-04, 08:16 AM

Runestar

2011-09-04, 08:21 AM

Actually, I find that the main point of the fighter is to deal damage. The advantage they have over the caster in this aspect is that they don't need to expend slots to do it, leaving the wizard free to do more useful things like locking down the battlefield. In this aspect, I feel they excel quite well.

I recall reading a PBP of an age of worms final battle against Kyuss on enworld. The fighter ended up doing the bulk of the damage and was responsible for untimately defeating Kyuss. The rogue did like 3? damage throughout the entire fight. :smallsmile:

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 08:29 AM

KnightDisciple

2011-09-04, 08:31 AM

You know, none of the things being suggested by fighter proponents in this thread actually solves the OP's problem; namely, that he wants to be versatile in combat.

Fighters, no matter what kind of fighter they are, invest in one trick. They can't afford not to. He doesn't want to invest in one trick - he'd like two or three or maybe even a dozen tricks. And if you want that while retaining a strictly martial flavor, the solution is, indeed, "play a warblade".

Yes, Fighter can be fun in some circumstances, especially if you don't mind mashing the same button round after round, but those circumstances do not exist in this instance.I guess it depends on what you count as a "trick". I mean, there's the main "trick" of "hit things with *insert weapon here*". I suppose some of the styles or feats in pathfinder could give you some options, trip or whatnot.

But yes, there's a point where there aren't a lot of "tricks", even if PF gives you a berjillion feats to buy "tricks" with.

Seerow

2011-09-04, 08:55 AM

Runestar

2011-09-04, 09:03 AM

Which most people here agree with - a fighter can deal damage, and can deal lots of it. The problem of the OP, and often fighters in general, is that they can't do anything except deal damage.

Then maybe the solution would be to redefine the fighter's actual role, rather than what it ought to be capable of. In 4e terminology, it would like the fighter is more a striker, yet people are complaining that it makes a poor defender, when that was never its intent or purpose in the first place? :smalltongue:

Provengreil

2011-09-04, 09:27 AM

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

What glyphstone was saying was that the enemy can take one AoO, which because of your shield won't hurt much, and just walk right past you. keeping most enemy's away from the casters works in theory, but in play it only works when a chokepoint is involved, and sometimes not even then. so you're losing on damage, losing on versatility, sinking most of your gp into making enemies ignore you with your admittedly high armor class, and then you need a small doorway situation to make your build work anyway, which is a little specific unless your entire campaign is sieges. at that point, you're literally leaving everything to the wizard, which makes your character both incredibly bland and impotent, rather than just one, which is often tolerable at least, or neither which is good.

You know, none of the things being suggested by fighter proponents in this thread actually solves the OP's problem; namely, that he wants to be versatile in combat.

Fighters, no matter what kind of fighter they are, invest in one trick. They can't afford not to. He doesn't want to invest in one trick - he'd like two or three or maybe even a dozen tricks. And if you want that while retaining a strictly martial flavor, the solution is, indeed, "play a warblade".

Yes, Fighter can be fun in some circumstances, especially if you don't mind mashing the same button round after round, but those circumstances do not exist in this instance.

Actually, i'd refer you to my previous posts. As I have readily admitted, the fighter still doesn't excel, but one fighter build can be decent enough at grappling, tripping, beating people up with their own weapons(unarmed disarming FTW), getting in the enemy's way, and still have feats to spare for something to keep mobility, like maybe spring attack. ToB does solve the effectiveness problem, but not all DMs allow it(personally, i don't). But, relative ineffectiveness aside, a build like this is only boring if played in a boring fashion. Thus, fighters can be versatile.

faceroll

2011-09-04, 09:40 AM

That's kinda the point - if you're contributing nothing (low damage, inability to force monsters to engage you), why are you still in the party? Wizards don't 'never get hurt', they 'never get hurt' by anything that the base Fighter would have a monkey's prayer of stopping from hurting them. If the Wizard's own defenses fail, he's almost certainly facing another caster, against whom the Fighter would be toast.

I was thinking more along the lines of having such a high AC, there's no reason for the monster to concentrate on you, even if you have nice damage output. And having both is quite easy by the mid levels. THF with decent strength and efficient power attack nets you plenty of damage. If you really need that damage, diving mounted spirited charges do quad damage with a lance.

+1 animated mithril tower shield and +1 mithril mechanus gear, and 14 dex, gets you 28 AC. A ring of protection and amulet of natural armor gets you up to 30 AC. That set up costs you about 25k, or about 40% of the gold of an 11th level character. If you take ranks in craft:armor, the cost drops by 4k. And, as a fighter, what are you doing with your 2 skill points a level? Taking ranks in swim, I guess, so you don't drown.

With that, there about 50% odds of being missed by CR13 enemies from MM1. If you can get 40 AC at that level, your chance of being hit drops to 5 to 15%.

The downside to all this is being unable to afford Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, Sovereign Glue, Universal Solvent, a HHH, a Hand of Glory, etc. But in an all fighter party, that kind of stuff should be bought as party gear.

Gear optimization aside, I'm DMing for a melee heavy party. A damage heavy party, actually. The monk can easily do 50 damage a round, maybe more. However, her AC is high 30s to low 40s, so regardless of having a damage output similar to the warblade, enemies simply ignore her, and focus on the warblade who has much lower AC. They would go after the pixie warlock who can do 100+ damage a turn if they could see her or reach her. They ignore the GOD wizard until he does something flashy, in which case, he has to expend a bunch of resources (most importantly, his actions) on not dying, as he is quite fragile with d4 HD and non-existent AC.

It's rather interesting how everything plays out. Action economy ends up being a huge deal, and I don't think that gets accounted for very frequently. With a passive 30 AC and 50 damage a round, you can chug along, dropping an enemy every couple rounds. Wizards end up getting burst "damage", because as soon as that neat effect lands, they're targeted by everyone, and have to spend a couple of rounds not dying (invis, mirror image).

Point conceded on the HP/GP ratio (though it's worth noting that you don't always have the time to sit and laze about while your Vigor ticks for 20 minutes to repair that damage), but they're still spending money constantly, even if it's not in huge gobs. Then there's poisons, diseases, occasional resurrections...

Actually, that calculation was for a wand of CLW, averaging 5.5 HP per cast. If we use vigor, the cost is half that. With a paladin in the party, scrolls of remove disease and (lesser) restoration are fine. It's what a cleric carries, anyway. Resurrections are much harder to get, true. You can always walk back to town and get one, though. And with a paladin, you're probably getting the rez from a friendly church for cost. I agree, though- having a full caster with you makes life much easier, no debate there.

Putting aside the 'more accurate stick' thing (because there is no such thing when it comes to miss chances), you're suggesting either having a pet caster to supply you with Greater Magic Weapon spells, or shelling out triple to quadruple your normal expenditure of GP just to be able to contribute against assorted enemies. This isn't a problem?

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. Reach can be overcome either by going with a reach weapon build, and/or combined with a potion of enlarge person (or by being a large race). I'm fairly certain there's some item out there that lets you ignore miss chance, that is reasonably price in the MIC. Fighters are very heavily dependent on gear, unfortunately, but many of their deficiencies can be mitigated on wisely spent wealth.

With all the feats you get, you can easily be a competent archer until your boots let you fly or you ride on a flying carpet.

Heck, you can pick up Blind-Fight as a fighter bonus feat. That halves your miss chance (unless they're blinking :smallmad:, what a stupid rule). I think a mistake a lot of people make with fighters is overspecializing. Typically you should spend about 1/2 of your feats on a fighting style, 1/4 on a secondary fighting style, and the last 1/4 making up for not having any class features.

What glyphstone was saying was that the enemy can take one AoO, which because of your shield won't hurt much, and just walk right past you. keeping most enemy's away from the casters works in theory, but in play it only works when a chokepoint is involved, and sometimes not even then. so you're losing on damage, losing on versatility, sinking most of your gp into making enemies ignore you with your admittedly high armor class, and then you need a small doorway situation to make your build work anyway, which is a little specific unless your entire campaign is sieges. at that point, you're literally leaving everything to the wizard, which makes your character both incredibly bland and impotent, rather than just one, which is often tolerable at least, or neither which is good.

Hardly. Monster ignores fighter, walks past, kills wizard (which, according to charop boards, never happens, because all wizards are level 20 and invisible, flying and have all spells ready to cast always), then the fighter kills the monster a few rounds later.

Or, the wizard, spends his time using spells to avoid being hit (ironguard, invis, mirror image, etc), while over those rounds of self-buffing, the fighter kills the monster.

Just because the fighter takes 3 rounds to kill the monster, and the wizard gets killed in one round to the same monster, doesn't mean "the fighter isn't doing his job". It means the wizard needs to be smarter.

Greenish

2011-09-04, 10:05 AM

Then maybe the solution would be to redefine the fighter's actual role, rather than what it ought to be capable of. In 4e terminology, it would like the fighter is more a striker, yet people are complaining that it makes a poor defender, when that was never its intent or purpose in the first place? :smalltongue:It's not that great a striker, either, since it seriously lacks mobility and, to borrow 4e's terms, ability to target any other defense than the enemy's AC and HP pool.

J-H

2011-09-04, 11:19 AM

Here's what I would do to "fix" Fighters.

(1) Mobility in combat
Instead of limiting them to a choice between moving and doing a single attack, or standing still and making a full attack, or doing a build with Pounce and Barbarian to give them the ability to both move and fight like casters and some archers have, make the following change:
1. Every 10' of movement taken (rounded down) reduces AB for iterative attacks by 3, and every 20' moved removes 1 attack (fighter retains a minimum of 1 attack).
A level 1 fighter suffers no effect from this.
A level 6 fighter can move 10' and make 2 attacks, one at full AB and the other at a -3 penalty each. Or, he can move 30' and make 1 full attack as normal.
A level 11 fighter can move 10' and make 3 attacks, 2 of them with a -3 penalty... or, he can move 30' and make 2 attacks, 1 of which is at a -9 penalty.
In the case of haste, distance penalties double (to 20' and 40').

This gives the fighter some increased ability to move around the battlefield and make more attacks--which is half the point of a full BAB class, without giving him the ability to zip hither and thither with no penalties.

It may need some detail work, but I think this is the structure for a decent fit.

(2) Versatility
2a. Modify feat selection. Give fighters the ability to ignore any one feat prerequisite for any feat they wish to select.
Thus, for whirlwind attack they will still need spring attack and whatever else, but may skip Mobility... or they can skip Cleave and go straight to Great Cleave.
This gives them access to more abilities and tricks faster than those who do not specialize in physical combat.

2b. Skill points. Increase the # of skill points available to fighters.
They are fighters...they are trained in the arts of combat. Why is this training not manifested in a diverse skillset?

Here's what a newly trained fighter from a moderately prosperous (rural gentry) with no experience would be expected to do in medieval Europe (the general background for D&D-type fantasy):
-Fight effectively with multiple weapons
-Care for his weapon and armor
-Ride
-Speak 2 languages (French & German, French & English, etc)
-Be able to dodge out of the way of attacks without falling down (Jump & Balance)
-Behave in a reasonably polite manner at court (Diplomacy, maybe Sense Motive)
-Care for his wounds in at least a very rough manner, since he probably served as a squire while training (Heal)
-Have basic familiarity with local geography, politics, and religion, as well as knowing something about any dangerous wildlife or creatures in the area (Knowledge, geography, politics, religion, dungeoneering)
-Tumble (at least to the point of being able to fall off a horse without breaking bones)
-Use and care for his tack and saddle (Use Rope)

I count 12 skills there that an 18 year old who just graduated from Ye Medieval Fighter Apprenticeship should have. Almost all of these will be things that he gets better at if he survives and prospers over the next 10 years.

A default SRD/PHB fighter can put 1 point in 8 of those skills, which represents him being a whole 5% better than an ignorant untrained peasant. At each level thereafter, he can improve 2 out of his 12 core skills.

Ladies & gentlemen, the 3.5 skill point distribution allocation for fighters is broken.

faceroll

2011-09-04, 11:58 AM

Fighters should get to make full attacks as a standard action.

Greenish

2011-09-04, 12:00 PM

Ladies & gentlemen, the 3.5 skill point distribution allocation for fighters is broken.It's broken for everyone. 8+int that rogues have isn't really enough for the stuff they should be able to do, especially with Search/Disable Device "role" eating into it.

Eldariel

2011-09-04, 02:12 PM

It's broken for everyone. 8+int that rogues have isn't really enough for the stuff they should be able to do, especially with Search/Disable Device "role" eating into it.

They don't have nearly enough and they have the highest accumulation in the game. I've played a 20-Int Rogue with Nymph's Kiss (+1 skill per level; even got it houseruled to +4 on level 1) and still, when I wanted:

- Use Magic Device
- Hide
- Move Silently
- Balance
- Tumble

- Search
- Disable Device
- Spot
- Listen
- Sense Motive

- Diplomacy
- Bluff
- Intimidate
- Knowledge: Local
- Gather Information

Could I get all those skills? Nope. That's 15. I could max 13. Now, that's kind of a basic kit and notice skills that are missing:
- Appraise
- Climb
- Swim
- Forgery
- Use Rope
- Ride
- Open Lock

That's a bunch of basic skills that I ignore 'cause I can negate them with magic. Or in the case of Forgery, one I ignore simply because I can't afford it. And that's not even a very elaborate kit. This guy knows nothing. He has no wilderness skills. He can't make anything, he can't perform and he has no profession. And yet, system makes this much impossible, let alone anything resembling a swashbuckler you'd write into a story. Smooth-talking burglar type just has too many skills.

Roderick_BR

2011-09-04, 04:03 PM

Yeah, old problem with 3rd edition. Fighter (along side paladin and monk) has very few and weak options, while everyone else (specially casters) got lots and lots of stuff and get all limitations removed.

I suggest looking Substitution Levels/Alternate Class Features. In the end, they're like level-specific feats/class features, making fighters get more effective and interesting to play.

J-H

2011-09-04, 04:41 PM

Another low-powered option that might be interesting is to give Fighters automatic proficiency in 2 or 3 exotic weapons... adds a bit of variety and flavor without blowing feats.

faceroll

2011-09-04, 04:41 PM

That's a bunch of basic skills that I ignore 'cause I can negate them with magic. Or in the case of Forgery, one I ignore simply because I can't afford it. And that's not even a very elaborate kit. This guy knows nothing. He has no wilderness skills. He can't make anything, he can't perform and he has no profession. And yet, system makes this much impossible, let alone anything resembling a swashbuckler you'd write into a story. Smooth-talking burglar type just has too many skills.

With 20 int, he can light and medium armor, bows, simple and martial weapons, crossbow, and high quality items. With an apprentice and MW tools, he can make exotic weapons, and with two apprentice, he can craft complex and superior items.

Anything more than +5 to craft is overkill, imo, unless you're looking to craft stuff very quickly.

Zonugal

2011-09-04, 04:56 PM

They don't have nearly enough and they have the highest accumulation in the game. I've played a 20-Int Rogue with Nymph's Kiss (+1 skill per level; even got it houseruled to +4 on level 1) and still, when I wanted:

- Use Magic Device
- Hide
- Move Silently
- Balance
- Tumble

- Search
- Disable Device
- Spot
- Listen
- Sense Motive

- Diplomacy
- Bluff
- Intimidate
- Knowledge: Local
- Gather Information

Could I get all those skills? Nope. That's 15. I could max 13. Now, that's kind of a basic kit and notice skills that are missing:
- Appraise
- Climb
- Swim
- Forgery
- Use Rope
- Ride
- Open Lock

That's a bunch of basic skills that I ignore 'cause I can negate them with magic. Or in the case of Forgery, one I ignore simply because I can't afford it. And that's not even a very elaborate kit. This guy knows nothing. He has no wilderness skills. He can't make anything, he can't perform and he has no profession. And yet, system makes this much impossible, let alone anything resembling a swashbuckler you'd write into a story. Smooth-talking burglar type just has too many skills.

1st level Human Rogue with 20 int and Nymph's kiss?
Total: 60

Hide 4 ranks
Move Silently 4 ranks
Disable Device 4 ranks
Search 4 ranks
Bluff 4 ranks
Intimidate 2 ranks
Diplomacy 4 ranks
Climb 2 ranks
Swim 1 rank
Forgery 1 rank
Appraise 2 ranks
Jump 2 ranks
Knowledge (Local) 2 ranks
Gather Information 2 ranks
Spot 2 ranks
Listen 2 ranks
Use Magical Device 4 ranks
Sense Motive 4 ranks
Use Rope 2 ranks
Ride 2 ranks
Balance 2 ranks
Tumble 2 ranks
Disguise 2 ranks

Doesn't look that bad, if a bit vague in its purpose/role.

Paul H

2011-09-04, 06:29 PM

Hi

We seem to be a bit off topic - original asked about fighters. A dip to enhance is one thing, but.......

Suggest Cha 12 Fighter, take level of Bard (Savage Skald archetype) for the skill access. Or you could take Sandman (Bard archetype) to be able to disarm magical traps as a rogue.

Don't forget you can get 4 skill points/level as Human Ftr. (Ftr, Human, Favoured Class).

If we do change to another melee class, I suggest Synthesist (Summoner archetype). Just massive stat bonuses, abilities, skill points, spells (Haste is 2nd lvl) etc. Dip into fighter at 2nd lvl for weapon access & extra feat.
19HP at 1st level, with only 13 Con? :smallbiggrin:

Thanks
Paul H
PS your GM might think Synthesists are a tad broken.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 06:32 PM

PS your GM might think Synthesists are a tad broken.

Your GM would be right. :smallcool: But that's a topic for another thread.

Paul H

2011-09-04, 06:46 PM

Hi

Strange thing is, Synthesist is legal for PFS campaign!

Synthesist 2/Paladin 3/Dragon Disciple xxx is one build. Transform into a Gold Dragon & smite away!

Thanks
Paul H

Curious

2011-09-04, 07:04 PM

Your GM would be right. :smallcool: But that's a topic for another thread.

I would join that thread. Why is Synthesist so broken? :smallconfused:

Paul H

2011-09-04, 07:23 PM

Hi

Moved to other thread. (Coidzor's link below #132)

Thanks
Paul H

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 07:38 PM

Wrong thread.

TheJake

2011-09-04, 07:39 PM

I'm not saying Fighters can't or shouldn't deal damage, I'm just saying people are using the wrong yardstick to measure the success of a Fighter.

My view of a successful fighter is whether or not the fighter was able to keep the other PCs alive and allowing the wizard to pull off Twin Quickened Summoned Elemental Monoliths, clerics DMM persisting Divine Power, etc.

Everyone says the fighter is underrated - I disagree, although they are underpowered.

Think of it this way, when a Fighter does his job well, everyone knows it. When a Fighter DOESN'T do his job well, everyone REALLY knows it.

- J.

PS: PHB2 went a long way to fixing the class.
PPS: There is a Taunt mechanic. It's galled Goad and its permissible as a Fighter feat, but you do need high CHA to pull it off ;)

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 07:42 PM

My view of a successful fighter is whether or not the fighter was able to keep the other PCs alive and allowing the [...] clerics DMM persisting Divine Power [...]

...What possible contribution would the Fighter make at the beginning of the day while the party is prepping spells and the DMM Persist Cleric is putting on his make up?

TheJake

2011-09-04, 07:43 PM

...What possible contribution would the Fighter make at the beginning of the day while the party is prepping spells and the DMM Persist Cleric is putting on his make up?

Ok, poor example because I'm at work and distracted - but I think the point is there.

- J.

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 07:45 PM

Done. Thread created. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11783052#post11783052)

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 07:46 PM

...What possible contribution would the Fighter make at the beginning of the day while the party is prepping spells and the DMM Persist Cleric is putting on his make up?

He could cook breakfast?

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 07:48 PM

He could cook breakfast?

but fighters don't get skillpoints or profession: cook! :smalleek: He'll poison them all with food poisoning.

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 07:52 PM

but fighters don't get skill points or profession: cook! :smalleek: He'll poison them all with food poisoning.

Ooh. Right, Fighters don't even get Profession.
Craft (breakfast)? Does that count?

Provengreil

2011-09-04, 08:23 PM

Hardly. Monster ignores fighter, walks past, kills wizard (which, according to charop boards, never happens, because all wizards are level 20 and invisible, flying and have all spells ready to cast always), then the fighter kills the monster a few rounds later.

Or, the wizard, spends his time using spells to avoid being hit (ironguard, invis, mirror image, etc), while over those rounds of self-buffing, the fighter kills the monster.

Just because the fighter takes 3 rounds to kill the monster, and the wizard gets killed in one round to the same monster, doesn't mean "the fighter isn't doing his job". It means the wizard needs to be smarter.

So the opening salvo of the winning strategy is to sacrifice the wizard?

seriously, absent tripping or a chokepoint, Fighters don't have a good locking down mechanic and this hurts the rest of the party far more than themselves if you put them into a true "meatshield" role. What's more, that's the best case scenario because others involve that AC being actually meaningless(touch attacks, targeted spells, etc.)

Eldariel

2011-09-04, 08:35 PM

1st level Human Rogue with 20 int and Nymph's kiss?
Total: 60

Hide 4 ranks
Move Silently 4 ranks
Disable Device 4 ranks
Search 4 ranks
Bluff 4 ranks
Intimidate 2 ranks
Diplomacy 4 ranks
Climb 2 ranks
Swim 1 rank
Forgery 1 rank
Appraise 2 ranks
Jump 2 ranks
Knowledge (Local) 2 ranks
Gather Information 2 ranks
Spot 2 ranks
Listen 2 ranks
Use Magical Device 4 ranks
Sense Motive 4 ranks
Use Rope 2 ranks
Ride 2 ranks
Balance 2 ranks
Tumble 2 ranks
Disguise 2 ranks

Doesn't look that bad, if a bit vague in its purpose/role.

Yeah, but level 10? You can only keep 13 of those skills up to speed. Like, level 1 works because of the 4x but when you keep leveling up, most of them will fall behind whether because you neglect them entirely or only advance them at half speed. And like, only having 2 points in Spot and Listen for example weakens the skills quite a bit since it's a -2 to see level-equivalent hiding targets.

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 08:36 PM

Just wondering, but how does a human get 20 Int at first level?

Zonugal

2011-09-04, 08:40 PM

Yeah, but level 10? You can only keep 13 of those skills up to speed. Like, level 1 works because of the 4x but when you keep leveling up, most of them will fall behind whether because you neglect them entirely or only advance them at half speed. And like, only having 2 points in Spot and Listen for example weakens the skills quite a bit since it's a -2 to see level-equivalent hiding targets.

The problem is one of necessity and identifying a role. In pursuit of being ultimately versatile you are passing up specialization. Not all of those skills are required and very few need you to keep them maxed throughout your career.

aart lover

2011-09-04, 08:42 PM

why play a fighter? cuz it's fun that's why. think of it: the rest of the party is getting mowed down by hand-crossbow snipers 1000 ft. away. what is the fighter doing while the everyone else is getting their asses kicked? bringing a giant sword down on the enemy's heads, that's what. and what is the fighter doing when everyone else is busy "strategizing"? Leeroy Jenkins'ing into the middle of action, taking names and grinding meat, that's what.

Wizard: ima gonna shoot off flashy little spells at you!

Fighter: *SPLORTCH* you were saying?

*end of rant, feel free to go on with your lives*

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 08:59 PM

Wizard:
"ima gonna shoot off flashy little spells at you!"

Fighter: *SPLORTCH* you were saying?
Curse you, magus - I would make a loud "SPLORTCH" noise with you, if only you were not flying, invisible, displaced, astrally projecting, and/or attacking though a projected image."

Edited for accuracy.:smallcool: Alternatively:

Wizard: "I love scrying on my defenseless non-casting enemies, teleporting in, and obliterating them in a surprise round while fully buffed."

Fighter: *twitches*

Midnight_v

2011-09-04, 09:06 PM

There are fighters that are built to lockdown like the A lil lock build for you and anyone who wants to play at being a "tank" has the work cut out for them but it isn't impossible. The truth is you have to figure out how to make a "sticky knight" and if you can figure out how to make one the breaks Line of sight to the people he's "protecting" then you kinda win at your job.
I think I like a fighter because it takes optimization skill to play one that works. I can't really take a cleric and push it to its limits so much cause thats makes people cry.
I can do that with a fighter though (well, sometimes... there are people who are going to cry no matter what).
A lot of the time I play fighter for the 2 bonus feats like most people. Though, I've used to to reach concept chars that I wanted to play, for instance once I wanted to play a char that I had in mind as "The genius w/the sword" and it took quite a bit to get what I wanted out of him beyond "I want a non-magic warrior w/a excessively high int" The warblde did it in pretty much completley
But... for a while it made the fighter interesting though.

I dont' have it on had but basically it used the
Education feat to get knowledge devotion
and took a bit of archery: 4-5 feats
It had the Shock-charger basic thing: 3 feats
And it had Robilars in: 3 feats
Oh and the skilll trick collector of stories.

I dont' think we got past level 12 but I'm sure that I could have added standstill or sidestep (or the tob one) and probbably fetch many shot along with the weapon weapon mastery/supremacy nonsense but the campaign ended for irl reasons.

I'd like to add that the zhent fighter has lingering demoralization that makes him better than the samurai in my book, having a clear Out of Combat use like that makes him a bit different in key ways.

Just my 2c.

Psyren

2011-09-04, 09:08 PM

Well, I don't think you are playing 4e

Why would you? These aren't the 4e forums, and the thread was even labelled by edition. :smalltongue:

Every time this discussion comes up I always see these responses, and continue to wonder what special RP comes from being a fighter as opposed to anybody else from an even sparsely martial background. :smallconfused: Last I checked he's "a dude who fights".

With another look-over though, it seems the OPs problem is more with one trick pony martial characters rather than just fighter imparticular (though it's one of the most obvious examples). In which case yeah, ToB fixes a bit of that. Alternatively, play a Gish and get the best of both worlds!

Pretty much this

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 09:09 PM

Lord_Gareth

2011-09-04, 09:10 PM

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 09:11 PM

why play a fighter? cuz it's fun that's why. think of it: the rest of the party is getting mowed down by hand-crossbow snipers 1000 ft. away. what is the fighter doing while the everyone else is getting their asses kicked? bringing a giant sword down on the enemy's heads, that's what.

How is the fighter surviving if the rest of the party is getting killed off and the fighter is still well outside of charge range of the enemy anyway? It's not like he's got special abilities that help him run away.

and what is the fighter doing when everyone else is busy "strategizing"? Leeroy Jenkins'ing into the middle of action, taking names and grinding meat, that's what.

So, trolling the rest of the group then by intentionally getting the party all killed? :smallconfused: That doesn't sound very nice.

navar100

2011-09-04, 09:16 PM

The problem is, in 3.5 and Pathfinder, being a "meatshield" doesn't work very well. Just standing there gives no incentive for the enemy to attack you, instead of the guy flinging metric tons of arcane and/or divine energy around. By the time they're flying, they can totally bypass you.

Unless you want to introduce a "taunt" mechanic? :smallwink:

If you don't, making yourself a viable target via damage is one of your few options. That, or things like trip, disarm, etc that can inconvenience enemies.

Of course, that's all putting aside the fact that that's a very narrow view where you're telling other that they're "doing it wrong", when the class itself, especially in Pathfinder, is geared toward making a very wide range of archetypes and playstyles, only some of which would work as a "meatshield".

That is the DM metagaming. Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat. They are stabbing you with pointy sticks. They are there. That's all that matters. There are feats to hamper spellcasters, more so in Pathfinder. Defensive casting is harder in Pathfinder. Disruptive feat makes it harder. Step Up feat makes 5ft step back and cast tactic difficult to use. Stand Still feat makes moving difficult. At higher levels, warriors can take feats to cause extra effects on critical hits like bleeding or stunning.

Most people's problem is that warrior classes, and fighters in particular, are not Mary Poppins. They have hissy fits that they are not practically perfect in every way, incapable of defeating every monster everywhere single handedly in every situation imagineable. They cannot fathom they are not supposed to, despite the alleged ability of spellcasters being able to. Spellcasters can't either. Maybe they can, hypothetically on paper, given access to every sourcebook ever published. The reality is spellcasters do not know every spell ever published, nor have them all prepared when they need it, and far more often than nil, monsters actually make their saving throws and spellcasters fail spell resistance checks.

Maho-Tsukai

2011-09-04, 09:16 PM

Why do people play fighters? Because they are masochists. :smallamused: .....

... Or because they like the challenge of proving that a usually maligned class, if optimized right, can still be useful. Or perhaps because they want to play a non-spellcasting warrior type and don't like Tome of Battle's fluff. All of those strike me as the main reasons, really, though I can't say for sure since I'd never play a fighter myself.(Mainly because if I want a mundane swordsman I'll just use a Warblade instead.)

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 09:18 PM

Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat.

Except when they're not, like a flurry of misses monk.

There are feats to hamper spellcasters, more so in Pathfinder. Defensive casting is harder in Pathfinder. Disruptive feat makes it harder. Step Up feat makes 5ft step back and cast tactic difficult to use. Stand Still feat makes moving difficult. At higher levels, warriors can take feats to cause extra effects on critical hits like bleeding or stunning.

So... the sheer amount of effort by paizo to provide some way to threaten casters is because casters aren't threats and melee is?

Eldariel

2011-09-04, 09:19 PM

The problem is one of necessity and identifying a role. In pursuit of being ultimately versatile you are passing up specialization. Not all of those skills are required and very few need you to keep them maxed throughout your career.

That's the problem tho. That isn't a very versatile skill set yet. I find you should be able to max out a skill set of that size on a character dedicated to skills. Or dabble in far more. And yet, that's the character with the most skill points/level possible under 3.5 and it doesn't even come close. Trying to represent e.g. a classic swashbuckler's skillset (bluff, diplomacy, a bunch of knowledges, tumble, spot, listen, sense motive, balance, jump, swim, climb) as a D&D 3.5 character, you're going to lack points for many of them. Or a classic thief's. Or any non-caster archetype, really. Yes, you can circumvent the need for most of those skillchecks and trivially get magical bonuses sufficient to succeed at the rest but that's really besides the point.

Imho e.g. a swashbuckler-type should be able to max all those skills during his career; acrobatics, social grace & similar feats define the archetype. Instead, the system forces you to circumvent some perfectly ordinary skills like Climb, Jump and Swim with Fly simply to spare skill points for less replaceable skills (and of course, the skills being so easily replaceable is a pain too). A mundane character that isn't totally a slave of magic items should be able to at least have the physical movement skills & the perception skills (and hopefully something that somehow ties to the character's specialization too) and yet the skill system makes this completely impossible by being insanely stingy with the skillpoints.

Then there's the things you don't really use during the adventure much, such as Crafts, Professions and such and you never can afford any of those since the skill system gives you far too few points to actually fill out And Knowledges. All standard 10 of them (and then some). And Speak Language and Appraise and Forgery and what-have-you. The skill system is very expressive and versatile but the system completely throws away all potential it has by ensuring you can only excel at a small handful of things.

Midnight_v

2011-09-04, 09:22 PM

Or because they like the challenge of proving that a usually maligned class, if optimized right, can still be useful.
This.
Thats me right there.

(Mainly because if I want a mundane swordsman I'll just use a Warblade instead.) +1
You have a really good summation of a long list of my points. Nods to you.

Lord_Gareth

2011-09-04, 09:23 PM

That is the DM metagaming. Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat.

Open up your SRD - Pathfinder or 3.5, don't really care which. Look up "Erinyes". Check out her SLA's. See that Unholy Blight? How about the fly speed and composite bow?

How about third level wizard and cleric spells? Hold person, for example. How about first level for gems like Charm Person? Druid rocks with entangle and an animal companion, sorcerers light things on fire in a wide area....

You know what all this has in common? The fact that any monster with a positive intelligence modifier and the tiniest shred of combat experience is going to target the caster first, especially if they're a mobile or ranged combatant, since now the dude with the pointy stick can't hurt them in the first place but the caster can. And the problem doesn't change if you want to talk, say, Dire animals - is it easier to eat the dude covered in metal or the dude wearing robes?

As CR's get higher, monster intelligence scores and, frankly, number of SLA's also goes up. Many of these monsters either are spellcasters and thus know how pointless it is to wave a stick at them or possess the appropriate Knowledge to realize that the dude in no armor and pink hot pants has got to go.

That being said, there are (amusing) ways around this. But your statement that a warrior is an honest-to-god threat? That stops being true at level eight.

Kenneth

2011-09-04, 09:30 PM

I like killing things with just a roll of a D20. I like beeing mundane. I like beeing the badass normal.

I think for D&D the Fighter was at its height in AD&D 2e. But the above can still be true in 3.5 in a low OP, low level environment.

^^^THIS^^^

also being a dart master as a fighter with haste gave you something like 24 attacks a round doing 1d4+7 each (not including magic bonuses or str bonus)

also wizards just dumbed it up too much with 3rd ed tossing out everything that made the game balanced in terms of class vs class.

but yeah if you wanna do all the cool stuff go with one of teh classes from the ToB, or play with a less 'BLARGH D @) RARW ARWR OPTIMIZATION RULES BLARGH" group and play with one that is more about telling a story with their characters and the roleplaying.

NOTE:: optimizers CAN roleplay, i am not saying that I am saying to go with one who focus is mroe ABOUT their roleplaying side than seeing how powerful and what all they can make their character.

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 09:31 PM

To be on-topic for once, when I play a Fighter, it's for the same reasons Jim in Darths and Droids plays RPGs in general - it lets me put my CharOp brain to sleep while I run on RP cruise control, safe in an environment where people think a wizard/sorcerer's spell slots of 6th-9th level (all of them) should be filled entirely with Disintegrate because rolling huge fistfuls of dice is so much fun.

Even if it's not the best tactic, you have to admit that rolling 40d6 is fun. But then, I consider getting that funny look from your DM when you use an Energy Subbed Sculpted Cone of Cold to produce a Lightning Bolt effect (which takes a minimum of two feats and an increase of the spell's level by one) is fun.

...instead of the guy flinging metric tons of arcane and/or divine energy...

As a Chem major who's taken two years of Physics this literally hurt to read.
a. It's called a "megagram", as in 1.000 kilograms, as in 1.000.000 grams. "Metric ton" is just a silly thing to call something and I hate whoever coined the phrase.
b. Energy is typically measured in joules or calories. Though, if you're transforming as much mass as a megagram into energy, you don't have to worry about units anymore because that is a heck of a lot of energy and you'll probably be dead.

Edit: Yes, I do realise that the term "metric ton" has been around longer than the SI system of prefixes. I still dislike that it's still in use now that we have a more regular way of naming it, the same way I dislike things like ounces and pounds. (Seriously. Who the heck calls units of both mass and force the same thing, and also calls units of mass and volume the same thing? Can I convert volume into force now? Crazy English measurements.)

Coidzor

2011-09-04, 09:33 PM

also wizards just dumbed it up too much with 3rd ed tossing out everything that made the game balanced in terms of class vs class.

Except for the bit where D&D was never balanced. The designers looked into it while making 3rd and found out that most people weren't playing beyond 10th level for that reason anyway, if Sean K Reynolds is to be believed on the subject.

Even if it's not the best tactic, you have to admit that rolling 40d6 is fun.

...How is that fun? They're going to end up everywhere, especially under the couch if one has one in the room one is rolling in, and then adding them up is going to just be a pain in the butt. :smallconfused:

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 09:40 PM

...How is that fun? They're going to end up everywhere, especially under the couch if one has one in the room one is rolling in, and then adding them up is going to just be a pain in the butt. :smallconfused:

You have to admit that the sound of all those dice hitting the table is satisfying. That's why I made a Casting Glove holding a Rod of Many Wands holding three Orb wands.
Besides, after a while you learn to add up lots of dice fairly quickly.
As for the couch, I don't think I've ever played in a room with a couch. But if my dice fell under a couch I'd just pick it up and get the dice out.

Eldariel

2011-09-04, 09:40 PM

That is the DM metagaming. Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat.

The question is who is the bigger threat? Is the swordsman a bigger threat than the mage? Fighting is all about trying to maximize your chances of survival. To do that, you take out the target most capable of killing you first and then work your way down to the less dangerous targets. If you're just a big creature, you know a swordsman won't kill you with a hit that pierces your hide/armor/whatever. A successful spell likely will.

Not to mention, you'll have an easier time preventing the swordsman from getting hits in ('cause you're big and strong and can kinda knock him around as he tries to approach) than you'll have preventing the mage from casting a spell.

Like, raging Orc barbarians will probably just attack the first target in front of them unless led by someone smarter. More orderly and cunning creatures like Hobgoblins or Kobolds tho? They'll try to arrange a swift disposal of the biggest threat first. Let alone some superhuman creatures like Demons or Dragons; they know precisely how hard they're to harm with weapons and given they cast spells themselves, they know full well that spells can both, end them fast and make them far more vulnerable to attacks.

Or any humanoid with experience for that matter; a level 10 Fighter knows that he can even take a few hits through the armor before he's seriously inconvenienced by them but he'll probably succumb to a single Dominate Person. So they'll try to remove the spellcasters from the fight first because they present a greater threat; they can kill you faster and they can make killing the warriors harder.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-04, 09:45 PM

Even if it's not the best tactic, you have to admit that rolling 40d6 is fun. But then, I consider getting that funny look from your DM when you use an Energy Subbed Sculpted Cone of Cold to produce a Lightning Bolt effect (which takes a minimum of two feats and an increase of the spell's level by one) is fun.

Oh, it's great fun. Then you see a DM ban Maximize Spell because 'it's OP for casters to do max damage on all their dice when Rogues have to roll their SA", and want to headdesk until you leave an imprint on the table.

Edit: Yes, I do realise that the term "metric ton" has been around longer than the SI system of prefixes. I still dislike that it's still in use now that we have a more regular way of naming it, the same way I dislike things like ounces and pounds. (Seriously. Who the heck calls units of both mass and force the same thing, and also calls units of mass and volume the same thing? Can I convert volume into force now? Crazy English measurements.)

Because Austin Powers would not be nearly as funny if Fat Child-Born-Out-of-Wedlock weighed "one thousand kilograms".

noparlpf

2011-09-04, 09:57 PM

Oh, it's great fun. Then you see a DM ban Maximize Spell because 'it's OP for casters to do max damage on all their dice when Rogues have to roll their SA", and want to headdesk until you leave an imprint on the table.

DMs...DMs do that? Maximize is what, +3 to spell level? And that's "OP"? :smalleek:
(If I hadn't just been to the hospital for a concussion yesterday evening, I might headdesk that hard.)

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-04, 10:13 PM

That is the DM metagaming. Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat. They are stabbing you with pointy sticks. They are there. That's all that matters.

No, it's not. Are you gonna target the guy ready with the sword and armor, or the guy with only a small amount of magical protection who just blasted your friend?

Flickerdart

2011-09-04, 11:16 PM

^^^THIS^^^

also being a dart master as a fighter with haste gave you something like 24 attacks a round doing 1d4+7 each (not including magic bonuses or str bonus)

Haha, nope. You are not going to accomplish this with more than, like, four levels of Fighter, because it needs actual class features to work.

Psyren

2011-09-05, 12:38 AM

That is the DM metagaming. Bad guys attack the warriors because they are a threat.

You could sort of argue that this depends on setting but in every single D&D setting I've seen, the dude in the dress wiggling his fingers is always considered the biggest threat, even among less-intelligent creatures like goblinoids.

Kenneth

2011-09-05, 12:43 AM

Haha, nope. You are not going to accomplish this with more than, like, four levels of Fighter, because it needs actual class features to work.

You never played 2nd ed AD&D have you?

or are you randomly assuming that i was talking about 3rd even though i quoted a post about 2nd ed?

big teej

2011-09-05, 12:48 AM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

if, you ever grow tired of smacking things with a large metal object.

think to yourself for a moment.

"how often, in real life, do I get to smack people who piss me off?"

answer is likely some variation of

"nowhere near enough"

to me, a mundane melee character, a fighter, a barbarian, a knight, a ranger, even a rogue.

is the ultimate cathartic expression of violence.

"big teej, it's your turn, what do you do?"

with great glee...

"I yell a battle cry at my foe, and take a might swing at him! attemting to crush his very skull into jelly!"

granted.... I'm easily aggravated enough to want to smack people alot. :smalltongue:

your mileage may vary

Zale

2011-09-05, 12:51 AM

This thread is so flamebait.

/tangent

To hit things, I suppose. I never really liked melee/beatstick classes.

I'm more of a magey-type person.

Gandolfi Feesh

2011-09-05, 01:29 AM

Make him a Halfling & prestige into Halfling Outrider (CW maybe?!)
Now buy yourself a set of nun-chuks and a whip, then mount your trusted
war pooch.

Let's see who gets bored now :)

Big Fau

2011-09-05, 02:23 AM

big deal, you're a fighter. what they did, or at least tried to do, was give fighter a way to be good at more things while not simply taking those same things away from other classes completely.

They tried to give him a way to be good at more things? Did you not read Prime's post, where he said they give you under a 50% increase in feats, then literally doubled the number of feats you had to take to be good at your job?

They didn't fix the Fighter Bonus Feats. They made the existing feats worse, and then threw in a huge pile of other feats to try and distract you while making newer players more likely to ruin their own build.

when I said you can do more, i meant they added feats like, say, sundering strike(free sunder attack on a critical hit).

Why should that have been a feat? Why not make it a Skill Trick (aside from the fact that they can't because of OGL issues)?

when i said it works better, i meant that specializing in something like sundering works better because you have more options and therefore more specialization ability.

That feat you mentioned, Sundering Strike? Sucks. It's an example of overspecializing, and it's an ability that only triggers if you focus on it. And Sundering sucks outside of PVP. End of story.

So, in order to be good at Sundering, you need to buy three magic items (no different from 3.5), sink every point into Str (no different from 3.5), and spend two feats (instead of one).

Why do people keep saying the Fighter got improved? Is it the +5 bonus to AC from 20 otherwise dead levels? What did Paizo give the Fighter that thousands of home brew Fighter fixes didn't all ready give?

Seriously, some of those "class features" were lifted straight out of the Gleemax 3.5 Homebrew forums.

Coidzor

2011-09-05, 02:57 AM

They tried to give him a way to be good at more things? Did you not read Prime's post, where he said they give you under a 50% increase in feats, then literally doubled the number of feats you had to take to be good at your job?

It mostly just sounds like they just exacerbated the issue where the Fighter makes the feat system worse for everyone by existing, really.

Killer Angel

2011-09-05, 04:43 AM

This thread is so flamebait.

:smallannoyed:
Only if you want to.

You could sort of argue that this depends on setting but in every single D&D setting I've seen, the dude in the dress wiggling his fingers is always considered the biggest threat, even among less-intelligent creatures like goblinoids.

While this is true, it's also true that many melee critters (and this is more true when they have low int), such as giants, trolls, oozes etc, easily tend to react to the dude with the sword that's hurting them and it's right there in their reach.

TOZ

2011-09-05, 05:11 AM

Because playing a caster makes the game too easy.

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 07:14 AM

Edit: Yes, I do realise that the term "metric ton" has been around longer than the SI system of prefixes. I still dislike that it's still in use now that we have a more regular way of naming it, the same way I dislike things like ounces and pounds. (Seriously. Who the heck calls units of both mass and force the same thing, and also calls units of mass and volume the same thing? Can I convert volume into force now? Crazy English measurements.)

"metric ton" is used since there is/was also an "imperial ton", which was slightly heavier than the "metric ton" (2200 lbs, or 1016 kg).

However, "a ton" is used instead of "1 Mg" by the same reasoning that we buy "a dozen donuts" rather than "1.2x10^2 donuts", or use the word "twice" instead of saying "two times". Tradition and linguistic fluency.

noparlpf

2011-09-05, 07:24 AM

"metric ton" is used since there is/was also an "imperial ton", which was slightly heavier than the "metric ton" (2200 lbs, or 1016 kg).

However, "a ton" is used instead of "1 Mg" by the same reasoning that we buy "a dozen donuts" rather than "1.2x10^2 donuts", or use the word "twice" instead of saying "two times". Tradition and linguistic fluency.

1.2x10^1...and no, I order "twelve" donuts, personally.

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 07:29 AM

1.2x10^1...
Haha, true that. ;) My bad.

and no, I order "twelve" donuts, personally.
I'm sure you're aware that others use the word "dozen"?

Anyway, this is Off Topic.

I'll throw in that I never build Fighters, but I frequently dip Fighter.

noparlpf

2011-09-05, 07:30 AM

Yes, I am aware that most people use the word "dozen". Despite the fact that I say "twelve", I think I usually say "half-dozen" instead of "six". So I'm inconsistent in my speech sometimes. I'm human.

LordBlades

2011-09-05, 07:44 AM

While this is true, it's also true that many melee critters (and this is more true when they have low int), such as giants, trolls, oozes etc, easily tend to react to the dude with the sword that's hurting them and it's right there in their reach.

Low int/mindless and/or low level creatures probably, but anything that has at least an average int modifier and is high enough on the CR scale to have fought adventurers above level 1 before would know that casters are more dangerous.

Who would you think the lone survivor of the ogre tribe would fear more: the fighter that swung his longsword 3 times and killed one of their warriors, or the wizard who brought forth magical strands of web to entangle half of the warriors, and then blinded the other half with golden fairy dust?

KnightDisciple

2011-09-05, 08:22 AM

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 08:43 AM

charcoalninja

2011-09-05, 09:27 AM

I hate that whole reply that a UMD fighter isn't a fighter anymore. It's stupid. A wizard is a wizard because of what spells they use, how they approach combat. A wizard with all his spells isn't going to spend them getting into melee to make a full attack, but a fighter WILL use magic to get there.

A UMD fighter is using the "technology" of the world to deal with bigger and badder threats. Batman doesn't stop being Batman because he donned power armour to punch Darksied in the face. Fighters use their WBL to turn into Iron Man at epic.

The BMX bandit isn't so sucktastic when his BMX is a crazy technobike with machine guns and granade launchers with a bulletproof driver carriage. He's still popping wheelies and catwalking with all his BMX skills, its just now he's doing it at mach 4. Is a soldier any less of a soldier because he uses a grenade to kill 12 guys rather than shooting them all?

Just because you have some wonderous items that help shore up your weaknesses doesn't mean you're any less of a fighter. High level games use magic and the mundanes were designed with this in mind. The game was built around fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue as a basic assumption and the casters are assumed to be helping the fighter get into position. When this happens the fighter does just fine and in fact is terrifying. And if you're playing in an environment where people don't want to use those things on you, use UMD or command word items to do it yourself.

Pathfinder is even better for this since inturupting casters is so much easier.

charcoalninja

2011-09-05, 09:29 AM

"metric ton" is used since there is/was also an "imperial ton", which was slightly heavier than the "metric ton" (2200 lbs, or 1016 kg).

However, "a ton" is used instead of "1 Mg" by the same reasoning that we buy "a dozen donuts" rather than "1.2x10^2 donuts", or use the word "twice" instead of saying "two times". Tradition and linguistic fluency.

Isn't the Imperial tonne 2000 pounds while the metric tonne is 2200? Thus the metric tonne is heavier not the other way around? :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-05, 10:29 AM

or are you randomly assuming that i was talking about 3rd even though i quoted a post about 2nd ed?

Yes. I would've, except I saw a 2e dart combo somewhere so I knew what you were talking about, but this thread is about 3.5 and PF. That's why it's in the 3.X subforum.

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 10:47 AM

Isn't the Imperial tonne 2000 pounds while the metric tonne is 2200? Thus the metric tonne is heavier not the other way around? :smalltongue:

Nope, not according to teh intarwebz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ton

The Glyphstone

2011-09-05, 11:08 AM

I hate that whole reply that a UMD fighter isn't a fighter anymore. It's stupid. A wizard is a wizard because of what spells they use, how they approach combat. A wizard with all his spells isn't going to spend them getting into melee to make a full attack, but a fighter WILL use magic to get there.

A UMD fighter is using the "technology" of the world to deal with bigger and badder threats. Batman doesn't stop being Batman because he donned power armour to punch Darksied in the face. Fighters use their WBL to turn into Iron Man at epic.

The BMX bandit isn't so sucktastic when his BMX is a crazy technobike with machine guns and granade launchers with a bulletproof driver carriage. He's still popping wheelies and catwalking with all his BMX skills, its just now he's doing it at mach 4. Is a soldier any less of a soldier because he uses a grenade to kill 12 guys rather than shooting them all?
.

Those are wondrous items. The UMD equivalent to your analogy is BMX Bandit selling his BMX bike and buying a used Staff Of Angel Summoning from the pawn shop - by investing his limited resources (skill points and gold) into something he's entirely unsuited for, he just ends up as an inferior copy of his more powerful friend while unable to do what he was originally good at, for all that it was less good than said friend.

Engine

2011-09-05, 12:22 PM

Is a soldier any less of a soldier because he uses a grenade to kill 12 guys rather than shooting them all?

Well...
Your post reminds me of a Jarhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film)) scene, when Swoff and Troy after tiring training sessions are finally given a combat mission: kill two Iraqi officers. They're just about to kill their targets when a command officer arrives and calls in an air strike.

As a soldier, you could use a grenade. It's standard. But if you just call an airstrike everytime you need to kill someone, well, all of your hard training what's worth for?

A Fighter based around UMD is just a Scout Sniper throwing her sniper rifle into the trash bin and trying to be a combat pilot.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 01:22 PM

In pathfinder I keep going back to fighter often because I need 9 feats for some concept I want to play. In PF in particular you're at a feat every level. I've also found ranger and monk dips are good for squeezing out even more feats, if those classes or an ACF has the feat I want. I have a fighter 2 / monk 1 with 7 feats though I only needed 6 of them. Monk 1 gives 3, 2 of which were useful for the character. Gonna go monk 2 for evasion and another feat then back to fighter or maybe a ranger dip. 2-3 of my character concepts lately seem to be fighters that dip other classes. Because when you have something in mind that you want to play that doesn't already have a matching class you often need a lot of feats to do it.

If all you do is thwack things then you need a better concept or a DM with more interesting challenges. I'm forced to carry all sorts of backup gear. One concept that happened to have quick draw and rapid shot and I found myself forced using it to speed chuck alchemical weapons (purchased as a backup) in one fight even though that wasn't the build's intent. It doesn't necessarily require UMD (I know I only UMD on my charisma characters) but you should have all kinds of magic/alchemy on hand in a fantasy world. I'm gonna have to say the above analogy is pretty bad because not only can you use UMD for varied backup tactics when your focus is something else, it sucks as a main focus and AFAIK an odd-situation batman utility belt is the only use for UMD.

navar100

2011-09-05, 01:27 PM

Open up your SRD - Pathfinder or 3.5, don't really care which. Look up "Erinyes". Check out her SLA's. See that Unholy Blight? How about the fly speed and composite bow?

How about third level wizard and cleric spells? Hold person, for example. How about first level for gems like Charm Person? Druid rocks with entangle and an animal companion, sorcerers light things on fire in a wide area....

You know what all this has in common? The fact that any monster with a positive intelligence modifier and the tiniest shred of combat experience is going to target the caster first, especially if they're a mobile or ranged combatant, since now the dude with the pointy stick can't hurt them in the first place but the caster can. And the problem doesn't change if you want to talk, say, Dire animals - is it easier to eat the dude covered in metal or the dude wearing robes?

As CR's get higher, monster intelligence scores and, frankly, number of SLA's also goes up. Many of these monsters either are spellcasters and thus know how pointless it is to wave a stick at them or possess the appropriate Knowledge to realize that the dude in no armor and pink hot pants has got to go.

That being said, there are (amusing) ways around this. But your statement that a warrior is an honest-to-god threat? That stops being true at level eight.

Just because a monster exists in the monster manual does not mean it appears in the campaign. Sometimes bad guys are other humanoids.

Fighters can make saving throws, even if it's Will.

Fighters using magic items is a feature, not a bug. A fighter using an item to fly is not a crime against gamedom.

While no spellcaster is ever obligated to cast a buff spell on a fighter, it is a good tactic to do so. It is not a wasted spell use. It's called teamwork. Since bad guys can make their saving throws, a spellcaster cannot guarantee his spells will win the day every day all the time without fail. Sometimes the bad guys will fail their saves such that the spellcaster wins the day with his spells alone. Hooray for the spellcaster. Other times the spellcaster is better off casting a buff spell on the fighter and letting him use his fighting skill to finish off the bad guy. As the levels progress many low level attack spells lose effectiveness, either because the effects are obsolete or the the bad guys almost always make their low DC saves. However, those low level buff spells are still useful. A Displacement on the Fighter indirectly boosts his hit points by 50% since he's hit half as often. Protection From Evil on the Fighter allows him to concentrate on the BBEG instead of the minions he Summoned.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-05, 01:38 PM

Just because a monster exists in the monster manual does not mean it appears in the campaign. Sometimes bad guys are other humanoids.
Not often. Dragons, outsiders, elementals, aberrations, giants, and the lime vastly outnumber the humanoid enemies. And most DMs would rather use a dragonne than create a level 5 character that can challenge the party.

Fighters can make saving throws, even if it's Will.
Web still does a hindering effect if you succeed on your save. There's no saving throw to prevent the wizard from polymorphing into a dragon. And how are you going to hit the wizard if he's invisible? There's no save for Wall of Force either, and what about Maze?

Fighters using magic items is a feature, not a bug. A fighter using an item to fly is not a crime against gamedom.
No magic mart. And magic items are not class features.

Since bad guys can make their saving throws, a spellcaster cannot guarantee his spells will win the day every day all the time without fail.

See above about what I said for saving throws.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 01:45 PM

Just because a monster exists in the monster manual does not mean it appears in the campaign. Sometimes bad guys are other humanoids.
And unless the bad guys are also all Fighters, they are going to be markedly superior because they have real class features.

Fighters can make saving throws, even if it's Will.

At level, say, five, a spellcaster can chuck DC 19-20 spells (10 + spell level 3 + 5-6 Int + Spell Focus). The fighter has a base Will save modifier of +1. He will fail these saves 90% of the time, 80% if he takes Iron Will. Sure, he has a better chance if he takes points away from the stats he needs, but now he's worse at doing his job of hitting things - and he's not going to have even odds of succeeding on this save unless he completely cripples his fighting ability doing so. DCs scale faster than saves, so this is only going to get worse.

Fighters using magic items is a feature, not a bug. A fighter using an item to fly is not a crime against gamedom.

Flying isn't the problem (except for how items of flying cost ridiculous amounts of money, so you can't fly for a good five or so levels after everyone else is doing it, and then you can't afford that magic sword or magic shield or magic armor or any other items you need to compensate for your lack of class features). The problem is making a meaningful non-full attack contribution to anything at all.

While no spellcaster is ever obligated to cast a buff spell on a fighter, it is a good tactic to do so. It is not a wasted spell use. It's called teamwork. Since bad guys can make their saving throws, a spellcaster cannot guarantee his spells will win the day every day all the time without fail. Sometimes the bad guys will fail their saves such that the spellcaster wins the day with his spells alone. Hooray for the spellcaster. Other times the spellcaster is better off casting a buff spell on the fighter and letting him use his fighting skill to finish off the bad guy. As the levels progress many low level attack spells lose effectiveness, either because the effects are obsolete or the the bad guys almost always make their low DC saves. However, those low level buff spells are still useful. A Displacement on the Fighter indirectly boosts his hit points by 50% since he's hit half as often. Protection From Evil on the Fighter allows him to concentrate on the BBEG instead of the minions he Summoned.
The difference here is that the fighter without the wizard sucks and dies. The wizard without the fighter can, oh, summon something, or dominate an opponent, or transform into a melee monster, or indeed use offensive spells on the enemy. His options aren't limited to begging the party caster for buffs so that he can contribute.

Terazul

2011-09-05, 02:22 PM

The BMX bandit isn't so sucktastic when his BMX is a crazy technobike with machine guns and granade launchers with a bulletproof driver carriage. He's still popping wheelies and catwalking with all his BMX skills, its just now he's doing it at mach 4. Is a soldier any less of a soldier because he uses a grenade to kill 12 guys rather than shooting them all?

Well, let's give this same crazy technobike to the Angel Summoner. Now he's Angel Summoner AND has a crazy technobike.

As others have pointed out, Wealth By Level isn't a class feature because everyone gets it.

Dalek-K

2011-09-05, 02:38 PM

Well, let's give this same crazy technobike to the Angel Summoner. Now he's Angel Summoner AND has a crazy technobike.

As others have pointed out, Wealth By Level isn't a class feature because everyone gets it.

Yes it is! Just like BAB, Saves, and Hp!...

:smalltongue:

The reason I play a fighter in 3.5 is so I can homebrew my own. Doing weird things like combining the monk and fighter into one class. Or making a new skill system just for the fighter (you auto suceed on skill checks based on your level... example you can jump 5 ft per level automatically)

Its fun to make your own fixes to the class :D

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 02:46 PM

At level, say, five, a spellcaster can chuck DC 19-20 spells (10 + spell level 3 + 5-6 Int + Spell Focus). The fighter has a base Will save modifier of +1. He will fail these saves 90% of the time, 80% if he takes Iron Will. Sure, he has a better chance if he takes points away from the stats he needs, but now he's worse at doing his job of hitting things - and he's not going to have even odds of succeeding on this save unless he completely cripples his fighting ability doing so. DCs scale faster than saves, so this is only going to get worse.
So it's already devolving into a we hate fighters / let's duel the classes thread? At level 5 the fighter is making DC 13 saves against monster abilities which create an inconvenience and still leave him in the fight even if he fails. The wizard is using area spells or buffing party members including the fighter because his monster shut down spells aren't that good. For example hold person is single target, grants a new save every round, and 1/3 or more of monsters are immune; perhaps all of the meaningful foes are immune. I could talk about the rest but I'm not taking that derail bait.

It's generally assumed all of adventurer wealth goes into magic gear regardless of class, I don't see the issue there. Utility stuff is generally handled with cheap items.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 03:25 PM

So it's already devolving into a we hate fighters / let's duel the classes thread? At level 5 the fighter is making DC 13 saves against monster abilities which create an inconvenience and still leave him in the fight even if he fails. The wizard is using area spells or buffing party members including the fighter because his monster shut down spells aren't that good. For example hold person is single target, grants a new save every round, and 1/3 or more of monsters are immune; perhaps all of the meaningful foes are immune. I could talk about the rest but I'm not taking that derail bait.
I was simply showing that the Fighter's ability to pass Will saves leaves much to be desired, contrary to what was claimed by the quoted poster. Additionally, the same poster suggested the use of humanoid enemies, which would presumably include spellcasting classes.

Aside from the spells available to class-level casters (such as Glitterdust) that would take a Fighter out of the fight, there are a number of monsters with similarly significant debuffs at that level, including Gibbering Mouthers, Greater Barghests, Mummies, Pixies, Shadow Mastiffs, Udoroots and Unbodied - and that's just from the SRD! All of these creatures inflict effects that either paralyze the target on a failed will save, send him running or outright turn him on his allies. These are hardly mere inconveniences.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 03:34 PM

He won't fail saves against monsters and even NPCs so often, which is much more relevant. As are the effects of wizard spells vs. monsters rather than PCs. Most spells and monster abilities won't take him out of the fight even on a failed save. Glitterdust issues come from lack of rules understanding where DMs send blind creatures around like chickens with their heads cut off. RAW actually says you roll a few listen checks, probably pass one or get enough info to make a good guess, and attack with a 50% miss chance. Less with blind fight. So you have a partial chance of being partially hampered. So it's not over for you but if you face a particularly challenge often there are ways to focus on it to improve your odds. These are the things that keep games interesting: varied overcomable challenges.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 03:41 PM

Mummies have a DC16 paralysis attack that fires automatically, without an action, and paralyzes the Fighter for 1d4 rounds about 75% of the time. That's just one of the monsters I mentioned. How is the Fighter overcoming this special attack?

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 03:42 PM

He won't fail saves against monsters and even NPCs though so often, which is more relevant. As are the effects of wizard spells vs. monsters rather than PCs. Most spells and monster abilities won't take him out of the fight even.

Color Spray up to level 4 does *exactly* that. Targets his weakest save, and leave him stunned för 1D4 rounds.

A single level 5 caster with Fly, Glitterdust and Color Spray will completely ruin a a trio of level 4 Fighters' day.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 03:44 PM

^ 1 round since he has 5 HD. At best it's break even. At worst it's a wasted turn.

Mummies have a DC16 paralysis attack that fires automatically, without an action, and paralyzes the Fighter for 1d4 rounds about 75% of the time. That's just one of the monsters I mentioned. How is the Fighter overcoming this special attack?

From not even getting hit by the slam 3/4 of the time. Or probably never getting attacked by it at all, as a CR 5 monster will be outnumbered by PCs in a level appropriate encounter. You have maybe 2 vs. 4 PCs. Disabling attacks that don't even hit that often aren't that effective in such a case. The mummy is better of trying it on a softer target if he can.

Seerow

2011-09-05, 03:45 PM

He won't fail saves against monsters and even NPCs though so often, which is more relevant.

A level 20 fighter has a Reflex and Will Save somewhere around a +11-+15, and that +15 is assuming starting with a 12 in the stat and a +6 stat item that is doing almost nothing but increasing will saves.. aka not something particularly likely for your average Fighter. Meanwhile your average CR20 monster has save DCs of 27 A CR20 humanoid spellcaster is likely to have a save DC closer to 31-32. Your absolute best case scenario is the Fighter passing his saves about 40% of the time. It is entirely possible for him to be sitting at a 5-10% success rate.

Fighter saves are BAD.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 03:47 PM

^ 1 round since he has 5 HD. At best it's break even. At worst it's a wasted turn.

From not even getting hit by the slam 3/4 of the time. Or probably never getting attacked by it at all, as a CR 5 monster will be outnumbered by PCs in a level appropriate encounter. You have maybe 2 vs. 4 PCs. Disabling attacks that don't even hit that often aren't that effective in such a case. Best to focus on a softer target if you can.
The slam? The slam has nothing to do with this - Aura of Despair triggers on sight. Unless your Fighter's strategy is to close his eyes and walk around blind all the time, he's being hit, and then is out of the fight for, well, most of the fight.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 03:49 PM

It's a high CR encounter which means the PCs outnumber it and whatever half the party saves keeps fighting while waiting a couple rounds for the first half to come to. Seriously it's 1d4 rounds that only happens once.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 03:51 PM

It's a high CR encounter which means the PCs outnumber it and whatever half the party saves keeps fighting while waiting a couple rounds for the first half to come to.
So your solution for the fighter's crap saves is letting the other party members pick up the slack?

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 03:52 PM

Seerow

2011-09-05, 03:55 PM

It's a high CR encounter which means the PCs outnumber it and whatever half the party saves keeps fighting while waiting a couple rounds for the first half to come to.

So that makes it right? It's okay for the Fighter to sit there defenseless against 2/3 of the spells in the game because you have other party members who will mop it up and wait for the effect to end? What if that effect was a straight up save or die? What if you're involved in an encounter with multiple high CR monsters (something like 10% of your encounters should be a total of level+4 or so, so you should run into something like 4 equal CR creatures occasionally), or even multiples of a slightly lower CR monster (a few CR18s with DC 25-26, which is still going to hit the Fighter the majority of the time).

Meanwhile the actually good classes have better base saves, secondary abilities that boost saves, or other defenses that make them outright immune to most effects. The Fighter? Yeah, it has none of these. It's a big pile of suck, but people want to believe that it's great at soaking up hits because it has a high HD and good AC, despite those being two of the most worthless defenses in D&D.

Seerow

2011-09-05, 03:57 PM

Unless he's the one that rolls high, then he's the one fighting. Especially on another save later, say an upcoming fort save. It's a CR-innapropriate encounter if the mummies aren't outnumbered, or else a final end game fight with a chance of TPK. Team up is expected. Try a CR 3-4 monster if you don't want team up.

Even the mummy is yet another example of a 50:50 shot of being temporarily inconvenienced in a level appropriate encounter. If you have to risk a TPK to claim the fighter's bad... that's not showing anything.

Mummy is a fort save. ie the only thing a fighter is remotely good at. If you have a creature with a similar DC will save at the same level, you're looking at DC16 vs +1(base will save for a fighter 5), +1 (resistance) + 1 wisdom (being generous here, it's far more likely to have a +0 or even negative wis) for +3, or a 65% chance of failing.

And once again the point is that other classes that are considered good have other defenses to circumvent this. Either their chance of saving is significantly higher, or they have circumstantial bonus and immunities. They might not have their higher defenses against EVERYTHING, but they will have it against a SIGNIFICANTLY larger section of attacks than any fighter could ever hope for.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 03:59 PM

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 04:01 PM

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 04:02 PM

Level. Appropriate. Temporary 1/day effect.

Seerow

2011-09-05, 04:02 PM

When people say things like that in video games instead of helping I stop saving them or quit and let them fight the big nasty that no one can handle alone by himself, and then he dies of course. 4 level 5 PCs don't fight 4 CR 5 mummies except as a final fight with risk of TPK; that's EL 9.

Yet that is exactly what the DMG says you should face 10% of the time. Maybe 5%. Do I need to dig out my DMG and quote the relevant section for you?

An on level encounter isn't even a risk. It's supposed to be a resource drain. You go into an on level encounter with no real fear of dying, just the DM hoping to make you waste spells and consumables. This is literally the definition of an equal CR encounter. And here we are looking at in such an encounter, about 30-50% of the time this simple encounter will still disable the fighter to the point where he cannot contribute anything to the fight except draining the party's resources. This is not an example of a well balanced class.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 04:05 PM

Level. Appropriate. Temporary 1/day effect.
You realize that a combat lasts 3-4 rounds, right? Your Fighter is out for half of the encounter. Doing nothing. A dead weight. Useless. And then god forbid you meet a second mummy some other time, because hey, welcome to paralysis city, where you get to play Xbox while the real classes actually contribute to the encounter.

ericgrau

2011-09-05, 04:06 PM

... you do realize the wizard has a 50:50 shot of failing the same ability obviously tailored to the fighter's weakness. And he's still back in the fight a couple rounds later. It's really not the greatest special ability. I suppose 50% of the time the wizard is also a useless piece of party space for not being active those couple rounds?

EDIT: 3-4 rounds, a faster than average fight, isn't likely against an above average fight difficulty with low damage that relies on debuffs and disables instead. This is reason #7 now that this is getting rather contrived. I suspect this will move on to #8 rather than addressing reasons 1-7 so I'm out.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 04:13 PM

The Wizard has a 50% chance of being affected by something from a CR-appropriate encounter. This is normal. This is supposed to happen. A 75% failure chance is considerably worse.

NNescio

2011-09-05, 04:18 PM

EDIT: 3-4 rounds, a faster than average fight, isn't likely against an above average fight difficulty with low damage that relies on debuffs and disables instead. This is reason #7 now that this is getting rather contrived. I suspect this will move on to #8 rather than addressing reasons 1-7 so I'm out.

One failed Reflex save later...

(Preferably with Save and Still Suck spells like Web and Sleet Storm.)

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-05, 04:37 PM

My issue with the fighter argument is that people assume you need an equally powerful class to perform with other powerful classes. But you don't. The party doesn't, for instance, need to split WBL evenly. Does you fighter need a way to fly? The wizard doesn't, and it will benefit the team to put in some money for that. A good wizard can at level 5 cast celestial aspect, which will give a fighter wings for a good few minutes. A druid can cast it on his mount through share spell while retaining the ability to fly himself, and the fighter can ride that as long as the druid (who is a flying bear) stays within 5 feet. Simpler, the druid can be a flying bear and the fighter can ride that bear.

Also, flat-footed opponents can't provoke AoO, so that's one way to avoid reach. Also a fighter can suck it up and do it anyway, so long as the creature wasn't built for the purpose of stopping the fighter. I believe a flying fighter can actually just drop, fall as a free action, and avoid the AoO that way. I think neraphim have some way around it too.

Want to play a fun fighter? Don't play as just a fighter. Play as a fighter on a team. You can be involved in crazy antics even without magic.

Another option is a really weird racial choice. I like raptoran a lot, and they can fly on their own and shoot bows from their feet while wielding a sword in their arms. The "I fight all day" concept can work well with a warforged, who can carry all the things and never tire ever. Dragonborn get a breath weapon...

Like mentioned above, dipping can be a way to gain some more option, and I don't see dipping to be any less fighter than dipping fighter makes a warblade less warblade. A single cleric dip can get you turn undead, which fuel some really interesting feats. If you want to be ridiculous you can dump wisdom, then your cleric dip won't give you spellcasting and you'll stay spell-less. I sort of like the idea of an intelligent fighter who takes a level of cleric to get knowledge devotion. A single level of barbarian gets you pounce, as has been stated, but you can even trade out rage for an archery feat if you really wanted to not rage. Fighter Bonus Feat rogue is basically the same as taking a fighter level but you get less hp and bab and get a bunch of skill points. Thug works too probably.

As for roleplaying? Ask yourself the questions that are fighter-specific. For example, why do you not use magic if it's clearly so effective? How do you feel about barbarians, and rogues, which fight without control and through trickery respectively? Do you take your style to be honorable, or do you just get it done? Wizards don't really get to be self-taught like a fighter does: the wizard has to have spellbooks and therefor some sort of money, but a fighter can so easily be a peasant.

My favorite fighter-type (who's class is, by chance, also called fighter) is Dorcas from Fire Emblem 7. Now, Dorcas isn't really all that interesting. He's poor, he's big and quiet, he follows orders without angst... Which is why I like him. See, Dorcas isn't a mystic child with an epic destiny. He cares about his wife and wants to earn money for her, and he puts himself, without arguing or complaining, into an epic world. And there's something special about that. The fighter who has no real special gifts (and the game reflects it in his subpar stats, probably unintentionally) among the magical, doing his best to make a difference, not caring that he's not as capable so long as he's still useful. A sorcerer can't do this character. A druid can't do this. A rogue can play a similar mindset but somehow the method feels different. Even a barbarian or warblade, two non-magic classes with similar purposes, but have extraordinary (in the traditional sense of the word) abilities, and will be unable to be this character.

The fighter blends in with the warrior NPC class. He's not special, not supernatural, a badass normal at best. He's very skilled but his abilities are just on a lower level. But as they say, it's not your powers but how you use them. So my advice here is to run with it. Be the one who still remembers what it means to be a normal person. Be the one who recognizes the value of a gold piece. The one who doesn't intend to be an adventurer forever does what must be done.

Thespianus

2011-09-05, 05:44 PM

^ 1 round since he has 5 HD. At best it's break even. At worst it's a wasted round.

Who has 5 hd? The level 4 fighters in the party being attacked by one flying wizard?

Curious

2011-09-05, 05:51 PM

-Snip-

That's all very nice, but if the designers intentionally made the Fighter class weaker than the rest of the classes, why didn't they specify so in the Player's Handbook? Or anywhere else, really? If they really did mean for 'badass normals' to be weaker, then they did a great disservice to everyone who has ever played their game by not stating it bluntly, and letting them believe the classes where inherently balanced.

NNescio

2011-09-05, 05:55 PM

Who has 5 hd? The level 4 fighters in the party being attacked by one flying wizard?

Cue the mention of bows and Wind Walls and Giamonk gear...

Provengreil

2011-09-05, 06:15 PM

The Wizard has a 50% chance of being affected by something from a CR-appropriate encounter. This is normal. This is supposed to happen. A 75% failure chance is considerably worse.

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

Kenneth

2011-09-05, 06:23 PM

Yes. I would've, except I saw a 2e dart combo somewhere so I knew what you were talking about, but this thread is about 3.5 and PF. That's why it's in the 3.X subforum.

SO.. you just ignored teh last 3/4 of my post then?

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-05, 06:32 PM

That's all very nice, but if the designers intentionally made the Fighter class weaker than the rest of the classes, why didn't they specify so in the Player's Handbook? Or anywhere else, really? If they really did mean for 'badass normals' to be weaker, then they did a great disservice to everyone who has ever played their game by not stating it bluntly, and letting them believe the classes where inherently balanced.

Naa, man, I'm pretty certain WotC had no idea about the difference in power between magic and otherwise. I'm not saying the fighter was intentionally made to be weaker. What I'm saying is that it did turn out that way (I do, for what it's worth, believe they wanted the fighter to feel more like a regular warrior rather than a mystic sort. I just figure they didn't realize the power difference that would result from that decision.)

I also think intention is unimportant in this case. The fact is that the fighter, by way of its crunch, gives me a character concept that I enjoy. I want to note that this thread isn't "Is the fighter balanced" or even "Is a fighter well designed". It's "why play a fighter?" I'm just stating one of the reasons I would do it, and one I recommend for people who want a certain type of experience.

NNescio

2011-09-05, 06:34 PM

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

The Level 5 Fighter has a Fort Save of +4. Let's be generous and give him a Con of 16 for a +3 Mod. At DC 26 he'll need to roll a 19 or better. Hardly level-appropriate.

Especially since Dragon Bile costs 1500 GP per pop and Dragon Bile traps have a rated CR of 7.

(And while the Fighter will probably not be incapacitated by the poison, that amount of Str damage is going to render him mostly useless.)

noparlpf

2011-09-05, 06:37 PM

It's funny, because I used "metric ton of arcane energy" in a very flippant way. I thought it'd be clear it wasn't meant as a scientific measurement, but instead a general statement about "a lot of this stuff". :smalltongue:

I tend to take things seriously that weren't meant to be taken seriously. Especially if I know they weren't meant to be taken seriously. Even more so when it's past my bedtime.

Provengreil

2011-09-05, 06:40 PM

The Level 5 Fighter has a Fort Save of +4. Let's be generous and give him a Con of 16 for a +3 Mod. At DC 26 he'll need to roll a 19 or better. Hardly level-appropriate.

Especially since Dragon Bile costs 1500 GP per pop and Dragon Bile traps have a rated CR of 7.

(And while the Fighter will probably not be incapacitated by the poison, that amount of Str damage is going to render him mostly useless.)

i didn't specify a level. the only reason i listed that poison in particular is that it's the only one i could think of capable of instantly removing all of a wizard's expectable strength.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 06:43 PM

Provengreil

2011-09-05, 06:45 PM

Poisons have two stages where they can be avoided - the actual attack, and the poison save itself. The deadliest CR5 poisons, on the Phase Spider and Spider Eater, have a pathetic +8 and +7 to-hit, which considerably reduces their chances of actually affecting something with their poisons, especially once you factor in Mirror Image, Blur or similar staple buffs. The poison attacks are also single-target, so if they're attacking someone with it, they're not attacking anyone else with it, which is already accomplishing something.

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.

NNescio

2011-09-05, 06:51 PM

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.

The Wizard is generally less likely to be hit by Fort-save targeting effects, whether they come from weapons, projectiles, special abilities, or spells. They are usually further away from the frontlines, have various spells providing miss chances and AC bonuses, are more mobile, and have more options to counter or disrupt magic. And that's not counting the spells that directly help improve saves or let you reroll them.

Yeah, Magic is kinda unfair like that.

MeeposFire

2011-09-05, 06:51 PM

Naa, man, I'm pretty certain WotC had no idea about the difference in power between magic and otherwise. I'm not saying the fighter was intentionally made to be weaker. What I'm saying is that it did turn out that way (I do, for what it's worth, believe they wanted the fighter to feel more like a regular warrior rather than a mystic sort. I just figure they didn't realize the power difference that would result from that decision.)

I also think intention is unimportant in this case. The fact is that the fighter, by way of its crunch, gives me a character concept that I enjoy. I want to note that this thread isn't "Is the fighter balanced" or even "Is a fighter well designed". It's "why play a fighter?" I'm just stating one of the reasons I would do it, and one I recommend for people who want a certain type of experience.

No they knew magic was more powerful. They knew that in 1e and it was even told to you in the book then. What they did not realize at first was how badly they screwed up the combat system in the magic users favor. Tactics and abilities that used to keep mages somewhat in their place no longer worked. What they also lacked was the vision to realize that players were not going to use the same play style in 3e as they did before. Blasting is now not great so blasting was left behind. It became trivially easy for a cleric/druid to replace melee classes so now players do. They knew the power but did not realize how much the game would change by taking away a few small things from 2e.

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 06:56 PM

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.
Haha, okay. You want to take this to high levels?

How about the Purple Worm, a monster with DC25 poison? CR12. By level 12, the Fighter has a +8 modifier on his Fortitude save, let's say 20 Constitution (as a secondary stat) and a +2 cloak. Saves on a 10. 50-50 chance.

Wizard. +4 modifier, 20 Con (as a secondary stat), Superior Resistance. Saves on that same 10, except he has no need to be anywhere near enough to the Worm to get hit to begin with.

The higher you go on a Fighter-Real Class comparison, the further the Fighter falls behind, because his lack of class features becomes more and more apparent.

Paul H

2011-09-05, 06:58 PM

Hi

In PFS campaign (practically all the PF games I've played), most of the enemy were humanoids, natural animals or undead, with a few extra planar creatures.

Practically all can be critted/sneak attacked. Most were taken down in melee, but when you need an arcanist, you really, really need an arcanist.

In about 70-100 scenarios, my arcane abilities (deperately) stood out in only 3:

1) Wand Magic Missile to distract an Assassin Vine from well smegged party
2) Ok, Druidic Magic to enhance my Alligator to attack incorporeal undead. Dwarven Fighter 5 only 'needed' one weapon, and that wasn't even magical!
3) Magus spellstriking with wand Truestrike. Series of combats over few hours, Cleric out of healing, plus NPC Fighter already dead.

Only thing needed more than melee builds are Healers!

Thanks
Paul H
Edit: Best answer is from Lord Sorason (above):"Want to play a fun fighter? Don't play as just a fighter. Play as a fighter on a team. You can be involved in crazy antics even without magic."

Flickerdart

2011-09-05, 06:59 PM

Only thing needed more than melee builds are Healers!
Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

Paul H

2011-09-05, 07:06 PM

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

Hi

Never said it was. It certainly can't cast Lesser Restoration.

My point is that whilst some scenarios benefit from other builds, we always need a Melee build of some sort, just like we always need Healers.

But most of all Teamwork. :smallsmile:

Thanks
Paul H

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-05, 07:07 PM

But most of all Teamwork. :smallsmile:

So warblade or crusader with White Raven focus?

Paul H

2011-09-05, 07:10 PM

Hi

Not sure what they are, but:
1) If they work,
2) are fun for whole party,
3) and contribute to Team effort

then sure, why not?

(But the thread was about Fighters):smallsigh:

Thanks
Paul H

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-05, 07:17 PM

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

I always sort of wondered what would happen to balance if you removed wands and scrolls. I could be wrong because my group always forgets they exist, but it seems like their primary purpose is to invalidate spells per day.

PS: If your group would make it difficult to play a fighter and you want to be more useful, and you'd rather play a true combat master rather than my above suggestion... Perhaps you can get your dm to let you gestalt in rogue? Bonus feat rogue to be exact, which might mean double the bonus feats if one interprets it that way. I played one once, and to be honest it was really cool. I feel like 8 skill points and a good reflex save is a simple and elegant fighter fix, and in a gestalt game super feats and evasion were also sort of neat. It seems sort of natural that a fighter should be really good at a few skills regardless of intelligence. I've never met a professionally trained soldier who didn't know how to climb and use rope.

tyckspoon

2011-09-05, 07:27 PM

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

He was talking about Pathfinder Society; most of the organized-play rulesets I've seen have rules changes that make it difficult or impossible to use the most common "no, you don't actually need a dedicated PC build for that" workarounds. Specifically, it seems to be very common to ban or greatly restrict crafting feats from PCs, and you generally don't get a chance to buy magic freely. So it's a good idea to have somebody around who can actually do healing off their own resources (I still wouldn't build specifically to be The Healer, but you certainly won't turn down having a positive-energy-channeling Cleric around), because you never know when or even if you'll manage to get a loaded Wand of Cure Light in the scenario loot.

Sewercop

2011-09-05, 07:51 PM

If and when i play fighters I always need more than the "me hit you" stick.
It gets old and repetativ fast. So i try to build then more optimized then other classes.I usually play casters,techies,empaths,builders etc in the different games i play. When I play fighters in any game, its usually because no one else wants to. And, in most rpgs ive played, fighters tend to be boring and bad.

But, after a while, fighters(in most games) seem more appealing to me. Not because its a powerful class, but because the power level the class has very low gamebreaking potential. Im an optimizer, and i like roleplaying to, go figure :)
We do excist.

It can be rewarding for me(not saying this goes for all people) to play a mechanical stupid class, to be able to play with my friends. It is actually more fun to play a game then to break a game.

Anyways... Still dislike fighters in 3.5.
Why? They have nothing special... Nothing... Anything they can do, can be done better by other classes.

Guess what, im playing a melee frontliner next d&d.. yup.. a fighter thing.. and its going to be fun :)

ranagrande

2011-09-05, 08:28 PM

In one of the groups I used to play with, I played fighter-types almost exclusively. I was much more of an optimizer than the rest of the players, so that was a good way to help keep things balanced.

Coidzor

2011-09-06, 01:18 AM

My issue with the fighter argument is that people assume you need an equally powerful class to perform with other powerful classes. But you don't. The party doesn't, for instance, need to split WBL evenly.

Your issue with the fact that someone finds fighters to be weak and lacking options is that one shouldn't care that fighters are weak and lacking options? :smallconfused:

And that it's not only acceptable, but good game design to rob Peter to pay Paul?

I always sort of wondered what would happen to balance if you removed wands and scrolls. I could be wrong because my group always forgets they exist, but it seems like their primary purpose is to invalidate spells per day.

Unpleasant things for the fighter, that's for sure. Those guys just love suckling at the teat of sweet, sweet cure light wounds wands.

Additionally, there'd be further unpleasantness, like the further encouragement of the 15 minute adventuring day, and fighters being further devalued by meatshield hirelings.

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

Biggest one is that poisons are spendy, even if you're crafting them, and it takes a few levels before the fighter can make the DCs to craft the good stuff.

And the best stuff is going to be obtained by just outright milking creatures, which the fighter could train once he had them amicable to being interacted with, but without a certain interpretation of handle animal, would be dependent upon others to pacify initially.

Then there's the bit where poison is only really good for a narrower range of play, between when you can make something decent/afford to make it at all and when it ceases to really be much of a factor due to the ease of immunity and saves.

He was talking about Pathfinder Society; most of the organized-play rulesets I've seen have rules changes that make it difficult or impossible to use the most common "no, you don't actually need a dedicated PC build for that" workarounds.

Indeed, always found that to be a failing of such a format, really. Why, no, you can't have a 15 minute adventuring day, but we're going to forbid you from actually being able to do anything but be a walking band-aid box if you can prepare healing magic.

Just ignore the fact that we gave you a spell list far, far larger than that when we designed the class.

Killer Angel

2011-09-06, 01:35 AM

Low int/mindless and/or low level creatures probably, but anything that has at least an average int modifier and is high enough on the CR scale to have fought adventurers above level 1 before would know that casters are more dangerous.

Who would you think the lone survivor of the ogre tribe would fear more: the fighter that swung his longsword 3 times and killed one of their warriors, or the wizard who brought forth magical strands of web to entangle half of the warriors, and then blinded the other half with golden fairy dust?

Certainly the wizard. That's why high level ogres come with class levels: they survived past battles and they know how to recognize dangerous opponents.
For a "basic" ogre, a CR equivalent fighter (or barbarian, anyway, a pure meleer) is a deadly threat.

Edit: I'm not arguing the casters' edge, nor that they're the real main danger. Only, there are cases (which I optimisticly put around 10-15%, depending on the campaign) where the "enemy" will target the meleer.
(that's also 'cause not all the meleers are weak. A chargin' barbarian is not someone to dismiss so easily, IMO)

LordBlades

2011-09-06, 05:05 AM

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-06, 05:21 AM

Your issue with the fact that someone finds fighters to be weak and lacking options is that one shouldn't care that fighters are weak and lacking options? :smallconfused:

And that it's not only acceptable, but good game design to rob Peter to pay Paul?

No. My issue is that people think a fighter's being weaker and lacking options makes it impossible to play as one in a party. D&D isn't a competition where the best class wins. It's a game where a party is encouraged to work together to handle certain tasks. Sure many people want a much stronger base class. But it doesn't invalidate another class.

Where do people get this "good game design" thing from? WotC made mistakes with the fighter class and that is obvious. Some people still want to play a fighter. And whenever this happens people throw a big fit, claiming the fighter is too weak or something. But there's another option: find a way to enjoy yourself regardless of your situation. I'm not saying it is good game design. I'm saying "why not do it" because at least to some extent it works.

And for what it's worth, this isn't Peter and Paul. This is angel summoner and BMX bandit. If BMX bandit would do better with a better BMX, angel summoner might as well realize how he pretty much doesn't need to have that wand of even more angels or whatever he was going to buy. Part of the fighter class is being more item dependent. That's just how the magic item system works in D&D. In a campaign I'm in now, the master of many forms//factotum intends to fun the healer//paladin's diamond collection, so that he may cast diamond dust without worrying about it (the player is normally very conservative when it comes to gold.) He's aware that the money he was going to spend probably wouldn't compare to the value he was going to get out of this... And he realized a healer//paladin could use some help while he could just be fleshraker. It's not robbing, it's being part of a team.

Killer Angel

2011-09-06, 05:26 AM

but let's say fighter and druid? The bear that rides a bear while summoning bears easily outfights the fighter, while still providing full spellcaster power.

In that case, the only vaguely meaningful role that the fighter can fill, is the archer. And even so, it will last when all the bears will be flying bears.

No. My issue is that people think a fighter's being weaker and lacking options makes it impossible to play as one in a party. D&D isn't a competition where the best class wins. It's a game where a party is encouraged to work together to handle certain tasks.

It's not that the peoples think that way. The fighter is weaker and lacks options.
D&D is a social game, so it's obvious the wizard / cleric player, will spend resources to pump the meleer.
But looking the problem from a character pov? The only real reason I can see for a caster, to spend resources on the meleers, thus rendering them a credible threat (instead of summoning jadda jadda), is merely to give the enemy an additional target. Basically, the wiz. thinks "if my companions are valid opponents, maybe the enemy won't try to glasscannon me, 'cause there will be other meaningful targets".

Covah

2011-09-06, 10:14 AM

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

For me, it's easy to avoid getting bored while playing a fighter. Mostly because while you aren't as powerful as other party members, it means that encounters are slightly more challenging to you than anyone else. And the roleplaying of fighters. I have yet to create fighters with similar personalities. Which is pretty difficult since I create a lot of fighters. I think the main reason that I find it hard to get bored with fighters is because they're the easiest class for me to make backgrounds and motivations for. Other classes I build the character and then spend several hours trying to figure out who they are. Fighters, I figure out who they are as I build them. By the time I'm done with building them, I've got half their background. And then I spend like another hour finishing fleshing them out.

Gnaeus

2011-09-06, 11:14 AM

No. My issue is that people think a fighter's being weaker and lacking options makes it impossible to play as one in a party. D&D isn't a competition where the best class wins. It's a game where a party is encouraged to work together to handle certain tasks.

No it isn't. Or it isn't automatically. Clearly it is in your game and that is fine. I just returned from a long weekend of highly competitive play where the best builds did, in fact, win. A third option in a roleplaying game involves, you know, Roleplaying? Where the wizard may, or may not, be a team player who wants to spend all his time buffing the party. Maybe his PC doesn't get along with the fighter's PC, insists on dividing gold evenly and never preps a buff. Different games play differently, and cooperative play is hardly the only game in town.

Also, the fighter's incompetence is a real roleplaying setback when your concept is "Mighty Warrior" and the actual result is much less impressive.

Greenish

2011-09-06, 11:16 AM

I believe a flying fighter can actually just drop, fall as a free action, and avoid the AoO that way.Where are you getting that falling doesn't provoke?

charcoalninja

2011-09-06, 11:21 AM

Well, let's give this same crazy technobike to the Angel Summoner. Now he's Angel Summoner AND has a crazy technobike.

As others have pointed out, Wealth By Level isn't a class feature because everyone gets it.

Sure but the WBL doesn't really empower a tier 1 anymore than he is out of the gate. Angel Summoner on the technobike is just as dangerous as Angel summoner without it because... you guessed it, he's going to just summon an army of angels.

With proper magical equipment the fighter is able to counter a lot of the barriers angel summoner will put in his way so that he can make his full attack. All of the big anti fighter defenses are wrapped up in going first cheese with Celerity and contingency, which aren't made any stronger with the addition of magical items. My experience is that money makes wizards last longer or let them repeat the attacks they were doing anyway, while wealth acts as enablers for the melee classes.

I don't notice much of a power difference between a naked tier 1 and a fully equiped tier one since they're all gating in 40HD solars anyway.

I'm not saying the fighter is remotely on par, but he has all he needs to get the job done and for a lot of people, is very enjoyable to play.

Greenish

2011-09-06, 11:26 AM

(But the thread was about Fighters):smallsigh:Yeah, why play a fighter, when you could be playing a warblade or a crusader and focus on White Raven if you wanted a real teamplayer.

Coidzor

2011-09-06, 12:10 PM

Where do people get this "good game design" thing from?

If you think something doesn't need changing or shouldn't be changed or worked around, you're accepting it, implicitly, as good game design.

Because if it were bad game design you would attempt to fix it if you really wanted to use it.

And for what it's worth, this isn't Peter and Paul.

No, it is Peter and Paul, because those are the players. :smallwink:

And if you have to spend actions to let another player's character do anything given that they haven't been actively taken out of the fight somehow, that's just bad and not something that you should expect people to enjoy.

And if you have to pool the party goal in order for another player's character to contribute at all, then that goes beyond the class being "a little weak," and clearly goes into "the class is a troll class and sponge" territory.

Knowing this information and accepting the set up that you're presenting, the person that makes the willing decision to play a Fighter is saying to the rest of the group "Hi, you know that gold you guys earned? I'm going to be demanding it now from the word go." Which makes playing a fighter into less of a underpowered option and more of an "I'm actively sabotaging the rest of the group's characters" kind of situation.

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

The Glyphstone

2011-09-06, 12:20 PM

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

Though from that perspective, it's worth noting that the higher the ratio of Fighters to other classes becomes, the easier the WBL distribution becomes. In an all-Fighter party (or, say, 3 Fighter and a Healer), you can hand out normal wealth and everyone can contribute equally, assuming the DM gives challenges an all-melee group can overcome. Tiers are only an issue when they're not all the same, remember.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-06, 02:26 PM

If you think something doesn't need changing or shouldn't be changed or worked around, you're accepting it, implicitly, as good game design.

Because if it were bad game design you would attempt to fix it if you really wanted to use it.

No, it is Peter and Paul, because those are the players. :smallwink:

And if you have to spend actions to let another player's character do anything given that they haven't been actively taken out of the fight somehow, that's just bad and not something that you should expect people to enjoy.

And if you have to pool the party goal in order for another player's character to contribute at all, then that goes beyond the class being "a little weak," and clearly goes into "the class is a troll class and sponge" territory.

Knowing this information and accepting the set up that you're presenting, the person that makes the willing decision to play a Fighter is saying to the rest of the group "Hi, you know that gold you guys earned? I'm going to be demanding it now from the word go." Which makes playing a fighter into less of a underpowered option and more of an "I'm actively sabotaging the rest of the group's characters" kind of situation.

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

People have already pointed out that wizards need a lot less to be useful. I mean, I understand people have their own playstyle so I'm not going to say you're wrong (sorry if I have in the past, I don't mean to) but I really don't see this "sponge/trollclass" thing.

I'm in a band in my spare time, and we have this band fund. To put it simply, some equipment is way more expensive than other equipment. If all funds were spread evenly, a lot of people would have to go without the things they need. But I don't want to have equal funds. I want the band to work well together. So we'll divide the money in such a way that everyone gets something out of it.

I see the party the same way. I want the group to fight monsters without anyone dying or being useless. I dont care if I have to divide wealth to do that.

The dm can help with this too. Drop a couple magic swords or something and the wealth becomes less necessary. Give the party more wealth so that they can afford to pay a more magic item dependent class.

I'm not saying it's perfect. But the OP is how one could play a fighter, and how it might be interesting. I'm sure a warblade could do better, and for many would be more fun. But most people already know that. I'm working with a scenario, and that scenario is a fighter.

It's been thrown far off the rails, but check this out: the topic isn't "is a fighter hella strong." It's "So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?" I gave a reason: the mundane attributes. It's not strong, and it's probably not intended. But it exists, and it works and it's the appeal to me.

I'm not saying the fighter is best. But in the right circumstances, even if it's not optimal, I can have fun playing a fighter.

Seerow

2011-09-06, 02:34 PM

People have already pointed out that wizards need a lot less to be useful. I mean, I understand people have their own playstyle so I'm not going to say you're wrong (sorry if I have in the past, I don't mean to) but I really don't see this "sponge/trollclass" thing.

I'm in a band in my spare time, and we have this band fund. To put it simply, some equipment is way more expensive than other equipment. If all funds were spread evenly, a lot of people would have to go without the things they need. But I don't want to have equal funds. I want the band to work well together. So we'll divide the money in such a way that everyone gets something out of it.

I see the party the same way. I want the group to fight monsters without anyone dying or being useless. I dont care if I have to divide wealth to do that.

The dm can help with this too. Drop a couple magic swords or something and the wealth becomes less necessary. Give the party more wealth so that they can afford to pay a more magic item dependent class.

The problem is, this isn't the way the game is balanced. If we were expected to give one class more wealth than another because they needed it, then that would be included as a class feature. Instead, we have the wealth by level table which is the same for all classes. So while you may not agree with it, a fundamental assumption in D&D is that yes, wealth is being split evenly among all party members.