The Fighter vs the Warrior (3.5)

[NeoSeraphi]

This has been bugging me for a while now. Why would anyone play a fighter over a warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)?

All the builds I see posted here suggest dipping fighter for feats, BAB, and hit points, and I can understand that, but the warrior just seems like such a superior class. So why don't more people use it?

Pros (Warrior):
Able to choose any six skills as class skills
Able to choose your good save
Not restricted to any feat list for bonus feats
Able to swap bonus feats out for a small list of other class's class features, including Smite Evil, Sneak Attack, and Favored Enemy

Pros (Fighter):
Automatically proficient with heavy armor
Access to the Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy feats

The crazy thing is that the warrior not only gets to choose all his feats from any list, but he gets feat progression at the same rate as the fighter, and offers an unprecedented level of customization, when the fighter was the original "build your own character" base class. So...I don't get why the warrior isn't more popular with people on these forums. I mean, sure it's no warblade, but it certainly seems to be better than the fighter. I mean, at the very least you get UMD as a class skill if you want.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because it's in the same camp as gestalt. Even if it's pretty balanced with the normal system, you're either using those three classes or you're using everything else.

[tyckspoon]

If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes). You can still include prestige classes, if you wish to add that level of complexity to your game, but you may have to tweak some prestige class prerequisites that include class features not available to these classes.

That's why. The standard game *doesn't include* the generic classes, and likewise a game based on the generic classes shouldn't have the normal base classes around. They're explicitly something the DM can choose to use in place of the usual, not something a player is supposed to freely choose from in addition to the norm. (The same applies to the Prestige Ranger/Paladin/Bard, but people like to ignore that one and suggest it anyways because there's some neat builds that are enabled by their presumed use.)

[Siosilvar]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classesgenericClasses.htm

There's your answer.

[NeoSeraphi]

Really? It's because of the rules that surround it? Well, that's a bit lame. I mean, there's a 20% multiclassing XP penalty that people all just ignore, why should we limit our class selection based on the suggestions of the writers?

[Tvtyrant]

Really? It's because of the rules that surround it? Well, that's a bit lame. I mean, there's a 20% multiclassing XP penalty that people all just ignore, why should we limit our class selection based on the suggestions of the writers?

Because the Spellcaster allows you to pick from the three best spell lists? Not to mention they can choose what their casting stat should be, so they are going to have terrific skills.

[Hiro Protagonest]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classesgenericClasses.htm

There's your answer.
People talk about Whirling Frenzy a lot in barbarian discussions. We talk about Spirit Lion Totem a lot. And Wolf Totem. And Dungeoncrasher fighter. And Zhentarim fighter.

Really? It's because of the rules that surround it? Well, that's a bit lame. I mean, there's a 20% multiclassing XP penalty that people all just ignore, why should we limit our class selection based on the suggestions of the writers?

We also don't bring up gestalt as an option in non-gestalt threads. Or action points. Or sanity rules.

[NeoSeraphi]

We also don't bring up gestalt as an option in non-gestalt threads. Or action points. Or sanity rules.

...Fair point. :smallsigh: Wasted potential if you ask me. Seems like a really nice class, especially for all those guys clamoring for a module-based system from D&D Next.


Because the Spellcaster allows you to pick from the three best spell lists? Not to mention they can choose what their casting stat should be, so they are going to have terrific skills.

Yes, spellcaster is indeed amazing. Though at least WotC had the foresight to not give it Turn Undead and arcane casting at the same time.

[Wyntonian]

They're a separate magisterium. You use normal base classes or those, but rarely both.

Also, that's the same reason not everyone plays spellcasters over every other sort of spellcaster.

Yes, I was looking for a place to use "magisterium". Thanks.

[Coidzor]

I thought that was just because most sanity rules are either poorly implemented for d20 or not really appropriate to D&D.

[Particle_Man]

I think the Expert kinda got shafted though. I would have given him more skill points per level.