Fun and Tier 5

[roko10]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A ANTI-FIGHTER THREAD. THIS THREAD IS ONLY QUESTIONING IF THE FIGHTER IS FUN TO PLAY.

Is that even possible?

For example, let's take the fighter

The tier list ranks it at tier 5, says that they suck, and so on.

If somebody is just a bit aware of the Tier System, they would immediatly think "fighters sux" and play a high-tier class instead.

So why actually would somebody play a fighter, if anything they do sucks?

(Discounting low-op and challenging yourself. It seems that nobody plays non-op here, and challenging yourself by playing the fighter is like breaking both of your legs and then running a marathon: painful and with little reward in the end.)

[Seerow]

Yes.



Any answer longer than this is going to end in tears.

[eggynack]

Any answer longer than this is going to end in tears.
I would think that it would end in tiers. :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, tier designation is explicitly not something that tells you how good or bad a class is, or which class is the most fun. Granted, I probably wouldn't have much fun with a fighter, but some people do, and that's their prerogative. Sometimes people don't want to spend every minute of game time making massively complicated strategic and tactical decisions, and instead want to just hit something with a stick while bellowing a cunning one liner. Moreover, the fighter isn't even going to be that mechanically poor in all games. Sometimes you're going to be in a wizard, cleric, druid party, and the fighter will be ridiculously outclassed on every level, and sometimes you're going to be in a monk, healer, warlock party, and the fighter will be right at home. Fun and power are different things. Some folks, like myself, prefer a high tier, and some folks, like not myself, prefer a lower tier. Such is the nature of the universe.

[NotScaryBats]

My answer would be "yes, definitely" because a lot of roleplaying interactions have nothing to do with what class you are. Whether you are a paladin, crusader, or cleric, if you're a Lawful Good knight type, you're going to be roleplaying pretty much the same.

So, yeah, fighters can be a blast to play. If all you're doing is slogging through encounters, and all your friends are doing way better than you and you don't really care about what the character is beyond stats and dice rolls, then a fighter might be like breaking your legs and running a marathon, but I do not find that to be the case at all.

[Flickerdart]

I posit that while it is possible to have fun despite playing a fighter, it is not possible to have fun because of it.

Assumption: You, the reader, find playing D&D fun.
Thus, it follows: Playing D&D is a kind of fun.
Clarification: Playing D&D involves engagement with the D&D system.
Thus, it follows: Increasing your engagement with the system is synonymous with increasing the amount of fun.
Observation: A fighter can only engage with the system to a very limited extent due to its lack of meaningful class features.
Thus, it follows: Playing a fighter reduces the amount of fun that is derived from playing D&D.

[AmberVael]

There are a lot of ways to play the game. A lot. So many that I don't feel I could do them justice by trying to list them.

Personally, I don't generally enjoy the mechanics of the fighter class. But there are scenarios in which I could still enjoy playing a fighter. And there are even more scenarios in which someone else could enjoy playing a fighter, even mechanically despite my own lack of interest in that aspect.

So... yeah. You can do it. It might be that there are a notable number of people who are averse to its somewhat simple and bare set of mechanics, but it would be simply foolish to suggest it wasn't plausible that someone could have fun with the class.

[OldTrees1]

Yes.



Any answer longer than this is going to end in tears.

Depends on the player's personal tastes.
longer response and no tears expected :P

For example:
I prefer Tier 3 melee playstyle.
I dislike Stikes and other not At-Will options.
Would a Tier 5 Fighter build be enjoyable for me? No.

[Vhaidara]

I have a friend playing a dwarf fighter right now. He's having a blast. Admittedly, he's acquired a form of casting (he threatens my bard), but still.

And my cousin enjoyed his pair of dwarven fighters.

And fighter does have a place in op builds. It's just that it becomes a 2 level class you take to help meet prereqs without losing BAB.

[Zetapup]

There's a quote in someone's sig that always seems relevant when these threads come up: "Sure, it might be nice to eat at gourmet five star restaurants all the time, but sometimes I just want a cheeseburger, damnit". Plus, I personally find it fun to see what I can build given the limitations of a fighter. It's not the sort of thing I like to play all the time, but on occasion I enjoy playing the dude that bashes people over the head lots of times.

Also, there's the power level of the other player's characters to consider. My group's really low op, so playing a wizard/druid/whatever to even half its potential isn't very fun for them. If I optimize a fighter decently, however, I'm not soloing the encounter and I get to have fun with char building. It's pretty much just a matter of preference- some people like playing tier 1s all the time, some people like playing tier 5s, and either way is a-okay.

[Phelix-Mu]

My friend played a mainly fighter earthchild through like...twelve levels of fighter? I think that's right. Started with the racial class, then fighter, then a smidge of something else at the end of the campaign. That's 1-20 with a build that mostly was just swinging swords. He eventually got a cohort of some kind, but I don't think it was a caster. Gosh, memory failing me.

Anyway, my point is that he had great fun smashing face, slicing things in twain, and generally being a monster in melee. Eventually he developed a few non-combat interests, and I made an effort to make sure he didn't totally suck at it. His non-fighter bits definitely ameliorated things, of course, but the main fun was the hacking enemies to bits. And this in a party with a Swift Hunter Scout, a psion, and a dwarf gish. It was certainly not a high-op campaign, but it managed to stay interesting.

tl/dr: It takes all kinds.:smallsmile:

[Dimers]

EDIT: I have got to remember not to get sucked in by the provocation. That's twice in two nights I've responded instead of reporting. :smallsigh:


For example, let's take the fighter

The tier list ranks it at tier 5, says that they suck, and so on.

JaronK's tier system says that the fighter base class per the PHB focuses on one thing and doesn't even do that terribly well -- or, given that they're very close to tier 4 and can definitely enter it with a single variant, that they can do one thing well but not much else. Rather than saying "don't play fighters", what it says is "a fighter is a good class to use when the party consists of other tier 4-6 characters at a similar optimization level".

[Sam K]

I would think that it would end in tiers. :smallbiggrin:

Unless the fighter has a rend attack, then it could end in tears (but, you know, not the weeping kind... sorry, this sounded funnier in my head).

The fighter DOES have one thing going for it: it is by far the class with the least book keeping. If you're the kind of player who really dislikes keeping track of limited use abilities, the fighter has very little of that. While the inflexible mechanics is a severe disadvantage in many cases, to people who do not have (nor desire) understanding of the game mechanics, the fighter is quite easy to play.

Sadly, the fact that it's hard to build, with all those feats, makes it a bit harder for newbies to grasp, but sub-optimal builds are generally less frustrating for new players than sub-optimal play.

And dont forget about the people who get all smug about their false sense of superiority because they "dont care about optimization". The fighter is hours of fun for them!

[Hurnn]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A ANTI-FIGHTER THREAD. THIS THREAD IS ONLY QUESTIONING IF THE FIGHTER IS FUN TO PLAY.

Is that even possible?

For example, let's take the fighter

The tier list ranks it at tier 5, says that they suck, and so on.

If somebody is just a bit aware of the Tier System, they would immediatly think "fighters sux" and play a high-tier class instead.

So why actually would somebody play a fighter, if anything they do sucks?

(Discounting low-op and challenging yourself. It seems that nobody plays non-op here, and challenging yourself by playing the fighter is like breaking both of your legs and then running a marathon: painful and with little reward in the end.)

Funny story I was very vocal on the fighters suck thread, and they do suck but my favorite char is a Skilled city dwelling, dungeon-crashing, Z-soldier, fighter with 2 barb dip levels. They are and can be fun to play but their mechanics have severe limits you have to work very hard to get around to do anything mechanically out side of stabbing soft things with sharp things.

[Vrock_Summoner]

It seems that nobody plays non-op here

Hey, cut it out with the over generalizations, would you? It doesn't seem like it, but this could actually offend some people. Being a member of this board doesn't make you an optimizer by default.

Anyway, to answer your question, generally the Fighter does indeed have a niche player market. There are generally three things that might cause somebody to play a Fighter, though these are general rules and there will most certainly be specific cases that don't adhere to this.

1) The player wants to play a martial character and is the martial options are generally limited to what's available in Core. Barbarian exists, but a Core tier system would generally put Barb in about the same tier. So Fighter is as good a choice as any, I guess.

2) The player has access to more sourcebooks, but is inexperienced and not used to building things outside the basic. Just because, say, ToB is AVAILABLE doesn't mean you'd just build one. It'd probably come out just as bad as your Fighter if you're more used to that.

3) The player loves building characters to maximum efficacy, but doesn't like thinking too hard about intelligent maneuvers in the middle of game sessions. Fighters are like the mundane Sorcerers for this, except in the sense of "build hard, play easy" they're even better. The Ubercharger technically usually utilizes Barbarian levels, but the important thing is that it exemplifies this. It takes effort to build correctly if you aren't copypasting off the internet, it handles all of your damage-dealing needs, and you can leave thinking about how to get the creature into your charging range to the people who have elected to be the thinkers. ToB is better in every way except sheer numbers, but you have to think a lot to play one. They're practically physical spellcasters.

So, yeah. Those are the main reasons, really. Also, just because you think something sucks doesn't mean other people will. Keep that in mind.

[Sir Chuckles]

Fun is subjective.

The optimization board would blackjack me and put me to a firing squad for my Neanderthal Rage Mage, but I'm having fun.
My first character was a Rogue/Duelist, and I was having fun (...up until the DM played favorites and gave the Druid a wisdom score over 10,000...)
You can have fun playing almost any character, at almost any level, at almost any time. The almost are purely your preferences (I don't like Scout and Ranger type archers, personally).

[Blkmge]

Look at Roy.

He's a fighter, and in spite of his shortcomings manages to pull his weight - granted, that's because he didn't treat his int as a dump stat. :P

[Drachasor]

Look at Roy.

He's a fighter, and in spite of his shortcomings manages to pull his weight - granted, that's because he didn't treat his int as a dump stat. :P

More significantly, he's not a D&D character really. None of the people in OOTS are. They are webcomic characters in a comic based on D&D. There's a huge difference between the two. Since he's the party leader, narrative law dictates he has to pull his own weight.

Anyhow, people can have fun in T4 or T5. I don't care for it because I like flexibility and T4/5 characters are rather lacking in that regard.

[Just to Browse]

The one (surprising) place I've seen Tier 5 classes shine is when they involve semi-railroady DMs and/or DMs that let you make up stuff (like in ye olde D&D when your proficiencies were what you could do IRL). Railroady DMs don't mesh well with unexpected actions or abilities/skills that "turn ROLEplaying into ROLLplaying", and DMs that let you make up stuff will cover for the weaknesses inherent in fighters and barbarians who can't do crap outside combat.

Admittedly, this is totally dis-empowering for any self-aware PC who likes controlling their own actions, but it's find for rail-shooters and Beer & Pretzels games. When I play a one-shot, the higher level it goes, the more likely I am to pick a fighter because I know it'll annoy the DM less and by extension let me have more fun.

[rexx1888]

the thing aboout the fighter class is that while everything starts off fun an easy to get along with, eventually players run into a point where they have problems they cant do anything about, and thats not only demoralizing, but just not fun.

An its worse if they are new to the game, because then they have no idea how they could in any way overcome those problems, and they just decide the dnd system is mental. An this assumes they dont have any tier ones in the party. If they do, then they get to watch other classes solve problems with little to no effort. At first it isnt a big deal. Hell, its welcome, because now that problems gone and the fighter player can feel good again. Then it happens again, an again, with ever increasing regularity, and the player starts feeling more and more useless.

An the thing that pisses me off about that is that it really wouldnt be too hard to fix. I know we always have these conversations, but the answer has never been by making fighters able to use maneuvres or swap feats. Its just a matter of bumping up skills, giving a few better choices, and giving the fighter some features designed for fighting in addition to the feats. Its not like a player goes in to the fighter class thinking "yeah, im a bad ass thatll be able to solve all the problems ever". No, they go in hoping to be John McLane or some other bad ass. They just cant be a bad ass by playing the fighter class, and eventually that pisses ppl off. They just have to play long enough for it to kick in.

[Spore]

Being mundane is a strong flavor option. "Mundanity" makes your character more relatable (you as a player can't cast spells), it makes the world more threatening and the victories more intense (we beat someone who could shoot fire from his fingertips).

Our silly monkey/ape brains do not care about the balancing when the pleasure of victory is involved. Only very experienced players (that often had the thrill of success and can categorize characters on the fly) will not get the fun from playing fighters beating underoptimized casters. Because there are ways popping up that could've easily made your mundane character minced meat.

Still, we are primitive animals to the core, so sex and brutality appeals more to us than complicated spell combinations. If we can imagine a frail wizard being chopped in half by a mighty fighter, we are more satified than when a mighty fighter gets hit by a maze spell and simply vanishes.

Now I am not denying the fun in beating an puzzle or encounter by pure brain power and ingenuity but still, every genius has the urge to prove their superiority to appeal to more primitive parts of their brain.

[Eldan]

Still, we are primitive animals to the core, so sex and brutality appeals more to us than complicated spell combinations. If we can imagine a frail wizard being chopped in half by a mighty fighter, we are more satified than when a mighty fighter gets hit by a maze spell and simply vanishes.

Speak for yourself.

[Axinian]

Gods, another one? We just started wrapping up with the other fighter thread! Do we really need more right freakin' now?

[Eldan]

Gods, another one? We just started wrapping up with the other fighter thread! Do we really need more right freakin' now?

Why yes! The one in the homebrew forum is winding down into general system discussion, we need something to tide us over until Monkday.

[hemming]

You guys might be forgetting how intimidating the game is for someone new to it - a lot of people, even after playing for a few years, are still only on a base familiarity with the core rules and w/ only some passing knowledge of supplementals. Playing a character with few options and lots of feats isn't bad for this kind of player (especially from the perspective of the DM seat)

Optimization is tough and takes a lot of dedication outside of the session

A player that is in a low tier game with only a few years of experience really has no compelling reason to optimize.

Optimization and RP are not mutually exclusive - but if ALL of your character decisions were made from RP and require an in-game availability/training, then I really see no way to optimize 99% of the time without a meta conception of character. This isn't a criticism

I've never been a fan of the fighter, but I've seen people play them and enjoy them

Edit: Just to clarify (as it will inevitably follow) - if those people were willing to invest the time to learn how to play an alternate martial class and had access to the resources to do it, then they would have more/better options

[Drachasor]

You guys might be forgetting how intimidating the game is for someone new to it - a lot of people, even after playing for a few years, are still only on a base familiarity with the core rules and w/ only some passing knowledge of supplementals. Playing a character with few options and lots of feats isn't bad for this kind of player (especially from the perspective of the DM seat)

Optimization is tough and takes a lot of dedication outside of the session

That's not a selling point for the fighter then. Barbarians are much better in this regard, as they have fewer feats and are harder to screw up. It's much harder to make a bad Barbarian than it is to make a bad Fighter -- because there are tons and tons and tons of Fighter feats and most of them are awful. You really have to know what you are doing with Fighters.

A Barbarian or better yet Wildshape Ranger is easier. Warlock and some other classes are also good for beginners if you want something simple.

[Spore]

Speak for yourself.

So this is how you react to starting a thread of thought in here? No discussion just a simple "not me, I am totally above my emotions"? Everyone has their slight delusions and this may be yours.

I am still of the opinion that you should generally gestalt Barbarian/Fighter and Ranger/Rogue together to create working mundanes.

[hemming]

That's not a selling point for the fighter then. Barbarians are much better in this regard, as they have fewer feats and are harder to screw up. It's much harder to make a bad Barbarian than it is to make a bad Fighter -- because there are tons and tons and tons of Fighter feats and most of them are awful. You really have to know what you are doing with Fighters.

A Barbarian or better yet Wildshape Ranger is easier. Warlock and some other classes are also good for beginners if you want something simple.

Don't forget that this player is in a low-tier game - it doesn't really matter is she screws up or makes a character that is "bad" from a mechanical view. You are still approaching the issue from an 'optimization matters' perspective

And Barbarian and wildshape ranger both have very different RP flavor (if they care about that sort of thing), however much they may be mechanically superior

From a pick-up and play perspective - warlock and wildshape ranger are both way more complicated

[Drachasor]

Don't forget that this player is in a low-tier game - it doesn't really matter is she screws up or makes a character that is "bad" from a mechanical view. You are still approaching the issue from an 'optimization matters' perspective

And Barbarian and wildshape ranger both have very different RP flavor (if they care about that sort of thing), however much they may be mechanically superior

From a pick-up and play perspective - warlock and wildshape ranger are both way more complicated

The Wildshape Ranger is only more complicated in the sense that Wildshaping changes your stats. Otherwise it is easier. The Warlock is just flat-out less complicated than the Fighter.

The only way the Fighter is "simple" is if you don't care about what feats you are taking. Well, you can do the same with the Warlock regarding Invocations and still do fine. You can just pick one Wildshape type for the Wildshape Ranger (say bears) and not worry about much of anything else except the occasional bird or something and do well -- and this lets you ease into the mechanic.

Feat trees and pre-requisites make the Fighter quite complicated to build, however. I'd argue in some ways it is more complicated than a Wizard to build. The Wizard is more complicated in play though since it inherently interacts with more game systems and can potentially interact with every major system in Core and some outside of it.

Consider the Wildshape Ranger and Warlock though. Decisions they make at level 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, don't need to build up to anything at later levels. And they make fewer decisions at level up overall. They both generally interact with relatively few systems and do well. And if they feel they aren't measuring up well, often there will be something they can do immediately to adjust (though it might require leveling up). You also can do very well with them without going outside of Core (and Complete Arcane for Warlocks). Fighters aren't so lucky.

And a new player can still be hurt by playing a really low OP character. Some players might not notice they aren't contributing much of anything, but a lot of new players pick up one that sort of thing pretty quickly in my experience. It's very frustrating if you find yourself in that position with no way to adjust.

Overall I think a Fighter looks simple, but in practice it is very complicated. Sure, if you happen to have a player that just doesn't care if they pull their weight or not, then it doesn't matter. Such a player could be a Warrior at that point. Most people aren't like that in my experience.

[Axinian]

So this is how you react to starting a thread of thought in here? No discussion just a simple "not me, I am totally above my emotions"? Everyone has their slight delusions and this may be yours.


You're were assuming that his emotions drive him to enjoy the things you described. It is not true that everyone enjoys the violent and sexual on some deep level. Don't call people deluded for feeling different things. That's just being insulting for no reason.

[hemming]

The Wildshape Ranger is only more complicated in the sense that Wildshaping changes your stats. Otherwise it is easier. The Warlock is just flat-out less complicated than the Fighter.

The only way the Fighter is "simple" is if you don't care about what feats you are taking. Well, you can do the same with the Warlock regarding Invocations and still do fine. You can just pick one Wildshape type for the Wildshape Ranger (say bears) and not worry about much of anything else except the occasional bird or something and do well -- and this lets you ease into the mechanic.

Feat trees and pre-requisites make the Fighter quite complicated to build, however. I'd argue in some ways it is more complicated than a Wizard to build. The Wizard is more complicated in play though since it inherently interacts with more game systems and can potentially interact with every major system in Core and some outside of it.

And a new player can still be hurt by playing a really low OP character. Some players might not notice they aren't contributing much of anything, but a lot of new players pick up one that sort of thing pretty quickly in my experience. It's very frustrating if you find yourself in that position with no way to adjust.

I agree with everything in the above - but I think you are still considering building a character a little more than playing one.

The last paragraph is especially pertinent.

Point taken on Warlock - although you have to want to be a caster

There is a player in my game right now who is a fighter - so in some ways I'm being defensive mama hen right now. I want this player to have fun

This is his second game and he owns no books - no matter how much I try to suggest thinking about prestige classes or CC he is just not interested. He has enough trouble with managing the basics that I think wildeshape may be taxing on him (maybe not, it can be pretty simple as you point out). But I think I've managed to keep him relevant in the game and I think he is having fun. I am seriously worried about being able to keep this up as levels progress though

Edit: I am very kind with character rebuilding as well

[Talakeal]

The problem is the fighter as presented is boring and useless. IMO this is not, however, a problem in concept, merely a problem in execution.

Fighters one of if not the shortest skill list in the game and only 2+ Int skills per level.
Fighters only have one good save and nothing like evasion, mettle, or slippery mind to help out, so they will be taken out of player control often.
Fighters have all of their mental stats as dump stats.
It takes a lot of feats to be good at anything. Even with all of their bonus feats fighters need to specialize in one or two combat styles and stick there, even at high level.
D&D combat does not support tanking, and it is both hard and requires the enemy cooperation to be good at multiple "ranges" of combat, for example full attacking or charging.
Fighters have no way of dealing with flight, incorporeality, walls of force, etc. without wasting a lot of money on magic items, most of which only work occasionally.

So when fighters are allowed to do something they are fine, but this will rarely be the case. All of these are easy to fix, as I listed in more detail in another recent thread.

Still, a fighter will never compete with T1 or T2 characters who have access to utterly game breaking spells like Gate, Shape Change, Simulacrum, or even low end ability drain. But these classes are boring for the opposite reason, they are never challenged as the only limitations they have are those set on themselves.

Still, I am of the opinion that the problem isn't nearly so big as people say, and you could get a decently balanced game with less than half a dozen nerfs to each of the T1-2 classes and less than half a dozen buffs to the T 4-5 classes.

[Zsaber0]

I posit that while it is possible to have fun despite playing a fighter, it is not possible to have fun because of it.

Assumption: You, the reader, find playing D&D fun.
Thus, it follows: Playing D&D is a kind of fun.
Clarification: Playing D&D involves engagement with the D&D system.
Thus, it follows: Increasing your engagement with the system is synonymous with increasing the amount of fun.
Observation: A fighter can only engage with the system to a very limited extent due to its lack of meaningful class features.
Thus, it follows: Playing a fighter reduces the amount of fun that is derived from playing D&D.

Your logic is flawed. You are assumng the player is having fun because of playing D&D in the first place, when we all know D&D isn't fun at all. Using your logic we could very easily conclude that he has fun because the chairs are comfortable, but because the chair he sits in doesn't have enough "sitting features" he isnt having as much fun.

[Togo]

Ah, another fighter thread, another load of condescension.

Consider two playstyles. The first is one in which you rely on 'breaking' encounters. You try and pull out an ability, power or effect that doesn't just hurt the enemy, but shuts down the entire encounter. Solid fog or wall of force to split an enemy in two, or immobalise them so that a persistent effect can kill them, kiting, massive piling up of metamagic, scry and die, and so on.

This style works well with optimisation, which can similarly be about creating builds that produce new and interesting effects. It tends to allow individuals to show off their knowledge and intelligence to their friends, and feel good about themselves by 'breaking' published adventures and standard scenarios. At a team level you end up in what is a group puzzle solving exercise, as opponents are not so much fought as analysed and matched to an appropriate ability or power. Obviously flexibility is king here, teamwork is fairly optional, because all that's required is that one person in the group come up with a solution, and you can become better just by copying other people's solutions from internet forums. The attractions of this to a net-based group of optimisers should be fairly transparent.

The second style is where 'breaking' encounters is explicitly forbidden or tactitly avoided. The focus is on working within the game and encounter structure, so any move that ends a potential challenge instantly will ultimately not be used. Instead the game is about making good use of limited resources avaiable to shift the odds or tactical situation in the favour of your team. It involves less puzzle solving and more tactical thinking that the other style and relies heavily on teamwork. The characters tend to live longer, and sucessfully overcome more challenges.

The fighter is very well suited to the second style, since it can be customised to match the capabilities of the team. It's very poorly suited to the first style, since it's hard to optimise, has few if any game-breaking tricks, and is intended for team play.


The problems come when people used to the first style meet those used to the second style, and expectations as to what makes a good character clash horribly, particularly amongst the inexperienced. This usually manifests as someone used to the first style claiming that fighters are easy to play, for people who don't think, for new players and so on, because they don't really value or understand tactical thinking and team play; or someone used to the second style claiming that fighters can beat wizards because they don't understand what the game looks like when all the 'sensible' limits they're used to are removed.

So you get two groups talking past eachother. One thinking of a fighter as just a guy who hits things and stands in the way, and underestimating them through a combination of not being able to play them well and not understanding their role in the team. And the other seeing the fighter as being the one in the spotlight, and not understanding how a lack of interesting class features makes them functionally almost useless for the high-op levels of the first style of play.

Playing a fighter is hard, and the level of expertise displayed on these boards for playing one is quite low compared to that shown for primary spellcasters. If you think a fighter just hits things, just stands in the way, and that his reliance of the rest of the team is a flaw, then you haven't understood the point being made. And if you think that a fighter stands a decent chance against a well-optimised wizard with no limits and no restrictions, then you've not understood the point being made.

[Drachasor]

Consider two playstyles. The first is one in which you rely on 'breaking' encounters. You try and pull out an ability, power or effect that doesn't just hurt the enemy, but shuts down the entire encounter. Solid fog or wall of force to split an enemy in two, or immobalise them so that a persistent effect can kill them, kiting, massive piling up of metamagic, scry and die, and so on.

This style works well with optimisation, which can similarly be about creating builds that produce new and interesting effects. It tends to allow individuals to show off their knowledge and intelligence to their friends, and feel good about themselves by 'breaking' published adventures and standard scenarios. At a team level you end up in what is a group puzzle solving exercise, as opponents are not so much fought as analysed and matched to an appropriate ability or power. Obviously flexibility is king here, teamwork is fairly optional, because all that's required is that one person in the group come up with a solution, and you can become better just by copying other people's solutions from internet forums. The attractions of this to a net-based group of optimisers should be fairly transparent.

The second style is where 'breaking' encounters is explicitly forbidden or tactitly avoided. The focus is on working within the game and encounter structure, so any move that ends a potential challenge instantly will ultimately not be used. Instead the game is about making good use of limited resources avaiable to shift the odds or tactical situation in the favour of your team. It involves less puzzle solving and more tactical thinking that the other style and relies heavily on teamwork. The characters tend to live longer, and sucessfully overcome more challenges.

Your distinction as described doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How is using a spell EXACTLY how it is intended to be used "not working within the game and encounter structure?" The vast majority of T1 stuff doesn't require any fancy combinations beyond the blatantly obvious and intended uses of spells. Wall of Force and other Walls are INTENDED to split up enemies for instance. SoDs are intended to potentially kill lots of enemies. Using a metamagic reducer is intended to make metamagic cheaper (and isn't at all necessary for T1 behavior for what it is worth). And it is still using limited resources.

You have a weird definition of combat when it doesn't involve analyzing the enemy in any way shape or form.

This feels a lot like blaming the player for playing his character competently (not optimized, just competently) and for using abilities intelligently as they were intended to be used. It's not their fault the class balance is a mess.

But it is a bit funny that you somehow think playing smart means characters die more and achieve less.

[Togo]

How is using a spell EXACTLY how it is intended to be used "not working within the game and encounter structure?" The vast majority of T1 stuff doesn't require any fancy combinations beyond the blatantly obvious and intended uses of spells. Wall of Force and other Walls are INTENDED to split up enemies for instance. SoDs are intended to potentially kill lots of enemies. Using a metamagic reducer is intended to make metamagic cheaper (and isn't at all necessary for T1 behavior for what it is worth).

You're talking about using the rules as intended. That's not a point I made.

By game and encounter stucture, I'm talking about the system whereby the difficulty of a monster challenge depends on the stats and capabilities of the monster. For much of high-op play in the first style, the stats and capabilities are largely irrelevant - the entire point is to render them irrelevant. Hence the comment that such games devolve into 'rocket tag'. At lower levels of optimisation this is less true, but the first style still favours rendering the enemies capabilities irrelevant rather than trying to combat them directly.



You have a weird definition of combat when it doesn't involve analysing the enemy in any way shape or form.

No seeing where I said that.


This feels a lot like blaming the player for playing his character competently (not optimized, just competently) and for using abilities intelligently as they were intended to be used.

I assure you I'm not accusing optimisers of competence. I made the distinction (puzzle solving versus group tactics) very clear.


But it is a bit funny that you somehow think playing smart means characters die more and achieve less.

Again, you're confusing optimisation with being 'smart'. They're quite different. As long as you're stuck on this idea that a preference for one style of play is about competence, intelligence or capability, then you'll never understand why people disagree with you.

It is, I grant you, counter-intuitive that optimisation shortens your character's lifespan, and certainly a generalisation, but broadly true nonetheless. The key point is the effect that optimisation has on the challenges you end up facing, and the gameworld you end up playing in.

[TuggyNE]

Instead the game is about making good use of limited resources avaiable to shift the odds or tactical situation in the favour of your team.

It would seem, from the rest of your post, that this style is actually about making choices that are good but not too good. If they were actually making the fullest use of limited resources, they would be following classic optimization principles — all optimizers worthy of the name cling to some sort of practical resource limitation on their effectiveness, even if it's only the action economy — but this is considered bad, so instead only solutions that fall far short of optimality are considered.

In other words, this is about the group hobbling certain choices on purpose (though not necessarily consciously) to avoid winning too easily or by too much. The emphasis on tactical choices is, perhaps, emblematic; it is fighting, and then hoping to win, as opposed to winning, and then fighting. It's about being a good sport and giving your foes a fighting chance, as though playing football.

Strictly speaking, teamwork is largely orthogonal to high-op; many optimizers do design their characters to function adequately without any support, but generally they are quite careful to provide some sort of party role. BFC does not kill enemies, it contributes to making them dead more easily and with fewer losses; minions effectively add to the party HP pool and damage output; buffing improves party member effectiveness or reduces vulnerabilities; and so on. The ultimate expression is Team Solars, in which teamwork is utterly crucial, but the result is a conglomeration of such horrific optimized power as to demolish any at-level encounter with the greatest of ease.

I'm not at all sure I agree with these distinctions as I have extrapolated them, but it's something to think about. (I also had a one-sentence TLDR but it seemed horrifically inflammatory to both sides simultaneously, which is dreadfully enlightening in itself.)

[Drachasor]

You're talking about using the rules as intended. That's not a point I made.

By game and encounter stucture, I'm talking about the system whereby the difficulty of a monster challenge depends on the stats and capabilities of the monster. For much of high-op play in the first style, the stats and capabilities are largely irrelevant - the entire point is to render them irrelevant. Hence the comment that such games devolve into 'rocket tag'. At lower levels of optimisation this is less true, but the first style still favours rendering the enemies capabilities irrelevant rather than trying to combat them directly.

And those spells were designed to be used that way within that encounter structure. You're making an artificial distinction here.





No seeing where I said that.

Maybe I overstated, but you did say:


opponents are not so much fought as analysed and matched to an appropriate ability or power.

Implying this isn't part of "proper" play. Because analyzing opponents and targeting weaknesses isn't how the game is designed? Except that it is. In fact, CRs are often balanced with this in mind.


I assure you I'm not accusing optimisers of competence. I made the distinction (puzzle solving versus group tactics) very clear.

No, you aren't. You act like using a spell as it was designed in a way that benefits the PARTY and enables other party members (as is most often the case, because even most group SoDs or the like don't kill everyone) somehow doesn't happen. Because either the wizard/cleric/druid does it all or everyone works together. That's a ridiculously false dichotomy. Even in very high op people acknowledge that there's often stuff for a Fighter to do -- it's just that they can do a lot fewer things than the T1s or even T3s. That doesn't make them useless or not part of a team though.


Again, you're confusing optimisation with being 'smart'. They're quite different. As long as you're stuck on this idea that a preference for one style of play is about competence, intelligence or capability, then you'll never understand why people disagree with you.

If targeting the enemy's weaknesses and incapacitating groups so that damage dealers can take them out -- or killing some yourself -- is optimization, then yes, that's what playing smart is. You do seem to making some sort of weird false dichotomy here between using abilities well and "teamwork" that isn't remotely clear and I don't think CAN be clear. Unless you define "teamwork" and "working within the system" as everyone playing less intelligently -- because the high op often has a lot of teamwork too. Just because a Wizard CAN take out an encounter by himself doesn't mean that he does -- in practical terms that often doesn't happen and is wasteful of resources.


It is, I grant you, counter-intuitive that optimisation shortens your character's lifespan, and certainly a generalisation, but broadly true nonetheless. The key point is the effect that optimisation has on the challenges you end up facing, and the gameworld you end up playing in.

Optimization is a pretty smooth curve. And if you are really high op and enemies are tuned tighter, then that means death is going to matter less. If you are low op and play proper CR enemies you will die a lot more and probably have less funds to deal with it (because you are dying more). The game has a lot of equal CR enemies with SoDs as you gain levels.

Now if you are saying the low op group doesn't face such enemies much or at all, then that's might support your case. Unfortunately it also means they aren't really playing the game as intended. What is likely if the game is played as intended is that the lower OP group has more contact time with enemies, and so face more SoDs, more crits, and so has more deaths. But if things get tuned up proportionately to play, then I don't see any reason why deaths would inherently increase in frequency. There's even less of a reason why challenges would be failed more often. Heck, at particularly high op it is going to be really hard to kill anyone.

Though it seems like as part of this false dichotomy you are also painting the high op group (with no groups inbetween) as facing challenges that are relatively harder for them than the low op group's challenges are for the low op group. I don't see how this tracks or makes any sense.

Seems like you are mostly just making statistics up to suit your personal view, because I really doubt you have unbiased data backing it up.


It would seem, from the rest of your post, that this style is actually about making choices that are good but not too good. If they were actually making the fullest use of limited resources, they would be following classic optimization principles — all optimizers worthy of the name cling to some sort of practical resource limitation on their effectiveness, even if it's only the action economy — but this is considered bad, so instead only solutions that fall far short of optimality are considered.

I will say this is one reason why bad balance makes games less fun for me. Trying to figure out what is "too good" for my DM and group is very annoying. Though with my group it is mostly about spell combinations, not using spells in the most obvious way such as cutting off half the enemies or not targeting weaknesses. To be so low op that you can't even do the most obvious things the game expects would drive me insane (so I'd probably have to quit a group like that).

[Amphetryon]

The tier list ranks it at tier 5, says that they suck, and so on.

If you could quote the relevant passage from JaronK's original Tier listing of the Fighter that says that Fighters 'suck' or aren't fun to play, I'd be appreciative. I say this because I do not believe the Tier List says anything about any particular Tier or Class 'sucking' or not being fun; I distinctly recall JaronK talking about having fun with a Commoner as his Character before.

[Togo]

And those spells were designed to be used that way within that encounter structure. You're making an artificial distinction here.

I'm not making a distinction about intended use at all.


Implying this isn't part of "proper" play.

Sorry, if you're reduced to talking about what I must have been implying, then you must realise that you're talking about things I haven't said. All I can really do is tell you you have the wrong end of the stick.


No, you aren't. You act like using a spell as it was designed in a way that benefits the PARTY and enables other party members (as is most often the case, because even most group SoDs or the like don't kill everyone) somehow doesn't happen. Because either the wizard/cleric/druid does it all or everyone works together. That's a ridiculously false dichotomy.

Which is probably why I didn't make such a dichotomy. What I said what there were two play styles (a simplification, I realise), one of which concentrates on shutting down encounters irrespective of their capabilities, and the other of which concentrates on surviving and/or overmatching those capabilities. I also said that people concerned with optimisation, particularly those on internet forums, tend to prefer the former.


Even in very high op people acknowledge that there's often stuff for a Fighter to do -- it's just that they can do a lot fewer things than the T1s or even T3s. That doesn't make them useless or not part of a team though.

Some people on this thread have been arguing exactly that, just as has been argued on previous threads.


If targeting the enemy's weaknesses and incapacitating groups so that damage dealers can take them out -- or killing some yourself -- is optimization, then yes, that's what playing smart is.

Goodness, what a tangle. That's not the dichotomy I presented. Nor is optimisation versus non-optimisation. And I wouldn't call what you describe optimisation.


Optimization is a pretty smooth curve.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I suspect I don't agree. I would describe optimisation as being neither a curve, nor smooth.


And if you are really high op and enemies are tuned tighter,

Higher op doesn't imply tighter tuning. It's entirely possible to have highly tuned low-op builds, and sloppy, thrown-together high op builds.


then that means death is going to matter less.

Hm.. If you play games where death is a trivial distraction, then you'd need to replace 'will not survive' with 'fail your mission a lot'. Whether you actually die or just get defeated matters less, of course.


If you are low op and play proper CR enemies you will die a lot more and probably have less funds to deal with it (because you are dying more). The game has a lot of equal CR enemies with SoDs as you gain levels.

Sorry, not seeing why low op against low op opponents would die more than high op against high op opponents.


But if things get tuned up proportionately to play, then I don't see any reason why deaths would inherently increase in frequency.

Because at higher op the game tends more towards rocket tag. And I wasn't counting deaths, but the chances of the group being defeated as a group.


Though it seems like as part of this false dichotomy you are also painting the high op group (with no groups inbetween) as facing challenges that are relatively harder for them than the low op group's challenges are for the low op group. I don't see how this tracks or makes any sense.

Not harder, just more swingy.


Seems like you are mostly just making statistics up to suit your personal view, because I really doubt you have unbiased data backing it up.

How charming.


I will say this is one reason why bad balance makes games less fun for me. Trying to figure out what is "too good" for my DM and group is very annoying. Though with my group it is mostly about spell combinations, not using spells in the most obvious way such as cutting off half the enemies or not targeting weaknesses.

There's nothing wrong with having a preferred style. I play both styles. Finding the right balance can be difficult but it comes with practice.

[Gavinfoxx]

So play a Tier 5 game...

Fighter, Ninja, Healer, and Magewright. As long as the enemies are appropriate to the characters, stories can be told with that mix...

[Togo]

It would seem, from the rest of your post, that this style is actually about making choices that are good but not too good....

In other words, this is about the group hobbling certain choices on purpose (though not necessarily consciously) to avoid winning too easily or by too much. The emphasis on tactical choices is, perhaps, emblematic; it is fighting, and then hoping to win, as opposed to winning, and then fighting. It's about being a good sport and giving your foes a fighting chance, as though playing football.

Yes, if you like. Every table puts limits on what you can and can't have at a table, which is why not every table is haunted by the spectre of Pun-Pun. The limit, explicitly or by convention, is to avoid using options that go above a particular threshold.

If your game is structured to favour choices that simply nullify enemies irrespective of their capabilities (such as SoD effects), and your tactics are around using those wherever possible, then you're favouring the former style. Damage doesn't really matter except in large amounts, or as a clear up after the main force has been destroyed.

If your game is structured to favour choices that work by engaging with enemies, and over matching or out manoeuvring them, then you're favouring the second style. It's the difference between trying beat a grappler by tactically protecting the more vulnerable members of the party, selectively engaging with the party's own grapple specialists, selective immunity from characters with freedom of movement and high escape artist, and balancing attack and defence capabilities, and simply taking off with mass fly and kiting it to death with bows and magic missiles.

[roko10]

If you could quote the relevant passage from JaronK's original Tier listing of the Fighter that says that Fighters 'suck' or aren't fun to play, I'd be appreciative. I say this because I do not believe the Tier List says anything about any particular Tier or Class 'sucking' or not being fun; I distinctly recall JaronK talking about having fun with a Commoner as his Character before.

Not the original tier system, mind you. I meant that people can misconstruct the statement of "Capable of doing only one thing well, and not really good at all" as "This classes suck, never play them or else you'll be useless."

[Amphetryon]

Not the original tier system, mind you. I meant that people can misconstruct the statement of "Capable of doing only one thing well, and not really good at all" as "This classes suck, never play them or else you'll be useless."

So, you're basing a thread on what you admit is a deliberately misconstrued understanding of the Tier System? :smallconfused:

Okay, then.

[Person_Man]

So D&D is basically composed of 5 interconnected games; character creation, daily character customization, roleplaying, combat, and exploration.


There are thousands of Fighter Bonus Feats. So you can spend a lot of time enjoying character creation (assuming you enjoy reading through Feats).

You have no daily character customization, other then when you gain an even class level. You do not choose spells, maneuvers, soulmelds, vestiges, etc. So if you enjoy this aspect of the game, the Fighter is a terrible choice.

You could argue that being good at social Skills or having domination/charm magic encourages roleplaying, and that the Fighter doesn't have these things, and thus is poorly positioned for players who enjoy roleplaying. But my real life experience is that while the party face will usually take the lead in some critical situations, most of the time most players will have fun roleplaying or not depending on their own personalities and the DM, regardless of the whether or not their characters are good at winning social encounters.

Combat can be many things. If you enjoy high stakes, fast paced, old school style D&D combat, then it's easy to optimize a Fighter to have massive damage output and have fun doing this. If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

Fighters have very few exploration options. So if you enjoy spending a lot of time bypassing traps, finding secret doors, listening at doors, surviving environmental hazards, tracking enemies, hiding from enemies, finding out the right information to unlock the ancient artifact, etc.

So a Fighter is ideal for someone who likes lots of character creation options, but little to no daily customization or exploration, who enjoys quickly resolved combat, with roleplaying being an X factor that any player can have fun with or not.

[Amphetryon]

So D&D is basically composed of 5 interconnected games; character creation, daily character customization, roleplaying, combat, and exploration.


There are thousands of Fighter Bonus Feats. So you can spend a lot of time enjoying character creation (assuming you enjoy reading through Feats).

You have no daily character customization, other then when you gain an even class level. You do not choose spells, maneuvers, soulmelds, vestiges, etc. So if you enjoy this aspect of the game, the Fighter is a terrible choice.

You could argue that being good at social Skills or having domination/charm magic encourages roleplaying, and that the Fighter doesn't have these things, and thus is poorly positioned for players who enjoy roleplaying. But my real life experience is that while the party face will usually take the lead in some critical situations, most of the time most players will have fun roleplaying or not depending on their own personalities and the DM, regardless of the whether or not their characters are good at winning social encounters.

Combat can be many things. If you enjoy high stakes, fast paced, old school style D&D combat, then it's easy to optimize a Fighter to have massive damage output and have fun doing this. If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

Fighters have very few exploration options. So if you enjoy spending a lot of time bypassing traps, finding secret doors, listening at doors, surviving environmental hazards, tracking enemies, hiding from enemies, finding out the right information to unlock the ancient artifact, etc.

So a Fighter is ideal for someone who likes lots of character creation options, but little to no daily customization or exploration, who enjoys quickly resolved combat, with roleplaying being an X factor that any player can have fun with or not.
Some would add "shopping" to the list of mini-games, but shopping is pretty well divorced from most Tier concerns.

[Dimers]

Some would add "shopping" to the list of mini-games, but shopping is pretty well divorced from most Tier concerns.

Shopping can be a subset of exploration and/or character customization; crafting is definitely customization. Town-building mostly falls under roleplaying (or character customization, where the settlement is considered an aspect of the character). I've occasionally been in games where "annoying the DM" was a favorite minigame, and I can't see that fitting into Person_Man's quick five. But he gets the idea across pretty soundly.

[Particle_Man]

the thing aboout the fighter class is that while everything starts off fun an easy to get along with, eventually players run into a point where they have problems they cant do anything about, and thats not only demoralizing, but just not fun.

Unless, of course, the DM takes that into account and doesn't present the fighter with problems that the fighter can't do anything about. DMs can do that. That is why they are DMs.

I would also note that my favourite DM refuses to run games at high levels because it becomes too much like "rocket tag" with the T1 and T2 classes. I bet a party of Tier 5 characters could be run by the same DM from levels 1 to 20. That would mean that for a party with Tier 5 characters (including fighters), they could play in the same campaign, with the same characters, for longer. That would be fun for those that like playing the same characters. And certainly I had fun with my half-orc fighter with this DM.

And as for a short skill list, one can take cross-class skills (like Roy did, come to think of it), and the DM can give characters encounters that require lower DCs with those cross-class skill rolls, for non-combat things to do with a fighter.

So I would say it depends on the DM and the campaign. A single-classed fighter would not be fun to play in the Tippyverse, or in an optimized-verse, but would in other low-optmized-verse circumstances, where the DM is willing to work with the fighter and make sure the fighter has things to do. This may mean not using the monsters/encounters that fighters just cannot handle, just as one (probably) would not use a God vs. a T1 caster that by divine fiat makes all of the T1 caster's spells, feats, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, magic items, etc., etc., etc., permanently inoperable and then expect that T1 caster's player (now effectively a commoner) to have fun.

[Dimers]

Unless, of course, the DM takes that into account and doesn't present the fighter with problems that the fighter can't do anything about. DMs can do that. That is why they are DMs.

A single-classed fighter ... would in other low-optmized-verse circumstances, where the DM is willing to work with the fighter and make sure the fighter has things to do.

It's very difficult -- and quickly becomes contrived and immersion-breaking -- to offer a Tier 5 character an appropriate challenge if there's a Tier 3+ character in the party, because the better-tier character can handle it better or even trivially. So I'd say it's not a DM issue but a party lineup issue. If the entire party is in the Tier 4-5 range, a fighter will have things to do, inherently. That's the reason for the existence of the tier system: using it as a guideline for party creation (with awareness of different players' optimization skill) prevents this kind of problem from cropping up.

[Psyren]

Combat can be many things. If you enjoy high stakes, fast paced, old school style D&D combat, then it's easy to optimize a Fighter to have massive damage output and have fun doing this. If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

There's a second aspect you're missing - being the "resolution." Tactics in combat don't have to be limited to one character.

Basically, you're correct that fighters do little in a fight beyond rolling for damage. But that doesn't mean they have no say in the party's tactics at all. One of the most effective tactics for many parties is "get the melee over there so he can hit the thing really hard," or "deal with that obstacle so the melee can hit the thing behind it really hard." No class features are needed to make these kinds of suggestions, just enough intelligence to know that getting up in something's grill is the best way for a melee to hurt them. (i.e. you have to be smarter than mud.)

[crayzz]

So, you're basing a thread on what you admit is a deliberately misconstrued understanding of the Tier System?

It's like OP thinks public perception matters.

That's just silly.

[Blackhawk748]

Personally, i love the Fighter, its tied for my Top three favorite classes, with Sorcerer and Rogue. I love the Fighter because unlike the Barbarian, who i also love, i can do multiple combat styles instead of just one. My favorite Fighter has to be Armon Fellhammer, he was a human who wielded a Dwarven Waraxe and traded out Heavy Armor Prof and Tower Shield Prof, for 2 more class skills and 2 more skills a level. Then i took the Shield Slam line of feats and Improved Trip as well as Shock Trooper, and i ended my career with him with one lvl of Barbarian. I must say there was never a moment where i didnt feel useful.

[Flickerdart]

Your logic is flawed. You are assumng the player is having fun because of playing D&D in the first place, when we all know D&D isn't fun at all.
If D&D isn't fun then the fighter, as part of D&D, isn't fun by definition. The funness of D&D is a required premise.


Using your logic we could very easily conclude that he has fun because the chairs are comfortable, but because the chair he sits in doesn't have enough "sitting features" he isnt having as much fun.
False. D&D is a specific type of structure for a social encounter. Chairs are not.

[eggynack]

If D&D isn't fun then the fighter, as part of D&D, isn't fun by definition. The funness of D&D is a required premise.
Yeah, that counter-argument didn't make much sense to me either. If there is really a flaw in your logical line, and I think there is, it's that fullest engagement with the rules of D&D is the only path to fun having. In particular, your argument had an A implies B, in the form of, "Playing D&D is a kind of fun," and an A implies C, in the form of, "Playing D&D involves engagement with the D&D system," but those two statements provide no proof for B implies C (or perhaps C implies B, or C=B), in the form of "Increasing your engagement with the system is synonymous with increasing the amount of fun." I mostly just assumed, and still assume, that the logical line was primarily for humor value.


False. D&D is a specific type of structure for a social encounter. Chairs are not.
I dunno. I probably would have less D&D based fun if my chair didn't have enough sitting features. It is the totality of the circumstances, rather than one single factor or another, that leads to fun having. In particular, a comfortable chair, as opposed to a particularly uncomfortable chair (A stick in the ground, perhaps?) could be considered a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for fun having.

[Togo]

If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

Um... is this supposed to be in blue? Or are people really not understanding how to play this class?

Look, if you want lots of damage, be a barbarian. If you want to full attack every round, ranger is where it's at. Fighters are about trading off attack and defence, damage versus tactical positioning. If you're just hitting as hard as you can every round, it's little wonder you don't think they're any good.

[Seerow]

Um... is this supposed to be in blue? Or are people really not understanding how to play this class?

Look, if you want lots of damage, be a barbarian. If you want to full attack every round, ranger is where it's at. Fighters are about trading off attack and defence, damage versus tactical positioning. If you're just hitting as hard as you can every round, it's little wonder you don't think they're any good.

That all sounds very pretty, now what features does the fighter have to support your argument?

[BrokenChord]

That all sounds very pretty, now what features does the fighter have to support your argument?

As usual, the answer is "More Feats and weapons!" Which can help the Fighter develop tactical uses. Quick Draw to switch weapons more easily; Spiked Chain to trip, greatsword for damage, bows for ranged pinning, some blundgeoning weapons for close combat, undead killing at low levels, and bull rushing. Feats tp cover all of these things.

Can you actually do any of this stuff effectively? No. But you'd be better off for trying than most other classes that tried. Except mid-high level wizards... Friggin' Bigby's Hands...

[dascarletm]

If D&D isn't fun then the fighter, as part of D&D, isn't fun by definition. The funness of D&D is a required premise.


False. D&D is a specific type of structure for a social encounter. Chairs are not.

I'm jumping in late, but I do want to go over your logic from before.


I posit that while it is possible to have fun despite playing a fighter, it is not possible to have fun because of it.
Assumption: You, the reader, find playing D&D fun.

Yes.


Thus, it follows: Playing D&D is a kind of fun.

Sure


Clarification: Playing D&D involves engagement with the D&D system.

Yes, however I need to clarify, that while playing dnd does involve engagement with the DnD system, it encompasses more than that.


Thus, it follows: Increasing your engagement with the system is synonymous with increasing the amount of fun.

This is where the logical leap doesn't actually follow. Playing DnD involves more than system engagement, and the system is far too broad to be lumped as one object. For example: grapple rules are part of the system. Managing weight carried and rations are part of the system. Spellcasting in general are part of the system. However increasing/decreasing these engagements will increase or decrease the amount of fun gained depending on the person.


Observation: A fighter can only engage with the system to a very limited extent due to its lack of meaningful class features.

Meaningful is a relative term. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the fighter is great or anything, but they get feats. Most don't care about that too much, but I have a friend who loves fighters. In fact I had him try warblade, and he likes playing a fighter more. I don't understand why, but he does. He looks at his feats, and laughs with enjoyment. Strange but true.



Thus, it follows: Playing a fighter reduces the amount of fun that is derived from playing D&D.

Assumption: For my friend gaining feats is fun.
Observation: Playing a fighter increases volume of feats gained
Thus it follows: for my friend playing a fighter increases the volume of fun.


Your ideology may be true the majority of the time, and I'm not arguing against that. It however is not all encompassing.

[OldTrees1]

That all sounds very pretty, now what features does the fighter have to support your argument?

Well some examples of how fighter is not about damage:

Position and Demoralize (well supported by Ftr class features)
Position/Reposition/Hold opponents via Standstill, Knockback
Exoticists with the Militia feat get 4 exotic weapon proficiencies (lots of nice things like Spiked Chain, Awl Pike, Boomerang, ...)
Then there are the Daze/Nauseate feats

Oh and that is without mentioning any of the decent tactical feats (ShockTrooper and Elusive ??? come to mind)

[Flickerdart]

Assumption: For my friend gaining feats is fun.
You're starting from the end, not the beginning. Gaining feats is a meaningless activity outside of a framework, and you haven't built one up.

[dascarletm]

You're starting from the end, not the beginning. Gaining feats is a meaningless activity outside of a framework, and you haven't built one up.

If he has feats as described in DnD 3.5, he has fun.

I also don't understand what you are trying to say.

I'm postulating that by framework you mean a gaming framework, such as the D20 system.

[Inevitability]

Roleplay isn't limited by your class. If you are a pure roleplayer, fighter lets you contribute to the party in combat, while not forcing you to focus on your spells, maneuvers, sneak attacks or other things.

[Amphetryon]

Well some examples of how fighter is not about damage:

Position and Demoralize (well supported by Ftr class features)
Position/Reposition/Hold opponents via Standstill, Knockback
Exoticists with the Militia feat get 4 exotic weapon proficiencies (lots of nice things like Spiked Chain, Awl Pike, Boomerang, ...)
Then there are the Daze/Nauseate feats

Oh and that is without mentioning any of the decent tactical feats (ShockTrooper and Elusive ??? come to mind)
Could you list those specific Class features, please? I'm not seeing any Fighter-specific Class features that improve Positioning or Demoralization.

You'll notice I'm specifying "Class features" (your term) because "Feats readily available to other Classes" are not "Class features" in any meaningful sense, as I understand the terms.

[OldTrees1]

Could you list those specific Class features, please? I'm not seeing any Fighter-specific Class features that improve Positioning or Demoralization.

You'll notice I'm specifying "Class features" (your term) because "Feats readily available to other Classes" are not "Class features" in any meaningful sense, as I understand the terms.

Z Soldier's class features are the class features that improve the "Position and Demoralize" tactic. (Specifically the Skill Focus at 3rd and the Swift action time at 9th) You might also count the Exoticist ACF listed below that, since it gives access to the x3 reach Awl Pike.

[dascarletm]

Could you list those specific Class features, please? I'm not seeing any Fighter-specific Class features that improve Positioning or Demoralization.

You'll notice I'm specifying "Class features" (your term) because "Feats readily available to other Classes" are not "Class features" in any meaningful sense, as I understand the terms.

You could argue if the volume of feats required was greater than the amount any other class could gain, those in excess would be similar to class features. Or fighter specific feats (Ignoring that warblade)

[Vhaidara]

Funny little combo: Imperious Command (Intimidation makes them cowering) plus the Extended Intimidation from 5th level zhent soldier (effects of intimidation last 24 hours).

[Augmental]

Z Soldier's class features are the class features that improve the "Position and Demoralize" tactic. (Specifically the Skill Focus at 3rd and the Swift action time at 9th)

The Zhentarim are a setting-specific organization.

[OldTrees1]

Funny little combo: Imperious Command (Intimidation makes them cowering) plus the Extended Intimidation from 5th level zhent soldier (effects of intimidation last 24 hours).

Explicitly disallowed. The 5th level ability does not affect demoralization.



The Zhentarim are a setting-specific organization.

Yes they are. So? That doesn't mean you get to pretend the option does not exist and try to force others to also pretend the option does not exist. The option is not always allowed but it does exist.

[Person_Man]

There's a second aspect you're missing - being the "resolution." Tactics in combat don't have to be limited to one character.

Basically, you're correct that fighters do little in a fight beyond rolling for damage. But that doesn't mean they have no say in the party's tactics at all. One of the most effective tactics for many parties is "get the melee over there so he can hit the thing really hard," or "deal with that obstacle so the melee can hit the thing behind it really hard." No class features are needed to make these kinds of suggestions, just enough intelligence to know that getting up in something's grill is the best way for a melee to hurt them. (i.e. you have to be smarter than mud.)

Agreed.



Um... is this supposed to be in blue? Or are people really not understanding how to play this class?

Look, if you want lots of damage, be a barbarian. If you want to full attack every round, ranger is where it's at. Fighters are about trading off attack and defence, damage versus tactical positioning. If you're just hitting as hard as you can every round, it's little wonder you don't think they're any good.

I consider myself very familiar with Fighters and with Feat driven melee combos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127026).

And while I agree that Fighters are better then Barbarians at filling non-damage dealing niches, I'm not familiar with effective Feat combos that makes them effective at "trading off attack and defense, damage versus tactical positioning." There are Feats like Combat Expertise or Spring Attack, but those Feats are not particularly effective at their intended purpose. There are a few combos like Karmic Strike + Evasive Reflexes that allow you to easily change your position when attacked, but similar/better free movement effects can be efficiently duplicated many ways (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) by almost any other class.

I would agree that Fighters are somewhat effective at battlefield control through the use of Knockback, Knockdown, Imperious Command, Scorpion's Grasp, Stand Still, etc. This is especially true at low levels, when they can usually get useful combos (which usually require multiple cruddy pre-reqs) earlier then most other builds.

But I stand by my original statement that Fighter's generally don't do well in longer crunchy tactical combat, especially at higher levels, because the effects of Feats (which are available to all classes) are generally weaker then the effects of spells/powers/maneuvers/vestiges/soulmelds/wild shape/etc.

For example, compare the effectiveness of the best Grappler on the planet (which would be a Psychic Warrior or a Totemist, not a Fighter) to someone with access to Freedom of Movement (which negates it), Telekinesis, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Imprisonment, etc.

The Grappler is effective at locking down one enemy per round within reach that does not have Freedom of Movement, does not have an optimized Escape Artist Skill, does not have extradimensional transportation options, and does not have a very large size and/or Strength. The caster has a wide variety of effective options to lock down multiple creatures per round from a range. You could draw similar comparisons from pretty much any other Feat combo.

[JaronK]

The tier list ranks it at tier 5, says that they suck, and so on.

No it doesn't. It says they're playing a different sort of game from the T1s, one where the DM has to give them appropriate challenges that let them do fun stuff. It doesn't say they suck.

If you want to play a game that's close to Lord of the Rings power level, then Fighter is a solid option.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Indeed, a high-level PF Fighter in Middle-Earth could basically storm Orthanc/Mordor solo.

(Not to mention a high level PF Monk...)

[Togo]

But I stand by my original statement that Fighter's generally don't do well in longer crunchy tactical combat, especially at higher levels, because the effects of Feats (which are available to all classes) are generally weaker then the effects of spells/powers/maneuvers/vestiges/soulmelds/wild shape/etc.

But that wasn't your original statement. Your original statement was this:

If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

The fighter does have options and does not just sit there taking the exact same action every round.

That you consider other classes do the same thing better is a fair enough point, but it's an entirely different point. The statement you made is still entirely untrue.

[eggynack]

But that wasn't your original statement. Your original statement was this:

If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.

The fighter does have options and does not just sit there taking the exact same action every round.

That you consider other classes do the same thing better is a fair enough point, but it's an entirely different point. The statement you made is still entirely untrue.
It's not that untrue. Your fighter could have a couple of options beyond a full attack, like tripping, bull rush, and intimidation, but you could probably count the number of options you have in combat on one hand for any given fighter, and those options aren't all that interesting.

[Seerow]

Actually given that initial statement, I'm going to go with it's true, even with the ACFs and such.


If you enjoy longer crunchy tactical combat, then playing a Fighter or any low Tier class gives you very few options, and you will probably have a lot less fun taking the exact same action (full attack) almost every round of almost every combat.



A Zhentarim Fighter doesn't gain new options to change things up every round. He just gains something to do with his swift actions, which he can use every round. A Dungeoncrasher Fighter doesn't only Dungeoncrash occasionally, he's using it combined with Knockback and Shock Trooper, and that is part of his attack routine every round.

It's not like the Fighter will do one cool trick for a round or two, then switch up his fighting style to do something different the following round. He will be doing more or less the same thing every round of every combat. The exact details will change up based on situation, but in general you could write a script that covers what your fighter will do on any given round with less than a dozen lines. Not a ton of tactical complexity there.

[OldTrees1]

A Zhentarim Fighter doesn't gain new options to change things up every round. He just gains something to do with his swift actions, which he can use every round. A Dungeoncrasher Fighter doesn't only Dungeoncrash occasionally, he's using it combined with Knockback and Shock Trooper, and that is part of his attack routine every round.

It's not like the Fighter will do one cool trick for a round or two, then switch up his fighting style to do something different the following round. He will be doing more or less the same thing every round of every combat. The exact details will change up based on situation, but in general you could write a script that covers what your fighter will do on any given round with less than a dozen lines. Not a ton of tactical complexity there.

I agree. This is a very accurate description of fighter. A fighter chooses 2-4 cool things to do and then uses them every round. This allows a cool reliable combat with a few neat tricks.
However fighter is not suitable for someone that wants to switch to something new every round. Those people should look to manuevers where they get something every round and don't get to repeat without recharging.


Sidenote: It would take much more than a dozen lines. Even with procedural programming (instead of object orientated design) it would take at least a screen height.

[Seerow]

Sidenote: It would take much more than a dozen lines. Even with procedural programming (instead of object orientated design) it would take at least a screen height.


I was referring to a regular paper script (ie a handful of bulletpoints) as opposed to an actual program. Writing code to control your fighter for you would of course be a bit more involved (and longer).

[OldTrees1]

I was referring to a regular paper script (ie a handful of bulletpoints) as opposed to an actual program. Writing code to control your fighter for you would of course be a bit more involved (and longer).

While most things are short, battlefield control is detail intensive and would be longer.
While(not my turn){

IF(someone provokes me){

Act(Person getPerson(), Provaction getAction());
}
}

"Act" would look up an action in a table.
So 3 lines + the table (number of people X types of actions being tracked*) for the AoOs part of battlefield control alone. (and this assumes you manually update the table each round)


*advancing and retreating would be different

[TuggyNE]

While most things are short, battlefield control is detail intensive and would be longer.
While(not my turn){

IF(someone provokes me){

Act(Person getPerson(), Provaction getAction());
}
}

"Act" would look up an action in a table.
So 3 lines + the table (number of people X types of actions being tracked*) for the AoOs part of battlefield control alone. (and this assumes you manually update the table each round)


*advancing and retreating would be different

Not that this actually matters, of course, but that's not code for the Fighter — that's shared code that all creatures use. It doesn't count any more than code to calculate the effects of fireball after 10 points of resistance counts for Warmage.

Generally, Fighter decision-making is quite simplistic compared to most other classes. You pick an enemy or enemies to be next to, maybe decide whether or not to use one of your limited-use magic items, and there you are. Alternately, if you are arching for some reason, you pick an enemy to fire at, stay away from all enemies if possible and maneuver around wind walls, and there you are.

[OldTrees1]

Not that this actually matters, of course, but that's not code for the Fighter — that's shared code that all creatures use. It doesn't count any more than code to calculate the effects of fireball after 10 points of resistance counts for Warmage.

I don't think most creatures would need a look up table for AoOs. Most creatures are
IF(Provoked){
Attack
}

The battle field control fighter would have to choose whether it is best to Standstill, Trip, Knockback, Attack, 5ft step or not react. This in turn depends on who the provoker is, what their intentions appear to be and their position relative to where you do/don't want them.

Are they the one you want stranded so your allies can tear them apart? If so have they received reinforcements [Knockback?]? Are they trying to retreat (Are they dexterous?[Trip] or strong?[Standstill?])?

[TuggyNE]

The battle field control fighter would have to choose whether it is best to Standstill, Trip, Knockback, Attack, 5ft step or not react. This in turn depends on who the provoker is, what their intentions appear to be and their position relative to where you do/don't want them.

Are they the one you want stranded so your allies can tear them apart? If so have they received reinforcements [Knockback?]? Are they trying to retreat (Are they dexterous?[Trip] or strong?[Standstill?])?

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that is a little more complex than I was thinking; it's still relatively simple, and straight-up attacking is rarely if ever the correct answer for a BFC fighter (even in cases of spellcasters casting, there's probably not enough damage to make a Concentration check at all difficult, so it's not worth it), so it reduces (apparently) to
Do you want them out of the area? Knockback.
Do you want them immobilized? Standstill if strong or dexterous, Trip otherwise.

It is also possible with Stormguard Warrior to have to make choices between attacking or building up attack potential, which is actually rather more interesting.

Contrast with PsyWar, though, which might have half a dozen buffs to pick between at the start of battle, and has a number of swift-action short-duration buffs that may or may not be worth it on any given turn, as well as the choice of whether to refresh or use focus, and so on. And that's before (bonus) feats or directly offensive powers, which it does get as well. Add in native teleportation options and the like, and you get something that has a lot of flexibility. It's not even a full caster!

[OldTrees1]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that is a little more complex than I was thinking; it's still relatively simple, and straight-up attacking is rarely if ever the correct answer for a BFC fighter (even in cases of spellcasters casting, there's probably not enough damage to make a Concentration check at all difficult, so it's not worth it), so it reduces (apparently) to
Do you want them out of the area? Knockback.
Do you want them immobilized? Standstill if strong or dexterous, Trip otherwise.


That is a good reduction for the simple(not paying attention to allies) and terrainless example I gave.

However Fighters are on the short list of charcters I would even consider writing a script for. Psychic Warrior? Yeah, no way. That would start looking like a full fledged game AI. Wizard? That would take more code than a full fledged well designed game.

[Amphetryon]

You could argue if the volume of feats required was greater than the amount any other class could gain, those in excess would be similar to class features. Or fighter specific feats (Ignoring that warblade)

Warblade is not the only Class to gain access to theoretically Fighter-specific Feats.

[TuggyNE]

However Fighters are on the short list of charcters I would even consider writing a script for. Psychic Warrior? Yeah, no way. That would start looking like a full fledged game AI. Wizard? That would take more code than a full fledged well designed game.

There you have it.

[Togo]

Well, if you're convinced that a fighter simply doesn't make any decisions, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you. I guess I've found out why melee characters attract quite so much approbation around here, and why people seem to have such difficulty playing them.

[Blkmge]

More significantly, he's not a D&D character really. None of the people in OOTS are. They are webcomic characters in a comic based on D&D. There's a huge difference between the two. Since he's the party leader, narrative law dictates he has to pull his own weight.
No, I'd say they all are.

The difference being, of course, that the game they're 'playing' favours roleplay over rollplay. That means their various players let that dictate how the story progresses rather than "my fort save is higher if I multiclass into X for Divine OMG Skill". The tier system only can measure objective aspects of the game - mechanics. Mechanically, a druid is more powerful than a fighter. It cannot, nor ever will, measure subjective things such as "fun", "story", or "group dynamics".

[Amphetryon]

Well, if you're convinced that a fighter simply doesn't make any decisions, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you. I guess I've found out why melee characters attract quite so much approbation around here, and why people seem to have such difficulty playing them.

What decisions do Fighters make that are unique to their Class?

[OldTrees1]

What decisions do Fighters make that are unique to their Class?

Well the battle field control decisions I listed earlier take 8 feats. So some of those decisions will not be available to a Lockdown Crusader without a fighter dip, flaws or being human and forgoing the adaptive style feat.

In addition there is the question of who to demoralize that round. The closest? The strongest?

[Amphetryon]

Well the battle field control decisions I listed earlier take 8 feats. So some of those decisions will not be available to a Lockdown Crusader without a fighter dip, flaws or being human and forgoing the adaptive style feat.

In addition there is the question of who to demoralize that round. The closest? The strongest?

To the first: So, that Feat chain (and Feats are not Class features unless they're truly inaccessible to any but a given Class) isn't an exclusive Fighter decision, okay.

To the second: The question of whom to demoralize in a round seems like it's most clearly represented mechanically by appropriate Knowledge checks, which are seldom a Fighter's forte. I suppose if the style of play at a given table is more old-school, where Player knowledge is more important than Character knowledge, and if the Player controlling the Fighter is the most knowledgeable, then the Fighter would be the best one to make those calls, but that sounds highly campaign-specific, and contingent on what many would call metagaming to me.

[OldTrees1]

To the first: So, that Feat chain (and Feats are not Class features unless they're truly inaccessible to any but a given Class) isn't an exclusive Fighter decision, okay.

To the second: The question of whom to demoralize in a round seems like it's most clearly represented mechanically by appropriate Knowledge checks, which are seldom a Fighter's forte. I suppose if the style of play at a given table is more old-school, where Player knowledge is more important than Character knowledge, and if the Player controlling the Fighter is the most knowledgeable, then the Fighter would be the best one to make those calls, but that sounds highly campaign-specific, and contingent on what many would call metagaming to me.

Um. Since the collection is too feat intensive for non fighters to take, it is not reasonable to reject the exclusive collection based on each component not being exclusive. Okay.
Sidenote: Feats are class features when given by a class. To think otherwise is being disingenuous merely to "win" an internet debate.

While knowledge checks could occasionally be useful in determining who to demoralize, in general their tactical position, intentions and your tactical plans will determine who to demoralize. So this is an in character decision.

[Particle_Man]

Fighters get 11 feats on top of their 7 or 8 regular feats. Presumably, if there are things that it takes 18 or 19 feats to pull off, then that is what fighters can do that others cannot, even if others have access to each of the same feats individually, because others don't have access to all the same feats collectively for one character. Similarly, lower level characters would have access to fewer feats relative to a similar-level fighter.

[Amphetryon]

Fighters get 11 feats on top of their 7 or 8 regular feats. Presumably, if there are things that it takes 18 or 19 feats to pull off, then that is what fighters can do that others cannot, even if others have access to each of the same feats individually, because others don't have access to all the same feats collectively for one character. Similarly, lower level characters would have access to fewer feats relative to a similar-level fighter.

Could you name any of those things that require that number of Feats?

Is there a particular Feat chain that isn't replicated and outstripped by another Class's actual features at approximately the same pace?

[OldTrees1]

Could you name any of those things that require that number of Feats?

Is there a particular Feat chain that isn't replicated and outstripped by another Class's actual features at approximately the same pace?

I just named an 8 feat chain that can't be mimiced by manuevers (since strikes cannot be used on AoOs).

Combat Reflexes
Evasive Reflexes
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Standstill
Power Attack
Improved Bull Rush
Knockback

Since this is too long for a Crusader (without the flaws variant rule), I would consider crediting Fighter with the total number of decisions this combo creates.

[Augmental]

I just named an 8 feat chain that can't be mimiced by manuevers (since strikes cannot be used on AoOs).

Combat Reflexes
Evasive Reflexes
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Standstill
Power Attack
Improved Bull Rush
Knockback

Since this is too long for a Crusader (without the flaws variant rule), I would consider crediting Fighter with the total number of decisions this combo creates.

That's not a feat chain.

Combat Reflexes
Evasive Reflexes
Combat Expertise
-Improved Trip
Stand Still
Power Attack
-Improved Bull Rush
--Knockback

That's two separate feat chains (power attack-improved bull rush-knockback and combat expertise-improved trip) and three stand-alone feats which aren't required for anything else.

(On a side note, this feat chain also requires you to be large size and have an INT and DEX of 13 each.)

[OldTrees1]

That's not a feat chain.
The poster I was talking to referred to it as such. Since the collection of feats was my point, I did not stop to correct the poster on their word choice. (My point being that since only fighters can take the whole collection, they will be the only ones that have the complex decisions resulting from having the entire collection. Also I was pointing out that the poster does not get to reject fighter's class features merely because the poster don't like calling them class features.)


(On a side note, this feat chain also requires you to be large size and have an INT and DEX of 13 each.)
Yes it does. (or Goliath but if you are a Goliath you are 1 level of Barbarian away from Large size)

[Particle_Man]

I just named an 8 feat chain that can't be mimiced by manuevers (since strikes cannot be used on AoOs).

Also, if there is another 6-8 feats that would do something else (say missle weapon stuff, mounted combat stuff, etc.), the fighter can also take feats for those, whereas presumably those with less feats have less ability to do "both/and" and must chose what to focus on with their smaller number of feats.

[Amphetryon]

The poster I was talking to referred to it as such. Since the collection of feats was my point, I did not stop to correct the poster on their word choice.

When, precisely, did I refer to those particular Feats as a singular Feat chain? Providing quotes would be helpful, since I'm pretty sure I never mentioned them by name, merely asked for a (a = singular) that cannot be replicated or outstripped by another Class's actual Class features at approximately the same pace.

[OldTrees1]

When, precisely, did I refer to those particular Feats as a singular Feat chain? Providing quotes would be helpful, since I'm pretty sure I never mentioned them by name, merely asked for a (a = singular) that cannot be replicated or outstripped by another Class's actual Class features at approximately the same pace.




Well the battle field control decisions I listed earlier take 8 feats. So some of those decisions will not be available to a Lockdown Crusader without a fighter dip, flaws or being human and forgoing the adaptive style feat.

In addition there is the question of who to demoralize that round. The closest? The strongest?
To the first: So, that Feat chain (and Feats are not Class features unless they're truly inaccessible to any but a given Class) isn't an exclusive Fighter decision, okay.

Here is where you referred to the collection as a feat chain.

This is a collection of feats that gives the fighter complex tactical decisions outside of their turn. (Remember we are talking about AoOs.)

It also is a collection of feats that is too large for another class to replicate without using bonus feats. Therefore it is unreasonable to reject bonus feats as class features even when the feats are individually not exclusive to fighter.