The fighter

[atemu1234]

Okay. I gather that Monk< Fighter < Most other classes... but how bad is fighter, really? Granted, it's wildly plain. But it's got a good Fortitude saving throw and a bonus feat every two levels. Not that shabby, in the grand scheme of things. If you've got access to a few other sourcebooks, the possibility for breaking it is relatively endless.

[toapat]

to give you a rough idea, Both the Warrior and Expert from This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) are superior 95% of the time

[Red Fel]

Okay. I gather that Monk< Fighter < Most other classes... but how bad is fighter, really? Granted, it's wildly plain. But it's got a good Fortitude saving throw and a bonus feat every two levels. Not that shabby, in the grand scheme of things. If you've got access to a few other sourcebooks, the possibility for breaking it is relatively endless.

It's not that the Fighter is bad, per se. It's that so many classes are better at so many things, including being a Fighter.

The class has a decent save and the feats are nice. But that's basically it; that's all the class does. And it doesn't do it as well as others. For example, take the spell Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm). If you are a Cleric, Runescarred Berserker, Vassal of Bahamut, Savant, or Justiciar of Taiia, or somehow gain access to one of the many domains that grant it, here's a nice little buff that grants you full BAB, a huge boost to Str, and temporary HP. And since you need to be a spellcaster to gain this spell, that means you have access to other spells, which means you're likely to have far more utility than the Fighter.

Because utility is the name of the game. You say that the possibility for "breaking" the Fighter is "relatively endless," but that's simply not the case; even with the most powerful Epic Fighter feats, at the end of the day, the Fighter has one function - hitting things with his weapon. Admittedly, with the right feat chains, he can be very good at that. But a caster can be better. They can start with Divine Power, then throw on Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm), and then basically run roughshod over a battlefield. If they need tactics, they can cast Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) and summon minions (or just a Solar who can cast Wish for them), spit out a Holy Word, take an Ethereal Jaunt, or escape with a Word of Recall. Fighter can do none of these things.

Then there's the feats issue. On top of his regular feat progression, the Fighter gets 11 bonus feats. These must come from the list of Fighter Bonus feats, which is not all that extensive when you look at it. And because most of them are part of feat chains, you're basically giving up multiple feat slots to get the one you want. And how good are they? Well, Weapon Focus gives you a +1 on attack rolls with the selected weapon. That's nice, I suppose. Divine Favor, a first-level spell, does the same thing, but also adds its bonus to damage rolls. No feat slot required. Combat Expertise basically serves to give you a boost to AC at the expense of an attack roll - again, there are spells for that. Power Attack, the Fighter's bread and butter, can similarly be duplicated by spells without having to sacrifice accuracy.

And that's the point. A spellcaster can swap out their spells on a daily basis in order to provide the best tactical support needed, including improvement of melee abilities. A Fighter chooses his tactical abilities (read: feats and feat trees) and sets them in stone. And while a Fighter can theoretically function all day long without having to recover spells, and can function just as well in an antimagic field as outside of one, the fact remains that without the support of casters, he won't be doing much of anything for very long.

A Cleric can throw on Divine Power and Righteous Might and be awesome. A Wizard can Shapechange into basically anything it wants and be awesome. A Druid can Wild Shape into a spellcasting bear, riding a bear, summoning bears, and be awesome. A Fighter can hit things with a sword.

But wait. Let's step back. I've been unfair, comparing a Fighter to spellcasters. Particularly to Tier 1 spellcasters - nobody compares to them. Let's compare Fighter to another melee class. Let's compare Fighter to the Warblade.

Like the Fighter, the Warblade gets full BAB, and good Fort saves. The Warblade also gets four bonus feats from a very narrow list. Unlike the Fighter, the Warblade gets various cool Int synergies, including an ability that lets him switch any weapon-specific feats (such as Weapon Focus) to whatever weapon he has on hand. He also gets Maneuvers, which are various tactical and offensive abilities that refresh with each combat encounter. Like the Fighter, he can do this all day.

Admittedly, the Warblade is often seen as a patch on the Fighter, an upgrade and intended replacement. And that's a fair assessment. You'd expect that someone with a class named Fighter would be good at combat in general, not a few narrow feat-specific tricks.

And again, that's the point. The Fighter's utility comes almost exclusively from feat selection, and many feats can be reproduced with spells, class abilities, or magic items. The Fighter is seen, generally, as a two-level dip for the sole purpose of boosting BAB and/or gaining free feats. Because any class can do more. The Rogue has a Sneak Attack progression, the Ranger and Paladin can eventually cast spells, the Warlock has lasers, the Duskblade can gish, even the Monk has a neat unarmed progression and some flavorful PrCs. The Fighter just has his feats. That's it. Feats and a good Fort save.

Do you see why, relatively speaking, the Fighter gets a bad rap?

[VoxRationis]

I think comparing fighters to other core classes is perhaps better than comparing it to the Warblade, considering that the latter was specifically intended to one-up the fighter at its own job. If a designer made a stealthy class with a d8 Hit Die, full BAB, full sneak attack progression against all creature types, and a rotatable suite of immunities, and compared it to the rogue, yeah, of course it's going to be better; it's just the rogue +X, Y, and Z.

[toapat]

I think comparing fighters to other core classes is perhaps better than comparing it to the Warblade, considering that the latter was specifically intended to one-up the fighter at its own job. If a designer made a stealthy class with a d8 Hit Die, full BAB, full sneak attack progression against all creature types, and a rotatable suite of immunities, and compared it to the rogue, yeah, of course it's going to be better; it's just the rogue +X, Y, and Z.

Red Fel's post just got annoying enough that i decided it wasnt worth commenting on, i left what i wanted to say which is that the generic classes are just superior to even a class which has class features somewhere. Sure, his post is correct but its something alone the lines of the Nuclear Mousetrap

[Telonius]

Okay. I gather that Monk< Fighter < Most other classes... but how bad is fighter, really? Granted, it's wildly plain. But it's got a good Fortitude saving throw and a bonus feat every two levels. Not that shabby, in the grand scheme of things. If you've got access to a few other sourcebooks, the possibility for breaking it is relatively endless.

The problem with the bonus feat is that it's taken from a set list, not all of which are all that terrific. There are definitely ways to really pump up the damage from a charge to absurd levels, but there are also ways to make that a non-issue (difficult terrain, miss chance, flying, being immune to power attack).

[VoxRationis]

I'm sorry; the Nuclear Mousetrap? What's that?

Also, I would like to point out that feats can do a lot, particularly the tactical feats, if chosen properly. While obviously not as versatile as a full spellcasting list, feats are usable indefinitely (except, strangely, for Stunning Fist) and are varied in many ways, and trying to minimize them through summing them up as "just feats" while going into great detail about what you can do with other class features is a cheap trick of rhetoric rather than a full argument.

[eggynack]

Red Fel's post just got annoying enough that i decided it wasnt worth commenting on, i left what i wanted to say which is that the generic classes are just superior to even a class which has class features somewhere.
But the generic classes are supposed to have good class features, because they're intended to form an entire game. If you want a warrior that was intended to be bad, you want the NPC warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm). If you want an NPC class that's better than a fighter, though not at fighting, you want the adept (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/adept.htm). Saying that, "Even this warrior is better than a fighter," doesn't mean much, in other words.

[DigoDragon]

The problem with the bonus feat is that it's taken from a set list, not all of which are all that terrific.

Also, bonuses from those feats are static. I think that's the big hindrance for the fighter. Weapon Focus is not bad at 1st level. Not great after 4-5 level-ups. One thing that would help is if the fighter had some specific sets of feats that scale up with him like spells do for the spellcasters. I've seen a few different lists that attempt it to varying degrees of success.

[toapat]

I'm sorry; the Nuclear Mousetrap? What's that?

Its a Ratchet and Clank 2 reference. Its similar to a normal spring action mousetrap, but the catch bar is replaced by a low yield thermonuclear warhead with Impact fuse

In other words, its presenting completely overpowered and useless solutions. Hense, his argument was a nuclear mousetrap

[eggynack]

In other words, its presenting completely overpowered and useless solutions. Hense, his argument was a nuclear mousetrap
It doesn't look like anything he was using was particularly overpowered. It mostly seems like normal classes being used as intended, though the cleric plan would likely work best with some DMM. These classes are generally better than a fighter at fightering. That's the entire point.

[OldTrees1]

Sticking to the normal Fighter class, the fighter suffers from:
1) Skills
The Fighter class has too few skill points per level to overcome their terrible class skill list in order to be helpful outside of combat.

2) Mundane
The Fighter class's combat style works against conventional environments/opponents. However as PCs level up they start facing non conventional opponents (like dragons).

3) Class Features
The default Fighter class gets Fighter bonus feats as class features. Now, unlike the majority here, I actually like this class feature. However it did not get enough quality support. In order for it to be worth 2 levels worth of class features, the feat needs to be really nice. I use Improved Trip as a good low level benchmark here since it gives extra actions and opens up a new tactic. Robilar's Gambit could be used as a mid level benchmark but even then the Fighter class's options are falling behind.

Now there are some options that fighters gained that improve their deal (even moving them up tiers)
Alternate Class Features
Thug (Trade 1 feat in exchange for more skill points and a decent skill list)
Zhentarim Soldier (Intimidate is expanded/improved on to make the Fighter useful in social situations and better against some unconventional opponents)
Dungeon Crasher (Deal excessive damage in exchange for 2 feats)

Non Fighter resources
Fighter characters also have Race, HD based feats and Magic Items. These can be used to patch some of what Fighter lacks.


So yes, with deep sourcebook diving, a Fighter character can reach what Fighter was intended to be in the PHB. But the other classes would also gain from similar volumes of effort.

[sonofzeal]

I once did a fairly rigorous statistical analysis to determine that the Wizard can't actually out-melee the Fighter. At least at level 1. In Core.


...so if you're at lvl 1 in a Core-only game and need melee, and the only other option is Wizard or Sorcerer, well, the Fighter has its place. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

I once did a fairly rigorous statistical analysis to determine that the Wizard can't actually out-melee the Fighter. At least at level 1. In Core.


...so if you're at lvl 1 in a Core-only game and need melee, and the only other option is Wizard or Sorcerer, well, the Fighter has its place. :smallwink:
That is a niche of some variety. What was the wizard using to melee? Were they doing the classic book for dogs trade?

[toapat]

It doesn't look like anything he was using was particularly overpowered. It mostly seems like normal classes being used as intended, though the cleric plan would likely work best with some DMM. These classes are generally better than a fighter at fightering. That's the entire point.

thats not the point, the point is that pointing to the people who outclass everyone, or pointing the equivalent of a replacement for a class, is quite litterally just hitting a problem with a nuke. Sure the problem has been reduced to monoatomic dust but theres a highly radioactive wasteland where said problem was.

Everyone Except for the monk in PHB outclasses the fighter for damage (and even the monk gets his share when everyone is disallowed magic items). Everyone else in there has real options asto what they do.

The only class in core to get less valuable material to any measure was the monk (their best material is exclusively third party), a class which was so mechanically disjointed from its concept that it wasnt allowed any space to shine. The paladin got options and expansions to every single class feature, the Ranger got spells and swift hunter (the scout got screwed thanks to that feat), the Rogue got new Rogue Specials and some fancy strikes, as well as a plethora of PrCs (but rogue got dumped on by WotC making EVEN BETTER rogues.). The Wizard, Druid, and Cleric got support every single book.The Sorcerer got to mooch goodies all day long from the wizard, Barbarian got dumptrucks of interesting and useful ACFs. The fighter got Feat taxes.

Ranger, rogue, and barbarian get to participate in a number of types of encounters, Paladins as well.

[eggynack]

thats not the point, the point is that pointing to the people who outclass everyone, or pointing the equivalent of a replacement for a class, is quite litterally just hitting a problem with a nuke. Sure the problem has been reduced to monoatomic dust but theres a highly radioactive wasteland where said problem was.

Everyone Except for the monk in PHB outclasses the fighter for damage (and even the monk gets his share when everyone is disallowed magic items). Everyone else in there has real options asto what they do.

The only class in core to get less valuable material to any measure was the monk (their best material is exclusively third party), a class which was so mechanically disjointed from its concept that it wasnt allowed any space to shine. The paladin got options and expansions to every single class feature, the Ranger got spells and swift hunter (the scout got screwed thanks to that feat), the Rogue got new Rogue Specials and some fancy strikes, as well as a plethora of PrCs (but rogue got dumped on by WotC making EVEN BETTER rogues.). The Wizard, Druid, and Cleric got support every single book.The Sorcerer got to mooch goodies all day long from the wizard, Barbarian got dumptrucks of interesting and useful ACFs. The fighter got Feat taxes.

Ranger, rogue, and barbarian get to participate in a number of types of encounters, Paladins as well.
This doesn't seem so much like nuking the problem as just normally solving it. The proposition is that fighters are bad. The evidence being pointed to is that other classes are better, particularly at fighting. To prove that claim, you have to show ways that other classes are better at fighting than fighters are. It might seem self evident to you that fighters are significantly worse at fighting than other classes, including classes that weren't apparently designed for fighting, but that is presumably a bit of knowledge that our OP was missing.

[Demidos]

The problem with the bonus feat is that it's taken from a set list, not all of which are all that terrific. There are definitely ways to really pump up the damage from a charge to absurd levels, but there are also ways to make that a non-issue (difficult terrain, miss chance, flying, being immune to power attack).

Hold up, hold up. How the heck does the bolded one (above) work? I've never heard of anything like that :smalleek:

[Gavinfoxx]

Hold up, hold up. How the heck does the bolded one (above) work? I've never heard of anything like that :smalleek:

I suppose being immune to death by damage or death by massive damage. It can be done with a combination of spells.

[OldTrees1]

Hold up, hold up. How the heck does the bolded one (above) work? I've never heard of anything like that :smalleek:

Dodge -> Mobility -> Elusive Target feat -> Designate the Fighter as your Dodge target.

[Telonius]

Dodge -> Mobility -> Elusive Target feat -> Designate the Fighter as your Dodge target.

That's the one I had in mind.

[Seerow]

That's the one I had in mind.

Elusive Target is such a fun feat, and criminally underutilized.

[eggynack]

Elusive Target is such a fun feat, and criminally underutilized.
To the former point, perhaps, but to the latter, it's a bit on the insanely expensive side for me to consider it underutilized.

[toapat]

Elusive Target is such a fun feat, and criminally underutilized.

only because the pre-requisites are horrid.

granted anyone crazy enough to take Whirlwind attack or Swarm of Arrows should have it

[Duke of Urrel]

I believe Person_Man's excellent Niche Ranking System is always worthy of mention when this topic comes up. It's here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), and although the tables seem not to have been updated yet, they're still readable.

[ace rooster]

only because the pre-requisites are horrid.

granted anyone crazy enough to take Whirlwind attack or Swarm of Arrows should have it

Mobility is not that weak, especially on a swift hunter build who wanders through threatened squares all the time. Drawing an opponent into using their AoO when you move prevents them from AoOing you if you decide to grapple or disarm (or if the fighter does), so it can be useful for surviving those sort of tactics. Elusive target also synergises well with it, as +4 to AC is actually pretty useful with cause overreach. It is not game breaking but it works well with a party. Worrying less about surviving wandering about means that flanking with the rogue is easier, and the half orc fighter can grapple and disarm without just being punched in the face. An isolated character will find it pretty much useless however, which is why I think it is underrated.

[Eldariel]

@OP: Think of how Fighter's feats work. Every character gets 7 feats. Fighter gets 11 more, 2 of which are over the first two levels (which can reasonably be taken by any melee character). It's the rest of the class that's problem. Now, why is it not awesome to get 9 feats as your class features? Well, here's the deal:

Those 7 feats everyone gets, right? They'll of course be the best ones available. Now, if there were some worthwhile feat chains you couldn't plausibly take in 7-9 feats, things would be different but as it stands, most feat chains are either 3 feats long at best (e.g. Shock Trooper) or suck (e.g. Whirlwind Attack; Greater Cleave Full Attack tends to be more efficient in vast majority of the cases, and usually Cleave is the last feat from that chain that's applicable often enough to take even in Core).

So what does this mean? Well, it means the ~9 unique feats Fighters get are worse than the ~9 feats any character is going to have. In essence, feats are designed so that the more you get, the less useful they are (with few exceptions that don't apply to Fighters, namely Extra Turning and Font of Inspiration; and in general, spellcaster feats). Furthermore, since you can't continue one tree utilizing those feats means wasting most of them on useless prerequisite feats like Point Blank Shot, Dodge, Mobility, Improved Bull Rush, etc. This means that while it may seem like you gain a lot of feats as a Fighter, in reality you're only getting ~4-5 useful feats and the rest are minor bonuses.

This would be different if the Fighter's unique Weapon Focus-line were good, but unfortunately that is not the case. The bonuses it gives are small for a feat, no more than what you get out of prerequisiteless feats, and they're weapon specific to boot, so they restrict you a lot in using the treasure you find. You need someone to custom make your swords for you.


In short, Fighter sucks because:
- Everyone gets the best feats.
- Martial feats have negative scaling (that is, the more you get the less powerful each is; just look at Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the further feats have the same effect except they give you that extra attack at penalties instead of full BAB so GTWF is strictly worse than ITWF even tho it's further in the tree)
- Martial feats largely don't combine well (Charging & zone control are the exceptions here but to get to the point where you one-shot everything you don't need Fighter's feats and it's largely academical beyond that point; this means combining two feats doesn't produce anything greater than the sum of their parts, martial feats mostly have poor synergy).
- Fighter's unique feats are comparatively nothing special so the fact that you can take them doesn't mean you should.
- Fighter gets no skill points, poor skill list, poor survivability abilities (beyond first level) and no class features.

Fighter is much like the NPC warrior with frills and probably would make for a decent NPC class since Fighters are quite modular and you can build a lot of basic guardsman archetypes with Fighters who have some extra skill points and class skills. They're sorely lacking in terms of a PC class tho. Feat system is built to **** them over and only getting 1 class feature every 2 levels with a very poor shell (AD&D Fighter's shell included a ton of extra HP vs. everyone, all good saves, magic resistance and an unique increase in damage in form of extra attacks and actually powerful unique weapon specialization options; in 3.X the competition is largely stronger but the Fighter lost everything that made it good).


Mobility is not that weak, especially on a swift hunter build who wanders through threatened squares all the time. Drawing an opponent into using their AoO when you move prevents them from AoOing you if you decide to grapple or disarm (or if the fighter does), so it can be useful for surviving those sort of tactics. Elusive target also synergises well with it, as +4 to AC is actually pretty useful with cause overreach. It is not game breaking but it works well with a party. Worrying less about surviving wandering about means that flanking with the rogue is easier, and the half orc fighter can grapple and disarm without just being punched in the face. An isolated character will find it pretty much useless however, which is why I think it is underrated.

If your teammates want to grapple or disarm, they probably should have invested in the appropriate feats or use shapechanging like Polymorph to get special attacks that does that for them. It's never a good idea to bet that "maybe this opponent doesn't have Combat Reflexes". Besides, +4 AC or not, it's quite possible for the opponent to hit you anyways. And don't you see how situational you made it out to be already? According to you it's useful if:
1) You have an opponent you want to grapple or disarm (already a very restricted group).
2) The character in your party who wants to do this lacks Improved Grapple/Improved Disarm (if this is a common encounter, you'd just pick the feats instead).
3) Party lacks means to just give the grappler Improved Grab or Disarm bonuses through Polymorph & al. (so no spellcaster present)
4) Enemy lacks Combat Reflexes, but has sufficient melee threat to prevents disarming or grappling (so enemy must be non-caster).
5) Enemy's attack roll falls within +4 from your AC (so there are 4 digits on that 20-sided die most of the time where this feat benefits you, unless the attack is autohit or automiss anyways).


If you pick a feat for that, a situation that might occur once over 100 encounters, well, it's not a good feat. Indeed, any Swift Hunter worth his salt should just Tumble basically always. So this does not exactly qualify for making Mobility "not weak". A feat is "not weak" if you can expect to make use of it consistently, not once in a while. You only get 7 by default over 20 levels. If you pick feats you use in 1/100 encounters, you get benefit from your feats in 7/100 encounters; rest you're fighting blind (or if you're a fighter, 27/100 encounters, not really ideal either). I'd much rather picks feats I'll use majority of the time.

Cause Overreach is nice but that's about it and even there, opponents can simply opt to not take the AoOs after the first to deny you the opportunity if they expect to not hit anyways. If Tumble didn't exist and AC scaling were more reasonable it might be better but as it stands, the system simply kinda isolates the feat into its own corner.

[ace rooster]

If your teammates want to grapple or disarm, they probably should have invested in the appropriate feats or use shapechanging like Polymorph to get special attacks that does that for them. It's never a good idea to bet that "maybe this opponent doesn't have Combat Reflexes". Besides, +4 AC or not, it's quite possible for the opponent to hit you anyways. And don't you see how situational you made it out to be already? According to you it's useful if:
1) You have an opponent you want to grapple or disarm (already a very restricted group).
2) The character in your party who wants to do this lacks Improved Grapple/Improved Disarm (if this is a common encounter, you'd just pick the feats instead).
3) Party lacks means to just give the grappler Improved Grab or Disarm bonuses through Polymorph & al. (so no spellcaster present)
4) Enemy lacks Combat Reflexes, but has sufficient melee threat to prevents disarming or grappling (so enemy must be non-caster).
5) Enemy's attack roll falls within +4 from your AC (so there are 4 digits on that 20-sided die most of the time where this feat benefits you, unless the attack is autohit or automiss anyways).


If you pick a feat for that, a situation that might occur once over 100 encounters, well, it's not a good feat. Indeed, any Swift Hunter worth his salt should just Tumble basically always. So this does not exactly qualify for making Mobility "not weak". A feat is "not weak" if you can expect to make use of it consistently, not once in a while. You only get 7 by default over 20 levels. If you pick feats you use in 1/100 encounters, you get benefit from your feats in 7/100 encounters; rest you're fighting blind (or if you're a fighter, 27/100 encounters, not really ideal either). I'd much rather picks feats I'll use majority of the time.

Cause Overreach is nice but that's about it and even there, opponents can simply opt to not take the AoOs after the first to deny you the opportunity if they expect to not hit anyways. If Tumble didn't exist and AC scaling were more reasonable it might be better but as it stands, the system simply kinda isolates the feat into its own corner.

It is in a corner in a sense, given that most builds would never use it, and it does fall away with level (most fighter feats do), but that does not make it weak. Certainly choosing a feat you will never use is dumb, and trying to do what the feat allows you to without it is suicidal. This is true of most combat feats though, and doesn't make them weak. Grappling any opponent without the feat is hard, so most people never even consider it, same with trip, disarm, and all the others. Likewise wandering around minions prevoking AoOs everywhere is generally considered silly, but can be invaluble. Like all the other combat styles it requires a build specific for it, which can be useless in some situations, But you are less tied down than with a grappler for example.

At High levels you are right, as you should be able to get tumble to the point where it is redundant, and your AC is never going to defend you.

Getting a tumble modifier of +24 at low levels is tricky though, and can still fail on a slope or in the wet. You also can't tumble a charge. As a feat it does exactly what it says, helping you be mobile on the battlefield. It doesn't let you run around with impunity, but it does help with calculated risks. With decent armour and a shield you should be able to get your AC to the point where a 13 is needed to hit you, at which point mobility halves the number of hits. As a somwhat squishy character with boosted movement speed and boosted damage to 30ft you should be going nowhere near a combat machine that will hit you on a 9 anyway.

The point about disarming and grappling is that helps you to do it without other feats, which each also have prerequisites that require a build around. This helps a fighter to do things he is not built around better, which gives options. Situational options, but options. Compare that to improved disarm or improved grapple, which each make one option viable, and so are even more situational. It is mere gravy to being able to do what it says it does, which is get past minions to harass casters, and flank with whoever needs it most.

Spellcasting makes most mundanes redundant anyway, so in a sense all fighter feats are bad, because a caster would never take them. I thought it was generally taken as a given that a wizard can do it better.

This is mostly from my experience of a character I played that needed mobility for somthing or other. I soon realised I was using it almost as much as my feats to boost skirmish damage! It was low level and fairly low op, but also one of the most fun characters I've played.

[Eldariel]

It is in a corner in a sense, given that most builds would never use it, and it does fall away with level (most fighter feats do), but that does not make it weak. Certainly choosing a feat you will never use is dumb, and trying to do what the feat allows you to without it is suicidal. This is true of most combat feats though, and doesn't make them weak. Grappling any opponent without the feat is hard, so most people never even consider it, same with trip, disarm, and all the others. Likewise wandering around minions prevoking AoOs everywhere is generally considered silly, but can be invaluble. Like all the other combat styles it requires a build specific for it, which can be useless in some situations, But you are less tied down than with a grappler for example.

I find Mobility to not be a key component in this setup you suggest and indeed, I'd rather skip it if possible.


Getting a tumble modifier of +24 at low levels is tricky though, and can still fail on a slope or in the wet.

I find it worth more to slow your speed down and Tumble at +14 or take the extra step majority of the time. The number of times where you need the maximum movement and it's optimal to rather use Mobility are rare enough that I don't think it's worth investing a feat into for this. The end goal is always to avoid the AoO entirely, after all, not to provoke and dodge it since that has at minimum the 5% chance of getting hit.


You also can't tumble a charge.

Why not? Nothing in Tumble or Charge rules suggests such; you can Tumble pretty much whenever.


As a feat it does exactly what it says, helping you be mobile on the battlefield. It doesn't let you run around with impunity, but it does help with calculated risks. With decent armour and a shield you should be able to get your AC to the point where a 13 is needed to hit you, at which point mobility halves the number of hits. As a somwhat squishy character with boosted movement speed and boosted damage to 30ft you should be going nowhere near a combat machine that will hit you on a 9 anyway.

Not only does it require you to invest a feat into crap, it also forces you to invest quite heavily into AC. I don't really see it.


The point about disarming and grappling is that helps you to do it without other feats, which each also have prerequisites that require a build around. This helps a fighter to do things he is not built around better, which gives options. Situational options, but options. Compare that to improved disarm or improved grapple, which each make one option viable, and so are even more situational. It is mere gravy to being able to do what it says it does, which is get past minions to harass casters, and flank with whoever needs it most.

Most of which shouldn't require the feat and again, I posit it's a bad idea to go taking extra attacks you don't absolutely have to, +4 AC or not.


Spellcasting makes most mundanes redundant anyway, so in a sense all fighter feats are bad, because a caster would never take them. I thought it was generally taken as a given that a wizard can do it better.

Point wasn't that spellcasters do it better, the point is that a spellcaster in the party makes said use of the feat quite obsolete. Most parties have a spellcaster. I'd much rather pick something that's augmented by magic, such as Power Attack/Shock Trooper, than something that's negated by the presence of magic.


This is mostly from my experience of a character I played that needed mobility for somthing or other. I soon realised I was using it almost as much as my feats to boost skirmish damage! It was low level and fairly low op, but also one of the most fun characters I've played.

I'll say this: I've played a Swift Hunter myself. I was always able to set up the Tumble for it, use item-based relocation or circumvent the need for it entirely. It is possible to play in a way where it's useful, certainly, but whether the choices that made it useful are optimal in the first place is another question. But I digress; I won't tell you how to play the game. I will say this though: on an objective level, Mobility is pretty hard to consider a good feat in the grand scheme of things due to the alternatives available for the same purpose.

[VoxRationis]

Your point about feats having diminishing returns and everyone already taking the best ones only matters at the end of the road, at levels at or very near 20. For low- to mid-level play, most people don't have "all the good feats."

[Eldariel]

Your point about feats having diminishing returns and everyone already taking the best ones only matters at the end of the road, at levels at or very near 20. For low- to mid-level play, most people don't have "all the good feats."

They have all the best ones tho, which is the salient point. Every level 6 warrior can have Shock Trooper which diminishes a Fighter's advantage tremendously.

[VoxRationis]

Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.

[eggynack]

Your point about feats having diminishing returns and everyone already taking the best ones only matters at the end of the road, at levels at or very near 20. For low- to mid-level play, most people don't have "all the good feats."
Possibly, but also relevant is the fact that fighter feats suck, and that's including the ones that aren't trapped in the hole of fighter bonus feats. Fighters can pretty much only take generic feats that don't require any class features, along with combat feats that are wrapped up in long and irritating chains. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the spectrum, casters of all varieties are getting feats that augment spell casting, which are often tremendously powerful, and they're getting them in a form that is unchained, more often than not.

To use one of my preferred examples, compare the power level of something like exalted wild shape to something like improved trip. In fact, compare exalted wild shape to improved trip, plus combat expertise, plus combat reflexes, plus knock-down, and let's toss robilar's gambit in for good measure. Personally, I'd rather have the feat that lets me dimension door every round as a free action, along with a bunch of other exceedingly useful stuff, than have that entire pile of feats. It is often said that class features are better than feats, and it is a true thing, but it can also be said that feats which work to augment class features can often be better than ones that don't. It's obviously not a thing that's universally true, but honestly, it's more about the compared top end than anything else. One or two of those fighter feats would probably win against most of those crappy wild feats, for example.

Edit:
Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.
The point is that those other feats aren't more powerful than shock trooper is. They're just somewhat different. Having a decent number of powerful things is better than having just one, but it's not so much better that it's worth devoting your existence to that fact. Just consider wizards and sorcerers. Wizards are significantly better than sorcerers, so if you were to compare a 6th level wizard to a 6th level sorcerer, the advantage would go to the wizard. He just has a wider variety of those powerful things to do. However, if you compare the 6th level wizard to a 10th level sorcerer, the sorcerer obviously comes out on top. This is because, even though the wizard might still have access to a broader variety of spells, the sorcerer's spells are much better, and that counts for more. Such is the situation of our fighter, reaching a peak, and facing diminishing returns, and crumbling into nothingness.

[Eldariel]

Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.

I never said they're useless, I said they're less useful than the best options, since you take the best options first. That should be trivial, I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. We're talking why Fighter's options are bad and one reason is that the more feats you get, the worse your options get. Fighter's shtick is getting a lot of feats so in effect, the further you go in the class, the worse your class features become.

Yeah, there's enough feats for a reasonable Fighter Charger/Controller shell that makes decent use out of all its feats up to 20 but it pales in comparison to a Barbarian or a Crusader built to do the same; which is more or less the definition of "a worse option", especially since both Barb and Crusader have better shells to go with it (more skills, HD, other abilities, some save bonuses, etc.). The first two levels of Fighters can be useful to this end but the only real reason to go further than that is Dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim Fighter. Hell, a multiclassed martial character with Ranger/Barb/Fighter/Psy War/Monk/etc. can even get way more feats than a straight Fighter, clearly beating Fighter out in its shtick while gaining massive advantages elsewhere too only really losing 1 BAB over its career (even that's avoidable through other classing paths). If that isn't sufficient proof of the class's deficiency, I'm not sure what is.


The question is why Fighter is bad. Well, that is why. If the feat chains were longer and thus made Fighter's feats give improving returns instead of diminishing returns, Fighter could be salvaged even with the terrible class design. If Fighter's unique feats were better than generic feats, the class could be salvaged. Neither is true though, and the Fighter's class design is unarguably horrid. High levels in Fighter don't really give you anything (and they'd need to give you a lot to make single-classing in Fighter worth more than multiclassing, or single-classing in another martial class, let alone casters). PF actually does the class design better but they still fall flat on their faces on the feat design point. And yeah, 3.5 ACFs somewhat extend a Fighter's utility with a few nice uniqueish tricks worth paying a bit of attention to.

[ace rooster]

I find Mobility to not be a key component in this setup you suggest and indeed, I'd rather skip it if possible.



I find it worth more to slow your speed down and Tumble at +14 or take the extra step majority of the time. The number of times where you need the maximum movement and it's optimal to rather use Mobility are rare enough that I don't think it's worth investing a feat into for this. The end goal is always to avoid the AoO entirely, after all, not to provoke and dodge it since that has at minimum the 5% chance of getting hit.



Why not? Nothing in Tumble or Charge rules suggests such; you can Tumble pretty much whenever.



Not only does it require you to invest a feat into crap, it also forces you to invest quite heavily into AC. I don't really see it.



Most of which shouldn't require the feat and again, I posit it's a bad idea to go taking extra attacks you don't absolutely have to, +4 AC or not.



Point wasn't that spellcasters do it better, the point is that a spellcaster in the party makes said use of the feat quite obsolete. Most parties have a spellcaster. I'd much rather pick something that's augmented by magic, such as Power Attack/Shock Trooper, than something that's negated by the presence of magic.



I'll say this: I've played a Swift Hunter myself. I was always able to set up the Tumble for it, use item-based relocation or circumvent the need for it entirely. It is possible to play in a way where it's useful, certainly, but whether the choices that made it useful are optimal in the first place is another question. But I digress; I won't tell you how to play the game. I will say this though: on an objective level, Mobility is pretty hard to consider a good feat in the grand scheme of things due to the alternatives available for the same purpose.

Well I am happy for you that the enemy is always so considerate that you are never more than half movement away from where you want to be. Mine were not.

The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

A charge is a full round action, not a move and a standard. Also why you can't tumble run.

I don't see the AC thing, it is a dex build anyway, with skirmish AC and a damage source that only requires one hand, so a shield is in. Tumble ranks boost your fighting defensively bonus, if you are having trouble, and magic can boost your AC as well as anybody elses. It is AC heavy, but while you stay on top of it, extra AC gives progressively better returns. If the enemy needs a 17 to hit, a +2 will half the number of hits you take. If you are in this position anyway a +4 is huge. Big enough to save all the money you spent on item based relocation (though they do have other benefits).

The tactics don't require the feat, but neither do grappling or tripping require the feats. The feat just makes it safer to try to draw attacks of opportunity for any reason. It does not sound like you have ever tried to do this, but stopping an enemy threatening an area is powerful if used well. Not that healthy for you, but taking one for the team. It was often not a case of taking an attack that wasn't coming, it was taking it instead of somebody else taking it.

Was it an optimal character? Not on his own, certainly, but he was never on his own. He was primarily a disruptive skirmisher, who was able to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Half speed was not an option for him, and he had the AC that he was able to burn people's AoO for fun, and someone could take advantage of that often enough for it to be worth doing. I found mobility to be highly flexible and reliable in ways that tumble was not, though challenging to play. Mobility can make viable an option that is otherwise bad, which is about par from a feat. I can't see dodge or toughness having that much impact, and it is about on par with improved grapple or disarm.

[Eldariel]

Well I am happy for you that the enemy is always so considerate that you are never more than half movement away from where you want to be. Mine were not.

One square = whole movement.


The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

Quoted the important part for you. It's a part of the movement. The rest is just clarification. The relevant part is "Action is not applicable". If you move outside move action, you use Tumble as a part of that action instead.


Half speed was not an option for him, and he had the AC that he was able to burn people's AoO for fun, and someone could take advantage of that often enough for it to be worth doing. I found mobility to be highly flexible and reliable in ways that tumble was not, though challenging to play. Mobility can make viable an option that is otherwise bad, which is about par from a feat. I can't see dodge or toughness having that much impact, and it is about on par with improved grapple or disarm.

*shrug* I still don't think taking AoOs is a good option but if it works for you, fine. I wonder if it was really necessary if you truly had the AC advantage you posit though.

[OldTrees1]

The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

A charge is a full round action, not a move and a standard. Also why you can't tumble run.


Balancing during a Charge
You can make a Balance check to charge across a precarious
surface, but you take a –5 penalty on the check for each
multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.
Charging in this way requires one Balance check for each
multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.
Any check that fails carries the normal ramifi cations for
failing a Balance check (see page 90), likely ending your
movement and preventing your charge.

Flying during a Charge
A creature that fl ies can make dive attacks. A dive attack
works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a
minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make
only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage.

Jumping during a Charge
You can make a long jump to avoid an obstacle as part of a
charge, as long as you continue to meet all other criteria for
making a charge before, during, and after the jump.

Tumbling during a Charge
You can tumble during a charge, as long as you continue to
meet all other criteria for making a charge before, during,
and after tumbling

You can Balance, Fly, Jump and Tumble during a charge

Sidenote: Difficult terrain prevents a charge but it is unclear if "Jumping during a Charge" alters that.

[Vogonjeltz]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?

There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.

[eggynack]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?
Sure. Most of those feats are pretty mediocre, however.


There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.
Sure. Most of those feats are also pretty mediocre, however.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.
Yes. Fighters are strictly better than a class specifically designed to be crappy. They're not better than all classes specifically designed to be crappy though, because adepts exist. Also experts, to a lesser extent, as they're in the same tier.

[Sir Chuckles]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?

There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.

Congratulations, you have explained why Fighters are Tier 5 and Warriors are Tier 6.
The point is not "Warriors are equal to or greater than Fighters", it's "The special things that a Fighter can get are not actually all that special."

[Vogonjeltz]

Congratulations, you have explained why Fighters are Tier 5 and Warriors are Tier 6.
The point is not "Warriors are equal to or greater than Fighters", it's "The special things that a Fighter can get are not actually all that special."

A couple or three posters suggested there were severe limitations because many feats are tied to specific weapons, and that warriors were better than fighters. I was just pointing out that the Fighter entirely superior, and that those limitations are entirely overcome by a 1 level dip.

Sidenote: Eggynack (sorry I didn't multiquote), has Togo been around post board change? Nobody has updated to the test thread.

[eggynack]

A couple or three posters suggested there were severe limitations because many feats are tied to specific weapons, and that warriors were better than fighters. I was just pointing out that the Fighter entirely superior, and that those limitations are entirely overcome by a 1 level dip.
Was that really an issue cited? That's kinda weird. I don't even think optimal warblades make use of that ability outside of occasionally EWP. Anyway, if you dip warblade, the maneuvers are going to be of significantly greater import than the weapon swapping. It's a bit indicative of the disparity between the classes.


Sidenote: Eggynack (sorry I didn't multiquote), has Togo been around post board change? Nobody has updated to the test thread.
He apparently has, or so the latest activity majig on his profile says. It is an odd thing.

[OldTrees1]

Was that really an issue cited? That's kinda weird. I don't even think optimal warblades make use of that ability outside of occasionally EWP.

Yeah it was cited. Post 3. Fighter vs Warblade comparison. Weapon Aptitude and the Situational Int synergy were mentioned right next to the Manuevers.

[eggynack]

Yeah it was cited. Post 3. Fighter vs Warblade comparison. Weapon Aptitude and the Situational Int synergy were mentioned right next to the Manuevers.
Fair enough, though honestly, it seems more like a, "Here's a cool thing that warblades can do," than a, "Here is a critical flaw in the fighter class, which is a heavy contributor to tier."

[Lans]

- Martial feats have negative scaling (that is, the more you get the less powerful each is; just look at Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the further feats have the same effect except they give you that extra attack at penalties instead of full BAB so GTWF is strictly worse than ITWF even tho it's further in the tree)

This is a problem with pre TOB martial in general, compare what a monk, barbarian, or other non TOB class gets in his 1st few levels with what it gets in his next 2 or 6 levels

[Rubik]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a full 45% of the fighter's levels are dead levels. You get nothing that any other full BAB class doesn't give (since you get full BAB, good Fort, and the worst skills of any class in the whole game, and that's it).

[Cicciograna]

Just poppin' in to say that I read the thread title as "Tie fighter" and was already cheering for the fact that someone had somehow managed to flesh out a D&D equivalent of the imperial starfighter.

quietly leaves

[Vogonjeltz]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a full 45% of the fighter's levels are dead levels. You get nothing that any other full BAB class doesn't give (since you get full BAB, good Fort, and the worst skills of any class in the whole game, and that's it).

I consider that the heaviest mark against overall balance, if TOB progression was ok, why weren't the core classes retrofitted to get something (even just a slowly increasing static bonus ala Barbarian DR)?

[Red Fel]

Fair enough, though honestly, it seems more like a, "Here's a cool thing that warblades can do," than a, "Here is a critical flaw in the fighter class, which is a heavy contributor to tier."

That's precisely what I intended by it. Not "Fighter is critically flawed," but "Other classes can do better."

I happen to think that Fighter isn't a bad class, in a vacuum - that designation is specific to those classes which can barely accomplish what they're designed to do. Fighter can do what it was designed to do - it can fight reasonably well, and it gets a bevy of feats. That's basically all it does.

Rather, my position is that Fighter is an inferior class compared to others, because others can do what Fighter does better than Fighter, and in many cases they can also do other things. As an illustration, I listed casters and the Warblade; the former to show the Linear Fighter/ Quadratic Wizard discrepancy, the latter to show that even melee classes can out-Fighter a Fighter. Your observation, Eggy, is exactly what I intended - "Here's a cool thing that Warblades can do that puts them at a level above Fighters when it comes to fighting."

I don't find Fighter to be a bad class, per se; at least, not as bad as core-only Monk, or Truenamer, or things like that. I just find it to be exceedingly bland, and inflexible as melee. A good melee class has to be flexible; there will be times when you're caught without your preferred weapon, or facing a single enemy or a mob of enemies or a mobile or flying enemy. Fighter builds, due to the inflexibility of feats and the various prerequisites for them, tend to be focused on a particular strategy, such as cleaving or TWFing or shield bashing; if you're in a situation where that doesn't work, the bulk of your utility is obviated, and you're left with a good BAB and Fort save and a list of proficiencies. That's all the Fighter is, apart from his feats. Casters don't have that problem. Warblades don't have that problem. Even a Barbarian can Rage, with or without his massive two-handed weapon. Even a core-only Ranger has his spells and animal companion as backup if his preferred combat style is rendered moot. The Fighter lacks that flexibility.

Tl;dr: The Fighter's most defining and unique class feature is the Fighter Bonus Feat. The bonus feat should make him more flexible and more capable at combat than other melee classes. Instead, it tends to make him hyper-specialized, which can be a liability when that specialization doesn't apply. He still functions, but not as well as others can.

[OldTrees1]

Tl;dr: The Fighter's most defining and unique class feature is the Fighter Bonus Feat. The bonus feat should make him more flexible and more capable at combat than other melee classes. Instead, it tends to make him hyper-specialized, which can be a liability when that specialization doesn't apply. He still functions, but not as well as others can.

Double checking, is this specific design failing, a result of too few feats?

[toapat]

Double checking, is this specific design failing, a result of too few feats?

design failure as a result of the FBF. Having too many options caused, for a very long time, the design philosophy of feats for melee to be highly specialized.

[Telonius]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

[toapat]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

no, because enough stuff is on the list that they would have a good selection of combat techniques

[OldTrees1]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

Tier 5: Capable of doing one thing but not very well and not helpful outside of that area
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing well but not helpful outside of that area or Capable of doing many things with a reasonable degree of competence
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing well and helpful outside of that area

Getting all fighter feats would move fighter from Tier 5 to low Tier 4 (like Dungeoncrasher). However Thug or Zhentarim Soldier move fighter from Tier 5 to mid-high Tier 4.

For Fighter to move to Tier 3, Fighter would need a good skill list and plentiful skill points per level in addition to boosts to combat.

[eggynack]

no, because enough stuff is on the list that they would have a good selection of combat techniques
Indeed. The fighter is already almost tier four as is, and is actually tier four with ACF's. They definitely wouldn't stay tier 5 with all the feats. I'm not sure if they'd hit tier 3, however.

[Zetapup]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

Hrm, I'd guess that this would place them in medium high tier 4- good at doing one thing, but meh when that thing isn't relevant. I'm not quite sure what exactly would be needed to make them tier 3, since tier 3 is a bit nebulous. More skills and the ability to switch out their fighter bonus feats at the beginning of the day would help, but I'm not sure if it would be enough. Actual class abilities would prolly do it, but that's beyond the scope of a simple fix.

[Lans]

If you included martial study/stance and gave it the thug variant you would make it tier 3, between the skill boost and non combat abilities from the TOB stuff.

Z fighter and Dungeon crasher could just be iceing


Question-What other fighter feats help it outside of combat?

[Zetapup]

Question-What other fighter feats help it outside of combat?

A quick check of dndtools gave a few feats, none of which seem to be very good: winged warrior, vault, spectral skirmisher, saddleback, and improved diversion. They're mostly just bonuses to various skill checks (although vault makes me want to create a pole vaulter, just to see if it's possible). I guess you could make a case for toughness/improved toughness being useful outside of combat too.

I may have missed a few feats, but it looks like the majority of fighter bonus feats only have combat applications.

[toapat]

For Fighter to move to Tier 3, Fighter would need a good skill list and plentiful skill points per level in addition to boosts to combat.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with normal Expert (not Generic Expert: Badass the vanilla) isnt T3 either. If that was the case then rogue would be T3

[OldTrees1]

Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with normal Expert (not Generic Expert: Badass the vanilla) isnt T3 either. If that was the case then rogue would be T3

Huh? Your claim seems unsupported and counterfactual.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) is Tier 4 because it is frequently not helpful outside of combat
Rogue is Tier 4 because it is not always helpful at combat. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0
Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with Expert (NPC class) would be good at combat and helpful outside of combat.

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh? Your claim seems unsupported and counterfactual.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) is Tier 4 because it is frequently not helpful outside of combat
Rogue is Tier 4 because it is not always helpful at combat. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0
Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with Expert (NPC class) would be good at combat and helpful outside of combat.

I believe we were still testing this proposition (Fighter pulling weight outside combat) and thus far the Fighter has proven as useful as the Druid.

I think that's a consequence of the nature of role playing, rules just codify some actions, but virtually all social skills can be synthesized via a good conversation. Meaning someone who focuses entirely on combat abilities will still always be able to role play their way through non combat.

[toapat]

Huh? Your claim seems unsupported and counterfactual.
Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with Expert (NPC class) would be good at combat and helpful outside of combat.

by all Definitions the proposed theory meets the first definition of tier three

By all measure, if a rock solid skilllset was allowed to qualify a class in, rogue meets the second definition of T3, but is not tier 3. Yes, without a 3 level splash into ranger and without the dungeonscape ACF for rogue Sneak attack will always be unreliable (alternatively theres greater invisbility).


Thus, by the precident set "giving it a decent skillset" wouldnt help.

[Flickerdart]

Skills in 3.5 are so miserable that they don't really do all that much outside of combat unless you have some ways of ridiculously jacking up the result (like Factotum). You'll definitely be able to do something, it just won't be very good; the definition of T4.

[toapat]

Skills in 3.5 are so miserable that they don't really do all that much outside of combat unless you have some ways of ridiculously jacking up the result (like Factotum). You'll definitely be able to do something, it just won't be very good; the definition of T4.

you are going a bit overboard on exactly how much needs to be invested into a given skill (some do need to be massively overinvested in to function). the largest problem i have with using factotum as an example is that the entire reasoning behind where Factotum is tiered is that its Tier 2, not tier 3, and the rogue is not tier 3 because factotum exists.

i still think the point stands that even making a fighter who has all the feats on the FBF list gestalted with NPC Expert doesnt qualify into T3

[Flickerdart]

the rogue is not tier 3 because factotum exists.
Classes aren't tiered in relation to other classes, but on their own merits. The rogue is still T4 even if factotum is banned.

[Zombulian]

It's not that the Fighter is bad, per se. It's that so many classes are better at so many things, including being a Fighter.

The class has a decent save and the feats are nice. But that's basically it; that's all the class does. And it doesn't do it as well as others. For example, take the spell Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm). If you are a Cleric, Runescarred Berserker, Vassal of Bahamut, Savant, or Justiciar of Taiia, or somehow gain access to one of the many domains that grant it, here's a nice little buff that grants you full BAB, a huge boost to Str, and temporary HP. And since you need to be a spellcaster to gain this spell, that means you have access to other spells, which means you're likely to have far more utility than the Fighter.

Because utility is the name of the game. You say that the possibility for "breaking" the Fighter is "relatively endless," but that's simply not the case; even with the most powerful Epic Fighter feats, at the end of the day, the Fighter has one function - hitting things with his weapon. Admittedly, with the right feat chains, he can be very good at that. But a caster can be better. They can start with Divine Power, then throw on Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm), and then basically run roughshod over a battlefield. If they need tactics, they can cast Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) and summon minions (or just a Solar who can cast Wish for them), spit out a Holy Word, take an Ethereal Jaunt, or escape with a Word of Recall. Fighter can do none of these things.

Then there's the feats issue. On top of his regular feat progression, the Fighter gets 11 bonus feats. These must come from the list of Fighter Bonus feats, which is not all that extensive when you look at it. And because most of them are part of feat chains, you're basically giving up multiple feat slots to get the one you want. And how good are they? Well, Weapon Focus gives you a +1 on attack rolls with the selected weapon. That's nice, I suppose. Divine Favor, a first-level spell, does the same thing, but also adds its bonus to damage rolls. No feat slot required. Combat Expertise basically serves to give you a boost to AC at the expense of an attack roll - again, there are spells for that. Power Attack, the Fighter's bread and butter, can similarly be duplicated by spells without having to sacrifice accuracy.

And that's the point. A spellcaster can swap out their spells on a daily basis in order to provide the best tactical support needed, including improvement of melee abilities. A Fighter chooses his tactical abilities (read: feats and feat trees) and sets them in stone. And while a Fighter can theoretically function all day long without having to recover spells, and can function just as well in an antimagic field as outside of one, the fact remains that without the support of casters, he won't be doing much of anything for very long.

A Cleric can throw on Divine Power and Righteous Might and be awesome. A Wizard can Shapechange into basically anything it wants and be awesome. A Druid can Wild Shape into a spellcasting bear, riding a bear, summoning bears, and be awesome. A Fighter can hit things with a sword.

But wait. Let's step back. I've been unfair, comparing a Fighter to spellcasters. Particularly to Tier 1 spellcasters - nobody compares to them. Let's compare Fighter to another melee class. Let's compare Fighter to the Warblade.

Like the Fighter, the Warblade gets full BAB, and good Fort saves. The Warblade also gets four bonus feats from a very narrow list. Unlike the Fighter, the Warblade gets various cool Int synergies, including an ability that lets him switch any weapon-specific feats (such as Weapon Focus) to whatever weapon he has on hand. He also gets Maneuvers, which are various tactical and offensive abilities that refresh with each combat encounter. Like the Fighter, he can do this all day.

Admittedly, the Warblade is often seen as a patch on the Fighter, an upgrade and intended replacement. And that's a fair assessment. You'd expect that someone with a class named Fighter would be good at combat in general, not a few narrow feat-specific tricks.

And again, that's the point. The Fighter's utility comes almost exclusively from feat selection, and many feats can be reproduced with spells, class abilities, or magic items. The Fighter is seen, generally, as a two-level dip for the sole purpose of boosting BAB and/or gaining free feats. Because any class can do more. The Rogue has a Sneak Attack progression, the Ranger and Paladin can eventually cast spells, the Warlock has lasers, the Duskblade can gish, even the Monk has a neat unarmed progression and some flavorful PrCs. The Fighter just has his feats. That's it. Feats and a good Fort save.

Do you see why, relatively speaking, the Fighter gets a bad rap?

This. Definitely this.

[toapat]

Classes aren't tiered in relation to other classes, but on their own merits. The rogue is still T4 even if factotum is banned.

unless everyone who was involved in determining tiers was a supercomputer, thats not true.

also, it says outright in the reasonings threads that Rogue is T4 because factotum.

[OldTrees1]

by all Definitions the proposed theory meets the first definition of tier three

By all measure, if a rock solid skilllset was allowed to qualify a class in, rogue meets the second definition of T3, but is not tier 3. Yes, without a 3 level splash into ranger and without the dungeonscape ACF for rogue Sneak attack will always be unreliable (alternatively theres greater invisbility).


Thus, by the precident set "giving it a decent skillset" wouldnt help.

3 levels in Ranger is not assumed by the Tier system. Nor is Greater Invisibility. Nor is True Seeing (to combat Concealment)

In the Why thread it criticizes Rogue on 2 fronts: First it is unreliable in combat(given the assumptions of the tier system) and Second a Rogue is not the top of the skill food chain.

However Tier 3 only requires you be good at your thing and be helpful at everything else. That I why I said if Fighter was made good at their thing (all fighter feats) and made helpful at everything else (good skill list & plentiful skill points), then they would be Tier 3.

[VoxRationis]

Skills in 3.5 are so miserable that they don't really do all that much outside of combat unless you have some ways of ridiculously jacking up the result (like Factotum). You'll definitely be able to do something, it just won't be very good; the definition of T4.

You are being ridiculous. You can derail entire CAMPAIGNS with a few mid-level skill checks, all without entering combat once.
A character with a Climb or Jump score can completely avoid key encounters.
A character with Disguise and Forgery can be anyone (certainly, the average NPC doesn't have skills sufficient to counter a mid-level rogue using them), sending whole organizations or settlements into chaos.
Diplomacy, a single skill, is so broken there are whole builds based around it, and it's pretty much the antithesis of combat.
Knowledge and Gather Information skills, if played with a fair DM, can obviate puzzles and mysteries, skipping large sections of a campaign.
Methodical use of Search and Disable Device made the 3.5 version of Tomb of Horrors into a joke, and those are just basic, totally built-into-the-dungeon-crawling-paradigm skills.

You don't even need ways of making the skill ridiculous; just a few well-chosen circumstance/equipment bonuses and stuff right from the PHB can do it.

[toapat]

In the Why thread it criticizes Rogue on 2 fronts: First it is unreliable in combat(given the assumptions of the tier system) and Second a Rogue is not the top of the skill food chain.

1: I wasnt saying that the Ranger splash + Penetrating attack is considered in, thats not even part of the list, However its the way you can completely deal with the unreliability.

2: the only King of the Hill of the skillsystem is Factotum, and they are T2 by all definitions without that anyway because they are just a different type of restricted wizard. Rogue is still one of the better skillclasses, as noted in the threat. Fact is that Skill access only counts against you, not for you.

[Flickerdart]

You are being ridiculous. You can derail entire CAMPAIGNS with a few mid-level skill checks, all without entering combat once.
A character with a Climb or Jump score can completely avoid key encounters.
A character with Disguise and Forgery can be anyone (certainly, the average NPC doesn't have skills sufficient to counter a mid-level rogue using them), sending whole organizations or settlements into chaos.
Diplomacy, a single skill, is so broken there are whole builds based around it, and it's pretty much the antithesis of combat.
Knowledge and Gather Information skills, if played with a fair DM, can obviate puzzles and mysteries, skipping large sections of a campaign.
Methodical use of Search and Disable Device made the 3.5 version of Tomb of Horrors into a joke, and those are just basic, totally built-into-the-dungeon-crawling-paradigm skills.

You don't even need ways of making the skill ridiculous; just a few well-chosen circumstance/equipment bonuses and stuff right from the PHB can do it.
Any encounters solvable with a single skill check were never very good encounters to start with. You must not have had very creative DMs.

[eggynack]

2: the only King of the Hill of the skillsystem is Factotum, and they are T2 by all definitions without that anyway because they are just a different type of restricted wizard.
Factotums are tier three, and they are in that fashion fairly. They have some spell access, but it is simultaneously a bit slow, though faster than most slow casters, and incredibly limited in a uses/day sense. They're still casting a single first level spell at level three, for example, and that is far from being capable of dealing with all of the encounters in a day. Their casting is rather powerful, but I'm doubtful that they're significantly better than a bard or beguiler in this or any arena.

[OldTrees1]

1: I wasnt saying that the Ranger splash + Penetrating attack is considered in, thats not even part of the list, However its the way you can completely deal with the unreliability.

2: the only King of the Hill of the skillsystem is Factotum, and they are T2 by all definitions without that anyway because they are just a different type of restricted wizard. Rogue is still one of the better skillclasses, as noted in the threat. Fact is that Skill access only counts against you, not for you.

I am confused and that usually means I am misinterpreting what you are saying.
I thought you were saying "Fighter (with all bonus feats) // Expert would not be Tier 3 because Rogue is not Tier 3". However I am now getting the impression that you are saying "If Fighter (with all bonus feats) // Expert would be Tier 3, then Rogue is Tier 3". This is partially because you said "Fact is that Skill access only counts against you" which sounds like a criticism of the placement of classes in the tier system.

1: True, Ranger and Penetrating attack deal with most of the unreliablity. Negating concealment is still a tricky issue.

[VoxRationis]

Any encounters solvable with a single skill check were never very good encounters to start with. You must not have had very creative DMs.

So you're saying that your favorite DMs arrange all the encounters so there's no way to circumvent them?
DM: "The wizard's prying eyes reveal that there is a group of hobgoblins, some of them spellcasters, laying in ambush further down the ravine."
Player: "I climb the ravine and skirt around the rim."
DM: "Oh! Well, there's a contingent mass teleport that goes off when you try to do that, and the encounter materializes around you. Roll for initiative."

DM: "A group of guards stands at the front of the castle. They're turning the riff-raff away from the ball."
Player: "I take my forged credentials of nobility (I rolled a 34) and, dressed up in courtier's garb, approach the guards, and haughtily present the papers."
DM, noting that the guards don't have the Forgery skill trained: "Um... They had portraits of all the guests on file! They page through the Tome of Nobility and don't see your up-to-date picture there! They call "Imposter!" and attack!"

And you think the DMs in my group aren't fun?

[eggynack]

So you're saying that your favorite DMs arrange all the encounters so there's no way to circumvent them?
DM: "The wizard's prying eyes reveal that there is a group of hobgoblins, some of them spellcasters, laying in ambush further down the ravine."
Player: "I climb the ravine and skirt around the rim."
DM: "Oh! Well, there's a contingent mass teleport that goes off when you try to do that, and the encounter materializes around you. Roll for initiative."

DM: "A group of guards stands at the front of the castle. They're turning the riff-raff away from the ball."
Player: "I take my forged credentials of nobility (I rolled a 34) and, dressed up in courtier's garb, approach the guards, and haughtily present the papers."
DM, noting that the guards don't have the Forgery skill trained: "Um... They had portraits of all the guests on file! They page through the Tome of Nobility and don't see your up-to-date picture there! They call "Imposter!" and attack!"

And you think the DMs in my group aren't fun?
Honestly, it probably depends on the skill check. If your encounter can be solved by climb or jump, that's a rather silly encounter right there. If your encounter can be solved by diplomacy, that's somewhat reasonable. If your encounter can be solved by UMD, well, then you're in magic territory, and we pretty much know that a good number of problems can be solved if you have the right wand.

[Red Fel]

So you're saying that your favorite DMs arrange all the encounters so there's no way to circumvent them?
DM: "The wizard's prying eyes reveal that there is a group of hobgoblins, some of them spellcasters, laying in ambush further down the ravine."
Player: "I climb the ravine and skirt around the rim."
DM: "Oh! Well, there's a contingent mass teleport that goes off when you try to do that, and the encounter materializes around you. Roll for initiative."

DM: "A group of guards stands at the front of the castle. They're turning the riff-raff away from the ball."
Player: "I take my forged credentials of nobility (I rolled a 34) and, dressed up in courtier's garb, approach the guards, and haughtily present the papers."
DM, noting that the guards don't have the Forgery skill trained: "Um... They had portraits of all the guests on file! They page through the Tome of Nobility and don't see your up-to-date picture there! They call "Imposter!" and attack!"

And you think the DMs in my group aren't fun?

I think that every single argument stated in blanket absolute terms is completely and 100% hogwash.

There. Are we done with that particular angle? Now, more on point, I agree in part and disagree in part.

I agree with Vox that a smart use of skill checks can and should mitigate many more challenging encounters, and that a DM is smart to account for them in his calculations. I agree with Flicker, however, that if a single skill check could solve the encounter, it's not much of an encounter.

A diplomacy scene with a noble, for example, should never boil down to "Roll diplomacy... Okay, they love you." An attempt to circumnavigate the ravine isn't just a simple Climb check; it's a Climb check, maybe some Use Rope if you're leaving anchors for your party to follow, Hide and Move Silently to elude notice of their archers, and so forth. And in your example, the party isn't going to get into the ball based solely on that Forgery check - there's the Bluff check, the Disguise check, and the acquisition of said disguises to improve the DC. The skill check alone should never solve the issue.

Note also that, unfortunately, this doesn't apply to spells, which regularly can and will obviate an encounter completely. Need to get across the ravine? Teleport. And wasn't it a good thing you had Prying Eyes in the first place? Need to get into the ball? There are a hundred and one ways to incapacitate, kill, or brainwash those guards with a single spell. Again, separating the Fighter from anyone who can use spells.

Back on the thread topic, then - the Fighter - consider those vaunted skill points. The Fighter gets 2+Int skill points per level. The Barbarian gets 4+Int. I will repeat that for those who missed it - the illiterate brute whose idea of diplomacy involves a broadsword and whose idea of armor involves hairy pecs is more skillful than the trained Fighter. Even if we accepted that skill points could push someone from one Tier to another, the Fighter's abysmal lack in that field goes beyond depressing, and marches headlong into asinine territory.

So we've discussed the notion of gestalting Fighter with Expert. Let's ignore for a moment the issue that we're changing the Fighter class for purposes of this scenario. (We need not delve into the Oberoni fallacy at this time.) The question, in essence, is whether giving a Fighter a huge boost in skill points, plus ten class skills of his choice, plus a good Will save, is enough to give him greater utility. My instinct is no, and here's why.

As others have discussed, the Fighter's feat trees force a Fighter to become hyper-specialized. Ironically, the thing that should give him more breadth of combat skills instead forces him to become a one-trick pony. With that mindset in mind, consider the fact that there are a number of skills which are useful in combat and basic adventuring, many of which (Climb, Swim, Intimidate, Jump) are already on the Fighter's class list. Others, such as Hide, Move Silently, or Balance, are very valuable to practical adventuring, and might go into his bag of tricks. Tell me, if you, as a Fighter, knew that Grease was a thing, would you put points into Balance or Bluff? If you knew that you would be diving into caverns which didn't always have convenient ladders, would you put points into Climb or Craft? And if you knew you would be wandering into a warren of kobolds under the watchful eye of their dragon patron, would you invest in Hide or Handle Animal?

That's the point. These are skills which provide some benefit to the character, but don't necessarily provide benefit to the party. Diplomacy can open doors, Craft can make fast cash, Perform can grab the crowd's attention, but let's face it, the Fighter probably isn't going to be investing in these. He'll want Tumble so he can avoid AoOs. He'll want Jump for Leap Attack. He'll want Hide, because he recognizes the value of not being seen. Disable Device? That's for Rogues. Gather Information? For people with a Cha bonus. As a result, even if we gave the Fighter more skill points, would they really expand his utility, or simply make him a bit better at doing what he already does?

[eggynack]

As a result, even if we gave the Fighter more skill points, would they really expand his utility, or simply make him a bit better at doing what he already does?
I think it's probably the former, because I can. The entire point of this is to expand utility, so while you can always ignore that, and just make your specialty marginally better, I'd rather give at least some attention to other stuff. Because what the fighter specializes in isn't so great that pushing more resources into it is necessarily the right way to go. So, you could just take a lot of fighting skills, from tumble to iajatsu focus, or you could take UMD, autohypnosis, and diplomacy, or something approximately like that.

There wouldn't be much synergy between the two sides of the gestalt, but I don't know that there needs to be. Also, there are always ways to do both simultaneously. You take UMD, and then you can simultaneously pick up utility spells, as well as fancy buffs. You take spot/listen, and you can be the party scout, which has both combat and non-combat applications. Ultimately, the fighter's tendency to hyperspecialize may cause that fighter to want to be a one-trick pony, and use their skills in that fashion, but it can't force that fighter to be a one-trick pony. It's possible that the one-trick pony version is actually better overall, but if it's not, then we can fairly assess the other version.

[OldTrees1]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]So we've discussed the notion of gestalting Fighter with Expert. Let's ignore for a moment the issue that we're changing the Fighter class for purposes of this scenario. (We need not delve into the Oberoni fallacy at this time.) The question, in essence, is whether giving a Fighter a huge boost in skill points, plus ten class skills of his choice, plus a good Will save, is enough to give him greater utility. My instinct is no, and here's why.

As others have discussed, the Fighter's feat trees force a Fighter to become hyper-specialized. Ironically, the thing that should give him more breadth of combat skills instead forces him to become a one-trick pony. With that mindset in mind, consider the fact that there are a number of skills which are useful in combat and basic adventuring, many of which (Climb, Swim, Intimidate, Jump) are already on the Fighter's class list. Others, such as Hide, Move Silently, or Balance, are very valuable to practical adventuring, and might go into his bag of tricks. Tell me, if you, as a Fighter, knew that Grease was a thing, would you put points into Balance or Bluff? If you knew that you would be diving into caverns which didn't always have convenient ladders, would you put points into Climb or Craft? And if you knew you would be wandering into a warren of kobolds under the watchful eye of their dragon patron, would you invest in Hide or Handle Animal?

That's the point. These are skills which provide some benefit to the character, but don't necessarily provide benefit to the party. Diplomacy can open doors, Craft can make fast cash, Perform can grab the crowd's attention, but let's face it, the Fighter probably isn't going to be investing in these. He'll want Tumble so he can avoid AoOs. He'll want Jump for Leap Attack. He'll want Hide, because he recognizes the value of not being seen. Disable Device? That's for Rogues. Gather Information? For people with a Cha bonus. As a result, even if we gave the Fighter more skill points, would they really expand his utility, or simply make him a bit better at doing what he already does?

Quick note: The fighter fix (hence acknowledging the existence of a problem) was 2-fold. It was Fighter (all bonus feats) // Expert, not Fighter // Expert. I think this distinction is relevant to the hyperspecialization you mention later.

If the Fighter can be made into a competent combatant without investing any skill points, then the skill points would obviously be invested in breadth not overspecialization.
Hide and Move Silently to help on stealth missions
Bluff and Diplomacy to help on social missions
Even a Knowledge skill or 2.

[toapat]

Quick note: The fighter fix (hence acknowledging the existence of a problem) was 2-fold. It was Fighter (all bonus feats) // Expert, not Fighter // Expert. I think this distinction is relevant to the hyperspecialization you mention later.

If the Fighter can be made into a competent combatant without investing any skill points, then the skill points would obviously be invested in breadth not overspecialization.
Hide and Move Silently to help on stealth missions
Bluff and Diplomacy to help on social missions
Even a Knowledge skill or 2.

as i said, yes this technically fits the definition of T3

thanks to some arbitrary decisions of the group that made the tier system, you cant consider "has good skills" into tier. which i dislike because its unfair to some classes like this.

[OldTrees1]

as i said, yes this technically fits the definition of T3

thanks to some arbitrary decisions of the group that made the tier system, you cant consider "has good skills" into tier. which i dislike because its unfair to some classes like this.

Ah.
I have always found the technical definitions to be the best part of the tier system. The rest can be taken, corrected, or left.

[Lans]

Quick note: The fighter fix (hence acknowledging the existence of a problem) was 2-fold. It was Fighter (all bonus feats) // Exnt to the hyperspecialization

If the Fighter can be made into a competent combatant without investing any skill points, then the skill points would obviously be invested in breadth not overspecialization.
Hide and Move Silently to help on stealth missions
Bluff and Diplomacy to help on social missions
Even a Knowledge skill or 2.

Also if he doesn't need to ue any level feats on combat he is free to grab abilities that away