Fighter Hate

[RingofThorns]

I have been on the forums for a little while now, and I was wondering since looking through so much of the threads here. Why is there so much hate for fighters?

[eggynack]

Cause they're low power, generic, and poorly designed. There's a bunch of reasons for all three of those things (mostly related to the design and power level of feats, particularly fighter feats), but that's the long and short of it.

[Kane0]

We don't hate him, we just feel... Sorry for him, for lack of a better way of putting it.

He tries so hard, and too often he just comes up short, and without significant help faces a much tougher adventuring life than his comrades.

Its a similar story for the swashbuckler and a more than a few others.

[Blackhawk748]

As Kane said its not hate, its closer to pity. While the Fighter could probably hit Tier 4 with a lot of work and ACFs, there are just people that do it easier and faster. Also he only has 2+int mod for skills, and id really like to meet the moron that thought THAT was a good idea.

[eggynack]

We don't hate him, we just feel... Sorry for him, for lack of a better way of putting it.

He tries so hard, and too often he just comes up short, and without significant help faces a much tougher adventuring life than his comrades.

Its a similar story for the swashbuckler and a more than a few others.
I think I have to disagree at least a little. As is, the fighter as presented in the PHB does not try all that hard. They gave the fighter a class feature, and a pretty uncomplicated one at that, and while there's a lot of underlying design work that could have gone into correctly calibrating the bonus feats, that design work didn't really work out all that well. The monk tries very hard, which is something I can respect even as I hate the class even more than the fighter. The fighter might not necessarily be lazy design, but it sure as hell comes across that way. Things get better with ACF's, and I don't think people are talking about dungeoncrasher zhentarim soldier fighters when they talk about hating fighters, but at the base level, it's a class deserving of some quantity of vitriol.

[Kennisiou]

I love fighter. It's a great prestige class. Its first two levels are pretty strong on some builds and sometimes it's even worth going four or even six levels deep.

[Blackhawk748]

I love fighter. It's a great prestige class. Its first two levels are pretty strong on some builds and sometimes it's even worth going four or even six levels deep.

I shake my head as i laugh because this is true sadly

[Seerow]

I love fighter. It's a great prestige class. Its first two levels are pretty strong on some builds and sometimes it's even worth going four or even six levels deep.

I've even heard of some builds that take all 9 levels of Fighter. They're rare, but there are a few out there. I sometimes wonder why those extra 3 levels were only released in an obscure web supplement though...

[Slipperychicken]

It's because they're weak in 3.5. That's basically the whole reason.

If you like the fluff behind fighters (i.e. Down-to-earth soldier dude), you're probably going to be better off if you just play a Warblade or Crusader instead. The ToB classes are basically a patch for fighters, paladins, and monks.

[Honest Tiefling]

I agree on the 2 skill points a level. Most pop-culture or literary examples of the fighter seem like they would have more, and 2 extra skill points is hardly going to break them, and higher skill point classes should have more class features to make them feel less threatened.

[Gavinfoxx]

Because they are an NPC class that pretends to be a PC class.

[Stake A Vamp]

I don't know. it has something to do with the tier system... I think. personally, i enjoy them, because they are fun to play, and they can get more cool feats.

[Rubik]

A full 45% of fighter levels give you nothing but full BAB and good Fort saves. And their feat list is pretty awful, to boot, which is incredibly sad, because that's literally all they get. You can't even say anything about the skills, since fighters literally get the worst skill list of any class in the game other than warriors (whose list is identical, except they don't get Craft). And they can't perform any of the roles the fluff-text indicates. They don't get Spot or Listen or Diplomacy or...well, really, anything else those jobs need.

The long and short of it is, nobody in their right mind has any reason at all to take more than minimal numbers of fighter levels, and those are generally just for ACFs and prereq-feats.

[Graypairofsocks]

It's because they're weak in 3.5. That's basically the whole reason.

If you like the fluff behind fighters (i.e. Down-to-earth soldier dude), you're probably going to be better off if you just play a Warblade or Crusader instead. The ToB classes are basically a patch for fighters, paladins, and monks.

You can even play a Warblade with just web material from the WotC website:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=1

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a

[Deophaun]

If you want to know why there is all this hate for the Fighter, you're going to have to ask the developers.

They're the ones that did violence to the class.

[VoxRationis]

{scrubbed}

[Anlashok]

The fighter is extremely limited in design, is basically only make for fighting thanks to the terrible class features and 2 base skill points, yet at the same time fails rather miserable to actually be good at aforementioned combat.

You can find at least one thread that supports each of these pretty easily.
Which doesn't change the fact that you come off as sneering the entire time at people who don't agree with you here, nor that it entirely misses the point (the first part for instance is entirely irrelevant to anything here and completely disingenuous). Your "examples" are equally off-point as they don't really fit the archetype and the "hate" bit is so stuffed full of straw it's coming apart at the seams (but it's so absurd you must already know that).

Seriously do you really have to be so nasty about it? Do you really have to start soapboxing so arbitrarily?

[BrokenChord]

I find Tome of Battle yucky, but that has nothing to do with balance, because the ToB classes are extremely balanced. That said, fighters just really suck and weren't designed well at all. It's quite literally saddening. They are limited, far less customizable than the literal point of the class would suggest, and they get no relevant skills for their job nor the skill points to make use of what they do have. And you can just forget about your Fighter being able to change up his tactics when he needs to.

Also, as an aside, there's a general consensus on these boards that real class features are better than feats.

Edit: @VoxRationis, I respect your opinion, and yeah, most people here do optimize pointlessly to levels that make me cringe. But are you denying that Fighter is badly designed as a class? It gives you nothing that somebody else can't take as a feat except for some better accuracy/more damage feats, which limits how that character can set themselves apart, and they can't at all emulate any role other than "guy who attacks with weapon or uses singular combat technique." Personally, despite the fact that it really isn't much if at all stronger mechanically, I find Marshal to do what Fighter was trying to pull off much better.

[Honest Tiefling]

Also, Odysseus and King Arthur are a horrible examples. First one was part god, the second had a cambion wizard cohort and I don't consider getting stabbed and not dying of it 'extraordinary but plausible'.

And the reason that these traits keep getting called up is that some are stupidly easy to get and shut down a class. One of them is a defining feature of the creature the game is named for!

[ryu]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

But see here's the thing: D&D is is high fantasy game. We have literal deities granting magical powers to mortals as they oversee all of reality, restless dead of all shapes and sizes, entire separate but accessible planes of existence full of exotic creatures, resurrection of the dead, and countless more phenomena. In a world where all of that is true what place is there for what is functionally just a sword-arm incapable of competently learning a trade?

[Knaight]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Yes, let's take those characters. Let's take King Arthur or Odysseus in particular. Let's look at, for example, the skills they should have and what the fighter gets.

The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)
Diplomacy? Gone. Profession Sailor? Gone. Use Rope? Gone. Charm? Gone. Also there's a whopping two points per level to handle this. King Arthur was a leader, and he can't even get any social skills besides Intimidate to any real level. Odysseus apparently can't get the skills required for basic seafaring, despite the decade he spent on a boat. So on and so forth. Even if the class skills list wasn't a big "screw you" to the Fighter, the 2 skill points per level certainly is.

Then there's the feats. Long feat chains are necessary to get much of anything, which totally defeats the point of having them. The fighter basically has to specialize. Meanwhile, King Arthur was capable with a lance, a capable fighter while mounted and afoot, a swordsman, etc. The Fighter class isn't even that good with someone like him, let alone Lancelot or Gawain. Odysseus meanwhile was a very good archer (the axes show as much), an able tactician who could fight with his men, a good captain in combat, and pretty good with the Greek panoply.

The Fighter can't even cover these cases. It's downright sad.

[VoxRationis]

Seriously do you really have to be so nasty about it? Do you really have to start soapboxing so arbitrarily?

Ahem.


Re: Fighter Hate

I've even heard of some builds that take all 9 levels of Fighter. They're rare, but there are a few out there. I sometimes wonder why those extra 3 levels were only released in an obscure web supplement though... All in blue for extra sarcasm.



We don't hate him, we just feel... Sorry for him, for lack of a better way of putting it. Contemptuous pity, in an extraordinarily patronizing manner.



Because they are an NPC class that pretends to be a PC class. More "vitriol," as eggynack so eloquently put it.

And I get called out on being a little acrid in my tone? Hardly. I'm getting called out on dissenting from the prevailing mindset.

[Seerow]

And I get called out on being a little acrid in my tone? Hardly. I'm getting called out on dissenting from the prevailing mindset.


There's a difference between poking fun at the ineptitude of a class in a game and intentionally belittling and inciting the members of a forum you are posting on. I would expect that difference to be pretty clear.

[Fighter Class]

I think it's because the fighter is somewhat "mundane" and it lacks "spice" or whatever. there seems to be a lack of appreciation for roleplay in this hatred, which fighters are great at, because they can come from so many different backgrounds. the exotic braavosi and the kings knight are both fighters, but their backgrounds are completely different. these are the things that make the fighter interesting, not the crunch, but the fluff.

Besides, every wizard needs a meatshield

on a personal note, this thread is making me sad

[ryu]

Ahem.
All in blue for extra sarcasm.

Contemptuous pity, in an extraordinarily patronizing manner.

More "vitriol," as eggynack so eloquently put it.

And I get called out on being a little acrid in my tone? Hardly. I'm getting called out on dissenting from the prevailing mindset.

And you don't see the difference between vitriol for a bunch of words put in a book and organized as a fictional concept as compared to vitriol for actual people? No that's not sneering. That's an actual question.

[Honest Tiefling]

-snip-

You forgot Bluff and Diplomacy for Odysseys. He tricked the cyclops (among other people...) and convinced everyone NOT to go to war over the hottest babe. Oh, and he sorta seduced a goddess/demigoddess/witch, and I am of the school of thought that such is more of an application of the diplomacy skill then the ride skill.

[Dusk Eclipse]

They are talking about an imaginary construct, while you are attacking a rather large part of this community. Just an FYI.

[Gavinfoxx]

the exotic braavosi and the kings knight are both fighters, but their backgrounds are completely different. these are the things that make the fighter interesting, not the crunch, but the fluff.


Except that fighters do not competently do the job of showing heroic versions of these archetypes, is the issue. Really, fighters are niche gladiators that aren't even good at putting on a show, that have a single super-dedicated fighting style, no tactical acumen, no leadership capability, etc. etc. They are REALLY BAD at being knights, who were nobles with a huge variety of martial and non-martial capabilities, which should get wayyyy more skills...

[BrokenChord]

They are talking about an imaginary construct, while you are attacking a rather large part of this community. Just an FYI.

He's rather attacking a metaphysical construct in his own way. People attack Fighters, he attacks their attacks and the logic that created them.

It's not exactly the most civil way to go about things, but at least he isn't afraid to stand by his opinion when others go to shut him down. That earns my respect, at any rate.

[Zanos]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
High level D&D isn't Camelot. The interesting thing about D&D is that it covers a very wide array of power levels, and without those "necessary" effects at higher levels you will find yourself unable to contribute against a meaningfully leveled encounter. A level 20 character is not king arthur, they are beings capable of casting down demigods and raiding the gates of hell, and woe betide those that oppose them. The iconic characters you're thinking of are unlikely to even be past level 6. Fighter 20 will have difficulty against many of the even vanilla CR 20 mobs in the game partially because high levels weren't tested extensively and partially because the fighter is a poorly designed class.

Also, you seem to be extremely vitriolic and critical of what you generalize as "the GitP crowd" in nearly every post I've seen you make. There are other RP forums, and if you don't enjoy it here some of them are rather nice.

[VoxRationis]

But see here's the thing: D&D is is high fantasy game. We have literal deities granting magical powers to mortals as they oversee all of reality,
Found in works, both new and old, that still have major characters who are really just warriors,


restless dead of all shapes and sizes,
Even Jason from the movie version had to fight undead.


entire separate but accessible planes of existence full of exotic creatures, most of whom can be killed with a greater or lesser amount of stabbing if you have an appropriately magic sword, which is a common enough trope among fantasy literature,

resurrection of the dead,

Everything from the Bible to the Lord of the Rings has resurrection (technically, Gandalf comes closer to reincarnating than anything else, but still). Just plain fighters work well in those.
As for the people who point out part-divinity in Greek myth, with a few exceptions, such as Achilles and Heracles, that part-divinity meant very little besides a greater likelihood to get sung about. Those part-divine characters are often extraordinarily strong, brave, and clever, but not significantly beyond the limits of normal humanity's upper range and they certainly don't have a suite of special abilities.

[wayfare]

So, I am like the grand champion fighter apologist, and I've done a lot of fighter homebrew for my personal games because i love the idea of a simple soldier guy who is just tougher, better trained, and more ruthless than the opposition. No frills, just awesome skill and versatility.

The problem is that feats, being static features that can't be changed on the fly, re less versatile than features like spells, powers, or maneuvers. Even warlock invocations can give a versatility edge over fighters, and most warlocks have a limited number that are not going to buff eldritch blast.

When you get into fullcasters that have literal hundreds of spells that equates
To hundreds of class features you can change easily...

[VoxRationis]

And you don't see the difference between vitriol for a bunch of words put in a book and organized as a fictional concept as compared to vitriol for actual people? No that's not sneering. That's an actual question.

My vitriol is for a mindset, a concept, laid out with words on a computer screen here. Your vitriol is for a concept laid out in print. My dislike for these opinions is no more hurtful than your contempt for the efforts of the developers of the game or for the preferences of the people who play fighters.

[WhamBamSam]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}Those characters also don't hang around with people capable of unmaking reality on a whim. That type of fantasy is generally better represented by E6 than full-on 3.5. Merlin and Gandalf are significantly more powerful than Arthur or Gimli, but not to nearly the same degree. (Also I'd argue that the movie versions of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas have at least a bit of ToB in their builds). D&D3.5 lends itself to a very high-fantasy type of world, which is often beyond what the "basic heroic warrior" can handle.


I think it's because the fighter is somewhat "mundane" and it lacks "spice" or whatever. there seems to be a lack of appreciation for roleplay in this hatred, which fighters are great at, because they can come from so many different backgrounds. the exotic braavosi and the kings knight are both fighters, but their backgrounds are completely different. these are the things that make the fighter interesting, not the crunch, but the fluff.Or the braavosi might be a Warblade and the Knight a Crusader. Then they could roleplay the concepts just as well, but be competent at it.


Besides, every wizard needs a meatshieldThe wizard can make his own meatshields.

[Honest Tiefling]

So, I am like the grand champion fighter apologist, and I've done a lot of fighter homebrew for my personal games because i love the idea of a simple soldier guy who is just tougher, better trained, and more ruthless than the opposition. No frills, just awesome skill and versatility.

The problem is that feats, being static features that can't be changed on the fly, re less versatile than features like spells, powers, or maneuvers. Even warlock invocations can give a versatility edge over fighters, and most warlocks have a limited number that are not going to buff eldritch blast.

When you get into fullcasters that have literal hundreds of spells that equates
To hundreds of class features you can change easily...

Despite the name of the thread, I think people want to be able to play the tough bad*** warrior, but the game mechanics just won't cooperate.

[Deophaun]

Found in works, both new and old, that still have major characters who are really just warriors,
Yes, where the fighters had the benefit of plot armor and the wizards were quickly issued off stage to single-handedly fight a balrog or something. Even then, though, these literary fighters had more going for them than 3.5's Fighter.

[Kennisiou]

I think it's because the fighter is somewhat "mundane" and it lacks "spice" or whatever. there seems to be a lack of appreciation for roleplay in this hatred, which fighters are great at, because they can come from so many different backgrounds. the exotic braavosi and the kings knight are both fighters, but their backgrounds are completely different. these are the things that make the fighter interesting, not the crunch, but the fluff.

Every class can come from a wide backgrounds. Every. Class. (well, okay, not prestige classes, as many of them do have some requirements as to who you have to be to play them) There's few to no codified things that must be in a character's backstory in any class. I roleplay. I like roleplaying. I also, though, like making my characters that I'm playing relevant after the first six levels. Beyond that, in a game that has over 100 sourcebooks having one class that covers a lot of cases ceases to be important when there's probably several classes that cover any case you'd like (in particular, the "king's knights" could be fighters, crusaders, marshals, samurai, knights, paladins, warblades, psychic warriors, soulknives, that other samurai class, heck even rangers, swordsages, clerics, duskblades, hexblades, factotums, bards, monks, lurks, scouts, or rogues could fit that archetype given certain societies or specializations). You don't need one class that can be anything. You have several other classes that could be that thing already.


Besides, every wizard needs a meatshield

And past a certain level they can literally summon a better meatshield than your average fighter. Beyond that, any class with decent ways to gain AC and a d8 or better hitdie can make a good meatshield. Druid, Cleric, Marshal, Swordsage, Factotum... build them right and they can frontline for a wizard just fine. Most of them better than a fighter.


on a personal note, this thread is making me sad

Sorry. I honestly do believe fighter receives more vitriol than it deserves. It was kinda sarcastic, but I am serious. Fighter is one of the best prestige classes for weapon combatants in D&D. They're just... not a good base class in terms of what they can do and are kinda boring to play as a base class on their own on top of that. They don't even fit the "this class is easy for beginners to get into and learn the game" with because they aren't. They involve a ton of choice but so little of it is meaningful, and that's awful for beginners. Ranger and Paladin both make much better beginner classes.

[Boci]

My vitriol is for a mindset, a concept, laid out with words on a computer screen here. Your vitriol is for a concept laid out in print. My dislike for these opinions is no more hurtful than your contempt for the efforts of the developers of the game or for the preferences of the people who play fighters.

Your vitriol is also for the people who hold that mindset.

We by contrast do not hate the designers, we just think they dropped the ball with the fighter class. D&D 3.5 is a really good game, but it is also a mixed bag. Do you dispute this, or just that the fighter is one of these cases?

We don't hate people who play fighters, they just prefer a different style of game to us.

We will however argue with people who want to say that the fighter is a well designed class, for reasons already laid out.

[eggynack]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I don't think you're right. People here don't necessarily favor classes that can do everything, though some might. People like classes that are well designed. People like synergistic and well constructed abilities, a power curve that can guide you through the whole game, and characters that can do the things that are in their head. Fighters don't do any of those things. Fighters are poorly designed, made up of only a pile of feats, their abilities are generally asynergistic, as one feat chain often has no relevance with regard to another, they don't have a consistent power curve, both because of the diminishing return on feats and again, the lack of connection between feat chains, and they don't do the things in people's heads, because they're pretty bad at fighting, and much worse at anything else.

That's why they're hated, and not because they're missing stuff off of the lists of necessary magic items. That's why they're lists of necessary magic items, and not lists of necessary class features. Folks here love warblades, even though they don't necessarily have everything on those lists, and folks here love other tier 3 classes, even though they also don't usually fill out those lists. You have, as people have noted, constructed a straw man.

[VoxRationis]

Edit: @VoxRationis, I respect your opinion, and yeah, most people here do optimize pointlessly to levels that make me cringe. But are you denying that Fighter is badly designed as a class? It gives you nothing that somebody else can't take as a feat except for some better accuracy/more damage feats, which limits how that character can set themselves apart, and they can't at all emulate any role other than "guy who attacks with weapon or uses singular combat technique." Personally, despite the fact that it really isn't much if at all stronger mechanically, I find Marshal to do what Fighter was trying to pull off much better.

I will readily admit that the Fighter skill list could use improvement (though I'd like to point out that that's not really why people are so down on the fighter), but I thoroughly believe that the game should be capable of producing a character who is just a warrior whose most notable skill is attacking with a weapon.
As for the "anyone else can take those feats" argument, that's not really true for a lot of builds until you get to very high levels. Take Whirlwind Attack for instance. Ignoring whether it's optimal or not, it requires four prerequisite feats and +4 BAB. A human fighter can get to that at level 4, and then start putting feats elsewhere. Other classes can't get it until level 9. Tactical feats, which are a boon to fighters, have the same issue, largely requiring hefty prerequisites. A fighter can accrue multiple high-investment feats that are just impractical for anyone else to reach one of them until they get to mid-level, let alone several of them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I am the guy who will always play human warriors. I will often try other races/professions/factions in video games that give me other options, just to see what they're like, but I will always start with that. I play Terran in StarCraft 2, strength/dex/quality builds in Dark Souls (although I also like Faith builds), and when I played Neverwinter I played a Human Guardian Fighter, and my alt was a Human Great Weapon Fighter. I don't play Vanu Sovereignty in Planetside 2 but that's more because of their religious fervor than because of the weapons they employ.

I will never play Fighter unless I'm in a low-op group, and even then I'll just max Handle Animal and have my pets fight. I prefer Warblade. Warblade doesn't offend my aesthetic taste of warriors either, because perhaps the only action movie I saw in my childhood was Kung Fu Panda (well, actually, I did watch Indiana Jones movies, and I would say Raiders is an action movie. I also watched the Rocky movies), and the more superhuman feats that many people don't like just remind me of Tai Lung.

[Rakaydos]

If you're in a party of a Monk, Paladin, and Ninja, the fighter is fine.
If you're in a party of a Beguiler, a Rogue, and a Barbarian, you'll have more fun playing a Warblade, especially out of combat.
If you're in a party of a Wizard, Cleric and Artificer... play a Druid to round out the OP- you can still play the Animal Companion as your fighter.

[Boci]

I will readily admit that the Fighter skill list could use improvement (though I'd like to point out that that's not really why people are so down on the fighter), but I thoroughly believe that the game should be capable of producing a character who is just a warrior whose most notable skill is attacking with a weapon.
As for the "anyone else can take those feats" argument, that's not really true for a lot of builds until you get to very high levels. Take Whirlwind Attack for instance. Ignoring whether it's optimal or not, it requires four prerequisite feats and +4 BAB. A human fighter can get to that at level 4, and then start putting feats elsewhere. Other classes can't get it until level 9. Tactical feats, which are a boon to fighters, have the same issue, largely requiring hefty prerequisites. A fighter can accrue multiple high-investment feats that are just impractical for anyone else to reach one of them until they get to mid-level, let alone several of them.

There are several things that makes this matter a lot less in certain games:

1. There is a magical item that allows you to use whirlwind. No feats required.
2. There are several ways to get feats independent of your class.
3. Whirlwind if often not that good. Making a single attack against all adjacent enemies is rarely going to be better than full attacking after level 6, earlier if your wizard ally buffs you with haste. Generally you are better off taking cleave for the weenies and saving, what 3 feats?

[Coidzor]

Most people here favor characters that are a salad of four or five classes and almost as many races in one character.

At least try to be accurate when you cast aspersions on an entire forum. :smalltongue:


Despite the name of the thread, I think people want to be able to play the tough bad*** warrior, but the game mechanics just won't cooperate.

That's what seems to be the case for the way most people realize the deficiencies of the class.

[Hiro Protagonest]

At least try to be accurate when you cast aspersions on an entire forum. :smalltongue:

Yep. "Human Barbarian 2/Warblade 18" is hardly that. Nor is "Gray Elf Conjurer 20 with one ACF (Abrupt Jaunt)".

[BrokenChord]

3. Whirlwind if often not that good. Making a single attack against all adjacent enemies is rarely going to be better than full attacking after level 6, earlier if your wizard ally buffs you with haste. Generally you are better off taking cleave for the weenies and saving, what 3 feats?

He did point out that he wasn't focusing on the mechanical viability of the feat when he made the argument, so this point is somewhat moot.

[WhamBamSam]

I will readily admit that the Fighter skill list could use improvement (though I'd like to point out that that's not really why people are so down on the fighter), but I thoroughly believe that the game should be capable of producing a character who is just a warrior whose most notable skill is attacking with a weapon.I don't see how Warblades and Crusaders don't fit that bill.


As for the "anyone else can take those feats" argument, that's not really true for a lot of builds until you get to very high levels. Take Whirlwind Attack for instance. Ignoring whether it's optimal or not, it requires four prerequisite feats and +4 BAB. A human fighter can get to that at level 4, and then start putting feats elsewhere. Other classes can't get it until level 9. Tactical feats, which are a boon to fighters, have the same issue, largely requiring hefty prerequisites. A fighter can accrue multiple high-investment feats that are just impractical for anyone else to reach one of them until they get to mid-level, let alone several of them.A Fighter can't take Whirlwind Attack until level 6, since Spring Attack takes up your 4th level feat. A Martial Monk can take it at 1st level, a Binder can have it when its useful by Binding Paimon at 3rd level, and then not do that in the situations when Whirlwind Attack isn't useful. The Iron Heart discipline has a number of better versions of the feat.

[Zanos]

I will readily admit that the Fighter skill list could use improvement (though I'd like to point out that that's not really why people are so down on the fighter), but I thoroughly believe that the game should be capable of producing a character who is just a warrior whose most notable skill is attacking with a weapon.
Warblade 20 is good.

[Seppo87]

Basically, no numerical advantage can ever compensate for the absolute superiority of spellcasting.

You can be the best archer in the world.
Wind Wall disables your build.
You wear armor?
Repel metal disables your build.
You are a frenzied berserker ubercharger?
Grease disables your build.
Wall of force disables your build. Solid fog disables your build.
You just lose.
You can do nothing about it. Just deal with it. You lose.
You cannot even win initiative, Celerity guarantees the caster acts first.

"but dnd is not pvp"

of course it's not, but

Can your fighter teleport? Can him cast divination spells? Can he produce a +15 competence bonus on a skill check? What can he do out of combat to solve non combat situations?

"but my fighter handles battles better than a caster"

that's false as well. CODzilla builds are stronger than your average fighter.

Let's sum it up

-Your numbers are lower than CoDzilla
-Your options are weaker than a caster's
-Your out of combat is irrelevant

this is Fighter.

[lsfreak]

Because they're so. ****ing. boring. There's so little you can do, and even less that you can do well. It would be one thing if they were underpowered but had enough to do that it was still fun, like blaster-casters can do by throwing around different types of damage in different ways, but you can't even do that. It's mostly doing the same thing over and over. Honestly, even most of the classes that they're compared to (psychic warriors, warblades) get too little to do to keep me very interested, especially at lower levels.

Also a lot of what Gavinfoxx said. Fighters claim to be good soldiers, mercenaries, samurai, generals, bodyguards, whatever. But they simply don't have the skills compared to other classes to do it competently (and I'm not talking how many skill points they have). And even when you get one of the few builds that's really capable of standing up to the other classes, you're still largely going to be stuck doing the same thing, every round, every combat, over and over. Pass.

[OldTrees1]

Hate is a poor word to describe this forum's attitude towards Fighter. Not because it is inaccurate but because hate has a diluted meaning on this forum. I would describe the blatant over-exaggeration and browbeating this forum does on Fighter threads to be better described as vitriol. This forum tends to spew vitriol at Fighter for 3 primary reasons. (Not all posts on Fighter threads count as vitriol.)


1) [Valid]
Fighter, like most 3rd edition classes, is poorly designed. However it, being a mundane, got the short end of the imbalance stick.

2) [Subjective]
Fighter is a generic, repetitive and reliable melee combatant. Most of the vocal voices prefer unique, diverse and unreliable combatants.

3) [Invalid]
Unthinking agreement with vocal voices. Often repeating shorthand arguments as if they were not shorthand. This is the origin of "Fighter's bonus feats do not count as class features" and other such insulting nonsense.



Now, I personally like the repetitive and reliable melee combatant. However to overcome the poor design of Fighter, I need to dig through all of my books to find the best feats and alternate class features (Dungeoncrasher, Thug, & Z Soldier) and the valid combat styles are limited. If I were to make a Warblade instead it would only take 1 book but I personally would not like the texture of the combat mechanics. End result: I take 9 levels of Fighter, include 1-2 level dips in other classes and top it off with a prestige class.

[Thiyr]

I will readily admit that the Fighter skill list could use improvement (though I'd like to point out that that's not really why people are so down on the fighter), but I thoroughly believe that the game should be capable of producing a character who is just a warrior whose most notable skill is attacking with a weapon.
As for the "anyone else can take those feats" argument, that's not really true for a lot of builds until you get to very high levels. Take Whirlwind Attack for instance. Ignoring whether it's optimal or not, it requires four prerequisite feats and +4 BAB. A human fighter can get to that at level 4, and then start putting feats elsewhere. Other classes can't get it until level 9. Tactical feats, which are a boon to fighters, have the same issue, largely requiring hefty prerequisites. A fighter can accrue multiple high-investment feats that are just impractical for anyone else to reach one of them until they get to mid-level, let alone several of them.


Others have chimed in on why whirlwind attack is a poor example here. Tactical feats really aren't much better. Random looking down the list I've got, I've only seen one with more than two prereq feats (Blood Spiked Charger), and there otherwise it seemed fairly even between 0-2 prereq feats. Weapon style feats tend to need a ton to qualify for, if that's what you're going for, but most of those aren't exactly great on their own merit either.

As far as the "should be able to produce a character who's most notable skill is weapon use", I'd say that IS possible. Heck, it's possible with fighter 20 (see: Jack B Quick). The problem is that it is excessively difficult to do that with the fighter class. Its why people go to warblade so quickly, because it's got the same feel without half as much work up front making it viable, in part because it gives you some very good options to work with. It lets you do so many of those nifty fighter-y things that get lumped in with mundanes in fiction but were previously unable to be done (Sudden leap! Hearing the Air!)


As far as your original claims, regarding must-have abilities, fictional fight-y types who lack them, and the outright statement that a majority of us forumgoers dislike said fictional characters due to their lacking of these abilities (which, as an aside, is both a lolwut comment due to how much i hear forumgoers absolutely loving those very characters, and likely a major part of why people are saying you're being insulting), I have this to say: Yes, those characters don't have those protections or abilities. But they're _not d&d characters_ either. They work by extremely different rules. Last I checked, Odysseus didn't have to deal with an ambush of enchanters trying to dominate him (the sirens weren't an ambush, and had an easy workaround, something that most things of that nature don't have in d&d), and Gimli didn't have fireballs being dropped on him every six seconds. Things die to accurately placed arrows, meaning Arthur wouldn't need to fly to take on a dragon, he just needs a single well placed shot. And that's all well in good in those stories. I have no issues with that. Heck, to make things easier on myself for purposes of examples, I'll bring up another case. the Dresden Files books are a perfect example of the same principle. A single bullet or a burning building _will kill you_. There are very few long term buff-type options. Fatigue is a thing that happens when you push yourself harder. You need to be able to react to things. People in that series don't need the things people in d&d do, because their opponents aren't half as durable, can't defend themselves as easily, and don't need to deal with random arbitration methods such as dice.

But lift them from the books and toss them in the d&d arena? They're a lot more screwed. Suddenly being clever doesn't work if it doesn't fit the standard/move/swift action paradigm. Things can and will dominate you in an instant, and if your will save isn't high enough, you're SOL. No plot-based force of will can get rid of it. If a sniper takes a shot at the wizard from a mile off, protection from arrows stops it. Or a contingent wind wall. or displacement, blink, etherealness, you get the picture. "Finding the weak point" of an enemy is relegated to a specific ability, with specific conditions attached to it (sneak attack, critical hits), and even then may not take out the target in one hit. Its the nature of the game. Those must-have abilities? That's how you deal with situations that are more likely than not to come up, which will leave you sitting there doing nothing. Those don't come up in stories because _it'd make bad fiction to do that_. Sitting on your thumbs in d&d, though, that can happen by accident. I've seen players sit there and piss and moan because situations negated their main schtick. I've seen players try to get creative. I've seen people plan ahead for contingencies. The lattermost always comes out ahead. The fighter has a hard time doing that preparation without other classes carrying that load for them. And most of the time, it's gonna be magic or some variation on "not just swinging the sword" that'll do it.

Now, if the DM is gonna go out of his/her way to make sure you're never invalidated, well, that's fine and dandy. But most of the time, most of us cannot assume that. So we prepare. And when people want advice, we can't assume the DM will have the kid gloves on. We can't assume that the DM is invested in making the protagonists succeed even if by all rights they shouldn't. We can't assume that they'll ban themselves from a school of magic or two, from enemies that fly and burrow and swim. So we have to find solutions. And rarely are fighter feats the answer to that problem.


P.S. I do not mean to imply that there is only Killer DM and EZMode DM. There's all sorts on the spectrum. my point is that DMs may or may not play to what the player wants or expects. Its also not to say that straight fighters can't be fun. They certainly can be, and I've quite enjoyed fighter-heavy builds. But I also had to realize that I would have my niche. And that if all I have is a hammer, I damn well better start making everything I can into a nail, or get more tools.

[wayfare]

Despite the name of the thread, I think people want to be able to play the tough bad*** warrior, but the game mechanics just won't cooperate.

The mechanics are not the problem here, I think. Feats are quite useful and keystones to many builds -- Shocktrooper, Power Attack, Leap Attack and whatnot. The problem is that the fighter does not have any other mechanics to back his combat skill up.

Pathfinder tried to give the fighter a leg-up by making it into a standard knight and piling on relatively minor buffs. Thats not gonna cut it, because a fighter can easily get enormous numerical boosts anyway (easily +30-50 damage rolls w/o cheese, and stupid-high numbers with deep feat chains). A fighter needs versatility in the way he attacks and the way he uses his actions. Given that a full attack fighter gets 5 feet of movement, you're talking a waste of actions compared to a Wizard who is using his swift to quicken something (or to cast celerity), plus gets to do stuff with his standard, and gets full tactical movement.

These issues can be addressed by adding features, but you will only hit T4 unless you get some stuff that carries the fighter into the supernatural (flight, teleportation, ways to influence enemy actions). Most of all, you need a build that can survive in multiple situations, that has a versatility your average ubercharger or twf million attacker doesnt get.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Keep it civil in here, and avoid insulting others, including groups of forumites or forumites here as a whole.

[Arbane]

And ANOTHER thing....

One thing D&D fighters should be good at is...combat maneuvers. They SHOULD be able to do all that fancy swashbuckling stuff, like tripping people, disarming them, pushing them around... or just hitting their enemy's weapon so hard that it shatters and their own weapon gets embedded the the enemy's face.

Ha ha ha. 3.5 does NOT like it when you try to get creative without having the appropriate feats, and nobody has enough feats to do all that stuff. Stick to swording enemies in the hitpoints.

[ryu]

And ANOTHER thing....

One thing D&D fighters should be good at is...combat maneuvers. They SHOULD be able to do all that fancy swashbuckling stuff, like tripping people, disarming them, pushing them around... or just hitting their enemy's weapon so hard that it shatters and their own weapon gets embedded the the enemy's face.

Ha ha ha. 3.5 does NOT like it when you try to get creative without having the appropriate feats, and nobody has enough feats to do all that stuff. Stick to swording enemies in the hitpoints.

Well fighter has enough feats to TRY to do all those things. Usually not well, and by the time he has all of them they'll be completely irrelevant, but the point still stands.

[deuxhero]

Found in works, both new and old, that still have major characters who are really just warriors

Examples? All the major "mundane guy in high magic land" characters I can think of are very skill based based characters who survive with their wits (That is better represented by daring outlaw or an ACFed ranger than fighter). I don't doubt there are some, but none come to mind.

[ngilop]

FIRST:
i think people LOVE the fighter, thats why when you mosey over to the homebrew forusm there are
HUNDREDS of fighter fixes, re-tools, revisions, re-builds, etc etc.

what happened to the fighter was WotC took everything unique about the fighter in previous
editions and made that available to every class in existance. that why most people dislike this
incarnation of the fighter, plus even though in fluff the barbarian is 'big stupid strong guy' he gets
doulbe teh skill points of the fighter.

but then this is WoTC we are talking about, where you cast a spell that launches a non magical
ball of magical energy at high velocity towards something.

SECOND: How in the world can you not think of a single fighter in any literature? I cna think of
35-ish off the top of my head

Giglamesh, beowulf, heracles, Indrajit, Roland, Conan, Fafhrd, Grey Mouser, Aragorn, Gimli,
Prince Charming, Caramon, Ceasar, William the COnquerer, Charlemane, Wesley, Inigo Mantoya,
Lu Bu, Taishi Ci, GUan Yu, The Spartans, Roman legionaire, The white death (forget his real name)
Hector, Achilles, Martin (the mouse) Audi Murphy, Hannibal, ALexander teh great, Miyamoto, Guts,
Ecthelion, Fingolfin, D'artagnan, John Carter, Turin, Yoda, and thats just off the top of my head

[Forrestfire]

SECOND: How in the world can you not think of a single fighter in any literature? I cna think of
35-ish off the top of my head

Giglamesh, beowulf, heracles, Indrajit, Roland, Conan, Fafhrd, Grey Mouser, Aragorn, Gimli,
Prince Charming, Caramon, Ceasar, William the COnquerer, Charlemane, Wesley, Inigo Mantoya,
Lu Bu, Taishi Ci, GUan Yu, The Spartans, Roman legionaire, The white death (forget his real name)
Hector, Achilles, Martin (the mouse) Audi Murphy, Hannibal, ALexander teh great, Miyamoto, Guts,
Ecthelion, Fingolfin, D'artagnan, John Carter, Turin, Yoda, and thats just off the top of my head

The vast majority of these would be better represented as almost any class other than a Fighter, even if we ignore the scale of many of these characters' or peoples' abilities (like Roland breaking a mountain in the process of failing to break Durendal).
(also, the White Death was Simo Häyhä, iirc)

[ngilop]

The vast majority of these would be better represented as almost any class other than a Fighter.

Ok i'll give you yoda sicne all the force powers.

[Forrestfire]

Or Aragorn, who is extremely knowledgeable, a very capable tracker, and (depending on the interpretation) has minor magic abilities. Or Conan being a fairly skillful person (someone you could not represent with 2 skill points per level). Hell, most of these are people who would, by default, have invested resources in social skills and knowledge skills, which Fighters just don't have, and the combat abilities of most of them would be better represented by different classes, be they martial initiators or Swift/Daring _____ multiclasses, or any number of possible prestige classes or builds possibly involving a few Fighter levels, but definitely not as the main class.

[eggynack]

Ok i'll give you yoda sicne all the force powers.
I'm rather certain that by "vast majority" he didn't mean "just Yoda". A good number of those characters are skill heavy, and they would tend away from the skill lacking fighter, and a good number of the rest use martial maneuvers beyond, "Then he hit the enemy, but like really hard." I'd reckon that those two groups cover most of the list, which means not-fighter for all. A good number of the remainder are also flavored as non-fighters, whether they have fluff more akin to that of a barbarian, ranger, or ToB class. What you're left with is very little.

[Jeff the Green]

At least try to be accurate when you cast aspersions on an entire forum. :smalltongue:

Yeah. Here's the thing: most people who put together these complicated builds don't do so for love of complicating things. (I count myself as an exception, actually; I'm working on a build that uses as many different ACFs and PrCs with contradictory prerequisites as possible just because I like the idea.) For the most part, it's because of bad design. Even I hold warblade and swordsage (and beguiler and dread necromancer) as the epitome of good design: you do not get better at your shtick by multiclassing or PrCing out. You can get new tricks (like through Bloodstorm Blade or Lion Spiritual Totem Barbarian) but you're pretty much always trading something of equal value.

Fighter (along with most of the PHB classes, actually) is the opposite of this. Past a certain point you're getting almost nothing from it. In core-only it's even worse because you don't have things like Weapon Supremacy and end up with a bunch of feats that support contradictory playstyles. Likewise there's pretty much no reason for a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer not to PrC out; turning isn't terribly useful even with full progression, and the only familiar abilities worth writing home about are skills and sharing spells—both of which are available from the get go.

[OldTrees1]

The vast majority of these would be better represented as almost any class other than a Fighter, even if we ignore the scale of many of these characters' or peoples' abilities (like Roland breaking a mountain in the process of failing to break Durendal).
(also, the White Death was Simo Häyhä, iirc)

His post was talking about Fighter the concept not Fighter the WotC implementation of the concept. More of them fit if we keep that in mind. However some like Conan the Barbarian should not be on the list.

[Forrestfire]

His post was talking about Fighter the concept not Fighter the WotC implementation of the concept. More of them fit if we keep that in mind. However some like Conan the Barbarian should not be on the list.

I first thought that, but decided to post anyway, given that he was responding to someone who was talking about the Fighter class.

[OldTrees1]

I first thought that, but decided to post anyway, given that he was responding to someone who was talking about the Fighter class.

Your post was beneficial.

I think he used the first point to criticize the implementation of the concept and then used the second point to defend the concept.

[Anlashok]

Are we really listing Conan the Barbarian as an example of a good fighter?


Ceasar, William the COnquerer, Charlemane, Taishi Ci, Hannibal, ALexander teh great, Fingolfin
Yes, because when we think of masterful generals, strategists, nobles and leaders "dumb as rock only good at hitting things with a sword" is definitely the archetype that first comes to mind.

Definitely.


At least try to be accurate when you cast aspersions on an entire forum.
It's an especially disgusting and disingenuous because one of the most commonly suggested "fighter replacements" is a human warblade 20. I guess yeah that's just a hodgepodge of nonsensical class combinations and bizarre obscure races most people haven't heard about.

Yep.

[Deophaun]

Are we really listing Conan the Barbarian as an example of a good fighter?
Yes, actually. Conan is a Fighter. He's also multiclassed with a Rogue. He doesn't have class levels in Barbarian. Just like Marcus Cole would be a Fighter (edit: okay, Monk), even though he's called a ranger. Class as mechanic is not the same as class as title.

[ryu]

Yes, actually. Conan is a Fighter. He's also multiclassed with a Rogue. He doesn't have class levels in Barbarian. Just like Marcus Cole would be a Fighter, even though he's called a ranger. Class as mechanic is not the same as class as title.

Except Conan is even less a fighter in mechanic than he is in name or fluff. Conan got most of his stuff done by being legitimately intelligent and guileful. He also did considerably more things involving skills than the fighter has any right to claim. On all sides the man is more barbarian than fighter.

[Deophaun]

Except Conan is even less a fighter in mechanic than he is in name or fluff. Conan got most of his stuff done by being legitimately intelligent and guileful. He also did considerably more things involving skills than the fighter has any right to claim. On all sides the man is more barbarian than fighter.
I'll repost this, because you seem to have missed it:

His post was talking about Fighter the concept not Fighter the WotC implementation of the concept. More of them fit if we keep that in mind. However some like Conan the Barbarian should not be on the list.

[ryu]

I'll repost this, because you seem to have missed it:

And? Fighter the concept still isn't Conan. Conan still fits barbarian concept better than fighter any day of the weak.

[Deophaun]

And? Fighter the concept still isn't Conan. Conan still fits barbarian concept better than fighter any day of the weak.
No, he doesn't. He's not a berserker, which is what barbarians are based off of. This is a guy that stalks into the darkness and slices unspeakable horrors in twain, emerging unfazed. Barbarians, the class, are often Conan's enemies: savages that lose themselves in combat, and Conan takes advantage. The only thing Barbarians have in relation to him is Arnold's costume. That's where the similarities begin and end.

[ryu]

No, he doesn't. He's not a berserker, which is what barbarians are based off of. This is a guy that stalks into the darkness and slices unspeakable horrors in twain, emerging unfazed. Barbarians, the class, are often Conan's enemies: savages that lose themselves in combat, and Conan takes advantage. The only thing Barbarians have in relation to him is Arnold's costume. That's where the similarities begin and end.

Except actual barbarians in history were not simply berserkers. It was simply a term coined by the Greeks and later taken by the Romans to denote anyone who wasn't them. While it was stated in tones of calling someone inferior throughout history the term has no such factual claim to stupidity or animalistic nature.

Further actual berserkers don't exactly have much to do with barbarians as WotC made them either. For one the state of berserk wasn't some simple thing that could be turned on and off at will. The most common theories state quite clearly that it involved either eating drugged foods, or working one's self into a rage beforehand with considerable effort. It was not bloody green-horning. It was a thing actively practiced specifically because people who fought with no care for their own lives had a tendency to kill off far more enemies. The lack of any real protective gear was intentional to avoid hampering their movement in any way.

[Deophaun]

Except actual barbarians in history were not simply berserkers. It was simply a term coined by the Greeks and later taken by the Romans to denote anyone who wasn't them. While it was stated in tones of calling someone inferior throughout history the term has no such factual claim to stupidity or animalistic nature.
So we should label all people who speak barbaros (gibberish) barbarians then, because if you want to go with the historical definition, that's it. Nothing to do with fighting, ability to use weapons, or strength.

Further actual berserkers don't exactly have much to do with barbarians as WotC made them either. For one the state of berserk wasn't some simple thing that could be turned on and off at will. The most common theories state quite clearly that it involved either eating drugged foods, or working one's self into a rage beforehand with considerable effort. It was not bloody green-horning. It was a thing actively practiced specifically because people who fought with no care for their own lives had a tendency to kill off far more enemies. The lack of any real protective gear was intentional to avoid hampering their movement in any way.
Which is probably why in 4e it was changed to some kind of primal-power-channeling warrior. But even then, you're nowhere close to Conan. Instead, you've moved further afield.

So, I'm left wondering how, since Conan is actually quite intelligible and doesn't get all hopped up on drugs before a battle, you seem to be under the impression that a Barbarian class, which we will somehow base on "not being Greek," (can't wait to see the PrCs!) is a better fit for Conan than Fighter. In fact, you view this as an argument for the proposition.

[Eldariel]

Well, Fighter would be nice if:
1) It were more durable than average (so it can actually take hits). Double Con bonus to HP, all good saves, magic resistance and eventual magic immunity, etc.
2) It got a sensible skill list. Fighter is all about standing in the front and being tough so at least perception should be in class alongside some Knowledges (ones used to identify creatures - you have to know what you fight + History for Warfare), Sense Motive (the tough Fighters aren't about being gullible), Diplomacy (Fighters should make great generals) and at least 8+Int skill points (but this deficiency goes for every class; the skill system is not in synch with the amount of skill points)
3) It had some more useful class features. Getting only the leftovers is kinda not cool. Fighter should have some inherent advantages over others, perhaps some leadership abilities, some weapon skills others can't access (e.g. extra attack á la AD&D 2e), etc. And armor could afford to be better; Dex cap and the itemized stat gains kinda negates the advantage of having an armor after the first few levels so Plates don't really do much.

[eggynack]

Welp, this has gone in an odd direction. I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore. Like, I guess there's some standard definition of "barbarian", and Conan doesn't fit that, but there's also the barbarian class, which, due to its better skill use, can model Conan reasonably well. There's also some historical precedent for the barbarian, which has some odd arguments related to it that I'm not even going to touch.

Meanwhile, on the other side of things, you have the standard fighter. On that side, I suppose the standard definition of "fighter" does fit Conan, because fighters are skillful, but there's also the fighter class, which can't model Conan at all, because skills again. I think the only conclusion I can come to is that the barbarian side is right, because whatever the standard definition of barbarian and fighter is, the designers weren't using it. The whole thing is really confusing, however, because it seems that both sides are using iterated arguments of name not equaling nature, as applied to different sections of these classes. I just don't even know anymore.

[ryu]

So we should label all people who speak barbaros (gibberish) barbarians then, because if you want to go with the historical definition, that's it. Nothing to do with fighting, ability to use weapons, or strength.

Which is probably why in 4e it was changed to some kind of primal-power-channeling warrior. But even then, you're nowhere close to Conan. Instead, you've moved further afield.

So, I'm left wondering how, since Conan is actually quite intelligible and doesn't get all hopped up on drugs before a battle, you seem to be under the impression that a Barbarian class, which we will somehow base on "not being Greek," (can't wait to see the PrCs!) is a better fit for Conan than Fighter. In fact, you view this as an argument for the proposition.

Barbarion is a very culturally broad term. It has far more meaning than simple berserking though that was a tactic used by viking shock troops. Considering we already have a prestige class much closer (though still not perfect) to what berserkers actually were I move that barbarians are best represented by general viking war culture as a concept. A wide array of weaponry for multiple situations, fast moving battle tactics, and the general brutality of their warfare still make for a ''primitive'' warrior that actually resembles a lot closer what Conan was actually modeling if you know their history.

[Coidzor]

No, he doesn't. He's not a berserker, which is what barbarians are based off of. This is a guy that stalks into the darkness and slices unspeakable horrors in twain, emerging unfazed. Barbarians, the class, are often Conan's enemies: savages that lose themselves in combat, and Conan takes advantage. The only thing Barbarians have in relation to him is Arnold's costume. That's where the similarities begin and end.

Barbarians actually get some skill points and a better skill list that while failing to encompass Conan comes closer than the Fighter skill list, and at least in the stories I've read he's faster overland than people think he should be. So there's that.

Usually seems to be mentioned as a multiclass character though when people try to seriously model him. Even what you've described here doesn't fit with the concept of "generic person who kills things good," it's far too stealthy and cerebral for that.


His post was talking about Fighter the concept not Fighter the WotC implementation of the concept. More of them fit if we keep that in mind. However some like Conan the Barbarian should not be on the list.

What concept? Someone who is good at killing people? :smalltongue:

We're brushing dangerously close to the absurd by treading into this sort of territory, it seems.

[OldTrees1]

So we should label all people who speak barbaros (gibberish) barbarians then, because if you want to go with the historical definition, that's it. Nothing to do with fighting, ability to use weapons, or strength.

Which is probably why in 4e it was changed to some kind of primal-power-channeling warrior. But even then, you're nowhere close to Conan. Instead, you've moved further afield.

So, I'm left wondering how, since Conan is actually quite intelligible and doesn't get all hopped up on drugs before a battle, you seem to be under the impression that a Barbarian class, which we will somehow base on "not being Greek," (can't wait to see the PrCs!) is a better fit for Conan than Fighter. In fact, you view this as an argument for the proposition.

IIRC The Greeks did not label cultures that they recognized as "civilized" as "barbarians". Thus the unique trait that defines barbarian would be related to the greek concept of "civilized". The vast majority would be best described as "tribesmen" rather than "berserkers". In 3rd edition "tribesmen" are divided between the Barbarian and the Ranger.

Conan the Barbarian does not display above average intelligence given the genre he hails from (high fantasy). Furthermore Conan fights based on power/strength both of the body and of the mind(will power vs spells). Also you will note that Conan pulls on reserves of strength during longer/harder combats. (although that might just be the genre again) While having more control than a Berserker and definitely having greater than 10 Int, Conan does fit the Barbarian class.

[Dimcair]

I know people who have fun just straight playing a fighter, rolling and hitting.

My problem, is that these players complain about my Conjurer-Wizard taking longer for a turn than they do, since I don't just Charge a enemy, roll to hit, roll damage, end my turn. Therefore I am slowing down the game....
Hate these people. I understand that simplicity can be attractive, and a fighter provides just that. But just because the stereotypical fighter player likes his limited options doesn't mean that everybody wants to play like that.

I often compare it with playing chess vs. playing ludo (or something along these lines).


In conclusion the problem with the fighter is that you are kind of forced into limited actions....

[Deophaun]

Like, I guess there's some standard definition of "barbarian", and Conan doesn't fit that, but there's also the barbarian class, which, due to its better skill use, can model Conan reasonably well.
The problem is the Barbarian's central mechanic--Rage--runs counter to Conan. So in core, the closest thing you actually have to Conan is the Rogue; Fighter lacks the skills, and Barbarian's class features are inappropriate. The Rogue lacks the BAB and the survivability, but at least the class features mesh.

Meanwhile, in every other edition of D&D, Conan's a Fighter, often with a Rogue multiclass. Admittedly, it doesn't mean that much as in previous editions Barbarians were subclasses or kits of the Fighter, and no one wants to talk about 4th here.

[OldTrees1]

I know people who have fun just straight playing a fighter, rolling and hitting.

My problem, is that these players complain about my Conjurer-Wizard taking longer for a turn than they do, since I don't just Charge a enemy, roll to hit, roll damage, end my turn. Therefore I am slowing down the game....
Hate these people. I understand that simplicity can be attractive, and a fighter provides just that. But just because the stereotypical fighter player likes his limited options doesn't mean that everybody wants to play like that.

I often compare it with playing chess vs. playing ludo (or something along these lines).


In conclusion the problem with the fighter is that you are kind of forced into limited actions....

Those sound like problem players.

Strangely, I have seen fighter characters routinely take longer turns than their caster allies. After all, the caster just moves, casts 2 spells and has the DM roll saves. Fighters range from 2 rolls per attack (attack, damage) to 9+ per attack(attack, damage, touch, trip, attack, damage, Fort save, bullrush, damage).
I admit this not necessarily the norm.

[Coidzor]

The problem is the Barbarian's central mechanic--Rage--runs counter to Conan. So in core, the closest thing you actually have to Conan is the Rogue; Fighter lacks the skills, and Barbarian's class features are inappropriate. The Rogue lacks the BAB and the survivability, but at least the class features mesh.

Meanwhile, in every other edition of D&D, Conan's a Fighter, often with a Rogue multiclass. Admittedly, it doesn't mean that much as in previous editions Barbarians were subclasses or kits of the Fighter, and no one wants to talk about 4th here.

And the Fighter doesn't offer anything beyond HD, Fort Save, and BAB to fit the fill, so it's either ignoring clash features that don't fit in the case of Ranger and Barbarian or refluffing Rage until you find a passage in a Conan story that fits. Whee.

Of course not. 4e is irrelevant to the discussion and as far as I know, no one seriously objects to Fighters in 4e because they're capable of doing their bloody jobs. :smalltongue: Inarguably, even, whereas the *best* you can say about the situation here is that they can arguably do their jobs or do so with certain caveats.

[Deophaun]

And the Fighter doesn't offer anything beyond HD, Fort Save, and BAB to fit the fill, so it's either ignoring clash features that don't fit in the case of Ranger and Barbarian or refluffing Rage until you find a passage in a Conan story that fits.
Wow. I mean, it's almost like a wrote a post that said that, you quoted it, and then rephrased it! Mind = Blown!

IIRC The Greeks did not label cultures that they recognized as "civilized" as "barbarians".
They labeled cultures as "barbarian" or "Egyptian," as the Egyptians were the only ones they considered civilized.

Conan the Barbarian does not display above average intelligence given the genre he hails from (high fantasy).
Conan is able to suss out the principles of an electrical circuit in five seconds of watching a sorcerer frying cultists. So yes, I think he's got a pretty high intelligence.

[Coidzor]

Wow. I mean, it's almost like a wrote a post that said that, you quoted it, and then rephrased it! Mind = Blown!


Yes, you totally mentioned anything at all about refluffing and directly acknowledged that Fighter didn't fit the bill. :smalltongue:

[Windstorm]

my issue with fighters is that compared to every other base class, they have the absolute least going for them, and that results in limited options and a very narrow mindset.

ToB I often recommend since it is the closest thing to being a core fighter without the limited options, and can be refluffed any number of ways. the people who complain about it being "too wuxia" etc usually haven't read the sections in the book on refluffing, along with actually looking at any real world fighting art that usually IS broken down into component moves with specific aims. if you don't like the maneuver descriptions, rewrite/rename them. just like character classes they are merely a package of abilities with a default name. "eagle claw strike" or some other rediculous name could just as easily be "right elbow lock" or some other mundane action description.

part of the problem on forums and elsewhere is that people have difficulty divorcing concept from class. concept is who a character is and a very general idea of what they do. class is the particular mixing bowl of classes/feats/skills you use to make the concept reality. too many people have simply glued "hits people with pointy objects" to "fighter X" so hard that they fail to realize one doesn't necessarily mean the other at all, nor should it

[ryu]

Wow. I mean, it's almost like a wrote a post that said that, you quoted it, and then rephrased it! Mind = Blown!

They labeled cultures as "barbarian" or "Egyptian," as the Egyptians were the only ones they considered civilized.

Conan is able to suss out the principles of an electrical circuit in five seconds of watching a sorcerer frying cultists. So yes, I think he's got a pretty high intelligence.

Frankly I don't even know how one could meaningfully make the distinction back then. Celine Dion didn't even exist yet.

[OldTrees1]

They labeled cultures as "barbarian" or "Egyptian," as the Egyptians were the only ones they considered civilized.

Conan is able to suss out the principles of an electrical circuit in five seconds of watching a sorcerer frying cultists. So yes, I think he's got a pretty high intelligence.

I wouldn't know but I would be surprised if the Trojans or Romans were considered barbarians. Should I be surprised?

I do not remember that fight. However it sounds like you are being too charitable. Figuring out (in combat) "that must be the source" requires less intelligence (say 12-14) than "electricity is lightning. Which, like all lightning, flows through metal from a high source to a low source" (somewhere within the 16-20 range).

[Deophaun]

I do not remember that fight. However it sounds like you are being too charitable. Figuring out (in combat) "that must be the source" requires less intelligence (say 12-14) than "electricity is lightning. Which, like all lightning, flows through metal from a high source to a low source" (somewhere within the 16-20 range).
I'm not, because that's pretty much exactly what he figured out. The sorcerer had a wand, but it only closed a circuit when it was pointed at a certain type of pillar. Conan figured it out, and so the battle revolved around closing with the sorcerer while making sure he was never between the wand and any of the pillars.

Basically, this is Conan making a Spellcraft check.


I wouldn't know but I would be surprised if the Trojans or Romans were considered barbarians. Should I be surprised?
Trojans we don't much know. Remember, it was only recently that we even knew Troy existed outside the writings of Homer.

Romans, most assuredly were barbarians. Even in Rome proper, the Greek language was the language of the educated.

[LTwerewolf]

The warrior class lacks heavy armor proficiency (which i rarely see people ever use) and the craft skill. Beyond that, it is an upgrade to the fighter, as it can trade bonus feats for actual class features.

I'll leave this here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

[Iamyourking]

I've always considered Conan to be a Barbarian 1 (For wilderness skills and toughness, probably using some variant of rage rather than the original and representing his upbringing and early adventures in Cimmeria)/Rogue 1 (For general other skills, representing his time as a thief)/Fighter 2 (For heavy armor proficiency and bonus feats, representing his time as a mercenary and the honing of his combat skills)/Warblade 2 (For maneuvers, representing the pinnacle of his martial skills) with above average to amazing in every stat. Physical stats are obvious, he's able to easily think of intelligent solutions to problems, he has a great deal of common sense and willpower along with very keen senses, and enough natural charisma that pretty much everywhere he ends up he's eventually in charge.

[Phelix-Mu]

What is with all these "hate" and "love" threads? Is it possible the spring air is getting to us (for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere)?:smallconfused:

Anyway, fighter dip is crazy awesome win for the DM to use to customize monsters (especially those with bad Fort saves or poor racial HD). Between Sneak Attack variant and fighter feats, there's lots of stuff that can make regular, let's say bugbears, into a much more dynamic encounter, with just an extra level or two of fighter.

For players and their characters, not so much. Still a decent utility dip, though. And some low-op players don't mind fighter in the least bit; friend of mine played through like 13 levels of fighter on a stonechild character. Cool concept, worked for him, did lots of smashface. Mission accomplished.:smallsmile:

[wayfare]

Conan is just a very buff Factotem or Chameleon who decided that "the barbarian" sounded better than "the jack of all trades".

He traded away his inspiration point casting for some sweet acfs and templates

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly, its amazing what happens when you give the Fighter 2 more skills per level and then let the Player pick two skills to add to the list can accomplish. (yes im aware that most of us here would pick UMD, but thats beside the point) I made one of my favorite characters like this, i dropped Tower Shield and Heavy Armor Prof to get it, and i took Spot and Listen, i wound up going 8 lvls of Fighter and took one lvl of Barbarian, i like running fast and my Character got pissed a lot anyway, i had a lot of fun with him.

That being said, if always treated the Fighter 'concept' as the career soldier or some kind of mercenary. Generally i just compare them to Spartans and be done with it.

Also i've nicknamed the Fighter, "Warrior A La Carte"

[Vogonjeltz]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335445-In-defense-of-the-fighter-12-step-challenge&p=17371826#post17371826
We did have a challenge in progress, seems to have petered out (Togo is MIA), but from the preliminary results, Fighter did just fine, as well as a Druid.

Incidentally, a Fighters skills can be used to substitute for the missing cross class skills. Buy a dog, train it in guarding via handle animal and it provides better spot/listen checks, and scent. Pick up Guerilla Scout for Listen/Spot as class skills (and +1 to initiative), and Guerilla Warrior for Hide and Move Silently.

I tend to prefer high Int fighters (for combat expertise), so perhaps I'm not always suffering from a skill point drought.

A human fighter with 14 Int has 5 skill point/level and most of their standard class skills don't need to be maxed out. (Ie ride only really needs a total bonus of 14 to ensure success in most checks, and so forth)

[Siosilvar]

The warrior class lacks heavy armor proficiency (which i rarely see people ever use) and the craft skill. Beyond that, it is an upgrade to the fighter, as it can trade bonus feats for actual class features.

I'll leave this here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

The generic classes are not intended to be used in conjunction with other classes. It's strictly superior, but it also assumes that other classes with class features beyond bonus feats (ranger/barbarian/etc) aren't used.


a game master who desires to run a simpler campaign (while still allowing for character variety) can use these "generic" character classes in place of the standard character classes.

[ngilop]

Yes, because when we think of masterful generals, strategists, nobles and leaders "dumb as rock only good at hitting things with a sword" is definitely the archetype that first comes to mind.

Definitely.





THis is actually the first instance of ighter hate on this thread. and the main reason why 3rd ed shafted
the poor fighter so bad, the designers had this same philosophy. melee mundane should be 'dumb as rocks
and only good at hitting things with a weapon'. But every one of the REAL LIFE guys I listed are Fighters, I guess
maybe its because I grew up with previous editions of D&D where fighters ya know.. actually got stuff and were regelated
to being all but mindless jocks for lakc of better term.

is teh PhB fighter terribel, yes nobody is arguing that but take the fluff of the fighter and applly it like one is supposed to.
I never saw ALexander the great cast black tentacles, raise the dead, turn into a bear, turn invisible, summon some extraplanar being
or any of that other jazz. he was a fighter and probably the greatest tactical mind of all history.

DOn't hate the Fighter becuase WoTC is unable to make the mechanics match the fluff they wrote. and YES everybody in the world knows you cna take any figure EVER and slap on any class at all to fit the bill.


the point is the ONLY fighter hate ever is what I quoted. whne you say all the fighter is a is big, stupid, dumb, strong, touhg, guy that hits things. then that is the SOLE hate one has for the Fighter.

Zeigander has a GREAT post about what a Fighter is http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It
HE got mostly positive reviews ( i posted almost verbatim the sam ethng a few months earlier and got mostly negative reviews from the same people but EH the universe works in a mysterious way.

[Boci]

Incidentally, a Fighters skills can be used to substitute for the missing cross class skills. Buy a dog, train it in guarding via handle animal and it provides better spot/listen checks, and scent. Pick up Guerilla Scout for Listen/Spot as class skills (and +1 to initiative), and Guerilla Warrior for Hide and Move Silently.

Not quite. They are class skills for the purpose of rank cost, but stil cross class for the purpose of max rank. And as oppose skills, you need those modifiers to be high.

Also that's two feats, neither of which are fighter bonus feats.


A human fighter with 14 Int has 5 skill point/level and most of their standard class skills don't need to be maxed out. (Ie ride only really needs a total bonus of 14 to ensure success in most checks, and so forth)

Yes, but a human barbarian or warblade with 14 int will have 7 skill points, and the latter even gets additional synergy from int.

[Gavinfoxx]

Robert E Howard's Conan, as in the one from the books NOT the movie or anything else, is, in my opinion, best statted out as something like:

Spirit Lion Totem, Bear Totem, Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 2 / Wilderness, Penetrating Strike Rogue 3 / Strong-Arm, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Ranger 3 / Zhentarim Soldier, Thug, Dungeon Crusher, Physical Prowess, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Fighter 3 / Warblade 2

He's also a relatively high level character in a world without that many high level characters... but consider that, yes, dips CAN help you with various things, if your idea is a smart, cunning wickedly fast, wilderness-capable, extremely competent melee combatant...

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't even think that there's anything directed against the fighter per se, it's just that the fighter is the most straightforward example of a non-caster class, and how they get outclassed by the magic-users. The discussion isn't directly focused on the Fighter any more than the discussion of caster dominance is focused exclusively on the Wizard.

They're just banners, representations of their side of things.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not, because that's pretty much exactly what he figured out. The sorcerer had a wand, but it only closed a circuit when it was pointed at a certain type of pillar. Conan figured it out, and so the battle revolved around closing with the sorcerer while making sure he was never between the wand and any of the pillars.

Basically, this is Conan making a Spellcraft check.


Trojans we don't much know. Remember, it was only recently that we even knew Troy existed outside the writings of Homer.

Romans, most assuredly were barbarians. Even in Rome proper, the Greek language was the language of the educated.

Wow. I still think Conan didn't figure out the basics of electric circuits from that but that is a good example of puzzle solving during a fight. Since I do not remember any other similar events on different topics, I think you are right about it being from skill points (not sure if it is spellcraft but that is beside the point).

[eggynack]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335445-In-defense-of-the-fighter-12-step-challenge&p=17371826#post17371826
We did have a challenge in progress, seems to have petered out (Togo is MIA), but from the preliminary results, Fighter did just fine, as well as a Druid.
The fighters did alright, but my issue with the whole thing now is the same issue I had with it then. With challenges at the level of difficulty we were looking at, it would be highly unlikely for any of the characters to fail, regardless of optimization. It's just rather difficult to judge how two characters are doing in such a situation, when there's no real looming threat of death. That could possibly change when the challenges pick up some variety, because we've yet to face an encounter that isn't face punching guys standing on the ground, which is the fighter's wheelhouse, and that might be reason enough to continue, but it's a somewhat annoying thing.

[OldTrees1]

The fighters did alright, but my issue with the whole thing now is the same issue I had with it then. With challenges at the level of difficulty we were looking at, it would be highly unlikely for any of the characters to fail, regardless of optimization. It's just rather difficult to judge how two characters are doing in such a situation, when there's no real looming threat of death. That could possibly change when the challenges pick up some variety, because we've yet to face an encounter that isn't face punching guys standing on the ground, which is the fighter's wheelhouse, and that might be reason enough to continue, but it's a somewhat annoying thing.
Difficulty:
It was a real game test with the difficulty of encounters reduced proportional to the reduced number of PCs. As such the early encounters tend to be easy encounters building up towards a climax and resolution.

Diversity:
It paused(ended?) on a stealth encounter. Which is unfortunate since I think that would have been very informative. I know one of the Fighters might have had difficulty despite having a few beneficial circumstances (Bluff from an ACF, Flight from a feat, & Strategic Advantage from Know Local)

[Vogonjeltz]

Not quite. They are class skills for the purpose of rank cost, but stil cross class for the purpose of max rank. And as oppose skills, you need those modifiers to be high.

Also that's two feats, neither of which are fighter bonus feats.

Yes, but a human barbarian or warblade with 14 int will have 7 skill points, and the latter even gets additional synergy from int.

I'm afb, but I could have sworn that they were FBFs, maybe it's in an errata? IMO the skills don't have to be pumped that high, nor is it necessary to even have them (as I mentioned they can be substituted via handle animal, or a party member (rogue;ranger;monk))

Warblade has to burn at least 1 skill point on martial lore, and probably another on concentration (which has no other notable benefit for non casters). That kind of makes them equal. Synergy is good though.


The fighters did alright, but my issue with the whole thing now is the same issue I had with it then. With challenges at the level of difficulty we were looking at, it would be highly unlikely for any of the characters to fail, regardless of optimization. It's just rather difficult to judge how two characters are doing in such a situation, when there's no real looming threat of death. That could possibly change when the challenges pick up some variety, because we've yet to face an encounter that isn't face punching guys standing on the ground, which is the fighter's wheelhouse, and that might be reason enough to continue, but it's a somewhat annoying thing.

The knowledge gathering portion of the test seemed to be filled out quite well by the fighter, which went to my point that a character doesn't need to be specialized in skills to succeed at them. In this, I think the Fighter is getting maligned overly. Skills are nice and all, but they are only a mild limitation.


Difficulty:
It was a real game test with the difficulty of encounters reduced proportional to the reduced number of PCs. As such the early encounters tend to be easy encounters building up towards a climax and resolution.

Diversity:
It paused(ended?) on a stealth encounter. Which is unfortunate since I think that would have been very informative. I know one of the Fighters might have had difficulty despite having a few beneficial circumstances (Bluff from an ACF, Flight from a feat, & Strategic Advantage from Know Local)

Yeah I was lookin forward to that too. Sad face.

[eggynack]

It was especially sad because I was about to whip out plan: bird infinity. That's where I combine linked perception with a bunch of friendly birds, and maybe other animals, and use that to create a field of listen that can cover a massive area. It's a bit on the untested side of things, even in terms of modelling the result theoretically, but it seems cool.

[Boci]

I'm afb, but I could have sworn that they were FBFs, maybe it's in an errata?

They are not in Heroes of Battle, and the book has no errata that I can find


IMO the skills don't have to be pumped that high, nor is it necessary to even have them (as I mentioned they can be substituted via handle animal

Handle animal won't scale well. It can be a passable trick at lower level, depending on the circumstances, but at higher levels it won't work as it cannot beat a stealth monsters modifiers, and will most likely die to the first area of effect attack.


or a party member (rogue;ranger;monk))

That's irrelevant. Any shortcoming can be covered by a party member.


Warblade has to burn at least 1 skill point on martial lore, and probably another on concentration (which has no other notable benefit for non casters). That kind of makes them equal. Synergy is good though.

They really don't need martial lore that much. Its not like spells, where knowing what a buff does or whether something is an illusion or real will be a tactical aid. You will be able to tell what a meneuvre does without the skills.

Concentration will be required, but only if the warblade goes diamond mind. Which they probably will because its an awesome discipline, which isn't exactly a point in a fighters favour.

[eggynack]

They really don't need martial lore that much. Its not like spells, where knowing what a buff does or whether something is an illusion or real will be a tactical aid. You will be able to tell what a meneuvre does without the skills.
It's also notable that martial lore does not, to my knowledge, grant any special benefit to a warblade. Thus, were any other theoretical class granted access to the skill, they would have approximately the same incentives to take the skill. Therefore, martial lore is not a skill tax. If you're taking it, it's just as a regular skill. This is not a disadvantage to the warblade's skillfulness as a result.

[Rakaydos]

I think the fighter love on the 4E forum shows that it's not "fighter as a concept" that people hate, it's "fighter as portrayed in 3.5"

I mean, if the party is a Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ninja, Healer and Expert, sure, they're all in the same boat. But if the BBEG is a cleric or druid, well, he doesnt need any minions beyond his summons and class features to be a challange to the party, even as a same level foe.

[squiggit]

Conan is able to suss out the principles of an electrical circuit in five seconds of watching a sorcerer frying cultists. So yes, I think he's got a pretty high intelligence.
A master of combat who can think quickly on his feet, glories in battle and pulls off clever and daring tricks?

Sounds like both groups are wrong. He's a warblade.


and no one wants to talk about 4th here.
After playing 3.5 for more than a decade it felt so weird to pick up a game where someone could say that the fighter is hands down your best choice and not be bluetexting or uninformed.


I think the fighter love on the 4E forum shows that it's not "fighter as a concept" that people hate, it's "fighter as portrayed in 3.5"
That applies to 3.5 too. The Warblade fluffs the same as a fighter and the only people who seem to hate warblades are the anti-ToB crowd.

All the stuff about people who don't like fighters hating RP seems really out of left field and nonsensical anyways

[Seerow]

I think the fighter love on the 4E forum shows that it's not "fighter as a concept" that people hate, it's "fighter as portrayed in 3.5"


The real issue is "fighter as a concept" is practically nonexistant. By definition it is "Someone who fights". Before D&D you never heard of any figure of legend described as a Fighter. Fighter was just the shorthand for Fighting Man, or the catch all for anyone who wasn't casting spells like a Wizard or Cleric in OD&D. The Fighter isn't a concept that desperately needs to be preserved, it is the biggest sacred cow that exists in the game.

I love mundane characters, people who in D&D would be described as Fighters. I hate the Fighter as a concept, because its mere existence precludes more interesting archetypes in the game. Because as you see paroted so often in discussions elsewhere, the Fighter is the guy who fights. Too many people get straight up offended if you give him high level abilities, or more skills, or anything more complex or advanced than big numbers; and simultaneously get offended if anyone else is better in martial combat than him in any way. The very concept of the Fighter holds back every other possible mundane archetype in the game, and that is unforgivable.

[Boci]

It's also notable that martial lore does not, to my knowledge, grant any special benefit to a warblade. Thus, were any other theoretical class granted access to the skill, they would have approximately the same incentives to take the skill. Therefore, martial lore is not a skill tax. If you're taking it, it's just as a regular skill. This is not a disadvantage to the warblade's skillfulness as a result.

You're correct. I just double checked, none of the feats or PrC in ToB require ranks in martial lore.

[wayfare]

The real issue is "fighter as a concept" is practically nonexistant. By definition it is "Someone who fights". Before D&D you never heard of any figure of legend described as a Fighter. Fighter was just the shorthand for Fighting Man, or the catch all for anyone who wasn't casting spells like a Wizard or Cleric in OD&D. The Fighter isn't a concept that desperately needs to be preserved, it is the biggest sacred cow that exists in the game.

I love mundane characters, people who in D&D would be described as Fighters. I hate the Fighter as a concept, because its mere existence precludes more interesting archetypes in the game. Because as you see paroted so often in discussions elsewhere, the Fighter is the guy who fights. Too many people get straight up offended if you give him high level abilities, or more skills, or anything more complex or advanced than big numbers; and simultaneously get offended if anyone else is better in martial combat than him in any way. The very concept of the Fighter holds back every other possible mundane archetype in the game, and that is unforgivable.

That's not really the fighter, to me.

I think of flexibility when I think fighter. I'll admit, that wasn't there in Ad&D, as the fighter was just the guy who had the biggest HP and some really nice saves who also got more attacks than anyone else. But I really identified with what 3.5 was trying to do with the fighter -- they just clearly didn't get it right until ToB.

[Seerow]

That's not really the fighter, to me.

I think of flexibility when I think fighter. I'll admit, that wasn't there in Ad&D, as the fighter was just the guy who had the biggest HP and some really nice saves who also got more attacks than anyone else. But I really identified with what 3.5 was trying to do with the fighter -- they just clearly didn't get it right until ToB.

In other words when you think fighter, you think "The default class to go to when fighting with a weapon, it will adapt to suit my needs".

Why have a single class that is supposed to be every possible archetype rather than multiple classes? Especially in a game with as many base classes as 3.5 has.

[wayfare]

In other words when you think fighter, you think "The default class to go to when fighting with a weapon, it will adapt to suit my needs".

Why have a single class that is supposed to be every possible archetype rather than multiple classes? Especially in a game with as many base classes as 3.5 has.

By the same token, why should the wizard get all those spell schools (even though he really only needs one or two).

[Seerow]

By the same token, why should the wizard get all those spell schools (even though he really only needs one or two).

I agree with that. I actually take it a step further and think each major type of magic should be far more restricted than it is. ie Arcane as a whole having access to 2-3 spell schools.

[wayfare]

I agree with that. I actually take it a step further and think each major type of magic should be far more restricted than it is. ie Arcane as a whole having access to 2-3 spell schools.

The Beguiler approach, with several different classes, or simply limiting all magic to stuff like Illusion, Evocation, Abjuration and Enchantment.

[Boci]

By the same token, why should the wizard get all those spell schools (even though he really only needs one or two).

That's not a good comparison. Because a wizard's class features are his spells, so remaking the class 6 or 8 times isn't really necessary. Martial characters on the other hand, do require different class features for different archetypes.

However, some people do favour splitting caster into 6 separate classes (doubling up on enchantment and illusion + abjuration and divination).

[wayfare]

That's not a good comparison. Because a wizard's class features are his spells, so remaking the class 6 or 8 times isn't really necessary. Martial characters on the other hand, do require different class features for different archetypes.

However, some people do favour splitting caster into 6 separate classes (doubling up on enchantment and illusion + abjuration and divination).

Well, yes, but isn't that the problem? The wizard can be "mind controlling minion master" on day 1, "time controlling extra action granting field marshal" on day 2, "one man who calls an army" on day 3, etc. You essentially get to shift your build around every day.

To date, there is no pure combat class that gets to do that -- not even ToB classes.

[Boci]

Well, yes, but isn't that the problem? The wizard can be "mind controlling minion master" on day 1, "time controlling extra action granting field marshal" on day 2, "one man who calls an army" on day 3, etc. You essentially get to shift your build around every day.

To date, there is no pure combat class that gets to do that -- not even ToB classes.

That's a balance problem though, not a thematic problem. There's nothing thematically wrong with the wizard class, but you could argue there is something thematically wrong with the fighter. Seerow made for that.

[wayfare]

That's a balance problem though, not a thematic problem. There's nothing thematically wrong with the wizard class, but you could argue there is something thematically wrong with the fighter. Seerow made for that.

Fair enough, but I would add that magic gets away with that sort of thing in D&D mostly because we handwave the difficulty of casting spells much like comic book super-geniuses just stack on the PhDs.

[Boci]

Fair enough, but I would add that magic gets away with that sort of thing in D&D mostly because we handwave the difficulty of casting spells much like comic book super-geniuses just stack on the PhDs.

True. This combines balance and thematic. Thematically, easy magic is no better or worse than difficult/complicated/unreliable magic, its just different ways of incorporating something. The writers just failed to balance out the easy magic system they devised.

[squiggit]

That's a balance problem though, not a thematic problem. There's nothing thematically wrong with the wizard class, but you could argue there is something thematically wrong with the fighter. Seerow made for that.

I dunno. I think the argument applies to the wizard too. I see a lot of people frowning on specialized caster classes like beguiler and DN (summoner in pathfinder) and a common complaint is "this is what X kind of wizard does anyways so why make a new class for that?" and generally complaining about overlap.

Which always makes me wonder "well why should the wizard do everything better than everyone else all at the same time in the first place".

The only real difference is a matter of degree. The wizard, by being the generic "magic guy" succeeds in invalidating the completion while the fighter fails to be effective and doesn't.

[OldTrees1]

That's a balance problem though, not a thematic problem. There's nothing thematically wrong with the wizard class, but you could argue there is something thematically wrong with the fighter. Seerow made for that.

I would have to disagree with you there.

A generic class (a class that covered a broad range and uses choices to differentiate characters) that can change its choices whenever it wants, is a thematic problem. It takes a chassis (generic class) and contradicts the point of the chassis (choices can't differentiate characters if the choices can be changed at will). Sorcerer is a good example of a generic class with balance problems but not thematic problems.

Fighter has a good design for a generic class(lots of choices but choices are final) but received poor support(If 11 feats need to equal 20 levels of class features, then they needed to make better feats) and poor implementation(2+Int skill points? really?).

[Boci]

I dunno. I think the argument applies to the wizard too.

Except when you try to make it you invariably fall into a balance argument. There is nothing wrong with the concept of a single magical class. There's nothing wrong with multiple magic classes. The problem comes from a lack of balance. Look at AD&D, where wizards and martial classes were balanced, yet there were many more martial classes than magic users.


I would have to disagree with you there.

A generic class (a class that covered a broad range and uses choices to differentiate characters) that can change its choices whenever it wants, is a thematic problem. It takes a chassis (generic class) and contradicts the point of the chassis (choices can't differentiate characters if the choices can be changed at will).

That's not a thematic problem. You may prefer a different representation, but there is nothing wrong with it on a thematic level.

[OldTrees1]

That's not a thematic problem. You may prefer a different representation, but there is nothing wrong with it on a thematic level.

If it is not a balance problem and you claim it is not a thematic problem, then what type of problem would you call the contradiction?

Personally I see it as a mismatch between the intent of the class(thematic) and the implementation of the class(mechanic). Thus a thematic - mechanic mismatch. This is either a thematic or a mechanic problem.

[Boci]

If it is not a balance problem and you claim it is not a thematic problem, then what type of problem would you call the contradiction?

Personally I see it as a mismatch between the intent of the class(thematic) and the implementation of the class(mechanic). Thus a thematic - mechanic mismatch. This is either a thematic or a mechanic problem.

It has nothing to do with the wizard class and everything to do with the spells of D&D.

Also edit:


Sorcerer is a good example of a generic class with balance problems but not thematic problems.

A sorcerer doesn't have balance problems, the magic they use does. There is a difference.


Fighter has a good design for a generic class(lots of choices but choices are final) but received poor support(If 11 feats need to equal 20 levels of class features, then they needed to make better feats) and poor implementation(2+Int skill points? really?).

See seerow's argument for the specifics against that.

[squiggit]

Except when you try to make it you invariably fall into a balance argument
That post had nothing to do with balance


A sorcerer doesn't have balance problems, the magic they use does. There is a difference.
It's not the class, it's the features and abilities that completely and utterly define what the class is? You realize how silly that is, right?

[OldTrees1]

It has nothing to do with the wizard class and everything to do with the spells of D&D.
Except I was talking about the Spellbook based Spells Known mechanic (unlike the Sorcerers Spells Known mechanic) combined with the broad class spell list. So it has almost nothing to do with the spells and everything to do with the Wizard class. The Wizard was intended as a generic class but the implementation is a contradiction.



See seerow's argument for the specifics against that.
link? I have never seen seerow address what I was saying. I have seen seerow comment on the poor implementation and the poor support but I have never seen seerow argue against diverse but finalized choices.

[Boci]

That post had nothing to do with balance

"well why should the wizard do everything better than everyone else all at the same time in the first place". is at least partially a balance concern.


It's not the class, it's the features and abilities that completely and utterly define what the class is? You realize how silly that is, right?

I understand that practically there is no difference between the two problems, but from a meta game design level there is. If magic was balanced, there would be no problem with the wizard and sorcerer, but the fighter would still e a problematic class.


Except I was talking about the Spellbook based Spells Known mechanic (unlike the Sorcerers Spells Known mechanic) combined with the broad class spell list. So it has almost nothing to do with the spells and everything to do with the Wizard class. The Wizard was intended as a generic class but the implementation is a contradiction.

You do not like it, but there is nothing thematically wrong with a spell caster who can change his spell selection everyday. By contrast, defining a class solely by their ability to fight is a problem, because what do you do outside of combat? And if you give them options for things to do outside of combat, why are they called a fighter?


link? I have never seen seerow address what I was saying. I have seen seerow comment on the poor implementation and the poor support but I have never seen seerow argue against diverse but finalized choices.

He addressed his concerns with the concept of the fighter as a class earlierin this thread.

[Seerow]

I just wanted to add an addendum to my previous posts, because something about them was bugging me and it just occurred to me what it is. Those posts were hypocritical of me, because I have in the past also stood on the side of a single super class for martial characters, to stand alongside the Wizard being the single superclass for Arcane characters, Cleric as the single superclass for Divine characters, and so on. These two stances would seem irreconcilable, yet I have espoused both. How can I hate the concept of a Fighter class while thinking a powerful universal martial character is a viable design path?

Ultimately, the answer I've come to is that the end result of a single universal class that has enough options to adapt to any niche that a mundane/martial character might want to represent would not be a Fighter. This is mainly because of the increasingly narrow niche that many players have chosen to push the Fighter into, but if you made a single super-mundane class with 8+ skill points per level, dozens of level appropriate abilities at every level, with enough diversity to fill every niche a character without magic might possibly dream of... it wouldn't be a Fighter. Why? Because a Rogue isn't a Fighter. A Swashbuckler or a Knight might be types of Fighters, but people aren't going to accept a Fighter who plays like a thief-acrobat, or one who doesn't actually fight himself, but instead leads minions/allies from the back lines. These will be rejected as "Not a Fighter!" and cause all sorts of headaches.

So even if you go for the superclass all encompassing skilled non-magical character, you're looking at a Paragon, a Champion, a Legend, or some other suitably flexible name to enshrine that concept. The Fighter is too rigid, in that the only thing it tells you is the person with that name fights. That isn't a good character concept from the start. Conceptually, it is bad. Mechanically, it is either lacking or pissing off people who ostensibly would normally like it. It is a problematic name from start to finish, and the game is better off without it.

[OldTrees1]

Ultimately, the answer I've come to is that the end result of a single universal class that has enough options to adapt to any niche that a mundane/martial character might want to represent would not be a Fighter. This is mainly because of the increasingly narrow niche that many players have chosen to push the Fighter into, but if you made a single super-mundane class with 8+ skill points per level, dozens of level appropriate abilities at every level, with enough diversity to fill every niche a character without magic might possibly dream of... it wouldn't be a Fighter. Why? Because a Rogue isn't a Fighter. A Swashbuckler or a Knight might be types of Fighters, but people aren't going to accept a Fighter who plays like a thief-acrobat, or one who doesn't actually fight himself, but instead leads minions/allies from the back lines. These will be rejected as "Not a Fighter!" and cause all sorts of headaches.

So even if you go for the superclass all encompassing skilled non-magical character, you're looking at a Paragon, a Champion, a Legend, or some other suitably flexible name to enshrine that concept. The Fighter is too rigid, in that the only thing it tells you is the person with that name fights. That isn't a good character concept from the start. Conceptually, it is bad. Mechanically, it is either lacking or pissing off people who ostensibly would normally like it. It is a problematic name from start to finish, and the game is better off without it.

What if you took the middle road?
You made a single warrior superclass with 6-8 skill points and "dozens of level appropriate abilities at every level, with enough diversity to fill every" warrior niche. I think this would successfully encompass Swashbuckler, Knight and General while leaving Thief Acrobat and other rogue niches to a rogue superclass (with 10-12 skill points or something).

Sidenote: I do agree about the name but it is hard to get a name as generic and diverse as Rogue or Mage that does not sound silly. I usually use Warrior since it covers a slightly broader subject but still describes the same characters.



You do not like it, but there is nothing thematically wrong with a spell caster who can change his spell selection everyday. By contrast, defining a class solely by their ability to fight is a problem, because what do you do outside of combat? And if you give them options for things to do outside of combat, why are they called a fighter?

A spellbook with a limited spell list makes sense as a specialist class. A class with an open spell list and spells known makes sense as a generic class (even if they use a spell book to select from their limited spells known). However a class that has an open spell list and an unlimited number of spells known is bad design for a generic class.

So the question is, if you do not call this a thematic problem, what kind of problem do you call this?

[Seerow]

What if you took the middle road?
You made a single warrior superclass with 6-8 skill points and "dozens of level appropriate abilities at every level, with enough diversity to fill every" warrior niche. I think this would successfully encompass Swashbuckler, Knight and General while leaving Thief Acrobat and other rogue niches to a rogue superclass (with 10-12 skill points or something).

Sidenote: I do agree about the name but it is hard to get a name as generic and diverse as Rogue or Mage that does not sound silly.

The problem is you are competing with "Magic". Literally. You have to stand up to people who can rewrite reality at a whim. Taking your conceptual space and cutting it in half to support two classes that don't get the benefit of "Magic" to do their thing is really really bad. It's possible when "Magic" is actually "This small subset of magic", ie the Warmage or Beguiler (which correspond rather nicely with Fighter and Rogue). But when your point of competition is the Wizard who can do everything Magic makes possible, taking everything you can do without magic (already a much smaller space than everything you can do with magic), and then cutting it in half is setting both classes up to fail. You need your Fighter to be capable of pulling out any and all skill tricks in the book. The only problem with that is it isn't a Fighter at that point. And that's fine. It just means you go to your dictionary and pull out a name that allows for a broader scope and better potential.

Trying to wander a middle road that decides "Fighter" is a concept worth keeping is doing nothing but continuing to gimp anyone who doesn't weild magic of some time. It is harmful to the game. Clinging to it because it is familiar doesn't actually help anything.

[Rakaydos]

What if you took the middle road?
You made a single warrior superclass with 6-8 skill points and "dozens of level appropriate abilities at every level, with enough diversity to fill every" warrior niche. I think this would successfully encompass Swashbuckler, Knight and General while leaving Thief Acrobat and other rogue niches to a rogue superclass (with 10-12 skill points or something).

Sidenote: I do agree about the name but it is hard to get a name as generic and diverse as Rogue or Mage that does not sound silly.

That's balance, not theme. The concept Seero is expresing is that any martial class as flexible as a caster would fill too many possibilities that are outside the scope of "Fighting Man." This has nothing to do with the balance of spells, only ensuring equivilant balance between a hypothetical caster and a hypothetical martial.

Compare the tier 4 Warmage to the Warblade, or the Adept to the Zentarum Fighter.

[Coidzor]

All the stuff about people who don't like fighters hating RP seems really out of left field and nonsensical anyways

It is a rather obvious attempt at a smokescreen, yes. Or an example of someone arguing that acting like D&D is a freeform roleplaying game is the correct way to play, run into that a couple of times.


The real issue is "fighter as a concept" is practically nonexistant. By definition it is "Someone who fights". Before D&D you never heard of any figure of legend described as a Fighter. Fighter was just the shorthand for Fighting Man, or the catch all for anyone who wasn't casting spells like a Wizard or Cleric in OD&D. The Fighter isn't a concept that desperately needs to be preserved, it is the biggest sacred cow that exists in the game.

I love mundane characters, people who in D&D would be described as Fighters. I hate the Fighter as a concept, because its mere existence precludes more interesting archetypes in the game. Because as you see paroted so often in discussions elsewhere, the Fighter is the guy who fights. Too many people get straight up offended if you give him high level abilities, or more skills, or anything more complex or advanced than big numbers; and simultaneously get offended if anyone else is better in martial combat than him in any way. The very concept of the Fighter holds back every other possible mundane archetype in the game, and that is unforgivable.

Yeah, that's a problem. Even managed to poison the well for martial feats.


By the same token, why should the wizard get all those spell schools (even though he really only needs one or two).

Because he can actually use them in one build, unlike a single fighter, so the parallel falls a bit flat. A wizard can master all magic relatively easily. A fighter can barely master two combat styles.


It's not the class, it's the features and abilities that completely and utterly define what the class is? You realize how silly that is, right?

It's not that wizards have access to all the schools of magic so much as the fact that the magic system itself is fundamentally borked is a cogent point, actually. Focusing in on Wizards or Sorcerers when it's the magic system itself is missing the forest for the trees or possibly the trees for the forest.

[OldTrees1]

The problem is you are competing with "Magic". Literally. You have to stand up to people who can rewrite reality at a whim. Taking your conceptual space and cutting it in half to support two classes that don't get the benefit of "Magic" to do their thing is really really bad. It's possible when "Magic" is actually "This small subset of magic", ie the Warmage or Beguiler (which correspond rather nicely with Fighter and Rogue). But when your point of competition is the Wizard who can do everything Magic makes possible, taking everything you can do without magic (already a much smaller space than everything you can do with magic), and then cutting it in half is setting both classes up to fail. You need your Fighter to be capable of pulling out any and all skill tricks in the book. The only problem with that is it isn't a Fighter at that point. And that's fine. It just means you go to your dictionary and pull out a name that allows for a broader scope and better potential.

Trying to wander a middle road that decides "Fighter" is a concept worth keeping is doing nothing but continuing to gimp anyone who doesn't weild magic of some time. It is harmful to the game. Clinging to it because it is familiar doesn't actually help anything.

I agree that if Warrior and Rogue are to be standalone generic classes, then Wizard would be to corrected to be a generic class. If Wizard were to be made like Warrior and Rogue then each individual wizard would have a subset of spells just like each warrior would have a subset of what the warrior class could offer. Warmage and Beguiler are good examples of specialist classes that could be used as a guide when designing Wizard as a proper generic class.

Sidenote: Personally I am unsure if mundane makes sense at all levels of high fantasy. But I do think Warriors and Rogues fit thematically at all levels of high fantasy despite having no spells.


That's balance, not theme. The concept Seero is expresing is that any martial class as flexible as a caster would fill too many possibilities that are outside the scope of "Fighting Man." This has nothing to do with the balance of spells, only ensuring equivilant balance between a hypothetical caster and a hypothetical martial.

Compare the tier 4 Warmage to the Warblade, or the Adept to the Zentarum Fighter.

I think I answered this above. Please correct me again if I am wrong.

[Boci]

I agree that if Warrior and Rogue are to be standalone generic classes, then Wizard would be to corrected to be a generic class. If Wizard were to be made like Warrior and Rogue then each individual wizard would have a subset of spells just like each warrior would have a subset of what the warrior class could offer. Warmage and Beguiler are good examples of specialist classes that could be used as a guide when designing Wizard as a proper generic class.

That is one way of evening out the playing field, but the advanced casters are all spontaneous, ad some people like the mechanics of the wizard. Wu jen is an option here, but I always wondered if you could make something work by wizard had their current spell preparation system, and a spell point system, where the cost was spell level squared. To cast spells, thy would need to have the spell slot unexpended, and have enough spell points. I think that could maybe balance wizards. It would certainly be better than they are now.

[Rakaydos]

Idealy, I'd prefer to see Sorcerer be used as the example of "Master of all magic, forever," as he is essentially a "build your own" fixed list caster. Placed alongside the likes of Dread Necro, Beguiler, Warmage, even Healer, the Sorcerer is a dabbler, who can access multiple disciplines but doesnt have the depth of study to adjust from day to day.

By the same token, "Fighter" is just too narrow a term to envelope the Sorcerer's equivilant- someone who can mix and match the capabilities of classes ranging from Martial Monk to Rogue to Barbarian to Archer Ranger. If Seero homebrewed such a class, he couldnt call it a "fighter fix", he'd have to call it something else.

[OldTrees1]

That is one way of evening out the playing field, but the advanced casters are all spontaneous, ad some people like the mechanics of the wizard. Wu jen is an option here, but I always wondered if you could make something work by wizard had their current spell preparation system, and a spell point system, where the cost was spell level squared. To cast spells, thy would need to have the spell slot unexpended, and have enough spell points. I think that could maybe balance wizards. It would certainly be better than they are now.

Oh, I agree the mechanics should be conserved. Preference for the mechanical texture of classes is an important consideration. I would have the Wizard keep their spellbook and vancian preparation. However I would limit the number of spells they knew by limiting the number they could put in their spellbook and having replacing a spell in their spellbook use Retraining rules just like Fighters changing a Bonus feat uses Retraining rules. In this way Wizard becomes a "build your own fixed list caster" like Sorcerer but retains Vancian casting.

[eggynack]

Yeah, that's a problem. Even managed to poison the well for martial feats.

Yeah, this was a pretty serious mistake, and possibly one of the biggest problems with the class. They designed all of the feats into ridiculous chains, presumably to either limit the fighter, or to grant fighters access to things that others can't get. What you end up with is this weird situation where the feats a given fighter takes probably do significantly less than the feats that a given caster takes, primarily because fighters just don't have all that much to augment. They really needed to make each of those bonus feats worth the same as the feats any character would take, because otherwise, what is the class even doing? If fighter feats were all on the scale of a DMM, or an arcane thesis, or an exalted wild shape, then we'd probably be having a very different sort of conversation about the class.

[Rakaydos]

Oh, I agree the mechanics should be conserved. Preference for the mechanical texture of classes is an important consideration. I would have the Wizard keep their spellbook and vancian preparation. However I would limit the number of spells they knew by limiting the number they could put in their spellbook and having replacing a spell in their spellbook use Retraining rules just like Fighters changing a Bonus feat uses Retraining rules. In this way Wizard becomes a "build your own fixed list caster" like Sorcerer but retains Vancian casting.

What advantage would an actual fixed list caster have over your version of the wizard, out of curiosity?

[Boci]

Oh, I agree the mechanics should be conserved. Preference for the mechanical texture of classes is an important consideration. I would have the Wizard keep their spellbook and vancian preparation. However I would limit the number of spells they knew by limiting the number they could put in their spellbook and having replacing a spell in their spellbook use Retraining rules just like Fighters changing a Bonus feat uses Retraining rules. In this way Wizard becomes a "build your own fixed list caster" like Sorcerer but retains Vancian casting.

That could work. Would there be any advantage to taking a fallen wizard's spellbook?

[OldTrees1]

What advantage would an actual fixed list caster have over your version of the wizard, out of curiosity?

I am not sure there would be an advantage one way or the other. Obviously there is the Prepared vs Spontaneous difference but theoretically that would be balanced in implementation. The precise class features may differ. However in general, a well designed generic class and a well designed collection of specialist classes are two ways of achieving the same end.


That could work. Would there be any advantage to taking a fallen wizard's spellbook?
Yes, but much reduced.
You would learn about spells you had not heard about before.
If you want to add one of the spells from the spellbook as one of your limited number, the gp cost to do so would be less since you looted the notes rather than bought them.
You could turn the spellbook into another copy of your spellbook (just in case yours gets stolen). Copying your spellbook would not require retraining but retraining would require altering all copies of your spellbook.

[squiggit]

"well why should the wizard do everything better than everyone else all at the same time in the first place". is at least partially a balance concern.
Partially I suppose, the key idea here being though that a generalist wizard who can excel at everything if he chooses to sort of eats up a lot of design space and makes it harder to later justify specialist characters. Which is why I was connecting it to Seerow's point about a generic fighter eating up a lot of design space by being so innately generic.

Granted that's mostly moot because we got specialist wizards and classes like the samurai and barbarian and knight who theoretically should have been built under the fighter anyways.

5e interestingly appeared to be going the other way in some of the playtests I saw: Nearly every major caster class was a wizard subclass and nearly ever major martial was a fighter subclass.


I understand that practically there is no difference between the two problems, but from a meta game design level there is. If magic was balanced, there would be no problem with the wizard and sorcerer, but the fighter would still e a problematic class.

Oh I understand the thought, but I don't think it's a meaningful differentiation to make. If the Fighter had class specific bonus feats comparable to 9th level wizard spells, they'd be less problematic too by comparison. Ditto for a lot of other classes.

Plus it doesn't help that the wizard and sorcerer don't really have anything else built into their class.

[Rakaydos]

I am not sure there would be an advantage one way or the other. Obviously there is the Prepared vs Spontaneous difference but theoretically that would be balanced in implementation. The precise class features may differ. However in general, a well designed generic class and a well designed collection of specialist classes are two ways of achieving the same end.

What I meant was, why should you play a fixed list caster instead of a wizard with the same spells as the fixed list caster, except for that one spell in a different list that's so awesome that you took it anyway? (Since balance issues aside, that's clearly stepping on the fixed list caster's toes)

[Knaight]

Yeah, this was a pretty serious mistake, and possibly one of the biggest problems with the class. They designed all of the feats into ridiculous chains, presumably to either limit the fighter, or to grant fighters access to things that others can't get. What you end up with is this weird situation where the feats a given fighter takes probably do significantly less than the feats that a given caster takes, primarily because fighters just don't have all that much to augment.

That would be one of the big screw ups with the class, though the anemic class skills list and 2 skill points per level strikes me as worse (I'm not a big fan of the class skills mechanic to begin with, but can see an argument for why something like Knowledge: Arcana shouldn't be a fighter class skill, though I would argue against it. Diplomacy? Not so much).

As for the ridiculous "people area against roleplaying", many of the characters people are trying to role play are the sort of capable, intelligent, skillful warriors actually present in the literature. It is precisely because they want to role play those that the fighter class fails them. It's also notable that classes with some sort of actual capability don't magically prevent roleplaying, so there's that.

[OldTrees1]

What I meant was, why should you play a fixed list caster instead of a wizard with the same spells as the fixed list caster, except for that one spell in a different list that's so awesome that you took it anyway? (Since balance issues aside, that's clearly stepping on the fixed list caster's toes)

This is a good question. As I said both (generic classes) and (collections of specialized classes) are means to the same end. As such, the two means tend to overlap each other if both are included.

If both are included then I would probably suggest giving the fixed list classes more synergistic class features while the generic class would have the opportunity for easy dipping in other concepts via spell selection.
Ex: Dread Necromancer 20 (Undead Mastery, Charnel Touch, Rebuke Undead, Fear Aura) vs Necromancer 20 with 5% non-necromancy spells.

[Humble Master]

Really, the only reason I hate Fighter is because it isn't much fun to play. You charge, you Full-Attack, rinse and repeat; What few actually interesting options like Sundering, Disarming ect. require you to spend feats on to not get stabbed in the face while you try to do them and ultimately aren't that useful. The sheer load of garbage feats mean that it's a search of a needle in a hay stack to find the few that actually are worth being your only "class feature". What you end up with is a character who just gets bigger numbers for leveling and cant do much other than whack things. Play Warblade 20 and you will end up with a drastically more capable and enjoyable character.

[Rakaydos]

This is a good question. As I said both (generic classes) and (collections of specialized classes) are means to the same end. As such, the two means tend to overlap each other if both are included.

If both are included then I would probably suggest giving the fixed list classes more synergistic class features while the generic class would have the opportunity for easy dipping in other concepts via spell selection.
Ex: Dread Necromancer 20 (Undead Mastery, Charnel Touch, Rebuke Undead, Fear Aura) vs Necromancer 20 with 5% non-necromancy spells.

So bringing this back around to the fighter discussion, lets consider the different martial aspects- the Leading Marshal, the Wise Veteran, the practical warrior, the tough brute, the two-blade dervish... If we consider them like Specialized classes, what would the generic class?

[ngilop]

that is what I did with my own FIghter fix. I took a baseline that I feel are abilities every combat master
should have, such as move+full attack a way to intercept attacks

and then gave them a list of archetypes, such as archer, slayer or commander to pick from

SO somebody could be a 'swashbuckler' by taking the fencer archetype or 'supremer tactician' by taking
the commander.

I also allowed a genereic 'improved combat abilities' as well as minor dipping into other arcehtypes to
better customize one's Fighter

That is how I see a Fighter a baseline of abilities then you pick a focus and gain further abilities along those lines
what kilsl me about the fighter is WOTC saw noting wrong with taking pages from mythological magi/sorcerers,
witches ETC in regards to what spells can we give casters, but completely disregard the great warriors of mythology
the Fighter should be capable of duplicating heracles, beowulf and others at high levels.. not still be MR good fighter
down the street past 4th or 5th level.

[StreamOfTheSky]

We don't hate him, we just feel... Sorry for him, for lack of a better way of putting it.

Speak for yourself. I used to feel sorry for the Fighter, but I've long since grown to hate the class (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319130-Which-class-do-you-hate-the-most/page5&p=5837399&viewfull=1#post5837399). I hate it not because it's weak, but because it's simultaneously so weak but yet at the same time has the fluff of "being the best at fighting." This acts as an anchor, a noose around the neck of every other martial.
You try and design interesting, actually competent ones with lots of capabilities, or to improve existing martial classes, and a chorus rings out. A crescendo of complaining and derision, about how "your class outfights the Fighter." You can't do that, apparently. It's a law. But when you try to go and fix the fighter by giving him something other than "hit it with my sword harder," the same grognards bemoan once again. Fighter's also supposed to be the "not at all magical or superhuman" guy. So...you're stuck in a vicious cycle where no martials are allowed to surpass the fighter but yet fighter must remain sucky. And I'm just sick and tired of it. People want it to be at the power level of an NPC class, but also hold all other non-casters to that standard, because Fighter's tag line is...you got it. It would please me greatly to see the class die and vanish.

Fighter: the glass ceiling of the mundanes.

[OldTrees1]

So bringing this back around to the fighter discussion, lets consider the different martial aspects- the Leading Marshal, the Wise Veteran, the practical warrior, the tough brute, the two-blade dervish... If we consider them like Specialized classes, what would the generic class?

I failed to parse the question. I think you asked "what would the generic class be called?". However you might have been asking something else.

I think "Warrior" fits fairly well since "warfare" is a very broad concept and a warrior is experienced in warfare not defined solely by warfare.
Another option is to coin a new term based on "Martial" to fold in both Warrior and Martial Arts.

[squiggit]

A crescendo of complaining and derision, about how "your class outfights the Fighter."
Which is kind of weird because basically every other martial already outfights the fighter (with a couple potential exceptions).

[Sploggle1]

Personally I like the 3.5 fighter. You can build them to be whatever you want them to be. A swashbuckler is a good example, or someone more into Marshall weapons, or even a bowman fighter. All in all they are a beginner class that anyone can pick up and play.

[OldTrees1]

but yet at the same time has the fluff of "being the best at fighting." This acts as an anchor, a noose around the neck of every other martial.
You try and design interesting, actually competent ones with lots of capabilities, or to improve existing martial classes, and a chorus rings out. A crescendo of complaining and derision, about how "your class outfights the Fighter." You can't do that, apparently. It's a law.

O.o I feel sorry for your suffering.

Treating a failed bad design intention(it's not even fluff) as a design law is the epitome of foolishness.
1) It is in the description of the characteristics. This is the author describing their vision for the mechanics.
2) Having one martial class be the best is bad design.
3) The mechanics did not live up to the intentions but they use the mechanics as a ceiling anyways?
4) Using it as a derisive law is immature.

[Forrestfire]

Personally I like the 3.5 fighter. You can build them to be whatever you want them to be. A swashbuckler is a good example, or someone more into Marshall weapons, or even a bowman fighter. All in all they are a beginner class that anyone can pick up and play.

Except that they're not. They're very easy to screw up, actually, and are prone to being left behind, even in a group of other beginners. I pity the person who picked the fighter expecting to be able to fight (especially if they pick a style that's finnicky to build, like a Dex-based swashbuckler-type, a crossbow-wielding sniper, or a TWFer), who learns a bit too late that his friend's druid's pet wolf is generally stronger than him. Or who finds out that the wizard can summon up 1d3 meatshields that are better at tanking than him. Or that the cleric found a neat guide online telling him how to get full BAB 24 hours a day and still cast spells just fine, etc.

Poorly-designed fighters are very easy to make, especially because a new player choosing stuff based on theme (like said wolfy druid or a summoner wizard or a "holy warrior" cleric) has a good chance of getting a skillset that just... doesn't work, unless they're good at figuring out how the rules fit together from the get-go.

[eggynack]

Except that they're not. They're very easy to screw up, actually, and are prone to being left behind, even in a group of other beginners. I pity the person who picked the fighter expecting to be able to fight (especially if they pick a style that's finnicky to build, like a Dex-based swashbuckler-type, a crossbow-wielding sniper, or a TWFer), who learns a bit too late that his friend's druid's pet wolf is generally stronger than him. Or who finds out that the wizard can summon up 1d3 meatshields that are better at tanking than him. Or that the cleric found a neat guide online telling him how to get full BAB 24 hours a day and still cast spells just fine, etc.

Poorly-designed fighters are very easy to make, especially because a new player choosing stuff based on theme (like said wolfy druid or a summoner wizard or a "holy warrior" cleric) has a good chance of getting a skillset that just... doesn't work, unless they're good at figuring out how the rules fit together from the get-go.
Yeah, it doesn't help that the big fighter exclusive things, like the weapon focus line, or whirlwind attack, are terrible.

[Vogonjeltz]

They are not in Heroes of Battle, and the book has no errata that I can find

Handle animal won't scale well. It can be a passable trick at lower level, depending on the circumstances, but at higher levels it won't work as it cannot beat a stealth monsters modifiers, and will most likely die to the first area of effect attack.

That's irrelevant. Any shortcoming can be covered by a party member.

They really don't need martial lore that much. Its not like spells, where knowing what a buff does or whether something is an illusion or real will be a tactical aid. You will be able to tell what a meneuvre does without the skills.

Concentration will be required, but only if the warblade goes diamond mind. Which they probably will because its an awesome discipline, which isn't exactly a point in a fighters favour.

Odd, sounds like an oversight.

What stealth monsters did you have in mind? Hard to consider with no case example. Any non stealth monster would likely be detected.

Not irrelevant. It means fighters don't have to do anything more than fun melee combat, which they do.

Martial lore is required to know what scrips do, and I could have sworn (perhaps a faulty memory) that it was needed for some other object/game mechanic. I'll have to flip through TOB.

If all it does is tell you what a maneuver is, and potentially what schools an opponent knows, what is the point? Can that information be put to any use at all? Can maneuvers be countered by knowing that?

[Coidzor]

O.o I feel sorry for your suffering.

Treating a failed bad design intention(it's not even fluff) as a design law is the epitome of foolishness.
1) It is in the description of the characteristics. This is the author describing their vision for the mechanics.
2) Having one martial class be the best is bad design.
3) The mechanics did not live up to the intentions but they use the mechanics as a ceiling anyways?
4) Using it as a derisive law is immature.

That's what "Fighters are good enough" ultimately seems to boil down to. :/

[Boci]

Odd, sounds like an oversight.

How many other fighter bonus feats deal with skills? This demonstrates the problem: there is no indication from list of fighter bonus feats that they are meant to have a better skill versatility from their bonus feats.


What stealth monsters did you have in mind? Hard to consider with no case example. Any non stealth monster would likely be detected.

Let's look at first three minions with notable hide and MS modifiers in Monster Manual 3:

Ambush drake. CR 5, but they have an ability that needs multiple ones for them to be of use, so let's say there's 2, making the encounter CR: 7. Their hide modifiers are +16, move silently: +12.

Astral stalker: CR 12, +20 hide and move silently + camouflage, and intelligent.

Boneclaw: CR: 5, +13 hide and 20ft reach, +17 move silently.


Not irrelevant. It means fighters don't have to do anything more than fun melee combat, which they do.

No, that's bad class design. A class should be able to contribute to the party effort out of combat, because that can be a significant portion of the game.

As for the fun melee combat, cool if it is for you, but its not for me and many others.


If all it does is tell you what a maneuver is, and potentially what schools an opponent knows, what is the point?

There isn't much. That was the point me and eggynack were trying to make.

[Seppo87]

There's a misunderstanding going on.

Fighter is not supposed to be the "best at fighting". Fighter is the best at "being technical" when fighting.

Basically the fluff says they're the ones with the deepest, most articulated training in warfare, and the ones that get the most out of their equipment.

Which was pretty much true, before martial maneuvers appeared.

[Humble Master]

There's a misunderstanding going on.

Fighter is not supposed to be the "best at fighting". Fighter is the best at "being technical" when fighting.

Basically the fluff says they're the ones with the deepest, most articulated training in warfare, and the ones that get the most out of their equipment.

Which was pretty much true, before martial maneuvers appeared.It states in the Players Handbook that, ahem:


Of all the classes, the fighter has the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name).

Now, false while that may be, it certainly is pretty clearly stating that Fighters have to be the best at general combat.

[Nightcanon]

I think part of the problem is that magic in D&D is so strong, and the Fighter is pretty much fluffed to be non-magical (other than using magic weapons, armour etc). Adding in an element of mysticism or magic (via oriental-style tomes and warrior 'paths'/'ways', or simply by adding caster levels of some sort) kinda goes against the western-style man-at-arms image. Rogues don't have quite the same issue, for me- they're tricksters and sneaky, and a little bit of covert magic adds to the flavour. But fighters are supposed to fight, not be part-time magic-users (even in D&D literature they are pretty mundane, yet often play significant roles).
As others have alluded to, fighters need to specialise almost from the get-go, while spellcasters have flexibility in the form of spells that can either be bought and learned from scrolls or divinely-granted without even having to buy them. Spellcasters get to swap out these class features every time they learn spells, while the fighter is stuck with decisions made years ago. 10 levels focussed on bull-rushing and you find that you're up against a dragon the size of a small house today? Bad luck...(meanwhile, wizard and cleric even have colour-coded spell choices for the day).
Perhaps one solution is to organise feats into levels and assume that a fighter who reaches (say) the third rung of a feat ladder has all the bottom rungs of every ladder (and so has, for example, power attack and improved bullrush and sunder and point blank shot and so on, available to them by a certain stage, even if their chosen fighting style is two weapons).

[OldTrees1]

Now, false while that may be, it certainly is pretty clearly stating that Fighters have to be the best at general combat.

No, it does not state nor imply that at all. It states that the author of Fighter intended and thought 3.0 Fighter was the best at combat in the 3.0 PHB. This is a descriptive statement from someone that could not see clearly. NOT a prescriptive statement. Do not create a loadstone where one does not exist.

[Coidzor]

No, it does not state nor imply that at all. It states that the author of Fighter intended and thought 3.0 Fighter was the best at combat in the 3.0 PHB. This is a descriptive statement from someone that could not see clearly. NOT a prescriptive statement. Do not create a loadstone where one does not exist.

<_< Uhh, too late, others have already done so. XD

[Vogonjeltz]

How many other fighter bonus feats deal with skills? This demonstrates the problem: there is no indication from list of fighter bonus feats that they are meant to have a better skill versatility from their bonus feats.

Let's look at first three minions with notable hide and MS modifiers in Monster Manual 3:

Ambush drake. CR 5, but they have an ability that needs multiple ones for them to be of use, so let's say there's 2, making the encounter CR: 7. Their hide modifiers are +16, move silently: +12.

Astral stalker: CR 12, +20 hide and move silently + camouflage, and intelligent.

Boneclaw: CR: 5, +13 hide and 20ft reach, +17 move silently.

Scent means the dogs will detect these plausibly musky creatures at least 45 feet away (downwind) and up to 180 feet (upwind). No check required. Considering a dog costs a pittance, every Fighter should have at least a couple good guard or war dogs.


No, that's bad class design. A class should be able to contribute to the party effort out of combat, because that can be a significant portion of the game.

They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs), fly (hippogriffs), and so forth. Intimidate is the Fighter social skill, and it also has an in combat purpose. Craft weaponsmithing/armor smithing gives a Fighter a bonus to appraising armaments, and of course jump/climb/swim allow a Fighter to lead the way through dangerous or difficult terrain. Yeah a wizard could burn a fly spell just to get to the top of a cliff, but that won't get the rest of the party up there, and having someone who can scale that wall and tie a rope just saved a valuable spell slot for something useful.

Which brings me to the question:
What activity are you imagining is so difficult?



As for the fun melee combat, cool if it is for you, but its not for me and many others.

There isn't much. That was the point me and eggynack were trying to make.

Sorry to hear that. Do you only enjoy playing casters then?

Yeah, I'm wondering why they even included the skill now. Well, it's useful for activating martial scrips.

[eggynack]

They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs), fly (hippogriffs), and so forth. Intimidate is the Fighter social skill, and it also has an in combat purpose. Craft weaponsmithing/armor smithing gives a Fighter a bonus to appraising armaments, and of course jump/climb/swim allow a Fighter to lead the way through dangerous or difficult terrain. Yeah a wizard could burn a fly spell just to get to the top of a cliff, but that won't get the rest of the party up there, and having someone who can scale that wall and tie a rope just saved a valuable spell slot for something useful.
That's really not that much, especially when you consider limited points. Yes, intimidate and handle animal are very solid, but those other things you've listed are lousy, and it's just not enough. I'm also not entirely sure what's allowing the fighter to tie up a rope in a fashion that the wizard can't.

[Rakaydos]

Which brings me to the question:
What activity are you imagining is so difficult?Being a scholar of warfare and a leader of men. (and if you say Leadership feat, you need to be sent back to Basic Training for another go)





Sorry to hear that. Do you only enjoy playing casters then?.
That depends if you count Tome of Battle classes as casters- Warblades are the fighter done better.

[OldTrees1]

<_< Uhh, too late, others have already done so. XD
XD
:(
Yeah. But that doesn't need to spread any further.


Being a scholar of warfare and a leader of men. (and if you say Leadership feat, you need to be sent back to Basic Training for another go)

Scholar of warfare is surprisingly easy to accomplish. It only takes 1 hour and DC 20 knowledge check(usually Knowledge Local, a Ftr[Thug] skill) to gain a Strategic Advantage[HoB] which is fairly impressive.

Being a leader of men is harder. Intimidate can work but only so far and only for certain character concepts. Diplomacy is a cross class skill(so an attempt can be made but you are fighting against the class).

[Vogonjeltz]

That's really not that much, especially when you consider limited points. Yes, intimidate and handle animal are very solid, but those other things you've listed are lousy, and it's just not enough. I'm also not entirely sure what's allowing the fighter to tie up a rope in a fashion that the wizard can't.

The point is the Fighter can do it without burning a 3rd level spell slot. Instead of wasting it on fly, the wizard could have had dispel magic for a real bacon saving moment.


Being a scholar of warfare and a leader of men. (and if you say Leadership feat, you need to be sent back to Basic Training for another go)

That depends if you count Tome of Battle classes as casters- Warblades are the fighter done better.

Is there some reason the Fighter needs to be a scholar? That's what we have bards for. Unlike the Bard, the fighter is actually trained at fighting, not just talking about it.

Warblades are ok, they have lousy bonus feats, no heavy armor, no tower shield, and no ranged options. On top of that no ride skill or handle animal. So they can't even do guarding or tracking.

[eggynack]

The point is the Fighter can do it without burning a 3rd level spell slot. Instead of wasting it on fly, the wizard could have had dispel magic for a real bacon saving moment.
Unless you're stuck in core, alter self makes that a 2nd level slot. Anyway, the big issue with this plan, as I've often noted, is that climb and jump are such imperfect substitutes for flight. For every one situation where those skills are superior, and for every couple of situations where they're equal, there's a few hundred where they're just not enough.



Is there some reason the Fighter needs to be a scholar? That's what we have bards for. Unlike the Bard, the fighter is actually trained at fighting, not just talking about it.
Fighters are meant to be masters of a number of combat styles, and leaders of men. They are trained in fighting, but they shouldn't become a blabbering mess every time they're asked to speak on the topic. At least they shouldn't have to. That stuff requires some degree of scholarly nature.

[Coidzor]

XD
:(
Yeah. But that doesn't need to spread any further.



Scholar of warfare is surprisingly easy to accomplish. It only takes 1 hour and DC 20 knowledge check(usually Knowledge Local, a Ftr[Thug] skill) to gain a Strategic Advantage[HoB] which is fairly impressive.

Being a leader of men is harder. Intimidate can work but only so far and only for certain character concepts. Diplomacy is a cross class skill(so an attempt can be made but you are fighting against the class).

Ah, ok, now I got ya. I think once you recognize it and disagree with it it at least holds less sway so that workarounds and Fighter fixes become an option, though I can see the points about conceptual headspace.

Yeah... I've had how to have a mundane leader of humanoids percolating in the back of my mind for the past week or so, and the most I've come up with so far has been some form of diplomancy/leadership fix, forming an organization, or something involving living NPC-classed equivalents to the skeletal minion ACF and the Unit homebrew (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=143.0).

[squiggit]

So they can't even do guarding or tracking.

I'm not sure why you're counting that as a dock against the Warblade when the fighter can't do those either (no spot, no survival) and can't even fake it as well as a warblade because of their 2 skill points.


Unlike the Bard, the fighter is actually trained at fighting, not just talking about it.
And the Bard is still better in a fight despite that, which makes this point only more sad.


Fighters are meant to be masters of a number of combat styles, and leaders of men. They are trained in fighting, but they shouldn't become a blabbering mess every time they're asked to speak on the topic. At least they shouldn't have to. That stuff requires some degree of scholarly nature.
Sort of disheartening to remember that in older editions high level fighters became Lords with their own keep and soldiers to lead, while the 3.5 Fighter is just a drooling mess. Ah well.

[Lans]

Part of the problem is that barbarians, monks, and rangers all got buffed in the change from 3.0 to 3;5 while the fighter got to take weapon focus and specialization again.


How far is the fighter behind on numbers compared to the barbarian and other classes? I recall he did pretty well compared to most classes at 1 Schick or another

[dascarletm]

I'm not sure why you're counting that as a dock against the Warblade when the fighter can't do those either (no spot, no survival) and can't even fake it as well as a warblade because of their 2 skill points.


Scent means the dogs will detect these plausibly musky creatures at least 45 feet away (downwind) and up to 180 feet (upwind). No check required. Considering a dog costs a pittance, every Fighter should have at least a couple good guard or war dogs. They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs).


When arguing against someone at least speak to what they have said. He's arguing that handle animal using dogs is the fighter's method of tracking and guarding. Your point is moot.



And the Bard is still better in a fight despite that, which makes this point only more sad.


Bards do have some nice spells, but they contribute in a different way than the fighter would/ is supposed to.

[ryu]

When arguing against someone at least speak to what they have said. He's arguing that handle animal using dogs is the fighter's method of tracking and guarding. Your point is moot.



Bards do have some nice spells, but they contribute in a different way than the fighter would/ is supposed to.

IE: Actually effective things like enemies debuffing and party wide buffs.

[Seppo87]

How far is the fighter behind on numbers compared to the barbarian and other classes? I recall he did pretty well compared to most classes at 1 Schick or another
A core fighter is comparable to a core barbarian. When you expland options, basically it becomes jack b. quick vs lion totem whirling frenzy leap attack guy

[Gwendol]

No, he doesn't. He's not a berserker, which is what barbarians are based off of. This is a guy that stalks into the darkness and slices unspeakable horrors in twain, emerging unfazed. Barbarians, the class, are often Conan's enemies: savages that lose themselves in combat, and Conan takes advantage. The only thing Barbarians have in relation to him is Arnold's costume. That's where the similarities begin and end.

Conan goes into a rage when fighting on a regular basis and this fuels his strength and stamina. The Barbarian class emulates Conan quite well, even though he tends to branch out as his career progresses (likely some rogue level(s), warblade, fighter, etc). The Fighter does not emulate Conan well.

[Sir Chuckles]

Scent means the dogs will detect these plausibly musky creatures at least 45 feet away (downwind) and up to 180 feet (upwind). No check required. Considering a dog costs a pittance, every Fighter should have at least a couple good guard or war dogs.

They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs), fly (hippogriffs), and so forth. Intimidate is the Fighter social skill, and it also has an in combat purpose. Craft weaponsmithing/armor smithing gives a Fighter a bonus to appraising armaments, and of course jump/climb/swim allow a Fighter to lead the way through dangerous or difficult terrain. Yeah a wizard could burn a fly spell just to get to the top of a cliff, but that won't get the rest of the party up there, and having someone who can scale that wall and tie a rope just saved a valuable spell slot for something useful.

Which brings me to the question:
What activity are you imagining is so difficult?

The problem with your usual dog, horse, smithing ideas is that they assume far too much for the Fighter, and not enough for others.
A Druid or Ranger makes a far better dog trainer than a Fighter does, and can craft just as well. Why jump/climb/swim when a scroll of Dimension Door could be used? Why wait for the Fighter to climb the wall? What if the Fighter is wearing Full Plate? Do you wait for him to take it off?

It takes a decent amount of time to craft even a simple dagger, much more so a Masterwork Adamantium Greatsword.

A lot of your ideas, like in the last major Fighter thread, gives enough time for the Fighter to do just about anything he wants, so of course the Fighter is going to be theoretically great when you give him everything he needs to do great thing.
Intimidate is actually a risky social skill to use, as the NPC becomes Unfriendly after it's done, and again assumes the Fighter has been investing his 2 skill points a level into it. Even if it does work on multiple little Commoners, you're going to have to deal with being the guy who just went around growling and threatening innocent civilians for information. To go along the skills points more: If he's done that, he probably does not also have the needed ranks in Handle Animal to train a hippogriff, or the ranks in Ride. You then get to the point that the dogs would be dead in the first AoE attack. Such a tactic doesn't work beyond the lower levels, and you can't run back to town and buy a new dog after every encounter.

Two skill points a level is next to nothing when you're advocating usage of Intimidate, Handle Animal, Climb, Craft, Ride, Swim, and Jump all at once, which is the major problem of the Fighter and why it's frowned upon and in Tier 5. He has little to no useful versatility. If you scatter your feats, you become the cliche "Jack of all Trades, Master of None", and when the Druid is a master of Climbing and Handle Animal (and comes with a pre-packed animal companion!), you don't need the Jack of Climbing or the Dog "Master". Especially not one in heavy armor. When the Rogue is the master of Gather Information and Bluff, and has the Charisma to back it up, the Fighter who's Intimidate could become a liability is a lot less attractive.

I don't hate the Fighter. I love martial classes, I love playing beat sticks, but it stems from a love of classic heroes and warriors. The Fighter is not that. At best, he's a big guy with a big sword yelling at people. At worse, he's a big guy with a sword and shield trying to act tough. Most famous medieval heroes fit into the classes Knight, Marshall, and even Rogue or Swashbuckler. Yes, you can finagle them into a Fighter, but Odysseus didn't command his troops with Intimidate checks.

[Gwendol]

To the OP:
I believe the class doesn't live up to the fluff being a large part of the problem. Fighter bonus feats are not necessarily a bad class design, but the actual feats are. I like Curmudgeon's fighter fix: let the fighter get all the feats in a feat tree for taking the first (with some exceptions when dealing with more complex feat pre-reqs).
That makes the fighter class special and living up to the fluff as the most expert combatants (more fun to play, although still at most on par with TOB classes).

[Rubik]

Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that nearly half the class is dead levels that give you nothing at all?

[eggynack]

Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that nearly half the class is dead levels that give you nothing at all?
I agree with your issue with the class. It's just not much in the way of an arguable point, given the objectively accurate nature of the criticism. I mean, sure, if someone pops out of the wood work, arguing about how dead levels are great, because they build character or something, or arguing that fighters don't get dead levels, because BAB is so important to them, then we could do the whole discussion thing, and I'd join in the noble crusade against the fighter's half-corpsified nature.

[Gwendol]

You still get a HD, skill points (2+INT), a point of BAB, and perhaps better saves. The dead levels are not the most serious shortcomings of the class.

[Sir Chuckles]

Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that nearly half the class is dead levels that give you nothing at all?

No, but I think that's a tie in with the whole "Bonus Feats can only get you so far." thing.

[ryu]

You still get a HD, skill points (2+INT), a point of BAB, and perhaps better saves. The dead levels are not the most serious shortcomings of the class.

You talk about those things like they're substantive in some way. Why do you do that?

[Rubik]

You still get a HD, skill points (2+INT), a point of BAB, and perhaps better saves. The dead levels are not the most serious shortcomings of the class.Honestly? I'd rather have LA than those fighter levels.

At least I could buy LA off for more useful things.

[Gwendol]

You talk about those things like they're substantive in some way. Why do you do that?

No, I'm just stating the facts. They're close to meaningless, but sadly, in light of other fighter shortcomings the dead levels are not the class' biggest problems.

[ryu]

No, I'm just stating the facts. They're close to meaningless, but sadly, in light of other fighter shortcomings the dead levels are not the class' biggest problems.

It certainly doesn't help. Extra feats every level would at least make the feat chains slightly less awful. Only slightly, but damn it it would SOMETHING.

[Gwendol]

True, very true. That's why Zhent fighter comes so highly recommended.

[Avilan the Grey]

Skipping from page 4 to here.

I am a rogue or fighter kind of player. No matter what I play I do physical damage. Sometimes spiced up with some other class / gear (depending on game). Pure Mages / Spellcasters has never interested me as an option to play. I like one in the group, but I do NOT enjoy playing them.

I have not played that much 3 / 3.5 E (or 4E for that matter), at the time I was barely playing PnP at all, and the little I played was other games.

Right now I am in a 5E campaign, playing a Dwarf Rogue / Ranger, and having a blast. We are still low level (lvl 4, after about 30 hours playtime). In our group we have one Cleric Hafling (currently goblin, long story), one Blue Draconian monk (currently a goblin, long story), one Elven Sniper Ranger, Me, And one Forged human Illusionist. We are all pulling our own weight so far.

Anyway, my point is that my only real experience with 3.5E is computer games, and there I recognize the problem there. Fighters tend to be viable, and Mages tend to be OP (though various Cleric multiclasses tend to be the true game breakers in DnD-based computer games).

As have been said over and over the problem with the DnD pure fighter class can be summed up as "It's really an NPC class, it lacks specialization and is basically "town guard"").

[CrazyYanmega]

SECOND: How in the world can you not think of a single fighter in any literature? I cna think of
35-ish off the top of my head

Giglamesh, beowulf, heracles, Indrajit, Roland, Conan, Fafhrd, Grey Mouser, Aragorn, Gimli,
Prince Charming, Caramon, Ceasar, William the COnquerer, Charlemane, Wesley, Inigo Mantoya,
Lu Bu, Taishi Ci, GUan Yu, The Spartans, Roman legionaire, The white death (forget his real name)
Hector, Achilles, Martin (the mouse) Audi Murphy, Hannibal, ALexander teh great, Miyamoto, Guts,
Ecthelion, Fingolfin, D'artagnan, John Carter, Turin, Yoda, and thats just off the top of my head

If D&D Fighter had the ability to spam epic-level magic weaponry as ranged attacks out of portals, I would most certainly be interested in playing fighter. However, they do NOT.

Martin the Warrior, on the otherhand...

You make a good point there. I can't recall him doing much EXCEPT combat when he was alive. Well, combat and guardwork and relaxing. Hell, I can't even remember him participating in any cooking, and that was one of Redwall's biggest draws!

Yeah, everything he did when he was alive, he did with the abilities of a fighter. (Damn it. Now I want to make a straight 20 fighter using an Awakened Mouse.) After death he did some odder stuff, but that comes with the Ghost template.

[Boci]

Scent means the dogs will detect these plausibly musky creatures at least 45 feet away (downwind) and up to 180 feet (upwind). No check required. Considering a dog costs a pittance, every Fighter should have at least a couple good guard or war dogs.

So the dog barks. There's a monster in the general vicinity. Cool, but the fighter still cannot see or hear them.

Also plausibly musky? Based on what? Your tripling the range of scent as if they were troglodytes, creatures so smelly it has a mechanical affect.


Which brings me to the question:
What activity are you imagining is so difficult?

Spotting or hearing stuff, having any knowledge of the world they live in, being able to heal, being able to tumble (but this was solved in cityscape). Just generally being food, and having the skill points for multiple options.


Sorry to hear that. Do you only enjoy playing casters then?

No, I play with fun melee classes like the martial initiates. Also rogue, because whilst that is flawed in its own way, its still a lot more workable than the fighter, and has far superior splat support. I will use fighter as dips, but I see no reason to go for any length in the class.

[Forrestfire]

If D&D Fighter had the ability to spam epic-level magic weaponry as ranged attacks out of portals, I would most certainly be interested in playing fighter. However, they do NOT.

I think he meant the other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) Gilgamesh...

[ryu]

I think he meant the other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) Gilgamesh...

Probably, but that's significantly less entertaining.

[ngilop]

I think he meant the other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) Gilgamesh...

theres another Gilgamesh?

this is the only one I have ever heard about let alone read of.

[OldTrees1]

A Druid or Ranger makes a far better dog trainer than a Fighter does

Two skill points a level is next to nothing when you're advocating usage of Intimidate, Handle Animal, Climb, Craft, Ride, Swim, and Jump all at once, which is the major problem of the Fighter and why it's frowned upon and in Tier 5.

Corrections:
Druid/Ranger has no advantage on handle animal at any level. (Except their single animal companion) [used ctrl + F to verify]

2 to 4 + Int skill points per level. Exaggeration weakens your argument.

[Eldariel]

theres another Gilgamesh?

this is the only one I have ever heard about let alone read of.

A superpowered version exists in the Fate-universe (in that universe superpowers are par de course; legendary swords shoot laser beams and such there), most prominently Fate/Zero and Fate/Stay Night (but he's featured in other works as well); while based on the actual Giggles from the Epic of Gilgamesh (for instance, he despises the divine which lowers his own divinity ranking), a lot of liberties were taken as with all the heroes and indeed, all the history of the so-called "Nasuverse". The wiki (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Nasuverse) is here, but it's naturally brimfull of spoilers that would greatly reduce the enjoyment of actually reading/playing/watching the related works so I only recommend taking a look if you're interested in what I'm talking about without necessarily being interested in enjoying the actual products.

[Elderand]

Corrections:
Druid/Ranger has no advantage on handle animal at any level. (Except their single animal companion) [used ctrl + F to verify]

2 to 4 + Int skill points per level. Exaggeration weakens your argument.

They still make for better animal handler, you know what with all those spell that augment the power of animals.

[ngilop]

A superpowered version exists in the Fate-universe (in that universe superpowers are par de course; legendary swords shoot laser beams and such there), most prominently Fate/Zero and Fate/Stay Night (but he's featured in other works as well); while based on the actual Giggles from the Epic of Gilgamesh (for instance, he despises the divine which lowers his own divinity ranking), a lot of liberties were taken as with all the heroes and indeed, all the history of the so-called "Nasuverse". The wiki (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Nasuverse) is here, but it's naturally brimfull of spoilers that would greatly reduce the enjoyment of actually reading/playing/watching the related works so I only recommend taking a look if you're interested in what I'm talking about without necessarily being interested in enjoying the actual products.

yeah I have zero clue as to what fate/zero or fate/stay night are im guess fate is a novel series and the zero/stay night are title of specific books? and I do so love the old tales of just that guy who fights and wins against all odd I do not really want to read anything where old Gilgamesh is blasting this with omega beams from his sword that he summond form the 13th dimension. or whatever so i'll just skip to the spoiler.

edit:oh its some kinda anime thing... that explains that absurdity of powers that Gilgamesh has then.

[Coidzor]

Corrections:
Druid/Ranger has no advantage on handle animal at any level. (Except their single animal companion) [used ctrl + F to verify]

2 to 4 + Int skill points per level. Exaggeration weakens your argument.

Wild Empathy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildEmpathy) can make a difference in some situations, though less with already domesticated animals such as dogs. When it comes to, say, animals beyond dogs, such as setting up a Dire Hawk breeding and training business, they've got a bit of a leg up. Or, I suppose, deliberately recrossing wolves with dogs to make a new breed.

[Eldariel]

yeah I have zero clue as to what fate/zero or fate/stay night are im guess fate is a novel series and the zero/stay night are title of specific books? and I do so love the old tales of just that guy who fights and wins against all odd I do not really want to read anything where old Gilgamesh is blasting this with omega beams from his sword that he summond form the 13th dimension. or whatever so i'll just skip to the spoiler.

edit:oh its some kinda anime thing... that explains that absurdity of powers that Gilgamesh has then.

Nasuverse as a whole is basically a mythos created by certain crazy Japanese guy (Kinoko Nasu, as it happens), which he and some other writers use as a milieu to tell various stories. The basis of the mythos is that all legends are true and happened, but the details vary from our actual history, and that there are parallel worlds (the standard fare of "all the different possibilities happening in adjacent infinite worlds"), and humanity and gaea have kinds of collective consciousness that possess incredible powers and there are all these phantasmal species (dragons, unicorns & al.), demons, "true magic", "magecraft", etc. but that all that is in decline in the modern world.

The Fate-franchise is one of the stories taking place in this mythos (focusing around a war fought with "servants", great heroes summoned by the holy grail basically). Said franchise at its core is composed of two "visual novels" (basically choose-your-own-adventure kinda computer "game"/story) & a light novel (basically just a novel split over 4 short books), with the core Visual Novel "Fate/Stay Night" and the prequel Light Novel "Fate/Zero" having anime and manga adaptations. Then there's a bunch of spinoff games.

[eggynack]

Corrections:
Druid/Ranger has no advantage on handle animal at any level. (Except their single animal companion) [used ctrl + F to verify]

2 to 4 + Int skill points per level. Exaggeration weakens your argument.
That single animal companion, especially on a druid, is going to have a similar amount of utility as a decent number of fighter-dogs, especially when you consider the fact that animal companions can be replaced for free. In particular, the cited scent based resource is accessible by a single animal companion, and that along with better vision modes can be acquired by the druid itself. Furthermore, a druid can afford a higher intelligence and/or charisma score, both because they have better incentives to increase those scores, and because they're a bit less MAD. Finally, druids have access to a few handle animal (and wild empathy) boosting resources, like one with the land, the dreamsight shifter trait, and feral empathy from shifter substitution levels.

This is all in addition to the things stated by other folks, which are of a similar level of importance. The fighter only really has one thing that makes it good at this stuff. Druids, and rangers (possibly to a lesser extent, though maybe not) have a lot more resources. Those resources may not be insane, but they mean that these are the classes you should use if this is what you want to do. We probably haven't even listed everything yet, given that no one's even mentioned speak with animal. I've gotta figure that that would be halfway useful for this, and if not, at least flavorfully fitting.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Pop quiz! Who thinks the monk, barbarian, and ranger are really good, strong, well rounded classes? Who thinks they're too good? Remember what I said about fighters being the glass ceiling of the martials?


Part of the problem is that barbarians, monks, and rangers all got buffed in the change from 3.0 to 3;5 while the fighter got to take weapon focus and specialization again.

I present exhibit A....

[Vogonjeltz]

Unless you're stuck in core, alter self makes that a 2nd level slot. Anyway, the big issue with this plan, as I've often noted, is that climb and jump are such imperfect substitutes for flight. For every one situation where those skills are superior, and for every couple of situations where they're equal, there's a few hundred where they're just not enough.

Fighters are meant to be masters of a number of combat styles, and leaders of men. They are trained in fighting, but they shouldn't become a blabbering mess every time they're asked to speak on the topic. At least they shouldn't have to. That stuff requires some degree of scholarly nature.

Then the wizard is just wasting a 2nd level spell slot they could have used to greater effect. They aren't achieving the goal (getting the party to the top of the cliff/ledge) any more efficiently.

Fighters are trained in combat, that is reflected in their bonus feats (which have to do with fighting) and tier having proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, shields, and armor.

Scholarship does not equate to the ability to use these weapons.


The problem with your usual dog, horse, smithing ideas is that they assume far too much for the Fighter, and not enough for others.
A Druid or Ranger makes a far better dog trainer than a Fighter does, and can craft just as well. Why jump/climb/swim when a scroll of Dimension Door could be used? Why wait for the Fighter to climb the wall? What if the Fighter is wearing Full Plate? Do you wait for him to take it off?

It takes a decent amount of time to craft even a simple dagger, much more so a Masterwork Adamantium Greatsword.

A lot of your ideas, like in the last major Fighter thread, gives enough time for the Fighter to do just about anything he wants, so of course the Fighter is going to be theoretically great when you give him everything he needs to do great thing.
Intimidate is actually a risky social skill to use, as the NPC becomes Unfriendly after it's done, and again assumes the Fighter has been investing his 2 skill points a level into it. Even if it does work on multiple little Commoners, you're going to have to deal with being the guy who just went around growling and threatening innocent civilians for information. To go along the skills points more: If he's done that, he probably does not also have the needed ranks in Handle Animal to train a hippogriff, or the ranks in Ride. You then get to the point that the dogs would be dead in the first AoE attack. Such a tactic doesn't work beyond the lower levels, and you can't run back to town and buy a new dog after every encounter.

Two skill points a level is next to nothing when you're advocating usage of Intimidate, Handle Animal, Climb, Craft, Ride, Swim, and Jump all at once, which is the major problem of the Fighter and why it's frowned upon and in Tier 5. He has little to no useful versatility. If you scatter your feats, you become the cliche "Jack of all Trades, Master of None", and when the Druid is a master of Climbing and Handle Animal (and comes with a pre-packed animal companion!), you don't need the Jack of Climbing or the Dog "Master". Especially not one in heavy armor. When the Rogue is the master of Gather Information and Bluff, and has the Charisma to back it up, the Fighter who's Intimidate could become a liability is a lot less attractive.

I don't hate the Fighter. I love martial classes, I love playing beat sticks, but it stems from a love of classic heroes and warriors. The Fighter is not that. At best, he's a big guy with a big sword yelling at people. At worse, he's a big guy with a sword and shield trying to act tough. Most famous medieval heroes fit into the classes Knight, Marshall, and even Rogue or Swashbuckler. Yes, you can finagle them into a Fighter, but Odysseus didn't command his troops with Intimidate checks.

I only argued that Fighters could fulfill out of combat functions through the use of their skills, I never once argued that Rangers and Druids couldn't.

Druids and Rangers are no better at training animals than a Fighter. They get a bonus to working with their animal companion, but nothing else.

The reason not to use a scroll of dimension door is that it costs 700gp. Free is a lot better than 700gp, and adventurers typically aren't looking to just throw away treasure chests of gold. Armor check penalties are actually quite low, and can be reduced further just by having decent gear.

It only takes a day to make a dagger, with help from apprentices even an adamantine weapon (adamantium is from the xmen) can be made within a year.

A human fighter with 14 int nets 5/7 skills easily, a cursory check of the DCs for these skills reveals that max ranks is not necessary to achieve almost all goals desired for any of the skills. That leaves a lot of spare skill points kicking around.


Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that nearly half the class is dead levels that give you nothing at all?

No you're not alone, the dead levels bug me too. Probably a function of having so few total feats in the PHB. I'd say give the Fighter general feats every other level, for 27 feats, and fighters have full initiator progression from TOB, or a feat that grants full progression.


So the dog barks. There's a monster in the general vicinity. Cool, but the fighter still cannot see or hear them.

Also plausibly musky? Based on what? Your tripling the range of scent as if they were troglodytes, creatures so smelly it has a mechanical affect.

Spotting or hearing stuff, having any knowledge of the world they live in, being able to heal, being able to tumble (but this was solved in cityscape). Just generally being food, and having the skill points for multiple options.

The dog negates any surprise round for an ambusher.

Based on the creatures being large nonhumanoids (not bathing themselves with soap and water). Ever smelled an elephant or hippo? They can be smelled from a few hundred feet by humans, a dog could easily smell them further.

Nothing in scent links the smell specifically to a game mechanic.

Spotting/hearing stuff is baseline automatic, it takes no ranks at all to hear a battle from up to 100' away (which is pretty far).

Common knowledge is anything under 10, that's almost all knowledge of the game world.

Healing happens automatically, tumble can't happen in medium or heavy armor, and being food is not a good thing.


They still make for better animal handler, you know what with all those spell that augment the power of animals.

They're equal at handling, buffing isn't handling.

[Augmental]

Then the wizard is just wasting a 2nd level spell slot they could have used to greater effect. They aren't achieving the goal (getting the party to the top of the cliff/ledge) any more efficiently.

Alter Self is one of the best and most versatile 2nd-level wizard spells in the game.


It only takes a day to make a dagger, with help from apprentices even an adamantine weapon (adamantium is from the xmen) can be made within a year.

Plenty of campaigns don't even last a year of in-game time, and you're assuming the fighter gets that much downtime and apprentice crafters to make an adamantine weapon?

[eggynack]

Then the wizard is just wasting a 2nd level spell slot they could have used to greater effect. They aren't achieving the goal (getting the party to the top of the cliff/ledge) any more efficiently.
They're achieving the goal much more efficiently. You have to spend a skill point every level, one of two or three, on the ability to climb stuff. Those are permanent build resources, and you're losing some other major facet of your plan for the privilege, like intimidate, handle animal, or if we're using your odd list, jump and craft. The wizard is spending a 2nd level slot, which could alternatively be used for a number of other purposes, and they don't even need to spend the same spell the next day.

Meanwhile, alter self, which costs much less than this skill, does much more than climb, and in fact does much more than climb, jump, and swim combined. That's all of your skill slots, and this is apparently what you're using them for, because you said as much, rendered pretty much irrelevant by a second level spell slot. If I can use that 2nd level slot to greater effect, then fighters are even crappier than I gave them credit for, especially as that's not even nearly all that alter self can do.



I only argued that Fighters could fulfill out of combat functions through the use of their skills, I never once argued that Rangers and Druids couldn't.
Any class can fulfill out of combat functions through the use of their skills. Fighters are just particularly bad at it.


Druids and Rangers are no better at training animals than a Fighter. They get a bonus to working with their animal companion, but nothing else.
As my extended list two posts above yours points out, you're wrong.

The dog negates any surprise round for an ambusher.
That's only true if the ambusher is ambushing you from between 15 and 60 feet out, which actually isn't going to happen much of the time. Most spells have ranges like that, as does most ranged stuff.


Based on the creatures being large nonhumanoids (not bathing themselves with soap and water). Ever smelled an elephant or hippo? They can be smelled from a few hundred feet by humans, a dog could easily smell them further.

Nothing in scent links the smell specifically to a game mechanic.
Scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent) is very much a specific game mechanic. Suffice to say that you're not getting to use scent on an enemy a few hundred feat away, and you're likely not even getting 100 feet. If your enemy smells like rotting garbage, then that maxes out at 120 feet. A skunk can get you as far as 180 feet, if you're downwind, but not all enemies are skunks.



They're equal at handling, buffing isn't handling.
What, exactly, do you expect your trained animals to actually do? If it's just scent, then we're really talking about vision modes more than handling animals, and fighters do not get good vision mode access. If we're talking about beating up enemies, then buffing is very much a function of your skill with animals.

[Sir Chuckles]

Fighters are trained in combat, that is reflected in their bonus feats (which have to do with fighting) and tier having proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, shields, and armor.

A human fighter with 14 int nets 5/7 skills easily, a cursory check of the DCs for these skills reveals that max ranks is not necessary to achieve almost all goals desired for any of the skills. That leaves a lot of spare skill points kicking around. Cut down for emphasis.

There are many other classes that have similar proficiency as a Fighter. Perhaps not the tower shield, but it is well known that a shield is a subpar choice. In addition, having all those weapons means little when you consider that weapon focus applies to only one. A dagger is a simple weapon that can be thrown. A Crossbow is a simple weapon. The Longbows are usable by an Elf. Rogues get hand crossbows, an exotic weapon. There are ACFs that give Sorcerers martial proficiency as well as armor proficiency without arcane failure.

A human Commoner with 14 int nets the same skill points, and doesn't need a dog to Spot and Listen for him, and still has access to more skills than the Fighter. A human Expert gets triple the base of a Fighter, and can choose his own ten skills. Not only that, but 14 int is 6 points in the point buy system, and if you have 32 points, you just spent nearly 1/5th of your power on a tertiary stat that is only giving you skill points. You might qualify for Combat Expertise, but you're not going to be using that feat unless you're using it as the pivotal prerequisite for your character.

Yes, a Fighter can contribute in his own way, but the malcontent towards them is that nearly every other class does it equally if not better. Even once you include "but bonus feats!", many classes still handle combat better than the Fighter. It boils down to the same problem you had in the last Fighter thread:
You're giving the world to the Fighter, but all but disregarding what others could do if given the same.

[Dorian Gray]

A human fighter with 14 int nets 5/7 skills easily, a cursory check of the DCs for these skills reveals that max ranks is not necessary to achieve almost all goals desired for any of the skills. That leaves a lot of spare skill points kicking around.


I really must object to this. If you have a level 9 fighter, and you are using the elite array, this means you are putting your second highest stat into intelligence. Furthermore, your math is completely wrong- 14 int gives 2 extra skill points per level. So what you have here is a level 9 fighter, with 4 skills at max ranks, a 16 in strength, and a 14 in constitution. If you put max ranks into handle animal, you can beat the highest DCs while taking 10- but now you can only max 3 skills. So you said earlier that the fighter can climb a cliff. If you put max ranks into climb, you can climb a typical dungeon wall (DC 20)... 75% of the time. And that's assuming you don't need to go fast- and you can't take 10, either. So, you have two remaining skills. If you want to have ranks in listen, which you do, you need to max that skill, because you have to beat someone who is putting an equal number of ranks into move silently. Similarly, you need to max intimidate if you want to use it, because the DC scales with hit dice. But let's say you don't use intimidate. Fine. You have 12 spare skill points- how are they going to be spread around? Because those 12 points aren't going to be doing you much good unless you max a skill.

And then the wizard, who at this level has used one of his 3-5 5th level spells to get overland flight, renders null all the effort you put into climb. He then casts summon monster 2 to get a riding dog (scent), rendering nill everything you have put into handle animal. He can follow that up with alarm so that you never have to listen for anything ever again. Or charm person, so that you can make someone friendly without them hating you forever afterwards. Or summon monster 5 to get 1d3 Arcadian Avengers- 2 meat shields, with great senses, to render the fighter class itself obsolete.
--
In conclusion, the fighter skills, at least at mid levels, are really, really, really limited, and no, they are not a more efficient use of resources than wizard spells. Because you know what? Even after casting everything I listed in the last paragraph, the wizard can do the same thing three more times. And when our wizard friend runs out of 5th level spells... he can just switch to, say, web, and disable an entire room of people, or split twin repeating scorching ray, or grease. Resources aren't an issue for casters after level 5 or so.

Edit: Totally swordsage'd. But in order to assuage my damaged ego, I'll tell myself that I went more into detail.

[RavynsLand]

They're great for two-level dips.

[VoxRationis]

I really must object to this. If you have a level 9 fighter, and you are using the elite array, this means you are putting your second highest stat into intelligence. Furthermore, your math is completely wrong- 14 int gives 2 extra skill points per level. So what you have here is a level 9 fighter, with 4 skills at max ranks, a 16 in strength, and a 14 in constitution. If you put max ranks into handle animal, you can beat the highest DCs while taking 10- but now you can only max 3 skills. So you said earlier that the fighter can climb a cliff. If you put max ranks into climb, you can climb a typical dungeon wall (DC 20)... 75% of the time. And that's assuming you don't need to go fast- and you can't take 10, either. So, you have two remaining skills. If you want to have ranks in listen, which you do, you need to max that skill, because you have to beat someone who is putting an equal number of ranks into move silently. Similarly, you need to max intimidate if you want to use it, because the DC scales with hit dice. But let's say you don't use intimidate. Fine. You have 12 spare skill points- how are they going to be spread around? Because those 12 points aren't going to be doing you much good unless you max a skill.

And then the wizard, who at this level has used one of his 3-5 5th level spells to get overland flight, renders null all the effort you put into climb. He then casts summon monster 2 to get a riding dog (scent), rendering nill everything you have put into handle animal. He can follow that up with alarm so that you never have to listen for anything ever again. Or charm person, so that you can make someone friendly without them hating you forever afterwards. Or summon monster 5 to get 1d3 Arcadian Avengers- 2 meat shields, with great senses, to render the fighter class itself obsolete.
--
In conclusion, the fighter skills, at least at mid levels, are really, really, really limited, and no, they are not a more efficient use of resources than wizard spells. Because you know what? Even after casting everything I listed in the last paragraph, the wizard can do the same thing three more times. And when our wizard friend runs out of 5th level spells... he can just switch to, say, web, and disable an entire room of people, or split twin repeating scorching ray, or grease. Resources aren't an issue for casters after level 5 or so.

Edit: Totally swordsage'd. But in order to assuage my damaged ego, I'll tell myself that I went more into detail.

A friend you have to make with a temporary spell is a temporary friend as well. (Rhyming intentional.:smallwink:) I would feel pretty violated once I put two and two together and realized that my sense of brotherhood with that wizard and my going out of my way to help him immediately followed his casting a spell on me...
In any case, resources do become an issue for casters, unless you feel like stopping to rest after ever couple of encounters, which is really only viable for dungeon crawls, since any sort of travel (in those levels before teleport becomes viable or because you lack enough information on your goal to cast teleport reliably) is going to slow to a crawl if you stop too often and any sort of time-sensitive mission, and I'm sure you can name many, will not consider a brief pause while you regain spell slots. What if you fight a well-prepared enemy wizard? One whose abilities of intelligence-gathering are the equal or better of the party wizard and who consequently can negate the quick-win spells of the wizard? Those spell slots you just blew on stuff your fighter or rogue could have done all day are going to seem pretty wasted.
Even if a wizard can do a given task that another class could do with another spell, each time they do so prevents them from doing something else that's important. Even if you use a scroll, that's good money that you didn't have to spend.

[Rakaydos]

In any case, resources do become an issue for casters, unless you feel like stopping to rest after ever couple of encounters, which is really only viable for dungeon crawls, since any sort of travel (in those levels before teleport becomes viable or because you lack enough information on your goal to cast teleport reliably) is going to slow to a crawl if you stop too often and any sort of time-sensitive mission, and I'm sure you can name many, will not consider a brief pause while you regain spell slots. What if you fight a well-prepared enemy wizard? One whose abilities of intelligence-gathering are the equal or better of the party wizard and who consequently can negate the quick-win spells of the wizard? Those spell slots you just blew on stuff your fighter or rogue could have done all day are going to seem pretty wasted.
Even if a wizard can do a given task that another class could do with another spell, each time they do so prevents them from doing something else that's important. Even if you use a scroll, that's good money that you didn't have to spend.

A fighter's hit points are as much of a resource as anything else, and one they will run out of faster and for less gain than a caster's spells. Every heal spell cast on the fighter is a party resource consumed, one less spel the cleric could have used to defeat the dungeon.

So, let's rate the figter's utility in Cure Light Wounds. How many cleric spells does it take to keep the fighter going, vs how many would be needed for the cleric to solve the problem directly?

[Dorian Gray]

A friend you have to make with a temporary spell is a temporary friend as well. (Rhyming intentional.:smallwink:) I would feel pretty violated once I put two and two together and realized that my sense of brotherhood with that wizard and my going out of my way to help him immediately followed his casting a spell on me...
In any case, resources do become an issue for casters, unless you feel like stopping to rest after ever couple of encounters, which is really only viable for dungeon crawls, since any sort of travel (in those levels before teleport becomes viable or because you lack enough information on your goal to cast teleport reliably) is going to slow to a crawl if you stop too often and any sort of time-sensitive mission, and I'm sure you can name many, will not consider a brief pause while you regain spell slots. What if you fight a well-prepared enemy wizard? One whose abilities of intelligence-gathering are the equal or better of the party wizard and who consequently can negate the quick-win spells of the wizard? Those spell slots you just blew on stuff your fighter or rogue could have done all day are going to seem pretty wasted.
Even if a wizard can do a given task that another class could do with another spell, each time they do so prevents them from doing something else that's important. Even if you use a scroll, that's good money that you didn't have to spend.

But the real issue isn't what the wizard is spending his resources on, and I feel I may have distracted from my actual point with my wall of text. My question, and the biggest issue (I feel), is what in the nine hells is the fighter spending his skill points on? Go ahead and make a 9th level fighter- where do his skills go? Where do they come from? Are you really putting a 14 in intelligence- the stat which does the least for the fighter outside of charisma? I'd be willing to wager that the fighter you make won't be able to do all the stuff you have said a fighter can do- in this thread. Because to date, you have said fighters can train animals, ride animals, climb cliffs, listen for threats, intimidate enemies, and make weapons- and I'm counting 7 skills right there, not 4.

[VoxRationis]

Did I say a fighter could do all that? I don't remember saying that, though you can point to the post I made if I have.
I was just countering your point that a wizard having spells that replicate skills or other class features automatically invalidates those skills or class features. I think of it as the reverse; if you can spend limited resources to do a thing, or you could do that thing slightly less efficiently but indefinitely, what do you do? The redundancy allows wizards to fill in for other classes if they have to—but they'd surely rather be doing other things.

[ryu]

Did I say a fighter could do all that? I don't remember saying that, though you can point to the post I made if I have.
I was just countering your point that a wizard having spells that replicate skills or other class features automatically invalidates those skills or class features. I think of it as the reverse; if you can spend limited resources to do a thing, or you could do that thing slightly less efficiently but indefinitely, what do you do? The redundancy allows wizards to fill in for other classes if they have to—but they'd surely rather be doing other things.

Depends. Are we working in a world where dungeons have more loot for parties to support wealth by level or a world where these things play out by logic? I don't know about you, but I for one would rather be the lone wizard with four or five times WBL, than a wizard in a party splitting the loot with a fighter, a rogue, and a cleric who doesn't understand that cures are some the least efficient things he can do.

[Sir Chuckles]

Did I say a fighter could do all that? I don't remember saying that, though you can point to the post I made if I have.
I was just countering your point that a wizard having spells that replicate skills or other class features automatically invalidates those skills or class features. I think of it as the reverse; if you can spend limited resources to do a thing, or you could do that thing slightly less efficiently but indefinitely, what do you do? The redundancy allows wizards to fill in for other classes if they have to—but they'd surely rather be doing other things.

Not slightly less efficiently, much less efficiently. It's "DC 20 to make it, if you mess up you could take damage. Oh, and don't forget your -4 from your armor. Also, things are attacking you, so you can't take your time. What? You want to attack while climbing? Do you have that obscure lines of feats to do so without risking a fall? No? Well, go ahead!" vs. "You're up the cliff, through the woods, and at grandma's house by the time the other guy is done rolling. On the floor. With an untrained Tumble check because he fell."

It doesn't automatically invalidate, it just belittles for extended periods of time; it's the biggest irk I have with magic ("I'm a master locksmith!" "I'm a 4th level Wizard with Knock."), but that's a thought train for a whole different thread.

As for the limited resource argument that often accompanies the vehement dislike/distrust/belittling of Wizards in favor of a Fighter or Monk (it's rarely anything else), a Wizard gets Scribe Scroll at 1st level. They can buy a Ring of Wizardry, and coupled with their Int bonuses, they can easily outlast a Fighter's hitpoints. They can also pick up weapon smithing, and have the int bonus to skill points and the skill itself to do it more efficiently. To further the money idea, a Wizard can offer himself as a salesman much better than most other classes (barring other full, and even some partial, casters), what with spells like Break Enchantment and buffs that last for hours on end. Yes yes, all those things cost time, but remember that this is all in Vogon's theoretical world where PCs do not have any time constraints and can spend a year on one weapon and have instant access to helper apprentices. You give that to the Fighter, you give that to everyone, otherwise it's not even a decent comparison.

And what would a Wizard rather do? Remake the universe a couple of times and kill the god that pissed him off.

[Lans]

Pop quiz! Who thinks the monk, barbarian, and ranger are really good, strong, well rounded classes? Who thinks they're too good? Remember what I said about fighters being the glass ceiling of the martials?



I present exhibit A....

So are you saying that the fighter not getting buffed between 3.0 and 3.5 didn't contribute some way to them being too weak?

I think barbarian and ranger are good balance points being tier 4 and good at a role.

[Vogonjeltz]

Alter Self is one of the best and most versatile 2nd-level wizard spells in the game.

And it is a massive waste of that versatility to scale a cliff that can be climbed via teamwork.


Plenty of campaigns don't even last a year of in-game time, and you're assuming the fighter gets that much downtime and apprentice crafters to make an adamantine weapon?

And plenty of campaigns do, or start at a level other than 1st. It is possible, which is enough.


They're achieving the goal much more efficiently.

No, it is less efficient in terms of actual resources per day. Characters are going to get skills anyway, there is zero opportunity cost for the Fighter.



You have to spend a skill point every level, one of two or three, on the ability to climb stuff. Those are permanent build resources, and you're losing some other major facet of your plan for the privilege, like intimidate, handle animal, or if we're using your odd list, jump and craft.

I already explained that a fighter can easily acquire at least 5 skills maxed out, but as those are not all needed at higher than a few points it is easy to acquire all the class skills.



The wizard is spending a 2nd level slot, which could alternatively be used for a number of other purposes, and they don't even need to spend the same spell the next day.


You just swapped apples and oranges in our metrics. Daily uses efficiency vs character build efficiency. Two totally different metrics.

The use of a spell slot to accomplish the mundane is inefficient in play terms, as there are limited spells per day (resources).

Skipped to the next topic as you repeated the same error again. No need to retread that.



Any class can fulfill out of combat functions through the use of their skills. Fighters are just particularly bad at it.

Except they are not bad at it, they are actually just fine. I showed how issues such as lacking spot and hide are easily compensated for by Wiley use if handle animal.



That's only true if the ambusher is ambushing you from between 15 and 60 feet out, which actually isn't going to happen much of the time. Most spells have ranges like that, as does most ranged stuff.

You're moving some pretty heavy goal posts there. We were and are discussing some stealth creatures. Not wizards or pvp.



What, exactly, do you expect your trained animals to actually do? If it's just scent, then we're really talking about vision modes more than handling animals, and fighters do not get good vision mode access. If we're talking about beating up enemies, then buffing is very much a function of your skill with animals.

Animals trained to guard will raise an alarm. Was that not clear from the outset?


Cut down for emphasis.

There are many other classes that have similar proficiency as a Fighter. Perhaps not the tower shield, but it is well known that a shield is a subpar choice. In addition, having all those weapons means little when you consider that weapon focus applies to only one. A dagger is a simple weapon that can be thrown. A Crossbow is a simple weapon. The Longbows are usable by an Elf. Rogues get hand crossbows, an exotic weapon. There are ACFs that give Sorcerers martial proficiency as well as armor proficiency without arcane failure.

It is often asserted, but I see no merit behind that assertion. There are piecemeal ways to get some weapons, but that's all. The battle sorcerer variant you referenced gets a single martial weapon at the cost of many spells.


A human Commoner with 14 int nets the same skill points, and doesn't need a dog to Spot and Listen for him, and still has access to more skills than the Fighter. A human Expert gets triple the base of a Fighter, and can choose his own ten skills. Not only that, but 14 int is 6 points in the point buy system, and if you have 32 points, you just spent nearly 1/5th of your power on a tertiary stat that is only giving you skill points. You might qualify for Combat Expertise, but you're not going to be using that feat unless you're using it as the pivotal prerequisite for your character.

Those commoners and experts are NPC exclusive classes, have virtually no hp, limited or no real proficiencies to speak of, and no BAB. Typically I would use the elite array, 15/13/12/14/10/8. Bonus points go into str, Dex, or con.


Yes, a Fighter can contribute in his own way, but the malcontent towards them is that nearly every other class does it equally if not better. Even once you include "but bonus feats!", many classes still handle combat better than the Fighter. It boils down to the same problem you had in the last Fighter thread:
You're giving the world to the Fighter, but all but disregarding what others could do if given the same.

Not sure what you're talking about, the only test we've actually had has the Fighter passing all tests given. You either succeed, or you don't, there are no degrees. And I have never said any class can't accomplish goals, that has been a stance solely taken by yourself.


I really must object to this. If you have a level 9 fighter, and you are using the elite array, this means you are putting your second highest stat into intelligence. Furthermore, your math is completely wrong- 14 int gives 2 extra skill points per level. So what you have here is a level 9 fighter, with 4 skills at max ranks, a 16 in strength, and a 14 in constitution. If you put max ranks into handle animal, you can beat the highest DCs while taking 10- but now you can only max 3 skills. So you said earlier that the fighter can climb a cliff. If you put max ranks into climb, you can climb a typical dungeon wall (DC 20)... 75% of the time. And that's assuming you don't need to go fast- and you can't take 10, either. So, you have two remaining skills. If you want to have ranks in listen, which you do, you need to max that skill, because you have to beat someone who is putting an equal number of ranks into move silently. Similarly, you need to max intimidate if you want to use it, because the DC scales with hit dice. But let's say you don't use intimidate. Fine. You have 12 spare skill points- how are they going to be spread around? Because those 12 points aren't going to be doing you much good unless you max a skill.

And then the wizard, who at this level has used one of his 3-5 5th level spells to get overland flight, renders null all the effort you put into climb. He then casts summon monster 2 to get a riding dog (scent), rendering nill everything you have put into handle animal. He can follow that up with alarm so that you never have to listen for anything ever again. Or charm person, so that you can make someone friendly without them hating you forever afterwards. Or summon monster 5 to get 1d3 Arcadian Avengers- 2 meat shields, with great senses, to render the fighter class itself obsolete.
--
In conclusion, the fighter skills, at least at mid levels, are really, really, really limited, and no, they are not a more efficient use of resources than wizard spells. Because you know what? Even after casting everything I listed in the last paragraph, the wizard can do the same thing three more times. And when our wizard friend runs out of 5th level spells... he can just switch to, say, web, and disable an entire room of people, or split twin repeating scorching ray, or grease. Resources aren't an issue for casters after level 5 or so.

Edit: Totally swordsage'd. But in order to assuage my damaged ego, I'll tell myself that I went more into detail.

I said human fighter with 14 int. That's 5 skill points. As you made that mistake right off the bat, I'll pass on the rest of your post.


Not slightly less efficiently, much less efficiently. It's "DC 20 to make it, if you mess up you could take damage. Oh, and don't forget your -4 from your armor. Also, things are attacking you, so you can't take your time. What? You want to attack while climbing? Do you have that obscure lines of feats to do so without risking a fall? No? Well, go ahead!" vs. "You're up the cliff, through the woods, and at grandma's house by the time the other guy is done rolling. On the floor. With an untrained Tumble check because he fell."

Hyperbole is hyperbolic. Who climbs in combat? The rest of your post reads as sarcasm, so I didn't bother responding.

[ryu]

Just gonna point out that a single second level spell cast is actually significantly less opportunity cost than a fighter skill point. The second level spellslot is also a free resource that most all wizards get in bulk. The skillpoints for the fighter spending on climb are points he's not spending on Cross-class UMD to gain access to more than a single spell of low level.

Now the reason this is muddied is the simple fact that fighter already starts notably far behind the wizard. The fighter still loses far more important options allocating those skill points than the wizard does by casting a single spell. One spell is a large opportunity cost I'll grant. It's not larger than the ability to access spells in general though.

[eggynack]

No, it is less efficient in terms of actual resources per day. Characters are going to get skills anyway, there is zero opportunity cost for the Fighter.
What? I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Your resources for the entirety of your career are a macro aspect of resources per day. The opportunity cost is other skills you could be obtaining, just as the opportunity of a spell is a different spell you could be preparing.


I already explained that a fighter can easily acquire at least 5 skills maxed out, but as those are not all needed at higher than a few points it is easy to acquire all the class skills.
You can get 5 skills maxed, but that, again, comes at the cost of character resources like stat and racial choice.



You just swapped apples and oranges in our metrics. Daily uses efficiency vs character build efficiency. Two totally different metrics.

The use of a spell slot to accomplish the mundane is inefficient in play terms, as there are limited spells per day (resources).

Skipped to the next topic as you repeated the same error again. No need to retread that.
This was, in no way, an error. Character build resources are a bigger deal than daily resources. You're spending those points, in a way that's just about identical to the way a wizard could apply a long duration buff, except the wizard gets to change that buff out the next day. You're drawing a dividing line that's not particularly relevant, or rather it's extremely relevant, but in a way that's bad for the fighter.



Except they are not bad at it, they are actually just fine. I showed how issues such as lacking spot and hide are easily compensated for by Wiley use if handle animal.
How many PC classes can you actually name with worse skill use? There aren't many. There are classes with approximately equal skill use, but fighters are scraping the bottom of the barrel.



You're moving some pretty heavy goal posts there. We were and are discussing some stealth creatures. Not wizards or pvp.

Sometimes, there is going to be a spell cast at you on a normal adventure. That spell could come from out of range. There is no goal post motion occurring.


Animals trained to guard will raise an alarm. Was that not clear from the outset?
I thought it was clear, but if that's all you're doing, then you're doing next to nothing with the skill. You are effectively making use of the lowest order of handle animal, whereas other classes can make higher order uses. Simultaneously, if you're just using scent and nothing else, then there are ways that these classes, druids especially, can acquire vastly superior vision modes. Your dog friend is a means to an end, and other classes can reach that end better.

[Dorian Gray]

I said human fighter with 14 int. That's 5 skill points. As you made that mistake right off the bat, I'll pass on the rest of your post.

And now I am a bit angry. You know why? Because you dismissed everything I said, right off the bat, because I miscalculated the number of skill points a fighter gets.
EXCEPT I DIDN'T.
2 skill points a level. 14 int is a +2 modifier. Out of completely idle curiosity, 2+2=4, right? Now, you can add the skill points from human (I assume that's the 5th), but I wasn't talking about a human fighter. I was talking about the fighter chassis itself. But my challenge still stands- make a level 9 human fighter who is capable of doing everything you list here:


They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs), fly (hippogriffs), and so forth. Intimidate is the Fighter social skill, and it also has an in combat purpose. Craft weaponsmithing/armor smithing gives a Fighter a bonus to appraising armaments, and of course jump/climb/swim allow a Fighter to lead the way through dangerous or difficult terrain. Yeah a wizard could burn a fly spell just to get to the top of a cliff, but that won't get the rest of the party up there, and having someone who can scale that wall and tie a rope just saved a valuable spell slot for something useful.

And by the way, don't forget that it takes ranks in ride to, you know, ride the hippogriff. Also, craft (armor) and craft (weapons) are two different skills. I'll wait.

[Sir Chuckles]

You claim that a Fighter can easily get 5 skills maxed out with 15/14/13/12/10/8.
5 skills maxed at level 1 is 20 skill points. A Human Fighter does need the 14, his second highest stat, into intelligence. You have reduced your combat capabilities at that point, and gained things that others could do in a more proficient manner.

The Fighter can fight, and can somewhat contribute in a semi-meaningful way outside of combat at low levels. Nobody is denying that. What we're denying is your idea of a Fighter that comes off as being able to be some kind of omniskilled expert in a dozen different fields on a day to day basis, which, in practice, is often proven as "No, he cannot."
The tests that were given in that single PbP thread were not enough. One single test is never enough. Especially when it's a low-level test, where classes are significantly more in line. It's once you get past 5th level where the Fighter get's quickly left in the dust. There have been many high level tests between many different casters and the Fighter. In a straight to 20 comparison, all it did was prove the Tier List. Fighter is Tier 5, defined as "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths."
When you play to the class' strengths, of course it will do well. And there in lies the problem with your arguments! They all put the Fighter in situations where only one built to be purposely bad can fail!

Now I will say that the Fighter is capable of being brought up to Tier 4, which is what you're describing over and over:
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength."


Those commoners and experts are NPC exclusive classes, have virtually no hp, limited or no real proficiencies to speak of, and no BAB. Typically I would use the elite array, 15/13/12/14/10/8. Bonus points go into str, Dex, or con.

There is nothing barring a player from playing an NPC class, or even mixing NPC and PC class levels. The Expert has a d6 hit die and is proficient with all simple weapons, the BaB of a Cleric, and a better skill selection than the Fighter. It may not do quite as well in melee combat, but you don't need martial weapon proficiency to wield a 1d8 weapon. Experts are Rogue-lites, essentially, and the fact that they choose ten (read: can obtain and exceed Fighter skills) as well as 6 (triple the Fighter's) skill points, they can easily become a good skill monkey. That's the aspect we're primarily speaking about, versatility outside of combat. If you want to go into versatility inside combat, it gets somewhat worse for a Fighter.

[Vogonjeltz]

What? I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Your resources for the entirety of your career are a macro aspect of resources per day. The opportunity cost is other skills you could be obtaining, just as the opportunity of a spell is a different spell you could be preparing.

This is where we are splitting, I consider the build itself a sunk cost. You never lose those skill points. Moreover, I don't see any skills that the Fighter would be better served picking up instead. The other classes generally specialize in those skills so redundancy among party members is wasteful.

That leaves abilities per day as a measure of comparison. The spell slot represents a greater expenditure than the skill use.



You can get 5 skills maxed, but that, again, comes at the cost of character resources like stat and racial choice.

True, though other races have benefits beyond a single skill. I guess that's the trade off players have to deal with.


This was, in no way, an error. Character build resources are a bigger deal than daily resources. You're spending those points, in a way that's just about identical to the way a wizard could apply a long duration buff, except the wizard gets to change that buff out the next day. You're drawing a dividing line that's not particularly relevant, or rather it's extremely relevant, but in a way that's bad for the fighter.

Character building is not daily resources. The conflation of those concepts is the error.


How many PC classes can you actually name with worse skill use? There aren't many. There are classes with approximately equal skill use, but fighters are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Worse? I generally view the knowledge skills as utterly worthless, so wizard.


Sometimes, there is going to be a spell cast at you on a normal adventure. That spell could come from out of range. There is no goal post motion occurring.

So your argument is that sometimes DM fiat happens? Great, that works versus every class though.


I thought it was clear, but if that's all you're doing, then you're doing next to nothing with the skill. You are effectively making use of the lowest order of handle animal, whereas other classes can make higher order uses. Simultaneously, if you're just using scent and nothing else, then there are ways that these classes, druids especially, can acquire vastly superior vision modes. Your dog friend is a means to an end, and other classes can reach that end better.

Higher order? Such as? I suppose I could make a Fighter who lugs around a bunch of trained marmots who steal things for him, but that seems kind of boring to me.


And now I am a bit angry. You know why? Because you dismissed everything I said, right off the bat, because I miscalculated the number of skill points a fighter gets.
EXCEPT I DIDN'T.
2 skill points a level. 14 int is a +2 modifier. Out of completely idle curiosity, 2+2=4, right? Now, you can add the skill points from human (I assume that's the 5th), but I wasn't talking about a human fighter. I was talking about the fighter chassis itself. But my challenge still stands- make a level 9 human fighter who is capable of doing everything you list here:

And by the way, don't forget that it takes ranks in ride to, you know, ride the hippogriff. Also, craft (armor) and craft (weapons) are two different skills. I'll wait.

You accused me of getting the math wrong. Given what I said, I didn't.

Unfortunately the list you're quoting won't show up in multiquote, so I'll have to get to that later.

*i think it would be fair to say I've already done that as an 8th level build in the 12 step challenge. :)

Sir chuckles, I don't put stock in the tier system. It's too subjective and thus flawed.

[squiggit]

Character building is not daily resources. The conflation of those concepts is the error.
Just to correct: the error here is arbitrarily determining which investment of resources count and which doesn't.


You never lose those skill points.
Technically true, but not entirely given that at higher levels when alternate modes of transportation become affordable even for martial classes those skill points aren't going to be doing much for you.


Sir chuckles, I don't put stock in the tier system. It's too subjective and thus flawed.
And? What part of it do you disagree with? Vague statements like that don't really help (and come off as a bit insulting to certain players on the forums).

[eggynack]

This is where we are splitting, I consider the build itself a sunk cost. You never lose those skill points. Moreover, I don't see any skills that the Fighter would be better served picking up instead. The other classes generally specialize in those skills so redundancy among party members is wasteful.
Ah. Well, you're wrong. I don't know what to tell you. You can spend the points in a few different places. If you spend them in one place, and not another, then that's an opportunity cost. You can't just declare the build a sunk cost, because that's silly. You might as well just stick all the points in craft, and assert that the build is of the same quality as one that takes intimidate and handle animal. It's not, and there is thus a cost to taking nothing but craft, just as taking intimidate and handle animal has the lesser cost of putting points in craft.



True, though other races have benefits beyond a single skill. I guess that's the trade off players have to deal with.
Pretty much.


Character building is not daily resources. The conflation of those concepts is the error.
Character building is lifelong resources, and that resource expenditure determines the resources you can spend on a day to day basis. Consider, for a moment, some hypothetical class that can reassign skill points every morning. In that case, oh man, now they're daily resources, so picking these skills is a bigger cost, so the class must be worse. It's silly.



Worse? I generally view the knowledge skills as utterly worthless, so wizard.
Wizards get a massive amount of skill points, and they have, in addition to knowledges, the ever-useful spellcraft, and craft, which you have an odd affinity for. Knowledges, meanwhile, are far more useful than climb, jump, or swim, at least partially because it gives you greater ability to fight monsters, and on a greater level, because wizards have the power to make use of that knowledge.



So your argument is that sometimes DM fiat happens? Great, that works versus every class though.
An encounter against a caster or ranged character is fiat now? You play odd games.


Higher order? Such as? I suppose I could make a Fighter who lugs around a bunch of trained marmots who steal things for him, but that seems kind of boring to me.
Fighting or guarding, primarily. Animal friends can be pretty good at that sort of thing. Also, as that fighter v. druid thread was going to show, having all of your animal friends stand in the same general area for the use of linked perception, thus causing sky high listen checks. It's not really a direct application of handle animal, but it is certainly a function of handling animals.

[Sir Chuckles]

Sir chuckles, I don't put stock in the tier system. It's too subjective and thus flawed.

Your opinion of the Tier system, along with needing a lot of elaboration to hold any water, doesn't change the rest of what I said, nor does it change the description of a Tier 4 or Tier 5 class, the former fitting the Fighter you're describing excellently.
Also, subject =/= flawed, especially when it makes no claim at not being subjective and even places a disclaimer that the tiers can shift depending on the players and DMs involved.

[OldTrees1]

And now I am a bit angry. You know why? Because you dismissed everything I said, right off the bat, because I miscalculated the number of skill points a fighter gets.
EXCEPT I DIDN'T.
2 skill points a level. 14 int is a +2 modifier. Out of completely idle curiosity, 2+2=4, right? Now, you can add the skill points from human (I assume that's the 5th), but I wasn't talking about a human fighter. I was talking about the fighter chassis itself. But my challenge still stands- make a level 9 human fighter who is capable of doing everything you list here:


They can contribute out of combat. Handle animal lets them track out of combat (using dogs), provide excellent guard duty (again dogs), scout (horse, or hippogriffs), fly (hippogriffs), and so forth. Intimidate is the Fighter social skill, and it also has an in combat purpose. Craft weaponsmithing/armor smithing gives a Fighter a bonus to appraising armaments, and of course jump/climb/swim allow a Fighter to lead the way through dangerous or difficult terrain. Yeah a wizard could burn a fly spell just to get to the top of a cliff, but that won't get the rest of the party up there, and having someone who can scale that wall and tie a rope just saved a valuable spell slot for something useful.

And by the way, don't forget that it takes ranks in ride to, you know, ride the hippogriff. Also, craft (armor) and craft (weapons) are two different skills. I'll wait.

Let's see:
14 Int(15+1/13+1/12/14/10/8), Human Fighter(Skilled City Dweller, Thug, Zhentarim Soldier) = 7 skill points per level (or 84 at 9th level)
Class list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, RideTumble, and Swim.
Thug expanded list: Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (local), and Sleight of Hand
Zhentarim level exclusive list: Bluff and Diplomacy

Handle Animal(Track & Guard)[DC 20-25] (-1 cha, +2 tool, taking 20 is possible, 1 rank minimum) 4 ranks required
Handle Animal(Handle Animal)[DC 10-12-17] (-1 cha, +2 tool, 75% success) 10 ranks required
Ride(flying mount)[DC 5! wow thats low](+2 Dex, +2 tool, +2 synergy, take 1) 0 ranks required (tool merely because mwk tools are cheap at 9th level)
Intimidate[DC level based] 12 ranks recommended
Craft for an Appraise synergy bonus 10 ranks required (5 in each)
Climb/Swim[DCs of 20 seem to match](+3 str, +2 tools, failure is at -5, taking a 1) 10 ranks in Climb/Swim
Tumble 5 ranks
Jump[DCs of 10 would be common but there is an occasionally DC of 20](+3 str, +2 tools, +2 synergy, take 1) 12 ranks in Jump
Use Rope(Tie climbing knot)[DC 10](+2 dex, +2 tool, take 1) 5 ranks

Total so far:
HA 10, Intim 12, Craft 5+5, Climb/Swim 10+10, Tumble 5, Jump 12, Rope 5 = 74 skill points out of 84. So we have 10 left over.
10 ranks in Diplomacy(bought at 3rd, 5th and 9th levels) [since this was not required in the challenge, deduct nitpicks from here]

In the end only 2 skills were at max ranks but your challenge (lvl 9 accomplishing the listed tasks with reasonable certainty) did not require max ranks.

[georgie_leech]

Am I the only person who has a problem with the fact that nearly half the class is dead levels that give you nothing at all?

Hey, it's technically better than the Sorcerer's non-spell class features. :smalltongue:

And no, you're not the only one. I had a list of environmental stuff I was working on for the dead levels, to reflect the master of the battlefield thing that a skilled man-at-arms should have. I should find that.

EDIT: Man, having the search function working again is awesome. :smallbiggrin: Found it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338017-Tucker-s-Commoner&p=17217585&viewfull=1#post17217585)

[StreamOfTheSky]

So are you saying that the fighter not getting buffed between 3.0 and 3.5 didn't contribute some way to them being too weak?

I think barbarian and ranger are good balance points being tier 4 and good at a role.

You said the "problem" was that they got boosted from 3.0 to 3.5 while fighter stayed the same, which implies you're upset the disparity between these classes grew. They are not the problem with the Fighter. Other martials being competent is not a *problem*. if your point was Fighter continuously being relegated to getting another +1 bonus and nothing more...fine, but the other classes getting better has nothing to do with that. Fighter fans demand it to be vanilla and boring and nonmagical, regardless of how much the other martials suck or not.

[tyckspoon]

Ride(flying mount)[DC 5! wow thats low](+2 Dex, +2 tool, +2 synergy, take 1) 0 ranks required (tool merely because mwk tools are cheap at 9th level)


It'll depend on exactly what kind of mount you have and when, but I'd probably aim at DC 10 here - that's the DC for getting your mount to attack. Intelligent animals such as a Griffon or a Pegasus presumably do not need this instruction, but normal horses and Hippogriffs will.

[EugeneVoid]

Let's see:
14 Int(15+1/13+1/12/14/10/8), Human Fighter(Skilled City Dweller, Thug, Zhentarim Soldier) = 7 skill points per level (or 84 at 9th level)
Class list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, RideTumble, and Swim.
Thug expanded list: Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (local), and Sleight of Hand
Zhentarim level exclusive list: Bluff and Diplomacy

Handle Animal(Track & Guard)[DC 20-25] (-1 cha, +2 tool, taking 20 is possible, 1 rank minimum) 4 ranks required
Handle Animal(Handle Animal)[DC 10-12-17] (-1 cha, +2 tool, 75% success) 10 ranks required
Ride(flying mount)[DC 5! wow thats low](+2 Dex, +2 tool, +2 synergy, take 1) 0 ranks required (tool merely because mwk tools are cheap at 9th level)
Intimidate[DC level based] 12 ranks recommended
Craft for an Appraise synergy bonus 10 ranks required (5 in each)
Climb/Swim[DCs of 20 seem to match](+3 str, +2 tools, failure is at -5, taking a 1) 10 ranks in Climb/Swim
Tumble 5 ranks
Jump[DCs of 10 would be common but there is an occasionally DC of 20](+3 str, +2 tools, +2 synergy, take 1) 12 ranks in Jump
Use Rope(Tie climbing knot)[DC 10](+2 dex, +2 tool, take 1) 5 ranks

Total so far:
HA 10, Intim 12, Craft 5+5, Climb/Swim 10+10, Tumble 5, Jump 12, Rope 5 = 74 skill points out of 84. So we have 10 left over.
10 ranks in Diplomacy(bought at 3rd, 5th and 9th levels) [since this was not required in the challenge, deduct nitpicks from here]

In the end only 2 skills were at max ranks but your challenge (lvl 9 accomplishing the listed tasks with reasonable certainty) did not require max ranks.

+1 to OldTrees
Not in the sense that I support his viewpoint, but that he is contributing to the conversation with calculations and evidence. I really think that there is too much "vague" discussion going on.
It does use a bunch of ACFs, which takes away some elegance, but it hits the main points.

Now we know that:
A well-built fighter can (somewhat, maybe limited) do some stuff out of combat in the form of skills.
Base-Class Fighters built the way the writers wanted are terrible. Shield+Sword, all points in strength/con. Playing an Orc or something. Crying when arrows miss, etc.

Edit: Unless someone refutes it or something.

[OldTrees1]

It'll depend on exactly what kind of mount you have and when, but I'd probably aim at DC 10 here - that's the DC for getting your mount to attack. Intelligent animals such as a Griffon or a Pegasus presumably do not need this instruction, but normal horses and Hippogriffs will.

In that case:
Remove Skilled City Dweller (losing Tumble and regaining Ride as a class skill)
Remove 5 ranks from tumble (reducing jump by 2)
Put 3 ranks into ride
Put the remaining 2 ranks into Diplomacy(reaching max ranks)


+1 to OldTrees
Not in the sense that I support his viewpoint, but that he is contributing to the conversation with calculations and evidence. I really think that there is too much "vague" discussion going on.
It does use a bunch of ACFs, which takes away some elegance, but it hits the main points.

Now we know that:
A well-built fighter can (somewhat, maybe limited) do some stuff out of combat in the form of skills.
Base-Class Fighters built the way the writers wanted are terrible. Shield+Sword, all points in strength/con. Playing an Orc or something. Crying when arrows miss, etc.

Edit: Unless someone refutes it or something.

Thanks. I do prefer it when we can examine objectively rather than vague assertions.

While I was defending Vogonjeltz's claims, I must admit that I hold a less extreme point of view. My position is that if you dig through all the material you can make a barely tier 3 Fighter build at the cost of elegance. And that Fighter could have been made a reasonable class if its current design was implemented/supported better.

[Elderand]

While I was defending Vogonjeltz's claims, I must admit that I hold a less extreme point of view. My position is that if you dig through all the material you can make a barely tier 3 Fighter build at the cost of elegance. And that Fighter could have been made a reasonable class if its current design was implemented/supported better.

Which isn't exactly a point in the fighter favor now is it ?
Using several ACF and books you barely manage to keep up with the other core classes who use nothing else than what they started with in core.

This is why people dislike fighters, you do your very best to keep up and almost everyone else can outdo you almost by accident.
It's just sad.

[Boci]

The dog negates any surprise round for an ambusher.

Not by my interpretation. You don't even know if its a combat encounter, it could be a mother deer grazing with bambi, you don't know how many there are, you don't know how far away they are, hell you know which precise direction they are in.

Without filling out some of those blanks, they are still getting a surprise round.


Based on the creatures being large nonhumanoids (not bathing themselves with soap and water). Ever smelled an elephant or hippo? They can be smelled from a few hundred feet by humans, a dog could easily smell them further.

That's not how the scent mechanic works.


Nothing in scent links the smell specifically to a game mechanic.

No, but if the sample creature for tripling the range incapacitates you with its stench, one might assume that to be a requirement for tripling the range of scent.


Spotting/hearing stuff is baseline automatic, it takes no ranks at all to hear a battle from up to 100' away (which is pretty far).

Its 30m...i.e. what the healthy young adult prints in 3 seconds.

[/QUOTE]Common knowledge is anything under 10, that's almost all knowledge of the game world.[/QUOTE]


Healing happens automatically,

And you don't think a fighter potentially be able to heal faster than a mage? Should they have the option of learning how to have stitched their own wounds?


tumble can't happen in medium or heavy armor,

Funny how you should mention armour, that think that reduce the fighters ability to use three of the skills on its precisely scant list. Not only does it give you a check penalty, you get an additional one for jump for reduced movement, which also affects the use of swim and climb, as now you move 10ft instead of 15ft with a successful check.

[OldTrees1]

Which isn't exactly a point in the fighter favor now is it ?
Using several ACF and books you barely manage to keep up with the other core classes who use nothing else than what they started with in core.

This is why people dislike fighters, you do your very best to keep up and almost everyone else can outdo you almost by accident.
It's just sad.

Nope it is not a point in Fighter's favor. In my opinion there are only 2 points in its favor
1) It is a generic martial class based off feats (some of my favorite martial options are feats)
2) The mechanical texture of Fighter (shorthand explanation: never unreadied & focuses on the variations of the attack action)

Some people dislike Fighter. That is their opinion and WotC certainly messed up enough.
However there are those that like the Fighter in spite of WotC's mountain of mistakes. To some of those, Warblade is not a valid substitute. Thankfully WotC's mountain of mistakes does not prevent a working Fighter (although it does make it very inelegant).

Disliking Fighter is well accepted and even people that like Fighter would not make a thread questioning why people dislike Fighter. Hate describes something more. Hate describes both an emotion and a type of response. Either of these might have been the reason for the OP making the thread. Personally I would label the "Warblade is the Fighter errata and any thread about Fighter must have a post about 'OP must use Warblade instead' " crusade as an example of "Fighter Hate".

[Dorian Gray]

While I was defending Vogonjeltz's claims, I must admit that I hold a less extreme point of view. My position is that if you dig through all the material you can make a barely tier 3 Fighter build at the cost of elegance. And that Fighter could have been made a reasonable class if its current design was implemented/supported better.

Alright. I can understand that. My issue is mainly with the core fighter, and I can agree that a skilled optimizer can make the fighter reasonably playable with enough splatbooks- but the core fighter is utterly useless out of combat, and you need to be a good optimizer to make it work even half as well as, say, a rogue. Or an expert.
That being said, nitpicks:
Taking 20 on handle animal takes 20 weeks. Per animal. So if you want to have three guard dogs (knowing attack, guard, and track), you need to take more than 3 years to train them. Maybe you can train them at the same time, maybe not- but either way, it's more than a year of in-game time to train a 13 hp mook.
Riding a mount is DC 5, but riding it in combat is DC 20. So 3 ranks in ride is fine if you only want to scout on your hippogriff, but you'd have to dismount to fight.
Swim takes double the normal armor check penalty. So with 10 ranks in swim, you can't even cross a calm river with reasonable expectations of success (assuming full plate).

[Sir Chuckles]

Alright. I can understand that. My issue is mainly with the core fighter, and I can agree that a skilled optimizer can make the fighter reasonably playable with enough splatbooks- but the core fighter is utterly useless out of combat, and you need to be a good optimizer to make it work even half as well as, say, a rogue. Or an expert.
That being said, nitpicks:
Taking 20 on handle animal takes 20 weeks. Per animal. So if you want to have three guard dogs (knowing attack, guard, and track), you need to take more than 3 years to train them. Maybe you can train them at the same time, maybe not- but either way, it's more than a year of in-game time to train a 13 hp mook.
Riding a mount is DC 5, but riding it in combat is DC 20. So 3 ranks in ride is fine if you only want to scout on your hippogriff, but you'd have to dismount to fight.
Swim takes double the normal armor check penalty. So with 10 ranks in swim, you can't even cross a calm river with reasonable expectations of success (assuming full plate).

Consider that Vogon is giving the Fighter a full year and a full line of apprentices for a single dagger, plus allowances like "Nobody ever climbs in combat" "I don't need more than a few skill points to get the dog." "The dog is omnipotent out to a certain point." and "Not all games start at level 1, the dogs are in my backstory." We had nearly the same discussion before in a different Fighter thread, and his views have not changed, and I doubt anyone will ever sway them. He plays in a vastly different setting than we're used to, and it's jarring for those on the outside. That setting happens to strongly favor low-level straight classed martial characters who can take a beating. It's not a setting that we'd all like to be in, but if he and anyone else who likes it is happy there, so be it.
Unfortunately, it's when those people see it as the only setting that it becomes an argument on the forums. There's one poster in particular I'm irked with whenever he posts. But I'll hold my tongue.

But ultimately, I see Fighter as a partial means to an end. a way to get those darn feats for your Mounted Valorous Lance Charger. I love physical classes, look in my sig. They're all some of my favorite "hit thing harder" characters I've played.

[OldTrees1]

Alright. I can understand that. My issue is mainly with the core fighter, and I can agree that a skilled optimizer can make the fighter reasonably playable with enough splatbooks- but the core fighter is utterly useless out of combat, and you need to be a good optimizer to make it work even half as well as, say, a rogue. Or an expert.
That being said, nitpicks:
Taking 20 on handle animal takes 20 weeks. Per animal. So if you want to have three guard dogs (knowing attack, guard, and track), you need to take more than 3 years to train them. Maybe you can train them at the same time, maybe not- but either way, it's more than a year of in-game time to train a 13 hp mook.
Riding a mount is DC 5, but riding it in combat is DC 20. So 3 ranks in ride is fine if you only want to scout on your hippogriff, but you'd have to dismount to fight.
Swim takes double the normal armor check penalty. So with 10 ranks in swim, you can't even cross a calm river with reasonable expectations of success (assuming full plate).
Agreed.

Good point about training but the Handle Animal usage of Handle Animal set a higher bar so Training would be done in 1 week per animal at a 60% chance of success per week. 3 tricks * 3 dogs * 5/3rds weeks = 15 weeks

3 ranks in ride succeeds on a DC 10 by taking a 1. In combat riding would be 50% success +5% per rank stolen from diplomacy. So a good nitpick.

I assumed armor would be taken off for fording a river or other swim checks. Most in combat swimming can be handled by "taking a walk" while holding your breath. (It's silly but sadly true)

[Cero Oscura]

Dogs keep being brought up as valid workarounds to the inadequacies of the fighter's out-of-combat skills. Maybe I play in the wrong campaigns, but if I ever tried that trick, I have a feeling I would find myself burning through dogs at an impressive rate. There are too many fireball-happy wizards and such around 8th level... At least the druid's animal companion gets bonuses to survivability.

[Sir Chuckles]

Dogs keep being brought up as valid workarounds to the inadequacies of the fighter's out-of-combat skills. Maybe I play in the wrong campaigns, but if I ever tried that trick, I have a feeling I would find myself burning through dogs at an impressive rate. There are too many fireball-happy wizards and such around 8th level... At least the druid's animal companion gets bonuses to survivability.

It was brought up, and promptly ignored. Heck, against this theoretical stealth enemy, it would probably target the dog (read: alarm system) first.

[Boci]

It was brought up, and promptly ignored. Heck, against this theoretical stealth enemy, it would probably target the dog (read: alarm system) first.

They would have to be intelligent enough to realize that, but if so, yeah they could totally do that. Then retreat and attempt a second ambush, without that pesky mutt.

[Vogonjeltz]

Just to correct: the error here is arbitrarily determining which investment of resources count and which doesn't.

Technically true, but not entirely given that at higher levels when alternate modes of transportation become affordable even for martial classes those skill points aren't going to be doing much for you.

And? What part of it do you disagree with? Vague statements like that don't really help (and come off as a bit insulting to certain players on the forums).


Using comparable resources is not arbitrary, it's reasoned thought.

What method of flight for martial characters is cheaper than a flying mount and lasts as long (indefinitely)?

The statement stands for itself, it was not vague. Your concern for the emotional well being of certain players is noted.


Ah. Well, you're wrong. I don't know what to tell you. You can spend the points in a few different places. If you spend them in one place, and not another, then that's an opportunity cost. You can't just declare the build a sunk cost, because that's silly. You might as well just stick all the points in craft, and assert that the build is of the same quality as one that takes intimidate and handle animal. It's not, and there is thus a cost to taking nothing but craft, just as taking intimidate and handle animal has the lesser cost of putting points in craft.

It only has a cost if you aren't at the maximum ranks in a skill. Furthermore, if you aren't at max ranks, but further ranks have no tangible benefit, there is no opportunity cost. I didn't do anything as you were ridiculing, so let's stick to the actual case. Which is once the characters have been created, there is no opportunity cost to using the skills you've purchased. There is however one for using a spell to achieve a means that is easily replicated by a skill.


Wizards get a massive amount of skill points,

No they really do not. They get 2+int mod, same as a Fighter. And when you consider that only the raw intelligence counts (no enhancement mods) it becomes more equal: elite array human wizard with 15 in int and elite array human fighter with 14 in int have identical skill point totals for at least the first 4 levels. Sure, wizard will probably pull ahead by investing attribute increases, but they also have to feed all those knowledge skills.

They both get 5 skill points/level. How is it that you are characterizing the number 5 as massive when it's the Wizard, but humiliatingly low when it's the Fighter?

I appreciate your pov (later unquoted) that knowledge is power, and it might be useful for planning purposes. But I find in practice the DMs provide information regardless of knowledge checks, rendering them largely unimportant. Nice, but not necessary.


An encounter against a caster or ranged character is fiat now? You play odd games.

I wasn't talking about my games. You suggested that sometimes things happen that a character can't possibly do anything about. That's a long-form version of saying DM fiat.


Fighting or guarding, primarily. Animal friends can be pretty good at that sort of thing. Also, as that fighter v. druid thread was going to show, having all of your animal friends stand in the same general area for the use of linked perception, thus causing sky high listen checks. It's not really a direct application of handle animal, but it is certainly a function of handling animals.

War animals are automatically trained in fighting and guarding.
I think the linked perception thing sounds pretty interesting, though moving them (non-companion ones) still requires an action, so it'd take a few minutes game time to do.


Your opinion of the Tier system, along with needing a lot of elaboration to hold any water, doesn't change the rest of what I said, nor does it change the description of a Tier 4 or Tier 5 class, the former fitting the Fighter you're describing excellently.
Also, subject =/= flawed, especially when it makes no claim at not being subjective and even places a disclaimer that the tiers can shift depending on the players and DMs involved.

I value objectivity in my ranking systems, thus subjectivity is flawed.


Fighter fans demand it to be vanilla and boring and nonmagical, regardless of how much the other martials suck or not.

I don't demand the Fighter be vanilla. And I'd even like it if they gave the class full initiator level + a maneuver/stance every 'dead level', with recovery at the end of each encounter.


It'll depend on exactly what kind of mount you have and when, but I'd probably aim at DC 10 here - that's the DC for getting your mount to attack. Intelligent animals such as a Griffon or a Pegasus presumably do not need this instruction, but normal horses and Hippogriffs will.

DC 10 means only +9 is required, that's 2 from handle animal synergy, 2 from say dex bonus (13 goes to 14 with an attribute point easily enough), and 5 ranks. (a single level worth of skill points.


Not by my interpretation. You don't even know if its a combat encounter, it could be a mother deer grazing with bambi, you don't know how many there are, you don't know how far away they are, hell you know which precise direction they are in.

Without filling out some of those blanks, they are still getting a surprise round.

Alarm is sounded, people arm themselves, roll initiative. It doesn't matter if it's bambi or not, if it's visible or not. The players are aware of its existence, whatever it is. The DMG only considers awareness in the use of a surprise round, the raising of an alarm constitutes awareness.


That's not how the scent mechanic works.

It's an argument that the creatures are smelly, which goes to part of how scent works.


No, but if the sample creature for tripling the range incapacitates you with its stench, one might assume that to be a requirement for tripling the range of scent.

The other sample creature is a skunk. Skunks aren't even listed in the MM, thus they have no game element. That means it's just a question of: Is this monster probably smelly? Yes/No


Its 30m...i.e. what the healthy young adult prints in 3 seconds.

Was that supposed to be sprints? What is this 30m referring to? It seems to be replying to the listen range of someone with 0 ranks in listen.


And you don't think a fighter potentially be able to heal faster than a mage? Should they have the option of learning how to have stitched their own wounds?

Well, I don't think the Fighter arch-type necessarily has a clue about how healing people, nor can characters use long-term care on themselves, that is represented by the heal skill. But there is a feat that increases natural healing rate, I think it's in the complete warrior.


Alright. I can understand that. My issue is mainly with the core fighter, and I can agree that a skilled optimizer can make the fighter reasonably playable with enough splatbooks- but the core fighter is utterly useless out of combat, and you need to be a good optimizer to make it work even half as well as, say, a rogue. Or an expert.
That being said, nitpicks:
Taking 20 on handle animal takes 20 weeks. Per animal. So if you want to have three guard dogs (knowing attack, guard, and track), you need to take more than 3 years to train them. Maybe you can train them at the same time, maybe not- but either way, it's more than a year of in-game time to train a 13 hp mook.
Riding a mount is DC 5, but riding it in combat is DC 20. So 3 ranks in ride is fine if you only want to scout on your hippogriff, but you'd have to dismount to fight.
Swim takes double the normal armor check penalty. So with 10 ranks in swim, you can't even cross a calm river with reasonable expectations of success (assuming full plate).

To address the nits in order:

You didn't raise this, but one can't take 20 on animal training as there is a consequence for failure.
Training a dog in a purpose requires distinct amounts of time: Hunting is six weeks, Guarding is four weeks (Guard Dogs), Combat Riding is three weeks (Riding Dogs). As both Guard Dogs and Riding Dogs are clearly purchasable, we only need to pay attention to Hunting dog(s) which might require training from the baseline dog.
Six weeks, DC 20 check. As the training only requires 3 hours per day, it's conceivably possible for a character to train up to 5 animals per training period (assuming 8 hours for sleeping and an hour for eating).

It only takes 6 weeks, not 3 years. Now, taking 10 is possible, so to have a guaranteed success (by taking 10) requires a +10 modifier, assuming poor charisma from elite array we're looking at 11 ranks, or 8th level minimum, although one could hire an assistant for a silver a day to provide a +2 bonus, providing for guaranteed training of hunting dogs through taking 10 at 6th level. The earliest a success is possible assuming the poor charisma is level 1. Training checks are only done halfway through, so by 3 weeks either it is a known failure to restart, or a success which just needs to be finished out. Training 3 dogs with a total bonus of +3 would likely result in at least one success by 9 weeks.

Guiding with knees is DC 5 (that's different than riding), Controlling a non-combat trained mount in combat is DC 20, controlling a combat-trained mount in combat is DC 0. A fighter is fortunate in that they can train their own mounts for Combat-Riding, and avoid the risks of a skittish mount.

Swim does double the armor check penalty, which is why I highly recommend the armor crystal that removes the armor check penalty.


They would have to be intelligent enough to realize that, but if so, yeah they could totally do that. Then retreat and attempt a second ambush, without that pesky mutt.

They would also have to attack outside the dogs scent/sight/listen ranges. It's certainly possible, but unlikely for random encounters, and at this point how is killing dogs any less difficult than instagibbing anyone?

[Boci]

I value objectivity in my ranking systems, thus subjectivity is flawed.

Can you objectively rank classes? Is your own ranking of the fighter class not subjective, and therefore useless by your own system of value?


Alarm is sounded, people arm themselves, roll initiative. It doesn't matter if it's bambi or not, if it's visible or not. The players are aware of its existence, whatever it is. The DMG only considers awareness in the use of a surprise round, the raising of an alarm constitutes awareness.

Is awareness ever defined? Because I would define it as being aware of a threat's presence. Not just potential. Do you think the fighter wouldn't eat a surprise round against an invisible opponent? Because I'm pretty sure they would.


The other sample creature is a skunk. Skunks aren't even listed in the MM, thus they have no game element. That means it's just a question of: Is this monster probably smelly? Yes/No

Its not binary, because there are 3 options. Are they going to smell more than rotting garbage? Probably not. So standard, max double range.


Was that supposed to be sprints? What is this 30m referring to? It seems to be replying to the listen range of someone with 0 ranks in listen.

30 meters is roughly 100ft. That is the distance a healthy toung adult sprints in 3 seconds. Its really not that great a distance.



They would also have to attack outside the dogs scent/sight/listen ranges. It's certainly possible, but unlikely for random encounters, and at this point how is killing dogs any less difficult than instagibbing anyone?

Yes, very yes. How much hp does a dog have? How much hp will the party member have. As levels go up, the difference becomes increasingly vast.

[eggynack]

It only has a cost if you aren't at the maximum ranks in a skill. Furthermore, if you aren't at max ranks, but further ranks have no tangible benefit, there is no opportunity cost. I didn't do anything as you were ridiculing, so let's stick to the actual case. Which is once the characters have been created, there is no opportunity cost to using the skills you've purchased. There is however one for using a spell to achieve a means that is easily replicated by a skill.
You are correct that the skills you select only have an opportunity cost if you couldn't possibly add more skill-power to your build with more points. So, if you've maxed out literally every skill in the game, in-class and cross-class, then huzzah, you've eliminated opportunity cost. As for the characters already having been created, that is, as I've noted, silly. Check this. Using alter self for a flying form has no opportunity cost because I've been generated in a world where I've already cast alter self for a flying form. You're not avoiding the opportunity cost by setting it in the past. You're merely stating that the your character paid that cost at character creation. That cost continues to affect your character on a day to day basis.




No they really do not. They get 2+int mod, same as a Fighter. And when you consider that only the raw intelligence counts (no enhancement mods) it becomes more equal: elite array human wizard with 15 in int and elite array human fighter with 14 in int have identical skill point totals for at least the first 4 levels. Sure, wizard will probably pull ahead by investing attribute increases, but they also have to feed all those knowledge skills.
Sure, if you're putting about the same amount of points in as a wizard, you'll have the same quantity of skills. That just seems unfeasible in most cases. For example, in this case, you're sacrificing HP or initiative in comparison to the wizard by making this decision. After all, you've set strength primary and int secondary, leaving dex and con at tertiary stat status, while the wizard gets to set one of those secondary.


They both get 5 skill points/level. How is it that you are characterizing the number 5 as massive when it's the Wizard, but humiliatingly low when it's the Fighter?

Because I wasn't assuming 5. If we're not talking about the elite array, then the wizard is likely running an 18 or 20 in intelligence, meaning 6 or 7 skill points. Similarly, the fighter is unlikely to push intelligence as far as you've stated, and if they do, they've gotten less out of that stat placement.


I appreciate your pov (later unquoted) that knowledge is power, and it might be useful for planning purposes. But I find in practice the DMs provide information regardless of knowledge checks, rendering them largely unimportant. Nice, but not necessary.
It definitely depends on the game somewhat, but that's true of a good number of skills. Not all games are going to require wall climbing or swimming, after all. Knowledge is good because it can turn your metagame abilities into actual game abilities, granting a justification for your tactics and plans.



I wasn't talking about my games. You suggested that sometimes things happen that a character can't possibly do anything about. That's a long-form version of saying DM fiat.
When did I say you can't do anything about it? Maybe your fighter can't do anything about it, because the field in which he can sense the wizard is less than the wizard's range, but if you had a better vision mode, then you would be able to do something about it. This has nothing to do with fiat. It's just a standard encounter that decided not to attack from within 60 feet.


War animals are automatically trained in fighting and guarding.
Yes, but they're worse at it. Because druids can buff, and because animal companions tend to be stronger than ordinary versions of those animals.


I think the linked perception thing sounds pretty interesting, though moving them (non-companion ones) still requires an action, so it'd take a few minutes game time to do.
I think you can just pull off the moving part with heel. I personally was planning to run it with wild empathy, though I suppose the handle method could work too. The whole thing does take awhile, especially if you have to gather the birds, but it's a good trick if you can pull it.




It's an argument that the creatures are smelly, which goes to part of how scent works.
It is part of how scent works, but not in the way you stated, where the scent range extends out several hundred feet.



The other sample creature is a skunk. Skunks aren't even listed in the MM, thus they have no game element. That means it's just a question of: Is this monster probably smelly? Yes/No
Actually, the question is whether the monster is probably smellier than a skunk. I'm pretty sure that there's some objective scientific measurement of how smelly a skunk is, so that should definitely work for real creatures, with the smelliness of other creatures likely depending largely on fiat. In the latter case, it seems troubling that you have to rely on specific DM decisions for the success of your plan.

[Sir Chuckles]

What method of flight for martial characters is cheaper than a flying mount and lasts as long (indefinitely)?

Wings. Be a Raptoran or Winged Creature. Costs no gold, no skill points, and lasts until unconscious, bound, dead, or otherwise helpless. Just like a flying mount. To go further, a Ranger can also get a flying mount as an animal companion. To take that a step even further than that, any character can have a flying mount with Wild Cohort.



I value objectivity in my ranking systems, thus subjectivity is flawed.

Then, in turn, your views are flawed as they lack objectivity. In addition, the tier system is fairly objective, or at least tries to be.



They would also have to attack outside the dogs scent/sight/listen ranges. It's certainly possible, but unlikely for random encounters, and at this point how is killing dogs any less difficult than instagibbing anyone?

Flat-plain fallacy. We had this problem in the last thread. And I don't see how attacking from beyond 60ft is automatically equated with instagibbing.
A Goblin straight out of the Monster Manual has a +5 on Hide and a +5 on Move Silently. Your dog has the same for Spot and Listen. You, the Fighter 1, have, at best using the Elite Array, a +4, assuming you put at least the 14 into Wisdom and put two cross-class ranks into each.
If you're in a forest, he can hide from you fairly effectively, considering distance penalties to Spot and Listen. Bonuses are even further at night, as he has Darkvision.

All your arguments rely on fiat, in that the setting, the DM, time constraints, and whatever city you're in has exactly what you need at most, if not all, times.

Most of all, I'm struggling to see your view here. My view, and likely other's views, is that the Fighter has a difficult time, or has to jump through hoops, in order to contribute meaningfully on a consistent basis to an equally optimized and active party. So far you've shown that the Fighter can do some physical activities well (possible by nearly all other classes) and can buy expendable animals to cover his bases (something other classes can do as well, plus can sometimes do more effectively).

What is the Fighter to you?

[Dorian Gray]

A Goblin straight out of the Monster Manual has a +5 on Hide and a +5 on Move Silently. Your dog has the same for Spot and Listen. You, the Fighter 1, have, at best using the Elite Array, a +4, assuming you put at least the 14 into Wisdom and put two cross-class ranks into each.
If you're in a forest, he can hide from you fairly effectively, considering distance penalties to Spot and Listen. Bonuses are even further at night, as he has Darkvision.


Nope! He put his second-highest stat into intelligence. His fighter needs a high strength score to fight, a high intelligence score to have enough skills to pretend to do half of what he needs, and he dumps dexterity, charisma, and wisdom. Meanwhile, that +1 con bonus from levels 1-8 means that he loses out on 1 health per level- so he could just play a ranger and get the same result, only better.
Which is what we've been saying this entire time.

Hey, I actually just noticed that. If you have 15 (16) strength, and instead of giving your intelligence a 14, you could put that 14 in constitution, play a ranger, have 10 int, and do literally everything you have argued that the fighter can do in this thread- and be more combat viable, because you get a badass animal companion and some limited spells.

[VoxRationis]

Nope! He put his second-highest stat into intelligence. His fighter needs a high strength score to fight, a high intelligence score to have enough skills to pretend to do half of what he needs, and he dumps dexterity, charisma, and wisdom. Meanwhile, that +1 con bonus from levels 1-8 means that he loses out on 1 health per level- so he could just play a ranger and get the same result, only better.
Which is what we've been saying this entire time.

Hey, I actually just noticed that. If you have 15 (16) strength, and instead of giving your intelligence a 14, you could put that 14 in constitution, play a ranger, have 10 int, and do literally everything you have argued that the fighter can do in this thread- and be more combat viable, because you get a badass animal companion and some limited spells.

Of course, the ranger doesn't get heavy armor proficiency and has class features emphasizing difficult-to-pull-off fighting styles.

[ryu]

Of course, the ranger doesn't get heavy armor proficiency and has class features emphasizing difficult-to-pull-off fighting styles.

Given the same general amount of splat digging he gets slightly worse wizard casting AND wildshape in exchange. I think that's more than a fair trade. Don't you?

[Vogonjeltz]

Can you objectively rank classes? Is your own ranking of the fighter class not subjective, and therefore useless by your own system of value?

Yes. Yes.


Is awareness ever defined? Because I would define it as being aware of a threat's presence. Not just potential. Do you think the fighter wouldn't eat a surprise round against an invisible opponent? Because I'm pretty sure they would.

It's up to DM discretion as to when each side becomes aware. I'd say the alarm raised by something (in this case, a trained guard dog), is sufficient to place players on their guard, which is the equivalent of fighting an invisible foe. They don't get a Dex bonus (flatfooted), but they also don't suffer from a surprise round.


Its not binary, because there are 3 options. Are they going to smell more than rotting garbage? Probably not. So standard, max double range.

30 meters is roughly 100ft. That is the distance a healthy toung adult sprints in 3 seconds. Its really not that great a distance.

I'm inclined to say a carnivore (1st example) will smell much worse that some garbage. Easily skunk cabbage level of odor.

It's not far to run, but it is far to hear something that isn't making a lot of noise.


Yes, very yes. How much hp does a dog have? How much hp will the party member have. As levels go up, the difference becomes increasingly vast.

And even if something kills the dog in a single attack, that's a hit that was soaked by a 25gp mook instead of the wizard.


You are correct that the skills you select only have an opportunity cost if you couldn't possibly add more skill-power to your build with more points. So, if you've maxed out literally every skill in the game, in-class and cross-class, then huzzah, you've eliminated opportunity cost. As for the characters already having been created, that is, as I've noted, silly. Check this. Using alter self for a flying form has no opportunity cost because I've been generated in a world where I've already cast alter self for a flying form. You're not avoiding the opportunity cost by setting it in the past. You're merely stating that the your character paid that cost at character creation. That cost continues to affect your character on a day to day basis.

You could be using the spell slot for something else, or even using the spell at a more opportune time. That's the problem, instead of using that spell to overcome a challenge not easily solved by mundane skills (though I think we'd first have to come up with such a thing), it's getting wasted on something that can easily be solved by the mundane skills of non wizards.


Sure, if you're putting about the same amount of points in as a wizard, you'll have the same quantity of skills. That just seems unfeasible in most cases. For example, in this case, you're sacrificing HP or initiative in comparison to the wizard by making this decision. After all, you've set strength primary and int secondary, leaving dex and con at tertiary stat status, while the wizard gets to set one of those secondary.

In elite array the difference is minimal. Fighters are generally in heavy armor, so a high Dex bonus is less useful.


Because I wasn't assuming 5. If we're not talking about the elite array, then the wizard is likely running an 18 or 20 in intelligence, meaning 6 or 7 skill points. Similarly, the fighter is unlikely to push intelligence as far as you've stated, and if they do, they've gotten less out of that stat placement.

If skills are really that precious, the extra int is meaningful for the Fighter. If they aren't, then why does it matter if the Fighter has 4 skill points or 5?


It definitely depends on the game somewhat, but that's true of a good number of skills. Not all games are going to require wall climbing or swimming, after all. Knowledge is good because it can turn your metagame abilities into actual game abilities, granting a justification for your tactics and plans.

What kind of adventure doesn't have something to be climbed into/over?! (Meh)



.
When did I say you can't do anything about it? Maybe your fighter can't do anything about it, because the field in which he can sense the wizard is less than the wizard's range, but if you had a better vision mode, then you would be able to do something about it. This has nothing to do with fiat. It's just a standard encounter that decided not to attack from within 60 feet.

Only the classes with spot/listen as class skills and/or a focus on wisdom are going to be better than average at not getting snuck up on. In that respect, the Fighter is no worse off than the sorcerer, wizard, dragon shaman, dusk blade, knight, crusader, swordsage, warblade, hexblade, samurai, swashbuckler, archivist, dread necromancer, favored soul, shugenja, healer, binder, truenamer, psion, psychic warrior, warlock, warmage, Wu Jen, ardent, or divine mind. You know, almost all classes.



Yes, but they're worse at it. Because druids can buff, and because animal companions tend to be stronger than ordinary versions of those animals.


The animals strength has no bearing on the ability of a character to handle said animal. We don't disagree the companion is a tougher animal.



It is part of how scent works, but not in the way you stated, where the scent range extends out several hundred feet.

Actually, the question is whether the monster is probably smellier than a skunk. I'm pretty sure that there's some objective scientific measurement of how smelly a skunk is, so that should definitely work for real creatures, with the smelliness of other creatures likely depending largely on fiat. In the latter case, it seems troubling that you have to rely on specific DM decisions for the success of your plan.

Not smellier than. It only needs to be about as smelly as. This is a much lower bar than you might be thinking.


Wings. Be a Raptoran or Winged Creature. Costs no gold, no skill points, and lasts until unconscious, bound, dead, or otherwise helpless. Just like a flying mount. To go further, a Ranger can also get a flying mount as an animal companion. To take that a step even further than that, any character can have a flying mount with Wild Cohort.

In an RP sense, one does not get to choose their race. It's something that they are basically stuck with for life.

Skipping the ad hominem.



A Goblin straight out of the Monster Manual has a +5 on Hide and a +5 on Move Silently. Your dog has the same for Spot and Listen. You, the Fighter 1, have, at best using the Elite Array, a +4, assuming you put at least the 14 into Wisdom and put two cross-class ranks into each.
If you're in a forest, he can hide from you fairly effectively, considering distance penalties to Spot and Listen. Bonuses are even further at night, as he has Darkvision.

It's a 25% swing vs someone with 0 ranks and no better than average wisdom. It could go either way. The dog having scent though makes it unlikely the goblin could hide for long, especially upwind. I found the rest of your post to be insulting.


Hey, I actually just noticed that. If you have 15 (16) strength, and instead of giving your intelligence a 14, you could put that 14 in constitution, play a ranger, have 10 int, and do literally everything you have argued that the fighter can do in this thread- and be more combat viable, because you get a badass animal companion and some limited spells

Two things:
1) I was arguing the Fighter is capable of accomplishing many things out of combat, I never said once said the Ranger was incapable.
2) Fighter will be better at any given fighting style than the ranger, by virtue of having more feats. Ranger only gets 3 feats in their combat style, fighter gets 11. (Not counting general feats of course).

[Anlashok]

I found the rest of your post to be insulting.
Someone poking holes in your position should be informative, not insulting.

[eggynack]

You could be using the spell slot for something else, or even using the spell at a more opportune time. That's the problem, instead of using that spell to overcome a challenge not easily solved by mundane skills (though I think we'd first have to come up with such a thing), it's getting wasted on something that can easily be solved by the mundane skills of non wizards.
How could I possibly do either of those things? I literally just cast the spell. You all saw it. There is thus no cost, because it's in the past. There can't be a cost if it's in the past.


In elite array the difference is minimal. Fighters are generally in heavy armor, so a high Dex bonus is less useful.
I'm not sure when this necessarily became the elite array, but we're still talking about some reasonably sized downsides here, mostly from the constitution loss.


If skills are really that precious, the extra int is meaningful for the Fighter. If they aren't, then why does it matter if the Fighter has 4 skill points or 5?
They are what they are. The extra points are somewhat worse for fighters, because the fighter skill list is terrible. That's kinda the whole premise, I think, that fighters are really low on the skill totem pole.


What kind of adventure doesn't have something to be climbed into/over?! (Meh)
I'd think a lot, actually. Any sort of dungeon, any sort of city campaign, anything aquatic, really, most things. I can't think of that many situations where you and your goal are separated by something climbable. I can think of some, but not many.



Only the classes with spot/listen as class skills and/or a focus on wisdom are going to be better than average at not getting snuck up on. In that respect, the Fighter is no worse off than the sorcerer, wizard, dragon shaman, dusk blade, knight, crusader, swordsage, warblade, hexblade, samurai, swashbuckler, archivist, dread necromancer, favored soul, shugenja, healer, binder, truenamer, psion, psychic warrior, warlock, warmage, Wu Jen, ardent, or divine mind. You know, almost all classes.

You're a bit stuck in spot/listen mode here. A decent number of those classes have access to alternate vision modes, or stealth of their own, or good defenses if the wizard attack does happen. Fighters are deficient in a lot of ways.


The animals strength has no bearing on the ability of a character to handle said animal. We don't disagree the companion is a tougher animal.

I honestly couldn't care less about how much your skill points are being put to use or not. All that matters is the result. If your fighter based animal use plan produces worse results than my druid based one, that's really all I need to know. And it does, obviously. Also, as I've pointed out, druids actually do have a couple of handle animal boosting resources, so that's kinda neat.


Not smellier than. It only needs to be about as smelly as. This is a much lower bar than you might be thinking.
The line between smellier and as smelly is basically razor thin, almost to the point of irrelevance. I wouldn't call that a much lower bar. As for this being a low bar, I don't need game statistics to state that skunks actually weaponize smelliness. You really need to be hitting that level of stink.


In an RP sense, one does not get to choose their race. It's something that they are basically stuck with for life.
This is utterly irrelevant. There is no RP sense. Players get to choose the race of their character, and they can do so in an optimal way.

[Vogonjeltz]

Someone poking holes in your position should be informative, not insulting.

He wasn't poking holes in my reasoning, he was making personal attacks.