Feeling about the fighter

[gooddragon1]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

[NotScaryBats]

This is also much much easier to do at lower levels. Even where OotS is now, you can see V has become far and away the most powerful party member.

[Urpriest]

Reposted from the fighter hate thread because it got buried among the other arguments there without any feedback:

I wanted to post this on a monk thread I saw earlier but can't find it.

Fighters and low tier classes are like superman. Wait, wait, hear me out. Stop throwing things.

Superman is as powerful as the writers make him. Some days he's sneezing out universes... other days he struggles to lift a car.

The main webcomic on this website indicates that it is possible to write a fighter to contribute in the same combats as a wizard and cleric as long as they reign it in (and don't pick the incantatrix... or the good feats... or any really good spells... or... yeah). The point is that if you have people play casters like a beginner might then the casters go down a tier (maybe) and the fighter goes up a tier and a half (I wanna believe this, don't take it away from me pleeeease). So putting the casters in melee danger and not giving them the option to run without failing the mission could be an example where the fighter can protect them while they do their thing.

Just how I feel about it anyways.

===

I think it depends on how much your DM/players reign in the casters as well as how the story is written. If you allow the wizard to scry and die the enemy then of course they dominate. If you make those things less absolute then they can still contribute them and they'll be helpful but they might not run away with the mod. I'm not just saying this though. I've played through games where the cleric was envious of the fighter (there was no DMM, no out of core spells without special access, etc though).

That's the part that confuses me. If the casters are already in melee, there's nothing a Fighter can do to protect them in 3.5, so I'm not sure what you're thinking about happening here.

[ngilop]

I agree with this.

and its the other main issue on what is wrong with the fighter for 3rd ed.

To refres on the first main issue.
everything in previous editions that were fighter exclusive or everybody got, the fighter got X+y were taken away and either given to everybody OR equalized for everyone


SO now power attack is the same for everybody, no more every get s 1 for 1 but the fighter gets a 1 for 2 ratio nope it now depends on he weapon

and combat expertise ( why the changed it from parry makes no sense to me) is every body gets a 1 fr 1 no more fighter gets an additional amounr when doing the action

everybody gets multiple attack in a turn BUT it now requires a full round action ( ya know inless you are a barbarian, wizard, druid, cleric, well ya know ANYTHING but a fighter, monk o rogue)

everybody got a nice attack bonus increase. oh yeah.. cept for the fighter ( and other full BaB guys but that is besides the point)

I could go on for other such like this BUT i'll stop my tirade here, for your sake :)

the other problem is, while the writers of 3rd ed were fine givin wizards, clerics,and druids super crazy legendary powers found in myths and religious texts with out of the world and inhumanly possible actions..

they took a look at the fighter ( and rogue too.. gotta show him some love) and said
'this guy is only allowed to do what WE CAN DO ON EARTH RAWR!' instead of doing what I have always envisioned the fighter repsenting and looking at such figures as 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, and Turin.

just likeZeigandar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It)(and myself) said a high level fighter should be duplicating the things Heracles Beowulf nad others of that ilk were doing.. no the same thing he been doing for the last 15+ levels.

If you read the fighter's fluf text. it says almost as much. they have the best all around fighting ability (lies of course) the are the questing knight, king's champion and other such (again all lies)

a minor as most look at it issue with the fighter is the inclusion of several classes that really should have been fighter aspects.

for example the barbarian, knight, swashbuckler, and marshal all should have been fighter things.

That why I love Jiriku's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?194834-3-5-Fighter-Remix-Doin-it-old-school) fighter fix as well as my own in progress (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?318268-My-Latest-big-project!-(-a-big-deal-fighter-fix))I just see the fighter as having the same baseline abilities that are required to be a master of combat then archetypes o specializations that further put your character into the role you want, like archer, commander etc etc. just like how every wizad/cleric gets the same access to their abilities(splls) but their selection further specializes their character (spells known/domains)


I argue the barbarian is not even worthy of a class himself but I know im in the minority here.. also one last rant. if the barbarian IN FLUFF is supposed to be the big strong stupid guy who chops with his axe first second and then loots and looks puzzled when the party says "ask questions" why does he get twice the skill points of the fighter?

[Red Fel]

That's the part that confuses me. If the casters are already in melee, there's nothing a Fighter can do to protect them in 3.5, so I'm not sure what you're thinking about happening here.

Same. There's no guaranteed way to stop an enemy from hitting your friends. (Well, there are spells that do that, but you'd need a caster for... Oh, wait.) Putting your casters into melee doesn't make them less powerful.

In fact, one of the defining traits of Tier 1 and 2 classes is that, with the right spell selection or abilities, they can be just as effective in melee (if not moreso) than a melee class. So that's that.

That said, you do make a very good point about player skill and optimization - a strong player playing a "weaker" class, like Fighter, will be able to overshadow and outperform a weak player playing a "stronger" class, like Wizard. This is very true, which is why the Tier System does not account for player skill or style; it merely examines the abilities and versatility available to the class. As has been previously observed, a poorly-optimized Fighter will be somewhat rotten at hitting things with a stick; a poorly-optimized Wizard has literally dozens of ways to kill himself and the party. There is a difference of floors.

But your explanation - that a good player can make the class better - is only partially accurate. A good player can perform the class better, but the class itself is the same. The Fighter has the same floor and ceiling regardless of whether he's played by Timmy or Tippy. He has the same feats, ACFs and PrCs available to him. The ability of the player involved is not a feature of the class itself. Similarly, the actions of the DM in limiting what players can or cannot do with their character (e.g. letting the Wizard "scry and die" or not) are not features of the class, but rather external limitations.

In essence, you're arguing a version of the Oberoni Fallacy. That fallacy is that something isn't broken if the DM can fix it. What you're arguing is that a class isn't weak if it's played by a capable player, and if stronger classes have external limitations that prevent them from reaching full power. It's a similar argument with a similar flaw - in order for your argument to be valid, the Fighter class must be weak enough that external effort is necessary to equalize it. If external force is necessary, your argument is invalid because the Fighter class is weak.

Do I personally love melee classes? You betcha. I love their flavor, I love the visceral feel of rolling my attacks and invoking the Chunky Salsa Rule. I love knowing that if it weren't for sleep and healing, I could theoretically do this all day. But I know that melee classes lack the versatility of caster classes, and claiming that things can be made otherwise by nerfing casters into the ground just isn't right.

[Trasilor]

To me, I look at the fighter v wizard as it evolved from AD&D 2nd edition.

This is before the concept of feats and skills. As a fighter, you were stronger. I don't mean your best stat was STR, I mean a fighter got to have a higher STR. Your HP were not only higher, you got more HP due to higher CON score. Only rogues got skills (move silent, listen, etc), otherwise you had proficiencies (which were originally optional): weapon and non-weapon. That meant you knew how to wield specific weapons and had what we now call either the craft/profession skill through non-weapon proficiencies. And, leveling was done at different experience point breaks. A level 5 rogue need as much exp as a level 3 fighter (or something like that). Spell casting was much different. Creating magical items was not easy or possible most of the time. Game breaking spells were few and far between. Even getting new spells was difficult b/c it was up to the DM how you got spells (no guarantee of new spells per level).

I bring this up b/c 3.0 and subsequently 3.5 were extensions of this system.

The skill set for the fighter and wizard remain virtually the same between 2e and 3e. The only difference is, wizards got highly useful skill relevant to their class and the fighter didn't. Furthermore, wizards got access to spells that supplemented their horrible skill selections.

I am sure the designers were tickled pink when their fighter could now use all the weapons (something that was not feasible in 2e) and had skills (again something not feasible in 2e). With the addition of these cool new feats, the fighter becomes a highly versatile character concept. The obvious problem is that now everybody can do this.

Feats are not unique. Skills are not unique. It is obvious the game designers confused feats (especially feat trees) with class features. The simple fact remains, if you let the fighter get every single fighter bonus feat (excluding ToB) they would basically be a martial class with a bunch of 6-8th level abilities.


Don't get me wrong. I love martial classes. I like to describe how my greatsword impacts my enemy spraying a fountain of blood all over me and my allies. I like the thrill of the the critical hit and crushing an enemy under my physical might. I relish the combat. I just wish they allowed the fighter to do more than swing a sword...:smallsigh:

Regarding tiers.

Tiers are an opinion (albeit a thoroughly thought out one) in which someone discussed the potential of each class in overcoming obstacles. Certain assumptions were made including the optimization level of the player. So even though an optimized fighter is amazing - they are still just a fighter with limited potential. Yes they can do stuff in a sword fight. But how do they stand up to a political intrigue? A crime solving mystery? Negotiations?

In 2e this was done via role-playing as there were no skills associated with them. In 3.5, it is done via role-playing supported by game mechanics. Without the latter, you cannot succeed.

I guess my point is the Fighter issue started long before 3.5

[Incanur]

A critical thing about the tier system is that in no way determines how dangerous a combatant is in any given encounter. Sure, casters often pose more of a threat, but optimized charger will still kill you deader than dead if you're not careful. The same goes for a lockdown fighter, etc. Screaming "tier 4!" won't help. :smallwink:

At the table, tier-1 casters might look down on the fighter, but when push comes to shove they'd rather have a fighter on their side than not.

[Sewercop]

The fighter was better in 2ned. But make no mistake, the casters and wizard in particular still reigned supreme in the end. A dual class or multiclass by the right person even better.

casters have always ruled d&d , but the gap was less in earlier editions. 4th edition is just a mess i pretend didnt happen. Like a couple of the starwars movies

[gooddragon1]

Maybe the games I played in were just weird but I distinctly recall fighters being able to contribute. There were games where druids and clerics and wizards just dominated but there were quite a few games where the game was structured to allow the fighter to contribute. Though I suppose it is the oberoni fallacy.

About 4e... it wasn't till diablo 3 till I actually realized it's not bad. It's just a different mindset.

But as I said, the fighter is like superman... Batman could beat him if he tried unless the writers are on superman's side I mean he's as strong as he's written to be.

[Incanur]

A well-played fighter can almost always contribute to a combat encounter. No necessarily as well as other characters, but it's generally better to have a fighter than not.

[Phelix-Mu]

Having recently been playing way more Exalted than D&D, I am also finding that all of the default schtick of the higher-level fighter to be pretty limited in scope. I agree that a powerful warrior should be shattering chains with impunity, going all Kool-Aid Man on walls, getting Cleave as a class feature, and be a fearsome enemy on the battlefield (capable of forcing morale checks...haha, those used to be a thing). A wizard may have spells to reduce you to a sizzling puddle on the ground, but, while that is scary, not quite on the same level as watching the fighter tear your friend's arm off as a free action and then beat the poor sod to death with it.

I also think that there should be more made of fighter's toughness in 3e. While the barbarian is a tower of unstoppable rage, the fighter is a veteran of countless battles. As he is hit, the fighter subtly shifts his body to avoid injury to critical organs. His endurance is legendary, and he can literally keep fighting for hours, held up only by his guts and determination. And when the wizard hits him with the fireball or whatever, the fighter summons up a bit more "f%@k you" and tanks it, only to deliver every bit of pain back to the wizard a few rounds later.

Anyway, I can think of lots of fluff to support better martial classes, but the problem is modeling them in a simple and straightforward manner that doesn't totally alter the feel of the game.

[gooddragon1]

Having recently been playing way more Exalted than D&D, I am also finding that all of the default schtick of the higher-level fighter to be pretty limited in scope. I agree that a powerful warrior should be shattering chains with impunity, going all Kool-Aid Man on walls, getting Cleave as a class feature, and be a fearsome enemy on the battlefield (capable of forcing morale checks...haha, those used to be a thing). A wizard may have spells to reduce you to a sizzling puddle on the ground, but, while that is scary, not quite on the same level as watching the fighter tear your friend's arm off as a free action and then beat the poor sod to death with it.

I also think that there should be more made of fighter's toughness in 3e. While the barbarian is a tower of unstoppable rage, the fighter is a veteran of countless battles. As he is hit, the fighter subtly shifts his body to avoid injury to critical organs. His endurance is legendary, and he can literally keep fighting for hours, held up only by his guts and determination. And when the wizard hits him with the fireball or whatever, the fighter summons up a bit more "f%@k you" and tanks it, only to deliver every bit of pain back to the wizard a few rounds later.

Anyway, I can think of lots of fluff to support better martial classes, but the problem is modeling them in a simple and straightforward manner that doesn't totally alter the feel of the game.

Sadly, that toughness is more the domain of the crusader than the fighter. Which as said elsewhere TOB is the patch for the fighter.

[Phelix-Mu]

Sadly, that toughness is more the domain of the crusader than the fighter. Which as said elsewhere TOB is the patch for the fighter.

But I don't like stealth errata that isn't errata. If they wanted to fix fighter, they could have. They gave us something else instead, which is fine; I even like ToB. But not as a fix for the original martial classes. Those are still there, still way weaker than genre would suggest, and still desirable as playstyle archetypes.

In short, it's not so much that I think everyone wants more functionality from fighter. Some people play it and it's just fine for what it is; it's even decent dip utility in optimization. But, if there were more there in fighter, the class would go from marginal to playable, which I think is desirable. Some people don't want funky maneuvers, but would like a few more pertinent skills and a more scalable approach to many of the strictly inferior fighter feats.

To wit, Crusader can cover the indomitable tank archetype, but Crusader has that ++. Fighter should be more the veteran man-at-arms, or the mercenary, or gladiator, or whatever bit of fiction/history you want to poach; fighter is good because it can be pretty much any character concept that relies on combat for its oomph. The mechanic should just be good at swinging, tough as nails, and capable of coolness without a need for complicated pseudo-casting (most likely in the form of feats or skill tricks that are more relevant as the campaign progresses).

I don't think that is impossible, it just isn't terribly easy to implement without some considerable homebrewing or houseruling. All of which should be done, however, because it is way, way easier than trying to scale back the hyperbolic nature of magic as it exists in 3e.

[gooddragon1]

But I don't like stealth errata that isn't errata. If they wanted to fix fighter, they could have. They gave us something else instead, which is fine; I even like ToB. But not as a fix for the original martial classes. Those are still there, still way weaker than genre would suggest, and still desirable as playstyle archetypes.

In short, it's not so much that I think everyone wants more functionality from fighter. Some people play it and it's just fine for what it is; it's even decent dip utility in optimization. But, if there were more there in fighter, the class would go from marginal to playable, which I think is desirable. Some people don't want funky maneuvers, but would like a few more pertinent skills and a more scalable approach to many of the strictly inferior fighter feats.

To wit, Crusader can cover the indomitable tank archetype, but Crusader has that ++. Fighter should be more the veteran man-at-arms, or the mercenary, or gladiator, or whatever bit of fiction/history you want to poach; fighter is good because it can be pretty much any character concept that relies on combat for its oomph. The mechanic should just be good at swinging, tough as nails, and capable of coolness without a need for complicated pseudo-casting (most likely in the form of feats or skill tricks that are more relevant as the campaign progresses).

I don't think that is impossible, it just isn't terribly easy to implement without some considerable homebrewing or houseruling. All of which should be done, however, because it is way, way easier than trying to scale back the hyperbolic nature of magic as it exists in 3e.

Personally, with those things in mind, I'd like if weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and toughness scaled with fighter level. I'm not sure what the scaling would be but you get the idea. I'm just crazy cuz I like straight numerical increases rather than +1d6 or fancy-shmancy stuff added on.

[Lans]

There is a couple of things a fighter can do, involving giving allies a boost to ac or enemies a penalty to attack.

[lytokk]

Personally, I think anything above weapon focus should be removed (weapon spec and greater versions) and instead fighters should get "favored weapon" similar to the ranger favored enemy or terrain as a class ability. Also 4+int skill points and listen and spot as class skills. At least that's my fighter fix.

Truthfully, I love the fighter for its complete simplicity and its underdog type of feel. No one expects a lot out of the fighter, but played inteligently you should always be able to contribute.