Why play a Fighter?

[Coretron03]

A level 3 commoner could use his feat to take Martial study, gaining a manuaver. They aren't restricted to ToB classes.

Plus, retraining doesn't take that long. Definitely not years of training and the starting ages says someone can become a (human, other races could lower it more, like a half orc) warblade as early as 16 (15 for Half orc).

[Ironsmith]

I don't suppose anybody's thought of just playtesting these arguments? "Fighters are lame, Wizards/Warblades/[CLASS X] can thrash them every way to Sunday" is something that can easily be confirmed or refuted by experiment. That'd probably be more fun than just tossing theory at each other, too.

[Jack_McSnatch]

A Warblade could easily be a war weary mercenary, or a soldier of the kingdom. The farm boy seeking his fortune could be a slew of classes.

Also, I really don't think Barbarian are untrained mongrels who flail wildly. They are well trained, but not as soldiers. A Barbarian is going to be the strongest and most skilled warrior of his tribe, he studied under the chief at an early age and showed great skill with his ancestral blade. His fighting is different than a Fighter's but not less skilled.
Except that's what the feats are. Your fighter being really skilled.

A level 3 commoner could use his feat to take Martial study, gaining a manuaver. They aren't restricted to ToB classes.

Plus, retraining doesn't take that long. Definitely not years of training and the starting ages says someone can become a (human, other races could lower it more, like a half orc) warblade as early as 16 (15 for Half orc).

Granted, but the other commoners are still confused, and PCs are supposed to be extraordinary.


With the right feats, epic Fighters can reflect an unlimited number of ranged attacks back at their enemies, and shoot arrows to the moon with a nonmagical bow.


But he's not doing anything the commoner can't quantify. He isn't teleporting, turning invisible, making copies of himself, or breathing fire... He's just really damn good with that bow.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But he's not doing anything the commoner can't quantify. He isn't teleporting, turning invisible, making copies of himself, or breathing fire... He's just really damn good with that bow.

It's still impossible by any reasonable definition of the word (from the Commoner's perspective, anyway).

[Tainted_Scholar]

But he's not doing anything the commoner can't quantify. He isn't teleporting, turning invisible, making copies of himself, or breathing fire... He's just really damn good with that bow.

I'd more readily except being able to teleport than being able to shoot the moon, especially if magic was as common as it is in D&D.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I don't suppose anybody's thought of just playtesting these arguments? "Fighters are lame, Wizards/Warblades/[CLASS X] can thrash them every way to Sunday" is something that can easily be confirmed or refuted by experiment. That'd probably be more fun than just tossing theory at each other, too.

Those arguments have been playtested, multiple times. There are more Wizard Vs. Fighter threads than I can count.

[Ironsmith]

It's still impossible by any reasonable definition of the word (from the Commoner's perspective, anyway).

I think the point's that it's a different degree of impossible. It's still comprehensible that Robin Hood here might somehow be producing the appropriate draw weight to launch an arrow to the moon, even if him doing so is kind of cartoonish.

Basically, Fighter use regular abilities that have been trained to absurd degrees (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower), as opposed to, say, manipulating reality with incantantations and weird gestures you need several layers of degree to even begin to understand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FunctionalMagic). One is way more relatable than the other, even if they're both outside of realistic reach.

[Coretron03]

So deflecting infinite arrows or shooting the moon is something a commoner can understand but attacking really fast (Time stand still, a 9th level manuaver) is something they can't? Striking a creature/object in the right place to ignore DR/Hardness is something that mystifies commoners as much as magic? There is a manuaver that grants pounce, does that make barbarians confound commoners by running and attacking someone?

Granted, swordsage maunvers are a bit more mystical, but warblades are pretty reasonable.

[Lord Raziere]

Hm, but if magic exists in a universe, how would you be able to tell its magic within that universe? arcane magic as defined in DnD is a natural force that is harnessed through study or by blood, so if its natural, it can't be impossible because it happens and is apart of how things work. Its a thing that happens and you can make happen, so by definition its not impossible, and magic isn't doing things that are impossible. So if its natural, apart of the universe, completely possible, and obtained through dedication to learning something, how is it any more different or special than a fighter and the crazy things they do?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Magic is common place in D&D, so to a commoner being able to teleport or create fire isn't any more or less fantastic than shooting the moon.

[Morphic tide]

I can't recall any maneuvers that let the ToB classes fly.

I could be wrong, of course.

It's a Stance, not a Manoeuvre, and it's not flying. It lets you walk on air. Using your normal ground movement speed.


That's... not how brains work. Simple size does not actually indicate more 'intelligence' or 'processing power' or whatever, or else we'd currently be ruled by whales in giant mechs.

It has to do with a bunch of ratios in the non-neural anatomy, actually. Simple size does indicate processing power fairly well, it's that most creatures have a lot of it tied up in sensory capacity and motor skills, humans included, though humans sacrifice a lot of sensory capacity for our intelligence. The brain/body ratio is actually a decent first-stage guess at intelligence. Humans have a bunch of little things that make us able to do stuff on such a high level, among them being that we have relatively crap senses, so that's not eating up a large chunk of our mental capacity. Also, our brains are structured in a way that causes higher neuron density, which makes physical size requirements lower.


It's always time to bash fighters my fellow dungeoncrasher.


I think that one line about people wanting to play something mundane sums it up perfectly. It's like a good class for people just starting out or for people that don't want to do a bunch of reading and figuring out spells and whatever. You don't have to keep track of anything, you just roll your dice and you are good. It's a great class for kids, lazy people, and those that don't have the time to invest into something that requires more system mastery.

Fighter isn't a good class for first-time players, though. The feats are covered in trap options. A Rogue or a Barbarian is far easier for people just starting out because there's much fewer ways to screw up. Rogue, in particular, has the majority of the difficulty be about how you play, rather than your character build.


You can refluff it as a culexus assassin (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Culexus_Temple)/sister of silence (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Sisters_of_Silence) if you like. I just don't think it's a very interesting or original concept.
...How is being a person who has a negative soul that results in negation of standard magic/psionics uninteresting or unoriginal? Because that's what Pariahs in 40k are. They can also use the absorbed magical/psionic energy for relatively simple things, like launching bolts of force or physical enhancement. Even just the anti-magic aspect is something that's not actually handled in D&D much. Reliable anti-magic is hard to get ahold of and tends to be fairly easily bypassed if you get the chance to seriously try. A general-purpose anti-non-Extraordinary class is entirely valid design space. Open to jerkish shutdown of a lot of things? Yes, but being able to flatly say no to the Lich with 5 more Wizard levels than you have hit dice whenever they try to do anything more complicated than punch you is a perfectly valid character concept, and a mechanics niche that's entirely absent from the game because all the anti-magic methods can be bypassed just by inflating CL or spell level. Except for exactly one feat that requires being in melee range of the target to use, and even then only works on a subsection of magic-type things.

---

Regarding why someone would want to play a Fighter, Fighters are able to have over twice as many feats as other characters. Nearly three times, actually. A Fighter can grab what would otherwise be two full builds of feats, possibly even including the extra three from Human+flaws. Essentially, a Fighter can be very nearly two non-Rage-dedicated Barbarian builds merged into one character. That's the mechanics positive, from what I can tell.

There's also the already-stated challenge of making Fighter contribute in a large number of situations, which the downright offensive lack of ranged mundane support makes goddamn hard. As does the pathetic skill list.

[zlefin]

The core problem (especially in core); is just that most of the feats in the game are far too weak. they don't feel like FEATS; like truly great or significant accomplishments or abilities. they'r emore like minor buffs, at best.

if feats were stronger; then the fighter's bonus feats would be more meaningful.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's a Stance, not a Manoeuvre, and it's not flying. It lets you walk on air. Using your normal ground movement speed.

Ah, which Stance was that?

[Tainted_Scholar]

The core problem (especially in core); is just that most of the feats in the game are far too weak. they don't feel like FEATS; like truly great or significant accomplishments or abilities. they'r emore like minor buffs, at best.

if feats were stronger; then the fighter's bonus feats would be more meaningful.

I really don't care for how 3.5 (especially core) handles alot of it's feats, most of the feat chains don't feel worth the effort and the feats themself feel too weak. Actually that's probably why I don't like the Fighter.

[OldTrees1]

I really don't care for how 3.5 (especially core) handles alot of it's feats, most of the feat chains don't feel worth the effort and the feats themself feel too weak. Actually that's probably why I don't like the Fighter.

This is true. It takes a lot of system mastery to find the good feats and then fit them in a build.

Did you know it only takes 1 feat to stagger everyone you hit, another feat doubles your attacks per rounds, 2 feats will grant you either 10ft natural reach or flight (3 feats for both), and 1 feat plus an armor enhancement lets you lock down 2 enemies per turn?

Gems like those are the strength of feat that fighters are looking for and a properly designed system would have even better feats.

[Milo v3]

My players like the Fighter because of it's simplicity, which made upgrading the class difficult because I had to keep it simple while still getting more power.

[Lans]

Barbarians aren't wanting for Rage feats, and Runescarred is pretty good.. It has less to do with wanting for the feat and whether the fighter can carve a niche for him self with his 11 feats over the barbarians better skills, rage and uncanny dodge. I think the fighter can be better in general combat even if he maybe a worse character overall.

The part that makes the fighter suck is that a player might decide to specialize in kamas and nunchucks, and take TWF, and take great cleave instead of one of the narrow number of feat chains that are awesome.




What kind of monster would that be?


It wouldn't be something immune to magic, it would be something immune to what the wizard chose as his spells, if he choose color spray and the enemies are undead, or just immune to mind influencing, or fire if the wizard started with a 5d4 burning hands.



This is true. It takes a lot of system mastery to find the good feats and then fit them in a build.

Did you know it only takes 1 feat to stagger everyone you hit, another feat doubles your attacks per rounds, 2 feats will grant you either 10ft natural reach or flight (3 feats for both), and 1 feat plus an armor enhancement lets you lock down 2 enemies per turn?

Gems like those are the strength of feat that fighters are looking for and a properly designed system would have even better feats.
Not sure if this is the right list your referencing but
Boomerang daze, knock down, vile deformity tall or long limbs, imperious command, or are there other things?

[Bakkan]

But he's not doing anything the commoner can't quantify. He isn't teleporting, turning invisible, making copies of himself, or breathing fire... He's just really damn good with that bow.

Warblades don't get any of that. At least not without taking a feat available to everyone.

[OldTrees1]

Not sure if this is the right list your referencing but
Boomerang daze, knock down, vile deformity tall or long limbs, imperious command, or are there other things?

Not a perfect mind reading but those are valid answers.

I meant Staggering Strike rather than Boomerang Daze but both fit the ticket
I meant Combat Reflexes rather than Knock Down(2-3 feats) but Knock Down does double the attacks yet again.

Deformity can grant 10ft reach in 2 feats. Dragon Wings can grant flight in 2 feats. Aberrant Blood can grant both with 3 feats.
Imperious Command is easy to spot isn't it. :D

[tiercel]

I really don't care for how 3.5 (especially core) handles alot of it's feats, most of the feat chains don't feel worth the effort and the feats themself feel too weak. Actually that's probably why I don't like the Fighter.

Of course, I really don't care for how 3.5 handles Polymorph/Polymorph Any Object/Alter Self/Shapechange, many 9th level spells generally, Divine Metamagic and a lot of metamagic cost reduction generally, spells that ignore Spell Resistance by "conjuring" nonmagical balls of magic force that work in antimagic, Abrupt Jaunt, casting shadow illusion spells that are more real than their non-shadow equivalents, infinite loops of any kind, "scry and die," and "divine inheritance" (in which clerics and druids just know every single spell ever printed for them in the entire 3.5 bookshelves) to name but a few problems.

That doesn't mean I ask people "why play T1?" It means that I recognize that making magic work in 3.5 -- especially at high levels -- is going to take some work/DM refereeing/houserules/"gentlemans' agreements." It means recognizing that playstyle choices vary, depending on group -- and some people may play Fighters because they are appropriate choices in the context of their groups/games. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22176610&postcount=149)

[Florian]

I really don't care for how 3.5 (especially core) handles alot of it's feats, most of the feat chains don't feel worth the effort and the feats themself feel too weak. Actually that's probably why I don't like the Fighter.

You seem to compare feats to spells/maneuvers/stances, that´s why you don´t appreciate the Fighter Bonus Feats as a class feature.

There´re two rookie mistakes when building a Fighter: Going for raw damage and building a one-trick pony, over investing in one "schtick" and that alone.

The trick has always been knowing how to cherry-pick feats and being able to find synergies between longer and more elaborate feat chains, like combining Shock Trooper with with area denial options of a Chain Tripper and an Overrun specialist. Sure, that is not as impressive as what a Warblade or Uber-Charger Barbarian can do, but it´s tied to martial crowd control and engaging a number of enemies at once, best supported by a BFC Wizard.

[Pleh]

Why play a fighter? We all know the reason(s)
For Feats, Chassis, and Proficiencies, but mostly for Feats.

But everyone gets feats.
Not everyone gets as many as the Fighter does. Say what you will, but there's a reason that the Fighter is nearly as Diptastic as the Barbarian (which, btw, wouldn't be nearly so diptastic without that one Elephant In The ACF).

But Fighter Feats suck.
Most feats suck. The Feat system was subpar because Fighter Linear, Wizard Quadratic. This was because Feats are linear and Spells are quadratic. Weapon Focus gives a static bonus that never changes ever. Burning Hands gives 1d4 PER CASTER LEVEL (up to 5, but still). So, to fix the martial system, we need to help martial features scale with level like spells do (but it can't be Caster Level, because they aren't Casters... maybe Intitiative Levels?). We clearly don't want them to become SwordWizards, because that would be lame, so we'll make their quadratic martial abilities Extraordinary rather than Supernatural (though a few can be supernatural from time to time). But what do we call these Extraordinary maneuvers, since we have to distinguish them from Feats? Anyone got any ideas?

TOB is NOT Core.
Oh, THAT'S what I was thinking of. Yeah, it's not Core. Does it matter that it's not Core?

Saying the best way to play Fighter is to play Warblade kind of says that Fighter Sucks.
Compared to the Wizard, Fighter does suck. Compared to as-listed Goblin in MM1, Fighter is King. What's your point?

There are better options.
Unless you are Pun Pun (or even more trivially, just the DM), there are always better options. Why does that have anything to do with making character choices?

It means the game was designed badly.
I dunno. People are still playing it and talking about it in depth on an internet forum. Seems pretty successful to me.

But it isn't fun to play.
I can imagine a million ways to have fun playing a vanilla, Core Only Fighter. Most of them don't involve traveling alongside Pun Pun Wanna Be Wizards from Tippyverse, but thankfully that is not the sum and total of the ways that I can enjoy playing the class.

Because at the end of the day, that's the whole point of this game.

Use your imagination.

[Deeds]

I play Fighter to grab some feats (usually Weapon Focus, Improved Intiative, and Power Attack) and for the D10 HD. Throw in ranks in swim and call it a day.

[Mordaedil]

Why play a pure fighter?

Because the fluff of other classes doesn't support what you're going for.

There's plenty of ways to build characters in D&D 3.5, but sometimes you just can't fill the niche with a barbarian, because it's not what you are, a monk is too rigid and the TOB classes are too mired in their own variation of fluff that doesn't fit the kind of character you are going for.

That said, fighter mechanical support is really subpar and have costly feat chains that doesn't really help, albeit I'd hesitate to say that "fighter feats suck".

There's 224 different ones. Not all of them are bad. And that gives you a lot of variety for building your fighter. None of it is going to allow you to match a wizard. That isn't really the point though, variety is key for 3.5 and fighter is king of variety in feats.

If I were to allow a person to play a pure fighter at our table though, I'd allow them to pick a background, increase their skill point to 4 + Int and get a few new class skills based on said background.

[zlefin]

feats have too much variation in power level; that's a major part of the problem as well (in addition to just being too weak in general)
the ceiling/floor difference is very big based on which ones you choose.
the ToB classes have much less ceiling/floor variation.

[SirNibbles]

...

They are literally the same as the Warrior (a NPC class) except they have Craft (Which they'll never use) and bonus feats, which aren't a class feature.

So ultimately, what reason is there to play as a Fighter?

What separates a Fighter from a Warrior?

From a roleplaying perspective, I would say it's the study that a Fighter does. A Warrior trains like a common soldier or guard. He gets instructions and he follows them, usually involving drilling or hitting a dummy. A Fighter goes beyond that, reading manuals, treatises, tomes about warriors from the past, etc. to learn about new fighting styles, which he then incorporates into his training. These represent his Fighter Bonus Feats.

The issue is that from a gameplay perspective, none of these feats are that great.

The default 3.5 rules create a high-magic setting, yet the Fighter Bonus Feats are decidedly low-magic or non-magical. In order to become usable, the Fighter Bonus Feats need to have some magical aspects in order to give them power beyond just +1 to hit or damage or which are only situationally useful. Additionally, the fighter is supposed to be skilled with many weapons, but most feats affect only a single type of weapon. He should be able to combine multiple styles, yet most stylistic feats work alone.

I am aware of 221 Fighter Bonus Feats. Of these feats, I think very few would be better than even 1st level spells, let alone 9ths. Most of them are held back by overburdening prerequisites and still they lack the ability to make a significant impact. Of these, I'll discuss a handful which I think are on the right track.


Acrobatic Strike
Active Shield Defense
Adaptable Flanker
Agile Shield Fighter
Armor Specialization
Axeshield
Ballista Proficiency
Bane of Argonnessen
Battle Dancer
Blind-Fight
Block Arrow
Blood-Spiked Charger
Boomerang Daze
Boomerang Ricochet
Bowslinger
Braced for Charge
Brutal Strike
Brutal Throw
Cavalry Charger
Chosen Foe
Circle Master
Circle Student
Cleave
Clever Opportunist
Close-Quarters Fighting
Combat Acrobat
Combat Awareness
Combat Brute
Combat Cloak Expert
Combat Defense
Combat Expertise
Combat Focus
Combat Intuition
Combat Panache
Combat Reflexes
Combat Stability
Combat Strike
Combat Vigor
Cometary Collision
Constant Guardian
Coordinated Shot
Crossbow Sniper
Dancing Blade
Daring Warrior
Daunting Presence
Dead Eye
Deadeye Shot
Deceptive Dodge
Defensive Archery
Defensive Strike
Defensive Sweep
Deflect Arrows
Distracting Attack
Dodge
Double Hit
Double Team
Dual Strike
Einhander
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Heavy)
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Light)
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Medium)
Exotic Shield Proficiency
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Expeditious Dodge
Fiery Fist
Fiery Ki Defense
Fist of the Heavens
Flay
Foe Hunter
Forceful Staff Style
Formation Expert
Freezing The Lifeblood
Giantbane
Gnome Tunnel Acrobatics
Goad
Great Cleave
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization
Greater Manyshot
Greater Powerful charge
Greater Two-Weapon Defense
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Grenadier
Haft Strike
Half-Dragon Form
Hammer and Piton
Hammer Fist
Hand Crossbow Focus
Hazing Strike
Heavy Armor Optimization
Holy Subdual
Hurling Charge
Improved Buckler Defense
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Combat Expertise
Improved Critical
Improved Disarm
Improved Diversion
Improved Grapple
Improved Initiative
Improved Mounted Archery
Improved Overrun
Improved Precise Shot
Improved Rapid Shot
Improved Shield Bash
Improved Shieldmate
Improved Sunder
Improved Toughness
Improved Trip
Improved Two-Weapon Defense
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Weapon Familiarity

Intuitive Attack
Ki Blast
Long Strike
Lunging Strike
Manyshot
Martial Stalker
Martial Stance
Martial Study
Martial Throw
Melee Evasion
Melee Weapon Mastery
Mercurial Strike
Mighty are Fallen
Mobility
Mountain Warrior
Mounted Archery
Mounted Mobility
Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting
Pack Feint
Pack Tactics
Paralyzing Fists
Pebble Underfoot
Penetrating Shot
Phalanx Fighting
Pike Hedge
Point Blank Shot
Pole Balance
Pole Fighter
Power Attack
Power Critical
Power Lunge
Power Throw
Powerful Charge
Precise Shot
Prone Attack
Pushback
Quick Draw
Quori Dread
Ranged Disarm
Ranged Sunder
Ranged Weapon Mastery
Rapid Reload
Rapid Shot
Reckless Charge
Resounding Blow
Ride-By Attack
Ring the Golden Bell
Riposte
Robilar's Gambit
Saddleback
Second Slam
Shadow Striker
Shadowborn Warrior
Sharp-Shooting
Shield Charge
Shield Expert
Shield Slam
Shield Sling
Shield Specialization
Shield Wall
Shield Ward
Shieldmate
Shock Trooper
Short Haft
Shorten Grip
Shot on the Run
Single Blade Style
Slashing Flurry
Snatch Arrows
Spear of Doom
Spectral Skirmisher
Spinning Defense
Spirited Charge
Spring Attack
Staggering Blow
Staggering Critical
Stunning Fist
Subduing Strike
Superior Expertise
Surprising Riposte
Trample
Tremendous Charge
Tumbling Feint
Tunnel Fighting
Twin Sword Style
Two-Weapon Defense
Two-Weapon Fighting
Two-Weapon Pounce
Two-Weapon Rend
Undermountain Tactics
Valenar Trample
Vault
Versatile Combatant
Versatile Unarmed Strike
Veteran Knowledge
Vexing Flanker
Water Splitting Stone
Weakening Touch
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Weapon Supremacy
Whirlwind Attack
Winged Warrior
Woodland Archer


Adaptable Flanker - It's cruel to require a swift action to designate a target, especially when a Fighter already needs his swifts for manoeuvres, but otherwise this is a good feat. It does a good job representing the techniques a Fighter could learn to become better in combat and it is quite useful for both the Fighter and his allies. Change it to a 1/round free action to designate a target and it's a good feat.

Combat Focus - This feat is bad (along with most of the feats that have it as a prerequisite), but it's on the right track by giving the Fighter a bit of a magical/mystical element. Unfortunately, most of this magic was only applied to boost mundane things like resisting bull-rushes or bonuses to the Dodge feat. Combat Vigor (Fast Healing 2 or 4) is nice- nearly equivalent to a casting of a third level spell with a feat that requires you to be level 9.

Melee Weapon Mastery - Another feat with a good idea of what it is supposed to represent- the Fighter's expansive training with many different types of weapons. It's not a great feat but it at least has the right direction.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It has less to do with wanting for the feat and whether the fighter can carve a niche for him self with his 11 feats over the barbarians better skills, rage and uncanny dodge. I think the fighter can be better in general combat even if he maybe a worse character overall.

Maybe, I guess it depend on which builds each character have.


The part that makes the fighter suck is that a player might decide to specialize in kamas and nunchucks, and take TWF, and take great cleave instead of one of the narrow number of feat chains that are awesome.

Agreed, it's too easy to screw up a Fighter for it to be a good beginner's class.



It wouldn't be something immune to magic, it would be something immune to what the wizard chose as his spells, if he choose color spray and the enemies are undead, or just immune to mind influencing, or fire if the wizard started with a 5d4 burning hands.

I'd probably take Silent Image, Grease, and Color Spray at the very least. What enemy would be immune to all of those (with a CR appropriate for a level 1 party)?


Not sure if this is the right list your referencing but
Boomerang daze, knock down, vile deformity tall or long limbs, imperious command, or are there other things?

Interesting.

[Psyren]

Agreed, it's too easy to screw up a Fighter for it to be a good beginner's class.


In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.


Edit:

That also assumes that the guy helping knows what's he's doing optimization-wise.

[DEMON]

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.


Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.

It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

True, but I'd argue that the fact that it's so easy to screw up so many different classes is a flaw in the system.

Plus, there are more noob friendly classes, like the ToB ones for example.

[Psyren]

True, but I'd argue that the fact that it's so easy to screw up so many different classes is a flaw in the system.

Of course it is, and that banal point (the game is flawed, zomg) has been made in threads like these repeatedly.


It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

When everyone is new, then optimization matters a heck of a lot less because they're likely running a module, which are undertuned anyway.

There are certainly cases where (a) everyone is new, so nobody can help the fighter player, and (b) the GM inexplicably runs something too hard. These outliers are then far more likely to become forum posts than the majority of cases that go fine, vastly overstating their frequency relative to the mean.


Plus, there are more noob friendly classes, like the ToB ones for example.

ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly. It's academic regardless, because literally no playgroup that actually goes out and buys a splat like ToB is going to consist entirely of noobs, so even if a new player is present, there's going to be experienced people to help them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly. It's academic regardless, because literally no playgroup that actually goes out and buys a splat like ToB is going to consist entirely of noobs, so even if a new player is present, there's going to be experienced people to help them.

And? I hear it's nigh impossible to screw up a Crusader.

[Psyren]

And? I hear it's nigh impossible to screw up a Crusader.

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

[Cosi]

The idea that the Fighter is a simple class is pretty obviously wrong. There are hundreds of Fighter feats, and almost all of them can be selected as any given bonus feat. Making a Fighter at all requires winnowing a combinatoric explosion of truly impressive proportions down to a single path. Making an effective Fighter is even harder, because you have to do that, and you have to know which paths are good (for example, tripping and charging) and which similar paths are not (for example, sundering and disarming). A simple class is something like a Beguiler where, with the exception of Advanced Learning, the class is almost wholly deterministic once you've started it. Barbarians are the simple martial class, at least in the PHB.


In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.

Yes, 3e has a problem with class complexity. You want three kinds of classes:

1. Simple to build, simple to play. For noobs, or people who simply aren't interested in deep engagement with the mechanical parts of the game. Examples in 3e: none if you also condition on effectiveness, Barbarian, Warmage, and similar if you do not.
2. Simple to build, complex to play. For people who enjoy the tactical challenge of having a variety of abilities, but not the research required to build complicated characters. Examples in 3e: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Druid (to a degree, depends on how you count Wild Shape and Animal Companion), Cleric.
3. Complex to build, complex to play. For optimizers, or other people who enjoy exploring complex systems. Examples in 3e: Wizard, Sorcerer.

If you're attentive, you'll notice that I left out "complex to build, simple to play", but I think characters like that probably don't have much of an audience. Of course, these are all sliding scales. The Sorcerer is probably harder to build than the Wizard (because you have less resources to work with), but it's simpler to play for that exact reason. And once you have those categories, you should make sure that broad categories of character like "sword guy" and "spell guy" are represented in all of them. 3e has very few magical classes that are simple to play, and very few complex martial classes. That's bad, and its something the game should fix going forward.


Of course it is, and that banal point (the game is flawed, zomg) has been made in threads like these repeatedly.

Remember kids, if you really love something, you'll ignore all its flaws and insult anyone who acknowledges them! Fun exercise: imagine how Psyren's position sounds if you apply it to people, then die a little inside.


ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly.

Wat? If you're a noob, everything is a new subsystem to you, because you don't know any subsystems. We can talk about the complexity of ToB versus the complexity of whatever else, but that's a different debate (and one that looks much worse for Fighters).

[Jormengand]

But by that logic a wizard is in the same boat. Your choices as a wizard are "cast a spell at it, or don't." And sure there are a wide variety of spells, but that still limits the interaction options.

But the wizard has multiple spells he can use on each object. The rogue has multiple skills. The fighter only has one attack worth using on a particular target. Sacrieur kinda responded far more elegantly on this point but was tactically ignored.

At tenth level, for example, a wizard knows 21+INT_AT_FIRST_LEVEL spells, not counting cantrips, at minimum. So maybe 25. He can prepare at least one copy of every single one of them. Faced with an encounter with one interactible object, he has about 15-20 different things he can do, given that some of his spells won't be relevant (Knock against a fire giant, say). Except that he doesn't, because if he knows alter self he has another choice: what creature to turn into. There's probably at least five different things that he might want to turn into. If he knows Summon Monster III, then that gives him 42 different types of creature he can summon one or more of, and potentially multiple locations he can usefully place the creature(s) in question.

A rogue, even, has the option to try to sneak around it, sneak attack it, talk to it, or run away from it, as well as possibly stealing from it or distracting it.

A fighter has a few options when faced with the fire giant: Hit it, shout at it, or run away from it. That's usually about it.


If it's a challenge you want, try playing a Truenamer. :smalltongue:

Far easier than playing a competent fighter, still. Or maybe "Take skill focus, max truespeak, use the magic items from the same book and play some race, somewhere which buffs INT" just seems more obvious to me than to most people.

[Necroticplague]

If you're attentive, you'll notice that I left out "complex to build, simple to play", but I think characters like that probably don't have much of an audience.

I'd argue that, for the reasons you listed at the start of your post, Fighters actually do fall in this category. Setting up your 'trick(s)' requires good knowledge of what's available, and what's feasible. But, once you've selected your feats, your mostly just gonna be repeating the same stuff over and over.

[Tainted_Scholar]

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

[Florian]

Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

No, I started with with 3.5, and that was only a couple years ago (I think it was 3 years ago). 3.5 is one of the most popular editions of D&D.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

Why would an experienced player let a noob play a Fighter, instead of pointing them toward a better* class?

Better = Easier to build/play.


Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

When I first started playing D&D I literally Googled what the best edition was; I got 2nd and 3.5.

I decided to go with 3.5.

[Psyren]

I'd argue that, for the reasons you listed at the start of your post, Fighters actually do fall in this category. Setting up your 'trick(s)' requires good knowledge of what's available, and what's feasible. But, once you've selected your feats, your mostly just gonna be repeating the same stuff over and over.

I concur. There's very little bookkeeping involved once the feats are chosen, and very little in the way of moment-to-moment tactics. Certainly less than an initiator player has to decide, or remember.


Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

I'm sure, just as there is probably a group out there that combines 3e, 4e, and 5e into some unholy soup of mechanics. Are we concerned merely with what is possible (outliers) or what is probable? New groups avoiding splats - and especially THAT splat - is far more likely.


Why would an experienced player let a noob play a Fighter, instead of pointing them toward a better* class?

Better = Easier to build/play.

Because a new player doesn't have to learn the maneuvers subsystem that way.

There's also the thematic concerns (i.e. the "too anime" complaint.) Fair or not, it's a real thing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because a new player doesn't have to learn the maneuvers subsystem that way.

Maneuvers aren't that hard to learn; neither are Psionics, and the Psychic Warrior is better than the Fighter, and has only three less bonus feats.


There's also the thematic concerns (i.e. the "too anime" complaint.) Fair or not, it's a real thing.


What does that even mean? Anime is an art style, not a genre; there are anime about cooking, sports, music, and dozens of other genres.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest, I really hate the "too anime" excuse. :smallannoyed:

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm sure, just as there is probably a group out there that combines 3e, 4e, and 5e into some unholy soup of mechanics. Are we concerned merely with what is possible (outliers) or what is probable? New groups avoiding splats - and especially THAT splat - is far more likely.

A. Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Allowing splats is in no way comparable to your example.

B. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Especially since 3.5 is very well known, and if someone did start playing it now days, there's actually a pretty good chance of them knowing things such as Fighter's sucking, and the ToB being very well written.

[Psyren]

Maneuvers aren't that hard to learn; neither are Psionics, and the Psychic Warrior is better than the Fighter, and has only three less bonus feats.

For us, here on this board, they're not. But there's still a reason most groups start with core and work their way up, regardless of ease.


What does that even mean? Anime is an art style, not a genre; there are anime about cooking, sports, music, and dozens of other genres.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest, I really hate the "too anime" excuse. :smallannoyed:

I can't claim to know, but clearly it is a criticism that WotC themselves have heard about ToB. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911)


A. Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Allowing splats is in no way comparable to your example.

B. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Especially since 3.5 is very well known, and if someone did start playing it now days, there's actually a pretty good chance of them knowing things such as Fighter's sucking, and the ToB being very well written.

You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

[AnimeTheCat]

I would think that a new player wouldn't be playing in an advanced world most likely, unless the game they were playing in wasn't new player friendly. That would be a fault of the DM, not the player.

As an experienced player, I would play a fighter because I like the taste of a knight charging in to battle on his war trained steed, but I don't want to be lawful. Example of the image could be a mercenary. This isn't optimized but it's fun in the group and would be fun, easy, and simple for a new player. An experienced player could use it to play up handle animal and have an army of hunting hounds accompany the character.

Do I think other classes can do the same thing? yep. Do I think that other classes doing something that I also do makes my class invalid? nope. What's wrong with two charge focused characters, one lawful good (paladin) and the other Chaotic Neutral (fighter)? If you've got one of each of those in the party, you're probably not an overpowered party. Additionally, a human fighter can take Mounted Combat, Ride-By-Attack, and Spirited Charge all in first level which would smoke most (if not all) other characters at level 1. That's not exactly bad and I would take that over a level 1 wizard pretty much any day of the week.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

I'm not talking about while it was in vogue, I'm talking about 3.5 nowadays.

[ColorBlindNinja]

For us, here on this board, they're not. But there's still a reason most groups start with core and work their way up, regardless of ease.

- Maneuvers and Psionics are simpler than core spellcasting, new players still play Wizards, Druids and Clerics. If they can learn that system, they can manage ToB classes/Psychic Warriors.

- Core only isn't good for new players; adding more books complicates things, but at least then you can achieve a semblance of inter-class balance.


I can't claim to know, but clearly it is a criticism that WotC themselves have heard about ToB. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911)

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.


You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

Yet, for every critic of ToB you can find, there are at least as many who sing the book's praises.

How can be certain that most new groups will oppose the ToB?

[Psyren]

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.

And that's the main issue with this thread's very premise, and any discussion about Fighters and ToB - logic ultimately has very little to do with consumer preferences, so trying to argue logically that ToB is fine doesn't actually mean anything. Have you heard of the JC Penney Effect? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfkWZPAUg4)


Yet, for every critic of ToB you can find, there are at least as many who sing the book's praises.

On a message board, maybe (and I would argue, not even then.) At actual tables? I see more instances of ToB being presumptively banned than not.


I'm not talking about while it was in vogue, I'm talking about 3.5 nowadays.

But that's even worse, what with all the books out of print. ToB is what, $70? More?

[OldTrees1]

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.

You mean a badly worded argument. Clearly they do mean something when they say "too anime" and each person saying that is rather consistent in their meaning. The flaw comes from them using the wrong words. We both know that anime is either a brand of animation (the anime = japanese animation definition) or is just a word for animation (the anime = japanese for animation definition). However merely using the wrong words does not render their argument wrong, it merely makes it harder/impossible to communicate to the listener.

Those that find ToB to be too "____" do find it to be too "____" and that is an irrefutable argument. Preferences are not universal (a lesson I hope the Opening Poster has learned).

[Tainted_Scholar]

But that's even worse, what with all the books out of print. ToB is what, $70? More?

Not if you download a PDF of the internet. :smallwink:

[ColorBlindNinja]

And that's the main issue with this thread's very premise, and any discussion about Fighters and ToB - logic ultimately has very little to do with consumer preferences, so trying to argue logically that ToB is fine doesn't actually mean anything. Have you heard of the JC Penney Effect? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfkWZPAUg4)

You have a point, people do tend to be illogical.

That doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't tell new players to play fighters.


On a message board, maybe (and I would argue, not even then.) At actual tables? I see more instances of ToB being presumptively banned than not.

That's purely anecdotal evidence.


But that's even worse, what with all the books out of print. ToB is what, $70? More?

Warblades can be found for free on WotC's website.

Edit:


You mean a badly worded argument. Clearly they do mean something when they say "too anime" and each person saying that is rather consistent in their meaning. The flaw comes from them using the wrong words. We both know that anime is either a brand of animation (the anime = japanese animation definition) or is just a word for animation (the anime = japanese for animation definition). However merely using the wrong words does not render their argument wrong, it merely makes it harder/impossible to communicate to the listener.

True, but it's still a bad argument if it doesn't convey the arguers actual objection.


Not if you download a PDF of the internet. :smallwink:

Shhhh! That's illegal! :smallwink:

[DEMON]

When everyone is new, then optimization matters a heck of a lot less because they're likely running a module, which are undertuned anyway.

Yes, that was my point, that optimization is less important in a group of newbies.


True, but I'd argue that the fact that it's so easy to screw up so many different classes is a flaw in the system.

Plus, there are more noob friendly classes, like the ToB ones for example.

No one's arguing the first part.

The second one, though, is questionable. ToB is a more obscure book, and it's actually quite common even on these boards, that it's outright banned from tables. A starting gaming group, even they did their homework, might think twice before purchasing it.

Besides, for a new guy, keeping track of all the initiator stuff, such as stances and especially maneuvers - known, readied, granted, expanded, refreshed... might be a bit overwhelming at first. So I would definitely argue the notion that a Crusader is the class to pick for a newbie, "because it's nigh impossible to screw". I have a hard time seeing the simplicity of play, that some advertise in the Fighter, in a class such as Crusader.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No one's arguing the first part.

The second one, though, is questionable. ToB is a more obscure book, and it's actually quite common even on these boards, that it's outright banned from tables. A starting gaming group, even they did their homework, might think twice before purchasing it.

Besides, for a new guy, keeping track of all the initiator stuff, such as stances and especially maneuvers - known, readied, granted, expanded, refreshed... might be a bit overwhelming at first. So I would definitely argue the notion that a Crusader is the class to pick for a newbie, "because it's nigh impossible to screw". I have a hard time seeing the simplicity of play, that some advertise in the Fighter, in a class such as Crusader.

What about the Psychic Warrior? It's freely available on the SRD and Psionics are arguably easier to learn than magic.

[AnimeTheCat]

the fact that there is pretty much always someone posting on here about warblade, crusader, or swordsage clarification makes me beg to differ on the "ToB is easy to learn". It's not like they're asking "help me pick my feat train" it's more like they're asking "HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529752-So-I-m-DMing-for-a-Warblade) which then requires them to go back and read again and look at it again and check the wording and then look at the maneuver etc... which isn't conducive to a well flowing game... let alone to a new player that doesn't even understand what BAB is and how AC works and what a touch attack is... To these people, I would recommend the fighter and I would build the world to suite them because that's how you teach people. After they understand the basics (BAB, AC, Skills, Saves, Combat, modifiers, bonuses) Then I would direct them to ToB if they wanted to play something more.

[ColorBlindNinja]

the fact that there is pretty much always someone posting on here about warblade, crusader, or swordsage clarification makes me beg to differ on the "ToB is easy to learn". It's not like they're asking "help me pick my feat train" it's more like they're asking "HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529752-So-I-m-DMing-for-a-Warblade) which then requires them to go back and read again and look at it again and check the wording and then look at the maneuver etc... which isn't conducive to a well flowing game... let alone to a new player that doesn't even understand what BAB is and how AC works and what a touch attack is... To these people, I would recommend the fighter and I would build the world to suite them because that's how you teach people. After they understand the basics (BAB, AC, Skills, Saves, Combat, modifiers, bonuses) Then I would direct them to ToB if they wanted to play something more.

I still think a Barbarian would be a better class for a new player.

Or maybe a Psychic Warrior.

Edit: Obviously it helps to have a DM who knows the system well, in fact, we were assuming that one or more rule-savvy friends present.

[OldTrees1]

True, but it's still a bad argument if it doesn't convey the arguers actual objection.

No argument from me as long as we recognize that what they mean is a valid argument.


What about the Psychic Warrior? It's freely available on the SRD and Psionics are arguably easier to learn than magic.

Psionics unfortunately also have a stigma that makes them less likely to be available at a starting table. BUT I think we can also evaluate beyond this concern.


When I think about new players, I would expect the ideal class would provide consistency, buildup, and some simplicity. I would expect the player to start off just spamming 1 ability and learning how their defenses work. So the ideal class would need to have a spammable ability and be able to function off just that ability. After the player is comfortable with that then they would start experimenting with their limited use abilities one at a time.

Barbarian, Psychic Warrior, and Warblade (Not Crusader!) all seem to fit this niche fairly well in my mind. So I would probably suggest Barbarian to a starting player that happened to have no preference of their own. Those are rare. From my experience, usually the new player wants to play their character concept and the DM is responsible for helping them learn the class that matches.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No argument from me as long as we recognize that what they mean is a valid argument.

OK.


Psionics unfortunately also have a stigma that makes them less likely to be available at a starting table. BUT I think we can also evaluate beyond this concern.

Sadly, you're absolutely right. :smallsigh:


When I think about new players, I would expect the ideal class would provide consistency, buildup, and some simplicity. I would expect the player to start off just spamming 1 ability and learning how their defenses work. So the ideal class would need to have a spammable ability and be able to function off just that ability. After the player is comfortable with that then they would start experimenting with their limited use abilities one at a time.

Barbarian, Psychic Warrior, and Warblade (Not Crusader!) all seem to fit this niche fairly well in my mind. So I would probably suggest Barbarian to a starting player that happened to have no preference of their own. Those are rare. From my experience, usually the new player wants to play their character concept and the DM is responsible for helping them learn the class that matches.

OK, that makes sense to me.

[AnimeTheCat]

When I think about new players, I would expect the ideal class would provide consistency, buildup, and some simplicity. I would expect the player to start off just spamming 1 ability and learning how their defenses work. So the ideal class would need to have a spammable ability and be able to function off just that ability. After the player is comfortable with that then they would start experimenting with their limited use abilities one at a time.

Barbarian, Psychic Warrior, and Warblade all seem to fit this niche fairly well in my mind. So I would probably suggest Barbarian to a starting player that happened to have no preference of their own. Those are rare. From my experience, usually the new player wants to play their character concept and the DM is responsible for helping them learn the class that matches.

All I know is that I've taught many people how to play 3.5, with about 3 they wanted to play something that sounded most like a ToB class, so I gave it a shot. Those were the slowest games of my life. I even made cheat sheets for them (I even have them printed out and laminated so that people can use them as references and I can stop wasting paper!). The cheat sheets included actions in combat, modifier names, the rules for recovering maneuvers for their class but I was still constantly being asked how something worked, what do I add, what does this ability do. The people I was teaching weren't dumb people, they're quite smart. It's just a lot all at once for someone who's never seen it before. Conversely, I've introduced people slowly using fighters and other core rules classes/races/feats who have since moved on, learned the ToB systems on their own, and done exceedingly well with them. I guess know your people, but anything with a per encounter, recharge, readied, active, sort of system can be confusing for someone who knows nothing of any D&D system.


I still think a Barbarian would be a better class for a new player.

Or maybe a Psychic Warrior.

Edit: Obviously it helps to have a DM who knows the system well, in fact, we were assuming that one or more rule-savvy friends present.

I wasn't saying anything against a barbarian, but I can usually make a fighter fit most of the fantasy style "knight in shining armor' ideas that many new players have. also, this is a thread about playing fighters, so I was just keeping it on that topic and not comparing other classes to a ToB Class. The link I posted was from today and had an experienced player and a seemingly fairly knowledgeable DM but there was still a problem.

[Psyren]

Preferences are not universal (a lesson I hope the Opening Poster has learned).

I have little doubt that this thread will be remade (by the same people no less) just as it was remade before.


Not if you download a PDF of the internet. :smallwink:

Not everyone is comfortable with resorting to illegal activity just to play a better martial class though. And for many people, PDFs are annoying to actually browse through and learn new systems from.


Warblades can be found for free on WotC's website.

Which is pointless without both the maneuvers and the underlying ruleset, to say nothing of the feats and items. Your argument would be like making the Totemist free without any of the Incarnum rules and soulmelds, and then saying everyone can just play a Totemist anyway and it should be fine.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Which is pointless without both the maneuvers and the underlying ruleset, to say nothing of the feats and items. Your argument would be like making the Totemist free without any of the Incarnum rules and soulmelds, and then saying everyone can just play a Totemist anyway and it should be fine.

True, but there are a couple different websites with information on Maneuvers and Soulmelds too, I believe.

Edit:



I wasn't saying anything against a barbarian, but I can usually make a fighter fit most of the fantasy style "knight in shining armor' ideas that many new players have. also, this is a thread about playing fighters, so I was just keeping it on that topic and not comparing other classes to a ToB Class. The link I posted was from today and had an experienced player and a seemingly fairly knowledgeable DM but there was still a problem.

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't have that much trouble grasping the ToB.

I agree that the Barbarian doesn't quite fill the same niche, but it frustrates me that Fighters are so, noob unfriendly, for the lack of a better term.

[Psyren]

True, but there are a couple different websites with information on Maneuvers and Soulmelds too, I believe.

Even the illegal ones don't have everything.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Even the illegal ones don't have everything.

I don't think that's the case, but I don't care to argue about it any longer.

[AnimeTheCat]

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't have that much trouble grasping the ToB.

I agree that the Barbarian doesn't quite fill the same niche, but it frustrates me that Fighters are so, noob unfriendly, for the lack of a better term.

Like I said, I guess it's just knowing your people to know if they have other experience. If they were a veteran player from another similar d20 based system I guess ToB wouldn't be too bad to try to introduce. As for the "Noob Unfriendly" aspect to fighters, that's why I limit the content in the game to SRD only. I know that people cringe at that, but to someone who knows nothing, limiting the amount of information they have to sift through really helps everything digest better.

This may not be true in every situation, but I've found it to be true in 80% of the situations I've encountered.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Like I said, I guess it's just knowing your people to know if they have other experience. If they were a veteran player from another similar d20 based system I guess ToB wouldn't be too bad to try to introduce. As for the "Noob Unfriendly" aspect to fighters, that's why I limit the content in the game to SRD only. I know that people cringe at that, but to someone who knows nothing, limiting the amount of information they have to sift through really helps everything digest better.

This may not be true in every situation, but I've found it to be true in 80% of the situations I've encountered.

SRD only is better than Core only, but it still makes building a good Fighter kinda difficult.

I think you could only really make a tripping build, but I could be wrong.

[OldTrees1]

Like I said, I guess it's just knowing your people to know if they have other experience. If they were a veteran player from another similar d20 based system I guess ToB wouldn't be too bad to try to introduce. As for the "Noob Unfriendly" aspect to fighters, that's why I limit the content in the game to SRD only. I know that people cringe at that, but to someone who knows nothing, limiting the amount of information they have to sift through really helps everything digest better.

This may not be true in every situation, but I've found it to be true in 80% of the situations I've encountered.

Tip for introducing ToB to new players:
Use Warblade and pretend it is a Fighter (aka forget about maneuvers until they know the basics). Once they know the basics then let them pick their stance and maneuvers. This should work easily enough for most players whose character concept fits ToB better than other base classes.


SRD only is better than Core only, but it still makes building a good Fighter kinda difficult.

I think you could only really make a tripping build, but I could be wrong.

At the levels where new players usually play at, using the SRD only:
Polearm(could be a tripper), THF, Archer, or Sword & Shield are viable options for Fighters. It is mid level when the options taper off.

[Psyren]

I don't think that's the case, but I don't care to argue about it any longer.

And neither do I, but surely you can see there's a problem with your approach if your argument is "if they just spent way too much money or broke the law, they could play a much better class! Why do these crazy people bother playing Fighter? Tell me, why??"

[ColorBlindNinja]

And neither do I, but surely you can see there's a problem with your approach if your argument is "if they just spent way too much money or broke the law, they could play a much better class! Why do these crazy people bother playing Fighter? Tell me, why??"

Psychic Warriors are free on the SRD and are better than Fighters.

[Psyren]

Psychic Warriors are free on the SRD and are better than Fighters.

In addition to being yet another subsystem to learn with its own rules, this requires (a) a campaign setting that even allows psionics to begin with, and (b) a "Fighter" PC that is okay with having an internal weave or what-have-you of mental energy as part of their concept.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In addition to being yet another subsystem to learn with its own rules, this requires (a) a campaign setting that even allows psionics to begin with, and (b) a "Fighter" PC that is okay with having an internal weave or what-have-you of mental energy as part of their concept.

That irrelevant; my point was that this:


And neither do I, but surely you can see there's a problem with your approach if your argument is "if they just spent way too much money or broke the law, they could play a much better class! Why do these crazy people bother playing Fighter? Tell me, why??"

is a strawman.

[Tainted_Scholar]

In addition to being yet another subsystem to learn with its own rules, this requires (a) a campaign setting that even allows psionics to begin with, and (b) a "Fighter" PC that is okay with having an internal weave or what-have-you of mental energy as part of their concept.

Will you stop complaining about extra subsystems? New players are going to have to learn subsystems anyway so it doesn't really matter.

[AnimeTheCat]

SRD only is better than Core only, but it still makes building a good Fighter kinda difficult.

I think you could only really make a tripping build, but I could be wrong.

no way, a mounted character is viable (You can take Mounted Combat/Mounted Archery/Ride-By-Attack/Spirited Charge by level 2 with a human, 3 with any other character), and archer is viable (Being able to knock out point blank shot and get precise shot at first level is mighty fine for an archer, especially considering that a -4 penalty to shooting in to melee is monstrous at level 1). Those don't even require 13 int which makes it a dump stat now (because no matter what you still get 1 point, so for the mounted character you put that in ride). You can be a grappler, improved unarmed strike/improved grapple at level 1, no problems locking down just about any enemy on the field. You can play as a Tower shield fighter providing cover for your wizard/archer without any feat investment (because AFAIK Fighters are the only class that get tower shield proficiency for free). I'll admit, the tower shield bit isn't the best, but a new player seeing a big defense number might be happy until they learn the other systems, then they're free to explore them without having lost anything. Two weapon fighting is good on a fighter (better with splat book barbarians, but that's neither here nor there.) Give the player two short swords, two weapon fighting and weapon focus short sword and they only take a -1 penalty with both attacks at first level. That's pretty nice for a new guy. If you get to 8th level, greater weapon focus short sword removes the penalty from two weapon fighting entirely.

There's a lot that you can do with a fighter, especially at low levels, that is viable even in the highest of OP games. A Barbarian with a great sword at level 2 is going to rage, and power attack for 2d6+12 for a damage range of 16-26 damage (base 20 str, +4 from rage grants 24 for a +7 bonus which grants +10 damage +4 for power attack). A Halfling Fighter with 16 strength can charge on a riding dog for (1d6+3)*3 for a range of 9-27 damage. Barbarian Fighter mounted, (1d6+5)*3 ranges from 18-33 damage. I'm not saying that it's the best thing since sliced bread, but their ability to hit things comes online pretty fast and it's very easy to teach new players.

[ColorBlindNinja]

no way, a mounted character is viable (You can take Mounted Combat/Mounted Archery/Ride-By-Attack/Spirited Charge by level 2 with a human, 3 with any other character), and archer is viable (Being able to knock out point blank shot and get precise shot at first level is mighty fine for an archer, especially considering that a -4 penalty to shooting in to melee is monstrous at level 1). Those don't even require 13 int which makes it a dump stat now (because no matter what you still get 1 point, so for the mounted character you put that in ride). You can be a grappler, improved unarmed strike/improved grapple at level 1, no problems locking down just about any enemy on the field. You can play as a Tower shield fighter providing cover for your wizard/archer without any feat investment (because AFAIK Fighters are the only class that get tower shield proficiency for free). I'll admit, the tower shield bit isn't the best, but a new player seeing a big defense number might be happy until they learn the other systems, then they're free to explore them without having lost anything. Two weapon fighting is good on a fighter (better with splat book barbarians, but that's neither here nor there.) Give the player two short swords, two weapon fighting and weapon focus short sword and they only take a -1 penalty with both attacks at first level. That's pretty nice for a new guy. If you get to 8th level, greater weapon focus short sword removes the penalty from two weapon fighting entirely.

There's a lot that you can do with a fighter, especially at low levels, that is viable even in the highest of OP games. A Barbarian with a great sword at level 2 is going to rage, and power attack for 2d6+12 for a damage range of 16-26 damage (base 20 str, +4 from rage grants 24 for a +7 bonus which grants +10 damage +4 for power attack). A Halfling Fighter with 16 strength can charge on a riding dog for (1d6+3)*3 for a range of 9-27 damage. Barbarian Fighter mounted, (1d6+5)*3 ranges from 18-33 damage. I'm not saying that it's the best thing since sliced bread, but their ability to hit things comes online pretty fast and it's very easy to teach new players.

I'll take your word for it.

[Psyren]

That irrelevant; my point was that this:



is a strawman.

Is your point not "psychic warrior exists, therefore there should be no reason to play Fighter?" Because I was responding to that by pointing out there are legitimate reasons for some people not to want to be a psychic warrior.


Will you stop complaining about extra subsystems? New players are going to have to learn subsystems anyway so it doesn't really matter.

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm answering your question. That you asked.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm answering your question. That you asked.

Well it's not very good answer, for the reason I just listed.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Is your point not "psychic warrior exists, therefore there should be no reason to play Fighter?" Because I was responding to that by pointing out there are legitimate reasons for some people not to want to be a psychic warrior.

My point is that there are superior, free options to playing a Fighter.

Most settings assume that Psionics exist, last I checked, and it's not that different from magic, or more complex.

[Psyren]

Well it's not very good answer, for the reason I just listed.

Whether you like that answer or not, it still is the answer, or at least one of them. If picking up subsystems were as easy as you and CBN think it should be, we'd have a lot less ToB, psionics, and incarnum threads, as AnimeTheCat and OldTrees1 have pointed out to you.



Most settings assume that Psionics exist, last I checked, and it's not that different from magic, or more complex.

Sure they do, but in a way that can be easily removed if the GM doesn't like it - for example, Eberron parking them in Sarlona, Golarion in Vudra, and FR in Vilhon Reach or the Underdark.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'll take your word for it.

Not just my word for it, but OldTrees1 word too :smallwink:


At the levels where new players usually play at, using the SRD only:
Polearm(could be a tripper), THF, Archer, or Sword & Shield are viable options for Fighters. It is mid level when the options taper off.

EDIT:

Whether you like that answer or not, it still is the answer, or at least one of them. If picking up subsystems were as easy as you and CBN think it should be, we'd have a lot less ToB, psionics, and incarnum threads, as AnimeTheCat and OldTrees1 have pointed out to you.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the subsystems, but they're not exactly what I would call simple or easy to pick up, especially for a brand new player who's never touched their first d20. With a bit of basic core mechanic mastery, ToB, Psionics, and Incarnum filter in fairly well. You just have to be comfortable enough with the basics, like knowing standard actions from full round actions, standard attacks from touch attacks, etc.


My point is that there are superior, free options to playing a Fighter.

Most settings assume that Psionics exist, last I checked, and it's not that different from magic, or more complex.

I agree. Those earlier examples can be done better by a psychic warrior for sure because of powers, but since this is a "why play a fighter" thread I was saying those things are all fightery things that can be done and enjoyed by most players.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Not just my word for it, but OldTrees1 word too :smallwink:



OK, I'll take his word for it too. :smallsmile:

[DEMON]

Will you stop complaining about extra subsystems? New players are going to have to learn subsystems anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Why are they going to have to learn them, though? Will you force them to? Will you assault them in their homes and make them play the way you do?

There's ton of groups playing without ToB, psioncs, meldsahping and what not, even experienced group.

But regardless, back to the original argument - some people play fighters because they are simple in that you don't have to learn and track subsystems - that actually includes the bog standard spells. This is a perfectly valid argument - psionics are not as prevalent at the gaming tables, as is ToB, and even if they were, they are an extra subsystem to learn. Some people just don't want to do that, they want their characters simple. "I charge & I swing my sword. I full attack with my sword. I use my power attack, for whatever amount I see fit. I might trip, or bull rush, if I find that option appropriate to the situation. That's it, that's all."

You asked for reasons, you were given reasons, now you're complaining that you don't like those reasons. At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just trolling or actually find it impossible to acknowledge that different people have different preferences and for some, it just so happens that Fighters rub them the right way.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Why are they going to have to learn them, though? Will you force them to? Will you assault them in their homes and make them play the way you do?

Because if you want to play the game then you need to learn the systems, and my point is that to a noobie player, learning psionics is no different than learning magic.


But regardless, back to the original argument - some people play fighters because they are simple in that you don't have to learn and track subsystems - that actually includes the bog standard spells. This is a perfectly valid argument - psionics are not as prevalent at the gaming tables, as is ToB, and even if they were, they are an extra subsystem to learn. Some people just don't want to do that, they want their characters simple. "I charge & I swing my sword. I full attack with my sword. I use my power attack, for whatever amount I see fit. I might trip, or bull rush, if I find that option appropriate to the situation. That's it, that's all."

You asked for reasons, you were given reasons, now you're complaining that you don't like those reasons. At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just trolling or actually find it impossible to acknowledge that different people have different preferences and for some, it just so happens that Fighters rub them the right way.

You don't have to be antagonistic, the current argument has little to do with why people like Fighters. Right now we're arguing about Noob friendly classes.

[Psyren]

You asked for reasons, you were given reasons, now you're complaining that you don't like those reasons. At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just trolling or actually find it impossible to acknowledge that different people have different preferences and for some, it just so happens that Fighters rub them the right way.

I'm thinking along these lines too.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why are they going to have to learn them, though? Will you force them to? Will you assault them in their homes and make them play the way you do?

Yes! The unbelievers must convert, or they will be forced to play Sonic 06! :smalltongue:


There's ton of groups playing without ToB, psioncs, meldsahping and what not, even experienced group.

True.


But regardless, back to the original argument - some people play fighters because they are simple in that you don't have to learn and track subsystems - that actually includes the bog standard spells. This is a perfectly valid argument - psionics are not as prevalent at the gaming tables, as is ToB, and even if they were, they are an extra subsystem to learn. Some people just don't want to do that, they want their characters simple. "I charge & I swing my sword. I full attack with my sword. I use my power attack, for whatever amount I see fit. I might trip, or bull rush, if I find that option appropriate to the situation. That's it, that's all."

I'd counter that Fighter aren't that simple; they need very specific feats to not suck.


You asked for reasons, you were given reasons, now you're complaining that you don't like those reasons. At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just trolling or actually find it impossible to acknowledge that different people have different preferences and for some, it just so happens that Fighters rub them the right way.

Right now we're talking about why Fighters aren't noob friendly, not why people play as them.

The OP said he doesn't find the reasons why people like Fighters compelling, but he gets why some people might play as them.


it just so happens that Fighters rub them the right way.

I'm trying really hard not make an immature joke right now.

[TheIronGolem]

Because if you want to play the game then you need to learn the systems, and my point is that to a noobie player, learning psionics is no different than learning magic.

You don't need to learn every system in the game to play the game. You don't need to learn every subsystem being used in the campaign, or even every subsystem your party is using. You only need to learn the parts that pertain to your own character. A new player with a Fighter doesn't need to learn the magic system, they just need to know how to roll a saving throw when somebody tries to magic at them.

Consequently, the "homework bar" for playing a Fighter is very low, because they only use common aspects of the game system (BAB, feats, saves) and don't require any extra systems to be learned. Whatever design flaws the class has (and it has a lot), this makes the Fighter a very newbie-friendly class in a way that a Warblade or Psychic Warrior simply isn't.

[Psyren]

They're difficult to build well, but easy to pilot because there are no resources to track except HP and a smaller array of tactical choices.

The build difficulty is irrelevant because, as I mentioned before, either someone experienced can help the new player build it (which would happen with any class they picked, not just Fighter) or there is no one experienced, in which case the game won't be difficult and so build complexity doesn't matter.

EDIT: What TheIronGolem said.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm tyring really hard not make an immature joke right now.

Teehee. Fighters... Rub... Hee

[ColorBlindNinja]

You don't need to learn every system in the game to play the game. You don't need to learn every subsystem being used in the campaign, or even every subsystem your party is using. You only need to learn the parts that pertain to your own character. A new player with a Fighter doesn't need to learn the magic system, they just need to know how to roll a saving throw when somebody tries to magic at them.

Consequently, the "homework bar" for playing a Fighter is very low, because they only use common aspects of the game system (BAB, feats, saves) and don't require any extra systems to be learned. Whatever design flaws the class has (and it has a lot), this makes the Fighter a very newbie-friendly class in a way that a Warblade or Psychic Warrior simply isn't.

I'd agree that the Fighter has few moving parts, and I understand why a new player might gravitate toward one, I'm just not convinced that Barbarian wouldn't be a better choice for a noob.


They're difficult to build well, but easy to pilot because there are no resources to track except HP and a smaller array of tactical choices.

The build difficulty is irrelevant because, as I mentioned before, either someone experienced can help the new player build it (which would happen with any class they picked, not just Fighter) or there is no one experienced, in which case the game won't be difficult and so build complexity doesn't matter.

Barbarians are similar, only having Rage, and otherwise just being a beatstick.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You don't need to learn every system in the game to play the game. You don't need to learn every subsystem being used in the campaign, or even every subsystem your party is using. You only need to learn the parts that pertain to your own character. A new player with a Fighter doesn't need to learn the magic system, they just need to know how to roll a saving throw when somebody tries to magic at them.

My main point was that a Psychic Warrior wasn't "another subsystem" it could very easily be the first subsystem a player uses. And while Fighters don't require learning any subsystems they're very easy to permanently screw up, so they aren't any more noob friendly than a Physic Warrior.

[DEMON]

Because if you want to play the game then you need to learn the systems, and my point is that to a noobie player, learning psionics is no different than learning magic.

But that's the point. With a class like Fighter, you don't have to.

And while psionics may not be any more difficult than standard magic, but you're more likely to get an exposure to spellcasters of one kind or another, than psionic classes in any random campaign. So unless you happen to be a part of a psionics-heavy campaign, you're more likely to learn about the spellcasting first as a new player and you'll only learn about psionics later, if at all.


You don't have to be antagonistic, the current argument has little to do with why people like Fighters. Right now we're arguing about Noob friendly classes.

We're actually walking in circles as you do a hit and run on this thread trivializing most (if not all) of the counter-arguments and repeating the same question again and again.

[Tainted_Scholar]

We're actually walking in circles as you do a hit and run on this thread trivializing most (if not all) of the counter-arguments and repeating the same question again and again.

At this point you're just slinging insults.

[AnimeTheCat]

My main point was that a Physic Warrior wasn't "another subsystem" it could very easily be the first subsystem a player uses. And while Fighters don't require learning any subsystems they're very easy to permanently screw up, so they aren't any more noob friendly than a Physic Warrior.

to be fair, feats can be retrained. And if the player wasn't happy with what they selected after playing it a bit, the DM should allow the player to rebuild now that they have a better idea of how things work and can think for themselves a little better.

[Tainted_Scholar]

to be fair, feats can be retrained. And if the player wasn't happy with what they selected after playing it a bit, the DM should allow the player to rebuild now that they have a better idea of how things work and can think for themselves a little better.

Fair enough.

[Psyren]

I'd agree that the Fighter has few moving parts, and I understand why a new player might gravitate toward one, I'm just not convinced that Barbarian wouldn't be a better choice for a noob.



Barbarians are similar, only having Rage, and otherwise just being a beatstick.

I agree, Barbarian is a good choice too. But it does also have a certain theme (wilderness savage) that the player may not want. Hence they would pick Fighter.


My main point was that a Psychic Warrior wasn't "another subsystem" it could very easily be the first subsystem a player uses.

I said "another" because CBN switched arguments from Warblade to Psywar. You're correct that from the player's perspective it could still just be the one subsystem, which could also still be one too many.


And while Fighters don't require learning any subsystems they're very easy to permanently screw up, so they aren't any more noob friendly than a Physic Warrior.

Hence the other player building it for you. Once built there is no chance of that.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Hence the other player building it for you. Once built there is no chance of that.

Fair enough. Though given a first time player a pre-built character may not be a good idea.

[Florian]

Fair enough. Though given a first time player a pre-built character may not be a good idea.

The Fighter builds I tend to recommend (or hand out) are ultra simple to handle and extremely effective. Most people play them until they´ve got the feeling they´ve got a grip on the class and start to rebuild or modify them to their taste.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I agree, Barbarian is a good choice too. But it does also have a certain theme (wilderness savage) that the player may not want. Hence they would pick Fighter.

I still think they'd be better off playing the Barbarian.


I said "another" because CBN switched arguments from Warblade to Psywar. You're correct that from the player's perspective it could still just be the one subsystem, which could also still be one too many.

You told me that ToB was too expensive, so I mentioned the Psychic Warrior because it's free. Also, Psychic Warriors get bonus feats, which many people have told me is one reason to play a Fighter.


Hence the other player building it for you. Once built there is no chance of that.

As long as the player doesn't mind having their character pre-built, that would work just fine.

Personally, I would try to walk them through character creation, but that's just me.

[Psyren]

Fair enough. Though given a first time player a pre-built character may not be a good idea.

Why not? This not only happens all the time, it is actively recommended for sanctioned play, and GMs bring pregen sheets with them to conventions for this reason.

The player can still provide input as to the character's goals, motivations, and broad strokes of abilities.

[AnimeTheCat]

Feats are also pretty easy and reasonable to explain as you typically have feats that have no prerequisites that are the basis for many other feats that usually tell you what path you're going down. Example: Two weapon fighting is pretty obvious if you want to fight with two weapons and is the prerequisite for improved two weapon fighting, which comes before Greater Two Weapon Fighting. That is very easy to grasp and just a quick look at the prereqs usually lets even new players know when to take them.

Magic, powers, and maneuvers (to me and in my experience with new players) tend to be a bit more... confusing I guess is the best word? Magic especially because ever new player wants to use magic as offense and they run out of spells in the first encounter of the day and feel useless the whole day. Letting the newbie fighter (or barbarian, to be fair) play in a party with an experience player using a wizard or Psion gives them the chance to see what effective magic use is like before even touching the system themselves. It gives those that want to learn, the chance to learn without forcing or overwhelming them. It really lets the player take it at their own pace.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The Fighter builds I tend to recommend (or hand out) are ultra simple to handle and extremely effective. Most people play them until they´ve got the feeling they´ve got a grip on the class and start to rebuild or modify them to their taste.

Even still, I would rather help the person build their Fighter than just give them a pre-made character, and first I would try to tell them that Fighters aren't good for first time players.

[Psyren]

I still think they'd be better off playing the Barbarian.

Ok.



You told me that ToB was too expensive, so I mentioned the Psychic Warrior because it's free.

I know, which led to reply #319, i.e. reasons people may not want Psywar despite it being free.


As long as the player doesn't mind having their character pre-built, that would work just fine.

Personally, I would try to walk them through character creation.

I would too. But not everyone has the patience for that. We're talking about folks who don't want any bookkeeping at all.


Even still, I would rather help the person build their Fighter than just give them a pre-made character, and first I would try to tell them that Fighters aren't good for first time players.

Ok.

Is your question answered yet?

[AnimeTheCat]

Even still, I would rather help the person build their Fighter than just give them a pre-made character, and first I would try to tell them that Fighters aren't good for first time players.

what exactly makes a fighter not good for a first time player though? If you're helping the person build the argument that feat selection can screw them is out. What other argument is there? There's no subsystem, they have a very simple role, and since you've helped them build it they're kitted out well to handle that very simple role? what's so bad about a fighter in this context?

[DEMON]

At this point you're just slinging insults.

I'm sorry if that's what you feel, it wasn't my intention. But I have to ask: What did you take from that post as insulting?

[ColorBlindNinja]

OK



I know, which led to reply #319, i.e. reasons people may not want Psywar despite it being free.

I've never understood why people dislike Psionics, but I guess we all have differing tastes.


I would too. But not everyone has the patience for that. We're talking about folks who don't want any bookkeeping at all.

For that type of player, a pre-made character sheet would be idea.

[Jormengand]

what exactly makes a fighter not good for a first time player though? If you're helping the person build the argument that feat selection can screw them is out. What other argument is there? There's no subsystem, they have a very simple role, and since you've helped them build it they're kitted out well to handle that very simple role? what's so bad about a fighter in this context?

It doesn't carry as part of its class an inspiration for roleplay, for a start.

[Psyren]

I've never understood why people dislike Psionics, but I guess we all have differing tastes.

Neither do I, but they exist, and WotC knows it too (hence making it easy to "opt-out" of psionics even if you use a published setting.)


For that type of player, a pre-made character sheet would be idea.

Yes - and that's basically what building their fighter for them would mean.


At this point you're just slinging insults.

I saw no insult, he's right - you two are going in circles and repeating old objections.

Your objections are valid, but the question was not "should people reject Warblade and Psywar in favor of Fighter" but rather "why do they?" Which has been answered several times now. They probably shouldn't, but here's why they do.

[Jack_McSnatch]

It doesn't carry as part of its class an inspiration for roleplay, for a start.

I'm sorry, this is the weakest arguement in the thread. If you need your class to tell you how to roleplay, you're completely missing the point of roleplay. If I roleplay as a thief, I'm playing rogue because those are the skills he would've picked up. He's not a thief because he's a rogue, he's a rogue because he's a thief. A fighter has TONS of roleplay potential, because he's not a race/class combination, he's a person who's life led him to be a fighter. He's seen the world at its best in peace, and at its worst in war. He has people he loves, things he wants to protect, and goals he wants to see fulfilled, as well as questions he has to ask himself. First and foremost being "Why do I wield this sword?" If that's "no roleplay inspiration" than you have no imagination.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Your objections are valid, but the question was not "should people reject Warblade and Psywar in favor of Fighter" but rather "why do they?" Which has been answered several times now. They probably shouldn't, but here's why they do.

Yes, and that question has been answered (for the most part). However we are currently arguing a new topic.

[TheIronGolem]

My main point was that a Psychic Warrior wasn't "another subsystem" it could very easily be the first subsystem a player uses.
Yes, but learning zero subsystems is objectively easier than learning one. In a debate about which class is easier for a new player, this point incontestably goes to the Fighter. Not to mention that sometimes you want to be Axe Dwarf and not Axe Dwarf With Lemon Magic.


And while Fighters don't require learning any subsystems they're very easy to permanently screw up, so they aren't any more noob friendly than a Physic Warrior.
Setting aside how retraining makes this point moot, most campaigns don't get to be sufficiently high-level that suboptimal choices early on will damage your ability to contribute in a noticeable way. This is one reason that systemic problems (like the Fighter's poor design) are not obvious to the casual player. Especially if that player is in a party with Healbot McHolyman and Professor Where's My Crossbow I'm Outta Fireballs.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes, but learning zero subsystems is objectively easier than learning one. In a debate about which class is easier for a new player, this point incontestably goes to the Fighter. Not to mention that sometimes you want to be Axe Dwarf and not Axe Dwarf With Lemon Magic.

Lemon magic?


Setting aside how retraining makes this point moot, most campaigns don't get to be sufficiently high-level that suboptimal choices early on will damage your ability to contribute in a noticeable way. This is one reason that systemic problems (like the Fighter's poor design) are not obvious to the casual player. Especially if that player is in a party with Healbot McHolyman and Professor Where's My Crossbow I'm Outta Fireballs.

Actually, short campaigns are a serious problem for the Fighter, because they need time to build a feat chain, even if they can do it faster than most classes.

[Jormengand]

I'm sorry, this is the weakest arguement in the thread. If you need your class to tell you how to roleplay, you're completely missing the point of roleplay. If I roleplay as a thief, I'm playing rogue because those are the skills he would've picked up. He's not a thief because he's a rogue, he's a rogue because he's a thief. A fighter has TONS of roleplay potential, because he's not a race/class combination, he's a person who's life led him to be a fighter. He's seen the world at its best in peace, and at its worst in war. He has people he loves, things he wants to protect, and goals he wants to see fulfilled, as well as questions he has to ask himself. First and foremost being "Why do I wield this sword?" If that's "no roleplay inspiration" than you have no imagination.

Fun fact: calling an argument weak doesn't make it weak. Fun fact two: People new to roleplaying aren't generally already good at roleplaying.

[DEMON]

Yes, but learning zero subsystems is objectively easier than learning one. In a debate about which class is easier for a new player, this point incontestably goes to the Fighter. Not to mention that sometimes you want to be Axe Dwarf and not Axe Dwarf With Lemon Magic.


Setting aside how retraining makes this point moot, most campaigns don't get to be sufficiently high-level that suboptimal choices early on will damage your ability to contribute in a noticeable way. This is one reason that systemic problems (like the Fighter's poor design) are not obvious to the casual player. Especially if that player is in a party with Healbot McHolyman and Professor Where's My Crossbow I'm Outta Fireballs.

And to build on that, that's also the reason why fighter's oversaturation with feats can be beneficial to many mundane concepts - they don't get to wait till level 12, or 15, 'till they hit the "sweet spot" (not really, as at that level mundanes are a footnote in the grand scheme of things) and those extra feats help them unlock their desired trick at levels where they actually matter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, two reasons many people play Fighters is because they're simple and they get bonus feats...

Is that all they have going for them?

[Psyren]

Yes, and that question has been answered (for the most part). However we are currently arguing a new topic.

You mean "why are fighters a good noob class?" That has been answered too - they're not when it comes to building, but they are when it comes to piloting/bookkeeping, and since noobs aren't expected to build in this game (or if they are, it means everyone is noob and the challenges will be easy), the piloting/bookkeeping are what's important from a difficulty perspective.

Ergo, asked and answered.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You mean "why are fighters a good noob class?" That has been answered too - they're not when it comes to building, but they are when it comes to piloting/bookkeeping, and since noobs aren't expected to build in this game (or if they are, it means everyone is noob and the challenges will be easy), the piloting/bookkeeping are what's important from a difficulty perspective.

Ergo, asked and answered.

No, that still doesn't explain why Fighters are a superior class for noobs over Barbarians.

Some players might not like the fluff, other might not care or just re-fluff their character.

[Knaight]

You told me that ToB was too expensive, so I mentioned the Psychic Warrior because it's free. Also, Psychic Warriors get bonus feats, which many people have told me is one reason to play a Fighter.

That doesn't help with the concepts though. Lets say, as a starting point, that a player wants to play a fairly typical fantasy warrior. A Fighter fits that concept. A Warblade fits that concept if you throw out the fluff about the sublime way. A psychic warrior fundamentally represents something else entirely, and won't work to make that character.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That doesn't help with the concepts though. Lets say, as a starting point, that a player wants to play a fairly typical fantasy warrior. A Fighter fits that concept. A Warblade fits that concept if you throw out the fluff about the sublime way. A psychic warrior fundamentally represents something else entirely, and won't work to make that character.

Maybe? What's to stop you from re-fluffing the Psionics?

[Jack_McSnatch]

Fun fact: calling an argument weak doesn't make it weak. Fun fact two: People new to roleplaying aren't generally already good at roleplaying.

Ignoring the condescending nature of your post, your arguement STILL fails to hold water. Someone new to roleplaying isn't going to find anymore "inspiration" in playing a wizard or a rogue than a fighter. In fact, they might even find more inspiration in the fighter because he's the most mundane of muggles in a world where magic is commonplace

[DEMON]

So, two reasons many people play Fighters is because they're simple and they get bonus feats...

Is that all they have going for them?

Well they also have full BAB and good For saves?

There's also a couple ACFs and the fact they can fit any character concept, as there's literally no fluff attached to the.

Besides that... you know that's all they got, mechanically. Why do you even ask?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ignoring the condescending nature of your post, your arguement STILL fails to hold water. Someone new to roleplaying isn't going to find anymore "inspiration" in playing a wizard or a rogue than a fighter. In fact, they might even find more inspiration in the fighter because he's the most mundane of muggles in a world where magic is commonplace

Other classes have inspiration for roleplaying, which new player might appreciate, whereas the Fighter has very weak fluff.

Edit:



Well they also have full BAB and good For saves?

There's also a couple ACFs and the fact they can fit any character concept, as there's literally no fluff attached to the.

Besides that... you know that's all they got, mechanically. Why do you even ask?

Why play a Fighter was the original point of the thread.

Also, I think the OP was ignoring ACFs and just looking at the vanilla Fighter.

[Psyren]

No, that still doesn't explain why Fighters are a superior class for noobs over Barbarians.

That was answered too (see what I mean about going in circles?) Barbarians have specific fluff and even mechanics that players may not want. Even if you throw out the wilderness/savage aspects. they still need to spend resources to learn how to read for example, and their power still comes from flying off the handle when the player may want to roleplay a level-headed tactician, a nobleman, or a knight.


Some players might not like the fluff, other might not care or just re-fluff their character.

This is correct, but you seem to think nobody is in the former category.

[Jormengand]

Ignoring the condescending nature of your post, your arguement STILL fails to hold water. Someone new to roleplaying isn't going to find anymore "inspiration" in playing a wizard or a rogue than a fighter. In fact, they might even find more inspiration in the fighter because he's the most mundane of muggles in a world where magic is commonplace

I mean, a street urchin who struggles to survive or a scholar of the arcane arts is still more inspiring than "Guy who fights". Everyone fights in this game; it's not a unique selling point or a backstory element. Or anything much.

[Tainted_Scholar]

That was answered too (see what I mean about going in circles?) Barbarians have specific fluff and even mechanics that players may not want. Even if you throw out the wilderness/savage aspects. they still need to spend resources to learn how to read for example, and their power still comes from flying off the handle when the player may want to roleplay a level-headed tactician, a nobleman, or a knight.

That doesn't make them a good class for noobs though. It would be like if a new player was hell bent on playing a samurai type class, so they play as a Samurai, which is one of the worst classes in the game. You're explanation makes sense for why a new player might want to play as a Fighter, but the class is still a terrible choice for noobs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That was answered too (see what I mean about going in circles?) Barbarians have specific fluff and even mechanics that players may not want. Even if you throw out the wilderness/savage aspects. they still need to spend resources to learn how to read for example, and their power still comes from flying off the handle when the player may want to roleplay a level-headed tactician, a nobleman, or a knight.

The Fighter's crunch supports none of those concepts, except maybe that last one (and the Knight class does a better job).

Being level-headed is mostly a roleplaying concept, and the Fighter has none of the skills that anyone would associate with nobility.


This is correct, but you seem to think nobody is in the former category.

Are there really that many people who are turned off by the Barbarian's fluff?

[DEMON]

Maybe? What's to stop you from re-fluffing the Psionics?


Lazy answer: laziness / busy work
Pragmatic answer: Your DM
Practical answer: Psionics are not allowed in your campaign


Other classes have inspiration for roleplaying, which new player might appreciate, whereas the Fighter has very weak fluff.

Both a boon and a curse, depending on your goals.


Why play a Fighter was the original point of the thread.

Also, I think the OP was ignoring ACFs and just looking at the vanilla Fighter.

Ignoring Fighter ACFs and discussing alternative classes, some of which are found in the same splats, is a questionable approach and perhaps part of the overarching problem of this discussion.

[Jormengand]

That doesn't make them a good class for noobs though. It would be like if a new player was hell bent on playing a samurai type class, so they play as a Samurai, which is one of the worst classes in the game. You're explanation makes sense for why a new player might want to play as a Fighter, but the class is still a terrible choice for noobs.

I think there's a disconnect here: you want the answer to the question "What is the benefit of playing a fighter?" and people in the thread are answering the question "What is the antecedent to people playing a fighter" which it wasn't entirely clear you didn't want.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Lazy answer: laziness / busy work
Pragmatic answer: Your DM
Practical answer: Psionics are not allowed in your campaign

I really don't understand why so many people hate Psionics...

Would it really be that hard for the player to re-fluff it, though?


Both a boon and a curse, depending on your goals.

True.


Ignoring Fighter ACFs and discussing alternative classes, some of which are found in the same splats, is a questionable approach and perhaps part of the overarching problem of this discussion.

Perhaps, but for noobs, they have to be aware of these ACFs and know which ones are good.

More skilled players can tell them what's good and what isn't, but I still maintain that Fighters aren't noob friendly.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I think there's a disconnect here: you want the answer to the question "What is the benefit of playing a fighter?" and people in the thread are answering the question "What is the antecedent to people playing a fighter" which it wasn't entirely clear you didn't want.

I mostly wanted to know what it was that draws people to the Fighter be it fluff or crunch, and I've gotten that answer (for the most part). The post you quoted was related to Fighter's not being noob friendly.

[OldTrees1]

So, two reasons many people play Fighters is because they're simple and they get bonus feats...

Is that all they have going for them?

There is a 3rd reason that Psyren has been trying to explain in some of their posts.

"People that are thematically (mechanical texture or flavor texture) picky have a harder time rejecting Fighter than they doing rejecting other classes."

I want to play a warrior. But initiators won't do because X, Psychic Warrior won't do because Y, Wizard is right out, and even Barbarian does not fit right.


But yes, those are the things Fighter has going for it. They are enough that people do still occasionally rationally choose to play Fighters, but not everyone nor every character is going to be a Fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There is a 3rd reason that Psyren has been trying to explain in some of their posts.

"People that are thematically (mechanical texture or flavor texture) picky have a harder time rejecting Fighter than they doing rejecting other classes."

I want to play a warrior. But initiators won't do because X, Psychic Warrior won't do because Y, Wizard is right out, and even Barbarian does not fit right.


But yes, those are the things Fighter has going for it. They are enough that people do still occasionally rationally choose to play Fighters, but not everyone nor every character is going to be a Fighter.

OK, so neutral fluff is another reason people play Fighters, got it.

Admittedly, I was mostly looking for crunch reasons.

[TheIronGolem]

Lemon magic?
Throwaway comics joke; don't worry about it.


Actually, short campaigns are a serious problem for the Fighter, because they need time to build a feat chain, even if they can do it faster than most classes.
We're talking about the kind of player to whom Whirlwind Attack - which comes at the end of a chain that a human fighter can complete by level 4 - looks like an awesome feat. These are not people who are aware of, let alone trying to build, a Jack B. Quick or Horizon Tripper. The only feat chains they see are the ones spelled out in the PHB and maybe a splatbook or two.

[Tainted_Scholar]

We're talking about the kind of player to whom Whirlwind Attack - which comes at the end of a chain that a human fighter can complete by level 4 - looks like an awesome feat. These are not people who are aware of, let alone trying to build, a Jack B. Quick or Horizon Tripper. The only feat chains they see are the ones spelled out in the PHB and maybe a splatbook or two.

The player might be upset though to realise that Whirlwind Attack kinda sucks though.

But yes, you have a point.

[OldTrees1]

OK, so neutral fluff is another reason people play Fighters, got it.

Admittedly, I was mostly looking for crunch reasons.

Technically Fighter does have some Fighter exclusive ACFs but most of those are in dip range. The only one I consider notable outside of dip range is Zhentarim Soldier 9 which turns the fighter from "2 move actions to negate 2 enemies" to "2 move actions and 1 swift action to negate 3 enemies". Although if you want your warrior to attack as rapidly as a cartoon character, you might want to dip Fighter 2 for +2 attacks.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Technically Fighter does have some Fighter exclusive ACFs but most of those are in Dip range. The only one I consider notable outside of dip range is Zhentarim Soldier 9 which turns the fighter from "2 move actions to negate 2 enemies" to "2 move actions and 1 swift action to negate 3 enemies".

Yes, but it's pretty obvious why someone might want to play an ACF Fighter (Due to them being actually good) however why somebody would play a normal Fighter is more mystifying, hence this thread.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Technically Fighter does have some Fighter exclusive ACFs but most of those are in Dip range. The only one I consider notable outside of dip range is Zhentarim Soldier 9 which turns the fighter from "2 move actions to negate 2 enemies" to "2 move actions and 1 swift action to negate 3 enemies".

I do recall hearing that Zhentarim was a pretty effective fear build.

[DEMON]

I really don't understand why so many people hate Psionics...

Would it really be that hard for the player to re-fluff it, though?

It's not their decision to make, though. If the DM does not allow psionics, period, he does not allow psionics, period. I don't mind them, myself. Psionic Rogue is one of my favorit classes, but there's a ton of instances where I don't get to play it at all (I don't mind it, I like a lot of other characters and concepts).



True.




Perhaps, but for noobs, they have to be aware of these ACFs and know which ones are good.

That is absolutely true. But Same applies to classes, class features, skills and feats. A Sorcerer with terrible spell known choices, a Wizard with terrible spells prepared are just as common in a low op play and they suffer even more, because their chassis cannot compensate for those bad choices in the slightest.


More skilled players can tell them what's good and what isn't, but I still maintain that Fighters aren't noob friendly.

I'm not arguing that... too much. But it still depends on the available choices and their optimization floor and ceiling. Warblade, Barbie, PsyWar? They're all viable substitutes for the Fighter at one point or another and have their ups and downs (compared to one another or the fighter himself), that are more or less visible depending on the character level and optimization level. Judging in a vacuum is not going to yield the desired results everyone will be happy with.

[OldTrees1]

I do recall hearing that Zhentarim was a pretty effective fear build.

It is a 50% target increase over the non Zhentarim option. So if one is near Fighter 9 it is probably worthwhile but otherwise it might not be worth it.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I mean, a street urchin who struggles to survive or a scholar of the arcane arts is still more inspiring than "Guy who fights". Everyone fights in this game; it's not a unique selling point or a backstory element. Or anything much.
Speaking as someone who still remembers being a noob, that never really stood out to me. When I started d&d, no class held anything that made me want to roleplay, because I was still trying to wrap my head around the basic rule set. It was only after a couple sessions with a twf fighter that I started getting into character, and thinking of d&d as less of a video game. If I had started as wizard, it would've taken me far, FAR longer to start roleplaying. Why? Read this next part, mainly directed at Scholar.


That doesn't make them a good class for noobs though. It would be like if a new player was hell bent on playing a samurai type class, so they play as a Samurai, which is one of the worst classes in the game. You're explanation makes sense for why a new player might want to play as a Fighter, but the class is still a terrible choice for noobs.

Alright, well let's go with your suggestion and start this theoretical noob as a wizard. Here's why that's a terrible idea. The wizard actually has a very specificrole in a d&d party. The Encyclopedia, to give it a name. If you're playing a wizard, everybody in the party is going to be looking at you for all the information on all the things. You need to know what your save DCs are, how many spells you have on a day, and what those spells do. You need to know the schools of magic, how the schools interact, and be able to make a reasonable guess as to what specific spells are on that treasure chest. Not only that, you need to know what knowledge skills apply to what monster and be able to ready useful spells for the day, and god help you if you prepared color spray five times before walking into the crypt full of undead. It's an EXTREMELY daunting task for somebody who barely knows how to figure out their AC.

[Mikemical]

So ultimately, what reason is there to play as a Fighter?

Because you want to. They also were one of the first classes to exist in D&D(called The Fighting Man back then). They are core and if you want to introduce new players to the game, it's one of the simplest classes to wrap your head around of.

They only suck so much in 3.5 because Monte Cook had a boner for arcanes and decided to make every other class a better fighter than Fighters themselves. (While theoretically he has a point, since at level 1 the spellcaster classes are a bit suck, most would argue that a stabler power curve where magicals start higher and martials suck less later would be the ideal solution, rather than ensuring the wizard dominates at all levels of play.)

In 3.x, the advent of Feats was supposed to make fighters more attractive to play. The fighter gets loads of feats, making it the only class that can take more than one full-size feat tree (Archery, Weapon Specialization, etc.) But feats brought a nerf in disguise. Fighters could no longer use the best weapons like the "spiked chain" without spending feats to do so, or taking a significant -4 penalty to hit. The only fighter feats really worth getting involved a horrible exploit in 3.0 called "the bag of rats" (the fighter dropped a bag full of rats in front of an enemy, then used Whirlwind Attack feat to attack all the rats in a single round, then used Great Cleave to get a free attack on the enemy for each rat killed. This was clobbered in 3.5.) There were other nerfs as well. Bonus attacks received hit penalties that made them nigh-worthless. Bow rate of fire and damage was nerfed, and crossbows, which any character could use, got a significant damage increase. The new skill system overtook things that any character could do in previous versions of the game, and with their tiny number of "skill points", fighters became helpless bumbling buffoons in just about everything.

Meanwhile, spells became so powerful that a single caster could bring down entire armies in one or two rounds. The result was that your party was better off having any character with Summon Monster I than with a fighter. Fighter became something you multi-classed your rogue or cleric into for one or two levels, in order to get their level 1 automatic feats, Martial Weapons, Tower Shields, all armors, +d10 hp, full attack bonus, and a bonus feat. It was still a scrumptious dip class for those first few levels, but it was generally best left behind afterwards.

Fighters are generally a little beefier and a lot better in Pathfinder, with more unique passive benefits other people don't have, while keeping their big pile of feats, and fewer classes that can be described as "like a Fighter but better." They don't have the raw power of the spellcasting classes, but they're now actually very good at their actual jobs, namely, killing tons of dudes while shrugging off damage, while many martial and exotic weapons, particularly archery, are more attractive options. The archetype system also helps them a lot, sacrificing much of their versatility in terms of weapon use to make them even deadlier or tougher with a single combat style. (Two-handed weapon, sword-and-board, unarmed combat, etc.)

Unfortunately, with a pitiful dribble of skill points and limited skill selection anyway, they don't tend to be much use once things are actually being done out of combat, barring pure roleplaying or trait-use to gain one good skill. A lot of the time, if no fighting's going on, the fighter's player may as well just go off to use the restroom or crack open a soda for all the use he'll be. One way around this is to take the Tactician archetype, which gives them a lot more skill points and class skills, offers great bonuses and buffing capacity for having high mental stats, and barely reduces their combat effectiveness in the bargain. The only real price is a little bit of MAD trouble, but if you rolled well on your scores and want to make a character who can kick ass and still be the charismatic and intelligent party leader, consider it.

Another avenue of approach is the combination of the Lore Warden and Martial Master archetypes. The Lore Warden trades in medium and heavy armor and armor training in favor of better ability to trip, grapple, sunder, disarm, and perform other combat maneuvers, a +2 bonus to attack and damage after making a successful knowledge check, an extra two skill points, all knowledge skills, the ability to negate critical hits, and the ability to automatically confirm a critical hit on a knowledge check. It does a good job of making the Fighter have more skills and variety in combat. However, combining it with the Martial Master allows you to flexibly pick up combat feats as you need them, like a Brawler. that means you aren't locked into a single static configuration, and can change up how you fight on an encounter-by-encounter basis. Invisible enemy? Take blind-fight! Flying enemy? Grab ranged feats! DM gives you an exotic weapon that you need to kill a boss with? EWP. It makes up for the fighter's weakness in being able to kill dudes quickly but only in one specific way.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Alright, well let's go with your suggestion and start this theoretical noob as a wizard. Here's why that's a terrible idea. The wizard actually has a very specificrole in a d&d party. The Encyclopedia, to give it a name. If you're playing a wizard, everybody in the party is going to be looking at you for all the information on all the things. You need to know what your save DCs are, how many spells you have on a day, and what those spells do. You need to know the schools of magic, how the schools interact, and be able to make a reasonable guess as to what specific spells are on that treasure chest. Not only that, you need to know what knowledge skills apply to what monster and be able to ready useful spells for the day, and god help you if you prepared color spray five times before walking into the crypt full of undead. It's an EXTREMELY daunting task for somebody who barely knows how to figure out their AC.

I don't think anyone was recommending a new player choose a spellcaster either, as they are notoriously complex.

Worth noting, the first character(s) I ever played were a Wizard and a Cleric.

Edit:


SNIP

Interesting, but "because I want to" could apply to any class in the game.

I'd like to play a Soulborn (seriously, I do), I know it's a bad idea, but I'd like to do it anyway!

That's not a rational or particularly convincing reason to play a bad class, though; ah, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Alright, well let's go with your suggestion and start this theoretical noob as a wizard. Here's why that's a terrible idea. The wizard actually has a very specificrole in a d&d party. The Encyclopedia, to give it a name. If you're playing a wizard, everybody in the party is going to be looking at you for all the information on all the things. You need to know what your save DCs are, how many spells you have on a day, and what those spells do. You need to know the schools of magic, how the schools interact, and be able to make a reasonable guess as to what specific spells are on that treasure chest. Not only that, you need to know what knowledge skills apply to what monster and be able to ready useful spells for the day, and god help you if you prepared color spray five times before walking into the crypt full of undead. It's an EXTREMELY daunting task for somebody who barely knows how to figure out their AC.

I never suggested starting with a Wizard.

[DEMON]

I don't think anyone was recommending a new player choose a spellcaster either, as they are notoriously complex.

Worth noting, the first character(s) I ever played were a Wizard and a Cleric.

Edit:



Interesting, but "because I want to" could apply to any class in the game.

I'd like to play a Soulborn (seriously, I do), I know it's a bad idea, but I'd like to do it anyway!

That's not a rational or particularly convincing reason to play a bad class, though; ah, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

In all fairness, that's what differentiates us from machines. For better or worse. "I did it , because I wanted to".

[Tainted_Scholar]

In all fairness, that's what differentiates us from machines. For better or worse. "I did it , because I wanted to".

But I want to know why you wanted to.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But I want to know why you wanted to.

At the end of the day, I don't think you're going to get a rational reason, at least, not every time.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I never suggested starting with a Wizard.
You kinda did though. In the mind of a new player, how is a martial adept or a psychic warrior any different? All those things I mentioned still apply. People are still gonna look at you for information, albeit a more narrow set of knowledges, and you still need to know the interactions between psionic disciplines, or martial schools. Starting a player on a subsystem, ANY subsystem, is just a bad idea all around, because they don't know the things they need to know, and they aren't going to want to do homework to be able to play a game. Start them as a fighter, tell them what feats are traps, and help them choose ones that aren't.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You kinda did though. In the mind of a new player, how is a martial adept or a psychic warrior any different? All those things I mentioned still apply. People are still gonna look at you for information, albeit a more narrow set of knowledges, and you still need to know the interactions between psionic disciplines, or martial schools. Starting a player on a subsystem, ANY subsystem, is just a bad idea all around, because they don't know the things they need to know, and they aren't going to want to do homework to be able to play a game. Start them as a fighter, tell them what feats are traps, and help them choose ones that aren't.

Not all maneuvers and powers have save DCs, and both systems are simpler than magic.

[DEMON]

But I want to know why you wanted to.

And here I thought you said that part was answered and you're now looking for answers to a follow up topic ;)

[Tainted_Scholar]

You kinda did though. In the mind of a new player, how is a martial adept or a psychic warrior any different? All those things I mentioned still apply. People are still gonna look at you for information, albeit a more narrow set of knowledges, and you still need to know the interactions between psionic disciplines, or martial schools. Starting a player on a subsystem, ANY subsystem, is just a bad idea all around, because they don't know the things they need to know, and they aren't going to want to do homework to be able to play a game. Start them as a fighter, tell them what feats are traps, and help them choose ones that aren't.

Psychic Warrior is way easier to play than Wizard.

[Tainted_Scholar]

And here I thought you said that part was answered and you're now looking for answers to a follow up topic ;)

When a new person shows up, I'm going to want their reason as well.

[Florian]

Psychic Warrior is way easier to play than Wizard.

BS. Any gish is harder to play than a single-focus class.

[Tainted_Scholar]

BS. Any gish is harder to play than a single-focus class.

No, it isn't.

[Florian]

No, it isn't.

Pass what you´re smoking. Stuff must be good as well as potent.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Not all maneuvers and powers have save DCs, and both systems are simpler than magic.
How, exactly? I've played for seven years and the only thing I've found about subsystems is that it just gets more complex after basic magic. Sure, you don't prepare your abilities in most of them, but you still have save DCs, casting time, range, duration, spell level, caster level, specific schools of powers, and all the other crap that comes with arcane magic AS WELL AS rules that are specific to that subsystem. Psionic power points and how many you have and how many you can spend, what augmentation is, what powers can or cannot be augmented, and the psionic disciplines. Initiators? What actions you need to do for what manuevers, what schools your class is allowed to take, your actual initiator level if your multiclassing, school-specific feats and abilities. It's a whole mess of crap to learn. Hell, I only recently started doing ToB stuff and I STILL don't quite get all of it, even though I have exerience playing spellcasters and psions.

[ColorBlindNinja]

How, exactly? I've played for seven years and the only thing I've found about subsystems is that it just gets more complex after basic magic. Sure, you don't prepare your abilities in most of them, but you still have save DCs, casting time, range, duration, spell level, caster level, specific schools of powers, and all the other crap that comes with arcane magic AS WELL AS rules that are specific to that subsystem. Psionic power points and how many you have and how many you can spend, what augmentation is, what powers can or cannot be augmented, and the psionic disciplines. Initiators? What actions you need to do for what manuevers, what schools your class is allowed to take, your actual initiator level if your multiclassing, school-specific feats and abilities. It's a whole mess of crap to learn. Hell, I only recently started doing ToB stuff and I STILL don't quite get all of it, even though I have exerience playing spellcasters and psions.

I don't find ToB or Psionics that complex, but that's just me.

I still think that PP is more elegant than prepared or spontaneous magic and I don't think maneuvers are more complex than either.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Pass what you´re smoking. Stuff must be good as well as potent.

Which sounds easier to play;

Guy who buffs himself to fight more effectively.

or

Guy who has hundreds possibly thousands of different spells with varying degrees of power and utility.

[DEMON]

When a new person shows up, I'm going to want their reason as well.

Fair enough.


Psychic Warrior is way easier to play than Wizard.

Come to think of it, why aren't we discussing Duskblade as well? Compared to fighter, it's not much different to PsyWar, I don't think. It should fit the bill when discussing Fighter replacements like PsyWar, Barbie and Warblade. And it only requires you to learn the "first first" subsystem.

[Florian]

Understanding basic combat rules, understanding psi rules, actually learning why the eff your direct target/damage spells don´t seem to cut it.... Again, don´t kid yourself, any Gish needs more actual system mastery and being comfortable with the subsystems than any other class.

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps this all goes to show that complexity can be subjective?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Come to think of it, why aren't we discussing Duskblade as well? Compared to fighter, it's not much different to PsyWar, I don't think. It should fit the bill when discussing Fighter replacements like PsyWar, Barbie and Warblade. And it only requires you to learn the "first first" subsystem.

Part of the reason I brought up Psychic Warriors is because they're free.

How do ACF-less Rangers compare to Fighters? You can always ignore their spellcasting if it's too complex.

[Psyren]

That doesn't make them a good class for noobs though. It would be like if a new player was hell bent on playing a samurai type class, so they play as a Samurai, which is one of the worst classes in the game. You're explanation makes sense for why a new player might want to play as a Fighter, but the class is still a terrible choice for noobs.

Building someone a samurai is far worse. What if they want to be an archer? Or use a spiked chain? Or a greataxe?


The Fighter's crunch supports none of those concepts, except maybe that last one (and the Knight class does a better job).

Fighters can read and they can fight without raging, so this is false.


Being level-headed is mostly a roleplaying concept, and the Fighter has none of the skills that anyone would associate with nobility.

It's hard to roleplay as calm when rage mechanically makes you angry (e.g. Calm Emotions turns it off, so you are demonstrably not calm by both fluff and crunch.) Not everyone wants to be Bruce Banner.



Are there really that many people who are turned off by the Barbarian's fluff?

There are clearly enough of them that Fighter is popular despite Barbarian also existing in core a couple of pages away.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I don't find ToB or Psionics that complex, but that's just me.

I still think that PP is more elegant than prepared or spontaneous magic and I don't think maneuvers are more complex than either.

I actually agree that psionics are done better than magic, but the point is still there. What does a new player need to learn as a fighter? HP, AC, saves, to hit bonus, damage, feats, and to a much lesser extent, skills. Meanwhile, a psychic warrior needs to learn all of that AND the psionics subsystem.

[OldTrees1]

Part of the reason I brought up Psychic Warriors is because they're free.

How do ACF-less Rangers compare to Fighters? You can always ignore their spellcasting if it's too complex.

ACF-less Rangers? They have better skills and complementary spells(still worse than Martial Rogue) but have very limited combat ability or versatility. They get one of the Fighter feat chains. Archer rangers stay close to Archer fighter but that is not an endorsement. Melee Fighters easily qualitatively and quantitatively outstrip the flurry of misses melee rangers.

Rangers have their place, but not as a replacement for Fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Building someone a samurai is far worse. What if they want to be an archer? Or use a spiked chain? Or a greataxe?

What if they want to be a Samurai?


Fighters can read and they can fight without raging, so this is false.

It's only a few skill points to read, and Barbarians can fight without Rage too, it's just not a good idea. Edit: Fighters often dump INT/WIS, which makes it kind of hard to be tactically minded.


It's hard to roleplay as calm when rage mechanically makes you angry (e.g. Calm Emotions turns it off, so you are demonstrably not calm by both fluff and crunch.) Not everyone wants to be Bruce Banner.

You could roleplay someone who's calm normally, but violent when provoked, that's a pretty common character concept.


There are clearly enough of them that Fighter is popular despite Barbarian also existing in core a couple of pages away.

... That doesn't answer my question.

Edit:


ACF-less Rangers? They have better skills and complementary spells(still worse than Martial Rogue) but have very limited combat ability or versatility. They get one of the Fighter feat chains. Archer rangers stay close to Archer fighter but that is not an endorsement. Melee Fighters easily qualitatively and quantitatively outstrip the flurry of misses mele rangers.

Rangers have their place, but not as a replacement for Fighter.

I get what you're saying, I just remember ACF-less Rangers being a better class than ACF-less Fighters.

[Psyren]

What if they want to be a Samurai?

Then I'd build them one, while also explaining that "Samurai" means something very specific in D&D (a heavy armor, TWF, fear-using build) and see if that's still what they want.



It's only a few skill points to read, and Barbarians can fight without Rage too, it's not a good idea.

If I'm not raging I'd much rather be a fighter. Especially if I want multiple combat styles (e.g. ranged.)



You could roleplay someone who's calm normally, but violent when provoked, that's a pretty common character concept.

It is, but it's not the same as one who is calm even under pressure. If I want that concept, Barbarian is ill-suited.



... That doesn't answer my question.

The answer to your question is yes - that's what "clearly" means.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Then I'd build them one, while also explaining that "Samurai" means something very specific in D&D (a heavy armor, TWF, fear-using build) and see if that's still what they want.

OK, how does that change the fact that the Samurai class matches their character concept?


If I'm not raging I'd much rather be a fighter. Especially if I want multiple combat styles (e.g. ranged.)

Not everyone wants to be an archer.


It is, but it's not the same as one who is calm even under pressure. If I want that concept, Barbarian is ill-suited.

Perhaps, but is a Fighter really the best choice in this case?


The answer to your question is yes - that's what "clearly" means.

No it isn't. I asked if that many people dislike the Barbarian's fluff, and you told me that people play Fighters over Barbarians despite them being the same book. That's not an answer to my question, and you have yet to present any evidence that's why some people play Fighters instead of Barbarians.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Then I'd build them one, while also explaining that "Samurai" means something very specific in D&D (a heavy armor, TWF, fear-using build) and see if that's still what they want.

Yes, but they're still a terrible class for beginners, even if they want to play that concept. It doesn't matter if a noob wants to play a Fighter, that doesn't make it a good class for starters.


It is, but it's not the same as one who is calm even under pressure. If I want that concept, Barbarian is ill-suited.

You could roleplay it as a tranquil fury.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but they're still a terrible class for beginners, even if they want to play that concept. It doesn't matter if a noob wants to play a Fighter, that doesn't make it a good class for starters.

If someone want to play that class, then none of the other classes are valid starting classes.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If someone want to play that class, then none of the other classes are valid starting classes.

But it doesn't make it a good class for beginners.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If someone want to play that class, then none of the other classes are valid starting classes.

True, but it would cruel to not at least warn him of how bad the Samurai is.

[lord_khaine]

Then I'd build them one, while also explaining that "Samurai" means something very specific in D&D (a heavy armor, TWF, fear-using build) and see if that's still what they want.


I would instead ask them what a Samurai meant to them. What a Samurai is in D&D isnt even something there are complete agreement on. And its kinda irelevant. What matters is what sort of Samurai the new player has in mind.

[OldTrees1]

But it doesn't make it a good class for beginners.

The judgement about good or bad class for beginners is irrelevant in the case you provided. If they want to play a Samurai class then even a Barbarian would be a bad first class for them.


True, but it would cruel to not at least warn him of how bad the Samurai is.

I completely agree. Although if I were the DM I would be willing to help change that with respect to the PC in question.

[DEMON]

Part of the reason I brought up Psychic Warriors is because they're free.

How do ACF-less Rangers compare to Fighters? You can always ignore their spellcasting if it's too complex.

Single-class, AFC-less Rangers?

2WFing requires extra damage, so unless you're fighting your favored enemies most of the time (2HF weapon and armor spikes, or light shield + 1H weapon combo notwithstanding), you're gonna go with archery. It's got issues of its own, but there are upsides as well.

Comparing the chassis, the Ranger has worse HD, same BAB and a clear advantage in saves and skills (in both class skills list and skill points). Animal companion is bad early on and dead later on, due to the low advancement. Bonus feats, such as track and endurance ain't much to write home about.

Combat style and Favored enemy are the main features, I guess, supplement by late additions such as evasion, camouflage and HiPS, that, truth be told, many players don't get to experience at all, because they are acquired at rather hight levels.

As an archer a Ranger is perfectly fine (compared to a fighter), and would be even better if multiclassed with a fighter, actually (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16494135&postcount=101).

Without spells, but with the feats-for-spells (Champion of the Wild) ACF, they could be Fighter lite, but better on other accounts; without spells with nothing to show for it, it's questionable.

Ranger has other things going for himself (including spells, most of the time), that the Fighter doesn't, but likewise, Fighter can focus on other combat styles, that are subpar to a Ranger and/or use the general feats for other things, as he has plenty of fighter bonus feats to invest to fighting.

Personally, I prefer Rangers, because reasons, but that's a different story. I've added a level or 2 of fighter into many Ranger builds before and I'd likely do it again.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The judgement about good or bad class for beginners is irrelevant in the case you provided. If they want to play a Samurai class then even a Barbarian would be a bad first class.

It would be bad to force the player to play as a Barbarian because he wants to play a Samurai, but the Samurai is still a bad class for beginners. You aren't going to recommend that new players play a Samurai because they are a bad class for beginners.

The same is true of the Fighter. If a new player really wants to play one them let them, but that doesn't mean they're good for beginners.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Single-class, AFC-less Rangers?

2WFing requires extra damage, so unless you're fighting your favored enemies most of the time (2HF weapon and armor spikes, or light shield + 1H weapon combo notwithstanding), you're gonna go with archery. It's got issues of its own, but there are upsides as well.

Comparing the chassis, the Ranger has worse HD, same BAB and a clear advantage in saves and skills (in both class skills list and skill points). Animal companion is bad early on and dead later on, due to the low advancement. Bonus feats, such as track and endurance ain't much to write home about.

Combat style and Favored enemy are the main features, I guess, supplement by late additions such as evasion, camouflage and HiPS, that, truth be told, many players don't get to experience at all, because they are acquired at rather hight levels.

As an archer a Ranger is perfectly fine (compared to a fighter), and would be even better if multiclassed with a fighter, actually (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16494135&postcount=101).

Without spells, but with the feats-for-spells (Champion of the Wild) ACF, they could be Fighter lite, but better on other accounts; without spells with nothing to show for it, it's questionable.

Ranger has other things going for himself (including spells, most of the time), that the Fighter doesn't, but likewise, Fighter can focus on other combat styles, that are subpar to a Ranger and/or use the general feats for other things, as he has plenty of fighter bonus feats to invest to fighting.

Personally, I prefer Rangers, because reasons, but that's a different story. I've added a level or 2 of fighter into many Ranger builds before and I'd likely do it again.

OK.

With ACFs, I'm pretty sure Wildshape Ranger is better, though. That's not even touching stuff like Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order.

[OldTrees1]

OK.

With ACFs, I'm pretty sure Wildshape Ranger is better, though. That's not even touching stuff like Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order.

Those ACFs make Ranger stronger than Fighter but also introduce a difference of kinds to the mix. The Fighter class does not have to compete for attention with the Wildshape Ranger because they fulfill different kinds of player character concepts.

[DEMON]

OK.

With ACFs, I'm pretty sure Wildshape Ranger is better, though. That's not even touching stuff like Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order.

Obviously, no arguments there. Though I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion. A Wildshape Ranger has very little in common with the "classic" Fighter concept and one would have a hard time selling it as a fighter replacement to someone who wants to play... say, Boromir (sans the pincushion part).

[ColorBlindNinja]

Those ACFs make Ranger stronger than Fighter but also introduce a difference of kinds to the mix. The Fighter class does not have to compete for attention with the Wildshape Ranger because they fulfill different kinds of player character concepts.

True, but I was thinking about performance in melee.


Obviously, no arguments there. Though I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion. A Wildshape Ranger has very little in common with the "classic" Fighter concept and one would have a hard time selling it as a fighter replacement to someone who wants to play... say, Boromir (sans the pincushion part).

I'd agree as far as character concepts go.

[OldTrees1]

True, but I was thinking about performance in melee.

Then my first 7 words answered your question and the rest was just bonus. A Wildshape Ranger melees like a Druid and thus is stronger in melee than a Fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Then my first 7 words answered your question and the rest was just bonus. A Wildshape Ranger melees like a Druid and thus is stronger in melee than a Fighter.

Ah, OK. I see what you meant.

[Psyren]

Yes, but they're still a terrible class for beginners, even if they want to play that concept. It doesn't matter if a noob wants to play a Fighter, that doesn't make it a good class for starters.

They're good enough.


You could roleplay it as a tranquil fury.

So I'm tranquil, but Calm Emotions ruins it? I'm don't mind refluffing, but there are limits.


OK, how does that change the fact that the Samurai class matches their character concept?

It wouldn't.


Not everyone wants to be an archer.]

Just like not everyone wants to be a Barbarian.



Perhaps, but is a Fighter really the best choice in this case?

Moving goalposts, this thread has nothing to do with what is "best." (If we can even define that objectively.)



No it isn't. I asked if that many people dislike the Barbarian's fluff, and you told me that people play Fighters over Barbarians despite them being the same book. That's not an answer to my question, and you have yet to present any evidence that's why some people play Fighters instead of Barbarians.

Clearly enough people do that not everyone is running out to play Barbarian. I'm sorry if you don't consider that to be an answer, but it doesn't change what I said.

[SirNibbles]

Clearly enough people do that not everyone is running out to play Barbarian. I'm sorry if you don't consider that to be an answer, but it doesn't change what I said.

I actively avoid Barbarian when possible because I dislike the fluff. Anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[ColorBlindNinja]

They're good enough.

An unoptimized Samurai is tier 6; that's good enough? Edit: You were talking about the Fighter, it still has issues if it isn't built well.



It wouldn't.

Great, so now the player has a tier 6 character.


Just like not everyone wants to be a Barbarian.

You've still haven't provided any reason for me to believe that people have issues with the Barbarian's fluff.


Moving goalposts, this thread has nothing to do with what is "best." (If we can even define that objectively.)

We're talking about the Fighter being a bad class for new players, I asked if there are better classes (mechanically speaking) that would fill the same fluff niche.

Warblades would seem to be the most obvious choice here.


Clearly enough people do that not everyone is running out to play Barbarian. I'm sorry if you don't consider that to be an answer, but it doesn't change what I said.

Indeed; you just asserted that without evidence.

Edit:


I actively avoid Barbarian when possible because I dislike the fluff. Anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Better than nothing, thanks.

[Tainted_Scholar]

They're good enough.

No, they really aren't. A unoptimized Fighter has trouble fighting CR appropriate monsters.


So I'm tranquil, but Calm Emotions ruins it? I'm don't mind refluffing, but there are limits.

Calm Emotions ruins it, because it makes you stop being angry. Roleplaying Rage as Tranquil Fury means that you're still pissed, but you're in control of your anger.

[Psyren]

No, they really aren't. A unoptimized Fighter has trouble fighting CR appropriate monsters.

If the GM is good enough to tailor encounter CR, they can help optimize a fighter. This goes back to the "build for them" point. Whereas if everybody is new, they'll be using a module and the CR will be weak.



Calm Emotions ruins it, because it makes you stop being angry. Roleplaying Rage as Tranquil Fury means that you're still pissed, but you're in control of your anger.

So I'm angry but I'm not angry? :smallconfused:



You've still haven't provided any reason for me to believe that people have issues with the Barbarian's fluff.

Indeed; you just asserted that without evidence.

Did you skip all the posts in this very thread where people want to be Fighters? Is that not evidence of people choosing Fighter over Barbarian? Or are you saying these people don't know Barbarian exists? Which is it?



We're talking about the Fighter being a bad class for new players, I asked if there are better classes (mechanically speaking) that would fill the same fluff niche.

Warblades would seem to be the most obvious choice here.

Circles once again.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If the GM is good enough to tailor encounter CR, they can help optimize a fighter. This goes back to the "build for them" point. Whereas if everybody is new, they'll be using a module and the CR will be weak.

If you have to build somebody's character for them, then that class isn't noob friendly. A noob friendly class is one that a new player can build and play without a high chance of screwing up. Additionally, most unoptimized Fighters are going to die horribly in most modules.


So I'm angry but I'm not angry? :smallconfused:

You're angry, but in control. I just explained this, how is that so hard to understand?

[ColorBlindNinja]

If the GM is good enough to tailor encounter CR, they can help optimize a fighter. This goes back to the "build for them" point. Whereas if everybody is new, they'll be using a module and the CR will be weak.

CR is a horrible way judge the stength of monsters, that's how TPKs happen. Edit: This solution only works if all the players are as weak as the Samurai/Fighter.


So I'm angry but I'm not angry? :smallconfused:

You can be angry without screaming like a lunatic and frothing at the mouth.



Did you skip all the posts in this very thread where people want to be Fighters? Is that not evidence of people choosing Fighter over Barbarian? Or are you saying these people don't know Barbarian exists? Which is it?

I asked about people disliking the Barbarian's fluff and you couldn't come up with one example.

A different poster did, but that's beside the point.


Circles once again.

With all books on the table, mechanically, why would you play a Fighter over a Warblade?

[OldTrees1]

With all books on the table, mechanically, why would you play a Fighter over a Warblade?

1) Bonus Feats
2) Mechanical texture. I prefer martial techniques to be mechanically represented as always available option that can be chained or even merged together. Maneuvers can be chained but can't do either of the other 2 features. Fighter can knockback stagger and knock prone on a single AoO.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Bonus Feats

That's one reason.

[Psyren]

If you have to build somebody's character for them, then that class isn't noob friendly. A noob friendly class is one that a new player can build and play without a high chance of screwing up. Additionally, most unoptimized Fighters are going to die horribly in most modules.

We've been over this already too. Build complexity vs. Piloting complexity. Fighter is the former but not the latter. Circles.


CR is a horrible way judge the stength of monsters, that's how TPKs happen. Edit: This solution only works if all the players are as weak as the Samurai/Fighter.

Neither of these is true. CR does fail in many instances but for the most part it's a useful guideline. And mixed-tier parties play together successfully all the time in real life.



I asked about people disliking the Barbarian's fluff and you couldn't come up with one example.

A different poster did, but that's beside the point.

Use his then if you like it better, it doesn't matter to me.


With all books on the table, mechanically, why would you play a Fighter over a Warblade?

In my case? For the challenge, but we covered that several pages back already too.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Bonus Feats

Is there anything you can do with Bonus Feats that you can't do with Maneuvers?

[Tainted_Scholar]

We've been over this already too. Build complexity vs. Piloting complexity. Fighter is the former but not the latter. Circles.

Except that means they still aren't noob friendly.


Neither of these is true. CR does fail in many instances but for the most part it's a useful guideline. And mixed-tier parties play together successfully all the time in real life.

CR fails all the time.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Neither of these is true. CR does fail in many instances but for the most part it's a useful guideline. And mixed-tier parties play together successfully all the time in real life.

Anecdotal evidence at best.



Use his then if you like it better, it doesn't matter to me.

One person proves little.


In my case? For the challenge, but we covered that several pages back already too.

Mechanically, I said, challenge has nothing to do with that.

Edit:

We've been over this already too. Build complexity vs. Piloting complexity. Fighter is the former but not the latter. Circles.

That hardly matters, it doesn't take much to shut down a tripping or charging build, for example.

[AnimeTheCat]

It doesn't carry as part of its class an inspiration for roleplay, for a start.

Any "knight in shining armor" can be a fighter. Any grissled mercenary can be one. Any sword and shield captain of the guard. Any Body guard. If the image fits anything you can do from feats, it fits the fighter. If you were starting a game at level one and someone wanted to play a knight on horseback who can also hold his own on the ground, what class has the feats to do both?

[Knaight]

Maybe? What's to stop you from re-fluffing the Psionics?

Refluffing can only go so far before it becomes absurd. Psionic Warrior to a nonmagical warrior character is a pretty major refluff, particularly when you're asking it of someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the system.

[Florian]

Is there anything you can do with Bonus Feats that you can't do with Maneuvers?

This gets annoying.

Is it hard to understand that fluff and style are important and should have a mechanical representation?

That means that if the core of it isn´t "badass mundane", than it isn´t a fighter. Using Wildshape isn´t a Fighter. Using spells-but-we-don´t-call-it-that isn´t a Fighter, declaring PP to be "mundane" isn´t a Fighter. Anything that runs out of steam or works only a limited amount per day isn´t a Fighter. (Exception: PrC that will later give spell access)

[Milo v3]

Anything that runs out of steam or works only a limited amount per day isn´t a Fighter.

Good thing maneuvers don't run out of steam or only work a limited amount per day then?

[Psyren]

Except that means they still aren't noob friendly.

Piloting is the "noob's" job, not building.



CR fails all the time.


Anecdotal evidence at best.


One person proves little.

One is all I need to disprove your assertion.


Mechanically, I said, challenge has nothing to do with that.

Challenge has everything to do with mechanics.

[Florian]

Good thing maneuvers don't run out of steam or only work a limited amount per day then?

Woah, you got me there! So it´s not like a random Swordsage 5th can have 6 prepped out of 10 known? Like... magically forgetting how to do the other 4?

That is the same breaking of verisimilitude like the Encounter/Daily system of 4E (and incidentally part of the "too anime" complaint)

Edit: Ow, ow, ow, it´s so hard! What to prep today: "Eat Breakfast", "Take a leak" or "Tie Shoe Laces"?

[Coretron03]

Woah, you got me there! So it´s not like a random Swordsage 5th can have 6 prepped out of 10 known? Like... magically forgetting how to do the other 4?

That is the same breaking of verisimilitude like the Encounter/Daily system of 4E (and incidentally part of the "too anime" complaint)

Edit: Ow, ow, ow, it´s so hard! What to prep today: "Eat Breakfast", "Take a leak" or "Tie Shoe Laces"?

That wasn't what he meant and you know it.

Plus, all the classes can get them back in combat and with training (a feat)they can change them when they want (Except crusaders, they work a bit differently.

[Knaight]

Woah, you got me there! So it´s not like a random Swordsage 5th can have 6 prepped out of 10 known? Like... magically forgetting how to do the other 4?

That's not particularly similar to spells though - from a simulation perspective, only being in position with some of your favored tricks at any given time makes a lot of sense (variation in stances, the mental game of having a bit of a plan for what you're doing and of trying to get an opponent to read you a particular way to trip them up later), as does benefiting from backing off a bit every so often (fights broken into sequences of the fighters in close fighting then back out watching for an opportunity aren't exactly absurd). It's running out of them completely where it just gets weird, which is part* of why Psychic Warrior fits so poorly. ToB just breaks down the moment your fighter concept is an archer.

*A small part

[lord_khaine]

I actively avoid Barbarian when possible because I dislike the fluff. Anecdotal evidence, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Me to, one of the classes i have newer used myself. And newer cares enough about the chassis to refluff either.


You've still haven't provided any reason for me to believe that people have issues with the Barbarian's fluff.

There is at least 2 of us.


No, they really aren't. A unoptimized Fighter has trouble fighting CR appropriate monsters.

An unoptimised anything has trouble fighting CR appropriate opponents. The fighter has a much higher floor, only surpassed i think by the Barbarian.


CR is a horrible way judge the stength of monsters, that's how TPKs happen. Edit: This solution only works if all the players are as weak as the Samurai/Fighter.

If they are all as inexperienced as the Fighter then they are likely to be as weak as him. That also means they are easy to keep entertained with a handful of goblings.

[DMVerdandi]

LOL. I am going to chime in. 15 pages in. Bolding points just for ease of reading


Why do People want to play a dedicated FIGHTER[20]
I break it down into 3 reasons generally.
First reason is they are new, and probably do have some sort of idea of fighters that exist in media, but don't in D&D. Fighters are DEEP to create and maintain, but SHALLOW to use in play.

Second reason is they are NOT new, and legitimately want to play D&D on hard mode. That is what the fighter truly is. One step away from playing a commoner

Third reason is like a literal obsession with being a super-muggle.

Now interestingly enough, if one was like "your powers come from willpower and focus" that is a psionic realm, or if they were like "your powers come from mastery of a technique" that would be the sublime way. If it came from absorbing cosmic energy its arcane, and if it comes from unifying with a concept, it's divine. Incarnum aside (Even though an incarnate can be dope in some combat roles), those are the sources of power.

3.5 fighter has no power. It has only things that EVERYONE can learn (Cept Weapon Superiority). And the worst part of it, is they aren't skills, but little tricks. Skills can be applied to a great many things, but tricks are solely circumstantial.

Is Fighter a good Beginner's Class
Heavens no. At first it looks like it totally is, as it has a nice fat hit die, and at level 1 (which only a new DM or a real "so-so" one starts a game at) has very little to worry about, resource wise, BUT cleric and druid are probably the easiest to start everyone off with, mechanically speaking.

The abundance of feats doesn't really make itself apparent until the mid-game, and by that time, continuously re-investing in fighter is a less than optimal choice anyway.

Role-playing aside, it is a mechanically unwise choice to keep doubling down. But in core, you are only left with mechanically unsound choices after that. The GOOD classes do require early investment, and the bad ones kind of make you wish you hadn't gone down the path once you realized what you did.

You know what a good beginning class is? Warlock.

If I could be totally honest, If you could take all of the warlock invocations out, and replace them with buff spells (Bull's strength, mage armor, magic weapon, HEROICS,skill bonus spells, up to tenser's transformation) and then have their eldritch blast be a static boost to damage, that would have been a beautiful example of a decent fighter.

Technically that is the appeal of the arcane swordsage, but MUH ANIMU



What is the ideal fighter crunch/fluff wise?
Well, I think the fighter is ill defined. It as per core is literally just a warrior with feats. Lame.
If they are going to be supernormal, make them so. Hindsight was 20/20, so they progressed, and then regressed.

Fluff wise, The fighter should be as the Wizard is to arcane magic, the Archivist is to divine, and the Erudite is to psionics. It should be the unparalleled and undaunted king of the science of killing things.
Fighter should have been INT based from the start. It's not just some goon. That is a commoner, or a warrior.
It is the elite as far as combat goes, but not just in name, in deed.


In fact, the division of some of the mundane classes is much to my chagrin. The wizard is 8 classes in 1. The erudite is 8^3 classes in 1. Fighter should have EASILY had a way to fight like a monk, or like a rogue, or like a barbarian, or like a swashbuckler, just like wizard can be a necromancer, or an enchanter.


Oh, wait...The sublime way. LOL.
So, in all honesty, the sublime way is the cornerstone system for the fighter to exist in. And they kind of tried with the warblade, but the fluff is a turn-off to people who cannot play outside of the box, while still using the frame. Had they simply remade the system but kept the name, not unlike how pathfinder made the Unchained books, it would have been far more well received.


4e fighter IMO was the ultimate crystallization of the "fighter concept", giving it a mechanical role, the ability to grow in power as well as complexity, and still remaining martially powered, but it's from a game that was tossed away.

[Lans]

I'd probably take Silent Image, Grease, and Color Spray at the very least. What enemy would be immune to all of those (with a CR appropriate for a level 1 party)?


A necropolitan armed with a crossbow, followed by another necropolitan armed with a crossbow 10 minutes later.

Or a dwarf cleric with zen archery and a crossbow. Not immune to the color spray or silent image, but it has 2+stat vs the DC of 11+stat.

[ryu]

A necropolitan armed with a crossbow, followed by another necropolitan armed with a crossbow 10 minutes later.

Or a dwarf cleric with zen archery and a crossbow. Not immune to the color spray or silent image, but it has 2+stat vs the DC of 11+stat.

Fun fact about necropolitans. They can't afford the ritual before level 3 and are thus automatically inappropriate for fights against level one characters.

And second option isn't even immune, has a severe disadvantage on the save in most cases because plus int races are easier than Wis races to find. And the wizard likely gets multiple shots because they've some of the best level one defensive options in the game. Wanna try again?

[Yklikt]

Fun fact about necropolitans. They can't afford the ritual before level 3 and are thus automatically inappropriate for fights against level one characters.

Use something like kobold or goblin for the necropolitan

[Lans]

Fun fact about necropolitans. They can't afford the ritual before level 3 and are thus automatically inappropriate for fights against level one characters.

And second option isn't even immune, has a severe disadvantage on the save in most cases because plus int races are easier than Wis races to find. And the wizard likely gets multiple shots because they've some of the best level one defensive options in the game. Wanna try again?

1 the back story of the character doesn't matter on how he afforded the ritual, as long as its a CR 1

2 That is why I specified dwarf, who has a +2 save bonus vs spells, and a wizard who has prepped 3 offensive spells doesn't have much left over for defense.

Also, the wizard having extra shots doesn;t matter if the fighter goes in and kills the enemy, and thus is "keeping up with the wizard" as this tangent was more about people thinking fighters are comparable to wizards

[Coretron03]

A necropolitan armed with a crossbow, followed by another necropolitan armed with a crossbow 10 minutes later.

Or a dwarf cleric with zen archery and a crossbow. Not immune to the color spray or silent image, but it has 2+stat vs the DC of 11+stat.


1 the back story of the character doesn't matter on how he afforded the ritual, as long as its a CR 1

2 That is why I specified dwarf, who has a +2 save bonus vs spells, and a wizard who has prepped 3 offensive spells doesn't have much left over for defense.

1 So your saying the Npc gets Necropolitan for free with no downsides? Because something probably level drained it? I don't think that's particularly fair.

2 Ryu probably means abrubt jaunt.

[Lans]

1 So your saying the Npc gets Necropolitan for free with no downsides? Because something probably level drained it? I don't think that's particularly fair.


Or he was just hella rich, and whats not fair about it?

2 Ryu probably means abrubt jaunt.
Which doesn't do anything vs a cross bow unless he is with in 10 feet of cover

[Coretron03]

Or he was just hella rich, and whats not fair about it?

Which doesn't do anything vs a cross bow unless he is with in 10 feet of cover

How money suppose to help? Buying off the Xp requirement? I don't have my books right now, I thought 3rd level was a requirement regardless of the Xp for becoming a necropolitan. Plus, it's kind of unfair if your giving the npc more wealth then the game suggests in a form PC's can't use or giving Npc's a free ability thats supposed to cost exp and that they don't qualify for by handwaving it as "Backstory"

2 Then he might be referring to something else, I'm not entirely sure what.

[Mutazoia]

whew boy....okay....

So, the problem in 3.X (or later) isn't that the fighter sux balls. The problem is that casters had some pretty big shackles removed when AD&D was copy/pasta'd into WOTCs pre-existing D20 game.

Prior to 3.X, the fighter was your tank. He stood on the front line of combat, and kept your squishy mage alive, so he could cast his magic. This is back when taking any sort of damage ruined a caster's spell. Back before "Casting defensively", or a magic 5' step.

You see, mages had to actually pick and choose a limited number of spells that, once cast, had to be re-memorized during a 24 hour rest period. So if your mage shot his wad in one encounter, the most he could do was throw a few darts at people for the rest of the day. You NEEDED the fighter, who's melee damage was never expended (unless the Fighter was K.O.d)

With the advent of 3.X, casters, particularly mages, got a MAJOR increase in power. They didn't lose their spells by taking damage, they could "cast defensively" (still not sure how this is even supposed to work, logically), they could take a 5' step out of melee range and be perfectly fine...they refreshed their spells faster, they were gifted with their own special class of Feats in addition to the "standard" feats that every other class received.

Tack that onto the Sorc. ability to spontaneously cast any spell in existance, and you've pretty much broken the game already....why play anything OTHER than a caster, as they are getting all of the power-ups, and can fairly reliably preform the functions of every other class in the game.

So, with all this, what did the Fighter get? Extra feats. wow...really? That's it? Yup. Take your extra Feats, melee boy, and be happy we even remembered you existed. Not even close to being the best design/balance choice ever made...quite possibly one of the worst (out side of Rifts).

[ryu]

How money suppose to help? Buying off the Xp requirement? I don't have my books right now, I thought 3rd level was a requirement regardless of the Xp for becoming a necropolitan. Plus, it's kind of unfair if your giving the npc more wealth then the game suggests in a form PC's can't use or giving Npc's a free ability thats supposed to cost exp and that they don't qualify for by handwaving it as "Backstory"

2 Then he might be referring to something else, I'm not entirely sure what.

No no. It's abrupt jaunt. I don't necessarily need total cover to get effect out of jaunt though that would be ideal. This cover can be most easily obtained by making a fake wall with the previously mentioned silent image or similar. If not you still have the option of using jaunt within the environment. Are you in a dungeon corridor that may well have a corner nearby for cover? Perhaps in a forest with the all important trees? A city with buildings you may or may not be near? Bushlands with any sort plausible visual cover? Ruins with destroyed brickwork to crouch behind for partial cover which is still plenty useful? Literally ANYWHERE that isn't a featureless plain with lines of sight to everything to favor the DM's pet archer encounter? Yeah, just because Jaunt doesn't completely shut down ranged attacks the way it does melee doesn't mean it doesn't see regular use to defend from such. You'd all do well to remember that.

This is before we even get into things like tower shields and similar possible party synergy.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, the power went out while I was writing my response.


That's one reason.


1) Bonus Feats
2) Mechanical texture. I prefer martial techniques to be mechanically represented as always available option that can be chained or even merged together. Maneuvers can be chained but can't do either of the other 2 features. Fighter can knockback stagger and knock prone on a single AoO.


Is there anything you can do with Bonus Feats that you can't do with Maneuvers?

Yes.
1) The effects gained by feats can be merged for better action economy. You can't do 3 maneuvers in the same action.
1b) Combat Reflex is a feat that can be combined with feats but not with maneuvers.
2) Some decent feats (like combat reflexes) have effects that are not duplicated by a maneuver/stance.
2b) You would expect there to be a Setting Sun maneuver that allowed you to grapple an enemy rather than merely throw them. While such a maneuver would miss the entire point of the Scorpion Grasp feat (doing it on an AoO to negate an action), it is a strange gap.
3) Maneuvers are not designed to be spammed. Feat effects are.
3b) Having a maneuver that dazes the enemy for 1 round is much less exciting than a feat effect that has hit enemies be dazed for 1 round. Not only can the latter affect more enemies but the latter can keep the dazed.
4) Having bonus feats means you do not spend your normal feats on the feats you select with your bonus feats. The same is true for maneuvers. I wanted to mention that if a hypothetical initiator used their normal feats for a fighter feat, the fighter could use one of their normal feat to buy Wings instead.

[AnimeTheCat]

Feats are always something that in TO and even PO people can't get enough of. So many people complain that they can't get enough feats to pull of XYZ build and fighters/PsyWars get feats in spades. Not even the initiator classes get as many feats. If you want to play a Two Weapon Fighting build that goes in to one of the combat style feats (Hammer and Piton, Crescent Moon Style, High Sword Low Axe*a personal favorite) fighter is probably better than psychic warrior because you get full BAB and a better HD. That means you'll get to GTWF before the PsyWar. If there is a fight against a BBEG, having a fighter with GTWF and the High Sword, Low Axe feats, and Travel Devotion is going to be very good at moving in to a cluster of enemies, taking their attacks and getting additional free attacks if they succeed on tripping. Start with the toughest enemy and attack with your first main and off hand attacks, if you trip get your freebie. next move to another one with your second main and offhand attacks, if you trip take your freebie. Then move to your third attacks, if you trip take your freebie. Nine attacks (assuming trip success on the mooks of the BBEG). A DM who has centaurs with 26 strength as mooks is just being a jerk and simply doesn't want the fighter to feel included. That leaves the rest of the party (presumably a wizard, cleric, druid, rogue, etc) to deal damage and pull other schenanigans because the fighter locked down a lot of the mooks and did respectable damage in their action. Is it guaranteed? no, but it's far from useless. The fighter will get to High sword low axe at level 4 (I think? 2 weapon focuses, Combat Expertise, improved trip, and two weapon fighting. if they're a human level 4, everyone else will have to wait till level 6) which means the encounters are still in the range where a fighter will be of use.

If you don't want to use travel devotion the feat dual strike would allow an attack with both weapons as a standard action, and if both hit you get your trip attempt.

[Psyren]

Interesting that they both stopped posting at the same time... and have the same odd location.


Well, I think the fighter is ill defined. It as per core is literally just a warrior with feats. Lame.

For the record I definitely agree with this, which is why the PF fighter kicks ass while also being widely available.

[lord_khaine]

Is Fighter a good Beginner's Class
Heavens no. At first it looks like it totally is, as it has a nice fat hit die, and at level 1 (which only a new DM or a real "so-so" one starts a game at) has very little to worry about, resource wise, BUT cleric and druid are probably the easiest to start everyone off with, mechanically speaking.

No. Cleric is a decent choice for someone thats at least a little into gaming, and dont need to learn to many new concepts in play. But druid is a horrible choice. Its most likely the PHB class with the most to keep track off. And i would say the worst possible choice to give a beginner.

[Jormengand]

Any "knight in shining armor" can be a fighter. Any grissled mercenary can be one. Any sword and shield captain of the guard. Any Body guard. If the image fits anything you can do from feats, it fits the fighter. If you were starting a game at level one and someone wanted to play a knight on horseback who can also hold his own on the ground, what class has the feats to do both?

A knight can't be a fighter because he has no knowledge of nobility and royalty, let alone being part of the nobility. He also has no ability to rule or lead, so at best he'd be some kind of knight of circumstance, knighted on the spot to deal with some imminent threat (which has actually happened) and then unsure what to do with the rest of his life. Hardly an inspiring concept.

A mercenary would have knowledge of the terrain he was fighting on and the banners he would see in armies, which is geography and nobility. The fighter gets neither. A mercenary would also want diplomacy for making actual deals with someone, and hide and move silently because all soldiers need those.

A captain of the guard? He would need diplomacy, knowledge local, knowledge nobility, spot, listen, search, sense motive...

And bodyguards would definitely want search and knowledge local. Bodyguards don't just stand next to people looking menacing; even if you were only close protection you would want spot and listen.

These are not things you can do from feats. Gladiator is barely a thing you can do from just feats. A fighter is that guy you pull out when there's someone you want to challenge to a duel. They're not subtle, they're not tactical, and they're not flashy either: all they're really good at is hurting people.

[Mordaedil]

Interesting that they both stopped posting at the same time... and have the same odd location.

No law against having your house-mates post, as for the similar opinions, I can only assume it is easier to get people to see your point of view when talking to them directly than over the Internet.

If they are the same person though, that seems like a lot of effort for little gain.

[AnimeTheCat]

A knight can't be a fighter because he has no knowledge of nobility and royalty, let alone being part of the nobility. He also has no ability to rule or lead, so at best he'd be some kind of knight of circumstance, knighted on the spot to deal with some imminent threat (which has actually happened) and then unsure what to do with the rest of his life. Hardly an inspiring concept.

A mercenary would have knowledge of the terrain he was fighting on and the banners he would see in armies, which is geography and nobility. The fighter gets neither. A mercenary would also want diplomacy for making actual deals with someone, and hide and move silently because all soldiers need those.

A captain of the guard? He would need diplomacy, knowledge local, knowledge nobility, spot, listen, search, sense motive...

And bodyguards would definitely want search and knowledge local. Bodyguards don't just stand next to people looking menacing; even if you were only close protection you would want spot and listen.

These are not things you can do from feats. Gladiator is barely a thing you can do from just feats. A fighter is that guy you pull out when there's someone you want to challenge to a duel. They're not subtle, they're not tactical, and they're not flashy either: all they're really good at is hurting people.

Why do I need knowledge nobility to wear heavy armor, weald a lance/shield/sword, and charge in to battle with gallantry? Any character can take the leadership feat and gain the ability to lead. You don't need to have knowledge nobility and royalty to swear fealty to a liege and fight for them. Any character can take the time to memorize banners of armies. A run of the mill sword for hire probably isn't the brightest crayon in the box, hence why they are selling their strength, not their brain. You don't need diplomacy to set your price. If the prospective buyer doesn't meet it, you walk. If they want you bad enough, they'll fold. if not, there's surely a caravan that needs a sword or shield. Why does a captain of the guard need diplomacy? Couldn't he just have a team of negotiators (3-4 depending on the size of the city) that could serve as advisors/investigators? why would he be bothered by that? he needs to make sure the men are trained to defend the city and make sure that the watches have enough people on them. Investigating is someone else's job. If a guard suspects someone of something, they take him/her in and let the trained professionals handle the questioning. The beefy guy protecting a noble probably isn't the same one going AWAY from the noble to gather information. There's probably a slinky little roguish one doing that and telling said information to the beefy bodyguard so he can prepare properly.

Fighters work best as a part of a team, which is what a party is. Why does the fighter need to do everything?

[Eldariel]

Fighters only have same +Con as everyone else, one good save & same armor as everyone else. Cleric literally averages one HP/level less than Fighter and gets good Will-save in exchange. Taking hits isn't a Fighter strong point.

Failed Will-save is way more likely way to lose your character than under 10% of 14 starting Con character's HP. And casting one Heal per day adds more HP than Fighter could ever stock up on. Magic Vestment makes for higher AC.

If you want a tank, you want a Cleric or a Druid. They supply their own buffs and healing and contribute to party resource pool (mostly spellslots), while Fighters only drain it contributing nothing. Every Fighter would be better off as a Cleric in basically any party.

[AnimeTheCat]

Fighters only have same +Con as everyone else, one good save & same armor as everyone else. Cleric literally averages one HP/level less than Fighter and gets good Will-save in exchange. Taking hits isn't a Fighter strong point.

Failed Will-save is way more likely way to lose your character than under 10% of 14 starting Con character's HP. And casting one Heal per day adds more HP than Fighter could ever stock up on. Magic Vestment makes for higher AC.

If you want a tank, you want a Cleric or a Druid. They supply their own buffs and healing and contribute to party resource pool (mostly spellslots), while Fighters only drain it contributing nothing. Every Fighter would be better off as a Cleric in basically any party.

I'm not saying a fighter is better than a cleric. What I will say is, can a cleric be a professional mounted combatant at level 2? Any fighter can be. Put a weapon in a mounted fighter's hand at level 2 and if he took the three feats that are obvious for mounted combat, he'll out damage the cleric easily. Put a lance in his hand, He'll out damage the barbarian.

[Jormengand]

Why do I need knowledge nobility to wear heavy armor, weald a lance/shield/sword, and charge in to battle with gallantry?

That's what I meant by "Some kind of knight of circumstance". Knights were landowners and members of the nobility, usually. A knight who wasn't would probably be some kind of knight errant at the absolute best.


Any character can take the leadership feat and gain the ability to lead.

They can have a cohort and followers, sure, but they can't really be inspiring or a leader of people. That's what skills they don't have are for.


You don't need to have knowledge nobility and royalty to swear fealty to a liege and fight for them.

No, you need it for other things.


Any character can take the time to memorize banners of armies.

Yes, it's called "Training knowledge nobility".


A run of the mill sword for hire probably isn't the brightest crayon in the box, hence why they are selling their strength, not their brain. You don't need diplomacy to set your price. If the prospective buyer doesn't meet it, you walk. If they want you bad enough, they'll fold. if not, there's surely a caravan that needs a sword or shield.

Characters who don't have any social skills will have a hard time selling anything.


Why does a captain of the guard need diplomacy? Couldn't he just have a team of negotiators (3-4 depending on the size of the city) that could serve as advisors/investigators? why would he be bothered by that?

If he was ever, or still is, an actual watchman rather than just a bureaucrat (and why would a bureaucrat be a fighter anyway?) then he'd need to talk to witnesses, the way policemen do in real life, as an example. He might need to negotiate hostage situations or such as well.


he needs to make sure the men are trained to defend the city and make sure that the watches have enough people on them.

Ooh, that sounds like maybe a profession check to me!


Investigating is someone else's job. If a guard suspects someone of something, they take him/her in and let the trained professionals handle the questioning. The beefy guy protecting a noble probably isn't the same one going AWAY from the noble to gather information. There's probably a slinky little roguish one doing that and telling said information to the beefy bodyguard so he can prepare properly.

Fighters work best as a part of a team, which is what a party is. Why does the fighter need to do everything?

You know that real police in the real world are actually trained to talk to people, right? The watch in practically every fantasy setting are too.

And this is ignoring the fact that spot, listen and search are needed to be a competent city watchman. You want competent watchmen? Hire rangers.

[Cosi]

Fun fact about necropolitans. They can't afford the ritual before level 3 and are thus automatically inappropriate for fights against level one characters.

Eh. I think the CR rules are the better guideline for what is or isn't appropriate. Of course, you could argue that those aren't perfect, but at that point you'd have to look on merits and I don't think Necropolitans are super deadly at that point.


So, the problem in 3.X (or later) isn't that the fighter sux balls. The problem is that casters had some pretty big shackles removed when AD&D was copy/pasta'd into WOTCs pre-existing D20 game.

Wrong. The Fighter isn't just worse than the Wizard, the Fighter fails to defeat level appropriate challenges. The problem is, at least to some degree, that the Fighter "sux balls". There may also be a problem where Wizards are "teh winz" and that needs to be fixed, but that's separate from Fighters.


Prior to 3.X, the fighter was your tank. He stood on the front line of combat, and kept your squishy mage alive, so he could cast his magic. This is back when taking any sort of damage ruined a caster's spell. Back before "Casting defensively", or a magic 5' step.

Tank is a dumb role, and you should feel bad for suggesting that the Fighter was a "tank". You can't "tank" in D&D, because monsters are controlled by someone who is intelligent and makes decisions. If the best option is to shred the Wizard, monsters can just do that. The way you "tank" in D&D is by buffing your friends (like a Cleric) or controlling the battlefield (like a Wizard).


No. Cleric is a decent choice for someone thats at least a little into gaming, and dont need to learn to many new concepts in play. But druid is a horrible choice. Its most likely the PHB class with the most to keep track off. And i would say the worst possible choice to give a beginner.

There is no class in core 3e that is really good for a new player. Barbarian is the simplest, but it has problems with sucking after 6th level or so. Clerics are solid, but spell selection is horrifyingly complex. Druids are even worse because of Wild Shape and Animal Companion. The best bet is to have them play a Sorcerer and get some help with spell selection.

[AnimeTheCat]

That's what I meant by "Some kind of knight of circumstance". Knights were landowners and members of the nobility, usually. A knight who wasn't would probably be some kind of knight errant at the absolute best.

Not every Knight was a land owner. In fact, kings wouldn't be able to afford it if every man on a horse with a lance that they sent in to combat were land owners. The king would have no land of his own, no people to tax, and no people to build an army from.


They can have a cohort and followers, sure, but they can't really be inspiring or a leader of people. That's what skills they don't have are for.

Does a character need a skill to inspire people? I'm pretty sure that common folk are inspired by someone running in to a burning building to save a child. A fighter could definitely do that. People would be inspired by a mighty orc slayer if they were constantly plagued by orcs.


No, you need it for other things.
Yes, it's called "Training knowledge nobility".

AFAIK you can memorize specific information without having training in that skill. For instance, if you fight a lot of wolves and you know how they fight (pack tactics, sending in a few to chase a group in to a larger pack) you're going to be knowledgeable on wolves regardless of your Knowledge Nature skill.


Characters who don't have any social skills will have a hard time selling anything.

Why though? Why do I need diplomacy to flex my muscles? Why do I need diplomacy to cut a wooden beam in half in a single swing? Why do I need a social skill to display my ability? You don't...




From what I've learned about medieval life (or fantasy life for that matter) is that if you upset the guard, or are suspected of committing a crime, the guards don't ever talk to you. It's not their job to solve the problem on site, it's their job to resolve the situation quickly and if it's a dispute between a shop keeper and another citizen, the citizen will likely be take in, questions, and punished accordingly. The actual guard is nothing more than the muscle that brings the wrongdoer to the halls of justice. They are not the judges because only nobility can pass judgment.

[QUOTE]Ooh, that sounds like maybe a profession check to me!

I'm not a professional chef, but I'm really good at cooking. Why do I need to be a professional to bring people up to my level? In fact, training people isn't even a written function of the profession skill according to the SRD.


You know that real police in the real world are actually trained to talk to people, right? The watch in practically every fantasy setting are too.
And this is ignoring the fact that spot, listen and search are needed to be a competent city watchman. You want competent watchmen? Hire rangers.

A watchman isn't a police officer. A watchman is city muscle. The listen check DCs are absurdly low so listen isn't really a necessary skill except against move silently which a standard city watchman isn't going to be prepared against anyway. also, a DC 15 spot check lets you read lips within 30 feet. That's not exactly impossible for someone without a wisdom penalty and gets easier if you have a wisdom bonus. If a guard has stopped someone at a checkpoint, they have no reason NOT to take 20 (2 minutes for each 5 foot square searched) on the search check.

[lord_khaine]

There is no class in core 3e that is really good for a new player. Barbarian is the simplest, but it has problems with sucking after 6th level or so. Clerics are solid, but spell selection is horrifyingly complex. Druids are even worse because of Wild Shape and Animal Companion. The best bet is to have them play a Sorcerer and get some help with spell selection.

Well.. yeah.. certainly agree on that if it needs to be a spellcaster, then it should be a sorcerer.
But it still has the problem of being horribly squishy. Positioning is actually a little complicated, and with both low HD and bad AC your kinda vulnerable.
And i dont agree on that Barbarians/fighters will suck in a beginner team. Even after level 6 then they can still murder things that runs up to them and tries to return the favor. And that is the sort of things you challenge beginners with anyway.

[Florian]

Interesting that they both stopped posting at the same time... and have the same odd location.

The pattern is pretty obvious.


For the record I definitely agree with this, which is why the PF fighter kicks ass while also being widely available.

By the way: Do you already own the Adventurer Guide and had the time to take a look at the Sister-in-Arms archetype? Pretty cool, I´m just sad that you can´t combine to with Daring General. Speaking of which: The brutal solution to the Fighter problem :P

[Eldariel]

Well.. yeah.. certainly agree on that if it needs to be a spellcaster, then it should be a sorcerer.
But it still has the problem of being horribly squishy. Positioning is actually a little complicated, and with both low HD and bad AC your kinda vulnerable.
And i dont agree on that Barbarians/fighters will suck in a beginner team. Even after level 6 then they can still murder things that runs up to them and tries to return the favor. And that is the sort of things you challenge beginners with anyway.

You need to be super on your game with build- and itemomancy to keep up post-6. Your everything is reliant on items and the right use of them.

Granted, it's easier to help someone with level up and item selection than with tactical choices. On the other hand, not having meaningful choices can be boring to the point of making combat a chore - Warblade really helps there.


@Anime: Well, you can make a competent l2 Mounted Cleric with different strengths than the Fighter (say, Law Devotion & Rhino's Rush from Domain), but point - feats aren't strong in numbers but the best ones are strong. Feats get relatively weaker the more you have.

That said, Level 2 party is even more reliant on spell slots for sustenance than higher level parties, so playing a noncaster is quite selfish.

[lord_khaine]

You need to be super on your game with build- and itemomancy to keep up post-6. Your everything is reliant on items and the right use of them.

Granted, it's easier to help someone with level up and item selection than with tactical choices. On the other hand, not having meaningful choices can be boring to the point of making combat a chore - Warblade really helps there.

Firstly, i do agree 100 % on the warblade thing. Not having meaningful combat options are why i always gish my fighters out myself.

But even so i must defend the fighter as a beginner choice. You only need to be on game to deal with sort of things that are thrown towards an experienced party. But your build can be focused on fighter bonus feats, and your items mainly weapon and armor, while still doing fine if your mainly crawling around in dungeons where nothing can fly out of your reach.

[Eldariel]

Firstly, i do agree 100 % on the warblade thing. Not having meaningful combat options are why i always gish my fighters out myself.

But even so i must defend the fighter as a beginner choice. You only need to be on game to deal with sort of things that are thrown towards an experienced party. But your build can be focused on fighter bonus feats, and your items mainly weapon and armor, while still doing fine if your mainly crawling around in dungeons where nothing can fly out of your reach.

Well, there are other problems than flight. Invisibility, Wall-effects, buffs (Dragon with Mage Armor and Shield is quite tough to hit), incorporeals, earth gliders/Wall-attackers, Will/Ref SoDs, touch attacks, illusions, no-save effects, etc. You generally want items to deal with all sorts of problems, though feats help in few key places. I remember that Jon Dahl thread about Hellcat soloing a level 10ish party for instance.

[SirNibbles]

Tank is a dumb role, and you should feel bad for suggesting that the Fighter was a "tank". You can't "tank" in D&D, because monsters are controlled by someone who is intelligent and makes decisions. If the best option is to shred the Wizard, monsters can just do that. The way you "tank" in D&D is by buffing your friends (like a Cleric) or controlling the battlefield (like a Wizard).

You can tank physically as well. The goal of enemies isn't to kill the party (unlike what many DMs try to do). The enemies, generally, would rather not die and not kill you than die and kill you. If going past two front-line fighters means they're going to get hit twice (AoOs) before they reach the casters, they might not want to do that. Positioning your front-line fighters to force enemies to either go around or go through them is a viable means of protecting those who are less capable of melee combat. It's just another method of battlefield control.

Let's look at the example below, where our spear-wielding Monk and ranseur-wielding Fighter (with the Shorten Grip feat) are paired with a Watermelon Wizard. With their current spacing, they control a large amount of area that would prevent the enemy mooks from getting to the Wizard.

http://i.imgur.com/CvMnO3E.png

In tight spaces, this becomes even more viable.

[Florian]

You need to be super on your game with build- and itemomancy to keep up post-6. Your everything is reliant on items and the right use of them.

That´s why it´s called "Hard Mode" when you want a challenge and actually know the system and what to do with it.

[Eldariel]

That´s why it´s called "Hard Mode" when you want a challenge and actually know the system and what to do with it.

Sure, but we were talking about the newbie aspect. That said, if you want hardmode, you don't need Fighter for it. Just place any custom challenge and you're fine.

Though I much prefer skilled DM running everything high-OP. You get to pull most stops and go all-out with much more tactically and strategically complex scenarios (since all parties have vast numbers of options) while still probably getting TPKd unless you are both, lucky and good.

[Cosi]

You can tank physically as well. The goal of enemies isn't to kill the party (unlike what many DMs try to do). The enemies, generally, would rather not die and not kill you than die and kill you. If going past two front-line fighters means they're going to get hit twice (AoOs) before they reach the casters, they might not want to do that. Positioning your front-line fighters to force enemies to either go around or go through them is a viable means of protecting those who are less capable of melee combat. It's just another method of battlefield control.

There are problems with that paradigm.

First, letting a Wizard continue to cast is usually worse than tanking an AoO. I would rather take a hit from a spear Monk than take a finger of death, and I think most people would agree with me.

Second, at high levels monsters have alternative movement modes martials can't stop, but casters can (e.g. teleport). Or they just have ranged attacks.

Third, you're spending two party slots (in your example) to get tanking that might compete with one caster. That's not a good look.

Fourth, Clerics are still better at this than Fighters, so I don't really care.

[AnimeTheCat]

@Anime: Well, you can make a competent l2 Mounted Cleric with different strengths than the Fighter (say, Law Devotion & Rhino's Rush from Domain), but point - feats aren't strong in numbers but the best ones are strong. Feats get relatively weaker the more you have.

That said, Level 2 party is even more reliant on spell slots for sustenance than higher level parties, so playing a noncaster is quite selfish.

More selfish than the cleric who burns a spell to make themselves just as good as a fighter at doing what the fighter is already doing and can do an unlimited number of times per day? Yeah, my fighter is sounding really selfish. He's going to be so selfish that when he's down to 1 hp and needs to heal he's just going to die because the cleric used up his spells to make himself do what the fighter is already doing.

Feats can absolutely be strong in numbers. If I can be a mounted combat professional AND other things (tripping for instance). If you're talking level 6, a fighter using WBL can buy a trained hippogriff at level 6. Or he can buy a non-trained one and train it himself with his handle animal skill. Non-magical flight, no need for the wizard to cast fly on him. in fact, he has better flight than the wizard, at will no time limit.

Feats never gain or lose power, they grant at will abilities with static bonuses. The feats never change in power. I will agree that they don't keep up in power. Tripping is tripping no matter who you're tripping and as long as they're medium and have two legs, you can probably trip them. so tripping pretty much never loses power. You can trip flying foes too.

example build of the level 4 Human Fighter: H. Mounted Combat, 1. Combat Expertise, F1. Improved Trip, F2. Ride By Attack, 3. Knock Down, F4. Spirited Charge. This fighter, by virtue of his feats and wealth by level, does not have a magical weapon, but does have a hippogriff allowing him to fly, charge (while fighting with warhorse for an additional 1d4+4 Damage from the claw), dealing (1d8+str)*3 damage with his lance which will be more than 10, allowing for a free trip (from knock down) and an additional attack (from both the fighter and the mount) for an extra 1d8+str and 1d4+4. Overall, you're getting 2d4+1d8+((1d8+str)*3)+8+str. Assuming an 18 strength you'll be getting a minimum of 30 damage if you rolled 1s for all of your damage dice and maximum damage of 56. Additonally, thanks to ride-by-attack, you can be positioned to charge again next round.

[Cosi]

More selfish than the cleric who burns a spell to make themselves just as good as a fighter at doing what the fighter is already doing and can do an unlimited number of times per day? Yeah, my fighter is sounding really selfish. He's going to be so selfish that when he's down to 1 hp and needs to heal he's just going to die because the cleric used up his spells to make himself do what the fighter is already doing.

Yes, your Fighter is selfish. Because the Cleric can fight like a Fighter and also see the future and summon angels. If your Fighter doesn't bring mojo on par with seeing the future and summoning angels, he has failed to pick up his part of the metaphorical check, and just like failing to pick up your share of the very literal check at a restaurant, that is selfish. You are forcing other people to cover for your own inadequacy. That is bad, and what's worse, you're insulting them over it. When someone covers my meal, I don't call them selfish for doing it.

[Florian]

Feats can absolutely be strong in numbers.

Jepp. Your basic PF dwarf Fighter can finish three very elaborate feat lines with side branches (Full TWF, full Shield Bash, full Smash from the Air/Shatterspell) by lvl 15. The power to counter anything magical with a plain "no" is actually funny to see in action.

[Eldariel]

More selfish than the cleric who burns a spell to make themselves just as good as a fighter at doing what the fighter is already doing and can do an unlimited number of times per day? Yeah, my fighter is sounding really selfish. He's going to be so selfish that when he's down to 1 hp and needs to heal he's just going to die because the cleric used up his spells to make himself do what the fighter is already doing.

Feats can absolutely be strong in numbers. If I can be a mounted combat professional AND other things (tripping for instance). If you're talking level 6, a fighter using WBL can buy a trained hippogriff at level 6. Or he can buy a non-trained one and train it himself with his handle animal skill. Non-magical flight, no need for the wizard to cast fly on him. in fact, he has better flight than the wizard, at will no time limit.

Feats never gain or lose power, they grant at will abilities with static bonuses. The feats never change in power. I will agree that they don't keep up in power. Tripping is tripping no matter who you're tripping and as long as they're medium and have two legs, you can probably trip them. so tripping pretty much never loses power. You can trip flying foes too.

example build of the level 4 Human Fighter: H. Mounted Combat, 1. Combat Expertise, F1. Improved Trip, F2. Ride By Attack, 3. Knock Down, F4. Spirited Charge. This fighter, by virtue of his feats and wealth by level, does not have a magical weapon, but does have a hippogriff allowing him to fly, charge (while fighting with warhorse for an additional 1d4+4 Damage from the claw), dealing (1d8+str)*3 damage with his lance which will be more than 10, allowing for a free trip (from knock down) and an additional attack (from both the fighter and the mount) for an extra 1d8+str and 1d4+4. Overall, you're getting 2d4+1d8+((1d8+str)*3)+8+str. Assuming an 18 strength you'll be getting a minimum of 30 damage if you rolled 1s for all of your damage dice and maximum damage of 56. Additonally, thanks to ride-by-attack, you can be positioned to charge again next round.

Being good at more similar things is less useful with each additional thing you can do. Charge & AOO? Useful. Add Bull Rush and you gain little though. You pick best feats first. Thus each bonus feat is only as good as your worst feat. Everyone gets feats making the bonuses kinda niche down the line.

Cleric Charger can still spontaneously convert spells, and can have up to 4 slots. Further, he still has slots free after being Fighter for BFC/buffs/etc. Fighter is contributing less to the party than a Warrior Cleric and an even more inferior contribution compared to a generalist Cleric. No utility of any kind beyond the combat prowess, which Cleric can use a portion of his resources to emulate while still being a Cleric.

[AnimeTheCat]

Yes, your Fighter is selfish. Because the Cleric can fight like a Fighter and also see the future and summon angels. If your Fighter doesn't bring mojo on par with seeing the future and summoning angels, he has failed to pick up his part of the metaphorical check, and just like failing to pick up your share of the very literal check at a restaurant, that is selfish. You are forcing other people to cover for your own inadequacy. That is bad, and what's worse, you're insulting them over it. When someone covers my meal, I don't call them selfish for doing it.

When I offer to cook and someone goes and cooks something similar and brings it with them to my house YES I'm going to insult them over it. I said I have something, smashing stuff, why do you need to do it too? summon more angels or see more futures... let me smash things... stay in your lane...

I'm forcing nobody to cover for any inadequacy. Do I need to have a fly spell cast on me? nope. Do I need to summon angels to fight demons? nope. Do I need to see the future to navigate an encounter? nope. Do I need to need to have true sight cast on me so that I can see invisible creatures? technically yes, but a hand full of dust, dirt or sand also outlines them just fine for a short time. Would the wizard want to cast glitterdust so that everyone in the party can see the invisible creature? Probably wouldn't hurt. Would it behoove the cleric to cast invisibility purge so that everyone can see the invisible creature? Absolutely yes, that's being a team player and helping everyone. Does the fighter need to go disarm a trap? Nope, there are rogues for that. If the respective classes stopped trying to outclass everyone and did what they're designed to do well, there's nothing to call anyone selfish for. I'm calling the clerics selfish for using up their resources to do something that fighters already do by virtue of being a fighter. They don't need to but they do anyway because why?!

[Eldariel]

When I offer to cook and someone goes and cooks something similar and brings it with them to my house YES I'm going to insult them over it. I said I have something, smashing stuff, why do you need to do it too? summon more angels or see more futures... let me smash things... stay in your lane...

I'm forcing nobody to cover for any inadequacy. Do I need to have a fly spell cast on me? nope. Do I need to summon angels to fight demons? nope. Do I need to see the future to navigate an encounter? nope. Do I need to need to have true sight cast on me so that I can see invisible creatures? technically yes, but a hand full of dust, dirt or sand also outlines them just fine for a short time. Would the wizard want to cast glitterdust so that everyone in the party can see the invisible creature? Probably wouldn't hurt. Would it behoove the cleric to cast invisibility purge so that everyone can see the invisible creature? Absolutely yes, that's being a team player and helping everyone. Does the fighter need to go disarm a trap? Nope, there are rogues for that. If the respective classes stopped trying to outclass everyone and did what they're designed to do well, there's nothing to call anyone selfish for. I'm calling the clerics selfish for using up their resources to do something that fighters already do by virtue of being a fighter. They don't need to but they do anyway because why?!

That's just a design problem. It's selfish WRT party to bring an inferior class: if you can fight and cast or just fight, the party is better off if you can fight and cast than just fight. Limited number of characters in a party means you are best off if everyone can contribute in as many ways as possible, unless everyone agrees to a lower party level.

[Cosi]

When I offer to cook and someone goes and cooks something similar and brings it with them to my house YES I'm going to insult them over it. I said I have something, smashing stuff, why do you need to do it too? summon more angels or see more futures... let me smash things... stay in your lane...

Why do you have dibs on smashing stuff? It seems to me that the Cleric has every bit as much right to tell you not to step on his smashing stuff turf. You knew what divine power did when you decided to play a Fighter with a Cleric already in the party.


I'm forcing nobody to cover for any inadequacy.

Yes you are. The opportunity cost of a Fighter is a Cleric. If the party expects you to bring smashing, seeing the future, and summoning angels to the table, and you bring one of those things, you are inadequate and the rest of the party has to fill that hole.

Fundamentally, this is a group game. If you refuse to play the game that the group is playing, you are in the wrong. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[OldTrees1]

Why do you have dibs on smashing stuff? It seems to me that the Cleric has every bit as much right to tell you not to step on his smashing stuff turf. You knew what divine power did when you decided to play a Fighter with a Cleric already in the party.



Yes you are. The opportunity cost of a Fighter is a Cleric. If the party expects you to bring smashing, seeing the future, and summoning angels to the table, and you bring one of those things, you are inadequate and the rest of the party has to fill that hole.

Fundamentally, this is a group game. If you refuse to play the game that the group is playing, you are in the wrong. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Cough cough. I didn't know clerics knew divination at ECL 2. The context of the subthread you barged into was one person saying playing any kind of a non caster in a Level 2 party was being selfish. The following replies back and forth kept upping the hyperbole until we reached your comment.

Further context: That all arose from them bickering about whether Fighter or Cleric was the RIGHT class to give to a new player that wanted to play a mounted knight. One was arguing that Fighter can get the feats faster and thus match the concept faster. The other was saying Fighter sux so give them a Cleric knight instead.

Even further context: You might have realized that "Which classes are good for new players" is quite unrelated to the initial topic of this thread. Despite this being a tangent, there has been a lot of consensus that neither Fighter nor Cleric are ideal first classes but the class the Player wants is the class they should play.

[AnimeTheCat]

That's just a design problem. It's selfish WRT party to bring an inferior class: if you can fight and cast or just fight, the party is better off if you can fight and cast than just fight. Limited number of characters in a party means you are best off if everyone can contribute in as many ways as possible, unless everyone agrees to a lower party level.

Never mind the fact that you have to expend your daily resources (spells per day) to fight AND cast. If your party gets injured they need to be healed. Resources used up. You used spells on yourself to fight better. Resources used up. The fighter didn't use any resources except maybe health which if your cleric fights, you're using too.


Why do you have dibs on smashing stuff? It seems to me that the Cleric has every bit as much right to tell you not to step on his smashing stuff turf. You knew what divine power did when you decided to play a Fighter with a Cleric already in the party.

Yes you are. The opportunity cost of a Fighter is a Cleric. If the party expects you to bring smashing, seeing the future, and summoning angels to the table, and you bring one of those things, you are inadequate and the rest of the party has to fill that hole.

Fundamentally, this is a group game. If you refuse to play the game that the group is playing, you are in the wrong. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Because I'm better at it. Better HD, Better BAB, and feats to progress feat chains faster than you. That makes me a fair bit better, out of the box, at smashing than you. Divine Power lasts rounds per level. If an enemy sees someone cast a spell then suddenly get really good at fighting, they would probably retreat, well... intelligent creatures would (hmm... that's a lot of these stronger enemies you're talking about). You've now WASTED a spell to not finish anything. The fighter wasted nothing.

The thing is, when somebody says "I'm playing a fighter" nobody is expecting angels, futures, and fighting. they're only expecting fighting. I would not look at a party of a monk, rogue, and wizard and say "I'm going to play a fighter". That is selfish. I would say I want to play a fighter and the rest of the party says "ok, i'll cover wizard/rogue/cleric/druid/etc."

You're right. This is a group game. Why then, do you feel that everybody in the group has to do everything? If it's a group game, everyone succeeds/fails together. If the DM plops an antimagic field on you, where's your mighty combat prowess? It lies in the martial, feat intensive classes. There's no full stop when it comes to fighter, there's plenty of passing go, and plenty of $200.

@OldTrees1, You're right... I got way off on a tangent chasing rabbits.

[Eldariel]

Never mind the fact that you have to expend your daily resources (spells per day) to fight AND cast. If your party gets injured they need to be healed. Resources used up. You used spells on yourself to fight better. Resources used up. The fighter didn't use any resources except maybe health which if your cleric fights, you're using too.

The Fighter uses and provides 0 spell slots. Cleric uses 1 and provides 4. A team with 2 Clerics has 8 slots, minus ones used for combat. Fighter + Cleric has 4. It's irrelevant how little a Fighter uses if he doesn't provide any: the team with more overall slots can ultimately go longer.

EDIT: As for AMF, by the time that's an issue Cleric can already send proxies to fight inside it. Monsters rule AMF and dead magic zones, not feats and BAB. No magic items, Fighter has no numbers far as HP/AC/miss chance/hit goes.

[OldTrees1]

The Fighter uses and provides 0 spell slots. Cleric uses 1 and provides 4. A team with 2 Clerics has 8 slots, minus ones used for combat. Fighter + Cleric has 4. It's irrelevant how little a Fighter uses if he doesn't provide any: the team with more overall slots can ultimately go longer.

EDIT: As for AMF, by the time that's an issue Cleric can already send proxies to fight inside it. Monsters rule AMF and dead magic zones, not feats and BAB. No magic items, Fighter has no numbers far as HP/AC/miss chance/hit goes.

1) Take a moment and reread this post of yours. Can you see why your comparison is a dishonest one? I make no claims one way or the other about your conclusion, merely about your comparison.

2) What are you even arguing about anymore? Neither Cleric nor Fighter are an ideal 1st class so you can't be talking about new players in the general sense. In the specific sense you two were talking about a new player wanting a knight character but spell slots are completely irrelevant to that character concept.

[Mutazoia]

Wrong. The Fighter isn't just worse than the Wizard, the Fighter fails to defeat level appropriate challenges. The problem is, at least to some degree, that the Fighter "sux balls". There may also be a problem where Wizards are "teh winz" and that needs to be fixed, but that's separate from Fighters.

The "level appropriate challenges" were scaled to compensate for the wizards new power levels. That the Fighters power levels were not adjusted properly, isn't the fighter's fault. It's just bad game design.




Tank is a dumb role, and you should feel bad for suggesting that the Fighter was a "tank". You can't "tank" in D&D, because monsters are controlled by someone who is intelligent and makes decisions. If the best option is to shred the Wizard, monsters can just do that. The way you "tank" in D&D is by buffing your friends (like a Cleric) or controlling the battlefield (like a Wizard).

Soooooo.....you do realize that most monsters have an INT score at least as good as, if not better than, the PC's, right? So that they would be making intelligent decisions no matter what. This point is null. Now your examples of buffing or controlling the battlefield, are all valid points.....when you take into account the casters elevated power levels in 3.X. Again, since they've been giving a big heaping dose of power steroids, and the fighter has not, it is bad game design that you don't have to have a front line defense any more.




There is no class in core 3e that is really good for a new player. Barbarian is the simplest, but it has problems with sucking after 6th level or so. Clerics are solid, but spell selection is horrifyingly complex. Druids are even worse because of Wild Shape and Animal Companion. The best bet is to have them play a Sorcerer and get some help with spell selection.

*chogh* Yuppers...back to my original point....best class to play in 3.x is a caster..and a broken one at that.

[TheIronGolem]

Today I learned that I have a moral obligation to give my make-believe sword man magic powers.

[OldTrees1]

*chogh* Yuppers...back to my original point....best class to play in 3.x is a caster..and a broken one at that.

Did you click on the wrong thread or something? None of the subthreads in this thread were about best class.

Primary thread: Some people play Fighter, OP does not understand why, please explain to OP. (Resolved)
Tangent 1: Is Fighter the ideal class for new players? (Resolved: No. Barbarian and Warlock are more ideal from a tutorial point of view. However player choice trumps all.)
Tangent 2: If they want a knight character, what is the ideal new player class? (Apparently still unresolved)
Fallacious Tangents of Tangents: Not worth mentioning

[Cosi]

Cough cough. I didn't know clerics knew divination at ECL 2. The context of the subthread you barged into was one person saying playing any kind of a non caster in a Level 2 party was being selfish. The following replies back and forth kept upping the hyperbole until we reached your comment.

You participate in the conversation that is happening, not the conversation that happened earlier. If I was replying to points about ECL 2 characters, I would have quoted posts talking about them.


Never mind the fact that you have to expend your daily resources (spells per day) to fight AND cast. If your party gets injured they need to be healed. Resources used up. You used spells on yourself to fight better. Resources used up. The fighter didn't use any resources except maybe health which if your cleric fights, you're using too.

Fortunately, the Cleric has the daily resources to both fight and cast. Take a look at the Cleric Archer (http://www.niftymessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=39391&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). The superiority of the Cleric at fighting has been a settled debate since before we had a black president.


Because I'm better at it. Better HD, Better BAB, and feats to progress feat chains faster than you. That makes me a fair bit better, out of the box, at smashing than you. Divine Power lasts rounds per level.

You have better BAB until 7th level (yay divine power!). At 7th level the gap between Fighter and Cleric BAB is two whole points, which is barely noticeable.

Your "better HD" is worth one HP per level, which is almost certainly less than what healing is worth.

Your feats are a wash at best with Cleric buffs.

divine power may last rounds per level, but DMM: Persist is a thing that exists.


The fighter wasted nothing.

The Fighter wasted that spell slot every day for the rest of his life, and also all his other spell slots.


You're right. This is a group game. Why then, do you feel that everybody in the group has to do everything? If it's a group game, everyone succeeds/fails together. If the DM plops an antimagic field on you, where's your mighty combat prowess? It lies in the martial, feat intensive classes. There's no full stop when it comes to fighter, there's plenty of passing go, and plenty of $200.

Every member of the group has to meet the standards set by the group. If those standards are "as good as the Cleric", you should not play a Fighter. If those standards are "less good than a Cleric", you should not play a Cleric.

This is not rocket science.


The "level appropriate challenges" were scaled to compensate for the wizards new power levels. That the Fighters power levels were not adjusted properly, isn't the fighter's fault. It's just bad game design.

So the Wizards and the monsters are on one level, and the Fighter is on another level, and this is clearly the fault of the Wizard because reasons. Got it. Even if we accept this theory of the game's history, shouldn't we prefer to fix things by rewriting one class rather than one class and also the entire MM?


Soooooo.....you do realize that most monsters have an INT score at least as good as, if not better than, the PC's, right? So that they would be making intelligent decisions no matter what.

The point is in contrast to e.g. WoW where monsters are controlled by an algorithm that can be told to target the Warrior regardless of the efficiency of doing so.


*chogh* Yuppers...back to my original point....best class to play in 3.x is a caster..and a broken one at that.

Define broken.


Today I learned that I have a moral obligation to give my make-believe sword man magic powers.

I wouldn't say that. You have a social obligation to play in a way that is acceptable to the group you play with. That may or may not include restrictions on what classes are appropriate, which may or may not include Fighters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Primary thread: Some people play Fighter, OP does not understand why, please explain to OP. (Resolved)
Tangent 1: Is Fighter the ideal class for new players? (Resolved: No. Barbarian and Warlock are more ideal from a tutorial point of view. However player choice trumps all.)
Tangent 2: If they want a knight character, what is the ideal new player class? (Apparently still unresolved)
Fallacious Tangents of Tangents: Not worth mentioning


Does the Knight class succeed as a "knight character"?

[Jormengand]

Not every Knight was a land owner. In fact, kings wouldn't be able to afford it if every man on a horse with a lance that they sent in to combat were land owners. The king would have no land of his own, no people to tax, and no people to build an army from.

So you're talking about your character being a militia member more than a knight.


Does a character need a skill to inspire people? I'm pretty sure that common folk are inspired by someone running in to a burning building to save a child. A fighter could definitely do that. People would be inspired by a mighty orc slayer if they were constantly plagued by orcs.

Mechanically, a fighter has no way to inspire people.


AFAIK you can memorize specific information without having training in that skill. For instance, if you fight a lot of wolves and you know how they fight (pack tactics, sending in a few to chase a group in to a larger pack) you're going to be knowledgeable on wolves regardless of your Knowledge Nature skill.

This is true if your character has a book of all the banners of all the lords to hand, or has specifically memorised them (which I kid you not is an autohypnosis check). You might memorise one or two without training knowledge, but not all of them.


Why though? Why do I need diplomacy to flex my muscles? Why do I need diplomacy to cut a wooden beam in half in a single swing? Why do I need a social skill to display my ability? You don't...

You need to do it to convince someone that your ability to cut a wooden beam in half translates to actual battle competence.


From what I've learned about medieval life (or fantasy life for that matter) is that if you upset the guard, or are suspected of committing a crime, the guards don't ever talk to you. It's not their job to solve the problem on site, it's their job to resolve the situation quickly and if it's a dispute between a shop keeper and another citizen, the citizen will likely be take in, questions, and punished accordingly. The actual guard is nothing more than the muscle that brings the wrongdoer to the halls of justice. They are not the judges because only nobility can pass judgment.

First, that sounds like a warrior's job, not a fighter's or anyone else's with PC levels. Second, there are disputes where you need to know who's doing what (sense motive) rather than just arresting everyone on the scene.


I'm not a professional chef, but I'm really good at cooking. Why do I need to be a professional to bring people up to my level? In fact, training people isn't even a written function of the profession skill according to the SRD.

I mean training someone isn't a technical function of anything according to the SRD, but it would almost certainly be profession.


A watchman isn't a police officer. A watchman is city muscle. The listen check DCs are absurdly low so listen isn't really a necessary skill except against move silently which a standard city watchman isn't going to be prepared against anyway. also, a DC 15 spot check lets you read lips within 30 feet. That's not exactly impossible for someone without a wisdom penalty and gets easier if you have a wisdom bonus. If a guard has stopped someone at a checkpoint, they have no reason NOT to take 20 (2 minutes for each 5 foot square searched) on the search check.

So you mean they're really good at all these skills, except against anyone who might possibly have any reason to use the skills that oppose them?


Does the Knight class succeed as a "knight character"?

It has knowledge (nobility) which makes it somewhat better, but otherwise it runs into a lot of fighter's problems.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It has knowledge (nobility) which makes it somewhat better, but otherwise it runs into a lot of fighter's problems.

Knights get Diplomacy and have more than bonus feats as class features, but yeah, they share a lot of the Fighter's flaws otherwise.

[OldTrees1]

Does the Knight class succeed as a "knight character"?

Too offtopic for me. That sounds like a different thread.