Why play a Fighter?

[Tainted_Scholar]

I am going postulate that Fighters are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Fighters as a dip or their ACFs but rather just the normal Fighter class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Monks are one of two classes that punch things (and the other only punches as an ACF). Truenamers have unique mechanics. Paladins, Samurai, and Knights all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is stabbing things.

Fighters have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. 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?

[EisenKreutzer]

The thing about the Fighter is that feats have always been their class features. Through their feats, Fighters gain the unparalelled ability to specialize. Feats are their spells, and grants them a wealth of options to become any kind of character you can imagine.

As long as the character you are imagining sucks compared to all the other classes.

[ryu]

Excellent question. I believe the answer is masochism.

[ColorBlindNinja]

An epic non-spellcaster could take 20 levels in Fighter to get a bunch of epic feats; perhaps Chaos Shuffling them for other feats.

Edit: Or would that count as a dip? Hmm.

[Bonzai]

I have a home brew fix where I add some fighting styles to the dead levels. Sword and shield types get a set of perks, while pole arms get another, etc... just something to differentiate them.

[OldTrees1]

Do you want a serious answer? If so continue reading, otherwise disregard this post:


Feats

The feat system had a lot of promise and the Fighter class got to have a headstart in that subsystem. You discount feats by saying they "aren't a class feature", however that perspective is the very reason why you don't already know the answer to your question. So let me paint a different picture for you:

Imagine 3 classes
Magi - Some spellcasting, 1 fixed feature, minimal skill points
Talent - A few fixed features, lots of skill points
Soldier - Selects 1 feature per level, moderate skill points

That is why some people saw promise in and might still play Fighter. Fighters were intended to get more features(by value) but less skill points and less spells relative to the other types of classes.

Now I recognize this is not a reason for you to play Fighter since you do not see Feats as Features but perhaps you can now understand why some others do play the "select your own features" martial class (or the Fighter/Rogue class called Martial Rogue).

[Garktz]

Fighter is a concept flaw the game has...
There are 2 types of heroes, martial and magic ones
On the magic side, you have a lot of archetypes...
The scholar with a pointy hat is the wizard, the "wild" just talent one is the sorcerer, the nature one is the druid and the divine one is the cleric
On the martial side, you have the furious and wild one, barbarian, the holy knight with shiny armor is the paladin, the stealthy one is the rogue, the wilderness one, explorer..
And the one i miss from core is the "weapons master" archetype that should be the fighter, but the designers instead of giving him cool class features around the weapons master concept, just though that giving him lots of feats would do....
Thats where the flaw is, class features are unique and give fluff, feats are avaliable to everyone and dont give any kind of good base to work with....

[ColorBlindNinja]

Fighter is a concept flaw the game has...
There are 2 types of heroes, martial and magic ones
On the magic side, you have a lot of archetypes...
The scholar with a pointy hat is the wizard, the "wild" just talent one is the sorcerer, the nature one is the druid and the divine one is the cleric
On the martial side, you have the furious and wild one, barbarian, the holy knight with shiny armor is the paladin, the stealthy one is the rogue, the wilderness one, explorer..
And the one i miss from core is the "weapons master" archetype that should be the fighter, but the designers instead of giving him cool class features around the weapons master concept, just though that giving him lots of feats would do....
Thats where the flaw is, class features are unique and give fluff, feats are avaliable to everyone and dont give any kind of good base to work with....

Why not play a Warblade? They fill the same conceptual niche and actually function well out of the box.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Do you want a serious answer? If so continue reading, otherwise disregard this post:


Feats

The feat system had a lot of promise and the Fighter class got to have a headstart in that subsystem. You discount feats by saying they "aren't a class feature", however that perspective is the very reason why you don't already know the answer to your question. So let me paint a different picture for you:

Imagine 3 classes
Magi - Some spellcasting, 1 fixed feature, minimal skill points
Talent - A few fixed features, lots of skill points
Soldier - Selects 1 feature per level, moderate skill points

That is why some people saw promise in and might still play Fighter. Fighters were intended to get more features(by value) but less skill points and less spells relative to the other types of classes.

Now I recognize this is not a reason for you to play Fighter since you do not see Feats as Features but perhaps you can now understand why some others do play the "select your own features" martial class (or the Fighter/Rogue class called Martial Rogue).

Unfortunately everyone gets feats, and there don't exist any Fighter only feats. A Barbarian has access to all the feats that the Fighter that the Fighter does and has actual class features.

[Flickerdart]

Unfortunately everyone gets feats, and there don't exist any Fighter only feats. A Barbarian has access to all the feats that the Fighter that the Fighter does and has actual class features.

There's Weapon Specialization (and everything that has it as a prerequisite) but it sucks, just like the fighter.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There's Weapon Specialization (and everything that has it as a prerequisite) but it sucks, just like the fighter.

I had forgotten about weapon specialization.

[Lord Raziere]

Excellent question. I believe the answer is masochism.

Ye can turn it around easily though.

Why play a Wizard?

I am going postulate that Wizards are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Wizard as a magic crafter or their spells but rather just the normal Wizard class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Sorcerers at least have limits. Psions have unique mechanics. Bards, Beguilers, and War Mage all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is using spells.

Wizards have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. They are literally just loading up spell ammo from their book to win at everything and therefore destroy any sense of journey or challenge. Completely pointless.

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

I believe the answer is masturbation.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Ye can turn it around easily though.

Why play a Wizard?

I am going postulate that Wizards are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Wizard as a magic crafter or their spells but rather just the normal Wizard class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Sorcerers at least have limits. Psions have unique mechanics. Bards, Beguilers, and War Mage all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is using spells.

Wizards have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. They are literally just loading up spell ammo from their book to win at everything and therefore destroy any sense of journey or challenge. Completely pointless.

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

I believe the answer is masturbation.

The reason to play a Wizard is because of their spells. Wizard's have their own spell list that only they and the Sorcerer can learn and Wizards are better than Sorcerers. Unlike with the Fighter's Feats, a Wizard's spell list has incredible versatility and can't be replicated by virtually every other spellcaster. With the Fighter however there is nothing that a Fighter can do that another class can do.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Ye can turn it around easily though.

Why play a Wizard?

I am going postulate that Wizards are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Wizard as a magic crafter or their spells but rather just the normal Wizard class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Sorcerers at least have limits. Psions have unique mechanics. Bards, Beguilers, and War Mage all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is using spells.

Wizards have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. They are literally just loading up spell ammo from their book to win at everything and therefore destroy any sense of journey or challenge. Completely pointless.

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

I believe the answer is masturbation.

False equivalency, my favorite rhetorical fallacy!

Wizards get away with being boring for two reasons: they're actually strong (unlike Fighters) and what little fluff they have (intellectual Mage studying the nature of magic) is an interesting staple of the genre, unlike the non-entity that the Fighter is

[Lord Raziere]

The reason to play a Wizard is because of their spells. Wizard's have their own spell list that only they and the Sorcerer can learn and Wizards are better than Sorcerers. Unlike with the Fighter's Feats, a Wizard's spell list has incredible versatility and can't be replicated by virtually every other spellcaster. With the Fighter however there is nothing that a Fighter can do that another class can do.

The reason to play a Fighter is because of their balance. Fighters like a Samurai are simple and won't break the game with its narrow specialties. Unlike with the Wizards Spells, a Fighters's feat list has incredible safety and can't be replicated by any spellcaster. With a Fighter you can be certain what the person wants, how to plan for that and what will challenge them. With the Wizard however there is nothing that a Wizard can do that another class can do without being a risky gamebreaker verging on god that will frustrate the DM to no end and thus make it unfun for the DM to play.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The reason to play a Fighter is because of their balance. Fighters like a Samurai are simple and won't break the game with its narrow specialties. Unlike with the Wizards Spells, a Fighters's feat list has incredible safety and can't be replicated by any spellcaster. With a Fighter you can be certain what the person wants, how to plan for that and what will challenge them. With the Wizard however there is nothing that a Wizard can do that another class can do without being a risky gamebreaker verging on god that will frustrate the DM to no end and thus make it unfun for the DM to play.

1. Heroics gives you Fighter bonus feats.

2. Play a Barbarian/Warblade.

[Yuki Akuma]

The reason to play a Fighter is because of their balance. Fighters like a Samurai are simple and won't break the game with its narrow specialties. Unlike with the Wizards Spells, a Fighters's feat list has incredible safety and can't be replicated by any spellcaster. With a Fighter you can be certain what the person wants, how to plan for that and what will challenge them. With the Wizard however there is nothing that a Wizard can do that another class can do without being a risky gamebreaker verging on god that will frustrate the DM to no end and thus make it unfun for the DM to play.

Aw, man, you can totally break the game with a Fighter. Just because Fighters can only really employ one trick doesn't mean that one trick can't be obscenely overpowered.

[Lord Raziere]

1. Heroics gives you Fighter bonus feats.

2. Play a Barbarian/Warblade.

1. Spheres of Power gives you more safety

2. play a War Mage/Wilder.


Aw, man, you can totally break the game with a Fighter. Just because Fighters can only really employ one trick doesn't mean that one trick can't be obscenely overpowered.

Aw, man, you can totally not break the game with a Wizard. Just because Wizard can only really employ one safety measure doesn't mean that one safety measure can't be obscenely safe.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1. Spheres of Power gives you more safety

That's both Pathfinder and 3rd party.


2. play a War Mage/Wilder.

1. I'd sooner play a Psion than a Wilder.

2. What if I don't want to blast? Of course, I could play a Beguiler or a Dread Necromancer, but the question remains; why would I play a Fighter when virtually every martial class is better?

[Tainted_Scholar]

The reason to play a Fighter is because of their balance. Fighters like a Samurai are simple and won't break the game with its narrow specialties. Unlike with the Wizards Spells, a Fighters's feat list has incredible safety and can't be replicated by any spellcaster. With a Fighter you can be certain what the person wants, how to plan for that and what will challenge them. With the Wizard however there is nothing that a Wizard can do that another class can do without being a risky gamebreaker verging on god that will frustrate the DM to no end and thus make it unfun for the DM to play.

Fighters aren't balanced, they suck. They aren't simple either, because all those feats mean you have make a lot of choices that can easily screw you over later if you aren't careful and plan ahead. Also, yes you can replicate Fighter feats with magic, though I'm not sure why that matters. Also it's pretty easy to not break the game with a Wizard, just don't be a ****. When playing a Fighter however you will have trouble keeping up with the rest of the party and cause a headache for both the DM and other players as you fail to contribute in combat.

[Jormengand]

With relatively extreme optimisation, a fighter can, just about, do its job.

And honestly I never understood "Bonus feats aren't real class features" - being able to do everything that someone else can, only more of it, is a class feature. Like say "Damage" for the rogue or "Damage" for half the cleric's spells or "Damage" for half the wizard's spells. Hells, one of the barbarian's class features is having more stats!

They may not be very powerful class features, but some of them are at least more than +numbers, which is good game design. A lot about the fighter is not.

[Yuki Akuma]

Aw, man, you can totally not break the game with a Wizard. Just because Wizard can only really employ one safety measure doesn't mean that one safety measure can't be obscenely safe.

False dichotomy. Wizards being more broken than Fighters doesn't mean that Fighters aren't potentially broken.

Try again.

[Tainted_Scholar]

With relatively extreme optimisation, a fighter can, just about, do its job.

And honestly I never understood "Bonus feats aren't real class features" - being able to do everything that someone else can, only more of it, is a class feature. Like say "Damage" for the rogue or "Damage" for half the cleric's spells or "Damage" for half the wizard's spells. Hells, one of the barbarian's class features is having more stats!

They may not be very powerful class features, but some of them are at least more than +numbers, which is good game design. A lot about the fighter is not.

Fair enough, though extra feats still isn't really enough to warrant playing one.

[AvatarVecna]

Unfortunately everyone gets feats, and there don't exist any Fighter only feats. A Barbarian has access to all the feats that the Fighter that the Fighter does and has actual class features.

You've chosen the wrong comparison for why the Fighter sucks, I think. A large part of the reason the Fighter (and martials in general) aren't better is because feats for non-casters seem to have largely been balanced around the idea of "what if this is what the Fighter chooses to use their feats to specialize in". Feats ended up largely being balanced around feat chains, a bunch of connected feats that are individually lame but together are vaguely not-lame, and standalone feats that are interesting but rarely very powerful and almost never actually scaling. You wanna know why Power Attack is considered such a good feat? Because every time you gain BAB, you have a new option on how much +attack to give up in order to get +damage, and because it's Core, you can combine it with stuff from elsewhere that's designed around enhancing Power Attack. It might get held up as an "overpowered feat" for what it does for a Pouncer, but Power Attack-->Improved Bull Rush-->Shock Trooper is what a feat chain should be like (well, maybe Improved Bull Rush should be better, to be something other than a speed bump on the way to Shock Trooper, but still). Power Attack+Shock Trooper is a feat combo that's worth the feat slots. Compare this to Weapon Focus, which is objectively worse than Knowledge Devotion even if KD has minimal investment (at least 1 rank in each monster knowledge skill with give you +1 Attack/+1 Damage with all weapons against all monsters, and a small chance at getting +2 to both instead). Compare a fully-realized Knowledge Devotion (+5 Attack/+5 Damage against all creatures with any weapon) to the PH feat tree meant for Fighters: Weapon Focus-->Weapon Specialization-->Greater Weapon Focus-->Greater Weapon Specialization. That's four feats for Attack +2/Damage +4 with one weapon, which is terrible from start to finish and arbitrarily requires you to wait until Fighter 12 to finish the chain.

Also, as for "there don't exist any Fighter only feat", that's correct, but it wasn't always. Used to be that basically only Fighter could get access to feats like Weapon Specialization and Weapon Supremacy; even the Martial Rogue didn't count except via houserule perhaps. But then along came the Tome Of Battle and the Warblade counts as a slightly lower level Fighter for the purposes of qualifying for feats, and gets a handful of bonus feats on top of actual class features so whoop de doo Fighter has been replaced!

[ColorBlindNinja]

You've chosen the wrong comparison for why the Fighter sucks, I think. A large part of the reason the Fighter (and martials in general) aren't better is because feats for non-casters seem to have largely been balanced around the idea of "what if this is what the Fighter chooses to use their feats to specialize in". Feats ended up largely being balanced around feat chains, a bunch of connected feats that are individually lame but together are vaguely not-lame, and standalone feats that are interesting but rarely very powerful and almost never actually scaling. You wanna know why Power Attack is considered such a good feat? Because every time you gain BAB, you have a new option on how much +attack to give up in order to get +damage, and because it's Core, you can combine it with stuff from elsewhere that's designed around enhancing Power Attack. It might get held up as an "overpowered feat" for what it does for a Pouncer, but Power Attack-->Improved Bull Rush-->Shock Trooper is what a feat chain should be like (well, maybe Improved Bull Rush should be better, to be something other than a speed bump on the way to Shock Trooper, but still). Power Attack+Shock Trooper is a feat combo that's worth the feat slots. Compare this to Weapon Focus, which is objectively worse than Knowledge Devotion even if KD has minimal investment (at least 1 rank in each monster knowledge skill with give you +1 Attack/+1 Damage with all weapons against all monsters, and a small chance at getting +2 to both instead). Compare a fully-realized Knowledge Devotion (+5 Attack/+5 Damage against all creatures with any weapon) to the PH feat tree meant for Fighters: Weapon Focus-->Weapon Specialization-->Greater Weapon Focus-->Greater Weapon Specialization. That's four feats for Attack +2/Damage +4 with one weapon, which is terrible from start to finish and arbitrarily requires you to wait until Fighter 12 to finish the chain.

Also, as for "there don't exist any Fighter only feat", that's correct, but it wasn't always. Used to be that basically only Fighter could get access to feats like Weapon Specialization and Weapon Supremacy; even the Martial Rogue didn't count except via houserule perhaps. But then along came the Tome Of Battle and the Warblade counts as a slightly lower level Fighter for the purposes of qualifying for feats, and gets a handful of bonus feats on top of actual class features so whoop de doo Fighter has been replaced!

That's an interesting analysis.

But why couldn't have the Fighter have gotten actual class features, on top of his bonus feats?

[Yuki Akuma]

That's an interesting analysis.

But why couldn't have the Fighter have gotten actual class features, on top of his bonus feats?

Because the designers of D&D 3e didn't know what they were doing.

[TheTrickster]

I am going postulate that Fighters are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Fighters as a dip or their ACFs but rather just the normal Fighter class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Monks are one of two classes that punch things (and the other only punches as an ACF). Truenamers have unique mechanics. Paladins, Samurai, and Knights all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is stabbing things.

Fighters have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. 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?

I suppose people enjoy playing them because their fluff is more...malleable? If you want to play a swordsmen who isn't a holy swordsmen (paladin), a warrior with anger issues (barbarian) or a honor bound fighter (samurai or knight), then fighter may look more appealing to you. Also, some people (not me, but some) don't like ToB classes for a variety or reasons, so they may not want to play a warblade.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because the designers of D&D 3e didn't know what they were doing.

Too true, too true. :smallsigh:

Edit:


I suppose people enjoy playing them because their fluff is more...malleable? If you want to play a swordsmen who isn't a holy swordsmen (paladin), a warrior with anger issues (barbarian) or a honor bound fighter (samurai or knight), then fighter may look more appealing to you. Also, some people (not me, but some) don't like ToB classes for a variety or reasons, so they may not want to play a warblade.

I never understood why people disliked ToB; that includes the "too anime" objection.

[Jormengand]

I never understood why people disliked ToB; that includes the "too anime" objection.

I don't like them as martial classes because they clearly aren't. Slapping an ex tag on teleportation doesn't actually make it nonmagical.

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't like them as martial classes because they clearly aren't. Slapping an ex tag on teleportation doesn't actually make it nonmagical.

Warblades get none of the "obviously magical" abilities. Just the being-awesome-at-fightin' ones. The ones that get the magic powers are the guy named for East Asian folkloric superpowered martial artists and the guy who's literally divinely inspired.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I suppose people enjoy playing them because their fluff is more...malleable? If you want to play a swordsmen who isn't a holy swordsmen (paladin), a warrior with anger issues (barbarian) or a honor bound fighter (samurai or knight), then fighter may look more appealing to you. Also, some people (not me, but some) don't like ToB classes for a variety or reasons, so they may not want to play a warblade.

But what exactly would you do with the Fighter? What exactly are you making that can't be done with the other martial classes? Also, refluffing is an option.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't like them as martial classes because they clearly aren't. Slapping an ex tag on teleportation doesn't actually make it nonmagical.

Why does that matter? They still swing swords at people, and they don't actually cast spells, even if some maneuvers are magical.

[Knaight]

Bonus feats turned out to not really work as class features, but that says more about the particular feats available than the core design of getting a bunch of feats as what powers the class.

Consider the Commoner. They're basically a hypothetical minimum class, in that everything they have is also possessed by every single other class*. The commoner gets:
1d4 HD
Poor BAB
Poor Saves
2+int Skill Points
5 ability score increases (at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20)
7 feats (at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18)
1 Simple Weapon Proficiency

Anything beyond this is effectively a class feature of some sort. The problem is that some of these features panned out much better than others. In theory, an extra 11 feats is pretty useful, much the way that having a d12 hit die is pretty useful (after all, it's just more of what everyone has, much like the feats). In practice, the way feats are designed made it not that great, particularly because the Fighter feats in general seem to have been built to specifically use up the extra feats by having a bunch of pointless prerequisites.

*With the notable exception of them getting to pick their one simple weapon proficiency and possibly class skills.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't like them as martial classes because they clearly aren't. Slapping an ex tag on teleportation doesn't actually make it nonmagical.

Only from your perspective.

In a world where everyone naturally teleports around as locomotion, but one guy with training can actually walk without needing to teleport whats actually "magical" then? This walking person can move without teleportation! This is awesome, move so little without needing so much teleportation effort! He has such subtlety and refinement to his movement! its so hard to move such short distances, how is he doing it!?

Magical is whatever people define it as. if wuxia doesn't say its magic, its not magic. Just training.

[Goaty14]

Too true, too true. :smallsigh:
I never understood why people disliked ToB; that includes the "too anime" objection.

I don't like it because it is not nearly as simple as casting spells, and is just confusing in general, especially crusader, the X(y) maneuvers readied doesn't make sense. Yes, while it does make melee cooler than stabbing stuff with swords, it didn't do it in a comprehensible manner.

Fighters are good because there is no single "fighter" to standardize the class off of, each fighter chooses different feats to fill different roles, all in one class.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, you play a fighter if you want a martial character with no magic.

The problem with the fighter is not the class: it is more how you play the game.

Now, ok, because it has to be said...sigh...there is no ''wrong'' way to play the game.

BUT.

If you play the game ''Video Game'' style, then yes the ''fighter is useless(or whatever other bad word you want to use''.

A classic game style has characters that are active and might get into combat 24/7. Even more, a character is expected to be active a good 16 hours a day(and sleep the other 8).

Now all the other character classes you mention have limited uses per day on the vast majority of all their abilities. They simply can not be 100% all the time. But the fighter does not have that limitation: they can fight all day and night long at any time needed.

But then you have the ''Video Game'' way to play. The ''15 minute day'' and the ''only a couple encounters'' per day way to play. Well, when you have a character that can only use an ability five times a day, and you know the character will only be in five fights a day....you can use that ability in every fight. But what if, not only did you not know how many fights a character would be in, but you knew that it was going to be at least 10 to 20 ? Well, 12 fights and you can only do your special ability in five of them. Suddenly you can't be ''all powerful'' in every fight, you have to pick and choose. You could burn out and use the ability on the first five fights, but then you have to go through seven (or 12 or 15) more fights without it. You might want to save it for big fights, but you will have to decide what a big fight is.

Try a ''7PM'' type game setting: all spellcasters have cast all their spells, and all characters with ''times per day'' abilities have used them all up. AND the characters still have to fight five ''big'' encounters, AND the BBEG. The fighter, who has lots of feats that can be used 24/7 looks pretty good then...

Of course the fall downhill started with 3E and reached a climax with 4E (you know with encounter powers, so every character could always be special), but that is what it is.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't like it because it is not nearly as simple as casting spells, and is just confusing in general, especially crusader, the X(y) maneuvers readied doesn't make sense. Yes, while it does make melee cooler than stabbing stuff with swords, it didn't do it in a comprehensible manner.

OK, I really like the ToB classes.


Fighters are good because there is no single "fighter" to standardize the class off of, each fighter chooses different feats to fill different roles, all in one class.

Except a Fighter that doesn't multiclass or take ACFs is hilariously unoptimal.

Edit:

Well, you play a fighter if you want a martial character with no magic.

The problem with the fighter is not the class: it is more how you play the game.

Now, ok, because it has to be said...sigh...there is no ''wrong'' way to play the game.

BUT.

If you play the game ''Video Game'' style, then yes the ''fighter is useless(or whatever other bad word you want to use''.

A classic game style has characters that are active and might get into combat 24/7. Even more, a character is expected to be active a good 16 hours a day(and sleep the other 8).

Now all the other character classes you mention have limited uses per day on the vast majority of all their abilities. They simply can not be 100% all the time. But the fighter does not have that limitation: they can fight all day and night long at any time needed.

But then you have the ''Video Game'' way to play. The ''15 minute day'' and the ''only a couple encounters'' per day way to play. Well, when you have a character that can only use an ability five times a day, and you know the character will only be in five fights a day....you can use that ability in every fight. But what if, not only did you not know how many fights a character would be in, but you knew that it was going to be at least 10 to 20 ? Well, 12 fights and you can only do your special ability in five of them. Suddenly you can't be ''all powerful'' in every fight, you have to pick and choose. You could burn out and use the ability on the first five fights, but then you have to go through seven (or 12 or 15) more fights without it. You might want to save it for big fights, but you will have to decide what a big fight is.

Try a ''7PM'' type game setting: all spellcasters have cast all their spells, and all characters with ''times per day'' abilities have used them all up. AND the characters still have to fight five ''big'' encounters, AND the BBEG. The fighter, who has lots of feats that can be used 24/7 looks pretty good then...

Of course the fall downhill started with 3E and reached a climax with 4E (you know with encounter powers, so every character could always be special), but that is what it is.

This argument is old and doesn't hold water:

1. The Fighter has limited HP and can't fight all day.
2. Barbarian and ToB classes are better.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Well, you play a fighter if you want a martial character with no magic.

The problem with the fighter is not the class: it is more how you play the game.

Now, ok, because it has to be said...sigh...there is no ''wrong'' way to play the game.

BUT.

If you play the game ''Video Game'' style, then yes the ''fighter is useless(or whatever other bad word you want to use''.

A classic game style has characters that are active and might get into combat 24/7. Even more, a character is expected to be active a good 16 hours a day(and sleep the other 8).

Now all the other character classes you mention have limited uses per day on the vast majority of all their abilities. They simply can not be 100% all the time. But the fighter does not have that limitation: they can fight all day and night long at any time needed.

But then you have the ''Video Game'' way to play. The ''15 minute day'' and the ''only a couple encounters'' per day way to play. Well, when you have a character that can only use an ability five times a day, and you know the character will only be in five fights a day....you can use that ability in every fight. But what if, not only did you not know how many fights a character would be in, but you knew that it was going to be at least 10 to 20 ? Well, 12 fights and you can only do your special ability in five of them. Suddenly you can't be ''all powerful'' in every fight, you have to pick and choose. You could burn out and use the ability on the first five fights, but then you have to go through seven (or 12 or 15) more fights without it. You might want to save it for big fights, but you will have to decide what a big fight is.

Try a ''7PM'' type game setting: all spellcasters have cast all their spells, and all characters with ''times per day'' abilities have used them all up. AND the characters still have to fight five ''big'' encounters, AND the BBEG. The fighter, who has lots of feats that can be used 24/7 looks pretty good then...

Of course the fall downhill started with 3E and reached a climax with 4E (you know with encounter powers, so every character could always be special), but that is what it is.

Except he's probably low on HP and will have to carry the entire fight, and probably lose as a result because Fighters aren't actually that good a fighting. Also, even without his Rage the Barbarian is still better.

[Thunder999]

If you want to do something that needs a bunch of feats (and preferably at a reasonably low level) and aren't allowed to just dip multiple classes and that thing is mostly about hitting stuff then fighter gives you those bonus feats, the main issue is that most things which need a big feat chain aren't great and or probably have some of those feats locked behind a prereq like a certain BAB so you can't get them much faster, so this is rarely something you want to do.

[Jormengand]

Warblades get none of the "obviously magical" abilities. Just the being-awesome-at-fightin' ones. The ones that get the magic powers are the guy named for East Asian folkloric superpowered martial artists and the guy who's literally divinely inspired.

Warblades get Iron Heart, which contains not!Dispel Magic (IHS) and "Look at me, I'm Thor!" (Lightning Throw). If you want to convince me that throwing a weapon straight through six people and having it magically return to your hand isn't magical, then good luck. Diamond Mind has the hilarious maneuver where you concentrate really hard instead of dodging (Action before thought), Stone Dragon contains the "I become resistant to damage by meditating while fighting" (Insert metal here bones) maneuvers, and white raven has near-enough time travel because of your amazing "Tactics".


Why does that matter? They still swing swords at people, and they don't actually cast spells, even if some maneuvers are magical.

Psychic warriors swing swords at people and don't cast spells. In fact, psionic powers have less in common than manuevers do; they aren't "Expended" in the oddly-specific way common to magic and maneuvers.


Only from your perspective.

In a world where everyone naturally teleports around as locomotion, but one guy with training can actually walk without needing to teleport whats actually "magical" then? This walking person can move without teleportation! This is awesome, move so little without needing so much teleportation effort! He has such subtlety and refinement to his movement! its so hard to move such short distances, how is he doing it!?

Magical is whatever people define it as. if wuxia doesn't say its magic, its not magic. Just training.

I want a class that's nonmagical from our perspective as people in the real world. Why? Intellectual honesty, that's why. Alternatively, we can make up a new word which means what I want "Magical" to mean if it offends you so badly that I'm using it in the natural use of the word.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Warblades get Iron Heart, which contains not!Dispel Magic (IHS) and "Look at me, I'm Thor!" (Lightning Throw). If you want to convince me that throwing a weapon straight through six people and having it magically return to your hand isn't magical, then good luck. Diamond Mind has the hilarious maneuver where you concentrate really hard instead of dodging (Action before thought), Stone Dragon contains the "I become resistant to damage by meditating while fighting" (Insert metal here bones) maneuvers, and white raven has near-enough time travel because of your amazing "Tactics".

Worth noting that EX abilities are explicitly stated to be capable of breaking the laws of physics. Just look at evasion.


Psychic warriors swing swords at people and don't cast spells. In fact, psionic powers have less in common than manuevers do; they aren't "Expended" in the oddly-specific way common to magic and maneuvers.

Psionics are pretty similar to magic (in fact they are magic), but the Martial Adepts get their maneuvers back after a period of time (not by sleeping 8 hours either).

Edit:


I want a class that's nonmagical from our perspective as people in the real world. Why? Intellectual honesty, that's why. Alternatively, we can make up a new word which means what I want "Magical" to mean if it offends you so badly that I'm using it in the natural use of the word.

D&D characters are superhuman from level 6 onward, it's not the best system for normal people.

Edit 2: If "magical" = "impossible".

[TheTrickster]

I never understood why people disliked ToB; that includes the "too anime" objection.

The maneuver system always felt a little bit like a casting class to me, even if what they do aren't technically spells. But that is probably why I enjoy them so much.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Most mundanes are already decked out in magic gear and buffed with magic spells, so why does it matter that ToB classes are "magic"?

[Jormengand]

Worth noting that EX abilities are explicitly stated to be capable of breaking the laws of physics. Just look at evasion.

Evasion (and reflex half in general) I mostly assume to involve the fact that no blast is actually uniform, so a rogue could possibly find a rogue-shaped area of a fireball with no fire in to hide.


Psionics are pretty similar to magic (in fact they are magic), but the Martial Adepts get their maneuvers back after a period of time (not by sleeping 8 hours either).

I know, and different classes have different ways to refresh their magic (or magic-analogues), including "Not" in the case of Warlocks and "Every 1d4 rounds" in the case of dragons. Doesn't change what is and isn't magical, or the fact that forgetting how to do your maneuver after doing it is silly if it's meant to be nonmagical. And don't say "It wouldn't be effective twice" when you're not allowed to use it on someone who didn't see you do it the first time either until you've recharged your maneuers.


D&D characters are superhuman from level 6 onward, it's not the best system for normal people.

Well, sort of. But there's a difference between suspension of disbelief and destruction of disbelief with a flaming hammer.


Most mundanes are already decked out in magic gear and buffed with magic spells, so why does it matter that ToB classes are "magic"?

Some people like the idea of someone who doesn't intrinsically have magical abilities and that's what makes their magical gear so awesome. Everyone being magic devalues the ability of magic to elicit any response beyond "So it must be tuesday, what else is new?"

[ColorBlindNinja]

Most mundanes are already decked out in magic gear and buffed with magic spells, so why does it matter that ToB classes are "magic"?

Gear and buffs that many classes can't function without, I might add.

Edit:


Evasion (and reflex half in general) I mostly assume to involve the fact that no blast is actually uniform, so a rogue could possibly find a rogue-shaped area of a fireball with no fire in to hide.

You can dodge a 20 foot radius explosion in a 5 by 5 foot room.



I know, and different classes have different ways to refresh their magic (or magic-analogues), including "Not" in the case of Warlocks and "Every 1d4 rounds" in the case of dragons. Doesn't change what is and isn't magical, or the fact that forgetting how to do your maneuver after doing it is silly if it's meant to be nonmagical. And don't say "It wouldn't be effective twice" when you're not allowed to use it on someone who didn't see you do it the first time either until you've recharged your maneuers.

As far as the game is concerned, spellcasting, SLAs, and SU abilities are magical, while EX aren't. Even when EX abilities literally mimic spells.


Well, sort of. But there's a difference between suspension of disbelief and destruction of disbelief with a flaming hammer.

Fair enough.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why do you play a Fighter?

Probably because, for one reason or another, you can't or won't use alternatives-- because the books aren't available, because the DM banned them for being "overpowered," or because they don't quite fit your concept and you're allergic to refluffing.

(Though ToB aside, it's not like there are a ton of good "non-caster fighter types" out there. Barbarian is decent and has strong fluff, Ranger is also pretty mediocre and has strong fluff, Swashbuckler without Daring Outlaw is only okay for 3 levels, Samurai is crap, Knights are iffy and have mechanically-enforced fluff, and Marshals are mediocre at best and have a certain amount of fluff.)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why do you play a Fighter?

Probably because, for one reason or another, you can't or won't use alternatives-- because the books aren't available, because the DM banned them for being "overpowered," or because they don't quite fit your concept and you're allergic to refluffing.

(Though ToB aside, it's not like there are a ton of good "non-caster fighter types" out there. Barbarian is decent and has strong fluff, Ranger is also pretty mediocre and has strong fluff, Swashbuckler without Daring Outlaw is only okay for 3 levels, Samurai is crap, Knights are iffy and have mechanically-enforced fluff, and Marshals are mediocre at best and have a certain amount of fluff.)

What about the Totemist?

[AvatarVecna]

That's an interesting analysis.

But why couldn't have the Fighter have gotten actual class features, on top of his bonus feats?

I'm not saying they couldn't have gotten class features as well - I love the PF Fighter a lot, partially because the Archetype system is awesome, and there's tons of homebrew Fighter fixes that I like - I'm just explaining why a system could exist where the Fighter having nothing more than a pile of feats would be an acceptable substitute for personalized class features, as well as showing how the Fighter having a bunch of feats ****ed up feat design, which thus ****ed up the Fighter's overall balance. Another big part of why the Fighter has no real class features to call its own is a lot of the same reason the 5e Champion Fighter sub-class is boring to a lot of people: it's intentionally designed as a class for people who are new to the game, to avoid bogging them down with too much unnecessary crap (except because the Fighter sucks when you take too many of the slew of trap options available to them, it can discourage new players from playing again at all).

As an example, there's a homebrew Fighter fix out there that's more or less "what if the Fighter was T1 and didn't benefit from any kind of magic or magic-adjacent system?". It has a basically perfect chassis, a few awesome features (one that's effectively "DR=class level, stacks with real DR", one that's "spend HP to ignore basically anything", one that's "anything can be a weapon if you believe hard enough, but only if you don't magic", and one that's "I'm a real Fighter for purposes of Fighter feats"), and one absolutely amazing class features that's "choose a bunch of features from this giant list of class features, which can include a bunch of bonus feats, and you can switch some of them out be thinking hard enough about it for a few minutes". If you choose to select "MOAR BONUS FEATS" as all of your class features, you end up with 180 of them by 20th level...which is somewhere in the right neighborhood of "this is enough feats that I'm vaguely comfortable having this in a party with a well-built, well-played wizard"; I'm not saying that build of that class would be T1 until they switched out some bonus feats for some of the cool class feature options, but given how much 3.5 feats suck, that's about the number of feats I'd expect to need to seriously compete with a wizard who Persistomancy's themselves enough that they can pretend to be a super-fighter. That's how much feats pretty much suck in 3.5: with the exception of the ones that get bandied about a lot in charop discussions, most feats are barely worth taking with your relatively limited feat slots.

Same person made a Super-Rogue, a Super-Barbarian, a Super-Monk, a Super-Ranger, a Super-Bard that doesn't use magic, and a Super-Sorcerer that doesn't use magic (who is basically a giant pile of lucky roll-manipulating bull****).


Well, when you have a character that can only use an ability five times a day, and you know the character will only be in five fights a day....you can use that ability in every fight. But what if, not only did you not know how many fights a character would be in, but you knew that it was going to be at least 10 to 20 ? Well, 12 fights and you can only do your special ability in five of them. Suddenly you can't be ''all powerful'' in every fight, you have to pick and choose. You could burn out and use the ability on the first five fights, but then you have to go through seven (or 12 or 15) more fights without it. You might want to save it for big fights, but you will have to decide what a big fight is.

Try a ''7PM'' type game setting: all spellcasters have cast all their spells, and all characters with ''times per day'' abilities have used them all up. AND the characters still have to fight five ''big'' encounters, AND the BBEG. The fighter, who has lots of feats that can be used 24/7 looks pretty good then...

A lot of the issue with this argument, at least in Core, is that the way the CR system is set up, the party should generally be facing 5 encounters of CR=APL (since an encounter of CR=APL is expected to use up 20% of the party's resources). Now, once they're out of the early levels and you can throw a small pile of low-CR creatures at them and call it an easy encounter, you might be able to get that up to 10 encounters with maybe half of them being ridiculously easy to make up for how the remaining 5 are much more intensive. Ultimately, though, adding more encounters to the adventuring day either makes the individual encounters much easier, or quickly overwhelms your players.

Does playing with lots of encounters featuring hordes of weak creatures make the Fighter better? Sure, now Cleave and Great Cleave might actually be worth taking, and will come in useful against the hordes that aren't big enough for the Wizard to justify spending a Burning Hands or Color Spray on...which highlights the problem of "lots of little encounters": the reason blasting is largely considered to suck is because people generally run encounters of at least CR=APL; when you run too much lower, creatures start having a lot less HP and lower saves and either no SR or SR that's easy to bypass, which makes them cannon fodder for the mage who's got a halfway decent blast. Ultimately, the Fighter gets a good bit better if they have the right couple of feats, and a good bit better in general, but the mage also gets a bit better, and was already awesome. This is, of course, assuming you're not working with Reserve feats, which make things even weirder.

The alternative - playing more than the expected number of encounters, but not making them overall easier, means you're just throwing more fights at the party than they have any reason to believe they can handle. Somewhere around halfway through the dungeon the PCs are trying to clear out, they realize they're only halfway through and can't really take a break, and they're low on healing and HP. They'll figure out that this dungeon isn't really appropriate for adventurers of their limited capabilities, accept defeat, and leave. And thus you will have won at D&D as the DM.

[Necroticplague]

Try a ''7PM'' type game setting: all spellcasters have cast all their spells, and all characters with ''times per day'' abilities have used them all up. AND the characters still have to fight five ''big'' encounters, AND the BBEG. The fighter, who has lots of feats that can be used 24/7 looks pretty good then...

Under those conditions, the fighter is too close to death to do his job properly. Crusaders are better at this job (considering their only daily resource is a Smite that has minimal impact on their playstyle).

[Lord Raziere]

I want a class that's nonmagical from our perspective as people in the real world. Why? Intellectual honesty, that's why. Alternatively, we can make up a new word which means what I want "Magical" to mean if it offends you so badly that I'm using it in the natural use of the word.

Yeah, "intellectual honesty", in a game about fantasy superheroes who can make skill rolls to deceive somebody into believing they are a fish at a high enough level and has ALIGNMENT as an actual in world thing to justify killing a bunch of people. Let me break it to you: DnD is about as deep, intellectual and true to life as a shallow beach populated by thirteen year olds who think Doctor Who is real. and all the kids are waving around their toy sonic screwdrivers going "I solve this problem, I'm the beeeeeeeeest. oh these guys here? they're Daleks they're bad so they never win."

[Arbane]

Because sometimes I just want to grab a sword and chop up some orcs.

The fact that D&D3rd and derivatives support this playstyle less and less well at higher levels doesn't make this untrue.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because sometimes I just want to grab a sword and chop up some orcs.

The fact that D&D3rd and derivatives support this playstyle less and less well at higher levels doesn't make this untrue.

Couldn't you do that as a Barbarian?

[Gruftzwerg]

First, 3.5 never intended to have all base classes have the same power lvl at lvl20. The difference between martial classes and casters is just to big.
The sole reason to take more fighter lvls is a heavy feat focused build. But since most play with 2 flaws to compensate feat starving builds, this option lessens the value of the fighter even more. If you don't play with flaws, more fighter lvl will be seen more often in builds.

My Driving Attack builds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517187-4-quot-Driving-Attack-quot-Builds-(incl-minor-Berserk-Manga-*re-fluff*))are relying on up to 14 fighter lvls. Sure such builds are exceptions and less likely to see, but they still exist. And imho if you can make 14 lvl of a base class worth to add to your build, the class is fine as it is in terms of 3.5 .

[Tainted_Scholar]

Because sometimes I just want to grab a sword and chop up some orcs.

The fact that D&D3rd and derivatives support this playstyle less and less well at higher levels doesn't make this untrue.

Then play a Barbarian.

[OldTrees1]

Unfortunately everyone gets feats, and there don't exist any Fighter only feats. A Barbarian has access to all the feats that the Fighter that the Fighter does and has actual class features.

Did you know that doesn't matter? It doesn't matter if everyone gets feats. Fighter gets more feats and feats are the reason people would play Fighter.

This is not to say YOU would play a Fighter because Fighter gets more feats. This is saying that those that play Fighter do so because Fighter gets more feats. They are choosing to invest deeper in the Feat system than Barbarian does and are using the signature class feature of the Fighter class as a means to do so.

[Jormengand]

You can dodge a 20 foot radius explosion in a 5 by 5 foot room.

Technically, yes. But first, that kind of edge case is a bit silly to consider. I'm not having to resort to worst-case scenarios to get my point across. It's relatively trivial that the designers weren't considering that case when they made evasion. In the second instance, it's still possible that somewhere in that 125-ft^3 volume, your ~2 ft^3 rogue can find an area with no fire in; the possible explanation is that a fireball isn't a uniform explosion, though only a monk or a rogue can fully hope to make it entirely to a cold spot in time.


As far as the game is concerned, spellcasting, SLAs, and SU abilities are magical, while EX aren't. Even when EX abilities literally mimic spells.

I'm looking for things that are actually nonmagical, not mechanically nonmagical.


Yeah, "intellectual honesty", in a game about fantasy superheroes who can make skill rolls to deceive somebody into believing they are a fish at a high enough level and has ALIGNMENT as an actual in world thing to justify killing a bunch of people. Let me break it to you: DnD is about as deep, intellectual and true to life as a shallow beach populated by thirteen year olds who think Doctor Who is real. and all the kids are waving around their toy sonic screwdrivers going "I solve this problem, I'm the beeeeeeeeest. oh these guys here? they're Daleks they're bad so they never win."

You can still be intellectually honest about something which isn't intellectual, you know.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Did you know that doesn't matter? It doesn't matter if everyone gets feats. Fighter gets more feats and feats are the reason people would play Fighter.

This is not to say YOU would play a Fighter because Fighter gets more feats. This is saying that those that play Fighter do so because Fighter gets more feats.

Isn't there a Rogue Variant that gets Fighter Bonus Feats?

Edit: You lose Sneak Attack, but still.


Edit 2:


Technically, yes. But first, that kind of edge case is a bit silly to consider. I'm not having to resort to worst-case scenarios to get my point across. It's relatively trivial that the designers weren't considering that case when they made evasion. In the second instance, it's still possible that somewhere in that 125-ft^3 volume, your ~2 ft^3 rogue can find an area with no fire in; the possible explanation is that a fireball isn't a uniform explosion, though only a monk or a rogue can fully hope to make it entirely to a cold spot in time.

I guess? It still seems impossible to me.


I'm looking for things that are actually nonmagical, not mechanically nonmagical.

OK, I get it.

[atemu1234]

Excellent question. I believe the answer is masochism.

A psychosexual desire for punishment, specifically related to a god-like figure repeatedly making you suffer through hell to grant fulfillment.


Why not play a Warblade? They fill the same conceptual niche and actually function well out of the box.

Money, the reason's money Seriously, though, most people don't own a copy of Tome of Battle - it was released late in 3.5's run, and has a lot of material that is poorly edited besides. I like Tome of Battle, and most things in it, but let's not pretend that it's perfect as a replacement by any stretch of the imagination.

[OldTrees1]

Isn't there a Rogue Variant that gets Fighter Bonus Feats?

Edit: You lose Sneak Attack, but still.

Yes.

My first post on this topic mentioned Martial Rogue as a hybrid of the Skill System class and the Feat System class. Someone might even mix and match to customize the BAB vs Skill System ratio to their preferences.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Money, the reason's money Seriously, though, most people don't own a copy of Tome of Battle - it was released late in 3.5's run, and has a lot of material that is poorly edited besides. I like Tome of Battle, and most things in it, but let's not pretend that it's perfect as a replacement by any stretch of the imagination.

Free Warblade! (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2)



Yes.

My first post on this topic mentioned Martial Rogue as a hybrid of the Skill System class and the Feat System class.

Sorry, I must have missed that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What about the Totemist?
One of my favorite classes, but pretty friggin' blatantly magical. And quite strongly flavored and aligned towards a particular style.

[ColorBlindNinja]

One of my favorite classes, but pretty friggin' blatantly magical. And quite strongly flavored and aligned towards a particular style.

Ah, I forgot that caveat; I just remembered them because they're a good melee class

[Tainted_Scholar]

One of my favorite classes, but pretty friggin' blatantly magical. And quite strongly flavored and aligned towards a particular style.

Why does being magical matter? The Fighter has magic gear and buffs, so why does it matter when you're the source of the magic instead of your gear?

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, I must have missed that.

Quite understandable. There was roughly a 30 post gap from when I went to play a boardgame with the family.

[Psyren]

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

Other than the challenge of optimizing a weak class, there isn't one. But you get that same challenge with the PF version alongside actual class features, so just use that and move on from the 3.5 Fighter like WotC did.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why does being magical matter? The Fighter has magic gear and buffs, so why does it matter when you're the source of the magic instead of your gear?
Because "I channel the spirits of magical creatures to borrow their powers" is crazy different fluff (and execution!) than "I'm a badass swordsman?"

I mean, personally, I absolutely agree that noncasters should get crazy superpower-type stuff at high levels. Barbarians should punch through walls with their bare hands, Rogues should walk across crowded rooms without being seen, Fighters should disarm an entire company worth of soldiers in the blink of an eye. But you can't just carelessly slap "magic" on the problem and walk away without significantly altering the perception of the character.

[EisenKreutzer]

Because "I channel the spirits of magical creatures to borrow their powers" is crazy different fluff (and execution!) than "I'm a badass swordsman?"

I mean, personally, I absolutely agree that noncasters should get crazy superpower-type stuff at high levels. Barbarians should punch through walls with their bare hands, Rogues should walk across crowded rooms without being seen, Fighters should disarm an entire company worth of soldiers in the blink of an eye. But you can't just carelessly slap "magic" on the problem and walk away without significantly altering the perception of the character.

Well, even Fighters take on pretty supernatural qualities as they level up. A 15th level Fighter can perform crazy feats that seem blatantly supernatural, including surviving impossible levels of punishment.
When seen in that light, the difference between someone taking a dragons breath weapon to the face and not even flinching, and someone who throws a magically returning sword and facetanks a dragons fire breath seems pretty tiny.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because "I channel the spirits of magical creatures to borrow their powers" is crazy different fluff (and execution!) than "I'm a badass swordsman?"

I mean, personally, I absolutely agree that noncasters should get crazy superpower-type stuff at high levels. Barbarians should punch through walls with their bare hands, Rogues should walk across crowded rooms without being seen, Fighters should disarm an entire company worth of soldiers in the blink of an eye. But you can't just carelessly slap "magic" on the problem and walk away without significantly altering the perception of the character.

Fair enough, it doesn't bother me personally, but to each their own, I guess.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Because "I channel the spirits of magical creatures to borrow their powers" is crazy different fluff (and execution!) than "I'm a badass swordsman?"

I mean, personally, I absolutely agree that noncasters should get crazy superpower-type stuff at high levels. Barbarians should punch through walls with their bare hands, Rogues should walk across crowded rooms without being seen, Fighters should disarm an entire company worth of soldiers in the blink of an eye. But you can't just carelessly slap "magic" on the problem and walk away without significantly altering the perception of the character.

My point is that once the Fighter is decked out in his gear and buffed, he's pretty damn magical, so why does it matter if the martial character actually has "magic"? It's like the difference between between wearing a robot suit and being a cyborg, functionally they're pretty much the same.

[EisenKreutzer]

My point is that once the Fighter is decked out in his gear and buffed, he's pretty damn magical, so why does it matter if the martial character actually has "magic"? It's like the difference between between wearing a robot suit and being a cyborg, functionally they're pretty much the same.

Are you calling Tony Stark a cyborg?

[Yuki Akuma]

Are you calling Tony Stark a cyborg?

Tony Stark is totally a cyborg. He's had all sorts of gubbins implanted in him over the years. Right now I'm pretty sure he's filled with nanobots or something.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Are you calling Tony Stark a cyborg?

Well does have the arc reactor in his chest.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, even Fighters take on pretty supernatural qualities as they level up. A 15th level Fighter can perform crazy feats that seem blatantly supernatural, including surviving impossible levels of punishment.
When seen in that light, the difference between someone taking a dragons breath weapon to the face and not even flinching, and someone who throws a magically returning sword and facetanks a dragons fire breath seems pretty tiny.

Fair enough, it doesn't bother me personally, but to each their own, I guess.

My point is that once the Fighter is decked out in his gear and buffed, he's pretty damn magical, so why does it matter if the martial character actually has "magic"? It's like the difference between between wearing a robot suit and being a cyborg, functionally they're pretty much the same.
I'm not arguing against crazy-superpowered-noncasters. I love crazy-superpowered-noncasters. At high enough levels, my Barbarian rewrite can potentially build a castle single-handedly, jump over it in a single bound, kick over a tower, then pick up the rubble and toss it into another state. I absolutely believe you can have a superhuman character and call them a Fighter.

I just don't think you can have a spellcaster who looks like a spellcaster and call them a Fighter. Like, if your magic lets you shoot beams of ice at people and grow extra limbs, you're not a Fighter anymore. People Will Talk.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I just don't think you can have a spellcaster who looks like a spellcaster and call them a Fighter. Like, if your magic lets you shoot beams of ice at people and grow extra limbs, you're not a Fighter anymore. People Will Talk.

But the Fighter is replicating all of that with magic items and buffs. It's like saying you don't want to play a cyborg, and you then put on your robot suit and do the same thing that the cyborg does.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But the Fighter is replicating all of that with magic items and buffs. It's like saying you don't want to play a cyborg, and you then put on your robot suit and do the same thing that the cyborg does.

To be fair, more than a few players hate lower tier classes' dependency on magic items.

[gooddragon1]

I am going postulate that Fighters are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Fighters as a dip or their ACFs but rather just the normal Fighter class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Monks are one of two classes that punch things (and the other only punches as an ACF). Truenamers have unique mechanics. Paladins, Samurai, and Knights all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is stabbing things.

Fighters have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. 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?

No frills simplicity. You want to play a guy who doesn't do anything flashy in any way, but is still capable of killing things. A warrior can do that, but a fighter gets a bit more to work with. Though I think I'm not conveying the feeling well with words. It's just something I saw someone project when I asked them why they didn't play a different class or make different choices other than just human fighter with a katana.

[Tainted_Scholar]

No frills simplicity. You want to play a guy who doesn't do anything flashy in any way, but is still capable of killing things. A warrior can do that, but a fighter gets a bit more to work with. Though I think I'm not conveying the feeling well with words. It's just something I saw someone project when I asked them why they didn't play a different class or make different choices other than just human fighter with a katana.

So someone might play the Fighter specifically because they have nothing going for them?

[Grod_The_Giant]

But the Fighter is replicating all of that with magic items and buffs. It's like saying you don't want to play a cyborg, and you then put on your robot suit and do the same thing that the cyborg does.
<sigh>

If I say I want to play the Hulk, I'm going to get grumpy if you hand me a sheet for Dr. Strange.

If I say I want to play a "Fighter," I want to play a character who solves problems with strength, skill, and toughness. They absolutely should be superhuman in their capacity to apply said aspects to the problem, but they should not cast spells. Jumping fifty feet straight up is a Fighter-y thing to do, even if it's physically impossible without magic; sprouting wings is not Fighter-y.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I've thought of another reason to play a Fighter!

If you're in a tier 5/6 only campaign!

Or you could play an Expert with UMD and Iaijutsu Focus...

[Tainted_Scholar]

<sigh>

If I say I want to play the Hulk, I'm going to get grumpy if you hand me a sheet for Dr. Strange.

Except in this scenario Hulk is decked out in magic gear. Also I don't give you Dr. Strange, I just give you a magic Hulk.



If I say I want to play a "Fighter," I want to play a character who solves problems with strength, skill, and toughness. They absolutely should be superhuman in their capacity to apply said aspects to the problem, but they should not cast spells. Jumping fifty feet straight up is a Fighter-y thing to do, even if it's physically impossible without magic; sprouting wings is not Fighter-y.

But the ToB classes can jump 50 feet into the air, and they can fly if needed. Besides, the Fighter will also be able to fly with magic items.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But the ToB classes can jump 50 feet into the air, and they can fly if needed. Besides, the Fighter will also be able to fly with magic items.

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

I could be wrong, of course.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Except in this scenario Hulk is decked out in magic gear. Also I don't give you Dr. Strange, I just give you a magic Hulk.

But the ToB classes can jump 50 feet into the air, and they can fly if needed. Besides, the Fighter will also be able to fly with magic items.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that thematics are important, and that "superpowers" and "magic" are not, thematically, the same thing, even if they accomplish similar things. Just like how ToB is not, thematically, magic, even if it shares certain mechanics.

Edit: if it's bugging you, replace "magic" in my posts with "spells." That might read closer to what I mean.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that thematics are important, and that "superpowers" and "magic" are not, thematically, the same thing, even if they accomplish similar things. Just like how ToB is not, thematically, magic, even if it shares certain mechanics.

Edit: if it's bugging you, replace "magic" in my posts with "spells." That might read closer to what I mean.

ToB and Fighters basically do the same thing, it's just that Fighters get their magic from items, while ToB gets their "magic" from themselves. As a result I don't see why ToB are considered less Fightery than Fighters.

[gooddragon1]

So someone might play the Fighter specifically because they have nothing going for them?

Not nothing but not much. I think that's pretty much it. Let's throw the word "gritty" in there and call it good.

[Grod_The_Giant]

ToB and Fighters basically do the same thing, it's just that Fighters get their magic from items, while ToB gets their "magic" from themselves. As a result I don't see why ToB are less Fightery than Fighters.
They're not, and that's not even remotely what I'm trying to say. I agree that Fighter should have innate power.

My original point was that Totemists are not a good conceptual replacement for a Fighter, because they are thematically (they channel the power of magical beasts, in really obviously magical ways) and mechanically (they use natural weapons and occasional lasers) very distinct. That's it, that's the sole point.

[Tainted_Scholar]

They're not, and that's not even remotely what I'm trying to say. I agree that Fighter should have innate power.

My original point was that Totemists are not a good conceptual replacement for a Fighter, because they are thematically (they channel the power of magical beasts, in really obviously magical ways) and mechanically (they use natural weapons and occasional lasers) very distinct. That's it, that's the sole point.

Okay I guess.

[Lord Raziere]

You can still be intellectually honest about something which isn't intellectual, you know.

If DnD Were Intellectually Honest:
"Hi I'm a wizard. what? No, Sir Knight, I'm not going into what you call the "dungeon" which are actually ruins, dungeons are things that lords throw you in, I'm just here to giving you this enchanted item I call dynamite so that you can light it and throw it at your enemies and make them blow up. I'd be no tactical or combat use to you whatsoever, having no battlefield experience or combat potential whatsoever, now if you'll excuse me I need to go back to my telescope so I can figure out whether or not the Earth is the center of the Universe. Bring that old relic back safe alright? Its probably very fragile, don't throw the dynamite near it and the lord wants it back on his families mantelpiece."

"Hi we're goblins uh.....we're not really threats to you actually. Our limbs and size mean that you have massive advantages over us just because you can reach longer and have more muscle mass, we'd basically be completely slaughtered by any half-way competent human force in straight up combat, even our bows shoot shorter because bows rely on physical strength to actually operate effectively and we have never had the chance to settle down enough to develop crossbows, we surrender and will give you whatever you want so you can leave us in peace."

"Hi we're orcs. What? Alignment? Good? Evil? We don't believe in your weird religion. we believe in a polytheistic, animistic world where everything is in some way alive, we live off the land and fight whatever we can every day just to survive, its real tough, say your armor and weapons are real good, can you tell us how you made it? also, do you know whats a good place to start planting crops? We'll trade you whatever we can for some seeds."

"Hi we're elves. Honestly, we're just humans who enhanced themselves to be better than you guys, we're basically transhuman. Its awesome because well.....thats just the truth. The ears we just made because like the look, and we modified ourselves to never be ugly or fat because who really wants that? No one. We gave ourselves longer lifespans because who wants to die? No one. We'll give you these enhancements to, as long as you have the money...time is money, and I'm planning a long retirement."

"Hi I'm a cleric. What? Alignment? Nah, its not really real, we just made it up to give kings legitimacy and to keep villages stable, y'know to keep people working the fields, behave, not rebel like idiots and cause society to collapse because no one is making food, keep people behaving in a world of dangerous wilderness where storms and drought and famine and plague could happen at any time and screw up all the crops, my job is basically to produce propaganda."

Fighter: "we got the relic back! wait we'res the lord?"
Wizard: "oh while you were away, there was a revolution, a bunch of bards rallied the people to overthrow the nobility and now we elect people democratically through voting."
Fighter: "oh well.....are you a ruler?"
Wizard: "What? Heavens no! I have no social skills at all! I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to govern. My job is basically copy down the leaders say onto paper so that this is all recorded for historical purposes."
Fighter: "then who rules now?"
Wizard: "The bards."
A few bards march past singing "Vote for me! Vote for me! And I promise I'll do that thing you waaaaant!"
Fighter: "aren't you worried that someone who is very charismatic but not very intelligent could get elected and screw up everything just because he is good at singing and thus making people pay attention to him?"
Wizard: "Well yes, its not as if I can take over myself through force or something, that would violate the spirit of the process and thus ruin the whole thing and become just as bad the lords before, wouldn't really be progress at all. That and no one votes for wizards."
Fighter: "why?"
Wizard: "No one listens to boring people. Doesn't matter how smart I am if I'm boring"

Giants are attacking the city now, and everyone is running. the Giants have assault rifles and are dressed up in sophisticated padded armor, with arrows not affecting them, swords bouncing off their spike steel boots which they use to kick droves of people out of their way, the giants every coordinating themselves with radios
Fighter: Why do they have better magic than us!?
Giant: Because, we're bigger and we have more brain mass, and thus like a computer with more hardware, we are smarter than you. and ALSO stronger. since we're unbound by square-cube law, we basically used our greater tool-using capabilities aka THUMBS to kill all the dragons first, and now we're conquering all of you.
Fighter: Wizard! Any ideas!?
Wizard: I dunno, run? hide? surrender?
Fighter: don't you have some sort of magicky thing to kill them with!?
Wizard: no? I'm just a smart guy, doesn't mean I have all the answers.
Fighter why not the dynamite!?
Wizard: oh that? those were my last four sticks, the powder to make more was going to come in a shipment, but the bards stole that to use in their glorious revolution to take down the nobles.
Fighter: Wait! I still have one left! I could find their leader, threaten to blow him if they don't call off the attack and everyone would be-
The giant guns with him down with his giant assault rifle.
Giant: Yeah, as if that would ever happen. Now bow down, slave wizard. We have lots of blueprints, and these giant TV's aren't going to make themselves.
Wizard: *sigh* Different master, same story....

One day all the humans show up with assault rifles against their giant overlord
Giants: "What is this?"
Humans: "haha! with the introduction of higher magic like guns, warfare is reversed! Where warfare previously favored the bigger stronger person because all the weapons were based on strength, guns are not. therefore war now decided by on who is smaller, as smaller people can use less materials to design the same technology in smaller more compact forms to achieve the same results and thus make more using the same resources, fighting in smaller spaces more effectively, sneak better, and bullets piercing you anyones flesh even giants flesh just fine because of how they are designed. where previously were juggernauts of destruction, now your just big walking targets. Get wrecked son!
All the giants die. Then goblins show up in tanks with assault rifles.
Goblins: guess what! We're even smaller than you. This logic applies to you as well! now we will get revenge for all the time you sent mercenaries to clear us out for being annoying pests, and now we, goblins along with your gnome and halfling brethren, oppressed as pests and lowly scoundrels throughout the ages, will now kill you all and take the world for ourselves!
Goblins, gnomes and halflings kill all the humans, orcs and elves. Centuries later they send expeditions to find whatever happened to the dwarves. turns out they all died from starvation and dehydration because they didn't have any farms or rivers underground and shot themselves in the foot by being so stubbornly isolationist and traditionalist from everyone else, so they couldn't open any trade agreements.

The End.

but yeah, Grod basically has the right of it: Hulk isn't Tony Stark. You can disarm Tony Stark from his armor. you can't disarm a fighter from his muscles.

[Lans]

Except he's probably low on HP and will have to carry the entire fight, and probably lose as a result because Fighters aren't actually that good a fighting. Also, even without his Rage the Barbarian is still better.

How is the barbarian better with out rage?





I feel the barbarian isn't really a better class than the fighter, out side of the first 2 levels. I think barbarian 2/fighter 18 is going to be a better build than barbarian 20.

[QUOTE=ColorBlindNinja;22174953]That's an interesting analysis.

But why couldn't have the Fighter have gotten actual class features, on top of his bonus feats?

I think it has to do with the fighter being originally the build space for every type of mundane fighting guy archer, twf, grappler etc, like the wizard is the build space for every type of learned magic guy-necromancer, blaster, transmuter etc. Now obviously one was done better mechanically than the other.

[Necroticplague]

How is the barbarian better with out rage?

Pounce. That's a big one.

[Lans]

Pounce. That's a big one.

Thats like a 2 level dip at best, off of an ACF.

[atemu1234]

Giant: Because, we're bigger and we have more brain mass, and thus like a computer with more hardware, we are smarter than you. and ALSO stronger. since we're unbound by square-cube law, we basically used our greater tool-using capabilities aka THUMBS to kill all the dragons first, and now we're conquering all of you.

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.

[The Insanity]

Giant: Because, we're bigger and we have more brain mass, and thus like a computer with more hardware, we are smarter than you.
This (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/photos/IBM_ANFSQ7_Part_s1.jpg) is outperfomed by this (https://www.att.com/catalog/en/skus/images/apple-iphone%206s-rose%20gold-450x350.png).

[Anteros]

Why does being magical matter? The Fighter has magic gear and buffs, so why does it matter when you're the source of the magic instead of your gear?

Because it clearly matters to people's enjoyment of the game. Why is this so hard for so many people in this thread to understand? Some people enjoy different things than you do. Some people want to play as a "normal" person in a fantasy world that succeeds through pure skill/grit/whatever. You don't get to tell them that the way they enjoy playing is wrong.

[Necroticplague]

This (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/photos/IBM_ANFSQ7_Part_s1.jpg) is outperfomed by this (https://www.att.com/catalog/en/skus/images/apple-iphone%206s-rose%20gold-450x350.png).

To be fair, computers aren't good analogies in this respect, because the miniaturization of parts means it's entirely possible for new devices to have more 'thinking pieces' than older computers, despite smaller sizes. Unless you're saying that the individual brain cells get larger in bigger creatures.

[The Insanity]

To be fair, computers aren't good analogies in this respect
That's the point.

[Necroticplague]

Because it clearly matters to people's enjoyment of the game. Why is this so hard for so many people in this thread to understand? Some people enjoy different things than you do. Some people want to play as a "normal" person in a fantasy world that succeeds through pure skill/grit/whatever. You don't get to tell them that the way they enjoy playing is wrong.

Yeah, nothing but grit, skill, and gear with value enough to feed a sizable family their whole life (at pretty low levels. At higher levels, this moves up to being the value of small kingdoms). Unless the fighter isn't getting magical gear, in which case he's becoming increasingly irrelevant (and thus failing in the 'succeeding' part).

[Anteros]

Yeah, nothing but grit, skill, and gear with value enough to feed a sizable family their whole life (at pretty low levels. At higher levels, this moves up to being the value of small kingdoms). Unless the fighter isn't getting magical gear, in which case he's becoming increasingly irrelevant (and thus failing in the 'succeeding' part).

No one said it's a good class. That doesn't mean people are wrong for wanting to play it. Let's not act like a normal person who finds a magic sword and armor isn't the most common trope in all of fiction for a reason.

Problems like this are why you have a GM to make the game fun for all your players. It's not incredibly difficult as a GM to make sure everyone has fun, even if the character they want to play isn't optimized. In fact it's pretty trivial.

[Twurps]

Why I play a figther? Because of the challenge in building a proper one, including a good feat selection. I also like solving a challenge (in game) that my character wasn't perfectly decked out to solve. Fighter requires you to be creative in game to solve encounters. If I play a druid, all solutions include: 'Wait: lemme sleep for 8 hours, this will be a cakewalk in the morning'. Yawn.

I don't get the 'everbody gets feats' argument. That's like comparing a bard to a wizard because both get spells. More feats mean more power and more build options, giving fighter a wider variety of options than most other classes (In building them, not in playing them, mind you)

I don't get the 'Bland fluff' argument. I like to make up my own fluff, so fluff is mostly irrelevant. A few classes like paladin, bard, barbarian and wizard impose fluff through either rules or mechanics that are difficult to explain otherwise (Try comming up with barbarian rage fluff that's not: 'I'm angry!') fighter offers a lot of freedom in this respect.

I don't get the 'class xxx does it better'. Wizard does everything better. Yawn. Actually: pun-pun beats even the wizard. So why don't we all play pun-pun's? It's because we choose a different power-level. This board likes to pretend T1 wizard's are the power level to go for, but in actual play, many other power-levels are used. In many of those a fighter can hold it's own pretty well.

[angelpalm]

Fighters in 3.5 can do two things;

1. Make with the combat

2. Skill checks

They suck at both and even if optimized to high hell or in a campaign promoting heavy use of their "skills" they are generally boring to play. Unless you think full attacking over and over, and over, and over, and over again is the epitome of enjoyment.

[Coretron03]

Thats like a 2 level dip at best, off of an ACF.
Fighters can take levels in a non-fighter class, therefore they can beat a class who doesn't have to multiclass to get the ability!

I'm pretty sure taking levels in Barbarian (or whatever dip it is) doesn't prove that fighter are better.

[lord_khaine]

Well, personally i do think fighters are boring as hell, and wastly prefer a Warblade.
But at the same i would defend the right to pick one any day of the week. If someone gets a kick out of playing them then if nothing else it makes things easier as GM.

[DEMON]

Wow, another thread bashing the Fighter. Shocking. Is it that time of the year again?

Why didn't Fighters get any real class features? Because the game designers overestimated the power of Feats, full BAB and d10+ HD. and failed to properly address the class balance between mundane & magical classes, I guess. This is mostly visible with the early classes.

WotC have somewhat acknowledged this by introducing several Fighter ACFs that provide actual class features and the Warblade class that is the closest thing to a Fighter with class features this edition has to offer.

That being said, why people actually play Fighters, as opposed to... whatever else? Many reasons. The mundane aspect of the class? The plethora of feats used as a stepping stone to a PrC or a feat chain? The blank slate that can be used to build any fluff one desires?

The Figther is, what it is. For some, it's a 2-4 levels long dip for a feat-starved build, for others a 6 levels long Dungeoncrasher or part of a DEX-based build... Granted, those aren't 20-levels long Fighter only builds, but so what? Multiclassing is one of 3.X edition's strengths and Fighter is part of it, sharing this fate with plenty other classes. As said before, the Fighter is, what it is.

[angelpalm]

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.

[Psyren]

Because it clearly matters to people's enjoyment of the game. Why is this so hard for so many people in this thread to understand? Some people enjoy different things than you do. Some people want to play as a "normal" person in a fantasy world that succeeds through pure skill/grit/whatever. You don't get to tell them that the way they enjoy playing is wrong.


No one said it's a good class. That doesn't mean people are wrong for wanting to play it. Let's not act like a normal person who finds a magic sword and armor isn't the most common trope in all of fiction for a reason.

Problems like this are why you have a GM to make the game fun for all your players. It's not incredibly difficult as a GM to make sure everyone has fun, even if the character they want to play isn't optimized. In fact it's pretty trivial.

Agreed 1000%.

Yet despite how basic this concept is, we will get threads shouting into the void that people are wrong and dumb for playing fighters until the end of time. Even after 8e comes out, someone will get the oh-so-original idea of posting "lol 3.5 fighter sucks, discuss."

Just move on already.

[angelpalm]

Seriously, if you don't like fighter in 3.5, Pathfinder fighter and 5e are entirely different beast.

Especially pathfinder with all it's awesome archetypes and feats(myrmidon, lore warden, and martial master say hi!!).

Still want to try out those neat spheres of power feats that give fighters and others that use combat stamina different uses for their stamina pool.

[Pugwampy]

I will play a fighter at level one because all other classes especially spell chuckers are trash that get farted to death at level one .

Tom the useless tank helps Willy the wizard level up to something useful .

This game is not balanced . A DM can make the game very fighter friendly and experienced players can build and use lvl 10 fighters better than any lvl 10 wizards .

Your pro spell chucking arguments mean something at level 10 . All your players are veterans and your DM makes pro Wizard scenarios .
Good luck with those chances .

[RoboEmperor]

Anyone who wants to do something that requires a ludicrous amount of feats will go fighter.

Like a person who wants to be a master of multiple weapons, master of giant oversized weapons, have a character be a powerful archer AND two weapon fighter, etc.

Versatility from feats over raw optimization from class features = fighter.

Also very simple, great for beginners.

Straight 20 fighter can pull his weight in epic levels.

edit: For Example, Leap Attack + Shock Trooper = Charger. Add in the mount feats and he is an Uber Charger. With the extra feats, this build comes online MUCH QUICKER than the barbarian ubercharger. Barbarian is too much overkill, non-pounce ubercharger can still oneshot everything. In addition, with feats left over, the fighter can invest in ranged weaponry when charging is not possible, or other stuff.

[Uckleverry]

The 3.5 fighter is a blank slate, which can fill many thematical niches. You could be a knight, a mercenary, an archer, a wandering soldier, etc. I mean, it doesn't do any of them particularly well, at least when compared to what some other classes can do, but it's a conceptually easy to grasp class.

If you want a fighter done well (mechanically speaking), 4e's fighter class remains the gold standard, even now after 5e's release.

[Jormengand]

I will play a fighter at level one because all other classes especially spell chuckers are trash that get farted to death at level one .

A first-level wizard with a decent constitution can be shot in the face five times, have two buckets of lava thrown over him, or burn for half a minute without breaking his stride, or survive doing all three. More realistically, he can put the offending archer, lava-chucker and pyromaniac to sleep before they have a chance to hurt him.

[Twurps]

A first-level wizard with a decent constitution can be shot in the face five times, have two buckets of lava thrown over him, or burn for half a minute without breaking his stride, or survive doing all three. More realistically, he can put the offending archer, lava-chucker and pyromaniac to sleep before they have a chance to hurt him.

Getting shot 5 times averages out to 17,5 damage, assuming bog-standard shortbow.
So unless 'decent constitution' means: A max of 18 in constitution, with a con boosting race and con boosting templates applied to get con in the high 20's, maybe topped with the ever powerfull diehard feat... NO he doesn't.

[Jormengand]

Getting shot 5 times averages out to 17,5 damage, assuming bog-standard shortbow.
So unless 'decent constitution' means: A max of 18 in constitution, with a con boosting race and con boosting templates applied to get con in the high 20's, maybe topped with the ever powerfull diehard feat... NO he doesn't.

Did you miss the word "Can" or did you choose to ignore it deliberately?

[ColorBlindNinja]

How is the barbarian better with out rage?

He has more bigger HD than the Fighter.



I feel the barbarian isn't really a better class than the fighter, out side of the first 2 levels. I think barbarian 2/fighter 18 is going to be a better build than barbarian 20.

We were comparing Barbarian 20 VS Fighter 20; I suspect the Barbarian is better.


I think it has to do with the fighter being originally the build space for every type of mundane fighting guy archer, twf, grappler etc, like the wizard is the build space for every type of learned magic guy-necromancer, blaster, transmuter etc. Now obviously one was done better mechanically than the other.

But the Fighter really can't do any of that very well; at least, compared to other classes that perform those roles better.


Agreed 1000%.

Yet despite how basic this concept is, we will get threads shouting into the void that people are wrong and dumb for playing fighters until the end of time. Even after 8e comes out, someone will get the oh-so-original idea of posting "lol 3.5 fighter sucks, discuss."

Just move on already.

As long as there are people who insist that the Fighter is actually a good class, we will continue to correct them.

[Ironsmith]

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me, at least, every time I've gone with a Fighter, it was because of the simplicity. No daily limit spells or abilities, no mechanics that would require resource conservation (unless you spent a significant amount of feats in ranged combat, in which case you'd have to keep track of your arrows/bolts), nothing like that. A Fighter is as useful at the end of the day as he is at the beginning, and while some might be inclined to say "that means 'not very'", having a series of abilities you can call on basically whenever, even if they're by and large accessible to other characters, makes for a good, stable character that works as its own play style.

Of course, one of the major drawbacks to this is that Fighters are quite probably the least "flashy" class available. Most class abilities are balanced out by being limited (i.e. the Paladin's "Lay on Hands" or "Smite Evil" abilities, Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Druid/Ranger/Paladin/Cleric spell slots, Barbarian's "Rage", etc.), so the things that can be used at will, indefinitely, are by their nature going to be less individually impressive. Sure, a Fighter with Power Attack might just seem like a discount Barbarian, but he can keep chopping through goblins even when a Barbarian of the same level is dealing with fatigue from the end of his rage (and unable to produce another). Additionally, most other classes with passive abilities (such as a Barbarian's "Uncanny Dodge") are about on par with the bonus feats a Fighter gets every couple of levels.

In terms of niches, Fighters fit the "jack of all trades, master of none" group really well, coming off as just a bit less specialized than a Rogue.. Granted, their skill points are mediocre and some of the more opportune abilities are cross-class for them, but they can make up for that easily with certain feats (think about it: getting Agile as a feat is the equivalent of gaining 8 skill points by other means, and normally, that kind of thing would be wasted on a character who only gets feats every 3 levels, as opposed to the Fighter who gets them every other level (and again at every third level, so they're basically just raining in for him)). Compare that to a Rogue's diverse skillset and essentially, Rogues are to Skills as Fighters are to Feats.

If that's not enough, recall that the Fighter has the second best set of Hit Dice in the game (d10). Combine that with proficiency in ALL forms of armor and any weapon that's not exotic (and even that's not much of a limitation if the Fighter chooses to specialize in one), and what you're staring at is an excellent defensive character who can work with basically anything he can pick up off the ground. And once magic weapons and armor start coming into play, he only gets better.

tl:dr; Substance over style, little things add up, and Fighters are tough sons-of-guns.

[Jormengand]

A Fighter is as useful at the end of the day as he is at the beginning.

Well no, at the beginning of the day, the fighter can get in the way of a whole 4.5+level(CON+5.5) hit points' worth of stuff that could have hit someone valuable, but by the end of the day he's mostly run out.

[Cazero]

As long as there are people who insist that the Fighter is actually a good class, we will continue to correct them.
Sure, mechanicaly the Fighter is a failure. I blame feats. They just don't grow high enough.
But as long as people who insist that the Fighter fluff is a problem, there will be people to point out that it isn't.

Let's have a look at the fluff from core, shall we?
Fighter : swords stuff into submission.
Barbarian : also swords stuff into submission, but with anger management issues, wich is something we absolutely need a class to do.
Rogue : backstabs stuff into submission. Also the dungeoneering skill expert, something that absolutely must be tied to backstabbing.
Monk : punches stuff into submission, also has ki.
Wizard : magics stuff into submission.
Sorcerer : magics stuff into submission, but it's a totaly different magic, I swear.
Cleric : magics stuff into submission, but it's a totaly different magic again, there even is a god involved.
Druid : magics stuff into submission, but really different again, see, because nature.
Paladin : swords and divine magics stuff into submission, and we totaly need it because it's completely different from fighter/cleric multiclassing, honest guys.
Ranger : swords and nature magics stuff into submission, and we also need it because it's completely different from fighter/druid multiclassing, I don't get why you doubt me. Also sworn enemies, a mechanic that simply must be tied to the combination of nature magic and swording.

And that's it. As far as I can tell, the Fighter isn't the class with fluff problem.

[Lord Raziere]

This (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/photos/IBM_ANFSQ7_Part_s1.jpg) is outperfomed by this (https://www.att.com/catalog/en/skus/images/apple-iphone%206s-rose%20gold-450x350.png).

a 404 error outperforms one of the first computers you say? well neither of them work anymore, so it fits since giants aren't real. nothing about them works. :smallbiggrin:

but seriously, there are still supercomputers that outperform any smartphone.



As long as there are people who insist that the Fighter is actually a good class, we will continue to correct them.

and as long as there are people who insist that 3.5 is actually a good system, we will continue to correct them.

the fact that its a bad class means the system probably isn't all that well-designed either.

[ColorBlindNinja]

a 404 error outperforms one of the first computers you say? well neither of them work anymore, so it fits since giants aren't real. nothing about them works. :smallbiggrin:

but seriously, there are still supercomputers that outperform any smartphone.

True, but big brain doesn't equal a smart creature. Edit: Not 100% of the time, at least.


and as long as there are people who insist that 3.5 is actually a good system, we will continue to correct them.

the fact that its a bad class means the system probably isn't all that well-designed either.

I have no delusions that 3.5 is well-designed; I spent a fair amount of time arguing that it's poorly designed in a recent thread.

[Jormengand]

But as long as people who insist that the Fighter fluff is a problem, there will be people to point out that it isn't.

And that's it. As far as I can tell, the Fighter isn't the class with fluff problem.

The problem with the fighter's fluff is precisely becuase "Person who fights" isn't a real character concept because it's everyone's character concept. Paladin is a valuable character concept because no-one else has the "Warrior with divine guidance who seeks out evil and whacks them with a stick" concept, except a battle cleric specifically built to have that concept - no other class has that concept out-of-the-box. "I fight things" isn't a full enough character concept to make a real character out of, and the fact that it's such a bad concept directly informs why the fighter class isn't a good class either.

[Sacrieur]

I don't think anyone in good conscious could recommend someone play a fighter without also helping the player understand there isn't any way for them to be good at what the class advertises. Fighter does however make a useful NPC class because of its simplicity makes it easy to build without getting too complicated.

I believe people play fighter for the reason that it's easy to make and play. It's pretty dangerous that way, it can ruin people's experiences of the game when players get dissatisfied when their character isn't as fun as they thought they would be. If you play a fighter you want to be able to use a sword, shield, armor and be in the thick of it. But this isn't what ends up happening. To be honest, I think the 3.5 class was a lazy afterthought.

[Cazero]

The problem with the fighter's fluff is precisely becuase "Person who fights" isn't a real character concept because it's everyone's character concept. Paladin is a valuable character concept because no-one else has the "Warrior with divine guidance who seeks out evil and whacks them with a stick" concept, except a battle cleric specifically built to have that concept - no other class has that concept out-of-the-box. "I fight things" isn't a full enough character concept to make a real character out of, and the fact that it's such a bad concept directly informs why the fighter class isn't a good class either.
And the reason you think that is because you fail to account that the Fighter doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists alongside all those other classes. Wich means the Fighter is the badass who doesn't need to cheat to win at fighting, and his only competitor in that category is the Barbarian. Just because the mechanics failed to make it true doesn't mean the fluff got denatured.

[Ironsmith]

Well no, at the beginning of the day, the fighter can get in the way of a whole 4.5+level(CON+5.5) hit points' worth of stuff that could have hit someone valuable, but by the end of the day he's mostly run out.

Assuming that it doesn't get negated outright by the 20+ AC, that is. Or in the case of poisons, diseases, and the like, the highest base Fortitude saves in the game (even if it is tied with several other classes), or shrugged off by Iron Will and similar boosters in the case of spellcasters looking to dominate your party. Fighters get a fairly high chunk of hitpoints and a good launch pad for not actually having to use them. And all of that's assuming your Cleric's expenditure of Cures has been strictly on the Wizard (which, in the case of a good/Good Cleric, probably won't be the case). If your Fighter is on the brink of death, either you've had a run of extremely bad luck or everyone else is dead.

Well, or he got dropped off an undead dragon by an Epic-Level Lich.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And the reason you think that is because you fail to account that the Fighter doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists alongside all those other classes. Wich means the Fighter is the badass who doesn't need to cheat to win at fighting, and his only competitor in that category is the Barbarian. Just because the mechanics failed to make it true doesn't mean the fluff got denatured.

1. Warblades have similar fluff and are far superior to Fighters.

2. What do mean by "doesn't need to cheat to win"?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Because it clearly matters to people's enjoyment of the game. Why is this so hard for so many people in this thread to understand? Some people enjoy different things than you do. Some people want to play as a "normal" person in a fantasy world that succeeds through pure skill/grit/whatever. You don't get to tell them that the way they enjoy playing is wrong.

I'm not saying that people are wrong to want to play a Fighter. What I'm asking is why do people not want to play a "magic" Fighter when the mundane Fighter gets magic anyway from items?

I'm just trying to understand why.

[Ironsmith]

1. Warblades have similar fluff and are far superior to Fighters.

2. What do mean by "doesn't need to cheat to win"?

1. Warblades aren't part of the core set, if I recall correctly.

2. Do the words "Sneak Attack, Bitch!" mean anything to you?

[Jormengand]

And all of that's assuming your Cleric's expenditure of Cures.

Yes, yes it is unfortunate that the cleric makes more contribution to the fighter's hit point total than the fighter does. I know.


2. What do mean by "doesn't need to cheat to win"?

To be honest, this reminds me more of the class I created because the fighter didn't have that fluff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-(3-5-class-PEACH)) more than the fighter itself.

The fighter has never been a class about playing fair. The fighter has been a class about hitting things with a stick.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1. Warblades aren't part of the core set, if I recall correctly.

And?


2. Do the words "Sneak Attack, Bitch!" mean anything to you?

Fighting fair is for suckers. :smallamused:

Edit: And suckers don't live long.

[Cazero]

1. Warblades have similar fluff and are far superior to Fighters.
But they're not core. They might as well be called "Fighters, but with actual mechanics".

2. What do mean by "doesn't need to cheat to win"?
No magic/psionics and no backstabbing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But they're not core. They might as well be called "Fighters, but with actual mechanics".

Why does that matter?


No magic/psionics and no backstabbing.

Why is magic/psionics cheating?

[Cazero]

I'm not saying that people are wrong to want to play a Fighter. What I'm asking is why do people not want to play a "magic" Fighter when the mundane Fighter gets magic anyway from items?
Yes, D&D tends to force characters, especialy martials, to have a bazillion magic items to remain competitive. And I hate it.
But for an actual argument, you're assuming WBL, wich 1) isn't a given, 2) isn't supposed to actualy change what makes the character awesome and more importantly 3) can make the character wearing the cool pants almost irrelevant.


Why does that matter?
It matters because my argument doesn't give a damn about mechanics. So Fluff Redundancy : the class, Fighter edition isn't relevant to it.

Why is magic/psionics cheating?
Because it creates a massive fluff divide from the guy who doesn't use it. And it isn't really fighting if the magic does all the work for you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes, D&D tends to force characters, especialy martials, to have a bazillion magic items to remain competitive. And I hate it.
But for an actual argument, you're assuming WBL, wich 1) isn't a given, 2) isn't supposed to actualy change what makes the character awesome and more importantly 3) can make the character wearing the cool pants almost irrelevant.

How is the Fighter supposed to survive without magic items?

[Cazero]

How is the Fighter supposed to survive without magic items?
That's a purely mechanical issue and therefore not relevant to my main point.

But since we're talking about it. How is the Rogue going to do it? Or the Wizard with his wooping zero spells known outside of a very restricted leveling sequence and his zero permanent defensive buffs?

[Ironsmith]

And?

The Fighter was included in the core set, so unless the design policy at WotC is radically different from what I think it is, the Fighter was designed to be compatible with the other base classes. Later additions, like Warblades, are just that: later additions to the game, not things the originals were designed in tandem with. Some DMs don't allow for classes beyond the core set (which, granted, is an entirely different can of worms). If they're available, maybe it'd be a good idea to take them on the grounds that they'd have things swung in their favor... I dunno, I never really got into Warblades, and we're kinda moving out of my realm of experience with that.


Fighting fair is for suckers. :smallamused:

Edit: And suckers don't live long.

How very Chaotic.

In all seriousness, the exact kind of point I'm trying to make is that Fighters are designed to live long, at least compared to the other classes (Barbarians and Paladins being possible situational exceptions). Fighters work best in a hackfest due to their predisposition toward high ACs and tubloads of hit points, but they're not exactly useless outside of that realm, either. Most parties tend to use Fighters as meat shields, which runs counter to the idea of them being pansies that can be knocked over easy-as-you-please. And when they aren't trying to prevent the spellslingers from getting squashed into paste by the local troll population, they're still formidable combatants on their own, and remain such down to the last hit point.

[Jormengand]

The trouble with the fighter is that 1) its entire fluff basically revolves around "I hit things with a stick and don't have any magic", which isn't a real character concept (whereas "Person from a tribal culture who uses his anger to inspire his ability to hit things with a stick, and who also does tribal culture related things" is a better one), 2) the fighter doesn't live up to that character concept, and 3) the fighter's mechanics are also really boring because "I could hit this thing with a stick or I could not do that" isn't a real option.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's a purely mechanical issue and therefore not relevant to my main point.

But since we're talking about it. How is the Rogue going to do it? Or the Wizard with his wooping zero spells known outside of a very restricted leveling sequence and his zero permanent defensive buffs?

What are you talking about? The Wizard has plenty of spells to protect herself, while the Rogue is just as dependent on magic items as the Fighter is.



The Fighter was included in the core set, so unless the design policy at WotC is radically different from what I think it is, the Fighter was designed to be compatible with the other base classes. Later additions, like Warblades, are just that: later additions to the game, not things the originals were designed in tandem with. Some DMs don't allow for classes beyond the core set (which, granted, is an entirely different can of worms). If they're available, maybe it'd be a good idea to take them on the grounds that they'd have things swung in their favor... I dunno, I never really got into Warblades, and we're kinda moving out of my realm of experience with that.

The Core classes are incredibly imbalanced, with three of them being among the strongest in game.


How very Chaotic.

How often do you see Lawful Rogues? :smallwink:


In all seriousness, the exact kind of point I'm trying to make is that Fighters are designed to live long, at least compared to the other classes (Barbarians and Paladins being possible situational exceptions). Fighters work best in a hackfest due to their predisposition toward high ACs and tubloads of hit points, but they're not exactly useless outside of that realm, either.

If Fighters have high AC, they can't fight effectively, more often than not.


Most parties tend to use Fighters as meat shields, which runs counter to the idea of them being pansies that can be knocked over easy-as-you-please. And when they aren't trying to prevent the spellslingers from getting squashed into paste by the local troll population, they're still formidable combatants on their own, and remain such down to the last hit point.

Only lockdown builds can manage that, and even then, they're rather limited.

[Cazero]

The trouble with the fighter is that 1) its entire fluff basically revolves around "I hit things with a stick and don't have any magic", which isn't a real character concept
"I study magic" is about the same. You can't get more generic. Yet Wizards never get that flak.

(whereas "Person from a tribal culture who uses his anger to inspire his ability to hit things with a stick, and who also does tribal culture related things" is a better one)
No, it's not better. It's restrictive for no reason and has no business being barred behind a class.

[Tainted_Scholar]

the class I created because the fighter didn't have that fluff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-(3-5-class-PEACH)) more than the fighter itself.

Interesting class, I hate it.

Okay joking aside, when I look at that class I don't see a badass veteran who can kill things with his bare hands, I see a grouchy old man complaining about "kids these days with their spells and martial maneuvers. Back in my day we just hit things with sticks and liked it!". As somebody who prefers a more progressive attitude and sees the good rather than the bad in new technologies and ideas, that aspect of the class really annoyed me.

I would just refluff it to someone who is literally incapable of using magic rather than someone who hates it, but that's just me.

[Jormengand]

"I study magic" is about the same. You can't get more generic. Yet Wizards never get that flak.
Oh, wizard is terrible for the exact opposite reason: If "I hit things with my stick" is limited, "I do things with magic" is too unlimited, which is precisely why wizards are too powerful. Saner classes like bard and fixed-list casters are weaker because they have built into their concept that they can only do magic to do certain types of things. Saner classes like ranger and barbarian are more powerful than fighters because they have things they can do other than hitting things with a stick built into their class.


No, it's not better. It's restrictive for no reason and has no business being barred behind a class.

A concept which gives you more options is more restrictive? "I fight, and also..." is more restrictive than "I fight and am godawful at everything else"?


Interesting class, I hate it.

Okay joking aside, when I look at that class I don't see a badass veteran who can kill things with his bare hands, I see a grouchy old man complaining about "kids these days with their spells and martial maneuvers. Back in my day we just hit things with sticks and liked it!". As somebody who prefers a more progressive attitude and sees the good rather than the bad in new technologies and ideas, that aspect of the class really annoyed me.

I would just refluff it to someone who is literally incapable of using magic rather than someone who hates it, but that's just me.

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.

[Ironsmith]

The Core classes are incredibly imbalanced, with three of them being among the strongest in game.

THAT is mostly up to the DM, actually, since they get around 90% control of what situations the players get thrust into. Not entirely sure which three you're talking about, either... (Wizard, Paladin, Cleric?)




How often do you see Lawful Rogues? :smallwink:

Nowhere near as often as you see Lawful Fighters. :smalltongue:


If Fighters have high AC, they can't fight effectively, more often than not.

How do you figure? At worst, high AC means a low maximum Dexterity bonus, which generally isn't any more of a problem than the Fighter allows it to be.


Only lockdown builds can manage that, and even then, they're rather limited.

Well, that becomes a question of which is more important: the ability to hack basically anything to pieces given enough time, or the ability to run a couple hundred different strategies for different encounters? Really depends on how you play it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

THAT is mostly up to the DM, actually, since they get around 90% control of what situations the players get thrust into. Not entirely sure which three you're talking about, either... (Wizard, Paladin, Cleric?)

Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are the classes I'm referring to. They are extremely powerful, DM nerfing not withstanding.



Nowhere near as often as you see Lawful Fighters. :smalltongue:

True.


How do you figure? At worst, high AC means a low maximum Dexterity bonus, which generally isn't any more of a problem than the Fighter allows it to be.

If he's doing damage, he's probably a charging build, and those invariably have poor AC.


Well, that becomes a question of which is more important: the ability to hack basically anything to pieces given enough time, or the ability to run a couple hundred different strategies for different encounters? Really depends on how you play it.

The Fighter can't hack things to pieces effectively, compared to other classes that do it better.

[Jormengand]

THAT is mostly up to the DM, actually, since they get around 90% control of what situations the players get thrust into. Not entirely sure which three you're talking about, either... (Wizard, Paladin, Cleric?)

Wizard, Cleric and Druid most likely, though I'd give honourable mention to the sorcerer. Those three are the ones who are re-writing reality in new and inspired ways while the fighter is still whacking things with a god-forsaken stick.

EDIT: Whaddaya know, I was right. It's almost as though people who understand game design understand what classes are good and bad.

[Psyren]

I'm not saying that people are wrong to want to play a Fighter. What I'm asking is why do people not want to play a "magic" Fighter when the mundane Fighter gets magic anyway from items?

I'm just trying to understand why.

For newer players: Because they just want something they can sit at the table with their friends and not worry about spells and maneuvers and whatnot. Feat and item selection is important, sure, but someone else at the table can pick those for them and they still don't have to worry too much about preparing and using the right ones. (Something like Blind Fight or Improved Trip is always on, for instance, and Power Attack doesn't take a lot of processing capacity either.)

For more experienced players: Same reason people play the Bereft from Dark Souls or play Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon, because challenge is a form of engagement. All those "make a fighter that can beat a balor threads" would be resolved much faster with a Warblade, but there's a reason you don't really see "make a Warblade that can beat a Balor threads - because it's a much more boring question.

Does that help?

[Tainted_Scholar]

For newer players: Because they just want something they can sit at the table with their friends and not worry about spells and maneuvers and whatnot. Feat and item selection is important, sure, but someone else at the table can pick those for them and they still don't have to worry too much about preparing and using the right ones. (Something like Blind Fight or Improved Trip is always on, for instance, and Power Attack doesn't take a lot of processing capacity either.)

For more experienced players: Same reason people play the Bereft from Dark Souls or play Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon, because challenge is a form of engagement. All those "make a fighter that can beat a balor threads" would be resolved much faster with a Warblade, but there's a reason you don't really see "make a Warblade that can beat a Balor threads - because it's a much more boring question.

Does that help?

So you're saying that people play Fighters as either a self imposed challenge or because they don't any better.

[Psyren]

So you're saying that people play Fighters as either a self imposed challenge or because they don't any better.

If it kills these threads at long last, then sure.

You forgot the third bucket though, which was "I want to play without learning all these subsystems." Basically what Ironsmith said.

[Cazero]

Oh, wizard is terrible for the exact opposite reason: If "I hit things with my stick" is limited, "I do things with magic" is too unlimited, which is precisely why wizards are too powerful. Saner classes like bard and fixed-list casters are weaker because they have built into their concept that they can only do magic to do certain types of things. Saner classes like ranger and barbarian are more powerful than fighters because they have things they can do other than hitting things with a stick built into their class.
Look, I'm arguing about Fighter fluff here. Pointing out the failure in mechanics isn't going to faze me. Especialy if you're talking about balance.


A concept which gives you more options is more restrictive? "I fight, and also..." is more restrictive than "I fight and am godawful at everything else"?
What's stops a Fighter from fighting, and also whatever speciality from a list broader than the Barbarian savage stick, the Ranger nature stick and the Paladin holy stick? 2+INT skill points per level and a ****ty skill list. Definitely not the fluff.

[Ironsmith]

Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are the classes I'm referring to. They are extremely powerful, DM nerfing not withstanding.

Due to the spell lists, I'm guessing?



If he's doing damage, he's probably a charging build, and those invariably have poor AC.

Nobody said he had to do a lot of damage at once. A Fighter that's modeled after a glacier would still be an effective combatant, since he's hard to hurt but can still thrash you within an inch of your life, even if only via scratches at a time. That in turn assuming that chargers are the only way to do meaningful damage... have you ever seen a shock trooper with a +4 Greataxe and Boots of Teleportation? Terrifying.



The Fighter can't hack things to pieces effectively, compared to other classes that do it better.

Faster, if they still have spells available, haven't thrown a tantrum yet, or manage to get the drop on the other guy? Sure. Better? Not quite so sure about that, since the Fighter can do it consistently basically whenever.


Wizard, Cleric and Druid most likely, though I'd give honourable mention to the sorcerer. Those three are the ones who are re-writing reality in new and inspired ways while the fighter is still whacking things with a god-forsaken stick.

EDIT: Whaddaya know, I was right. It's almost as though people who understand game design understand what classes are good and bad.

He said, to the game designer.

Jabs aside, those four classes mentioned get those kinds of benefits because people tend to create adventures around them, with Fighters and other martial classes as something of an afterthought. (I remember this going the other way, inadvertantly, too... I was running an adventure that featured a Mind Flayer as the final boss that ended rather anticlimactically because I hadn't accounted for the Ranger putting literally a dozen arrows into him during the first round of combat.)

Adventuring parties tend to decide when to rest based on how many spells the casters have remaining, and since there's basically never a penalty for resting (not even a random encounter in the middle of the night), that's a mechanic that can be exploited mercilessly without giving the party's resident stick-swinger much of a chance to shine.

[Jormengand]

Look, I'm arguing about Fighter fluff here. Pointing out the failure in mechanics isn't going to faze me. Especialy if you're talking about balance.


What's stops a Fighter from fighting, and also whatever speciality from a list broader than the Barbarian savage stick, the Ranger nature stick and the Paladin holy stick? 2+INT skill points per level and a ****ty skill list. Definitely not the fluff.

I'm talking about the fluff. "I fight things" isn't real fluff, and incidentally or otherwise that will always inform the mechanics too.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Due to the spell lists, I'm guessing?

Mostly, but Druid's Wildshape is pretty good too.


Nobody said he had to do a lot of damage at once. A Fighter that's modeled after a glacier would still be an effective combatant, since he's hard to hurt but can still thrash you within an inch of your life, even if only via scratches at a time.

He's a 20' tin can that probably doesn't have that great of a To Hit mod because he focused on AC. Plus, enemies can just ignore him.


That in turn assuming that chargers are the only way to do meaningful damage... have you ever seen a shock trooper with a +4 Greataxe and Boots of Teleportation? Terrifying.

He must have a Belt of Battle, because otherwise teleporting is a standard action.


Faster, if they still have spells available, haven't thrown a tantrum yet, or manage to get the drop on the other guy? Sure. Better? Not quite so sure about that, since the Fighter can do it consistently basically whenever.

1. ToB classes can also operate all day. (Sort of).

2. Fighters have limited HP; after 5 or so sessions of combat, everyone should rest for the day.

[Cazero]

I'm talking about the fluff. "I fight things" isn't real fluff, and incidentally or otherwise that will always inform the mechanics too.

the Fighter doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists alongside all those other classes. Wich means the Fighter is the badass who doesn't need to cheat to win at fighting, and his only competitor in that category is the Barbarian.
And no, a class with less fluff restriction is not more restricted in out of combat utility than a clone with specialised theme like the Barbarian.

[tiercel]

When I see a thread like this, it makes me think of a slippery slope all the way to "why doesn't everyone just play TO Wizards?" (or CoDzillas or other "T1" characters)

If you can ask this question about a Fighter, you can certainly ask it about playing a Rogue ("play an Unseen Seer instead, or at least a Beguiler, lol") or a Ranger ("play a Druid instead, lol") or a Paladin ("play a Cleric instead, or at least a Crusader, lol") or a Monk ("SWORDSAAAAAGE, but even play anything else instead, lol") etc. etc. Even "T3" characters can come in for this kind of treatment, when discussion about the Bard turns into "well you should go Sublime Chord because it's just BETTER" and even ToB melee is compared unfavorably to CoDzilla or Sorcadin gish builds, at which point the only step remaining is to ask why anyone is doing anything other than playing a full caster, full stop.

Nothing is stopping people from playing their D&D games in the Tippyverse, but as far as I can tell, most people don't. Actual tabletop (or online or whatever) games generally don't run on strict RAW-lawyering and TO, and what they DO run on depends on the playstyle of the group. For folks who want their heroic fantasy to look and feel a little more like Lord of the Rings, the "lesser" tiers of characters might actually be the most appropriate.

If everyone thought that "more power and more options are always better" then campaigns would all be level 20 or *shudder* Epic. I'm not saying that people can't or don't enjoy high level games, but high level *is a different game*. I've never formally played E6 but the vast majority of my time both playing and DMing has been between character levels 3 and 9 or so; only once have I been in a game which exceeded 12th level. (It did play quite a bit differently.)

Power level, whether it is character level, optimization level, "tier" level, or what have you is a play style choice. On one extreme might be "there are a large number of gameplay situations where my character struggles to make any meaningful contribution" and on the other, "my character can always apply Spell X to Situation Y in order to Insta-Win." Where on this spectrum actual groups land is a matter of campaign tone and style, not a matter of "playing correctly" vs "you're doing it wrong."

I wouldn't bring a beer-and-pretzels Joe Fighter build into an adventuring group featuring Mordekainen, Elminster, and Raistlin any more than I'd bring a DMM Persist Clericzilla build into a Lord of the Rings type campaign.

So why play a Fighter? Because it's an appropriate choice for the game and group you're in.

[Ironsmith]

Mostly, but Druid's Wildshape is pretty good too.

Eh, yeah, that's fair.


He's a 20' tin can that probably doesn't have that great of a To Hit mod because he focused on AC. Plus, enemies can just ignore him.

Fighters come equipped with some fairly good To Hit mods before you even apply weapons, so probably not. If he goes two-handed and has a fairly decent Strength bonus, he'll still be hitting fairly often, barring the exception of other glaciers. Plus, when has ignoring 20' guy in heavy metal armor with a sword to match ever been a good idea?


He must have a Belt of Battle, because otherwise teleporting is a standard action.

It is, but the general point is that he doesn't have to charge to hurt. Hell, if he can just show up in the right spot for a flank on demand, he's a problem.




1. ToB classes can also operate all day. (Sort of).

2. Fighters have limited HP; after 5 or so sessions of combat, everyone should rest for the day.

1. Tome of Battle isn't core, and they do this by applying most of the same principles as a Fighter, so...

2. Limited HP, yes, but it's seldom dropped to the point casters' slots are.

[Hackulator]

I've had lots of fun with fighters with interesting feat chains. Are they as powerful as optimized characters from other tiers? No of course not, but in a normal game where people are just playing for fun and RP and to hang out with their friends and most players aren't running crazy optimized tier 1 characters, they are fine and do some fun ****.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I've had lots of fun with fighters with interesting feat chains. Are they as powerful as optimized characters from other tiers? No of course not, but in a normal game where people are just playing for fun and RP and to hang out with their friends and most players aren't running crazy optimized tier 1 characters, they are fine and do some fun ****.

But why play Fighter specifically? What is it that the Fighter does that makes you want to play it?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Eh, yeah, that's fair.

OK.


Fighters come equipped with some fairly good To Hit mods before you even apply weapons, so probably not. If he goes two-handed and has a fairly decent Strength bonus, he'll still be hitting fairly often, barring the exception of other glaciers. Plus, when has ignoring 20' guy in heavy metal armor with a sword to match ever been a good idea?

- Without running some numbers, it's hard to say how well Fighters can hit their targets, but can they do it without causing their AC to suffer?

- Many enemies can simply avoid the Fighter and do as they please, because he's so slow.


It is, but the general point is that he doesn't have to charge to hurt. Hell, if he can just show up in the right spot for a flank on demand, he's a problem.

He can't do that all day, though.

Also, can't any full BAB class do practially the same thing?


1. Tome of Battle isn't core, and they do this by applying most of the same principles as a Fighter, so...

1. Does anyone care that ToB isn't core?

2. ToB classes actually have class features.


2. Limited HP, yes, but it's seldom dropped to the point casters' slots are.

Fighters don't have any real way to heal themselves, they're reliant on spellcasters to stay alive.

After 5 encounters, the party is usually ready to call it a day.

[Hackulator]

But why play Fighter specifically? What is it that the Fighter does that makes you want to play it?

You can have some really fun feat chains pretty early that you can't get on many other characters. For example, it takes WAY longer for other classes to come online with the Combat Brute/Shock Trooper/Improved Trip combo, which is HYSTERICAL when you pull it off and very powerful. There are other combos that are also fun. While any other martial class can do the same things, it takes a lot longer for them to be able to do them, and the reality is few games actually make it from level 1 to level 15+. Also, you can find 3 or 4 feat heavy combos and put them ALL together on a fighter, which nobody else can do.

Also, sometimes Fighter is just the class that makes the most sense for your concept.

Although I'll be honest, when ToB was released it did become a LITTLE silly to play a Fighter over a Warblade, but what I said above is still true to an extent.

[Flickerdart]

I've had lots of fun with fighters with interesting feat chains. Are they as powerful as optimized characters from other tiers? No of course not, but in a normal game where people are just playing for fun and RP and to hang out with their friends and most players aren't running crazy optimized tier 1 characters, they are fine and do some fun ****.
When people are just playing for fun, it's in some ways even more frustrating if your character can't do anything. A fighter is fine in a casual setting only when optimized up the wazoo, to bring him in line with the optimization floors of real classes.

[OldTrees1]

But why play Fighter specifically? What is it that the Fighter does that makes you want to play it?

Fighters get more feats and thus can dive deeper into the Feat subsystem.

You will, and have replied "Everyone gets feats" which misses the point. Everyone gets Feats, but if I want to play with Feats then I want more Feats and that means Fighter (with their signature class feature of getting more Feats).

[TheTrickster]

Wow, another thread bashing the Fighter. Shocking. Is it that time of the year again?

I can't wait until we go back to having Monk-day every week.

While I completely understand why people enjoy fighters, there are some inconsistencies with the fluff they have. From the PH;


Fighters come to their profession in many ways. Most have had formal training in a noble’s army or at least in the local militia. Some have trained in formal academies.

I find it a bit odd that a noble's guardsmen wouldn't have Knowledge (Local/Nobility), or that a local military member wouldn't have spot or listen on their skill list. It's minor, but it still bugs me a bit.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Fighters get more feats and thus can dive deeper into the Feat subsystem.

You will, and have replied "Everyone gets feats" which misses the point. Everyone gets Feats, but if I want to play with Feats then I want more Feats and that means Fighter (with their signature class feature of getting more Feats).

But most of the Fighter's feats aren't very good. Also what specifically are you doing with those feats that warrants playing a Fighter?

[ColorBlindNinja]

But most of the Fighter's feats aren't very good. Also what specifically are you doing with those feats that warrants playing a Fighter?

I think the question is, are the bonus feats worth taking all your levels in Fighter?

[Hackulator]

But most of the Fighter's feats aren't very good. Also what specifically are you doing with those feats that warrants playing a Fighter?

I mean, I answered this above.

[Darth Ultron]

So you're saying that people play Fighters as either a self imposed challenge or because they don't any better.

Well, don't forget the players that ''can't handle all the rules'' ''don't know the rules'' and ''don't understand the rules''. Plus they really wacky ''they only know some made up house rules they heard about from somewhere'' or the worse ''they just make up things and think they are rules''.

All the above type of players ''can't'' play anything more complex then a fighter.

Like:

Player Edward: ''My first level wizard targets the lead goblin with my one magic missile....and I rolled a 10 on the 1d4, so my magic missile bounces off the first goblin and hits the other 22 goblins for max damage! Woo hoo!"

DM Fred: "Um, what? that is not any kind of rule. Show me the rule in the book.."

Player Edward: "I don't have to show you nuttin, the rule is so in the book, I've seen it..find it yourself...after you give me the loot and xp from my goblin slaughter!"

But give him a fighter:

Player Edward: ''A swing my sword"

[Tainted_Scholar]

I mean, I answered this above.

You mentioned Shock Trooper but a simple two level Dip is enough to get that. Why would you primarily play a Fighter?

Also, are there any Fighter only prestige classes that make them worth playing?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, don't forget the players that ''can't handle all the rules'' ''don't know the rules'' and ''don't understand the rules''. Plus they really wacky ''they only know some made up house rules they heard about from somewhere'' or the worse ''they just make up things and think they are rules''.

All the above type of players ''can't'' play anything more complex then a fighter.

Like:

Player Edward: ''My first level wizard targets the lead goblin with my one magic missile....and I rolled a 10 on the 1d4, so my magic missile bounces off the first goblin and hits the other 22 goblins for max damage! Woo hoo!"

DM Fred: "Um, what? that is not any kind of rule. Show me the rule in the book.."

Player Edward: "I don't have to show you nuttin, the rule is so in the book, I've seen it..find it yourself...after you give me the loot and xp from my goblin slaughter!"

But give him a fighter:

Player Edward: ''A swing my sword"

Couldn't a Barbarian fill the same function in this case?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Well, don't forget the players that ''can't handle all the rules'' ''don't know the rules'' and ''don't understand the rules''. Plus they really wacky ''they only know some made up house rules they heard about from somewhere'' or the worse ''they just make up things and think they are rules''.

All the above type of players ''can't'' play anything more complex then a fighter.

Like:

Player Edward: ''My first level wizard targets the lead goblin with my one magic missile....and I rolled a 10 on the 1d4, so my magic missile bounces off the first goblin and hits the other 22 goblins for max damage! Woo hoo!"

DM Fred: "Um, what? that is not any kind of rule. Show me the rule in the book.."

Player Edward: "I don't have to show you nuttin, the rule is so in the book, I've seen it..find it yourself...after you give me the loot and xp from my goblin slaughter!"

But give him a fighter:

Player Edward: ''A swing my sword"

I was assuming at least some competence with the rules.

[Jormengand]

While I completely understand why people enjoy fighters, there are some inconsistencies with the fluff they have. From the PH;



I find it a bit odd that a noble's guardsmen wouldn't have Knowledge (Local/Nobility), or that a local military member wouldn't have spot or listen on their skill list. It's minor, but it still bugs me a bit.

Not to mention that they don't have the skill points needed to invest in all the things that might make them a competent soldier. The only thing that a fighter is even approaching passable at is the actual fighting part.

The main reason for this is, again, that the fighter's concept as "Guy who fights" is too restrictive, so when called upon to put as much fluff on the page as for a real class, the writer just created stuff about the fighter that simply wasn't part of the actual concept behind "Fighter" which is sorely limited.

[Hackulator]

You mentioned Shock Trooper but a simple two level Dip is enough to get that. Why would you play an actual Fighter?

Also, are there any Fighter only prestige classes that make them worth playing?

I mentioned a combo involving Shock Trooper, Combat Brute and Improved Trip which also requires Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Improved Sunder and Improved Bull Rush to be able to have. That's seven feats. A non-human fighter can pull that off at level 6. A human non-fighter requires level 15 to have that many feats (barring a couple classes with appropriate bonus feats), even with a 2 level dip it still requires level 9, and then you've slowed down your progression in whatever you are aiming for with your main class.

[Ironsmith]

- Without running some numbers, it's hard to say how well Fighters can hit their targets, but can they do it without causing their AC to suffer?

- Many enemies can simply avoid the Fighter and do as they please, because he's so slow.

Okay, say you have a 2nd-level Human Fighter. Strength of 14: not impressive, but not bad, either. As a 2nd-level Fighter, he has a base attack bonus of +2. Applying his Strength bonus for a two-handed weapon, he has a +5 to hit, before applying any feats or the like. Given the Monster Manual's guidelines for CR 2 monsters, that puts him hitting half the time.

If you want something more extreme, we have an 18th level Human Fighter, Strength 16 (we'll assume he's been working out as he's been leveling up). +18 base attack bonus, +3 from Strength (+4 for two-handed, pessimistically), giving him a grand total of +22 to hit, without the aid of magic items, feats, or anything other than raw skill and strength. For reference, the Tarrasque (a CR 20 monster) has an AC of 35, so our theoretical fighter here would only need a 13 to hit (thus landing hits 40% of the time). Ditto for the Nightcrawler, a CR 18 monster. For something a little smaller, Fighter McTheory here could hit a Planetar (CR 16) on a 10 or better.

So, maybe not exactly a guaranteed hit, but certainly often enough to be a problem, and that's assuming not-even-minimal tweaking.


He can't do that all day, though.

Also, can't any full BAB class do practically the same thing?

You mean other martial classes? The ones that have the same general problems as Fighters?



1. Does anyone care that ToB isn't core?

2. ToB classes actually have class features.

1. Yes, for reasons discussed above.

2. So do Fighters, in the form of Bonus Feats out the ass.


Fighters don't have any real way to heal themselves, they're reliant on spellcasters to stay alive.

After 5 encounters, the party is usually ready to call it a day.

There's always potions, magic items like Rings of Regeneration, wands if they're willing to spend some cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device, etc. Spellcasters aren't the only means of staying alive they have, just the most convenient and easily replenished.

And yeah, that's the guideline set in the Dungeon Master's Guide, too. (Almost... they actually stipulate that a 5th encounter should wipe out the party.) The point I was getting at up above, though, is that the Fighter's advantage of being able to keep going and going and going is typically hamstrung by the casters not being able to do the same.

[OldTrees1]

But most of the Fighter's feats aren't very good. Also what specifically are you doing with those feats that warrants playing a Fighter?

You don't take most of the Fighter feats. You take your share of the good ones (and there are more good ones than you can select).

I using the Feats to be playing with the Feat system. That warrants having more feats which in turn warrants playing Fighter.



I think the question is, are the bonus feats worth taking all your levels in Fighter?

I like 3rd edition so I am unlikely to avoid multiclassing. However many of the levels would be in Fighter or Martial Rogue when I am looking to playing around with the Feat system.

Could the class be designed better? Yes.
Could the feats be better? YES.
However even when we don't exercise our ability to improve the design, I still find the Fighter or Martial Rogue good enough for when I want to play around with the Feat System.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I mentioned a combo involving Shock Trooper, Combat Brute and Improved Trip which also requires Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Improved Sunder and Improved Bull Rush to be able to have. That's seven feats. A non-human fighter can pull that off at level 6. A human non-fighter requires level 15 to have that many feats (barring a couple classes with appropriate bonus feats), even with a 2 level dip it still requires level 9, and then you've slowed down your progression in whatever you are aiming for with your main class.

Personally lvl. 9 isn't far enough after lvl. 6 to make me play an inferior class, but that's just preference on my part. I'd rather wait to lvl. 9 as a Barbarian than get it at lvl. 6 as a Fighter.

[OldTrees1]

Personally lvl. 9 isn't far enough after lvl. 6 to make me play an inferior class, but that's just preference on my part. I'd rather wait to lvl. 9 as a Barbarian than get it at lvl. 6 as a Fighter.

Is this thread about your preference or about the preferences of those that play Fighter? I figure you already know that you would not play Fighter and thus this thread is about you seeking to learn why those that do play Fighter choose to play Fighter. Am I wrong about your intentions?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Okay, say you have a 2nd-level Human Fighter. Strength of 14: not impressive, but not bad, either. As a 2nd-level Fighter, he has a base attack bonus of +2. Applying his Strength bonus for a two-handed weapon, he has a +5 to hit, before applying any feats or the like. Given the Monster Manual's guidelines for CR 2 monsters, that puts him hitting half the time.

If you want something more extreme, we have an 18th level Human Fighter, Strength 16 (we'll assume he's been working out as he's been leveling up). +18 base attack bonus, +3 from Strength (+4 for two-handed, pessimistically), giving him a grand total of +22 to hit, without the aid of magic items, feats, or anything other than raw skill and strength. For reference, the Tarrasque (a CR 20 monster) has an AC of 35, so our theoretical fighter here would only need a 13 to hit (thus landing hits 40% of the time). Ditto for the Nightcrawler, a CR 18 monster. For something a little smaller, Fighter McTheory here could hit a Planetar (CR 16) on a 10 or better.

So, maybe not exactly a guaranteed hit, but certainly often enough to be a problem, and that's assuming not-even-minimal tweaking.

50-40% isn't that great. Also, I that assumes that they Fighter can reach is opponent with his 20' movement speed.


You mean other martial classes? The ones that have the same general problems as Fighters?

If they can do the same trick, that really isn't a point in the Fighter's favor.

Also, not every martial class has the same issues as a Fighter.



1. Yes, for reasons discussed above.

Those aren't good reasons.


2. So do Fighters, in the form of Bonus Feats out the ass.

Maneuvers > Feats, every time.


There's always potions, magic items like Rings of Regeneration, wands if they're willing to spend some cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device, etc. Spellcasters aren't the only means of staying alive they have, just the most convenient and easily replenished.

Even a Commoner can use UMD, it's expensive, and getting the modifier necessary eats up a lot of resources..


And yeah, that's the guideline set in the Dungeon Master's Guide, too. (Almost... they actually stipulate that a 5th encounter should wipe out the party.) The point I was getting at up above, though, is that the Fighter's advantage of being able to keep going and going and going is typically hamstrung by the casters not being able to do the same.

No it isn't, after 5 encounters, the Fighter likely doesn't have enough HP to continue.

Other classes like Warlocks, Meldshapers, and the ToB classes can use their abilities all the time too.

Plus, why continue on with depleted resources when you can just rest and get them all back?

[Florian]

When I actually do get to play and not gm, I´m only interested in old-school stuff like Undermountain, Tomb of Abysthor, the Sword of Air or even Rappan Athuk. So pretty much no 15 mins adventuring day, no resting before the dungeon even is cleared, being under siege after someone used a rope trick, wandering monsters, restocking dungeon population, all that, including battles take take long enough that ToB classes run out of steam fast (and yeah, I´d actually prefer to play ToB done right - 4E if I wanted to kill my suspension of disbelieve). So that sets a high premium on classes that don´t run out of resources and have the feats to have "always on"-tactics and options at their hand.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Is this thread about your preference or about the preferences of those that play Fighter? I figure you already know that you would not play Fighter and thus this thread is about you seeking to learn why those that do play Fighter choose to play Fighter. Am I wrong about your intentions?

It's a bit of both. I now know why people might want to play as Fighters, but their reasons would never get me to play a Fighter. As a result, I have a bit of trouble understanding the reasoning of Fighter Players since they don't seem like good reasons to me.

[Deeds]

Why make a thread?

Seriously, is the weekly circle jerk so enjoyable?

[Florian]

Why make a thread?

Seriously, is the weekly circle jerk so enjoyable?

But.. but.. I wanna talk about da spells, da spells! Don´t you get it? Don´t ya snort ground copies of the PHB to get your spell high?!

[Tainted_Scholar]

Why make a thread?

Seriously, is the weekly circle jerk so enjoyable?

The reason I created this thread was because I was legitimately curious as to why people bother playing Fighters.

[Hackulator]

Personally lvl. 9 isn't far enough after lvl. 6 to make me play an inferior class, but that's just preference on my part. I'd rather wait to lvl. 9 as a Barbarian than get it at lvl. 6 as a Fighter.

Sure but you're locked in to human then, as you needed that extra feat.

My Fighter is either not a human so has other bonuses or has another feat on top of all that. If we're both human, at level 9 I can have taken Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and Greater Weapon Spec by level 9. This evens me out with your +4 strength in combat, but mine is always on without limited uses and doesn't make me tired. I also almost certainly have a better armor class. Also my feats can't be turned off with a second level bard spell.

Clearly, you can argue back at me, but part of the issue here is any more argument on this topic would be more than I care to do, which similarly is more than I or most of the people I play with want to spend on optimizing our characters these days. We throw **** together, play for fun, and if someone sucks compared to the group either we figure out a way to help them out OR they take on a humorous role in the party and everyone continues to have fun.

My character in my current 3.5 game is by far the weakest character in the party currently (though eventually I'll probably be the strongest). However, I just play that up, act crazy, and regularly claim to everyone that my character earned glorious victories. Since I'm the party face, everyone believes me and I take all the credit. The other players laugh at me for being useless, I laugh at them for not being as magnificent as me, and we are all having fun.

[OldTrees1]

It's a bit of both. I now know why people might want to play as Fighters, but their reasons would never get me to play a Fighter. As a result, I have a bit of trouble understanding the reasoning of Fighter Players since they don't seem like good reasons to me.

Do you need to want to play Fighter in order to understand why those that do choose to play Fighter choose to do so?



Hypothetical scenario:
You are playing a new RPG. In it you are playing a martial character. Your class works as follows: every level some stats increase and you work with your DM to create 1 new feature to gain that level. Would that class sound worthy of playing on occasion? You are choosing features and thus customizing your character as they level up. You are able to have features that combine together in neat and interesting ways. Does this sound like a neat mechanic?

Fighter is the exact same kind of class, just implemented by WotC instead of those that know how to do it properly. It still satisfies the same desires, just not as well. Assuming you can appreciate that desire, just remember that some desire it more than you and thus put up with Fighter more than you would.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sure but you're locked in to human then, as you needed that extra feat.

My Fighter is either not a human so has other bonuses or has another feat on top of all that. If we're both human, at level 9 I can have taken Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and Greater Weapon Spec by level 9. This evens me out with your +4 strength in combat, but mine is always on without limited uses and doesn't make me tired. I also almost certainly have a better armor class. Also my feats can't be turned off with a second level bard spell.

If I need more feats, I'll take a flaw or two, and Weapon Focus and CO aren't very good.

[OldTrees1]

If I need more feats, I'll take a flaw or two, and Weapon Focus and CO aren't very good.

1) Maximum Flaws were already taken by both sides in the subthread you replied too.
2) I believe Weapon Focus and CO were cited as a comparison between the extra 3 levels of Fighter 6 vs the Rage of the Fighter 2/ Barbarian7. It was trying for apples to apples rather than claim Weapon Focus was a decent feat.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1) Maximum Flaws were already taken by both sides in the subthread you replied too.
2) I believe Weapon Focus and CO were cited as a comparison between the extra levels of Fighter vs the Rage of the Barbarian. It was trying for apples to apples rather than claim Weapon Focus was a decent feat.

OK, I see what you're saying.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Do you need to want to play Fighter in order to understand why those that do choose to play Fighter choose to do so?

Well I need at least some reason to consider the Fighter worth playing. I don't want to ever play a samurai but I can understand why they might be worth playing over a different class. As it is I can't see any reason to actually play a Fighter though over the other classes, and as a result, I can't understand your reasoning.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is I can't understand your preference. And there's not much we can to do about that.

[Flickerdart]

So that sets a high premium on classes that don´t run out of resources and have the feats to have "always on"-tactics and options at their hand.

Oh, so your fighter can heal himself?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Oh, so your fighter can heal himself?

Totally! Every Fighter takes ranks in UMD and uses partially charged wands to heal himself and buff!

Oh, and let's not forget about his Eversmoking Bottle! :smallwink:

[OldTrees1]

Well I need at least some reason to consider the Fighter worth playing. I don't want to ever play a samurai but I can understand why they might be worth playing over a different class. As it is I can't see any reason to actually play a Fighter though over the other classes, and as a result, I can't understand your reasoning.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is I can't your preference.

Which step are you stuck on:
1) You don't understand why someone might like 3rd edition's innovation of allowing some qualitative differentiation between characters through taking feats with qualitative benefits?
2) You don't understand why someone might like to select their features rather than take a predetermined package?
3) You don't understand why someone might want to have a set of features come online 6+ levels earlier than an alternative route?
4) Or do you understand the desire in the abstract but are still stumped on why people accepted WotC's botched version over the abstract version I am selling?

[Ironsmith]

50-40% isn't that great. Also, I that assumes that they Fighter can reach is opponent with his 20' movement speed.

There are a lot of ways to get around having a low movement speed... and in the tight quarters dungeons usually offer, it's barely even a penalty. Besides, like I said, this is assuming the Fighter is just using a bog-standard Greatsword (and not the +3 Shocking Burst Greatsword a Fighter of that level is likely to have). This is 50-40% before anything else comes into play.


If they can do the same trick, that really isn't a point in the Fighter's favor.

Also, not every martial class has the same issues as a Fighter.

The Fighter, as a class, is less specialized than other BAB classes, but they're all classes the focus mostly on martial fighting anyway, so there's a lot of overlap.


Those aren't good reasons.

It totally is if your DM doesn't allow non-base classes, or you don't want to have to try to convince them that the class from this module is "totally fair, I swear". Virtually everyone who's played 3.5 is familiar with the base classes, but the others... not so much.


Maneuvers > Feats, every time.

Explain?


Even a Commoner can use UMD, it's expensive, and getting the modifier necessary eats up a lot of resources.

That's only one avenue, though, and certainly not the most practical among them. The point is that there isn't necessarily a correlation between how alive the Fighter is and how exhausted the casters are, because there's plenty of ways to make these independent variables.


No it isn't, after 5 encounters, the Fighter likely doesn't have enough HP to continue.

Other classes like Warlocks, Meldshapers, and the ToB classes can use their abilities all the time too.

Plus, why continue on with depleted resources when you can just rest and get them all back?

That's at least partially up to the players, how well they can coordinate, and in some cases, blind luck. And again, Warlocks, Meldshapers, and ToB aren't core, so there's no guarantee that they're options on the table.

And typically, yes, it is a smart idea to go on with all your resources restocked, but there's absolutely no reason for the DM to set it up so the players always have that luxury. Heck, a lot of the officially-produced dungeon modules explicitly didn't have that as an option, limiting the PCs to only resting in certain rooms and having to deal with ambushes in the night (The Sunless Citadel comes to mind...).

[Tainted_Scholar]

Which step are you stuck on:
1) You don't understand why someone might like 3rd edition's innovation of allowing some qualitative differentiation between characters through taking feats with qualitative benefits?
2) You don't understand why someone might like to select their features rather than take a predetermined package?
3) You don't understand why someone might want to have a set of features come online 6+ levels earlier than an alternative route?
4) Or do you understand the desire in the abstract but are still stumped on why people accepted WotC's botched version over the abstract version I am selling?

The last one, the Fighter could work but ultimately doesn't.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There are a lot of ways to get around having a low movement speed... and in the tight quarters dungeons usually offer, it's barely even a penalty. Besides, like I said, this is assuming the Fighter is just using a bog-standard Greatsword (and not the +3 Shocking Burst Greatsword a Fighter of that level is likely to have). This is 50-40% before anything else comes into play.

I doubt most dungeons are so small that the Fighter can always move 20-40 feet to reach his target.


The Fighter, as a class, is less specialized than other BAB classes, but they're all classes the focus mostly on martial fighting anyway, so there's a lot of overlap.

OK.


It totally is if your DM doesn't allow non-base classes, or you don't want to have to try to convince them that the class from this module is "totally fair, I swear". Virtually everyone who's played 3.5 is familiar with the base classes, but the others... not so much.

We're talking about 3.5, not about groups that ban non-core books.


Explain?

Maneuvers are better than Fighter Bonus Feats.


That's only one avenue, though, and certainly not the most practical among them. The point is that there isn't necessarily a correlation between how alive the Fighter is and how exhausted the casters are, because there's plenty of ways to make these independent variables.

True, the Fighter could just flat out die if he doesn't have proper gear.


That's at least partially up to the players, how well they can coordinate, and in some cases, blind luck. And again, Warlocks, Meldshapers, and ToB aren't core, so there's no guarantee that they're options on the table.

- 5 encounters or so is usually how many are included each day.

- We're talking about 3.5 as a whole, that includes all the books.



And typically, yes, it is a smart idea to go on with all your resources restocked, but there's absolutely no reason for the DM to set it up so the players always have that luxury. Heck, a lot of the officially-produced dungeon modules explicitly didn't have that as an option, limiting the PCs to only resting in certain rooms and having to deal with ambushes in the night (The Sunless Citadel comes to mind...).

1. Sunless Citadel explicitly has safe rooms for the PCs to sleep in.

2. Rope Trick; possibly extended.

[OldTrees1]

The last one, the Fighter could work but ultimately doesn't.

Okay so we have a common ground to work off of. That is a good start towards the goal of you understanding the reason without necessarily wanting to play Fighter yourself.

You understand why people might like to play Fighter in the abstract. You understand the desire to build a neat system of combinations of features from quality feats. However Fighters only get 0.55 features per level and most of the feats you have seen are not worth 2 levels of class features at your optimization level.

Why don't I describe a Martial Rogue/Fighter/some PrC/some dips I had once had (exact build unavailable at this time). (Our table's optimization level is below ubercharger because that is what we enjoy)

They were a large winged humanoid. They had quite the elegant tongue and sharp eyes but that is more due to the Martial Rogue than the Fighter(66%:34% split). In combat they would start by making many of the enemies cower. Every opportunity(and there were lots) allowed them knock back clumps of enemies(not just the provoking enemy) leaving them staggered & prone. This is in addition to locking down in fear 2 of the enemies.

The Martial Adepts had more tricks they could use but could not do as many per turn nor could they repeat them turn after turn. So it seemed a fairly balanced party of warriors.

That is even before considering some DMs would allow houserules like granting 1 feat per level or creating new feats.

[Anthrowhale]

If the Generic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior) is on the table, I think it dominates the 3.5 Fighter without question. Relative to the fighter, you gain:

Any 6 class skills. There are some great skills that really enhance what it means to be a Fighter. Iajutsu Focus (Martial Artist), Spot (Veteran), Diplomacy (Leader), Knowledge (Trained) etc... can all allow you to play with many fighter-like character concepts not supported by the standard Fighter.
Access to Favored Enemy, Sneak Attack, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge as feats. These are great class features compatible with various fighter-like ideals that are not available to a normal fighter.
The ability to choose which save is strong. This is more minor than the other two, but it provides the ability to choose your own character concept.

The only thing lost is automatic access to Heavy Armor, but that's one feat away if you want it.

[Ironsmith]

I doubt most dungeons are so small that the Fighter can always move 20-40 feet to reach his target.

Well, yeah, typically not, but if it's still small enough that he can do it 80% of the time, or large enough that he still wouldn't be able to do it with the typical 30-60 feet, it's not much of a disadvantage.


We're talking about 3.5, not about groups that ban non-core books.

Then we're talking about the core books. The works that were published later, though still labeled 3.5, are more accurately 3.5.1 or something like that. But, if you still want to include the other books, there are a lot more points to compare, and we're already getting up to our eyeballs in them, and since the chief advantage of a Fighter is being simple-yet-effective, let's just not.


Maneuvers are better than Fighter Bonus Feats.

Okay, let me rephrase, so there's no ambiguity on the question here... how are Maneuvers better than Bonus Feats?


True, the Fighter could just flat out die if he doesn't have proper gear.

Well, yeah. That's just poor optimization, which could happen to literally any class. :smallbiggrin:


- 5 encounters or so is usually how many are included each day.

- We're talking about 3.5 as a whole, that includes all the books.

If you insist... so we're gonna cover:

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Challenges: Dungeon Rooms, Puzzles, and Traps
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
Complete Champion
Complete Divine
Complete Mage
Complete Psionic
Complete Scoundrel
Complete Warrior
Defenders of the Faith
Deities and Demigods
Draconomicon
Dragon Magic
Drow of the Underdark
Dungeon Master's Guide: Core Rulebook I & II
Dungeon Survival Guide
Dungeonscape
Elder Evils
Enemies and Allies
Epic Level Handbook
Exemplars of Evil: Deadly Foes to Vex Your Heroes
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Fiend Folio
Fiendish Codex I & II
Frostburn
Ghostwalk
Hero Builder's Guidebook
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Libris Mortis
Lords of Madness
Magic Item Compendium
Magic of Incarnum
Manual of the Planes
Masters of the Wild
Miniatures Handbook
Monster Manual I-V
Oriental Adventures
Planar Handbook
Player's Handbook I & II
Psionics Handbook
Races of Destiny
Races of Stone
Races of the Dragon
Races of the Wild
Sandstorm
Savage Species
Song and Silence
Spell Compendium
Stormwrack
Stronghold Builder's Guidebook
Sword and Fist
Tome and Blood
Tome of Battle
Tome of Magic
Unearthed Arcana
Weapons of Legacy


Ooh, and are we gonna cross-reference with the Rules Compendium, too?

Let's be honest, there is a lot of material to cover with 3.5e, more than shows up in some scientific fields. And the books themselves were written over the course of four years in the case of 3.5e and seven years if you count in 3e. And that's assuming you want to leave out all the homebrews (which, to be fair, you'd probably want to do, since some are blatantly out of whack). Maybe there are objectively, mechanically better options in another rulebook, but that in of itself is a reason for someone to play a core book character: Fighters are just easier to pick up and play, and are still pretty damn good in the meantime, even if not the best of hundreds of options.


1. Sunless Citadel explicitly has safe rooms for the PCs to sleep in.

2. Rope Trick; possibly extended.

Exactly, implying that the other rooms are not safe and that resting in them could have disastrous consequences for the PCs. Additionally, these rooms were typically more than five encounters apart...

The Rope Trick eats up more resources from your casters, though, especially if you use metamagic feats to allow you to extend it.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Then we're talking about the core books. The works that were published later, though still labeled 3.5, are more accurately 3.5.1 or something like that.

Um, no. The non core books are just as much a part of 3.5 as the core books.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, yeah, typically not, but if it's still small enough that he can do it 80% of the time, or large enough that he still wouldn't be able to do it with the typical 30-60 feet, it's not much of a disadvantage.

I doubt that most dungeons are that small. Edit: This especially true when flight is involved.


Then we're talking about the core books. The works that were published later, though still labeled 3.5, are more accurately 3.5.1 or something like that. But, if you still want to include the other books, there are a lot more points to compare, and we're already getting up to our eyeballs in them, and since the chief advantage of a Fighter is being simple-yet-effective, let's just not.

- No, let's; 3.5 isn't just three books.

- Also, the Fighter isn't simple or effective; it's easy to build a Fighter that just fails.


Okay, let me rephrase, so there's no ambiguity on the question here... how are Maneuvers better than Bonus Feats?

- Time Stands Still lets you get two full attacks instead of one
- Iron Heart Surge removes practically any negative condition you can imagine
- Mountain Hammer bypass hardness
- the Nightmare Blade line deals extra damage based on the Concentration skill
- the Shadow Hand line lets you teleport
- ect.


Well, yeah. That's just poor optimization, which could happen to literally any class. :smallbiggrin:

The Fighter is very vulnerable to this sort of the thing, because it's next to impossible for him to protect himself against everything.


If you insist... so we're gonna cover:
SNIP

Yes, and?


Ooh, and are we gonna cross-reference with the Rules Compendium, too?

Only when it doesn't conflict with the core books.


Let's be honest, there is a lot of material to cover with 3.5e, more than shows up in some scientific fields. And the books themselves were written over the course of four years in the case of 3.5e and seven years if you count in 3e. And that's assuming you want to leave out all the homebrews (which, to be fair, you'd probably want to do, since some are blatantly out of whack). Maybe there are objectively, mechanically better options in another rulebook, but that in of itself is a reason for someone to play a core book character: Fighters are just easier to pick up and play, and are still pretty damn good in the meantime, even if not the best of hundreds of options.

- Yeah, let's stick to 1st Party material.

- Fighters are nigh worthless in a core only environment.


Exactly, implying that the other rooms are not safe and that resting in them could have disastrous consequences for the PCs. Additionally, these rooms were typically more than five encounters apart...

It's pretty obvious which rooms are safe.


The Rope Trick eats up more resources from your casters, though, especially if you use metamagic feats to allow you to extend it.

So? I'd say it's worth it.

[Waker]

Wow, this thread filled up rather quickly. Others have gone on about mechanics enough, that I'll just talk about how Fighter's can't work due to fluff.
The rules of D&D exist to give a framework for what a character can do in any given situation. Having ranks in Move Silently lets a character sneak about unnoticed, and the spell Fly obviously details rules on how a character can fly about. Conversely it also limits what a character can do. I might claim my character is a world-class swordsman, but if I don't have the right proficiency or have a bad BAB progression, the concept doesn't hold up. When you design a character, your character concept needs to adhere to the rules as allowed by the aspects of a character's racial and class abilities.
One thing that I feel bears special mention is the selection of a class's skill list. If a skill is on a class's list, it should be safely assumed that this is something that is either trained or routinely done as part of a class's day-to-day life. Even if you never take a rank in a skill, it should still be an option for an average representative of a class. If a skill is cross-class, that is something that is unique to a person and is separate from their identity as a class.
A Paladin can be viewed as a nobleman knight or the champion of a church because of the various divine flavored abilities it has, slew of martial talents and class skills such as diplomacy, and Knowledge (Religion, Nobility). Rogues could be pickpockets (Sleight of Hand, Hide), guards (Knowledge (Local), Spot), Assassins (Move Silently, Sneak Attack) and any number of other archetypes. Certain classes have a wider array of choices available to them, but ultimately they all have at least one concept that really fits them well.
Lastly one of the big differences between a PC class and an NPC class has to do with their role in the world. You choose a PC class such as Barbarian or Knight because you are an elite combatant, someone who is meant to be a mover and shaker in a narrative sense. Those who are instead relegated to roles of Henchman #3 choose the Warrior class.

Now herein lies the problem with the Fighter class; it doesn't fit any archetypal roles for a narrative. There is a big disconnect with the amount of martial prowess that a Fighter is supposed to display vs anything else that would help support an identity.
-Soldier: How is it that you are an elite soldier if you can't identify any battle standards, recognize the command structure or even have basic knowledge of the history of warfare? You definitely aren't a scout with no ranks in listen/spot, or Knowledge (Geography, Nature).
-Marine: A sailor who can't read maps/stars, recognize weather patterns, tie a knot or even have ranks in Profession (Sailor)?
-Knight: A nobleman without any ranks in Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility) or Sense Motive?
-Guard: A city guard or bodyguard would want ranks in Spot, Search, Sense Motive and Knowledge (Local) at the very least.
I could go on, but the point has been made. The question then becomes, where did your character originate from before the first session? How did you learn to do all the things that you can do? I struggle to think of a concept that actually fits a Fighter. The only things that make any sense are Gladiator/Pit-Fighter, since just about any other role would have you exposed to some other skill set. Otherwise you have a character who doesn't seem to have done anything other than fight before becoming an adventurer.

[Ironsmith]

I doubt that most dungeons are that small. Edit: This especially true when flight is involved.

If flight's involved, melee is not. (Where'd the idea even come from that Fighters absolutely HAVE to be melee specialists, anyway?)



- No, let's; 3.5 isn't just three books.

- Also, the Fighter isn't simple or effective; it's easy to build a Fighter that just fails.


The Fighter is designed to do the basics of the game, and do them well. He can take a hit, he can perform most tasks that aren't specialized to another class, he can pour on damage and most of his abilities boil down to modifiers to give him good stats. He can be specced a bit more with feats that grant abilities (i.e. Power Attack), which allows for some wrinkles but nothing that complicates it too much. And it's not actually very easy to build a bad Fighter... a suboptimal one, sure, but not a bad one. Even being thrown into a dungeon butt-naked and with no weapons, a Fighter is still a damage sponge with good resistance to poisons and infections and a good attack bonus. These things are intrinsic and kinda hard for a player to just trade away. It's not until you get into building higher-level characters that you might have much of an issue (and in that case, it's even easier to make a bad Wizard or Cleric).



- Time Stands Still lets you get two full attacks instead of one
- Iron Heart Surge removes practically any negative condition you can imagine
- Mountain Hammer bypass hardness
- the Nightmare Blade line deals extra damage based on the Concentration skill
- the Shadow Hand line lets you teleport
- ect.


Thank you: I'd honestly never heard of these before today.


The Fighter is very vulnerable to this sort of the thing, because it's next to impossible for him to protect himself against everything.

The same can be, and has been, said for Wizards and other "high tier" classes, and it's this way by design; do you want to have your players be invulnerable? It's not really that much fun.



Yes, and?

Do you have all of these? Do you remember the contents of all of these? And can you expect the same to be said of any DM you might want to play with?



- Yeah, let's stick to 1st Party material.

- Fighters are nigh worthless in a core only environment.


You say this, but most of what you've pointed out, beyond the movement issue, involves drawing from non-core books.



It's pretty obvious which rooms are safe.


Yes. Yes, it is. So you know for a fact you aren't at a checkpoint yet, and you need to keep going regardless of how many fireballs your Wizard doesn't have.



So? I'd say it's worth it.

To each their own, I guess.

[Jormengand]

The only things that make any sense are Gladiator/Pit-Fighter, since just about any other role would have you exposed to some other skill set. Otherwise you have a character who doesn't seem to have done anything other than fight before becoming an adventurer.

I thought of it more as a trial-by-combat champion. Someone without perform as a skill wouldn't be great at performance combat, after all.

[Lord Raziere]

I could go on, but the point has been made. The question then becomes, where did your character originate from before the first session? How did you learn to do all the things that you can do? I struggle to think of a concept that actually fits a Fighter. The only things that make any sense are Gladiator/Pit-Fighter, since just about any other role would have you exposed to some other skill set. Otherwise you have a character who doesn't seem to have done anything other than fight before becoming an adventurer.

Well, he could be a mercenary.....or a former bandit.....or one of villagers recruited to fight in war, medieval European wars were often lords recruiting a bunch of peasants to fight for them, arming them then sending them off to fight, they didn't have standing armies, so it would actually make a lot of sense for most of their fighters to be unskilled, and that their survivors would be great at fighting and not really much else- its why you often had bandits becoming a thing in the first place, because the guys spent so long fighting that they HAVE no other skills worth mentioning or forgot those skills and now only have strength of arms to rob people from their money, that and their village would be probably ransacked during the war so they would no place to go. professional armies are a bit of modern invention, or of very big empires that can afford it.

[Jormengand]

Well, he could be a mercenary.....or a former bandit.....

A mercenary should have basic soldiery skills like some knowledges, spot and listen. A bandit ought to have hide and move silently.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The Fighter was a bouncer at a local tavern. :smallbiggrin:

[Jormengand]

The Fighter was a bouncer at a local tavern. :smallbiggrin:

Ah yes, bouncers, known for their use of martial weapons. :smalltongue:

[ColorBlindNinja]

If flight's involved, melee is not. (Where'd the idea even come from that Fighters absolutely HAVE to be melee specialists, anyway?)

It takes more work to make an archer.


The Fighter is designed to do the basics of the game, and do them well. He can take a hit, he can perform most tasks that aren't specialized to another class, he can pour on damage and most of his abilities boil down to modifiers to give him good stats. He can be specced a bit more with feats that grant abilities (i.e. Power Attack), which allows for some wrinkles but nothing that complicates it too much. And it's not actually very easy to build a bad Fighter... a suboptimal one, sure, but not a bad one. Even being thrown into a dungeon butt-naked and with no weapons, a Fighter is still a damage sponge with good resistance to poisons and infections and a good attack bonus. These things are intrinsic and kinda hard for a player to just trade away. It's not until you get into building higher-level characters that you might have much of an issue (and in that case, it's even easier to make a bad Wizard or Cleric).

A Fighter without gear (not counting his Sword) would probably die pretty quickly at higher levels.


Thank you: I'd honestly never heard of these before today.

No problem.


The same can be, and has been, said for Wizards and other "high tier" classes, and it's this way by design; do you want to have your players be invulnerable? It's not really that much fun.

Spellcasters can cover their defenses with spells, at higher levels, they have more spell slots than they'll ever use.


Do you have all of these? Do you remember the contents of all of these? And can you expect the same to be said of any DM you might want to play with?

Sharing books doesn't seem unreasonable.


You say this, but most of what you've pointed out, beyond the movement issue, involves drawing from non-core books.

Fighters have very little meaningful options in Core only. Most of their feats are worthless, and they can't really use Power Attack without missing their opponents.

Tripping might work better, but they're lacking key feats (like Stand Still).


Yes. Yes, it is. So you know for a fact you aren't at a checkpoint yet, and you need to keep going regardless of how many fireballs your Wizard doesn't have.

They're all rooms that haven't seen the light of day in centuries and are hidden behind secret doors that can be closed.

Pressing on after more than a handful of encounters is dangerous.


To each their own, I guess.

OK.

[Ironsmith]

Ah yes, bouncers, known for their use of martial weapons. :smalltongue:

"Get out of my bar."

"Pssssh! No!"

*holds heavy crossbow up to face* "Get out of my bar... please."

[Jormengand]

"Get out of my bar."

"Pssssh! No!"

*holds heavy crossbow up to face* "Get out of my bar... please."

That's a simple weapon.

[Ironsmith]

That's a simple weapon.

All right, fair enough.

*holds up comically large scythe* "Get out of my bar... please."

[Waker]

I thought of it more as a trial-by-combat champion. Someone without perform as a skill wouldn't be great at performance combat, after all.
Oh, I'm aware of the lack of Perform. I could see a Fighter playing the role of a guy who just kills his opponents without flair, but anyone who is popular would actually have ranks in the skill.


Well, he could be a mercenary.....or a former bandit.....or one of villagers recruited to fight in war, medieval European wars were often lords recruiting a bunch of peasants to fight for them, arming them then sending them off to fight, they didn't have standing armies, so it would actually make a lot of sense for most of their fighters to be unskilled, and that their survivors would be great at fighting and not really much else- its why you often had bandits becoming a thing in the first place, because the guys spent so long fighting that they HAVE no other skills worth mentioning or forgot those skills and now only have strength of arms to rob people from their money, that and their village would be probably ransacked during the war so they would no place to go. professional armies are a bit of modern invention, or of very big empires that can afford it.
All of this are ideas I have considered. Depending on the kind of mercenary, you might be expected to do any of the things a normal soldier might such as identifying a standard. If you travel a lot, picking up extra languages might also be necessary. A bandit would need Hide/Move Silently, Listen/Spot and Survival I imagine.
And for those jumped-up dirt farmers, they would better be represented by the Warrior class. Fighters are supposed to be everything the Warrior is and more. Proficiency with a bunch of weapons and armor, full BAB and more feats than anyone else would imply a far greater degree of training/experience.

[Psyren]

Why make a thread?

Seriously, is the weekly circle jerk so enjoyable?

Clearly.


But why play Fighter specifically? What is it that the Fighter does that makes you want to play it?


Well I need at least some reason to consider the Fighter worth playing.

You didn't respond to any of the three reasons I posted.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You didn't respond to any of the three reasons I posted.

You said that you might play a Fighter as a challenge correct?

[Psyren]

You said that you might play a Fighter as a challenge correct?

In brief, they were:

1) Not knowing any better (particularly 3.5 core fighter.)
2) Knowing other classes are better, but desiring a challenge.
3) Knowing other classes are better, but desiring simplicity.

[Tainted_Scholar]

In brief, they were:

1) Not knowing any better (particularly 3.5 core fighter.)
2) Knowing other classes are better, but desiring a challenge.
3) Knowing other classes are better, but desiring simplicity.

Those aren't the only reasons mentioned on this thread. Additionally, I understand those reasons so I wasn't focusing on them as much.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I'm not going to try and convince anybody. Anything I might say has already been said by at least two people. Still, I have had a lot of fun playing a straight fighter. More fun than barbarians, warblades, or most other martial classes. Could I name classes I have more fun with? Absolutely. Two specifically. But sometimes playing a fighter is exactly what you need to do. Nothing over complex, and it lets you appreciate those other, more powerful classes more.

I've never really understood the "I can solve ANY problem" mentality the optimized wizard players have. As the bbeg, sure. He's one dude. But if you're playing d&d, you have a party, and solving every problem takes away from their fun. As a rogue heavy player, I absolutely hate the knock and find traps spells, because they make my role pointless, and I get relagated to secondary fighter.

Point being, maybe, just for one game, you should hang up your wizard hat, grab your choice of killy stick, and just wail on stuff. Put aside your disdain of the mundane, and you might even catch yourself having fun.

Edit; and I may as well put this out there. My wizard could bend space and time, predict the future, and vaporize a man with a thought. That didn't stop the fighter from dropping him in two solid hits during a succubus encounter.

[Jormengand]

I've never really understood the "I can solve ANY problem" mentality the optimized wizard players have. As the bbeg, sure. He's one dude. But if you're playing d&d, you have a party, and solving every problem takes away from their fun. As a rogue heavy player, I absolutely hate the knock and find traps spells, because they make my role pointless, and I get relagated to secondary fighter.

I don't think the problem people have with the fighter is that it can't solve any problem, so much as that it can't make real plays. A fighter can be played reasonably competently by a very simple AI because it has no real options: it essentially has a suite of ways of dealing damage to things and one of those ways will generally be better than the others under the circumstances. If you're playing a fighter and you're not in combat, then anything you can't handle by climbing it, jumping on it or intimidating it isn't something you can interact with, and anything you can is something that you only have one interaction with. Ultimately, your options are, for each interactible object, "Interact with this thing in the only meaningful way possible" or "Don't". Often there are clearly better things to interact with. A fighter often has few to no viable options in any situation.

A rogue, on the other hand, has more choices. Fight this thing, move into a position where I can fight this thing better next round (because I have a class feature where flanking actually matters). Out of combat, three different ways to interact with someone by talking, steal this thing, disable this thing without anyone noticing, unlock this thing, so forth. You have meaningful and imaginative contributions to the scene, pretty much always. You can't just do everything, but you do have a lot of different things you can do.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I don't think the problem people have with the fighter is that it can't solve any problem, so much as that it can't make real plays. A fighter can be played reasonably competently by a very simple AI because it has no real options: it essentially has a suite of ways of dealing damage to things and one of those ways will generally be better than the others under the circumstances. If you're playing a fighter and you're not in combat, then anything you can't handle by climbing it, jumping on it or intimidating it isn't something you can interact with, and anything you can is something that you only have one interaction with. Ultimately, your options are, for each interactible object, "Interact with this thing in the only meaningful way possible" or "Don't". Often there are clearly better things to interact with. A fighter often has few to no viable options in any situation.


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.

[ColorBlindNinja]

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.

There are spells that can literally replace the Fighter.

[Psyren]

Those aren't the only reasons mentioned on this thread. Additionally, I understand those reasons so I wasn't focusing on them as much.

So there are reasons you understand, but you're going to keep asking anyway? I'm just trying to understand the endgame here. (If there even is one, other than the onanism that Deeds succinctly summarized.)

[Jack_McSnatch]

There are spells that can literally replace the Fighter.
And I named spells that can replace the rogue, my all time favorite class. What's your point? What's a wizard going to do in situation that requires diplomacy? He's going to cast charm because he doesn't have diplomacy. Oh but wait, you're trying to treat with the king, and his court wizard isn't a dribbling moron? I guess you get to sit down and shut up while the bard does his one job. You can't always solve a problem cause you know the spell.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And I named spells that can replace the rogue, my all time favorite class. What's your point? What's a wizard going to do in situation that requires diplomacy? He's going to cast charm because he doesn't have diplomacy. Oh but wait, you're trying to treat with the king, and his court wizard isn't a dribbling moron? I guess you get to sit down and shut up while the bard does his one job. You can't always solve a problem cause you know the spell.

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.

The real issue is that the Fighter sucks at his job: fighting.

[Tainted_Scholar]

So there are reasons you understand, but you're going to keep asking anyway? I'm just trying to understand the endgame here. (If there even is one, other than the onanism that Deeds succinctly summarized.)

I understand some of the reasons given, but other people have given reasons that I don't understand. I'm asking about the reasons I don't understand.

[Sacrieur]

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.

"By that logic" wizard is not in the same boat and I wonder how you may have drawn this conclusion.

Jormengand's argument was that faced with a particular challenge, such as a cliff, a fighter has but a single choice (or a small number). He extends this to say that for every interaction a fighter has, the number of possible actions is small. He can climb it, or perhaps use a grappling hook.

A wizard, however, often has a copious number of options at his disposal. When faced with a cliff he may levitate, teleport to the top, change into an animal with a climb speed, tunnel through the earth, fly, or summon a creature to carry him. All of these are viable options when faced with this particular scenario and isn't at all an exhaustive list.

"Cast a spell or don't" is a general statement that isn't relevant to his post at all, since casting a spell is just begging the question "which one?" leading to a multitude of options that the fighter does not have access too. Perhaps to add more insult to injury, the wizard has access to the same options as the fighter in this circumstance, and can both climb the cliff or use a grappling hook if he's feeling particularly mundane. He could even buff his strength stat to make it easier.

There isn't a single thing a fighter can do that a wizard can't do more effectively, with more options, and in a more interesting way. Even be a fighter. Further there really doesn't exist a theoretical or real obstacle that sufficiently prepared and leveled wizard can't easily overcome. And this is just on the surface before we begin optimizing using broken content like contingency. You strike me as someone who hasn't played wizard for any extensive period of time in any competent manner. Everyone telling you that wizards are gods know this because they've played it and know firsthand what kind of broken mechanics are at their disposal.

I took a level 3 wizard and created a character who could solo most encounters 5 CL higher with nothing more than a butter knife and a spellbook. It's not a joke.

[Psyren]

I understand some of the reasons given, but other people have given reasons that I don't understand. I'm asking about the reasons I don't understand.

If your goal is to understand everyone on Earth, well, good luck with that. There are going to be some people in there who play Fighter for purely incomprehensible reasons, or reasons they cannot articulate.

[Jack_McSnatch]

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.

The real issue is that the Fighter sucks at his job: fighting.

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If your goal is to understand everyone on Earth, well, good luck with that. There are going to be some people in there who play Fighter for purely incomprehensible reasons, or reasons they cannot articulate.

You don't have to be so snarky. When someone presents their opinion to me, I'm going to try and understand it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

A well built Fighter is powerless against either swarms or tall grass, depending on how he's built.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

[Psyren]

You don't have to be so snarky. When someone presents their opinion to me, I'm going to try and understand it.

That doesn't change my answer. There are going to be reasons that neither you nor even I will understand, even if the quest takes up the remainder of your lifespan (which, as presented, it likely will.)


It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

This goes back to the challenge point. The effort in itself can be rewarding.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This goes back to the challenge point. The effort in itself can be rewarding.

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

[Tainted_Scholar]

That doesn't change my answer. There are going to be reasons that neither you nor even I will understand, even if the quest takes up the remainder of your lifespan (which, as presented, it likely will.)

A. So what, I shouldn't even try? With that attitude humanity would still be a hunter&gatherer society.

B. I'm not asking about morality and the human condition, this is just D&D. It's not that complicated.

[Jack_McSnatch]

A well build Fighter is powerless against either swarms or tall grass, depending on how he's built.
I've never actually had any problem with swarms as a fighter, but that may be because they're so rare. Flying creatures and difficult terrain are annoying, but that's why you have other party members. People on this board often seem to forget D&D is a group effort. Sure maybe the wizard CAN solo a game, but A) who actually plays without a group? And B) That sounds dull and predictable.

[Lord Raziere]

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.



I get up early when the sleeping spell wakes me
I take a wake up spell and fill with energy
I power on hard and I check my messages
But I don't have any messages
I take a driving spell and head to my car
I drive around a bit 'cause work isn't very far
I call my phone and I check my messages
But I don't have any messages

All I know is driving on enchantments feels better when they're prescription
All I know is the world looks beautiful, the world looks so damn beautiful

I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now
I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now

Work is anything but quiet these days
I try to medicate my concentration haze
I can see the day unfold in front of me
So I take the stairs and hit the gym
The phone is ringing when I get to my desk
What was a stinging's now a sharp pain in my chest
So I take a Calminex and just chill
And then it's time for lunch again

All I know is work is easy when you don't stress out about deadlines
All I know is I take my magic I always take my magic

And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now
I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now
Right now, right now, right now...

Sometimes I'd like to slow things down
And enjoy the moment
But when I look the moment's gone

Work is over but I can't stay to work late
Got to leave and get ready for my second date
With a pretty girl that I met at the pharmacy
Right in the prescription line
I take a spell for my social anxiety
I get a table and a nice bottle of chablis
Now it's getting late and there's still no sign of her
I have another glass of wine

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don't gotta share it with someone
All I know is the steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better spell

And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now
And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knzMFC6s4Bw)

[ColorBlindNinja]

I've never actually had any problem with swarms as a fighter, but that may be because they're so rare. Flying creatures and difficult terrain are annoying, but that's why you have other party members. People on this board often seem to forget D&D is a group effort. Sure maybe the wizard CAN solo a game, but A) who actually plays without a group? And B) That sounds dull and predictable.

1. The Fighter can be replaced by virtually any other martial class.

2. Some of us like playing as optimized spellcasters.

[Psyren]

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

I was expecting Commoner as the rejoinder, but Truenamer will do too. When we talk about difficulty, there's a difference between Challenging and Punishing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6UuRTjkKs)


One of the elements key to that difference (discussed in the video) for challenge is the player being given all the tools they need to succeed. Fighter accomplishes that goal because everything you need to be a decent fighter, and everything a fighter needs to kill everything in the monster manual, is available through expected play. Truenamer and Commoner fail this metric because their chassis forces them to rely on greater DM assistance than the game intends you to have, breaking its own rules. In the Truenamer's case, it's because the math is so borked that you need very specific things other characters don't, like item familiars and custom amulets, to achieve basic competency, and even when you have all that, the utterances are underwhelming until the very end. For a Commoner, their chassis is so weak that you end up spending a bunch of your wealth just compensating for that (if you're going for a martial route) or you end up becoming a budget artificer and relying on far more consumables than the game expects you to have (for a pseudo-caster route.) Neither is satisfying, but without them, the game just becomes punishing rather than challenging.

[Rhyltran]

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

Can I provide my reason why I play a Monk? Sure it's not a fighter but everyone on these forums knows how bad a monk is. I get asked, "Why not play a swordsage?" which isn't very different from a fighter being asked "Why not be a Barbarian/Warblade?" Same difference. Do I have some illusion that the swordsage is beaten by the monk? Absolutely not. I know the swordsage is a better monk and can do everything the monk can but better. So why is Monk my favorite class?

Probably the same reason why Fighter is some other people's favorite class or one that they're at least willing to play. I've played many different monks, different levels of optimization, and monks that can do very different things. I've made Monk/Psionic Fist/Warshaper, I've made Monk/Fist of the Forest/Bear Warrior, and I've made drunken masters. I can keep going on but I've done it in many different ways. Some with different play styles and others that are relatively similar to each other. For me it's about the challenge (admittedly one that you admit you can understand) but it's more than that for me. I like playing in groups where, as soon as they learn I'm going monk, assume that either A) I'm new or groan thinking that I'm going to be a drag on the party. I like exceeding these people's expectations. I enjoy listening to people state "Wow. I didn't expect a monk of all things to be useful." and in some ways I think it satisfies my ego that I can take such an inferior character and do something with it.

Am I better than the party wizard? Sometimes, if it's a new player but most often times I'm not. I'm not always the strongest party member either but you know what's really fun (and sometimes hilarious)? When you speak to people outside your gaming group about your character. People who don't visit these forums, people who don't know optimization as well as some of us, people who end up surprised that your monk (you know that weak class) is on a level high enough to solo their entire party.

You know what's also fun? When you end up in a group with an open minded DM and a party of relatively inexperienced players and your monk (or in this case fighter) is literally the strongest guy at the table. Who can handle encounters better than the entire team and is looked at in awe. Once again, stroking your ego knowing that you took a worthless character and turned it into something great. You get more responses, more comments, and more compliments than if it was a wizard instead.

I play, almost exclusively, Tier 4-5 characters and not just for the ego trip but because I like taking something and pushing it. I like seeing just how far it will go. If it hits a dead end so be it. I do the same thing in Path of Exile, Diablo, Dark Souls, and other RPG's.


PS: So maybe some people just like playing with a handicap and exceeding against all expectations. See, I'm not finding the right words because I'm bad with them and ego isn't really it. I can't place the actual word I'm looking for but it's the satisfaction that you contributed meaningfully as an inferior class.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was expecting Commoner as the rejoinder, but Truenamer will do too. When we talk about difficulty, there's a difference between Challenging and Punishing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6UuRTjkKs)


One of the elements key to that difference (discussed in the video) for challenge is the player being given all the tools they need to succeed. Fighter accomplishes that goal because everything you need to be a decent fighter, and everything a fighter needs to kill everything in the monster manual, is available through expected play. Truenamer and Commoner fail this metric because their chassis forces them to rely on greater DM assistance than the game intends you to have, breaking its own rules. In the Truenamer's case, it's because the math is so borked that you need very specific things other characters don't, like item familiars and custom amulets, to achieve basic competency, and even when you have all that, the utterances are underwhelming until the very end. For a Commoner, their chassis is so weak that you end up spending a bunch of your wealth just compensating for that (if you're going for a martial route) or you end up becoming a budget artificer and relying on far more consumables than the game expects you to have (for a pseudo-caster route.) Neither is satisfying, but without them, the game just becomes punishing rather than challenging.

I played a Truenamer and mostly enjoyed it.

But then again, I play old-school NES games that are way too hard and enjoy them.

Maybe I'm just weird. :smallredface:

[Psyren]

I played a Truenamer and mostly enjoyed it.

But then again, I play old-school NES games that are way too hard and enjoy them.

Maybe I'm just weird. :smallredface:

As written, with no variant rules (like item familiar) and no custom items?


A. So what, I shouldn't even try? With that attitude humanity would still be a hunter&gatherer society.

B. I'm not asking about morality and the human condition, this is just D&D. It's not that complicated.

I'm not telling you how to waste spend your time, but when this thread pops up a couple of weeks later and a few weeks after that, don't be surprised if people just start linking to their responses in the old one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

As written, with no variant rules (like item familiar) and no custom items?

I used an item familiar, but no custom items.

Edit: I started at level one, and didn't get the item familiar until level 9 or so.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not telling you how to waste spend your time, but when this thread pops up a couple of weeks later and a few weeks after that, don't be surprised if people just start linking to their responses in the old one.

I really don't care if this thread shows up again as long as I can get some answers in this one.

[Lord Raziere]

PS: So maybe some people just like playing with a handicap and exceeding against all expectations. See, I'm not finding the right words because I'm bad with them and ego isn't really it. I can't place the actual word I'm looking for but it's the satisfaction that you contributed meaningfully as an inferior class.

I can think of a few words: Elegance? Efficiency? Minimalism? Finesse? Awesome? Risk-Taking? Hardcore? Skill?

I play Deprived in Dark Souls 3, objectively worst class in that game, I still have fun and I have beaten numerous bosses with it. start out with nothing but a wooden shield, a club and loin cloth and the first boss is a giant in armor wielding a halberd who mutates into a big tentacle monster, and no he is not slow, and no your health will not survive more three hits from him if you don't dodge, and no you can't just attack him mindlessly.

[Jack_McSnatch]

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.
Also don't see that problem. How hard is it to pick feats that let you do what you want to do? Sure there's feat taxes, but everybody has to put up with those. Are you going to tell me that blowing half your feats to make Persist a viable option isn't a feat tax? Are you going to tell me that its less difficult digging through your library for spells than it is for feats? "It's too hard" is a really weak arguement.


1. The Fighter can be replaced by virtually any other martial class.

2. Some of us like playing as optimized spellcasters.
1) but the idea can't. Not every sword wielder is a savage rage blind warrior, a mystic follower of the martial arts, or a gish. Some guys just have a sword and know how to use it.

2) Good for you? Some people like to play a fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1) but the idea can't. Not every sword wielder is a savage rage blind warrior, a mystic follower of the martial arts, or a gish. Some guys just have a sword and know how to use it.

What about Warblades?


2) Good for you? Some people like to play a fighter.

I hardly just play spellcasters.

[Lans]

Fighters can take levels in a non-fighter class, therefore they can beat a class who doesn't have to multiclass to get the ability!

I'm pretty sure taking levels in Barbarian (or whatever dip it is) doesn't prove that fighter are better.

Your missing the point, the barbarian has 1 feature that could make him better that any class can grab with a 1 level dip, and after that going barbarian is worse than going fighter. Getting better rage 9 levels later is beaten by spending a few feats to get another option like karmic strike+Combat reflexes, imperious command+Z-Fighter, or combat reflexes+standstill+reach increases.

That 1 feature is great when it works, but it is also one of the most easily negated things in the game.


He has more HD than the Fighter.


Well thats worth 1 feat, and is unlikely to matter much less than having an extra feat chain


We were comparing Barbarian 20 VS Fighter 20; I suspect the Barbarian is better.

At what? Skills? Maybe, Fighting? I don't think so, the barbarian might be better at charging, but charging is easily negated, and being in melee its better to have a good feat chain over the barbarians class features.


But the Fighter really can't do any of that very well; at least, compared to other classes that perform those roles better.


Well it was what they could fit in core. As it stands a fighter dip really helps a lot to move towards those builds, and the only class that can really do the breadth of the martial subtypess better than the fighter is the warblade, who also does the barbarians job better.


As long as there are people who insist that the Fighter is actually a good class, we will continue to correct them.

Well nobody is saying the fighter is a good class...

[Lans]

What about Warblades?


Warblades are basically fighter 2.0

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well thats worth 1 feat, and is unlikely to matter much less than having an extra feat chain

Sorry, I mean bigger HD, not more.


At what? Skills? Maybe, Fighting? I don't think so, the barbarian might be better at charging, but charging is easily negated, and being in melee its better to have a good feat chain over the barbarians class features.

Barbarians have Rage, and the extra skills do matter.


Well it was what they could fit in core. As it stands a fighter dip really helps a lot to move towards those builds, and the only class that can really do the breadth of the martial subtypess better than the fighter is the warblade, who also does the barbarians job better.

OK.


Well nobody is saying the fighter is a good class...

I've heard someone claim, as recently as 2016, that Fighters can keep up with Wizards.

I wish I was joking. :smallsigh:


Warblades are basically fighter 2.0

Which I why I asked why couldn't they fill the same conceptual niche.

[Jack_McSnatch]

What about Warblades?



I hardly just play spellcasters.

Mystic follower of the martial arts. They aren't really a mundane, nor are they the concept I'm talking about. They dedicate their entire life to the sword, while some folks just use it for a paycheck. Sure, the book says it's not magic, but it's also certainly not mundane.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Mystic follower of the martial arts. They aren't really a mundane, nor are they the concept I'm talking about. They dedicate their entire life to the sword, while some folks just use it for a paycheck. Sure, the book says it's not magic, but it's also certainly not mundane.

No one is mundane past level 6; Warblades are nonmagical, they don't get any SU maneuvers.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Mystic follower of the martial arts. They aren't really a mundane, nor are they the concept I'm talking about. They dedicate their entire life to the sword, while some folks just use it for a paycheck. Sure, the book says it's not magic, but it's also certainly not mundane.

What is the concept you're talking about?

[Lans]

Sorry, I mean bigger HD, not more.



Barbarians have Rage, and the extra skills do matter.

The fighter can do a pretty good job emulating the benifits of rage with there bonus feats, and I am pretty sure emulating rage is the wrong way to go about it when you could be grabbing more options.


I've heard someone claim, as recently as 2016, that Fighters can keep up with Wizards.

I wish I was joking. :smallsigh:
Well, at level 1 against opponents that are immune to a a wizards magic



Which I why I asked why couldn't they fill the same conceptual niche.

Oh, they do, and I won't try to defend the fighter against them out side of some niche scenario, but classes like the swashbuckler and barbarian are more worth a look at as they are at best slightly better at a role than a fighter or fighter variant.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The fighter can do a pretty good job emulating the benifits of rage with there bonus feats, and I am pretty sure emulating rage is the wrong way to go about it when you could be grabbing more options.

Barbarians aren't wanting for Rage feats, and Runescarred is pretty good..


Well, at level 1 against opponents that are immune to a a wizards magic

What kind of monster would that be?


Oh, they do, and I won't try to defend the fighter against them out side of some niche scenario, but classes like the swashbuckler and barbarian are more worth a look at as they are at best slightly better at a role than a fighter or fighter variant.

OK.

[Jack_McSnatch]

No one is mundane past level 6; Warblades are nonmagical, they don't get any SU maneuvers.
I'll give you that one, but let's look at this as commoners. Even in Eberron, where commoners have access to magic items, manuevers are something extraordinary. They're something a normal person can't do without decades of training, they might as well be magic. Meanwhile, nothing the fighter does is actually out of the ordinary. An epic level fighter is still using skills a level 1 commoner can see and understand. He can't replicate them, because again it takes lots of training to get that good, but he can tell how the fighter is doing that.


What is the concept you're talking about?
Take your pick. The war weary mercenary, the soldier of the kingdom, the farm boy seeking his fortune. None of these guys are martial artists, noble knights, and certainly not gishes. You COULD make them barbarians, (except the soldier as he would be lawful) but barbarians intrinsically aren't well trained. That's their whole concept. They just kinda flail around and hope they hit the thing. Meanwhile a fighter IS well trained, without being an asthetic. He's the everyman. I mentioned viewing things as a commoner above, and that's the fighter. Even when he's slaying eldritch abominations with a legendary sword, he never forgets his roots. He's Hawkeye, regardless of weapon preference.

[Psyren]

I've heard someone claim, as recently as 2016, that Fighters can keep up with Wizards.

I wish I was joking. :smallsigh:


If you're waiting to no longer ever hear this and other patently ridiculous statements, I have a lovely bridge to sell you in Sigil.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Take your pick. The war weary mercenary, the soldier of the kingdom, the farm boy seeking his fortune. None of these guys are martial artists, noble knights, and certainly not gishes. You COULD make them barbarians, (except the soldier as he would be lawful) but barbarians intrinsically aren't well trained. That's their whole concept. They just kinda flail around and hope they hit the thing. Meanwhile a fighter IS well trained, without being an asthetic. He's the everyman. I mentioned viewing things as a commoner above, and that's the fighter. Even when he's slaying eldritch abominations with a legendary sword, he never forgets his roots. He's Hawkeye, regardless of weapon preference.

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.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'll give you that one, but let's look at this as commoners. Even in Eberron, where commoners have access to magic items, manuevers are something extraordinary. They're something a normal person can't do without decades of training, they might as well be magic. Meanwhile, nothing the fighter does is actually out of the ordinary. An epic level fighter is still using skills a level 1 commoner can see and understand. He can't replicate them, because again it takes lots of training to get that good, but he can tell how the fighter is doing that

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.

Edit:

If you're waiting to no longer ever hear this and other patently ridiculous statements, I have a lovely bridge to sell you in Sigil.

I'm far too jaded to think that's even a possibility.

I'll take that bridge for a dollar, though. :smallwink: