PDA

View Full Version : shhh! The fighters are underground!



jjpickar
2007-09-09, 07:25 PM
First let me intone a few words of dedication: (chants badly) Oh LogicNinja, thy guide to wizards has proven once and for all, without a doubt in fact, that wizards pwn, win, mangle, break,and just all around rock. And to the rest of Giant in the Playground forum I thank thee for removing the scales from eyes. Now I know the that fighter are made of great suckitude, especially past level 5, that monks are worse and CWar samurai are not to be spoken of. From now on only clerics, druids, and the mighty wizards will deserve any serious consideration though the ToB will suffice if I must melee even if it is infinitely inferior in all ways to spellcasting.















All right, I think that will do for sarcasm. Sorry for the inconvenience. Here is the real subject: Now that fighter lovers must go underground I thought it best for a little diversion. Hence the intro. What I really want know is how you have enjoyed using the fighter class? What you like for high level builds for fighters (monkey grip is allowed here)? Most of all ,feel free to talk about how awesome fighters are. I want to hear about your 15th level straight fighter that rides a half celestial winged hippo that uses monkey grip to wield a flaming/frosting double sword and leaps at foe screaming his fierce battle cry: "I've got feats!"

Talya
2007-09-09, 07:28 PM
I love fighter-types, but I don't use pure fighter. There just aren't enough feats to make it worthwhile to take a fighter to 20. I tend to use 2-4 levels of fighter on the way to a martial PrC...mixed with whatever else suits my fancy at the time.

Thomix
2007-09-09, 07:31 PM
I really loved my Halfling fighter in full-plate with a goliath greathammer...just funny to play.

Zincorium
2007-09-09, 07:32 PM
....

This is not going to end well. But to put my two cents in, feats are nice, but I just can't stand having feats as my only class features ever. I want something that can't be taken by any other schmuck out there who's gained a level divisible by three. And specialization just ain't doin' it for me.

And since I've been a rules-inaccuracy-seeking-missile so far today (Probably at the loss of any goodwill I have left in the GitP community) , I figure I might as well point out that you can't use monkey grip with a double weapon.

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 07:35 PM
Halfling fighters, so small yet so cool. I personally like gnomish fighters. They ride their dire badgers into battle swinging their wacky hooked hammers tripping their foes all the way.

Crow
2007-09-09, 07:35 PM
Sometimes there's more to playing a character than being the baddest mofo at the table.

Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who wins through grit and determination. Sure a wizard could do it faster, but sometimes there ain't no wizard around and somebody's still gotta do it.

DraPrime
2007-09-09, 07:36 PM
The only fun I EVER had with fighters always ended with me taking a PrC. Still that large amount of hitpoints helps if your wizard rolls a natural 1 on her will save against being dominated and casts meteor swarm on you (it happened).

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 07:41 PM
Well if y'all like prestige classes you're welcome to post about em'. I personally like the sound of the Dervish and Cavalier.

Talya
2007-09-09, 07:43 PM
Dervish

My favorite.


Also: Champion of Corellon Larethian is a lot of fun with a dextrous fighter in mithral fullplate using an Elven Courtblade.

Leicontis
2007-09-09, 07:45 PM
Anyone who says there aren't enough feats to be worth lvl 20 fighter hasn't tried making my ultimate staff-wielding AC beast...

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 07:46 PM
dextrous fighter

Really good 'cause you can melee and range your enemies into oblivion.


Edit:Staff wielding A.C. Beast? Please expatiate on this as I am all ears (not really as that would be kinda freaky:smalltongue: ).

Kantolin
2007-09-09, 07:47 PM
Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who wins through grit and determination. Sure a wizard could do it faster, but sometimes there ain't no wizard around and somebody's still gotta do it.

The problem stated wasn't 'I don't want to be a hard-nosed fighter'. It was more along the lines that high level fighters, especially when buried in core, don't really have a whole lot of interesting points to them besides Specialization, which is itself not very interesting.

Fighter 20s make conceptually good generalists, but not a lot else. My master swordsman who is a fighter 20 likely has the same overall talent with a sword as the Paladin 20 and the Barbarian 20.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of fighters myself, I believe mostly due to fighters being my first class played. Grab a Guisarme and a Ranseur, go for battlefield control. Or, equally as fun, go with a whip.

Neon Knight
2007-09-09, 07:57 PM
Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who wins through grit and determination. Sure a wizard could do it faster, but sometimes there ain't no wizard around and somebody's still gotta do it.



A slight correction is in order. Assuming we are referring to high level DnD, the corrected phrase runs as follows:

Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who loses through grit and determination. Sure a wizard could actually win with little to no effort, but sometimes there ain't no wizard around and then we're screwed.

Kantolin
2007-09-09, 08:01 PM
Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who loses through grit and determination. Sure a wizard could actually win with little to no effort, but sometimes there ain't no wizard around and then we're screwed.

Hey, that's not fair. There could be a Cleric, Druid, or Sorceror around. ^_^

Or depending on what's going on, a Bard.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-09, 08:03 PM
Just wondering, can you Sunder things with a whip? Because that would be neat.

*lashes somebody from across the room...*

*causing their weapon to disintegrate*

I need a whip.

martyboy74
2007-09-09, 08:05 PM
Hey, that's not fair. There could be a Cleric, Druid, or Sorceror around. ^_^

Or depending on what's going on, a Bard.

True (except for the part about the bard). So I guess that this is the phrase:

Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who loses through grit and determination. Sure a full spellcaster could actually win with little to no effort, but sometimes there ain't no full spellcaster around and then we're screwed.

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 08:06 PM
I thought I placated the fighter mockers with the words of praise for the LogicNinja guide:smallfrown: . Alas, we fighter lovers have been found out. I hope I'm not being too rude to suggest if you don't have anything nice to say about fighters that you please say it on another thread.

On topic however, I am definitely curious about Leicontis's staff fighter...

Neon Knight
2007-09-09, 08:09 PM
Fighters do provide feats, and lots of em, which can make it useful for dips.

But, yeah, Warblade is pretty much everything the Fighter should have been.

martyboy74
2007-09-09, 08:10 PM
I thought I placated the fighter mockers with the words of praise for the LogicNinja guide:smallfrown: . Alas, we fighter lovers have been found out. I hope I'm not being too rude to suggest if you don't have anything nice to say about fighters that you please say it on another thread.

On topic however, I am definitely curious about Leicontis's staff fighter...

Oh, it's just good-natured ribbing. I actually usually end up playing the fighter in my group. I prefer to do all of my my optimization beforehand, and just go nuts with the sword during play, no matter how much more effective the spellcasters may be.

Drider
2007-09-09, 08:11 PM
True (except for the part about the bard). So I guess that this is the phrase:

Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who loses through grit and determination. Sure a full spellcaster could actually win with little to no effort, but sometimes there ain't no full spellcaster around and then we're screwed.

or rogue with UMD

Douglas
2007-09-09, 08:12 PM
Hey, I've seen a pure fighter build that can consistently kill a Balor in one round with a bow. Of course, a cleric version of the same build could probably do it even more consistently and possibly with more attacks left over, and still have his spellcasting too, but even the fighter version is far from useless.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-09, 08:14 PM
What's with the "boo-hoo, I'm oppressed because I like fighters" stuff? C'mon, nobody's going to force you to play anything. If you've read Teh Guide Zomg!111, you know it doesn't say anything about Don't Play Fighters.

Playing a weaker class does not make you a better roleplayer, or cooler in any way, shape or form. You are not an oppressed minority. You are not a rebel. You are not your goddamn khakis.

That said, the core-only fighter is a travesty; with all the splatbooks and the right cheesy feats, a Fighter can actually be pretty effective. You're going to have to make some hard choices about equipment at any given level, though.

Edit: no, that build could one-round a Balor assuming Manyshot works from more than 30' away, assuming one-shot items, consumables, friendly casters for a ring of Spell Storing, and a balor that's just sitting there, in the middle of a field, waiting for a fighter to sneak up on it from over 120' away.

Crow
2007-09-09, 08:17 PM
True (except for the part about the bard). So I guess that this is the phrase:

Sometimes you want to play the hard-nosed fighter who loses through grit and determination. Sure a full spellcaster could actually win with little to no effort, but sometimes there ain't no full spellcaster around and then we're screwed.

Funny as it is, that's just a terrible attitude to have. ;)

The hard-nosed fighter would never admit to being screwed, even if it was true.

Anyhow, that attitude is just a reflection of the game, not neccessarily the people who play it. The game was shoddily designed in such a way as to make the fighter sub-par. It has nothing to do with overpowered wizards or druids, but more to do with having challenges that require those overpowered bastards. In trying to "balance" the game to make it "fun" for everyone, they had to introduce monsters and such that required the insane power of wizards to vanquish in order to challenge those classes. Once it requires it, what is the poor fighter to do?

I am not so pissed about wizards being cosmicly powerful...when you manipulate the fabric of the universe that happens. I am pissed that once you get into higher levels, monsters are designed in such a way that four fighters can't defeat a monster of appropriate CR.

Which nicely shows how the CR system is in on the plot to screw fighters. By assuming a party of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, and basing difficulty calculations on that, you in essence require those classes for the calculation to be correct. Even then, it has been shown that it is still never right. I have never run the "average" party. Always, we have lacked at least one "role", often two, and doubled or tripled up on another. Sometimes nobody wants to play one of those classes. How are you making the game fun for everybody by requiring them???

Douglas
2007-09-09, 08:18 PM
Edit: no, that build could one-round a Balor assuming Manyshot works from more than 30' away, assuming one-shot items, consumables, friendly casters for a ring of Spell Storing, and a balor that's just sitting there, in the middle of a field, waiting for a fighter to sneak up on it from over 120' away.
I don't remember the build I'm thinking of using any of those things, and all it needs is a single round with the Balor in line of sight and longbow range. Hold on while I try to find it...

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-09, 08:20 PM
You can take your Fighter. I'll take an equal level Warblade, at any level. We'll see who is left standing at the end of combat. And I'll be a straight melee combatant... just a better one than you can manage as a Fighter.

Kantolin
2007-09-09, 08:20 PM
Hrm. I apologize.

An interesting fact about Fighters is due to the slightly-quirky way the skill system works.

Fighters have relatively few skill points, and few class skills. As such, nobody expects the fighter to have any particular skill for any particular situation - people will, for example, expect the Wizard to have Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft, and the Cleric to have Religion, and the bard pretty much must have perform.

But the Fighter's actually quite free to select whichever skills he wants, and will never be in a 'Wha? Your druid didn't take Knowledge(nature)?!' situation.

I abuse this to great glee. ^_^ My fighters, thus, tend to focus on having several crafts - the blacksmith is a fairly fun archetype to focus on. It also helps alleviate the silly 'fighters are dumb' jokes when you're a gemcutter, or a tailor.

Another interesting option is to go with a cross-class skill that the party lacks. For example, hardly anyone takes Knowledge(The Planes) in a campaign. If nobody in the party has it, the fighter can jump on it - even with half ranks and an int of 14 for Expertise, you'll still be able to roll a number on it, and it in no way reduces your overall efficiency. Gives you something entertaining to do overall.

Also - while the vast majority of them aren't, mechanically, worth your time - the quantity of feats a fighter gets makes exotic weapons actually options. If you're going with two-weapon fighting, spending a feat on the orc double axe may not be mechanically your best option, but you've got enough feats to be able to afford to squander one, especially if stuck in core where you'll max out the tree you're aiming for fairly swiftly.

As most other units are unlikely to spend time doing this, this becomes an effective tool to make your fighter stand out - at least somewhat.

Now, none of these are necessarily sound options mechanically - they're just fun or amusing things to do with your fighter.

As a general question: Has anyone ever used a tower shield? Only fighters (In core, anyway) get access to them, so that may be something else to be a particular party's fighter's schtick.

NullAshton
2007-09-09, 08:21 PM
I've never played a straight fighter, though I did make a neat fighter/warblade. Used deep impact + power attack for full power attacks with no penalty to AC... fun.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-09, 08:25 PM
I've never played a straight fighter, though I did make a neat fighter/warblade. Used deep impact + power attack for full power attacks with no penalty to AC... fun.

That's amusing, because you need to be psionic to take Deep Impact. Psychic Warrior would negate the need for a Wild Talent feat, would give you a few useful powers like Force Screen and Expansion, make taking Psionic Meditation easy (just replace Wild Talent) which would let you recover the focus as a move action and use it for Diamond Mind saving-throw maneuvers...

I'll throw up a reasonably optimized fighter build in a few hours.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-09, 08:25 PM
So much for a thread of fighter-love.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-09, 08:26 PM
So much for a thread of fighter-love.

That would go a lot better without the implication that people who think fighters are weak and/or don't like them are some kind of horrific oppressor caste.

Serenity
2007-09-09, 08:28 PM
If you think that people write about LogicNinja and CoDzilla because they hate anyone who plays fighters, you've seriously missed the point. I love fighters. I think I speak for many of us when I say I would love to play the hard-nosed fighter who wins through sheer stubborn grit and skill. The problem is, when there are folks running around stopping time and ending combat with a snap of their fingers, while others can match my combat prowess with very little effort and alter reality at the same time, that becomes very difficult. Besides which, there's very little effective way to do so much as protect the spellcasters, as, by that level, most enemies can fly/teleport/etc. right past you.

I like ToB because it provides a very well-balanced system for making combatants who can win on sheer skill and determination. It recognizes that fighter types, while not magical, should not be so mundane as 'I hits people to make them fall down', instead making them masters of combat able to pull off feats beyond normal warriors. (The mechanics are superficially similar to spellcasting, but setting aside Desert Wind and Shadow Hand [which are the exclusive domain, barring Martial Study, of monksswordswages], there is nothing magical about maneuvers.) The versatility of maneuvers also neatly fixes the problem of build-dependent one-trick ponies. A warblade can use a maneuver to disarm a foe even if he hasn't focused his development around being able to do so.

Neon Knight
2007-09-09, 08:30 PM
If you think that people write about LogicNinja and CoDzilla because they hate anyone who plays fighters, you've seriously missed the point. I love fighters. I think I speak for many of us when I say I would love to play the hard-nosed fighter who wins through sheer stubborn grit and skill. The problem is, when there are folks running around stopping time and ending combat with a snap of their fingers, while others can match my combat prowess with very little effort and alter reality at the same time, that becomes very difficult. Besides which, there's very little effective way to do so much as protect the spellcasters, as, by that level, most enemies can fly/teleport/etc. right past you.

I like ToB because it provides a very well-balanced system for making combatants who can win on sheer skill and determination. It recognizes that fighter types, while not magical, should not be so mundane as 'I hits people to make them fall down', instead making them masters of combat able to pull off feats beyond normal warriors. (The mechanics are superficially similar to spellcasting, but setting aside Desert Wind and Shadow Hand [which are the exclusive domain, barring Martial Study, of monksswordswages], there is nothing magical about maneuvers.) The versatility of maneuvers also neatly fixes the problem of build-dependent one-trick ponies. A warblade can use a maneuver to disarm a foe even if he hasn't focused his development around being able to do so.

QFT. This is my exact stance. I play the hard nosed fighter often. The sole difference is that his sheet says Warblade.

Crow
2007-09-09, 08:30 PM
That would go a lot better without the implication that people who think fighters are weak and/or don't like them are some kind of horrific oppressor caste.

It's more that they can't go five minutes without saying something along the lines of "The Warblade" is everything the Fighter should have been."

Fine. The Fighter should have a stupid name. I get it.

I like fighters. I just don't really like ToB thematically. It's not a bad book, but the theme and fluff just isn't for me. I agree fighters need to be fixed a little, but ToB's style just isn't how I would like to do it...Even though it says otherwise, it just feels too much like spellcasting.

Neon Knight
2007-09-09, 08:31 PM
Fine. The Fighter should have a stupid name. I get it.

I like fighters. I just don't really like ToB thematically. It's not a bad book, but the theme and fluff just isn't for me.

So don't use the theme and fluff. Problem solved. The mechanics are still there, perfectly usable.

Crow
2007-09-09, 08:33 PM
Whoops, you missed my edit...I was too slow.

Douglas
2007-09-09, 08:34 PM
Ah, here it is. An actually useful fighter build (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-731626.html)

Fighter Archer Specialist build.

Lady Archy McArcher
Wood Elf Fighter 20
NE Medium Humanoid (elf)
Init +17; Senses low light vision x2; Listen +7, Spot +7
Immune to sleep
Languages Elven, Common
------------------------------------------------------------
AC 35, touch 29, flat-footed 24. (+11 Dex, +4 armor, +3 shield, +3 deflection, +3 natural, +1 unnamed)
Hp 194 (20 HD)
Fort +21, Ref +22, Will +11 [+2 against enchantment (charm) effects]
------------------------------------------------------------
Speed 30 ft. (6 squares)
Melee: +1 adamantine aptitude morning star +29/24/19/14 (1d8 +11/19-20/x2)
Ranged: +1 (5) sure striking, split, ghost touch, spellblade (greater dispel magic) composite (+6) longbow +42/42/42/42/37/37/32/32/27/27 (1d8+18/19-20/x3) or +40/40/40/40 (manyshot 2 arrows) or +38/38/38/38/38/38 (manyshot 3 arrows) or +36/36/36/36/36/36/36/36 (manyshot 4 arrows)
Base Atk +20; Grp +26
Special Atk Point Blank Shot, Improved Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Weapon Supremacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Abilities Str 16 (22), Dex 26 (32), Con 12 (18), Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9 (this is a 25 point build!)
SQ Elven traits
Feats Improved Initiative, Quickdraw, Rapid Shot, Improved rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow), Weapon Specialization (Composite Longbow), Greater Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow), Greater Specialization (Composite Longbow), Weapon Supremacy (Composite Longbow), Improved Critical (Composite Longbow), Ranged Weapon Mastery (Piercing), Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Far Shot, Iron Will, Many Shot, Quick Reconnoiter.
Skills Spot (5 ranks) +7, Listen (5 ranks) +7, Ride (6 ranks) +17.
Possessions +1 sure striking, split, ghost touch, evil outsider bane, dragon bane, spellblade (greater dispel magic) composite (+6) longbow(107,000), +1 adamantine aptitude morning star (11,000), +1 cold iron aptitude spiked chain (10,000), greater bracers of archery (25,000), gloves of dex +6 (36,000), belt of str +6 (36,000), vest of con +6 (36,000), ring of spellturning (98,280), ring of protection +3 (18,000), Portable Hole (full of quivers with arrows!) (20,000), Boots of Speed (12,000), Bracers of armor AC 4 (slotless) (32,000), Amulet of Natural Armor +3 (slotless) (36,000), +1 adamantine floating shield (12,000), Tome of Quickness +5 (read) (137,500), Cloak of protection +5 (25,000), Goggles of seeing (as the gem) (75,000).

55,000 left to spend in:
Potions: at least some of flying, some others as wanted.
Lots of special non-magical arrows (cold iron, silver, blunt, smoke, flight, dire, etc) (about 1,000 gold, that is enough for a few thousand arrows).
10 silver arrows of lawful outsider bane, 10 cold iron arrows of chaotic outsider bane, a few adamantine arrows for constructs.
Or a pearl of power to ‘pay’ for the level 3 greater magic weapon in the bow to the party wizard, if he is an ass.

Fun notes:

+17 initiative beats almost any CR20 critter.

AC is 39 with magical vestment (on the shield) from a friendly cleric (maybe paid with a pearl of power too). AC 40 with boots of speed.

The damage of the bow is 1d8+18. 6 from str, 1 from bracers, 5 from magic, 4 from the specialization, 2 from mastery. Bane enemies would add +2 to hit and 2d6 additional damage from bane to dragons and evil outsiders. Plus possibly another +2/2d6 if bane arrows are used. To hit is +20 (bab), +11 (dex), +2 (Focus, GF), +2 (mastery), +2 (bracers), +5 (magic). +1 more with boots of speed activated.

Full attack with haste would be +43/43/43/43/43/43/38/38/33/33/28/28 (and a +5 to one of those attacks, an automatic 10 to another). Average damage vs AC 40 (not counting bane or DR, assuming target is vulnerable to critical damage) would be 285-290 hp (roughly 9 normal hits + 1 critical). It would be a bit higher if the target is within 30’. Bane would add somewhat more than 70 hp to the damage. This damage will kill almost any CR19-20 critter in one round (two only for the bigger dragons). No save. No SR.

Range increment for the bow is 185´.

Sure Strike bypasses alignment DR.

Normal group buffs like Heroes Feast make the numbers even better. So many attacks means even a +1 gives a considerable boost.

A good deal of feat/skill customization is possible without any firepower loss. However I can’t honestly say this build is better than, say, Fighter 18/ Ranger 2, for instance. It is pretty obviously she would be better with some multiclassing or PrC-ing. Power Shot, for instance, the class ability of the peerless archer, would be awesome, likely worth giving up supremacy. This is a Pure Fighter build, though.

I am sure there are many better optimizers than me reading this. So... how can the build be improved?

NullAshton
2007-09-09, 08:37 PM
That's amusing, because you need to be psionic to take Deep Impact. Psychic Warrior would negate the need for a Wild Talent feat, would give you a few useful powers like Force Screen and Expansion, make taking Psionic Meditation easy (just replace Wild Talent) which would let you recover the focus as a move action and use it for Diamond Mind saving-throw maneuvers...

I'll throw up a reasonably optimized fighter build in a few hours.

It was fun. I don't care that it would have been more efficient with a psychic warrior, that I wasted a feat on wild talent, that I didn't get as many powers as I might have gotten with psychic warrior, or maneuvers. It was still fun.

EagleWiz
2007-09-09, 08:40 PM
Improve the saving through.
11 (+2 on enchantment) avrages out to about 21 (23 on enchatment)
Domanate Monter, order fighter to turn on allys and then you have a usefull for the spellcaster fighter build.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-09, 08:41 PM
Man, who cares? Everyone plays what's fun for them. "I had fun!" just means, that, yeah, okay, you didn't waste that time you spent playing the game.


Ah, here it is. An actually useful fighter build (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-731626.html)


Sure, if you use a Splitting bow. That's almost like saying "the fighter uses a Candle of Invocation", except you're more likely to be able to get a Candle of Invocation. Splitting is a completely broken enhancement from an obscure supplement, and if the Fighter has access to it, so does everyone else.

Besides, archery negates the Fighter's mobility problems, we know that. That does nothing for fighters with swords. Y'know, the kind most people play. That fighter's saves aren't exactly hot stuff, either. I guess assuming you'll always have a ring of spell turning with the right amount of spell levels left active takes care of that--eyeroll. And at level 15, when it has like a third of that cash to throw around? Not so hot. At level 13, when it's got something like 90k? Yeah. Not so much with the rings of Freedom of Movement and Spell Turning. A commoner with that equipment could contribute reasonably well to a party. A Warrior definitely could.

Enzario
2007-09-09, 08:43 PM
Ah, here it is. An actually useful fighter build (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-731626.html)


And they said that archers were the worst of the worst. Tsk tsk.

Stephen_E
2007-09-09, 08:51 PM
Most of my favourite PCs have been fighters.
One I even took 8 Fighter levels in my 1st 10 before I really went into a prestige class (I had done a 1 lev dip into exotic WM earlier).

Fighters work/contribute just fine if you don't fight a lot of mages and your wizards don't do the Batman thing. It's worth noting that not every 2nd bad guy is a Wizard, and many people don't come close to optimising their wizards.

Look at fantasy stories. Even when the BBEG is a Wizard the heroes have to wade through mountains of mooks, generally humanoid mooks, before they have to fight the BBEG. So that means heaps of encounters with the Mages giving the Fighters support while they kill the mooks, before the Mages get their star role.

Stephen

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 09:02 PM
To all the people who like warblades: They be awesome. If you like em' instead of the fighter thats not bad in my book.

To all who like the concept of fighters bt realize the class is suboptimal but are reasonable enough to let those who want to use it have their own beliefs: Thanks for understanding.

For all the people who think I'm overreacting: I am being a bit too sarcastic and if it rubs you the wrong way, I am truly sorry. But there is a kernal of truth in this overreaction and that is my personal observance that about three (or less) posts about fighters generally results in the suggestion of playing a different class. This annoys me, too much apparently. The reason for my over reaction may be inadequate in your eyes but its my reason none the less. Take it or leave it as it were.

About fighters: I really love having a ton of feats. With the right splat books you can really customize the fighter into pretty mcu whatever you want. From bindign vestiges to gaining maneuvers, to even turning inot an abomination, the options are fun.

Stephen_E
2007-09-09, 09:39 PM
My Fighter never have enough feats.

Getting things like the Weapon Style feats (CW) are incredibly feat hungry, as well as the Tactical feats, let alone getting those useful, but non-critical feats, such as Alertness, Iron Will, Improved Inititive, Danger Sense ectre.

Stephen

Talya
2007-09-09, 09:47 PM
About fighters: I really love having a ton of feats. With the right splat books you can really customize the fighter into pretty mcu whatever you want. From bindign vestiges to gaining maneuvers, to even turning inot an abomination, the options are fun.

You know, Star Wars Saga edition almost fixed this. They gave EVERY base class fighter-style bonus feats. But then they screwed it up by making sure the PrCs that EVERYONE takes by level 8 didn't have them, and made "talents" (which you don't get nearly enough of) far more important. This has me very worried for 4e.

horseboy
2007-09-09, 09:52 PM
Technically, my fighter 9 is the only thing I've played in 3.5. I know there are going to be those that will try and link it to my distaste for D&D, but I would like to assure them, I held it in disdain before then.

jjpickar
2007-09-09, 09:54 PM
Off topic: Yeah, I didn't like the PrCs in Saga either. Still I like the talent system and the skill system way better than the older D20 Star Wars. Plus the scoundrel is much more fun to play now.

On Topic: What are your top 3 fighter feats?

Mine:
1. Exotic Weapon Prof. () yeah I know the exotic weapons aren't that awesome but I think they're cool.

2. Weapon Finesse. Dex Based Fighters are cool. Especially elf dex based fighters.

3. Improved Grapple. Very useful.

Serenity
2007-09-09, 10:04 PM
It's more that they can't go five minutes without saying something along the lines of "The Warblade" is everything the Fighter should have been."

Fine. The Fighter should have a stupid name. I get it.

The Fighter already has a stupid name.

To jjpickar: I don't think any of us want to forbid you to play a fighter, or tell you that you're stupid or a bad person for wanting to be meelee guy/meat shield/insert your synonym here. We just want people to know what they may be walking into by taking up the role, and point out alternatives that put them on a better power curve, and thereby potentially increase their enjoyment and options.

Talya
2007-09-09, 10:04 PM
1. Exotic Weapon Prof. () yeah I know the exotic weapons aren't that awesome but I think they're cool.

For my Champion of Corellon, absolutely. Elven Courtblade is exotic. (Although I usually take "Improved Weapon Familiarity" instead to give courtblade, thinblade, and whatever the other one was all as martial.) I also like the Great Falchion out of Sandstorm.


2. Weapon Finesse. Dex Based Fighters are cool. Especially elf dex based fighters.

Never, ever, ever. Not that I never have weapon finesse, it's just that if I want that feat, I'll take a level of Swashbuckler instead. More skill points, and I probably eventually want Int-to-damage as well (3 levels of swashbuckler show up amazingly often in dex fighter builds).


3. Improved Grapple. Very useful.
Somewhat. Improved Trip as well.

Along those lines (forget "top 3"...there's lots I end up taking fairly often):
Combat Expertise
Combat Reflexes
Expeditious Dodge (great for qualifying for dervish)
Numerous tactical feats
Two Weapon Fighting (again with the dervish)
All the charge-monkey feats

Thing is, I like feats that stack synergisticly, any feat I take is designed to fit into the build idea.

Thinker
2007-09-09, 10:11 PM
Unfortunately I'm disappointed I read this whole thread. Its entire premise seems to be based around the idea that the fighter is outcast and sneered at when it is instead just mechanically weaker. The only time I use the class is if I need bonus feats to qualify for a PrC quicker. It is a good dip class, but I haven't found much else use for it.

Flawless
2007-09-09, 10:16 PM
Hmmm, fighters are boooooorinnnnggg...

I mean, no matter how powerful they are, they can do exactly two things: move action + attack action or full attack.
So, I won't say fighters suck because casters are so über, I'll just say they suck because they can't do anything besides hitting stuff. Mind you, even if fighters were to own everything in combat I'd still say they suck for the same reasons. Now rangers or psychic warriors on the other hand...

psychoticbarber
2007-09-09, 10:20 PM
The only time I use the class is if I need bonus feats to qualify for a PrC quicker. It is a good dip class, but I haven't found much else use for it.

If this doesn't spell "outcast", what does?

tainsouvra
2007-09-09, 10:24 PM
All right, I think that will do for sarcasm. What sarcasm? That sounded pretty accurate to me...

(I see your sarcasm and raise you a metasarcasm)

Kantolin
2007-09-09, 10:41 PM
Hmmm, fighters are boooooorinnnnggg...

I mean, no matter how powerful they are, they can do exactly two things: move action + attack action or full attack.

To be fair, there's Trip, Disarm, Grapple, Ranged, and then a slew of tactics involving reach if you have them.

There's then, less effectively but still present, Bull Rush, Sunder, and Overrun - the last of which I am particularly fond of, honestly enough. Fighters tend to do those more freuqently than most.

Crow
2007-09-09, 11:00 PM
To be fair, there's Trip, Disarm, Grapple, Ranged, and then a slew of tactics involving reach if you have them.

There's then, less effectively but still present, Bull Rush, Sunder, and Overrun - the last of which I am particularly fond of, honestly enough. Fighters tend to do those more freuqently than most.

The reason you get all those bonus feats is to get stuff like what you mentioned.

Fighters have plenty of options, and can be one of the most enjoyable classes to play, even if they aren't the most powerful.

It seems most of the people who complain about the fighter are more worried about being powerful than anything else.

the_tick_rules
2007-09-09, 11:03 PM
so then why isn't every D&D party nothing but clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards?

Zincorium
2007-09-09, 11:05 PM
so then why isn't every D&D party nothing but clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards?

Because they'd all be fighting for the spotlight. It's better if it's just handed over peacefully.

Kantolin
2007-09-09, 11:31 PM
It seems most of the people who complain about the fighter are more worried about being powerful than anything else.

I'm aware that you probably knew this, but as you quoted me, I just wanted to ensure that we both are aware that I was agreeing with you on the following point - that fighters can indeed give themselves options. ^_^

Now, concerned with being powerful and concerned with being capable of doing something relevant are different arguments that should be in a different topic. So anyway!


so then why isn't every D&D party nothing but clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards?

Because, while less effective, other classes are fun? :P

Crow
2007-09-09, 11:40 PM
I'm aware that you probably knew this, but as you quoted me, I just wanted to ensure that we both are aware that I was agreeing with you on the following point - that fighters can indeed give themselves options. ^_^

Now, concerned with being powerful and concerned with being capable of doing something relevant are different arguments that should be in a different topic. So anyway!



Because, while less effective, other classes are fun? :P

I was affirming that statement, and this one too. :)

the_tick_rules
2007-09-10, 12:08 AM
well said kantolin. i'm of the firm opinion that it's all about build, i've seen well built fighters thrash mages. plus melee and magic-users are built to work as a team to combat the MM creatures, not each other.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-10, 01:27 AM
First note: I generally play in gestalt settings. In gestalt, the Fighter class is the pure, distilled essence of candy and sunshine.

That being said, I really do enjoy playing a wizard more than anything else, but that's a style thing -- the more complicated something is, the more I like it. I tend to have the most fun playing wizards, even if I'm woefully poor at it.

Even so, however, I can never manage to play two casters consecutively. It hurts my brain. And they start to run together. To date, I've only had two full caster characters (well, three, but the sorcerer died before he got fireball), and all of my other characters have been meleeists. The exception is right now, when I'm playing an archer (gestalted Fighter/Ranger).

Whenever I play anything that doesn't involve the Fighter, I always run into the Not Enough Feats quandary. In fact, I even run into this playing the Fighter sometimes, because of the really feat-heavy builds -- Combat Focus, and such. For a non-fighter, you have to be human to take the whole Combat Focus tree. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, there are a billion TWF feats to take. Same for mounted combat, or grappling, or sword-and-board, or duelist (single-sword), or archer. Or pretty much anything else. So bloody many feats, it leaves my character sheet filled with all of the things that I deem a requirement, and so few of the things that I just want. :(

My newest character-concept which I haven't played yet (gestalt, remember) is a Knight/Samurai. I swear, the two classes were made for each other, assuming you can ignore the samurai's TWF feats. In this case, I'm going Kensai as well (dropping Samurai levels in favor of the PrC), but it's a tough decision. I love the idea (he's going to be even more goodie-two-shoes than your average paladin, and a pacifist until violence is the only option, and so forth), and he can't cast so much as a single spell. He's not even too feat-intensive. Bastard-sword-and-board, heavy armor, morale bonuses to troops, bonuses against a chosen enemy, all sorts of fun little abilities... it's just good times.

The only tough choice I face is whether to dip into Justiciar for a few levels as well. I'm not going to, but man, would I like to.

So, while I love the wizard, playing one gets old real fast. But there's always another flavor of meleeist to play. And, too, with a combination of good hit dice, good AC, and low target priority (compared to the casters), odds are they'll last longer than the wizard ever will.

Notably, the odds do not favor me, as my characters drop like flies no matter who they are. But that's another issue entirely.

Fighter = fun.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-10, 04:26 AM
Tweaking the fighter(till it becomes on the level of Monk/Druid/Barbarian "I want to take all 20 levels rather than multi-class, because it lets me do unique stuff") would probably have to include Weapon Mastery/Specialisation/Focus for free(ie, not even taking up any Feats, and possibly not even selectable by others as Feats), and possibly scaling with level. "Tricks", along the lines of Exotic Weapon Master, are another good option. In fact, expand EWM to 20 levels, adjust the Fluff, and you probably just improved the Fighter 10-fold.

Really, the Fighter's biggest problem is that after level 4, if you're getting a Bonus Feat on top of whatever else from that first level of the Prestige Class you're considering, you can forget about staying in class.

That and Class Features are always superior to Feats. So if the Prestige Class gets even 1 Class Feature per level, Fighter loses out again.

AslanCross
2007-09-10, 05:35 AM
Although I'm aware that the fighter is mechanically deficient, the number of feat trees open to them floats my boat. Sure, bonus feats < real class features, but I like the level of customization they can get with non-core material. (PHB II alone gives lots of cool stuff, Complete Warrior makes things better)
A core only fighter is unfortunately, short on feats to fill up those bonuses. I've planned out the builds for my character (TWF finesse dude) both in Fighter and Warblade. I still want to try both.

Neon Knight
2007-09-10, 06:15 AM
To be fair, there's Trip, Disarm, Grapple, Ranged, and then a slew of tactics involving reach if you have them.

There's then, less effectively but still present, Bull Rush, Sunder, and Overrun - the last of which I am particularly fond of, honestly enough. Fighters tend to do those more freuqently than most.

Not really.

Disarm is blatantly inferior to trip in every way, shape, and form. Trip is only good if you focus your build on it, thus making you a one trick pony. In addition, as soon as you hit high levels the average monster size starts going through the roof (literally.)

Grapple? Freedom of Movement. The entire thing is negated by one spell. ONE SPELL. And many late game monsters are so large that grappling them is a waste of time.

Ranged? Actually somewhat viable, despite the existence of Wwind Wall. Scouts or Rogues with Greater Manyshot will probably outdo you, but it is still a somewhat viable option.

Bull Rush is situational. I.E., good when you're next to cliffs.

Sunder? Only good against foes with weapons. Which really is... other Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers perhaps....

Overrun? Are you serious? What's next, Feint? Are we going to claim Feint is a semi viable option?




Fighters have plenty of options, and can be one of the most enjoyable classes to play, even if they aren't the most powerful.

It seems most of the people who complain about the fighter are more worried about being powerful than anything else.

No, he doesn't. A Fighter is required to focus his build on a single task to be viable, whether that focus is on being a charge monkey, being a trip monkey, or being an arrow monkey. He becomes tied to that tactic. If he tries to spread himself out, his already low combat effectiveness will approach untold levels of lowness.

I am not concerned with being more powerful. I am concerned with being an equally contributing member of a team. As an equal partner, not as a sidekick or an after note. Ideally, the Fighter should be 1/4 of the groups power. Not 1/8. Not 1/20. Not 1/100. And the Wizard should not be 90% of a late game groups combat power. But he is.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-10, 06:22 AM
Fighters are definitely better with Style/Tactical Feats, but they're still stuff that anyone else can do. To recap, signature/unique class powers:

Barbarian: Rage/Damage Reduction
Bard: Bard song/Spells(not really "unique" per se, but not everyone can cast spells)
Cleric: Domains/Turn Undead/Spells
Druid: Wild Shape/Animal Companion/Spells
Monk: Flurry/Better Fists/Best Saves/Evasion
Paladin: Divine Grace/Smite Evil/Special Mount/Turn Undead/Spells
Ranger: Favoured Enemies/Animal Companion/Spells
Rogue: Sneak Attack/Trapfinding/Rogue Specials
Wizard: Familiar/Spells

Arguably, only the Sorceror has less reason to stay in class than the Fighter, if he can find a way to advance spellcasting.

Crow
2007-09-10, 11:37 AM
Not really.

Disarm is blatantly inferior to trip in every way, shape, and form. Trip is only good if you focus your build on it, thus making you a one trick pony. In addition, as soon as you hit high levels the average monster size starts going through the roof (literally.)

How does focusing on tripping make you a one-trick pony? You need to have a good strength score, which synergizes with almost everything else a fighter does! Disarm is based upon attack bonus, so even finesse fighters can do it as well. Taking two measily feats to get either improved trip or improved disarm is a drop in the bucket if you're a fighter. And what is the feat you're required to take to qualify? Combat Reflexes, which isn't as bad as being forced to take something like Great Fortitude. You have feats to spare...being a tripper doesn't make you a one-trick pony. Not by a longshot.


Grapple? Freedom of Movement. The entire thing is negated by one spell. ONE SPELL. And many late game monsters are so large that grappling them is a waste of time.

Well first of all, not everyone can cast that spell. Also, grappling can be a way to inflict damage to enemies even if they have a nigh un-hittable AC. Anybody caught in a grapple can't cast spells with somatic components, and must first have any focus or materials required in hand to cast. Freedom of Movement requires materials, and has a somatic component, so unless they got the spell up ahead of time, it's a non-issue.


Ranged? Actually somewhat viable, despite the existence of Wwind Wall. Scouts or Rogues with Greater Manyshot will probably outdo you, but it is still a somewhat viable option.

But the Rogue probably had to become a "one-trick pony" by your standards to do so, as opposed to the fighter, which would have the feats to spare.


Bull Rush is situational. I.E., good when you're next to cliffs.

We've never had somebody right next to a cliff, but I've used it to cause an enemy to provoke attacks of opportunity from multiple party members at once. Oh wait, teamwork isn't as important as maximum lethality, so nevermind.


Sunder? Only good against foes with weapons. Which really is... other Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers perhaps....

Or Balors, or Solars, or any number of enemies. PC classes aren't the only people that use weapons. There are tons of creatures in the MM that wield weaponry.


Overrun? Are you serious? What's next, Feint? Are we going to claim Feint is a semi viable option?

I've never liked the rules for feinting, and I've always assumed that as a natural part of combat, your character is going to be using all manner of feints and parries.

Overrun on the other hand is all kinds of useful. For example, if the BBEG has a minion protecting him and blocking your pathway. You can plow straight through the bastard and get to the bad guy, and attack.


No, he doesn't. A Fighter is required to focus his build on a single task to be viable, whether that focus is on being a charge monkey, being a trip monkey, or being an arrow monkey. He becomes tied to that tactic. If he tries to spread himself out, his already low combat effectiveness will approach untold levels of lowness.

How does focusing on any of these options make the fighter unable to focus on any of the others? I think the problem is that you are so used to other classes needing to do this, that you forget a fighter can do it all if he wants to.

Disarm - Attack bonus, strength, low strength but high dex can do it too
Trip - Strength
Grapple - Attack bonus, strength
Ranged - Attack bonus, dexterity, but strength can be used to increase damage output with a composite bow
Bull Rush - Strength
Sunder - Attack bonus, strength
Overrun - Strength

Please tell me why doing any one of those precludes you from doing anything else...


I am not concerned with being more powerful. I am concerned with being an equally contributing member of a team. As an equal partner, not as a sidekick or an after note. Ideally, the Fighter should be 1/4 of the groups power. Not 1/8. Not 1/20. Not 1/100. And the Wizard should not be 90% of a late game groups combat power. But he is.

The problem is the wizard, not the fighter.

Thinker
2007-09-10, 12:02 PM
How does focusing on tripping make you a one-trick pony? You need to have a good strength score, which synergizes with almost everything else a fighter does! Disarm is based upon attack bonus, so even finesse fighters can do it as well. Taking two measily feats to get either improved trip or improved disarm is a drop in the bucket if you're a fighter. And what is the feat you're required to take to qualify? Combat Reflexes, which isn't as bad as being forced to take something like Great Fortitude. You have feats to spare...being a tripper doesn't make you a one-trick pony. Not by a longshot.

To be a good tripper you do not only need one feat. There is a whole line of feats to take so that you're contributing more than just immobilizing someone for a round.




Well first of all, not everyone can cast that spell. Also, grappling can be a way to inflict damage to enemies even if they have a nigh un-hittable AC. Anybody caught in a grapple can't cast spells with somatic components, and must first have any focus or materials required in hand to cast. Freedom of Movement requires materials, and has a somatic component, so unless they got the spell up ahead of time, it's a non-issue.
Unfortunately most encounters are not against spellcasters. It is against creatures with spell-like abilities which do not require components (unless you're a warlock :smallfrown: )



But the Rogue probably had to become a "one-trick pony" by your standards to do so, as opposed to the fighter, which would have the feats to spare.

Luckily for the rogue he has out-of-combat applications.



We've never had somebody right next to a cliff, but I've used it to cause an enemy to provoke attacks of opportunity from multiple party members at once. Oh wait, teamwork isn't as important as maximum lethality, so nevermind.
While your bull-rush tactic is useful, I still question how often it comes up. It requires you to have a number of other non-flat footed allies in melee and they have to do more damage with their AoO than you could have done with your attack.



Or Balors, or Solars, or...

The point was that the majority of creatures do not have weapons. The other problem with sunder is that you lose the loot once you've used it.



I've never liked the rules for feinting, and I've always assumed that as a natural part of combat, your character is going to be using all manner of feints and parries.

I agree.



Overrun on the other hand is all kinds of useful. For example, if the BBEG has a minion protecting him and blocking your pathway. You can plow straight through the bastard and get to the bad guy, and attack.
This is another very situational case. Unfortunately with Overrun size comes into play and can cause you to be stopped easily.

Telonius
2007-09-10, 12:07 PM
How does focusing on any of these options make the fighter unable to focus on any of the others? I think the problem is that you are so used to other classes needing to do this, that you forget a fighter can do it all if he wants to.

Disarm - Attack bonus, strength, low strength but high dex can do it too
Trip - Strength
Grapple - Attack bonus, strength
Ranged - Attack bonus, dexterity, but strength can be used to increase damage output with a composite bow
Bull Rush - Strength
Sunder - Attack bonus, strength
Overrun - Strength

Please tell me why doing any one of those precludes you from doing anything else...


The problem here isn't the build, it's the tactics. A fighter can only have one weapon, two at most, out and ready at any given time. Is there any weapon that can trip, disarm, shoot at range, and be useful in a grapple? No, you need to get a bunch of different weapons for each of those situations. Switching weapons is certainly possible, but requires Quick Draw if you want to do it as a free action. Sheathing a weapon takes a move action regardless, so if you do want to switch, you have to drop your current weapon on the ground and recover it later. Cost is another limiting factor. If you want your arsenal to be magic, this can get very expensive very quickly.

If you want to be good (ie better than a level- equivalent Barbarian) at any of the tactics you mentioned, you have to take feats for them. I count 6 "Improved" feats for the tactics you mentioned; that's a third of your total. While the Fighter does have a lot of feats to throw around, their number isn't unlimited.

Sunder is generally taken as being a poor choice for anybody. Reducing a +3 weapon to a pile of broken metal means that you can't sell the +3 weapon (or use it yourself after you've defeated the foe).

Indon
2007-09-10, 12:18 PM
Anyone who says there aren't enough feats to be worth lvl 20 fighter hasn't tried making my ultimate staff-wielding AC beast...

Once I tried an almost ridiculous Fighter concept (I decided to make him a Fighter/Warblade, though he never got high enough level for me to progress him far) that used a quarterstaff.

Essentially, he took:

-Power Attack
-The TWF Line
-Combat Expertise

And every time he took a full attack, he used all of them. His objective was to make it so that both he, and his opponent, needed to roll a 20 to hit, and then just swing more often, and hit harder, than his opponent.

Sadly, I have abysmal luck, and the DM had really good luck, so it never actually served to win a fight.

KoDT69
2007-09-10, 01:09 PM
I have to chime in and agree with Crow on everything he said. No fighter has to be a one-trick pony. Even the most intense focuses require like 4 feats, and by 20th level, a human fighter will have what, 19 feats? Sounds to me like you can master a melee weapon, ranged weapon, do some battlefield control, be a charge-monkey, AND be a master grappler. That's a pretty decent range of options for the supposed "useless" character.

I play in a Forgotten Realms high magic campaign where I have a 14th level PURE CORE fighter who manages to contribute as much as the Wizard AND the Cleric, if not more. If being a full caster is the only way to be useful in your games, the DM sucks and I feel bad for the other players.

What makes a fighter useful in the long-run is endurance. When the casters are all out of spells and low on HP, the fighter is still hammering away at the monsters/enemies. A fighter never loses his skill to fight. Casters can be limited in many ways. Yes another caster is better to fight a caster, but that's another arguement. The point is that fighters are not useless. Not even against huge monsters, a fighter can still grapple. The -4 penalty for a size category can be a non-issue when the STR modifier is greater than the monster's. I have a dwarven barbarian with no grapple-specific feats in my Dragonlance campaign, and he does pretty well against Stone Giants and Ogres and stuff.

The moral of the story: The fighter is only useless if the DM makes it that way. WotC is biased to full casters, but that doesn't mean every situation can be solved with a single spell. When that happens, it's a good sign your DM is not very creative and can be easily manipulated by the players. :smallyuk:

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-10, 01:18 PM
Fighters are hardly useless. Comparing them strictly core-wise, they're (typically- I said typically!) better then paladins, rangers, and monks in combat. It's just that magic is so good that they practically make regular melee and ranged combat redundant.

This is why I've left them by the wayside for ToB classes. Fighters are plenty balanced for D&D and not at all useless, but ToB matches up to the power levels of casters better.

Crow
2007-09-10, 01:22 PM
The thing is, most people don't take advantage of all the options available to a fighter. If you want to just stand there toe to toe and slog t out, of course a barbarian is going to be a bit better at it. But you have to look at it from another perspective too;

Almost all of those feats give you a +4 on the attempt to do whatever it is you're trying to do. This cancels out the bonus that the barbarian is going to get on the action due to his Mighty Rage, which he only gets once reaching 20th level.

The barbarian will not be able to offset everything the fighter is capable of doing. Even the Specialization and Greater Specialization offsets the additional damage the Barbarian will be inflicting.

He gets a little more bonus to hit, and a will save bonus, and that is it, in combat.

The thing I really think needs to be fixed for fighters is that they need some class skills so they can do something outside of combat! Again I need to reiterate also, that the casters need to be powered down, rather than the fighter powered up. We'll see how 4.0 does, but I won't hold my breath.

Chris_Chandler
2007-09-10, 01:28 PM
I like the fighter just fine, find them more viable than just 2 levels and see them as productive members of a well rounded team. I understand the inherent strengths in spellcasting, and have advocated from early on that fighters would do a lot better if they had saves like a monk. It's simple, painless, and in-flavor, to boot.

A fighter can be the most effective combat role with any one single role, or they can be very effective in about 4-6 roles, over the course of a career. Even without feat optimization, fighters are tough enough to fill roles on a need-to basis.

The exemplary weapon supremacy (and alternate PHBII choices) rules make a strong argument for more fighter levels. 19 feats means that you can take the specialist route, and still pick up battlefield control and archery, or 2 other campaign specific roles. Barbarians and paladins have a very tough time controlling the battlefield (without completely sacrificing their other focus), and rangers can't take the tank role without sacrifice. Sure, rangers and scouts make good mobile archers. Of course, a paladin can become unhittable. Yes barbarians can turn single combats into clouds of blood. Clerics make great tanks, good stationary weapons platforms, and Druids can outdo any class with offensive melee capability. Only the fighter can do each and every one of these tasks, without having to depend on specific criteria, and without dedicating spell slots. They absolutely depend on their other teammates to keep them alive. Cleric buffs, wizard party-buffs, and bard music turn fighters into death incarnate. Don't think of it as helping your gimp friend out, but giving him an edge!

My personal favorite fighter builds are always multitaskers, "smart" fighters who control swarms, but have tools to handle heavy hitters, or reatreating forces. Ranged combat brings the fighter to the battle quicker than not, and realistical works fine versus the flying opponent, even taking range into account. Weapon and feat choices that allow the fighter to attack throughout the round really give a great amount of "incidental" power to the fighter. Of course a fighter (or any class, for that matter), has a tough time pulling off a full attack in a realistic combat situation, but Combat Reflexes and it's cousins really open up a lot of options. Karmic Strike + sidestep means never having to take a full attack yourself.

Crow
2007-09-10, 01:30 PM
This is why I've left them by the wayside for ToB classes. Fighters are plenty balanced for D&D and not at all useless, but ToB matches up to the power levels of casters better.

My problem with ToB is the horrible, horrible mechanics and flavor.

The flavor is just not my cup of tea, as I have said before. To which everyone says, "just change the flavor".

Which is fine.

The problem is that the mechanics are horrible as well. They are quite well-balanced, and they accomplish mostly what they intend, that I will concede. The problem is that they feel too much like spellcasting due to the way they are implemented.

If it was me, I would have divided the maneuvers into twenty levels. At each level you would get to choose a maneuver, stance, or counter of that level, and use it as much as you feel like it. The only class that doesn't have a piece of cake refresh is the Swordsage, otherwise it's just an arbitrary pause-button on your maneuvers.

I could understand if it was "You're tired from pulling all those maneuvers, so you need to rest a minute or so." But a quick prayer, a flourish with your weapon and all is well again? What?

Thinker
2007-09-10, 01:31 PM
The moral of the story: The fighter is only useless if the DM makes it that way. WotC is biased to full casters, but that doesn't mean every situation can be solved with a single spell. When that happens, it's a good sign your DM is not very creative and can be easily manipulated by the players. :smallyuk:

It also means the DM has to have everything be new and unique, just to counter the full casters.

Kantolin
2007-09-10, 03:10 PM
First of all, my comment string was aimed at this quoted statement:


Hmmm, fighters are boooooorinnnnggg...

I mean, no matter how powerful they are, they can do exactly two things: move action + attack action or full attack.

Therefore, I gave a core list of things a fighter can do that tends to be more than move + attack action.

If the comment is 'fighters are underpowered' then.. yes. We know this. This point has been conceeded over and over again, and is in fact being conceeded now: Fighters are underpowered.

Now, that fighters don't have options available to themselves is incorrect, especially when compared to other melee units. I'm simply using core as an example, since it's the easiest one to make.

So, nonetheless... to glance at your points.


Disarm is blatantly inferior to trip in every way, shape, and form.

Trip is a strength or dexterity check. Disarm is an attack roll. Therefore, all things considered equal, Disarm is infinitely more simple and reliable to do than Trip. In addition, as you can disarm a brooch, necklace, or pair of goggles, being capable of disarming someone's spell component pouch or holy symbol seems quite reasonable. Plus finally, you can trip someone, and with improved trip's additional attack, disarm them. With an additional penalty. Ensures they're staying nice and put there.


Trip is only good if you focus your build on it, thus making you a one trick pony. In addition, as soon as you hit high levels the average monster size starts going through the roof (literally.)

'Focus your build' being 'Takes improved trip'? Most fighters are increasing strength regardless, and if anyone can afford to spend two feats two get improved trip without particularly skewing their build, it's the fighter. Especially the core fighter.


Grapple? Freedom of Movement. The entire thing is negated by one spell. ONE SPELL.

Yeah, Freedom of Movement snuffs grappling builds. Of course, once again, grappling is a pair of feats - you can grapple and still have your power attack to fall back on. Personally, the single defense against rings of freedom of movement is that you can sunder them, but not a ton you can do about that. Of course, almost all units who are in a grapple are pretty much incapacitated, so when the enemy doesn't have that /one spell/, you can take them out of combat with grapple. :P Every enemy you fight is not likely to have freedom of movement, if for no reason than they're not clerics.

Edit: And yes, we're aware that a spellcaster can beat a fighter. The question then becomes, can this /particular/ spellcaster beat a fighter?


Bull Rush is situational. I.E., good when you're next to cliffs

Very situational indeed, which is why I mentioned it. Still, it's something that can come up - it's one feat regardless if you've already got power attack, which a lot of fighters do. Even if you don't do every one of these things, you still have them there as options to grab one or two of them. And depending on your party, forcing the opponent to soak multiple attacks of opportunity is nifty.


Sunder? Only good against foes with weapons. Which really is... other Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers perhaps....

Hey, you can sunder other objects as well. While not all do, and while you do have other options available to you, clerics tend to have their holy symbols just staring you in the face with a target.


Overrun? Are you serious?

Overrun is mobility, which can be useful in combat, but it does this mobility while also making your target prone for your party members (or you yourself) to gank. Therefore, it does something - and something which is useful, too.


No, he doesn't. A Fighter is required to focus his build on a single task to be viable, whether that focus is on being a charge monkey,

Which, especially in core, requires no feats. Maybe power attack?


being a trip monkey,

Expertise and trip?


or being an arrow monkey.

Now, granted, there are a multitude of archery feats. The (core) ones I'd focus on are Point blank shot and Rapid shot, personally. The fighter can hop into these and perform them with efficiency - so hey, you have options, they're fun options, and they're options that tend to contribute.


Ideally, the Fighter should be 1/4 of the groups power. Not 1/8. Not 1/20. Not 1/100. And the Wizard should not be 90% of a late game groups combat power. But he is.

Now, this I agree with. Fighters are simply not as good as wizards - none of the above special attacks are nearly as useful as being a wizard, a fact which becomes more and more pronounced when you reach high levels. Everyone in this topic, once again, is fully aware of this fact: We know.

Now then, as the opening poster is aiming, the topic can continue to, 'How to have fun while playing a fighter'. ^_^ Yeeks.

And, as one last quick note from a little later in the topic:


Unfortunately most encounters are not against spellcasters. It is against creatures with spell-like abilities which do not require components (unless you're a warlock )

In addition, a unit who focuses on two-handed weaponry is now punching you if in a grapple. That can be extremely useful to be able to force.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-10, 03:52 PM
Three things to make fighters better: Useful high level feats, no dead levels, nerf high level spellcaster, because it's broke, and any non-full caster gets the shaft, not only fighters.

Actually, I'm working on these three things right now.

Indon
2007-09-10, 04:00 PM
Fighter buff proposal:

At 3'rd level and every level thereafter, the Fighter can choose to increase the bonus of a Fighter feat he already has (out of a limited list, of course, there would no doubt be feats that would break this), if it provides a bonus, by 1. Maybe cap the amount of bonuses that can be applied to a single feat to 3 or something.

Thinker
2007-09-10, 04:01 PM
Fighter buff proposal:

At 3'rd level and every level thereafter, the Fighter can choose to increase the bonus of a Fighter feat he already has (out of a limited list, of course, there would no doubt be feats that would break this), if it provides a bonus, by 1. Maybe cap the amount of bonuses that can be applied to a single feat to 3 or something.

Or maybe cap it at 1/3 the character's level for the bonus so that at level 3 Weapon Focus can grant +2 attack and at level 20 it can offer a +7 bonus.

Indon
2007-09-10, 04:04 PM
Or maybe cap it at 1/3 the character's level for the bonus so that at level 3 Weapon Focus can grant +2 attack and at level 20 it can offer a +7 bonus.

I like. It allows specialization, but not total specialization.

jjpickar
2007-09-10, 04:13 PM
I find a lot of the fun of fighters is that they are simple to make. You don't have to pick a ton of skills, spells or even maneuvers when it comes down to it. You don't have to analyze every class feature and every spell for potential use or uselessness. You pick some feats but this is much simpler. All you have to do is decide whether you want to trip, stab, shoot, grapple, react, etc. better and pick the appropriate feat. Then all thats left to do is pick up a weapon and start whacking away. No fuss and no mess but lots of fun.

tannish2
2007-09-10, 04:27 PM
I love fighter-types, but I don't use pure fighter. There just aren't enough feats to make it worthwhile to take a fighter to 20. I tend to use 2-4 levels of fighter on the way to a martial PrC...mixed with whatever else suits my fancy at the time.

exactly.
swashbuckler is good, dervish is fun(for dual weilding or high mobility), 2 or 4 levels of fighter depending on how much im focusing on optimization hexblade(or paladin/pious templar)+rog(or monk) is good for wizard resistance+skill variety, and then onece i have that im free to play my fighter and ignore (or respond to) the wizards/clerics repeated attempts to dominate/fry/melt/disentigrate/bake me.

then theres master thrower cheese if im feeling annoyed with the DM or other players in my group, or exotic weapon master if i want to be weird

tainsouvra
2007-09-10, 04:37 PM
I play in a Forgotten Realms high magic campaign where I have a 14th level PURE CORE fighter who manages to contribute as much as the Wizard AND the Cleric, if not more. If being a full caster is the only way to be useful in your games, the DM sucks and I feel bad for the other players. The argument that runs that the Fighter is completely outshined by a Cleric or Wizard relies on two assumptions:
The Wizard/Cleric are making an attempt to be as effective as they can, rather than just playing around.
The DM is not going out of his way to hose spellcasters or artifically buff Fighters. When those are both true, Fighters do, in fact, get outshined by that level. This does not mean they are useless in a pure sense, but only that they are completely outshined in any role they can take. Obviously, in your game, one or both of those is not the case. That's a good thing for your group's mutual enjoyment, since obviously that's the way you like it, however it is not in any way relevant to a discussion of class balance nor does it make a group that does not play your way a poor group.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-10, 05:20 PM
I'm fond of this fighter rebuild, (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/fighter) myself, although I find the rest of his total system rebuild not to my tastes.

As to the subject at hand, my first character was a straight fighter. This was very early on in 3e, and the DM liked to keep players from reading the DMG at all, so prestige classes weren't an option. Even if they were, I don't think I'd have had more fun than I did with that character. I spent skill points cross-class left and right to pick up some usefulness, and I'm glad I did; the Sense Motive helped when the party rogue was trying to bluff me into doing stupid stuff so they could off me. :smallamused:

Neon Knight
2007-09-10, 05:34 PM
How does focusing on tripping make you a one-trick pony? You need to have a good strength score, which synergizes with almost everything else a fighter does! Disarm is based upon attack bonus, so even finesse fighters can do it as well. Taking two measily feats to get either improved trip or improved disarm is a drop in the bucket if you're a fighter. And what is the feat you're required to take to qualify? Combat Reflexes, which isn't as bad as being forced to take something like Great Fortitude. You have feats to spare...being a tripper doesn't make you a one-trick pony. Not by a longshot.


That, my friend, is no tripping build. Reach Weapon + Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes is just the bare bones. You need something to threaten adjacent opponents, AOO generating feats like Hold the Line, knockdown, and it's nice to have stand-still. Extended Reach is also desirable.

Tripping is actually one of the stronger fighter options. Against humanoid weapon wielding foes of similar size, it works and darn good. However, take a look at high level monster opponents. Massive strength scores. Also, anything that's incorporeal, sufficiently big and/or strong, anything with four legs, ranged attackers who keep their distance will all slaughter you.



Well first of all, not everyone can cast that spell. Also, grappling can be a way to inflict damage to enemies even if they have a nigh un-hittable AC. Anybody caught in a grapple can't cast spells with somatic components, and must first have any focus or materials required in hand to cast. Freedom of Movement requires materials, and has a somatic component, so unless they got the spell up ahead of time, it's a non-issue.


Ring of freedom of movement. A commonly purchased magic item. Grapple's main woe lies in getting to the target, which with flying wizards can be difficult, and the fact that many monster foes have insane grapple modifiers.



But the Rogue probably had to become a "one-trick pony" by your standards to do so, as opposed to the fighter, which would have the feats to spare.



Not really. Manyshot or Greater Manyshot plus a source of bonus damage, and their gold. Now, getting that sneak attack or skirmish damage can be a bit of a challenge, but if they do it, Fighter Archer is usually outclassed.




We've never had somebody right next to a cliff, but I've used it to cause an enemy to provoke attacks of opportunity from multiple party members at once. Oh wait, teamwork isn't as important as maximum lethality, so nevermind.


Again with the ad hominem attacks. Le sigh. Once again, the situation you describe is rare. The AOO gained by the team member must outdo the damage you could have done had you assaulted him. And trust me, shock troopers/ mounted chargers can do that without even trying.

Doy you play with parties composed exclusively of other fighters? I know that throwing an enemy amongst the rogue and wizard hanging in the back would be a bad idea most of the time.



Or Balors, or Solars, or any number of enemies. PC classes aren't the only people that use weapons. There are tons of creatures in the MM that wield weaponry.


There are also tons that don't like Dragons, Pit Fiends, Nightshades... We could get into a monster listing fight if you want, but somehow I don't think that will be helpful. The point is this:
You notice something about things like Disarm, Trip, and Sunder? There are commonly encountered conditions were the ability is completely 100% negated. That's bad. A good wizard can select a list of spells that can pretty much cover any occurrence.




I've never liked the rules for feinting, and I've always assumed that as a natural part of combat, your character is going to be using all manner of feints and parries.

Overrun on the other hand is all kinds of useful. For example, if the BBEG has a minion protecting him and blocking your pathway. You can plow straight through the bastard and get to the bad guy, and attack.


Or you can slaughter the minion and thus take him out of the fight completely. Remember, in DnD combat, the sooner a foe is dead, the less harm he will do. Defensive options just aren't powerful enough to compensate for the longer time it takes to kill him.

Please note: When you Overrun, you invoke an AOO on yourself. Period.




How does focusing on any of these options make the fighter unable to focus on any of the others? I think the problem is that you are so used to other classes needing to do this, that you forget a fighter can do it all if he wants to.

Disarm - Attack bonus, strength, low strength but high dex can do it too
Trip - Strength
Grapple - Attack bonus, strength
Ranged - Attack bonus, dexterity, but strength can be used to increase damage output with a composite bow
Bull Rush - Strength
Sunder - Attack bonus, strength
Overrun - Strength

Please tell me why doing any one of those precludes you from doing anything else...



A proper trip build requires much more than you assume. While it is true Sunder, Overrun, Bull Rush, Grapple, and Disarm do not require much. They are, however, so limited in application as to be non note worthy and a waste of feats in general.

So, in truth, none of these prevents you from doing anything else. They just don;t combine into anything noteworthy.



The problem is the wizard, not the fighter.

Nope. The Fighter has a dependence on the full attack to do his damage. That is a massive flaw.

Pounce builds and Shock Troopers build get around this, but they depend on the charge, which can still be shut down relatively easily. A Third level Knight's threat range can, for instance, block their abilities totally.

Dervish Builds can move their speed while full attacking a certain number of times per day, which is good.

ToB classes depend mostly on Standard actions, and are thus the best of all.



Trip is a strength or dexterity check. Disarm is an attack roll. Therefore, all things considered equal, Disarm is infinitely more simple and reliable to do than Trip. In addition, as you can disarm a brooch, necklace, or pair of goggles, being capable of disarming someone's spell component pouch or holy symbol seems quite reasonable. Plus finally, you can trip someone, and with improved trip's additional attack, disarm them. With an additional penalty. Ensures they're staying nice and put there.


Not really. They can, you know, stand up. And pick up their weapons. They'll take an AOO, but that's better than taking a full attack with a -4 to AC. As noted, tripping is powerful, but limited in scope and application, and it requires more dedication than you think.



'Focus your build' being 'Takes improved trip'? Most fighters are increasing strength regardless, and if anyone can afford to spend two feats two get improved trip without particularly skewing their build, it's the fighter. Especially the core fighter.


See above comments on tripping builds.



Yeah, Freedom of Movement snuffs grappling builds. Of course, once again, grappling is a pair of feats - you can grapple and still have your power attack to fall back on. Personally, the single defense against rings of freedom of movement is that you can sunder them, but not a ton you can do about that. Of course, almost all units who are in a grapple are pretty much incapacitated, so when the enemy doesn't have that /one spell/, you can take them out of combat with grapple. :P Every enemy you fight is not likely to have freedom of movement, if for no reason than they're not clerics.


The Ring of Freedom of Movement is one of the most commonly purchased magical items, mainly because it so neatly negates what was once a weakness. I'd like to note that a Wizard who let you get close enough to sunder his ring is probably not in the optimized range. Optimization is part build and part execution of the strategy that makes the most of the builds abilities.



Edit: And yes, we're aware that a spellcaster can beat a fighter. The question then becomes, can this /particular/ spellcaster beat a fighter?


If he's a full spell caster and decently optimized, the answer is almost always yes.



Very situational indeed, which is why I mentioned it. Still, it's something that can come up - it's one feat regardless if you've already got power attack, which a lot of fighters do. Even if you don't do every one of these things, you still have them there as options to grab one or two of them. And depending on your party, forcing the opponent to soak multiple attacks of opportunity is nifty.


Once more, see my comments above.




Hey, you can sunder other objects as well. While not all do, and while you do have other options available to you, clerics tend to have their holy symbols just staring you in the face with a target.


Here's the one thing that utterly makes Sunder one of the least used abilities in the game. It destroys potential loot. In a game where your power level is tied to your items and cash, that is a great sin.



Overrun is mobility, which can be useful in combat, but it does this mobility while also making your target prone for your party members (or you yourself) to gank. Therefore, it does something - and something which is useful, too.


See above comments.




Which, especially in core, requires no feats. Maybe power attack?


Charge builds come in three flavors. Pounce Builds, which use the ability pounce to get full attacks on charges. Shock Trooper Builds, which focus on getting ridiculous power attack damage bonuses on charges, and Mounted Charge builds, which use the lance and feats like Spirited Charge to deal massive damage.

Pounce is one of the easier ones. Doesn't require too many feats. Shock Trooper requires a couple of feats to qualify for the Tactical Feat Shock Trooper, and then their are a couple of feats that help it out too. Mounted builds I'm not too familiar with, but they take a couple of Mounted Combat Feats, and in truth Paladins do them better due to their cool mounts.



Expertise and trip?


See above comments on trip builds.



Now, granted, there are a multitude of archery feats. The (core) ones I'd focus on are Point blank shot and Rapid shot, personally. The fighter can hop into these and perform them with efficiency - so hey, you have options, they're fun options, and they're options that tend to contribute.


Not really. Fighters can't get good sources of bonus damage like Scouts and Rogues can, which is the key to an archery build. And Rapid shot is inferior to Manyshot and Greater Manyshot.



Three things to make fighters better: Useful high level feats, no dead levels, nerf high level spellcaster, because it's broke, and any non-full caster gets the shaft, not only fighters.

Actually, I'm working on these three things right now.

This would help, but does not solve all the problems. See Above.


I find a lot of the fun of fighters is that they are simple to make. You don't have to pick a ton of skills, spells or even maneuvers when it comes down to it. You don't have to analyze every class feature and every spell for potential use or uselessness. You pick some feats but this is much simpler. All you have to do is decide whether you want to trip, stab, shoot, grapple, react, etc. better and pick the appropriate feat. Then all thats left to do is pick up a weapon and start whacking away. No fuss and no mess but lots of fun.

Um, no. A Fighter who takes feats willy nilly will be sub optimal. Because feats are weak, you must select each one carefully to be anywhere near valuable.

And Maneuvers are actually pathetically easy to use. ToB classes are pretty much optimal out of the box. I mean, the Crusader receives maneuvers at random and still manages to rock. Each maneuver is so useful and versatile that very rarely do you have to pick maneuvers carefully.

Neon Knight
2007-09-10, 06:28 PM
My problem with ToB is the horrible, horrible mechanics and flavor.

The flavor is just not my cup of tea, as I have said before. To which everyone says, "just change the flavor".

Which is fine.

The problem is that the mechanics are horrible as well. They are quite well-balanced, and they accomplish mostly what they intend, that I will concede. The problem is that they feel too much like spellcasting due to the way they are implemented.

If it was me, I would have divided the maneuvers into twenty levels. At each level you would get to choose a maneuver, stance, or counter of that level, and use it as much as you feel like it. The only class that doesn't have a piece of cake refresh is the Swordsage, otherwise it's just an arbitrary pause-button on your maneuvers.

I could understand if it was "You're tired from pulling all those maneuvers, so you need to rest a minute or so." But a quick prayer, a flourish with your weapon and all is well again? What?

The Adaptive Style feat allows the Swordsage to recharge all his maneuvers with a full round action, which is a big step up from his previously held One Full Round for One Maneuver recharge.

The problem with your system, and the reason for the maneuver expend/recharge thing, is that if they could, people would just spam Strike of Perfect Clarity and other high level maneuvers over and over again. Certain maneuvers would be overpowered if they could be used repeatedly. In addition, by forcing people to waste a round recharging, most people will use all of their available maneuvers before recharging, which helps alleviate the "I Power Attack it, for the 5th round in a row!" complaint people have about the fighter.

Describing your character's recharge is actually something I enjoy, since I describe it as different things for each character.

For example: My Knight (Who was a Warblade 6, with no levels in the silly Knight class) character would occasionally step back from a battle, salute his foe, and ask him to surrender. He was an altruistic optimist, who fought only if he truly felt lives were at risk. Whenever he was stepping back and asking to cease the violence, it refocused his mind and reminded him of his true purpose. OOC, I was recharging my maneuvers. In character, I was reinforcing the character's personality.

Another example: I had a dexterous shield maiden type. Her CON was either 11 or 12. I can't remember which. Anywho, whenever I recharged maneuvers OOC, IC I described it as her taking a step back to catch her breath. She wasn't exhausted to the point of collapse, she merely needed a few seconds to reorient herself and to catch her breath. It reinforced the fact that she didn't have that much endurance for a fighter type.

Third example: I had a high INT, low WIS Swashbuckler type (Swashbuckler 3, Warblade 4.) When he wasn't pressed, he was cool and collected, but he had a hot temper and easily lost focus when under duress. Whenever I recharged maneuvers OOC, IC I described him as taking a step back to regain his focus and cool down before he lost control.

So the recharge mechanic can actually be useful and pretty cool, at least, I think so.

EDIT: Whoops, double post. Thought someone had replied, and really wanted to reply to the quoted post.

jjpickar
2007-09-10, 07:19 PM
Karskin: You're arguments are extraordinarily well crafted and are quite true for the most part. However, you are talking theoretically. Inside a vacuum as it were. What I wish to convey with this thread is the sense of fun already enjoyed by fighter players. Note the past tense, mind you. On the spreadsheet the Fighter class is horribly inferior to the wizard. But at the gaming table the field is much more level. Since it is hearsay, gaming table discussions are not useful in debates about class balance and other rules oriented stuff. This thread has nothing to do with that. I want to hear about what has happened rather than what is likely to happen in a vacuum. I understand you're points and concede them but I would also like to point out that I've played wizards that died to often, druids that were useless, even clerics who were disabled in the first round of combat and fighter who totally rawked all at various levels low and high with a myriad of gaming groups. That is what this thread is about.

NullAshton
2007-09-10, 07:24 PM
Wasn't the point of the topic to talk about cool fighters you've made in the past, not the mechanical inferiority of fighters?

KoDT69
2007-09-10, 07:29 PM
Obviously, in your game, one or both of those is not the case. That's a good thing for your group's mutual enjoyment, since obviously that's the way you like it, however it is not in any way relevant to a discussion of class balance nor does it make a group that does not play your way a poor group.

Incorrect. The full casters of my group are decently optimized. I'm just very creative. Nowhere on the fighter class description does it say "and this stuff is all you can do so don't try anything not outlined here". Also, the point we're debating is not balance, it's that the fighter is NOT USELESS.

Something I would also like to point out is that no matter what the RAW says, any encounter we discuss is still some arbitrary scenario created by some DM. Every encounter is different, as is every campaign. Just because the RAW does not specifically state a fighter is capable of something dos not mean it's impossible. Likewise, just because a spell exists does not mean the Wizard is guaranteed to have it, much less have it pepared. So just because I have a 14th level fighter that consistently and meaningfully contributes to the campaign does not mean the full caster players suck, it means I have good ideas that their current spell arsenal can't outshine me with.

The fact that WotC makes every skill and class feature into an equivalent arcane spell is complete and utter crap. Most of them are not core anyway. I saw that one person on the forum basically said "if it's not a full caster it's not worth my time". Yeah, sure, whatever dude. I'm just glad my group doesn't have that type of attitude.

Flame me for this if you will, but I wasted $30 on the Tome of Battle. I saw so much god stuff about it I picked it up and read most of the thing before passing judgement. The maneuvers do seem too much like magic to me. Really, why does a Swordsage get twice as many maneuvers as the Warblade? Most of them aren't really that great to begin with... :smallyuk:

jjpickar
2007-09-10, 07:29 PM
NullAshton: Yep.
Like my Greatsword, mustachioed, full plate clad fighter whose corrosive sword "bled" blood-like acid. He also had a helmet like Sir Bedivere's:smallbiggrin:

Neon Knight
2007-09-10, 07:45 PM
Karskin: You're arguments are extraordinarily well crafted and are quite true for the most part. However, you are talking theoretically. Inside a vacuum as it were. What I wish to convey with this thread is the sense of fun already enjoyed by fighter players. Note the past tense, mind you. On the spreadsheet the Fighter class is horribly inferior to the wizard. But at the gaming table the field is much more level. Since it is hearsay, gaming table discussions are not useful in debates about class balance and other rules oriented stuff. This thread has nothing to do with that. I want to hear about what has happened rather than what is likely to happen in a vacuum. I understand you're points and concede them but I would also like to point out that I've played wizards that died to often, druids that were useless, even clerics who were disabled in the first round of combat and fighter who totally rawked all at various levels low and high with a myriad of gaming groups. That is what this thread is about.


:smalleek: :smallredface: :smallfrown: *shame*

I've been offtopic. I'll try to stay on topic from now on.

I had a Hobgoblin Fighter that was awesome. Due to Hobgobs racial bonuses to Move Silently, a high INT, and a few extra skill points, I could sneak just as well as our Rogue. It was a blast, and it drove the rogue crazy IC and OOC.

Dhavaer
2007-09-10, 07:52 PM
I had a Hobgoblin Fighter that was awesome. Due to Hobgobs racial bonuses to Move Silently, a high INT, and a few extra skill points, I could sneak just as well as our Rogue. It was a blast, and it drove the rogue crazy IC and OOC.

Heh. I had an Illusionist who did the same to the Rogue/Ranger with a Cat familiar and alternate class features. Yay unusual skills!

jjpickar
2007-09-10, 08:14 PM
What's everyone's favorite mount for a charging fighter?

Mine: Half Dragon Rhino.

Jerthanis
2007-09-10, 08:17 PM
I really like Fighter/Barbarian multiclasses, but that could be because I've been reading a lot of Robert E. Howard lately. It gives enough bonus feats to complete whatever you're going for, and give the breathing room for Extra Rage and Extend Rage if you need them. Unfortunately, eventually I find myself not wanting to continue taking levels in Fighter.

However, my real passion for full base attack classes is the Ranger and their sexy, sexy skillpoints though. I like filling a skillmonkey role while also being a darn good archer, being able to use cure wands, and still be okay at melee if forced into it.

The thing I like best about playing a fighter type is the rush of charging in when the odds are against me, and doing so full well with the knowledge that I could die, but trusting in my armor, and trusting the blade in my hand to see me through. While the spellcasters' players are checking and rechecking their layered defensive buffs, I'm ready and rarin' for some bloodshed.

I also play almost exclusively the levels of 2nd-9th, so I've never really found any serious disconnect between the things the members of the party can do.

TimeWizard
2007-09-10, 08:28 PM
Time to dance naked in the rain! Not only did I play a Samurai from CWar, I dual-wielded! And I enjoyed every minute! There I was, a spinning, whirling, intimidating, twin bladed storm of death! Slash Slash!

[/awesome]

jjpickar
2007-09-10, 08:31 PM
I too have played a CWar Samurai. Loads of fun to roleplay. It was up to 7th level so he didn't suck in combat either.

Kantolin
2007-09-10, 09:26 PM
A... right. On topic.

A fun thing to do as a fighter, honestly, is coming up with nifty combinations with the rest of your party. Coming up with them helps the 'Fighter-as-warlord' ideal, which is also a plus.

An example of this is: Have the party wizard use invisibility on you (Or simply go invisible) prior to the battle beginning. It's amazing how many enemies will charge a seemingly-unguarded wizard, especially if your wizard attempts to cast a spell that requires one round or more of casting time... then back into visibility you blink, for free butchery.

Then, of course, the fun of flanking an opponent with the party's rogue. Trip them up, and trust the rogue to be able to get behind them. Now you've got the flank - feel free to boost that power attack - and the rogue's happy, as the rogue gets free sneak attacks. Everybody wins.

Another fun option, although one that's best done without there being a Ranger or Druid in the party, is to be the animal handler - Fighters get that in class, after all, and from a mechanical basis, dogs are cheap. Train up a slew of dogs to keep guard in shifts, or the like. Or just entertaining companionship. If you're a halfling or a gnome, you can even ride the dogs. ^_^

Danin
2007-09-11, 12:44 AM
I rarely ever play mages or the like, I just don't have too much fun with them. I truly enjoy playing fighters and mele classes more. All these debates on what is stronger really doesnt matter all that much in the face of the players. At my group I am one of two people who seem to have a talent with optemization, the other 7 tend to have only a tenuous grasp on the value of certin abilities. This allows me to play a fighter only moderately optemized and comptet with, if not outshine, the party mage. I once made a fully optemized fighter and managed to ... well, lets just say the rest of the party grew frustrated when I fought.

Fighters are just plain more fun. Well, except for maybe my gnomish illusionist...

Turcano
2007-09-11, 01:35 AM
What's everyone's favorite mount for a charging fighter?

Mine: Half Dragon Rhino.

If you're rich enough/high enough level, few things beat a dire tiger as a charging mount. Bring on the improved grab/pounce/rake action!

Chris_Chandler
2007-09-11, 08:18 AM
Handle Animal is an excellent skill for the fighter, I agree, even with your woodland buddies in the mix. I've honestly found that druids are pretty focused on their pets, and not the mules or guard dogs. The fighter can be nearly as effective as the druid, and has better resources. Riding dogs with barding are most excellent.

I like riding dogs for a small character mount, the traditional warhorse, though I like the light better than the heavy (mobility vs power), and griffons, because, well, they're freaking griffons!

I often find that I need my fighter to have high ability scores, in toto, rather than just physical scores and the 14 in Int for the expertise tree. To that end, Steadfast Determination (PHBII) is really one of the best feats for a fighter out there, because it completely allows me to have a big strong fast smart charismatic fighter, and that means I can invest in the Leadership feat without feeling penalized by a low Cha score. I've argued in the past that fighters ought to get this for free, but I understand why a character shouldn't be forced to have an army of followers if he doesn't want one.

That being said, one of my favorite characters (a 2e dwarven F/T) had an army of followers that he didn't want.

Dausuul
2007-09-11, 08:38 AM
Handle Animal is an excellent skill for the fighter, I agree, even with your woodland buddies in the mix. I've honestly found that druids are pretty focused on their pets, and not the mules or guard dogs. The fighter can be nearly as effective as the druid, and has better resources. Riding dogs with barding are most excellent.

I like riding dogs for a small character mount, the traditional warhorse, though I like the light better than the heavy (mobility vs power), and griffons, because, well, they're freaking griffons!

Yeah, griffon mounts rule. I just discovered that it's possible to buy them for a mere 8,500 gp. At a move speed of 80, they beat hell out of carpets of flying for style, cost, and performance. My next character might have to be a mounted combat specialist.

Although heavy warhorses are a scary, scary thing at low levels. Those 1d6+4 hooves hurt a lot.

Krursk
2007-09-11, 08:59 AM
I had an Ogre Fighter who wielded a Gargantuan greatsword, due to some feat manipulation. It could also shrink down to Large when I actually wanted tto hit something too

internerdj
2007-09-11, 09:33 AM
If you're rich enough/high enough level, few things beat a dire tiger as a charging mount. Bring on the improved grab/pounce/rake action!
"By the power of Greyskull, I have the power."

psychoticbarber
2007-09-11, 10:07 AM
One of my friends played a devastating Archer build. Sadly, I don't have the sheet so I can't tell you what it was, exactly. I think that's the best fighter character I've ever seen, and that's kind of sad because I've seen a lot of melee fighters in my day, and none of them were particularly interesting or effective.

Keld Denar
2007-09-11, 12:33 PM
My LG character is a melee type. A Fighter 4/Rogue 2/Barbarian 1/Occult Slayer 5/Exotic Weapon Master 1

Sure, it's a little cheesey, but its fun to play. Get some GMW from the table wiz/cleric, get some recitation, got enough non-BAB attack bonus that you can afford to PA for full or near full on top of flurry of strikes. 13th level character pumping out about 220 damage a round on a full attack from 5 hits (3 iterative, 1 flurry, 1 haste). One encounter was 3 HUGE advanced Umber Hulks. Good fort and will saves, tons of HP. Too many HP for a wiz to nuke down. Our 2 party wizards disabled 2 of them with solid fogs, and me and the other buffed to the teeth melee type pumped out the 350ish damage needed to drop the thing. Then we moved on to the next one, then the last one. It was good party team work, but the wizards themselves would have been hardpressed to deal 1050 damage to take out all 3 while in the confines of a cave with burrowing umber hulks.

Another encounter later involved a 1/2 dragon 11 headed hydra. Now this one is one I'm glad my fighter didn't have to face. The shadowcraft mage just illusionary forcecaged it, set up some walls of fire, and we all sang kumba-ya around the bbq. I probably wouldn't have survived it without him, and likewise on the previous encounter. I like to think of it as a symbiotic teamwork relationship. :)

Kami2awa
2007-09-11, 01:58 PM
Just wondering, can you Sunder things with a whip? Because that would be neat.

*lashes somebody from across the room...*

*causing their weapon to disintegrate*

I need a whip.

According to RAW you can sunder with a whip; it deals (nonlethal) slashing damage, and any weapon that deals slashing damage can sunder. I'd say that a sunder with a whip is basically a disarm that smashes the weapon on a hard surface. You can also disarm with a whip as easily as with any other weapon.

I think I'm going to make Greyhawk Jones as a character now...

Serenity
2007-09-11, 02:05 PM
In 3.0, there was a prestige class that let you be Indy and then some. It was very awesome, but I don't think it ever got refurbised for 3.5.

You know what would go a long way towards making fighters more palatable even if it didn't affect their power level at all? Skills. Up his skill points per level to at least 4 and expand his class skills, and he becomes more reasonably able to contribute outside of combat situations. For example, I honestly can't comprehend why Spot/Search/Listen aren't class skills for everybody.

horseboy
2007-09-11, 05:01 PM
The core problem with fighters is one of the core problems with D&D: Hit points.

The trick to play a fun fighter is to play a character that would be fun irregardless of their class. That or lots of self debasing humour. Name yourself Ma-Ti (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway), refer to your pots of giant growth as your Fightagra prescription. With enough black humour everything is funny.

TimeWizard
2007-09-11, 05:20 PM
The core problem with fighters is one of the core problems with D&D: Hit points.

The trick to play a fun fighter is to play a character that would be fun irregardless of their class. That or lots of self debasing humour. Name yourself Ma-Ti (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway), refer to your pots of giant growth as your Fightagra prescription. With enough black humour everything is funny.

Hit points are a core problem? Lucy, you got some a'splaining to do!

Indon
2007-09-11, 05:21 PM
Hit points are a core problem? Lucy, you got some a'splaining to do!

Well, if you like another system, it's certainly a problem.

Personally, I feel the biggest problem with D&D's HP system is that it can be bypassed.

jjpickar
2007-09-11, 05:33 PM
I've found that the fighter's lack of unique and powerful class features is kind of annoying. (Self Promoting of Homebrew alert) I attampted a fix of this a while back with my scaling feats: threadhttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41894

Though all they really do is give the fighter even more available feats:smallbiggrin: .

I would like to know what everyone's favorite fighter race is. I personally like the dwarf.

Indon
2007-09-11, 05:36 PM
Iwould like to know what everyone's favorite fighter race is. I personally like the dwarf.

I'm not attached to any specific race, or even core races. I'm one of the kinds of guys Savage Species was written for.

One of the fighters I really liked, conceptually, was a Troll. I made him as an NPC (but I would've played him in a heartbeat) whose thing was that he hunted down and killed Kraken because he was obsessed with the taste of their meat.

Crow
2007-09-11, 06:19 PM
Human for all my fighters...For the skill point.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 06:40 PM
I don't know anyone who enjoys the fighter class much because they do nothing special. Since their sole ability is bonus feats (things anyone can take), they are more closely related to an NPC class than anything else. Even the Samuri can go through his shouting routine. The fighter also doesn't have any flavor to endear players. It is designed to be generic. The fact that even with access to more feats than any other class Fighters still come up short doesn't help.

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 06:44 PM
I don't know anyone who enjoys the fighter class much because they do nothing special. Since their sole ability is bonus feats (things anyone can take), they are more closely related to an NPC class than anything else. Even the Samuri can go through his shouting routine. The fighter also doesn't have any flavor to endear players. It is designed to be generic. The fact that even with access to more feats than any other class Fighters still come up short doesn't help.

It's because people enjoy being the Badass Normal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.BadassNormal), the one guy in the group of people who can't restructure the universe through force of will. It's fun to be Batman (no, not Logic Ninja Batman). The problem with the fighter is that the Badass Normal loses the Badass part pretty quickly at high levels.

SadisticFishing
2007-09-11, 09:25 PM
What I loved about fighters?

The first two levels :P

Actually, I had a player in one of my campaigns going fighter 20, there are a lot of feats for people who are dual wielding light maces - his damage output was very good on a crit, too. The character was really cool, but then I accidentally killed him (hey, skeletal giant crit is a lot more damage than a CR8 should deal)... and brought him back as undead. It was pretty cool.

horseboy
2007-09-11, 10:54 PM
Hit points are a core problem? Lucy, you got some a'splaining to do!

When shoving 5' of cold, sharp steel through a man's rib cage can't reliably kill him (and your job is wielding said sharp steel). I'd call that a problem.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 10:57 PM
When shoving 5' of cold, sharp steel through a man's rib cage can't reliably kill him (and your job is wielding said sharp steel). I'd call that a problem. Assuming it's something that would be instantly fatal, that would be a coup de grace, which bypasses hit points.
If it's not something that would be instantly fatal, then I don't see the problem with surviving it.

horseboy
2007-09-12, 01:12 AM
Assuming it's something that would be instantly fatal, that would be a coup de grace, which bypasses hit points.
If it's not something that would be instantly fatal, then I don't see the problem with surviving it.

No, that would be a "crit". Which only does double damage. :smallmad:

Krursk
2007-09-12, 06:13 AM
I would like to know what everyone's favorite fighter race is. I personally like the dwarf.

Ogres. I can use stupidly large swords at a +2 LA. I'm happy with that.

On a related topic, my Ogre Fighter is looking for a way to get his Greatsword to be a touch attack. Can anybody think of anything?

Zincorium
2007-09-12, 06:18 AM
Ogres. I can use stupidly large swords at a +2 LA. I'm happy with that.

On a related topic, my Ogre Fighter is looking for a way to get his Greatsword to be a touch attack. Can anybody think of anything?

Really it's the racial hit dice that hurt, along with the LA it makes it a dicey prospect.

As far as the touch attack, the brilliant energy enchantment is pretty close but not perfect, the spell wraithstrike does exactly what you want, not sure where it's located though.

Green Bean
2007-09-12, 06:19 AM
No, that would be a "crit". Which only does double damage. :smallmad:

It's only a crit if you describe it as such.

Irreverent Fool
2007-09-12, 06:36 AM
Playing a weaker class does not make you a better roleplayer, or cooler in any way, shape or form.

Playing a fully optimized character with no apparent weaknesses does not make you a better gamer, or cooler in any way, shape or form.

I'm not disagreeing with you.


I like fighters. I wish they were good, I really do. If you go two levels into it for your bonus feats and then begin leveling up as a Warblade, you can still play your gritty fighter sort. Heck, you might even have some effective options available to you other than 'big two-handed weapon, power attack for full'.

I just started a 'dual wielder' Fighter 2/Warblade 2. The only time he actually attacks with both weapons is during his 'Wolf Fang Strike' or 'Steel Wind' strikes (the latter not actually requiring a second weapon). It's working well so far and I get to keep the warrior-esque concept I had originally designed for the character.

internerdj
2007-09-12, 07:33 AM
I would like to know what everyone's favorite fighter race is.
Human for the extra feat...ok just kidding. I love to have a dwarven fighter.

Dausuul
2007-09-12, 07:34 AM
Human for the extra feat...ok just kidding. I love to have a dwarven fighter.

Human for the extra feat and skill points... and I'm not kidding. Human is my favorite pick for just about any class.

Of course, like a lot of folks on these boards, I tend to use fighter as a dip class rather than a career. If I'm taking fighter levels, it means I have a concept that requires a lot of feats, so I'm probably already playing a human just for that.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-12, 08:14 AM
Gnome. Max Ride and get a ring of Feather-Falling then ride the Druid/Cleric's summons for all you're worth. This is the truest incarnation of Awesome.

AdversusVeritas
2007-09-12, 08:50 AM
Disarm is blatantly inferior to trip in every way, shape, and form.Depends. I'd rather disarm a Cleric of his holy symbol than trip him.


Sunder? Only good against foes with weapons.That's actually the least useful application of sunder IMO. That weapon your a sundering could sell for a pretty penny. Use sunder on things like spell component pouches or holy symbols instead.


Which really is... other Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers perhaps....Add Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids (until they wildshape), and Bards to that list since they have equipment ripe for the sundering as well.

Serenity
2007-09-12, 10:31 AM
By the time you're close enough to a wizard to attack his spell component pouch, wouldn't it be better to stab him instead?

Thinker
2007-09-12, 10:37 AM
By the time you're close enough to a wizard to attack his spell component pouch, wouldn't it be better to stab him instead?

Only if you can kill him in one hit (which should be the only reason you wish to get that close to the wizard).

Kyle
2007-09-12, 10:44 AM
My currant character is a Fighter 7/Kensai 10.

I had to take the Skill Prodigy feat from the 'Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide' [which was approved by WoTC so my GM said it was legal] at first level which allowed me to treat Concentration and Diplomacy as class skills and let me take Kensai PrC as quickly as possible. I really didn't want to be a Paladin or Samurai.

Anyways, this character has been great fun. He has his failings, yes--saves aren't great, and I haven't rolled the greatest for hit-points--but it's not as though the rest of the party is carrying him. In combat, he's always first through the breach, bastard sword swinging, painting the room with the gore of his fallen foes.

Nor does he have no role outside of combat. By happy conincedence, my character concept had him as a bit of a zealot of St. Cuthbert, and that church plays a rather prominent role in the campaign, making my Fighter the goto guy for dealing with the clergy--as opposed to the Cleric or the Paladin--as well as the one who deals with the local law enforcment the most. Our GM houserulled that Str can be used instead of Chr for intimidate checks, but I'm pretty sure that with max ranks and the kensai bonus, I'm pretty sure that our interrogation sessions would go just as smoothly. I picked up Intimidating Strike at level 16 to make even better use of the skill.

Nor is it just this Fighter that's been fun. I prefer the Fighter over almost every other class, and I eagerly look foward to the 4e Fighters based on what we've been told about Fighters and weapon sytles.

One thing I haven't gotten to do, that I've always wanted to, is play a Fighter focused on mounted combat. Sadly when the campaigns tend towards dungeon crawls, there's not much call for a guy who fights really well from the back of a horse.

AdversusVeritas
2007-09-12, 10:44 AM
By the time you're close enough to a wizard to attack his spell component pouch, wouldn't it be better to stab him instead?*shrug* For the most part, I'd rather spend the rest of my rounds attacking a wizard that has been stripped of his most powerful asset than attacking a wizard that is wounded but still up to his his full spellcasting potential.


Only if you can kill him in one hit (which should be the only reason you wish to get that close to the wizard).Depends on how well he is equipped and how the initiative falls. I've found so far that sundering spell component pouches and holy symbols is well worth getting that close.

Dausuul
2007-09-12, 11:28 AM
One thing I haven't gotten to do, that I've always wanted to, is play a Fighter focused on mounted combat. Sadly when the campaigns tend towards dungeon crawls, there's not much call for a guy who fights really well from the back of a horse.

I hear that. A friend of mine is starting up what may turn out to be the last 3E campaign I ever play in, and I'd love to make a mounted warrior, but it's going to be an urban setting with the occasional dungeon crawl...

Still, maybe a halfling...

magicwalker
2007-09-12, 11:34 AM
Hrmm steal their Black Pearl so they can't cast Energy Bolt on you! Force them to cast 7th Circle Spells!

This is why you should always carry scrolls of Energy Vortex, just in case! AND you should hide your reagent bag in your backpack under your death robes which are bound to you..!

MUAHAHA.

(On topic) My first character back in 2ed was an elf fighter, because he would be harder to hit and get a free weapon proficiency. Score! Currently, I would treat fighter only as a dip for feats.. The class is particularly lack luster compared to the flashy more mechanic heavy stuff that has been coming out...

Krrth
2007-09-12, 11:35 AM
Well, even though it takes a PrC from a third party book (wheel of time), one of the characters I enjoy playing the most is my fighter6/blademaster 7 character. It's always fun to simply declare max damage(x times per day), and really ruin a spell casters day. The character uses a Bastard Sword to great effect.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-12, 11:36 AM
Actually, you should play a mounted specialist in dungeons only if you don't mind being a big obstacle in the middle of your party's track. Since you most likely HAVE to charge to inflict truly significant damage, this means you rush headlong without much support (though a war master's charge adds a nice bonus to this tactic, and makes it MUCH more viable, since extra damage AND having teammates in position is a nice combo), and if a single area effect or big attack hits your ride, you have wasted feats. In general, mounted combat SHOULD be a paladin specialty only, since an average mount is not likely to survive through a fireball.

Telonius
2007-09-12, 11:59 AM
When shoving 5' of cold, sharp steel through a man's rib cage can't reliably kill him (and your job is wielding said sharp steel). I'd call that a problem.

I think that problem is really the issue of, "Just what does a hit point represent?" Personally I consider a hit point to be a relative unit, rather than an absolute one. I describe damage based on what percent of the character's total hit points have been removed, rather than using a set system of (for example) "50 hp of damage means you rupture his kidney." (I houserule-ignore the "save vs massive damage" rolls.)

Dausuul
2007-09-12, 12:00 PM
Actually, you should play a mounted specialist in dungeons only if you don't mind being a big obstacle in the middle of your party's track. Since you most likely HAVE to charge to inflict truly significant damage, this means you rush headlong without much support (though a war master's charge adds a nice bonus to this tactic, and makes it MUCH more viable, since extra damage AND having teammates in position is a nice combo), and if a single area effect or big attack hits your ride, you have wasted feats. In general, mounted combat SHOULD be a paladin specialty only, since an average mount is not likely to survive through a fireball.

Note, however, that a big obstacle in the party's track is also a big obstacle in the monsters' track. If the rest of your party is squishy, that could be a good thing.

Also, druids can have quite sturdy mounts, and at higher levels you can use Leadership to get a cohort mount.

horseboy
2007-09-12, 03:58 PM
Also, druids can be quite sturdy mounts

For an especially disturbing image.

tainsouvra
2007-09-12, 04:31 PM
No, that would be a "crit". Which only does double damage. :smallmad: If that's your interpretation, you're welcome to it, but an assuredly-lethal attack is a coup-de-grace in the rules we are given. If you aren't doing a coup, your attack isn't assuredly lethal, it's just increasingly dangerous as its damage increases compared to the target's hit points.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-12, 04:36 PM
Use sunder on things like spell component pouches or holy symbols instead.
I've never played a cleric, but isn't a holy symbol just used for Turn Undead attempts?

horseboy
2007-09-12, 04:39 PM
If that's your interpretation, you're welcome to it, but an assuredly-lethal attack is a coup-de-grace in the rules we are given. If you aren't doing a coup, your attack isn't assuredly lethal, it's just increasingly dangerous as its damage increases compared to the target's hit points.

And that is the problem with hit points, combat isn't lethal.

tainsouvra
2007-09-12, 04:40 PM
I've never played a cleric, but isn't a holy symbol just used for Turn Undead attempts? Divine Focus for many spells, too.

And that is the problem with hit points, combat isn't lethal. Actually, it's more that there is a misdescription of what injury is occurring when the damage dice are rolled. You might have rolled a 10 on damage, but if the target has 100 hit points, you grazed him--not a sword through the gut, but a cut that'll probably heal on its own given a little time.

It's not just your damage roll, it's your damage roll compared to the target's hit points that matters.

Zincorium
2007-09-12, 04:41 PM
I've never played a cleric, but isn't a holy symbol just used for Turn Undead attempts?

It's also needed as a focus for cleric spells, anything with a 'DF' in the component line requires you to have it.

horseboy
2007-09-12, 04:48 PM
Actually, it's more that there is a misdescription of what injury is occurring when the damage dice are rolled. You might have rolled a 10 on damage, but if the target has 100 hit points, you grazed him--not a sword through the gut, but a cut that'll probably heal on its own given a little time.

It's not just your damage roll, it's your damage roll compared to the target's hit points that matters.

And that is exactly the problem. You can't stab someone in the chest any more. If your job is to stab someone and the rules don't let you do it you can't do your job. The only way to compensate is through either by bowing at the alter of the Munchkin or by using magic swords that take two sentences to name.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-12, 05:00 PM
And that is exactly the problem. You can't stab someone in the chest any more. If your job is to stab someone and the rules don't let you do it you can't do your job. The only way to compensate is through either by bowing at the alter of the Munchkin or by using magic swords that take two sentences to name.
Sure you can.

I watched a level 1 with a regular long sword literally decapitate a mugger on her first swing.

But they can't all be sucking chest wounds or whatever.

horseboy
2007-09-12, 05:05 PM
Sure you can.

I watched a level 1 with a regular long sword literally decapitate a mugger on her first swing.

But they can't all be sucking chest wounds or whatever.

And this mugger had 100 hit points?

tainsouvra
2007-09-12, 05:11 PM
And that is exactly the problem. You can't stab someone in the chest any more. If your job is to stab someone and the rules don't let you do it you can't do your job. The only way to compensate is through either by bowing at the alter of the Munchkin or by using magic swords that take two sentences to name. Are you saying that your problem with hit points is that high-level, well-equipped warriors have too many of them, which makes it nearly impossible for an untrained and ill-equipped warrior to present a serious threat to him? We have a different idea of "problem", then, as that appears to be the entire point of having a hit point system in the first place. Paragons of combat who have gone utterly beyond what a normal man can accomplish aren't seriously threatened by a rookie with a pointy chunk of metal, nor are they intended to be.

Zincorium
2007-09-12, 05:11 PM
And this mugger had 100 hit points?

So is your problem with the system that the fighter cannot instantly kill on a hit any opponent? That seems to be the gist but I don't want to misunderstand you.

If so, that would make combat boring (basically, whoever wins two dice rolls, initiative and to hit, wins) and any fight would leave people making new characters sheets.

Hit points are there so that combat isn't instantly lethal for all parties involved.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-12, 05:13 PM
Nope - more like 15. But if you look at it another way, a level 2 mugger isn't very skilled. I could see him realistically getting taken apart by an adventurer.

But someone with 100 hp isn't going to just get shish-kabob'd. He's seen too much, lived too long, and is generally just too skilled to go down that way. A stab that would be fatal to a level 2, he can dodge, parry, or if all else fails, turn aside or deflect enough force to minimize the damage from a simple thrust.

horseboy
2007-09-12, 05:21 PM
Let's try it this way, the problem with hit points is that combat isn't dangerous. It's a slow, steady grinding away at an enemy. You either have to munchkin into next week to be dangerous or you just sit there for hours, plink, plink, plinking away wake me when we're done combat.

It's not that Mister Bad-ass can get instakilled by Johny Come-lately, but that Mister BA, one of the greatest swordsmen ever, has to sit there, plink, plink, plink, have a Light saber wannabe weapon, or Lord Munchkin.

blue_fenix
2007-09-12, 05:22 PM
Part of the hit point problem though, isn't just fighter vs. fighter, it's fighter vs. unarmored demon who has no particular combat training but still has 100 hit points due to the way hit dice work.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-12, 05:25 PM
Let's try it this way, the problem with hit points is that combat isn't dangerous. It's a slow, steady grinding away at an enemy. You either have to munchkin into next week to be dangerous or you just sit there for hours, plink, plink, plinking away wake me when we're done combat.

It's not that Mister Bad-ass can get instakilled by Johny Come-lately, but that Mister BA, one of the greatest swordsmen ever, has to sit there, plink, plink, plink, have a Light saber wannabe weapon, or Lord Munchkin.

Perhaps the Vitality Variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) from Unearthed Arcana would be better suited for you, if that's how you feel.

tainsouvra
2007-09-12, 06:13 PM
Let's try it this way, the problem with hit points is that combat isn't dangerous. It's a slow, steady grinding away at an enemy. You either have to munchkin into next week to be dangerous or you just sit there for hours, plink, plink, plinking away wake me when we're done combat. That's only true of a fight between two high-level defensively-built characters. In a fight between offensively-built characters, combat can be shockingly short and brutal.

This is also true of systems that don't use hit points, by the way. The Storyteller system is the same--a fight between two offensive warriors is short and brutal, a fight between two defensive warriors is a slow fight of minimum-damage-per-hit attrition. It's not hit points that are the culprit here, because it's the same problem even when they don't exist--it's builds and tactics that drag out combat.

Serenity
2007-09-12, 06:13 PM
Part of the hit point problem though, isn't just fighter vs. fighter, it's fighter vs. unarmored demon who has no particular combat training but still has 100 hit points due to the way hit dice work.

So now the problem is that the horrific, supernatural paragon of evil from beyond is supernaturally tough?

horseboy
2007-09-12, 07:15 PM
That's only true of a fight between two high-level defensively-built characters. In a fight between offensively-built characters, combat can be shockingly short and brutal.

This is also true of systems that don't use hit points, by the way. The Storyteller system is the same--a fight between two offensive warriors is short and brutal, a fight between two defensive warriors is a slow fight of minimum-damage-per-hit attrition. It's not hit points that are the culprit here, because it's the same problem even when they don't exist--it's builds and tactics that drag out combat.
WoD isn't a good example. I've seen way to many examples of somebody dumping the entire bucket of dice to oh, say roll damage for an entire parking garage of cars exploding and fail to do any damage to consider their mechanics valid.

But yes, if you're a munchkin lion totem shock trooper barbarian thri-keen combat can be very quick.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-12, 07:36 PM
But yes, if you're a munchkin lion totem shock trooper barbarian thri-keen combat can be very quick.

Consider thus: a combat round is six seconds. Most combats I have seen over the course of my 10+ years playing and DMing have not gone over four rounds. They're over in under thirty seconds. I can count on one hand the number of combats that have gone over that duration, and I can count on one finger the number of times its gone over that duration without having either obscene numbers of foes or having new contenders mid-combat.

If boxing, fencing, and kickboxing are any measure, combat in D&D takes less time than real life does.

Dausuul
2007-09-12, 08:15 PM
But yes, if you're a munchkin lion totem shock trooper barbarian thri-keen combat can be very quick.

Hoo boy, here we go.

Let's consider, oh, a 15th-level human fighter. Elite array, core only, hold the cheese. He'll be a pretty straightforward greatsword specialist, backed up by a composite longbow, with average hit points for his level. I'll even have him waste one of his feats on Dodge. Just to be original, let's call him Roy.

LEVEL 15 HUMAN FIGHTER (stats behind spoiler)

Str 18 (24 with items)
Dex 13
Con 14 (18 with items)
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 8

Hp: 147
AC: 28 (+13 armor, +3 deflection, +1 Dexterity, +1 dodge)
Attacks: Greatsword +28/+23/+18 for 2d6+18 (17-20/x2), or composite longbow +18/+18/+13/+8 for 1d8+13 (20/x3)

Feats:
--Level 1: Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Power Attack, Cleave
--Level 2: Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow)
--Level 3: Point Blank Shot
--Level 4: Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)
--Level 6: Weapon Specialization (Composite Longbow), Rapid Shot
--Level 8: Improved Critical (Greatsword)
--Level 9: Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
--Level 10: Greater Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow)
--Level 12: Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword, Composite Longbow)
--Level 14: Improved Initiative
--Level 15: Dodge

Equipment:
+5 full plate (26,650 gp)
+4 greatsword (32,350 gp)
+6 belt of giant strength (36,000 gp)
+6 amulet of health (36,000 gp)
+3 ring of protection (18,000 gp)
+5 cloak of resistance (25,000 gp)
+2 composite longbow (+7 Strength modifier) (9,100 gp)
Assorted miscellaneous gear (16,000 gp)

Now, let's see what happens when this guy goes head-to-head against a clone of himself. We'll say the combat starts with both fighters in melee range of each other, and they both full attack, since that's the best strategy they could pursue.

Roy's got an attack bonus of +28 versus his own AC of 28. He'll Power Attack for 2, giving him an attack routine of +26/+21/+16, for 2d6+22 damage. He averages 29 points of damage on a normal hit; with criticals factored in, that increases to 34.8. On average, he's going to hit 2.1 times per round.

That means that when Roy full attacks his mirror image, he's dishing out 73.08 points of damage a round. With 147 hit points, that means the fight may well be over by the end of round 2 and will almost certainly finish before the end of round 3.

Not exactly a slow grind, is it?

Krursk
2007-09-14, 05:46 AM
And that is the problem with hit points, combat isn't lethal.

hate to rag on this, but I find combat qutie lethal. In a one-on-one fight to the death, one person will invariably die.


It's not that Mister Bad-ass can get instakilled by Johny Come-lately, but that Mister BA, one of the greatest swordsmen ever, has to sit there, plink, plink, plink, have a Light saber wannabe weapon, or Lord Munchkin.

The main problem with this quote is that each round represents 6 seconds. As Dausuul points out, a high level human fighter with the Elite Array (quite underpowered when considered with most combat character's stats) will demolish his mirror image in 12 seconds, which, as Fax_Celestius points out, is a lot quicker than most combat sports.

Charity
2007-09-14, 05:53 AM
hate to rag on this, but I find combat qutie lethal. In a one-on-one fight to the death, one person will invariably die.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology

Bosh
2007-09-14, 06:16 AM
I love fighters, I really do but the way that the 3.5ed skill system is set up I can't do much of anything useful besides wack things with a sword if I play a fighter. Because of this I usually end up with mechanically complicated characters in efforts to give me more well-rounded meleers, which is annoying.

tainsouvra
2007-09-14, 11:31 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology I believe that's the point, yes.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-14, 01:03 PM
The big problem is how things work without munchkinizing your char. If you wanna be effective in combat, and you don't like cheating ("bye bye shocktrooper!") your options are limited to two, three choices, whihc you'll follow no matter what:


Slashing flurry/weapon supremacy: couple supremacy's +5 to one attack and flurry and you have 20/15/10/5/0, where you started, but with another possible attack, and an extra chance for critting. Elven blades are perfect for this strat, since they can work like longswords, for example, but with more range. Greatswords also work, albeit less spectacularly, since you need to hit to apply damage, and the surefire hit from threatening is priceless here.

Two weapon rend/ superior weapon fighting: not the one ettins use, a slightly modded one that has no penalty if you use light weps, and -2 with one handers. With rend and either perfect or greater two wep fighting, that's either 4d6 or 3d6 extra damage per round. Take one level in a class that gets you true strike, combine it with the tactic above (but that's epic level, since superior two wep fighting requires +20 BAB or another head and brain, which means level 20, and let's not talk about feat hunger if we consider the two wep defense branch), and that's a gigantic pile 'o damage, which, while it likely won't match spells, it'll be close enough, if we take all the magical enhancement bonuses you'll put on your wep. Once again, an elven blade gets frightening, since the possibility of critting with so many hits is rediculous, kinda as if a swordsage or warblade used raging mongoose and time stands still together. This might look like a munchkinized thing, but since it requires an immense feat expenditure, and doesn't turn you into a one trick pony (supremacy alone makes sure that donnae happen, and even if rend doesn't trigger, so many attacks will cause more than a mere scratch. And also, while elven blades are suggested, any slashing wep will do. For example, I on principle use longswords.). Also, it fits the image of a legendary swordsman, who fought with the speed of lightning, unimaginable power, and looked stylish.

Robilar's gambit/combat reflexes: a risky tactic you shouldn't try unless you are an hp addict (still, most would take improved toughness anyway, it's the equivalent of a permanent +2 CON), this one can drop a foe who is stupid enough to think he/she should hit you. Basically, if you have the HP to take on the foe's attack, you'll punish him mightily, which leaves him with two bad choices: attack you to drop you to stop your onslaught, or leave you alone and suffer from said onslaught. I still haven't found a way to do this one combined with the ones above without going epic, but I imagine it as putting a fighter with high enough CON, DEX, and maybe STR on par with most magic users, attacking in and out of your turn.

PS/edit: actually, now that I think of it, this more or less puts fighters on par with spellcasters, so there's no excuse for saying they are weak, unless you use core, but then again, core makes sneak attacks look wondrous at level 30.

horseboy
2007-09-14, 03:10 PM
fight to the death, one person will invariably die.
yeah, eventually.



The main problem with this quote is that each round represents 6 seconds. As Dausuul points out, a high level human fighter with the Elite Array (quite underpowered when considered with most combat character's stats) will demolish his mirror image in 12 seconds, which, as Fax_Celestius points out, is a lot quicker than most combat sports.

While certainly a fine example of what to do in D&D, it also shows how being a fighter in D&D requires
The fighter must start with the strength of Lou Ferrigno, then proceed well past superhuman strength
Have enough dweomer on him that the mage can use your glow at night to study by
Require full attacks. While good in theory, in practice are much harder to get.
None of these things has anything to do with skill with a sword. Pretty much the only thing that does are the weapon focus tree feats. There's not connection between "how good is the fighter" and "how much damage does he do".

Dausuul
2007-09-14, 03:33 PM
The fighter must start with the strength of Lou Ferrigno, then proceed well past superhuman strength

The fighter in that example started with a Strength of 15 (elite array; Str 15 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8). He then put his three stat points from levelling up into Strength, like any non-Finesse Core fighter with half a brain would do. He was certainly a brawny fellow from the start, but not extraordinarily so.


Have enough dweomer on him that the mage can use your glow at night to study by

Well, yeah. That's standard wealth by level for 15th. The fighter is more dependent on having all that gear, of course.

Note, however, that if you stripped off all the magic gear and gave him nothing but masterwork, he'd kill his clone even faster. His attack bonus would drop by 6 (+3 from the magic on his sword and +3 from the belt of giant strength) and his damage per hit by 8 (+4 from the magic sword and +4 from the belt); but his hit points would drop by 45 (the amulet of health), and his AC would drop by 8 (+5 from the armor and +3 from the ring of protection).

End result: He'd power attack for 4 instead of 2, hit exactly as often (2.1 times a round), and do 30 damage per hit, for an average damage output of 63 per round. Since the clone now has only 102 hit points, this means he'll die in 1.62 rounds instead of 2.01.


Require full attacks. While good in theory, in practice are much harder to get.

This much is true. Actually, at 15th level, a fighter has a good chance of not being able to melee at all. But then, that's what the bow is for.


None of these things has anything to do with skill with a sword. Pretty much the only thing that does are the weapon focus tree feats. There's not connection between "how good is the fighter" and "how much damage does he do".

Um? He's 15th level, dude. That means he's got +15 BAB. With Power Attack, he can convert that into +30 damage per hit if he wants to. Obviously you'd never take that kind of penalty against an opponent of similar toughness, but against lower-level foes you can afford to go quite high on PA.

horseboy
2007-09-14, 03:46 PM
The fighter in that example started with a Strength of 15 (elite array; Str 15 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8). He then put his three stat points from levelling up into Strength, like any non-Finesse Core fighter with half a brain would do. He was certainly a brawny fellow from the start, but not extraordinarily so.
Oh yeah, forgot advancements. That was my bad. I just saw the 18, and forgot.



Well, yeah. That's standard wealth by level for 15th. The fighter is more dependent on having all that gear, of course.

Note, however, that if you stripped off all the magic gear and gave him nothing but masterwork, he'd kill his clone even faster. His attack bonus would drop by 6 (+3 from the magic on his sword and +3 from the belt of giant strength) and his damage per hit by 8 (+4 from the magic sword and +4 from the belt); but his hit points would drop by 45 (the amulet of health), and his AC would drop by 8 (+5 from the armor and +3 from the ring of protection).

End result: He'd power attack for 4 instead of 2, hit exactly as often (2.1 times a round), and do 30 damage per hit, for an average damage output of 63 per round. Since the clone now has only 102 hit points, this means he'll die in 1.62 rounds instead of 2.01.
Which does show other problems with the basic problems in combat. Thing's like the superfluousness of armour at higher levels, BAB in general, well, yeah, about anything.



This much is true. Actually, at 15th level, a fighter has a good chance of not being able to melee at all. But then, that's what the bow is for.
problem 254 in a series. :smallamused:



Um? He's 15th level, dude. That means he's got +15 BAB. With Power Attack, he can convert that into +30 damage per hit if he wants to. Obviously you'd never take that kind of penalty against an opponent of similar toughness, but against lower-level foes you can afford to go quite high on PA.
Thereby making it a MANDATORY option. If an option is mandatory then how is it an option?

Lycar
2007-09-14, 05:16 PM
Okay, so this was about having fun with fighters originally...

So, back in the good old days, when Keen and Improved Critical still stacked, i had a fighter guy who also took the Devoted Defender PrC to better defend his spellcasting cleric friend. Until we found out that clerics really don't need any protectig..

But i digress. So, one day, we had just cleared a dungeon under a mountain monastery with only little trouble and were just in the office of the abbot to report our success, a gate opened and through it stepped a bug-like monstrosity (from the lower planes we guess).

One lucky INI roll later, fighter goes first.

Me: "So how far away is it ?"
GM: "Just 10 feet."
Me: "Oh oky, step and attack then....."

To make it short: 3 hits and 2 confirmed crits later....

Me: "Okay, that would be 92 point of damage then...."


To this day i did not forget the look on the face of our GM when he announced that the horror from hell dissolved into a pile of goo. :smallbiggrin:

Cleric: "What was that ?"
Fighter "*shrug* Dunno.. probably nothing dangerous."

We were paralyzed with laughter for a minute afterward or so. :smalltongue:

Also we wondered about how somewhere down on one of the lower planes, somebody was going to be not amused. Did any of you play Jagged Alliance 2 ? Does the name Elliot ring a bell ? :smallbiggrin:

I never found out what exactly that thing was, our GM just mentioned something to the effect that, if that thing would have gotten a chance to act, things would have become very interesting for us. Seems like it's only weak point was the relativly low number of HP. Something 80-something-ish.


Of course, eventually it became painfully obvious that a straight fighter can really do little outside of fighting. Even though or games usually consists of dungeon romps, when we started a new campaign to play Rappan Athuk, i came up with something different.

Look at him and weep, oh fighter-haters: Grigor (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=7743)

Efficient ? We managed to raise to lv 10 in Rappan Athuk before we lost interest in the campaign. And boy did we have fun playing. Okay so that Vrok really took 3 extra flails to trip with something approaching relyability, but our axe-wielding executioner (rogue with a lv. of barbarian and delusions of grandeur :smallamused: ) was happy not to be full-attacked every round and together with the follow-up attack after a successful trip and the constant bashing our cleric delivered mace-wise, we managed.

Good times.

Perhaps it helped we didn't have a mage, being only 3 people and that our cleric had to compensate whith the Travel and Trickery domains. But we all had a lot of fun while it lasted. And, when it comes down to it, that is what counts when you play a game.


Lycar