Ease of competence?

[Frosty]

There have been arguments back and forth about how fighter-types can be just as good as caster-types, and I believe that is definitely possible. However, I'd like to see your opinions on how easy it is to achieve competence with the two types. Some casters are very hard to mess up, and so are some fighter-types (those from the Tome of Battle). Still, it seems like that someone must be an *expert* in order to find all the right items (smoke bottles, UMDing polymorph, etc) and right tactics and right build for melee-types.

Do you think think that it's much harder to build a fighter than a mage and be contributing and competent in the higher levels?

[Yami]

Not in the higher levels. In the lower levels perhaps, but once you get a chance to grab, say, defenestrating sphere, your pretty good. I mean, look at the spell, it cries fun!

When you pick arcane spells that look fun, they often are. Even a straight Blasting Sorcerer manages to contribute significantly in the 4 encounters a level scenario. He might be just icing on the Beat Cake, but he's pulling his wieght.

Now take a warrior. lets say a barbarian who wields two axes and rages. Perhaps not the most optimal build, but the player thought the idea good, and figured more attacks means more damage from str boost. He contributes, but perhaps he didn't find the lion totem variant.

Both these builds could be considered sub-par, but still contribute. It's what they do, help the party. But I feel the sorcerer is more competant. He has range and a nice supply of blasting per day. The barbarian probably has a low AC and tons of HP, either requiring the cleric heal him every now and then, or the fight to be a quick one. Sorcerer's probably a glass cannon.

They have thier weaknesses, but the sorcerer is often enough more competant at the killing.

[Kizara]

Due to the fact that all fighters have are customizable bonus feats, making poor choices on those feats makes you basically crap.

I would submit that fighter is a more difficult class to play very well then most arcanists. Not that you can't screw up and make crappy decisions with wizards ethier, but its a but less perilious.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, the other thing about screwing up as a wizard or sorceror--to a greater extent with the former--is that your errors are fixable and/or ignorable. Wizards literally can have access to every wizard spell in the game, so if they make a bad choice they just stop preparing the spell. For sorcerors, they can trade it in when they level up for a different spell.

Fighter-types? You choose a feat, you're stuck with it.

[Mojo_Rat]

Fighters are very easy to play. However they are in theory difficult to build. You can make hundreds of different styles of melee combatant with them and i think the Idea of it is great.

Their difficult of play will also very alot on the DM.

[RandomNPC]

the hardest part of being a fighter is remembering to declare dodge

the hardest part of a wizard is taking a few notes on your spells, then employing a paper clip to keep them with your character sheet untill you memorize the good spells.

as long as the DM doesnt punish your fighter for taking something like toughness at 12th level you should be ok. and as long as you dont come up against spell reflecting crazy homebrew things of doom, your caster should be ok.

it's a little more bookkeeping in game for the spells, but actually building wise i guess a casters easier. but in game "i hit it with a pointy stick. again." wins the easy for me.

[Prometheus]

While spellcasters might be the most effective offense that the party has got, if the party isn't effective, it will likely be the spellcasters' fault and the most likely to be killed as the result of it will be spellcasters (except clerics) (but also rogues) who have the least HP and AC. Therefore, while you may be a better contribution to the party, your role is both important and vulnerable so it is much easier to be seen as the incompetent one (this has happened to many players I've had).

[Frosty]

So if a Fighter gets to re-pick all of his feats at every level, he'd be more lenient to newbies?

[zaei]

So if a Fighter gets to re-pick all of his feats at every level, he'd be more lenient to newbies?

This is part of the reason ToB is so much better. A lot of the maneuvers are basically feats that you can switch out every encounter/fullround action/whatever.

[Fax Celestis]

So if a Fighter gets to re-pick all of his feats at every level, he'd be more lenient to newbies?

Yes, because the newbie who sits there and looks at Whirlwind Attack and goes, "AWESOME," but then realizes the six feats he spent to get it all suck and so does Whirlwind Attack will not be stuck sucking his whole career.

[horseboy]

One of the other problems would be the mandatoryness of Power Attack. Why is it even an option and not a class feature?

[TheOOB]

And since you only can ready so many manuvers at once, your early game choices don't screw up your late game character so much in ToB, so you can pick manuvers that are good early on, and not have to worry about if they will be worth it 20 levels from now when all they'll do is help with prerequisites, unlike feats which you are stuck with your entire career.

[Wordmiser]

One of the other problems would be the mandatoryness of Power Attack. Why is it even an option and not a class feature? I don't know, it really should be. Or it should be an option along other "necessity" feats like Rapid Shot or Weapon Finesse, just to keep newbies from mangling their builds too badly.

And there are people who don't take those feats... Thinking about my first group, we had parties almost entirely consisting of melee tank classes and I don't think any of us ever took Power Attack (we never got magic items so we hit rarely enough anyway that it seemed like an incredibly foolish feat choice). I remember that our high-Dex Rapier-weilding Rogue player never took Weapon Finesse in a 10-level campaign and our Cleric wielded a +1 dagger that was a size category too big for him because it was the only magic weapon we had and he didn't want to give it away.

[Frosty]

Yes, because the newbie who sits there and looks at Whirlwind Attack and goes, "AWESOME," but then realizes the six feats he spent to get it all suck and so does Whirlwind Attack will not be stuck sucking his whole career.

Yep. That's why I like items that give feats. Maybe you've got a magic sword that allows you to Whirlwind attack 3 times per day.

[Triaxx]

Whirlwind attack does not suck. Not as long as you're using a longspear anyway.

[Green Bean]

Whirlwind attack does not suck. Not as long as you're using a longspear anyway.

Maybe, but how many newbies do you know that use longspears? In my experience, they tend to be more sword-oriented.

[Riffington]

So if a Fighter gets to re-pick all of his feats at every level, he'd be more lenient to newbies?

This is a very good idea.

[Frosty]

And then maybe a feat every level instead of every 2 levels :smallbiggrin:

[Rachel Lorelei]

Whirlwind attack does not suck. Not as long as you're using a longspear anyway.

Um.
Actually, yes it does. Hard, even.

[Frosty]

So everyone agrees that fighters types are much, much harder to build than wizard types?

Why des WoTC advertise the Fighter as a beginner class then?

[horseboy]

So everyone agrees that fighters types are much, much harder to build than wizard types?

Why does WoTC advertise the Fighter as a beginner class then?
Fighter easy to learn, hard to master.
Wizard, intermediate to learn, intermediate to master. (There's a lot more reading and reading comprehension involved)

[Frosty]

And Druids are easy to learn, easy to master?

[Chrisros]

Here’s a thought:
What if it is all about expectations? We all EXPECT a wizard to really kick some bottom, be batman, save the day, or otherwise “win.” We expect a fighter to stand between the wizards and the monsters and, well, not die. It really isn’t all that hard to make and play a fighter than can do that.

I agree that making a “good” fighter can be a difficult build problem, and poor feat choices early can really keep fighting-types mired in mediocrity. But which is more disappointing from the party’s perspective: the two-weapon fighting fighter, or the wizard who picked really poor spells today?

[Zenos]

Um.
Actually, yes it does. Hard, even.

Spiked chain whirlwind attack in a campaign with lots of mooks?

Ooo, I can imagine it...

[Frosty]

I wish our campaigns have lots of mooks, but then combat grinds to a HALT!