PDA

View Full Version : Is the Fighter *really* that weak? Would you give it more feats?



Frosty
2008-02-06, 03:07 PM
Now yes, we all know the Fighter needs a bit of work, and that in terms of how fun it is to play and adaptibility it could use a bit of work (I prefer the Warblade in terms of fun-factor). A bigger skill list and 4 skill points per level wouldn't hurt either.

Assuming we get a minor fix in like giving the Fighter more skillpoints and a bigger skill list, is the Fighter really that weak outside of Core? I can still see it as being on the lower end of the power curve to be sure, but I'm not really seeing the Fighter as being weak to the point of being useless or unplayable if you throw in every 3.5 WoTC splatbook in existence.

One argument is that feats are not class features/abilities, and can't replace class features. In Core, maybe that's true. But in splatbooks, there are some seriously powerful feats that can make fighters viable and perform two or even 3 roles well. Yes there are still weaknesses in the Fighter, and it is clearly not in the same league as Druid, but is it really that underpowered?

If so, would you consider giving the fighter a bonus feat every single level be an acceptable fix? Would that overpower the Fighter, or would it be useless because you say twice the amount of underpowered feats still don't make up for lack of class features? Or are you of the persuasion that Fighter bonus feats are a perfectly suitable feature, but there is just not enough of it, so this fix would actually be perfect?

Solo
2008-02-06, 03:11 PM
Feats aren't generally as good as class features, so i would suggest giving hte fighter actual class features.

Severus
2008-02-06, 03:12 PM
I think it's more an issue of scale.

fighters scale linearly, casters scale geometrically.

Feats are static, so they don't close that gap. If there were more feat chains where upper level abilities of the chains were more powerful, it might work, but unfortunately that aren't that many.

Since I always play a caster, I don't mind though :-)

But seriously, I think there is no easy universal fix. It's relatively easy to fix campaign specific. More batman casters and the fighters feel like they're important and relevant. Figure out campaign specific buffs for fighters. Limit magic in some way. Whatever.

As the group magey type, I generally try to make sure what I'm doing helps everybody shine. It hasn't been an issue for our group.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-06, 03:13 PM
The main problem the fighter carries is that it cannot do anything that no other class can do, occasionally better. This is the main issue with many widely-accepted underpowered classes. Warlocks, for instance, initially were a poor choice as there was nothing that they could do that a wizard could not also do. However, as they were given more unique options, their overall power and usefulness increased.

That, in short, is the fighter's issue: nearly any class can succeed in melee or ranged combat, and it is due to the shortcoming of the fighter to be unable to do anything significant that another class cannot also do in which it fails.

valadil
2008-02-06, 03:14 PM
More bonus feats would just make people take fewer fighter levels before multiclassing elsewhere. Fighter by itself is suboptimal, but there are many builds that benefit from a small dip to mooch some feats.

I've seen players try to go straight fighter in core. It doesn't work because by level 10 they have all the feats they need, and start taking feats that might be kinda nice. Like weapon focus for their second and tertiary weapons. If they aren't going to be gaining any class features and the feats aren't needed, there's no point in sticking with the class anymore.

That said, I think fighters do reasonably well in non core. PHB2 gave high level fighters quite a bit to play with. It doesn't even them out with wizards, but at least now there are tangible reasons to stick with fighter beyond level 4. And no, I don't think increasing the frequency of feats would fix anything, just increase the number of feats available.

Zincorium
2008-02-06, 03:15 PM
Lack of feats isn't generally the problem, although a fighter with a bonus feat every level *would* be really cool to play.

The problem is that feats simply do not compare to what spells can do.

Time stop? Forcecage? The simple disintegrate? There simply aren't any feats the fighter can take to even approach this level of power, they're stuck doing essentially the same thing at 20 as they were at 1st, just with tailfins on it.

To make matters worse, every time someone on the boards has given fighters things that do tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up the way spells do, there's an immediate chorus of 'but it's not a fighter if it's magical'.


Really, WotC has already published a fix for the fighter: the Tome of Battle warblade class. That's the power and versatility they think a fighter should have.

Indon
2008-02-06, 03:15 PM
Outside of core, if you're willing to use feat-related cheese Fighter can be used to produce some pretty potent builds, and it's definitely a contender among the other core meleers.

On the other hand, granting the Fighter a feat every level won't overpower him... at high levels. It basically allows the Fighter to get all the feats he wants earlier, which makes him stronger in the early-mid levels when he's already non-cheesily competitive. By the time he's high-level, he's going to be running out of feats for any given build even in non-core.

Draz74
2008-02-06, 03:19 PM
A carefully optimized Fighter, who picks the best feats out of a bunch of splatbooks, will be fine in a party of not-especially-optimized casters. He may still be weaker than them, but not so much that he's useless.

The problem comes in either of the following situations:
1) The Casters are optimized.
2) The Fighter isn't.

In situations like that, just giving the Fighter a larger number of Feats still wouldn't really help anything. Unless you make "Feats" that are as useful as class features, and cover the Fighter's specific weaknesses. For example, it would make Fighters much more viable if you made Fighter-only homebrew feats that did the following:

+4 Will Save bonus and Mettle
You can move and full attack in the same turn
You can fly
You can take a 5-foot step whenever someone you threaten takes a 5-foot step
You can ignore monsters' size bonuses when you Trip them


Of course, some of these feats might ruin the Fighter's flavor pretty badly, and others might be really overpowered in some ways even if they're really needed in other ways.

shaggz076
2008-02-06, 03:19 PM
Read the Armsman from the WoT d20 game. It is their version of a fighter. That and the continually improving AC that all classes get in WoT I think make it a better class all around.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 03:24 PM
I think this problem is more of a holdover than anything else. If you're playing strictly core, then your feat selection stinks to high heaven and the Fighter is nigh-useless at higher level. If you have a massive pile of splatbooks, then you can pick and choose the most synergistic feats and achieve something impressive. This is less a case of "power creep" than the fact that, even from the beginning, not all feats were created equal. If you pick and choose the best out of each book, you're going to come out farther ahead the more books you use, and because of the nature of their abilities and the flexibility involved, Fighters gain the most in each new book out of all the pure-martial classes. I'd say we've reached the point where a well-made fighter is not "underpowered" relative to other pure martial classes. Not overpowered like ToB, but not underpowered.

Swordguy
2008-02-06, 03:37 PM
The problem comes in either of the following situations:
1) The Casters are optimized.
2) The Fighter isn't.


There's a pervasive and logical argument that states the caster is generally optimized simply by existing. How do you stop that?

Duke of URL
2008-02-06, 03:54 PM
More feats would help, making the Fighter the ultimate customizable class, but what the Fighter really needs to be effective is more actions. At higher levels, he is simply incapable of contributing to the same degree as a caster (except in very specialized and contrived conditions), but having the ability to take extra actions might be able to offset this.

IIRC, in 1st ed., Fighters were the only class capable of making multiple attacks in a round, which allowed them to keep pace somewhat with the Wizards.

Solo
2008-02-06, 03:55 PM
Maybe if we gave the Marshall class features to the Fighter....

Fax Celestis
2008-02-06, 04:01 PM
Maybe if we gave the Marshall class features to the Fighter....

It's funny you should say that. My How-it-Should-Be Fighter did something similar to that.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 04:04 PM
Marshal's a bit TOO bitchin' to add on top of Fighter. Maybe a +1 dodge bonus to AC for every "dead" level?

Draz74
2008-02-06, 04:04 PM
Hmmm ... Marshal//Fighter as a class in a non-Gestalt game ... intriguing. I'm not sure how that would work out, power-wise, but I like the concept.


There's a pervasive and logical argument that states the caster is generally optimized simply by existing. How do you stop that?

Well, in this context, I mean more optimization than this default level. There is definitely still a wide variety of power among full casters, even if the lower end of that power spectrum is still OK.

There's a big difference between a Sorcerer 15 who throws Delayed Blast Fireballs and a Wizard 3/Master Specialist 5/IotSfV 5/Archmage 2 who throws around Split Empowered Enervation.

ZeroNumerous
2008-02-06, 04:06 PM
There's a pervasive and logical argument that states the caster is generally optimized simply by existing. How do you stop that?

Thats why he said "either of these scenarios". An optimized fighter can keep up at low-levels. But beyond 5th or so, when Wizards get 3rd level spells, it just plain doesn't matter anymore.

Frosty
2008-02-06, 04:13 PM
We should not compare Fighters to Casters, who are inherently overpowered against all non-caster classes anyways. But even if we are, we're not talking about PvP here. I'm saying that, in a team environment, given either standard feats or bonus feat every level, can the Fighter fulfill his roles well enough to contribute a meaningful amount?

I feel, especially if Fighters get a bonus feat every level, that the Fighter *can* do something special. It can be 2nd best in several niches at the same time, especially if the Fighter takes a one-level dip elsewhere. Even if not, the amount of feats should be able to simulate class features.

As for the extra actions thing, you can already move and do a full attack. If we change Travel Devotion to be a Fighter Bonus feat, Fighters can take the feat say...4 times, and be able to move as a swift action and then full-attack.

Person_Man
2008-02-06, 04:17 PM
I've recently gotten into Star Wars Saga Edition. It's a great game that runs on a modified d20 system. Every base class follows this progression:

1: Starting package (weapon & armor feats + 1 class related feat), Talent
2: Feat
3: Talent
4: Feat
5: Talent
Repeat

Talents are basically class abilities. But unlike most 3.5 classes, you can choose your Talent from a list of Talent trees, rather then being forced to take something because that's what's on your progression. You also get Feats every 3rd character level, just like 3.5. So every single level, every single class gets a new Talent, Feat(s), or both.

The Fighter essentially has no class abilities. It just gets bonus feats. The concept of a Fighter is great, but the class itself is just weak, and often boring. In 4th ed, the Fighter is basically going to look like a defensively oriented Warblade. The 3.5 Fighter will be dead. And I say let it die.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-06, 04:20 PM
We should not compare Fighters to Casters, who are inherently overpowered against all non-caster classes anyways. But even if we are, we're not talking about PvP here. I'm saying that, in a team environment, given either standard feats or bonus feat every level, can the Fighter fulfill his roles well enough to contribute a meaningful amount?

The answer is still no. The fighter is designed to fight, something that other classes (barbarian, cleric, druid, ranger, &c &c &c) can all also do and still do something else in addition. The fighter's problem, fundamentally, isn't having enough options: it's not having any options not already available to anyone else.

Indon
2008-02-06, 04:26 PM
I feel, especially if Fighters get a bonus feat every level, that the Fighter *can* do something special. It can be 2nd best in several niches at the same time, especially if the Fighter takes a one-level dip elsewhere. Even if not, the amount of feats should be able to simulate class features.

The thing is, the Fighter is still going to run out of feats to take. Many good feat trees are driven by stats, stats which the Fighter isn't going to have enough to take multiple unrelated feat trees for.


As for the extra actions thing, you can already move and do a full attack. If we change Travel Devotion to be a Fighter Bonus feat, Fighters can take the feat say...4 times, and be able to move as a swift action and then full-attack.

Better idea: Make some of the Fighter's feats general feats instead.

Solo
2008-02-06, 04:29 PM
It's funny you should say that. My How-it-Should-Be Fighter did something similar to that.

Great minds think alike*.



*By which I mean "Like I do"

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-06, 04:32 PM
In a gestalt game going wizard//fighter makes the fighter strong.

You use Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos to turn all your fighter bonus feats into Metamgic Feats. Then fighter gets powerful.

Frosty
2008-02-06, 04:41 PM
The ability requirements should be waived for Fighters. It should be a mid-level class feature. Maybe a level 8 or level 10 Fighter class feature. Either that, or pure fighters should get ability boosts. Hey, maybe every 5 levels, a Fighter should get +2 to an ability score that is not the highest at the time.

To be honest, with the default amount of feats, I still find myself stretched for feats with Fighter 20, or I wish i could do all the cool stuff earlier. I know that fighters aren't the best, and that if there is something a fighter can do, some other class can probably do it better with a few Fighter level dips.

Still, I contend that Fighters can perform some roles well *enough* to function. They aren't optimal, but if you're smart and you go all out and optimize/cheese out a Fighter (even without UMD cheese), you can do well and get through a campaign.

And if we give them more feats, then they can fulfill multiple combat roles at the same time. Maybe I should post a new thread and challenge people to make optimied Fighter builds to show that Fighters can perform competently, even if not optimally.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-06, 05:07 PM
I'd give it some ToB stuff:

Two disciplines: Stone Dragon (Common to all 3 Martial Adept base classes) and another from the Warblade Disciplines of the PC's choice and a +1 a level Initiator for fighter class levels unless multiclassing or PRCing into ToB PRCs.

MK and MR at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 with Warblade Recovery and SK and 2 SK at 6 and 16 for the PC who doesn't want to PRC.

Tokiko Mima
2008-02-06, 05:20 PM
In a gestalt game going wizard//fighter makes the fighter strong.

You use Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos to turn all your fighter bonus feats into Metamgic Feats. Then fighter gets powerful.

You made me laugh! :smallsmile:


Well, when your only class "features" are something everyone gets in smaller quantities (Feats) and something that can easily be be replaced with a single spell, (BAB by Divine Power,) then you're going to be pretty weak.

However, what I think the fighter lacks is flexibility. Prepared spellcasters can change their spells every single day, while spontaneous casters can vary their quantity as needed, and change out spells known every few levels. A fighter is married, more or less, to their Feats.

It makes them even more inflexible tactically. A Power Attack/Shocktrooper Fighter is going to charge every round they can until all their foes are dead. A trip-monkey is going to keep you tripped until one of you is dead. Why? Because it's the only thing they're even above average at. That's why manuevers are so great for martial adepts: they give the PC something to do aside from the same super combo over and over.

Frosty
2008-02-06, 05:25 PM
But hopefully, with a feat every level, a Fighter can Charge *and* Trip well. Heck, I've posted a build to do that already in another thread, using the standard Fighter build. Didn't use human bonus feat. Didn't use Flaws. Didn't use any racial bonus. All it assumes is enough point-buy to get at least 14 in all the stats needed for certain feats.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-02-06, 05:31 PM
I think that people think of class features as better than feats just because they're more restricted, often arbitrarily. My preferred fighter "fix" is to make many of those stand alone class features into feats and then give the fighter a feat per level. Simple and effective, just the way I like it.

TS

horseboy
2008-02-06, 05:51 PM
More skills are a must. That and there are some things that just shouldn't cost a fighter a feat. Power attack & the weapon focus tree at the very least should be free to a fighter in addition to anything else they get at the level you put them in at.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-06, 06:04 PM
In a gestalt game going wizard//fighter makes the fighter strong.

You use Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos to turn all your fighter bonus feats into Metamgic Feats. Then fighter gets powerful.

Heh, yeah, the Chaos Shuffle. Helps if you're an elf, too. Can we think of a productive use of 15 bonus feats, to be spent on anything?

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-06, 06:13 PM
Heh, yeah, the Chaos Shuffle. Helps if you're an elf, too. Can we think of a productive use of 15 bonus feats, to be spent on anything?

Yes. I have an 18th level grey elf incantatrix who has used up all her racial feats and scribe scroll and still needs more metamagic/feats.

But the real fun is Wizard//fighter level 21. You Embrace/Shun all your fighter feats and make them epic. Your Easy Metamagic gets Embraced/Shunned into Instant Metamagic.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-06, 06:15 PM
Yes. I have an 18th level grey elf incantatrix who has used up all her racial feats and scribe scroll and still needs more metamagic/feats.

But the real fun is Wizard//fighter level 21. You Embrace/Shun all your fighter feats and make them epic. Your Easy Metamagic gets Embraced/Shunned into Instant Metamagic.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one trick. I'm still not utterly convinced that a boatload of feats beats some class features *cough*dweomerkeeper*cough*, but the epic thing is nifty.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-06, 06:29 PM
Oh yeah, forgot about that one trick. I'm still not utterly convinced that a boatload of feats beats some class features *cough*dweomerkeeper*cough*, but the epic thing is nifty.
Dweomerkepper isn't worth it if you abuse Incantatrix and Persistent spell.

And once you get Epic those extra 11 feats are well worth it.

Instant Metamagic 5 + Incantatrix means you lop off 6 points of level adjustment from metamagic. Arcane Thesis your main spells and you can cast all the meta you want on a 9th level spell with no problem.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-06, 06:34 PM
Dweomerkepper isn't worth it if you abuse Incantatrix and Persistent spell.

And once you get Epic those extra 11 feats are well worth it.

Instant Metamagic 5 + Incantatrix means you lop off 6 points of level adjustment from metamagic. Arcane Thesis your main spells and you can cast all the meta you want on a 9th level spell with no problem.

I dunno - I think that persistent spell isn't the be all and end all it's made out to be. Now, if we can find some way of getting persistent power, then we're talking.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-06, 06:36 PM
Dweomerkepper isn't worth it if you abuse Incantatrix and Persistent spell.

And once you get Epic those extra 11 feats are well worth it.

Instant Metamagic 5 + Incantatrix means you lop off 6 points of level adjustment from metamagic. Arcane Thesis your main spells and you can cast all the meta you want on a 9th level spell with no problem.

Hooray Intensify Spell for a +1 adjustment! Intensified timestop? Eight rounds to prep. Intensified shivering touch? 36 Dex damage. Intensified ray of stupidity? 10 Int damage. Intensified enervation? 8 negative levels. Intensified energy drain? 16 negative levels. Intensified twinned split chained enervation? 32 negative levels to 20 targets.

Metamagic is fun.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-06, 06:38 PM
Actually since neither Instant Metamgic or the Incantatrix ability can lower meta below +1 you don't need more of either. But Arcane Thesis can lower below +1. SO with Instant Meta 5 and the incantatrix ability you can apply any meta to an Arcane Thesied spell you have for free.

Frosty
2008-02-06, 06:45 PM
Can we please get back on topic? I think you have all demonstrates thoroughly how broken casters are.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-02-06, 06:53 PM
Here is a simple, decent example of my Fighter-Fu. I couldn't any care less for tripping builds, for pure optimized randomness, haft-fighting (that is a different character) and the like. This is just a guy with a sword. And Wings.

Sarshaen
Dragonborn (breath weapon) Aasimar ECL 16 / Fighter 15 (single class)
STR 20 (base 18) | DEX 11 (base 13)| WIS 16 (base 14) | CON 18 (base 15) | INT 10 | CHA 10 (base 8)

Feats:
(L1): Power Attack ; FTR1: Weapon Focus
(L2) FTR2: (Dungeonscape Variant)
(L3): Quicken Breath
(L4) FTR3: Improved Bull Rush ; +1 CON
(L5) -
(L6): Shock Trooper FTR4 (Dungeonscape Variant)
(L7) -
(L8) FTR5: Weapon Spec ; +1 STR
(L9): Outsider Wings (Aasimar) (Magic of Faerun)
(L10) FTR6: Melee Weapon Mastery
(L11)
(L12): Diving Charge ; FTR7: Cometary Collision (or close quarters fighting) ; +1 STR
(L14) FTR 8
(L15) Maximize Breath

With the appropriate cash (200k GP)

+3 Eager Shadow Striking Greatsword: 98k (overcomes any DR, hit at least once ; +5 to Initiative)
+2 Moderate Fortification x3 studded Gorgon Armor 35k AC +11 (considered light armor, Ultimate Equipment Guid, Vol 1, I think)
Greater Demolition Crystal (damage increase, overcomes DR, and ability to crit constructs) 6k
Greater Trudedeath Crystal 10k (same as demolition crystal, only vs. undeads)
Mask of Blind Sight or Blind-Fighting (they do exist, can't remember where)
Ring of Evasion
Armbands of Might

I could go on and on, but that would not be the point. You can charge while flying. Also, imagine smashing into that flying wizard from above and driving him into the ground with the bonus from falling damage, etc. damages that can be put on top of it. I know there are holes in this build, but this is not bad for a simple 5 minute thing.

EDIT: I could do one better, and drop Aasimar in favor of Goliath (still a +1 LA, but darn powerful) ; taking the Draconic Wings or Senses instead of the Breath weapon. There are many things to be done here =) I like the breath weapon because it adds some extra RP ability, and some okay damage (when maxed).

RedShift zX
2008-02-06, 07:24 PM
4 skill points per level, a "good" will save, a few more class skills to make him useful ouside of just fighting....and a feat every level would be fun the way the feats are now... Eliminates "save or die" or "save or attack your friends" situations, and gives him some utility. Feat per level system would bring him up a little in power scale...but he needs a capstone ability....say make 1/2 of your full attack as a standard action or something. Because at high levels nothings going to just sit there and let you beat on it.

Also, i think fighters (and melee classes in every fantasy setting) are always HEAVILY gear dependant...Extremly expensive, but i think that people need to home-brew allot of there fighters gear, and once they hit level 21, should get a REALLY nice weapon... Stuff like full suits of +5 armor/shields of mithral and +5 adamantine Bastard swords with 2-4 special abilities should be a given (without stepping into Epic level equipment unless your lvl +20 already), not including bracers, amulets, rings, cloaks, gloves that should all be high quality gear.

Think about it...Fighters are trained to do dammage with there weapons, there limit is there bodies Physical limitations...So they need the gear to do well.

EDIT: the problem though is the feats themselves, theres no scaling and there arent enough high-level feats that are useful, and those that are have a ton of pre-requiset feats...and stat reqs. of say....31 str...wtf?

CrowSpawn
2008-02-07, 12:51 AM
The funny thing about all this, is I haven't seen one person disagree that fighters are weaker.

In our game, our group has just achieved level 21 and are starting to fight some seriously ridiculous monsters. And despite all of it, its our fighter who is having the easiest time coping with the difficulty. Now, he is, of course, being buffed by me(the wizard), our bard, AND our cleric... but then again, isn't every fighter at that level, whether optimized or not?

His build isn't really that crazy either. Glaive fighter with short haft and weapon mastery and all that PHB 2 jazz.

Voyager_I
2008-02-07, 02:48 AM
The funny thing about all this, is I haven't seen one person disagree that fighters are weaker.

It's because they are. Fighters require a lot of planning and specific builds to be functional past mid levels. It can be done, but if you're just picking feats that look cool haphazardly, you're probably going to suck.

It probably doesn't help that the feat Wizards designed explicitly for them, Weapon Specialization, also bites quite hard. In case it wasn't already a bad enough class for newbies, they're being patently misdirected.

Cuddly
2008-02-07, 02:51 AM
It can be done, but if you're just picking feats that look cool haphazardly, you're probably going to suck.

Are there any classes where you can haphazardly pick cool looking things and expect to perform well?

Voyager_I
2008-02-07, 02:56 AM
Depends on your definition of "well". CoDzillas are pretty hard to get below "adequate", as, to a lesser extent, are Wizards. Anything can be done, of course, but it an accidental Wizard or Druid still has a pretty good chance of being playable. Fighters? Not so much so.

Cuddly
2008-02-07, 02:59 AM
Clerics need 3 feats from what, 4 sources? to perform well. DMM cheese, if it's even allowed in real life games, requires planning over multiple levels.

Aerogoat
2008-02-07, 03:06 AM
Clerics need 3 feats from what, 4 sources? to perform well. DMM cheese, if it's even allowed in real life games, requires planning over multiple levels. No, Clerics need Wisdom scores high enough to cast their spells to perform well.

DMM is just gravy.

Voyager_I
2008-02-07, 03:19 AM
Aye. A while back, the CoDzilla fashion was to pump out astronomical Save or Die's. Druids don't even need Natural Spell to be decent, but the chances of someone not taking it on "cool factor" alone are probably pretty slim.

Duke of URL
2008-02-07, 08:26 AM
The ability requirements should be waived for Fighters. It should be a mid-level class feature.

Even simpler would be to waive ability score requirements for any feat on the Fighter bonus feat list when taken as a Fighter bonus feat -- even with INT 8, a trained "Fighter" should still be able to learn Combat Expertise, no?

Alternatively, make it so the character can add up to his class level (in total) to one or more ability scores in order to qualify for Fighter bonus feats.

Example: Stunning Fist requires Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8. The Fighter has WIS as a dump stat (7) and an average DEX (10). He needs 6 points of WIS and 3 points of DEX to qualify for the feat; this mean he can take Stunning Fist anytime after Fighter level 9, as long as he has the other prerequisites.

Indon
2008-02-07, 09:36 AM
The funny thing about all this, is I haven't seen one person disagree that fighters are weaker.

In our game, our group has just achieved level 21 and are starting to fight some seriously ridiculous monsters. And despite all of it, its our fighter who is having the easiest time coping with the difficulty. Now, he is, of course, being buffed by me(the wizard), our bard, AND our cleric... but then again, isn't every fighter at that level, whether optimized or not?

His build isn't really that crazy either. Glaive fighter with short haft and weapon mastery and all that PHB 2 jazz.

Epic level stuff generally has a higher cheese requirement for casters than noncasters (as mobs have stronger defenses which must be bypassed with similarly strong measures). So in a group that doesn't strongly optimize, yeah, the casters aren't neccessarily going to be looking as effective.

The potential is there, however.

Duke - I like your proposal.

Uin
2008-02-07, 09:49 AM
The answer is still no. The fighter is designed to fight, something that other classes (barbarian, cleric, druid, ranger, &c &c &c) can all also do and still do something else in addition. The fighter's problem, fundamentally, isn't having enough options: it's not having any options not already available to anyone else.

Off Topic: I always have fun with the Barbarian (Running Light Armour Jump Attacks!) but did you ever do a "fix" for them?

Tokiko Mima
2008-02-07, 10:12 AM
Are there any classes where you can haphazardly pick cool looking things and expect to perform well?

If a Druid has the Natural Spell Feat, the Druid can pick whatever else they like and almost be guarranteed to be overpowered. Wild Shape and full spellcasting is that good.

I think you can be pretty haphazard with any of the ToB initiator classes/feats and still end up with something genuinely useful. Beguiler, Clerics, and Rogues as well, I think. Most of the newer classes tend to be more forgiving of player inexperience and lack of optimization.

#Raptor
2008-02-07, 10:17 AM
Mmmh.
Well, heres a build that uses all feats of a human lvl 20 fighter and could still use more feats. I believe this type of build is called a chaingun tripper... everytime he gets hit in melee he gets 8-6 free attacks (depending on how the DM reads the rules).
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=646185
Fairly powerful, eh? :smallwink:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-07, 10:19 AM
If a Druid has the Natural Spell Feat, the Druid can pick whatever else they like and almost be guaranteed to be overpowered. Wild Shape and full spellcasting is that good.

I think you can be pretty haphazard with any of the ToB initiator classes/feats and still end up with something genuinely useful. Beguiler, Clerics, and Rogues as well, I think. Most of the newer classes tend to be more forgiving of player inexperience and lack of optimization.Barbarian, too. It's underpowered, but unless you pick toughness or the like you can't screw it up.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-07, 11:18 AM
Off Topic: I always have fun with the Barbarian (Running Light Armour Jump Attacks!) but did you ever do a "fix" for them?

Not really, no, but I do have them slated for the future.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-02-07, 12:26 PM
Mmmh.
Well, heres a build that uses all feats of a human lvl 20 fighter and could still use more feats. I believe this type of build is called a chaingun tripper... everytime he gets hit in melee he gets 8-6 free attacks (depending on how the DM reads the rules).
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=646185
Fairly powerful, eh? :smallwink:

Could be powerful, yes, but it still falls for the same old trick; well before the Fighter can even get to the tripping-fu he has to contend with flying monsters, invisible monsters, and the like. It is good at doing what it was built to do; and that is about it. Sad thing is, that building the character to do only one thing can leave him/her rather dead. Sure it can do multiple attacks in a round; but what else can it do? Also, that becomes heavily STR dependent (not to say this is a bad thing); taking into account the race; say the LA limit is +1; the best race to get would be the Goliath (optimally speaking); but what if powerful races are not available? What if this is a limited campaign; where you could only be a Halfling (with a STR penalty) and have minimum GP available?

The point of this thread was to make the best possible fighter, not a one-trick pony. Sure the Wizard is versatile. Sure CoDzilla builds are "fun". The party is supposed to work together to defeat the common enemy. There is no one character class or build that can contend with everything out there (save the Chameleon, but that thing is just broken). There is an invisible enemy? Cleric can prepare and cast "Purge Invisibility". Flying monsters? Wizard can cast Mass Fly. Wizard needs defending or is already dead? Deploy the meatshield. The party needs to have an answer for everything that the DM can throw at you. If there is no answer that is available; that is when ingenuity and multiple-dimensional thinking is needed.

Frosty
2008-02-07, 12:56 PM
Invisibility cna be dealth with by equipment and low level spells. Same with flying. And also, that's why Stand Still is superior to trip, because it works on flying creatures!

My build certainly isn't a one trick pony. He can protect casters, prevent enemy casters from casting, and do good damage charging. Oh, and he can also hit people back for hitting him.

Human Fighter
1 Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain), Stand Still, Combat Reflexes
2 Power Attack
3 Mage Slayer
4 Improved Bullrush
5
6 Shock Trooper, Martial Study (a maneuver from Devoted Spirit Discipline)
7
8 Martial Study (Thicket of Blades)
9 Blind-Fight
10 Leap Attack
11
12 Pierce Magical Concealment
13
14 Robilar's Gambit
15 Iron Will or Dodge
16 Hold the Line
17
18 Endurance or Mobility, Indomitable Will or Elusive Target
19
20 Defensive Sweep

bosssmiley
2008-02-07, 01:57 PM
It's funny you should say that. My How-it-Should-Be Fighter did something similar to that.

or Satanzy's fighter fix...
or K & Frank Trollman's fighter fix...
or Upper_Krusts metamartial feats fix...
or WOTC's own fighter fix (found in "Tome of Battle" under 'warblade')...

The fighter as written (in fact most of the full BAB classes) are hopelessly under-powered in the upper ranges compared to the full class casters. This is a tried-and-tested truth of the game.

Fighter: "I charge him!"
Wizard: "Time stop!"
Fighter: "Aw nuts..."

The PHB fighter? Almost as much of a hazing ritual as the old 1st/2nd Ed fighter was. Want a good all round fighter? Tough! You gotta specialise (ubercharger, cavalier, reach weapon maven, etc.) or die. :smallannoyed:

For fighters - or in fact any of the PHB full BAB classes - to matter in combat after about 10th level they need a serious power boost. As in 'level appropriate, scales-by-level' class abilities rather than the current grab bag of good-to-sucky feats they're offered.

They should have:

Status-affecting strikes (stunning, ability damage, crippling, etc.) as standard class features.
Property-damaging hardness/DR/immunity ignoring abilities.
Ranged strikes that have a perceptible effect on those annoying flyers (Fort save or crash to the ground stunned perhaps...).
AofE attacks (for great swarm-whomping justice).
Ubermanly 'shrug it off' abilities (perhaps like ToB:BoNS's Crusader).
A fighter version of Evasion/Mettle.Now we're talking! :smallcool:

Without a hefty rebalance the 'masters of weapons' are really little more than hit point shaving cohorts of the cleric or wizard. Give the guy with the sword a chance to play the whole game with a smile on his face!

PS: Who thought that having the ranger's animal companion level at half the rate of the druid's was fair? Can I have some of what they were smoking please? :smallamused:

Roderick_BR
2008-02-07, 02:52 PM
Mmmh.
Well, heres a build that uses all feats of a human lvl 20 fighter and could still use more feats. I believe this type of build is called a chaingun tripper... everytime he gets hit in melee he gets 8-6 free attacks (depending on how the DM reads the rules).
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=646185
Fairly powerful, eh? :smallwink:
I'll play dumb and ask how that works. Karmic Strike makes you attack back when someone attacks you. Check. Dual Strike makes you attack with both weapons. Check, and a cool tactic for a TWFigther.
High Sword Low Axe can give you one free trip attempt, what allows you one free attack, but I'm not sure you are allowed to attack with both weapons, so, only one attack extra (as you said, deppending on how the DM interprets the rules). And Overpowering requires a full attack, thing that you doesn't have during an AoO.
Is that it? 2 attacks, plus 1 extra from the trip, and doubling all damage? Other than the overpowering attack, not really bad, but it's nothing more than a trip-lock build. A raging barbarian with shock trooper could kill you before you have the chance to attack back, or at least deal more damage than you.

Frosty
2008-02-07, 02:55 PM
I can't access his build from where I am, but I'm guessing he gets at least 2 AoOs from Robilar's Gambit and Karmic strike. With Dual Strike, that's 4 attacks. And then there's tripping possibly and 2 additional attacks from Improved Trip.

marjan
2008-02-07, 03:00 PM
And Overpowering requires a full attack, thing that you doesn't have during an AoO.


Overpowering Attack does require full attack to perform, but once it has been performed every attack before the start of your next turn deal double damage (basically AoOs).

Fawsto
2008-02-07, 04:40 PM
It would help if the fighter was given something to help him fight bigger foes. I was trying to "fix them" by reducing their feats and giving them class features to increase the use of combat manouvers like trip, bullrush, disarm, etc. Also I've given him free mastery of arms letting him have the entire weapon focus tree as class features. My idea of a level 20 fighter is that of a master of tatics. The 8 extra feats he comes to get would be used to improve combat manouvers., and they would benefit directly from his fighter level due to a class feature.

In the end, they would get that Weapon Supremacy Feat, combining it with + fighter level in any combat manouver or hit rolls or damage rolls or AC till his next round, 4 times per day + ignoring some size features up to 2 sizes bigger than him. Also a d12 hit die and 4 + int skill points (but no extra skills, It is just to get them the op. to max some skills and/or buy extra class skills). I've also made some little mods for the other core classes so they could face this equally. Like a few feats for the pally together with improved use of lay on hands in detriment of remove disease, extra skill points and bigger hit die; a few more HP for the Barbarian; baning a few broken magics... etc. I have not yet finished it.

I dunno... Pehaps I will post it down here.

I mostly agree with all that been stated before. Dip leveling issues, the fact they are good only in the beggining. Etc.

TempusCCK
2008-02-07, 11:07 PM
Meh, one thing that always amuses me is that people always quote LogicNinja for the guide to the ultimate Wizard character, but they always seem to forget the part that LogicNinja says about why Wizards don't use direct damage... "That's what the fighter is for" (or something to that effect).

The "best" wizard builds rely on the melee builds for their damage, whether or not this is the Figher, the Cleric, or the Druid, whatever.

Another interesting House-rule that I've played with a bit for bringing fighters and casters up to par is one that penalizes casters a certain amount on their initiative checks equal to the number of the spell level (or spell levels, if multiple spells are being cast) they are casting. So you cast a 4th level spell this round, you take a -4 on your initiative check. That uber useful Time Stop spell? Not so broken if the charging fighter is going to get there and make you lose it, sucker.

This also makes it more handy to have a fighter around, because it'd be damn nice if there was some big tough guy to hold up that charging Death Knight while I prepare -insert spell-.

As well, I believe people who say the fighter is lame to play suffer from a common disease called "lack of imagination." "Lack of Imagination" effects millions of people, so you're not alone. Some symptoms of "Lack of Imagination" include, looking up highly optimized but severely restricting builds on the internet and playing them in your game, power gaming, thinking that the only thing that applies to your game is what has been published in D&D sourcebooks, and bland personalities.

My example: A Vampire appears in the basement of the creepy old mansion you and your pals are exploring, he comes out, casts a few spells, and retrieves to cover behind a large cask of wine.

Ubercharger: Moves so that cask of wine doesn't impede line of sight, and charges. BORING!

Imaginative fighter: Tells the Wizard to ready his action, has the Cleric move into line of sight with the Vampire and turn undead, meanwhile, the fighter charges the cask, leaps over, and engages the Vampire, probably getting some kind of bonus for surprising the thing.

<End poorly thought out and quick example>

The point is, melee classes can be tons of fun, you just have to be creative when you play them is all.

Deepblue706
2008-02-07, 11:10 PM
Meh, one thing that always amuses me is that people always quote LogicNinja for the guide to the ultimate Wizard character, but they always seem to forget the part that LogicNinja says about why Wizards don't use direct damage... "That's what the fighter is for" (or something to that effect).

The "best" wizard builds rely on the melee builds for their damage, whether or not this is the Figher, the Cleric, or the Druid, whatever.

Another interesting House-rule that I've played with a bit for bringing fighters and casters up to par is one that penalizes casters a certain amount on their initiative checks equal to the number of the spell level (or spell levels, if multiple spells are being cast) they are casting. So you cast a 4th level spell this round, you take a -4 on your initiative check. That uber useful Time Stop spell? Not so broken if the charging fighter is going to get there and make you lose it, sucker.

This also makes it more handy to have a fighter around, because it'd be damn nice if there was some big tough guy to hold up that charging Death Knight while I prepare -insert spell-.

As well, I believe people who say the fighter is lame to play suffer from a common disease called "lack of imagination." "Lack of Imagination" effects millions of people, so you're not alone. Some symptoms of "Lack of Imagination" include, looking up highly optimized but severely restricting builds on the internet and playing them in your game, power gaming, thinking that the only thing that applies to your game is what has been published in D&D sourcebooks, and bland personalities.

My example: A Vampire appears in the basement of the creepy old mansion you and your pals are exploring, he comes out, casts a few spells, and retrieves to cover behind a large cask of wine.

Ubercharger: Moves so that cask of wine doesn't impede line of sight, and charges. BORING!

Imaginative fighter: Tells the Wizard to ready his action, has the Cleric move into line of sight with the Vampire and turn undead, meanwhile, the fighter charges the cask, leaps over, and engages the Vampire, probably getting some kind of bonus for surprising the thing.

<End poorly thought out and quick example>

The point is, melee classes can be tons of fun, you just have to be creative when you play them is all.

I think plenty of people enjoy playing fighters - it's just that the entire class banks on you being creative with it. A Wizard? Not so much. It's a hassle-free way of doing flashy stuff. And, nobody doubts the Fighter's ability to deal direct damage - it's just that direct damage isn't always the best method.

Voyager_I
2008-02-07, 11:36 PM
No one's saying that Uberchargers and Tripmonkeys are a good thing, simply conceding that it's a necessary evil if you want to be useful at high levels. I'd imagine that "lack of imagination" also accounts for much less than "lack of infinite time, money and interest in learning all the minutiae of every splatbook so I can make a halfway decent fighter for my next campaign above level 12", but thank you for pretentiously suggesting otherwise.

Your example also doesn't work. Aside from the Vampire behaving in a rather arbitrary manner, what exactly are you really doing? Turn Undead isn't going to work reliably against a Vampire, and he's sure not going to be surprised after hearing you claw your way over a barrel to reach him. Also, care to explain exactly what "engaging" him means? You moved, so you aren't full attacking, and you apparently disdain powerful charges and tripping, so what is it? Are you going to grapple him?

Fax Celestis
2008-02-08, 12:35 AM
No one's saying that Uberchargers and Tripmonkeys are a good thing, simply conceding that it's a necessary evil if you want to be useful at high levels. I'd imagine that "lack of imagination" also accounts for much less than "lack of infinite time, money and interest in learning all the minutiae of every splatbook so I can make a halfway decent fighter for my next campaign above level 12", but thank you for pretentiously suggesting otherwise.

Believe me, clawing through and learning the minutiae of the plethora of D&D books out there (third-party included) really doesn't help the melee-centric classes as much as it helps casters.

Voyager_I
2008-02-08, 01:10 AM
Believe me, clawing through and learning the minutiae of the plethora of D&D books out there (third-party included) really doesn't help the melee-centric classes as much as it helps casters.

Yeah, but it isn't a necessity for them to be functional.

Fawsto
2008-02-08, 01:20 AM
Deu to the fact that almost every new splatbook comes with new spellcaster feats and new spells. For that the meleers are still in the same place. It is like core meleers are stated as 3 and casters are stated as a 5. A spaltbook comes. What he does? He gives + 2 to both. Now fighter is 5! Yay! But casters are now 7. WOW. :smallsigh:

Now, what happens is that when you get epic, core meleers being 3 and casters being stated as 5, the book instead of a adding a + 2, it adds a x 2. It ends that core meleers are now a 6 and casters are 10. The diference simply gets abusive.

Now... Powergaming is lack of imagination? I disagree. Well, if it is done in a healthy way. Wanting to be useful in the entire campaing cannot be something so evil if you can bring a strategy with you. Unless it makes you become a one trick pony. You must remember while building the character that pehaps not every combat situation will come as you want. Not every enemy can be charged and several creatures are too big to be triped. Think about it. Just givin' examples.

I must sleep now... half past four in the morning here... Geesh..

Offtopics: Hey can someone help me find that half-elf with + 74 in his Diplomacy cheks? I must get my eyes upon it.

- Faws.

Da Beast
2008-02-08, 03:48 AM
Where does embrace/shun chaos come from?

Tam_OConnor
2008-02-08, 05:14 AM
Fiendish codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss. Embrace: Replaces any feat with an Abyssal touched feat (same book). Shun: Replace any abyssal-touched feat with any feat you qualify for. Not sure if that's how it's written (since I'm lazy and don't want to double check) or just how the common interpretation goes.

Tobrian
2008-02-08, 07:40 AM
What, even MORE feats???
As for more skill points, yeah right, how about first giving the wizard more skills points, like... the actual SCHOLAR type guy? Instead of the meatshield.


Feats aren't generally as good as class features, so i would suggest giving hte fighter actual class features.

Odd then that WotC seems to think that a bonus feat that you can select however you like is "worth" more than a class feature. </sarcasm> Certainly the free bonus feat for humans is better than being stuck with a racial feat you can't change.

The fighter class isn't weak. In all the groups I run or play in, a well-optimized fighter owns the battleground... except for in my group, where the paladin owns the whole group when it comes to damage and saving throws, he does more damage on his damn horse than even the regular fighter (because the fighter didn't specialize and went with the concept of "bodyguard" instead of "small personal army"). The point of the fighter is, staying with the core class beyond a certain point is stupid... there are so many PrCs, use them, once you've figured out the direction the character wants to go.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-08, 07:48 AM
TempusCCK: I agree with you that one of the things that makes casters overpowered in 3.5 is how they can easily cast any spell at will, as fast as possible. "I run, jump, roll on the ground, tumble, walks between the two monsters, stop, turn around, and cast a 9th level spell as a standard action. And a quickened 5th level spell. Also, I have this spell I cast 2 rounds ago still in effect, plus this one I cast in the beggining of the the combat, plus this one I cast 10 minutes ago and will last 50 more minutes, more this one I cast 1 hour ago and will last more 17 hours, and this one I cast with the persistant metamagic." In AD&D, a caster needed to rely on allies to cast his higher level spells. In 3.5, not so much.

However, I disagree that people lack imagination when playing a fighter. On the contrary, fighter demands the player to be imaginative, but D&D punishes non-casters by nullifying any useful idea it has, by contering it with a simple spell or spell-like ability. I tried once to make several tactics for a fighter to combat a spellcaster. Every and single idea I used, could be countered with a simple spell by a spellcaster, that didn't need any strain to have said spells, as in, a simple selection of daily spells, plus some wands and scrolls, makes the very idea of using tactics in D&D be obsolete.

One thing I'm hoping from 4E is that spellcasters, while still powerful, doesn't be able to just do whatever they please, and be able to walk it off without problems. They need to be part of the battlefield, not just stand in place )or floating, or invisible, or blinking, whatever) pilling effects as if he were in Magic: The Gathering.

Solo
2008-02-08, 08:36 AM
The fighter class isn't weak. In all the groups I run or play in, a well-optimized fighter owns the battleground... except for in my group, where the paladin owns the whole group when it comes to damage and saving throws, he does more damage on his damn horse than even the regular fighter (because the fighter didn't specialize and went with the concept of "bodyguard" instead of "small personal army")

This proves nothing. Your sample size is too small, which can easily lead to skewed results when analyzing data. There are too many variables that you have not taken into account. For example, in addition to the strength of the class itself, in a real world game, we must also consider the competency of the player, which can make up for a poorly designed class (to some degree) or ruin a well designed class.

To reiterate: there are perhaps one or more situational variables you did not address in your statement. Thus, you do not prove the fighter class isn't "weak". It may not be weak in your experience with your playgroup, but that may be because of your playgroup.

When judged objectively, the fighter as a class does not perform as well as many other classes in Core, for reasons listed above.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 09:33 AM
Offtopic: Hey can someone help me find that half-elf with + 74 in his Diplomacy checks? I must get my eyes upon it.
- Faws.Not sure, but I statted one up a while ago, purely by core, and got +60. Bill Clinton
LE Half-Elf Expert
Charisma:18 starting cha, +5(levels), +6(cloak), +5(tome)=34
Skills:23 diplomacy, +2(bluff synergy), +2(knowledge synergy), +2(sense motive synergy), +2(Half-elf), +2(Negotiator Feat), +3(Skill Focus), +2(masterwork tool[chocolates])=+38
Magic:+3(Circlet of Persuasion), +1(Luckstone)=+4
Cheese:+2(Aid Another from a follower with 9 ranks), +4(Bardic Cohort with Greater Heroism)=+6

And that's not even using borderline homebrew stuff like a Ring of Diplomacy or similar. Even in an AMF I get +49, and that's almost enough to guarantee a switch from hostile to friendly during combat. Granted, it's still not enough to make fanatics, but it's close.

Deepblue706
2008-02-08, 09:54 AM
Not sure, but I statted one up a while ago, purely by core, and got +60. Bill Clinton
LE Half-Elf Expert
Charisma:18 starting cha, +5(levels), +6(cloak), +5(tome)=34
Skills:23 diplomacy, +2(bluff synergy), +2(knowledge synergy), +2(sense motive synergy), +2(Half-elf), +2(Negotiator Feat), +3(Skill Focus), +2(masterwork tool[chocolates])=+38
Magic:+3(Circlet of Persuasion), +1(Luckstone)=+4
Cheese:+2(Aid Another from a follower with 9 ranks), +4(Bardic Cohort with Greater Heroism)=+6

And that's not even using borderline homebrew stuff like a Ring of Diplomacy or similar. Even in an AMF I get +49, and that's almost enough to guarantee a switch from hostile to friendly during combat. Granted, it's still not enough to make fanatics, but it's close.

If you go outside of Core, the Marshal has an ability called Motivate Charisma, which grants his allies (does not exclude himself) his CHA modifier to their CHA-based skill checks. If you have +12 to CHA at this point, it'll get you another +12 to diplomacy. Bwahahaha!

If that doesn't work, you can still get a level of Marshal for the free Skill Focus: Diplomacy, and grab Leadership with your extra feat, and have a Marshal cohort who does this to a similar level, anyway.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 10:05 AM
If you go outside of Core, the Marshal has an ability called Motivate Charisma, which grants his allies (does not exclude himself) his CHA modifier to their CHA-based skill checks. If you have +12 to CHA at this point, it'll get you another +12 to diplomacy. Bwahahaha!

If that doesn't work, you can still get a level of Marshal for the free Skill Focus: Diplomacy, and grab Leadership with your extra feat, and have a Marshal cohort who does this to a similar level, anyway.This was statted up in anticipation of Sir Giacomo saying "diplomacy is balanced" again, so I kept to core. If I was going non-core, I remember seeing a build with 20 1-level dips, had a +192 to diplomacy.

TempusCCK
2008-02-08, 10:13 AM
No one's saying that Uberchargers and Tripmonkeys are a good thing, simply conceding that it's a necessary evil if you want to be useful at high levels. I'd imagine that "lack of imagination" also accounts for much less than "lack of infinite time, money and interest in learning all the minutiae of every splatbook so I can make a halfway decent fighter for my next campaign above level 12", but thank you for pretentiously suggesting otherwise.

And thank you for completely missing the point of my post. What I'm saying is you don't have to scour every splatbook for prepackaged techniques for your fighter, simply being a little creative with your fighter can net you a useful, fun to play character.


Your example also doesn't work. Aside from the Vampire behaving in a rather arbitrary manner, what exactly are you really doing? Turn Undead isn't going to work reliably against a Vampire, and he's sure not going to be surprised after hearing you claw your way over a barrel to reach him. Also, care to explain exactly what "engaging" him means? You moved, so you aren't full attacking, and you apparently disdain powerful charges and tripping, so what is it? Are you going to grapple him?

Abritrary manner, eh? So a powerful undead spellcaster isn't going to use available cover against a -likely- powerful enough to do you harm spellcaster, I.E, the Wizard? Seems pretty nonsensical to me to stand out in the open and have the Wizard and the Cleric take potshots at you and hope whatever magical defense you have up isn't removed. Unless you mean Arbitrary in the fact that he even showed up for an open conflict with the party in the basement, in which case I point you to the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft adventure where it recommends that Strahd do something of a similar sort on several occasions.

The issue here isn't what the vampire would or wouldn't do, it's simply a scenario presented to show that fighters can do more things than "charge, charge again, charge some more."

Yes, the Cleric's turn isn't going to work at high levels, but it will make the vampire stop for a second and go "Oh, WTF! Positive Energy!" Long enough for you to make the hop over the barrel (my fighters always have good Jump scores) and make an attack, perhaps you're not full attacking with a charge, but if you pull it off right, you can get on the other side of the vampire and when the Cleric closed for Melee you've got the thing flanked, at least for a bit.

It may not be the soundest tactical move, but at least you'll have the fun of saying "Hey, remember how I lept that barrel and made that vampire crap himself, that was great!"

And now that we're done debating all the subtle meanings of my hastily thrown together example I must also say that I have no problem with tripping and charging, just people who complain that it is all they can do.

Hell, the damage an uber-charger can deal, you could probably shatter the barrel itself in the scenario, and that'd be really funny.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 11:14 AM
To have an effective character that can come anywhere near the ffectiveness of even a non-optimized caster, you must scour through many splatbooks and be a high-level optimizer. My build I presented will protect casters very well. My build also uses like 5 different books at least, something a newbie can't do. A newbie fighter is screwed. A newbie wizard or cleric, not so much.

Fawsto
2008-02-08, 11:52 AM
A Veteran Wizard optimizer can break every law in the game.

Lemme see a fighter or a warblade do it!

Frosty
2008-02-08, 12:05 PM
A fighter can break things more than the warblade can. However, a fighter can also be nigh useless, while it is *difficult* to build a useless warblade.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-08, 12:45 PM
It may not be the soundest tactical move, but at least you'll have the fun of saying "Hey, remember how I lept that barrel and made that vampire crap himself, that was great!"

Except that it'd be more like "hey, remember how I leapt that barrel and then got level-drained by that vampire without ever inflicting significant damage to him, while the cleric pulverized him? That sucked."

If you're already playing a subpar Fighter, spending actions doing "cool" things will not make the character better.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 03:22 PM
d or wouldn't do, it's simply a scenario presented to show that fighters can do more things than "charge, charge again, charge some more."
But all the fighter did was charge and jump, how is that different from move over and charge?

Deepblue706
2008-02-08, 03:28 PM
This was statted up in anticipation of Sir Giacomo saying "diplomacy is balanced" again, so I kept to core. If I was going non-core, I remember seeing a build with 20 1-level dips, had a +192 to diplomacy.

Uh...crap.

Deepblue706
2008-02-08, 03:50 PM
Tempus, it can be hard for a Fighter to reliably hit his targets with a full-attack. That is why many people complain about only being able to charge or trip. The Fighter is limited. For instance, very mobile foes, such as ones that can fly, can be essentially invulnerable to a Fighter, unless he has put a significant portion of his feats into Archery, or possesses a significant number of expendable magical items to otherwise aid him. Most of the time, he'll still be outclassed unless he can close the distance, which a monster can easily avoid if he's played smart.

For mobility, Fighters can, of course, use a mount. Spirited Charge can deal a lot of damage, and Ride-By Attack is a great ability when you're up against a single massive Ogre, or other gigantic beast. However, to take the mounted feat progression, that's further limiting the fighter's capability in places where he cannot bring his mount. If the campaign is predominantly war-based and often takes place in exterior environments, I'm sure it's a fine choice. However, many D&D games revolve around exploring dungeons, and then mounted combat is no longer an option (unless you're a halfling).

The Fighter's abilities are many, but they are hard to implement. A DM has to deliberately set up encounters to ensure a Fighter PC feels like he's playing a part. For the Wizard, the monsters just kind of have to be there - and sometimes, the DM will only be able to make sure he's not overshadowing the party by deliberately limiting his ability to contribute. Do you notice the disparity? I'm not saying it's unworkable - I seem to manage it fine. However, I shouldn't have to - my creative energy should instead be spent on how to challenge the players equally and as a whole, rather than be used to play a game of give and take.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 04:03 PM
And that's exactly why I think Fighters could benefit from being able to change their feats every morning. That means they can be a mounted warrior one day and an archer the next and a mobile, light armored fighter the next.

As for having difficulty performing full attacks, it gets less and less difficult with each splatbook. Complete Champion's Travel Devotion makes it fairly easy, since you can now move as a swift action. Grab a few night sticks and you're ready to go.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 04:10 PM
And that's exactly why I think Fighters could benefit from being able to change their feats every morning. That means they can be a mounted warrior one day and an archer the next and a mobile, light armored fighter the next.

As for having difficulty performing full attacks, it gets less and less difficult with each splatbook. Complete Champion's Travel Devotion makes it fairly easy, since you can now move as a swift action. Grab a few night sticks and you're ready to go.

Yes, but a core class shouldn't need a dozen or so spat books to be feasible.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 04:22 PM
I never claimed the Fighter isn't underpowered. Newbies will have a metric ton of problems with the fighter. I'm making the claim that, with all the splatbooks, you can make a decent character that is good at 2 or 3 things.

Woot Spitum
2008-02-08, 04:50 PM
As well, I believe people who say the fighter is lame to play suffer from a common disease called "lack of imagination." "Lack of Imagination" effects millions of people, so you're not alone. Some symptoms of "Lack of Imagination" include, looking up highly optimized but severely restricting builds on the internet and playing them in your game, power gaming, thinking that the only thing that applies to your game is what has been published in D&D sourcebooks, and bland personalities.

My example: A Vampire appears in the basement of the creepy old mansion you and your pals are exploring, he comes out, casts a few spells, and retrieves to cover behind a large cask of wine.

Ubercharger: Moves so that cask of wine doesn't impede line of sight, and charges. BORING!

Imaginative fighter: Tells the Wizard to ready his action, has the Cleric move into line of sight with the Vampire and turn undead, meanwhile, the fighter charges the cask, leaps over, and engages the Vampire, probably getting some kind of bonus for surprising the thing.

<End poorly thought out and quick example>

The point is, melee classes can be tons of fun, you just have to be creative when you play them is all.The problem with this example is that literally any other class can do this. Jumping over a cask and surprising a vampire is not a fighter specific ability. CoDzilla can do it just as well. This is the real problem with the fighter class: anything it can do can be done by another class, but other classes get abilities in addition to this.

TempusCCK
2008-02-08, 06:25 PM
Except that it'd be more like "hey, remember how I leapt that barrel and then got level-drained by that vampire without ever inflicting significant damage to him, while the cleric pulverized him? That sucked."

If you're already playing a subpar Fighter, spending actions doing "cool" things will not make the character better.

Please accept my apology, I must be in the wrong place, this seems to be the "Well, the only way to play is the play the most mechanically effective way" forum instead of "General D20." The argument I made, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that Fighters can be a perfectly fun class without loads of splatbooks and other junk. If the actions I take allow me to have fun in the game, whether or not they are the most mechanically effective is irrelevant.

The part about the level drain brings up another point, because obviously everyone here has evil and/or stupid DM's. If you take everything at WotC's face value, then yeah, you're going to have a crappy fighter, but isn't it the DM's job to make sure everyone can have a good time and be effective?

It's not logical to say "Alright, the unarmored vampire has Smashgar the Smasher in a grapple, and his 2-3 inch fangs easily pierce all that magic armor you're wearing and you lose a level." But that's a personal beef I have with the ways vampires are written, and that's how I houserule. It's these kind of things that a DM can do to balance out a game, and is merely an example.

So I guess what I'm saying here is... we're arguing different things, I respect your view about how doing "cool things" in an optimized and completely RAW game is not a good idea, but my beef is with people believing that it's the only way and fighters are no fun. I would go as far as to agree that in a game that was declared "heavy optimization" before you begin, then avoid fighter for dear life, but in actual practice, you can do some fun things with it.


But all the fighter did was charge and jump, how is that different from move over and charge?

Umm, because it was a creative way to get a flank, and you got to roll a jump and get into close quarters combat with a primary caster? Who, by RAW, I understand is also a vampire and lethal in close quarters, but see above for why that wouldn't really be an issue in my game. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a change of pace from "Trip, trip, trip" or "Charge, charge, charge some more."

To Woot- Sure, anyone can do it, and probably better, but that's not the point of the post, it's just that, the focus of D&D is having fun, and if optimized is fun for you, then by all means go for it, but in practice (sometimes) what I said could be an effective, and fun, tactic.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-08, 06:30 PM
Umm, because it was a creative way to get a flank, and you got to roll a jump and get into close quarters combat with a primary caster? Who, by RAW, I understand is also a vampire and lethal in close quarters, but see above for why that wouldn't really be an issue in my game. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a change of pace from "Trip, trip, trip" or "Charge, charge, charge some more."

Except that you, by the rules, can't make a leaping charge like that without a non-core feat.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 06:46 PM
Actually, according to the Rules Compendium, you can jump, balance, and even Tumble as part of a Charge. All hail the RC! :smallredface:

Fax Celestis
2008-02-08, 06:48 PM
Actually, according to the Rules Compendium, you can jump, balance, and even Tumble as part of a Charge. All hail the RC! :smallredface:

Arghible.

STOP MESSING WITH MY GAME KNOWLEDGE, RC.

horseboy
2008-02-08, 06:54 PM
Please accept my apology, I must be in the wrong place, this seems to be the "Well, the only way to play is the play the most mechanically effective way" forum instead of "General D20." The argument I made, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that Fighters can be a perfectly fun class without loads of splatbooks and other junk. If the actions I take allow me to have fun in the game, whether or not they are the most mechanically effective is irrelevant.

The part about the level drain brings up another point, because obviously everyone here has evil and/or stupid DM's. If you take everything at WotC's face value, then yeah, you're going to have a crappy fighter, but isn't it the DM's job to make sure everyone can have a good time and be effective?
That's the difference between D&D and a good game system. The players & DM shouldn't have to struggle so hard against the rules just to make sure everybody gets to do something worth wild.

[quote]
Umm, because it was a creative way to get a flank, and you got to roll a jump and get into close quarters combat with a primary caster? Who, by RAW, I understand is also a vampire and lethal in close quarters, but see above for why that wouldn't really be an issue in my game. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a change of pace from "Trip, trip, trip" or "Charge, charge, charge some more."But all you did was a a jump to the charge, charge, charge. I just don't see that as being something radically different enough to fix the "charge, charge, charge" problem. Jump charge, jump charge, jump charge is still charge, charge, charge with jump tagged on.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-08, 06:59 PM
A Veteran Wizard optimizer can break every law in the game.

Lemme see a fighter or a warblade do it!

With a roar of effort, I cancel Ao's divine Aura!

Frosty
2008-02-08, 07:08 PM
With a roar of effort, I cancel Ao's divine Aura!

Actually, I think a Warblade might be able to do that with Iron Heart Surge :smallbiggrin:

Woot Spitum
2008-02-08, 09:56 PM
To Woot- Sure, anyone can do it, and probably better, but that's not the point of the post, it's just that, the focus of D&D is having fun, and if optimized is fun for you, then by all means go for it, but in practice (sometimes) what I said could be an effective, and fun, tactic.Well, technically the thread is not debating whether or not you can have fun playing the fighter(you can), but whether or not fighters stand up to most of the other classes powerwise(they don't),and if fighters aren't as powerful as most other classes, would doubling their amount of bonus feats be good enough to make up for their lack of unique class abilities(it wouldn't).

Drakron
2008-02-08, 10:24 PM
Oh I can defend the fighter as not being broken.

At low levels the spellcasters are just for the rise, the fighter is the one doing things but the problem starts by the fact at mid levels there is a shift towards spellcasters (all those save-or-die spells) and the fighter only have to look at the equipment list for upgrades.

That is the problem, players start the game at looking for a level 20 build despite not starting at level 20 with nothing saying they will end with lv20+ characters, they also forget this is a TEAM system and not some PvP or MMORPG.

Being broken would mean until lv 8 the fighter was made useless by all other classes, I admit around lv 10 the fighter is better off looking at PtC since the fighter class cannot specialize as much as core spellcasters classes can.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-08, 10:42 PM
I don't think the fighter is weak. Stick a high-level fighter in the middle of a horde of enemies with a +5 Frostflame Greatsword and great cleave and tell me how that isn't magical?

bugsysservant
2008-02-08, 11:03 PM
I don't think the fighter is weak. Stick a high-level fighter in the middle of a horde of enemies with a +5 Frostflame Greatsword and great cleave and tell me how that isn't magical?

Well, when the wizard can just cast Prismatic Sphere and wait for the lot of them to die...

Seriously, being able to contribute to only 1% of situations does not make you a strong class. That's like saying "the monk is balanced if you ever run up against a magically immune Nemean lion!" Its just bad logic.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-09, 12:53 AM
1%? there's always something that needs killing. A fighter is almost always up for the job, it doesn't matter if there's anti magic spell resistant dire rodents with damage reduction a fighter can go up and take care of them and or buy time and space for said wizard (who I always am) to maybe fry said critter or whatever. And he can do it all day long, not something a wizard can claim until 4e hits the streets.

Deepblue706
2008-02-09, 02:42 AM
Please accept my apology, I must be in the wrong place, this seems to be the "Well, the only way to play is the play the most mechanically effective way" forum instead of "General D20." The argument I made, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that Fighters can be a perfectly fun class without loads of splatbooks and other junk. If the actions I take allow me to have fun in the game, whether or not they are the most mechanically effective is irrelevant.

I think you're kind of exaggerating other's arguments to extremes. I believe you're drawing criticism because one might feel that Decision A is simply a poor decision - there's a difference between "best" and "better".



The part about the level drain brings up another point, because obviously everyone here has evil and/or stupid DM's. If you take everything at WotC's face value, then yeah, you're going to have a crappy fighter, but isn't it the DM's job to make sure everyone can have a good time and be effective?

The DM's job is to make things work out, true - but it's not like they should be forced to because certain game developers are half-assed in their work. Hopefully they try anyway, but really now, saying DMs can make it all better is no argument. DMs can also say "Oh, Fighters also have infinite reach and deal 1000d1000 damage each attack. Oh, they get 5 of those per standard action." clearly if this is the case, Fighters are absolutely broken.



It's not logical to say "Alright, the unarmored vampire has Smashgar the Smasher in a grapple, and his 2-3 inch fangs easily pierce all that magic armor you're wearing and you lose a level." But that's a personal beef I have with the ways vampires are written, and that's how I houserule. It's these kind of things that a DM can do to balance out a game, and is merely an example.

I do not believe anyone is debating a DM has the power to change things - it's just that because not all DMs can work with equal efficiency, you cannot presume any standard, except for what is in the basic ruleset.



So I guess what I'm saying here is... we're arguing different things, I respect your view about how doing "cool things" in an optimized and completely RAW game is not a good idea, but my beef is with people believing that it's the only way and fighters are no fun. I would go as far as to agree that in a game that was declared "heavy optimization" before you begin, then avoid fighter for dear life, but in actual practice, you can do some fun things with it.


I love fighters. They're my favorite class. That doesn't stop me from admitting they suck - and that's what this thread is about.



Umm, because it was a creative way to get a flank, and you got to roll a jump and get into close quarters combat with a primary caster? Who, by RAW, I understand is also a vampire and lethal in close quarters, but see above for why that wouldn't really be an issue in my game. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a change of pace from "Trip, trip, trip" or "Charge, charge, charge some more."

Here, you quoted me, when clearly someone else said this. Please adjust your post.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-09, 11:50 AM
1%? there's always something that needs killing. A fighter is almost always up for the job, it doesn't matter if there's anti magic spell resistant dire rodents with damage reduction a fighter can go up and take care of them and or buy time and space for said wizard (who I always am) to maybe fry said critter or whatever. And he can do it all day long, not something a wizard can claim until 4e hits the streets.

Um, wizards can already cast all day long. Reserve Feats, from Complete Mage, make that possible.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-09, 12:00 PM
1%? there's always something that needs killing. A fighter is almost always up for the job,
Well, except if the fighter is incapable of reaching the enemy, which is quite common at higher levels where many monsters are highly mobile.

And in practice, wizards only very rarely run out of spells after level 5 or so, because there's not enough to do during a single day to cast them all.

Voyager_I
2008-02-09, 02:36 PM
Well, except if the fighter is incapable of reaching the enemy, which is quite common at higher levels where many monsters are highly mobile.

Seconded. At the higher levels, your most reliable means of reaching the big flying monsters will probably be getting swallowed whole...

...of course, you could always trade full attacks with Fire Giants and Dragons...

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-10, 06:40 AM
Here it goes again...:smallsmile:

Outside core, fighters may get problems since the new stuff published focuses on spellcasters. Nothing a good DM can't handle though - it's all optional stuff.

In the core rules, fighters are OK and can contribute throughout levels 1-20.

They are the undisputed weaponmasters of the game, thus are are slightly ahead in this respect compared to the other full BAB classes (who get compensated for this with extra skill points or minor spells).

They could get behind spellcasters at higher levels (as all non-casters could), but this is balanced with the magic items the game assumes the characters gain over their career (thus good chances in reaching flying monsters or escaping magical attacks).

Full level 20 fighters most of the time for highest levels specialise in
- charge tactics
- battlefield control tactics (spiked chain etc.)
- archery
or two or all of these tactics at once (with somewhat lessened power in the respective specialities than a full specialist, similar to the specialist casters).

Of course, like spellcasters (archmage, loremaster etc.) they can also take prestige classes. Thus either gaining spellcasting themselves (blackguard, assassin) or specialising in new tactics (becoming the initiative champion of the core game with the duelist prestige class, for instance).

There is no challenge printed in the core monster manual that a fighter of the appropriate level cannot overcome. For instance, like all classes, they can at level 20 even take on any CR 20 opponent on their own and have a good chance of succeeding/surviving.

So, in essence, yes: fighters can be homebrewed to reflect something else in everyone's campaigns. But they do fine as they are written in the core rules.

Useful links:
Core rules
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36333

Even outside core:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain
2008-02-10, 08:25 AM
Here it goes again...:smallsmile:

Yep. And again, you're saying nothing that hasn't been disproven and rebutted a dozen times or more.

The best thing that can be said for the fighter is that at least it is better than the monk.

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-10, 08:56 AM
I believe I once saw a homebrew Fighter called the "Stance Fighter" in which the fighter got "stances" each of which had a certain number of feats. These feats could only be used when in that particular stance.

That way, instead of the traditional "I am the ultimate cavalry warrior!" "The wizard casts disintegrate on your horse." tendency of fighters to be one trick ponies, they become six trick ponies.

I can't find the actual build though...

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-10, 09:35 AM
Yep. And again, you're saying nothing that hasn't been disproven and rebutted a dozen times or more.

I still wait to be "disproven". What happened was that no matter how detailed yours (and others) counterarguments were, I was able to counter them again (hinting at a balanced game imo).
Let us do it the other way round: give an example level where you see the fighter as unable to contribute in a fight in levels 1-20 and why. And simply saying "some monsters can fly and thus the fighter is useless" will not be enough, I assure you.

One more isssue: I think further up Solo raised the important point that possibly different levels of experience of a player can mean a fighter is too weak (i.e. too difficult to max sufficiently compared to casters).
Well, I guess at low levels of experience fighters are easier to play than casters - with rising difficulty for playing casters, the higher the level (i.e.: what spells to prepare in the morning?).


The best thing that can be said for the fighter is that at least it is better than the monk.

Yes, the fighter is better at fighting than the monk.

- Giacomo

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-10, 09:38 AM
Wait. Giacomo has acknowledged something is better than the monk.

When does the meteor shower start?

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-10, 09:42 AM
Well, what I admitted is that the fighter is better at fighting than the monk.
Outside combats (diplomacy, scouting, more skill points), or generally better resilience vs magical attacks and adverse environments, as well as better move to make a great porter for the group (courtesy Voyager_I :smallbiggrin: ) all then make up for the lower overall fighting ability.

It is a nature of a believer in core balance to see no technical superiority in any class:smallsmile: . This, of course, does not mean I have no personal preferences...my favourite classes are bard, rogue, fighter, wizard and paladin (or mixtures thereof).

- Giacomo

Toliudar
2008-02-10, 10:27 AM
Perhaps "proven" is the wrong word to be using in terms of establishing mechanically advantageous or disadvantageous class choices. Sir G is right, at least in a mathematical sense, in saying that no one has "proven" that fighters are a weaker class than X.

However, Sir Giacomo I would be curious to know how you are evaluating "no technical superiority" among the classes.

If it's possible to look at, say, the CW Samurai, and acknowledge that it's a set of abilities that a fighter build could do better, then we have the start of an understanding that not all classes are EXACTLY the same "technically".

Generally speaking, I think that if there's a subset of experiences or activities within the game that a particular class does very well (examples might include "fleeing a situation", "escaping from a death trap", "dealing with many individually weak hostile creatures", etc), or if they are a generalist that does these two or three subsets fairly well, then that class can be said to have a reasonable functionality in the game. That's why I would consider Duskblade a functional class, even though there's no one activity at which they excel (please, not trying to start a side-debate on this topic).

Fighters are pretty good at dealing intense amounts of damage in melee combat. However, there are other classes - Warblade, Crusader, Barbarian, Druid - who are at least as good, if not better. The other two things that I see fighters doing fairly frequently - battlefield control and ranged damage - I can see several other classes (cleric, wizard, even warlock) that do a mechanically more efficient job of. If you're suggesting that the fighter is in fact better than most of these others at any of those tasks, let's try to narrow the discussion down a bit.

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-10, 11:28 AM
Well Toliudar, I would argue only on the basis of core rules. Rules like ToB were published with completely new game mechanics much later. So it is not that useful to compare a, say, warblade to a fighter (or a monk to a swordsage). Additionally, outside of core there are so many options that technical power comparisons based on ALL published material are near impossible to make.
And as for the typical samurai example (similar to npc classes), that class CAN actually be "proven" to be an inferior version of other classes, barring some minor exceptions (I do not know by heart the abilities of the Samurai, something with the initimdate skill was unique about it. I vaguely remember).

Inside core, the fighter is OK imo.

- Giacomo

Spiryt
2008-02-10, 11:32 AM
There are things which never die. Some live forever in hearts of those who remember. Some are carved upon the memorials.

Some just return on the boards every month or so :smallamused:

Thinker
2008-02-10, 11:36 AM
Giacomo is absolutely 100% correct. Core is balanced perfectly with one another because monsters are retards and play to the player's strengths instead of their own. Everyone can pump UMD, afterall; this means that no one is without 9th level spells. Nothing to see here.

Toliudar
2008-02-10, 11:41 AM
Well Toliudar, I would argue only on the basis of core rules. Rules like ToB were published with completely new game mechanics much later. So it is not that useful to compare a, say, warblade to a fighter (or a monk to a swordsage). Additionally, outside of core there are so many options that technical power comparisons based on ALL published material are near impossible to make.
And as for the typical samurai example (similar to npc classes), that class CAN actually be "proven" to be an inferior version of other classes, barring some minor exceptions (I do not know by heart the abilities of the Samurai, something with the initimdate skill was unique about it. I vaguely remember).

Inside core, the fighter is OK imo.

- Giacomo

For those of us using the range of WoTC published materials, it is eminently useful to be able to compare core classes with new base classes in splatbooks. How else would we evaluate the usefulness and balance of those classes?

I'll assume from the imo at the end of your post that we're moving away from talk of proof towards the defense of opinions.

I would agree that the fighter is "ok". And suggest that most of the other base classes are "good", and the primary casters are "great".

Deepblue706
2008-02-10, 12:42 PM
Fighters can take out equal enemies of equal CR if you're doing it right. But, I think the point here is that other classes can very often overcome the same difficulties through the same methods, making a Fighter's solution often a general solution. Because other classes can use these methods plus more, I believe that is why they are deemed less powerful.

Solo
2008-02-10, 12:45 PM
I still wait to be "disproven".

Obstinacy proves nothing.


What happened was that no matter how detailed yours (and others) counterarguments were, I was able to counter them again (hinting at a balanced game imo).

You provided rebuttals, yes, but I couldn't help but note that you failed to provide good rebuttals.

There is a difference.



For example, when it was pointed out that Enervation was a great spell, you said it wasn't good against opponents with cover. Fair enough - Enervation is a good spell that naturally has a weakness, but if the opponent has cover the wizard won't be using Enervation in the first place. A wizard's strength lies in preparing many save or X spells, and then applying the strength of the spell to a monster's weakness, not the other way around.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that a wizard will use his spells without tactical thinking, going with spells that are unsuited to the situation.

This is but one example of why people do not think you are providing good counter arguments.

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-10, 02:42 PM
You provided rebuttals, yes, but I couldn't help but note that you failed to provide good rebuttals.

There is a difference.

Yes. Because you are of a different opinion, you certainly do NOT like the rebuttals. But rest assured - although I have a different opinion I still immensely enjoy your posts :smallbiggrin:


For example, when it was pointed out that Enervation was a great spell, you said it wasn't good against opponents with cover. Fair enough - Enervation is a good spell that naturally has a weakness, but if the opponent has cover the wizard won't be using Enervation in the first place

Solo, this is quite a bad example. Yes, enervation can be stopped by cover. Actually, it may even be argued that since it is a ray attack (and not a targeted spell), a tower shield (which the fighter gets as bonus proficiency btw) can provide protection against it.
What I objected to was the suggestion of enervation as a powerful spell for many combats and proof of caster uberness. And then CR9-10 creatures were given as opponent examples. Which, you know, is not a good idea since those creatures most often have no spell casting CLASS ability (only spell-like abilities) and relatively higher HD and attack bonus for their CR, so enervation was generally seen as an inferior spell in those circumstances (which happen to happen quite often in the game).


. A wizard's strength lies in preparing many save or X spells, and then applying the strength of the spell to a monster's weakness, not the other way around.

The wizard preparing for all possibilities is a myth. You should know that.
First of all, a wizard will not know EVERYTHING that is going to happen in the coming day.
Second, even when facing certain monsters/challenges he will not be able to apply the strength of a spell to a monster's weakness, since he does not know the monster manual by heart (only if he is metagaming). He will have to raise all the appropriate knowledge skills to even get a CHANCE at learning about a key weakness of a monster.

So yes, he may have prepared enervation for that day. But it will be useless in that encounter where opponents use cover or concealment.
He COULD have another method to fight the opponent. But that opponent (even if a non-spellcaster) has potentially counteractics against those and so on.
Either way, it is very hard to argue that a wizard is consistently superior to a fighter in technical terms because he MIGHT have the exact correct spell prepared in the morning (after, of course, having prepared the many spells devoted to his defense for the day since he is very frail).


You, on the other hand, seem to think that a wizard will use his spells without tactical thinking, going with spells that are unsuited to the situation.

This I never assumed. Quite the contrary, the impression is imo that the fighter is supposed to accept stupidly that there is magic in his world but that he should still be confined to do sword-bashing to keep up (typical examples are that the fighter is assumed helpless against flying monsters/opponents or monsters/opponents that are invisible).


This is but one example of why people do not think you are providing good counter arguments.

And you failed with this example completely.

- Giacomo

Morty
2008-02-10, 02:51 PM
Either way, it is very hard to argue that a wizard is consistently superior to a fighter in technical terms because he MIGHT have the exact correct spell prepared in the morning (after, of course, having prepared the many spells devoted to his defense for the day since he is very frail).


Which is why noone argues that. What everyone but you acknowledge is that high-level wizard:

a) Has enough spell slots to have all types of spells he might need.
b) Has acces to spells that work on almost everything.
b2) Especially on fighter.
But wait, what am I doing? I might as well read those arguments to the nearest wall. The effect would be the same.

Solo
2008-02-10, 02:57 PM
Yes. Because you are of a different opinion, you certainly do NOT like the rebuttals. But rest assured - although I have a different opinion I still immensely enjoy your posts

I enjoy yours as well.

Granted, for the wrong reasons, but I enjoy them nonetheless.


The wizard preparing for all possibilities is a myth. You should know that.

1. I never said prepare for all possibilities. However, most bases can be covered with Save or X spells that target one of the three saves, as most monsters don't have all good saves, and then toss on a few no save spells and some general purpose spells and defensive buffs on top of that.

Should be enough to get by, even without resorting to

2. Scrolls. They enable you to always have the right spells ready. Put them in a Handy Haversack (Ie, bat-belt!) and you're good to go.



This I never assumed. Quite the contrary, the impression is imo that the fighter is supposed to accept stupidly that there is magic in his world but that he should still be confined to do sword-bashing to keep up (typical examples are that the fighter is assumed helpless against flying monsters/opponents or monsters/opponents that are invisible).

If the fighter's going to use magic instead of sword bashing why isn't he a magic user?


So yes, he may have prepared enervation for that day. But it will be useless in that encounter where opponents use cover or concealment.
He COULD have another method to fight the opponent. But that opponent (even if a non-spellcaster) has potentially counteractics against those and so on.

He will not, however, have countertacitcs against everything.
And cover, you know, is only good until it is removed by, say, Disintigrate, which, unless I am mistaken, is a popular spell choice.

There are other ways of removing cover, ie, Shatter, but I am too lazy to post them all.



But wait, what am I doing? I might as well read those arguments to the nearest wall. The effect would be the same.

You may inflict sonic damage on the wall.

Thinker
2008-02-10, 03:11 PM
I enjoy yours as well.

Granted, for the wrong reasons, but I enjoy them nonetheless.

1. I never said prepare for all possibilities. However, most bases can be covered with Save or X spells that target one of the three saves, as most monsters don't have all good saves, and then toss on a few no save spells and some general purpose spells and defensive buffs on top of that.

Should be enough to get by, even without resorting to

Yeah, but some creatures are immune to mind-effecting, have spell-resistance, immune to most fort saves, have evasion, have a zillion and 1 HP, and have greater dispel as an at-will ability. Thus, fighters are fine.



2. Scrolls. They enable you to always have the right spells ready. Put them in a Handy Haversack (Ie, bat-belt!) and you're good to go.


Yeah, but a fighter can have scrolls, too. Besides, the haversack can have stuff in it that the fighter can use way better than the wizard (scroll of polymorph!


If the fighter's going to use magic instead of sword bashing why isn't he a magic user?

He doesn't need to be a magic user. He still gets to bash things, but now he bashes him with magic.


He will not, however, have countertacitcs against everything.
And cover, you know, is only good until it is removed by, say, Disintigrate, which, unless I am mistaken, is a popular spell choice.
Attended items use the holder's saving throws. This makes it perfectly reasonable. Besides, fighters will have enough strength to carry around 2, 3, or even 4 tower shields.



There are other ways of removing cover, ie, Shatter, but I am too lazy to post them all.

All it takes is for the cover to be magical to make it so shatter doesn't work. Besides, what is shatter going to do to a mountain?



You may inflict sonic damage on the wall.
I think the wall would be immune to sonic damage since its probably got a fighter holding it and thus has a good fort save :smallbiggrin:

[/sarcasm]

Solo
2008-02-10, 03:18 PM
All it takes is for the cover to be magical to make it so shatter doesn't work. Besides, what is shatter going to do to a mountain?

Give the forums five minutes, and someone will figure out a way to use Shatter to destroy a mountain.

Offhand, I would say to get a Mystic Theurge, or Wizard/Ur priest or something to have access to Shatter and Death Knell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathKnell.htm).

Get an arbitrarily large number of creatures, and use some sort of spell to put them at -1 or less (or have them be cultists and convince themselves to go into the "dying" category on their own), then cast Reach Spell Chain Spell Extend Spell Death Knell (from a scroll?) to get a large bonus to CL.


Repeat until your CL is high enough to Shatter a mountain.


I'm not sure if that works or not, but damn, that sounds cool. Sacrificing minions ftw!

On an entirely unrelated note, I know who the next BBEG for my next campaign is going to be.

Aquillion
2008-02-10, 04:40 PM
Honestly, if I wanted to fix the fighter, I'd just give him all good saves and 4 skill points... also, add Balance, Gather Information, Heal, and Survival to their list of skills. The good saves keeps them from being an actual liability when targeted by charm / dominate effects, while the skills give them a bit more usefulness outside of combat without being enough (or important enough) to overshadow anyone else. Maybe add spot and listen, too... with only 4 skill points, they're not going to threaten the rogue.

Adding more feats is pointless. Feats are the one thing they don't have to worry about.

...but the other problem with being a fighter is that they don't really improve at higher levels. Oh, sure, they keep getting +1 bab and an extra feat every so often, but for most classes, higher-level levels are worth more than lower ones. This generally isn't the case for a fighter... there are a few feats you have to be a fighter of level XYZ to take, but those don't go too far. There are feat chains, yes... but most are pretty short. They aren't going to use up all of a fighter's feats until level 20. Sooner or later, the fighter inevitably ends up taking feats at higher levels that they could have taken much earlier on... that sucks. A sorcerer who was forced to take a level 1 or 2 spell at level 17 (in one of their precious 9th-level slots!) would go berserk, but for a fighter that's just the way things are.

Basically, unless a fighter is doing something absurdly feat-intensive, I can't see any reason why they'd keep taking fighter levels later on... any other full-BAB class would be just as good (or better, if you already have all the important feats for your build.)

I'm not sure how to fix this. Could the class be given a capstone ability, and if so, what?

If we want to retain the flexability and mechanical flavor of the class... how about giving them early access to a limited selection of epic feats at higher levels? Obviously, they would have to be carefully-chosen to avoid being too overpowered, but this could make fighters more interesting and rewarding to take to level 20, at least.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-10, 06:42 PM
Fighters are great for two weapon fighting builds.
Having been tpk by a charmed fighter, I now protect her from mind affecting spells, fear, etc.

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 07:31 PM
Fighters are great for two weapon fighting builds.
Having been tpk by a charmed fighter, I now protect her from mind affecting spells, fear, etc.

Yes, we all know that Fighters can perform well in a few specific roles. The problem is that their selection of roles is very limited, and they can only do one at a time, and a properly specialized fighter isn't especially useful in anything besides their role, and an unspecialized fighter isn't really useful at all.

Also, Giacomo, answer me this; how does your theory that UMD was designed specifically to level the playing field between noncasters and casters mesh with the fact that noncasters couldn't even take ranks in the skill in 3.0, and only received access to it after the death of class-specific skills in general?

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-10, 08:10 PM
They only need to do one thing. What's more, fighters become good at what they do faster than any other class and you don't have to be as careful multiclassing.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-10, 08:13 PM
They only need to do one thing. What's more, fighters become good at what they do faster than any other class and you don't have to be as careful multiclassing.

But you do need to be careful about what feats you choose. Why? Because, despite all those feats, you've got to live with them for your entire career. If a sorceror chooses the wrong spell, he can trade it in later for a different one. If a wizard chooses the wrong spell, all he's got to do is stop preparing it. Fighters? Well...they get the wrong feat, and they've got to wait until someone has wish or psychic reformation.

Thinker
2008-02-10, 08:38 PM
But you do need to be careful about what feats you choose. Why? Because, despite all those feats, you've got to live with them for your entire career. If a sorceror chooses the wrong spell, he can trade it in later for a different one. If a wizard chooses the wrong spell, all he's got to do is stop preparing it. Fighters? Well...they get the wrong feat, and they've got to wait until someone has wish or psychic reformation.

Or the fighter maxes UMD and simply buys a scroll of wish whenever he needs it :smalltongue:

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 09:00 PM
They only need to do one thing. What's more, fighters become good at what they do faster than any other class and you don't have to be as careful multiclassing.

You misunderstand. When I say "One Thing", I don't mean "Fighting in General". Fighters aren't good at fighting. A properly optimized Fighter can be good at "Charging" or "Tripping" or "Archery", et cetera. In some cases, they can even be game-breakingly good at one thing (Ubercargers do frightening amounts of damage). Heck, maybe they can even be passably decent at two niches. However, they're all highly situational. You can't expect to get a charge every time you want to attack something, some monsters simply can't be tripped, and Wind Wall negates archery entirely, no matter how magical your bow is. Whenever you don't get to use your special little trick (which can be frequent), then you're essentially an NPC class with the Elite Array and one extra hit point per Hit Die. Don't worry too much, though; Batman and CoDzilla have your back.

Oh, and if you're ever not fighting something? It's nap time for the Fighter's player, because you probably don't want the beefcake with 8 Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy talking to King Nitpick.

Isn't being useless outside of one extremely specific and situational context fun!?!

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-10, 09:57 PM
I'm a rich, crazy, npc with magical armor made of star metal and a sword made of dragon souls with the second best hd under said metal skin. Fighters get great gear, even assuming I min-max there are plenty of slots to waste on dump stats (Ring of Shortcomings). Or I don't know you could role play a character other than mr charming, there's plenty of fun to be had in failing checks. Get in a fight? Oh no, I guess I'll have to cut everyone up. More gear for me!

Woot Spitum
2008-02-10, 10:08 PM
I'm a rich, crazy, npc with magical armor made of star metal and a sword made of dragon souls with the second best hd under said metal skin. Fighters get great gear, even assuming I min-max there are plenty of slots to waste on dump stats (Ring of Shortcomings). Or I don't know you could role play a character other than mr charming, there's plenty of fun to be had in failing checks. Get in a fight? Oh no, I guess I'll have to cut everyone up. More gear for me!It's all fun and games until someone hits you with Mordekainen's Disjunction. Or you run into something that can fly. Or something that is invisible. Or incorporeal. Or has a spell or ability that forces a will save. Or is simply bigger, stronger, and tougher than you are, like most melee-based foes past CR 10.

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 10:16 PM
I'm a rich, crazy, npc with magical armor made of star metal and a sword made of dragon souls with the second best hd under said metal skin. Fighters get great gear, even assuming I min-max there are plenty of slots to waste on dump stats (Ring of Shortcomings). Or I don't know you could role play a character other than mr charming, there's plenty of fun to be had in failing checks. Get in a fight? Oh no, I guess I'll have to cut everyone up. More gear for me!

Gear, just like everything else the Fighter has, is not a class feature, and so should be given no weight in this argument. Every class gets the same amount of goodies, so it isn't exactly a leg-up for you. In fact, Wizards can make their own stuff at half price, so they can potentially have twice as many shinies as you. And while we're at it, NPC's don't obey WBL guidelines, so don't be surprised if the King's 3rd Level Aristocrat son has better gear than Sir Hacksalot, or if his Bodyguard's halberd costs more than the rest of your party combined.

Also, you might enjoy picking unnecessary fights with your abrasive personality, but your companions might get annoyed if all their social encounters are ruined by the stupid meatshield who doesn't realize that he only stands in front when it's time to get eaten. "Kill them and take their stuff because I'm a jerk and I can" is not a winning attitude in any serious campaign, and that's on the fairly generous assumption that you can win any fights you pick (because fighters really are weak), and your party will repeatedly intervene on your behalf despite the fact that you're actively making their lives more difficult.

...or the Wizard could just Dominate you and make everyone's lives easier (it's not really good for the group dynamic, but if you're insistent on being obnoxious, neither are you).

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-10, 10:47 PM
It's all fun and games until someone hits you with Mordekainen's Disjunction. Or you run into something that can fly. Or something that is invisible. Or incorporeal. Or has a spell or ability that forces a will save. Or is simply bigger, stronger, and tougher than you are, like most melee-based foes past CR 10.

If I get hit with M's disjunction by flying, invisible, mind flayers, then I might have a problem, and some questions for my DM. But then even if I get hit with all that I've done my job and am still alive (thanks Blind-Fight I got just because I could!). Now my companions know there's trouble and probably have started to lay the magic smack down while I see which of my swords made it's possibly higher save.


Gear, just like everything else the Fighter has, is not a class feature, and so should be given no weight in this argument. Every class gets the same amount of goodies, so it isn't exactly a leg-up for you. In fact, Wizards can make their own stuff at half price, so they can potentially have twice as many shinies as you. And while we're at it, NPC's don't obey WBL guidelines, so don't be surprised if the King's 3rd Level Aristocrat son has better gear than Sir Hacksalot, or if his Bodyguard's halberd costs more than the rest of your party combined.

Also, you might enjoy picking unnecessary fights with your abrasive personality, but your companions might get annoyed if all their social encounters are ruined by the stupid meatshield who doesn't realize that he only stands in front when it's time to get eaten. "Kill them and take their stuff because I'm a jerk and I can" is not a winning attitude in any serious campaign, and that's on the fairly generous assumption that you can win any fights you pick (because fighters really are weak), and your party will repeatedly intervene on your behalf despite the fact that you're actively making their lives more difficult.

...or the Wizard could just Dominate you and make everyone's lives easier (it's not really good for the group dynamic, but if you're insistent on being obnoxious, neither are you).
It's not just the gear but how you use it, I swing a sword (magical or not) better than anyone.
Gear counts anyway, strip most characters naked and they are hosed. Ok, a monk or a sorcerer might do well but then a monk would only do so well and a sorcerer goes down the instant melee starts (that's right not all encounters occur at twenty paces on an open field).
"Abrasive personality" are we talking about me or my character? We're adventurers, once we leave our village, all our fight are unnecessary!

the_tick_rules
2008-02-10, 11:00 PM
just play what you like and ignore this forum.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-10, 11:02 PM
just play what you like and ignore this forum.
Hahahaha, OK.

Rutee
2008-02-10, 11:06 PM
It might just be me, but I would wager that between a naked monk and a naked fighter, I'm /pretty sure/ the Monk wins, unless the Fighter foresaw this at level 1 and built himself from the ground up to be an unarmed combatant.. But Monk is a pretty weak class, so who knows?

Fax Celestis
2008-02-10, 11:09 PM
It's not just the gear but how you use it, I swing a sword (magical or not) better than anyone.

Oh really? Perhaps you'd better take (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) a (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm) look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm) at (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm).

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 11:18 PM
If I get hit with M's disjunction by flying, invisible, mind flayers, then I might have a problem, and some questions for my DM.

Keep in mind that anything which can cast Disjunction can definitely be flying and invisible if it wants to be. Countermeasures are more available by that point, but mostly for the magics.



It's not just the gear but how you use it, I swing a sword (magical or not) better than anyone.
Gear counts anyway, strip most characters naked and they are hosed. Ok, a monk or a sorcerer might do well but then a monk would only do so well and a sorcerer goes down the instant melee starts (that's right not all encounters occur at twenty paces on an open field).
"Abrasive personality" are we talking about me or my character? We're adventurers, once we leave our village, all our fight are unnecessary!

Correction: Your swing a sword about as well as any other full BAB class with a relevant ability score. You may or may not have a series of feats related to the swinging of that sword, which members of pretty much any other class may or may not also have. If you've gone far out of your way to optimize and have access to several splatbooks, you could potentially have more feats than anyone else, in which case congratulations, you may have broken one particular ability. Unfortunately, you're unremarkable in every capacity not relating directly to that one specific ability, and the other classes more than make up for it by having actual class features.

If you haven't specialized or don't have access to lots of books, then you probably aren't good at anything. In this case, you're markedly worse at sword-swinging than just about any other full BAB class.

This is the problem: your absolute best case scenario is being good at one or two specific abilities that won't even be applicable in every fight, let alone most situations in general. Whenever you don't get to use all those feats, the only thing separating you from the NPC Warrior class is an average of one hit point per level. In any situation not pertaining to combat, you're essentially useless. Yes, you can roleplay an abrasive personality (referring to the character, not you), but the rest of the party isn't going to let you do the talking.

To sum it up in one sentence: All you can do is fight, and you aren't even good at that.

Solo
2008-02-10, 11:20 PM
just play what you like and ignore this forum.

Nay, you must only play what is prescribed to you by anonymous Internet forum goers and ignore this man!




Oh really? Perhaps you'd better take (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) a (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm) look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm) at (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm).

You left out Divine Metamagic Persist Spell Bite of the Werebear

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 11:26 PM
You left out Divine Metamagic Persist Spell Bite of the Werebear

...and Barbarians, and anything from the Tome of Battle...

Fax Celestis
2008-02-10, 11:55 PM
You left out Divine Metamagic Persist Spell Bite of the Werebear

I was trying to stay in core to prevent ZOMG!Splatbook Syndrome.

Voyager_I
2008-02-10, 11:57 PM
I was trying to stay in core to prevent ZOMG!Splatbook Syndrome.

But isn't that pretty important for a decent Fighter to begin with?

horseboy
2008-02-11, 12:21 AM
Yeah, what's the point of being a trip fighter without Hold the Line, or a charger without shock trooper?

Fax Celestis
2008-02-11, 12:27 AM
But isn't that pretty important for a decent Fighter to begin with?

Well, yes. But there are a lot of people out there who're damned certain that anything that isn't in the Core Three is ZOMGBorken. I figure showing based off of core-only spots where the fighter gets pwnt at his own game is a better way to show just how worse off he is.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-11, 05:45 AM
It might just be me, but I would wager that between a naked monk and a naked fighter, I'm /pretty sure/ the Monk wins, unless the Fighter foresaw this at level 1 and built himself from the ground up to be an unarmed combatant.. But Monk is a pretty weak class, so who knows?
Hmm.. the monk stuns the fighter, that has a pretty decent chance of making his Fort save. The monk can attack the fighter more often with more attacks that deals more damage. The monk's lower BAB and the fighter's lack of defensive values get then even. Then the fighter get tired and just grapples the monk. While he doesn't deal as much damage as the monk, he can pin him thanks to his better BAB. Just deal non-lethal damage until the monk's smaller HP pool runs out.
Monk is better than fighter with special abilities and skills, not in direct combat.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-11, 07:54 AM
Sir Giacomo, I'm tired of your continuing stupidity. Fighters and Monks are not even on the same level of power as a wizard.

Make any fighter you want and any monk you want using any PrC's from any book you want, the only caveat being that you can't have any casting levels or spells known. Let's go with level 10, level 15, and level 20. Using the same build for all levels.

I will make 2 wizards. 1 using all splat books and PrC's with the only caveat being that I can't loose any casting levels. The other will be core only.

Both of us will be sent solo against a variety of CR 20+ monsters. Both of us will have 4 of these challenges in a day. And finally we will fight each other.

--------------
I already have the splay book wizard built. Don't have the core one built but that won't be hard.

Either take me up on this or stop supporting the utterly incorrect position that fighters and monks are mechanically comparable in ability to wizards.

Oh and just an FYI, the splat book wizard can solo over 90% of the published 3.5 monsters with a CR of 20+ in 1 round. Without going nova.

Solo
2008-02-11, 08:14 AM
Both of us will be sent solo against a variety of CR 20+ monsters. Both of us will have 4 of these challenges in a day. And finally we will fight each other.

--------------
I already have the splay book wizard built. Don't have the core one built but that won't be hard.

Either take me up on this or stop supporting the utterly incorrect position that fighters and monks are mechanically comparable in ability to wizards.

Oh and just an FYI, the splat book wizard can solo over 90% of the published 3.5 monsters with a CR of 20+ in 1 round. Without going nova.

Someone say my name?


Anyways, I believe something like this this is already being tested with Talic's Monk Balance Test.


ps. Might want to edit anything too personal out of there.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 11:56 AM
I was trying to stay in core to prevent ZOMG!Splatbook Syndrome.

The whole premise of my thread already assumes that one has access to splatbooks. I myself would never play a pure fighter in core-only games. What I am claiming is that with enough splatbooks, Fighters can excel in a few roles that are darned important in-game. One of those roles being: Protecting the guy with the robe and the staff that makes other things go boom. The other being: Doing damage without consuming a limited resource. Social settings-wise, even if you have 8 charisma, you're just slightly worse than a commoner in terms of sweet-talking. If you have a compelling case to make, people will still listen to you even if you make a few social faux-pas.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-11, 12:03 PM
You seem to be making the false assumption that the "dude in the robe" both needs protecting and cannot protect himself when the need arises.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-11, 12:20 PM
You seem to be making the false assumption that the "dude in the robe" both needs protecting and cannot protect himself when the need arises.

Yep.

That wizard I mentioned earlier is an extreme example but it is immune to the following:
Metal Weapons
Magic that allows SR
Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, and Sonic damage
Mind Affecting effects
Death effects
Necromancy Effects
Anything that allows a fort save and doesn't work on objects
Poison
Disease
Sleep Effects
Stunning
Critical Hits
Nonlethal Damage
Ability Damage
Ability Drain
Fatigue
Exhaustion
Energy Drain
Can't be targeted by anything without True Seeing

And those are just the immunities. Not any of the other buffs. Anything that that wizard needs protecting from will not be slowed by the fighter.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 12:27 PM
Mr magic can't protect himself at all times, and especially not before high level play. And then, there are casters who are unoptimized and need protecting. Real life groups often have casters uninterested in being optimized. No one in my group uses Rope Trick, and I don't think they're high enough level to use Magnificent Mansion yet (forgot what level spell it is). They're starting to use battlefield control spells like Black Tentacles, but they still prefer direct damage spells most of the time.

Warmages don't have all of the tricks needed to protect themselves although being able to wear mithril full-plate helps. Sorcerers may not have selected the right spells. Beguilers have decent buffs, but can't fly, teleport, or really do anything to stop the enemy from reaching him short of things like Hesitate or Halt. Only Wizards have the potential to really protect himself, and not everyone plays a wizard.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-11, 12:37 PM
Beguilers have decent buffs, but can't fly, teleport, or really do anything to stop the enemy from reaching him short of things like Hesitate or Halt.

Um, hold person? Vertigo field? Slow? Solid fog? Use Magic Device?

Kurald Galain
2008-02-11, 12:39 PM
Mr magic can't protect himself at all times, and especially not before high level play.
The problem is, at low level, the fighter can't actually prevent enemies from walking around him to hit the caster - but the caster can be invisible from level three, and airborne from level five.

But yeah, if you play an ineffective sorcerer (of which the warmage is essentially an example) you are more balanced to the fighter. However, in terms of optimization, it is actually easier to make a sorcerer that can defend himself, than to make a fighter that can defend the sorcerer. And unlike the fighter, the sorc can swap out his abilities on later levels.

Beguilers have such things as invisibility at their disposal, as well as mirror image and a variety of battlefield control spells. And you left out several other classes, such as the warlock and the cleric, who are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 12:39 PM
yech. I hate vertigo field. Affects your allies as well. Solid Fog is good, to be sure, but it is still nothing compared to what a wizard can do. I'm sure that without prodigious UMD use, a Beguiler can't solo adventure very well.

Indon
2008-02-11, 12:46 PM
This proves nothing. Your sample size is too small, which can easily lead to skewed results when analyzing data. There are too many variables that you have not taken into account. For example, in addition to the strength of the class itself, in a real world game, we must also consider the competency of the player, which can make up for a poorly designed class (to some degree) or ruin a well designed class.

I agree. Any reasonably optimized caster is evidently superior, and it takes inexperienced players who know little to nothing about playing D&D for the Fighter to have any hope of keeping up.


To have an effective character that can come anywhere near the ffectiveness of even a non-optimized caster, you must scour through many splatbooks and be a high-level optimizer. My build I presented will protect casters very well. My build also uses like 5 different books at least, something a newbie can't do. A newbie fighter is screwed. A newbie wizard or cleric, not so much.

I agree. An inexperienced player has no chance of keeping up with the evidently superior casters (provided reasonable optimization, of course), and it takes seasoned players who are able to give everyone a role in the group to give the Fighter any chance of being useful.


But all you did was a a jump to the charge, charge, charge. I just don't see that as being something radically different enough to fix the "charge, charge, charge" problem. Jump charge, jump charge, jump charge is still charge, charge, charge with jump tagged on.

Seriously! Any reasonably optimized caster is much more interesting, as you get to select the best option out of a list of ways (being your memorized spells) to win any given encounter. That's way more interesting than what the Fighter does, and much more effective, too.


And in practice, wizards only very rarely run out of spells after level 5 or so, because there's not enough to do during a single day to cast them all.

I feel that points like these, regarding how people actually play D&D, should be reiterated for emphasis.


Fighters are great for two weapon fighting builds.
Having been tpk by a charmed fighter, I now protect her from mind affecting spells, fear, etc.

This is a testament to how the Fighter is bad - one spell from a caster and your party is dead, because the Fighter is weak. At least without the Fighter, the caster would have to use a spell that isn't Enchantment school to defeat you all with a standard action.


It's all fun and games until someone hits you with Mordekainen's Disjunction.

Another point - since Fighters gain so much more from magic items than casters, a Disjunction will prove to be far more catastrophic against them than against other, more powerful characters.


In summary, the people who have spoken regarding the utter superiority of casters have changed my mind - rather than try to fix the Fighter, we should just delete the class, as well as every non-casting class in D&D, and replace them all with reflavored casters of some type. Which, of course, 4E is doing for us anyway.

Morty
2008-02-11, 12:55 PM
In summary, the people who have spoken regarding the utter superiority of casters have changed my mind - rather than try to fix the Fighter, we should just delete the class, as well as every non-casting class in D&D, and replace them all with reflavored casters of some type. Which, of course, 4E is doing for us anyway.

:smallsigh: Do you have any specific reason to behave as if all people claiming that wizard is stronger than fighter have personally insulted you? And is that reason good enough to use strawman arguments and put words in people's mouths?
Which is not to say 4ed way of giving all class the same mechanics isn't mind-numbingly horrible. But it's not making fighters reflavored casters. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Indon
2008-02-11, 01:06 PM
:smallsigh: Do you have any specific reason to behave as if all people claiming that wizard is stronger than fighter have personally insulted you?
I assure you, Sir, my actions are without malice. It is quite evident that the Wizard is vastly superior to the Fighter in practice, since that's ultimately what we're talking about, and as Solo implies, anyone who plays a caster who could demonstrate otherwise simply isn't good at playing D&D, and is ruining a well-designed class (which the casters are).


And is that reason good enough to use strawman arguments and put words in people's mouths?
I thought I was just quoting people and agreeing with them. I don't imagine I'm using any arguments at all, really.


Which is not to say 4ed way of giving all class the same mechanics isn't mind-numbingly horrible. But it's not making fighters reflavored casters. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I think it has potential, to be honest. After all, pretty much everything in Exalted use charms as their primary form of technique, except for fae, dragon kings and thaumaturgists, of course (all the actual Exalted all use charms, anyway). And the Charm system works out just fine, with plenty of variety.

Edit: And I was mostly referring to the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader. I know that what 4'th edition is going to make every class will be a kind of semi-vancian... thing. Possibly with power points. Not enough information to tell, really.

Morty
2008-02-11, 01:14 PM
I assure you, Sir, my actions are without malice. It is quite evident that the Wizard is vastly superior to the Fighter in practice, since that's ultimately what we're talking about, and as Solo implies, anyone who plays a caster who could demonstrate otherwise simply isn't good at playing D&D, and is ruining a well-designed class (which the casters are).

Well, if high-level wizard can't defeat high-level fighter, then the wizard is built weakly, wheter intentionally or not. What I don't see is why direct heavy amount of poorly hidden sarcasm at people who merely state the facts.


I thought I was just quoting people and agreeing with them. I don't imagine I'm using any arguments at all, really.

Correction: you're agreeing with stuff noone really said.


I think it has potential, to be honest. After all, pretty much everything in Exalted use charms as their primary form of technique, except for fae, dragon kings and thaumaturgists, of course (all the actual Exalted all use charms, anyway). And the Charm system works out just fine, with plenty of variety.

I'm not familiar with Exalted, so I'm afraid I'm missing the comparision.


Edit: And I was mostly referring to the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader. I know that what 4'th edition is going to make every class will be a kind of semi-vancian... thing. Possibly with power points. Not enough information to tell, really.

Errr.... no. In 4ed Vancian casting goes right through the window, because it's not cool enough. In 4ed, everyone uses the same per encounter, per combat or per day "powers". It's been said few times. Still sucks, though.

Indon
2008-02-11, 01:36 PM
Well, if high-level wizard can't defeat high-level fighter, then the wizard is built weakly, wheter intentionally or not. What I don't see is why direct heavy amount of poorly hidden sarcasm at people who merely state the facts.

I don't find the comments to be particularly sarcastic. I think they're quite representative of the discussion, much like, say, Tippy's excellent Wizard builds. (Edit: Or Thinker's well-constructed rebuttals, for that matter)


Correction: you're agreeing with stuff noone really said.
If you feel I'm quoting individuals out of context, please provide an example so as to clarify your position. I feel that I quoted those individuals accurately, and that what their words say are in fact what their words mean, and that, at worst, my comments are elaborative.


Errr.... no. In 4ed Vancian casting goes right through the window, because it's not cool enough. In 4ed, everyone uses the same per encounter, per combat or per day "powers". It's been said few times. Still sucks, though.

Didn't they say that "some aspects of Vancian casting will remain"? This, combined with everyone being given the same system, seems that everyone will now be using elements of the Vancian system.

TempusCCK
2008-02-11, 01:53 PM
Wizards can regularly break/change/ignore most of the mechanics/rules of the game at higher level, with this kind of power, there can be no debate that they win.

However, one of the more annoying points of a threat like this is the fact that little to none of this is applicable in actual practice. The DM is there to arbitrate and balance things out. Casters have to sleep sometime, rope trick and MMM are stupid. If the players can do it, so can the enemies.

Batman: "Holy Confounding Counterspells Robin, that enemy spellcaster is messing my **** up"

No one has ever claimed that D&D was meant to be played completely and utterly without DM intervention, therefore, there is no intention that it should absolutely 100% balanced/fair/whatever, without the DM there.

Is it possible, is it maybe even likely, the someone designing something somewhere said "Hey, this is a cool idea, if it's too broken combined with some random ass thing I'm not even sure exists, I'm sure most DM's won't let it go"

But there's also the "WOW THIS IS COOL LET'S DO IT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES!?" in which case, we're glad we have DM's.

So, how this ties into the fighter: With a decent DM who understands you may or may not want to play a melee-type, everything everyone says on this forum is completely and utterly fruitless.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-11, 02:06 PM
Actually that same wizard I mentioned requires the DM to blatantly create challenges just for it. To the point where the whole game takes place in dead magic zones, every baddy uses disjunction, and every enemy has true seeing.

And if I was inclined too I could take 17 wizard levels and 3 cleric levels and grab Initiate of Mystra. Then Dead Magic/Antimagic wouldn't matter any more.

With DuelWard up all day I can instant counterspell 1 spell per day, which can be used against the disjunction.

Now persistent buffs are cheap and said build requires Incantatrix abuse to get all those buffs but its still a legal build. This is pretty much the top of the line wizard build but can you come up with any fighter build that is even within an order of magnitude of said wizard?

And if you throw in Astral Projection you get free lives as well.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 02:09 PM
Wizards can regularly break/change/ignore most of the mechanics/rules of the game at higher level, with this kind of power, there can be no debate that they win.

However, one of the more annoying points of a threat like this is the fact that little to none of this is applicable in actual practice.Actually, it comes up pretty often in most of my games. As we play as RAW as possible.
The DM is there to arbitrate and balance things out. Casters have to sleep sometime, rope trick and MMM are stupid. If the players can do it, so can the enemies. They may be stupid, but they may also be there for a reason. We didn't write the book, so we take their words for what they say.


Batman: "Holy Confounding Counterspells Robin, that enemy spellcaster is messing my **** up"That was Robin that talked like that. I'm pretty sure it was also only the Burt Ward version. [/dorketry]


No one has ever claimed that D&D was meant to be played completely and utterly without DM intervention, therefore, there is no intention that it should absolutely 100% balanced/fair/whatever, without the DM there.Huge Fallacy. That's like saying the rules for hockey says that there should be a ref there, therefore the rules for hockey don't need to consistent and make sense.


Is it possible, is it maybe even likely, the someone designing something somewhere said "Hey, this is a cool idea, if it's too broken combined with some random ass thing I'm not even sure exists, I'm sure most DM's won't let it go"

But there's also the "WOW THIS IS COOL LET'S DO IT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES!?" in which case, we're glad we have DM's.Or they could just be a bunch of incompetent douche bags that don't know what they were doing. I know that's my vote.

Solo
2008-02-11, 02:44 PM
everything everyone says on this forum is completely and utterly fruitless.

Including the wit and wisdom of TempusCCK.:smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2008-02-11, 02:52 PM
Or they could just be a bunch of incompetent douche bags that don't know what they were doing. I know that's my vote.

Hey now, don't be so harsh. Some of us are actually competent, civilized human beings.

...some.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 03:05 PM
Hey now, don't be so harsh. Some of us are actually competent, civilized human beings.

...some.
I was referring to the 3.x development team. Not people on the board. My bad for not making that clearer.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 03:08 PM
So this is really more of a case of wizards being able ot everything, not Fighters being completely incompetent. So, if a DM has reasonable houserules that nerfs Batman-style wizardry, then Fighters will have a place. Or, if your party casters don't optimize at all, then fighters still have a place.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 03:11 PM
So this is really more of a case of wizards being able ot everything, not Fighters being completely incompetent. So, if a DM has reasonable houserules that nerfs Batman-style wizardry, then Fighters will have a place. Or, if your party casters don't optimize at all, then fighters still have a place.
Yup, and they tend to cross that line between "team work" and "Charity" too often for my tastes.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 03:12 PM
If someone has to refrain from optimization in any sense of the word, just to let someone else keep thei role, the game's got a pretty major set of flaws.


I was referring to the 3.x development team. Not people on the board. My bad for not making that clearer.
This isn't strictly fair. They pretty much had to destroy all their previous assumptions about how DnD 'should' work to stand a chance at balancing it.

Dairun Cates
2008-02-11, 03:16 PM
More bonus feats would just make people take fewer fighter levels before multiclassing elsewhere. Fighter by itself is suboptimal, but there are many builds that benefit from a small dip to mooch some feats.

I've seen players try to go straight fighter in core. It doesn't work because by level 10 they have all the feats they need, and start taking feats that might be kinda nice. Like weapon focus for their second and tertiary weapons. If they aren't going to be gaining any class features and the feats aren't needed, there's no point in sticking with the class anymore.

I'm going out on a limb and saying said players tried to play 18 strength, 18 con monsters with no dex or int, because that is the only way you could run out of feats that are useful at level 10 for a core fighter. I mean, hell, I'd be aiming for whirlwind attack before extra weapon focus feats. Assuming you DO take weapon focus and specialization, there still other options. Off the top of my head, you still have power attack, cleave, great cleave, combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip, improved disarm, improved sunder, mounted combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge, improved critical, and the list goes on for a bit more. While not all of those are potent for every build, they're still way better than weapon focus and weapon specialization for weapons you rarely use.

Edit: AND IMPROVED INITIATIVE! Why wouldn't you take improved initiative if you have THAT many spare feats? Going first is a huge benefit at higher levels.

Indon
2008-02-11, 03:29 PM
So, how this ties into the fighter: With a decent DM who understands you may or may not want to play a melee-type, everything everyone says on this forum is completely and utterly fruitless.

Look. We assume people play almost perfectly by the RAW, have an almost completely permissible DM, and look to make their characters as powerful as possible (It's in character, because when your life is on the line, of course you're always going to take the best option). Then, any conclusions we make based on that environment, we apply to our games. What's so wrong about that?


Actually that same wizard I mentioned requires the DM to blatantly create challenges just for it. To the point where the whole game takes place in dead magic zones, every baddy uses disjunction, and every enemy has true seeing.

Well, arguably, Tippy, that Wizard is slightly above the baseline, in terms of preparedness. After all, why does a Wizard really need armor of Fortification when he can reasonably be sure that nothing will ever be able to attack him due to his spells?

Unless he's immune to crits from a spell, too, in which case, please disregard.


Actually, it comes up pretty often in most of my games. As we play as RAW as possible.

Really? Wow. I'm surprised (and somewhat sympathetic) your group still plays D&D, with the system being as hideously broken as it is, and requiring such total reconstruction as it does (my group generally plays heavily houseruled D&D, so that it's withstandable). Why not just play something better? (If I had to guess, I'd say you and your friends like the writing of various modules and settings?)


I'm going out on a limb and saying said players tried to play 18 strength, 18 con monsters with no dex or int, because that is the only way you could run out of feats that are useful at level 10 for a core fighter.

A Fighter with multiple attribute dependency might not run out of feats to take, but what good is he?

Woot Spitum
2008-02-11, 03:35 PM
So this is really more of a case of wizards being able ot everything, not Fighters being completely incompetent. So, if a DM has reasonable houserules that nerfs Batman-style wizardry, then Fighters will have a place. Or, if your party casters don't optimize at all, then fighters still have a place.No, the issue remains that unless the enemy has no way to avoid trips or charges (depending on the build) the fighter becomes nearly useless. And at higher levels a vast majority of the monsters you will encounter will have ways to avoid these tactics. The fighter simply has no versatility, which is the most important thing to have at high levels. Finally, unless tripping people with a spiked chain is your cup of tea, there isn't a single tactic you can use that another class (or several classes) can't do better (even if you discount Tome of Battle).

Fighter is not a good name for the class. It should be called "fighter substitution levels" and be described as a way that a member of another class can grab extra martial bonus feats at the expense of a slower progression in their current class.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 03:51 PM
With Stand Still, the monsters also have to make high DC reflex saves in order not to be stopped in their tracks. Hell, if you really like tripping, even flying creatures can be tripped according to the Rules Compendium. You send them crashing into the ground when you trip them.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of many monsters that is both immune to charging and can avoid tripping/consistantly make good reflex saves. Good fighter builds can do both charging and lockdown. And I never claimed that other classes can't do it better. I'm claiming that Fighters can do it, and that Fighters are far from unplayable. And, if the casters aren't being cheesy, they have something to contribute. In most games (and certainly all of my games), we police ourselves so the game isn't: Wizards own. You win. Game over. This is boring. Even if Casters do cheese out, Fighters are still playable. Whether they enjoy the game due to other players doing cheesy things is another question.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 04:05 PM
In most games (and certainly all of my games), we police ourselves so the game isn't: Wizards own. You win. Game over. This is boring.

This would appear to answer your original question. If you have to actively prevent yourself to keep from being too good for the other party members to keep up, there is a /massive/ RAW problem.

And I'm aware that you liberally sprinkled Cheese into your post, as if to indicate "Only the broken things". Problem is, that term's meaningless on this forum, as near as I can tell, since it's generally used on high-powerred things. And that's just silly.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 04:08 PM
If someone has to refrain from optimization in any sense of the word, just to let someone else keep thei role, the game's got a pretty major set of flaws.

This isn't strictly fair. They pretty much had to destroy all their previous assumptions about how DnD 'should' work to stand a chance at balancing it.
It may not be strictly fair, but, well if I take a game system that's 8 years old and compare it to a game system that's over 20 years old and the older game does it better...


Really? Wow. I'm surprised (and somewhat sympathetic) your group still plays D&D, with the system being as hideously broken as it is, and requiring such total reconstruction as it does (my group generally plays heavily houseruled D&D, so that it's withstandable). Why not just play something better? (If I had to guess, I'd say you and your friends like the writing of various modules and settings?)
Truly something I will be canonized for. My buddies like to play with their out-of-state friends at conventions. In order to qualify for certain modules they have to have certs in others. And they need my RPGA number so I show up, drink enough to make the game tolerable, but not so drunk I start shouting about my Bakluni hijacking the war turkeys again. :smallredface:

Frosty
2008-02-11, 04:15 PM
This would appear to answer your original question. If you have to actively prevent yourself to keep from being too good for the other party members to keep up, there is a /massive/ RAW problem.

Oh I agree there is a massive RAW problem...with Wizards and most full casters in general. The question is not whether or not Wizards are overpowered. The question is whether or not Fighter are underpowered ot the point where they are unplayable, which I claim they are not. Using the Tome of Battle as benchmark for balance, I claim Fighters are slightly underpowered for veterans, and horrifically bad for newbies. Certainly not optimal, but if you choose a Fighter, you can still do your job decently if you're good at the game.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 04:16 PM
Off the top of my head, I can't think of many monsters that is both immune to charging and can avoid tripping/consistantly make good reflex saves. Good fighter builds can do both charging and lockdown. And I never claimed that other classes can't do it better. I'm claiming that Fighters can do it, and that Fighters are far from unplayable. I think you confused the fighter with the CW Samurai there. They're playable, especially at lower levels, but all too quickly they either have to take one of a few very specific builds or be the porter/pack animal for the rest of the party.
And, if the casters aren't being cheesy, they have something to contribute. In most games (and certainly all of my games), we police ourselves so the game isn't: Wizards own. You win. Game over. This is boring. Even if Casters do cheese out, Fighters are still playable. Whether they enjoy the game due to other players doing cheesy things is another question.Yeah, there's the other problem. My group prefers to have to push hard, and if you've got to hold back most everything you've got to push hard, well, you're not really pushing.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 04:32 PM
Oh I agree there is a massive RAW problem...with Wizards and most full casters in general. The question is not whether or not Wizards are overpowered. The question is whether or not Fighter are underpowered ot the point where they are unplayable, which I claim they are not. Using the Tome of Battle as benchmark for balance, I claim Fighters are slightly underpowered for veterans, and horrifically bad for newbies. Certainly not optimal, but if you choose a Fighter, you can still do your job decently if you're good at the game.

"This class is pretty decent if you know exactly what you're doing" is not the best argument I've seen against being underpowerred.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-11, 04:44 PM
I'm claiming that Fighters can do it, and that Fighters are far from unplayable. And, if the casters aren't being cheesy, they have something to contribute.

Yes, but you asked (1) is the Fighter really that weak outside of Core, (2) is it really that underpowered, and (3) if so, would you consider giving the fighter a bonus feat every single level be an acceptable fix?

So most people turn out to be answering "yes, yes, no" to those three questions, respectively. "Unplayable" is not a practical term - since people can "play" any class up to and including Commoner, they are by definition "playable".

Frosty
2008-02-11, 04:50 PM
"This class is pretty decent if you know exactly what you're doing" is not the best argument I've seen against being underpowerred.

In games there are always classes which are easy to learn and classes that are hard to learn. It's just that, usually the classes that are hard to learn also offer the most reward when mastered. Fighters are hard to learn *and* they only offer mediocre returns. But the returns are mediocre, not non-existant.

and by unplayable I mean: Weak to the point where in a game where the other 3 roles are filled, the class will be almost useless against equal CR monsters.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 04:53 PM
Did Underpowerred take on some new meaning? The word doesn't mean "No power", it means "Less power then 'should' be available"

Frosty
2008-02-11, 05:07 PM
I already whole-heartedly agree that Fighters are underpowered. It's just that so many people on these forums make it sound like they're worse than some NPC classes (aka worthless) and I want to refute the claim that fighters are worthless.

As a DM, my party consists of 4 ECL 9 characters, 3 of which are casters (DMM cleric, wizard, and warmage. Fourth guy is Full BAB Dragon shaman), and they started with 40 pt buys and more wealth than the WBL levels. I had a level 11 BBEG (Cleric) and her level 11 bodyguard (Fighter) fight them to a standstill. The bad guys might've won if it weren't for the Fighter only doing sub-dual damage due to plot reasons (was Dominated. Didn't really want to hurt the party. Tried to hit in non-lethal ways).

3 Casters could do mostly nothing because of Mageslayer and Improved Trip (the ceiling was too low for Fly to help) and Stand Still. They had to play smart and waste all the Fighter's AoOs in order to cast and defeat the Cleric.

In a normal game where casters don't care about optimizing to the extreme, Fighters can function. Yes I know this is only my experience with one group of people, but it works for my group, and I'd wager it works for many other groups as well.

As a poll to others, in your own games, does your DM put you in combat situations most of the time where Fighters are useless? I'd wager in the vast majority of combats Fighters can contribute meaningfully.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-11, 05:29 PM
I already whole-heartedly agree that Fighters are underpowered. It's just that so many people on these forums make it sound like they're worse than some NPC classes (aka worthless)

Well, there's the Adept... :smalltongue:

Aquillion
2008-02-11, 05:49 PM
Ok, how's this for a fighter fix?

Incorporate a form of fast-retraining into their class features. By training for a certain amount of time, they can change one of their fighter bonus feats for any other fighter bonus feat, as long as the feat they're swapping out isn't being used for prerequisites and they satisfy all the conditions needed to take the one they're swapping in.

I don't think it would be that unbalancing, really, even to just let them change them all every day... but I don't know about the flavor.

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-11, 05:53 PM
- sorry, double post -

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-11, 06:11 PM
Hi again,

just jumping in quickly. Will likely not be able to post or check until next weekend.

@Frosty: Would agree on most of what you said - of course not the "fighter is underpowered" part. :smallbiggrin: Truly.
If DMs would start to stop ignoring a wizard's weaknesses and play their opponents intelligently as if they knew magic exists in their world, already the majority of problems would be solved. Another large chunk would be solved by not admitting odd interpretations of spells to try to break the game. And the remaining bit is in the hands of items, feats and skill choices for the fighter and an overall good combat strategy. And once one then keeps in mind that the game is meant to be a group game and team effort (with balance meaning roughly the same contribution to group success) instead of pcs dueling, it's actually quite simple.

@Voyager_I: I never maintained that you NEED UMD to make use of magic items. So even in 3.0 everyone had access to magic via general items, npc casting (and no, I do not mean the npc goes with you to his doom on your adventures kind), and pc casting (it's a group game, I just like repeating this over and over). They likely allowed access to UMD to make it even easier, in particular for the lower level spells and wands.

@Emperor Tippy: I will think about your challenge. Sounds a bit time-intensive to me, but from your posts so far I have the impression that you have strong maxing fu for casters. A worthy opponent, then (although with lacking manners).
What I would suggest so far is the following:
- let's not delve into the great uber casters of level 20 with all splatbooks. That is not true maxing fu (only maxing WoTC book buying). Plus, I never maintained that outside core everything is balanced (how could it be, I wonder, with so much more official spell material and caster prestige classes out?)
- so core it should be, because the whole issue is whether a fighter and a caster (in this case, a wizard) is balanced in core game mechanics (for which both classes are originally designed). If splat books then change that balance, well - it's the fault of said supplements, not the core rules (for instance, the celerity spell idea makes those who use it much stronger in combat than those who do not use it).
- I would suggest starting the challenge series with level 10, for several reasons: 1) it's a level most posters would consider playing in their campaigns; 2) as Solo already pointed out, there is a level balance 20 test going on for the monk. We might wish to extend the tests for levels 15 and 20 (buildling on our level 10 builds), but let's just start with level 10.

Then the usual stuff: 28 point buy, PHB races (so no LA), core rules (PHB/DMG/MM/SRD), and normal wbl for 10th level.
We could simply set up a different thread without a DM, discuss typical level 10 challenges (four of them, so two each?) and then discuss a potential duel with potential leftover resources.
Or we could try to find a DM to set up the challenges and DM through them including a duel in a 100ft cube or wilderness or dungeon or whereever.

Let me know what you think. Somehow I lean toward the first.

- Giacomo

PS: for Kurald Galain, I could of course at one point or another stage some duel of a fighter vs an adept and a monk vs an expert:smallsmile:

Frosty
2008-02-11, 06:36 PM
Ok, how's this for a fighter fix?

Incorporate a form of fast-retraining into their class features. By training for a certain amount of time, they can change one of their fighter bonus feats for any other fighter bonus feat, as long as the feat they're swapping out isn't being used for prerequisites and they satisfy all the conditions needed to take the one they're swapping in.

I don't think it would be that unbalancing, really, even to just let them change them all every day... but I don't know about the flavor.

Sounds like going down the path of the Warblade.

@Giacomo: I do believe that the Fighter can do less than casters, but then, I never play Core-only.

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-11, 06:42 PM
Just noticed,

for the lvl 10 comparison I'd also suggest (due to likely widespread agreement)
- no polymorph spells
- no leadership/cohorts
- no prestige classes with spellcasting for fighter, no prestige classes without full spellcasting progression for wizard
- no spells used (on, say, scrolls) that are above those castable for characters of that level (i.e. for level 10, no higher spells than 5th level). That includes the gate candle:smallsmile:
- wbl as suggested by DMG for higher level characters, so 1/4 at most devoted to one item; one-use items cost x5, wands only contain a fifth of their normal charges.

@Frosty: in core, things are truly different. Concerning outside core, the Tome of Battle greatly helped the fighter since it offers some interesting maneuvers for feats (but of course the warblade is stronger than the fighter, a sort of a non-core update in campaigns with a certain style).

- Giacomo

Frosty
2008-02-11, 06:50 PM
Of course the Tome of Battle helps a melee build, but right now we're talking about a non-initiator melee build, even if he's allowed to take Martial Study (up to 3 times) to gain a little of ToB goodness.

TempusCCK
2008-02-11, 08:53 PM
Including the wit and wisdom of TempusCCK.:smalltongue:

I thought of that as soon as I typed it, but hey, I figured it's no good to discredit myself when I could let another quick-witted forum cruiser do it for me.


Huge Fallacy. That's like saying the rules for hockey says that there should be a ref there, therefore the rules for hockey don't need to consistent and make sense.

Not true, you cannot rightfully compare DM's to Referees my friend. I have only two words to justify this: Rule Zero.

Hockey Referee's can't up and change the rules if the game isn't going the way they like. When the DM sees that obviously these rules were designed in a way that lets the game be broken, he can change said rules, on the spot.

Also, there is something to be said for human nature and the number of rules to deal with in hockey compared to the amount of material in all the D&D books ever published.


Actually that same wizard I mentioned requires the DM to blatantly create challenges just for it. To the point where the whole game takes place in dead magic zones, every baddy uses disjunction, and every enemy has true seeing.

And if I was inclined too I could take 17 wizard levels and 3 cleric levels and grab Initiate of Mystra. Then Dead Magic/Antimagic wouldn't matter any more.

With DuelWard up all day I can instant counterspell 1 spell per day, which can be used against the disjunction.

Now persistent buffs are cheap and said build requires Incantatrix abuse to get all those buffs but its still a legal build. This is pretty much the top of the line wizard build but can you come up with any fighter build that is even within an order of magnitude of said wizard?

And if you throw in Astral Projection you get free lives as well.

Indeed, but in keeping with my point that the game is meant to be balanced by a DM, if you can do it, so can the enemy my friend. An opposed- NPC with the exact same build as you, plus, by RAW, he doesn't have to follow the WBL? That could certainly be an interesting enemy.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-11, 09:14 PM
Indeed, but in keeping with my point that the game is meant to be balanced by a DM, if you can do it, so can the enemy my friend. An opposed- NPC with the exact same build as you, plus, by RAW, he doesn't have to follow the WBL? That could certainly be an interesting enemy.But how can you claim the fighter is even close to that level of power? "The DM can hit you with an Aleax" isn't balanced by RAW, it's just a bandage on the problem. The fighter can be good in a few situations, the wizard is good in all of them, and just because when rocks fall, everyone dies, doesn't mean everyone is the same.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 09:17 PM
But how can you claim the fighter is even close to that level of power? "The DM can hit you with an Aleax" isn't balanced by RAW, it's just a bandage on the problem. The fighter can be good in a few situations, the wizard is good in all of them, and just because when rocks fall, everyone dies, doesn't mean everyone is the same.

Again, I never made the claim the Fighter is at the level of the Wizard. The Wizard is horrendously overpowered if played right, and that is a problem of the wizard, independent of the Fighter's weaknesses. A character is supposed ot be good at a number of situations, but not ALL of them. The Fighter is good at too few situations. In combat, they've got a few good situations covered. Add a few things so they can do some social function, and they'll almost be fixed.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 09:22 PM
Not true, you cannot rightfully compare DM's to Referees my friend. I have only two words to justify this: Rule Zero.

Hockey Referee's can't up and change the rules if the game isn't going the way they like. When the DM sees that obviously these rules were designed in a way that lets the game be broken, he can change said rules, on the spot.

Also, there is something to be said for human nature and the number of rules to deal with in hockey compared to the amount of material in all the D&D books ever published.
Rule 0 is for dramatic tension and setting consistency, not for basic maintenance of the core system.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 09:25 PM
Sounds like going down the path of the Warblade

Is that so bad though? What matters is the fix, no?


Rule 0 is for dramatic tension and setting consistency, not for basic maintenance of the core system.
In the sense that "If you must do basic maintenance, you need to find a better system", or "The DM is not permitted to do basic maintenance of the core system"?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-11, 09:32 PM
In the sense that "If you must do basic maintenance, you need to find a better system", or "The DM is not permitted to do basic maintenance of the core system"?In the sense that if he has to homebrew the entire magic system to balance it, he really needs to just get a new system.

Indon
2008-02-11, 09:33 PM
Rule 0 is for dramatic tension and setting consistency, not for basic maintenance of the core system.

Aren't there a number of fairly major variant rules on www.d20srd.org ?

Rutee
2008-02-11, 09:42 PM
In the sense that if he has to homebrew the entire magic system to balance it, he really needs to just get a new system.

Mmm... this holds true for everyone though, doesn't it? I can see where you're coming from, since.. it's true, it'd be much less effort and hassle to switch, but if ti's broken for you, it's broken for everyone, right? Why isn't the advice well served for everyone?

Frosty
2008-02-11, 09:45 PM
Is that so bad though? What matters is the fix, no?

Well, I've always liked being able to swap out feats, but I think Fighters can do *ok* even without it, if the players build the Fighter very, very carefully and are experts. Newbies die horribly with the Fighter.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-11, 09:46 PM
Mmm... this holds true for everyone though, doesn't it? I can see where you're coming from, since.. it's true, it'd be much less effort and hassle to switch, but if ti's broken for you, it's broken for everyone, right? Why isn't the advice well served for everyone?Good point. Maybe if people would stop playing DnD and find a better system, there would be less work for everyone. As it is, some people are stuck only being able to find DnD games and have to use the system, even though the GM only chose it because "It's standard".:smallfurious:

Aquillion
2008-02-11, 10:15 PM
Again, I never made the claim the Fighter is at the level of the Wizard. The Wizard is horrendously overpowered if played right, and that is a problem of the wizard, independent of the Fighter's weaknesses. A character is supposed ot be good at a number of situations, but not ALL of them. The Fighter is good at too few situations. In combat, they've got a few good situations covered. Add a few things so they can do some social function, and they'll almost be fixed.Lesse.

They've got Intimidate... but it isn't very useful if they don't have a good Cha score to go with it. Perhaps they could get an ability early on that lets them substitute Str for Cha in Intimidate checks.

A better diplomacy system overall (one that encouraged the entire team to participate mechanically in negotiations rather than just the 'party face') would help here, too.

Of course, they could also get more skillpoints (4 per level, at least).

Perhaps give fighters a sort of "veteran's eye" martial-training-assessment ability? Using this lets them take about a minute watching how someone stands to determine the sort of weapons training they've had, how much experience they have in combat, etc. (They get a rough idea of the target's BAB, HD, favored weapons, perhaps even any marital classes they have -- not the exact details, but "He's studied some kind of eastern sword technique, I'd say. Extensively. I once saw a slip of a girl who stands just the way he does draw her sword and disembowel three men in a single smooth motion...") A bluff check against a DC determined by your fighter level could be used to negate this ability, if the person being observed is actively trying to conceal their abilities. They can also use it on a group to try and pick out any individuals who look dangerous (in terms of martial abilities; obviously they can't pick out spellcasters), or to get a rough assessment of a group of soldiers, though they get less information from those uses.

This would fit the fighter's flavor, while giving them a bit more to contribute outside of combat (being able to spot the assassins in the duke's ball, say, or to realize that the supposedly terrified merchant you've found isn't everything he's supposed to be.) And it would make fighter a good class for bodyguards, who would get the ability to recognize potential physical threats much faster (although they'd need spot and listen, too, at the very least... hmm.)

Another idea: Give them a few more bonus feats over the first few levels, but make them set bonus feats for a few specific things, the idea being that every fighter worth their salt knows (at the very least) how to trip, how to grapple, how to charge, how to draw a bow, etc at least a little bit better than the typical non-fighter. This ensures that every fighter has a broad base of abilities to draw on when their main focus is inapplicable.

Perhaps, to keep some of the freedom that defines the class while giving them a broad base, instead define a small number of bonus feats as 'base feats', and give the fighter a few more bonus feats that come from those. The base feats would cover a wide range of things, forcing the fighter to gain some general abilities in addition to their main focus.

horseboy
2008-02-11, 10:18 PM
Mmm... this holds true for everyone though, doesn't it? I can see where you're coming from, since.. it's true, it'd be much less effort and hassle to switch, but if ti's broken for you, it's broken for everyone, right? Why isn't the advice well served for everyone?
Isn't it? D&D is like Nintendo, all it's got to offer is nostalgia and a brand name recognition built when it had no competition.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 11:18 PM
Eh heh. Nintendo produces quality products worth playing. DnD 3.X is not a quality product worth playing. 4.0 might be though

Frosty
2008-02-11, 11:55 PM
Another idea: Give them a few more bonus feats over the first few levels, but make them set bonus feats for a few specific things, the idea being that every fighter worth their salt knows (at the very least) how to trip, how to grapple, how to charge, how to draw a bow, etc at least a little bit better than the typical non-fighter. This ensures that every fighter has a broad base of abilities to draw on when their main focus is inapplicable.

Perhaps, to keep some of the freedom that defines the class while giving them a broad base, instead define a small number of bonus feats as 'base feats', and give the fighter a few more bonus feats that come from those. The base feats would cover a wide range of things, forcing the fighter to gain some general abilities in addition to their main focus.

Wouldn't this just make Fighters more frontloaded and more of a Dip class?

Fax Celestis
2008-02-12, 12:07 AM
Wouldn't this just make Fighters more frontloaded and more of a Dip class?

The answer, in that case, is less front-end features (or a retension of what's already there) and addition of actual class features towards the end of the class.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 12:50 AM
Such as...?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-12, 12:53 AM
Rage? Spellcasting? Sneak Attack?

DarknessLord
2008-02-12, 01:12 AM
Hmmm, this is just an off the top of my head idea, so I won't be surprised if I wake up tomorrow and realize how stupid this is but...

What is a fighter good at? Using his equipment, but almost any other class can do the same thing? So, let's let him use his equipment more effectively then others, like say, on magical equipment, he can use magical properties of his weapons that have an enhancement bonus cost, as an enhancement bonus as well, up to like +1 bonus/4 fighter levels, give or take. So, a 8th level fighter could use a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword as a +3 Flaming Burst Longsword.

Feel free to shoot down without remorse.

VanBuren
2008-02-12, 01:20 AM
I'd just replace it with the Warblade. I'd replace the Monk with Swordsage and merge Paladin and Crusader (keep the Paladin fluff and mount, maybe water Crusader down a bit so that it doesn't get overpowered with the mount) while I was at it, but that's just me as a ToB fanboy.

Rutee
2008-02-12, 01:22 AM
I'd just replace it with the Warblade. I'd replace the Monk with Swordsage and merge Paladin and Crusader (keep the Paladin fluff and mount, maybe water Crusader down a bit so that it doesn't get overpowered with the mount) while I was at it, but that's just me as a ToB fanboy.

Well.. yes, basically. There is no Fighter, only Iron Heart Surge <.<

horseboy
2008-02-12, 03:24 AM
Eh heh. Nintendo produces quality products worth playing. DnD 3.X is not a quality product worth playing. 4.0 might be though
Iff you're into platformers. :smallsigh:

Frosty
2008-02-12, 11:26 AM
Iff you're into platformers. :smallsigh:

Does Metroid count as a platformer? I guess it does, but it doesn't feel like one.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-12, 11:29 AM
Such as...?
A warlord-like leadership ability, maybe? The ability to add a fraction of their class level to fixed, numeric effects gained from fighter bonus feats (ie: a 15th level fighter adds 1/3 his level (so +5) to Weapon Specialization)? Perhaps lifting the warblade's ability to retrain the focus of feats he has with five minutes time. Less penalties for heavy armor. Built-in combat expertise or combat focus or even just mettle.

horseboy
2008-02-12, 11:54 AM
Does Metroid count as a platformer? I guess it does, but it doesn't feel like one.

Yup. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid)
Metroid provided one of the first highly nonlinear game experiences on a home console. The basic gameplay is a mix of action adventure and platform shooter.You'd think they'd do a new one in kinda a Maximo style.

Indon
2008-02-12, 01:16 PM
A warlord-like leadership ability, maybe? The ability to add a fraction of their class level to fixed, numeric effects gained from fighter bonus feats (ie: a 15th level fighter adds 1/3 his level (so +5) to Weapon Specialization)? Perhaps lifting the warblade's ability to retrain the focus of feats he has with five minutes time. Less penalties for heavy armor. Built-in combat expertise or combat focus or even just mettle.

1.25/Level Base Attack Bonus progression.

Deepblue706
2008-02-12, 01:55 PM
You'd think they'd do a new one in kinda a Maximo style.

I can only hope they will, one day...

Frosty
2008-02-12, 02:55 PM
1.25/Level Base Attack Bonus progression.

I've always wanted the Fighter to have a higher BAB than everyone else. They should get a +1 BAB bonus every 7 levels or so. So, at level 6, they have a BAB of +6. At level 7, a BAB of +8. At level 14, a BAB of +16. Letting them have 5 attacks might be an incentive for people to take more fighter levels.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-12, 03:40 PM
1.25/Level Base Attack Bonus progression.

You do that, you get a four level fighter dip instead of two before progressing into another full BAB class. Still, it's not a bad idea, and it's certainly more in line with how 2e fighters handled extra attacks per round.