Is Fighter really an NPC class?

[Frosty]

We've all seen that yes, a straight Fighter is most likely not the most optimized character out there. However, I've seen people contend that the Fighter should be relegated to being an NPC class. Fighter is not the strongest, but is it weak enough to count as an NPC class? What do you think should be the BENCHMARK of what class is an NPC and which ones not?

Perhaps if the class is weaker than the Adept, it is an NPC class?

[monty]

Well then so are monks, soulknives, and samurai. That's starting to make an unnecessary number of NPC classes. I'd just call it "balance issues" and go play a wizard or something.

[streakster]

Hooray! Impending flame war!

*Pulls up lawnchair*
*Gets hot dogs, marshmallows*

Someone tell me when we get to the Arena battle that will settle this once and for all, 'k?



In all seriousness, we'd have to agree on a measure of class power first, before we could even start. And what to judge them on? Straight damage? Who'd win in a fight? Versatility? Movement speed? Skills? Narrative effect? Duel? Battling armies? Weightlifting? Trivia questions?

Heck, there's a whole thread just on that.

Anywho, I'm gonna wait for the fire...

So, I think the benchmark of a NPC class is versatility, both on and off the field of battle. If you only function off the field of battle, perhaps you aren't a PC class (note that every PC class has combat function, and at least limited non-combat function).

-argus

I remember a 50 (or was it hundred) page thread from old gleemax, arguing whether or not the fighter had any worth out of combat. Good times. Devolved into a leadership argument.

[arguskos]

Well, if the Adept is the benchmark, then I'm certain some folks would say the poor Fighter is doomed to NPC status (caster cheese and all).

Personally, I think Fighters are fine powerwise (look at Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Leap Attack, and related silliness). I think if they didn't have the versatility they have, they could be tossed into the dustbin of NPC classes. If you think about it, that's what ties the NPC's together: lack of versitility and ability. Warriors can do little other than hit stuff in fairly unimaginative ways. Adepts, even with their spells, don't have too many options. Aristocrats can't do jack-squat, nor can Commoners. Experts have the most utility of any NPC class, but they can't hold a candle to PC's in combat, even the weakest combat class is still going to outclass them by miles, simply because they have nothing BUT skill points.

So, I think the benchmark of a NPC class is versatility, both on and off the field of battle. If you only function off the field of battle, perhaps you aren't a PC class (note that every PC class has combat function, and at least limited non-combat function).

-argus

[Hal]

NPC classes are what they are because they're (relatively) easy to make. Throw some gear on them, pick a few basic feats and they're good to go.

Fighters, having as many feats as they do, are more complicated to build. Not by much, mind you, but still more complicated.

Really, ANY class can be an NPC, it's just a matter of how much work you want to put into building it.

[hamishspence]

NPC classes are based partly on numbers: are the capabilities of low level fighters appropiate for an army of soldiers? And should places that favour well trained armies have Fighters, or just Warriors, with conscipt hordes being Commoners?

If Warrior is underpowered compared to members of real-life, large standing armies of any pre-modern era, then Fighter might actually make more sense.

[fractic]

NPC classes are NPC classes because WOTC put a NPC class stamp on them. Comparing a fighter to an adept is pointless. You should compare it to a warrior if anything. Anyone looking to play a fighter isn't going to play an adept because it's better any more then they'll play a wizard. Fighter is a class intended for PC use so it's a PC class. It just fails at anything.

[hamishspence]

if the warrior is underpowered compared to what it is supposed to represent (a basic trained soldier) some people might swap it out for fighter and use the various alternative classes, like knight, for what used to be fighters.

[fractic]

if the warrior is underpowered compared to what it is supposed to represent (a basic trained soldier)

No it's not. It represents trained soldiers quite well. Full BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, larger hit die than the average person and a good fort save.

[Tengu_temp]

Fighter is good as a dip for some builds. So is the monk, soulknife, ranger, and in some very specific cases even (GASP!) samurai. The only NPC class that's good for dipping is expert, and only in those cases when the skill you want is not on rogue's skill list.

[Starbuck_II]

No it's not. It represents trained soldiers quite well. Full BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, larger hit die than the average person and a good fort save.

Nah, Trained Soldiers can see and hear enemies coming.
Fighters are just hired guards/bodyguards. They can take a hit and give it out.

Rangers are better representation of soldiers. I think it would be insulting to any military to be called D&D Fighters.

[hamishspence]

Seems reasonable. How much difference would turning Warriors to Fighters make? As far as I know, the gap in abilities between warriors and fighters is not large. And you might expect veterans (soldiers with 20 years of duty odd: to be capable.

Would doing them as 10th level warriors work, or multiclass warrior/fighters, or would you expect the capabilities of a vetern of, say, Roman legions, to be statted out as full fighter? And are they numerous enough, that you'd expect them to be NPC classed?

point to be made is that if NPC soldiers are both numerous enough to be Warriors and unusually capable compared to D&D warriors, it would make sense to upgrade the warrior class. If the fighter class at mid level is far too powerful to represent even a veteran, then warrior class should be unchanged.

[Spiryt]

Nah, Trained Soldiers can see and hear enemies coming.
Fighters are just hired guards/bodyguards. They can take a hit and give it out.

Rangers are better representation of soldiers. I think it would be insulting to any military to be called D&D Fighters.

Well, to be fair, classes can represent many different persons. And Fighter, do it quite well - can represent a lot of fighting types, with right feat selection.

And modern soldier - maybe, although you are probably talking about some Marines guys - I doubt that common conscript spends "seeing" or "hearing" quarter of time he spends peeling the potatoes .

And medieval soldier was supposed to stay in line and fight, hearing wasn't so important, and scouts or so were doing that (same thing today, really).

[Frosty]

Fighter is good as a dip for some builds. So is the monk, soulknife, ranger, and in some very specific cases even (GASP!) samurai. The only NPC class that's good for dipping is expert, and only in those cases when the skill you want is not on rogue's skill list.

Actually, why dip Expert can you can dip Factotum? ALL skills are game.

Hmm, so the idea of Versatility both on and off the field are mentioned. What can fighters do off the battlefield? Intimidate people with their...8 charisma?

[Telonius]

Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list. Now I know that a Fighter isn't the best class around, but surely a Fighter20 could mop the floor with an Adept20. I'd be willing to bet that a Samurai20 could, too.

[fractic]

Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list.

Wouldn't they get bonus spells from a high ability score?

[Akimbo]

I would say that Fighter as written is an NPC class because: what's the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior? Some feats that you could have taken anyway? So at level 20 you can do 3 things that a Warrior could do instead of just 1?

PC classes do real things. Everyone can hit things with a Sword. Heck, I can build a level 20 Commoner with WBL that can Ubercharge for damage OVER 9000! Every other level, the worst class in the game gets better at hitting things with a sword. Every third level it gets a feat.

To be a PC class, you need to be able to do something that no one else can do, if that's Cure wounds super well, or Rage and associated things, or Fireball, or whatever, it needs to be something that you can do and a Commoner can never do, not that a Commoner can do at lesser effectiveness.

Fighters need class abilities, not bigger numbers and more feats.

[Vonriel]

Hamish, you're going waaay too high to be talking about normal trained soldiers. Your typical real-life human won't ever see above 4th level, likely not above 3rd, so statting out something like a trained roman soldier at those levels would be ridiculous.

[snoopy13a]

Well, to be fair, classes can represent many different persons. And Fighter, do it quite well - can represent a lot of fighting types, with right feat selection.

I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.

As for whether or not it is an NPC class, the proper comparision would be against the warrior. Warriors have slightly less hitpoints and no bonus feats so fighters are obviously better. Fighters may be a very weak PC class but they aren't an NPC class.

[fractic]

I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.

Quite the opposite really. A specific class is by definition not versatile, a fighter can do multiple things at once. Also the extra books make the fighter stronger thanks to the larger amount of feats to choose from.

[Spiryt]

I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.

As for whether or not it is an NPC class, the proper comparision would be against the warrior. Warriors have slightly less hitpoints and no bonus feats so fighters are obviously better. Fighters may be a very weak PC class but they aren't an NPC class.

I forgot to add that while Fighter ca represent many guys, he does it quite poorly...

Let alone the fact that he's rather weak class, the most halfway optimized choices are rather similar to each other.

And as far as I know, additional classes realy doesn't hurt Fighter as much as his poor design already does.

Swashbuckler looks pointless after 3rd level...

And additional books really makes Fighter WAY more interesting and stronger.

Really, look at the feats in core - on max 9th level of Fighter you probably would have almost any feat that have some, even abysmall quality for you - both mechanic and fluff.

With few books with decent feats, situation looks much better - a lot of feats with interesting effects.

[hamishspence]

Arms and Equipment guide, sample mercenaries, warriors of up to 12th level. DMG: specialsts, even higher. Cityscape, master craftsmen are 10th level experts, city guard veterans are 10th level warriors.

So there is precedent for assuming a high level warrior or expert will be around 10th level. EDIT: A veteran, in other words, as suggested.

Interestingly Heroes of Battle seems to favour human armies made up of mostly 1st level fighters, not warriors.

[Vonriel]

A single veteran, yes. But you were talking about an entire roman legion - more likely than not, there'd be variation between first and third level for almost all the grunts. The subcommanders would be a bit higher, the commanders higher still, etc.

[fractic]

A single veteran, yes. But you were talking about an entire roman legion - more likely than not, there'd be variation between first and third level for almost all the grunts. The subcommanders would be a bit higher, the commanders higher still, etc.

The very high ups would probably have levels of aristocrat too.

[snoopy13a]

Quite the opposite really. A specific class is by definition not versatile, a fighter can do multiple things at once. Also the extra books make the fighter stronger thanks to the larger amount of feats to choose from.

Agreed. However, let's assume that you are looking for a character idea such as a heavy soldier, archer, or swashbuckler.

A fighter build can fit all three niches but there are other classes that can fit each individual niche just as good or better. Many people are going to concentrate in one area to try and avoid the jack of all trades syndrome. For example, most people who want to play an archer would likely choose ranger over fighter even though one can use the fighter class to make an archer build.

[Vonriel]

The very high ups would probably have levels of aristocrat too.

Well, I won't get into the patronage policy among the Roman Empire just now. But yes, you're right.

[hamishspence]

not whole legion, but sections: Triarii are 20-year men. Do not have to be promoted to have had a lot of experience.

[fractic]

Agreed. However, let's assume that you are looking for a character idea such as a heavy soldier, archer, or swashbuckler.

A fighter build can fit all three niches but there are other classes that can fit each individual niche just as good or better. Many people are going to concentrate in one area to try and avoid the jack of all trades syndrome. For example, most people who want to play an archer would likely choose ranger over fighter even though one can use the fighter class to make an archer build.

That's all true. But just because people don't use a fighter to represent their idea, doesn't mean that you couldn't. So the existance of those other classes doesn't hurt the fighters potential even though that potential wouldn't come into play often.

[Frosty]

Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list. Now I know that a Fighter isn't the best class around, but surely a Fighter20 could mop the floor with an Adept20. I'd be willing to bet that a Samurai20 could, too.

It's not about an arena deathmatch. It's who is more useful. And hey, one of the spells they get is Polymorph. Another is Heal. Not too shabby.

I would say that Fighter as written is an NPC class because: what's the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior? Some feats that you could have taken anyway? So at level 20 you can do 3 things that a Warrior could do instead of just 1?

PC classes do real things. Everyone can hit things with a Sword. Heck, I can build a level 20 Commoner with WBL that can Ubercharge for damage OVER 9000! Every other level, the worst class in the game gets better at hitting things with a sword. Every third level it gets a feat.

To be a PC class, you need to be able to do something that no one else can do, if that's Cure wounds super well, or Rage and associated things, or Fireball, or whatever, it needs to be something that you can do and a Commoner can never do, not that a Commoner can do at lesser effectiveness.

Fighters need class abilities, not bigger numbers and more feats.

Well, with Martial stance, an Expert (or even commoner) can perform Sneak Attacks. Does that mean Rogues are almost-NPCs if not for Trapfinding?

[BRC]

It's not a matter of "A fighter can't do anything a warrior can't", its a matter of "A fighter does stuff a warrior does, but Better."

Hitting things with swords is pretty much the common denominator of DnD, every class is capable of using a weapon to deal damage, some classes more so than others however. However, every other class has, for lack of better words, a feature, whether it's sneak attacks, or spellcasting, or rage or combat styles, every class has some rules that apply to it that don't apply to the other base classes, except a fighter.

However, This dosn't mean that the fighter should be delegated to NPC-class status.

Also, the fighter is only really weak if you play games where the purpose of every character is to out-munchkin the others. I'm not going to claim to be an expert here, but my group has had fighters, monks, non Zilla clerics ect all be useful members of a party, and everybody had fun. If your going to take the opinion that any class that can't be munchkined into the most powerful class in the game isn't worth playing, then wizards would be the only class anybody would play.