Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Brom Blackforge 03-29-05, 06:01 PM	I have seen a fair share of opinions expressed that the fighter is underpowered, as well as a fair number that the fighter is just fine. (I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that the fighter is over-powered, but I suppose there could be someone out there.... :D ) What I'd like people to do here is share their opinion one way or the other, and explain why they think so. Thanks.
siriusranger87 03-29-05, 06:06 PM	your title says a simple vote but when you ask to explain its no longer a simple vote your now making a new fighter opinion thread which we already have too many of you should actually have a simple vote and just have them say yes or no a simple vote has no opinions
Tony Vargas 03-29-05, 06:22 PM	No. (oh, you just had to ask for an explanation :rolleyes: do you have a coupla years to read the replies?) The fighter isn't underpowered, in a balance sense. It's not possessed of that much raw power, compared to what other classes can accomplish with limitted-use or other situational abilities and/or within the speciality a given class is tailored for. That's to be expected though, if the classes are at all balanced. A class that gets to choose each of it's class abilities, and who's abilities are not limiited-use or limitted-target, or otherwise much restricted, shouldn't have as much raw power as a more channeled, specialized, restricted class can have, at it's peak, within it's speciality. That's true even if the fighter goes the fairly boring way of Weapon Specialization: The fighter doesn't do quite as much damage as a raging barbarian, even when optimized for damage. That's because the fighter's balanced. When the barb's not raging, the fighter's doing more damage. The fighter doesn't do quite as much damage as a ranger when rapid shooting at the ranger's favored enemies, even when the fighter's a very good archer. That's because the fighter's balanced. When the target isn't a favored enemy the fighter's doing more damage. The fighter doesn't do as much damage with a lance charge vs a demon as the Paladin smiting evil with his /Blessed/ lance does, even if the fighter's optimized for mounted combat. That's because the fighter's balanced. When the target isn't smiteable, the fighter's the one doing more damage. That's stacking up a relatively specialized fighter against the strengths of the other classes. At high levels, it's very easy for a fighter to generalize. He won't be out-doing the other guys by as much when thier situational abilities don't come up, but he'll be performing pretty well in multiple areas. And that's just fairly obvious 'builds.' The fighter also gives the player a lot of options. Those bonus feats can be used to create a heavy-armored, hard-hitting 'tank,' a mobile 'tactical fighter,' an 'archer,' or whatever - any combination of feats that best represents the concept you come up with. That counts for something, too, when it comes to balancing the classes. So, yeah, the fighter's balanced. On top of that, it's also an elegant little piece of game design. How many other classes could you reconstruct from memory without getting any of those little special abilities on the far right wrong? Fighter: d10 HD, 2 skill points, full BAB, good FORT, all armor, shields & martial & simple weapons, bonus feat at 1st and at each even numbered level thereafter. How many classes can you describe in 30 words or less? ;)
Nalgoth 03-29-05, 06:31 PM	Vote = yes the fighter is underpowered (but only slightly). The main reason for this (as has been discussed numerous times), is that at higher levels, the fighter's class features (namely bonus feats) are not as powerful as what the other classes get. Also, since the fighter is unable to "buff" they are more reliant on magic gear than spell using classes. In the fighter's corner, however, is the fact that they are relatively powerful at low level, and as long as they have access to healing, they have staying power (when some other classes are out of good spells the fighter can keep on trucking). Fighters can also be good at several forms of combat (melee, ranged, mounted, unarmed), while the other warrior type classes generally excel at only one dimension of combat. Does the fighter being slightly under-powered break the game? No. If the fighter really sucked, no one would play one. I suspect, however, that fighters have reasonably good representation among PCs. If I were playing a fighter, I would choose a prestige class no later than after gaining 12th level (which is the last time the fighter gets an exclusive benefit). When 4e comes out later this year......just kidding. However, when there is a revision it would be nice to see the fighter gain access to some powerful, fighter exclusive feats, or powerful feats that sit way up on a feat tree (somewhat like the weapon style feats in CW, but more powerful). For the record: Despite having read a couple of the many paged fighter threads, I have no complaint about a new thread on the topic. Plus, I would be interested in seeing the vote tally from this one.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-29-05, 07:19 PM	My Vote = No. The fighter being underpowered is only at levels in excess of twelve and only because the PHB lacks good fighter feats for fighters above that level, which is really where this whole arguement stems. The solution: allow more feats. WotC didn't make books like the complete warrior for nothin. Since I own a very large number of D&D books (and I create many feats on my own that I allow in my own D&D game) this is a non-issue and it resolves the problem easily. But people still stupidly pin the problem on the fighter class rather than the real problem (available core fighter feats.) The "fighter is underpowered" problem is not a problem with the fighter. It's a problem with the available feats in the PHB. Allow non-core feats and this is a non-issue. Problem solved. I have seen a fair share of opinions expressed that the fighter is underpowered, as well as a fair number that the fighter is just fine. (I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that the fighter is over-powered, but I suppose there could be someone out there.... :D ) What I'd like people to do here is share their opinion one way or the other, and explain why they think so. Thanks.
Artemician 03-29-05, 07:24 PM	NO I think that if you know what feats to take and have a high str score, you should be fine
Kyuketsukiouji 03-29-05, 07:26 PM	Nay.
Commander of Chaos 03-29-05, 07:33 PM	Yes (but only at higher levels) at lower levels, the fighter has the staying power, attack prowess and general ability needed to be good. BUT, at higher levels, whent the wizard is casting a quickend spell, and a maximized one,or two with both depending upon rods, the fighter becomes no more than a meat shield.
JadedSeer 03-29-05, 07:33 PM	In my opinion, the answer is both yes and no. True, in the end the fighter does have a tendency to lose out. But in my mind, this was almost done, not quite on purpose, but how the developers thought it should be, tipping their hats more to perception than game balance. Practically all the other classes have at least a *slight* supernatural or magical tie. Even the Rogue has things like uncanny dodge, which represents preternatural awareness. Whereas the fighter could (conceivably) exist in society around us. This dulls down the wow factor and gives a bit of prejudice to the more fantasy focused classes. Outside of D&D, just from legend and myth, if the world's most powerful mage and greatest warrior were to fight, who seems the more likely victor? The fact that we do not see magic in the world around us adds to our perception of it, leaving most of us somewhat biased.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 03-29-05, 07:37 PM	In the wrong hands the fighter is little more than a good sheild for the caster. :mage: Done correctly, he is a nearly unstoppable killing machine. :fight!: My assesment: No, not realy. But, I will stick with monk, thank you. :dancin: Thank you for your time, The Count :tiphat:
pseudoidiot 03-29-05, 07:45 PM	nope
Salla 03-29-05, 08:54 PM	It depends on a number of factors. 1. Playing Style (of the player). If played intelligently and tactically, the Fighter is quite good. If played as a stupid beatstick, the fighter is weak. 2. Playing Style (of the game). If the game uses the standard '3 or 4 encounters a day' formula, the Fighter can hold his own because the spellcasters can't just unload all their firepower in one battle because they know that's all they'll encounter. If the game just has one big fight, the Fighter lags behind. Also, if the game has significant non-combat investigations (which require spells to be cast), the fighter gains some benefit because those are spell slots not laden with attack spells. 3. Playing Style (of the DM). If the DM uses lots of unusual monsters with odd spell-like abilities (especially if they take Reflex or Will saves), the Fighter's probably hosed. The ultimate problem with the fighter, most cases I see, is a lack of flexibility. Unless the Fighter expends his feats carefully, he has a limited set of actions before him, whereas most spellcasters can change their spell selections from day to day, changing their role from an offensive dynamo to a stealth master to a defensive bastion to an information gathering expert as they see the need.
danielinthewolvesden 03-29-05, 09:12 PM	The Fighter is IMHO one of the most powerful classes up to and including level 4. From there up to about level 12 or so, it holds it's own. From level 18+, Spellcasters rule nigh completely. The add'l very cool Feats- now so many to choose from- make the class feature of the Fighter very nice indeed. But let's be frank- the Fighter really seems designed to be a generalist up 'til about level 5 or 6, then go into a PrC. There are some really nice PrC's for the Fighter. I, personally- like the Pious Templar. But there are others, too.
Ongorth 03-29-05, 09:30 PM	Yup 2. Playing Style (of the game). If the game uses the standard '3 or 4 encounters a day' formula, the Fighter can hold his own because the spellcasters can't just unload all their firepower in one battle because they know that's all they'll encounter. If the game just has one big fight, the Fighter lags behind. Also, if the game has significant non-combat investigations (which require spells to be cast), the fighter gains some benefit because those are spell slots not laden with attack spells. I tend to see games the standard 4 encounters a day as favoring the caster. #1 4 encounters a day means that the caster pretty much won't use up all his spells in any one encounter, even if he wants to. #2 4 encounters a day means the caster probably doesn't need to buy high end magic items with numerous uses (staffs), when scrolls will do and can afford more buffing items instead. Only at really low levels will the caster be running out of spells. Wizards get the scribe scroll feat, basically solving this problem very cheaply. A level one scroll costs all of 12.5 gold and 1 XP. Same applies to other combat abilities, like bardic songs, rages, etc. Only if you play above and beyond the standard 4 encounters per day do fighters lack of per day abilities start to matter. Even than, the fighter still needs SOMEONE who can heal him, though any rogue/ranger/paladin/bard/cleric/druid can do that, so its almost a nonexistant weakness as most parties will have one of those. The fighter can easily afford to keep the supply of CLW wands coming in.
Lina_Inverse 03-29-05, 09:31 PM	yes. no matter how you slice it,you can never give the fighter anything unique.everything he has can be gained by another class anyways. ontop of this most feats are pretty damn much ****.toughness?skill focus?weapon focus?weapon specilization? no feat in the game really compares to gaining rage.heck apparntly a feat is only worth a couple lvl1 spells anyways.what does that tell you? it tells me any high level fighter feats would be gobbled up by the other classes just as much leaveing the fighter in the dirt. but since were on the boards,i only get to assume core fighters with no house rules.dear god those are unplayable.
RadicalTaoist 03-29-05, 09:50 PM	Depends. Is the class itself ever underpowered in combat? No, it's the feats that become useless that are the problem. Is the class underpowered out of combat? Yes. Larger class skills list, all it needs, really. Is it so much to ask? Is it underpowered from levels 1-6? No. Is it underpowered from levels 7-12? No, but it's becoming really hard for the Fighter to keep up. Is it underpowered from level 13 on? Yes. Get yourself into a prestige class, son. Complex question, can't be put into a poll phrased so simply.
PhaedrusXY 03-29-05, 09:57 PM	Depends. Is the class itself ever underpowered in combat? No, it's the feats that become useless that are the problem. Is the class underpowered out of combat? Yes. Larger class skills list, all it needs, really. Is it so much to ask? Is it underpowered from levels 1-6? No. Is it underpowered from levels 7-12? No, but it's becoming really hard for the Fighter to keep up. Is it underpowered from level 13 on? Yes. Get yourself into a prestige class, son. Complex question, can't be put into a poll phrased so simply.RT pretty much summed up my views. It also depends on how many non-core books are allowed, and how high the stats are for the game. In a low stat, core only game, the fighter will do ok, especially at the low to mid levels. In a high stat, anything goes game, fighter isn't worth much more than a 2 level dip. A simple yes or no isn't really adequate. If forced to give a simple yes or no, I'd say yes.
Scarlet Knight 03-29-05, 10:01 PM	Yes. One of the biggest problems with the fighter class is diminishing returns. The only reason to continue taking fighter levels is to get additional feats. Players naturally will pick the feats they want the most early on, and so a fighter player will probably get the feat he really really wants by Fighter level 8 at the latest. After that you've got your favorite feat, you then have to settle for your second favorite feat, your third favorite feat, ect. As fighters continue to advance in levels they have to settle for feats that the player finds less and less desirable. So you get diminishing returns.
Willie the Duck 03-29-05, 10:17 PM	your title says a simple vote but when you ask to explain its no longer a simple vote your now making a new fighter opinion thread which we already have too many of you should actually have a simple vote and just have them say yes or no a simple vote has no opinions true, but a simple vote in this situation doesn't prove anything either. Just like voluntary polls (which, technically, it is), votes like this are skewed by the fact that only those with the most ardent of opinions (and particularly those that feel they have outspoken opinions) are compelled to bother to vote. If people have to defend their stance, then at least we get to hear other people's reasoning, even if it is only the ardent people's reasonings. The fighter being underpowered is only at levels in excess of twelve and only because the PHB lacks good fighter feats for fighters above that level, which is really where this whole arguement stems. True, but that's like saying that wizards are the weakest class of all (d4 hp, worst bab, one good save, no armor or good weapon profs, only 2 skill pts per level) and everyone complaining are really complaining about the overpowered arcane spells: It's technically true, but the two are inseperable. I find barbarians to be more powerful at levels 1-3 or so. You can't afford heavy armor anyway, you get 1+1/lvl avg. extra hp, have more usefull skills, and can get +2 hit and +3 damage per attack once a day. What do those first two extra feats really get you? Inproved initiative? Quickdraw? weapon focus in a weapon you can't guarantee will be the one you'll be using at higher levels? At mid levels (4-8, or maybe to 12), the fighter is the best warrior class. The extra feats allow you to have a great diversity of combat styles, while the others are usually limited to one good one. Quickdraw and combat reflexes allows you to weild a reach weapon (and normal one), meaning many creatures that attack you have to wade through an AoO, and it is harder for them to charge past you into the second line. Quickdraw, PB shot and rapid shot lets you lay down long range fire anytime the DM actually starts the encounter at a distance. Sure the others can do so as well, but they can't transition to melee as well, and only the ranger is likely to shoot as well) (at 1st level, this isn't so good, as a barbarian wandering around with his greataxe in one hand and a loaded sling in the other is as deadly as the bows you can afford then). Likewise, mounted combat, with most of the feats is absolutely devestating when the DM actually lets you use it (stupid forests, dungeons, etc.). The ability to transition between these is really, really useful. Non-core sources help out signicantly, most notably the tactical feats in CW. A chaging barbarian is a sight to behold (although he's going to get chewed up if anyone survives his attack). A fighter with access to both combat brute and shock trooper can do it even better (keeps his attack bonus at full even while power attacking for full on charge, then does 150% normal power attack on his next rounds attack). Still, I do not see much in the way of non-core feats that are significantly better than any of the primary feat trees that all the classes are likely to take (complete dodge tree, power attack tree, expertise tree, mounted combat tree, Point blank shot tree), the fighter just gets to take all of them. Unfortunately, right when the fighter is running out of new useful feat trees to take (8-12th level, depending on campaign), the balance of power is shifting. All the warrior classes become veritable meat shields -- nothing but a hp total (and a little bit of AC, although this only matters on iterative attacks, since everything is going to hit anyway), hoping to live long enough to let the party's spellcasters lay down the wammy on the other side. This shifts the paladin to being the best in this role -- he ties the fighter for AC (or exceeds, since he's even more likely to use a shield), has hp just below the barbarian (arguably, the fighter's more lilkely to have a higher Con, since he's less MAD), can lay on hands to keep himslef up and additional round or two if the cleric is busy, and most importantly is least susceptable to to the dreaded will-based save-or-be-incapacitated spells. This is the level range where being the warrior-type becomes less fun and people try various PrCs and non-core combos to try to either do so much damage that they stay a major player for another level or tap into another classes' fun (the gishes, fighter-rogues, frenzied berserkers and 3.0 cleric-hospitalers of the world).
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-29-05, 11:01 PM	True, but that's like saying that wizards are the weakest class of all (d4 hp, worst bab, one good save, no armor or good weapon profs, only 2 skill pts per level) and everyone complaining are really complaining about the overpowered arcane spells: It's technically true, but the two are inseperable. Untrue. Take away all the good arcane spells or move them to noncore sources and the (core) wizard really does become weak. The fighter might be tied to feats, but if the feats change - so does the class. Change the feats and the class's power changes as well. The problem with the fighter's power is not the fighter itself. All the fighter's class features tie into a specific pool of available feats specifically set aside for the fighter class. The "fighter problem" exists entirely with the pool of feats. Not with the class. This, therefore, is a problem, specifically, with the fighter's available fighter feats in the PHB. Beyond the PHB, this problem does not exist. In short - this is not a problem with the fighter class - it's a problem with the feats available to the fighter - more specifically the core only fighter feats. Not the class itself. Nothing in the fighter class itself has anything to do with this percieved weakness, so it doesn't lie within the class itself.
jstorrie 03-29-05, 11:02 PM	Yes: of the SRD core classes, the Fighter is only outdone by the Soulknife in terms of pure mediocrity.
Thyme71 03-29-05, 11:06 PM	You asked a simple question, should be answered with a short simple answer. NO The fighter is great the way it is. Every class has it's strengths and weaknesses at every level. Try working as a party, might be surprised. Thyme
Brand Finbuck 03-29-05, 11:50 PM	No, certainly not. The fighter could certainly seem underpowered next to an exceedingly powerful rival (e.g. Warmage, Holy Word Hierophant). But there are plenty of powerful fighter builds. I find many fighters end up weak at high levels because they didn't build their character with a long term picture of what they would be doing once the wizard could finger of death at his leisure. A dual wielding fighter toting two Keen X-ing Burst Dire Picks with the appropriate focus, specilizations, and two weapon fighting feats will find himself laying out just as much if not more damage than other classes under the right circumstances. Mine trashed a Gelugon in one round.
Lina_Inverse 03-30-05, 12:19 AM	Untrue. Take away all the good arcane spells or move them to noncore sources and the (core) wizard really does become weak. The fighter might be tied to feats, but if the feats change - so does the class. Change the feats and the class's power changes as well. The problem with the fighter's power is not the fighter itself. All the fighter's class features tie into a specific pool of available feats specifically set aside for the fighter class. The "fighter problem" exists entirely with the pool of feats. Not with the class. This, therefore, is a problem, specifically, with the fighter's available fighter feats in the PHB. Beyond the PHB, this problem does not exist. In short - this is not a problem with the fighter class - it's a problem with the feats available to the fighter - more specifically the core only fighter feats. Not the class itself. Nothing in the fighter class itself has anything to do with this percieved weakness, so it doesn't lie within the class itself. you can only use the offcial rules to discuss class balence my friend.so even IF we include complete warrior(which not all dms will mind you).the fighter is still underpowered.house rules are outside the realm of discussion for detirmineing class balence. i can house rule clerics to have light armor,d6hitdice mage BAB and 4+intmod skillpoints.doesnt make clerics balenced. i could also make a lvl0 bard spell that deals 1d6damage/lvl no save no sr with no cap.doesnt make bards good nukers.
Favored Enemy 03-30-05, 12:23 AM	Stop worrying about the Fighter and help out the Ranger. He's worse off for sure!
PhaedrusXY 03-30-05, 12:24 AM	Edit: Never mind. Guess you agreed, since you edited it. :P
ryanroyce 03-30-05, 01:23 AM	Yes, but not by a lot. The illusion of versatility inherent to the fighter (and the sorcerer, btw) makes it a bit underpowered in combat, but that's more of a slight flaw in the design principles of WotC than anything else. The fighter's problem isn't a lack of combat prowess, it's an excess of out-of-combat boredom. There is almost nothing a fighter can contribute to non-combat situations, and this often leads to player dissatisfaction and boredom. Contrary to popular belief, combat-lite sessions are quite common, particularly in the grander scale campaigns with a thicker plot. In such situations, the fighter's player all too often ends up reading a book or playing mini-games on their cell phone instead of paying attention to the game, since their mouthpiece is so useless. Ryan
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-30-05, 01:50 AM	you can only use the offcial rules to discuss class balence my friend. First, I never, at any point in time, used in context of, stated, or implied that non-official rules were to, should, or must be used to "fix" the fighter. I stated that the available feats in the core PHB was the problem and not the class itself. That was my point then and that's what it is now. I did not go outside the realm of the rules to come to this conclusion. I mentioned that when other books are used, they fix the percieved problem with the fighter completely. That is not outside of the official rules and I am completely aware that it is optional (I did not imply otherwise) for the DM. I stated that the problem lies entirely with the available fighter feats in the PHB. Meaning that, therefore, it can only be fixed by amending this problem. Fixing it within the confines of core-only (i.e. rewriting the feats section of the PHB) is impossible without a reprinting of the book. Instead, we're left with the legions of supplements which "suppliment" the PHB's selection. THAT fixes the problem. Therefore, the "fighter iz weak" problem lies entirely with using a core-only fighter. Nothing I stated is outside the realms of discussion for determining class balance. I made no assertions to make class balance depending on anything other than official material. I'm not sure whether your post that addresses me is an outright lie about what I said or just misinformed from not reading my post. Either way, you don't immediately appear to know what you're talking about.
High Octane 03-30-05, 02:08 AM	Yes and No. They certainly aren't until later levels. It is true however that after level 12 or so the bonus feats mean less and less while other classes have abilities that mean more and more. Odlly though, an epic fighter isnt underpowered at all, because he gets extra EPIC bonus feats. Simply put fighters just need for someone to create some feats that require Fighters level 13 and above. Not added attack bonus or damage because that would unbalance it.
spyderfreek 03-30-05, 02:12 AM	No, but by reading the former posts, I think it may only be because of my DM. Here's why: We are running an on going campaign. We find different modules that fit our levels, and then hook them into our world (Greyhawk). [Quick synopsis: We helped the crown at a low level and they have since hired us to run errands. We have become agents for the king and help him where he needs it.] As such, unless we request it, we do not spend much time inbetween modules. WHich means the mages and clerics do not get the time to stock up on scrolls and potions, the thieves do not get side adventures to gain wealth, and we have a 17th level paladin follower who still has no holy sword or mount (long story). What we do have is a group that acts very cohesively, when all of us can make it. Everyone has their place, and we have yet to run into a prepared encounter we could not handle. (We recently had our hind ends handed to us because of a BAD saving throw.) Consequently, our clerics and mages have to carry more buff spells, our rogue has to be more cunning in the placement of himself, and our fighter has to trust that his back is gotten, so to speak. We're a bascis 17th level group, with a monk joining, and I would go toe to toe with the cleric or mage before the fighter anyday. Many people who compare classes take each class by itself and do a comparison side by side, with no gear, just feats. Granted mages and clerics have spells (or any casting class), and fighters only have their feats. But throw in the gear, and properly equiped classes are balanced. Characters of any level should be compared with all factors that affect their abilities. A Fig-4 with a +1 Greatword does 2d6+3(WS), before strength, every attack. Same fighter at 17th would more than likely have come across a +4 or better by then doing 2d6 +8(WS, GWS), not including strength or any other abilities on the sword. Every attack, 4x per round = 8d6+32 = max 80... figure a conservative 20 str and you have a max of 100 with a min of 60, modified AB of +28/+23/+18/+13 and I would bet on a fighter most times. This is just a fighter, with some eq (moderate eq) and no buffs. Fighters are not unbalanced, just not magic dependant like spellcasters are. I like fighters just the way they are. Maleable, strong and useful.
Koga:The ninja trick 03-30-05, 02:14 AM	The Koga doesn't think fighters are underpowerd, just the magick has been overhauled. The Koga gave ideas on how to weaken the cleric and druid (the most guilty suspects of said crime.) in making all other classes near useless and reverting them to a more balanced job. Druids were still big on transforming and resisting nature and having animal companions, clerics still had magickal power just more-so reliaint on diety as it should be.. but sense they're good at melee their spells shouldn't be that powerful. Wizards and sorcerers are so meek they NEED thier spells to survive, and psionics fall under a differant rule entirely.. So no, The Koga doesn't think fighters are underpowerd. It's just every other class that's messed up. :P
Malfean 03-30-05, 03:33 AM	No. I think he is balanced. Provided you use standard point building and not the one that gives you 32.
spyderfreek 03-30-05, 03:36 AM	No. I think he is balanced. Provided you use standard point building and not the one that gives you 32. Just a curiosity question: Why point build versus dice roll?
The Wasp 03-30-05, 04:16 AM	Yes, The fighter is underpowered. at higher level only, though. He's fine 1-6.
WunderGoat 03-30-05, 04:44 AM	Not underpowered until its past level 10, for sure. Feats are the fighter's bread and butter and to reiterate what has been said before, if you upgrade the feats, you upgrade the fighter. The trouble is, too few feats are fighter-only, and thus other classes can get any single feat tree and get any new uber-feat out there. The old power crit was a 1/day auto-threat on a single attack, but any class could reasonably get it (epic wizards could use it for touch spells. How about a crit maximized energy drain?). The solutionis to make some fighter only feats. Here are a few I propose: Imp Weapon Specialization, FTR 16+, Greater Weapon Specialization: +6 damage with chosen weapon Shield Specialization, FTR level 6+: Gain a +2 dodge bonus vs. one opponent when using specified shield Imp Shield Specialization, FTR lvl 12+, Shield Spec: Dodge improves to +4 Greater Shield Specialization, FTR lvl 16+, Shield Spec: Dodge improves to +6 This one could be a little too good: Imp Power Critical, FTR 18+, Imp Crit, Power Crit, Imp Weapon Specialization with chosen weapon: The critical multiplier of your weapon increases by 1 Here is one that does not affect combat ability, and would work for most other classes, too: Skillfull [general]: Pick a skill that is not exclusive to a class you do not have levels in. That class is a class skill for you. You may pick this feat a number of times equal to 1+your int modifier Alternativly, you can modify the fighter class for certain situations. I made a hybrid fighter/ranger that gets the ranger skill list and 4+int skills. Also has favored enemy and track at level 1. Trade off is no heavy armor proficiency, fighter-only feats, and feats only every 4 levels, starting at level 2. Another version had a better skill selection (including tumble) and 4+int skills, good fort and will, fear immunity at level 3, mettle level 9, uncanny dodge at levels 5 and 10, luck reroll 1/day level 15 and 2/day at 20, and bonus feats every 3 levels, along with counting as a fighter 3 levels below its actual level for feats (i.e. weapon spec at level 7). The class has a lot of nice anti-will save abilities and is fast to react, but is weaker at the combat game than a fighter. In design is was a 1v1 fighting class, and it allows for some pretty powerful pole-arm builds.
Gemstone 03-30-05, 05:17 AM	No
fractal 03-30-05, 05:19 AM	Yes. I think the Fighter is underpowered at higher levels (after around level 8-10). Additionally, I think the Fighter is also poorly balanced, in that the class is extremely front-loaded. In a system where everyone stuck with a single class for 20 levels, that wouldn't be a problem, but when multi-classing and PrCs are available, heavy front-loading like the Fighter has is bad for both the Fighter class and for any other class with a somewhat similar purpose. You should dip into Fighter because you want a bit more "fighter-ness", not because you want the extra power of those two front-loaded levels. Similarly, you should take a Barbarian level or two because you want Barbarian flavor, not because you've worked out that Rage, Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, 2 HP, and 4 SP are way better than one bonus feat. (And no, I don't blame the players who do this, I blame the rules system that rewards it.)
Maarten 03-30-05, 05:52 AM	YES
Quirriff 03-30-05, 06:26 AM	NO *casts ventriloquism* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO I think it's settled Fighter isn't unbalanced.
Gnarl 03-30-05, 06:31 AM	No, the fighter is not underpowered. A naked fighter (i.e. no equipment) is relatively weak compared to a naked wizard. Granted. But all classes partially rely on equipment to be a bit better. If your fighter is slow, get yourself a dimension door item. A normally equipped fighter has nothing to envy from a wizard or cleric or druid or any other character class. He's the front line dude with lots of feats to do lots of fun things. Before saying a fighter is underpowered, you should consider some of the fallowing feats: Improved Grapple (wizards hate this one) Improved Bull Rush (your buddies are going to love the extra attacks of opportunity) Improved Sunder (where did the staff go?) Mage Slayer (poor wizard and cleric) Improved Trip (1 attack per round from opponents is always nice) Shock Trooper (check out the domino rush, lots of fun with improved trip) ... these are my favorite but there are a lot more fun feats. These are all very good feats that only a fighter would bother taking (at least more than 2 or 3 of them) and they give you some tactical options that makes you some very potent opponent (as part of a party). Now let's take a look at some other feats: Weapon Focus Weapon Specialization Two-Weapon Fighting Rapid Shot Whirlwind Attack Ok, these may look good but they only make the difference at low levels. Those extra damage gained through these feats make you do a lot of damage at low levels, but at 10th level, weapon specialization is only +4 points of damage per round. Not that good after all. One more thing that makes me think the fighter is not underpowered. He starts being usefull on round 1. Unlike the spellcasting types, the fighter does not rely too much on buffs to get better in combat. So you start bashing, disruption, hindering starting round 1. And to finish, remember that D&D is not a computer game. In world of warcraft, you might be on a solo quest, but in D&D you usually have 4 or 5 buddies by your side. The party cleric is as important to you as you are to the party cleric (don't forget, you can't cast spells with a shield in one hand and a heavy mace in the other). You need those buff spells to make monstrous power attacks or use your combat expertise feat just as the cleric needs you to trip the monster that would otherwise tear him apart. Your wizard needs you to bull rush your opponents off him so he gets a chance to cast you haste etc... As strange as it may sound to you, I believe the party fighter is not supposed to be the primary source of damage (wizards and rogues are a lot better at that) and more important, the fighter is the only character class that has the necessary feats to get a whole lot of combat options. I'm kind of getting bored with the "I attack, I hit, I roll damage" type of combat.
spyderfreek 03-30-05, 06:38 AM	[QUOTE=Gnarl As strange as it may sound to you, I believe the party fighter is not supposed to be the primary source of damage (wizards and rogues are a lot better at that) and more important, the fighter is the only character class that has the necessary feats to get a whole lot of combat options. I'm kind of getting bored with the "I attack, I hit, I roll damage" type of combat.[/QUOTE] :cheer: :pint: :thumbsup: BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO I wish you were in my group..... We have a Cleric/Fighter who is bored cuz he's not quite a fighter, not quite a cleric--strange boy
Szatany 03-30-05, 07:28 AM	Yes, only at 2nd half of levels but still yes.
Brom Blackforge 03-30-05, 09:16 AM	your title says a simple vote but when you ask to explain its no longer a simple vote your now making a new fighter opinion thread which we already have too many of you should actually have a simple vote and just have them say yes or no a simple vote has no opinions Wow, nitpick, why don't you! I decided that a simple "yes" or "no" really wouldn't be all that helpful, so I invited explanations. I didn't change the title of the thread because I didn't think it was a big deal. Thanks to everyone who - unlike siriusranger87 - actually offered their opinions on the question.
Brom Blackforge 03-30-05, 09:20 AM	Complex question, can't be put into a poll phrased so simply. Which is why I asked for explanations. The question would actually have been harder to answer as a straight yes or no. Thanks, again, to everyone who has posted.
Ahnehnois 03-30-05, 09:50 AM	Yes. Here's my reasoning. If a fighter is faced with a choice whether to prestige or not, is the power the same both ways. Druids, rogues, can prestige, but the gains usually at least balance out the losses. Barbarian? Some prestige, but they'll lose out on better rage benefits and nil DR. Fighters will rarely stay single-classed, because by mid levels they'll have most of the feats they really, really want. A 1st level fighter is fine. No matter how you slice it, a 20th level fighter is just not good enough.
god the giant 03-30-05, 09:54 AM	no way the fighter is underpowered. with the right feats and battle tactics youll be fine.
philippe willaume 03-30-05, 11:15 AM	yes and no. in a nut shell it either a good one trick pony or an average jack of all trade.
Kilamar 03-30-05, 11:34 AM	Vote: No
Kolo 03-30-05, 11:38 AM	The simple answer? Yes. The simple reasoning; Core feats aren't up to par. I want not just options but also to do those options fairly well, rather than be a "little behind" everywhere at once. My personal solution; Supplements. contrary to what one may think, the most broken wizard/cleric spells are core while the most powerful fighter feats are non-core. I limit myself to the Complete supplements, and maybe a heavily thwacked BoED/BoVD taste or two, and it's worked out fine.
Evil Wizard 03-30-05, 12:02 PM	No. While it's true that late game fighters don't have any super-advanced feat trees to advance in, I question how crippled they actually are in being able to take multiple feat trees. Any single class has to struggle to reach Whirlwind Attack, while a fighter can make it easily and look at two more feat chains before reaching 20. Rage is nice, but ultimately the barbarian is just a one trick pony. Really, they're the most boring class in the game, because all you do is hit things with an axe. The fighter can adapt to nearly any foe, continuing to expand his repertoire as he gains in levels. While not an earth-shaking feat, Improved Disarm is just as good a feat at level 16 as it was at level 6 - moreso in fact, as villains carry scarier and scarier magic weapons. Even at higher levels, a clever fighter should have a means for dealing with just about anything he comes across. Your low Will save is moot if you get the wizard in a grapple before he can get his hands on his material components.
Finarin Panjoro 03-30-05, 01:03 PM	No. The fighter's failings are not in the area of power. The fighter's failings are in its inability to recreate a number of warrior archetypes due to its limited skill set and its failure to achieve the combat versatility that is supposedly their greatest advantage. Two custom feats fixed this in my campaign without greatly altering the power level of the class. So no they aren't underpowered, but do need revision to fulfill their designated role.
mermin_8403 03-30-05, 03:06 PM	Usually not (in combat) definitely yes (out of combat) The fighter is really only underpowered in solo or small party games. If you've got enough of a party for a rogue to 'have the fighter's back' or for a cleric or wizard/sorc (or even both!) to cast buffs on the fighter, he does just fine. Most of the comparisons that show the fighter as underpowered as compared to say, a cleric, assume that the cleric casts all his hour/level buffs at the beginning of the day, but the fighter has no such spells. In my experience, while a cleric could cast greater magic weapon on his mace, and magic vestment on his armor, and then hold his own in combat with the fighter, the party is better served if the cleric casts the GMW on the fighter's greatsword (or spiked chain), and magic vestment on the fighter's animated shield and his armor. Or the cleric could cast both sets. If the party plays intelligently and co-operatively, the fighter can dominate combat up to the highest level. However, the area where the fighter is weak is out of combat. His class skill list is pathetic, and he doesn't get enough points to get anything cross-class either. Yet another reason why the solo fighter would never survive (he wouldn't see or hear anything coming, and he'd believe the BBEG was actually working for the greater good). This all being said, I've had great fun with fighters, and in my experience, they tend to be quite good characters IN A PARTY.
Willie the Duck 03-30-05, 11:58 PM	Untrue. Take away all the good arcane spells or move them to noncore sources and the (core) wizard really does become weak. The fighter might be tied to feats, but if the feats change - so does the class. Change the feats and the class's power changes as well. The problem with the fighter's power is not the fighter itself. All the fighter's class features tie into a specific pool of available feats specifically set aside for the fighter class. The "fighter problem" exists entirely with the pool of feats. Not with the class. This, therefore, is a problem, specifically, with the fighter's available fighter feats in the PHB. Beyond the PHB, this problem does not exist. In short - this is not a problem with the fighter class - it's a problem with the feats available to the fighter - more specifically the core only fighter feats. Not the class itself. Nothing in the fighter class itself has anything to do with this percieved weakness, so it doesn't lie within the class itself. I really don't see how you've countered my point. If you change the wizard spells, the wizard's power level changes, because all his power is tied up in spells. If you change the feats, it changes the fighter's power becuase all his power is tied up in feats. same thing. Of course most people complain that the core wizard is TOO powerful, as opposed to not powerful enough, so a non-core change for the wizard would have to be one of subtraction, unlike the addition it would require for fighters, but I still think the two are analogous comparisons. All you've really said is "it's not the fighter, it's the feats." in seven slightly different formats. We all already agreed that the weak link for the fighter was that they eventually ran out of new feats to take that kept up with the new abilities other classes are getting at each successive levels. That doesn't really help, since you can't change what feats are available without delving into non-core, houserule, or non-WotC sources for feats. Now, looking back at your original post, you clearly were referring to non-core sources, and they do offer some help. As I suggested, the tactical feats in particular are the fighter's best feature (marked diversity in combat roles), rolled up three at a time. That said, there are few non-core feats that I've seen that are better than the best options in core material (whirlwind attack for instance, or spirited charge). Sure some of them can eek out a better chance for crits or a few more points of damage by a power attacking character, but none of them is as impressive as a tireless greater rage or the saves bonus of a paladin with an item enhanced, maxed out charisma at upper levels. At that point, extra options is nice, but a single, really good option would have been better. What the fighter really needs is some high level fighter-only feats that remove some of the limitations that he has (resistance to will saves better than iron will + a few FR regional feats, some level of elemental immunity, ability to fly without potions or spellcasters help). There are a few feats only a fighter would ever bother that allow them to withstand creatures you never want to be the warrior in front of (the swallowers, destroy your weapon monsters, size huge+ grapplers, rediculous reach creatures, but most are so specific you'd only choose them in a campaign where said monster was the DM's favorite
Pax 03-31-05, 01:38 PM	I have seen a fair share of opinions expressed that the fighter is underpowered, as well as a fair number that the fighter is just fine. IMO - underpowered? No. Just fine? ALSO NO. I think the Fighter is under-FLAVORED. I think there's just no real reason to stick with fighter, once you find a prestige class that matches how you're playing the fighter ANYway. None, whatsoever. And I have a few fixes inmind for this, too. Three things, two of them linked: One (and this is the stand-alone fix), I think (Greater) Weapon Specialisation is a waste of a feat - there's just always going to be something better, IMO, than wasting two feat for a +1 to hit and a +2 damage bonus (if you include Weapon Focus in the mix). Ergo, I give a +1 to hit and +3 damage for Weapon Specialisation (and anyone who can take it, benefits - not just fighters). Double that, for Greater Weapon Specialisation (+2 attack, +6 damage). Including the +1 or +2 attack bonus from (Greater) Weapon focus, that gives you +2/+3 for two feats, or +4/+6 for four feats. Much more attractive, but not so much better than other two- four-feat chains that it's unbalanced. IMO, anyway. Two (part A): I think the Fighter should, in all situations, be at least marginally better at fighting than anyone else - even rangers and paladins (barring facing the sorts of foes those two classes are optimised against, of course). The bonus feats are nifty, but ... well, sure, the fighter can be "optimised" in two or three styles of fighting, i.e. "mounted combat and archery". But the Paladin will still be better at mounted combat than the fighter (because his mount will be better), and the Ranger will be as good as the Fighter at archery, if he took that Style. Mewnwhile, the raging barbarian hits harder AND ore often, as well as having more hitpoints than the Fighter. The nonraging barbarian loses the harder, more frequent hits ... but gets no WORSE than the Fighter, while retaining their higher hit die. Not to mention damage reduction. The best way to shift things, IMO, is Base Attack Bonus. So: I give Fighters abonus to Base Attack which starts at +1 for level 1, and adds another +1 at every 5th level. This means, for example, that a Fighter's BAB progression is effectively +2/+3/+4/+5/+7/+8/+9/+10/+11/+13 for levels 1-10, and hits +25 at 20th level. Two (part B): at 17th level - just when their BAB hits +21 - fighters get the exclusive ability to get FIVE swings out of a full attack, instead of four (I regularly use many of the ELH rules, or at least keep them in mind for later). Thus, the fighter will have a slight edge in their ability to hit, and with the improved Greater Weapon Specialisation chain, has something of a reason to stick with Fighter levels, instead of stuff like Kensai or Weapon Master or whatever. Take a Half-orc fighter starting with, oh ... a 19 Strength. At 20th level, with a +6 enhancing item, he should have a 30 strength. Magic weapons, power attack, and buff spells aside: at Fighter(20), with Greater Specialisation, our Fighter buddy is swinging at +39/+34/+29/+24/+19 to hit, and dealing ?d?+16 with a 1H weapon or ?d?+21 with a 2H weapon. Compare this, SAME stats, to a by-the-book version: +32/+27/+22/+17 to hit, deals ?d?+14 with a 1H weapon or ?d?+19 with a 2H weapon. So. A slight tweak gives the fighter, at 20th level, +7 to hit, +2 damage, and one extra attack, over the by-the-book fighter ... but they have to stick with the class all the way through to get it. Not a lot of power, but just enough of an edge to make the class attractive in and of itself. ^_^
Gnarl 03-31-05, 01:55 PM	I think the Fighter is under-FLAVORED. I think there's just no real reason to stick with fighter, once you find a prestige class that matches how you're playing the fighter ANYway. None, whatsoever. Agreed on this one. Two (part A): I think the Fighter should, in all situations, be at least marginally better at fighting than anyone else - even rangers and paladins (barring facing the sorts of foes those two classes are optimised against, of course). You're kidding right ? Can you image how strong that would make a fighter if he could beat some classes at what they are best at. The paladin or ranger bashing his favored enemy really is scary. In my humble opinion, this is just plain madness. Why not casting meteor swarms at level 3 while we're at it. Two (part B): at 17th level - just when their BAB hits +21 - fighters get the exclusive ability to get FIVE swings out of a full attack, instead of four (I regularly use many of the ELH rules, or at least keep them in mind for later). If you want more attacks, take two weapon fighting and with improved buckler defense, you can even benefit from a shield. Of course you do need feats but after all, what is a fighter all about if it isn't feats.
Brom Blackforge 03-31-05, 02:35 PM	You're kidding right ? Can you image how strong that would make a fighter if he could beat some classes at what they are best at. The paladin or ranger bashing his favored enemy really is scary. In my humble opinion, this is just plain madness. Why not casting meteor swarms at level 3 while we're at it. I think you misunderstood. What Pax said was, "I think the Fighter should, in all situations, be at least marginally better at fighting than anyone else - even rangers and paladins (barring facing the sorts of foes those two classes are optimised against, of course)." (The emphasis there is mine, to point out what I think you missed.) The sentiment expressed was that fighters should be better combatants than paladins and rangers except when those classes are facing the foes that they are most effective against (such as the ranger's favored enemy). And that's hard to disagree with. The fighter is all about fighting, to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. Therefore, the fighter should have the best fighting ability of any class.
Giver_of_Rings 03-31-05, 02:51 PM	No.
GoofsterStud 03-31-05, 02:56 PM	yes
Giver_of_Rings 03-31-05, 03:16 PM	I know this is a poll, but I've heard an argument that I can no longer let go by the wayside. Out of combat rping is up to you, not your skills. Sure, you can't track, or disarm traps or scry, but there's plenty of Intimidating to go around, with the new knowledge skill you can always lend your metagame hypotheses and advice to your fellow spelunkers. And there's no reason you can't try to do a billion thing untrained. You've got ability scores, put 'em to work.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-31-05, 03:47 PM	I really don't see how you've countered my point. I countered the assertion I thought you made that did state the opposite of what I said (that the problem is with the fighter class because of the feats and that the fighter class is weak.) This is the assertion - the fighter class itself is weak - that I countered. If you didn't make this assertion, then I made a mistake. Plain and simple. We all already agreed that the weak link for the fighter was that they eventually ran out of new feats to take that kept up with the new abilities other classes are getting at each successive levels. That doesn't really help, since you can't change what feats are available without delving into non-core, houserule, or non-WotC sources for feats. In other words - any and all feats outside the PHB. In other words, the only way to "fix" this problem is to make a new PHB with the better feats, which, at this point, would be impossible given how angry WotC's customers are about having to buy a second PHB anyways since the advent of 3.5. (which did make the general concensus push the "fighter usefulness" range from 1-4 to 1-12 but not 1-20.) The PHB's the problem here. Outside the PHB, the fighter can hold his own against the other classes as well as any other melee class could with its own weaknesses and strengths. i.e. the "Problem" if it ever did exist - disappears entirely. Meaning that this is a problem with the feats available to the fighter, as I think you pointed out and I did point out earlier, and not the fighter.
Pax 03-31-05, 05:03 PM	I think you misunderstood. [...] The sentiment expressed was that fighters should be better combatants than paladins and rangers except when those classes are facing the foes that they are most effective against (such as the ranger's favored enemy). Exactly. ^_^ Rangers, against their favored enemies, get to-hit and damage bonusses - and nothing would stop them from dipping into Fighter for just one level, for the bonus feat and a 2-point boost to their BAB for slightly-better attacks, too - they just wouldn't get the fifth attack (even though a Ranger(19)/Fighter(1) would have a BAB of +21). Paladins, well ... they've got their ultra-capable mount, their hopefully-decent Charisma bonus (noone loves a Cloak of Charisma (+4 or better) like a high-level Paladin) for saves and laying on of hands, and their supply of Smitings. Barbarians - well, they've got their decent supply of Tireless Mighty Rage. Fighters, by the RAW, get left behind, sadly. My suggestions let them be, in terms of overall fighting, slightly better inmost cases, but still slightly out-distanced by each characetr acting solely within their core "schtick".
Scarlet Knight 03-31-05, 05:26 PM	Rangers, against their favored enemies, get to-hit and damage bonusses - and nothing would stop them from dipping into Fighter for just one level, for the bonus feat and a 2-point boost to their BAB for slightly-better attacks, too - they just wouldn't get the fifth attack (even though a Ranger(19)/Fighter(1) would have a BAB of +21).What are you talking about? Rangers and Fighters have exactly the same BAB, and multiclassing between Fighter and Ranger doesn't change the BAB at all. Ranger 19 / Fighter 1 has a +20 BAB and five attacks, just like Ranger 20 or Fighter 20.
Pax 03-31-05, 05:46 PM	You're kidding right ? Can you image how strong that would make a fighter if he could beat some classes at what they are best at. The paladin or ranger bashing his favored enemy really is scary. In my humble opinion, this is just plain madness. Why not casting meteor swarms at level 3 while we're at it. See above, and there's no need to get uncivil with the "meteor swarm at level 3" sort of thing. If you want more attacks, take two weapon fighting and with improved buckler defense, you can even benefit from a shield. Of course you do need feats but after all, what is a fighter all about if it isn't feats. Yes, but anyone can take those feats. I want this "fifth attack due to BAB" to be a purely fighter thing. And you know what? Even then, it's not a purely fighter thing - a Monk(20) also gets five (unarmed) attacks from their BAB, using Greater Flurry for [+15/+15/+15/+10/+5]. My idea is that, when it comes to pure toe-to-toe fighting which is not within the other classes' special niche, given the same feats applicable to that sort of fighting (i.e. [two-weapon], or [archery], or [mounted], or [two-hand weapon], or ... etc, etc, etc) ... the Fighter should be better. [snip overlong comparison of TWF fighter and TWF ranger] I admit, the rate of bonus accrual might need to be tweaked - to the "less often" side, perhaps. But IMO the concept is valid: it makes the fighter, overall, better overall at his "schtick" - fighting. Yet, IMO, it doesn't truly step on the toes of the other combat-oriented classes (Barbarian, Ranger, & Paladin), because they've all got things they do other than combat: Barbarians are more likely to survive a blow for X amount of damage (bigger HD, modest DR), and can at least tie even my pumped-up fighter in ability to hit and deal damage, if not outstrip him entirely, while raging. Paladins get to heal and cure diseases, cast some spells, have a loyal and VERY capable mount, detect evil at will, and lay the Holy Smackdown on evil foes. Rangers get to track, cast some spells, hide, have a loyal and very capable animal companion, and deal ever-increasing damage against a select few categories of opponent. They shouldn't be able to each do all of that, and be as good at hitting and nearly as good at dealing damage as Fighters are the entire rest of the time! Even with their array of bonus feats: there is very little a fighter can do, that someone else can't do, and manage to do just as well ... and then, the someone else's get other stuff TOO? My watchword for the Fighter class is this: "as good as" simply isn't good enough! The class needs somewhere where it is hands-down, flat-out, and undeniably better than anyone and everyone else.
Pax 03-31-05, 05:48 PM	What are you talking about? Rangers and Fighters have exactly the same BAB, [...] Did you fail to read the whole thread ...? Several posts further up (as you'd know if you'd bothered to read before posting), I described how I, personally, give the Fighter class a bit more "oomf" without undercutting balance to far. And that's in the form of slightly more than 1:1 BAB. Jeeze ...! RTFM, willya?
Mandarbgrim 03-31-05, 05:55 PM	Yes, they are underpowered. They need to be more useful outside combat. They need expanded and more powerful feat tree's, and more powerful high level feats. Throwing in some generalized class abilities might not be a bad idea, either.
Scarlet Knight 03-31-05, 05:58 PM	Did you fail to read the whole thread ...? Several posts further up (as you'd know if you'd bothered to read before posting), I described how I, personally, give the Fighter class a bit more "oomf" without undercutting balance to far. And that's in the form of slightly more than 1:1 BAB. Jeeze ...! RTFM, willya? Well no, as a matter of fact I didn't read it. I certainly am not obligated to read every single thing in the entire thread, and I don't understand why you would even expect me to. I didn't know what you were talking about, and so I decided to ask for clarification. You could have answered my question without being so rude about it.
Delfedd 03-31-05, 06:26 PM	I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that fighters are a little OVERpowered. I mean, they get TONS of feats and stuff. Good fortitude, ect. They can take the entire combat trees for the ranger... and still have more feats to pump themselves up with cleave.
NehpetsTtocs 03-31-05, 06:43 PM	Exactly. ^_^ Rangers, against their favored enemies, get to-hit and damage bonusses - and nothing would stop them from dipping into Fighter for just one level, for the bonus feat and a 2-point boost to their BAB for slightly-better attacks, too - they just wouldn't get the fifth attack (even though a Ranger(19)/Fighter(1) would have a BAB of +21). Pax, I thought that rangers did not recieve a to-hit bonus from their favored enemy ability(s). I thought that the ability only applied to certain skill checks and weapons damage.
The Wasp 03-31-05, 06:44 PM	I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that fighters are a little OVERpowered. I mean, they get TONS of feats and stuff. ROTFL! that's pretty funny stuff. You're being sarcastic, right?
Pax 03-31-05, 06:55 PM	Pax, I thought that rangers did not recieve a to-hit bonus from their favored enemy ability(s). I thought that the ability only applied to certain skill checks and weapons damage. Oops, you're right about that. I don't tend to play non-spellcasters myself (flinging the mojo around is just too much fun to pass up, heh), so I admit to not being 100% up to snuff on how all the non-spellcaster classes' abilities work.
Gordan 03-31-05, 07:55 PM	this is my count of the votes so far. yes at higher levels: 9 Yes: 12 Total Yes: 21 no: 21 overpowered: 1 looks like a tie so far there were a few posts that i did not have time to break down their arguments and find out what side they were taking. my vote is no. if anyone else counst different please post it so we can keep a running tally. Brom: you started this vote but i did not see your vote. What is it. If i missed it i am sorry.
D3w N1Nj4 03-31-05, 10:29 PM	No, the fighter isn't unbalanced. :fight!: All you need is a little more feats or a PrC (which any fighter can quilify for the warrior PrC's easy) for outside sources like CW or OA(gentle way mastery!) or make some up with the DM.(or, even easier, make the new feats fighter bonus feats.) and if you don't like being a 15thLV fighter, multi-classing was invented for a reason. Fighter/rouges, fighter/wizards, or even fighter/monks can make some interesting characters and some PrC to go with them, like the spellsword.
BHC_Crow 03-31-05, 11:25 PM	Is the fighter under/overpowered? NO, not from what Ive seen If you have a growing collection of DnD books there are enough feats out there to build a very powerful Fighter. But thats the key.... access to a wide variety of feats that will work together. example: (A character that one of my players play) 1. Exotic WP bastard sword 2. Two weap fighting 3. Weapon focus bastard sword 4. oversize Two weap fighting 5. Weapon spec Bastard Sword 6. Improved toughness 7. Improved Two weapon fight 8. Greater Weapon focus Bastard Sword 9. Dual strike and spring attack (nasty) 10. Greater Two weapon fight 11. Greater Weapon spec. Bastard Sword 12. Improved crit 13. power attack 14. improved Buckler Def 15. Resounding blow 16. Combat Expertise 17. quell the profane You can see where this is going. NOTE: If a game, or DM does not allow a fighter to get his choice of feats and his share of good magic items, but allows a wizard or bard etc to "find, train, or whatever for a good list of spells and goodies isnt that kind of bias? The fighter mentioned above with his magic stuff (which is not above the norm for his level), can kill a non fighting class character of the same level without breaking a sweat. IMHO the ranger needs more help than the fighter.
Jell_Moo 03-31-05, 11:26 PM	I think that the better question is whether or not the Core Fighter is underpowered or not. Things get much more complicated when we add outside sources, and all the classes should be comparable right out of the box. Sadly, in a Core only game, the Fighter is underpowered. The list of feats is simply too small, and the lack of high end feats really hurts. The Fighter is much worse out of combat than the other melee classes, and falls slightly behind in combat as well.
Scarlet Knight 03-31-05, 11:38 PM	1. Exotic WP bastard sword 2. Two weap fighting 3. Weapon focus bastard sword 4. oversize Two weap fighting 5. Weapon spec Bastard Sword 6. Improved toughness 7. Improved Two weapon fight 8. Greater Weapon focus Bastard Sword 9. Dual strike and spring attack (nasty) 10. Greater Two weapon fight 11. Greater Weapon spec. Bastard Sword 12. Improved crit 13. power attack 14. improved Buckler Def 15. Resounding blow 16. Combat Expertise 17. quell the profane I still say that the fighter suffers from the problem of diminishing returns. In this case, it looks like you don't really value Power Attack or Combat Expertise very highly (otherwise why would you wait until such high levels to take them?). Since those feats seem to be of relatively low value to you in terms of desirability, why not multiclass in order to get some class features that you might value more? Are you sure that either one of those two feats is worth the opportuntity cost of passing up Fast Movement, Rage and the other benefits you would gain by taking a level of barbarian instead?
Big Tom 03-31-05, 11:48 PM	The fighter being underpowered is only at levels in excess of twelve and only because the PHB lacks good fighter feats for fighters above that level, which is really where this whole arguement stems. The solution: allow more feats. I have been savedd the trouble of inputing my arguement, as it has already been made. I vote NO. If th player running the fighter is smart they will have a plan from early on on where they want their fighter to get to over time. The fighter IS somewhat limited in its operations, but what it is mainly good at (hurting people and breaking things), it's really good at.
Gordan 03-31-05, 11:54 PM	1. Exotic WP bastard sword 2. Two weap fighting 3. Weapon focus bastard sword 4. oversize Two weap fighting 5. Weapon spec Bastard Sword 6. Improved toughness 7. Improved Two weapon fight 8. Greater Weapon focus Bastard Sword 9. Dual strike and spring attack (nasty) 10. Greater Two weapon fight 11. Greater Weapon spec. Bastard Sword 12. Improved crit 13. power attack 14. improved Buckler Def 15. Resounding blow 16. Combat Expertise 17. quell the profane first off i am do not have all the non core books so i don't know all the feats on this list. is Dual strike and spring attack 1 feat or 2. if it is 2 and spring attack is out of the PHB, i belive that spring attack requires Dodge and Mobility and i don't see eather on the list of feats.
WunderGoat 04-03-05, 07:34 PM	What book is dual strike in? :bump:
CowGoMoo 04-03-05, 08:29 PM	Underpowered compared to what? A Wizard, at epic levels? Yes, and that's really fine with me. Any character at low levels? Goodness no. (Besides perhaps a Barbarian, but they have their own problems later on.) A Fighter/PrC at mid-high levels, or some other warrior with 4 levels of Fighter? Usually, and that's where I have a bit of a problem. I've attempted to handle this by giving the high level Fighter one extra bonus feat, which isn't a huge deal but does help. Some of the official PrCs out there also need some trimming.
otto333 04-03-05, 09:55 PM	no
Roxlimn 04-04-05, 01:07 AM	1. Dual Strike is in Complete Adventurer and is quite similar to Manyshot in many respects. 2. For BHC_Crow: Your proposed build does not have pre reqs for Spring Attack (Dodge and Mobility). Further, the feat acquisition is not statted out on a per level basis, making assessment more difficult. I'll try to arrange them: 1 Exotic Weapon Bastard Sword, TWF 2 WF: Bastard Sword 3 Oversized TWF 4 Weapon Specialization Bastard Sword 5 6 Improved Toughness (?!), Improved Two Weapon Fighting 7 8 Greater Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword 9 Dual Strike 10 Spring Attack (pre reqs?) 11 12 Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Spec Bastard Sword 13 14 Improved Critical 15 Power Attack 16 Improved Buckler Defense 17 18 Resounding Blow, Combat Expertise 19 20 Quell the Profane Questions: 1. How can you take Spring Attack without the Pre reqs? 2. Please elaborate on Quell the Profane, Resounding Blow. I'm not familiar with these. 3. Even with the feat progression above, Ranger can match with suitable spell power in combat. TWF, ITWF, and GTWF are automatic feats for the Ranger, so those are a wash. Every third feat from character level is also matchable, so that's likewise mostly a wash. In terms of feats, here's the fighter edge: 1. Bastard Sword Proficiency 4. Weapon Specialization: Bastard Sword 8. Greater Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword 10. 1 feat, presumably Spring Attack, but no pre reqs 14 Improved Critical 16 Improved Buckler Defense 18 Resounding Blow 20 Quell the Profane Up to level 12, the Fighter gets 4 bonus feats over the Ranger (and slightly more hp) spaced out, essentially amounting to +1 to hit/+3 damage +1 feat (Dodge?) Ranger gets +4/+4/+2 FEBs, spells like Cat's Grace, Bull's Strength, Barkskin, Longstrider, Arrowmind, Protection from Energy among other things. At 12th level, he gets caster level 6 for a respectable 2/2/1 progression, probably an effective +3 on the Ref and Will save, based on attribute distribution. He also gets 6 SP per level on important combat skills like Spot, Jump, Heal, and Ride. He gets Woodland Stride to allow him to dominate movement in combat involving undergrowth. And, of course, he gets to use any spell trigger item on his spell list. Fighters can buy potions to compensate, but that usually takes more money. Given a creature spread of 5-6 creature types in the campaign (not unreasonable), the Ranger is very competitive in terms of combat. In fact, given the durations on the stuff he can access with spells (and the vast array of Ranger spells on WotC books now), I'd say he had a bit of an edge. If the creature ranges in the campaign were more on the 10 creature type range, with equal distribution, then the comparison goes very slightly in favor of the Fighter (purely on a combat basis), for more consistency, but for the 30% of the encounters in which FEs play a major role, the Ranger still outshines him. Overall, given that Ranger gets to shine 100% over Fighter in other types of encounters, still favor Ranger for play. Above 12th level: Improved Critical increases overall damage quite minimally, especially given the typically lower Strength this Fighter will have over Sword and Board and THF Fighters, because of the Dex investment he requires for Greater Two Weapon Fighting. Ranger does not need this invesment. He can, of course, choose to match Dex for Dex, but if he chooses, he can increase Strength or Con instead, for what it's worth. Improved Buckler Defense presumably allows you to use a Buckler with less of a penalty (I'm not familiar with the feat). You can match the lower to-hit with Bull's Strength (10 min/level) or match the extra AC with Barkskin (also 10 min/level). And still have other spells to use. Alternatively, the Ranger should take Improved Buckler Defense (which he can actually take) and consider Greater Weapon Spec in its place (which he can't take). Again the spells match the feat, without using all spell slots. Furthermore, FEB will be improving to +4/+4/+4/+2 at level 15 and +4/+4/+4/+4/+2 at level 20. Given a 5 creature spread, always on FEB at level 20 and 80% frequency at level 15, matching GWS exactly for 60% of the time. Freedom of Movement and Darkvision are notable in that they can counteract relatively common and rather serious combat obstacles. Above the 12th level, I don't see this Fighter matching Ranger in the combat arena. He'll be a smidgen tougher, and his maximum damage will be better by a small fraction some of the time (less than 10% by my estimate, given powerful weapons for both), but his combat defenses on Ref and Will will always be inferior, and critically inferior at that, he cannot easily access the powerful combat effects Rangers can through spell use and spell trigger item use, and his movement options are a little inferior. And all this is a purely combat comparison. Ranger acquits himself quite capably beside Fighter, and also performs top notch in roles Fighter can't. Why choose Fighter? For squiggly lines on the feat part of your character sheet that don't cut the mustard? Fighter needs help. No bones about it.
Brom Blackforge 04-04-05, 09:57 AM	Brom: you started this vote but i did not see your vote. What is it. If i missed it i am sorry. You're right, I haven't. I'm still trying to figure it out, and part of my effort to gain perspective was this thread, asking everyone else what they thought and why. My own initial belief is that the fighter, as presented in the Player's Handbook, is somewhat weaker than other combat-oriented classes. The paladin and barbarian have the same attack progression, but the barbarian has a higher HD, rage, and eventually damage reduction, while the paladin gains spells. The fighter's bonus feats don't seem like they stack up very well. I am leaning toward agreeing that the problem is that the feats themselves don't offer sufficient rewards, at least at higher levels. I am also considering whether the fighter gets enough bonus feats (I tend to believe that there should be more, though I am not sure yet).
Orvar 04-04-05, 09:57 AM	Nay, the fighter is not underpowered. Although I must concur with others that it doe sbecome a little weak at higher levels. The solution: Prestige Classes. The Fighters bonus feats make him a good starting class when thinking of what prestige class to advance in.
RadicalTaoist 04-04-05, 12:32 PM	I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that fighters are a little OVERpowered. I mean, they get TONS of feats and stuff. Good fortitude, ect. They can take the entire combat trees for the ranger... and still have more feats to pump themselves up with cleave. :rofl:
Brom Blackforge 04-04-05, 01:47 PM	Nay, the fighter is not underpowered. Although I must concur with others that it doe sbecome a little weak at higher levels. The solution: Prestige Classes. The Fighters bonus feats make him a good starting class when thinking of what prestige class to advance in. You said "no," but then you qualified your answer so severely that I'm not entirely sure that you really meant "no." If the fighter is not a viable class to take 20 levels in, then I'd say it's underpowered.
Brom Blackforge 04-07-05, 10:17 AM	By the way, I hate the perception (which seems to be common) that to achieve maximum power or effectiveness, a character needs to take at least one prestige class. I don't think that prestige classes should be any more powerful than base classes. (However, that's probably a topic for another thread.)
Nyferto 04-07-05, 12:04 PM	Doesn't mean they're built for that either. If a Prc is built with a certain build in mind, and a Fighter fits into that build - then the PrC is supposed to be good for him. Given the number of PrC's - some Fighters will probably be better off going into a PrC.
Brom Blackforge 04-07-05, 02:01 PM	Doesn't mean they're built for that either. If a Prc is built with a certain build in mind, and a Fighter fits into that build - then the PrC is supposed to be good for him. Given the number of PrC's - some Fighters will probably be better off going into a PrC. It's one thing to say that a particular prestige class fits the build that you have in mind for your character better than the fighter class alone would. (You might also be able to fulfull your vision for a particular character by taking levels in another base class.) It's another thing to say that the fighter class (in general) is so weak that you are practically required to take a prestige class - preferably at the earliest opportunity, and no later than 11th level. Prestige classes should be used for achieving a particular flavor. They should not be better than base classes - just different.
Gemstone 04-07-05, 02:54 PM	I don't belive that the fighter is underpowered since its built to work in a group. Alone, no class beside cleric and druid can counter all problems... making the fighter stronger will only twist the CR system more. A well-played fighter is the party damage dealer (as seen in many of our campaigns... 7d6+12 per hit is not bad)
Tony Vargas 04-07-05, 02:57 PM	Prestige classes should be used for achieving a particular flavor. They should not be better than base classes - just different. Prestige Classes /are/ optional, so thier existance doesn't support or deny the balance or viability of another class. They /are/ supposed to be a tad more powerful than regular classes, as an incentive for the players to take them - since they are, primarily, supposed to be a tool for the DM's setting-crafting. Some PrCs, like the Mystic Theurge, seem to have been presented to make some forms of multi-classing more effective. To the extent that a PrC exists to cover a system weakness like that (if indeed, that's the case), it would have to be balanced with regular classes, with no extra 'kick' as an incentive to buy into the DM's setting.
Brom Blackforge 04-26-05, 02:56 PM	Just a thought: I want to make clear that, in determining whether or not the fighter is underpowered, I think it's important to compare the fighter with other classes whose primary (or even secondary) role is combat. Comparing fighters with wizards and sorcerers is completely different, and I think probably necessitates some consideration of the full 20-level progression. (By that, I mean that fighters are comparatively stronger than arcane spellcasters at lower levels, and comparatively weaker at higher levels. They ought to be roughly balanced in the middle levels.) At this point, I've really only been considering whether the fighter's combat ability is weak compared to other combat-oriented classes. I haven't even gotten into balancing combat classes versus spellcasters. Anyway, thanks to everyone who posted. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?
crazysamaritan 04-26-05, 03:32 PM	There is no reason to have a ftr20, or a sorc 20. Rarely is there a reason to take clr20, anyway. But I don't think you find cleric underpowered.
Morik the Rogue 04-26-05, 03:42 PM	Vote = yes the fighter is underpowered (but only slightly).
Navar 04-26-05, 03:53 PM	Vote = NO the fighter is perfect. Everything could be based on the fighter as the perfect example of balance.
mrpopstar 04-26-05, 04:00 PM	Vote = NO The fighter is not underpowered when used by a tactically minded and well-educated (in reference to the core rules) player.
Nephlite 04-26-05, 05:17 PM	Vote = NO the fighter is perfect. Everything could be based on the fighter as the perfect example of balance. So Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers are all over powered! :eek:
TheDarkestOfAngels 04-26-05, 05:22 PM	So Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers are all over powered! :eek: they certainly would be if they were more powerful than fighters.
Navar 04-26-05, 06:02 PM	they certainly would be if they were more powerful than fighters. TheDarkestOfAngels beat me to it because I don't feel (ESPICALLY RANGERS) that they are more powerful than fighters (maybe barbarians by a little but if fighter is a 5 and we should shoot for a 5 barbarians are 5.75. while druids are a 7.5)
Xeviat-DM 04-26-05, 06:19 PM	Yes; there is both a mechanical imbalance that the other combat classes can fight just as well as the fighter, yet can do other things, and a percieved imbalance, because the fighter has nothing truely unique to itself (except weapon specialization).
Drizzt 666 04-26-05, 06:20 PM	NO The fighter class is absolutely not underpowered. But this is only true if the player knows how to use the class corectly (just like any class...), and takes the proper prestige classes. One very, very powerful fighter i have created and played quite easily is a Fighter/Monk/Dervish who got like 20 atks per round normally, not including extra atks from cleave/great cleave/supreme cleave and 40 attacks per round with the thousand cuts ability.
Tolby 04-26-05, 06:21 PM	No the fighter is not underpowered
KatScratches 04-26-05, 07:00 PM	:cheer: :pint: :thumbsup: BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO I wish you were in my group..... We have a Cleric/Fighter who is bored cuz he's not quite a fighter, not quite a cleric--strange boy To paraphrase, and at the risk of getting mobbed... I'm not a fighter Not yet a cleric... Now if only I could figure out her trick with the amazing polymorphing brestesess... (http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/britneys_breasts.swf) I promise to use my power for GOOD... really! :schemes:
Arcane Guyver 04-26-05, 07:28 PM	Core: Yes. A resounding yes for games that do not allow multiclassing, or prestige classes.... :weep: With the Complete books around (as well as a few other splatbooks, like Races of Stone & Wild) and a strict point buy in use (standard point buy solves an awful lot of problems), the Fighter holds his own quite well in the hands of a good player. Still no real reason to stick with it for 20 levels, but Fighters aren't alone in that regard.
Hairfoot 04-26-05, 10:55 PM	No, as long as it's played with some tactical nous and not just as a cleaving meat-axe.
lovehater 04-26-05, 11:52 PM	besides the fact that my keene greatsword (entropy, who can become any element except sonic), does an average of 24-30, and i get a crit. on 15-20 because of the improved crit. and the fact i had 120 hp and was being possesed to add a crapload to my strength, i would say it could do a lot more. i mean i faced a guy who dished out 54! of course that was a crit. with a great axe on max damage, but thats not the point! i am being sarcastic for those of you who dont know :P
Thorden 04-27-05, 09:21 AM	The simple fact that hundreds of thread are concerned about the fighter's weakness prove there is a problem somewhere. I've never played a high level fighter, but if you dont like it in the core rules, just try Arcana Evolved from Monte Cook. At least, you would have more fun in tanking, with the combat rites. Some sorts of combat feats classified in 4 levels, but much more easier to use than spells. Adds flavors and some are really powerful at higher level, just like spells.
Nyferto 04-27-05, 12:15 PM	If they're complaining about the wrong things, it just means there's a problem with something they're doing or something that's adversely effecting them, not specifically what they're putting the blame on.
Wolfrngr 04-27-05, 12:26 PM	I think fighter tends to lose out at higher levels, because as many people stated--the feats just don't get more impressive at higher levels. Fighter just turned into a class that gets you to a nice prestige class, not one that you would consider taking until 20th level on it's own.
Nyferto 04-27-05, 12:30 PM	Actually, yeah they do, I've taken more Fighter to 20th than PrC'ed Also, I've more frequently deviated with Barbs, Monks, Rangers and Paladin into other classes (including Fighter) than stayed with them to 20th - because they're inadequate in combat. If you can't make 20th Fighters - then you just need to be educated how. Don't just assume it's impossible or dumb.
Brom Blackforge 04-27-05, 02:05 PM	The fighter class is absolutely not underpowered. But this is only true if the player knows how to use the class corectly (just like any class...), and takes the proper prestige classes. Whoa, wait right there! If the fighter class is only balanced if taken in conjunction with the "proper prestige classes," then there's a problem. That suggests that the fighter class alone is weak. (By the way, this is not an optimization thread. I'm not interested in what kind of combat machine you can build by multiclassing and taking prestige classes.)
SBMC 04-27-05, 03:28 PM	I really am having a hard time understanding the logic of anyone saying the fighter is underpowered anymore…there have been so many arguments that are valid against that yet all that is offered in return is BS to me. I posted some of this before a few months back but here it is again all revised up Every class has it’s primary abilities; some classes need (or it is best to) have more than one ability score in the upper numbers. Most fighters (as designed) primarily use Strength. Constitution is nice as it adds hit points but with D10 it is not a true need. With heavy armor available you don’t need a good Dex (it is nice for the Reflex save but hell; balance is balance ya can’t defend everything!). The others abilities are a bonus but certainly not a necessity. For other martial characters; they all need at least two or three to be on the high end: Barbarian: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls) and Constitution (Rage) Ranger: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls) or Dex (depending on the weapon type) and Wisdom (Spells) Paladin: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls), Wisdom (Spells) and Charisma (Class abilities) So you see on the AVERAGE (by average I don’t mean the character with 3 or 4 18’s in their ability scores! But the average of 12-14 that the DM’s guide and the conventions hold to) the Fighter already has a leg up. If you make poor feat choices for your character – then certainly he is “underpowered”. Keep in mind who the fighter is and where you put those ability scores. Your fighter could take on the Power Attack route (contrary to popular opinion it works; I have done it numerous times) the Combat Expertise Route or the Point Blank Shot Route…among others. Now think about it; if say you go for Point Blank shot does that then not mean that you are defining your fighter as an “Archer”? Does that not mean that the ranged combat feats are your class abilities? But you can still pick and choose exactly which ones you want and when. Same for Mounted Combat, and any of the others. If you want to be a generalist then your fighter will be sub par of course; just as a rouge who started taking ranks in Ride, Knowledge (Arcana), spell craft, etc. Sure he would have those skills but side by side with another rouge…he is sub par at what his class says his chosen profession is. No class, repeat NO CLASS can stand against a fighter in an upfront fight. A barbarian rages; sooner or later that ends and he has medium armor and is now fatigued. Sure a caster can wax a fighter but FROM A RANGE! And that Wizard has got to take down that fighter before he reaches him. If that fighter WAS SMART his gold pieces went into items that strengthen his weaknesses (such as a ring of evasion, ring of deflection, cloak of resistance +5, etc.) Look at page 135 of the DM’s guide; take a 10th level fighter and the money he gets…think about it; he can defend himself against magic pretty nicely IF and only IF the player buys or acquires the right stuff. Think about it; the hardest thing about a fighter is that YOU the player have to make all the decisions! YOU have to choose it all! Other classes ya get what ya get. Your feats round things out for you but the class abilities define what the character does. A fighter can do many things; depending on your feat choices Most of you talk about getting rid of the feats and making them class abilities. In other words taking the success or failure out of your own hands and giving it to the rule books. Sure a fighter can’t sneak; but is he supposed to? He can’t cast a spell…again is he supposed to? A Wizard can’t hit anyone with a sword if they stood still for 5 rounds…is he supposed to be able to? Should a wizard be able to go toe to toe with a fighter in battle? Should a fighter be able to go toe to toe with a wizard with magic? The rouge is supposed to be stealthy; a fighter is not. You want a stealthy fighter then multi class but don’t complain about the loss of the feats and the drop in the BAB. A rouge has a specialty and a fighter has a specialty. In a real adventuring party one cannot get back home alive without the other. Ya see; it’s simple; YOU the player have to actually PLAY a fighter. You choose the “class abilities” for a fighter; and there are options open to you to make that happen. You can’t coast along taking what is handed to you. You have to think about things. Every other level you have to sweat it out and dig out the books and look at the feats and choose one. And each and every time you go into combat YOU have to face the consequences of those choices – YOU, not the core rulebooks but indeed YOU. IF you mix Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Point Blank shot OF COURSE your not going to be all that powerful! You’ll be above average in a bunch of things; but not one thing such as the other classes are. And to top it off – please people get with the program THIS IS 3.0 NOT 2.0!!!!! What do I mean by that? Simple; in 2.0 classes were pretty much fixed; you chose a class for your character then had to create a character around that class. 3.0/3.5 offers so many options for each and every character that YOU, yes I said it again - YOU actually have to think up a character concept BEFORE you choose your class or classes. With a fighter that is even more so required since nothing is predefined except that every other level ya get a bit more power but the books don’t tell ya what it is. Feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are used each and every melee, feats such as quick draw are used continuously (I use them now). Take the Iron Will Feat and/or the Lightening Reflexes feat to make up for some savings throws gaps (the gaps are there for balance mind you). Or get an item that boosts your Wisdom score. The other classes have power as well; but their power is different yet the same. If you play poorly then your character will perform poorly. It is all different and the same. You can’t have it all no matter how badly you want it. If that were so then what would be the point in playing? The game is about struggle and overcoming obstacles; if that is easy then what is the point? In addition PLEASE NOTE THIS CAREFULLY the Player’s Handbook States quite Clearly that a fighter is an expert at combat maneuvers – think about that. Think about the feats offered for a fighter; think about it. It does not say he is the best at damage, the best at magic, has a better AC than anyone else. What it is saying is that in a wide variety of situations a fighter can hit you; he can take distinct advantage of your weaknesses when they show, he can strike faster and more often, he can disarm you with ease, he can toss you around like a rag doll given the chance. He can knock ya prone and smack the hell out of ya at will. Some examples (note the sarcasm pointed at all ya powergamers out there) Power Attack: Since the Fighter has the best BAB he can’t possibly afford to sacrifice some of that for damage instead on any occasion; ever. Combat Expertise: Since the Fighter has the best BAB he can’t possibly afford to sacrifice some of that for AC instead on any occasion; ever. Combat Reflexes: At least one free attack…hmm at the best BAB around…naw why would I want that. Dodge: ohh…more AC…bad idea? Cleave and Great Cleave: More free attacks at the best BAB around…that’s worthless! Point blank shot: Terrible; ya can shoot better now; how underpowered! Far Shot: NEVER! My range increments are increased; pathetic who would take such an underpowered feat! Improved Bullrush: Who would want to push anyone off a cliff instead of spending rounds of time fighting him? Why would I ever want to slam someone into a wall? Why would I ever need to push someone out of the way? I mean its not like there would ever be a contingent of warriors surrounding an evil wizard who was casting fireballs at my fellow party members at will; never happens right? If my party and I needed to get the hell out of dodge quick and a badguy was guarding the door I’d just spend the 4 or 5 rounds in melee with him…that would be enough time right? Improved Disarm: Oh no – with the best BAB around you have to take someone’s weapon away; THEN ya get an AoO when they try and pick it up or make them spend an action to draw another – terrible idea; terrible! Improved Grapple: Another FBF that is terrible; why in the world would I want a bonus to grapple anyone? I mean hell I could just go ahead and let them, say, cast invisibility on themselves, or dimension door out of the area…why grapple??? I mean only monks ever wrestled in the whole world - real and fantasy right? Improved Overrun: Yet another useless one; why would I want to knock anyone over who is standing in my way…I mean its not like there would ever be a contingent of warriors surrounding an evil wizard who was casting fireballs at my fellow party members at will; never happens right? If my party and I needed to get the hell out of dodge quick and a badguy was guarding the door I’d just spend the 4 or 5 rounds in melee with him…that would be enough time right? Improved Trip: Now why in the world would I want any opponent prone on the ground in front of me? Why it’s not like I get any bonuses to hit him or with this feat get a free attack or anything. Plus I don’t get an AoO when he stands up right??? Just to name a few. So many of you seem to look at damage as the end all and be all. There is more to combat than that. Hence the Fighter in 3.0 was born. He was born not just to whack ya but to strategically gain the upper hand THEN smack ya. That strategy could be Armor, Shields, knocking ya prone, faking you out, charging you, getting extra attacks on you… Show me a fighter that is poor in combat and I’ll show you a poorly played character or a poorly run campaign – period. If I am so wrong then why do the best of the best agree with me? Such as the designers at WoTC. Hell I wish someone would ask Monte Cook! Now, after months of reading and a big hiatus from posting it seems to me that this place is infested with power gamers. I suggest you all read the recent article on this site about that. Suggestions: If ya want to be a power gamer then please don’t change it for all of us who actually want to play an RPG instead of a board game. Don’t be lazy and blame it on the company; it’s your problem And finally – to all of you DM’s – it is your game – change what you want, hell the DM’s guide tells you to! Do what you want…try it. If it fails go back to the way it was. If it works then great!
RogerWilco 04-27-05, 05:35 PM	NO I do however agree with earlier posts that the Fighter is underflavoured. Of all the roles in the iconic party, it alone has no real options outside of combat. The balance I think is that the more powerfull a class would seem in 1-on-1 combat, the more it's role in combat is geared towards supporting other party members, especially the cleric. Combat Fighter = keep the Wizard and Rogue out of melee, kill the biggest theats, be the one whom on average deals the most damage. Cleric = Heal Figher/Rogue/Wizard/self, buff Fighter, act as secundary Tank. Rogue = try to sneak attack and general backup/reserve, handle the threat unreachable by any of the others. Wizard = Battlefield control and artillery. Non-combat Fighter = ? Cleric = secundary utility spellcaster, liason on faith based issues Rogue = skill monkey, liason for mundane issues. Wizards = primairy utility spellcaster, knowledge base. Solution Play Roy Greenhilt a Figher with INT 18, the face and brains of the party. ;)
Nephlite 04-27-05, 09:16 PM	NO I do however agree with earlier posts that the Fighter is underflavoured. Of all the roles in the iconic party, it alone has no real options outside of combat. The balance I think is that the more powerfull a class would seem in 1-on-1 combat, the more it's role in combat is geared towards supporting other party members, especially the cleric. Combat Fighter = keep the Wizard and Rogue out of melee, kill the biggest theats, be the one whom on average deals the most damage. Cleric = Heal Figher/Rogue/Wizard/self, buff Fighter, act as secundary Tank. Rogue = try to sneak attack and general backup/reserve, handle the threat unreachable by any of the others. Wizard = Battlefield control and artillery. Non-combat Fighter = ? Cleric = secundary utility spellcaster, liason on faith based issues Rogue = skill monkey, liason for mundane issues. Wizards = primairy utility spellcaster, knowledge base. Solution Play Roy Greenhilt a Figher with INT 18, the face and brains of the party. ;) First Roy rolled his stats: 4d6 drop the lowest. Second Roy has 16 Cha, 16 Int, 14 Cha (maybe 16). He was good in all of them. Remember he was healthier than both V (who had 18 Int but too sweet), but tastier than Durkon 18 Wisdom). Also Elan with his 18 cha. Anyway, Fighters do seem to be just fighting. Why do all the Fighter lovers talk about Barb running out of rage when they fight, how often does that occur in battle?
Lion21 04-27-05, 10:06 PM	Fighters are underpowered. Now, they are not as bad as some make them out to be. Your farms won't become afflicted with blight andyour women ugly just because you took a Fighter into the party. But the fact is, they just don't have what it takes at higher levels. Against the casters, theres no contest. Against the other fighter types, they still come out at the bottom. Their crappy skill list only compounds the problem. Why should you take the fighter when by taking the pally, barb or ranger you get better combat ability AND extra skills? Now then, once again, let me bring to bear my old adage: If you are sending more rage worthy encounters per day at a party then they have rages (and this is at higher levels). The party is dead. This also applies to spells et al. At lower levels, spells and so forth are very nice. But they are not always neccessary. A party can survive on sheer muscle power alone untill it's time to rest. At higher levels, things are very different. If the cleric or wizard is out of spells, and the Barb out of rage and so on, your sending a equal CR encounter is a death sentence. And no, Barbarians do not run out of rage in combat. The only effective way to do that is to play bait and switch using illusions or teleportation in order to waste the barbs resources. Of course, a) if you do this often, the party will hate you, and realize that your just trying to hose them (which you must in order for this to be a truly effective long term strategy. It's okay once in a while, but every encounter? ) b) They will adapt. Anti-illusion precautions and the barbarian just waiting a little longe before raging will take care of things quite nicely. Once in a rage, the Barb is the hands down better melee combatant (assuming core material). The fighters list of tricks(many of which a barbarian can indeed make use of as well) simply do not work against a vast array of foes at higher levels. When they do work, they work nicely..but it's not too often and the barb does em better. And don't forget his superior skill list and points, not to mention special abilities like DR, fast movement, uncanny dodge and improved will and fort saves while in a rage! Please don't make me bring n the cleric or druid, they are two insanely over powered classes.
SBMC 04-27-05, 10:47 PM	Anyway, Fighters do seem to be just fighting. Why do all the Fighter lovers talk about Barb running out of rage when they fight, how often does that occur in battle? A whole lot if ya fight a lot in the campaign - nearly a couple of decades of experience tells me that
SBMC 04-27-05, 11:00 PM	Fighters are underpowered. Now, they are not as bad as some make them out to be. Your farms won't become afflicted with blight andyour women ugly just because you took a Fighter into the party. But the fact is, they just don't have what it takes at higher levels. Against the casters, theres no contest. Against the other fighter types, they still come out at the bottom. Their crappy skill list only compounds the problem. Why should you take the fighter when by taking the pally, barb or ranger you get better combat ability AND extra skills? Now then, once again, let me bring to bear my old adage: If you are sending more rage worthy encounters per day at a party then they have rages (and this is at higher levels). The party is dead. This also applies to spells et al. At lower levels, spells and so forth are very nice. But they are not always neccessary. A party can survive on sheer muscle power alone untill it's time to rest. At higher levels, things are very different. If the cleric or wizard is out of spells, and the Barb out of rage and so on, your sending a equal CR encounter is a death sentence. And no, Barbarians do not run out of rage in combat. The only effective way to do that is to play bait and switch using illusions or teleportation in order to waste the barbs resources. Of course, a) if you do this often, the party will hate you, and realize that your just trying to hose them (which you must in order for this to be a truly effective long term strategy. It's okay once in a while, but every encounter? ) b) They will adapt. Anti-illusion precautions and the barbarian just waiting a little longe before raging will take care of things quite nicely. Once in a rage, the Barb is the hands down better melee combatant (assuming core material). The fighters list of tricks(many of which a barbarian can indeed make use of as well) simply do not work against a vast array of foes at higher levels. When they do work, they work nicely..but it's not too often and the barb does em better. And don't forget his superior skill list and points, not to mention special abilities like DR, fast movement, uncanny dodge and improved will and fort saves while in a rage! Please don't make me bring n the cleric or druid, they are two insanely over powered classes. So as I stated in my poost - BS. Exactly what point of mine have you actually addressed? you simply replied with further opinions; none of which are valid if you have actually played a fighter. How can ya tell me that at higher elvels the fighter comes otu at the bottom? exactly what feats did he choose; basletweaving? A ranger take on a fighter head to ehad? A Paladin head to head...now way. For example: A barb can make use of "many" of the fighers tricks? really...11 of them...thats how many FBF a fighter gets over 20 levels. In addition a Barb has other worries he would and should pay attention to versus the "tricks" of the fighter. And really a raging barb...hmm a fighter played propertly with a 30+ AC...hmmm lets roll that one out! AGAIN the focus is on one aspect; anyone here of the big picture? Skills? Exactly what skills does a fighter need? Show me something tangible that backs up what you state and I will show you how it is flawed. If your combats allow a Barb to never run out fo rage then your campaign is weak and unchallenging. You say against spell casters at higher levels there is no contest; really? Tell me at 20th level the absolute maximum hit points a Mage could have is 80. With 4 attacks; 20 hp of damage each (easy to do for a 20th level fighter) then exactly where is the contest? Sure the mage could cast some defensive stuff...but could he get say a 30+ AC out of it? not a chance. There could be specific circumstances...but really come on now! So sure if the fighter stands there and lets the mage bombard him with maximized fireballs he is dead; but lets get real here; a mage against a fighter; it really comes down to initiative and a single savings throw for the fighter.
Roxlimn 04-28-05, 03:34 AM	Whatever happened to the simple voting?
Nyferto 04-28-05, 03:47 AM	Barb rages - get on a mount and Mounted Archery him to death, Rage runs out (because of his DR and you didn't buy enough Alchemists Fires), Spritited Charge. He tries to kill you with a Javalin he can only effectively throw 30ft, Mounted Combat. vs a Wizard using illusion spells, Barbarian rage expires, Fighter goes on the defensive. Wizard uses ForceCage, Barbarian rage expires, Fighter waits for the rest of the party to kill the wizard. Force Cage expires, Fighter hasn't. You're not 12th level, or your DM throws you a trick encounter that you raged at because you're crud without it. Or he doesn't stick to 4 encounters a day religeously, or shoves one long encounter at you. Lion - please remember that the Barbarians rage can't even hope to match the inherent +4 until 20th level, even then - it can't match the other benefits the feats provide you, even worse - using those feats is a waste of time unless you do have those feats - if you do have those feats you're wasting feats and if you can't use those feats - you've lost those feats. Unlike the Fighter who never cared about them in the first place because they were only good options to have when they're useful. Even then you don't have all the other feats. Rage doesn't let you use Quickdraw or Spring attack - or any of the tricks that are actually useful, like Expertise.
Brom Blackforge 04-28-05, 11:11 AM	Whatever happened to the simple voting? Okay, okay. My fault. I titled the thread as a "simple vote," then in the very first post, asked "voters" to explain their views - going beyond a "simple vote." But I'm glad I did. Hearing the reason behind the vote is much more useful than just hearing the raw vote. As for the primary question of the thread, I saw something last night in the DMG that I thought was interesting. In the discussion of classes and how to modify them, the DMG describes the fighter as a better combatant than the barbarian. I thought that was an interesting perspective. I wish I had my DMG with me right now; I'd quote the passage (or at least give you the page number).
Clawhound 04-28-05, 12:16 PM	Once in a rage, the Barb is the hands down better melee combatant (assuming core material). The fighters list of tricks(many of which a barbarian can indeed make use of as well) simply do not work against a vast array of foes at higher levels. When they do work, they work nicely..but it's not too often and the barb does em better. And don't forget his superior skill list and points, not to mention special abilities like DR, fast movement, uncanny dodge and improved will and fort saves while in a rage! That's a BIG assertion. A barb certainly has an edge on to-hit and damage due to rage, but it's not THAT big. Give them both strength buffs, two-handed weapons, power attack, and cleave, and both fill their roles QUITE well. Fighters tend to multiclass early. That could be an indictment of fighter. It's also an indication of where this class's power lies: flexibility. Fighter is chosen precisely because it is so flexible, and gives access to prestige classes much earlier. If you look upon the prestige classes as extensions of fighter, rather than replacement, then fighter really becomes a powerful class. It's weak because it's a gateway to something more powerful. However, this stings fighter later on as that gateway quality gives no payoff if you stick with fighter.
Zetakya 04-28-05, 12:25 PM	No Fighters, just like anyone else, have situations in which they shine, and situations in which they stink. If you always find that Fighters stink, then that's the fault of your GM for not providing situations that challenge the weaknesses of other classes (including the classic "no sleep 'til safety" problem).
Lion21 04-28-05, 03:17 PM	SBMC: Good god. It's you who is spraying BS here. 80 hitpoints the "ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM" for a mage at 20th? At the absolute height of his power, the mage will likely have double that number, if not more. And thats assuming he's not poly'ed into something else. However, that ignores the more important issue of "How are you even appraoching the wizard?" How are you finding him, getting near enough to melee(ranged combat is laughable given some of the overpowered defenses availible. Seriously, Wndwall stops ALL arrows, who wrote that damn spell? And thats just one of many many horribly broken spells) and managing to hit him? All this using core material? Can a barb use "many" of the fighters tricks? Yes, the important ones. The problem with the fighters feat isn't that he runs out of them..rather he runs out of ones that are significant (compared to class abilities, OR do not synergize with his chosen style of fighting) A barbarian with Point-Blank shot, Rapid Shot, Power attack, Improved Sunder and Mounted combat, Mounted Archery(and at 15th, sprited charge if he so chose) does what the fighter does...and in doing so brings more to the table with his increased skillpoints/list and class abilities. With the above feats AND his class abilities, the Barb provides more than if he had merely extra feats. P.S. Whose letting the fighter stand still and get hit with maximised Fireballs? You need a serious visit to the Character Optimization forums. One will save and it's over for the fighter. Nyferto:" Lion - please remember that the Barbarians rage can't even hope to match the inherent +4 until 20th level, even then - it can't match the other benefits the feats provide you, even worse - using those feats is a waste of time unless you do have those feats - if you do have those feats you're wasting feats and if you can't use those feats - you've lost those feats. Unlike the Fighter who never cared about them in the first place because they were only good options to have when they're useful." I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, could you elaborate what your saying here? I don't want to misquote you or talk untill I've understood what you've said. However, as for your point on simply trying to outlast the barbarians rage by running away, thats only really feasible with some kind of teleportation or heavy evasion magics. The barbarian can ride a horse too you know. And he's not likely to rage untill after he's gotten up close and personal (of course, he could just give chase and use mounted archery with rage..) You also have to realize that rage does more than just provide greater to-hit and damage, it also gives considerable hitpoints and bonuses on FORT and WILL saves, two of the most important saves in the game. And if the Barbarian and the Fighter are both trapped in forcecages...well, unless they use expensive magical items, they're both stuck untill the rest of the party can bail em out. I don't see how either has an advantage. It's a problem with the interaction between casters and non-magic using types. CLawhound: Your right, the advantage in terms of to-hit and damage isn't that great. It's the HP's, the boosted saves and damage and the other class abilities that when coupled with the Barbarians feats make him a better choice as party meleeist. I'm not saying that barbarians are gods and fighters are miserable peasante cowering before them, I'm saying that a party has no real incentive at higher levels to choose a fighter. However, your assertion that the Fighter is meant for PrC'ing is flawed. PrC's are completely optional and up to the DM. Many DM's simply disallow them. A base class should be just as valuble to the party as any other class, thats not the case with the fighter.
SBMC 04-28-05, 10:07 PM	SBMC: Good god. It's you who is spraying BS here. 80 hitpoints the "ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM" for a mage at 20th? At the absolute height of his power, the mage will likely have double that number, if not more. And thats assuming he's not poly'ed into something else. However, that ignores the more important issue of "How are you even appraoching the wizard?" How are you finding him, getting near enough to melee(ranged combat is laughable given some of the overpowered defenses availible. Seriously, Wndwall stops ALL arrows, who wrote that damn spell? And thats just one of many many horribly broken spells) and managing to hit him? All this using core material? Please explain to me that with d4’s – 20 X 4 = ???? (Here is a hint = 80) With an 18 Con he gets double that – assuming maximum HP every level. How many wizards have a maxed Con out there… Polymorph…hmm…certain things can’t be used in other forms…etc. And you assume the Wizard is all prept up before the fighter arrives. That assumes the situation favors the mage in every encounter – from an open plain to a dank dungeon corridor. It does not. That is what everyone here who says the fighter is underpowered points to – the most ideal situation for the adversary. Finally – where does the 20th level fighter put his money? Not into making Magic items…into things he can use such as items that offer spell resistance, fancy weaponry…etc. A Wizard would normally crank up his Intelligence Score at every opportunity for obvious reasons; a fighter has more options. Can a barb use "many" of the fighters tricks? Yes, the important ones. The problem with the fighters feat isn't that he runs out of them..rather he runs out of ones that are significant (compared to class abilities, OR do not synergize with his chosen style of fighting) Please tell me does Combat expertise, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Great Cleave, Improved Overrun…I can go on…every run out? They have no limits as a Rage does; they can be used every round if need be as a spell cannot. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization do not run out either. And please tell me which one(s) of the 11 extra feats that the Barbarian cannot get are the important ones that you state he can get? A barbarian with Point-Blank shot, Rapid Shot, Power attack, Improved Sunder and Mounted combat, Mounted Archery(and at 15th, sprited charge if he so chose) does what the fighter does...and in doing so brings more to the table with his increased skillpoints/list and class abilities. With the above feats AND his class abilities, the Barb provides more than if he had merely extra feats. That is 7 feats you have listed there…let me see at 15th level a fighter gets…16, 17 if he’s human. A Barbarian would have 8, 9 if he is human. So let’s just say your Barbarian has those feats (and hence forgoing other advantages) lets then tag on the other 2 he gets (to make it the 9 for the Barbarian)…take the fighter with the same feats plus the 7 or 8 a fighter gets; comparison? Please! If something is intrinsic it could be rationalized one way or another but how in the world can you possibly state with any rational that a Barbarian has the same access to feats and hence combat maneuvers than a fighter? How? He simply does not; that is why he gets rage and extra skills. If you wish to make the intrinsic argument that those things are better than feats than that is totally opinion based…this feat bit is not. P.S. Whose letting the fighter stand still and get hit with maximised Fireballs? You need a serious visit to the Character Optimization forums. One will save and it's over for the fighter. No one is - that is the assumption so many make when comparing the fighter at higher levels – that he is always in the most disadvatagous position Nyferto:" Lion - please remember that the Barbarians rage can't even hope to match the inherent +4 until 20th level, even then - it can't match the other benefits the feats provide you, even worse - using those feats is a waste of time unless you do have those feats - if you do have those feats you're wasting feats and if you can't use those feats - you've lost those feats. Unlike the Fighter who never cared about them in the first place because they were only good options to have when they're useful." I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, could you elaborate what your saying here? I don't want to misquote you or talk untill I've understood what you've said. However, as for your point on simply trying to outlast the barbarians rage by running away, thats only really feasible with some kind of teleportation or heavy evasion magics. The barbarian can ride a horse too you know. And he's not likely to rage untill after he's gotten up close and personal (of course, he could just give chase and use mounted archery with rage..) You also have to realize that rage does more than just provide greater to-hit and damage, it also gives considerable hitpoints and bonuses on FORT and WILL saves, two of the most important saves in the game. And if the Barbarian and the Fighter are both trapped in forcecages...well, unless they use expensive magical items, they're both stuck untill the rest of the party can bail em out. I don't see how either has an advantage. It's a problem with the interaction between casters and non-magic using types. Lets say it again – 1. The rage has a time limit 2. Until 17th level the Barbarian gets fatigued afterward 3. The Barbarian is limited to medium armor 4. The Barbarian, in order to take advantage of rage typically uses a two handed weapon (otherwise ¼ of the rage benefit is lost) . For this he gives up AC 5. The Barbarian takes an AC penalty while raging (easier to hit) 6. A Fighter can wear any armor; and by 17th level get above 30+ AC with ease (hell by 14th or 15th!) 7. A fighter, and any other character, can fight defensively or take on total defense easily not to mention things such as Combat Expertise and Dodge. 8. A fighter has d10; perhaps not a d12 nonetheless 2 HP variance per level…a lot but enough of an advantage? Given the higher AC of the fighter? 9. A fighter can take feats to defend or damage with ease seeing as he has so damned many 10. A fighter can use his normal feats if he so chooses taking feats that boost up his other areas such as the Run feat, endurance, and the bizzillions of other feats available out there 11. A fighter can still trip a barbarian, disarm him, hit him, charge him, make AoO’s against him, I could go on and on… The skills are just that SKILLS meant for other than combat use. Skills and other abilities is what the Barbarian gets for not having so many feats. AGAIN you (and others) talk as if the fighter is ALWAYS in the most disadvantageous position against his foe (in this case the Barbarian) and when you are “for” another class that class ALWAYS has the most advantageous position (in this case both). Sure, take a 10 by 10 room with a raging 17th level barbarian and the fighter is in big trouble; but then again any opponent would be; hence the function of the Barbarian in combat. But how many battles actually occur in 10 by 10 rooms? A 1st level commoner could take out a 5 level wizard with a spoon in a 10 by 10 room (don’t laugh I actually saw it happen in my campaign!) CLawhound: Your right, the advantage in terms of to-hit and damage isn't that great. It's the HP's, the boosted saves and damage and the other class abilities that when coupled with the Barbarians feats make him a better choice as party meleeist. So what you are saying is that say a +4 (due to the +8 added to the Strength Score) on damage (20th level Barbarian mind you) and a +4 on saves that is good for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier is equal to a fighters 11 extra feats? So lets say the Barbarian with a +6 Modifier to his Con can now rage for 9 rounds. So for 9 rounds (in a real combat really not even halfway to the end) he is raging and that is better than me using Power Attack for 9,000 consecutive melee rounds? OR combat expertise for 11,000 consecutive melee rounds? Or dodge…or any of the other feats that I can take over and above that which the barbarian (or any other character class) can get? Well here to note: A fighter can get a +2 to hit easily just by taking 2 of the 11 extra feats (Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus). That puts him at 8th level half way to making up for the Attack Rolls A fighter can get a +4 to damage easily just by taking 2 of the 11 extra feats (Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization). That puts him at 12th level equal to the Attack Rolls of a Barbarian at 20th level. A fighter can wear heavier armor if he so chooses and easily choose to carry a shield without suffering a penalty per se’ (and don’t tell me (as I noted above) a Barbarian is not indirectly penalized for using a shield; I won that one several times already) which gives him a better AC. Also note that with a higher AC it is harder to hit you. Also note that AC is a one for one trade (1 point of AC = 1 Point of AC increase). For the Barbarian that relys so much on his rage the trade off is 2 for 1 (2 points of Strength = 1 Point of Attack Roll Bonus). Really; well it seems to me, for certain VERY relevant things (that you yourself have stated make the Barbarian superior) that it costs the Barbarian twice what it costs the fighter to get the same thing and those things have a duration. Hmmm…so If I buy a new WoTC book at the local Book store at full price versus going to amazon.com and buy it at a 30%-40% discount that means that the book that I bought at full price is worth more? They look the same, weigh the same, read the same…so why is that? That my friend is your logic. In addition let us think of this: Fighter: Full Plate, +5: +12 to AC Large Steel Shield, +5: +7 to AC 10+12+7= 29 AC, say ay get the +1 to AC for a dex bonus (normal) = 30 AC (without anything else) Barbarian: Breastplate +5: +10 to AC Dex Bonus: +6 (VERY generous) 10+10+6=26, -2 when raging = 24. Guess what; aggregate mechanics wise right there I already made up for the Barbarians bonus on attack rolls; I can hit him more often than he hits me (+6 difference in AC; we both have the same BAB and I have the four WS and WF) and do the same amount of damage PLUS have the option to do other things with ease (sicne I have 11 more feats to choose form than the Barbarian does) such as trip, power attack (for say that +6 variance), disarm, fight defensively, (still get a +2 advantage!) I'm not saying that barbarians are gods and fighters are miserable peasante cowering before them, I'm saying that a party has no real incentive at higher levels to choose a fighter. I would think that the stuff above would say the exact opposite. But take the fighter out of combat and he cannot do what other classes can; but then again he is not supposed to. He is exactly what his class name states; a Fighter. Abnd as I stated in my earlier posts you have to PLAY a fighter, its not just a class.
Lion21 04-28-05, 10:59 PM	You know what? I've been civil for a long time: But now I'm just getting tired. HP: +2(modifier) base + 3(from a item) +2(+3 if your lucky) from inherant bonus: +7 7X20: 140 +20d4: 184 HP. 204 if he's a dwarf. Now then: Lets do this one more time: THE FIGHTER DOESN"T RUN OUT OF FEATS, HE RUNS OUT OF SIGNIFICANT (AS COMPARED TO FEATS+CLAAS ABILITIES) FEATS OR OUT OF ONES THAT SYNERGIZE WITH HIS FIGHTING STYLE. "If something is intrinsic it could be rationalized one way or another but how in the world can you possibly state with any rational that a Barbarian has the same access to feats and hence combat maneuvers than a fighter? How? He simply does not; that is why he gets rage and extra skills. If you wish to make the intrinsic argument that those things are better than feats than that is totally opinion based…this feat bit is not." Now the stupidity is getting out of hand. The standard allotment of feats provides the base classes with enough feats to achieve more than enough competance in their primary (and sometimes secondayr styles). Getting a +1 dodge bonus to AC at 15th level is pathetic. Meanwhile, the other classes are getting more and more powerful, the fighters feats prvide so incremental a power increase that it's laughable. Lets say it again – 1. The rage has a time limit -One that doesn't matter unless the DM is trying to actively hose you. Highlevel combats DO NOT LAST LONGER THAN A BARBS RAGE UNLESS SAID COMBAT WILL RESULT IN A PARTY WIPE. 2. Until 17th level the Barbarian gets fatigued afterward -So? Read the rules again: " for the duration of the encounter". Two ways of reading that: He's left fatigued for as many rounds as the encounter took, or he' fatigued untill it's over. In which case, given the duration of the Rage he will not be fatigued at all. 3. The Barbarian is limited to medium armor -Again...so? He can if he wishes take a feat for Heavy armor (and depending on the DM's reading of the rules, he may simply use Mithral Full Plate without penalty 4. The Barbarian, in order to take advantage of rage typically uses a two handed weapon (otherwise ¼ of the rage benefit is lost) . For this he gives up AC - Of course a high-level meleeist will use two handed weapon, who would be stupid enough to go sword and board when animated shields are available? That this synergizes with Rage is a big plus. And a loss of 2 points of AC? Big deal. 5. The Barbarian takes an AC penalty while raging (easier to hit) -OH NOES!!!oneoneon! a -2 penalty! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO? 6. A Fighter can wear any armor; and by 17th level get above 30+ AC with ease (hell by 14th or 15th!) At 20th level: +10 base, +1 dex, (+3 dex enhancement from item)+ 5 from mithral breastplate + 5 from enhancement to armor+ 2 from animated heavy steel shield +5 from enhancement +5 from Natural armor +5 from deflection +1 insight +1 luck -2 rage: 41. A fighter wearing full plate would have 5 points of AC advantage, if we go with the liberal fullplate interpretation, that lessens to -2 advantage. A fighter could increase it via combat expertise, fighting defensively...but pays with attack bonus. 7. A fighter, and any other character, can fight defensively or take on total defense easily not to mention things such as Combat Expertise and Dodge. See above. 8. A fighter has d10; perhaps not a d12 nonetheless 2 HP variance per level…a lot but enough of an advantage? Given the higher AC of the fighter? The higher ac by 2-5 points? Please. Don't forget that the best DR he can get is DR3/-, the barb gets DR 5/- 9. A fighter can take feats to defend or damage with ease seeing as he has so damned many Eh? Dodge? +1 ac against a single opponent. Combat expertise: up to +5..but at a commensurate attack bonus cost. Whoo, your certainly owning that polymorphed cleric aint ya....oh wait. 10. A fighter can use his normal feats if he so chooses taking feats that boost up his other areas such as the Run feat, endurance, and the bizzillions of other feats available out there -OH NOES TEH FIGHTAR HAS TAKEN TEH +2 to LISTAN SKILL AT 15 th LEVAL! MY ROGUE IS TEH UNDERPOWEARD NOWZOR!..... 11. A fighter can still trip a barbarian, disarm him, hit him, charge him, make AoO’s against him. All of which the Barbarian can do right back to the fighter. The fact that if he's raging, makes it easier for him. +3 to strength is real handy. And how is the fighter making AoO's? A reach weapon? The barb has one too, and he's not hooked to one weapon. "AGAIN you (and others) talk as if the fighter is ALWAYS in the most disadvantageous position against his foe (in this case the Barbarian) and when you are “for” another class that class ALWAYS has the most advantageous position (in this case both). Sure, take a 10 by 10 room with a raging 17th level barbarian and the fighter is in big trouble; but then again any opponent would be; hence the function of the Barbarian in combat. But how many battles actually occur in 10 by 10 rooms? A 1st level commoner could take out a" I'm not assuming the most disadvantageous position. It's just that against a high level wizard...thats the default. Against other characters, barbs pallies et al, thats certainly not the norm. And they still contribute more to the party with superior fighting and skills. Oh, and it takes 4, not two feats to be able to match the barb in melee combat (or rather, to match him in damage, not to-hit) "So what you are saying is that say a +4 (due to the +8 added to the Strength Score) on damage (20th level Barbarian mind you) and a +4 on saves that is good for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier is equal to a fighters 11 extra feats?" No, it's the combination of those things PLUS the other class features PLUS the fact that only a small number of those bonus feats will provide any significant benefit to the fighter is what makes the barbarian the more attractive choice for high-level parties.
The Wasp 04-28-05, 11:36 PM	Please explain to me that with d4’s – 20 X 4 = ???? (Here is a hint = 80) With an 18 Con he gets double that – assuming maximum HP every level. How many wizards have a maxed Con out there… Well, have you heard of a periapt of health +6? At 20th level, its pretty reasonable to assume a wizard would have it. Also, shapechange can give a wizard a Con of about 35 (not to mention ridiculous natural armor bonuses) You can't grapple a colossal creature... And you assume the Wizard is all prept up before the fighter arrives. That assumes the situation favors the mage in every encounter – from an open plain to a dank dungeon corridor. It does not. That is what everyone here who says the fighter is underpowered points to – the most ideal situation for the adversary. Contingency, divination, superior intelligence... all good reason to assume a wizard is well prepared most of the time. Finally – where does the 20th level fighter put his money? Not into making Magic items…into things he can use such as items that offer spell resistance, fancy weaponry…etc. A Wizard would normally crank up his Intelligence Score at every opportunity for obvious reasons; a fighter has more options. [/QUOTE Cranking up intelligence cost the wizard 36000 gp. That leaves 700 000gp he can spend on other things (and he doesn't need a fancy magic sword, amgic armor, and magic shield) [QUOTE] Please tell me does Combat expertise, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Great Cleave, Improved Overrun…I can go on…every run out? They have no limits as a Rage does; they can be used every round if need be as a spell cannot. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization do not run out either. And please tell me which one(s) of the 11 extra feats that the Barbarian cannot get are the important ones that you state he can get? You know that + bonus to strength? it helps with tripping, disarming, overrunning, bullrushing, etc. as well. the barbarian doesn't need the relevant feats to stay competitive - and conversely, those feats don't become useless when facing a huge creature. If something is intrinsic it could be rationalized one way or another but how in the world can you possibly state with any rational that a Barbarian has the same access to feats and hence combat maneuvers than a fighter? How? He simply does not; that is why he gets rage and extra skills. If you wish to make the intrinsic argument that those things are better than feats than that is totally opinion based…this feat bit is not. You are misinterpreting here. Feats do not equal access to combat maneuvers. you don't need a feat to overrun, or trip, or anything. Lets say it again – 1. The rage has a time limit Big deal. how many combats have I seen go longer than 9 rounds? very few. rage is almost always long enough. 2. Until 17th level the Barbarian gets fatigued afterward See, that's what I call good class design ... rewarding a PC for sticking with a class to high levels. What does the fighter get? A feat he could have taken at sixth level. 3. The Barbarian is limited to medium armor Who cares? Mithril breastplate gives a better net AC than heavy plate, unless it's mithril plate, and even then the difference is 1 point of AC. in return he gets speed 40. advantage barb, I think. 4. The Barbarian, in order to take advantage of rage typically uses a two handed weapon (otherwise ¼ of the rage benefit is lost) . For this he gives up AC And gains tremendously in damage. He really only loses 2 points of AC anyways (see Animated Shields). advantage heavily barbarian. 5. The Barbarian takes an AC penalty while raging (easier to hit) Yeah, but Uncanny Dodge and his DR more than makes up for it. And DR is on even when you aren't raging. 6. A Fighter can wear any armor; and by 17th level get above 30+ AC with ease (hell by 14th or 15th!) You are double counting, here. You've already mentioned AC twice (and conveniently ignored the large hit the fighter takes to damage and maneuverability when fighting in this high AC style. 7. A fighter, and any other character, can fight defensively or take on total defense easily not to mention things such as Combat Expertise and Dodge. Hey guys! Look at me! I'm a wall! 8. A fighter has d10; perhaps not a d12 nonetheless 2 HP variance per level…a lot but enough of an advantage? Given the higher AC of the fighter? well, first of all, its only 1HP average per level - when the barbarian isn't raging. past 11th level, when the barbarian can about rage in all four combats of the day, its effectively 4 HP per level. nad you've already mentioned the AC thing several times. 9. A fighter can take feats to defend or damage with ease seeing as he has so damned many Right, but even those feats aren't as good as rage. 10. A fighter can use his normal feats if he so chooses taking feats that boost up his other areas such as the Run feat, endurance, and the bizzillions of other feats available out there Making him worse at combat... 11. A fighter can still trip a barbarian, disarm him, hit him, charge him, make AoO’s against him, Hmm. First off, most of the fighter's enemies will not be barbarians. Second, the barbarian can also do all those things. The skills are just that SKILLS meant for other than combat use. Skills and other abilities is what the Barbarian gets for not having so many feats. Right, I had forgotten how useless things like Ride were in combat. AGAIN you (and others) talk as if the fighter is ALWAYS in the most disadvantageous position against his foe (in this case the Barbarian) and when you are “for” another class that class ALWAYS has the most advantageous position (in this case both). Sure, take a 10 by 10 room with a raging 17th level barbarian and the fighter is in big trouble; but then again any opponent would be; hence the function of the Barbarian in combat. But how many battles actually occur in 10 by 10 rooms? A 1st level commoner could take out a 5 level wizard with a spoon in a 10 by 10 room (don’t laugh I actually saw it happen in my campaign!) So what you are saying is that say a +4 (due to the +8 added to the Strength Score) on damage (20th level Barbarian mind you) and a +4 on saves that is good for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier is equal to a fighters 11 extra feats? So lets say the Barbarian with a +6 Modifier to his Con can now rage for 9 rounds. So for 9 rounds (in a real combat really not even halfway to the end) he is raging and that is better than me using Power Attack for 9,000 consecutive melee rounds? OR combat expertise for 11,000 consecutive melee rounds? Or dodge…or any of the other feats that I can take over and above that which the barbarian (or any other character class) can get? Good job! But no. we're saying that +8 to strength, +8 to con, +4 to two saves (+8 against enchantments), DR 5, uncanny dodge, extra hit points, and extra skill points are much better than 11 feats WHICH DECREASE IN BENEFIT AS YOU LEVEL UP! 9 rounds is hardly a limit, and past 17th, the barbarian can essentially rage indefinitely. Also recall - the barbarian has access to all the most useful fighter feats: power attack, combat reflexes, cleave, etc. A fighter can get a +2 to hit easily just by taking 2 of the 11 extra feats (Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus). That puts him at 8th level half way to making up for the Attack Rolls A fighter can get a +4 to damage easily just by taking 2 of the 11 extra feats (Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization). That puts him at 12th level equal to the Attack Rolls of a Barbarian at 20th level. Oh boy! It took you 4 feats (one third of your class features) to partially simulate one aspect of rage WITH ONE WEAPON. Four feats that give you +2/+4. Meanwhile, the barbarian (assuming THW) gets +4/+6 with a wide variety of weapons, not to mention bonuses on opposed strength checks, and everything else that rage grants. Also note that with a higher AC it is harder to hit you. That's very deep, man. Really; well it seems to me, for certain VERY relevant things (that you yourself have stated make the Barbarian superior) that it costs the Barbarian twice what it costs the fighter to get the same thing and those things have a duration. Hmmm…so If I buy a new WoTC book at the local Book store at full price versus going to amazon.com and buy it at a 30%-40% discount that means that the book that I bought at full price is worth more? They look the same, weigh the same, read the same…so why is that? That my friend is your logic. In addition let us think of this: Fighter: Full Plate, +5: +12 to AC Large Steel Shield, +5: +7 to AC 10+12+7= 29 AC, say ay get the +1 to AC for a dex bonus (normal) = 30 AC (without anything else) Barbarian: Breastplate +5: +10 to AC Dex Bonus: +6 (VERY generous) 10+10+6=26, -2 when raging = 24. Hey! I know. Why don't you talk about AC more! If you're going to do an analysis,at least know the rules... we'll be generous to the fighter, assume he has mithril full plate, and max usable dex,moving his AC up to 33. (8+5, btw is 13, not 12.) the barbarian is capped at a usable dex bonus of +5 with mithril breastplate, but is using a +3 animated heavy shield. change his AC to 30, or 28 when raging. a correct analysis reveals that, indeed, the fighter makes a better wall. but, in this analysis, the barbarian completely clocks the fighter in damage, and in most combat maneuvers (which give bonuses for wielding a weapon in two hands). comparing a greatsword to a longsword, that's 2.5 extra base weapon damage, double the bonus from PAtk, and the extra half strength bonus (from the barb's regular strenght modifier) Guess what; aggregate mechanics wise right there I already made up for the Barbarians bonus on attack rolls; I can hit him more often than he hits me (+6 difference in AC; we both have the same BAB and I have the four WS and WF) and do the same amount of damage Guess what? In actual combat, you won't be fighitng barbarians most of the time! But i'll play along... Let's recalibrate for the numbers that actually follow the rules. Base AC difference is 5 when the barb is raging. but assuming you are using your favored weapon (which costs you 4 feats) you are still two points down on attack modifiers (your +2 to his +4). so you have a net +3 to hit. now, if you were using a THW, that might be something. but you aren't. You are using a OHW. Lets say you indeed power attack for that 3 attack. you are now doing an extra 3 damage. which is completely outclasses by the barbarians DR 5/-. And that's not even considering the barbarians extra HP, or how much more damage he's getting than you simply by using a two handed weapon. and of course, in mass combat, the numbers get even worse for the fighter. the barbarian's inability to get flanked is golden. PLUS have the option to do other things with ease (sicne I have 11 more feats to choose form than the Barbarian does) such as trip, power attack (for say that +6 variance), disarm, fight defensively, (still get a +2 advantage!) So you have seven feats (not eleven, since you already used four). Of the feats you've listed, all barbarians take Power attack,and they don't need Improved Trip or Disarm thanks to their classes intrinsic weapon versatility and +4 on opposed checks. and fighting defensively gains you a net -2... I would think that the stuff above would say the exact opposite. That's because you did a poor analysis. But take the fighter out of combat and he cannot do what other classes can; but then again he is not supposed to. He is exactly what his class name states; a Fighter. Abnd as I stated in my earlier posts you have to PLAY a fighter, its not just a class. I would buy that argument if the fighter was the best IN combat. Unfortunately, he is not.
Grenfax 04-28-05, 11:37 PM	Are fighters underpowered? Wrong question. The correct question is are high level mages overpowered? (That would be a BIG YES to the mages). Are fighters underpowered, no, but higher level mages are overpowered. Before arguing fight your way though my ranks of simulacrums, constructs, undead, spell traps, contigency items, let me through a couple of quickened spells, a few wishes and a disjunction at you then tell me how you feel. OH, and once you kill me, my stasis clone will activate and be rather unhappy when he realizes what you've done.....
smrtgmp 04-29-05, 02:23 AM	Whats the difference with that and a wizard being balanced and a fighter being underpowered? Its all a matter of perspective.
Nyferto 04-29-05, 03:55 AM	What meaningful tactics does Rage actually provide? The only ones it can try to match are the improved sunder, bullrush, trip and disarm ones - guess what - it doesn't. Even at 20th level when you have +4 to those checks - you still get the AOO's, they're dead tactics to you, but to a Fighter with any - they're really quite functional. If I use Spring Attack (a meaningful feat Rage can't match at all), you're Rage is going to expire before it can actually do anything because I have a much higher AC or I can go on the defensive, when you Rage runs out (easy enough) guess wo dies. 1.PBS 1.QD 2. WF Bow 3. Iron Will 4. WS Bow 6. Rapid shot 6. Farshot 8. Expertise 9. Dodge 10. Mobility 12. Spring Attack 12. Shot on the Run 14. Precise Shot 15. Improved Precise Shot 16. Combat Reflexes 18. GWF Bow 18. GWS Bow 20. Blind Fight Use a bow, and switch with various spears when things get to close quarters, take back up javalins and daggers to quickly assist and mix up feats as you need them depending on party. I'll do another one tommorow, or maybe later today. Easy focused and flexable with good synergy across the board. Sometimes it's not just the feats that provide synergy. At every time I can't use the bow, i've either got a get out free card, or deffensive options to keep me going. That's just one possible Fighter, could you do another Barbarian? BTW, the one you posted - very limited without QD and easily suppassed with very little hassle.
happymoocow 04-29-05, 06:54 AM	My vote is a no. Ever seen the trip monkey on the optimization boards? Nasty fun I tell you. Nasty. Oh yeah and it's 20 level fighter, which is awesome for epic (thank you epic bonus fighter feats!). A whole lot of epic feats to come yay! Nothing will come close to your party without being tripped. So you do your front line role and let your party do the rest. Besides the cleric is a good secondary front line combatent. All you need is a good ranged and magical party... one rogue is always nice though.
NehpetsTtocs 04-29-05, 07:52 AM	SBMC, the problem with your argument over ability scores is that the fighter needs to meet a minimum stat requirement to gain certain feats. Yes, a ranger and paladin need a higher wisdom to cast spells, but to get those nifty feats you mention, a fighter needs a 13 dex or a 13 int. The fighter is just as stat dependant as any other class. If he could use the feats without having the attribute pre-requisites, then I would agree with your argument. I really am having a hard time understanding the logic of anyone saying the fighter is underpowered anymore…there have been so many arguments that are valid against that yet all that is offered in return is BS to me. I posted some of this before a few months back but here it is again all revised up Every class has it’s primary abilities; some classes need (or it is best to) have more than one ability score in the upper numbers. Most fighters (as designed) primarily use Strength. Constitution is nice as it adds hit points but with D10 it is not a true need. With heavy armor available you don’t need a good Dex (it is nice for the Reflex save but hell; balance is balance ya can’t defend everything!). The others abilities are a bonus but certainly not a necessity. For other martial characters; they all need at least two or three to be on the high end: Barbarian: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls) and Constitution (Rage) Ranger: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls) or Dex (depending on the weapon type) and Wisdom (Spells) Paladin: Strength (Attack & Damage Rolls), Wisdom (Spells) and Charisma (Class abilities)
Nyferto 04-29-05, 08:00 AM	Now then: Lets do this one more time: THE FIGHTER DOESN"T RUN OUT OF FEATS, HE RUNS OUT OF SIGNIFICANT (AS COMPARED TO FEATS+CLAAS ABILITIES) FEATS OR OUT OF ONES THAT SYNERGIZE WITH HIS FIGHTING STYLE. Which simply means, you take two and beat everyone at both, which is good to have in one character, rather than having one character who can badly handle one aspect of one field. Now the stupidity is getting out of hand. The standard allotment of feats provides the base classes with enough feats to achieve more than enough competance in their primary (and sometimes secondayr styles). Getting a +1 dodge bonus to AC at 15th level is pathetic. Meanwhile, the other classes are getting more and more powerful, the fighters feats prvide so incremental a power increase that it's laughable. Take Dodge at lower levels - and it's not so pathetic, match it up with Mobility and it's better, add onto it with other bonuses and other feats in the chain - lot more benefit. 1. The rage has a time limit -One that doesn't matter unless the DM is trying to actively hose you. Highlevel combats DO NOT LAST LONGER THAN A BARBS RAGE UNLESS SAID COMBAT WILL RESULT IN A PARTY WIPE. No where near true, if they can't hurt you - a battle can take ages, more so - if the battle doesn't follow a standard field - Rage is going to be very ineffectual, at lower levels - you'll just run out of uses and it'll kill you easily when it runs out. 2. Until 17th level the Barbarian gets fatigued afterward -So? Read the rules again: " for the duration of the encounter". Two ways of reading that: He's left fatigued for as many rounds as the encounter took, or he' fatigued untill it's over. In which case, given the duration of the Rage he will not be fatigued at all. As soon as it does run out, he's lost everything he gained and is taking even more penalties, this is hardly ideal. 3. The Barbarian is limited to medium armor -Again...so? He can if he wishes take a feat for Heavy armor (and depending on the DM's reading of the rules, he may simply use Mithral Full Plate without penalty Actually, if the DM reads the rules - he'll get a penalty, otherwise he hasn't read the rules. If he does take the feat - he's loosing out on comparitive benefits and he's down on feats for 3 levels. 4. The Barbarian, in order to take advantage of rage typically uses a two handed weapon (otherwise ¼ of the rage benefit is lost) . For this he gives up AC - Of course a high-level meleeist will use two handed weapon, who would be stupid enough to go sword and board when animated shields are available? That this synergizes with Rage is a big plus. And a loss of 2 points of AC? Big deal. Because Tower Shields are actually quite useful, because getting hit isn't actually a good thing even if you can take it better, because your ability to shrug off hits doesn't mean much anyway, because getting hit is fatal to you. It's not an advantage to have a low AC 5. The Barbarian takes an AC penalty while raging (easier to hit) -OH NOES!!!oneoneon! a -2 penalty! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO? Get hit even harder, it's quite impactful combined with other factors like Charging (what you need to do to start full attacking) and there's little compensating for it. 6. A Fighter can wear any armor; and by 17th level get above 30+ AC with ease (hell by 14th or 15th!) At 20th level: +10 base, +1 dex, (+3 dex enhancement from item)+ 5 from mithral breastplate + 5 from enhancement to armor+ 2 from animated heavy steel shield +5 from enhancement +5 from Natural armor +5 from deflection +1 insight +1 luck -2 rage: 41. A fighter wearing full plate would have 5 points of AC advantage, if we go with the liberal fullplate interpretation, that lessens to -2 advantage. A fighter could increase it via combat expertise, fighting defensively...but pays with attack bonus. There's no liberal - it's just wrong RAW. Make it a Heavy Tower Shield and you've got better benefits than a simple shield will provide, if you're using Combat Expertise - you're massively down on feats, can't use it whilst raging and down on stats again. More importantly, getting to those stages is going to be harder. You don't have a shield until it's animated. 8. A fighter has d10; perhaps not a d12 nonetheless 2 HP variance per level…a lot but enough of an advantage? Given the higher AC of the fighter? The higher ac by 2-5 points? Please. Don't forget that the best DR he can get is DR3/-, the barb gets DR 5/- Actually, cast stoneskin on both and DR/5- doesn't do much. Use energy damage weapons and that non-animated shield with energy resistance is actually doing something. BTW it's only 2 points at higher levels, try doing the maths at lower ones - adamantine comes quicker than DR 5/- Alternatively just shove it on your non-animated shield and use the spare change elsewhere. 9. A fighter can take feats to defend or damage with ease seeing as he has so damned many Eh? Dodge? +1 ac against a single opponent. Combat expertise: up to +5..but at a commensurate attack bonus cost. Whoo, your certainly owning that polymorphed cleric aint ya....oh wait. Dodge, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, Fighting Defensively, Total Defence, shields, Mobility, Spring Attack taking cover, etc. It adds up a lot better than a flat -2 to AC and poor DR. Also, if you look at our little example dual, he's nowhere near as good as he clames to be, especially if you read the rules and change things suitably so it reflects a proper campaign. Where's his polymorphed self 1 level ago? 10. A fighter can use his normal feats if he so chooses taking feats that boost up his other areas such as the Run feat, endurance, and the bizzillions of other feats available out there -OH NOES TEH FIGHTAR HAS TAKEN TEH +2 to LISTAN SKILL AT 15 th LEVAL! MY ROGUE IS TEH UNDERPOWEARD NOWZOR!..... You can take it at any level, and it helps round you out. Given that, as you put it, you can master a style relatively easily and match rather competatively, the gain on other feats makes a noteable difference to a warrior. 11. A fighter can still trip a barbarian, disarm him, hit him, charge him, make AoO’s against him. All of which the Barbarian can do right back to the fighter. The fact that if he's raging, makes it easier for him. +3 to strength is real handy. And how is the fighter making AoO's? A reach weapon? The barb has one too, and he's not hooked to one weapon. The Fighter can use any weapon, if he doesn't have WF, he's not loosing benefits. As I stated in my other post, all these other things - he's behind till 20th and until he rages - he's behind even more if the Fighter took the feat, worse still - he's not actually any good at those tactics and they still revolve around melee. I'm not assuming the most disadvantageous position. It's just that against a high level wizard...thats the default. Against other characters, barbs pallies et al, thats certainly not the norm. And they still contribute more to the party with superior fighting and skills. Actually you've been assuming any number of combinations of Barbarians, whilst we've been talking about 2 or 3 different fighters at the most. Every tactic a fighter doesn't have he will have a different one to compensate. You can't say the same about Barbarians, or any other martial class. Oh, and it takes 4, not two feats to be able to match the barb in melee combat (or rather, to match him in damage, not to-hit) Actually with a horse, mounted combat and mounted archery you beat him in combat, so no - not the WF tree. No, it's the combination of those things PLUS the other class features PLUS the fact that only a small number of those bonus feats will provide any significant benefit to the fighter is what makes the barbarian the more attractive choice for high-level parties. Except all those benefits don't actually add up to much, that's the problem, full 20th Barbarians don't actually add much unless you take more diverse routes, at which point you are actually better off multiclassing. Unlike the Fighter, who's better off taking the diverse route all the way, and will actually suffer (like all martial classes) if he takes a simplistic route without backup. If you are in a party that needs a specialist combatant, then the Fighter is the best because abilities that don't help in combat are useless.
Nyferto 04-29-05, 08:03 AM	SBMC, the problem with your argument over ability scores is that the fighter needs to meet a minimum stat requirement to gain certain feats. Yes, a ranger and paladin need a higher wisdom to cast spells, but to get those nifty feats you mention, a fighter needs a 13 dex or a 13 int. The fighter is just as stat dependant as any other class. If he could use the feats without having the attribute pre-requisites, then I would agree with your argument. 13 isn't that high, given that those stat requirements area easy to meet and have other beneifts - not actually a bad thing. Alterntively, jack up other stats, compensate in other areas and make do without. It's not that hard really.
NehpetsTtocs 04-29-05, 08:37 AM	13 isn't that high, given that those stat requirements area easy to meet and have other beneifts - not actually a bad thing. Alterntively, jack up other stats, compensate in other areas and make do without. It's not that hard really. That was actually my point. SMB argued that a fighter doesn't need the stat spread a ranger or a paladin needs. If a fighter wants to take both dodge and expertise, then she does need the same point spread that paladins and rangers need. Arguing that rangers are strapped for stats because they need wisdom to cast spells could also be applied to the fighter and his ability to use certain feats. If a thirteen isn't hard to come by for a fighter, than it's not hard to come by for a Paladin or Ranger either.
Tony Vargas 04-29-05, 02:41 PM	That was actually my point. SMB argued that a fighter doesn't need the stat spread a ranger or a paladin needs. If a fighter wants to take both dodge and expertise, then she does need the same point spread that paladins and rangers need. Not really. The dodge and expertise chains each require a stat at 13. That's not trivial, but it's just a static preq. Other classes need multiple stats as high as possible. A fighter really just needs a STR as high as he can get it, to be maximally effecive in combat - he could also use an above-average DEX or INT (or possibly even WIS or CHA, depening how many feats you bring into it) for pre-requisites. A paladin, OTOH, needs the same high STR as the fighter, and also all the CHA he can possibly get. With his abilities dictating light armor, the ranger needs a very high DEX, not just a 13. True, the WIS needs of a pally or ranger (about 14) are comparable to a stat preq for a feat like expertise. And, of course, while a ranger who chooses to eschew good WIS simply loses his spellcasting, the fighter who decides to do without a good INT doesn't lose the bonus feats he might have put towards the expertise chain, he just puts them towards something else.
Pax 04-29-05, 03:49 PM	Other classes need multiple stats as high as possible. Want, yes. Need, no, I don't believe so. A fighter really just needs a STR as high as he can get it, to be maximally effecive in combat - he could also use an above-average DEX or INT (or possibly even WIS or CHA, depening how many feats you bring into it) for pre-requisites. Strength and Constitution alike; a fighter can COUNT on being beat on by big, high-damage monsters ... so he'll need every last hitpoint he can scrounge! Further, any fighter will want Intelligence 13+, because a lot of the better fighter feats are reliant on Expertise as a prerequisite - and because they're strapped for skill points. Dexterity 13+ is a nice perk as well - both for a bit of AC boost, and for more feat options. A paladin, OTOH, needs the same high STR as the fighter, and also all the CHA he can possibly get. A Charisma of 14 is sufficient for the Pladin. More is nice, but a "mere" 14 will suffice to make those class abilities worthwhile. With his abilities dictating light armor, the ranger needs a very high DEX, not just a 13. Untrue. Mithril Breastplate - that's Light armor, and only 3 points of AC less than the heaviest PHB armor in the books. With the right non-core sourcebooks, even "heavier" armor is possible (offhand, I'm thinking of the "Halfweight" enhancement in Underdark - Halwewight Full Plate is Light armor, despite the full +8 basic AC bonus). [...] the fighter who decides to do without a good INT doesn't lose the bonus feats he might have put towards the expertise chain, he just puts them towards something else. And where, pray tell, would that "somewhere else" be? The whole problem the fighter has, is, there aren't enough high-end feats tot ake, in order to keep the fighter on top of the heap in combat (whichever flavor they choose to excell in).
Venom of the Yuan Ti 04-29-05, 03:52 PM	Fighter is underpowered. But htis is fine as he can pick up PrCs VERY easily.
Tony Vargas 04-29-05, 03:55 PM	I was counting votes and I was a little surprised at how similar opinions lead to opposite votes. One vote was something like 'Yes, they're underpowered, after 10th level,' while another was along the lines of 'No, not until high level (over 10th).' While others went along the lines of 'No, they're not underpowered, casters are overpowered' or 'Yes, because casters are so powerful.' :rolleyes: It was also odd that some people thought the fighter was fine /because/ of prestige classes, while others thought PrCs sank the fighter outright. I think PrCs are irrellevant, but each to his own. What I really find interesting about the votes is that there are a lot more 'no's than I expected. Usually, in one of these threads there are a couple of folks defending the fighter and two or three times as many ripping it apart. I guess that the "it's OK" position doesn't strongly motivate folks to speak up. Anyway, updated count, below, since there were more votes....
bomaz 04-29-05, 04:11 PM	as every class the fighter has some advantages and some drawbacks, if one use a powerword on a mage (especially kill) or disintegrate the mage is dead. In return for his weakness he gain the nuke ability. The fighter on the other hand can dish out damage, he dont lose all his power by the loss of a single item (spellbook). And is needed to protect the mage. I would say it is fairly well balanced if neither player is a powergamer.
TheDarkestOfAngels 04-29-05, 04:19 PM	Strength and Constitution alike; a fighter can COUNT on being beat on by big, high-damage monsters ... so he'll need every last hitpoint he can scrounge! Further, any fighter will want Intelligence 13+, because a lot of the better fighter feats are reliant on Expertise as a prerequisite - and because they're strapped for skill points. Dexterity 13+ is a nice perk as well - both for a bit of AC boost, and for more feat options. Yes, that makes constitution a good second stat after strength. intelligence is unnecessary, as not all feats require combat expertise. They might compromise a halfway decent portion of the core PHB feats, but I've never seen a "core only" game. Even then, my statement remains true. But what's important here is that a fighter will only be raising strength with his level bonuses and takes the highest priority out of the other stats in concerns with stat boosts. Constitution is secondary. A Charisma of 14 is sufficient for the Pladin. More is nice, but a "mere" 14 will suffice to make those class abilities worthwhile. in a standard point buy (which is 25 points,) a 14 is a high score, but I suppose some people feel that stats below 15 are low... Untrue. Mithril Breastplate - that's Light armor, and only 3 points of AC less than the heaviest PHB armor in the books. With the right non-core sourcebooks, even "heavier" armor is possible (offhand, I'm thinking of the "Halfweight" enhancement in Underdark - Halwewight Full Plate is Light armor, despite the full +8 basic AC bonus). mithral breastplate requires medium armor proficiency to wear without the requisite penalties. (and yes, I do have WotC Custserv confirmation on this.) And where, pray tell, would that "somewhere else" be? The whole problem the fighter has, is, there aren't enough high-end feats tot ake, in order to keep the fighter on top of the heap in combat (whichever flavor they choose to excell in). in the PHB, I might be inclined to agree with you about levels 12+ (which WotC admitted to doing less balancing work on, anyway, since their studies confirmed that most people play till around 12th level anyway.) But this "truth," if it could be called that, disappears when suppliments are added.
The Wasp 04-29-05, 04:33 PM	What meaningful tactics does Rage actually provide? Rage makes ALL of your tactics more effective. Since most tactics don't actually need feats, the barbarian need only cover the ones that do.
AresNordwind 04-29-05, 04:35 PM	Without Prc Underpowered! In which moment can you say that a fighter is truly better than another class?
Tony Vargas 04-29-05, 04:48 PM	Want, yes. Need, no, I don't believe so. For some classes it really comes downt to 'need,' yes. Any class that's going to do some melee and can't use Heavy armor needs some DEX, if light armor is thier only real option (as with a ranger), they need what can only be considered a 'high' DEX of 18+. Any class that has significant class abilities based on a stat (any caster, the Paladin, the Monk etc) is going to need that stat high enough to access the ability, and even higher, as the ability scales with the stat. A Paladin needs a CHA bonus, for instance, because, without it, some of his class abilities do nothing - and he needs as high a CHA bonus as possible, because those abilities work better the higher it is. Fighters have one stat like that: STR, and that only because it's so critical to combat damage. Pure casters like the Sorc and Wiz /need/ only a high casting stat. That's about it, most other classes call for some other good or high stats. Strength and Constitution CON is desireable for everyone. Even those classes that can expect to avoid a lot of damage still want a good CON, since thier base hps tend to be low. Further, any fighter will want Intelligence 13+, because a lot of the better fighter feats are reliant on Expertise as a prerequisite - and because they're strapped for skill points. That's a 13 for the feats, sure - if those feats are vital to you. But, it's just a 13, there's no need to maximize it, just meet the minimum. And, there's no need to do that unless you want those particular feats - if you don't meet the preq, you still have the bonus feat, just spend it elsewhere. Dexterity 13+ is a nice perk as well - both for a bit of AC boost, and for more feat options.Sure, but a fighter can go the heavy armor route and never want a DEX higher than that 13. If you're planning on trundling around in Adamantine Full Plate, for instance, any DEX over 13 is largely wasted. A Charisma of 14 is sufficient for the Pladin. More is nice, but a "mere" 14 will suffice to make those class abilities worthwhile. If you say so. I mean, a 19 INT is all a 17th level wiz needs to learn 9th level spells so he could be happy with that, and have started with a 14 at 1st. It's viable. It's really underperforming a bit though. Untrue. Mithril Breastplate - that's Light armor, and only 3 points of AC less than the heaviest PHB armor in the books. Well, it counts as light armor for enough purposes, though it may still cost a feat - but, you still need a DEX of 20 to take full advantage of it AC-wise.
Nephlite 04-29-05, 04:58 PM	mithral breastplate requires medium armor proficiency to wear without the requisite penalties. (and yes, I do have WotC Custserv confirmation on this.) Brestplate normally has check -4. Can you state which penalties those be? Mithral reduces check by 3. Masterwork reduces by 1 That reduces Check by 4. That leaves you with Check = 0. What penalties an I missing? What does nonproficiency do but give penalties to attack chance?
Cardinal Teplin 04-29-05, 05:09 PM	I'd have to say yes, at high level... The problem is, as scarlet knight pointed out, diminishing returns. Every class in the game except fighter gets abilties that increase in power as you rise in level (sneak attack, rage, DR, spellcasting). Fighter is the only one that doesn't, it just gets more of the same. This isn't a problem as long as you are mid-level, where feats can be expected to synergies with eachother to an extent. It does get a problem at high level, where each extra feat adds less and less marginal utility. It's not an insurrmountable problem, but it is a problem..
Tony Vargas 04-29-05, 05:36 PM	Brestplate normally has check -4. Can you state which penalties those be? Mithral reduces check by 3. Masterwork reduces by 1 That reduces Check by 4. That leaves you with Check = 0. What am I missing? The reduction for Mithral doesn't stack with that for Masterwork (all Mithral items are already masterwork, so the reduced ACP for mithral is for MW Mithral). The non-proficiency penalty for a mithral breastplate is -1, much lower than the usual -4, so mithral is a big benefit for the non-proficient. For a lot of other armors and shields - all the light ones, for instance - mithral, or even just masterworking reduces the ACP to 0, which means that even non-proficient use carries no penalty (though, it /is/ still non-proficient use, in case that ever matters). Heck, leather and padded have a 0 ACP to begin with, yet you can still be proficient in them... :rolleyes: What does nonproficiency do but give penalties to attack chance? It also penalizes skill checks other than those normally affected by ACP.
tiercel 04-29-05, 06:14 PM	Yes, overall. Reasoning: OK, at the lowest levels (1-4) I think most people will agree fighter is a very strong choice. I would argue, though, that even getting into the low-to-mid-levels (5-8) fighter already becomes a less attractive choice. There is a whole camp of people who believe that more than 4 levels in fighter are a waste. I think that is an exaggeration - there are certainly feat-intensive builds that need fighter levels. On the other hand, many things you can do with a few extra feats, you can do better with a PrC. In particular, if you use additional books to harvest New and Better feats from, you can also - or instead - use New and Better PrCs from those books (generally, you can enter them starting around level 5-6 as well). Even at these levels, I think that for many builds staying in the Fighter class to be a poor option. By the mid-to-high levels (9-12), not only is staying in Fighter looking poorer and poorer compared to prestige class options, but warrior-types generally are starting to be outshone by casters. A good build, often using PrCs, can still hold their own but the casters are really beginning to shine. "Multiple combats per day" as a regular occurrence starts to die out, as teleport becomes available and increasingly used -- DM-applied time pressure is necessary to keep the PCs from picking and choosing their fights. At the higher levels (say, 13+), casters rule the world. Plenty of teleport to go around, and greater teleport becomes an option. Mordy's magnificent mansion finishes the job started by rope trick and Leo's secure shelter. Even if DM-forced into multiple combats per day, casters now have so many spells that they are unlikely to run out of spells before a fighter would run out of hit points. In particular, beginning at the mid-to-high levels, and especially at the higher levels, there is little that a fighter can do that a fighter/mage type can't do better. Even looking at the most vanilla option, Eldritch Knight... An EK has to give up some BAB to get into the PrC, and has fewer hit points, but almost everything they give up can be made up with a single spell: polymorph. Sure, that huge new Strength score won't give you the extra iterative attack that actually having a high BAB would, but you have pretty much the same to-hit chance (and that last iterative attack often misses anyhow). Polymorph also gives the EK access to Con scores and natural armor bonuses pretty much out of the reach of fighters, not to mention huge flexibility. And that's just one spell out of an EK's repertoire.... EK is hardly the only multiclass option available, and with Practiced Spellcaster on the table, there is little reason to shun the multiclass route. Also, druids and clerics can often function (especially buffed by a few spells) as powerfully in melee as a fighter can, while also having a wide range of other spells to sling around. Finally, as an indication of the attractiveness of the Fighter class at high levels, let me relate a story of my own gaming group. Due to a near-TPK, my group of 7 players created an entirely new party of 15th level characters. These were: two wizard/archmagi (one evocation-focused, one abjuration/counterspelling-focused) a sorcerer/monk/marshal/enlightened fist a druid/master of many forms/warshaper a cleric/contemplative a warlock a rogue/wizard/arcane trickster No warriors per se -- not even a PrC or multiclassed fighter. (This, despite a significant amount of group chatter about whether someone should really do so.) In fact, out of 105 total PC levels, exactly zero were Fighter levels. It might be overstating the case to call this 105 "yes" votes for Fighter-underpowered (at least at high levels), but it is a pretty strong illustration of the perceived superfluousness of the Fighter when not one of the seven chose to even have any Fighter levels at all. And between the "shifter" character, the self-buffing cleric, and self-polymorphing enlightened fist and trickster, there's not exactly a lack of melee power.
Wyrd Bearer 04-29-05, 06:22 PM	No.
Tony Vargas 04-29-05, 08:06 PM	Vote count: NO: 51 (29 with qualifiers) YES: 28 (21 with qualifiers). What's really wierd is that some of the qualifiers ended up making yes and no votes sound like the same opinion. Like "Yes, they're unerpowered, after 12th level)" or "No, they're not underpowred, except a little after 12th level." How is one a 'yes' and one a 'no?' :rolleyes: There were 79 votes, out of 150 posts better than a 1:2 signal-to-noise, not bad really. Edit, two more votes, below.
guru7892 04-29-05, 08:18 PM	no fighters are just misunderstood... and there are two weapon dex fighters that can kick your ass with the proper feats... and dual weild crossbows. also i think that fighters really have to be looked at in the sense that they dont always min/max perfectly. at later levels pick up some archery feats, because against flying opponants, a sword weilding uber fighter sucks... unless they can fly as fast, AND are faster than the opponants. also fighters are good for multiclassing.
Zucrous 04-29-05, 08:23 PM	No, The fighter just needs to be used by a compitent person, a fighter can pretty much use a wide range of weaponry effectively, if used well, they can battle most anything. They get the best mix of weapon and armor pro's in the game, and can use tower sheilds. They can easily qualify for a mumber of PrC's that other classes have to wait longer for. Not to mention have u thought of the possibilities of a kalashtar fighter... he can take psionic feats *chaching*
SBMC 04-29-05, 10:35 PM	I'd have to say yes, at high level... The problem is, as scarlet knight pointed out, diminishing returns. Every class in the game except fighter gets abilties that increase in power as you rise in level (sneak attack, rage, DR, spellcasting). Fighter is the only one that doesn't, it just gets more of the same. This isn't a problem as long as you are mid-level, where feats can be expected to synergies with eachother to an extent. It does get a problem at high level, where each extra feat adds less and less marginal utility. It's not an insurrmountable problem, but it is a problem.. Now this Mr. Cardinal is one thing I might agree with; however it is not entirely true. The two “main” feats out there for Melee Combat (the two that many (not most) feats have as prerequisites) are Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Both Scale due to BAB. I do aknowledge that the PHB does not have the Improved Combat Expertise but it is there in the Complete Warrior. There are just to many posts here to be able to quote them all...so I'll jsut try to answer to them in general Underpwoered? Previously I had stated that it seems as if those who think the fighter is underpowered; to repeat myself: “AGAIN you (and others) talk as if the fighter is ALWAYS in the most disadvantageous position against his foe (in this case the Barbarian) and when you are “for” another class that class ALWAYS has the most advantageous position (in this case both). Sure, take a 10 by 10 room with a raging 17th level barbarian and the fighter is in big trouble; but then again any opponent would be; hence the function of the Barbarian in combat. But how many battles actually occur in 10 by 10 rooms? A 1st level commoner could take out a 5 level wizard with a spoon in a 10 by 10 room (don’t laugh I actually saw it happen in my campaign!) “ Why do I say this? Read the posts in response to my last one above. Suddenly the Barbarian now has an animated shield, numerous other items and a wide range of other things the fighter does not. The example I gave (here it is again; with the correct basic math) : Fighter: Full Plate, +5: +12 to AC Large Steel Shield, +5: +7 to AC 10+13+7= 30 AC, say ay get the +1 to AC for a dex bonus (normal) = 31 AC (without anything else) Barbarian: Breastplate +5: +10 to AC Dex Bonus: +6 (VERY generous) 10+10+6=26, -2 when raging = 24. Now ya see I have given each class the maximum I really could without getting into all kinds of extras like rings and such. (not accounting for a tower shield someone noted above). Neither one has a ring, an amulet or anything like that. If any character has an item another one does not, even a Barbarian against a Barbarian the one with the item obviously has the advantage. So if you wish to compare THEN PLEASE add the same item on both sides of the equation to make your point; otherwise it is useless. A fighter can have an animated shield as well and a two handed weapon at the same time. Rage? : could someone please explain to me exactly WHY rage is better than feats? I have heard it stated but no one actually has an explanation. My personal opinion is that it is equal in part depending on the situation and who you are fighting. Using special attacks and actions: Not to name anyone; using combat maneuvers such as trip, disarm etc. without the feat has costs such as the ability to trip you back, disarm you back, causing a AoO etc. In other words spending feats makes special attacks as riskless as normal attacks. Taking Damage: Now so many have stated “the increased HP allow the Barbarian…well if you keep allowing yourself to get AoO’s on yourself while using all those fancy attacks that some of you are saying are so easy to use you just spent those HP. Also note that the Barbarian’s HP gains from Rage “Are not like Temporary Hit Points and lost first…” So lets say that the rage is going; and the Barbarian is still standing…ooops the rage just ended and he dropped dead. Rage and rounds: Someone (or more than one) stated “few combats go over 9 rounds”. If that is the case then your campaign is quite weak. If you can end an encounter in under 12 rounds I would scratch my head at that unless the PC’s were just plain lucky with rolls. Now add on the fact that the Fighter is INTENTIONALLY prolonging things by being defensive… To reiterate something I said above to relate it here: By stating one thing is better than another or, as done multiple times above in this thread, at every chance saying “but if the barb had a +6 amulet…” and not then saying “ but so does the fighter…” then of course the Barbarian has an advantage. Of course if the Barbarian hits the fighter while raging he will do more damage; but the ability for a fighter to have a higher AC makes that less likely and the fact that a fighter can gain more points of AC than the Barbarian can gain in his Attack Rolls as a bonus gives the fighter the edge in that regard (likelihood of being hit). Thus, on average, with the Barbarian’s lower AC (do to limits on Armor per the core rules and the –2 to AC while raging), ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (as in they both have the same additional magical items and average rolls), as a Fighter and Barbarian slug it out the fighter will hit more often than the Barbarian; mind you doing less damage. However the idea here is that the more frequent hits outweigh the more damaging hits. Another facet to add: Combining the previous paragraph with the fighters ability to put the Barbarian in disadvantageous positions (via tripped, Bull rushing, disarming or whatever) WITHOUT generating AoO’s against himself (by having the feats) and not allowing his opponent to react (such as in allowing the Barbarian to trip him back should he fail to Trip the Barbarian as would happen without the Improved Trip Feat) gives the fighter the advantage when using those kinds of feats. Using the Trip as an example: If tripped the Barbarian now has another –4 to AC and generates an AoO if he tries to stand up not to mention the Barbarian now has to burn an action standing up and hence he would not get to make his full attack that round; and at 20th level that means he just lost 3 attacks that the fighter gets to have! In this instance that means that the fighter has a grand total of 5 attacks to the advantage against the Barbarian as they slug it out: #1 He trips the Barbarian and so now gets a free attack against a lower –4 AC #2 The Barbarian stands up – AoO #3-5 The Barbarian cannot take a move action and a full attack; the fighter makes a full attack; (assuming here they are both 20th level) the fighter gains 3 attacks/opportunities to out-damage the Barbarian. Improved Disarm or Overrun does a similar thing (forcing an AoO to stand up or retrieve a weapon) and spending a move action and thus forgoing a full attack. You could use Bull Rush as well in certain circumstances (though not as well as the previous three mentioned). This is only adding to the fighters opportunity to beat him. Note that I said OPPORTUNITY. The ability NOT TO BE HIT is just as valuable if not more so as the ability TO HIT. If that were not the case then why is Evasion such a handy ability? Same with Uncanny Dodge. That is a key advantage of a fighter over most other classes; he can protect himself in Melee better. And that is something that so many seem to fail to realize. Now one thing to mention specifically, Lion 21: “You know what? I've been civil for a long time: But now I'm just getting tired. HP: +2(modifier) base + 3(from a item) +2(+3 if your lucky) from inherant bonus: +7 7X20: 140 +20d4: 184 HP. 204 if he's a dwarf.! “ Exactly what game are you playing here? 1. +2 Modifier…Ok say Con. 2. +3 base? What is “Base”? 3. +2 or +3 from an inherent bonus – err what inherent bonus? That should be covered in the first modifier. If ya mean raising con by +4 or +6 via one of those books or a wish; OK. But those cost serious money (money that then is not spent elsewhere) or SHOULD be excessively rare. OR what you are saying is that Mr. Wizard used all his ability increases every 4 levels and blasted them into Con. Ok but what did he give up for that? Int increases, or Dex, or Wisdom… 4. 204 if he is a Dwarf? So if he was a dwarf you are now saying that would not be included in his “modifier” and thus now stacking his Dwarven Con increase in top of your “modifier”, inherent and the other mystery bonuses. And following this logic then Most 20th Level Wizards have at least a +14 Con Most 20th Level Wizards have an item to boost up Con (I’ll buy that) Most 20th Level Wizards have a +4 or a +6 inherent bonus (Really; and what overpowered world do you play in? Or what Wizard gave up the +2 or +3 on spells for this?) Now also note here that I had stated in the beginning that a Wizard with an 18 Con has 180 HP’s maxed; thus about the same as what you have there except my statement makes sense and is within the rules.
NehpetsTtocs 04-30-05, 01:15 AM	Not really. The dodge and expertise chains each require a stat at 13. That's not trivial, but it's just a static preq. Other classes need multiple stats as high as possible. A fighter really just needs a STR as high as he can get it, to be maximally effecive in combat - he could also use an above-average DEX or INT (or possibly even WIS or CHA, depening how many feats you bring into it) for pre-requisites. A paladin, OTOH, needs the same high STR as the fighter, and also all the CHA he can possibly get. With his abilities dictating light armor, the ranger needs a very high DEX, not just a 13. True, the WIS needs of a pally or ranger (about 14) are comparable to a stat preq for a feat like expertise. And, of course, while a ranger who chooses to eschew good WIS simply loses his spellcasting, the fighter who decides to do without a good INT doesn't lose the bonus feats he might have put towards the expertise chain, he just puts them towards something else. I will try to explain myself a little more clearly. Rangers and Paladins have built in combat abilities that lend themselves to synthesize with certain feats, mounts, archery/twf, and spells for instance. If a ranger has a 14 wisdom, she can cast her highest level spells. If a fighter doesn't have a 13 intelligence, she can't use expertise. The ranger has access to all ranger spells with a 14 wisdom. The fighter needs strength, dexterity, and intelligence to complete at lease one very good feat chain. How easy the stats are to come by, depends on the campaign, but in a standard point buy, it's probably harder for a fighter to be the all-round combatant many people on this thread claim he is, if he has to invest his points into stats other than strength. Yes, he can skip intelligence and dex, but then the argument that he can do everything well because of those feats, falls apart. All a ranger-archer needs is dex and wisdom. Is that really comparable to making an all round fighter who possesses both archery/melee/trip/expertise? That's all I'm trying to point out.
Pax 04-30-05, 01:53 AM	Yes, that makes constitution a good second stat after strength. intelligence is unnecessary, as not all feats require combat expertise. ROFLMAO. Taken a good look at the Fighter Bonus Feat list, lately? Well over half of them require, directly or indirectly, either a Dexterity of 13+, or an Inteligence of 13+. They might compromise a halfway decent portion of the core PHB feats, but I've never seen a "core only" game. Even then, my statement remains true. No, in core only, a significant number of feats - including Whirlwind Attack, the end-stage of the dodge/mobility chain - are Expertise dependant. Outside the Core rules ... there are a surprising number of feats, and most of the better ones IMO, which have Expertise as aprerequisite. But what's important here is that a fighter will only be raising strength with his level bonuses and takes the highest priority out of the other stats in concerns with stat boosts. Constitution is secondary. The same can be said of the other classes, in general. in a standard point buy (which is 25 points,) a 14 is a high score, but I suppose some people feel that stats below 15 are low... Under the default method for generating characters - 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste - the average is about 12.7; somehting bettr than two thirds of all characters will have at least one score of 16 or higher. Given that ... I tend to classify a 14 as "not low, but certainly not going to be your highest score either - barring an abysmal runof luck". mithral breastplate requires medium armor proficiency to wear without the requisite penalties. (and yes, I do have WotC Custserv confirmation on this.) Right, but I have to ask - so what? So it takes a feat. It's still going to work as Light armor for Ranger or Barbarian class abilities, and it's still nearly as much AC as the best heavy armor, too. But this "truth," if it could be called that, disappears when suppliments are added. none of which can be counted upon to be allowed in any one particular game - beyond which point, you also have to remember: as improved by supplements as Fighters are, so is every class. If the fighters start out lagging behind, there's no guarantee that a plethora of supplements will change things. I rather think I should know about that, in fact: I've got, at this point, between $1,100 and $1,200 of 3.Xe books. That's thirty-four books, andno, I didn't count the old 3.0 corebooks among them (only the 3.5e corebooks). Low level or high: there isn't enough stuff for Fighters, which is only for Fighters ... especially stuff of a scale and scope sufficient to make them commensurate with the abilities gained by other classes at higher levels. Fighters are grossly underflavored. There's simply no single thing that they can do better than anyone else, including their signature ability: fighting. For some classes it really comes downt to 'need,' yes. Any class that's going to do some melee and can't use Heavy armor needs some DEX, if light armor is thier only real option (as with a ranger), they need what can only be considered a 'high' DEX of 18+. Again - mithril breastplate. Only 2 points less innate AC than Full Plate. And it's a Core Rules option, too. Throw some feats at supporting a TWF schtick - like (Improved) Two Weapon Defense - and you'll catch up to the archtypal "two handed sword of doom" heavy-armor "brick" type of fighter. The breastplate starts out only 2 AC behind the Full Plate; a two-point difference in AC isn't significant enough to turn "want" into "need" for the Dexterity - especially since (Improved) Two Weapon Defense can entirely make up for that WHOLE difference. Any class that has significant class abilities based on a stat (any caster, the Paladin, the Monk etc) is going to need that stat high enough to access the ability, and even higher, as the ability scales with the stat. Again, IMO you are confusing "need" with "want". A paladin doesn't NEED a Charisma higher than 12, though they should TRY for a 14, and will WANT as much as they can get. Neither the paladin nor the Ranger need Wisdom scores above 14 - if they don't get lucky with their attributes (either via the dice, or, with a generous point-buy scheme), they just forgoe any spells that rely on a high save DC, or on beating something's SR. Strangely enough, most Paladin and Ranger spells are self-improvement spells - eliminating dependency on DC, or fears of SR. A Paladin needs a CHA bonus, for instance, because, without it, some of his class abilities do nothing - and he needs as high a CHA bonus as possible, because those abilities work better the higher it is. Need is appropiate to say "a 12 or better". However, for "the higher the better", we've left behind need and entered the realm of want. Might I suggest a dictionary? That's a 13 for the feats, sure - if those feats are vital to you. But, it's just a 13, there's no need to maximize it, just meet the minimum. ditto, or nearly so, for any other class and their additional ability scores. A ranger only "needs" a Wisdom of 13 or above (and put one point into it later, if they started at under 14). Ditto for Paladins, for both Wisdom and (with lower numbers) Charisma, really. Sure, but a fighter can go the heavy armor route and never want a DEX higher than that 13. If you're planning on trundling around in Adamantine Full Plate, for instance, any DEX over 13 is largely wasted. And the reanger can wear a mithril breastplate with their Dexterity of 13 and TWF combat style, pick up a couple supporting feats, and have the same AC as the fighter ... still with only a 13 Dexterity. Odds are, of course, since hteir armor will permit it, the Ranger will find a way to boost their Dexterity later - even if only by a single point. Conveniently enough, Gloves of Dexterity (+2) would work fine here, along with a single point from levelling - giving them, then, a net of 16 Dexterity. A net Dex of 16, Mithril Breastplate, and Improved TWDef? Now the ranger has better AC than the fighter. If you say so. I mean, a 19 INT is all a 17th level wiz needs to learn 9th level spells so he could be happy with that, and have started with a 14 at 1st. It's viable. It's really underperforming a bit though. If that wizard hasn't takent he time and effort to make themselves a Tome of Clear Thought (+5) by 17th-20th level, that's their problem. Well, it counts as light armor for enough purposes, though it may still cost a feat - but, you still need a DEX of 20 to take full advantage of it AC-wise. Full advantage is not a need. You seem to have a real problem with the idea that "things must be equal to their theoretical maximum or they're just not good enough" ...
TheDarkestOfAngels 04-30-05, 02:50 AM	ROFLMAO. Taken a good look at the Fighter Bonus Feat list, lately? Well over half of them require, directly or indirectly, either a Dexterity of 13+, or an Inteligence of 13+. yes. that's why I said strength is the most important and constitution is the second most important. I, in fact, said that with the PHB's feat list open directly in front of me. My statement is the correct one. No, in core only, a significant number of feats - including Whirlwind Attack, the end-stage of the dodge/mobility chain - are Expertise dependant. Outside the Core rules ... there are a surprising number of feats, and most of the better ones IMO, which have Expertise as aprerequisite. that's not a significant number, that's a small number. niether int nor dex is -necessary- for a fighter. The same can be said of the other classes, in general. indeed. Under the default method for generating characters - 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste - the average is about 12.7; somehting bettr than two thirds of all characters will have at least one score of 16 or higher. Given that ... I tend to classify a 14 as "not low, but certainly not going to be your highest score either - barring an abysmal runof luck". okay. I don't know what this has to do with what I said. I'm just tired of people thinking that if they don't roll 5 of the 6 scores above a 15, the set is crap. I see people base balance of the classes and races based on this or something like this all the time. The statement that responded to reminded me of this mindset. If you don't have this mentality, then I am in error. Right, but I have to ask - so what? So it takes a feat. It's still going to work as Light armor for Ranger or Barbarian class abilities, and it's still nearly as much AC as the best heavy armor, too. except that heavy armor can be similarly improved and the fighter can wear it with no nonproficiency penalties and have a better ac as a result. the only classes that can get a better AC are the ones that have to spend dozens of buffing spells on themselves at high levels or light-armor wearing characters with a very high dex. none of which can be counted upon to be allowed in any one particular game - beyond which point, you also have to remember: as improved by supplements as Fighters are, so is every class. If the fighters start out lagging behind, there's no guarantee that a plethora of supplements will change things. I have yet to come across or hear about this sort of game. What you say is the exception and not the general assumption. I rather think I should know about that, in fact: I've got, at this point, between $1,100 and $1,200 of 3.Xe books. That's thirty-four books, andno, I didn't count the old 3.0 corebooks among them (only the 3.5e corebooks). As should I. I've got nearly double that. Excluding 3e books, the number is still significantly higher than that by around 10 books or more. Low level or high: there isn't enough stuff for Fighters, which is only for Fighters ... especially stuff of a scale and scope sufficient to make them commensurate with the abilities gained by other classes at higher levels. I disagree. Fighters are grossly underflavored. wow. fighters lack an ill-defined concept based upon class features or abilities that lack a distinct specialization or theme, except that that class feature can be defined based upon a pool of selected features. Therefore, I disagree completely. There's simply no single thing that they can do better than anyone else, including their signature ability: fighting. This has never been the case in all of the times I've ever personally used or see other people use a fighter at any point in time at any level of character play in any group I've every played in. And I've played in some munchkin-fested groups that optimize the hell out of stuff. So no, I don't think this is true, in the least. Again - mithril breastplate. Only 2 points less innate AC than Full Plate. And it's a Core Rules option, too. Throw some feats at supporting a TWF schtick - like (Improved) Two Weapon Defense - and you'll catch up to the archtypal "two handed sword of doom" heavy-armor "brick" type of fighter. The breastplate starts out only 2 AC behind the Full Plate; a two-point difference in AC isn't significant enough to turn "want" into "need" for the Dexterity - especially since (Improved) Two Weapon Defense can entirely make up for that WHOLE difference. two weapon defense sucks and mithral breastplate is "only two points less" if you fill out the dex to its maximum limit. something that anyone with heavy armor and tower shield proficiency doesn't have to do. Need is appropiate to say "a 12 or better". However, for "the higher the better", we've left behind need and entered the realm of want. Might I suggest a dictionary? ... I understand the difference. Hey, if you want to play a paladin with a good portion of his class features being unable to function nearly as well as they should, such as by plugging an 8 into charisma or wisdom (such as what a fighter could easily do) then go ahead. otherwise, the paladin NEEDS a halfway decent charisma and wisdom score in order for their abilities to function. unlike, say, how a fighter might want a decent intelligence or dexterity in order to take advantage of feats the fighter can select. the fighter doesn't NEED these scores at a "decent" level, because the fighter can replace those feats with others, completely subverting the deficiency of having a number of the fighter's abilities being unable to function - the fighter can just find others to replace them. The paladin (and ranger) cannot. A decent score (generally 12 or better) for them is necessary to be able to take advantage of them. I suggest you look at a PHB. ditto, or nearly so, for any other class and their additional ability scores. A ranger only "needs" a Wisdom of 13 or above (and put one point into it later, if they started at under 14). Ditto for Paladins, for both Wisdom and (with lower numbers) Charisma, really. and those are scores that can't, say, go into dexterity to make their AC "only two points below the fighter's full plate. And the reanger can wear a mithril breastplate with their Dexterity of 13 and TWF combat style, pick up a couple supporting feats, and have the same AC as the fighter ... still with only a 13 Dexterity. Odds are, of course, since hteir armor will permit it, the Ranger will find a way to boost their Dexterity later - even if only by a single point. Conveniently enough, Gloves of Dexterity (+2) would work fine here, along with a single point from levelling - giving them, then, a net of 16 Dexterity. A net Dex of 16, Mithril Breastplate, and Improved TWDef? Now the ranger has better AC than the fighter. then where's that score that's gonna be a 13 wisdom? or the paladin's 14 charisma? (and 12 or higher wisdom)? You might have a case for a high-ability-score set (which the fighter can also take advantage of,) but not with something a litte more.... possible by an average set of rolls. (5d6 drop the lowest 2 vs. 4d6 drop the lowest one or 32 point buy vs. 25, for example.) If that wizard hasn't takent he time and effort to make themselves a Tome of Clear Thought (+5) by 17th-20th level, that's their problem. you do realize that costs 25k xp, right? I don't care if they're 20th level, that's not an easy price to create them. Full advantage is not a need. You seem to have a real problem with the idea that "things must be equal to their theoretical maximum or they're just not good enough" ... and that's why breastplate is not "two points lower" than full plate.
Tsarok 04-30-05, 03:04 AM	Short and sweet: I don't think any class is underpowered. Any class with a bit of planning and creativity can be very effective. The fighter class allows far more customization than most and attracts a more diverse set of play-styles than any other class.
Pax 04-30-05, 03:34 AM	okay. I don't know what this has to do with what I said. I'm just tired of people thinking that if they don't roll 5 of the 6 scores above a 15, the set is crap. Step one - lose the condescending attitude. Step two - make your responses to mine ber some relation to reality. Step three - show me where I said anything even approaching that nonsense you mention about "5 of the 6 scores above a 15" at all. The fact of the matter is, all I have said is, two thirds of all characters will have one or more scores of 16 or hgiher, using the default 4d6-and-drop method. The statement that responded to reminded me of this mindset. If you don't have this mentality, then I am in error. Yes. Yes you are. The fact is, I am arguing that Paladin, Ranger, et all don't requie high scores -rather, they only need above average scores. except that heavy armor can be similarly improved and the fighter can wear it with no nonproficiency penalties and have a better ac as a result. Anyone wearing full plate - even mithril full plate - is probably not going to be using TWF. And if you're not using TWF, you're not using TWDef, either. the only classes that can get a better AC are the ones that have to spend dozens of buffing spells on themselves at high levels or light-armor wearing characters with a very high dex. Really? Let's assume a suit of - oh, +5 armor. Two-hand-wielding fighter, versus a TWF ranger - at 20th level, for maximum feat options. Dexterity 13 and +5 full plate armor - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +13/armor) 24. Dexterity 13, +5 mithril breastpate, the Improved Two-Weapon Defense feat, and a +5 defending weapon in their off-hand - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +11/armor +2/feat +5/defender) ... 29. Funny. That looks to me like the Ranger has a better AC than the Fighter. And keep in mind, beyond those elements ... whatever the fighter does, the ranger can match, point for point (combat expertise, check; ring of deflection, check; etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad absurdum). I have yet to come across or hear about this sort of game. What you say is the exception and not the general assumption. Head over to RPOL.net sometime. Probably half the D&D games I've seen advertised in the "Players Wanted" forum are Core-rules-only. Including some arena campaigns, which youwould reasonably expect to be supplement-friendly. As should I. I've got nearly double that. Excluding 3e books, the number is still significantly higher than that by around 10 books or more. I limited myself to counting only hardcover D&D books published by WOTC. I could add about 10 more to that myself, otherwise. two weapon defense sucks It may not be optimal, but it's still more AC. and mithral breastplate is "only two points less" if you fill out the dex to its maximum limit. How do you figure? Granted, Imisremembered the armor bonus of a Breastplate - i5t's a three point difference. But it doesn't requie you to max out hte Dex bonus for that - Full Plate Armor has a +8 armor bonus; Breastplate has a +5 armor bonus. difference of two. If you full the Dex bonus out to maximum, a mithril breastplate is better than ordinary Full Plate Armor ... giving a net AC bonus of +11, rather than the top nommagical bonus of +9 for full plate. Granted, that takes a very high dexterity. But to get only a couple points short? No problem, really. something that anyone with heavy armor and tower shield proficiency doesn't have to do. *shrug* Shields are an entirely different issue; I thought we were discussing armor in this little subthread. ... I understand the difference. Hey, if you want to play a paladin with a good portion of his class features being unable to function nearly as well as they should, such as by plugging an 8 into charisma or wisdom (such as what a fighter could easily do) then go ahead. Drop the friggin' straw men. I never said eight, and you daned well know it. Twelve is (minimally) suifficient, fourteen will carry one through an entire career, and more is nice but not required. otherwise, the paladin NEEDS a halfway decent charisma and wisdom score in order for their abilities to function. Right. And to me, twelve to fourteen constitutes "halfway decent". A decent score (generally 12 or better) for them is necessary to be able to take advantage of them. I suggest you learn some basic damned reading comprehension, lackwit - twelve is precisely the "just barely enough" level I've suggested. and those are scores that can't, say, go into dexterity to make their AC "only two points below the fighter's full plate. Same dex of 13, breastplate versus full plate, is a three point difference. Three points isn't enough to cry over. then where's that score that's gonna be a 13 wisdom? or the paladin's 14 charisma? (and 12 or higher wisdom)? To start, at first level, as a paladin? 25 point buy? 12 Wisdom, 12 Charisma, 12 Intelligence, 10 Dexterity, 13 Constitution, and 14 Strength. The paladin can go with heavy armor, just like the fighter. As a Ranger? Swap the Charisma and Dexterity. As a Fighter, not two-dimensional? 10 Charisma, 10 Wisdom, 13 Inteligence, 13 Constitution, 13 Dexterity, 14 Strength. AC, ranged attacks, and Initiative will be 1 point higher; will qualify for more feats (and gets them, so qualifying forlots of them is definitely "in schtick" for a fighter). As a two-dimensional, "dump stat me, scotty" thud-and-blunder fighter? Charisma 8, Wisdom 8, Inteligence 8, Constitution 16, Dexterity 13, Strength 16. Butt fugly, dumb, and about as observant as a post. All of +1 to hit and damage, and +2hp/HD (which can be narrowed to +1hp/HD at 4th level, by any/all of hte above). The Paladin will, obviously, dsire a Cloak of Charisma as soon as he can afford one. The Ranger and Paladin alike will enjoy lower-powered Periapts of Wisdom - perhaps the Cleric's castoffs, once he gets better Periapts for himself. You might have a case for a high-ability-score set (which the fighter can also take advantage of,) but not with something a litte more.... possible by an average set of rolls. (5d6 drop the lowest 2 vs. 4d6 drop the lowest one or 32 point buy vs. 25, for example.) Like I said - 4d6-and-drop, the standard default method, has a two-in-three probability of generating a set with one (or more) scores at 16, 17, or 18. The vast majority of those two thirds, of course, will have just the single score of 16 - and it's a complete gamble as to what hte other 5 scores are. you do realize that costs 25k xp, right? I don't care if they're 20th level, that's not an easy price to create them. Never said it was. But it's still rather senseless not to make or buy one for one's primary attribute, anyway. and that's why breastplate is not "two points lower" than full plate. Three points, true - misremembering on my part. But that's still without maxxing out the Mithril Breastplate's dex bonus. a Dexterity of only 14 - one pointhigher than the Dex 13 you cited for the full-plate fighter - will be ... yes ... exactly two points lower in AC than the full plate fighter.
Blairconz 04-30-05, 03:58 AM	Pax You have stated that the breastplate grants a +11 bonus to AC, How? +5 base and +5 Enchantment = +10 Also, the armour can have defending spikes for the same price as your offhand weapon.
The Wasp 04-30-05, 06:57 AM	Why do I say this? Read the posts in response to my last one above. Suddenly the Barbarian now has an animated shield, numerous other items and a wide range of other things the fighter does not. The example I gave (here it is again; with the correct basic math) : If the fighter can have a +5 shield, the barbarian can have a +3 animated heavy shield. They cost the same, so its only fair. If I was trying to make a biased analysis, I would have given the barbarian a full +5 on his shield. Animated shields are jsut as core as +5 shields. (although I agree that they are much cheesier) Barbarian: Breastplate +5: +10 to AC Dex Bonus: +6 (VERY generous) 10+10+6=26, -2 when raging = 24. You screwed up your math again. max dex bonus (with mithril) is +5... Now ya see I have given each class the maximum I really could without getting into all kinds of extras like rings and such. It's funny, I didn't have those things either. In my analysis both characters were equipped with the same net value of items. In yours, the fighter has a 25 000 gp boost. So if you wish to compare THEN PLEASE add the same item on both sides of the equation to make your point; otherwise it is useless. A fighter can have an animated shield as well and a two handed weapon at the same time. Please follow that rule yourself. Rage? : could someone please explain to me exactly WHY rage is better than feats? I have heard it stated but no one actually has an explanation. My personal opinion is that it is equal in part depending on the situation and who you are fighting. In one phrase - rage is always useful, unless you trying to be a wall. Now, if a wall is what you want to be, be my guest, play a fighter with a Tower Shield, Improved CE out the wazoo. Me, I'd rather be able to go on the offensive against any monster I meet. If you want a more complete analysis, we can break down the rage into an approximate number of feats. Last I recall, it was worth more than eleven. Add in the barbs other abilities and its way more than that. Oh, and btw, you never addressed the fact that the barb is dealing way more damage than the fighter, and also absorbing much mroe damage without issue. Using special attacks and actions: Not to name anyone; using combat maneuvers such as trip, disarm etc. without the feat has costs such as the ability to trip you back, disarm you back, causing a AoO etc. In other words spending feats makes special attacks as riskless as normal attacks. True. Improved Trip is a mark in the fighter's favor, and because of the CExp prereq, is effectively out of bounds for the barbarian. Fortunately, a nice weapon like the guisarme can solve most of the problems - no AOO, rage gives you the effective bonus, (and helps against being counter tripped). The only thing hole is that sweet extra attack, which I do miss, I admit. The rest aren't really a big deal. Improved Sunder is a natural for the barb, and it has a similar tactical effect to disarming. Once in a grapple, rage gives him all the benefits of improved grapple. Improved Bullrush and Improved Overrun are pretty silly besides the +4 bonuses, which the rage nicely simulates. Since they take an entire round to use, they are generally only effective tactics against low str opponents. Taking Damage: Now so many have stated “the increased HP allow the Barbarian…well if you keep allowing yourself to get AoO’s on yourself while using all those fancy attacks that some of you are saying are so easy to use you just spent those HP. Also note that the Barbarian’s HP gains from Rage “Are not like Temporary Hit Points and lost first…” So lets say that the rage is going; and the Barbarian is still standing…ooops the rage just ended and he dropped dead. Thank you captain obvious! Yes, the barb's extra HP go away after raging, but this is where nice spells like Heal come in. Remember the rest of the party? Rage means the cleric can wait longer in combat (or wait until combat is over) before having to heal you. That is a huge tactical advantage. Doing simple things like using reach weapon can help prevent those AoO. and in most cases, since the tactics should only be used against low str/small opponents, the AoO isn't too big of a deal. Rage and rounds: Someone (or more than one) stated “few combats go over 9 rounds”. If that is the case then your campaign is quite weak. If you can end an encounter in under 12 rounds I would scratch my head at that unless the PC’s were just plain lucky with rolls. Now add on the fact that the Fighter is INTENTIONALLY prolonging things by being defensive… Since in real d&d, you don't have duels, this is irrelevant. See in normal combat, one flick of a wizard's wrist has a good chance of ending the encounter. if a fighter acts as a wall, your party wizard (or bard, or sorceror) can just dominate him, hold him, force cage him, etc. If you are a fighter in a party, being a wall CAN be an effective tactic - if your enemy has no way of getting around you to the more vulnerable party members. personally, I don't find being a meat shield all that enjoyable, and with most high level encounters it doesn't work anyways. To reiterate something I said above to relate it here: By stating one thing is better than another or, as done multiple times above in this thread, at every chance saying “but if the barb had a +6 amulet…” and not then saying “ but so does the fighter…” then of course the Barbarian has an advantage. The +6 amulet was in only given benefit in regard to the duration of the rage. I'm most happy to assume the fighter has the same +6 amulet, but he doesn't have a rage. Of course if the Barbarian hits the fighter while raging he will do more damage; but the ability for a fighter to have a higher AC makes that less likely and the fact that a fighter can gain more points of AC than the Barbarian can gain in his Attack Rolls as a bonus gives the fighter the edge in that regard (likelihood of being hit). Except that the difference is not nearly large enough. it's only +3 (remember the barb has +2 to attack over the fighter) However the idea here is that the more frequent hits outweigh the more damaging hits. Except that, given a normal high level fighter and barbarian, they don't. to recap: ftr has +5 ac. barb has +2 atk. net bonus of 3 for the fighter. barb has DR 5, (assuming base strength of 22 at 20th level) an extra 3 damage from the extra half strenght bonus, an extra 2 damage from rage, and another 2.5 damage because his weapon has larger dice. that's 12.5 damage per hit over the fighter WITHOUT counting Power Attack. Now, unless the fighter is dealing 87 damage per hit without using power attack, he's going to come out behind. and that's without counting hit points, saves, or the barbarians superior resitance to combhat maneuvers. Another facet to add: Combining the previous paragraph with the fighters ability to put the Barbarian in disadvantageous positions (via tripped, Bull rushing, disarming or whatever) WITHOUT generating AoO’s against himself (by having the feats) and not allowing his opponent to react (such as in allowing the Barbarian to trip him back should he fail to Trip the Barbarian as would happen without the Improved Trip Feat) gives the fighter the advantage when using those kinds of feats. True, but as mentioned earlier, a well played barb can easily counter those factors. Also, remember that the barb has a bonus even on the defensive rolls, while the fighter does not. The ability NOT TO BE HIT is just as valuable if not more so as the ability TO HIT. using a weapon to trip somebody solves a great deal of those problems. If that were not the case then why is Evasion such a handy ability? Same with Uncanny Dodge. That is a key advantage of a fighter over most other classes; he can protect himself in Melee better. And that is something that so many seem to fail to realize. Note that the Barb gets Uncanny Dodge. You aren't helping your case. Most 20th Level Wizards have at least a +14 Con A plus 13 is easily available. Shapechange Great Wyrm Silver Dragon +6 enhancement = con 37, for a +13 con modifier = 20d4 + 260 hp = 310 hp. Incidentally, you can't disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush, or overrun this guy. If you are a warrior type, only magic or straight damage is going to do it. If its a sorceror, they can keep it up all day long! it lasts 3 hours per casting at 20th, so 3 castings keeps it up for the 8 hours of the acive day.
mean_liar 04-30-05, 10:46 AM	No.
Epitaph 04-30-05, 10:51 AM	i dont think fighter is underpowered;he is the most likely class that can reach to the benifits of complex feat trees. but i always see fighter as a multiclass.i mean ,i may be a rouge,a wizard,a barbarian;but i always have the first two levels as fighter;for bonus feats; so i can have 4 feats by the time i am level 2;and it creates a great base to build your character on. (starting with rouge,taking two fighter levels;then advancing on what you want is a good option too;you cover both feat and skill sections)
SBMC 04-30-05, 12:02 PM	First; it is so interesting how you have, not on all, but many, pulled specific statements out of my post and put them out of context. If the fighter can have a +5 shield, the barbarian can have a +3 animated heavy shield. They cost the same, so its only fair. If I was trying to make a biased analysis, I would have given the barbarian a full +5 on his shield. Animated shields are jsut as core as +5 shields. (although I agree that they are much cheesier) The point: I was looking at what typically a fighter and barbarian would be wielding with armor and weapons where the Barbarian has lower AC but does more damage and the fighter has a higher AC and doss less damage (in most cases where the two different classes take advantage of their strengths). No on to your statement: Really? Did you actually read the post or just look for ways to use semantics to pull it apart? The point I am making is that if the Barbarian gets the +3 (or whatever) animated shield and a two handed weapon then so does the fighter. To say it again - What you are saying is that now the Barbarian gets a two handed weapon AND a shield. Hence you are giving the Barbarian a clear advantage without offering the same advantage to the Fighter. The fighter still has him beat on AC there seeing as the armor he can wear is still better. You screwed up your math again. max dex bonus (with mithril) is +5... Ok – but then again I said nothing about mitheral. Obviously this was a statement used to ridicule me to make it seem to readers that you are correct instead of using actual material to make your point. Oh and I guess that means the barbarian gets another – to AC seeing as I gave him a +6. In other words you have little or no material so you make it personal It's funny, I didn't have those things either. In my analysis both characters were equipped with the same net value of items. In yours, the fighter has a 25 000 gp boost. I was not looking at gp value; I was looking at what typically a fighter and barbarian would be wielding with armor ad weapons where the Barbarian has lower AC but does more damage and the fighter has a higher AC and doss less damage (in most cases). So give the barbarian a ring of Evasion then. Please follow that rule yourself. Please explain that? How can I follow a rule you just changed now? Oh another statement intent on ridicule since, to this point, you have no material to back up your statements. In one phrase - rage is always useful, unless you trying to be a wall. Now, if a wall is what you want to be, be my guest, play a fighter with a Tower Shield, Improved CE out the wazoo. Me, I'd rather be able to go on the offensive against any monster I meet. Now that is a complete statement of opinion (and now we are getting somewhere – as in stating most of these posts are opinion based); and I agree with it. Most folks that play fighters are walls. (in my experience that is; including me) however the ability to be that wall gives you the combat staying power to take down the opponent over a longer time period. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL - That is a fundamental difference between these two classes. However in my OPINION (and in my mind and that of many) proven on the field of the tabletop squares this beats almost anything else out there. This goes without mentioning that the fighter, without the need for higher Ability Scores in other areas (NORMALLY) can crank up his strength. A Barbarian wants higher Str, Dex and Con for obvious reasons; a fighter can go with just Str (not to discount Con; but to a fighter Str is #1 by far). So in my experience fighting Barbarians; they can dish out the damage and take a whole lot but it has not been enough to overcome the Fighter’s access to feats and access to higher levels of AC. If you want a more complete analysis, we can break down the rage into an approximate number of feats. Last I recall, it was worth more than eleven. Add in the barbs other abilities and its way more than that. I would truly wonder how you came up with that? If you were doing it with a bunch of Barbarian lovers I bet it would. I’ll stick with the professionals who made the system. Oh, and btw, you never addressed the fact that the barb is dealing way more damage than the fighter, and also absorbing much mroe damage without issue. Without issue? Does he have regeneration now to? I DID ADRESS IT by stating, IN BOLD mind you that the idea is that the ability to hit the Barbarian more outweighs the more damaging effects of the Barbarian’s hits hitting you less. True. Improved Trip is a mark in the fighter's favor, and because of the CExp prereq, is effectively out of bounds for the barbarian. Fortunately, a nice weapon like the guisarme can solve most of the problems - no AOO, rage gives you the effective bonus, (and helps against being counter tripped). The only thing hole is that sweet extra attack, which I do miss, I admit. To one of my major points; now the Barbarian, threatened with or wanting to trip, pulls out a guisarme? Was this before or after he was tripped? The rest aren't really a big deal. Improved Sunder is a natural for the barb, and it has a similar tactical effect to disarming. Once in a grapple, rage gives him all the benefits of improved grapple. And exactly how is that? How does rage avoid an AoO and bonuses???? Improved Bullrush and Improved Overrun are pretty silly besides the +4 bonuses, which the rage nicely simulates. AGAIN AoO’s! I do see that you are stating that the increased strength makes up for the +4… Since they take an entire round to use, they are generally only effective tactics against low str opponents. What???? How is that? I have used it against numerous strong and weak foes. The shortness of the statement tells me you probably never overran or bullrushed anyone. Thank you captain obvious! Yes, the barb's extra HP go away after raging, but this is where nice spells like Heal come in. ONCE again! Now ya come into the realm of handing the Barbarian more stuff; and does the Fighter not have healing available to him as well??? Oh I forgot; if he did our point would be lost and beaten; so lets not mention that Remember the rest of the party? No I don’t; I was not talking about the rest of the party. Nor was anyone else on this thread including you to this point. We are comparing two classes. Rage means the cleric can wait longer in combat (or wait until combat is over) before having to heal you. That is a huge tactical advantage. See above; where did the cleric come in? Is that not a separate issue? What if my party has 3 clerics? What if I have a ring of regeneration? What if the Wizard changes me into a dragon? Doing simple things like using reach weapon can help prevent those AoO. Again; out of the blue the barbarian now has a reach weapon…as I stated above. Ok then; my fighter just stays within 5 feet of him. and in most cases, since the tactics should only be used against low str/small opponents, the AoO isn't too big of a deal. The AoO is no big deal? Damage is no big deal? The difference between 1 Hp and 0 HP is…1 HP. So a hit by anyone with any weapon puts you out; to bad ya took those extra AoO’s this combat. You can use an AoO to do thing like trip as well… If I followed all of your statements at exactly what point in the combat will the barbarian have reached his 20th generated AoO “without it being a big deal”. How much is a big deal? Since in real d&d, you don't have duels, this is irrelevant. Really…hmm two weeks ago…let see… 6 party members, 6 enemeis…hmmm See in normal combat, one flick of a wizard's wrist has a good chance of ending the encounter. if a fighter acts as a wall, your party wizard (or bard, or sorceror) can just dominate him, hold him, force cage him, etc. Here we go again! Now the barbarian has all his friends hanging around and the Fighter does not. So what if the fighter’s arcane caster does the same thing to the barbarian? Should we now move this thread onto what the rest of the party will do? IS this not about classes not partys? If you are a fighter in a party, being a wall CAN be an effective tactic if your enemy has no way of getting around you to the more vulnerable party members. THANK YOU For making one of my, and others, major points. But then again here we come in with the Powerful Barbarian & his Powerful friends versus the weak old fighter and his weak friends. And you assume the fighter just stands there as a guard and not going on the offensive (as in moving around); did I say he was a dwarven defender? - personally, I don't find being a meat shield all that enjoyable, and with most high level encounters it doesn't work anyways. Another statement of complete opinion that, this time, has zero relevance here. Regarding high level encounters; really? Prove it. With epic feats the Fighter is even more powerful. The +6 amulet was in only given benefit in regard to the duration of the rage. I'm most happy to assume the fighter has the same +6 amulet, but he doesn't have a rage. So he doesn’t have rage? So for 9, 15 or whatever rounds he does not get the rage…what about the rest of the time? The Base HP or ability score or armor or whatever from the amulet still gets the boost. Except that the difference is not nearly large enough. it's only +3 (remember the barb has +2 to attack over the fighter) A +2; are you counting that in addition to rage or as part of rage? Except that, given a normal high level fighter and barbarian, they don't. to recap: ftr has +5 ac. barb has +2 atk. net bonus of 3 for the fighter. barb has DR 5, (assuming base strength of 22 at 20th level) an extra 3 damage from the extra half strenght bonus, an extra 2 damage from rage, and another 2.5 damage because his weapon has larger dice. that's 12.5 damage per hit over the fighter WITHOUT counting Power Attack. Now, unless the fighter is dealing 87 damage per hit without using power attack, he's going to come out behind. and that's without counting hit points, saves, or the barbarians superior resitance to combhat maneuvers. I am not even going to address this. Please re read it and tell me how many times you double counted damage (I am sure that was not your intention though) and recall that Power Attack, when fighting someone with the same BAB and better armor; is not really an advantage. You just take away from the barbarians ability to hit the fighter making my case even better. True, but as mentioned earlier, a well played barb can easily counter those factors. Also, remember that the barb has a bonus even on the defensive rolls, while the fighter does not. How can he counter those factors better than any other character can without feats? What bonus? using a weapon to trip somebody solves a great deal of those problems. Really? Which weapon this time? The reach one or another one? How many does the barbarian have now? Doesn’t he generate AoO’s retrieving all these different weapons? Note that the Barb gets Uncanny Dodge. You aren't helping your case. No I am helping my case; and so did you. I never said that the Barbarian did not have Uncanny Dodge or that it did not help him; you just supported the fact that not getting hit is better then being able to hit; being able to hit is what the Barbarian NEEDS to survive and the fighter is better at avoiding being hit IN ALL MELEE SITUATIONS. A plus 13 is easily available. Shapechange Great Wyrm Silver Dragon +6 enhancement = con 37, for a +13 con modifier = 20d4 + 260 hp = 310 hp. Incidentally, you can't disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush, or overrun this guy. If you are a warrior type, only magic or straight damage is going to do it. If its a sorceror, they can keep it up all day long! it lasts 3 hours per casting at 20th, so 3 castings keeps it up for the 8 hours of the acive day. Ok then; you are stating that there would ALWAYS be enough room and time, and spell slots and memorized spells whenever and wherever he is to shapechange into a Great Wyrm or similar awesomely powerful monster? Of course he would! Why I am so silly! I should have known that anyone I refer to is ALWAYS at the disadvantage! After all there are no other spells worth looking at! To many (not all) of you that think the fighter is underpowered: Again and again; same thing different day; your point gets countered and you change the scenario to make it to your advantage instead of leaving the equal scenario alone and dealing with it there. But ya can’t since, if you did, the Barbarian would not outshine the Fighter. You can make statements of opinion; that means nothing except for opinion. The bottom line is that worth game mechanics if I hit you more than you hit me and that outweighs any extra damage you give to me with your hits I win, end of story. That is what the fighter can do better than any other class. He can defend or attack in superior manners due to the feats he gets. The barbarian dishes out damage; that is what he does. Damage is good in many situations but no where near as many as the fighters abilities allow a fighter to. So when fighting a big dragon sure the barbarian is excessively helpful since in that situation you NEED lots of damage over and above anything else; until his rage runs out then he is no better than any other non-fighter class for the rest of the encounter if not worse due to fatigue. But a fighter can stand there and slug it out; using offense and defense to the maximum possible all the time, every time, round in and round out all day long. That the Barbarian cannot due seeing as his main combat ability comes from the ability to rage and crank up certain ability scores; a rage that has a time limit and limited uses per day.
Kursk 04-30-05, 01:09 PM	Yes. Although, this is not obvious to the less enlightened.
mean_liar 04-30-05, 02:13 PM	Yes. Although, this is not obvious to the less enlightened. Is it too late to change my vote to 'Yes'? I didn't realize that Kursk was handing out enlightenment.
TheDarkestOfAngels 04-30-05, 05:24 PM	Yes. Although, this is not obvious to the less enlightened. if by "Although, this is not obvious to the less enlightened." you mean "Although, I am completely unknowledgeable of the fighter class or any of its real strengths and weaknesses in an actual D&D game." then you would be completely correct, judging by this completely ignorant and broad statement.
Pax 04-30-05, 06:09 PM	Pax You have stated that the breastplate grants a +11 bonus to AC, How? +5 base and +5 Enchantment = +10 I realised after the fact, towards the end of that post, that I'd misremembered the Breastplate's armor bonus by one point (I thought it was +6, when it's really +5). I thought I'd gone back and editted everything accordingly, but obviously I missed something. *shrug* Also, the armour can have defending spikes for the same price as your offhand weapon. Fine - and the Breastplate can have those too. But here's the problem - you have to "wield" the defending weapon tog et the AC bonus. So either the Full-Plate character spent a feat on TWF (and are taking the penalties to hit for dual-wielding), or, they're not getting the AC bonus. Defending weapons don't work simply by being carried.
TheDarkestOfAngels 04-30-05, 07:56 PM	Step one - lose the condescending attitude. then state something that actually has some backing in reality. Lets go over the relationship between the distribution of ability scores between the classes. In order to "beat" the fighter (as in, equal the fighter's fighting ability and/or surpass it) and still, the pally and ranger must have: Paladin: Str: equal to ftr Dex: equal to ftr Con: equal to ftr Int: dump Wis: 12+ (somewhat higher) Cha: 12+ (much higher) Ranger: Str: equal Dex: must be much higher Con: must be 2 pts. better Int: equal or better, but not dump Wis: 12+ Cha: dump and heck, I'll throw in the barbarian barbarian Str: equal Dex: several points higher Con: can be 2 pts worse to equal Int: dump Wis: anything but dump Cha: dump The way I see it is this: In order to achieve the results that allow these classes to "beat" a fighter at fighting, the ability scores would have to be better for them than the fighter. Sometimes much better, in fact, in order to take advantage of what makes those classes worth playing. Only the barbarian is comparable in this capacity, but the barbarian, in comparison to the fighter, is a very one-trick class that is highly offensive but only decent defensive capabilities. Step two - make your responses to mine ber some relation to reality. That'll take exactly zero effort. Step three - show me where I said anything even approaching that nonsense you mention about "5 of the 6 scores above a 15" at all. The fact of the matter is, all I have said is, two thirds of all characters will have one or more scores of 16 or hgiher, using the default 4d6-and-drop method. I never said that you stated anything of that nature. I suggest you reread those entries. ... or at least I would, had I any ability to care to continue that minor notation I made in regards to that topic. Yes. Yes you are. The fact is, I am arguing that Paladin, Ranger, et all don't requie high scores -rather, they only need above average scores. exactly. in several more ability scores than the fighter. though its interesting how you taut your opinion as fact. Anyone wearing full plate - even mithril full plate - is probably not going to be using TWF. And if you're not using TWF, you're not using TWDef, either. I wouldn't even bother with those feats if I was going TWF. Those feats are worthless, as is. Really? Let's assume a suit of - oh, +5 armor. Two-hand-wielding fighter, versus a TWF ranger - at 20th level, for maximum feat options. Dexterity 13 and +5 full plate armor - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +13/armor) 24. Dexterity 13, +5 mithril breastpate, the Improved Two-Weapon Defense feat, and a +5 defending weapon in their off-hand - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +11/armor +2/feat +5/defender) ... 29. Funny. That looks to me like the Ranger has a better AC than the Fighter. And keep in mind, beyond those elements ... whatever the fighter does, the ranger can match, point for point (combat expertise, check; ring of deflection, check; etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad absurdum). funny, it looks to me like the ranger has the advantage of -extra money to spend on getting mithral breastplate -considered an extra two feats to add to its AC -AND you counted the ranger's off-hand weapon with a specific special property all things considered, ignoring the fact that +5 breastplate adds a +10 to AC instead of +11 you definately heavy stacked this example in the ranger's favor. had we actually made all this an even thing (mithral breastplate +5 = 29,350 gp) (full plate +5 = 26,650) so.... ranger's AC with 13 dex & +5 Mithral Breast Plate = 21 fighter's AC with 13 dex & +5 Full Plate = 24 then there's how the ranger, with TWF, is taking a -2 to his attacks. but we can even that out by giving the fighter a MW Tower Shield, which still gives the fighter the gp disadvantage, in which case, the ac is now 21 vs. 28 with the same attack bonus, except that the fighter still has a severe feat advantage. Head over to RPOL.net sometime. Probably half the D&D games I've seen advertised in the "Players Wanted" forum are Core-rules-only. Including some arena campaigns, which youwould reasonably expect to be supplement-friendly. I don't go there. I limited myself to counting only hardcover D&D books published by WOTC. I could add about 10 more to that myself, otherwise. as did I. It may not be optimal, but it's still more AC. yes. that requires that the ranger have taken TWO FEATS to try to rival what bonuses a fighter can get. in addition to thousands upon thousands of GP's worth of magic items in comparison to something that, not only can the fighter get with the same money, but the fighter can still rival several levels earlier with signficiantly fewer gold pieces. How do you figure? Granted, Imisremembered the armor bonus of a Breastplate - i5t's a three point difference. But it doesn't requie you to max out hte Dex bonus for that - Full Plate Armor has a +8 armor bonus; Breastplate has a +5 armor bonus. difference of two. as you just said above: it's still more AC. and its still higher than the rangers with a signficantly lower total gp cost. If you full the Dex bonus out to maximum, a mithril breastplate is better than ordinary Full Plate Armor ... giving a net AC bonus of +11, rather than the top nommagical bonus of +9 for full plate. Granted, that takes a very high dexterity. certainly could do that - which would require a higher dexterity. meaning that the distribution of ability scores would have to change in such a way that, in comparison with the fighter, the fighter's other ability scores, which could very easily include strength and constitution, are better. leaving, once again, the advantage to the fighter. But to get only a couple points short? No problem, really. of course, that's just armor and not half the other dozens of stuff the fighter can get his hands on. *shrug* Shields are an entirely different issue; I thought we were discussing armor in this little subthread. I though it was *armor class*. Drop the friggin' straw men. I never said eight, and you daned well know it. Twelve is (minimally) suifficient, fourteen will carry one through an entire career, and more is nice but not required. perhaps, but you're missing the point I was trying to lay in front of you: your arguements heavily depend on "decent" scores in ability scores the fighter doesn't need in order to maintain the functionability of their class features whereas the fighter doesn't have any need *at all* to keep those scores high. of course, to maintain any semblence of superiority to the fighter, the paladin and ranger must maintain EQUAL OR HIGHER ability scores in strength, constitution, and especially dexterity. in summation, in order to beat the fighter at fighting, paladins and rangers, according to your own statements, need a net advantage in ability scores, overall, lest they fall short except in their basic archeotypes. (rangers vs. favored enemies, paladins vs. evil characters, etc.) [QUOTE=Pax]I suggest you learn some basic damned reading comprehension, lackwit - twelve is precisely the "just barely enough" level I've suggested. I see that the inane has resorted to namecalling now. how childish. Same dex of 13, breastplate versus full plate, is a three point difference. Three points isn't enough to cry over. Except that it's still better. not barely better. not a teensy bit better. not marginally better. but better. better enough to be a signficant difference when something tries to attack it. of course, that's only considering armor, outside the fact that the fighter has tower shield proficiency and can afford a number of other things the other classes cannot. To start, at first level, as a paladin? 25 point buy? 12 Wisdom, 12 Charisma, 12 Intelligence, 10 Dexterity, 13 Constitution, and 14 Strength. The paladin can go with heavy armor, just like the fighter. As a Ranger? Swap the Charisma and Dexterity. As a Fighter, not two-dimensional? 10 Charisma, 10 Wisdom, 13 Inteligence, 13 Constitution, 13 Dexterity, 14 Strength. AC, ranged attacks, and Initiative will be 1 point higher; will qualify for more feats (and gets them, so qualifying forlots of them is definitely "in schtick" for a fighter). I can't say that this is an optimal distribution (charisma is utterly useless for a fighter,) but it'll work. I'm honestly surprised that you didn't distribute it via 3 twelves and 3 thirteens and say "what's the difference." in any case, the fighter in your example already has a better AC difference but thanks to the horribly average ability scores, you decided to keep things as evenly as possible. perhaps to avoid the fact that the fighter is less ability-dependand than the paladin. I'd have - Paladin: Str: 15 Dex: 12 Con: 13 Int: 10 Wis: 8 Cha: 14 or Str: 15 Dex: 8 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 13 or Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 12 Cha: 13 vs Fighter Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 13 Wis: 12 Cha: 8 or Str: 15 Dex: 13 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 or Str: 15 Dex: 13 Con: 13 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 (this set could be used to buy virtually any set of core-fighter feats) in all of these instances, strength remained consistant with mine, as with your examples. charisma, however, is not useful for a fighter except to boost intimidate, which is a class skill (and ranks supercede the usefulness of a high ability score. if that doesn't work, the fighter can easily afford a skill focus without a problem. (not that I think it would be worth bothering to do so.) In any case, the point I made earlier is only backed up by all of this data - that the paladin's need to have a 12 or better score in charisma and wisdom (the ranger would also require a higher dex to compete with the fighter for AC, though charisma can be dumped, but not wisdom) as a result, the fighter consistantly maintains higher physical ability scores than any of the other classes except the barbarian. Like I said - 4d6-and-drop, the standard default method, has a two-in-three probability of generating a set with one (or more) scores at 16, 17, or 18. The vast majority of those two thirds, of course, will have just the single score of 16 - and it's a complete gamble as to what hte other 5 scores are. indeed. Never said it was. But it's still rather senseless not to make or buy one for one's primary attribute, anyway. for that heavy a cost, I can find dozens of other uses for those tasty item creation feats for a much cheaper and far less detrimental use of those available funds. If the book is found, then that's great. but not spending 25,000 xp to make a tome of int is not senseless. Three points, true - misremembering on my part. But that's still without maxxing out the Mithril Breastplate's dex bonus. a Dexterity of only 14 - one pointhigher than the Dex 13 you cited for the full-plate fighter - will be ... yes ... exactly two points lower in AC than the full plate fighter. lets see... lets do something like that using the elite array/25 point buy: fighter str: 15 dex: 12 con: 14 int: 13 wis: 10 cha: 8 vs. ranger: str: 13 dex: 14 con: 13 int: 13 wis: 12 cha: 8 (the ranger's AC closed to the fighter's AC, but is still under and has -2 hp/level, including the difference of d8 vs. d10, and -1 to hit/damage with melee weapons and -1 damage to ranged weapons that use strength, +1 will saves - excluding all the differences in modifiers to skills.) yeah, sure, you *could* do that...
The Wasp 04-30-05, 09:10 PM	No on to your statement: Really? Did you actually read the post or just look for ways to use semantics to pull it apart? The point I am making is that if the Barbarian gets the +3 (or whatever) animated shield and a two handed weapon then so does the fighter. A much better choice, I agree. Now we are comparing apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges. To say it again - What you are saying is that now the Barbarian gets a two handed weapon AND a shield. Hence you are giving the Barbarian a clear advantage without offering the same advantage to the Fighter. The fighter still has him beat on AC there seeing as the armor he can wear is still better. Correct. The fighter is now 3 point ahead in AC. However, the barbarian has 2 points of attack bonus over the fighter, so the fighter is only ahead by 1. Given the barba sitl has DR and a 2 point damage advantage, (a net +7), the fighter must now deal 140 dmg per regular hit to come out even... Ok – but then again I said nothing about mitheral. Obviously this was a statement used to ridicule me to make it seem to readers that you are correct instead of using actual material to make your point. Oh and I guess that means the barbarian gets another – to AC seeing as I gave him a +6. In other words you have little or no material so you make it personal I am not trying to ridicule you, just point out flaws in your analysis. I was trying to use actual game material. You see, I assumed the barbarian's player was intelligent and would try to find armor that would maximize his AC wiht mithril armor. If you look at the original analysis, I even gave the fighter the same thing (and enough DEX to use it). The situation you described is impossible under the rules. Regular breast plate only allows a maximuim dex bonus of +3., while you granted the barbarian +6 from dex in addition to the +5 from the breastplate. I was not looking at gp value; I was looking at what typically a fighter and barbarian would be wielding with armor ad weapons where the Barbarian has lower AC but does more damage and the fighter has a higher AC and doss less damage (in most cases). So give the barbarian a ring of Evasion then. Typically, they would try to maximiaze their AC given their resources. besides, your suggestion is really comparing apples and oranges again. Asking what they 'typically have' is an argument in futility, since its on a totally anecdotal basis. If you want a fair comparison, you should use items that function as similarly as possible. Besides, why would a barbarian choose a ring of evasion if he was going up against a fighter? Please explain that? How can I follow a rule you just changed now? Oh another statement intent on ridicule since, to this point, you have no material to back up your statements. I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to ridicule you. Message boards are very bad at conveying attitude. btw, what do you mean by material to back up my statements? I can quote the PHB on armor limitations if you want. This goes without mentioning that the fighter, without the need for higher Ability Scores in other areas (NORMALLY) can crank up his strength. A Barbarian wants higher Str, Dex and Con for obvious reasons; a fighter can go with just Str (not to discount Con; but to a fighter Str is #1 by far). While having a decent Con is important for a barbarian, its not nearly as a big deal as you seem to make it out. A 14 base con, boosted with enhancments is generally more than sufficient for a barbarian, as he's already drowning in HP. So in my experience fighting Barbarians; they can dish out the damage and take a whole lot but it has not been enough to overcome the Fighter’s access to feats and access to higher levels of AC. Animated shields will fix many of the barbarians AC problems. They are very cheesy, I agree, but core. And a decent dex score on the part of the barbarian goes a long way to fixing that gap as well. Their greater mobility is also a huge asset, especially in a duel. I DID ADRESS IT by stating, IN BOLD mind you that the idea is that the ability to hit the Barbarian more outweighs the more damaging effects of the Barbarian’s hits hitting you less. It was a nice idea. Except that I clearly showed, mathematically, taht the fighters extra chance to hit did not, in fact, compensate for the barbarians extra damage. In that analysis, the fighter was 15% more likely to make a given hit. The barbarian did an extra 12.5 damage. So unless the fighter can deal 87 damage (15% of which is about 12.5) on a regular hit w/o power attack (using power attack makes the numbers worse for the fighter), the barbarian comes out statistically ahead. Since, realistically, a OHW fighter is doing about 30 damage per attack, the barbarian is about 9 damage ahead per attack, even taking into account his greater miss chance. To one of my major points; now the Barbarian, threatened with or wanting to trip, pulls out a guisarme? Was this before or after he was tripped? Just one of his many options. Remember, rage works with any weapon. Tell me, what was the sword and board fighter using to trip me? AGAIN AoO’s! I do see that you are stating that the increased strength makes up for the +4… AoOs? lets see... the barba takes Improved Sunder, so no Aoo there. Using a weapon elminates the Aoo for tripping. And grapples should mostly be used on spellcasters who have weak AoO's as is. What???? How is that? I have used it against numerous strong and weak foes. The shortness of the statement tells me you probably never overran or bullrushed anyone. How strong are we talking here? A giant? a nightwalker? a dragon? that's what I mean when I say strong... ONCE again! Now ya come into the realm of handing the Barbarian more stuff; and does the Fighter not have healing available to him as well??? Oh I forgot; if he did our point would be lost and beaten; so lets not mention that Of course he has healing available. But unlike the barbarian, who can wait until combat is over to be healed (or until his rage is about to run out), the fighter has to be healed much sooner. When fighter 20 is at 17 hp (and needing healing), raging barb 20 is at 118 hp (assuming same base con for both). When the fighter is at -10 (dead), the barb is at 91 hp. yes he has to be healed before his rage runs out, but at least he CAN be healed. No I don’t; I was not talking about the rest of the party. Nor was anyone else on this thread including you to this point. We are comparing two classes. If you want to compare characters, you must do this in the context in which combat encounters are designed - a party. See above; where did the cleric come in? Is that not a separate issue? What if my party has 3 clerics? What if I have a ring of regeneration? What if the Wizard changes me into a dragon? I will grant you that without healing, the barbarian is in a much more risky position. But he's still better off than the fighter. He basically gets an extra round or two of free fighting, until his rage runs out. Again; out of the blue the barbarian now has a reach weapon…as I stated above. Ok then; my fighter just stays within 5 feet of him. Reach weapons are just one more option that the barbarian can take, and still have his rage work perfectly. The fighter has no such luxury. Fighter steps in five feet? No problem, the barbarian steps back 5 feet. The AoO is no big deal? Damage is no big deal? The difference between 1 Hp and 0 HP is…1 HP. So a hit by anyone with any weapon puts you out; to bad ya took those extra AoO’s this combat. Except for a barbarian, where the difference is 6 hp... You can use an AoO to do thing like trip as well… I would truly wonder how you came up with that? If you were doing it with a bunch of Barbarian lovers I bet it would. I’ll stick with the professionals who made the system. it is in fact a very simple analysis. I will be happy to sho you in my next post. If I followed all of your statements at exactly what point in the combat will the barbarian have reached his 20th generated AoO “without it being a big deal”. How much is a big deal? Which actions are generating these AoO's again? Really…hmm two weeks ago…let see… 6 party members, 6 enemeis…hmmm Were each of these enemies PC classes of the same level as your party? If not, its hardly applicable. If so, then this is a very non-standard encounter by the DMG - an EL four levels higher than your party's effective level. Here we go again! Now the barbarian has all his friends hanging around and the Fighter does not. So what if the fighter’s arcane caster does the same thing to the barbarian? Should we now move this thread onto what the rest of the party will do? IS this not about classes not partys? Everything must be done in the context of the party. Again, the normal use of a fighter or barbarian is in a party, fighting opposing monsters. As a warrior, you ahve two (overgeneralized) options, you can go on the offensive, of the defensive. If you go on the defensive (acting as a wall, high AC, low damage) then you become an unattractive target for the enemy, who will go after your other party members. The enemy will simply use his attacks against other party members and your high AC is wasted. If, however, you go on the offensive, the enemy HAS to deal with you, leaving your more vulnerable party members to do their thing. THANK YOU For making one of my, and others, major points. But then again here we come in with the Powerful Barbarian & his Powerful friends versus the weak old fighter and his weak friends. And you assume the fighter just stands there as a guard and not going on the offensive (as in moving around); did I say he was a dwarven defender? I'm not totally unreasonable. you know :) Of course, the fihgter can go on the offensive, but as I've shown, multiple times, mathematically, the barbarian is a far more capable offensive meleer. Another statement of complete opinion that, this time, has zero relevance here. Regarding high level encounters; really? Prove it. With epic feats the Fighter is even more powerful. Agreed, opinion is opinion, and does not reflect on the power of the class. Regarding high level encounters - dimension door, garagantuan size creatures that step over you, flying creatures, etc. can all get around you. So he doesn’t have rage? So for 9, 15 or whatever rounds he does not get the rage…what about the rest of the time? The Base HP or ability score or armor or whatever from the amulet still gets the boost. The rest of the time it is just as good. But the context in which we brought up the amulet was the duration of rage, not net HP. A +2; are you counting that in addition to rage or as part of rage? WF and GWF give +2 to attack. Rage gives +4. So the barbarian comes out ahead with a net +2. I am not even going to address this. Please re read it and tell me how many times you double counted damage (I am sure that was not your intention though) and recall that Power Attack, when fighting someone with the same BAB and better armor; is not really an advantage. You just take away from the barbarians ability to hit the fighter making my case even better. I did not double count. You will also notice that my analysis did not include power attack. Lets try again, to be clearer. lets assume both characters have a base strengh of 22. at 20th level, this is reasonable, you agree? Fighter is using a longsword, barbarian a greatsword. fighter damage = 1d8 + 6 (str 22) + 4 (GWS) = 14.5 avg barba damage = 2d6 + 15 (1.5*str 30) = 22 avg Now subtract 5 from the fighters damage because of the barbs DR. 14.5 - 5 = 9.5 (fighter damage to barbarian) 22 (barbarian damage to the fighter) the barbarian does 22-9.5 = 12.5 more damage to the fighter than the barbarian does to him. my math is sound. if you add similar damage bonusses to both weapons, the difference between them does not change. if the barbarian instead uses a guisarme (such s nice weapon, sigh), it's only 10.5 ahead. at any rate, the fighter is nowhere near the needed to damage to have his better chance of attacking ovecome the damage differential. If you give them both +5 weapons with 2d6 of some damage type, for example, the barb does on average 34 per hit, and the fighter does 21.5. A +3 advantage to hit is not nearly large enough. Are you ready to consider the analysis now? I assure you, it is correct. How can he counter those factors better than any other character can without feats? What bonus? Really? Which weapon this time? The reach one or another one? How many does the barbarian have now? Doesn’t he generate AoO’s retrieving all these different weapons? A well played warrior should have several weapon available (three melee, one light weapon for grappling, and a ranged are usually enough.) iif you want to use multiple weapons, move out of threatened range when switching (the old 5 foot step), or use QD. No I am helping my case; and so did you. I never said that the Barbarian did not have Uncanny Dodge or that it did not help him; you just supported the fact that not getting hit is better then being able to hit; being able to hit is what the Barbarian NEEDS to survive and the fighter is better at avoiding being hit IN ALL MELEE SITUATIONS. Except when flanked, or caught flat footed. And even outside those situations, the difference is minimal. Ok then; you are stating that there would ALWAYS be enough room and time, and spell slots and memorized spells whenever and wherever he is to shapechange into a Great Wyrm or similar awesomely powerful monster? Of course he would! Why I am so silly! I should have known that anyone I refer to is ALWAYS at the disadvantage! After all there are no other spells worth looking at! Wizards are geniuses. Why wouldn't they take a spell that is readily available to them and use it to shapechange into one of the most powerful forms avialable? And it only takes one round to cast. a contingency could take care of it, or they could use a quickened dimension door to get far enough away to cast it, etc. there are a range of possible solutions available to a wizard. The bottom line is that worth game mechanics if I hit you more than you hit me and that outweighs any extra damage you give to me with your hits I win, end of story. In theorty, the fihgter should be able to do this better than anyone else. in practice, he cannot. my analysis demonstrates quite thoroughly that the barbarian can consistentlly outhurt the fighter in a one-on-one So when fighting a big dragon sure the barbarian is excessively helpful since in that situation you NEED lots of damage over and above anything else; until his rage runs out then he is no better than any other non-fighter class for the rest of the encounter if not worse due to fatigue. Or, he just rages again. And if your party hasn't killed the dragon in ten rounds, it has most undoubtedly killed you. But a fighter can stand there and slug it out; using offense and defense to the maximum possible all the time, every time, round in and round out all day long. That the Barbarian cannot due seeing as his main combat ability comes from the ability to rage and crank up certain ability scores; a rage that has a time limit and limited uses per day. True, the fighter can last longer - except that he runs out of HP much faster the barbarian. And, of course, past 17th, rage's duration is no longer a serious limitation. Regardin, the fighter being at a disadvantage: stop whining. The fact is, a one on one dual against an armed humanoid warrior is THE optimal combat situation for a fighter. His most unique abilities, like disarming and tripping, work best here. He can use CE to slow down any durational effects. If the fighter can't win here, then it truly is an underpowered class. Because in any other situation, the barbarian really starts to pull away. Multiple opponents? Barbarian can't be flanked, a huge bonus. sneaky rogues? listen is a class skill. Spellcasters? Barb has much better saves. huge monsters? the fighter's fancy tricks are useless.
The Wasp 04-30-05, 09:38 PM	Breaking down rage into feats: 4 weapon focuses (+4 to hit) 3 weapon specializations (+6 to damage) (if I was evil, I would count these for each weapon with which ti works, but I'm not that cruel) 2 iron wills (+4 to will) 2 great fortitudes (+4 to fort) 1 iron will (indomitable will a +4, but only good half the time) (yep, thats already eleven, we ain't done yet, though) now, at 20th level, thats an effective bonus of 80 hp, which is worth about 8 die hards. however, I'll be conservative and only give it the worth of 4, since it goes away. 4 also, that +4 strength bonus helps simulate Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Bull Rush, and Improved Overrun. We'll give it half credit for all of those, for an extra 2 feats. it also gives +4 on defensive strength checks, which ITrip, IBR, and IO don't do, so that's probably worth another feat right there. 3 rage unfortunately costs the barbarian 2 points of AC, which is worth about 2 feats -2 4+3+2+2+1+4+3-2=17 that's 17 feats for rage, w/o counting the barbarian's other abilities. at 20th level, the barbarian is raging in all four of the standard combat encounters per day, and if one of the encounters is exceptionally long, he can rage continuously without issue. nevertheless, their will be a few combat situations where it is not appropriate, so we'll only give 90% vlauation to those 17 feats. 90% * 17 = 15 15 DR 5/-, is probably worth about 5 feats, but conservatively, we'll count it as 2. Uncanny dodge is worth at least another 2 feats 2 the barbarians d12 hit die gives him, on average, 21 extra hp at 20th. that's techinically worth 7 toughnesses, but I know that nobody takes that feat, so I'll count it as worth an Improved Toughness. 1 fast movement: approx 1 feat 1 trap sense: approx 1 feat 1 so overall, the barbarian gets 20 feats by 20th level (conservatively) and, rqage, when active, counts for about 17. any questions?
SBMC 04-30-05, 10:00 PM	The Wasp: This is really pointless I think, at least from my end. The fundamental difference here is based on opinion; and quite frankly I give up trying to convince anyone anymore. It takes to much time and I just found myself whipping out the spreadsheets that I really don’t have that much time to actually do on the subject not to mention that it then (as it is now slowly beginning to) a numbers game where the slightest error or adjustment skus the numbers dramatically. The only thing I can say is that in my nearly 2 decades of experience I have yet to see a Barbarian outclass a fighter in the game. The main reason has always been feats, Rage duration and AC. I appreciate your point of view and the effort you put into it. but these multi page postings and back postings is really gotten to be a bit much for me. Thanks for challenging me in any event. SBMC
The Wasp 05-01-05, 12:56 AM	I appreciate your point of view and the effort you put into it. but these multi page postings and back postings is really gotten to be a bit much for me. Sorry to hear that. i must say, i have the advantage of having argued thesepoints several times in the past. The only thing I can say is that in my nearly 2 decades of experience I have yet to see a Barbarian outclass a fighter in the game. I would question the value of your parting shot. While 2 decades of playing is formidalbe, the barbarian and fighter, as presently constituted, are only two years old. Anyways, good debating!
jetblackrogue 05-01-05, 05:38 AM	It depends on who's playing it. My friend and I both play fighters a lot and we have a lotta of natural communication ( no table talk , we just seem to sense what the other's thinking). With the right tactics and knowledge of rules, feats, etc. A fighter can be as vicious as any barbarian ( and tend to stay alive longer too). And as two fighters we can make any DM frustrated.
Cardinal Teplin 05-01-05, 07:37 PM	>huge monsters? the fighter's fancy tricks are useless. Hm.. Get an enlarge spell and fighters can trip and grapple large monsters reasonably effectively. Barbarians are better at dealing damage, but damage dealing is not what I look for in a front-liner, particularly not in a high-level front-liner. I've seen lots of arguments arguing that fighters are inherently inferior to barbarians, and I've never been particularly convinced. It's also worth considering why, if barbarian is such a better class, so many mix barbarian and fighter levels. I'd take a barbarian 1/fighter X over a straight barbarian any day.
Tony Vargas 05-02-05, 02:32 PM	Yes, he can skip intelligence and dex, but then the argument that he can do everything well because of those feats, falls apart. All a ranger-archer needs is dex and wisdom. Is that really comparable to making an all round fighter who possesses both archery/melee/trip/expertise? That's all I'm trying to point out.OK, I see what you're saying, and it does aply to a given fighter - but not really to the fighter class. I don't know if that makes much sense, but I'll to try... The ranger class requires a decent WIS, or one of it's class abilities - spellcasting - is prettymuch gone. It requires that you use light armor, or another class ability - combat style - is inaccessible. So you can say that the ranger 'needs' a good WIS, and 'can't use' heavy armor, in the sense that, without those things, he loses class abilities. The fighter's class abilities, OTOH, are largely feats, and not dependent on stats or equipment choices - he doesn't /need/ specific stats, nor does he need more than one stat 'as high as possible' (which is how I think MAD is generally used). Now, you're right, a fighter who wants to generalize is going to need several good stats, probably of around 14. However, if he's trying to generalize, he probably wants multiple moderately good stats rather than one very high one - generalists try to avoid weak points and blindspots as much as possible, anyway. In point build, that's not a terrible idea, since it is 'efficient' in the sense that you can avoid paing extra for stats over 14... And the reanger can wear a mithril breastplate with their Dexterity of 13 and TWF combat style, pick up a couple supporting feats, and have the same AC as the fighter ... still with only a 13 Dexterity. :uh-huh: Mithril Breasplate: +5 Armor, MAX DEX +5. Adamantine Full Plate Armor +8, MAX DEX +1, DR 3/-. If you both have a 13 DEX, that's 16 base vs 19. That's not the same. :confused: I mean, you could bring TWD into it and get a shield bonus, but compared to an actual shield.... Let's assume a suit of - oh, +5 armor. Two-hand-wielding fighter, versus a TWF ranger - at 20th level, for maximum feat options. Dexterity 13 and +5 full plate armor - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +13/armor) 24. Dexterity 13, +5 mithril breastpate, the Improved Two-Weapon Defense feat, and a +5 defending weapon in their off-hand - that's AC (10/base +1/dex +10/armor +2/feat +5/defender) ... 28.Wow, that's nuts. For the cost of that off-hand Defending weapon (72k) for instance, the other guy can get a +5 animated tower shield (49k) with with enough left over to make his full plate mithral or adamantine. That's AC 31. And the ranger's sinking 3 of his 7 feats into rather marginal AC benefits (+1 for TWD, +1 for ITWD, +1 for medium armor proficiency - mithral breasplate +5 vs chain shirts' +4) What it comes down to is that the AC spread for light armor (chain shirt 4), and heavy armor (full plate 8) is 4, and you mostly make that up with DEX. Even when you have pumped up DEX to close the gap, it still sticks at 1 (full plate 8+1=9 vs breastplate 5+3=8 vs chain shirt 4+4=8 - mithral just adds two to each). Correct. The fighter is now 3 point ahead in AC. However, the barbarian has 2 points of attack bonus over the fighter, so the fighter is only ahead by 1. You could consider it to shake out that way in a duel, I suppose, but, more generally, you should really only equate AB and AC when you have the option of swapping them out, as with Expertise - since one of the drawbacks of rage is that you can't use expertise with it, it's not a good asumption to make, in the case of the barbarian. That extra AB /is/ from rage afterall, so that's what it is: AB, not AC. Then you consider that the fighter's proficiencies allow that the shield could be a Tower Shield and it's a 5 AC advantage vs 4 AB advantage. A fighter with expertise could push that out to 10 AC vs 9 AB, if it were advantageous to do so, or otherwise 'tune' his AC/AB within that range from round to round (or choose a heavy shield if he was slightly less concerned with AC). Of course, all that assumes stats aren't quite equal, too - that the Barb has more DEX and the fighter more INT - and that the Barb is raging. A non-raging barb doesn't have as much of an AC deficit, but he also goes from an AB & Damage advantage to a disadvantage compared to the weapon-specialized fighter.
NehpetsTtocs 05-02-05, 03:26 PM	OK, I see what you're saying, and it does aply to a given fighter - but not really to the fighter class. I don't know if that makes much sense, but I'll to try... The ranger class requires a decent WIS, or one of it's class abilities - spellcasting - is prettymuch gone. It requires that you use light armor, or another class ability - combat style - is inaccessible. So you can say that the ranger 'needs' a good WIS, and 'can't use' heavy armor, in the sense that, without those things, he loses class abilities. The fighter's class abilities, OTOH, are largely feats, and not dependent on stats or equipment choices - he doesn't /need/ specific stats, nor does he need more than one stat 'as high as possible' (which is how I think MAD is generally used). Now, you're right, a fighter who wants to generalize is going to need several good stats, probably of around 14. However, if he's trying to generalize, he probably wants multiple moderately good stats rather than one very high one - generalists try to avoid weak points and blindspots as much as possible, anyway. In point build, that's not a terrible idea, since it is 'efficient' in the sense that you can avoid paing extra for stats over 14... Yes, that's what I was trying to say. I'm not much of a writer; I apologize for that. I guess my thoughts on the fighter are along the same thoughts I had about the 3.0 ranger, I didn't think it was under-powered, but nor did I think it was designed for optimal performance. I just think a fighter would have an easier time if he didn't need the attribute prerequisites to use a feat. The ranger is allowed to bypass such prerequisites (for his twf or archery trees anyway), and I guess I don't know why the fighter shouldn't be able to do that as well.
Tony Vargas 05-02-05, 03:30 PM	so overall, the barbarian gets 20 feats by 20th level (conservatively) and, rqage, when active, counts for about 17. You're profoundly overestimating the value of Rage there. Rage gives you some stat boosts. Yes +8 to STR is pretty awesome, but it's not worth 10 feats. And +8 STR a minute or so at a time 5 times a day certainly isn't worth 10 feats 24/7. Likewise, the bonus to will saves hardly equates with Iron Will - while you could choose to rage at any given time when you decide to hit someone, you're just not always going to get to rage everytime a will (or FORT for that matter) save is called for - even if rage weren't limitted to a certain number of time per day, but were just automatcially useable every combat. I've seen much better estimates of the barbarian's abilities in terms of feats - and, they /did/ come out ahead of the fighter's, but not by quite that much. IIRC, it was about 15 feats for all a barbarian's class abilities over what the fighter got, vs 13 feats the fighter got over the barbarian.
Tony Vargas 05-02-05, 03:37 PM	I just think a fighter would have an easier time if he didn't need the attribute prerequisites to use a feat. The ranger is allowed to bypass such prerequisites (for his twf or archery trees anyway), and I guess I don't know why the fighter shouldn't be able to do that as well. It would certainly makes things easier, and it might not even be that much of a power-up, but, it would be more advantageous to the fighter than it is to the ranger. The ranger ignores stat preqs on his combat style - which is 3 feats with 1 choice as to what those feats will be. The fighter gets 11 bonus feats and choses 11 of them. Also, the combat style feats take DEX preqs, and, at the same time, work only in light or no armor. In light or no armor, you really need a good DEX to maintain a competative AC - preferably enough to match the MAX DEX of the armor. That's an 18+ DEX. Similarly, the stealth skills at which the ranger excels take DEX modifiers and armor-check penalties. So, the waving DEX preqs for the ranger is very nearly a non-issue, since high DEX is going to be the norm for any optimized ranger, anyway. Conversely, an optimal fighter could go for very high STR and a DEX of 12 and INT of 8 (to match the Max DEX of full plate) - if he could still get ITWF or Combat Expertise and all the feats that take it as a preq, well, that might be a bit much... Still, it could be a good house rule in a comparatively low-stat game (like traditional 3d6-in-order random generation, or, really, even a 'standard' 25-pt build), as it might well be the only way many feats would be accessible.
Rulesgnome 05-02-05, 04:04 PM	No!
Tony Vargas 05-02-05, 04:27 PM	Vote count: NO: 54 (30 with qualifiers) YES: 28 (21 with qualifiers). There were 82 votes, out of 177 posts, so signal-to-noise has edged below 1:2.
True Archon 05-04-05, 09:21 AM	Tack on another NO for me as well. so overall, the barbarian gets 20 feats by 20th level (conservatively) and, rqage, when active, counts for about 17. You're profoundly overestimating the value of Rage there. Rage gives you some stat boosts. Yes +8 to STR is pretty awesome, but it's not worth 10 feats. And +8 STR a minute or so at a time 5 times a day certainly isn't worth 10 feats 24/7. Likewise, the bonus to will saves hardly equates with Iron Will - while you could choose to rage at any given time when you decide to hit someone, you're just not always going to get to rage everytime a will (or FORT for that matter) save is called for - even if rage weren't limitted to a certain number of time per day, but were just automatcially useable every combat. I've seen much better estimates of the barbarian's abilities in terms of feats - and, they /did/ come out ahead of the fighter's, but not by quite that much. IIRC, it was about 15 feats for all a barbarian's class abilities over what the fighter got, vs 13 feats the fighter got over the barbarian. I wholeheartedly agree with Tony on this one. A feat that is not limited by a time frame and a number of uses is going to be better than one with comparable abilities and time/use limitations. Also... you counted loss of AC as.... rage unfortunately costs the barbarian 2 points of AC, which is worth about 2 feats -2 .... which is a great comparison (loss of two Dodge feats). However, you didn't put into effect the other disadvantages of rage, like (taken from 3.5 SRD): 1. Cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill. 2. Any abilities that require patience or concentration. 3. Nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. 4. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. 5. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (–2 penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian). 6. A barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter. So when fighting a big dragon sure the barbarian is excessively helpful since in that situation you NEED lots of damage over and above anything else; until his rage runs out then he is no better than any other non-fighter class for the rest of the encounter if not worse due to fatigue. But a fighter can stand there and slug it out; using offense and defense to the maximum possible all the time, every time, round in and round out all day long. That the Barbarian cannot due seeing as his main combat ability comes from the ability to rage and crank up certain ability scores; a rage that has a time limit and limited uses Or, he just rages again. And if your party hasn't killed the dragon in ten rounds, it has most undoubtedly killed you. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. A barbarian cannot rage more than once per encounter. Also, I believe that SBMC is trying to point out that though a lot of posters believe that encounters don't last the duration of rage, it is still something that is likely to happen in several times during the career of a barbarian (at least in my playing and DMing experience it has). Fatigue is a TERRIBLE thing to undergo. From the SRD... "Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued." Without 8 hours complete rest (without Restoration magic or similar ability to remove fatigue), or worse yet, continuing to be apart of a battle, the barbarian is well on their way to becoming exhausted.... "Exhausted: An exhausted character moves at half speed and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue." It's the fact that it is still a disadvantage up until 17th level (80% of the barbarian's twenty level adventuring career... at least Core without optional Epic levels). Not to mention, a lot of people compare the Barbarian and Fighter by 20th level (5% of their career), and I don't know about anyone else, but 20th level comes around for our group less times than a solar eclipse (sarcastically saying ;) ). Hey, I'm a big fan of the Fighter. Moreso than the Barbarian. However, I'll admit that Rage is a great ability to have. But in saying that, I also see the disadvantages that it poses. So in conclusion, I'm a firm believer that Fighters fit the niches that they are useful and needed for, and Barbarians also fit the niches that they belong to.
Nyferto 05-04-05, 10:24 AM	Reach weapons don't help you if you're going up against a creature with greater natural reach. If you're talking trip weapons with reach, then you've got the Whip, Spiked Chain and Guisarme. Not exactly optimal choices for a Barbarian. Combine with the natural flaws of all reach weapons without precautions and they're not that good a choice. Then remember that +4 doesn't come till 20th level (again). Converting Rage into Feats (or even Barb levels into feats) doesn't work, you get options with bonus feats, not with Barbarian levels. Note that, unless you have a dex of 30 and Uncanny Dodge, there's not much point in taking anything but heavy armour. Tack on top defensive options like Fighting defensively and CE and you're better off in heavy (though full plate is questionable). Take a +2 ghost touch shield, against a +3 animated - which ones more useful?
Thanatos02 05-04-05, 11:03 AM	I would say that the Fighter is not praticularly underpowered. Irritatingly narrow as witnessed in the Player's Guide (ie - strictly core) but not really underpowered. He's got his place. Why isn't he? Well, quite simply, though I suppose it can be argued (and has been - over and over) a Fighter is good at his job. It's not really "what's the most damage I can kick out" as much as "I can control the battlefield, acting as a team, to maximize our parties available actions while minimizing my opponents and filling in any required role that's needed for this situation". A long role, huh? A Fighter is versitile. He's fully versed in every martial and simple weapon, and has pleanty of Feats available for mastery of multiple required styles, weapons, and more potent Exotic weapons. It could be argued that he should stick to one weapon, but this is wrong. A Fighter should be able to switch weapons to fit the situation, something that other classes may not be able to do, or have the Feats to be optimal in. It's a drag he's got low Skills and a lousy Skill list, but there are Feats to fix this, too, if you want. They arn't all Core (most arn't) but let's be honest - there's a reason why Wizards put out those Complete books, and it's not so they'll sit on our shelf. You can bellyache about Core all you want, but it's not going to fix any problems. Core is only useful in that altered houserules or extra books put into place by the DM to make a game better cannot really be expected to apply to everyone. Most games are houseruled, in my experiance. But we also cannot expect people to run out and buy more then the Core books. It's common, but it's usually not fair while on the net. That's the extent of Core. [/endrand] Use your available books filled with their available Feats. Those can expand the Fighters role. If not, that's fine, it's your game and play it however you have fun, but the role shrinks - though the Feats available in the 3.5 Players allow the Fighter to fill it just fine.
Waylander 05-04-05, 12:37 PM	Not Underpowered.
Millefune 05-05-05, 06:39 AM	Chalk up another "No" from me. By the way... it would have been nice if a poll was attached to this as well. It does look like the consensus has the majority at "No" though. There's a reason why most of my characters end up having like two levels of fighter by the end.
Sentient 05-05-05, 06:43 AM	Depends. Is the class itself ever underpowered in combat? No, it's the feats that become useless that are the problem. Is the class underpowered out of combat? Yes. Larger class skills list, all it needs, really. Is it so much to ask? Is it underpowered from levels 1-6? No. Is it underpowered from levels 7-12? No, but it's becoming really hard for the Fighter to keep up. Is it underpowered from level 13 on? Yes. Get yourself into a prestige class, son. Complex question, can't be put into a poll phrased so simply. RT FTW. My vote is Yes, as above.
RadicalTaoist 05-05-05, 12:24 PM	I r 4 73h win? l337! Has anyone counted how many of the "not underpowered" posts recommend going into a prestige class?
Tony Vargas 05-05-05, 01:31 PM	Has anyone counted how many of the "not underpowered" posts recommend going into a prestige class? Three of the 'qualified' no's mentioned PrCs as a factor that's critical for the fighter class, another mentioned multiclassing in the same light. Similarly, two qualified 'yes' responses implied that the fighter is underpowered without PrCs. Your original response also mentioned PrCs, but I couldn't figure out how to count it - you ask 5 rehtorical questions about the fighter being underpowered and answer 3 of them 'no,' and one of the 'yes' questions is about non-combat, when the fighter (and the game for that matter), is heavily combat-focused. :rolleyes: That leaves a 'yes,' at 13+level "get a PrC." Along with a 'Not ever underpowered in combat.' :confused: I got the impression you didn't intend to vote, and were just trying to express that it wasn't a simple issue.
Cardinal Teplin 05-05-05, 03:07 PM	The emphasis on both 12th level + and prestige classes suggests that its really the higher reaches of the fighter class that seem underpowered to people. Very people seem to think, for example, that fighter is underpowered as a 1-4 level dip, and it doesn't seem difficult to justify fighter levels up to level 8 at least. It should be noted that most base classes don't give all that much at high level. However, the fighter is comparatively unusual in that it doesn't get spellcasting. Most base classes do. Those that don't, such as rogue, monk and barbarian, all have higher level powers that only kick in at high level. The basic problem is that when you only have 7 feats, an extra feat is very useful. If you have 15, then an extra one is less useful. It's this diminishing return that makes the higher reaches of fighter so unpopular.
the_one_true_shea 05-05-05, 03:21 PM	IF you are in a well planned fight with controlled territory and for only one toe to toe or team to team infarction - yes. IF you consider the greater ramifications of endless stamina and general readiness at all times (who needs sleep? not the fighter) no, recently the DDO guys found that all the casters were depleting themselves too fast - thats cause the slots system is designed to be short term (4 conflicts or less) combatants. Any single issue is bypassable with the right combination of magic, but you are required to prepare. A fighter is far more versitile a character when it comes to constant readiness and long haul utility. rouges are the same, but different so they dont overshadow the fighter and the fighter doesnt overshadow the rouge. Bards, paladins, and rangers suffer a little from the caster depletion effect, and druids less so than the clerics sorcerers and wizards. What good is a sorcerer or wizard without spells - Id rather have an aristocrate. What good is a fighter without ... wait he doesnt run out of anything but hit points.
ninjarabbit 05-05-05, 03:24 PM	Honestly it depends on what feats are allowed. If we're talking just core yes the fighter is underpowered.
Cardinal Teplin 05-05-05, 08:15 PM	IF you are in a well planned fight with controlled territory and for only one toe to toe or team to team infarction - yes. ??? Fighters are quite good at single fights... They don't do as much damage as a barbarian, but they tend to be better at everything else. What good is a sorcerer or wizard without spells - Id rather have an aristocrate. What good is a fighter without ... wait he doesnt run out of anything but hit points. While this is true, it is also true that he tends to run out of hit points about one or two fights after the party runs out of healing spells. That is enough, potentially, to get the party out of harm's way, and is very useful, but it's certainly not all day.
necrosnoop110 05-05-05, 08:22 PM	<EDIT> see below for new vote
Tony Vargas 05-05-05, 08:23 PM	No from levels 1-9 Yes for levels 10+Since that's a 'yes' for 11 out of 20 levels, I'm putting you down as a 'yes.'
Rathik 05-05-05, 08:26 PM	It pretty much depends on what sorts of feats you take, and if you have magic items to protect you from spells/psionics and such. If you pick your feats smart, fighter can pwn. Although, this is highly dependent on what sort of material you have available and what your DM will allow.
necrosnoop110 05-05-05, 08:33 PM	Since that's a 'yes' for 11 out of 20 levels, I'm putting you down as a 'yes.' Fine :bigeyes: I am changing my vote: Yes for levels 1-10 No for levels 11-20 maybe for overall (depends on source material allowed) http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-018.gif
d_nychus 05-05-05, 09:23 PM	The fighter is definately weak at higher levels. As stated above, the fighter simply does not have the power to keep up with other classes past about level 12. The fighter simply does not have the damage potential that the other melee and damage classes have, nor the special abilities that both melee and non-melee types have to help contribute to the party. The fighter does not gain anything substancial from mere feats past level 12 (the point that the best fighter feats cap out), while other classes get better and better class features. There is simply no niche that the fighter can hold in the higher levels that is not vastly better done with another class. The fighter needs help, badly.
RadicalTaoist 05-05-05, 09:54 PM	Lemme make your life easy, Tony. Put me down as a Yes, underpowered, and leave it at that.
Blairconz 05-06-05, 01:23 AM	No. A fighter is not underpowered, though I could possibly see why some people say so at higher levels.
gabrion 05-06-05, 02:17 AM	Nope. As stated many times, the power curve is different for fighters and other classes, but since most of my games have started at 1st level, and few of them have made it to 20th, a class that starts out strong is not really underpowered.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 12:37 PM	Fine :bigeyes: I am changing my vote: maybe for overall (depends on source material allowed) http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-018.gifOK, if you insist. I've taken you out of the tally. Lemme make your life easy, Tony. Put me down as a Yes, underpowered, and leave it at that.Thanks. I am keeping track of qualified answers, and your original was pretty qualified, so I'll note the level & non-combat opinions you gave. How do you feel about fighters in relation to PrCs (since you asked about that) - do they save the class or doom it?
Nephlite 05-06-05, 12:49 PM	OK, if you insist. I've taken you out of the tally. Thanks. I am keeping track of qualified answers, and your original was pretty qualified, so I'll note the level & non-combat opinions you gave. How do you feel about fighters in relation to PrCs (since you asked about that) - do they save the class or doom it? I think almost everyone agrees without PRc Fighters are underpowered. Prcs change landscape in discussion. They change fighter from being weaker than others to being strong.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 12:49 PM	Vote count: No: 62, 33 with qualifiers Yes: 32, 25 with qualifiers to look at it another way... Debateable: 59 (including necrosnoop110) Definite no: 29 Definite yes: 7 So, while the informal vote seems to be leaning strongly in the 'no' direction, there's not a whole lot of certainty out there. I think a reasonable conclusion to draw is that the fighter is fine the way it is - but doesn't apeal to everyone, and could be 'improved' to broaden that apeal. Particularly, it seems, at the higher levels. Under 3.0, it was often said that the fighter had no reason to progress beyond 4th, now, 12th is often sited. I don't think that unique class features are that all-important, but throwing out a level 16 and 20 fighter-only feat, or a 20th level unique 'capstone' ability, might quiet a lot of the discontent, without ruining the fighter's current apeal or overpowering it in any meaningful way.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 12:52 PM	I think almost everyone agrees without PRc Fighters are underpowered. Prcs change landscape in discussion. They change fighter from being weaker than others to being strong. Well, by my tally, 6 (you'd make 7) out of 95 voters feel that way. BTW, should I take that as "No, with PrCs" or "yes, w/o PrCs?" And, FWIW, I've often heard the reverse opinion - that PrCs obviate the fighter class because they're so much better than continuing to gain fighter levels, thus fighters are fine as long as PrCs are not used, and worthless beyond a brief 'dip' if they are. I can't agree with either position - PrCs are optional, they don't come into it at all, IMHO.
natzero 05-06-05, 01:59 PM	ok the fighter is probably the most customizable class in the game first off the feats available to the fighter r many but also are "limited" as u said aswell. higher lvl feats r hard to come by, but if the lower lvl ones r used just right with the combination of experience and a good char build (w/o the feats) then the fighter becomes one of the funnest classes to play. even if the high lvl mage is much more powerful the fighter is more f;exible combat wise. with some feats u become effective at range support or tanking so no matter wut the fighter is still a class needed in any party. they are also much easier to deal wit interchar wise. they have no vows or rules so they are who they want to be. in short the fighter is perfectly balanced and needs no help its now become a class not for (just noobs) but for experienced players who want a char to just liek them using what they would want to or would use. NO is my answer :)
NehpetsTtocs 05-06-05, 02:57 PM	in short the fighter is perfectly balanced and needs no help its now become a class not for (just noobs) but for experienced players who want a char to just liek them using what they would want to or would use. I agree with this part of your posting anyway. I believe the barbarian is much better class for a beginner to take if he/she wishes to simply hack n' slash. Which doesn't mean I think the barbarian is a better class than the fighter, I don't, but I actually think that to get more from the fighter some experience with the class helps. I've found that beginners don't always make the best use of feats, and often times forget they even have them.
True Archon 05-07-05, 03:49 AM	I agree with this part of your posting anyway. I believe the barbarian is much better class for a beginner to take if he/she wishes to simply hack n' slash. Which doesn't mean I think the barbarian is a better class than the fighter, I don't, but I actually think that to get more from the fighter some experience with the class helps. I've found that beginners don't always make the best use of feats, and often times forget they even have them. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Barbarians are by far a better class for beginning hack-n'-slashers, while fighters tend to need a bit more thought put into their builds. I have players in my group that all they really want to do "is just play." They hate making characters. One in particular is more than willing to have someone else make her character, and then play it to the fullest of what is given her. She just gives a base race and class. A couple other players like how the bard and sorcerer classes get their spells, and enjoy just pulling a spell off their "known spells" instead of having to "prepare" them everyday. Some people just like keeping things simple, while others like to go more in-depth.
Nyferto 05-07-05, 10:11 AM	I think almost everyone agrees without PRc Fighters are underpowered. Prcs change landscape in discussion. They change fighter from being weaker than others to being strong. Seeing as most PrC's suitable for the Fighter cripple them by streaming their combat focus down one route. The generalist Fighter is the most persistant warrior and the best way to play any warrior character, none of the others come close for tenacity or even tactical application and no PrC i've seen changes that. The closest you get is with the OOTBI, but that's just the nature of Bow's anyway.
Sentient 05-07-05, 07:24 PM	Under 3.0, it was often said that the fighter had no reason to progress beyond 4th, now, 12th is often sited. I don't think that unique class features are that all-important, but throwing out a level 16 and 20 fighter-only feat, or a 20th level unique 'capstone' ability, might quiet a lot of the discontent, without ruining the fighter's current apeal or overpowering it in any meaningful way. Well you're at it, give the sorcerer a capstone too. Or just something. I mean come on!
TheDarkestOfAngels 05-07-05, 08:26 PM	Well you're at it, give the sorcerer a capstone too. Or just something. I mean come on! *Says nothing ... Points to sig*
RadicalTaoist 05-07-05, 10:36 PM	Thanks. I am keeping track of qualified answers, and your original was pretty qualified, so I'll note the level & non-combat opinions you gave. How do you feel about fighters in relation to PrCs (since you asked about that) - do they save the class or doom it? No problem. As you guessed, my original response was to point out the complexity of the problem. As for PrCs, they don't save or doom the class - past level 6, they pretty much ARE the class. Really. You can make a better generalist by switching between combat PrCs, which again, only the Fighter with his many feats can do. The only mechanically powerful reasons to take Fighter to level 12, let alone farther, in the first place are: Substitution levels (see planar handbook and races of the wild for a few reasons) You're focusing on a crazy-number-of-attacks build that benefits from Greater Weapon Specialization, likely using the Tempest PrC from Complete Adventurer You have found some useful feat chains, have nothing better to do with the levels, and don't want to take an XP penalty for multiclassing You're playing Snow Savant's Gatling Chain Gun Tripper build (somewhere down in the CO boards) which pulls together an insane amount of non-core material, and is still not that hot at anything larger than Huge. Note: I feel the ultimate cause behind the Fighter's weakness is the combination of a) a game that starts to screw melee classes more and more as you go past level 12 (barbs are just as vulnerable, but it's harder to notice since they can live a little longer) and b) a design that, without loads of non-core feats and some longer feat chains, is designed to screw the Fighter in particular at high levels. A combat system that really makes life difficult for creatures facing enemies of larger size is just icing on the cake.
Fox Lee 05-07-05, 11:58 PM	Yes.
Jell_Moo 05-08-05, 12:14 AM	Seeing as most PrC's suitable for the Fighter cripple them by streaming their combat focus down one route. The generalist Fighter is the most persistant warrior and the best way to play any warrior character, none of the others come close for tenacity or even tactical application and no PrC i've seen changes that. The closest you get is with the OOTBI, but that's just the nature of Bow's anyway. :OMG! I have to assume you are joking with this statement. Please, tell me this is a joke? Please? If this is in fact a serious statement, I have no choice but to say: Guh? Just about *any* "warrior" PrC creates a stronger character for a Fighter than a pure class Fighter does. D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists. Being decent and 4 things just isn't as good as being great at 2 things. If you have some mystery insider information I would really love to hear, and I honestly do hope that you have facts to back this up. If a straight classed Fighter is even remotely comparable to a PrC'ed one, I would be happy. As it is, my experience and board consensus indicates otherwise. Strongly.
xanadu 05-08-05, 09:02 PM	Now I know why Disraeli said the are "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The poll question is meaningless without "compared to..." I am a pretty avid basketball player. I am better than 90% of my peers. I am not "underpowered" Now, put me on an NBA basketball team. All of a sudden I am the worse player in the league *by far*. Now I am very "underpowered". Look at your fighter 20 character sheet. He looks good; just like my basketball skills at my school gym. Now let's put your fighter in the NBA against the cleric 20s, Balors, etc., that he must compete and survive against. He is now "underpowered".
Arterion 05-08-05, 09:13 PM	No. 1) Prestige classes change the entire balance. All the core classes look weak in comparison to certain prestige class combinations. 2) While the fighter is weaker than the wizard at higher levels, I think it's more appropriate to look at in like of the wizard being weak at lower levels, and powerful at higher levels. That's how the wizard is designed. The Fighter as a pretty linear effectiveness which might make it appear to be getting weaker at higher level, when it's really not.
fractal 05-09-05, 02:58 AM	Well, by my tally, 6 (you'd make 7) out of 95 voters feel that way. BTW, should I take that as "No, with PrCs" or "yes, w/o PrCs?" And, FWIW, I've often heard the reverse opinion - that PrCs obviate the fighter class because they're so much better than continuing to gain fighter levels, thus fighters are fine as long as PrCs are not used, and worthless beyond a brief 'dip' if they are. I can't agree with either position - PrCs are optional, they don't come into it at all, IMHO. My personal opinion is that if we're wondering whether or not the Fighter is underpowered, we need to be just comparing the Fighter, not random PrCs, to other classes. Presumably these other classes would also not have access to PrCs. After all, if you're a Ftr 10/OotBI 10, what do you call yourself? Do you say "I'm a fighter"? Of course not. Similarly, I don't think multiclassing is a good standard of comparison. Sure, a Ftr 2/Brb 2/Rgr 2/Rog 2/whatever might be a superior build, but the only thing it says regarding classes is that they're all front-loaded. Look at it this way. Suppose you're already Ftr 2 or Brb 2. In which case are you more interested in sticking with the same class until, say, level 6, rather than multiclassing? Maybe you stick with it, and get to Ftr 6 or Brb 6. Are you more interested in continuing on to Ftr 12 or on to Brb 12, as opposed to multiclassing or PrC'ing out because your class just hasn't got enough left to offer? If you do make it to Ftr 12 or Brb 12, in which case are you more interested in going on to level 20? I don't know about you, but I'd choose Barbarian each time, especially the latter two. Fighter is underpowered.
fractal 05-09-05, 03:19 AM	Suppose you're already Ftr 2 or Brb 2. Maybe you stick with it, and get to Ftr 6 or Brb 6. If you do make it to Ftr 12 or Brb 12, in which case are you more interested in going on to level 20? I don't know about you, but I'd choose Barbarian each time, especially the latter two. Fighter is underpowered. I realize that this is basically a proof by induction, but I left out the initial case. If Fighter 2 is significantly better than Barbarian 2, then it's possible that a Fighter 20 might still be competitive with a Barbarian 20, even if all of the later levels were weaker. I postulate, however, that a level 2 Fighter is pretty comparable to a level 2 Barbarian. 2 feats and Heavy Armor Prof. vs 3 hp, 10 skill points, Fast Movement, Rage 1x/day, and Uncanny Dodge.
Nyferto 05-09-05, 03:36 AM	:OMG! I have to assume you are joking with this statement. Please, tell me this is a joke? Please? If this is in fact a serious statement, I have no choice but to say: Guh? Just about *any* "warrior" PrC creates a stronger character for a Fighter than a pure class Fighter does. D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists. Being decent and 4 things just isn't as good as being great at 2 things. If you have some mystery insider information I would really love to hear, and I honestly do hope that you have facts to back this up. If a straight classed Fighter is even remotely comparable to a PrC'ed one, I would be happy. As it is, my experience and board consensus indicates otherwise. Strongly. I'm absolutely serioues, and that falshehood you posted, "D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists" might mean something if I wasn't a specialist at combat. Anyone who focuses on one style in any group of character in D&D (Phsyical combat, Magical apptitude or skills) automatically cripples themselves unless their focus trancends all other anyway. If I was trying to be an EK without the EK, I might be considered a generalist. If i was using support spells along with a modicum of unrelated skills - you'd have a point. Seeing as I'm developing myself to master a parcticular field - you're absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if you can cleave the moon in two - if you can't hurt the Archer on a flying mount. It doesn't matter if you can blind a fly with a precise arrow shot and leave it otherwise unharmed - if said fly was protected by a tower shield. Unless you make/have a Fighter PrC that beats all other combat styles, then a generalist can probably kill a specialist warrior (given time and non-discriminatory circumstances). It might not be easy, but at least you wouldn't have any glaring weaknesses in your offence. It might be possible to out generalise the generalist with an amalgam of various PrC's, but so far I haven't seen it done without broken PrC's and poorly handled material.
True Archon 05-09-05, 04:38 AM	....Suppose you're already Ftr 2 or Brb 2. In which case are you more interested in sticking with the same class until, say, level 6, rather than multiclassing? Maybe you stick with it, and get to Ftr 6 or Brb 6. Are you more interested in continuing on to Ftr 12 or on to Brb 12, as opposed to multiclassing or PrC'ing out because your class just hasn't got enough left to offer? If you do make it to Ftr 12 or Brb 12, in which case are you more interested in going on to level 20? I don't know about you, but I'd choose Barbarian each time, especially the latter two. Fighter is underpowered. Not me. I find it more enjoyable, when leveling up, to see a "new toy" to come to "play" with, versus watching an "old toy" get a little bit better (i.e. new feats vs. special ability increases). In fact, I come to resent the old toy in it's lower forms, and just can't wait for it to be at it's best. Everytime that I level, the first thought to pop into my head (after picking what class to level) is: "Do I get another feat, yet?" Sad thing is, it will keep bouncing around in my head about my next feat choice, even if by some chance I've already planned out my character from level 1 to level 20. Too me, feats are very important, and I find it hard to believe that other people dismiss them with a wave. The only class that makes me wonder about whether or not I get a cool special ability the next level is the monk (definitely not the barbarian). Otherwise, I'll take a fighter over a barbarian any day. In fact, I'll take any other class over a barbarian (just my personal preference).
Gemstone 05-09-05, 04:58 AM	I'm absolutely serioues, and that falshehood you posted, "D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists" might mean something if I wasn't a specialist at combat. Anyone who focuses on one style in any group of character in D&D (Phsyical combat, Magical apptitude or skills) automatically cripples themselves unless their focus trancends all other anyway. If I was trying to be an EK without the EK, I might be considered a generalist. If i was using support spells along with a modicum of unrelated skills - you'd have a point. Seeing as I'm developing myself to master a parcticular field - you're absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if you can cleave the moon in two - if you can't hurt the Archer on a flying mount. It doesn't matter if you can blind a fly with a precise arrow shot and leave it otherwise unharmed - if said fly was protected by a tower shield. Unless you make/have a Fighter PrC that beats all other combat styles, then a generalist can probably kill a specialist warrior (given time and non-discriminatory circumstances). It might not be easy, but at least you wouldn't have any glaring weaknesses in your offence. It might be possible to out generalise the generalist with an amalgam of various PrC's, but so far I haven't seen it done without broken PrC's and poorly handled material. Well said. I've seen many fighters, and from level 1-12, I've yet to see any other class be as useful as the fighter (except a cleric... the cleric is simply unbeatable. And the party fighter actually managed to hold his ground against the druid). From level 13-19 I have no idea (never played at those levels), but at level 20, the fighter deals hell'uva lot damage and keeps the cleric and wizard of the party safe.
Angel Netherborn 05-09-05, 05:02 AM	I'm absolutely serioues, and that falshehood you posted, "D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists" might mean something if I wasn't a specialist at combat. Anyone who focuses on one style in any group of character in D&D (Phsyical combat, Magical apptitude or skills) automatically cripples themselves unless their focus trancends all other anyway. If I was trying to be an EK without the EK, I might be considered a generalist. If i was using support spells along with a modicum of unrelated skills - you'd have a point. Seeing as I'm developing myself to master a parcticular field - you're absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if you can cleave the moon in two - if you can't hurt the Archer on a flying mount. It doesn't matter if you can blind a fly with a precise arrow shot and leave it otherwise unharmed - if said fly was protected by a tower shield. Unless you make/have a Fighter PrC that beats all other combat styles, then a generalist can probably kill a specialist warrior (given time and non-discriminatory circumstances). It might not be easy, but at least you wouldn't have any glaring weaknesses in your offence. It might be possible to out generalise the generalist with an amalgam of various PrC's, but so far I haven't seen it done without broken PrC's and poorly handled material. I'm going to say fighters are underpowered as they stand. I do concur Nyferto's point however. A generalist is applicable to more circumstances in you look at things in the long run. Unfortunately, there is also some truth to the "D&D rewards specialist ..." statement. The main reason being the way D&D is played. It's meant to be party-based, so being a specialist with weaknesses that can be easily complemented by your party members easily defeats the need to be a generalist. Hence, compared to the other classes, fighters just have less to offer when they're a generalist. I'm also going to say that a fighter is underpowered primarily due to the lack of good high-level feats. Since a fighter is all about feats, not having good feats make fighters suck. When custom feats (mostly gleaned from these boards) were allowed in my campaign, fighters get overshadowed less, and there's more flavour to them.
Nyferto 05-09-05, 07:52 AM	What does a Wizard do when he needs to climb over terrain like mountain peaks: he uses magic. If if can't or it's impractical (because it would suck up spells he doesn't want to cast), he's back to climbing which is where his specialisation falls apart. What does a Halfling Rogue do when he needs to slaughter hoardes of Undead with his daggers? And I mean he absolutely needs to kill them, he can't just sneak past them and he can't kill them all with scrolls due to time constraints. What about the Cleric/Paladin who needs to counter for their Heavy Armour, they didn't put points in Swim or Climb and their spells don't always work. The way I see it, Fighters are built to handle everything they are (ignoring what they could be). They have skills to handle the mundane problems of their heavy armour (along with the stats to back them up). They have the variety of feats to handle most combat scenario's. There's no point being a specialist Fighter, but there's nothing wrong with focusing on a weapon. The way the Fighter is currently set-up with a lack of higher level chains means you can easily resolve the persistant issues of one focus with a sideline of feats supporting another chain that suffers different problems, ideally the problems of both will be mostly covered by quick application of the other.
crazysamaritan 05-09-05, 10:46 AM	I'm absolutely serioues, and that falshehood you posted, "D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists" might mean something if I wasn't a specialist at combat. Anyone who focuses on one style in any group of character in D&D (Phsyical combat, Magical apptitude or skills) automatically cripples themselves unless their focus trancends all other anyway. I'm goning to have to disagree with you. I'll use bard as an example. They 'specialize' in being buffers. They are great at it, and clerics aren't quite as good. But they still don't get much respect, b/c a bard, by himself, cannot do any one thing really well. I'm not saying that bards are underpowered, but bards are generalists. And they don't preform nearly as well in any usual niche as any other class. Fighters are also generalists. They can specialize in certain things, and become better. but after awhile, they run out of feats for that speciality.
Nyferto 05-09-05, 12:39 PM	I'm goning to have to disagree with you. I'll use bard as an example. They 'specialize' in being buffers. They are great at it, and clerics aren't quite as good. But they still don't get much respect, b/c a bard, by himself, cannot do any one thing really well. I'm not saying that bards are underpowered, but bards are generalists. And they don't preform nearly as well in any usual niche as any other class. Fighters are also generalists. They can specialize in certain things, and become better. but after awhile, they run out of feats for that speciality. They don't specialise in buffing, they're good at it. There's a difference. Bards are the real generalists, a Fighter generalist isn't trying to do all 4 roles at once like a Bard is, neithers a generalist Wizard. What you missed however, is that if you ignore trying to specialise with the Bard. You'll find that they can offset some defects with others - often to their advantage. You don't rely on their phsyical powers alone (d6 average BAB) to fight people, you use your buffs and skills to get some advantages, exploit everything they can't do and eventually get the edge. You don't just use diplomacy, you might facinate them with song first or use spells to give you an edge. You don't even just use spells to overcome challenges, you use your skills and combat ability to offset things. It's the same with others. A nuclear Warmage doesn't have much option when it comes to combat, but the Sorc does. The creature he can't blast, is one the Sorc can dominate or mislead with illusions, or maybe he just polymorphs into something that can hit back. The idea is - you offset what you can't do, by doing something else that they can't do in return.
Jell_Moo 05-09-05, 01:00 PM	I'm absolutely serioues, and that falshehood you posted, "D&D rewards specialists and hurts generalists" might mean something if I wasn't a specialist at combat. Anyone who focuses on one style in any group of character in D&D (Phsyical combat, Magical apptitude or skills) automatically cripples themselves unless their focus trancends all other anyway. The Fighter does in fact specialize in combat, but he specializes in a generalist sort of way. Instead of being amazingly good at one aspect of combat, he is decent with a variety of combative aspects. Specialists don't cripple themselves though, that's the point. Because it is in essence a team based game, you have your party members backing you up. No one character is an island, so to speak. Well... maybe a druid... If I was trying to be an EK without the EK, I might be considered a generalist. If i was using support spells along with a modicum of unrelated skills - you'd have a point. Seeing as I'm developing myself to master a parcticular field - you're absolutely wrong. Untrue. You are developing yourself to master an array of different fields. The problem is, you just don't master them. Each area of combat is a different field. The Fighter's advantage is that he can be good at 3 different areas of battle, while most other melee types focus on a single one. The Fighter can be good at melee, archery and mounted combat. The only problem is that other classes do each individual field better. The Barbarian specializes at melee combat, and is better at it than the Fighter. The Ranger can specialize at archery, and be better at it than the Fighter. The Paladin who specializes in mounted combat is better at it than the Fighter. While the Fighter specializes in combat, he is a generalist within that very field. It doesn't matter if you can cleave the moon in two - if you can't hurt the Archer on a flying mount. It doesn't matter if you can blind a fly with a precise arrow shot and leave it otherwise unharmed - if said fly was protected by a tower shield. If the dude on the flying horse is hiding behind his tower shield, he isn't doing much to you either. Readied actions really help in this situation. Or simply target the flying mount. There are always options. Unless you make/have a Fighter PrC that beats all other combat styles, then a generalist can probably kill a specialist warrior (given time and non-discriminatory circumstances). It might not be easy, but at least you wouldn't have any glaring weaknesses in your offence. It might be possible to out generalise the generalist with an amalgam of various PrC's, but so far I haven't seen it done without broken PrC's and poorly handled material. Here let me make a very quick example. Bob wants to make a Fighter type of character. However, after 10th level, he decides it would be fun to grab a PrC or two. Sure he loses out on a few feats, but maybe what he gets is worth it. Bob isn't all about min/maxing, he just wants a relatively solid character. Bob Human Fighter 10/ Occult Slayer 5/ Tempest 5 Str 14 Dex 15 (20 after level ups) Con 12 Int 10 Wis 13 Cha 8 *Elite Array used for simplicity. Bob wants to make his character a TWF'er because he thinks it's cool. He knows that it's slightly weaker than THF, but Bob likes style. He's also afraid of spellcasters, so he's going to try and limit the amount of hassle casters give him. Feats: TWF, Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Improved Initiative, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Improved TWF, Lightning Reflexes, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, Greater TWF, Close Quarters Fighting, Mage Slayer, Improved Buckler Defence. Saves: Fort + 13 Ref + 11 Will + 8 Bob has made a character that's pretty damn good at TWF, is capable at archery (he won't win awards but if push comes to shove he ain't no slouch), and has few glaring weaknesses. Best of all, unlike the standard Fighter, Bob's character isn't terrified of every single spellcaster he encounters. Thanks to his levels in Occult Slayer, he has an extra +3 to saves vs spells and spell like effetcs, is especially capable of disrupting their spells, and becomes immune to mind effecting spells, the traditional bane of the Fighter. Is Bob the best melee character of all time? Hardly. But is he better at what he wanted to be good at than the staright out Fighter? For sure.
True Archon 05-09-05, 07:58 PM	The Fighter does in fact specialize in combat, but he specializes in a generalist sort of way. Instead of being amazingly good at one aspect of combat, he is decent with a variety of combative aspects.... I agree with you, for the most part, on this statement. However, I believe that a fighter can be "amazingly good" at more specialized arenas of combat. That's what makes the fighter so special... the ability to generalize or specialize, and all depending upon how the player wants to do it. ...Untrue. You are developing yourself to master an array of different fields. The problem is, you just don't master them. Each area of combat is a different field. The Fighter's advantage is that he can be good at 3 different areas of battle, while most other melee types focus on a single one. The Fighter can be good at melee, archery and mounted combat. ... Again, I agree with you on this statement. Likewise, there are other avenues of combat that a fighter can dip his feat into. Too many people react to feats with a dismissive wave, in my opinion. A class is only as good as the special abilities given it. If you don't use those abilities to the fullest extent, you're shortchanging the class. It's like using a barbarian's rage all of the time, but almost always moving 10 feet at a time. ...The only problem is that other classes do each individual field better. The Barbarian specializes at melee combat, and is better at it than the Fighter. The Ranger can specialize at archery, and be better at it than the Fighter. The Paladin who specializes in mounted combat is better at it than the Fighter. While the Fighter specializes in combat, he is a generalist within that very field. This is where I have to disagree with you. Ok, I can see how the barbarian seems to be better at melee (but not always better... the reasons already stated in previous posts), but I don't see how a paladin and a ranger can be better than a fighter at Mounted Combat and Archery. The paladin's mount may be better than a typical fighter's, but the paladin itself garners no special mounted combat abilities. A paladin's special abilities in smiting evil and "holy crusader" powers are what make a paladin different/better than the other classes. Not his mounted combat ability. Likewise, a ranger's archery skills are nothing more than the gaining of three feats. Without the prerequisites, which is nice, but prerequisites I'd prefer to have anyways as an archer. Feats that are also available as a fighter's bonus feats. A ranger does excel at sniping, but feat-wise, to excel as an archer by how a ranger does it, a fighter only needs to spend the feats necessary. In fact, he can spend 11 feats out of his 18 feats to garner every (core that is) archery-associated feat with the prerequisites of those feats opening up other feat trees that he can spend his remaining feats on (Mounted Combat, Dodge/Mobility). A ranger can only get those same 11 feats minimally by being human and reaching 18th level. A ranger's specializations are focused on combat involving stealth, favored enemies, and wilderness environment advantages. These are things that a fighter, or any other class, can't duplicate and are what make the ranger special. Sure a couple classes come close, but they don't make it there completely (like the ranger coming close to mimicking their abilities). Monks are a different breed, though. Fighters would be hard-pressed to match a monk's unarmed combat ability, and just about everyone can agree that it would kinda be foolhardy.
Jell_Moo 05-09-05, 09:00 PM	I agree with you, for the most part, on this statement. However, I believe that a fighter can be "amazingly good" at more specialized arenas of combat. That's what makes the fighter so special... the ability to generalize or specialize, and all depending upon how the player wants to do it. I agree that the Fighter can become "really good" at something it chooses to pursue, provided that he has a long enough feat tree to follow up on. A Fighter who really wants to excel at a particular area of combat will fall behind other classes that have unique features which help in that area, unless the Fighter can get a whole lot of feats he can pick up. Again, I agree with you on this statement. Likewise, there are other avenues of combat that a fighter can dip his feat into. Too many people react to feats with a dismissive wave, in my opinion. A class is only as good as the special abilities given it. If you don't use those abilities to the fullest extent, you're shortchanging the class. It's like using a barbarian's rage all of the time, but almost always moving 10 feet at a time. Fighters are a unique case because their class features aren't set in stone, so to speak. A Barbarian gets the same class features regardless of what materials are used (assuming variants aren't being taken into account). The Fighter, however, is much more flexible, and his power base shifts depending on what materials are brought into play. In a core only game, he is weakened because feat trees are short, and other classes can take the same ones and work them better. This is where I have to disagree with you. Ok, I can see how the barbarian seems to be better at melee (but not always better... the reasons already stated in previous posts), but I don't see how a paladin and a ranger can be better than a fighter at Mounted Combat and Archery. The paladin's mount may be better than a typical fighter's, but the paladin itself garners no special mounted combat abilities. A paladin's special abilities in smiting evil and "holy crusader" powers are what make a paladin different/better than the other classes. Not his mounted combat ability. The Paladin is better at mounted combat than the Fighter for a variety of reasons. Obviously the big one is the mount. One glaring weakness of mounted combat is how ridiculously easy the mount is to kill. The Paladin's mount is tougher, and has special abilities that other mounts do not. A stray fireball won't kill one, for example. Also, the Paladin has spells and his Lay on Hands ability to keep the mount up, and also to buff it. Spells like Winged Mount, Heal Mount, and Zeal really make the Paladin's mount work. Because the Mounted Combat feat chain is small, and not all of the feats are particularly stellar, the Paladin can easily match the Fighter in that department as well. Also, you can combine Smite Evil as well as Divine Might with a Spirited Charge for a whole lot of damage. Likewise, a ranger's archery skills are nothing more than the gaining of three feats. Without the prerequisites, which is nice, but prerequisites I'd prefer to have anyways as an archer. Feats that are also available as a fighter's bonus feats. A ranger does excel at sniping, but feat-wise, to excel as an archer by how a ranger does it, a fighter only needs to spend the feats necessary. In fact, he can spend 11 feats out of his 18 feats to garner every (core that is) archery-associated feat with the prerequisites of those feats opening up other feat trees that he can spend his remaining feats on (Mounted Combat, Dodge/Mobility). A ranger can only get those same 11 feats minimally by being human and reaching 18th level. A ranger's specializations are focused on combat involving stealth, favored enemies, and wilderness environment advantages. These are things that a fighter, or any other class, can't duplicate and are what make the ranger special. Sure a couple classes come close, but they don't make it there completely (like the ranger coming close to mimicking their abilities). The Ranger is a tougher nut to crack. The biggest deal is that in order to truly excel at archery, you need to be far away and see your target. That involves a Spot check, and Spot is a class skill for Rangers but not for Fighters. Also, the biggest pain for archers becomes ranged spells. Rangers with their good Reflex save and evasion, handle those a lot better. From the archery tree in the PHB, there are 7 important(ish) feats. The Ranger gets three of them for free. HE can easily match the Fighter, plus he also has spells which help an awful lot. Spells like Arrowstorm and Guided Shot are just great![/QUOTE]
Darkness_of_Undeath 05-09-05, 09:19 PM	The hard thing about this is the variability of the answer. You could get someone completely new to the game to design a figter, and even with the 18 or so feats at 20th level, the character could still suck. Or you could have a veteran, who ends up designing the closest thing to a diety you can get without actually being one. Really it all depends of who makes the character, what combination of feats were chosen, what level and the like, because around the first few levels it doesnt matter how good or bad you are the power will be the same among all of the base classes, but as you go up is when the balance of power begins to fluctuate. The fighter is the one character that should be used to guage the character building capabilities of a PC. Because the fighter is so blank, it allows alot of leeway, but also leaves alot of places where flaws can come into play, so to make a well rounded character out of a fighter you have to at least have some idea as to what your doing. So all in all, no, I do not think that the fighter is underpowered, or overpowered for that matter. The fighter is the ultimate blank sheet of paper, you just have to fill it in.
Tony Vargas 05-09-05, 09:57 PM	I agree that the Fighter can become "really good" at something it chooses to pursue, provided that he has a long enough feat tree to follow up on. That actually depends a bit on what you mean by 'really good.' If there are 6 feats that aply to a given fighting style, than a warrior is going to have to be 15th level to be 'really good' at that style, while a fighter will arguably be 'really good' at it by 10th, on his bonus feats, alone. Longer feat chains do raise the bar, but all that really means is that it's harder for a fighter to be 'really good' at more than one style. Other classes, OTOH, don't care so much about feat chains, they have other abilities that make them good at a given style. A barbarian is a devestating high-damage melee combatant, even if he never so much as learned Power Attack, because his Rage-fueled STR makes him good at dishing out a lot of damage. A wizard doesn't even need proficiency to be able to tap the bullseye of an archery target - after casting True Strike. A Fighter who really wants to excel at a particular area of combat will fall behind other classes that have unique features which help in that area, unless the Fighter can get a whole lot of feats he can pick up. Unless those feats are just class abilities with the serial numbers filed off, even that doesn't really do it. The fighter really excels at mastering a style early, and/or mastering multiple styles. He pays for that relative flexibility (which style, when, more than one), by, ultimately, having a little less raw power compared to a character that has his speciality chosen for him in advance, and all his class abilities more-or-less focused on it. Fighters are a unique case because their class features aren't set in stone, so to speak. A Barbarian gets the same class features regardless of what materials are used (assuming variants aren't being taken into account). The Fighter, however, is much more flexible, and his power base shifts depending on what materials are brought into play. In a core only game, he is weakened because feat trees are short, and other classes can take the same ones and work them better. Right observation, but wrong conclusion. The fighter's flexibility is still valuable, even in a core-only game, because he can finish a feat tree sooner, or finish multiple trees at higher level. More non-core materials, like feats, make everyone more powerful. If you pile on so many must-have feats for a given style, that only a fighter can collect them all (ie substantially more than 8), then, while you've given the fighter some potential to gain a significant power advantage at higher levels, you've also robbed him of the abilty to master multiple styles and thus be a competative 'generalist.' That is, even a core fighter has so many feats to choose from that the value of choice built into picking those bonus feats is full realized. Adding more feats is good for everyone, and even theoretically better for the fighter, but the 'even better' portion of that is miniscule, because he already has so much choice that a little more doesn't matter. The Paladin is better at mounted combat than the Fighter for a variety of reasons. Obviously the big one is the mount. One glaring weakness of mounted combat is how ridiculously easy the mount is to kill. The Paladin's mount is tougher, That's true. But, a fighter could sink a Leadership feat into a mount and get something pretty impressive, so it's really not /that/ big a deal. Because the Mounted Combat feat chain is small, and not all of the feats are particularly stellar, the Paladin can easily match the Fighter in that department as well. No, he really can't. He can, ultimately, but he'll be following behind the fighter in acquiring those feats his whole career, and that's just not 'matching' that's playing catch-up. On top of that, a really dedicated mounted fighter can specialize in Lance, making for some pretty devestating charges against anyone - not just the smitable ones. Also, you can combine Smite Evil as well as Divine Might with a Spirited Charge for a whole lot of damage. Yep, the pally's real speciality is smiting evil in one way or another. He's channelled towards mounted combat because of the Mount, but he doesn't really excel the fighter at it. The Ranger is a tougher nut to crack. The biggest deal is that in order to truly excel at archery, you need to be far away and see your target. That involves a Spot check, and Spot is a class skill for Rangers but not for Fighters. Also, the biggest pain for archers becomes ranged spells. Rangers with their good Reflex save and evasion, handle those a lot better. There are different aproaches to archery, and to combat in general. Seeing, and not being seen, is certainly one of them, and it works fine with archery (or with SA), and the ranger undeniable excells at that. But, it's just one aproach, and it's a dicey one. Until you're high enough level for Hide in Plain Sight, it's prettymuch limitted to a surprise round, and even after that, you can only keep it up with a lower rate of fire. And, of course, it doesn't make you a great archer, but a great scout... From the archery tree in the PHB, there are 7 important(ish) feats. The Ranger gets three of them for free. Precise Shot, which requires PBS, Rapid Shot, Distance Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Mounted Archery, which requires Mounted Combat, and, I suppose, WF & Improved Crit with your chosen bow. Oh, yeah, and multi-shot. That's 10, and then the fighter can take the full Specialization tree, for 13 total. That seems like quite enough feats to keep the fighter busy, and, he'll be doing more damage vs all opponents, not just the favored ones. HE can easily match the Fighter, plus he also has spells which help an awful lot. Spells like Arrowstorm and Guided Shot are just great! And non-core. If there are non-core spells, are there also non-core feats? :shrug:
RadicalTaoist 05-09-05, 11:05 PM	That's true. But, a fighter could sink a Leadership feat into a mount and get something pretty impressive, so it's really not /that/ big a deal. No, he really can't. He can, ultimately, but he'll be following behind the fighter in acquiring those feats his whole career, and that's just not 'matching' that's playing catch-up. On top of that, a really dedicated mounted fighter can specialize in Lance, making for some pretty devestating charges against anyone - not just the smitable ones. I disagree. The Paladin can also take Leadership, gets more out of his Cha score, and when you get down to it, powerful cohort+powerful mount > powerful cohort mount. Plus the Paladin can Heal his mount, it gets SR, etc. etc. In the end, the Fighter just can't hope to keep his mount alive as long as the Paladin can. Sure, specialization is great for charging, is always there, and is more general than smiting, but getting straight up more damage (especially if you Power Attack using the bonus to hit from the smite) is a worthy tradeoff. Specialization is best for lots-o-attack builds (although you can find ways to full attack on a charge - you just need to multiclass out of Fighter;)). It'll be more likely that the Fighter is trying to keep up with the Paladin as far as mounted combat goes. His advantage of feats at the pre-Leadership levels will be hindered by the fact that you can kill his mount and render most of his feats useless in 1 round.
Jell_Moo 05-09-05, 11:55 PM	That actually depends a bit on what you mean by 'really good.' If there are 6 feats that aply to a given fighting style, than a warrior is going to have to be 15th level to be 'really good' at that style, while a fighter will arguably be 'really good' at it by 10th, on his bonus feats, alone. Longer feat chains do raise the bar, but all that really means is that it's harder for a fighter to be 'really good' at more than one style. It's not really that cut and dry though. Longer feat chains delay the Fighter's prowess, but at the same also increse it later on. Also, depending on prereqs, it could change the scope of the feat completely. Because feats are granted to all classes, another class that selects the top notch feats will usually match a Fighter in any given situation since it's rare that each and every feat the Fighter has in a particular field applies to every situation. If a feat is quite good, and has a lot of prereqs, things take a slightly different turn. Other classes, OTOH, don't care so much about feat chains, they have other abilities that make them good at a given style. A barbarian is a devestating high-damage melee combatant, even if he never so much as learned Power Attack, because his Rage-fueled STR makes him good at dishing out a lot of damage. A wizard doesn't even need proficiency to be able to tap the bullseye of an archery target - after casting True Strike. For the sake of absolute simplicity, I'm limiting myself to the "warrior" classes. Wizards, Clerics, Druids and the like muddy the waters way too much. But yeah, class features such as Rage really turn things around. The fact is that while the other classes don't get anywhere near as many feats as the Fighter does, they do get them. And the ones they do get are used to greater effect. A Barbarian with Power Attack does better base damage than a Fighter with Power Attack. What the Fighter does is combine other feats in order to make up for it. It's a tricky situation because as a general rule, the Fighter is outperformed by other classes in a particular area if that class has a class feature that helps, and a feat or two that fits the situation. Unless those feats are just class abilities with the serial numbers filed off, even that doesn't really do it. The fighter really excels at mastering a style early, and/or mastering multiple styles. He pays for that relative flexibility (which style, when, more than one), by, ultimately, having a little less raw power compared to a character that has his speciality chosen for him in advance, and all his class abilities more-or-less focused on it. One problem though is that this is often not the case. A Fighter who wants to master TWF doesn't do it any earlier than another melee character simply because the prereqs built into the feat chain do not really allow for it. The Fighter's advantage in this case is that while he's been waiting to meet the prereqs, he's picked up a bunch of other feats along the way. Other characters seldom have this option. Right observation, but wrong conclusion. The fighter's flexibility is still valuable, even in a core-only game, because he can finish a feat tree sooner, or finish multiple trees at higher level. More non-core materials, like feats, make everyone more powerful. If you pile on so many must-have feats for a given style, that only a fighter can collect them all (ie substantially more than 8), then, while you've given the fighter some potential to gain a significant power advantage at higher levels, you've also robbed him of the abilty to master multiple styles and thus be a competative 'generalist.' I disagree. I think the conclusion is right on. The Fighter has several obstacles in his path. The first is prereqs. Several feats are part of a longish chain. Whirlwind Attack being pretty much the longest in the PHB, but there are a couple of others. Also, some feats have stat prereqs which make it impossible for the Fighter to take the feats at his leisure. A stat of 13 isn't that high, but it can be a pain. Look at the Elite Array. You certainly want a high Str and Con, but if you want to master multiple feat trees you need a 13 in both Int and Dex. At this point the best stat left is a 10, which makes the Fighter's Will save easier to target, and it's the Fighter's biggest weakness. Adding splatbook feats helps a lot. While it can and does power up other classes as well, it does more for the Fighter. Because the Fighter has so many more feats he can get, he gains a greater benefit from new feats being introduced. The overall power curve may rise, but it carries the Fighter up higher than the other classes. It doesn't rob him of the chance to be a generalist, that possibility still exists, but it also gives him the chance to be a specialist, which ultimately helps him more. That is, even a core fighter has so many feats to choose from that the value of choice built into picking those bonus feats is full realized. Adding more feats is good for everyone, and even theoretically better for the fighter, but the 'even better' portion of that is miniscule, because he already has so much choice that a little more doesn't matter. The difference is huge though. A Fighter with better options, is by default, better. When it comes to Core only, the biggest drawback the Fighter has is that he lacks cap stone ability. By the time he hits high level, he has alreasy taken the best feats, and is stuck picking up the feats he didn't want the first time through. While Barbarians are getting Mighty Rage, the Fighter is picking up something like Improved Unarmed Strike (random example). If, however, the Fighter has more and better options, he can pick up a different feat that enhances on of the combat styles he has been working on, and will therefore have a more direct impact on his performance. That's true. But, a fighter could sink a Leadership feat into a mount and get something pretty impressive, so it's really not /that/ big a deal. Even though the argument is pretty thin, I will mention that Leadership is an optional feat. Also, it is strongly tied to Cha, and considering the fact that the Fighter is fairly MAD, it is highly unlikely that he will have a decent CHA score. The Paladin however... No, he really can't. He can, ultimately, but he'll be following behind the fighter in acquiring those feats his whole career, and that's just not 'matching' that's playing catch-up. On top of that, a really dedicated mounted fighter can specialize in Lance, making for some pretty devestating charges against anyone - not just the smitable ones. The fact is that there just aren't that many mounted combat related feats. And the ones that do exist just aren't all that great. There is almost no need to get them all. He may be a step behind the Fighter in getting the feats (I highly doubt it, but it is possible), but the fact that his mount is so much better not only evens the playing field, it puts the ball directly in the Paladin's court. The Fighter could specialize in the lance, but given the nature of mounted combat, it isn't particularly worth it. Yep, the pally's real speciality is smiting evil in one way or another. He's channelled towards mounted combat because of the Mount, but he doesn't really excel the fighter at it. The ability to smite evil, share his amazing saves with his mount, heal his mount, and buff his mount is what makes him a much better mounted warrior than the Fighter. Because the Mounted Combat tree is so small, it just isn't that huge that the Fighter has all those bonus feats. There are different aproaches to archery, and to combat in general. Seeing, and not being seen, is certainly one of them, and it works fine with archery (or with SA), and the ranger undeniable excells at that. But, it's just one aproach, and it's a dicey one. Until you're high enough level for Hide in Plain Sight, it's prettymuch limitted to a surprise round, and even after that, you can only keep it up with a lower rate of fire. And, of course, it doesn't make you a great archer, but a great scout... I'll grudgingly give you a point here. It's mostly my experience that dictates otherwise. Archery is best used at a great distance, which is where the Spot checks come into play. It is one style, I admit, but I have found it to be an important one. Precise Shot, which requires PBS, Rapid Shot, Distance Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Mounted Archery, which requires Mounted Combat, and, I suppose, WF & Improved Crit with your chosen bow. Oh, yeah, and multi-shot. That's 10, and then the fighter can take the full Specialization tree, for 13 total. That seems like quite enough feats to keep the fighter busy, and, he'll be doing more damage vs all opponents, not just the favored ones. The Ranger gets Rapid Shot, Many Shot, and Improved Precise Shot for free. If the Ranger wants to make sure he doesn't suck at archery he wants Precise Shot, so add that and Point Blank shot to the list. Improved Crit is done by taking the Keen enchantment. Weapon Focus is nice at lower levels, but largely unimspiring at higher ones. Specialization is cool, but is equaled and perhaps surpased by a Ranger facing a Favored Enemy. Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery are a little tough, but when you consider that the Ranger's Animal Companion could be his mount, it makes it a lot more interesting. The Ranger can match the fighter on most feats. If you include spells into the mix, things like Cat's Grace, the ability to heal himself, and Tree Stride can offer a few interesting advantages. And non-core. If there are non-core spells, are there also non-core feats? :shrug: Fair enough. I was just tossing ideas around, not really remembering which books certain spells were from (it's rather sad when you look at the Ranger spell list in the PHB). If we stray non-core, the Fighter starts to look a lot better. The Ranger keeps up largely because of some really nice non core spells, but a tricked out archery Fighter with non core feats can probably outperform the Ranger at that point, I'll grant that.
Nyferto 05-10-05, 03:54 AM	I don't have time to respond in full, but Jell Moo. Your assertion that there will be others in the team to help with combat - assumes that others in the team will be good at the aspects of combat you aren't good at. That's a big assumption, and it doesn't help you if they die, or if they're detracted from their focus. It's absolutely better for people to handle themselves in combat, whilst working in a team to increase efficiency. Rather than hoping someone else will cover the areas they should be handling. Imagine a Cleric who couldn't heal the party at all because he was too busy trying to be a tank? There are too many flaws in your examples to counter, but you're assuming Fighters need to handle things the same way as others. A Fighter using a bow doesn't care if a person gets into close quarters, because it's not his speciality. A Ranger trying to snipe doesn't actually aid the party with his shots because he's only got one bad one. Special mounts and Companions might be nice, but they're not cheap like a 3000gp Hippogriff that can be easily raised or replaced. Nore are they a member of the team like the Polymorph Wizard, essentially, if someone else has a mount - best give it to the Fighter than use it yourself. Really though, that later problem is more a facet of 3.5 and it's "improvements", now those mounts are valuable assets rather than nice suppliments. As for your build, nice non-core idea, think you're overestimating your ability to actually get to 20th though. Then you're missing the lack of application you have, Tempest doesn't make TWF good, it just makes it easier. Human Standard the Fighter 20th Str 15 +3 Dex 14 +1 Con 13 +1 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 1. WF Greatsword 1. PBS 1. Qucikdraw 2. Monkey grip 3. Farshot 4. Brutal Throw 6. Weapon Spec GS 6. Throw anything 8. Power Attack 9. Power Throw 10. Precise Shot 12. Ranged Sunder 12. Iron Will 14. Mage Slayer 15. Pierce Magical Concealment 16. GWF Greatsword 18. GWS GS 18. Improved initiative 20. Improved Crit Greatsword That's not perfect, but it's easy to build on and change. I didn't check the requirements for some of those feats, but anyway. I can throw my greatsword (any of them, including the undersized one), using my Strength as my ranged to hit, whilst sundering people with such thrown weapons, hurting people at close range with TWF (which is beter). There's probably some PrC for that, I know OOTBI is boarderline good for that build (just needs some slightly different feats and skills), but really. If you want to go non-core, there's more out there than PrC's offer and you have the flexability to choose.
Gemstone 05-10-05, 03:57 AM	Human Standard the Fighter 20th Str 15 +3 Dex 14 +1 Con 13 +1 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 1. WF Greatsword 1. PBS 1. Qucikdraw 2. Monkey grip 3. Farshot 4. Brutal Throw 6. Weapon Spec GS 6. Throw anything 8. Power Attack 9. Power Throw 10. Precise Shot 12. Ranged Sunder 12. Iron Will 14. Mage Slayer 15. Pierce Magical Concealment 16. GWF Greatsword 18. GWS GS 18. Improved initiative 20. Improved Crit Greatsword I would switch con and dex. There's no point with a +2 dex when they gave full plate a max dex of +1
Jell_Moo 05-10-05, 09:16 AM	I don't have time to respond in full, but Jell Moo. Your assertion that there will be others in the team to help with combat - assumes that others in the team will be good at the aspects of combat you aren't good at. Good enough to fill potential gaps adequately? Yeah, I think they will be. When you really boil it down, there are two aspects of cpmbat. Melee and Ranged. A four person party can fill both roles just fine. The Fighter can pick up and follow through on feat chains involving both lines perfectly well, and do it in 10 or 12 levels, having picked up enough feats to cover both bases perfectly. That's one of the reasons that jumping to a PrC is so much better for him. That's a big assumption, and it doesn't help you if they die, or if they're detracted from their focus. It's absolutely better for people to handle themselves in combat, whilst working in a team to increase efficiency. Rather than hoping someone else will cover the areas they should be handling. Imagine a Cleric who couldn't heal the party at all because he was too busy trying to be a tank? Not everybody can handle themselves in combat. Telling the low level wizard he's on his own, that he should take care of himself will result in a dead Wizard. A Rogue surrounded by undead is S.O.L. A Bard tossed into melee is in trouble. The Fighter is the glue that holds them together. Because no one character can do everything (well, unless the character is a Druid), there is a sensible limit on how many angles the Fighter needs to cover. Assuming an iconic party (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) the Fighter can expect support from the cleric in melee, and the Wizard at ranged. The Rogue can fill in both gaps. At the same time, nobody expects the Fighter to be the scout, the Rogue to be the tank, the Wizard to be the healer, or the Cleric to be the nuker. Each character has to rely on other characters to cover some area that they simply cannot. A tanking Cleric need not do much healing at all. Killing the enemy faster means your team gets less hurt, and therefore less heals are needed. It's a tradeoff. There are too many flaws in your examples to counter, but you're assuming Fighters need to handle things the same way as others. A Fighter using a bow doesn't care if a person gets into close quarters, because it's not his speciality. A Ranger trying to snipe doesn't actually aid the party with his shots because he's only got one bad one. I actually think my examples are right on the money. Another class doesn't care if the enemy gets into melee either. Even if the Ranger has spent several feats on archery, he is still a very capable melee warrior, better than the Fighter in some ways, worse in others. When you really break it down, every single 'warrior' class handles a situtaion the same way. With an attack roll. Different attacks may be used, different techniques and what not, but when it gets boiled down, it's an attack roll. It's the little things that modify this roll that makes life interesting. And why doesn't a Ranger sniping help his party? Can you honestly not think of a situation where this could be a valid and useful tactic? Special mounts and Companions might be nice, but they're not cheap like a 3000gp Hippogriff that can be easily raised or replaced. Nore are they a member of the team like the Polymorph Wizard, essentially, if someone else has a mount - best give it to the Fighter than use it yourself. Paladin Mount is just so much better than a Hippogriff. The easiest way to handle a mounted foe is to kill the mount. Whether this is from attacks or spells, it really makes the mounted combatant hurt. Killing the Paladin's mount is a pain. Killing a mount that the Fighter bought is just so much easier. Replacing the bought mount may be easier to do, but it does you no good whatsoever in that battle. You are mountless there and then, when it really matters. And think about what the Polymorph Wizard can do with the Paladin's Mount. Strictly better than what gets done to the Fighter's. Really though, that later problem is more a facet of 3.5 and it's "improvements", now those mounts are valuable assets rather than nice suppliments. I'm not really following you on this one I'm afraid... As for your build, nice non-core idea, think you're overestimating your ability to actually get to 20th though. Then you're missing the lack of application you have, Tempest doesn't make TWF good, it just makes it easier. Like I said, a relatively non min/maxed character that is at least as good, and actually better than a straight Fighter. Your statement regarding the Tempest has me completely bewildered. It removes that attack penalty associated with TWF, raises your AC, and gives you the option to spring attack with two weapons. This is strictly better than a character without these options. There really isn't any doubt on the matter. Human Standard the Fighter 20th Str 15 +3 Dex 14 +1 Con 13 +1 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 1. WF Greatsword 1. PBS 1. Qucikdraw 2. Monkey grip 3. Farshot 4. Brutal Throw 6. Weapon Spec GS 6. Throw anything 8. Power Attack 9. Power Throw 10. Precise Shot 12. Ranged Sunder 12. Iron Will 14. Mage Slayer 15. Pierce Magical Concealment 16. GWF Greatsword 18. GWS GS 18. Improved initiative 20. Improved Crit Greatsword That's not perfect, but it's easy to build on and change. I didn't check the requirements for some of those feats, but anyway. I can throw my greatsword (any of them, including the undersized one), using my Strength as my ranged to hit, whilst sundering people with such thrown weapons, hurting people at close range with TWF (which is beter). Ok... Do you really think that this is better? It has some interesting options, that I'll grant you. Throw anything is an interesting idea, but being able to throw greatswords at a range increment of 20 feet isn't the most useful thing in the world. The sheer cost of the Greatswords is likely to be slightly prohibitive. The biggest flaw that this character has is that despite some effort made to bolster the Will save, he is still a sucker for the mind affecting spells, unlike the one with Occult Slayer. Still, I will grant you that this is oddly interesting. How about we switch up a bit though? Let's take your exact build here. Remove Iron Will, remove Improved Crit, remove Power Throw (which you don't qualify for anyway). Three less feats will take us to a 15th level Fighter. Instead of taking Fighter for those last levels, you level as an Occult Slayer. You've already qualified for it, and it really helps out. Therefore you have almost all the benefits of your character build, but spellcasters don't make you wet your pants. A clear example of a situation where having the PrC is strictly better than going straight Fighter. There's probably some PrC for that, I know OOTBI is boarderline good for that build (just needs some slightly different feats and skills), but really. If you want to go non-core, there's more out there than PrC's offer and you have the flexability to choose. The Master Thrower PrC would really work here. It would make the throwing of the Greatswords into a useful tactic. The point is that there is always a PrC to pick up for the Fighter, and 95% of the time, it makes the character stronger.
True Archon 05-10-05, 10:02 AM	I agree with you, for the most part, on this statement. However, I believe that a fighter can be "amazingly good" at more specialized arenas of combat. That's what makes the fighter so special... the ability to generalize or specialize, and all depending upon how the player wants to do it. I agree that the Fighter can become "really good" at something it chooses to pursue, provided that he has a long enough feat tree to follow up on. A Fighter who really wants to excel at a particular area of combat will fall behind other classes that have unique features which help in that area, unless the Fighter can get a whole lot of feats he can pick up. In response to the in bold... That's exactly what a fighter gets. A whole lot of feats. And because of all of the feats beyond that of what another class tries to focus on one form of combat, the fighter can advance in other modes of combat with his other remaining feats. That's his "special ability" for the class. For example, your paladin may have the special mount and buffing spells to enhance his mounted combat, but a Fighter could have most/all the feats from the Mounted Combat tree, as well as others that can also help him in mounted combat as well. Just to throw out a few: Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise, Improved Shield Bash, Dodge, Mobility, Quick Draw... any of which could be useful in mounted combat. Again, I agree with you on this statement. Likewise, there are other avenues of combat that a fighter can dip his feat into. Too many people react to feats with a dismissive wave, in my opinion. A class is only as good as the special abilities given it. If you don't use those abilities to the fullest extent, you're shortchanging the class. It's like using a barbarian's rage all of the time, but almost always moving 10 feet at a time. Fighters are a unique case because their class features aren't set in stone, so to speak. A Barbarian gets the same class features regardless of what materials are used (assuming variants aren't being taken into account). The Fighter, however, is much more flexible, and his power base shifts depending on what materials are brought into play. In a core only game, he is weakened because feat trees are short, and other classes can take the same ones and work them better. His other feats beyond a specialization in a feat tree can and should, to a smart fighter player, be used to their fullest ability... as a paladin would be using her smite ability with Mounted Combat feat. Take for example a fighter charging two low AC, high attack bonus giants, with reach, with a 10 foot gap between each of them. While performing a Spirited Charge, the fighter utilizes his Combat Expertise and Dodge feats to boost his AC knowing that he'll probably still hit a giant despite lowering his own attack bonus. With his Mobility, he is able to further increase his AC if/when the giant that he is not attacking utilizes his reach to perform an AoO against him. If the giant instead uses his AoO against the fighter's mount, the fighter can utilize his Mounted Combat and skills in Ride to very possibly negate the hit. The giant that the fighter is attacking, cannot AoO against the fighter, or his mount, because of his Ride-By Attack. In just this example, that's the use of six feats, all of which could have be acquired by 6th level, and all performed in one round. Given that the fighter in my example is facing two giants, he is probably well beyond that level with even more feats that may also be applied! In order for a paladin to likewise buff up or utilize most his special abilities to assist in his mounted combat, it may take two or more rounds! This is where I have to disagree with you. Ok, I can see how the barbarian seems to be better at melee (but not always better... the reasons already stated in previous posts), but I don't see how a paladin and a ranger can be better than a fighter at Mounted Combat and Archery. The paladin's mount may be better than a typical fighter's, but the paladin itself garners no special mounted combat abilities. A paladin's special abilities in smiting evil and "holy crusader" powers are what make a paladin different/better than the other classes. Not his mounted combat ability. The Paladin is better at mounted combat than the Fighter for a variety of reasons. Obviously the big one is the mount. One glaring weakness of mounted combat is how ridiculously easy the mount is to kill. The Paladin's mount is tougher, and has special abilities that other mounts do not. A stray fireball won't kill one, for example. Also, the Paladin has spells and his Lay on Hands ability to keep the mount up, and also to buff it. Spells like Winged Mount, Heal Mount, and Zeal really make the Paladin's mount work. Because the Mounted Combat feat chain is small, and not all of the feats are particularly stellar, the Paladin can easily match the Fighter in that department as well. Also, you can combine Smite Evil as well as Divine Might with a Spirited Charge for a whole lot of damage. Beyond some of what I've already stated in a paladin vs. fighter scenario involving mounted combat above, a paladin's mount is definitely nice, but it also is not even close to near-invulnerable with it's own chance of death when facing enemies of CR rating equal to that of the paladin. For example, let's say the paladin's mount has all of it's paladin-level-induced abilities (a 15th-level paladin). Just about any enemy of 15 CR or higher can quickly dispatch the lower ECL mount. If the paladin had been dependent upon her mount, she'd be more than screwed if her mount falls. A fighter will most probably have other feats to fall back on if his mount falls, despite his own "specialization" in mounted combat. Worse, even if the paladin survives the scenario of a lost mount, it takes her 30 days to regain another special mount, and if her feats are mounted combat oriented, she's now in the fighter's shoes without the extra feats (woe to the paladin if she is facing non-evil enemies anytime during that month). Likewise, a ranger's archery skills are nothing more than the gaining of three feats. Without the prerequisites, which is nice, but prerequisites I'd prefer to have anyways as an archer. Feats that are also available as a fighter's bonus feats. A ranger does excel at sniping, but feat-wise, to excel as an archer by how a ranger does it, a fighter only needs to spend the feats necessary. In fact, he can spend 11 feats out of his 18 feats to garner every (core that is) archery-associated feat with the prerequisites of those feats opening up other feat trees that he can spend his remaining feats on (Mounted Combat, Dodge/Mobility). A ranger can only get those same 11 feats minimally by being human and reaching 18th level. A ranger's specializations are focused on combat involving stealth, favored enemies, and wilderness environment advantages. These are things that a fighter, or any other class, can't duplicate and are what make the ranger special. Sure a couple classes come close, but they don't make it there completely (like the ranger coming close to mimicking their abilities). The Ranger is a tougher nut to crack. The biggest deal is that in order to truly excel at archery, you need to be far away and see your target. That involves a Spot check, and Spot is a class skill for Rangers but not for Fighters. Also, the biggest pain for archers becomes ranged spells. Rangers with their good Reflex save and evasion, handle those a lot better. From the archery tree in the PHB, there are 7 important(ish) feats. The Ranger gets three of them for free. HE can easily match the Fighter, plus he also has spells which help an awful lot. Spells like Arrowstorm and Guided Shot are just great! I agree, the ranger is a tougher nut to crack, but I'll try. Well, in order to get those "7 important(ish) feats", a ranger by 11th level,the minimum to get his three free feats and his other four feats to reach the 7 feats that you feel are important, is still three feats behind a fighter of equivalent level. Yes, the ranger gets his spells, skills, and special abilities, but the fighter also has class abilities that the ranger does not have. For example, heavy armor, higher hit points, and the option of utilizing a tower shield as cover while he fires away with his bow. Also, buffing spells have a tendency to fall short when time is of an essence and standard actions are few in number. Sadly, I do have to admit that the fighter is a bit more screwed in the reflex spell save-with-evasion category, though. At that point, the fighter's player needs to think more tactically and utilize everything available to him to full advantage. However, in later levels, many more feats open up for the fighter while the ranger's special abilities become less frequent as the fighter continues further specialization or opens up melee brawling ability. Argh... girlfriend is telling me I need to go to bed... Worse yet, she's right. Happy posting.
Tony Vargas 05-10-05, 12:43 PM	I disagree. The Paladin can also take Leadership, gets more out of his Cha score, and when you get down to it, powerful cohort+powerful mount > powerful cohort mount. He does more damage on a charge because he can smite evil, too - that doesn't make him a better mounted combatant, it just means he does more to evil enemies. Having a cohort doesn't make him a better mounted combatant, either - you can't ride two mounts.
Jell_Moo 05-10-05, 01:54 PM	He does more damage on a charge because he can smite evil, too - that doesn't make him a better mounted combatant, it just means he does more to evil enemies. Having a cohort doesn't make him a better mounted combatant, either - you can't ride two mounts. I think what he means is- and forgive me if I am off most Radical of Taoists- that the Paladin will have both a special mount and a cohort, whereas the Fighter has a cohort who is his special mount.
Tony Vargas 05-10-05, 02:09 PM	Because feats are granted to all classes, another class that selects the top notch feats will usually match a Fighter in any given situation since it's rare that each and every feat the Fighter has in a particular field applies to every situation. A non-fighter can probably finish one feat chain, he'll match the fighter in situations that call for that chain, more-or-less (typically, the non-fighter will finish a chain that directly bears on some class ability he has, so may outperform the fighter some proportion of the time), but the fighter can complete multiple chains. Throwing in a lot of extra feats means that, maybe, the fighter won't be completing multiple different chains, instead throwing all his feats into one speciality. That makes him more like the non-fighter, not more unique. But yeah, class features such as Rage really turn things around. The fact is that while the other classes don't get anywhere near as many feats as the Fighter does, they do get them. And the ones they do get are used to greater effect. You could also look at it as the feats being chosen to enhance the ability. Barbarians rage, Rage work's even better with Power Attack, not at all with Expertise. A barbarian can choose any feats he meets the preqs for, but he's not that likely to take Expertise. His class abilities aren't just fixed, but they channel him into specific feat choices, as well. It's a tricky situation because as a general rule, the Fighter is outperformed by other classes in a particular area if that class has a class feature that helps, and a feat or two that fits the situation. It's usually pretty marginal. A raging barbarian will out-damage even a fighter very focused on high-damage melee, at most levels, and they're both likely to have feats like Cleave that complement high damage - but the difference is just a few points of damage. Those few points of damage are the barbarian's reward for not really having much choice but to go the high-damage-melee route. One problem though is that this is often not the case. A Fighter who wants to master TWF doesn't do it any earlier than another melee character simply because the prereqs built into the feat chain do not really allow for it. Sure, technically, the Ranger even masters TWF faster, since he get's the last feat at 11th instead of 12th. But, he also picks up any other TWF feats, like TWD, or an exotic proficiency in a double-weapon or whatever, sooner. And, TWF is a marginal style that requires some extra non-STR damage bonuses to really be effective, though. The ranger is an effective TWFer when facing his favored enemies, a rogue a devestating one when he can sneak attack - and the fighter is an effective TWF when specialized in a pair of weapon or an exotic double-weapon, all the time. The Fighter's advantage in this case is that while he's been waiting to meet the prereqs, he's picked up a bunch of other feats along the way. Other characters seldom have this option. Nod. Adding splatbook feats helps a lot. While it can and does power up other classes as well, it does more for the Fighter. Because the Fighter has so many more feats he can get, he gains a greater benefit from new feats being introduced. I can see how it might look that way, but because the fighter already has so many feats to choose from, just in the PH, the addition of even more feats is a relatively minor improvement. The exception being overpowered or game-altering or otherwise 'must have' feats - those do power up the fighter, but hey also powerup anyone who's combat speciality matches them - and they actuall decrease the flexibility of the fighter slightly, since taking them isn't really an option anymore. It doesn't rob him of the chance to be a generalist, that possibility still exists, but it also gives him the chance to be a specialist, which ultimately helps him more.Actually, that's exactly what it does. If extended feat chains are powerful enough to make a real difference to the fighter's overall effectiveness, they're also powerful enough to 'crowd out' other options. That only 'helps him more' if you devalue the generalist aproach in general - and many folks seem to mistake the fact that the system recognizes the value of the flexible or 'generalist' option /by giving specialists a small power boost to compensate/, for 'favoring' the specialist. It's not, it's just trying to balance them. When it comes to Core only, the biggest drawback the Fighter has is that he lacks cap stone ability. By the time he hits high level, he has alreasy taken the best feats, and is stuck picking up the feats he didn't want the first time through. While Barbarians are getting Mighty Rage, the Fighter is picking up something like Improved Unarmed Strike (random example). I understand why that looks like a bad thing, but think about it. The fighter picks up his most desireable class abilities, basically, when he wants to, by meeting preqs. A long feat chain that another class might wait until 12th level for (5 feats) a fighter could have at 4th or 6th. That's not lacking a 12th level ability, that's getting a 12th level ability early. If the Barbarian, for instance, had the option of getting Mighty Rage at 12th level by defering some of his other class abilities, would that actually make him /less/ powerful? Even though the argument is pretty thin, I will mention that Leadership is an optional feat. Leadership is vaguely 'optional' in the sense that a DM can ban it if he doesn't want to deal with running the cohorts. A mount, though it might seem like an odd use of the feat, does not present the challenges for the DM that other sorts of cohorts might, so it's not at all objectionable. OTOH, PrCs are explicitly included only if the DM decides to add them, and only those he decides to include are available. That's 'more optional' than leadership, and for that matter, non-core material is a lot 'more optional' than something in the PH. ;) :rolleyes: ;) Also, it is strongly tied to Cha, and considering the fact that the Fighter is fairly MAD, it is highly unlikely that he will have a decent CHA score. The Paladin however... The fighter is so not 'MAD.' The Monk, which need as-high-as-possible STR, DEX, CON & WIS, is MAD, the Pally, how needs all the STR & CHA he can get, and a good WIS, as well, is MAD... even the Cleric is a little MAD. The fighter /needs/ STR (or, alternately, for some builds, DEX, instead), he can take advantage of a decent INT to get some feats, or he can ignore those feats and still have plenty to choose from, even core-only. There's a big difference between needing a moderate stat (14 or less) to qualilfy for something optional (like a fighter meeting the INT preq for Combat Expertise) and needing a stat to use a class feature at all (like a ranger or pally needing a minimum WIS to cast spells), and an even bigger difference between that and needing a stat as high as possible to maximize bonuses from a class feature (like the pally's CHA). On top of that Mounted Combat isn't one of those chains. A fighter focused on mounted combat needs a high STR, probably wears heavy armor, and the rest of his stat points can go prettymuch where he likes. The pally is similar, but will need a WIS of 14 to have his full spell-casting potential, and all the CHA he can possibly get, to maximize his divine grace, smite, and lay-on-hands abilities. The pally will certainly have the higher CHA than the fighter, but it'll probably be at the cost of STR or CON. And, there are ways of getting leadership bonuses - enough to 'max it out,' in effect - besides CHA. You can get a +4 bonus to your leadership score for attracting a cohort, for instance - and, if you already have a mount, animal companion, or the like, there's a -2. That means that the pally needs to have more than 4 points of CHA on the fighter to beat his leadership score. Not that he won't, but those points come from somewhere... The fact is that there just aren't that many mounted combat related feats. And the ones that do exist just aren't all that great. There is almost no need to get them all. He may be a step behind the Fighter in getting the feats (I highly doubt it, but it is possible). None of the PH mounted combat feats have a BAB preq - the fighter can pick them up as quick as he likes. There's 5 of them, IIRC, in the PH, with one non-mounted-combat preq (PBS, for mounted archery). The fighter can have all of them by 6th, /and/ pick up a mount with leadership at the same time. The pally won't get all of them until 15th, and got his special mount at 5th. I'd call that lagging. but the fact that his mount is so much better not only evens the playing field, it puts the ball directly in the Paladin's court. Well, at 5th, the pally's mount is a heavy warhorse with +2 HD, and some other specials. That's not that huge. Actually, the coolest thing about the special mount is that it's summonable/dismissable. Real mounts are inconvenient by comparison. The Fighter could specialize in the lance, but given the nature of mounted combat, it isn't particularly worth it. Yeah, I'm not crazy about specialization, in general, but, if you're really going to focus on mounted combat, you might as well... I'll grudgingly give you a point here. It's mostly my experience that dictates otherwise. Archery is best used at a great distance, which is where the Spot checks come into play. It is one style, I admit, but I have found it to be an important one. You have a point. I was thinking more of hiding and sniping than encounter distance. In general, though, I think dedicated archers 'stay at range' more by having melee types working with them to engage the enemy, than by counting on staying so far away from the enemy that they can never close. The former is just easier to engineer. Of course, another difference is that the fighter is less likelly to be /dedicated/ to just archery, and can probably put in a better showing in melee. What the ranger is good at, that the fighter can't really match, is scouting and putting the hurt on favored enemies (after 5th level, there's at least one favored enemy that the ranger has a better bonus against than the fighter gets with his specialization). Improved Crit is done by taking the Keen enchantment. Weapon Focus is nice at lower levels, but largely unimspiring at higher ones. Then again, if you don't need Keen that's +1 you can put towards something else - having a burst enchantment instead of a regular elemental one, for instance. Specialization is cool, but is equaled and perhaps surpased by a Ranger facing a Favored Enemy. It's certainly not equaled, since it aplies to all targets. It is surpassed, situationally, when the ranger faces his top favored enemies, but that's not something you can even begin to count on. Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery are a little tough, but when you consider that the Ranger's Animal Companion could be his mount, it makes it a lot more interesting. Unfortunately, the ranger's animal companion is pretty weak. The Ranger can match the fighter on most feats. If you include spells into the mix, things like Cat's Grace, the ability to heal himself, and Tree Stride can offer a few interesting advantages. Well, the ranger can match the most critical feats - eventually, the fighter can still do more out the gate, and is always ahead on feats. Fair enough. I was just tossing ideas around, not really remembering which books certain spells were from (it's rather sad when you look at the Ranger spell list in the PHB). If we stray non-core, the Fighter starts to look a lot better. The Ranger keeps up largely because of some really nice non core spells, but a tricked out archery Fighter with non core feats can probably outperform the Ranger at that point, I'll grant that. Maybe I just don't use non-core material often enough, but what I tend to notice, when I do, is that my fighters still have the same number of bonus feats with which to take twice as many 'must have' feats, and the divine casters get /all/ thier new spells, instantly (and if it's more 'must have spells' than they can prep, buy wands or scrolls). :rolleyes:
Tony Vargas 05-10-05, 02:30 PM	Y'know, the whole 'mounts are vulnerable' truism is so pervasive... ...it'd be fun to just throw an encounter at the PCs where the 'mount' is nigh-invulnerable (and maybe even higher CR) and the 'rider' (who none the less is optimized to do some nasty damage on a charge), and watch them throw everything they can at the mount (while getting progressivly freaked at 'how powerful the rider must be...') :smirk:
Nyferto 05-11-05, 08:04 AM	Good enough to fill potential gaps adequately? Yeah, I think they will be. When you really boil it down, there are two aspects of cpmbat. Melee and Ranged. A four person party can fill both roles just fine. The Fighter can pick up and follow through on feat chains involving both lines perfectly well, and do it in 10 or 12 levels, having picked up enough feats to cover both bases perfectly. That's one of the reasons that jumping to a PrC is so much better for him. No it's more complex than that. It's handling every single combination of factors that can occur during melee and range. Given the vast number of variables that could oppose your Melee and Ranged abilities at one time, having one approach might not cut it. A Druid might wildshape and maul, then use spells to hurt at range - but he's sucking up spells to do something, and it might not even work. Alternatively, he could just get suckered into a trap and have all his melee weakness exploited. Not everybody can handle themselves in combat. Telling the low level wizard he's on his own, that he should take care of himself will result in a dead Wizard. A Rogue surrounded by undead is S.O.L. A Bard tossed into melee is in trouble. The Fighter is the glue that holds them together. Because no one character can do everything (well, unless the character is a Druid), there is a sensible limit on how many angles the Fighter needs to cover. Assuming an iconic party (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) the Fighter can expect support from the cleric in melee, and the Wizard at ranged. The Rogue can fill in both gaps. At the same time, nobody expects the Fighter to be the scout, the Rogue to be the tank, the Wizard to be the healer, or the Cleric to be the nuker. Each character has to rely on other characters to cover some area that they simply cannot. Tell the Cleric to handle himself and he'll take a defensive stance. Ask the Rogue to handle undead and he'll use traps and holy water. A Bard tossed into melee is only in trouble if he can't defend himself with magic. Either way, it wasn't the point, because I'm asking the Fighter to handle combat and doing so. A tanking Cleric need not do much healing at all. Killing the enemy faster means your team gets less hurt, and therefore less heals are needed. It's a tradeoff. It's way to presumptuous, pretend the enemy has intelligence and protects itself - Tanking Clerics aren't actually that strong, they're just forceful. I actually think my examples are right on the money. Another class doesn't care if the enemy gets into melee either. Even if the Ranger has spent several feats on archery, he is still a very capable melee warrior, better than the Fighter in some ways, worse in others. When you really break it down, every single 'warrior' class handles a situtaion the same way. With an attack roll. Different attacks may be used, different techniques and what not, but when it gets boiled down, it's an attack roll. It's the little things that modify this roll that makes life interesting. And why doesn't a Ranger sniping help his party? Can you honestly not think of a situation where this could be a valid and useful tactic? Actually a Fighter might win a battle by grappling the evil Wizard and letting the Rogue sneak attack him. Or he may divert the rock throwing giants attention with Mounted Combat (the feat) so the Wizard can blow it to pieces or the Druid can set-up an army. He may resolve a battle by just standing there with a Tower Shield and protecting people who can better resolve the situation. Paladin Mount is just so much better than a Hippogriff. The easiest way to handle a mounted foe is to kill the mount. Whether this is from attacks or spells, it really makes the mounted combatant hurt. Killing the Paladin's mount is a pain. Killing a mount that the Fighter bought is just so much easier. Replacing the bought mount may be easier to do, but it does you no good whatsoever in that battle. You are mountless there and then, when it really matters. And think about what the Polymorph Wizard can do with the Paladin's Mount. Strictly better than what gets done to the Fighter's. The Polymoprhed Wizard was the mount, and he's better than the explanar once a day mount. If a mount dies - you buy a new one and use different feats until then - sadly for you, Fighters don't have to revovle around one style. Ever seen a Paladins mount effected because it was explanar? I'm not really following you on this one I'm afraid... Before in 3.0, these features were nice things to have, but they didn't make the character. Nowadays they're more essential and powerful, you can actually rely on them being an asset. Like I said, a relatively non min/maxed character that is at least as good, and actually better than a straight Fighter. Your statement regarding the Tempest has me completely bewildered. It removes that attack penalty associated with TWF, raises your AC, and gives you the option to spring attack with two weapons. This is strictly better than a character without these options. There really isn't any doubt on the matter. What does TWF do if you're trying to hit a mounted combatant? How did you actually get to 20th when you have such a poorly focused character? what if you're not a TWF? How useful is the bonded weapon if you need two to be effective? How good are you without certain arrangements? A Character without the PrC - just takes different options, it's a non issue. Ok... Do you really think that this is better? It has some interesting options, that I'll grant you. Throw anything is an interesting idea, but being able to throw greatswords at a range increment of 20 feet isn't the most useful thing in the world. The sheer cost of the Greatswords is likely to be slightly prohibitive. The biggest flaw that this character has is that despite some effort made to bolster the Will save, he is still a sucker for the mind affecting spells, unlike the one with Occult Slayer. Still, I will grant you that this is oddly interesting. How about we switch up a bit though? Let's take your exact build here. Remove Iron Will, remove Improved Crit, remove Power Throw (which you don't qualify for anyway). Three less feats will take us to a 15th level Fighter. Instead of taking Fighter for those last levels, you level as an Occult Slayer. You've already qualified for it, and it really helps out. Therefore you have almost all the benefits of your character build, but spellcasters don't make you wet your pants. A clear example of a situation where having the PrC is strictly better than going straight Fighter. You only need one or two returning greatswords, the requirements for the Occult Slayer aren't that automatic either. The Master Thrower PrC would really work here. It would make the throwing of the Greatswords into a useful tactic. The point is that there is always a PrC to pick up for the Fighter, and 95% of the time, it makes the character stronger. No, it doesn't, because you just take different options, it's more an issue of PrC's designed for use, rather than a flaw of the class though. It's just more apparent for the Fighter because other classes have a myrid of built in functions that protect it (but ultimately hinder it's flexability).
Lion21 05-11-05, 09:50 AM	I'm sorry Ny, but I don't see how having all these extraneous options makes the character stronger. It seems to me that all the options availbile to the fighter, only a few are actually worth bothering with and even remotely capable of being compared to class abilities. A Druid might wildshape and maul, then use spells to hurt at range - but he's sucking up spells to do something, and it might not even work. {/QUOTE] Well, he's not sucking up spells in the melee, and it's almost gauranteed to work (or rather, more likely than the fighter, given the sheer abusive powr that wildshape brings) [QUOTE]Alternatively, he could just get suckered into a trap and have all his melee weakness exploited. And the fighter can't? And what melee weakness? The Druid hits harder and more accurately, is immune to anti-weapon attacks, is likely quadrepedal giving him bonuses to resist trips along with his massive strength and is likely to have equivalent if not greater HP and AC. AND he's a full spellcaster. I don't see how he's in any way worse off than the fighter unless there's an antimagic field involved. Actually a Fighter might win a battle by grappling the evil Wizard and letting the Rogue sneak attack him. Or he may divert the rock throwing giants attention with Mounted Combat (the feat) so the Wizard can blow it to pieces or the Druid can set-up an army. He may resolve a battle by just standing there with a Tower Shield and protecting people who can better resolve the situation. How does the fighter come out ahead in any of these situations save through trying to buy time for the others? And doesn't classes like the druid and so forth do the job better? If you need someone to throw themselves between the wizard and the creature that has been ordered to stop the wizard from deactivating magic artifact O power, it seems that the fighter is least suited to play the role, and supposing once that creatures dead, and the party is attacked by fliers, one might say the fighter is better (since they can adapt to meet the situation head on), but I say the other classes still appear better, it's not as though the Barb doesn't have rapid shot and an awesome bow, the druid can't fly or whatnot. In non-core games, this actually changes, as classes become vastly more focused.to stay competative.
FreeTheSlaves 05-11-05, 09:57 AM	No.
Rialto 05-11-05, 12:05 PM	Yes.
Tony Vargas 05-11-05, 12:19 PM	I'm sorry Ny, but I don't see how having all these extraneous options makes the character stronger. It seems to me that all the options availbile to the fighter, only a few are actually worth bothering with and even remotely capable of being compared to class abilities. I can agree: that's how you see it. I won't even say you're 'wrong' - which options are apealing to a player can be very subjective. You're also right in that it is hard to compare very different class abilities, like feats and spells. How does the fighter come out ahead in any of these situations save through trying to buy time for the others? Heaven forbid a class actually contribute to the success of the party, instead of hogging glory for himself. :rolleyes: And doesn't classes like the druid and so forth do the job better? No, they really don't. If you need to 'warm up' before stepping into a melee or tanking role, or can do so only a limitted number of times, you're not doing that job better, because there will be times when it's critical and durring which you can't do it at all. Melee, in general, and 'tanking,' in particular, is the kind of role that's most critical when you don't have control of the situation.
Nyferto 05-11-05, 12:32 PM	I'm sorry Ny, but I don't see how having all these extraneous options makes the character stronger. It seems to me that all the options availbile to the fighter, only a few are actually worth bothering with and even remotely capable of being compared to class abilities. [QUOTE] Well, he's not sucking up spells in the melee, and it's almost gauranteed to work (or rather, more likely than the fighter, given the sheer abusive powr that wildshape brings) Yeah he is sucking up spells, and he's sucking up his role pointlessly. At lower levels he has very few Wildshape usages and his ability to buff himself is crippled. Worse than that until he gets Natural spell he's automatically bad. After that - he's got the limitation of each Wildshape he chooses. No Wildshape in existance has ranged attacks, he has to rely on offensive spells for that. His size is limited by level and the effectiveness of his forms isn't that great on it's own. Animal forms aren't that strong, they can't bypass DR, they have to power through (though most can't use Power attack and Druids have to take it). If you need to use more than one in a day you have very limited number of uses to do so and remain effective in combat. If you want to attack at range whilst wildshaped, you'll have to use offensive spells, not only do you not have that many spells to throw away, but you're using them for many different things. Even then, you're offensive spells aren't too hot even if you focus on them, and you're ability to cast them is hampered by your need to be in melee (unlike a Fighter who can easily switch). Because of the melee needs of animal forms, it's fairly easy to set them up. A Fighter is reactive, a Druid needs to be aggresive to make use of Wildshape and even then it's not too hot unless you do some rules bending (like Wildshape and Animal Growth/Polymorph). In either case, material being broken does not mean things should be broken for others as well to compensate. Just because someone is more powerful (for whatever reason) does not mean someone else isn't strong enough and different. And the fighter can't? And what melee weakness? The Druid hits harder and more accurately, is immune to anti-weapon attacks, is likely quadrepedal giving him bonuses to resist trips along with his massive strength and is likely to have equivalent if not greater HP and AC. AND he's a full spellcaster. I don't see how he's in any way worse off than the fighter unless there's an antimagic field involved. The Druid has a lame BAB for a melee focused character, everything else is superceeded by Polymorph and teamwork. Not all forms have massive strength, and his spells won't always work. Ever seen a Ranger tame a Wildshaped Druid? How does the fighter come out ahead in any of these situations save through trying to buy time for the others? And doesn't classes like the druid and so forth do the job better? If you need someone to throw themselves between the wizard and the creature that has been ordered to stop the wizard from deactivating magic artifact O power, it seems that the fighter is least suited to play the role, and supposing once that creatures dead, and the party is attacked by fliers, one might say the fighter is better (since they can adapt to meet the situation head on), but I say the other classes still appear better, it's not as though the Barb doesn't have rapid shot and an awesome bow, the druid can't fly or whatnot. In non-core games, this actually changes, as classes become vastly more focused.to stay competative. No they don't need to change at all, you're assuming powercreep will occur. There's no point throwing yourself infront of enemies if you need to be raised each and everytime, especially if you're the one who can raise. By minimising the opponents damage potential, any party can win. Alternatively, if you require to attack people because you're stuffed when all your temporary buffs run out - then you're screwed when the enemy does the same back. Defence is more universal than offence. Barbs don't have any real advantage when it comes to ranged attacks, nore are they a good tactical unit like many Fighters. Missed the Sniping ranger before hand. Until you can compensate for the -20 penalty - it's not a good option. Even when it becomes doable, making one measily ranged attack isn't going to change the world. It's even worse when they just ignore you and just rip the rest of the party to shreads. A Fighter doesn't need to worry about going into the front line, especially one with good counter defensive measures.
Tony Vargas 05-11-05, 01:41 PM	Since people are still voting, here's the current tally: No: 66, 34 w/qualifiers Yes: 36, 26 w/qualifiers Or, to look at it a different way: Yes: 10 No: 32 Not so sure: 60 I think the results are interesting for two reasons: 1) Not a lot of certainty out there. A lot of folks can clearly see both sides of the issue, even if they do seem to weigh those sides differently. 2) Strikingly different from the participation in active fighter discussion. Typically, there are several fighter-bashers for every fighter-booster in such a thread. But, when it's a simple vote, 30+ people come out of the wordwork to say the fighter is fine the way it is.
WunderGoat 05-11-05, 01:54 PM	I think its because there are so many fighter bashers in those threads that the boosters don't want to deal with trying to convice then otherwise.
Tony Vargas 05-11-05, 02:00 PM	My guess would be that the fighter-bashers feel that by taking an activist position they can bring about a change to the rules, so they are very strident and persistent in presenting and defending thier opinions. The few active fighter-boosters, have a similar, but 'reactionary' attitude, since they don't want to see the fighter changed too much, and are worried that all the whining could lead to such changes (afterall, the Ranger, Druid, and Bard were all substantially altered in 3.5, possibly in response to similar 'feedback' - and the Druid ended up arguably broken as a result), or even just to simple (but pernicious) 'power inflation.' The majority of those who feel the fighter is fine the way it is, though, also seem confident that WotC isn't going to change it, so don't see any need to actively defend it. Whether that's out of faith that WotC will do the right thing, or the cynical assumption that no one pays any attention to what we have to say...
Lion21 05-11-05, 04:08 PM	What do you mean by sucking up his role pointlessly? At lower levels, wildshape is indeed somewhat limited though I would argue still sufficient to make the druid and equivalent fighter (at level 6 she gains two wildshapes, and another the next level) and it lasts pretty much all day. The druids use of spells for ranged attacks is very nice indeed, and I would argue not much different from the the wizard or sorc doing the same thing(arguably, sorcs and wizards are better direct blasters,but the druid does plenty well in that role with his spells too. Also, in cases where there are flying enemies, the Druid too can fly to compensate). However, at higher levels is where the problem lies, the wildshapes at that point really do last all day (1 hour per level, 15 hours worth of being a dire bear is quite nice) and their are elemental shapes on top of that too. [QUOTE] His size is limited by level and the effectiveness of his forms isn't that great on it's own. Animal forms aren't that strong, they can't bypass DR, they have to power through (though most can't use Power attack and Druids have to take it). If you need to use more than one in a day you have very limited number of uses to do so and remain effective in combat. I don't know about you, but that megaraptor certainly is scary. And don't forget that the Druid is a walking army waiting to appear. DR can be bypassed with Magic Fang, Oils/potions of bless weapon, Amulets of Mighty Fists and so on. Oh, I nearly forgot, Natural Spell is the very first spell all druids take when raching 6th. Yes, I made a generalization. But it's just that good a feat. You'd be a fool NOT to take it then. The Druid has a lame BAB for a melee focused character, everything else is superceeded by Polymorph and teamwork. Not all forms have massive strength, and his spells won't always work. Ever seen a Ranger tame a Wildshaped Druid? BaB is not much of a problem, note again that the strength and Dex is more than sufficient to bridge the gap. No, not all forms are like that...just the ones used for combat.... And Ol' Druid gets poly too... And no, I havent seen a Ranger tame a druid, atleast not at any level above ten. And what that has to do with the fighter I don't know. The fighter can't pull the Rangers stealth tricks to use on the druid. And as for Polymorphing the Fighter...why do that..when you can do the same to say..the barbarian or cleric...or just let the druid do his thing? No they don't need to change at all, you're assuming powercreep will occur. There's no point throwing yourself infront of enemies if you need to be raised each and everytime, especially if you're the one who can raise. By minimising the opponents damage potential, any party can win. Alternatively, if you require to attack people because you're stuffed when all your temporary buffs run out - then you're screwed when the enemy does the same back. Defence is more universal than offence. Power creep does occur, simply look in the new books released every month. As for throwing yourself in front of enemies, I don't get that statement, who needs to be raised here? The Cleric? The Fighter? If they are in a situation they can't win, why would they be fighting in the first place? As for minimising damage potential, I don't think anyone does that as well as a caster. And of course, theres always killing the enemy first. SOmehting the druid, cleric and Barb all seem to do better than our poor fighter. And why is the cleric required to attack anyone? Just cast when you need to....and how on earth is the enemy outlasting the cleric/barb/druid/? Combat doesn't take too long in DnD, if it's been going on more than 7 rounds ...theres a problem, and it's that your enemies are going to kill you, or you're going to run away. I think the core of the problem is this: The pro-fighters think the fighters feats and the fact that he isn't tied to use per day abilities makes him a superior combatant. The others think that the use per days limitations...arent.
Tony Vargas 05-11-05, 06:07 PM	At lower levels, wildshape is indeed somewhat limited though I would argue still sufficient to make the druid and equivalent fighter (at level 6 she gains two wildshapes, and another the next level) and it lasts pretty much all day. I haven't really played Druids much in 3E. The one Druid I've seen played that stuck in my mind did so because he wildshaped into a snake to chase a naga through a narrow passage that the rest of the party couldn't fit through. Pretty impressive, when you think about it - of course, the naga killed him, but it was still a pretty cool trick that no one else in the party could do... DR can be bypassed with Magic Fang, Oils/potions of bless weapon, Amulets of Mighty Fists and so on. Well, DR/magic can be. DR/adamantine, OTOH... Oh, I nearly forgot, Natural Spell is the very first spell all druids take when raching 6th. Yes, I made a generalization. But it's just that good a feat. You'd be a fool NOT to take it then. Yeah, it's a broken feat, no question. BaB is not much of a problem, note again that the strength and Dex is more than sufficient to bridge the gap. Maybe they do, it depends on how strong the guy on the other end of the gap may be. Polymorph is inconsistent with the rest of the system, though, in the way that it replaces stats, instead of giving a named bonus, and that does cause some problems. And as for Polymorphing the Fighter...why do that.. Typically, you'd polymorph a fighter into an apropriate equipment-using, large form, like a giant. He'll be able to do more with the extra power raw power (Natural Armor, STR, size, etc) because all his feats still aply. when you can do the same to say..the barbarian or cleric... Or anyone else, yes. As broken as polymorph still is, anytime any character can be polymorphed, he probably should be. Not as insane as it used to be, but still problematic. In fact, it's such an obvious thing to do, that a seriously munchkinized party optimized more mid-high level play, would probably largely ignore physical stats in favor of being more-or-less perpetually polymorphed. :rolleyes: As for throwing yourself in front of enemies, I don't get that statement, who needs to be raised here? The Cleric? The Fighter? The character stepping into the melee/tank role takes a definite risk, and even if not killed that often, is going to need proportionately more healing. The Cleric is likely providing said healing (or resurecting), if he's also putting himself forward as the melee/tank, the possibility of his being the first PC dropped (and the party losing the option of healing/ressurecting/whatever other fallen members) is something to consider. If they are in a situation they can't win, why would they be fighting in the first place? :sigh: First off, there's a difference between a difficult fight, where you might lose someone, and an impossible one. Second, you can't always tell that difference before it's two late. Third, you don't always get to choose your battles - it's good to try to do so, but, if your DM is serious about challenging you, there will times when your enemies have chosen the battle. As for minimising damage potential, I don't think anyone does that as well as a caster. There are so many ways to minimize damage - besides just, say maximizing AC, that it's hard to say. Certainly, some spells can greatly reduce some enemy's damage potential. Protection from Elements, for instance, if cast against the right element, can save the protected character a whole lot of damage. So I could agree in that the optimal damage-minimizing scenarios would probably mostly involve some ideal spell for the opponent in question. That doesn't mean that, in play, a given caster will alwasy contribute the most in that respect. And of course, theres always killing the enemy first. Nod. It's an obvious and effective tactic, but, when employed enthusiastically by both sides, makes for very, very short combats... Somehting the druid, cleric and Barb all seem to do better than our poor fighter. When wildshaped/self-buffed/raging, perhaps, marginally so, the rest of the time, no. And why is the cleric required to attack anyone? Aparantly just to try to make the fighter look bad in a hypothetical comparison. In practice, the cleric usually contributes more if he uses his spell resources for other purposes than self-buffing. Combat doesn't take too long in DnD, if it's been going on more than 7 rounds ...theres a problem, and it's that your enemies are going to kill you, or you're going to run away. Combat can be over quickly in D&D, especially at high level, when there are a lot of save-or-lose effects and staggering-damage attacks being thrown around. But, there can also be complex or difficult combats that last a good deal longer, and there can easily be scenarious that call for a rapid series of encounters that can end up just as difficult as single long combat. In short, the game can handle a lot more than well-prepared enemies duking it out toe-to-toe. I think the core of the problem is this: The pro-fighters think the fighters feats and the fact that he isn't tied to use per day abilities makes him a superior combatant. The others think that the use per days limitations...arent. That's a significant issue. A great many class abilities - all spells, Rage, etc - are balanced by limitted use. If you opine that limited use isn't a limtation, than all those abilities are overpowered, some of them radically so, and the whole game needs to be re-designed from the ground up. Most likely, that would entail eliminanting limitted use entirely, since it's a non-issue, anyway, and reducing the power of abilities that were limitted-use accordingly.
Nyferto 05-12-05, 03:52 AM	Lets say a Kobold fireballs the party (it's 5d6 and everyone saves). The party run after him into a room, but he's fast moving and has seemingly disapeared. The Barbarian raged, the Cleric automatically buffed by contingent spells adn the Wizard is immune to everything except critical hits (but that's because he's wearing the wrong shirt). So far a few round have passed, but nothing's happening? maybe nothing else happens for a bit, maybe there's only the hint of something happening, the odd illusion that the Wizard identified but couldn't tell the barbarian in time so he charges at it a bit seperating him from the party. Then lets say the Cleric gets level drained because an incorporeal popped out the floor. The Wizard gets abducted by Hags and Rakshashas and an Iron golem backed up by rust monsters is coming round the corner. Then the evil Kobold uses Gate and all hell breaks loose. Now if they'd been standing around in plane sight it might've been easier. You could've seen the incoporeal and the ethereal because they weren't hiding in walls, the Rogue that couldn't actually disarm the Symbol of Death might've detected the hidden compartments with the monsters inside and the illusions wouldn't have seperated the party. Oh and all you buffs wouldn't be halfway expired.
True Archon 05-12-05, 07:28 AM	...I don't know about you, but that megaraptor certainly is scary. And don't forget that the Druid is a walking army waiting to appear.. Which both have restrictions upon themselves. Yes, wild shape is nice, but unless said druid has seen said shape and has HD at least equal to the assumed form, the said druid can't change to that shape. However, once again, I'm not saying Wild Shape isn't nice. I just wouldn't personally rely on it as the end-all-be-all main class feature. Also, out of curiousity, what shape does the druid take in the typical 10' wide, 10' high dungeon corridor? Is the druid going to use up all of her wild shapes a day everytime they run into a corridor just so she can fit? Out in the open... ok. Small areas... problems (especially at higher levels where bigger shapes would be optimal). As to the walking army... one round casting times just make me wince. Good when needed and useful, but not something, once again, to be relied upon. Especially when time is of an essence. Oh, I nearly forgot, Natural Spell is the very first spell all druids take when raching 6th. Yes, I made a generalization. But it's just that good a feat. You'd be a fool NOT to take it then. . Yeah, it's a broken feat, no question. Any druid who doesn't take this feat has gotta be nuts, IMHO! :D Broken? Possibly... Of course a lot of people argue that non-core feats that help the fighter are broken, too. I don't know, it is a pretty awesome feat that seems too good to pass. Maybe that's the definition of broken: Too good to pass up. Am I to say that it's a broken feat? I guess only in a game that I'm DMing. Somehow I don't think I'll houserule it out though. ;) BaB is not much of a problem, note again that the strength and Dex is more than sufficient to bridge the gap. No, not all forms are like that...just the ones used for combat.... And Ol' Druid gets poly too... BaB is not something to be thrown away so lightly. The difference between a full BaB (fighter) and a three-quarter BaB (druid) is five points, and an extra attack. Given that most fighter's (or "warrior-types" in general) are also going to have the tricked out weapons, feats, and appropriate combat stat-increasing magic items... the typical druid may be playing catch up, or at most just slightly surpassing a fighter of equivalent level. Mind you, I said typical druid. Not some tricked out atypical version of a druid who decided to spend her gold on belts of giant strength, gauntlets of ogre might, or what not instead of items usually taken by a druid (i.e. wisdom increasers). ...Ever seen a Ranger tame a Wildshaped Druid? ...And no, I havent seen a Ranger tame a druid, atleast not at any level above ten.... :heehee :clap: That's just funny. I never noticed it before, but hmmm... it looks like it's possible.... For everything except altering a PC's attitude. I believe that is one of those things that you can't control as a DM. :noway: Now against an NPC... hehehe. ...And what that has to do with the fighter I don't know. The fighter can't pull the Rangers stealth tricks to use on the druid. And as for Polymorphing the Fighter...why do that..when you can do the same to say..the barbarian or cleric...or just let the druid do his thing? Typically, you'd polymorph a fighter into an apropriate equipment-using, large form, like a giant. He'll be able to do more with the extra power raw power (Natural Armor, STR, size, etc) because all his feats still aply. Because some people see something in the Fighter that you don't. ...If they are in a situation they can't win, why would they be fighting in the first place? As for minimising damage potential, I don't think anyone does that as well as a caster. And of course, theres always killing the enemy first. SOmehting the druid, cleric and Barb all seem to do better than our poor fighter. And why is the cleric required to attack anyone? Just cast when you need to....and how on earth is the enemy outlasting the cleric/barb/druid/? Combat doesn't take too long in DnD, if it's been going on more than 7 rounds ...theres a problem, and it's that your enemies are going to kill you, or you're going to run away. All of what you said here can all be the factored by how a DM runs the game. Myself, I've DM'd using monsters firing from cover at a distance, or scattered around, or surrounding the PC's, or running off to warn other allies, or using distractions (illusions, traps, summoned monsters, etc.), or flying, or invisible, or so many things that the imagination is the only limit. Were these situations that put the PCs in a situation where they going to get killed or were forced to run away? No. Well, not always... :evillaugh ...but they sure did take over 7 rounds. Have these been rare occasions? Rarer than short fights, but definitely, and I mean definitely, not rare enough to be dismissed so easily. Now, have I run into these as a player? Ooooohhhh yeeeeeaaahhhh! Once again, not all of the time, but when they do, you start paying close attention to duration abilities and spell durations (especially that fatigue a barbarian gets hit by). I think the core of the problem is this: The pro-fighters think the fighters feats and the fact that he isn't tied to use per day abilities makes him a superior combatant. The others think that the use per days limitations...arent. Superior combatant? Not at all. Combat (and D&D in general) is so full of variables that not any one class can be superior than that of the others. I think that pro-fighters don't see that use-per-day abilities are inferior. In fact, as is evidenced by a lot of posts, most agree that they are definitely useful. However, I believe that they are also trying to point out that use-per-day abilities also have their own drawbacks. Drawbacks that, I believe, most anti-fighters seem to think aren't drawbacks worth worrying about. I think it's more along the opinion that "the glass is half full" vs. "the glass is half empty" outlook that determines whether the fighter is viewed as balanced or not.
Nyferto 05-12-05, 07:35 AM	That's a significant issue. A great many class abilities - all spells, Rage, etc - are balanced by limitted use. If you opine that limited use isn't a limtation, than all those abilities are overpowered, some of them radically so, and the whole game needs to be re-designed from the ground up. Most likely, that would entail eliminanting limitted use entirely, since it's a non-issue, anyway, and reducing the power of abilities that were limitted-use accordingly. To be fair, it only really happens at higher level (the greatest point of contention here). In one campaign (it's a trial run for a massive overhaul). The Barbarian got tuned down a bit, d10, 4+int skills (but they mean more, so it's more like 6+int) and they're essentially the wild untrained warrior amalgamating the Ranger and Barbarian. "Rage" is now a wild fighting feature that combines all of UD, combat benefits and the side-effects (and then some) into combat mode that can be used for hours on end. A spread of benefits are contained within, but you suffer some heavy (mostly-non combat related)penalties whilst it's active. This is like what I was saying before. All of a sudden certain nice features of a class (ranger and paladin for example) became dependable functions, rather than the small offset they should be. So can I just ask now, did anyone think there was anything wrong with the 3.0 Fighter?
Tony Vargas 05-12-05, 01:13 PM	So can I just ask now, did anyone think there was anything wrong with the 3.0 Fighter? As I remember the complaints were basically the same (dead levels, feats being available to other classes, no 'high level abilities,' not competative with uber-casters, no reason not to PrC, etc), but centered on levels after 4 instead of 12, because there was no GWS. :rolleyes: AFAICT, GWS was a response to those complaints, and seems to have worked, as far as it's gone. I supose a feat with Fighter 20 as a preq would quiet some of the remaining complaints.
Jell_Moo 05-12-05, 01:46 PM	As I remember the complaints were basically the same (dead levels, feats being available to other classes, no 'high level abilities,' not competative with uber-casters, no reason not to PrC, etc), but centered on levels after 4 instead of 12, because there was no GWS. :rolleyes: AFAICT, GWS was a response to those complaints, and seems to have worked, as far as it's gone. I supose a feat with Fighter 20 as a preq would quiet some of the remaining complaints. At it's simplest, it would actually make a difference. Imagine: WF: whenever WS: 4th level Fighter Improved Weapon Focus: 8th level Fighter Improved Weapon Specialization: 12th level Fighter Greater Weapon Focus: 16th level Fighter Greater Weapon Specialization: 20th level Fighter So at 20th level, it's +3 to hit and +6 to damage with the chosen weapon. Does it solve all the Fighter's problems? God no. Does it at the very least give the Fighter a little something to shoot for at those later levels? Give him a high end ability he is free to take or not take? Yup. It is a completely patchy sort of solution, but it does give the Fighter a little something for him to remain a "pure" Fighter, and it makes jumping to a PrC a little less of a no-brainer. It also makes TWF somehwhat more viable for the Fighter, as opposed to the weak red headed stepchild of combat options it currently is.
Tony Vargas 05-12-05, 03:33 PM	At it's simplest, it would actually make a difference. Imagine...So at 20th level, it's +3 to hit and +6 to damage with the chosen weapon. That would be an obvious progression, yes, and it has the virtue of not otherwise 'ruining' the fighter's current apeal. I'm afraid it would lead a lot of less experienced players to play fighters that aren't much different from barbarians (just greatswording damage machines), but, at least the option to do something else is still there. Does it solve all the Fighter's problems? God no. Well, of course not. The fighter still can't cast Wish at no exp cost as a free action every round, for instance, and, God knows, there are times when not being able to do that can be a real problem... :smirk: Does it at the very least give the Fighter a little something to shoot for at those later levels? Yeah. I think capstone abilities like that are overrated, and tend to make a class less interesting to work with, rather than more, but a lot of people like em, and, as long as you can trade it in for a real feat... and it makes jumping to a PrC a little less of a no-brainer. It also makes TWF somehwhat more viable for the Fighter, as opposed to the weak red headed stepchild of combat options it currently is. PrCs aren't really much of an issue - they're optional, and they're /supposed/ to be desireable, as a sort of 'bribe' to get the players to buy into the world a litte more. :shrug: And, actually, I've played a lot of fighters, and while I've multiclassed some of them, I've yet to find PrC I really wanted to take. I tend to build fighters to very difinite concepts, and PrCs are usually too specificly something .. else. As for TWF, it's effective enough through mid-levels with WS, and, at high levels, you can afford to layer extra-damage enchantements on both levels and keep it worthwhile. Not that an extra +2 at 20th would overpower it, or anything. I'd be happier, though, if any additional fighter-only feats, including any capstone feat(s), weren't just plain vanilla bonuses. :bored:
True Archon 05-12-05, 06:21 PM	The problem with trying to "fix" a Fighter so that everyone sees that it's worth while to keep up to 20th level, with additional Weapon Specializations, is that it's a needless expense that would weaken the Fighter, not help it. Do I think that the fighter is unbalanced? No. Do I think that the Fighter is being screwed in the special ability department? Yes. The older editions had it better when it came to Weapon Specialization, and the optional extensions of it later towards Greater Weapon Specializations and Weapon Masteries. Unfortionately, to translate that to way current D&D works, to get to the concept of "Weapon Mastery" it would roughly suck up 7 out of the Fighter's 18 feats (including Improved Critical) for ONE weapon. To me, that's just rediculous. Honestly, for the focusing on one weapon, the fighter should be rewarded for it, not hurt for it. It probably would have been better if the following had occurred: 1. Weapon Specialization should give a +1 to Attack and a +2 to Damage with a 4th level Fighter requirement. 2. Improved Critical should have been a part of the "Weapon Specialization" tree at 8th level Fighter instead of opening it for other classes (make them get the keen enchantment if they want it). 3. Greater Weapon Specialization should give another +1 Attack and +2 Damage at 12th level. 4. Then if the Fighter wanted to progress further than that, something along the lines of "Weapon Mastery" could have been introduced after 12th level (maybe 16th or 18th, possibly 20th) with the introduction of another +1 Attack and +2 Damage. This would result in the Fighter being specialized in one weapon with the following feats: Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Specialization, "Weapon Mastery" for a total of four feats that ONLY the Fighter can obtain. With the addition of Weapon Focus (I believe should still be allowed to other classes), the Fighter would have a total of +4 Attack, +6 Damage, and Increased Critical range. So, for a grand total of 5 feats, the fighter can keep the remaining 13 feats in order to further become a Combat Monster on the battlefield. Heck, for the Power Gamers out there, why don't we just make Weapon Specialization special abilities gained at those levels for every Fighter out there, instead of feats. I don't know, but I think that's kinda extreme though... Well, what do you all think? Make the anti-fighters happy, and make the pro-fighters ecstatic?! Think about it.... only for one weapon.... won't make the other warriors feel inadequete.... :P
Nyferto 05-13-05, 03:55 AM	So you'd gain them as bonus abilities at every 4th level for free? I just changed GWF and GWS (why aren't they improved?), to damage Focus and damage Spec (bonuses when using weapons of a damage type rather than just weapons. I still wouldn't take them. Backwards feats are annoying, they're the ones like WF that get worse the more you invest in them. TWF does that too, but WF is absolutely one of the worst chains out there. Not only does it get less beneficial as you go up in the chain, but it becomes even more restrictive as you do so. If people got over the WF tripe they might find ways to make Fighters that are actually effective, rather than retarded "specialists". Jell, rather than try to out TWF the Fighter with a TWF PrC, try to out fight a Fighter with a TWF PrC, it doesn't work. For the record, when I previously mentioned the Barbarian altered for a campaign. The Fighter became a specialist soldier and the current Fighter is the PrC. Oh and not having GWF and GWS in 3.0 might mean something if the compared variables were the same. Barbs only got a +3 to attack and damage and less ratio on power attack. Rangers favoured enemy wasn't so fixed and Improved Critical always had a noteable impact.
True Archon 05-13-05, 04:16 AM	I just keep seeing that a lot of people who focus on the Fighter being an underpowered class usually do it because of the Weapon Specialization tree. That's almost always the reference point brought up. Somehow, I think if they saw that Weapon Specialization were an increasing ability that doesn't use up all the Fighter's feats, a lot of them would start to feel that the fighter was fine as a class (or at least compared to other warrior classes). Unfortunately, in my extreme scenario of offering both feats and gaining Weapon Specialization as a special ability at certain levels, I think that a lot of people would start complaining that the Fighter would be over-powered (like the 3.5ed Druid when it came out). My idea was to offer Weapon Specialization as a feat giving a +1 Attack & +2 Damage option that only the fighter could obtain, instead of the piecemeal of multiple feats that bleed the fighter's feat resources. Maybe this would produce a happy medium that anti-fighter advocates would find "balancing."
ManTimeForgot 05-13-05, 04:52 AM	My problem with the fighter is that he is not the king of all combats. He cannot be a better two-handed fighter than a barbarian. The fighter archer is roughly comparable in function to the ranger archer (the most recent threads on the topic have highlighted differences in build, but they are nonetheless comparable even if we are unable to establish a clear victor). The fighter is not a better mounted combatant than a paladin. Also it remains to be seen whether or not the paladin would be better suited to sword and board than a fighter due to the low feat intensity of the S&B style (obviously sword and board is pretty consistently viewed as underpowered probably in large part due to the existence of animated shields but also due to the low amount of feats which add to the S&B style). So this means the only way a fighter can be the best combatant is if you make it a "generalist" contest. I approach D&D with the understanding that the fighter should be able to be the best at any style of combat BECAUSE that is all the fighter can do. There is nothing out of combat that another fighting class cannot do equally or better. Even still the generalist fighter is pretty consistently viewed to be less powerful than specialized builds. If it were true that the generalist were a better avenue for using the fighter, then more people would stay fighter instead of specializing into a PrC. Either the fighter should be better than everyone else at fighting or the fighter should have something else to do while out of combat. My vote: Yes the fighter is underpowered. Edit: True Archon: if the fighter could get weapon specialization and lots of feats, then I would be fine with the fighter. It would mean the fighter wouldn't have to give up damage to be top notch in two areas of combat: melee and range. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
True Archon 05-13-05, 05:38 AM	...Edit: True Archon: if the fighter could get weapon specialization and lots of feats, then I would be fine with the fighter. It would mean the fighter wouldn't have to give up damage to be top notch in two areas of combat: melee and range. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Well, it would be interesting to see in use at the very least. As I said before, at least previous editions automatically gave weapon specialization to every fighter (and only single-classed fighters). Unfortunately, previous editions also had single, individual weapon proficiencies, and weapon specialization was a bigger deal back then (especially with the increased number of attacks). On top of that, the optional GWS and Mastery versions that later made an appearance increased the usefulness of Fighter weapon masters. I like the way they do proficiencies in 3+ edition, but I think they kinda lost the meaning behind Weapon Specialization in the process of creating the new system. Especially Improved Critical. If this feat wasn't screaming being a part of the Weapon Specialization feat tree, I must have missed something in the meaning of becoming a "master with a single weapon" somewhere. However, would I be interested if they put in a little more specialness into Weapon Specialization? Yes. Would I be horribly disappointed if they left things the way they are now. No.
Nyferto 05-13-05, 07:45 AM	Surfice to say, MTF got it wrong IMO, been down that route before. The point he raised though - is valid. Whilst it is completely untrue that a Fighter can do nothing out of combat (having two people being able to do soemthing isn't actually a bad thing either), it would be nice if other classes were built round each other, not on-top of each other in certain regards. When I got the CAdv and looked through the new classes, my opinion of the Rogue changed. Before I hated it for having it's niche completely covered (compared to every other class that has an absolute alternative). Now with the CAdv, all those classes not only step on his toes, but provide some drastically different and potentially better options. I didn't touch the Rogue before, and I probably won't now unless it's out of pity or multiclassing needs. Sure it still has it's valid assets and unique functionality, but it's getting to the point when it's nearly pointless to play the class unless you actually wanted to be a Rogue. I think this problem translates to the Fighter, with around 6 alternatives all with their own specialisations the Fighter is left being the Fighter. Then throw on a myriad of poorly done PrC's and you've limited it even more, if it wasn't for some unique feat selections that were also thrown in, you'd get left with very few unique options.
ManTimeForgot 05-13-05, 08:55 AM	I don't believe I said that the fighter can't do anything out of combat. Obviously the fighter is capable of engaging in out of combat actions. What I am stating is that the fighter is not capable of engaging in anything out of combat better than other people. This means that the fighter is devoid of any out of combat niche. Which I assume means that the fighter's niche belongs exclusively to combat. If this is the case, then the fighter needs to be the ultimate fighting class. I freely admit this takes a very mechanical view of class design, but that is in my opinion exactly how one should approach balancing a system. Surely there are people who have had fun with their fighters, and there have undoubtably been people who found their fighter to be effective in his or her role, but there is quite obviously a bias with respect to one's own characters. I don't think anyone who has played and found their fighters to be satisfying could possibly disagree with the sentiment that the fighter would be more well-founded if at high levels he or she was able to engage in feats of skill/ability which rivaled magic. Certainly the fighter should be just as heroic in stature, even if it is of a different type of heroism, as the magic types (of course this view begins to approach what I view as the "magic bias" in D&D which is another topic). I am quite certain a fighter is able to conduct him or herself in their role as combatant in D&D. What I do think is that the fighter is too narrowly constrained, and that as a result of this is at a loss for power. Certainly if the adept was the PC class and the wizard were the NPC class people would feel the adept was at a loss for power since there existed an alternative class within the same paradigm that had greater power even if it was a little more focused on arcane spells (the adept does have a few divine spells going for it if memory serves). As a caveat of my previous statements I would, however, like to point out that the out of combat actions that a fighter can take could in almost every case (without any exclusion I can think of, though this is not to say there are none) be performed by any member of a party, including an npc cohort or follower, with equal ability scores. I could bring in a character with a Joe-Schmoe class, assuming such a thing existed, that had no powers what-so-ever and as long as he had the same ability scores as the fighter he would contribute the same things as the fighter out of combat. All of the fighter bonus feats after all are by definition combat related. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Nyferto 05-14-05, 07:52 AM	That's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. Now all of a sudden, every single character in the universe is in one party? Is you're entire disdain for the Fighter based on one thing - that other people can do one other thing better. That's just stupid, it doesn't matter if they can do one thing - if you need them to do another as well. I couldn't care less if x class combination is better at x than y fighter, because y fighter does y and z and every other letter in the combat alphabet. Conversely, what's the point of Rangers being good at one thing (like woodland surival), if someone else does it better? Then all you've got is a substandard warrior with a bunch of redundant abilities. So you have the Rangers woodland ability supplanted by the Druid, and the Rangers ability beats the Barbarians, which must mean they're both cruddy additions to a team when you've already got a Druid. At which point - Fighter or Paladin. Maybe you've got a diplomatic Bard in the party, no point in the Paladin or Cleric trying - best stick with the woodland ability - so either Ranger or Barbarian. Or you could just take a Druid. So now you've got a Bard and a Druid. Then there's the magical component, I'd take Sorc or Wizard. What's left? Combat, well all the other combatants are undermined by other classes asside from their combat ability. Best stick with Fighter then. Oh and by the way If D&D rewards specialists, then I hate to tell you but the people with applications outside of combat - they aren't specialists. Being the outright master of combat would make all other classes that try pointless. By your own assertion, if someone else can do it better -why bother? My problem with the fighter is that he is not the king of all combats. He cannot be a better two-handed fighter than a barbarian. The fighter archer is roughly comparable in function to the ranger archer (the most recent threads on the topic have highlighted differences in build, but they are nonetheless comparable even if we are unable to establish a clear victor). The fighter is not a better mounted combatant than a paladin. Also it remains to be seen whether or not the paladin would be better suited to sword and board than a fighter due to the low feat intensity of the S&B style (obviously sword and board is pretty consistently viewed as underpowered probably in large part due to the existence of animated shields but also due to the low amount of feats which add to the S&B style). Now this is extra dumb, you go on about low feat intensity, but say a Fighter can't master combat. Combat isn't any one of those styles, you know that. As non of those people are actually masters of combat, the Fighters must be because they can handle all of those styles in one go. Even worse for your standpoint - combat isn't about styles. It's about tactics and options and application and finally - damage control. Your assertion that they can't be a better at x than y can is meanignless, because being great at x doesn't mean you can beat all others. This isn't rock paper scissors, it's just combat. Worse than that - you don't always have the players to handle all 3, you can't go in with the 3 attack forms and hope you'll beat everything. I swear, if people actually looked at what they were doing, they'd see they were talking gibberish. generalisation is the only way to handle combat, and it's not that hard to accomodate for all that and some extras on the side. All you have to do is actually use those 20 levels of bonus feats intelligently.
Taekwondo 05-14-05, 12:14 PM	in my opinion, there is no way the fighter is underpowered. especially with feats in books other than the player's handbook, the fighter never runs out of ways to make himself able to kill you. at lower levels, noone can beat the fighter, period (except maybe a paladin or a barbarian) because spells kinda suck at low levels (sorry if i offend anyone, but my friends and i think they do). at higher levels, it starts to even out a bit because spells get better and better. some books to take really good fighter feats from include Complete Warrior (duh), complete adventurer, exalted if you're exalted, vile darkness if you're really evil, and, i assume, heroes of battle (which i want really badly).
Aki Warren 05-14-05, 12:14 PM	First off, My vote is Yes, the fighter is underpowered! I used to support fighters as being just fine. My fighter in the campigian I was in was doing just as good as a barbarian. I thought to myself "Wow, what are people talking about?" Then I played a Barbarian. And a Paladin. And a Ranger. The difference is staggering. The Paladins Divine Metamagic feat is quite nice, and with the exalted feats that allow you to use Charisma to damage and attack bonus (and let's face it, when your a paladin you should be exalted anyway!) means it's not quite as MAD as you thought. In fact, wisdom, Charisma, and Con is it. That's not bad at all, and it gets a sweet mount and spells! A Ranger can do archery or TWF. Dex also allows an AC comparable to that of a fighter and with Archery and Weapon Finesse who needs strength? Just boost dex off the wall and focus on adding dice to the attack roll with elemental damage instead of boosting strength. Makes a nice wall, actually. A Barbarian is fast. A Barbarian can Rage. Rage makes him good at everything strength based which I believe includes Tripping, Sundering, and Grappling. I think disarming, but I'm not sure so I'll skip it. This means that for the most part, the stuff a fighter can do a Barbarian can do JUST AS WELL with his strength bonus (Most feats grant a +4 and a barbarians strength bonus adds a similar amount at higher levels). If the Barbarian takes the feat, no reason he shouldn't, then he's doing it a crap load better. Rage boosts Will saves as well, which is KEY! Just remember, 140 hp or whatever doesn't matter. One failed Charm save and your the wizard's best friend, regardless of what side he's on. It's very rare to see the fighter being attacked, ever. Why bother? Just charm him, make him grapple the wizard, and beat the tar out of him. It's a normal tactic used by casters that whenever you see someone who's meleeing cast a will save based spell. Now a Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Monk resist this much much better then the Fighter. The Barbarian does this through rages, true, but that's better then nothing. The Fighter gets...iron will. Not a bad feat, but still doesn't raise him to everyone elses levels. And considering a fighter is pretty mad himself (Str, Con, Dex 13, Int 13 and Wisdom can't be a dump is MAD) means he just doesn't have the points to boost wisdom to get a decent will save! And if he doesn't have the Dex 13 or Int 13 he's crippling himself. He needs those stats to be able to chose all the feats possible. He gets so many that he really does need them.
Thanatos02 05-14-05, 12:15 PM	I'm afraid that once the argument begins, it'll not stop. More or less, it's a heated topic that draws a lot of support both ways, but it really does seem a little silly to me. It's the same as a Bard, really. The Bard is not the strongest in combat. His magic isn't the strongest. His unique attribute, bardic music and bardic knowledge, are not appreciate by everyone. The Bard is versitile, but for people that insist that every class be master of one thing, the Bard looses favor and is 'gimped' or 'underpowered'. They fail to realize that the Bards ability to step into a variety of roles including - being a master of diplomatic situations is the Bards power. In the same way, the Fighter can step into a variety of combat situations. In a party situation, the Fighter is vital, because the party that includes 2 Clerics, a Barbarian, a Ranger, a Paladin, a Wizard or Sorcerer, a Druid, a Monk, and a Fighter is rare in the extreme. Most parties are only 3 to 5 people strong, from what I've seen, and the general assumption by Wizards is a 4-person party. That 4-person party doesn't have room for all of the characters that beat a Fighter at everything - it requires a little bit of general knowledge, and the Fighter steps up to the plate well. Now, if you think that's foolish, or what-have-you, you're free to disagree. Many do, it's a thread about voting, and many have voted the other way. My confusion stems mainly from the assumption that we're playing 20 levels of a base class. With multiclassing available and easy, and PrCs being very popular indeed, there are pleanty of avenues for a Fighter-type character to gain the focus and flavor so richly desired by Fighter-detractors. If the Fighter still fails to appeal, dispite its ability to create a solid combat-oriented character or lead up to a focus-creating Prestige Class, then that might be the problem.
Aki Warren 05-14-05, 12:25 PM	The difference is I love the bard and think it's an amazing class and any party that gets to play with one should count itself lucky. I think the opposite of the fighter, even though I love it
Thanatos02 05-14-05, 12:33 PM	I understand, but the example was designed to consider the similarity in role and not how players feel about the bard. However, I really do like the Bard - it's a group favorite here. :D
ManTimeForgot 05-14-05, 10:34 PM	That's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. Now all of a sudden, every single character in the universe is in one party? Is you're entire disdain for the Fighter based on one thing - that other people can do one other thing better. That's just stupid, it doesn't matter if they can do one thing - if you need them to do another as well. I couldn't care less if x class combination is better at x than y fighter, because y fighter does y and z and every other letter in the combat alphabet. Conversely, what's the point of Rangers being good at one thing (like woodland surival), if someone else does it better? Then all you've got is a substandard warrior with a bunch of redundant abilities. So you have the Rangers woodland ability supplanted by the Druid, and the Rangers ability beats the Barbarians, which must mean they're both cruddy additions to a team when you've already got a Druid. At which point - Fighter or Paladin. Maybe you've got a diplomatic Bard in the party, no point in the Paladin or Cleric trying - best stick with the woodland ability - so either Ranger or Barbarian. Or you could just take a Druid. So now you've got a Bard and a Druid. Then there's the magical component, I'd take Sorc or Wizard. What's left? Combat, well all the other combatants are undermined by other classes asside from their combat ability. Best stick with Fighter then. Oh and by the way If D&D rewards specialists, then I hate to tell you but the people with applications outside of combat - they aren't specialists. Being the outright master of combat would make all other classes that try pointless. By your own assertion, if someone else can do it better -why bother? Now this is extra dumb, you go on about low feat intensity, but say a Fighter can't master combat. Combat isn't any one of those styles, you know that. As non of those people are actually masters of combat, the Fighters must be because they can handle all of those styles in one go. Even worse for your standpoint - combat isn't about styles. It's about tactics and options and application and finally - damage control. Your assertion that they can't be a better at x than y can is meanignless, because being great at x doesn't mean you can beat all others. This isn't rock paper scissors, it's just combat. Worse than that - you don't always have the players to handle all 3, you can't go in with the 3 attack forms and hope you'll beat everything. I swear, if people actually looked at what they were doing, they'd see they were talking gibberish. generalisation is the only way to handle combat, and it's not that hard to accomodate for all that and some extras on the side. All you have to do is actually use those 20 levels of bonus feats intelligently. Acerbic and insulting. I would normally approach such a reponse by ignoring it, but since I get the impression you are actually trying to put forward a meaningful presentation I will deign to make a response. First of all, I was talking about how sword and board is a non-feat intensive style, not asserting general low feat intensity. Be that as it may, one really needn't invest all that many feats into combat effectiveness if you already possess a natural advantage in that arena, but this is something I will get to later. We all should be able to recognize by now how underpowered sword and board is as a style, and therefore need not consider it for the purposes of the general utility of a fighting class; even so I did present and argument with reference to it, if just in passing, because it is an avenue which someone as a fighter type may wish to pursue for flavor reasons (the object being, I can only assume, to achieve better defenses, but like I said before this pretty much leaves the paladin as the clear winner since his natural defenses are better than the fighter's hands down). I want you tell me why you would ever choose a class which has equal X values but in one respect, one of the classes has a better Y value. If you are going to play an archer, then the ranger is that class with a better y value. If you are playing a mounted combatant the paladin has the better y value. If you are playing a two-handed fighter the barbarian has that y value. So then what do you propose to do with the fighter? Oh that's right you're going to get pedantic on me and start telling me that combat is more than just one avenue; that you need both melee and range capability. Well congratulations, if you sat down and actually thought about like I have, then you would realize just how much trouble that assertion gets you into. If the fighter is weaker in one avenue of combat than the other class, then that other class has to put less focus on being good at that class than the fighter does. Which means as a barbarian I can focus less on being good at melee and pick up some archery feats and be just as good as the fighter. There are only a handful of feats which make one a viable combatant in an avenue of combat. The barbarian will be able to make use of a bigger bonus mighty bow, and that makes up for whatever little tricks the fighter can pull off. For ranged warfare: you will want precise shot (point blank shot as a consequence of the former) and weapon focus in your bow; some will argue improved precise shot. Let's break down the archery feats just to illustrate this point: Rapid Shot: Decent, but not necessary to be effective. Against some enemies it will be more effective to use, and against others it won't be. Decent feat, but not necessary. Far Shot: WIthout a good spot score you cannot possibly hope to engage in ranged combat at the distances provided. Shot on the run: Useful to go out from cover positions to make shots. This is very much terrain dependent, and does not make one that much of a better archer. At higher levels this becomes much less useful as enemies become taller or fly. Manyshot: Usually viewed as being not quite as good as rapid shot, and under many circumstances this is true. Can be a decent feat for rogues if improved manyshot is allowed in the game. So the barbarian spends three feats to be able to enter into the ranged warfare and do so effectively. Weapon specialization is countered by the barbarians bigger mighty bonus. So what reason is there to be a fighter? Yep its only to pick up those extra tricks. Even worse for the fighter in the realm of archery is that the barbarian has a natural speed advantage, and that means a lot to archers. But on the other side of things, the fighter has to spend extra feats to be just as good as the barbarian in the melee realm. The barbarian's extra strength adds a great deal to THF melee, and the fighter will require IWS to come even close to dealing the same damage as the barbarian, and won't have the same to hit. In sum the barbarian has to spend a little extra to be effective at ranged combat. The fighter has to spend a little extra to be nearly as effective as the barbarian at melee combat. Who comes out ahead? The barbarian does because he has other abilities which take place out of combat. You really try hard at being pedantic... It's a shame you fail so miserably at it. If you want to discuss party dynamics, then let's do it shall we? Sure a ranger is a largely redundant feature in a group with a druid in it. You might even say that renders the barbarians out of combat features removed. So what does that leave us with? The barbarian is equal to the fighter, and out of combat abilities are now no longer a factor. So what is the point of the fighter exactly if he is entirely redundant with the barbarian? Or how about this one: the druid is going to have more in common with the barbarian in both background and attitude, and thus more likely to get along. Guess that kinda throws a monkey wrench in your assessment of the dynamic huh? Let's look at a paladin in a group which has a healing cleric (and only a cleric dedicated to healing because otherwise you will want extra healing capability). The paladin surely doesn't add all that much in out of combat ability, but that still doesn't change the fact that the fighter has to take a little bit more to be nearly as effective as the paladin at mounted combat (some might argue its just not possible since the paladin can summon his mount into dungeons and this is something the fighter cannot duplicate even with leadership). In a group with a healing cleric, strength cleric, druid, and rogue with use magic device, what utility does any other class bring to the table? Not bloody much. The group can heal, it can fight, it can cast divine spells no problem, and the rogue will be able to get the party into places and be able to use low level arcane devices (like a wand of identify) no problem. You can try and make a case for a wizard being able to use certain niche spells like analyze dwoemer, or engage in item creation, but that is about it. And you can try and make a case for a monk bringing specialized caster slaying to the table, but no pure fighter type, at all, not barbarian, fighter, ranger, or paladin, brings anything to the table. Thus if we are speaking purely in terms of party dynamics, then the fighter is GUARANTEED to be underpowered since fighter types are ALL underpowered by virtue of what they are. D&D rewarding specialists is a general tendency as it applies to any ability type in the game, not just fighting. A fighter is not the master of all combat types. Physical combat isn't the only type of combat as it is an entirely different arena than magic combat. Aside from this combat is not the only ability type in D&D. Social manipulation is one area of expertise. Stealth is one avenue of expertise. Survival talent is another area of expertise. Divine magic is one area of expertise. Arcane magic is one area of expertise. Then physical combat is another area of expertise. I could if I wished to not adventure in the slightest simply create a uber-focused social manipulator bard simply cease to fight at all. I just convince a town that fighting is in their best interest, or send in my cadre of body guards, or strike a deal with a high level wizard, or hire a high level assassin (gather information is quite useful when you know how to use it). Stealth if done as an entire focus could also render combat obsolete. Need an item? Steal it. Need to get into a place? Sneak in. Need to get someone out? Smuggle them out. Need someone dead? Poison them/coup de grace them in their sleep. Done properly (which is to say you gain the trust and support of the local thieves guild) there is no reason to think that anyone would suspect you of being the source of all these seemingly unrelated acts, and thus anonymity protects you from attack. Without survival talent you render your party prone to ambush, possess the inability to adapt to unfamiliar or harsh terrain. Things like spot, search, survival, animal empathy, listen, and various druid and ranger (and to a much lesser extent wizard/sorc spells) all aid in ones ability to stay alive inspite of diverse circumstances. This is expecially true once parties are thrust onto other planes of existence. Really it is just closed minded to think that physical combat is all there is to D&D, and it blatently ignores the meaning of the principle: specialists are more powerful than generalists. A wizard focuses on arcane spellcasting, and thus is a better arcane caster than a hexblade. Obviously the wizard has a few talents which are outside the realm of arcane casting, but it is really tough to get much more pure caster than the wizard without creating something which isn't a class and is just a casting mechanic with hp. My own assertion does NOT suggest that if someone is better than you "why try?;" it is much more complex than that, and someone who presumes to possess knowledge of the intricacies of party dynamics should know better. What I am saying is that if someone is better than you at something, and that something is what the party requires, then you should be whatever class has that something in its greatest degree. IF, however, the party needs two somethings, then that is where the choices are made. If my party consists of a rogue, a bard, and a healing cleric, then what does my party need? It needs physical combat talent sure, but it also needs survival talent. I could choose a barbarian and have good physical combat and a lesser amount of survival talent. I could choose ranger and have perhaps slightly less physical combat ability, but much greater survival talent. Of course here again I bring up the point of how a specialist is more powerful than a generalist, as this rule applies to parties as well as individuals. The party as a theme could use stealth (ranger, bard, and rogue) as a way of potentially avoiding combat. The bard uses stealth spells on the cleric, and the rogue and ranger scout out positions to find ways around the opponents. Such a group would function well, and could find that the addition of fighter would present a greater strain on resources. The party with a fighter instead of a ranger would have to spend funds on survival equipment (magic items later on) and could not engage in nearly as much stealth. Did the addition of the fighter add something to the party? Yes. Did it add as much as the addition of the ranger? I seriously doubt anyone would answer in the affirmative. And I swear if people supporting the fighter sat down and looked at what feats actually did and compared them to what spells could do, then they would realize that passed 12th level there is ZERO reason to even want a fighter as a PC. I couldn't care less about having a fighter in the party at level 15. Sure having a few meat shields is nice, but then again I can SUMMON meat shields (and not it won't come out of my spells per day since the entire party is made up of item crafters). Even a rogue starts to mean a lot less at higher levels, since traps pretty much have to be magical to have any chance of hurting the party severely. And those traps can almost as easily be dispelled as they can be disarmed by a rogue (which has always been something I couldn't quite understand, how does a rogue disarm a symbol of pain exactly). Mechanical traps can be circumvented magically so easily its inane. So what does this leave us with? Oh that's right the real high level party of D&D: Druid, Cleric, Wizard/Sorc (take your pic), and Bard. After 20 feats you are left with what to take? Improved disarm. Improved bull rush. If you seriously think a +4 bonus to a single combat maneuver which is hardly ever used is worthwhile to take, then you honestly don't know a thing about mid to high level characters. Now let's say the fighter generalizes his combat approach (which we know to be less powerful than focusing on two approaches to combat). The fighter can now engage in archery, melee, mounted combat, and grappling with proficiency. Does this make him useful with the above? Not really. Of all the times that the fighter uses mounted combat, how much of it involves grappling? None. Of all the times the fighter is melee fighting in the underdark, how much of it involves mounted combat? None. At some time or another various feats are DEAD WEIGHT. Sure you want to be prepared for a contengency, but some fighting styles are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You cannot be engaging in grapply and EVER hope to have archery as a contingency. Once you commit to a grapple ranged combat is excluded. So we can pretty firmly establish that focusing on one or two forms of combat and then having a backup plan in case your specialty is rendered ineffective to be the best way to approach a fighter type. So as a melee fighter I am going to have to have an archery backup, and I am going to want to be able to grapple if it really comes down it. Which here again makes the barbarian a better melee combatant than the fighter since the barbarian will have greater strength. The archery fighter is going to want to be decent at melee in case things become reduced to tight quarters (though once you have improved precise shot this is usually not an issue, being surrounded is the only real exception), and you will want good speed. Being faster means you get away from melee combatants quicker, and even better you get away from grapple opponents quicker (grapples are the bane of archers since they are rendered completely ineffective by a grapple). Longstrider definitely contributes to one's land speed, and the barbarian quickness actually helps here too (so even a single level of barbarian can actually mean a lot for an archer). Sitting there and telling me combat is about options is just silly. Tactics yes, options? Not even close. If you want to tell me that it is a superior choice to take improved disarm over having an extra rage per day, then you are barking up the wrong tree. If it came down to choosing between having improved disarm and having an extra rage per day, then there is no question in my mind which I would take. None. The options that a fighter has are SUB-PAR; that is exactly why the fighter is underpowered. Options don't mean a damn thing if they aren't viable ones. The only viable options in combat involve damage or avoiding damage. This is probably what you mean by "damage control," though you could have been a bit more specific, and the fighter quite simply DOES NOT have those options. The fighter is a subpar archer because he has a poor reflex save (this means he is much more vulnerable to magical ranged attacks), can't hide very well, has less speed than the other fighting classes (the paladin on his mount has good speed), and for what? So he can try and get CLOSE to the effectiveness of the classes in other regards. That is NOT balance; that is the very definition of imbalance. If you have to try harder to good at something than the other person has to try at being good at what you are good at, then there is by definition imbalance. The fighter's damage control features are sub-par. When the benefits of feats start becoming nearly equal to class abilities, then we can start talking about parity of balance. Until then there isn't even a question as to whether or not the fighter is underpowered. I would trade the benefits of dodge, mobility, and shot on the run for long strider 2 times per day in a heartbeat. There just isn't any question. None at all. I would trade the benefits of improved weapon focus and improved weapon specialization for rage 4 times per day in a heartbeat. There just isn't any question. So when you can come back to me with something more than vagueries about damage control and actually tell me how the fighter is tactically superior to the other fighting classes, then we will have something to discuss. Until then. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Jell_Moo 05-14-05, 11:10 PM	I had a few idea floating around in the back of my head, and thought I'd share them. Then I read The Man That Time Forgot's last post and now I just don't see the need. He got it right on the money. Kudos for spelling out the situation exactly as it is.
Cardinal Teplin 05-15-05, 08:03 AM	If you think that doing damage in combat is more important than using combat manoevres, then yes the fighter will be underpowered. Fighters don't do more damage than barbarians, generally speaking. If you are into combat manoevres, then feats are more useful than rage. "If you want to tell me that it is a superior choice to take improved disarm over having an extra rage per day, then you are barking up the wrong tree." If you are trying to disarm an opponent, then it is a better choice. I personally would rather have the improved disarm, simply because I don't think that, at high levels, an extra point of damage or to hit or two makes much difference to the outcome of a fight.
Tempus665 05-15-05, 08:23 AM	What I'd like people to do here is share their opinion one way or the other, and explain why they think so. Thanks. No way the fighter is underpowered. He gets a whole bunch of feats with which to familiarize and power-up his prowess. He may not be a superstar in the skills-department (but raising Int can help him there), he may not be able to cast a fireball, but he's quite the presence in any fight (as long as he manages to succeed a couple of saving throws). Roleplaying-wise, it doesn't even matter :)
Vahenir 05-15-05, 08:45 AM	Here's how I see it, and I don't give a good flying Martha Stewart if anyone agrees.. I'm just putting it out there. The Fighter -is- most assuredly underpowered. But not painfully so. He's still certainly playable. And pretty fantastic at lower levels. But as the levels go up, the appeal of the Fighter goes down. At those levels, everyone else is doing such.. cool things. Wizards are pumping out uber spells of doom, Rogues are sneak-attacking everything in sight for an obscene amount of damage.. and Fighters are kind of left on the backburner. Surely, this isn't a huge problem. But it does make the Fighter less appealing. A few simply additions to the Fighter, like a Save boost here and there for his crappy saves, maybe an ability or two for free relating to his armour - after all, he IS the armour-guy. Stuff like that in addition to his feats... not too much mind you.. just a few things. And most importantly, a better feat selection at higher levels. Even without any changes to the actual class, better high-level Feats could make a Fighter much more enjoyable to play at higher levels.. and thus, better balanced with other classes at those levels.
Yaeri 05-15-05, 09:06 AM	I vote no.
RadicalTaoist 05-15-05, 10:27 AM	If you think that doing damage in combat is more important than using combat manoevres, then yes the fighter will be underpowered. Fighters don't do more damage than barbarians, generally speaking. If you are into combat manoevres, then feats are more useful than rage. "If you want to tell me that it is a superior choice to take improved disarm over having an extra rage per day, then you are barking up the wrong tree." If you are trying to disarm an opponent, then it is a better choice. I personally would rather have the improved disarm, simply because I don't think that, at high levels, an extra point of damage or to hit or two makes much difference to the outcome of a fight. Except the strength bonus from raging, or a Polymorph spell, or whatever, will be for the most part much more effective. For tripping, for disarming, for grappling, for bull rushes, whatever. And this bonus applies to all of these, so the fighter has to take feats granting bonuses to each of those manuvers. And the barbarian can take the same feats. Ultimately the Fighter's feats only give him a head start. If one wanted to do serious battlefield control, they'd do so through Barb/Fighter multiclassing. Or in the long term, be a Druid (insane Strength, Huge sizes, can't be disarmed, etc.). Finally, a barbarian does not come out with a mere extra point of damage or attack bonus or two. Try or three or four or five, or in terms of a high level full attack, maybe fifty per round.
Cardinal Teplin 05-15-05, 01:19 PM	Except the strength bonus from raging, or a Polymorph spell, or whatever, will be for the most part much more effective. For tripping, for disarming, for grappling, for bull rushes, whatever. And this bonus applies to all of these, so the fighter has to take feats granting bonuses to each of those manuvers. And the barbarian can take the same feats. Ultimately the Fighter's feats only give him a head start. Polymorph doesn't really feature as an alternative, since it stacks with rage, and with feats, and none of the front-liners can cast it, and if anyone else can cast it, it's best cast on a front-liner. Bonus from rage adds +2, the appropriate feats for each maneouvre are all better than that. Rage is very good. It has some limitations, but it's a very good ability. But at very high levels, where opponents have 3 figure hps, I'd rather be good at trip, disarm and grapple. As you say, and as I've said before, a combination of barbarian and fighter is better than either.
Aki Warren 05-15-05, 01:40 PM	Why can't a barbarian be good at grappling, disarming, and tripping? Those styles are not really feat intensive and the Barbarian's highers strength means he is much much better at them. Heck, you don't need all three. If your grappling, the man is pinned. If your disarming, the fighter just became even more worthless. If your tripping, he ain't going anywhere. Of course, it should be noted that your favorite three styles are USELESS against any large monster. Large monsters get a huge size bonus against grappling and tripping. And not every monster uses a weapon either, so disarm in my eyes is the LEAST useful of those feats. Against a Large Monster, what does each class do? They damage it. They damage it till they kill it. Almost every single class in the game can do this better then the fighter at decent levels. Your arguement is basically that a fighter is just as good as everyone else against meduim or smaller humanoids provided he has the right feats. For the sake of the arguement, I'll ignore the fact a barbarian could pick up a trick and be better at it. You are basically saying that the Fighter is balanced because in a very specific situation, the Fighter is the equal to every other class. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? That would be like me claiming that the Ranger is only as good as everyone else against his favored enemy instead of much better then the other melee fighters. I would like to see a Barbarian be outdone by a fighter when the fighter is facing a Dragon. Or heck, not even a dragon. How about a Giant, or a creature that flies and is large like a Demonic Rok? (Large bird, forgive spelling)
~Black Knight~ 05-15-05, 02:47 PM	Perhaps allowing the fighter to select several epic feats at lower levels could balance him out (between levels 17-20, maybe?).
RadicalTaoist 05-15-05, 05:42 PM	Rage is very good. It has some limitations, but it's a very good ability. But at very high levels, where opponents have 3 figure hps, I'd rather be good at trip, disarm and grapple. As Aki_Warren said, you simply aren't going to disarm the giant. Or trip the dragon. Or grapple the Purple Worm. And the Barbarian can be better at one of those things than the fighter, and make up for the other situations by dealing more damage. p.s. about Polymorph, that's one of the reasons I love Hexblades. Perhaps allowing the fighter to select several epic feats at lower levels could balance him out (between levels 17-20, maybe?). A number of epic feats shouldn't be epic. Like Dire Charge, for example. Remember when Mighty Rage and Greater Rage were epic?
Vahenir 05-15-05, 08:07 PM	A number of epic feats shouldn't be epic. Like Dire Charge, for example. Remember when Mighty Rage and Greater Rage were epic? Agreed. Cetain feats (like Dire Charge) could definitely be brought down a notch. But I still think it would be nice to see a few more interesting high-level feats anyway. The Fighter certainly could use them.
ManTimeForgot 05-15-05, 09:32 PM	Anyone who thinks that disarm is a viable combat maneuver past level 5 needs to go read the PHB again. For one thing all fighters who do not have a locked gauntlet by level 5 are stupid. As in they need to have their intelligence retroactively lowered by an amount equal to their level. What is worse is that the weapons that you want disarmed are almost always at a big advantage versus disarm attempts. All the reach weapons are two-handed and large, and that translates into a +8 bonus versus disarm when put up against a longsword or rapier. Light weapons don't even stand a chance of disarming anothers weapon. Combine that with the locked gauntlet that all fighters should have, and you get what amounts to a "useless combat maneuver." Sure you could be a barbarian with rage bonuses and improved disarm and use a greatsword, and this would only put you at -4 versus a fighter wielding a spear (assuming otherwise equal strength except rage benefit), but is that really how you want to go about combat? Sorry but I won't put my life in the hands of an ability which will fail more often than not (you have to beat the other person's roll) when I could just damage the opponent and kill them quicker (presuming the rest of my party is trying to damage the opponent). By the time level 12 rolls around the only way you should be able to get a fighter's weapon out of his hands is by magic. Another huge problem is that at and around mid levels the creatures you fight often aren't even weapon users anymore. Want to disarm a troll? Good luck with that. Overrun is a useless combat maneuver past level 7 without PrCs and starting as a half-ogre or ogre. Size does matter. Sure you can use enlarge to try and make up for that size loss, but that takes a round of combat and prevents the wizard from using something like web which would halt the enemies movement. And by the time you are level 12 being large doesn't cut it, so really unless you are ogrish you aren't going to be using overrun except as an occassional thing. Also trip is almost always better since it doesn't require you to put yourself at risk for AoO's and doesn't have a movement limitation. Bullrush. Two words: Contrived Circumstances. Beyond this have a nice day. Trip is potentially a nice combat maneuver. But at high levels it to goes the way of the dinosaur. Flying enemies and enemies which are all two sizes bigger than you pretty much preclude the possibility of making trip your focus. Is trip a nice backup plan? Absolutely. You won't get any argument from me on that. But should you use it as a main plan of attack? Not a chance. (One should note that improved trip does not aid in defense against trips which means if you start getting into a trip war with a giant, then you are probably in trouble). Grapple is an awesome maneuver with a very glaring hole for a weakness. It puts the kaibosh on all the other maneuvers listed here in addition to stopping ranged combat and dampening spellcasting quite a bit. But it has the kaibosh put on it by freedom of movement. The biggest issue a PC has to consider with respect to grappling is that you have to be able to defend against it (which means size for those of us without freedom of movement rings). Suffice to say as a melee combatant my worst fear is getting snatched by a Roc and the Roc just flying away. At that point my only hope is that the wizard is prepared for this contingency since the Roc will be out of archery range really quickly. Combat is about damage pure and simple. Not just dealing damage, but also preventing it. Grapple isn't a killer maneuver because it deals a lot of damage, far from it. Grapple is killer because it restricts mobility, dampens spellcasting, prevents combat maneuvers, and alters one's ability to engage in basic fighting. In short to be a good fighter you need to be able to deal damage up close, at range, and be prepared for grapples. Now you can defend against a grapple with freedom of movement (something which really boggles my mind, but ok), and you can defend against all the other combat maneuvers just by flying (except disarm which is useless anyway). So in short you need to just be able to do damage. Being able to grapple is a nice thing against wizards, but I think I will save that for a monk or rogue who will tumble in and around the opponents. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vahenir 05-15-05, 11:12 PM	For one thing all fighters who do not have a locked gauntlet by level 5 are stupid. Hate to rain on your parade.. but I've been playing 3rd Edition since it came out.. with a variety of different groups, and I've only seen the locked gauntlet used -once- in all that time.
Morchaint 05-16-05, 03:05 AM	I believe that the question is not just a yes or no question and is more dependant, on DM, Player, and Campaign. If I play a fighter and only a fighter I get super bored :( after 8th lvl or so. If I use a fighter for feats only. I usually take 6 lvls or so, a level of monk for wis to AC, and then prestige class. Some new high lvl feats would be nice, as long as they properly make it continue to be high end balanced, and new skills are a must, so the fighter in the non-combat situations doesnt sit and yawn to death. A d12 of hit dice would help, too As a side note, I feel the best prestige class for the full on damage type is the weapon master with two flamberges x2 2d8 +str mod godly critital hit. :D I also like the +2 bonuses to weapons : icy burst, shocking burst etc. 1d10 per every crit multiplier past the first one. 2d8+str mod (example ) 15-20 x 5 = +4d10 for each one. It needs some work. FINAL ANSWER : YES, after 6th lvl.
ManTimeForgot 05-16-05, 03:11 AM	Yep and its my assertion that all of those fighters had an Int score of 5 or 6 (depending on what level they were at). All level 10 + fighters who have not taken the time to spend 50 gp on getting a locked gauntlet basically have the equivalent of a 3 intelligence (I can't suggest any less otherwise they couldn't speak). And besides who is to say that people in real life would role play their characters in any way like how a real combantant would act. Most people in real life are a far cry from an actual warrior. My brother who is in the army (and plays D&D) scratches his head a lot when he hears how people role play their fighters. Sure he isn't the stereotypical fighter, but he knows a lot of guys, and when he asks them something akin to whether or not a fighter would choose to have an undisarmable weapon at no penalty there isn't a single one who said they would choose to have a disarmable weapon. See my fighters have this capacity called learning. Even if they aren't experienced enough to know to get a locked gauntlet at the start, when they get disarmed at level one or two they learn from the experience. The line of thinking goes something like this: "I got disarmed. I don't like being disarmed because it makes me less powerful. I will get something that helps me avoid being disarmed if I can afford it." And low, when my fighters doth find a locked gauntlet they purchase it because they possess an intelligence score of higher than 6. So if your fighters all have an Int score of 5, then I guess I can excuse them for being really slow on the uptake. Maybe they are unable to transition passed the "I don't like getting disarmed" phase to the "I should get something to help me avoid being disarmed" phase. Honestly I like playing characters who are competent at what they do. My fighters don't all have to have a lot of intelligence, but they do have to be good at what they do, and that means being smart about their gear choices. Afterall a fighter is 50% gear (the other half is skill). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vahenir 05-16-05, 03:52 AM	All level 10 + fighters who have not taken the time to spend 50 gp on getting a locked gauntlet basically have the equivalent of a 3 intelligence (I can't suggest any less otherwise they couldn't speak). Or the locked gauntlet doesn't fit the player's image of their character. Personally, I think locked gauntlets are excessively lame and would never want to envision one on my character. It's not worth "I cannot be disarmed!" to have to imagine your character looking retarded, or in a way contrary to their personality. Not to mention that a locked gauntlet would interfere with particular hand movements essential to some forms of combat. No.. the locked gauntlet, while a nice little item if it fits your character, is incredibly stupid for many OTHER character concepts. And I imagine you'd have to have a Wisdom of 4 not to realize that there are other character concepts in the world besides "whatever gives me a bonus to something." And besides who is to say that people in real life would role play their characters in any way like how a real combantant would act. Really? Hm. I've never experienced that. Most people in real life are a far cry from an actual warrior. My brother who is in the army (and plays D&D) scratches his head a lot when he hears how people role play their fighters. Sure he isn't the stereotypical fighter, but he knows a lot of guys, and when he asks them something akin to whether or not a fighter would choose to have an undisarmable weapon at no penalty there isn't a single one who said they would choose to have a disarmable weapon. Your brother is in the modern army. Not a Medieval army. There are plenty of reasons why, in actual historical combat, you would not want to have your weapon virtually stuck in your hand. Apparently you've never seen what real combat with archaic weaponry looks like. Honestly I like playing characters who are competent at what they do. Me too. Which is why I would never put a real combatant in a locked gauntlet. It would interfere far too much with necessary hand movements. So unless your "competent fighter"'s entire combat style is "hold sword at 45 degree angle, lock in place.. swing until everything is dead," then your Fighter should not be using anything that locks his fingers in place. Sorry.. them's the breaks. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to actually study up on historical combat.
Nyferto 05-16-05, 04:01 AM	I don't believe this, Aki & Man, you're just wrong. There's too much to respond to in the time I have now, but i'll wizz through bits and post directly later. First off. Rage - doesn't give benefits till later on for things like Trip, sunder and disarm. Barbarians are actually better off just hitting people. Trip - without the feat (which needs combat expertise), only useful against certain opponents, need a trip weapon or you get AOO's, need improved trip or you loose the attack. When you can trip - it's a damn good option, more so for the Spring Attackin Fighter than the Full attacking Barbarian. It's more useful when you can't hurt the enemy effectively or need to slow them down, or you're at lower levels with a low hit chance. Sunder - need Improved Sunder and a good weapon, only works in melee wastes an attack. Is useful when you need to sunder an easy item like a divine focus or other such gear that doesn't get the same defences as weapons. Can work as a last ditch effort to break a simple foe. Needs feat to avoid AOO - which could be any number of attacks. Disarm - useful on things other than items, more chance than Sundering in some circumstances (try holding a shield with locked gauntlets - doesn't work). More useful for finnesse than anything but can be a reasonable alternative, needs expertise otherwise you get an AOO - not actually a good option for a barb. Farshot - doesn't need a Bow to make use of, use the build I posted earlier and you can throw an oversized greatsword 100ft. Sometimes a spot check is needed to handle encounter distance, other times - it's bloody obvious. If you're a Barbarian trying to counter ranged defficiency with thrown weapons, then you'll need this andquickdraw otherwise you're going to suck badly. Useful if you want to rapid shot the Balor with Holy Water. Aki - you can't actually overload a weapon with elemental damage, RAW by the description of the effect - each one overwrites others. At that point you're a very weak Ranger with only FE backing you up. Even then, until you can get a +10 from your dex and have uncanny dodge (which rangers don't). Paladins - Broken non-core material doesn't actually matter, nore do specific combinations of any such material. Broken non-core material - or even balanced in respect of itself non-core material, doesn't mean the Core Fighter should be changed. I agree the Core books give more power to the other classes and it gets tough to compete, but I haven't seen them completely negated, nore is this a reason to change the base just because some non-core books can't get it right. Man - Fighters don't care about style, they use the one that's best suited to them and their circumstances. You use sword and board when you need to play on the deffensive, it becomes TWF when you take TWF, Improved Shield Bash, Monkey Grip and Oversized Two Weapon fighting to get a 3d6 weapon in each hand with your shield bonuses doubled over because you also got an animated Tower Shield and only buffed your Large Shield with non-AC benefits.
ManTimeForgot 05-16-05, 04:54 AM	Or the locked gauntlet doesn't fit the player's image of their character. Personally, I think locked gauntlets are excessively lame and would never want to envision one on my character. It's not worth "I cannot be disarmed!" to have to imagine your character looking retarded, or in a way contrary to their personality. Not to mention that a locked gauntlet would interfere with particular hand movements essential to some forms of combat. No.. the locked gauntlet, while a nice little item if it fits your character, is incredibly stupid for many OTHER character concepts. And I imagine you'd have to have a Wisdom of 4 not to realize that there are other character concepts in the world besides "whatever gives me a bonus to something." Really? Hm. I've never experienced that. Your brother is in the modern army. Not a Medieval army. There are plenty of reasons why, in actual historical combat, you would not want to have your weapon virtually stuck in your hand. Apparently you've never seen what real combat with archaic weaponry looks like. Me too. Which is why I would never put a real combatant in a locked gauntlet. It would interfere far too much with necessary hand movements. So unless your "competent fighter"'s entire combat style is "hold sword at 45 degree angle, lock in place.. swing until everything is dead," then your Fighter should not be using anything that locks his fingers in place. Sorry.. them's the breaks. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to actually study up on historical combat. See this is just an instance a lay person (you) approaching combat without a practical sense of combat. Just because something "looks lame" doesn't change the fact that it may save your life some day. Once you talked to an actual warrior (regardless of age) you will find out that pretty quickly notions of aesthetics go right out the window. Once you have been in actual combat, thinking about what you look like while doing it is the LAST thing on your mind. If the locked gauntlet really did interfere with hand motions necessary to combat, then it should assign a penalty to the wearer. As it is I have trouble even conceiving of how it would be so that a locked gauntlet would interfere with your hand motions in combat. Obviously you aren't going to be grappling with that hand so long as your weapon is tied down, but that's the way things go. And I imagine you have never been in a fight with weapons before in your entire life or you would take a much more practical approach to fighting. Some of us who actually have gotten into a fights where we could have sustained serious injury (or if the person had been just overly irrational, death) understand that you do whatever keeps you alive. I'm not talking about bonuses here; I'm talking about a semi-intelligent approach to combat. In real life, and by extension I assume this to apply to your games, people feel pain; they fear death; and they try to avoid situations in which they are subject to either. Locked gauntlets aren't about bonuses; they are about keeping your weapon in your hands so you can kill the other guy before he has the chance to kill you. Like I said before most people don't think like fighters because they aren't fighters. It's a simple fact that the easiest type of character to role play is the one most like yourself. So if you aren't a combatant in real life, and don't have any people who are combatants in your life against which you can model your character, then you are not going to have the first clue about how a fighter would approach combat. Actually having fought with swords, fenced, and used the staff weapon in real life I can pretty safely say that locking down my weapon is not a bad idea with plenty of weapons. I wouldn't want to do it with a katana which requires quite a bit of lateral wrist movement, but with a spear it would be GODSEND. Also I am waiting for you to enlighten me as to why someone wouldn't want their weapon at hand at all times. I've been to RenFair and seen the combat demonstrations and seen mass combat on the learning channel, and as near as I can tell Medieval armies fought in tight formations, with their weapons forward so as to deflect in coming attacks or to have their weapons in the closest position to attack their enemy. Which means you are very prone disarming since the enemy is going to be smacking your weapon fist chance he gets. Not having your weapon in hand becomes very bad at that point. So I'm failing to see the downside. Not being able to drop your weapon means its hard to switch weapons, but in medieval combat you weren't switching weapons. Realistically your best argument is that it is bad in D&D where switching weapons would be a factor that is at least foreseeable. This makes switching weapons in the middle of combat more difficult, and that is a downside; one that I largely ignore because if you are having to switch weapons in combat often, then you are in trouble, and for archers if you are having to drop your bow often due to melee, then you are in trouble. First I think you need to do some actual fighting with a sword like I have. Then you need to realize that a locked gauntlet doesn't prevent movement altogether; it still allows you enough latitude to roll the wrist (perhaps not laterally, but that amount of depth isn't taken into account in D&D). The bonus is +10 which says disarmement is still possible. If it locked the weapon completely in place, then disarming the person would be impossible. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 05-16-05, 05:30 AM	I don't believe this, Aki & Man, you're just wrong. There's too much to respond to in the time I have now, but i'll wizz through bits and post directly later. First off. Rage - doesn't give benefits till later on for things like Trip, sunder and disarm. Barbarians are actually better off just hitting people. Trip - without the feat (which needs combat expertise), only useful against certain opponents, need a trip weapon or you get AOO's, need improved trip or you loose the attack. When you can trip - it's a damn good option, more so for the Spring Attackin Fighter than the Full attacking Barbarian. It's more useful when you can't hurt the enemy effectively or need to slow them down, or you're at lower levels with a low hit chance. Sunder - need Improved Sunder and a good weapon, only works in melee wastes an attack. Is useful when you need to sunder an easy item like a divine focus or other such gear that doesn't get the same defences as weapons. Can work as a last ditch effort to break a simple foe. Needs feat to avoid AOO - which could be any number of attacks. Disarm - useful on things other than items, more chance than Sundering in some circumstances (try holding a shield with locked gauntlets - doesn't work). More useful for finnesse than anything but can be a reasonable alternative, needs expertise otherwise you get an AOO - not actually a good option for a barb. Farshot - doesn't need a Bow to make use of, use the build I posted earlier and you can throw an oversized greatsword 100ft. Sometimes a spot check is needed to handle encounter distance, other times - it's bloody obvious. If you're a Barbarian trying to counter ranged defficiency with thrown weapons, then you'll need this andquickdraw otherwise you're going to suck badly. Useful if you want to rapid shot the Balor with Holy Water. Aki - you can't actually overload a weapon with elemental damage, RAW by the description of the effect - each one overwrites others. At that point you're a very weak Ranger with only FE backing you up. Even then, until you can get a +10 from your dex and have uncanny dodge (which rangers don't). Paladins - Broken non-core material doesn't actually matter, nore do specific combinations of any such material. Broken non-core material - or even balanced in respect of itself non-core material, doesn't mean the Core Fighter should be changed. I agree the Core books give more power to the other classes and it gets tough to compete, but I haven't seen them completely negated, nore is this a reason to change the base just because some non-core books can't get it right. Man - Fighters don't care about style, they use the one that's best suited to them and their circumstances. You use sword and board when you need to play on the deffensive, it becomes TWF when you take TWF, Improved Shield Bash, Monkey Grip and Oversized Two Weapon fighting to get a 3d6 weapon in each hand with your shield bonuses doubled over because you also got an animated Tower Shield and only buffed your Large Shield with non-AC benefits. First off: everyone is better off just hitting stuff early on. When hitpoints are very nearly equal to attack damages things like trip and sunder are wastes of time. Playing trip games with an opponent you are that much stronger than seems wasteful yet again. You might not risk a lot of injury in doing so, but it means that you are relying on other characters for damage. In the iconic party this usually amounts to you waiting for the wizard to blast it because I seriously doubt you expect the rogue to hit something that you as the fighter aren't capable of hitting. Attacking carried or worn items is very easy (perhaps too easy), but the flaw herein is that it isn't terribly combat effective unless you are targeting something inherently valuable like a holy symbol or spell components pouch. Even still against full casters I don't usually care about the AoO, and so unless he is surrounded by powerful bodyguards I can usually sunder even without the feat. Against a weapon or shield sunder has all the drawbacks of disarm (excepting the fact that it gets around the locked gauntlet), but with the added drawback that if you are successful you don't get the item later (unlike disarm). Um... presupposing that shields don't count as weapons, and thus you cannot use your locked gauntlet to hold one (which may or may not be supported by the rules) still means you are going to be taking a -4 penalty for trying to disarm a non-weapon object. You also do realize that it is a "locked gauntlet" and not "locked gauntlets" and thus when you purchase one it is only for one hand, yes? So if my weapon is locked down, then it does not necessarily mean my shield hand gauntlet is likewise a locked gauntlet. Disarm is basically useless for finesse fighters. Really that's what makes the D&D fighter so messed up. All of your finessable weapons except the rapier are light. This means you are at -12 versus the really big weapons (which consequently do the most damage and are thus the weapons you most want disarmed) or -8 if you are using a rapier. Now if you think that makes for a useful option in combat, then I have some air I would like to sell you. I wasn't suggesting a barbarian use thrown weapons. There is nothing to suggest that a barbarian couldn't use a bow in the books, and I cannot think of a flavor reason why the barbarian would not use a bow. Also I do not believe the nature of rage precludes the use of a bow; if its simple enough for early man to use one, then its simple enough for a barbarian to use it while raging. And sure it has its uses, but chucking holy water at range so you can defeat a balor doesn't exactly count as one of those circumstance you "need" ranged attacks for. I was thinking more along the lines of there is a dragon flying above you and you NEED a ranged attack or you are barbecue. By the raw you can determine that only one of the following: flaming, frost, or shocking can be placed on a weapon, but the merciful, holy, unholy, axiomatic, anarchic, thundering, and vicious can all be placed on a weapon with no conflict regarding command words. You keep mis-interpreting what I am saying. Of course fighters don't care about style as a function of aesthetics. What they do care about is the most effective way to do damage and to reduce damage. Now for someone who talks about how involving a bunch of non-core material for the paladin isn't relevant, you certainly do bring up a lot of non-core material in addressing me. Of course I don't think it matters whatsoever once you allow for animated shields. My barbarian using a greatsword out damages your little two weapon fighting experiment under every conceivable melee circumstance. THF > TWF. Its that simple. Enchanting your large shield as a weapon means you are paying for weapon enhancements. Even if I knew where this over-sized weapon feat came from I am still pretty sure that going from a medium sized shield to a large sized shield does not net an increase to 3d6 damage. Shield bash with a medium sized large shield does 1d3 damage; a size increase bumps that up to what 1d6? Even if you somehow do manage to have a 3d6 weapon in each hand you are at -4 to attack with your weapons. So my barbarian with a greatsword, rage, and power attack is STILL going to out damage your fighter who spent like 8 feats two of which were non-core. That is the very model of balance if I ever saw it :rolleyes: Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Rowan_Whispercloak 05-16-05, 05:57 AM	No
Nyferto 05-16-05, 07:51 AM	First off: everyone is better off just hitting stuff early on. When hitpoints are very nearly equal to attack damages things like trip and sunder are wastes of time. Depends what you're trying to achieve, and who the enemy is. In one campaign (starting at 1st), I was the vetteran playing with new players One guy who had played a bit before didn't understand why I started with a Heavy Flail rather than a Sword. It wasn't too long before he got the idea, that it was numerically easier to trip a goblin with a dex based AC and a low str. Given the +4 all subsequent attacks would get, he was assuredly dead, rather than possible dead if I missed. [/quote] Playing trip games with an opponent you are that much stronger than seems wasteful yet again. You might not risk a lot of injury in doing so, but it means that you are relying on other characters for damage. In the iconic party this usually amounts to you waiting for the wizard to blast it because I seriously doubt you expect the rogue to hit something that you as the fighter aren't capable of hitting. In your post to the other person, you demonstrated that you knew how to handle combat, yet for some reason - this example exists? A Fighter who takes Improved Trip doesn't have to go around tripping everyone, nore has he lost a significant portion of his class abilities everytime he can't/doesn't trip. You don't play trip games, you just use it when it's most appropriate. If you do manage to trip someone - they're infinitely more vulnerable to further attacks, if you've got improved trip - you can also automatically reimburse your attacks with even greater benefit (+4 to attack and a lack of mobility). Attacking carried or worn items is very easy (perhaps too easy), but the flaw herein is that it isn't terribly combat effective unless you are targeting something inherently valuable like a holy symbol or spell components pouch. Even still against full casters I don't usually care about the AoO, and so unless he is surrounded by powerful bodyguards I can usually sunder even without the feat. Against a weapon or shield sunder has all the drawbacks of disarm (excepting the fact that it gets around the locked gauntlet), but with the added drawback that if you are successful you don't get the item later (unlike disarm). You might worry about an AOO if it's made with a touch attack, like Harm. Or if it's a quick bluff attempt that results in a sneak attack, or perhaps a wounding weapon or lets someone get away with a spring attack. Fixing items isn't that hard either. Um... presupposing that shields don't count as weapons, and thus you cannot use your locked gauntlet to hold one (which may or may not be supported by the rules) still means you are going to be taking a -4 penalty for trying to disarm a non-weapon object. You also do realize that it is a "locked gauntlet" and not "locked gauntlets" and thus when you purchase one it is only for one hand, yes? So if my weapon is locked down, then it does not necessarily mean my shield hand gauntlet is likewise a locked gauntlet. Light Shields and Bucklers aren't held in the hand, they're strapped on and you grip them in your hand. Large shields are the same, as are tower shields. Locked Gauntlets (And you do buy them singularly) only effects weapons. I have no idea what you're complaining about. Note that Animated shields certainly aren't held in the hand. Disarm is basically useless for finesse fighters. Really that's what makes the D&D fighter so messed up. All of your finessable weapons except the rapier are light. This means you are at -12 versus the really big weapons (which consequently do the most damage and are thus the weapons you most want disarmed) or -8 if you are using a rapier. Now if you think that makes for a useful option in combat, then I have some air I would like to sell you. Who said anything about finesse? It's just opposed attack roles, anyone can do it with any weapon. I wasn't suggesting a barbarian use thrown weapons. There is nothing to suggest that a barbarian couldn't use a bow in the books, and I cannot think of a flavor reason why the barbarian would not use a bow. Also I do not believe the nature of rage precludes the use of a bow; if its simple enough for early man to use one, then its simple enough for a barbarian to use it while raging. And sure it has its uses, but chucking holy water at range so you can defeat a balor doesn't exactly count as one of those circumstance you "need" ranged attacks for. I was thinking more along the lines of there is a dragon flying above you and you NEED a ranged attack or you are barbecue. Right... when did I say they wouldn't use a bow. It's just that Rage doesn't provide a benefit. If a Dragon was flying over head, I'd rather have a Tower Shield and Blink active with some resistance spells thrown on top. Rage only provides benefits to damage, but you need specifically crafted bows to take care of that - and they're costly to constantly re-build. You have to have one that matches the strength benefits you have, otherwise you're only down on damage and application. Coincidentilly, if you are up against a dragon, the Barbarian doesn't have any noteable advantages. By the raw you can determine that only one of the following: flaming, frost, or shocking can be placed on a weapon, but the merciful, holy, unholy, axiomatic, anarchic, thundering, and vicious can all be placed on a weapon with no conflict regarding command words. Except they don't typically stack and others have side effects or lack of value. You keep mis-interpreting what I am saying. Of course fighters don't care about style as a function of aesthetics. What they do care about is the most effective way to do damage and to reduce damage. Now for someone who talks about how involving a bunch of non-core material for the paladin isn't relevant, you certainly do bring up a lot of non-core material in addressing me. Of course I don't think it matters whatsoever once you allow for animated shields. My barbarian using a greatsword out damages your little two weapon fighting experiment under every conceivable melee circumstance. THF > TWF. Its that simple. Enchanting your large shield as a weapon means you are paying for weapon enhancements. Even if I knew where this over-sized weapon feat came from I am still pretty sure that going from a medium sized shield to a large sized shield does not net an increase to 3d6 damage. Shield bash with a medium sized large shield does 1d3 damage; a size increase bumps that up to what 1d6? Even if you somehow do manage to have a 3d6 weapon in each hand you are at -4 to attack with your weapons. So my barbarian with a greatsword, rage, and power attack is STILL going to out damage your fighter who spent like 8 feats two of which were non-core. That is the very model of balance if I ever saw it :rolleyes: Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Right first off, a Large spiked shield of Bashing does 2d6 damage. Oversized TWF is in the Cadv, a Monkey Gripped 2d6 weapon does 3d6 damage. Combine that with a main-hand weapon and you've got two 3d6 weapons (IIRC), except you don't actually have to TWF, you can just use one and THF. If you stopped going on about how great the Paladin is because he can have a nifty warhorse, or how the Barbarian's superior 2hf actually mean something, you might have some consistancy to base a reply on. The example I gave was just an example of inbuilt flexability. You're then assuming that THF is automatically better, or that a Fighter with a few feats is actually going to bother using them all the time, and not when they're most advantageous. Seeing as that the DR system practically requires someone to either have 3 different weapons or power attack and suffer at range, the cost is minimal. Even then - it's not about one style at all. So your Barbarians ability to outdamage TH is meaningless. When I said Fighters don't care about style I should've said, Combat doesn't care about style, though it should've been obvious. Being the master of THF is not mastering combat, it's retaining some effectiveness in it. TWF being retarded has no meaing to anyone except those who expect to use it. Even then - it's not actually that bad, it's just easier for some to ignore it. Others however, find it quite useful as it suits their style and they get benefits from it.
Vahenir 05-16-05, 08:01 AM	See this is just an instance a lay person (you) approaching combat without a practical sense of combat. You can use a condescending attitude all you want. Hey, you can even refer to me as "not a professional" (for those of you following at home that thought maybe he was calling me a member of the laity). I'm not a professional. You're absolutely correct. But then again, what books have you written on the subject? Glad we've cleared that up. Let's move on. Just because something "looks lame" doesn't change the fact that it may save your life some day. Once you talked to an actual warrior (regardless of age) you will find out that pretty quickly notions of aesthetics go right out the window. Once you have been in actual combat, thinking about what you look like while doing it is the LAST thing on your mind. Most assuredly (although perhaps not to the extent you seem to think - fashion did have some dictation on what was worn on the battlefield, not all of which was essential or useful). However, this is, in fact, a fantasy game. You want to be able to have a visual of your character, and you want to -enjoy- that visual.. rather than having your character do something that you dislike just because it seems a superior choice. You can play that way all you want. I imagine every Fighter you make wears full plate, a locked gauntlet, carries a large shield or a two-hand weapon? That's fine. Other people don't want to play that way. If the locked gauntlet really did interfere with hand motions necessary to combat, then it should assign a penalty to the wearer. As it is I have trouble even conceiving of how it would be so that a locked gauntlet would interfere with your hand motions in combat. Obviously you aren't going to be grappling with that hand so long as your weapon is tied down, but that's the way things go. Yes, it probably should. However, it doesn't, which is unfortunate. In any event, I'd surely like to know how you don't consider the locked gauntlet to interfere with hand movement. Uhm.. your hand is locked into a single position - not allowing you to move it. How does that -not- interfere with hand movement? And I imagine you have never been in a fight with weapons before in your entire life or you would take a much more practical approach to fighting. None. I've been studying historic texts and fighting manuals, as well as engaging in active training -with- the weapons in those pieces - all since I was about 12 years old. But you know.. besides that.. no experience whatsoever. I'm not talking about bonuses here; I'm talking about a semi-intelligent approach to combat. In real life, and by extension I assume this to apply to your games, people feel pain; they fear death; and they try to avoid situations in which they are subject to either. Locked gauntlets aren't about bonuses; they are about keeping your weapon in your hands so you can kill the other guy before he has the chance to kill you. Oh.. well that changes -everything- doesn't it. Forget the idea that without the ability to maneuver your hand and fingers you can't actually wield most weapons properly. Let's just forget that for now. Identify and quote one historical text that teaches or suggests the use of a 'locked gauntlet' (NOT armour chains, which simply keep a warrior's gear from getting lost) in anything but a joust or tournament situation. Then identify and quote historical examples of when they were used. What? You mean... these things weren't used in history? By the very guys that actually had to do the real life-or-death melee combat? Isn't -that- interesting. So if you aren't a combatant in real life, and don't have any people who are combatants in your life against which you can model your character, then you are not going to have the first clue about how a fighter would approach combat. I guess we're ALL screwed then, aren't we? Since not a single person who plays this game actually engages in life or death Medieval combat. Drat. It's too bad I can't go back in time to kill me some Frenchies at Agincourt. Then I'd know what -REAL- combat was like so I can better play my fantasy-world Fighter character. Let me know when you build that time machine. Until you do, however, most people are just going to play their characters as best they can. Those of us that have some practical experience with weapons may do a slightly better job (though in your case, I have my doubts). But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you believe we should start learning to cast spells to be able to play Wizards, too? Actually having fought with swords, fenced, and used the staff weapon in real life I can pretty safely say that locking down my weapon is not a bad idea with plenty of weapons. Then I can pretty safely say, you have never touched a real archaic weapon in your life. but with a spear it would be GODSEND Yeah sure.. until you need to shift your grip, fall into a quarter-grip, or anything else that requires moving your hand. Also I am waiting for you to enlighten me as to why someone wouldn't want their weapon at hand at all times. Having your weapon in hand at all times is a very good thing. Having your hand total immobile on that weapon, however, is a completely separate matter. I've been to RenFair and seen the combat demonstrations and seen mass combat on the learning channel, and as near as I can tell Medieval armies fought in tight formations, with their weapons forward so as to deflect in coming attacks or to have their weapons in the closest position to attack their enemy. Which means you are very prone disarming since the enemy is going to be smacking your weapon fist chance he gets. Not having your weapon in hand becomes very bad at that point. Oh my.. you've been to RenFair - the greatest of all sport and theatrical combat. And you've watched a few television shows. Oh ... oh.. I bow humbly to your mighty store of knowledge. In any event, tight formations were fairly rare after combat was joined. An enemy may penetrate your line three ranks deep, while you do the same. Essentially cutting your own troops off from each other for a time. Combat was chaotic. It was not 'tight, ordered ranks of British guys' as you see on TV and in the Movies. So the issue of formations is fairly moot beyond about 500 AD (when formation fighting lost its steam, so to speak). On the contrary, combat was far too chaotic for anything resembling tight ranks and solid formations. There were still formations, don't get me wrong. But they were looser than you seem to realize. I suggest checking out some historical fighting manuals - there were a huge amount of guards and stances taken during combat, very few of which put your weapon in a still forward position. So I'm failing to see the downside. Not being able to drop your weapon means its hard to switch weapons, but in medieval combat you weren't switching weapons. It has nothing to do with not being able to drop your weapon.. and everything to do with not being able to move your -HAND-. Realistically your best argument is that it is bad in D&D where switching weapons would be a factor that is at least foreseeable. This makes switching weapons in the middle of combat more difficult, and that is a downside; one that I largely ignore because if you are having to switch weapons in combat often, then you are in trouble, and for archers if you are having to drop your bow often due to melee, then you are in trouble. A good archer-build shouldn't be getting caught in melee anyway. But I suppose "crap happens." First I think you need to do some actual fighting with a sword like I have. Then you need to realize that a locked gauntlet doesn't prevent movement altogether; it still allows you enough latitude to roll the wrist (perhaps not laterally, but that amount of depth isn't taken into account in D&D). The bonus is +10 which says disarmement is still possible. If it locked the weapon completely in place, then disarming the person would be impossible. I think you should take your own advice. From what you've said - I gather you've probably never touched a real sword in your life. If you're interested - I suggest getting an ATrim.. beautiful pieces. But if you're low on cash, MRL pieces are of fair quality for a more reasonable price. Though I'd suggest buying a few wasters first, so as not to get anyone hurt. Now.. why is a locked gauntlet a bad idea? How about a two-hand sword? A common technique is half-swording. A locked gauntlet having chains that literally strap the weapon to your hand would make it virtually impossible to move your hand far enough up the blade for a half-swording technique. My understanding of the locked gauntlet is that it literally chains the weapon into your hand, hence the +10 bonus against being disarmed. If it were actual, historical, safety chains (which were longer, and obviously not meant to actually keep the weapon in your hand) then the bonus would be the ability to more quickly recover your weapon if you are disarmed, since you could still be, very easily, relieved of your weapon. But the length of chain would allow you to recover the weapon rather quickly, I suppose. Historically, the actual purpose was not a safety-net to keep your weapon close at hand. Rather, it was meant to keep you from losing the weapon altogether on the battlefield. So the locked gauntlet in D&D is obviously not a 'safety chain' as it appears in history. And thus, having your weapon literally chained in your hand is the only thing that I have been able to reasonably conclude as the purpose/description of this item. And that is an utterly ludicrous thing to think is a -good- idea in real combat.
Nyferto 05-16-05, 08:02 AM	I want you tell me why you would ever choose a class which has equal X values but in one respect, one of the classes has a better Y value. If you are going to play an archer, then the ranger is that class with a better y value. If you are playing a mounted combatant the paladin has the better y value. If you are playing a two-handed fighter the barbarian has that y value. So then what do you propose to do with the fighter? Oh that's right you're going to get pedantic on me and start telling me that combat is more than just one avenue; that you need both melee and range capability. Well congratulations, if you sat down and actually thought about like I have, then you would realize just how much trouble that assertion gets you into. If the fighter is weaker in one avenue of combat than the other class, then that other class has to put less focus on being good at that class than the fighter does. Which means as a barbarian I can focus less on being good at melee and pick up some archery feats and be just as good as the fighter. There are only a handful of feats which make one a viable combatant in an avenue of combat. The barbarian will be able to make use of a bigger bonus mighty bow, and that makes up for whatever little tricks the fighter can pull off. I'll answer the rest later, but this is just poor. You're assertion that the feats don't mean anything is completely wrong, they can make all the difference. Numbers are one thing, but options cannot be replicated by numbers. It doesn't matter if a Barbarians damage output was better, if his too hit rate was crippled due to circumstance, it'd be even worse if it was impossible due to cover and terrain. Numbers don't equate to being good at something, being able to handle all the variables does. You're not the only one damaging people, you're contributing to it and handling things others can't. Spring attack isn't a little trick, neithers Expertise or Spirited Charge. What you're really missing, is that most of these methods of compensating are temporary, a Barbarian only has an advantage when he rages, otherwise he has non and is actually worse off. Worse than that he only gets feats every 3 levels, and one at a time - he doesn't have a chance. Then you're overestimating by how much a character can be better in a field. You're making it out to look like a massive gap, when really it's only ever small. Even worse, when you meet a proper generalists - your abilities are gone in one field. Rangers aren't better at Range without FE and a need to spot, if they don't take the right feats their ability is going to be crippled, compound that further with all their other inabilities, and you've got a very weak character. Barbarians aren't that much better as they go up in level with TWH, but it's even worse when they have to try and apply themselves to other fields. Don't even bother getting on a mount with a Paladin - it'll just die and leave you massively down for a year or so. Without that - you're advantages in other fields aren't exactly huge.
Nyferto 05-16-05, 01:09 PM	Let's break down the archery feats just to illustrate this point: Rapid Shot: Decent, but not necessary to be effective. Against some enemies it will be more effective to use, and against others it won't be. Decent feat, but not necessary. Still an effective feat, you know you're daming yourself by reducing the number of effectual feats? Far Shot: WIthout a good spot score you cannot possibly hope to engage in ranged combat at the distances provided. Irrelvent, effects all thrown and untrue anyway. Not all spot checks need to be that high, especially when the enemies not hiding. Shot on the run: Useful to go out from cover positions to make shots. This is very much terrain dependent, and does not make one that much of a better archer. At higher levels this becomes much less useful as enemies become taller or fly. If the terrain is there, it makes you a massively better Archer, admitably more useful for Snipers, but moving in and out of precision range isn't exactly a bad thing. Manyshot: Usually viewed as being not quite as good as rapid shot, and under many circumstances this is true. Can be a decent feat for rogues if improved manyshot is allowed in the game. Strange how you've put down every single bonus Archery feat a Ranger gets so far? So the barbarian spends three feats to be able to enter into the ranged warfare and do so effectively. Weapon specialization is countered by the barbarians bigger mighty bonus. So what reason is there to be a fighter? Yep its only to pick up those extra tricks. Even worse for the fighter in the realm of archery is that the barbarian has a natural speed advantage, and that means a lot to archers. But on the other side of things, the fighter has to spend extra feats to be just as good as the barbarian in the melee realm. The barbarian's extra strength adds a great deal to THF melee, and the fighter will require IWS to come even close to dealing the same damage as the barbarian, and won't have the same to hit. In sum the barbarian has to spend a little extra to be effective at ranged combat. The fighter has to spend a little extra to be nearly as effective as the barbarian at melee combat. Who comes out ahead? The barbarian does because he has other abilities which take place out of combat. So you need PBS, Quickdraw and all those other feats that you didn't get? But you're skipping some, which means the Fighter that did has a clear advantage because he did and he has them over you. Then there's the basics you somehow think you've done good with. How exactly can a Barbarian make use of Rage's benefits before he gets it a good number of times per day? before that point he has no advantage, after that point the difference is negligable. You're saying that a full attack (thanks to Quickdraw) and an extra attack at your highest BAB (rapid shot) is better than not? I mean really Lets say you do get PBS, PrShot and WF. You'd get them around 9th or possibly 6th (but I wouldn't bet on it). Then you have to take Power Attack to handle your melee, which is another 3 levels of crap. Not to mention you've hamstringed your 2handed fighting by investing in dex. Rage doesn't provide bonuses to hit with a bow, but so far you've incrued massive penalties (god forbid you try to shoot into a melee before you get precise shot) and switching weapons is a pain unless you want to stand around dropping everything or walking around unarmed and unraged. Even worse - WS (if you bother to take it) doesn't care about the Mighty benefit of your bow, if you don't get one built for rage, you're taking a -2 to hit. If you don't then you haven't got an advantage, you have got 10ft of enhanced movement, except that would limit you to a single attack and you haven't got many shot or shot on the run so it's less advantageous. Even worse, if you both get on horses and start using mounted archery so you can both full attack whilst keeping mobile - guess who's going to get the harsher penalites. If I wanted to match the Barbs basic ability, I could do it a lot quicker and better than he could, and I can compensate damage per hit with frequency of attacks. Hence Rapid shot being quite useful. You really try hard at being pedantic... It's a shame you fail so miserably at it. If you want to discuss party dynamics, then let's do it shall we? Sure a ranger is a largely redundant feature in a group with a druid in it. You might even say that renders the barbarians out of combat features removed. So what does that leave us with? The barbarian is equal to the fighter, and out of combat abilities are now no longer a factor. So what is the point of the fighter exactly if he is entirely redundant with the barbarian? Or how about this one: the druid is going to have more in common with the barbarian in both background and attitude, and thus more likely to get along. Guess that kinda throws a monkey wrench in your assessment of the dynamic huh? Let's look at a paladin in a group which has a healing cleric (and only a cleric dedicated to healing because otherwise you will want extra healing capability). The paladin surely doesn't add all that much in out of combat ability, but that still doesn't change the fact that the fighter has to take a little bit more to be nearly as effective as the paladin at mounted combat (some might argue its just not possible since the paladin can summon his mount into dungeons and this is something the fighter cannot duplicate even with leadership). In a group with a healing cleric, strength cleric, druid, and rogue with use magic device, what utility does any other class bring to the table? Not bloody much. The group can heal, it can fight, it can cast divine spells no problem, and the rogue will be able to get the party into places and be able to use low level arcane devices (like a wand of identify) no problem. You can try and make a case for a wizard being able to use certain niche spells like analyze dwoemer, or engage in item creation, but that is about it. And you can try and make a case for a monk bringing specialized caster slaying to the table, but no pure fighter type, at all, not barbarian, fighter, ranger, or paladin, brings anything to the table. Thus if we are speaking purely in terms of party dynamics, then the fighter is GUARANTEED to be underpowered since fighter types are ALL underpowered by virtue of what they are. Now this is just wrong, again. First off, demonstrated that you're wrong about the Barbarians ability to replicate the Barbarian. It's all in the options. A Fighter doesn't have to Tank, I haven't made one in months, and he wasn't actually a tank. If a Druid joins the party and makes the Ranger and Barbarian obsolete by Wildshaping into an Animal, a Fighter just jumps on his back and supports. If a Cleric joins in the melee, a Fighter just supports, if a Rogue needs to sneak attack, a Fighter just supports. If the Wizard wants to Polymorph - better do it to the Fighter as well and watch him support. In terms of all warriors being underpowered - that's clearly wrong until higher levels, even then - it's assuredly easier to support them and keep the resouces to your own niches than it is to risk doing everything yourself. Either way, classes having overpowered material does not equate to other classes needing a boost. If however those materials were actually the standards of power, then there'd be a case. I'd say they're just overpowered because you don't need them to win. D&D rewarding specialists is a general tendency as it applies to any ability type in the game, not just fighting. A fighter is not the master of all combat types. Physical combat isn't the only type of combat as it is an entirely different arena than magic combat. Aside from this combat is not the only ability type in D&D. Social manipulation is one area of expertise. Stealth is one avenue of expertise. Survival talent is another area of expertise. Divine magic is one area of expertise. Arcane magic is one area of expertise. Then physical combat is another area of expertise. I could if I wished to not adventure in the slightest simply create a uber-focused social manipulator bard simply cease to fight at all. I just convince a town that fighting is in their best interest, or send in my cadre of body guards, or strike a deal with a high level wizard, or hire a high level assassin (gather information is quite useful when you know how to use it). Stealth if done as an entire focus could also render combat obsolete. Need an item? Steal it. Need to get into a place? Sneak in. Need to get someone out? Smuggle them out. Need someone dead? Poison them/coup de grace them in their sleep. Done properly (which is to say you gain the trust and support of the local thieves guild) there is no reason to think that anyone would suspect you of being the source of all these seemingly unrelated acts, and thus anonymity protects you from attack. Without survival talent you render your party prone to ambush, possess the inability to adapt to unfamiliar or harsh terrain. Things like spot, search, survival, animal empathy, listen, and various druid and ranger (and to a much lesser extent wizard/sorc spells) all aid in ones ability to stay alive inspite of diverse circumstances. This is expecially true once parties are thrust onto other planes of existence. Really it is just closed minded to think that physical combat is all there is to D&D, and it blatently ignores the meaning of the principle: specialists are more powerful than generalists. A wizard focuses on arcane spellcasting, and thus is a better arcane caster than a hexblade. Obviously the wizard has a few talents which are outside the realm of arcane casting, but it is really tough to get much more pure caster than the wizard without creating something which isn't a class and is just a casting mechanic with hp. Now here's another point where you're wrong. I said before, Fighters are the specialists, and in no way are they specially limited to non-combat usage, but they are the best at phsyical dependancy in combat. All the others are temporary, and if you want to get socio-political, there's nothing better than an always on when things go wrong. You don't control the world like that, the DM does. If he wants you to avoid combat - then that's fine, it doesn't mean he will or that it'll be always possible, but he could - irrelevent statement. In terms of D&D rewarding specialists, if it was true, then it would be a bad statement against the Fighter - because they are the specialists of combat. Combat doesn't limit itself to one particular aspect, nore does it have pre-determined resolvement in one field. It reacts as people act within it, and that's where the specialist Fighter comes in (commonly refered to as the Generalist Fighter). They don't expect anything of combat, except damage potential. Then they work to control it with whatever abilities they can muster. If you took someone along to handle the phsyical side of things (and remember that parties can come in any number of combinations depending on the whims of the players), then you'd expect them to handle combat, not to only be effective when things go there way. My own assertion does NOT suggest that if someone is better than you "why try?;" it is much more complex than that, and someone who presumes to possess knowledge of the intricacies of party dynamics should know better. What I am saying is that if someone is better than you at something, and that something is what the party requires, then you should be whatever class has that something in its greatest degree. IF, however, the party needs two somethings, then that is where the choices are made. If my party consists of a rogue, a bard, and a healing cleric, then what does my party need? It needs physical combat talent sure, but it also needs survival talent. I could choose a barbarian and have good physical combat and a lesser amount of survival talent. I could choose ranger and have perhaps slightly less physical combat ability, but much greater survival talent. Of course here again I bring up the point of how a specialist is more powerful than a generalist, as this rule applies to parties as well as individuals. The party as a theme could use stealth (ranger, bard, and rogue) as a way of potentially avoiding combat. The bard uses stealth spells on the cleric, and the rogue and ranger scout out positions to find ways around the opponents. Such a group would function well, and could find that the addition of fighter would present a greater strain on resources. The party with a fighter instead of a ranger would have to spend funds on survival equipment (magic items later on) and could not engage in nearly as much stealth. Did the addition of the fighter add something to the party? Yes. Did it add as much as the addition of the ranger? I seriously doubt anyone would answer in the affirmative. Survival equipment, you mean wands of create food or trail rations, perhaps the odd spell to compensate? Now you're assuming that each character is a stereo type, and damning the Fighter with claimsthat the can't do anything but run around in heavy armour (at 40ft per 6 seconds), which is absolutely untrue. Name any type of Fighter to fill any type of role and i'll build a counter point Fighter. Making a DC 5 survival checks isn't that hard for anyone, getting lost in a desert means you don't go there. Why would I take a Wizard who can't help in that field, as opposed to one who can. Surely your statement on generalists would mean more if you didn't talk about the Hybrid classes generalising? I know someone with an obsession with self preservation in D&D in their opinion everyone is better off a generalist with some synergy. And I swear if people supporting the fighter sat down and looked at what feats actually did and compared them to what spells could do, then they would realize that passed 12th level there is ZERO reason to even want a fighter as a PC. I couldn't care less about having a fighter in the party at level 15. Sure having a few meat shields is nice, but then again I can SUMMON meat shields (and not it won't come out of my spells per day since the entire party is made up of item crafters). Even a rogue starts to mean a lot less at higher levels, since traps pretty much have to be magical to have any chance of hurting the party severely. And those traps can almost as easily be dispelled as they can be disarmed by a rogue (which has always been something I couldn't quite understand, how does a rogue disarm a symbol of pain exactly). Mechanical traps can be circumvented magically so easily its inane. So what does this leave us with? Oh that's right the real high level party of D&D: Druid, Cleric, Wizard/Sorc (take your pic), and Bard. After 20 feats you are left with what to take? Improved disarm. Improved bull rush. If you seriously think a +4 bonus to a single combat maneuver which is hardly ever used is worthwhile to take, then you honestly don't know a thing about mid to high level characters. Now let's say the fighter generalizes his combat approach (which we know to be less powerful than focusing on two approaches to combat). The fighter can now engage in archery, melee, mounted combat, and grappling with proficiency. Does this make him useful with the above? Not really. Of all the times that the fighter uses mounted combat, how much of it involves grappling? None. Of all the times the fighter is melee fighting in the underdark, how much of it involves mounted combat? None. At some time or another various feats are DEAD WEIGHT. Sure you want to be prepared for a contengency, but some fighting styles are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You cannot be engaging in grapply and EVER hope to have archery as a contingency. Once you commit to a grapple ranged combat is excluded. Then don't build a meat shield, you don't have to. One of the more annoying things for me with Fighters is that they're actually better off at Higher levels avoiding heavy armour deficiency if they can. Not saying it can't work, it can and you can back it up with some more solid phsyical action. BTW, summoned meat tends to be easily banished, leaving you with nothing. You don't commit to anyone style, you use each as they're appropriate. Loosing feats might mean something to a character built around it (like a TWF barbarian), but not to someone with 5 different alternatives. Mechanical traps aren't that easy, nore are multiple mechanical traps that don't give you a chance to disarm - but might have a chance to spot or otherwise notice. Trapfinding does not equate to trap disabling. You know there are huge caverns in the Underdark? along with a sea and other stuff, mounts aren't entirely out of the question, nore do they need too much room to spirited charge. So we can pretty firmly establish that focusing on one or two forms of combat and then having a backup plan in case your specialty is rendered ineffective to be the best way to approach a fighter type. So as a melee fighter I am going to have to have an archery backup, and I am going to want to be able to grapple if it really comes down it. Which here again makes the barbarian a better melee combatant than the fighter since the barbarian will have greater strength. The archery fighter is going to want to be decent at melee in case things become reduced to tight quarters (though once you have improved precise shot this is usually not an issue, being surrounded is the only real exception), and you will want good speed. Being faster means you get away from melee combatants quicker, and even better you get away from grapple opponents quicker (grapples are the bane of archers since they are rendered completely ineffective by a grapple). Longstrider definitely contributes to one's land speed, and the barbarian quickness actually helps here too (so even a single level of barbarian can actually mean a lot for an archer). Moving around doesn't actually help the Archer, nore is it a problem to one on a mount or a fly spell, being grappled is completely negated (along with many annoying will saves) by a Ring of Freedom of Movement. If you aren't actually an Archer, then one style is meaningless to you, that's why it's better to handle all of combat and use it as appropriate rather than be a sucker for one style like you keep asserting. So when you can come back to me with something more than vagueries about damage control and actually tell me how the fighter is tactically superior to the other fighting classes, then we will have something to discuss. Until then. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Lets see, quickly now because I'm running out of time again. An extra rage per day, with limited benefits and less application, or the ability to cripple someone in a series of well placed attacks? How about an improved dependancy on Rage, in exchange for a complete non-dependancy on anything? Lets see, Ranged attacks... well you've got a reasonable dex, so that helps. You can ready a move to take cover (or just get out of the area), you can employ a Tower shield to give cover, you can kneel behind cover to get more cover, you can shot on the run between total covers, you can just drink a potion of Blink and take the damage with your super enchanted buckler. Don't bother comparing specific feats to specific class benefits, a Fighter gets to pick, a class typically doesn't. If it's fundamentally better for the party to be flying, then what's the use of Longstrider, what if you prepared Longstrider and needed entangle? What if you didn't need Longstrider but a bonus to damage or having the right weapon equiped would be. What if you need to get into a melee and fight in it because the Cleric tried and is dying, but you're a light armoured panzy up against some creatures that aren't on your FE list? Maybe you're a raging barbarian who needs to charge, but there's some debree in the way that prevent the charge, and all you can do is try to walk over to them or hope you get a fly spell? Alternatively you could've quickdrawn a bow and shot the hell out of them whilst using the debree as cover to prevent counter charges... except you aren't a Fighter with those feats. Perhaps Divine Grace is helping you resist the domination of a Vampire, except you faild on 1 and no-one bothered to cast protection on evil. Maybe the mount you so specially ride is being drained by wraiths and can't carry your heavy armoured butt anymore, at which point you have to get off and wonder how you're going to hit them when you're specialised in mounted combat and you've only got a lance at hand. Perhaps there's a gaint throwing rocks at you, so you get on your horsey (that cost a smidgen of gold) and use Mounted Combat to avoid the Rocks whilst using Farshot to get out of it's effective range. Maybe you need to harass a big dumb animal (or Druid) and you don't want to get involved in exchanging full attacks, but you don't mind it grappling you. So you either grapple it yourself or use Expertise and Spring attack to harass it with a reach weapon. If that doesn't work, you can try climbing up a tree - unlike your Paladin friend who put points in Diplomacy and Heal but still wore heavy armour. Do we need more specifics?
RadicalTaoist 05-16-05, 02:00 PM	Sigh.....I remember why I'm just not bothering with this argument anymore. If anyone's willing to test out fighter balance I will see them on the Character Optimization boards.
True Archon 05-16-05, 07:53 PM	Sigh.....I remember why I'm just not bothering with this argument anymore. If anyone's willing to test out fighter balance I will see them on the Character Optimization boards. I'm starting to think the same way. However, there are just a few things I just can't walk away from at this point... Ok, throughout this post, I've seen arguments that Rage is such a great thing and that because it gives so many "great" bonuses, it's drawbacks are minor. Arguments that say that combats that last over 7 rounds are the fault of the players' or the DM. Then anti-fighter posters start throwing out things that classes ,other than the fighter, can throw out buffs, summon monsters, and whatever other spell the character has access at the time. Then I see arguments like "all fighters who do not have a locked gauntlet by level 5 are stupid." Then I see how a spellcaster who throws up x amount of spells will be better than any warrior, regardless. However, during all these arguments, it is somehow "forgotten" that to throw up most "buff" abilities require standard actions for each buff instituted. Which for those having a hard time to grasp this means.... ONE PER ROUND. Summoning allies = 1 ROUND CASTING TIME. Removing a locked gauntlet = full round action which in turn = ONE PER ROUND. Ok, for the people who like to throw out the simple math of Damage vs. Hitpoints, the concept of adding up rounds spent doing all of the above actions should be pretty simple. The reason why I keep bringing up these things is because these are things that must also be considered. Feats are entirely not given the credit that they are due. Many feats are constantly in affect, and do not need to take up the precious few actions one gets in combat. You know why a party comprised of four players is most likely going to defeat a single opponent of equivalent CR to the party's level? Because they get more actions in a round. At a very minimum (beyond surprise rounds), the party gets four move actions & four standard actions vs. the one move action & one standard action the opponent has. That is one reason why Quickdraw, Quicken Spell, Rapid Reload, and similar feats are great as feats. Because of the free actions. Then to also take into cosideration feats like Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Focus/Specialization, Improved Critical, and similar feats that apply bonuses without requiring actions. Then there are feats that give extra actions like: 1. Spring Attack, Ride-By Attack, and Shot on the Run (move, attack, move actions). 2. Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting (and the rest of the tree), and Combat Reflexes all add in extra attack actions (or equivalent). 3. Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Defense give an attack action that would normaly need to be given up in order to maintain defensive capabilities. Then there are feats like Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, and Improved Grappling that not only usually give bonuses to that mode of combat, but in effect, also deny "extra" attack actions by your opponent (AoOs). I've said it once, and I'll say it again. A good Fighter is going to look at their feat list every combat round and is going to try to use as many feats as possible at once. I've had DMs who've actually asked, "you can do all that in one round?" I've also done the same to my players, too. In the end, I've seen quite a bit accomplished when someone opens up their minds to it, and thus that is why I think that Fighters aren't the "beginner's class", but Barbarians are. Oh, and this locking gauntlet thing really fires me up when real-life situations are brought to bear. I'm sorry to say that in combat, nothing is for certain AND everything is almost always fast paced. To have a weapon virtually stuck to your hand (and most probably to your dominate hand) is inviting trouble when you NEED that hand as soon as possible. There is a reason weapon holders (sheaths and holsters) were made and designed to be easy to use.... to free up your hand when you don't need your weapon as quickly and effeciently as possible. If you have any experience in combat, or ever been trained towards combat, you'll either know or have been told that when the adrenaline starts pumping (and it will, don't doubt that), fine motor skills become drastically hampered and muscle memory from constant practice is going to be a HUGE factor in how most victories and survival will be determined. In the case of a locking gauntlet, detaching "small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to a gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily" sounds a lot like a fine motor skill. To bring it up in game terms of when you don't want that particular weapon in your hand all the time, here are some examples: 1. Transitioning from ranged to melee combat quickly. 2. Your weapon has just been made useless. Whether by damage reduction, sundering, immunities, or outright helping your opponent (like splitting one black pudding into two, certain damage types healing monsters like golems, electricity giving shambling mounds Constitution increases). 3. You need two hands to accomplish something. 4. When you're in a situation where you shouldn't have a weapon in your hand, like in the presence of an important figure (i.e. king) or in a situation where it's not socially acceptable. Alright, I think I'm done for now.
Gworraent 05-16-05, 07:58 PM	fighters have amazinb bab and fortitude saves and a huge amount of extra feats, so no i think the fighter is one of the best mainly because of it's high bab and all the feats you get
Aki Warren 05-16-05, 09:06 PM	While it is true several buffs don't last long, many many more last for several hours. Clerics can keep doing it all day. Quite frankly, if a buff lasts all day I see no reason NOT to use it. But wait, that's why clerics are considered overpowered! So let's just move on to something else besides Clerics and Druids. If you compare them to fighters, you'll find that Fighters lose every single time. So do barbarians. Let me ask you, what is the Fighters point in combat? What is his Niche? What can he do during combat (since he can't do anything out of it) that will actually impact combat? What can he do: Against a Dragon? Against a Troll? Against a Wizard? Against a Giant? You'll find that in many cases all he can do is swing! And you'll find that AC doesn't matter, when you use a maschoist build :D
Macgyver 05-16-05, 09:42 PM	No.
Nyferto 05-17-05, 03:36 AM	What can he do: Against a Dragon? Against a Troll? Against a Wizard? Against a Giant? You'll find that in many cases all he can do is swing! And you'll find that AC doesn't matter, when you use a maschoist build :D I swear I did this before with someone else, they were badly wrong. Dragon - Use a tower shield to hide behind and protect others from it's breath, stay out of breath range on a mount and pepper it with dragon slaying arrows, jump on it's back and stap it to pieces, kill it in one hit with a Vorpal weapon - possibly all of those as the situation changes. Troll - Imolate it with rapid shoted quick drawn farshoted alchemist fires, harrass it on the back of a bow cheaply crafted flame arrows from the back of a mount with supierior mobility. Harrass it with spring attack and expertise to cap it's pathetic attack abilities with a flaming reach weapon. Was there something hard about this one? Wizard - Depending on level - Low level, charge and kill, Medium level, Charge->Trip->Grapple|Power Attack, or take cover using shot on the run or on the back of that damn mount again whilst imolating him with alchemists fires (as troll)that only need a touch attack. Higher level Ring of spell storing with a AMF, Use a tower shield to get cover, Charge->Trip->Power Attack sunder his wands and gear, ready grapple attempts or trip attacks with follow up grapple attempts, stand around and laugh as he tries to dominate you but you got protected and he just wasted a round of actions. Giant - Get that mount out and shoot at it at range whilst avoid it's feeble ranged attacks with either mounted combat or your own superior AC. Then finish it off with spirited charges. Fly and peper it with arrows, distract it's ranged attacks by hiding behind cover or generating your own whilst the party blow it to pieces because it too has a rubbish will save (worse than yours though). Get polymorph into one and see who the better Fighter is. Maschochist builds don't matter when the enemy rides of on a mount and peppers you with arrows of sleep. Or if you can't actually hit them because they've taken a defensive form with Blink, or put themselves and you in a force cage or telekenetic spheare. Perhaps they're a flying dragon with an impossible reflex save dragon breath that has more damage die than you do hitdie? Or maybe it's just a cleric that cast Harm followed by a symbol of death? Or perhaps you're being group attacked by a gang of nastier people who are fundamentally stronger than you and you can't do bugger all about it, at that point - AC would've helped. Also, the only Cleric buffs that last all day are also the ones that others cast at lower level and with better reason to take, like GMW.
Nyferto 05-17-05, 03:39 AM	If every Fighter beyond 5th needs a gauntlet to protect against a tactic that's useless unless you're finnesse based and using a big weapon, then surely every other class that even thinks about holding a weapon needs one as well? Which just means they get sundered and you've got a broken weapon locked into your gauntlet?
Aki Warren 05-17-05, 04:36 AM	I notice a large majority of your tactics seems to include riding an animal and shooting arrows. A ranger would be better then a fighter at this. I said please form a Niche. Heck, a Barbarian would be better doing everything you said, except for the tower shield. I fail to see how a tower shield will help when your grappled and dead, but okay.
Cardinal Teplin 05-17-05, 07:44 AM	Let me ask you, what is the Fighters point in combat? What is his Niche? What can he do during combat (since he can't do anything out of it) that will actually impact combat? What can he do: Against a Dragon? Dragons are kinda supposed to be the ultimate opponents, so the answer is not simple. It depends on what the dragon does to a certain extent. If the dragon keeps it's distance, the fighter shoots it. If it closes, hit it. If it grapples, grapple it. If it casts spells, disrupt it, if it breathes fire, shelter from it. My personal favourite is to fly up to a dragon and grapple it, thus sending you both tumbling to earth, but that needs some method of flying which some, but not all, fighters will have. What's interesting about this example is that rangers and barbarians have a slightly tougher time. A dragon, facing a dedicated archer, will probably close with him. Seeing a dedicated close-combat fighter, will probably stay at range. Against a Troll? Grapple it. That puts a stop to rending, and allows the rest of the party to close with the all-important flasks of alchemists fire, acid, etc. The main thing with trolls is to make sure they don't get lucky and rend a party member. Against a Wizard? Charge +trip+ grapple. All in the same round if you have the right feats. Grappling doesn't work so well if the wiz has teleport abilties, and that that level you may be better off with moving up with a reach weapon, and readying an action to disrupt movement or spellcasting. Against a Giant? Depends on how dangerous a giant. You could either move up, and full defence/expertise. You'll be hitting anyway, since they generally have poor AC, and you'll be neutralising the most important problem with giants - huge power attacks against poor AC party members. This approach assumes the rest of the party are making their own attacks. Or you could got for the max daamge option, and power attack a lot, hoping that you can drop it before it drops you. This assumes the rest of the party is basically just healing and buffing the fighter. You'll find that in many cases all he can do is swing! You are welcome to play fighters as people whose only job is to do lots of hp damage to the enemy, just as you can play clerics just as healers and wizards just as blasting platforms. But it's a very limited tactic. The real point to take away from your examples is that, in a fight with a Troll, dragon or whatever, the best thing to do depends on the overall situation. In particular, what kind of party you have with you. And you'll find that AC doesn't matter, when you use a maschoist build :D But healing does. There is something to be said for having an option, as a fighting style, something that has minimal impact on the resources of the party. Also, from what I understand on maschosit builds, they do have some rather nasty weaknesses. AC is irrelevent to them, just less important than normal.
Nyferto 05-17-05, 07:54 AM	I notice a large majority of your tactics seems to include riding an animal and shooting arrows. A ranger would be better then a fighter at this. I said please form a Niche. Heck, a Barbarian would be better doing everything you said, except for the tower shield. I fail to see how a tower shield will help when your grappled and dead, but okay. Well against the big opponents with nasty full attacks or close range abilities, getting out of range and using a mount is actually the best option. This is only because of the creatures you selected. The wizard is the prime exception because it can be handy to disable him at close range where he's under heavier threat to get out and waste time and spells doing so. As for the Ranger, how many have PBS, Quickdraw, Mounted Combat, and Mounted Archery whilst still going up against Trolls? The only advantage they'd have is a tougher mount - that doesn't mean much when the mount isn't taking any damage and isn't essential to combat. If the combat shifted to close range, or the Fighter was needed at close range, he would handle it better than a Mounted Ranger. That's the niche - handling everything. You can't grapple someone employing a tower shield against you, they have total cover. How they grapple you at all with a ring of freedom of movement or a potion of blink is another question entirely, one you sadly missed. Try building a Barbarian that can actually do half the things I said competently Core and reliably at lower levels, or even higher levels without depending on Rage to get the job done. Then I'll post one that's better than that because he just hits things :roll:
Aki Warren 05-17-05, 12:25 PM	Cardinal Teplin, everything but ONE of your tactics relied on grappling. A barbarian with higher strength does this better then a fighter and needs just one feat. Maybe two. I asked you to form a Niche, something only a fighter could do or something that he could do better then anyone else. You have failed to do so. Your fighter is doing a worse job then a barbarian would do with your tactics. First off, I don't know what makes you think Archery would work against a Dragon. Wind Wall or invisibitly destroys it instantly. Teleport does too. And a Dragon doesn't need to grapple you to win. I merely suggest it, I'm sorry I didn't notice your freedom of movement ring. He can, however, grapple the Wizard or Cleric because their BAB is quite low when compared to a fighters, but against a fighter all he needs is a full attack. With a strength that high and a great BAB progression, he's going to go right through the fighter in one or two rounds. Especially if he uses a breath weapon on everyone else to keep them guessing. And with quickened breath, he can do both! If you rely on hiding behind a shield to beat a dragon he's just going to fly or jump over you and attack your friends. With windwall going you need to get close, remember? What if he has snatch and just flies by and picks up your friend? He could grapple the wizard and eat him. Or just use fly-by attack to hurt like hell. Maybe with a rapid strike. That should drop the wizard quickly, especially with a lovely quickened breath. Don't forget, Dragons are awesome spell casters. Not nearly as good as a Wizard, but they can still use buffs and spells like darkness to get around you. The only way to get them to pay attention to you is to become a threat. Hiding behind a shield isn't being a threat, it's being a rock. Dragons have a high intelligence, he's not some stupid Hobgoblin who's going to fight the fighter because he's in the way. Also, is it possible to grapple a dragon? I thought creatures with a size difference that big couldn't be grappled, could anyone put down a ruling here? And your trip, grapple doesn't work when a mage can teleport. At lower levels it works fine, but at lower levels a raging barbarian with power attack has a good chance of just killing the wizard in one shot. Same thing with a charging mounted paladin. At high levels all you can do is kill his summoned creatures or chase him around, cause a ring of freedom of movement is a common item for wizards. Their concentration is so high it's hard to deal enough damage to get through it. I like your idea for a troll. I don't know if you'd always win the opposed grapple check, but if you do that's a good trick. A Barbarian does it just as good however. Against a giant with Low Ac, yes, you do this very well. Be a rock. If the giant is stupid he'll even continue to swing at you. However, Giants usually have an impressive strength and attack bonus. A Full defense and expertise may work, but your not exactly pumping out the damage either. In this situation, a fighter does just as well as a Paladin, who could use the Divine (shield? Armor?) to boost his AC quite a bit and fight defensivley. Still, I'll admit that's not a bad tactic. It seems the only thing you found a fighter can do is tank. Intelligent opponents don't care about that, and will just move by. Stupid opponents make you a godsend though.
Aki Warren 05-17-05, 12:30 PM	and to build a barbarian that can do that just as well... Barbarian 9, human Improved Grapple PBS Insert other archery feat Insert other Archery feat Barbarian really doesn't need mounted combat when he's running so fast. Plus, with Raging, he's doing more damage with his arrows and grapples better. And if you want me to build a barbarian without rage (his class ability) you build a fighter without feats (your class ability) :P
The Debonair Swordsman 05-17-05, 12:32 PM	I love the fighter class. I think it's great for what it is supposed to be. If you're using core only they tend to be weak in the higher levels. I think a couple of things could improve that. Things that only a fighter can have. Like Improved Crit stacking with keen or something like that. Just several little things that would make a fighter truly nasty.
Nyferto 05-17-05, 12:50 PM	Cardinal Teplin, everything but ONE of your tactics relied on grappling. A barbarian with higher strength does this better then a fighter and needs just one feat. Maybe two. I asked you to form a Niche, something only a fighter could do or something that he could do better then anyone else. You have failed to do so. Your fighter is doing a worse job then a barbarian would do with your tactics. And if you put them up against different kinds of enemies - then you'd get different tacitcs being shown. Whilst your Grappling Barbarian does what? Grapple the reversed gravity? First off, I don't know what makes you think Archery would work against a Dragon. Wind Wall or invisibitly destroys it instantly. Teleport does too. And a Dragon doesn't need to grapple you to win. I merely suggest it, I'm sorry I didn't notice your freedom of movement ring. He can, however, grapple the Wizard or Cleric because their BAB is quite low when compared to a fighters, but against a fighter all he needs is a full attack. With a strength that high and a great BAB progression, he's going to go right through the fighter in one or two rounds. Especially if he uses a breath weapon on everyone else to keep them guessing. And with quickened breath, he can do both! You shoot arrows at it, it takes damage. Invisibility is countered by see invisibility, but what does the Dragon do against a party with ethereal abilities? He might be a caster to an extent, but he's not exactly at the top of his game even when he's a CR 20 threat. Other people can wear the ring too, and they often have other defensive methods. It's not like a Dragon is going to look at targets in front of him and think - hey that ones got a big sword and looks like he's the party tank - i'll attack him. He'll intelligently assess the situtation. At which point you have to use counter tactics. No such thing as quickened breath. If you rely on hiding behind a shield to beat a dragon he's just going to fly or jump over you and attack your friends. With windwall going you need to get close, remember? What if he has snatch and just flies by and picks up your friend? He could grapple the wizard and eat him. Or just use fly-by attack to hurt like hell. Maybe with a rapid strike. That should drop the wizard quickly, especially with a lovely quickened breath. Now you're assuming other forms of cover and something about the situation, you asked us what we'd do, we listed the tactics we'd employ to try and handle him. Strangely, the Wizard you mention later is impossible to grapple, but now he is? Windwalls can be dispelled y'know. And people can move around them, if they're moving in to grapple it doesn't exactly stick with them does it? Don't forget, Dragons are awesome spell casters. Not nearly as good as a Wizard, but they can still use buffs and spells like darkness to get around you. The only way to get them to pay attention to you is to become a threat. Hiding behind a shield isn't being a threat, it's being a rock. Dragons have a high intelligence, he's not some stupid Hobgoblin who's going to fight the fighter because he's in the way. Also, is it possible to grapple a dragon? I thought creatures with a size difference that big couldn't be grappled, could anyone put down a ruling here? No they're substandard casters all the way through, they're easy to counter dispel. Most dragons are too big to hide in darkness, and other spells don't provide too much of a benefit, you're also injecting different variables into the scenario, and going on about how other classes can't protect themselves. You've now acknowledged his intelligence, but for some reason you thought the Tanking Barbarian was actually useful for Tanking? Then you forgot that no-one mentioned tanking against a Dragon. And your trip, grapple doesn't work when a mage can teleport. At lower levels it works fine, but at lower levels a raging barbarian with power attack has a good chance of just killing the wizard in one shot. Same thing with a charging mounted paladin. At high levels all you can do is kill his summoned creatures or chase him around, cause a ring of freedom of movement is a common item for wizards. Their concentration is so high it's hard to deal enough damage to get through it. A Raging barbarian has a chance to kill in one shot? Well if it's one shot kills, then being tripped and power attacked all in the same round will do that and leave the Wizard in a bad position if you don't. BTW, it's if a Mage can teleport, you can stop vocal components with a grapple as well. If a Mage flies - he's not being killed in one shot by anyone. If he uses Blink and Mirror image, then he's not being killed by anyone in one shot Except a caster with a very powerful nuke that gets lucky. Lets say he does teleport, that's one prepared/spont slot gone, but now he's lost a round and you've done some damage to him and it's your turn... how long can he keep teleporting and loosing rounds? What happens if he just gets Dimensional Anchored? I like your idea for a troll. I don't know if you'd always win the opposed grapple check, but if you do that's a good trick. A Barbarian does it just as good however. Only if he's taken IUS and Improved Grapple, otherwise he's probably getting smacked and doing no fire damage. Against a giant with Low Ac, yes, you do this very well. Be a rock. If the giant is stupid he'll even continue to swing at you. However, Giants usually have an impressive strength and attack bonus. A Full defense and expertise may work, but your not exactly pumping out the damage either. In this situation, a fighter does just as well as a Paladin, who could use the Divine (shield? Armor?) to boost his AC quite a bit and fight defensivley. Still, I'll admit that's not a bad tactic. It seems the only thing you found a fighter can do is tank. Intelligent opponents don't care about that, and will just move by. Stupid opponents make you a godsend though. Don't bother going on about non-core material, or I'll start monkey gripping oversized Spiked chains and get polymorphed into a nastier giant. You're not the only one in a party able of doing damage, you are however reducing the amount of damage you're taking, whilst reducing the amount of damage other party members are taking and freeing their time to support. This would be you doing your job. A Paladin without Expertise or even 5 ranks in tumble doesn't beat the Fighter in defensive forms, even then - that's why I recomended using a mounted archery tactic - it's the path of least opposing resistance. That's the whole point of these tactics, we're posting the ones that deal the least damage to us whilst still contributing to the downfall of the enemy by either distracting fire or reducing their damage potential.
Nyferto 05-17-05, 12:57 PM	and to build a barbarian that can do that just as well... Barbarian 9, human Improved Grapple PBS Insert other archery feat Insert other Archery feat Barbarian really doesn't need mounted combat when he's running so fast. Plus, with Raging, he's doing more damage with his arrows and grapples better. And if you want me to build a barbarian without rage (his class ability) you build a fighter without feats (your class ability) :P Errr... I said without depending on Rage, that's impossible. Mounted Combat allows your mount to survive attacks by substituting it's AC with a Ride check, that's why it helps against a poor ranged aggressor like a rock throwing Giant or most animals. Mounted Archery helps you do Full attacks whilst attacking with a Bow. Not only are mounts automatically faster than Barbarians, but with a full attacking rider - they're quite good to get on. Running Fast with a Barbarian doesn't get you away from something that can move faster, that's most things that are bigger than medium and/or flying. Improved Grapple requires Improved Unarmed Strike, a rather poor choice for you. Alternatively. Human Fighter 1. PBS 1. Quickdraw 1. Improved Initiative 2. Power Attack 3. Rapid Shot 4. Mounted Combat 6. Mounted Archery 8. Expertise 9. Iron Will If you wanted to take advantage of basic mounted options whilst keeping the simple unmounted options, like TWF. Conversely, your Barbarian can't Power attack, or use Expertise or have the initiative, or have a basic +2 on all will saves without the need to Rage. But I could kill you wihtout much effort, whilst you're running around hoping you can hit.
Jell_Moo 05-17-05, 01:29 PM	Just want to point out a few things: 1) Quickened Breath does exist, it is a Metabreath feat from the Draconomicon. 2) Mounted Combat allows you to negate 1 attack per round with a Ride check. 3) While Improved Grapple may be a subpar choice for a Barbarian, Close-Quarters Fighting is absolute gold.
Cardinal Teplin 05-17-05, 01:52 PM	Cardinal Teplin, everything but ONE of your tactics relied on grappling. Only if you don't read it properly. I posted alternative tactics for each monster (except the troll). In several cases one of those was grappling, but they also had others. Your fighter is doing a worse job then a barbarian would do with your tactics. For each tactic, you could probably design a specialist of another class that could do the same or better. The fighter's advantage is that he can CHOOSE his tactic depending on the situation. First off, I don't know what makes you think Archery would work against a Dragon. Wind Wall or invisibitly destroys it instantly. Teleport does too. And a Dragon doesn't need to grapple you to win. I merely suggest it, I'm sorry I didn't notice your freedom of movement ring. He can, however, grapple the Wizard or Cleric because their BAB is quite low when compared to a fighters, but against a fighter all he needs is a full attack. With a strength that high and a great BAB progression, he's going to go right through the fighter in one or two rounds. Especially if he uses a breath weapon on everyone else to keep them guessing. And with quickened breath, he can do both! You sound a bit confused here. Archery was the tactic for a flying dragon. Windwall can't be used by a flying dragon, and invisibility only negates archery if the dragon does not attack (or makes no visible attack). Its not hard to work out where an invisible dragon is if he is attacking, breathing fire, or casting visible spells. Grappling for dragons is a reference to the classic tactic of swooping down, grabbing a party member, and flying off again, something that it is very important to prevent. The best way to prevent it is to join the grapple, maybe as an AOO. Although it's a bit of a desperate tactic, its a fairly solid way of bringing the dragon to earth, or at least slowing him down. If you rely on hiding behind a shield to beat a dragon he's just going to fly or jump over you and attack your friends. Hiding behind the sheild is a defence against breath weapon, not close combat. There is no reason not to attack as well. Also, is it possible to grapple a dragon? I thought creatures with a size difference that big couldn't be grappled, could anyone put down a ruling here? Yes. You can grapple dragons. However, they get big size boni to their grapple check. A fighter is likely to be at a disadvantage, unless he has buff spells on him. And your trip, grapple doesn't work when a mage can teleport. au contraire, trip works just fine. The mage can teleport while prone, but he's still prone when he arrives. At worst its still an inconvenience for him. At lower levels it works fine, but at lower levels a raging barbarian with power attack has a good chance of just killing the wizard in one shot. Same thing with a charging mounted paladin. Unless of course he uses mirror image, invisiblity, blur, or any other decent defence. And if he's that poorly defended, he's not really much of a threat in the first place. At high levels all you can do is kill his summoned creatures or chase him around, cause a ring of freedom of movement is a common item for wizards. Their concentration is so high it's hard to deal enough damage to get through it. Summoned creatures is a bit of a non-issue. Either he has guards that stop you engaging him directly, or he doesn't. It doesn't really matter where they came from. Whether you then go around them, or kill them first, depends on the situation, but I don't see anything fighter specific in that. Freedom of movement doesn't stop you being tripped. High concentration may mean that you pass concentration checks for being threatened, but actual damage while casting is still going to be a problem. In the case of material components, sunder them during the casting. I like your idea for a troll. I don't know if you'd always win the opposed grapple check, but if you do that's a good trick. A Barbarian does it just as good however. Only if he had improved grapple. Otherwise, he does it worse, even while raging. The barbarian can imiate any one or possibly two of these tactics, but he'll never be able to choose between them to the same degree as the fighter. Against a giant with Low Ac, yes, you do this very well. Be a rock. If the giant is stupid he'll even continue to swing at you. That does describe your typical giant. You gave me a general case, I gave you a general response. It doesn't fit every giant, nor, as I said, every situation involving giants. However, Giants usually have an impressive strength and attack bonus. A Full defense and expertise may work, but your not exactly pumping out the damage either. Not that impressive. What the giant specifically has is a very good attack bonus for its HD, and power attack. Lightly armoured targets get creamed as a result. And no, you're not pumping out the damage. But I'm taking the main problem with a giant to be the chance that it gets lucky with a big power attack and kills a party member outright. Absorbing the attacks so he doesn't do much damage, and can't use his big power attack, is the best tactic for the party, although it's probably a suboptimal tactic for the individual in the front getting hit. In this situation, a fighter does just as well as a Paladin, who could use the Divine (shield? Armor?) to boost his AC quite a bit and fight defensivley. Of course. None of these tactics are exclusive to fighters. But a fighter can do them all. Although I should also point out that divine sheild, the non-core feat(CW) you refer to, would only be as good as combat expertise if the paladin had a charisma of 20. It seems the only thing you found a fighter can do is tank. Yes of course, because I didn't mention sunder, trip, grapple, archery or readying an action even once...
greatfrito 05-17-05, 02:37 PM	I have to say, with just Core materials, I feel that yes, the Fighter is underpowered. This is my vote. Now, given the vast number of feats that have been published since core 3.5, the Fighter now has 100 Fighter-List feats to choose from, 20 Tactical feats to choose from, and 14 Weapon Style feats. I think that these additions are all steps in the right direction, though really, new books don't really help balance because they introduce materials for the other classes as well (Extra Rage and Extended Rage eliminate most of the "Balance" that people cite between Fighter and Barbarian). Tactical feats and Style feats are excellent additions to the Fighter (we use both as parts of the Fighter bonus list), and are elements that many other classes cannot use effectively. Sure, there are still few high-level feats, but with Style and Tactical feats, the list is expanded to a little more than 130 feats that the Fighter can choose from.
mocker stole my username! 05-17-05, 05:45 PM	The Fighter is actually a bit overpowered if you ask me. All those feats... *sigh!* Perybrand the hafling rogue3/ranger1 gets jealous!
Aki Warren 05-17-05, 10:06 PM	Cardinal, I apologize about the archery tactic. I thought you meant in general, not against flying dragons only. My bad, it happens. And yo, let's remove the wizard. The wizard can quite easily polymorph or shapechange into a dragon at high levels, and then your just screwed all around. Also, all the defenses you mentioned against the barbarian (Blur, Mirrior Image) works equally well against a Fighter. You still have to make an attack, and I'm not sure if you can grapple with a Blurred target. I believe you can't, but I'll readily admit I can be wrong about rules. If I'm wrong, please correct me. The Dragon thing I think is to detailed an example. Most of the times my dragons tend to use hit and run tactics and traps. If a Dragon has a 42 intelligence, I plan to play him as smart as possible. So against a troll I'll admit that your tactic is good. I just want to point this out however. Mounted Combat prevents 1 attack. A Barbarian with Combat reflexes and Karmic strike can drop your mount in one shot most of the time. And I'll build a barbarian without rage if you build a fighter without bonus feats, deal?
Vahenir 05-18-05, 03:23 AM	I don't mind when people say the Fighter is balanced. But saying he's -overpowered-? He pretty clearly is not that good at higher levels. And yes, there are now tons of Fighter-exclusive feats.. problem is, few of them are really powerful enough for a high-level Fighter. As I said before, the Fighter's abilities really start to break down at high levels. It's unfortunate, it's almost like every other class just steals his thunder.
Nyferto 05-18-05, 03:55 AM	And yo, let's remove the wizard. The wizard can quite easily polymorph or shapechange into a dragon at high levels, and then your just screwed all around. Unless you have AMF, or you realise they're shapechend (change the variables much?) and actually a puny wizard in a big body, at which point, standard tactics will still work for killing weak large creatures. Where's the rest of the party BTW? Also, all the defenses you mentioned against the barbarian (Blur, Mirrior Image) works equally well against a Fighter. You still have to make an attack, and I'm not sure if you can grapple with a Blurred target. I believe you can't, but I'll readily admit I can be wrong about rules. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Which is why it's handy to have deffensive measures, unlike a Raging barbarian who has to hope he hits through. Blur only gives a miss chance to attack roles, you might miss the initial touch attack, but after that it'd provide no benefit. Blink on the other hand would give you a 50% chance of getting out for free because you'd turn ethereal, it'd be a practical 100% chance and not much would help that (Asside from a well needed de-buff from a supporting party member). Defensive spells help keep them on the offence, deffensive options help you reduce the impact of that offence until it's time to strike back. The Dragon thing I think is to detailed an example. Most of the times my dragons tend to use hit and run tactics and traps. If a Dragon has a 42 intelligence, I plan to play him as smart as possible. And if he doesn't? Well actually each dragon will fight as detailed in their entry in the Monster manual. So against a troll I'll admit that your tactic is good. I just want to point this out however. Mounted Combat prevents 1 attack. A Barbarian with Combat reflexes and Karmic strike can drop your mount in one shot most of the time. And I'll build a barbarian without rage if you build a fighter without bonus feats, deal? More non-core feats? Well that completely changes everything, because now I've got defensive throw and elsuive target and karmic strike and improved combat expertise and combat reflexes with a monkey gripped reach weapon. I mean really, try to stay persistant in your examples. Worse still, your example doesn't make any sense. Since when is the AOO from Karmic Strike redirectable against the mount? The mount doesn't attack you, the Rider attacks you from 120ft away with a Bow, counter attacks won't mean much. Most giants only get one ranged attack, trolls don't even have a ranged attack by default, Dragon breath has a limited range, Wizards can't hit someone with ranged spells if they ready an action to move out of the way on a mount that has a base speed larger than the radius of effect. And I'll build a barbarian without rage if you build a fighter without bonus feats, deal? So the advantage goes to you because you've removed everything from the fighter, but not the Barbarian? Rage isn't the exclusive reason for being a Barbarian, nore is it their exclusive feature of the Barbarian. What you're basically saying is that Rage is the only meaningful feature of the Barbarian and they're crap without it... which seems to happen many times per day throughout their progression. Which basically means you think the barbarians are crap?
True Archon 05-18-05, 07:08 AM	While it is true several buffs don't last long, many many more last for several hours. Clerics can keep doing it all day. Quite frankly, if a buff lasts all day I see no reason NOT to use it. But wait, that's why clerics are considered overpowered! So let's just move on to something else besides Clerics and Druids. If you compare them to fighters, you'll find that Fighters lose every single time. So do barbarians. Let me ask you, what is the Fighters point in combat? What is his Niche? What can he do during combat (since he can't do anything out of it) that will actually impact combat? What can he do: Against a Dragon? Against a Troll? Against a Wizard? Against a Giant? You'll find that in many cases all he can do is swing! And you'll find that AC doesn't matter, when you use a maschoist build :D Okay, with those opponents mentioned I've got to point a few things out. Oh, is this just Fighter tactics vs. these monster within a party, or by themselves? Well, anyways... On Dragons.... I think Fighters actually have a better chance against dragons than Barbarians. If you think about it, dragons have such high hit points, AC, DR, and Strength that they are nothing more than better Barbarians with A LOT of extra special abilities and spells. Add in the fact that they can fly, and that their manueverability isn't perfect... a diving, attacking, flying by, turning around, diving and then attacking again dragon starts to eat away the Barbarian's Rage duration just for the amount of time the dragon spends moving in the air. Also, a Fighter facing off against such a versatile monster is going to benefit a lot from Quickdraw when transitioning from ranged weapon, to melee weapon, to close-quarters fighting weapon (if grappled). Also, with a versatile array of feats, the fighter will benefit while the barbarian falls behind. Take for example the Improved Grapple that keeps being brought up. Sure a 20th level Barbarian (I'm assuming you're talking 20th level, correct me if I'm wrong) can match the bonus, however, at least the Fighter won't be provoking the AoO from the dragon, because any attack from a dragon is better to be avoided instead of being "soaked" up as damage. Also, a "generalized" Fighter will have a much better time against the versatile dragon than a Barbarian who is probably focused towards two-handed weapon, Power Attack, melee combat. Unless the Barbarian has a special made bow that can account for his high Strength AND has properties to bypass DR AND a bow for lower Strength (with DR bypassing properties) if by some chance the dragon's flyby attacks have eaten away the Rage's duration, AND has resources enough for a decent melee weapon as well. Paladins and Rangers are a different lot against dragons in comparison to the Fighter. Assuming that the dragon in question is evil, the Paladin's Smite Evil is going to be impressive against the dragon, no matter what weapon the Paladin uses. Unfortionately, the Paladin's Smite Evil is limited to 5/day, and with a dragons high AC, they may be wasted if a missed attack occurs. Also, a dragon's high hit point total almost guarantees that the Smite attack is not going to be the make-or-break battle turner unless it was performed with the weapon that the Paladin has devoted her resources to. Then, on top of all that, what if the dragon is neutral, or even good? I don't know why a paladin would be battling a good dragon, but... what if? The Paladin's other special abilities will either be useless or useful... about half and half. Spells, Lay on Hands, Aura of Courage, Special Mount, and Divine Grace will be useful. Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Divine Health, Turn Undead, and Remove Disease will most probably be useless. A Ranger's combat ability vs the dragon depends upon whether Dragon is one of the Ranger's Favored Enemies. Then, it depends upon how much the Ranger has devoted to "dragons" being his Favored Enemy (vs. other subtypes). However, for assumptions sake, we'll say the Ranger has maximized his Favored Enemy ability against dragon subtypes. Then a Ranger would probably be the best choice vs. a dragon. Not much against anything else, but the best against dragons. Especially with Evasion. Unfortionately, low AC and lower hit points make it to where the Ranger definitely needs to be careful when combating the dragon. On Trolls... Trolls? Really? If a Fighter can't find a niche vs. trolls, then NO warrior class can find a niche vs. trolls. But anyways, I'll play along. One, a Fighter's higher AC ability coupled with feats like Dodge and Combat Expertise limit the chances that a Rend will take place when comparing combat effectiveness with Barbarians or Rangers. Two, with feats along the lines of Spring Attack to avoid AoOs with the trolls reach and feats like the Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, and Improved Disarm (if by some chance fighting with a weapon) that work better against bipedal humanoids to avoid AoOs. Of course there are size issues, but there are also those aforementioned AoO issues. See the problem with a Barbarian or melee Ranger facing a troll is the troll's regenerative abilities. While theses two low AC warriors are continually suffering damage from close combat because of AoOs and Rends, their hit points keep going down while the troll's damage is healed. Luckily a Barbarian does have higher HD and DR to make up for some of this damage. A ranged built Ranger is going to have the problem of lower damage dealing range weapons vs. the troll's regenerative ability. But at least the Ranger can avoid rend attacks this way. Paladins vs. trolls? Nothing but great things for a paladin, given that almost every troll is evil for Smite Evil, and a Special Mount helps towads limiting reach benefits, and high AC make rend attacks less frequent. Against multiple trolls, the Paladin starts to lose the benefit of Smite Evil because of uses/day, but otherwise the Paladin should fair pretty well amongst the warrior group. On Wizards... Phew... against any prepared spellcaster, any of the warrior classes are going to have problems against a wizard. Well, except the monk. Monks fair pretty well against wizards comparatively speaking. However, I see that you wanted to take out the wizard scenario, and rightly so. Too many variables to take into consideration... On Giants... Okay, I don't think that I need to explain the great combination of high AC and defensive feats like Combat Expertise, Mobility, and Dodge against high Attack ability, high Damage ability, reach, and low generally low AC monsters like giants. Then to take into consideration feats that allow some extra leeway vs. reach, like Spring Attack and Ride-by Attack, that make things a bit easier against suffering damage. Generally speaking, utilizing the Improved special attack-type feats against larger, stronger enemies is generally not wise. However, what's to say that such feats could not at least be attempted when said larger, stronger enemies attempt to grapple against a Fighter with such feats as a result of the larger foe provoking an AoO against said Fighter? Also, a Fighter with feats involving ranged combat with multiple attacks can cause quite a bit of damage vs. a giant's single ranged rock attack, until combat closes to melee. A ranged-focused Ranger fairs well against rock-throwing giants as well, but once combat becomes melee, the lower hit points, lower AC Ranger is going to fall behind in the trading of blows. Like the above mentioned dragon scenario, a Ranger's Favored Enemy choice is going to also play a big factor in whether a Ranger will fair well dealing damage against a giant. In effect, the best tactic a Ranger could employ in this type of combat is utilization of his stealth abilities. Also, a Ranger's Animal Companion would be a welcome ally vs. giants so long as it can avoid being killed. A Raging Barbarian loses precious rounds while engaging in ranged combat, especially if he doesn't have a ranged weapon that will maximize his higher raging Strength bonus. Once engaging in melee, it becomes a race between the Barbarian and giant upon whom can land more damage, more quickly. A giant needs to watch their lower hit points vs. Barbarian's hit dice and DR, while the Barbarian needs to worry about avoiding AoOs with their lower AC and the giant's reach. A giant is also going to cause more damage than a raging Barbarian comparatively speaking. Every giant in the MM has Power Attack as a feat and a very large weapon that can be used two-handed. On top of that, given that the weakest giant has a Strength of 25 at CR 7, even a raging Barbarian of equivalent level is generally going to fall behind that number. In this case, it is overall better to avoid taking damage by minimizing getting hit at all, or provoking AoOs. Something a higher AC, feat focused Fighter can do better at. Once again, the higher AC, higher hit point Paladin should fair pretty well against giants. Smite Evil ability becomes a bit more hazy, given that not all giants are evil. Ranged rock attacks can be opposed by mounted combat. The problem that a Paladin will probably fall short of is having feats that help against the giants high attack ability and AoOs because of reach. The paladin does have Lay on Hands in case hit points becomes an issue. However, if the Paladin can use anything to avoid getting hit in the first place (higher AC is a definite start), a paladin should do pretty well in filling a niche vs. giants. So in conclusion... Fighters are capable of fitting those niches when fighting the above enemies in comparison to other warrior-related classes. I've given examples upon which the other classes fall to disadvantage against said monsters, and shown where the Fighter can nullify, or at least limit, those disadvantages. Of course, it all depends upon the Fighter's choice of feats, but I tried to stick with a short list of feats to provide examples. Let me ask you, what is the Fighters point in combat? What is his Niche? What can he do during combat (since he can't do anything out of it) that will actually impact combat? A Fighter's "point in combat" and "niche" is at least having the ability to change tactics in the face of so many variables presented by the vast variety of enemies out there and not being stuck to a few options. "What can a Fighter do during combat that will actually impact combat?" A Fighter's ability to wear any armor and utilizing AC-enhancing feats without limiting drastically affecting his feat pool minimizes actual damaging hits that eat away a party's healing resources. A Fighter's ability to utilize feats that avoid AoOs, or limit their numbers, minimizes actual damaging hits that eat away a party's healing resources. A Fighter's ability to transistion from one combat style to another with consistant results that do not rely upon abilities with inconsistant variables (i.e. specific circumstances for Smite Evil and Favored Enemy or limited uses/durations for Rage and Smite Evil). A Fighter's ability to specialize to one combat style without foregoing other combat styles. A Fighters ability to utilize feats that are constantly in effect, can be used in multiple combinations, and not heavily draw away from the limited number of actions that can be performed in a combat round (i.e. free actions like Quickdraw and Rapid Reload). All of which the above can be done with a single Fighter. Above all, few other classes, and no other warrior-type classes, has as much versatility given to the player of the class to build as they so please. Especially to fit the gaming style of different, individual DMs. P.S. Please forgive editing, grammar, and other mistakes. Please? I've tried to locate them, but I'm almost positive I missed some.
Nyferto 05-18-05, 07:27 AM	And after all that, there's still the unique lack of flavour of the class. This freedom allows you to inject pretty much whatever you want on-top of the base. I could mimic a Paladin with the Fighter, I wouldn't have all the divine benefits, but then I wouldn't be forced into anything, I would loose everything if I kicked a baby kobold and more importantly - I wouldn't be too far off in terms of overall combat ability because I'd still be a good Fighter. Same with all the rest of the martial classes. They might do their flavour easier, but they don't have that same flexability even if you believe they're better in combat.
Vahenir 05-18-05, 08:40 AM	I may be wrong, and someone correct me if I am.. but doesn't either the Player's Handbook or the Dungeon Master's Guide state that a well-built Fighter can beat a Barbarian squarely, even while he's Raging? Just figured I'd bring that up.
Lion21 05-18-05, 12:23 PM	Vahenr, your right, the DMG does say that...but I can't help but stare in wonder at what the writers must have been thinking when they wrote that. Perhaps they meant soley the lower levels? Even then, I'd say the barbarian has a pretty even chance. Hmm...looks like it's time to resurrect the Fighter vs. Cleric thread, Largegnomes got a nice barbarian build ready to take on Ny's fighter and I want to see how things really will go.
Nyferto 05-18-05, 12:25 PM	What page?
Aki Warren 05-18-05, 12:38 PM	Okay, I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear but I assumed in a group. I think it's quite stupid since I can't imagine a DnD campigian involving one player. Even if it did, who would chose a fighter or barbarian? I'd pick a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard if I had to. The problem I'm seeing is a big problem in most online games or any group game. The Fighter is a tank. I'll admit that in most situations, his ability to survive is really good. In fact it's pretty much the best in the game, especially with all those feats to counter enemy tactics like power attack, rend, and such. Your examples just proved that . However, my point is this; that isn't important. Oh, there is someone in full plate swinging a sword around? Let me go around him and kill the squishy caster or the Cleric. Unless you can keep the enemy focused on you and no one else then there is no point in being a tank. Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we all agree a Paladin or Barbarian can do more damage then a fighter. If you don't agree with this assumption, then feel free to argue it. Thank you. Now, how can you keep the enemy focused on you? Well, there are a few ways. First is damage. We've already stated that a Barbarian or Paladin is better at this. A Ranger is too with favored enemy, but that's kinda random so let's just not worry about that quite yet. The other ways are denying enemy movement. How do you do this? Improved Trip or Grapple are EXCELLENT ways to do this. Now the problem with this feat is that large creatures or creatures with multiple legs are really resistant to this. This includes a large portion of creatures in the MM. My problem is not that a fighter rocks against humanoids. With his ability to trip and such he is just as good as everyone else against humanoids. My problem is against larger creatures who are just going to ignore him and go after the rest of the party, and there really isn't a whole lot you can do. Now, granted, maybe I'm missing something. I stopped playing a fighter in 3rd edition and started playing a Cleric. This is what I have seen in campigians and my own personal thoughts and opinions. Oh, and I don't care about spelling mistakes or whatever. I blame Microsoft word myself for all mistakes in my writings. Don't let poor writing hold back your thoughts or opinions because your ideas may be the stuff of legend. :D
Vahenir 05-18-05, 12:58 PM	Vahenr, your right, the DMG does say that...but I can't help but stare in wonder at what the writers must have been thinking when they wrote that. Perhaps they meant soley the lower levels? Even then, I'd say the barbarian has a pretty even chance. Hmm...looks like it's time to resurrect the Fighter vs. Cleric thread, Largegnomes got a nice barbarian build ready to take on Ny's fighter and I want to see how things really will go. Ah okay.. good that I wasn't just imaging things. As for what they were thinking.. I don't know. I was in a game once where I played a Fighter and another guy placed a Barbarian.. we ended up in a fight to the death and I whooped him. My strategy was pretty simple.. full defense while he raged, then I wailed on him when it wore off. But I admit, a lucky roll on his part might have doomed me. Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we all agree a Paladin or Barbarian can do more damage then a fighter. If you don't agree with this assumption, then feel free to argue it. Thank you. Highly subjective and not something you're going to want to base an argument on. The Fighter can dish out a ton of damage - and he does it CONSISTENTLY. The only way for a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to keep up is Favoured Enemy, Smite, and Rage, respectively. And these abilities have limits, while the Fighter's abilities generally don't. I would say that the Pally and Barb are -capable- of dealing more damage, but not on any kind of consistent basis - and in the case of the Paladin - it's also circumstantial.
Nyferto 05-18-05, 12:59 PM	Playing the game like a MMORPG doesn't actually work when you have intelligent enemies with a vast array of potential and abilities. You can't force people to attack you, but you can reduce the damage they do when they attack you. Everyone has to look out for themselves in D&D because no man can handle everything by themselves without some support. You can't just make an opposed Aggro check with the parties wizard and complain that it should be attacking you because you're taunting it. Fighters are actually there to handle physical combat, the advantage of Phsycical combat is that it doesn't turn off, it only gets less effective. Unlike spells which run out - everyone can pretty much keep hitting. The tactics we posted reduce their damage potential, this does not equate to tanking. Tanking is something stupid people do with stupid enemies, the only way you can really "Tank" is to force their hand. This is done through tactics that can be employed by practically everyone, the more versatile in combat you are, the more methods you have at your disposal. This is why Wizards are even remotely effective in battle - they can force reactions with a simple spell, whilst Sorcs typically have to counter defend and try to shift the battle field by opposed counter force. More directly, However, my point is this; that isn't important. Oh, there is someone in full plate swinging a sword around? Let me go around him and kill the squishy caster or the Cleric. Unless you can keep the enemy focused on you and no one else then there is no point in being a tank. The person in full plate swining a great sword is more likely a Barbarian or Cleric of Kord than a Fighter, Fighters take intelligent options to defend themselves without exposing themselves to massive counter damage potential - this tactic is last ditch and you should acknowledge that. If the enemy was intelligent, he wouldn't get into melee range with you either. Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we all agree a Paladin or Barbarian can do more damage then a fighter. If you don't agree with this assumption, then feel free to argue it. Thank you. In very specific circumstances they can, without the ability to apply the damage - they are ofcourse fairly useless in combat. They're ability to apply that damage is crippled compared to well built Fighters, who can easily compensate by conecting more frequently. Now, how can you keep the enemy focused on you? Well, there are a few ways. First is damage. We've already stated that a Barbarian or Paladin is better at this. A Ranger is too with favored enemy, but that's kinda random so let's just not worry about that quite yet. The other ways are denying enemy movement. How do you do this? You can't make them, you can only make yourself a good target to avoid or takedown. If you're in a vulnerable position to their attacks, i.e. you're where they want you - then you're going to suffer badly, if they're strong - then you're dead. If they're intelligent and denying you of this tactic - then they're either a Fighter or just most higher level monsters in existance. Improved Trip or Grapple are EXCELLENT ways to do this. Now the problem with this feat is that large creatures or creatures with multiple legs are really resistant to this. This includes a large portion of creatures in the MM. You can't deny them movement, you force their hand to escape your threat or you're where they want you to be anyway and you're going to die quickly. Large creatures do not equate to CR, count the number of creatures that have advancement and are still small. If a party can cleave their way through a challenge, it's probably not that good a challenge. My problem is not that a fighter rocks against humanoids. With his ability to trip and such he is just as good as everyone else against humanoids. My problem is against larger creatures who are just going to ignore him and go after the rest of the party, and there really isn't a whole lot you can do. You are absolutely wrong in these trains of thought, try different ones. Large creatures don't need complex tactics because they often come solo, if you're in a group with defence in mind, then it's fairly easy to kill most things with simple diversionary tactics and aggrovation drawing - anyone can do that - but certain people can stick to it better. Now that you've acknowledged there's a group, you should be able to see that every round a powerful large creature attacks one person, everyone else in the group gets a free turn to unleash their post potent attacks. Most offensive forms have very simple methods of countering them. Deffence is more universal than offence.
True Archon 05-18-05, 06:53 PM	Okay, I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear but I assumed in a group. I think it's quite stupid since I can't imagine a DnD campigian involving one player. Even if it did, who would chose a fighter or barbarian? I'd pick a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard if I had to. I was assuming such, but I just wanted to be sure. You know, all the things about "assuming" and all.... The problem I'm seeing is a big problem in most online games or any group game. The Fighter is a tank. I'll admit that in most situations, his ability to survive is really good. In fact it's pretty much the best in the game, especially with all those feats to counter enemy tactics like power attack, rend, and such. Your examples just proved that . However, my point is this; that isn't important. Oh, there is someone in full plate swinging a sword around? Let me go around him and kill the squishy caster or the Cleric. Unless you can keep the enemy focused on you and no one else then there is no point in being a tank. Alright, "tank" and "tanking?" I keep seeing these terms thrown around on the boards, and I'm going to look it up on one of the sticky lists of terms in the D&D General Forum, real quick. Okay... "Tank (noun): A heavily armored character that excels in melee combat. Etymology: Military, refers to a heavily armored combat vehicle." Okay. Umm, that could be in reference to the Paladin class as well. Actually, it would probably be better suited to the Paladin class when applied to their dedication towards mounted combat. As to the enemy mindset involved with D&D, I've gotta say that the enemy is probably going to be set on survival first, more often than not. The problem with leaving any player alone on the board is an invitation to getting killed. Especially when it's a single enemy facing off against an average of four enemies with four times the amount of actions. Also, there is this sad thought process that circulates around D&D circles, and it is involved with warrior classes being the bodyguards of the other lower hit point classes and spellcasters. Probably set from older editions of D&D where a botched spell could be done even by one hit point of damage. In 3.+ ed, a lot of the worry of a spellcaster getting their spells off has almost gone the way of the dodo. With the introduction of utilizing battlemats or grids as common place, spellcasters have it easy when they have a picture of how the battlefield is and to where the enemy is located. Not like the old days of relying upon your imagination vs. the DM's. Also, with the introduction of defensive spellcasting, Concentration checks (which are almost always maxed out), and feats towards spellcasting, even after getting hit in combat, a spellcaster still has a decent chance casting a spell. Also, many smart players playing lower hit point, lower AC classes, should get it in their head quickly to learn to be able to defend themselves vs. relying upon their burly warrior companions. If the warriors had that mentality, they would be relying upon the spellcasters to ready actions in order to counterspell any magic that targets their weak-sided saves (usually Will). Instead, most warriors learn to try to counteract such things with feats and magic items, or in some cases, begging the spellcaster to take some glory away from them and prepare a spell that'll help the warriors. Yes, the game is team oriented. But it's not centered around the warriors forming a picket-line while the spellcaster barrage away with magic. Of course, some enemies may very well swarm attack the warriors first in the hope that the warriors' spellcasting ally won't fireball their own companions. Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we all agree a Paladin or Barbarian can do more damage then a fighter. If you don't agree with this assumption, then feel free to argue it. Thank you. Yes, those two classes can do more damage than the Fighter. Actually, a Ranger could also do more damage than a Fighter. It just all comes down to the Fighter's vs. the other classes' build strengths and the circumstances that allow such damage to take place. I.E. evil enemies for Smite Evil; creature subtypes for Favored Enemies; and short duration, and generally melee-based, battles for Rage. Now, how can you keep the enemy focused on you? Well, there are a few ways. First is damage. We've already stated that a Barbarian or Paladin is better at this. A Ranger is too with favored enemy, but that's kinda random so let's just not worry about that quite yet. The other ways are denying enemy movement. How do you do this? Improved Trip or Grapple are EXCELLENT ways to do this. Now the problem with this feat is that large creatures or creatures with multiple legs are really resistant to this. This includes a large portion of creatures in the MM. My problem is not that a fighter rocks against humanoids. With his ability to trip and such he is just as good as everyone else against humanoids. My problem is against larger creatures who are just going to ignore him and go after the rest of the party, and there really isn't a whole lot you can do. Most of which are excellent points. But like I said, the goal isn't to get a monster focused on one party member. Especially given that the way CR is designed, if any DM singles out a single party member every combat, chances are that the monster in question is going to either outright kill that one character, or come pretty close. For example: Anyone can agree that when a 20th-level party faces off against, let's say, a Pit Fiend, they are not gonna want to be singled out by the fiend and have all the devil's resources piled on them (imagine when it summons aid). They are gonna hope that their companions help kill it as soon as possible. Now, granted, maybe I'm missing something. I stopped playing a fighter in 3rd edition and started playing a Cleric. This is what I have seen in campigians and my own personal thoughts and opinions. Sadly, I know the feeling. I've yet to play a Barbarian since 3e came out (it's last on my list). Largely due to the fact that I'm usually the DM. The majority of my experience is in watching how the other players play and maximizing the potential of the NPCs that I create. It is also a pretty good understanding on how monsters fight. I know, sad, but I find it hard for anyone to fill the role of DM with the rest of the group enjoying their DM style. Thus, I really don't get to play, and when I do... my character is usually paranoid as hell because my subconscious keeps reminding me what I'd do in this DM'ing situation. Oh, and I don't care about spelling mistakes or whatever. I blame Microsoft word myself for all mistakes in my writings. Don't let poor writing hold back your thoughts or opinions because your ideas may be the stuff of legend. :D Hehehe. Thank you for understanding.
Nyferto 05-19-05, 07:29 AM	Ah okay.. good that I wasn't just imaging things. As for what they were thinking.. I don't know. I was in a game once where I played a Fighter and another guy placed a Barbarian.. we ended up in a fight to the death and I whooped him. My strategy was pretty simple.. full defense while he raged, then I wailed on him when it wore off. But I admit, a lucky roll on his part might have doomed me. Well maybe if you didn't take it out of context, you'd understand. At first it refers to how similar the basics are (HD, attack progression, saving throws). Then it says a Fighter with the Right feats will have better numbers than a Barbarian with Rage, but Rage is offset (and the Barbarian) by other features like fast movement and DR. The text for some of this section does seem to be unupdated left-overs from 3.0, specifically how characters should provide variety not a direct alternative. The Fighter can dish out a ton of damage - and he does it CONSISTENTLY. The only way for a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to keep up is Favoured Enemy, Smite, and Rage, respectively. And these abilities have limits, while the Fighter's abilities generally don't. I would say that the Pally and Barb are -capable- of dealing more damage, but not on any kind of consistent basis - and in the case of the Paladin - it's also circumstantial. Which is part of the point, they don't have too much of an advantage, but if your DM isn't playing that disadvantage - then you're being pampered. At which point, you might not get why limited use is actually a disadvantage. If it really isn't a disadvantage (which it obviously is), then you're asking for a nerf.
Vahenir 05-19-05, 07:40 AM	Well maybe if you didn't take it out of context, you'd understand. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I was responding to someone else's comment about what they were thinking - I responded that I don't know. And I don't. Do -you- have any way of knowing what they were thinking when they wrote a particular passage? I'm not taking anything out of context, I don't even remember what it says exactly, and I haven't bothered to go check. I just remembered that it came down to -a Fighter can take on a Barbarian of equal level. And I demonstrated that with an anecdote from one of my own games. Which is part of the point, they don't have too much of an advantage, but if your DM isn't playing that disadvantage - then you're being pampered. At which point, you might not get why limited use is actually a disadvantage. If it really isn't a disadvantage (which it obviously is), then you're asking for a nerf. Yeah... I agree...
Nyferto 05-19-05, 12:46 PM	I may be wrong, and someone correct me if I am.. but doesn't either the Player's Handbook or the Dungeon Master's Guide state that a well-built Fighter can beat a Barbarian squarely, even while he's Raging? Just figured I'd bring that up. Vahenr, your right, the DMG does say that...but I can't help but stare in wonder at what the writers must have been thinking when they wrote that. Perhaps they meant soley the lower levels? Even then, I'd say the barbarian has a pretty even chance. Hmm...looks like it's time to resurrect the Fighter vs. Cleric thread, Largegnomes got a nice barbarian build ready to take on Ny's fighter and I want to see how things really will go. It's in the Class section, it doesn't say he can beat him, it says All the Fighters feats will out perform the basics of Rage - but Barbarians have more than Rage (Something Aki should take note of) to offset their combat defficiencies.
Aki Warren 05-19-05, 01:02 PM	I am quite well aware that Rage is not the only class feature. Wilderness survival, extra speed, and uncanny dodge are all very usefull skills. However, the Rage is kind of the main feature of the class. Like the Bard gets Singing as his main feature.
Vahenir 05-19-05, 01:06 PM	I looked through my DMG. The quote is in the 'Avoiding the Pitfalls' heading of the Classes section, page 25. "Even though their attack bonus progression is the same, a fighter with well-chosen feats outshines the barbarian, even one in a rage. (Once out of his rage, the Barbarian's not even close.)" That seems pretty clear to me that the game designers believe that a 'fighter with well-chosen feats' will spank a Barbarian in combat, even while in Rage.
Jell_Moo 05-19-05, 02:06 PM	I looked through my DMG. The quote is in the 'Avoiding the Pitfalls' heading of the Classes section, page 25. "Even though their attack bonus progression is the same, a fighter with well-chosen feats outshines the barbarian, even one in a rage. (Once out of his rage, the Barbarian's not even close.)" That seems pretty clear to me that the game designers believe that a 'fighter with well-chosen feats' will spank a Barbarian in combat, even while in Rage. You are quoting from the 3.0 DMG. The same quote can be found on page 174 of the 3.5 DMG. The Barbarian has changed an awful lot between 3.0 and 3.5. The Fighter has hardly changed at all. It is a leftover quote that they didn't remove when they did the updating. There have been valid points that the Fighter is as good as the Barbarian, but an outdated quote that just wasn't updated is not one of them.
Vahenir 05-19-05, 05:24 PM	You are quoting from the 3.0 DMG. The same quote can be found on page 174 of the 3.5 DMG. Yes.. I know I'm quoting from the 3.0 DMG. Because that's the one I have here. But I don't think it really matters which book the quote is in - if it's in both. But thanks for dropping the page number for the 3.5 users. The Barbarian has changed an awful lot between 3.0 and 3.5. The Fighter has hardly changed at all. Uh.. Trap Sense. Oh.. and at 20th level he ends up with a total of one point more DR. How would those two things affect his combat performance against a Fighter?
Jell_Moo 05-19-05, 11:24 PM	The differences are much bigger than that. - In 3.5 the Barbarian gets Mighty Rage at 20th. That's another +2 over the Greater Rage cap that he had in 3.0. - 1 extra point of DR, and he starts to get DR earlier. 7th level in 3.5, 11th in 3.0. - Trap Sense starts to happen at 3rd level for the 3.5 Barbarian, and 10th level for the 3.0. Also it caps at +6 in 3.5 as opposed to +4 in 3.0. - Greater Rage happens at 11th level in 3.5, and happens at 15th in 3.0. - The 3.5 Barbarian gains Indomitable Will, the 3.0 Barbarian does not. ---- The Fighter's differences between the editions are: - Gains Intimidate as a class skill in 3.5. - Has the possibility of selecting two new Fighter exclusive feats, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. ---- The Barbarian had a much bigger improvement in 3.5. That's why the quote holds little weight. It's from a time when the Barbarian was considerably weaker, and when the Fighter was largely the same.
Nyferto 05-20-05, 03:35 AM	Some feats also changed, some for better or worse, some new base ones were added (probably not enough), the WF tree got longer, which was stupid... Improved Crit became less beneficial, which was also stupid. Improved Feats gave better numbers, which wasn't too hot an idea. The revision wasn't too well handled, which is a good arguement for a design change to the Fighter, this has nothing to do with power. Either way - you still missed it. According to the out of date quote, Rage isn't as strong as feats, but a Barbarian has more than feats. They should be around equal in combat - but in different ways. I'd say they're reasonably balanced against each other, but they both have their own design issues.
Jell_Moo 05-20-05, 09:24 AM	By and Large the majority of feats did not change. More feats were added, including some that were non-core in 3.0, but most didn't change a whole lot. The only ones off the top of my head without looking that changed were skill focus, spell focus, and whirlwind attack. Only the last one really applies to Fighters and it weakened them instead of strengthened them. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization trees lengthened which was a bonus for Fighters, not stupid. This way Fighters could, if they wanted to, keep up with the damage that the other melee classes did. Improved Crit not stacking with Keen was dumb as hell though. Weapons like the rapier, scimitar and falchion became mechanically inferior thanks to that. Improved Feats are a great addition though. The revision, as a whole, was a good thing. Classes like the BArd and Ranger desperately needed it. The problem? All the melee classes were improved, except for the Fighter. Barbarian got more DR and got it earlier, and had their Rage improved. Paladin got more Smites per day. Ranger was completely overhauled and made into something more than a 1 level dip. No my man, you missed it. In 3.0 they said that Rage did not equal feats. Ok, fine. In 3.5, Rage is substancially better. The Barbarian gets Greater Rage earlier, Tireless Rage earlier, and also gets Mighty Rage now. The comparison is not the same anymore. I'm not saying that this makes the Barbarian any better or worse than the Fighter. That is not my point. I can completely see the argument that the Fighter is the melee equal of the Barbarian (if non core feats are used I'd probably agree). My point is that using an outdated quote that just wasn't edited in the revision as an argument just doesn't cut it. When the statment was made it made some sense I suppose. Now though? With the improvements to Rage and the Barbarian overall I think that the statement really needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Vahenir 05-20-05, 10:55 AM	- In 3.5 the Barbarian gets Mighty Rage at 20th. That's another +2 over the Greater Rage cap that he had in 3.0. Which isn't that really big of a deal compared to an equal-level Fighter. - 1 extra point of DR, and he starts to get DR earlier. 7th level in 3.5, 11th in 3.0. Still isn't a big deal. One extra point of DR is nice. But against a Fighter who's probably dealing 30 or 40 points of damage on top of the damage that's negated by DR... so what? It's still only one point overall.. and the original DR coming in a few levels sooner.. that's really not a big deal. That's like saying it would be a huge deal if the Fighter got WS at 3rd level instead of 4th. It really wouldn't matter. - Trap Sense starts to happen at 3rd level for the 3.5 Barbarian, and 10th level for the 3.0. Also it caps at +6 in 3.5 as opposed to +4 in 3.0. I mentioned trap sense too. Point is, it's useless in combat with a Fighter, which is what we were talking about, right? (The idea that the 3.0 designers thought a Fighter could take on a Barbarian.) - Greater Rage happens at 11th level in 3.5, and happens at 15th in 3.0. Again.. it's just the same ability bumped down a little. Not mind-blowing. - The 3.5 Barbarian gains Indomitable Will, the 3.0 Barbarian does not. And IW is not going to help a Barbarian who's fighting a Fighter.
Nyferto 05-20-05, 12:55 PM	By and Large the majority of feats did not change. More feats were added, including some that were non-core in 3.0, but most didn't change a whole lot. The only ones off the top of my head without looking that changed were skill focus, spell focus, and whirlwind attack. Only the last one really applies to Fighters and it weakened them instead of strengthened them. The improved attack feats got bumped up, giving a +4 over the past ignorance, power attack got a massive boost, expertise got nerfed (IIRC no cap in 3.0), then there's all the effectual material like item costs, enchanted arrow stacking, combat buffs and the DR system. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization trees lengthened which was a bonus for Fighters, not stupid. This way Fighters could, if they wanted to, keep up with the damage that the other melee classes did. Improved Crit not stacking with Keen was dumb as hell though. Weapons like the rapier, scimitar and falchion became mechanically inferior thanks to that. When you combine the two factors, it's just bad. In 3.0, you only need 2-3 feats to stay competative with weapon damage, considering other classes had less benefits to match - keeping up wasn't too hard, certainly not as impossible as it is now. Lengthening Trees might've worked - if they gave the Fighter more feats to compensate with - but they didn't. Worse still, your claim that they could keep up might mean something if they actually could. The feat tree is completely retarded, it's never a good option if you want to be competative. It's absolutely one of the stupidest, shortsighted revisions they've done in 3.5. Not only are the feats backwards in terms of bonus, but the more you invest the more retarded they are, then there's the fact that one of them is less effectual overall and you've got practically no benefit for taking them because they're easily outclassed by more direct factors. I can't stress how poor an improvement WF tree extensions are. Hence - not using them unless i'm making a very basic character. Improved Feats are a great addition though. Actually, they're badly revised too, note that they existed, they just didn't give bonuses to effect. In some ways the bonus is a good thing, but in otherways it should've been done better. Negating the AOO on Sunders can be more important than a +4. Getting a free attack and ignoring the AOO is even better for Trip attacks than getting a +4. The +4 just increases is universal, anyone can take it and get a better chance, rather than by being a better Fighter and using them better. The revision, as a whole, was a good thing. Classes like the BArd and Ranger desperately needed it. The problem? All the melee classes were improved, except for the Fighter. Barbarian got more DR and got it earlier, and had their Rage improved. Paladin got more Smites per day. Ranger was completely overhauled and made into something more than a 1 level dip. Rubbish. Bard and Ranger - guess which classes were my favourite in 3.0? I could tell you why these classes got a poor revision too, and I could tell you why they weren't that bad in 3.0 as well, but this isn't the topic for it. They would've benefited from some work, but that doesn't mean they actually got it. A revision does not equate to a good revision. The extra front loading of classes isn't actually a good thing for them, it actually supports multiclassing better than before, it might not be dip tastic (though the Barbarian and Ranger didn't get that cleared very well), but it's still better for those classes to Multiclass given the right material (or basic understanding of effective combat style). In 3.0 they said that Rage did not equal feats. Ok, fine. In 3.5, Rage is substancially better. The Barbarian gets Greater Rage earlier, Tireless Rage earlier, and also gets Mighty Rage now. The comparison is not the same anymore. I'm not saying that this makes the Barbarian any better or worse than the Fighter. That is not my point. I can completely see the argument that the Fighter is the melee equal of the Barbarian (if non core feats are used I'd probably agree). My point is that using an outdated quote that just wasn't edited in the revision as an argument just doesn't cut it. When the statment was made it made some sense I suppose. Now though? With the improvements to Rage and the Barbarian overall I think that the statement really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Well I'd agree if I thought the statement was false. Inspite of all the revisions, they essential broke the Barbarian by making it effectively better at Raging. Whilst they accidently made the Fighter fundamentally better off handling all aspects of combat to the fullest. It's like Pepsi vs Coke - one can't really beat the other so they offer different things. It seems to depend on the needs of your campaign, but generally they offer a strong attack at combat in their own way. To me, the tactical weakness of Barbarians means I wouldn't bother with one if I had to (i'd still do one for the fun of it). The tactical strength of the Fighter means it's one of the few classes I wouldn't multiclass with (unless I wanted a different flavour attached).
Patron 05-20-05, 01:24 PM	A properly played fighter (with equipment) can be the most dangerous PC in many battles. In the (now-epic) campaign I run, the fighters often do the most damage - and the rest of the group often works to put them in the optimal position. Of course, the epic fighter feats add a lot (devastating critical especially), but having a good beat build is the most important part (and making full use of enchanted, heavy armor that most other classes can't wear - adamantite full plate of heavy fortification keeps you in the game a long time).
GoofsterStud 05-20-05, 01:34 PM	Your lucky I have a DM that gives away 200,000 wands. and 20,000 weapons are suppose to compensate. The magic users are always more powerful if you don't get to customize your equipment. Because they do.
Tony Vargas 05-20-05, 04:51 PM	Vote count: No: 75. Yes: 41. or, to break it down in a more interesting way: Unqualified 'No' (the fighter is just fine, thank you): 38 Qualified 'No' (the fighter is OK, overall, but not perfect): 35 Qualified 'Yes' (the fighter's weak, overall, but has it's good points): 29 Unqualified 'Yes' (the fighter's underpowered, however you slice it): 12 Overstated 'No' (if anything, the fighter is /overpowered/): 2
Vahenir 05-20-05, 05:21 PM	Nice breakdown, Vargas. Where did I fall in that one?
Aki Warren 05-20-05, 06:44 PM	I'd like to point out that with epic level progression, Fighters come out strong. Epic feats are insanely powerful, and fighters get them faster then anyone. However, I believe we were discussing levels 1-20. If you include epic I will say that Fighters are much better at that point. I'll say it with a smile and a grin too!
Vahenir 05-20-05, 07:04 PM	Non-Core material makes no difference to whether or not a core rule is balanced or not. Epic rules are not Core, and therefore make no difference. I mean, you could just as easily say "The Fighter is balanced because of the feats in X, Y, J, N, L, Q, and W splatbooks." But it doesn't make a Core fighter anymore balanced that these -optional- rules exist.
Cardinal Teplin 05-22-05, 03:23 PM	Also, all the defenses you mentioned against the barbarian (Blur, Mirrior Image) works equally well against a Fighter. Oh, yes. But they can all be largely negated by the appropriate feats. I was simply pointing out that killing a wizard is not, as you seemed to imply, simply a matter of doing as much damage as possible in the first round. Your tactic- charging and assuming you'd do enough damage to drop on the first hit, is something that a raging barbarian would be better at, but it's also flawed because of the wizard's typical defences prevent it. The tactics I posted are more reliable, and work better than your equivalent barbarian tactic. And of course, a fighter is better at them. I'm not sure if you can grapple with a Blurred target. I believe you can't, but I'll readily admit I can be wrong about rules. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Grapple is a complicated set of rules, and not very clearly written. As a general rule of thumb, you can grapple ANYTHING. About the only exception is incorporeal creatures. The main problem is that it might not give you an advantage. The reason why grapple comes up so much is because you can use it for several quite different things 1) to engage a low strength enemy and pin them, on the basis that you'll have a higher grapple check. If you can reliably pin an enemy, that can end the fight right there. 2) To engage a stronger enemy that otherwise might use large numbers of natural weapons in a full attack to wipe out vulnerable party members. This works because in a grapple you don't get multiple attacks for natural weapons, only for BAB. For example, grappling a giant squid might seem like a really dumb thing to do, since it has a huge grapple bonus, but that does at least ensure that it doesn't get 10 attacks a round on the rest of the party. It's basically a desperation tactic, but it can be a party-saver. 3) To stop hit and run tactics by a flying opponent. For ground based opponents, you're generally better off with trip. Some DMs will allow trip to be used against flying opponents, but it can't be counted on. And I'll build a barbarian without rage if you build a fighter without bonus feats, deal? Of course not. Barbarians can run out of rage - they have a limited amount per day, and can even run out during a fight. There's very little in the system that can deprive a fighter of his feats.
Tony Vargas 05-23-05, 12:56 PM	Nice breakdown, Vargas. Where did I fall in that one?Thanks. I counted your vote as a 'qualified yes.'
Vahenir 05-23-05, 03:12 PM	Sounds about right to me.
Norhg 05-23-05, 03:20 PM	The fighter is cool untill around level ten. That is when he looses his coolness.
Inquisitor Ylodias 05-23-05, 04:30 PM	OK, at this point, I'm not even going to try and read all of the posts here. One thing though: I'm not sure if you can grapple with a Blurred target. I believe you can't, but I'll readily admit I can be wrong about rules. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Grapple is a complicated set of rules, and not very clearly written. As a general rule of thumb, you can grapple ANYTHING. About the only exception is incorporeal creatures. By RAW, the only way that Blur would impede a grapple is by giving his initial 'grab' (a touch attack) a 20% miss chance.
Fortebraccio 05-23-05, 06:43 PM	It basically depends on a) the campaign ruleset b) the level of the party I'd play a fighter in a high (13+) level, core-only campaign only for flavour reasons (e.g if I wanted my character to be a non-paladin knight of sorts), as his overall contribution to the party would be negligible, he'd d basically becomes a walking set of magical gear. On the other hand, fighters are undisputed kings of the battlefield at lower levels, especially if the DM throws multiple encounters at the party...early on, Barbarians or Paladins are half as effective or durable. Some minor house-ruling (like making Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will stackable Fighter bonus feats) could help reducing his glaring weaknesses, and non-core material can add some extra customization opportunities, but unless you are pursuing some silly builds(spiked chain or vile damage centered, for example), once you hit level 12 you're simply better off multiclassing or retiring altogether...that is, if you are concerned about your survival chances, and, especially, those of your fellow party members. Edit: typos
Nagisawa Takumi 05-23-05, 07:01 PM	The fighter underpowered? Yes. At high levels, a fighter type (Pally, Barby and Fighter) are nothing more than meat shields, not the kings of the battlefield they should be. Rogue types get a backstab strike that rivals spells in damage. Caster Types, unless facing three classes (Barby, Monk and Rogue) do GARAUNTEED damage, yes kids, half damage is STILL damage, and they get to do ungodly damage with them. So what DOES a warrior type bring to the table? A wall of meat that unless is backed up with a magical toy (And it had better be a good one) is nothing more than a stumbling block for the baddies as they try to get to the REAL threat, the mages/clerics. Fighter's need help. And feats don't cut it. I have ideas that will give it to them. Oh, and in the campaigns I have played in, the fighter is the last ANYONE wants to play, but it is because players have been brainwashed into thinking they are actually needed.
Tony Vargas 05-23-05, 07:51 PM	Norhg, Fortebraccio, I'm guessing your comments as 'qualified' 'yes' votes.
Nyferto 05-24-05, 03:53 AM	Strange, direct contradiction in two adjacent threads.
Oy of Midworld 05-24-05, 10:20 AM	I haven't read this whole thread but, simply put - no, fighter NOT underpowered. it is all part of the reverse class arc: pure casters suck at low levels and kick lots of butt at high levels, while pure fighters kick butt at lower levels and suck at higher levels. But any smart PC can make a fight plenty effective at high levels, depending on how they invest their money, feats, skill points, etc. And any good DM should provide multiple situations where all members of the party can be useful and effective.
Vahenir 05-24-05, 02:42 PM	And any good DM should provide multiple situations where all members of the party can be useful and effective. But certainly, a DM actually has to try for this. He can't just toss an appropriate CR at the party at high levels and expect the Fighter to do more than act as meat-shield. If a DM wants the fighter to be effective at high levels, he has to specficially tailor encounters so that the Fighter has something to do besides stand in the way of the monster so it can't get at the Wizard.
Tony Vargas 05-24-05, 03:48 PM	But certainly, a DM actually has to try for this. He can't just toss an appropriate CR at the party at high levels and expect the Fighter to do more than act as meat-shield. Sure, the DM has to put forth some thought and effort to keep encounters varied and challenging. In the long run, theoretically, simply pulling out apropriate CR/ELs at random probably will end up varied and challenging, but, in practice, it might leave some characters very frustrated for long periods, or might even just result in an unexpected TPK at some point. OTOH, trying to make every character exactly equal in effectiveness in every individual encounter would require a lot of tweaking and micromanagement on the part of the DM. I don't think that either extreme is desireable, though. The game doesn't need to run itself, the DM does have a purpose beyond impartial referee. The players also shouldn't expect the DM to custom-tailor every single encounter to make each character feel good about himself, they need to take some responsibility for playing thier characters effectively. I think the 'problem' with non-casters not stacking up well against casters is often just a symptom of a DM (or DM/player dynamic) problem. If casters seem to be doing all the heavy lifting, with non-casters, at most, being 'meat shields,' the problem isn't the casters being 'overpowered' or the non-casters being 'underpowerd,' the problem is that the casters, and, by extension, the party, aren't really being challenged apropriately. For instance, if a campaign has moved into higher levels, and the party has started to erase apropriate CR monsters in a round or two of well-planned, intensive uber-casting, an obvious solution might be to up to the CRs. That results in more 'challenging' encounters, but also in encounters that demand that quick resolution just to avoid PC deaths, and the leave the party 'exhausted' and ready to 'rest' (re-charge casting) - they may also strain creadulity, as over-CR enemies are likely to be rarer creatures, better suited to infrequent, individual encounters. The likely result is fewer, higher CR encounters, with more preparation before, and more 'rest' after. Far from having the desired result, this sort of escalation actually 'coddles' the casters that set it in motion by too-easily (actually, too-quickly) defeating a few of the DM's pet critters - giving them the opportunity to pull out thier best spells in every encounter, and leaving the party with little recourse if those big guns fail. An alternate response to the 'problem' of casters quickly mopping the floor with a same-CR encounter, is not a bigger CR enouncter the next day, but more, more varied, and less predictable encounters the same day. Instead of just choosing a higher CR enemy, the DM can pump the EL of an encounter, or series of encounters, by including more, better organized, and better prepared enemies. This isn't a matter of tailoring encounters to cover the weaknesses of the fighter, it's a matter of having enemies responding intelligently to the high-power (probably downright famous) PCs, and a matter of /not/ coddling casters by allowing them to blythely ignore the most significant limitations on thier abilities.
Vahenir 05-24-05, 04:20 PM	Sure, the DM has to put forth some thought and effort to keep encounters varied and challenging. In the long run, theoretically, simply pulling out apropriate CR/ELs at random probably will end up varied and challenging, but, in practice, it might leave some characters very frustrated for long periods, or might even just result in an unexpected TPK at some point. OTOH, trying to make every character exactly equal in effectiveness in every individual encounter would require a lot of tweaking and micromanagement on the part of the DM. You're absolutely correct. The DMs job goes far beyond just impartial referee. But not every DM can put the same amount of time and thought into encounters, even if they only really worry about the important ones. And at high levels, the Fighter isn't doing the job he was designed for as well as he used to. Which can, and does, require the DM to do a lot of hand-tailoring, and sometimes even combat-railroading, to make the Fighter feel like he's contributing. Even a well-built fighter, at high levels, tends to act as little more than a meat-shield. The alternative is often having -lots- of enemies in a particular encounter, so the Fighter can slice-n-dice while the casters handle the meaner stuff. And even that often leaves a player with the feeling that he didn't do much - as it's usually pretty obvious that he was handed the chance to 'do something' on a silver platter. And heaven forbid you've gone with a slightly suboptimal Fighter build (perhaps, say, a Fighter who wears chainmail and carries only a longsword, or worse- padded armour and a rapier). The Fighter is very much built on the concept of 'big armour, big weapons.' If you choose to deviate from that, there's a good chance you're even less useful at higher levels. Much of this can, of course, be fixed with magic weapons. Reduced costs for less optimal equipment can mean more money for magical accoutrements. But I feel that's a very cheap answer - and I feel it's been the Fighter's problem since 3E's inception. The Fighter is weak, so make sure he has access to TONS of magical gear. But that coinsides with the concept that D&D magic might actually be overshadowing characters entirely, even spellcasters. That's another debate entirely, though. The players also shouldn't expect the DM to custom-tailor every single encounter to make each character feel good about himself, they need to take some responsibility for playing thier characters effectively. But the players should expect that their characters will contribute something meaningful in and out of combat. The Fighter delivers very little outside of combat, generally speaking. So he has to deliver -in- combat to compensate. And at high levels, that becomes harder and harder for him to do, especially if he uses a sub-optimal build, for whatever reason. I think the 'problem' with non-casters not stacking up well against casters is often just a symptom of a DM (or DM/player dynamic) problem. If casters seem to be doing all the heavy lifting, with non-casters, at most, being 'meat shields,' the problem isn't the casters being 'overpowered' or the non-casters being 'underpowerd,' the problem is that the casters, and, by extension, the party, aren't really being challenged apropriately. But is this a DM problem, or a D&D problem? Look at appropriate CR creatures for a high-level party. An inexperienced DM, or one without a lot of time, who tosses appropriate CR creatures at the party will quickly find the Fighter overshadowed in his primary role. Personally, I don't feel DMs should have to retool the CR system just because WotC's CR system favours spellcasters at higher levels. For instance, if a campaign has moved into higher levels, and the party has started to erase apropriate CR monsters in a round or two of well-planned, intensive uber-casting, an obvious solution might be to up to the CRs. That results in more 'challenging' encounters, but also in encounters that demand that quick resolution just to avoid PC deaths, and the leave the party 'exhausted' and ready to 'rest' (re-charge casting) - they may also strain creadulity, as over-CR enemies are likely to be rarer creatures, better suited to infrequent, individual encounters. The likely result is fewer, higher CR encounters, with more preparation before, and more 'rest' after. Far from having the desired result, this sort of escalation actually 'coddles' the casters that set it in motion by too-easily (actually, too-quickly) defeating a few of the DM's pet critters - giving them the opportunity to pull out thier best spells in every encounter, and leaving the party with little recourse if those big guns fail. And two problems with this are rather obvious (one of which you touched on already). 1) It makes spellcasters even -more- powerful, by taking away one of the few restrictions they carry at higher levels. One big encounter followed by a rest means that in -every- encounter a spellcaster can toss out all their best spells without much concern. 2) The higher on the CR chain you go, the more necessary a spellcaster is. So by arbitrarily raising the CR to make encounters 'tougher' - you're also insuring that the Fighter has less and less to do beyond acting as the Wizard's meat shield. An alternate response to the 'problem' of casters quickly mopping the floor with a same-CR encounter, is not a bigger CR enouncter the next day, but more, more varied, and less predictable encounters the same day. Instead of just choosing a higher CR enemy, the DM can pump the EL of an encounter, or series of encounters, by including more, better organized, and better prepared enemies. This isn't a matter of tailoring encounters to cover the weaknesses of the fighter, it's a matter of having enemies responding intelligently to the high-power (probably downright famous) PCs, and a matter of /not/ coddling casters by allowing them to blythely ignore the most significant limitations on thier abilities. This is, by far, a better solution. But it still has its problems. More and more encounters hurts the Fighter too - as every encounter he's losing HP - and with it, the ability to heal (as the entire party is going to need healing every time, and healing is still limited, even at higher levels). The other main problem is that this style of game still requires a retooling of the CR system. You can't throw endless appropriate CR creatures at the players - especially at high levels. Because once the spellcasters run out of useful spells, it's all up to the Fighter to really dish out the damage, and chances are - he can't do it often enough at higher levels, because so many creatures practically require a spellcaster to defeat. So, of course, you end up having to fudge with CR anyway - because while CR 15 might have been fine for the first two encounters, it's going to be too much to handle for the third, fourth, and fifth encounters... et al.
Tony Vargas 05-24-05, 05:46 PM	You're absolutely correct. The DMs job goes far beyond just impartial referee. But not every DM can put the same amount of time and thought into encounters, even if they only really worry about the important ones. Heck, if you only put some thought into the 'important' challenges, you've prettymuch fallen into the caster-favoring 'trap,' below, right there. Casters have very high 'peak power' - thier effectiveness when they have all thier spells available, and ideally suited to taking on the challenge at hand, is remarkable. Challenging casters means making them face challenges when they're off that peak - when they've already used, or can't afford to squander, thier best spells, and when they're not dictating the terms of the encounter. And at high levels, the Fighter isn't doing the job he was designed for as well as he used to. Which can, and does, require the DM to do a lot of hand-tailoring, and sometimes even combat-railroading, to make the Fighter feel like he's contributing. I can't agree. I think the problem, if there is one, is with the /casters/ requiring more DM attention to challenge, more than with the fighter requiring DM assistance to shine. High level play becomes increasingly complex, and the DM needs to stay on top of it to keep things challenging. The fighter is, perhaps, in that sense, less of a problem, since it's a less complex class. The number of potential abuses in feat-and-weapon combos is fairly small compared those possible with spells, for instance. Even a well-built fighter, at high levels, tends to act as little more than a meat-shield. The alternative is often having -lots- of enemies in a particular encounter, so the Fighter can slice-n-dice while the casters handle the meaner stuff. The fighter is only stuck in the 'meat sheild' role as long as the party faces challenges that the casters can easily snuff in a short time with offensive spells (if it takes any length of time for the casters to take down the enemy, the fighter's damage potential becomes too significant to be considered just a 'meat shield'). There should be a fair number of higher CR creatures (and higher EL encounters) that wouldn't fall into that category. And even that often leaves a player with the feeling that he didn't do much - as it's usually pretty obvious that he was handed the chance to 'do something' on a silver platter. I don't know. Do Wizard players feel that way when they find themselves able to divine the nature of, and rest between, each and every encounter? Or do they smugly pat themselves on the back for thier brilliance? I don't think a fighter, finding the opportunity to 'do something' in a long, difficult fight, is going to feel coddled. And heaven forbid you've gone with a slightly suboptimal Fighter build (perhaps, say, a Fighter who wears chainmail and carries only a longsword, or worse- padded armour and a rapier). The Fighter is very much built on the concept of 'big armour, big weapons.' If you choose to deviate from that, there's a good chance you're even less useful at higher levels. I don't think that's exactly true, either. While heavy armor is a very nice option for the fighter, there are enough effective feat paths that eschew it to keep it from being the 'only' viable choice. And, while concentrating on high-damage weapons may seem the only way to go when fights tend to be few or short, the higher AC of weapon-and-shield, and less damage-intensive tactical fighting can also be useful in more challenging battles than simple slugfests. I feel it's been the Fighter's problem since 3E's inception. The Fighter is weak, so make sure he has access to TONS of magical gear. But that coinsides with the concept that D&D magic might actually be overshadowing characters entirely, even spellcasters. That's another debate entirely, though.That was much more of a problem in earlier versions of the game. A 1E character prettymuch /was/ his magic items (or his unique personally-researched spells, if a wizard). There's a lot more customization and flexibility in 3E (especially for the fighter). So, that problem is so much less, that it seems, to me, to be no problem at all. :rolleyes: But the players should expect that their characters will contribute something meaningful in and out of combat. Not really. Players choose thier characters, and D&D classes get pretty specialized. It's very easy to concieve of and build or advance a character so that he's very focused on combat or non-combat, or less focused. The fighter class does tend to represent the more combat-focused end of that spectrum, but that's fine, in that some players will want a character over towards the combat-focused side. But is this a DM problem, or a D&D problem? Look at appropriate CR creatures for a high-level party. An inexperienced DM, or one without a lot of time, who tosses appropriate CR creatures at the party will quickly find the Fighter overshadowed in his primary role. Why, exactly, would that be the case? Keep in mind that an EL ranging from the party's level, to level+4 could encompass anything from a single level+4 CR creature, to a modest group of CR-4 creatures. If you consider the ragged edges of the EL system, it could also be a CR+5 critter, or veritalbe army of CR-6 (or less). So 'apropriate CR creatures' for a 15th level party might be creatures with individual CR's anywhere from 9 to 20. Add in monster advancement and class levels and the list of apropriate high-level encounters should be long indeed. 2) The higher on the CR chain you go, the more necessary a spellcaster is. So by arbitrarily raising the CR to make encounters 'tougher' - you're also insuring that the Fighter has less and less to do beyond acting as the Wizard's meat shield. That is another point. Though, I think it would be more accurate to say that many creatures are given a CR with the assumption that certain spell resources will be available to the party. If you increase CR, you may often end up making the casters' highest level spells even more critical, which, again, increases pressure for the party to 'rest' after every encounter. Aside from that, though, I don't think higher CR always means a more critical role for the caster. Some monsters are better defeated by spells than by force of arms, but, there are such monsters at every level. In fact, higher levels see more spell-resistant monsters, against whom offensive casting is less efficient. This is, by far, a better solution. But it still has its problems. More and more encounters hurts the Fighter too - as every encounter he's losing HP - and with it, the ability to heal (as the entire party is going to need healing every time, and healing is still limited, even at higher levels). It behooves the party to heal up to full between encounters, if at all possible, so, yes, more resources in a multi-encounter day will have to go towards healing. A high-level party probably has a lot of item resources, but, at least some of that 'extra' healing is going to come out of spells/day, which will only further serve to reduce the dominance of the caster set (specifically, the divine casters). The other main problem is that this style of game still requires a retooling of the CR system. You can't throw endless appropriate CR creatures at the players - especially at high levels. Because once the spellcasters run out of useful spells, it's all up to the Fighter to really dish out the damage, and chances are - he can't do it often enough at higher levels, because so many creatures practically require a spellcaster to defeat. Remember, creature CR is only part of the system, each challenges is actually represented by EL, which takes into account not just the CR of the critters involved, but thier numbers, and any other advantages they may have (degree of organization and planning, home turf advantages and so forth). A series of challenging encounters can easily be pulled together using nothing but creatures that, individually, have a CR lower than the party's level. Such is more believeable, too, since lower CR creatures are generally a lot less common, and have a less dramatic impact on the setting than higher-CR ones. You can save same- or CR+ creatures for latter/less-frequent 'boss' encounters. Far from re-tooling the CR system, this sort of thing - multiple encounters/day with EL (not CR) around the party's level - is what the system is best suited for. It's holding up an individual CR+ creature encounter as the archetypal challenge that strains the system a bit.
True Archon 05-24-05, 06:09 PM	I agree with Tony Vargas that a lot of it depends upon how the DM is running the game. For example: I keep hearing the term "meat shield" being brought up with warriors (and not just the fighter). As such, I keep envisioning every battle that "meat shield" players see as enemy A starts on one side of the battlefield, party B is on the other side, and Fighter C runs up between the party and enemy to become said "meat shield." The point, I think Tony is making, is that it's not that the Fighters are overchallenged, it's that the spellcasters aren't being challenged enough. An average 20th level Sorcerer or Wizard is going to have around 40 hit points. I repeat, 40 hit points! Add in the limited defense ability with armor, and the amount of time it takes to bring up buffing magic, that same spellcaster tends to have lower AC than warrior types. There are four types of creatures in the Monster Manual of CR 20: Balors, Pit Fiends, Tarrasque, and Dragons. Three out of four of those monsters are going to be knowledgeable enough to realize that wizards tend to be problems, but the spellcaster's low hit points make them easy full-round action targets. The fourth monster listed isn't picky about what it eats, but has so many immunities towards magic, it is not really going to feel most direct damage magic. I've seen it in games that I've played, and for some reason, I've noticed that a lot of DMs have the mentality of coddling the spellcasters from damage. Maybe it because they don't want to have parties constantly losing characters, or trying to keep their own campaign storyline from derailing. I also am seeing a pattern of anti-fighter advocates bringing up the unusually big number of large-sized+ monsters in the Monster Manual at higher levels. By following that mentality, larger monsters tend to do more damage per attack, and thus should be wiping the floor of spellcasters. However, I don't see many complaints from spellcaster players on how they keep reaching negative hit points or dying. This makes me start to wonder whether DMs out there are "playing nice" with their spellcasters. I don't know, but any warrior-type class that I've played has never fallen into the role of "meat shield," unless by some chance the spellcasters are getting picked on, and are about to die. The reasoning is this. Spellcasters in our groups tend to throw the magic at the enemy until the enemy sets their sights on them, and then suddenly the spellcaster is looking for spells to save their own hides. I know that some people are now going to start citing off buff magic and contingency magic, but they are not taking into account that in a typical encounter, even where there is some distance between the party and enemy, melee will be closed within usually the first to third round. That's maybe one to three rounds of buffing for defense. That's one to three rounds that the warriors are doing their jobs, while the spellcasters are worrying about themselves. I think what Tony is trying to say is that spellcasters are suppose to have magic that plays a heavy contribution to the battle, but they are suppose to be balanced with lower hit points, AC, and spellcasting limitations like: typically single standard action casting times, concentration requirements, limited spells per day, and minimum rest and preparation times. If the DM isn't testing those limitations of spellcasters, then of course the game is going to be unbalanced against warrior classes. It holds the same with the Barbarian's limited number of Rage abilities per day per encounter, and the Paladin's limited number of Smite Evil abilities per day. If the DM doesn't test those limitations every once in a while, then Fighter's are going to get the short end of the stick, and thus, game balance is thrown off. That's the reason those limitations were put into the game in the first place!
Aki Warren 05-24-05, 10:30 PM	if your casters have 40 hit points at level 20 I weep for them. They probably think fireball is the be all end all of spell casting too
True Archon 05-24-05, 11:17 PM	if your casters have 40 hit points at level 20 I weep for them. They probably think fireball is the be all end all of spell casting too I'm sorry, I'm finding it difficult that you can't believe a arcane caster is going to have a low hit point total around that number. :confused: It's not a fact of "my casters" having 40 hit points by level 20. It's more of a matter of the average hit points of 20th-level arcane caster. See... 1d4= Hit Dice of arcane casters. Average of a 2 rolled each level up to 20 levels. 20 x 2 = 40. That's where I got my math. Of course, I may be off a bit, and that's why I said "around 40 hit points." Of course their first hit die is maxed and there could be roughly ten 2's rolled and ten 3's, making the average total 52-53 hit points. Given that Constitution is not going to be their main stat, I could conservatively say maybe a +1 or up to +2 modifier for hit points as a secondary stat (without lucky stat rolls). So, let's give the benefit of the doubt and figure a +2. That's around 80 hit points (and that's assuming decent rolls for hit dice and ability scores). Still a small enough number for a big, bad hitter to make a spellcaster's hit point total seem not up to taking even a few big hits, let alone being on the receiving end of a full attack. Also, heaven forbid some weird, maximized damage spell like cone of cold hit for 90 damage (45 if the wizard passes their poor Reflex save), or something similar happen. I'm sure that an arcane spellcaster can invest in some Constitution increasing items, and it may even be smart... though a bit expensive for a major magic item and not entirely guaranteed to be on every character's item repetoire. There are many, many amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, or scarabs out there that a character may want besides a amulet of health. Does anyone else find that to be a decent possibility besides myself? As to the fireball comment... that was sarcasm right? :rolleyes:
Nyferto 05-25-05, 03:36 AM	No but if you're a Dwarven Wizard! Or perhaps just a Gnome, or one that shapechanges... then you've got a tougher caster. Would've been better if you polymorphed the fighters as well, but hey.. casters are stupid and selfish like that. I bevieve the issue with casters and effectiveness is matter of the appropriate challenge, if you are ending a battle in 2-3 rounds -then it wasn't much of a challenge was it. I actually wrote a thread with this in mind, but no-one read it :( (it's on Redgars). You don't just throw something they can blow to pieces in seconds, you throw something they can't and see how they handle it. If you don't see this whilst you're playing, then you're missing that you aren't actually powerful, you're being catered for. It's like having a gritty movie re-written and dumbed down for your characters to partake in and for kids to enjoy. Imagine a Godzilla movie were Godzilla just gets dominated by Dominate Monster, as opposed to Ultraman who's immune to such TPK nonsense. Even a well-built fighter, at high levels, tends to act as little more than a meat-shield. The alternative is often having -lots- of enemies in a particular encounter, so the Fighter can slice-n-dice while the casters handle the meaner stuff. At later levels, you can afford to generate your own meatshields, then the warriors can focus on actually killing things rather than standing around waiting to die. Not only that but you can force these generated meatshields against people, rather than needing one person to cover the entire party. I've had/seen tons of Fighters who got to high levels, I've never seen one that acted like a Meatshield, not even at lower levels did they "tank" (except a few Dwarves). I've never seen anyone who really wanted a person to tank, because they defended themselves.
Tony Vargas 05-25-05, 12:37 PM	It's more of a matter of the average hit points of 20th-level arcane caster. See... 1d4= Hit Dice of arcane casters. Average of a 2 rolled each level up to 20 levels. 20 x 2 = 40. The first HD is automatically 4, and the avarage is 2.5, so you're looking at an average of just over 50 hps, to start. Then, you add in CON bonuses. For most arcanists, CON is probably thier second priority after maxxing out thier caster stat (DEX is the other likely candidate, STR & WIS are both largely dumpable). So, add another 20 to that for each +1 CON bonus they started their careers with. Maybe that's only 1 or 2, but you're looking at 70 or 90 hps - twice the estimate you posted. A +3 CON-boosting item is not much of an expense for a 20th level caster, especially if he's a Wiz making it himself. That's another 60 hps. So, really, you're most likely looking at something in the range of 110-150 hps, and, with inherent bonuses to CON and temporary hps, it could go even higher.
LordThavian 05-25-05, 12:49 PM	It would all depend on how one would configure his/her character! With all the material out there with goodies to cater to a fighter, admit it the possibilitys are endless!
simon_tage 05-25-05, 12:57 PM	A decisive no.
RadicalTaoist 05-25-05, 09:49 PM	It would all depend on how one would configure his/her character! With all the material out there with goodies to cater to a fighter, admit it the possibilitys are endless! The problem is that you need at least 7 splatbooks worth of feats to put a fighter on a competitive level with the caster classes. On top they are still hard put to compete with the combat PrCs these splatbooks offer, and if you give the casters 1 splatbook (say, complete divine) their power practically triples and the fighter falls behind again.
Vahenir 05-26-05, 12:29 AM	I always find it funny when people defend the fighter by saying "feat X, Y, G, C, D, L, and Q in Splatbook XYZ makes the Fighter UBER." Firstly, if you need to use splatbooks to make a class playable (at whatever level) then that's a prime reason to state the class is not, in fact, balanced appropriately. Likewise, so many of those Splatbooks grant Prestige Classes that are -obviously- better than a straight fighter at higher levels. If you can make a prestige class that's that much better than a fighter, obviously the fighter isn't as powerful as it should be at higher levels. You see it all the time, people saying that you'd be stupid to go with class X past level Y because there's a PrC out there that does what you want to do but better than a core class could ever do it. So either a core class or two are underpowered, or most Prestige Classes are overpowered, yes?
TheDarkestOfAngels 05-26-05, 12:40 AM	I always find it funny when people defend the fighter by saying "feat X, Y, G, C, D, L, and Q in Splatbook XYZ makes the Fighter UBER." that's not exactly the arguement, but I'll follow you for the time being. Firstly, if you need to use splatbooks to make a class playable (at whatever level) then that's a prime reason to state the class is not, in fact, balanced appropriately. it's a little different when it isn't the class that's the problem. usually when people cite the problems that the fighter faces, it's because of the lack of level 13+ feats available for the fighter to use his 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th bonus feats on. Making this a problem with the feats available in the PHB a problem. Meaning that the PHB is the problem. Not the fighter. Likewise, so many of those Splatbooks grant Prestige Classes that are -obviously- better than a straight fighter at higher levels. If you can make a prestige class that's that much better than a fighter, obviously the fighter isn't as powerful as it should be at higher levels. You see it all the time, people saying that you'd be stupid to go with class X past level Y because there's a PrC out there that does what you want to do but better than a core class could ever do it. this is generally true with all classes. this is not unique to the fighter. So either a core class or two are underpowered, or most Prestige Classes are overpowered, yes? it is possible for a prestige class to be powerful and perhaps more powerful than the class or classes that were required to gain entry into that prestige class. that doesn't however, make a prestige class overpowered nor a class underpowered.
Vahenir 05-26-05, 01:06 AM	Making this a problem with the feats available in the PHB a problem. Meaning that the PHB is the problem. Not the fighter. The ENTIRE Fighter class -depends- on those Feats to -function-. So if the PH Feats are a problem, the Core Fighter is a problem. Because a -Core- Fighter uses -Core- Feats. Hate to be fussy about that, but it's true. At high levels, a "Core only" game screws a Fighter over at higher levels. This is a problem with the -Fighter-, by way of the PH Feats. this is generally true with all classes. this is not unique to the fighter. It seems far more -prevalent- with the Fighter. it is possible for a prestige class to be powerful and perhaps more powerful than the class or classes that were required to gain entry into that prestige class. that doesn't however, make a prestige class overpowered nor a class underpowered. I've seen this argument before.. and I don't buy it. If you don't mind, I respectfully ask that maybe you can explain to me exactly why you feel this way? I want to be quite frank that I'm not challenging you or trying to be an ass. I really want to know where this line of logic comes from. Here's how I see it: The Core Classes (let's say for the sake of argument...) are balanced. They are designed -specifically- so that each class gets better at things in varying levels so that no one is ever -better- than anyone else. Then you make a Prestige Class that is -CLEARLY- superior to a Base Class at later levels. HOW is that -possibly- balanced? If I Increased the Fighter's saves to +2 EACH at 15th level and up, granted him a bonus feat at every other level, and then some special ability at every other level, and the ability to cast X spell X times per day as a class feature.. he'd be overpowered. If I do the same thing with a Prestige Class.. it might just be okay. I don't understand the logic that a PrC that is -obviously- more powerful than the class it builds from is balanced.
TheDarkestOfAngels 05-26-05, 02:40 AM	The ENTIRE Fighter class -depends- on those Feats to -function-. So if the PH Feats are a problem, the Core Fighter is a problem. Because a -Core- Fighter uses -Core- Feats. Hate to be fussy about that, but it's true. At high levels, a "Core only" game screws a Fighter over at higher levels. This is a problem with the -Fighter-, by way of the PH Feats. again, that's a (percieved) problem with the available core feats not the class itself. all the class does is grant access to all feats with the [Fighter] tag on it. If all the core book does is grant toughness and skill focus: Profession: Gay Prostitution as bonus feats, then that's not the fighter class's problem. Rather, this is a problem with WotC's ability to author in a proper set of fighter-available bonus feats into the PHB. But they did fix this problem and every time they pump out a new suppliment, they fix it some more. It seems far more -prevalent- with the Fighter. :rolleyes: I'm sure you see it that way. I've seen this argument before.. and I don't buy it. If you don't mind, I respectfully ask that maybe you can explain to me exactly why you feel this way? I want to be quite frank that I'm not challenging you or trying to be an ass. I really want to know where this line of logic comes from. Here's how I see it: The Core Classes (let's say for the sake of argument...) are balanced. They are designed -specifically- so that each class gets better at things in varying levels so that no one is ever -better- than anyone else. then don't "buy it." I've run across people in my time here at the boards who already convince themselves of their own correctitude long before they even start typing, despite long and through explainations to the counterpoint. I've come to not expect anything out of anyone. In any case I "feel this way" because the only times I ever see anyone pin that a prestige class is supposedly "clearly superior" to a class is when they don't understand something important. Perhaps they forgot a number of different prerequisites, perhaps they're overestimating the prestige class's abilities or underestimating the power of the component class's losses when taking this prestige class. In other words: Human Error. Take, for example, the earlier impressions on the Mystic Theurge when the 3.5 DMG was first released. A lot of people screamed OVERPOWERED and the subject dominated the threads for some time, until further examination was done. Now, the opposite opinion appears to predominate in regards to that particular prestige class. Which leads me to generally take everything I hear with a grain of salt these days. Particularly when someone claims that a particular class, prestige class, feat, equipment piece, or anything else you can imagine is somehow askew without even bothering to cite examples or say the "whats" "hows" or generally anything. But anyway, lets say, hypothetically, that all prestige classes are indeed inherantly superior in power to their core-class counterparts. In this case, it wouldn't matter anyway, because it isn't a problem unique to the fighter class and is common with all classes because all prestige class are more powerful than all classes. Which, in turn, makes the entire point of bring them up moot. Then you make a Prestige Class that is -CLEARLY- superior to a Base Class at later levels. HOW is that -possibly- balanced? Well, according to your hypothosis, all classes are balanced because they can fill a specific role better than anyone else. If all prestige classes are CLEARLY superior than their core class counterparts, then balance is not broken unless a base class does not take a prestige class. This is because the prestige classes are filling the roles of their core classes better than those core classes and the only time they're unbalanced is when they're incapable of filling that role or because they fill out more than one role better than other prestige classes. However, at this point, what's balanced and unbalanced falls under the jouristiction of PrC vs. PrC balance since PrC are CLEARLY superior to base classes. Essentially, all that means that prestige classes are still irrelevant to a (base) class discussion, as to determine class balance is to compare it to other classes. In other words, don't use prestige classes in a discussion of base class balance. If you want to gripe about prestige class balance vs. base class balance, that's another discussion for another thread. Furthermore, if you find that prestige classes are so much more superior than base classes, that's your opinion (that doesn't appear to be backed up with any proof of any kind I can see) but it is not one that I share in most instances. But let me look at your original question. I respectfully ask that maybe you can explain to me exactly why you feel [that it is possible for a prestige class to be powerful and perhaps more powerful than the class or classes that were required to gain entry into that prestige class. that doesn't however, make a prestige class overpowered nor a class underpowered]? I really want to know where this line of logic comes from. The short answer is that it is because I don't view balance as a distinctive "thing," so to speak. Rather, it's a shady area where there is no such line. The realm of balance in D&D has few absolutes as far as I'm concerned. It's just like with PC races. You have "strong LA+0" (such as the dwarf) and "weak LA+0" (such as the half-orc). Yet, they're both the same level adjustment and perfectly playable PC races and not exactly a bad choice to make when designing a PC when you play them to their strengths. (PC) Classes and prestige classes are no different.
Nyferto 05-26-05, 03:59 AM	Related material does not equate to a class. if the PHB doesn't properly support a class (and you're wrong on that), then the class will suffer because of that, but the class itself does not need change - just the supporting material. If all Cleric spells were junk, then they would need a boost, not the Cleric itself. As for PrC's, i said before, you're absolutely wrong in your assesment of how Fighters can opperate, how they should opperate and how they best opperate. Either way, it's still a fault of a PrC for being overpowered or broken because it probably opens up the same potential to other classes as well.
True Archon 05-26-05, 08:10 AM	I bevieve the issue with casters and effectiveness is matter of the appropriate challenge, if you are ending a battle in 2-3 rounds -then it wasn't much of a challenge was it. I actually wrote a thread with this in mind, but no-one read it (it's on Redgars). I agree with you on this point. Short battles occur, but if they are a continual basis, the challenges are either not enough, or the players are consistently one-upping the DM in combat tactics and/or ingenuity. Also, one thing that isn't considered in these types of arguments is that around the 3rd encounter (and later encounters) in a day, the party's resources start to dwindle, and spellcasters in particular, start to lose their initial variety of magic they began the day with. As such, those later combats tend to extend from short conflicts, to longer conflicts. To which, a class with steadfast, reliable staying power (like the Fighter and other warriors) becomes important for winning, and finishing, the day. The first HD is automatically 4, and the avarage is 2.5, so you're looking at an average of just over 50 hps, to start. Then, you add in CON bonuses. For most arcanists, CON is probably thier second priority after maxxing out thier caster stat (DEX is the other likely candidate, STR & WIS are both largely dumpable). So, add another 20 to that for each +1 CON bonus they started their careers with. Maybe that's only 1 or 2, but you're looking at 70 or 90 hps - twice the estimate you posted. A +3 CON-boosting item is not much of an expense for a 20th level caster, especially if he's a Wiz making it himself. That's another 60 hps. So, really, you're most likely looking at something in the range of 110-150 hps, and, with inherent bonuses to CON and temporary hps, it could go even higher. Yeah, I understand the 2.5. I posted that correction in a following post. However, it's not always a guaranteed fact that Constitution is going to be their second priority stat for every arcane spellcaster player. Neither, is it going to be a guaranteed fact that every arcane spellcaster is going to take the feat Create Wondrous Item. Nor, is it going to be a guaranteed fact that the arcane caster is a Wizard, but is instead a Sorcerer, with the spell bear's endurance in their spell repetoire, as well as having the Create Wondrous Item feat. Likewise, I mentioned that arcane casters may want to invest in maybe an item of, let's say... Amulet of Natural Armor, or Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location, or Necklace of Adaptation, or Periapt of Health, Periapt of Proof against Poison, or even a Scarab of Protection to fill the slot of a Amulet of Health. All of these items of which could be equally as useful/important to high level spellcaster, or other character classes in general. My point when placing the original figure was the base hit point total that all dedicated arcane spellcasters are going to have as an average. Not a difference in selection of ability score priorities, feats, spell selections, magic items, and any other number of factors that can change from character to character. I'm sorry I didn't present it in that meaning or context. I was wrong with my original figure of around 40, but later corrected it to around 50. The gist of what I was getting at was that an arcane caster is suppose to have a lower base hit point score to balance out the awesome firepower at their disposal. Thus, if a campaign isn't testing that particular weakness in the class design on occasion, the end result is a "coddled" spellcaster that looks to be unbalanced in comparison to the other classes. Which in this debate, is whether the Fighter is balanced with the other classes (and in strong opinion, with spellcasters in particular). The short answer is that it is because I don't view balance as a distinctive "thing," so to speak. Rather, it's a shady area where there is no such line. The realm of balance in D&D has few absolutes as far as I'm concerned. I completely understand your meaning. I don't know how other DMs run their games, but the DMs that I've had the pleasure of playing with, utilize a lot of what every class has to offer. It's one of those reasons that I don't view a non-combat oriented, class like the Bard, as being underpowered. The Bard, for example, has proven to be so very useful when information was needed to be gathered, or favorable social interaction with NPCs necessary. As far as I'm concerned, if D&D was made up of nothing more than combat, then D&D would be nothing more than a war game, instead of an RPG, in my opinion.
Tony Vargas 05-26-05, 12:36 PM	I always find it funny when people defend the fighter by saying "feat X, Y, G, C, D, L, and Q in Splatbook XYZ makes the Fighter UBER." I find it odd, too. It's also a little wierd that the opinion is held by those on both the 'yes' and 'no' sides. :shrug: Frankly, I don't think splatbooks help the fighter out a whole lot. They give him more options, but they also give him more ground to cover with the same number of feats. Firstly, if you need to use splatbooks to make a class playable (at whatever level) then that's a prime reason to state the class is not, in fact, balanced appropriately. I can't disagree. But, IIRC, when you voted, you stated that you considered the fighter to be playable, even though you judged it underpowered. So it's not really a major issue, right. :) Frankly, though, I don't think any non-core material has actually had that effect. I don't believe that add CW, for instance, makes the fighter substantially better - better perhaps, but no moreso than it does for the barbarian or a variety of other classes. Complete Divine, OTOH, gives the Cleric quite a boost. It's inevitable, really, when you consider how the system treats spells and feats. Every new divine spell is accessible to the divine casters the moment it's aproved for the game - feats still have to be chosen. It's just a lot easier to break the game by adding spells than by adding feats. So, IMHO, the game - including the fighter - is better-balanced without non-core and/or optional material. The Core Classes (let's say for the sake of argument...) are balanced. They are designed -specifically- so that each class gets better at things in varying levels so that no one is ever -better- than anyone else. That might be the ideal, yes. But, some classes are balanced across levels, enduring some levels where the main benefit they get is moving closer to a coveted high-level ability. It's not perfect, but it's workable. Also, in actual practice, individual choices and situations easily overwhelm the tenuous 'balance' among the classes - so one character can seem a lot 'better' than everyone else for a fair (or unfair) proportion of the time, just because he's made some good choices, and others poor ones, or because the campaign has turned dispraportionately towards situations that he performs better in. Heck, a string of bad dice rolls can leave a player feeling that his character is underperforming compared to others. You see it all the time, people saying that you'd be stupid to go with class X past level Y because there's a PrC out there that does what you want to do but better than a core class could ever do it. So either a core class or two are underpowered, or most Prestige Classes are overpowered, yes? PrCs are overpowered. They're supposed to be a little overpowered, since the theory is that the DM only introduces those PrCs he'd really like to see the PC take (or which the PCs can't take, but would make good villains), and the power-boost is a reward. PrCs are also balanced around being taken at a given level, based on thier preqs, and around the idea that the PC has to give up some aspects of his normal class to take advantage of them. That the fighter is customizeable enough to qualify for PrCs early, while taking the fighter features (feats) you want most before going to the PrC doesn't make the fighter unerpowered at all - it actually makes it a bit abuseable, and highlights a strength of the fighter. Other classes gain thier class abilities in a set order. If you want an ability that your class gets at 11th level, you can't have it, and also pick up 10 levels of a PrC before 20th. The only fighter class ability that's like that is GWS, prettymuch everything else he can prioritize. It's not that fighters 'lose nothing' when they jump to PrCs, it's that they get to choose what they'll give up. There's also more of a contrast between the customizeable/generic fighter, and the high-powered, narrowly-defined PrCs. D&D compensates specialization and lack of choice with slightly greater power, /and/ it gives PrCs slightly greater power to encourage PCs to take them (because, again, the premise is that the DM won't invoke the optional PrC rules unless he want's players to take PrCs, and he won't include any PrCs unless he /wants/ players to take them). So, any PrC really /needs/ to be noticeably 'better' at it's little niche than a fighter could be - otherwise, it wouldn't have any reason to exist. Anyone wanting to be a warrior of the sort the PrC emulates would be just as well off using a fighter, and wouldn't have to align his character to the PrCs flavor, outlook or preqs. The value of the PrC would be lost to both the DM and the player.
Nyferto 05-26-05, 12:55 PM	I always find it funny when people defend the fighter by saying "feat X, Y, G, C, D, L, and Q in Splatbook XYZ makes the Fighter UBER." So far i've seen Core Fighters compared to, Barbarians with Karmic Strike (using it badly too) Barbarians with extra and extended Rage and thus "beating" the Fighter Bear warriors and Frenzied Berserkers "beating" Fighters Exhalted Paladins "Beating" Fighters Paladins using Varient rules to beat Core Fighters None Core Fighters with None Core PrC's beating Core Fighters None Core casters being better than Core Fighters Core Casters with non-core feats being "better" Core Casters being better at preciesely the right level to make the comparison work Incorrect Core examples being used to show how bad the Fighter is Core Fighters with purpose fully bad feat choices Other classes in favourable circumstances, with non-core feats being needed to compensate for the weakness. Situations where you wouldn't expect them to be too hot anyway Situations where a specific fighter wouldn't be too hot, but others clearly would. Specific Builds against specific Builds you wouldn't have to make (Archer Ranger vs Archer Fighter) Varient Rules being better than Core Fighters Monsters I don't find it funny, it just highlights how unfounded some complaints are.
Tony Vargas 05-31-05, 05:51 PM	Final vote tally: No: 78 Yes: 44
Kolo 05-31-05, 06:57 PM	Final vote tally: No: 78 Yes: 44 So about 36% asked think the fighter is underpowered, and 64% think he isn't. That's an entire third that find the class lacking. Not a general consensus against the fighter, but a pretty significant amount. Maybe we should do this for the other classes too, see how the others fare in comparison...
K_Man 05-31-05, 07:14 PM	How about the true question: Are bonus feats that top out at 4 or so in a tree, and stop being usefull long before other people get Heal, Harm, 1001 Insta-Death Spells, or 6d6 sneak attack, underpowered? I answer, "yes." Another point...a lot of people like to take a 1, 2, or 4 level dip in fighter. The full martial and armor, and 1, 2 or 3 bonus feats (including Specialization) are great...however, the benefit later on with getting a feat every other level pales.
Aki Warren 05-31-05, 11:36 PM	The fact that you think a bard is weak in combat makes baby jesus cry :weep: No seriously, on higher levels most wizards have decent hp. In fact, at high levels hp really doesn't mean anything for the most part. It's save or die. What does a Fighters Hp matter when one charm spell knockes him on his butt for a fight?
Xanthia 06-01-05, 12:53 AM	No. Not underpowered.
Mageofdoom981 06-01-05, 01:26 AM	I made an awsome fighter that smashed the crap out of everything in one of my quests. Although he did get knocked out plenty of times, but he is an overall (if you pick good skill combos) character for any player.
Haldrik 06-01-05, 01:57 AM	Yes. The Fighter is greviously underpowered at the highest levels. Kolo: So about 36% asked think the fighter is underpowered, and 64% think he isn't. That's an entire third that find the class lacking! Haldrik: Moreover, if the question were instead asked: "Is the Fighter underpowered after 12th level?" I think there would be many more who think the Fighter is underpowered. The Fighter should either have its highlevel abilities overhauled or simply be turned into a prestige class with only 10 levels and without prereqs.
Kolo 06-01-05, 04:29 AM	Yes. The Fighter is greviously underpowered at the highest levels. Kolo: So about 36% asked think the fighter is underpowered, and 64% think he isn't. That's an entire third that find the class lacking! That's what I said. And due to the way demographics work, we can safely expand this model to assume that this is a general trend. I'd say that, with a fair margin of error, this number could range from 25% to 40% dissatisfied with the class among D&D players. The real fun would be comparing similar tests for the other classes to this one. I'd like to see a vote for the other PHB classes to get a clearer picture. Anyone up for posting some threads or should I? :)
Vahenir 06-01-05, 06:52 AM	That's what I said. And due to the way demographics work, we can safely expand this model to assume that this is a general trend. I'd say that, with a fair margin of error, this number could range from 25% to 40% dissatisfied with the class among D&D players. The real fun would be comparing similar tests for the other classes to this one. I'd like to see a vote for the other PHB classes to get a clearer picture. Anyone up for posting some threads or should I? :) Too bad this particular forum doesn't have the 'poll' option like others do. I'm not going to hop around to a bunch of different threads, so here are my votes, in a concise manner: Monk: Fine, though with some builds his damage can be a bit obscene for a 'secondary' combat class. Rogue: Personally, I feel the Rogue is too good - he's a one trick pony, and that should be -avoided- with classes. His sneak attack is so good - that's all he does. To me, the ability is too good. Paladin: Fine, but he suffers in the skill department the same way the Fighter does. He could use a very small nudge to even him up. Sorcerer: Slightly weak, even considering his versatility over the Wizard. Not noticably, though. He could use a very small boost at lower levels to make him better - and at high levels he'll be ludicrously powerful like all D&D spellcasters. If that's balanced, then yes.. he's pretty good. Wizard: Same as Sorcerer.. if being 'bait' at low levels and painfully, ludicrously powerful at high levels is balanced, the Wizard is fine. Ranger: Balanced. Could use one or two more options in his combat style, but that's more of a flavour issue. Bard: I have no opinion on the bard. I don't use them. Ever. Barbarian: Fine.
Nyferto 06-01-05, 07:47 AM	How about the true question: Are bonus feats that top out at 4 or so in a tree, and stop being usefull long before other people get Heal, Harm, 1001 Insta-Death Spells, or 6d6 sneak attack, underpowered? I answer, "yes." Another point...a lot of people like to take a 1, 2, or 4 level dip in fighter. The full martial and armor, and 1, 2 or 3 bonus feats (including Specialization) are great...however, the benefit later on with getting a feat every other level pales. And this is exactly the imprecise opinion that just shows how poor and inexperienced some opinions are. How does a chain only having 4 parts to it make the Fighter underpowered? A Fighter isn't about a particular chain - he's about Fighting, the sooner people get over the hump and start thinking about their builds the quicker they'll realise they're actually one of the more stable base classes. How do desgin issues impact the power of a class? No-one cares if a class is front loaded - it doesn't effect those that don't bother, powergaming and munchkinism have nothing to do with how powerful a base class is, it's the application of the class that's important. It doesn't matter if you can use x combination to make a super deadly member of a class, especially if a player doesn't want to make that character. Broken material does not equate to a broken class, and if you look at what people are complaining about, none of it has anything to do with the class itself just insatisfaction of the presented material.
Nyferto 06-01-05, 07:55 AM	Monk: Disproportionately under developed Rogue: Too flavoured towards Sneak Attack, not very flexable Wizard: Disproportionately powered, very poor Sorc: Needs more flavour options Cleric: Junk Druid: Junk Ranger: Too flavoured, badly handled in expansion material Paladin: Too flavoured, badly handled in expansion material Fighter: Has minor design issues Bard: Too Flavoured, bad base Barbarian: Disproportionately powered, horribly flawed Swashbuckler: Inflexible, too niche Samurai: Inflexible Hexblade: Too flavoured, under developed and too MAD Favoured Soul: Inflexible Shurengeja: Inflexable, under developed Spirit Shaman: Inflexable, too MAD Warmage: Disproportionately powered Warlock: Dispoportionately overpowered and underdeveloped Wu-jen: Underdeveloped Scout: Disproporitonately powered, underdeveloped Ninja: Disproportionately powered, underdeveloped, inflexable Spell Thief: Disproportionately powered, inflexable 3.5: Disproportionately overdeveloped, overpowered, inflexable, horribly flawed
d_nychus 06-01-05, 09:41 AM	It doesn't matter if you can use x combination to make a super deadly member of a class, especially if a player doesn't want to make that character. Right, so we should absolutely ignore those who DO go for that broken build because they could easily choose not to. That makes sense. Broken material does not equate to a broken class, and if you look at what people are complaining about, none of it has anything to do with the class itself just insatisfaction of the presented material. Because, of course, all aspects of D&D exist in a vacuum and never, ever interact with one another, nor should we ever attempt to even examine how they interact. It is not like the fighter class is totally dependent upon something other than its core class abilities for power, so you can utterly ignore the entire rest of the book when playing a fighter, especially the feat section. It's also not true that the fighter is limited by the power level of the available feats in that section, so we can ignore the fact that there is nothing good for a 12+ level fighter to take in the PHB, and only a few feats outside of the PHB in various supplements ever fill that niche. We don't ever need to look at feats to see how powerful fighters are; they are totally seperate aspects of D&D. In fact, it should be best that players should never even get together, because only combining characters makes broken effects in the game. An individual player cannot ever have a broken character if there is nothing to compare it to.
Avalom 06-01-05, 10:34 AM	No its not underpowerd.
Nyferto 06-01-05, 12:23 PM	Right, so we should absolutely ignore those who DO go for that broken build because they could easily choose not to. That makes sense. Overpowered or broken material does not equate to a broken class, especially if it's not exclusive stuff. There's no point fixing things based on these broken or displaced aspects - because they are not balanced with other material - hence being broken and/or overpowered. Why on earth would you compare classess to broken/overpowered material being used with another class when by definition they're overpowered? Because, of course, all aspects of D&D exist in a vacuum and never, ever interact with one another, nor should we ever attempt to even examine how they interact. It is not like the fighter class is totally dependent upon something other than its core class abilities for power, so you can utterly ignore the entire rest of the book when playing a fighter, especially the feat section. It's also not true that the fighter is limited by the power level of the available feats in that section, so we can ignore the fact that there is nothing good for a 12+ level fighter to take in the PHB, and only a few feats outside of the PHB in various supplements ever fill that niche. We don't ever need to look at feats to see how powerful fighters are; they are totally seperate aspects of D&D. In fact, it should be best that players should never even get together, because only combining characters makes broken effects in the game. An individual player cannot ever have a broken character if there is nothing to compare it to. The power of each individual feat isn't reflective of a classes power, just like how a spell doesn't mean a class that can cast it is great or weak. Fighters have all the basics and then some. But this is the real kicker for you. Complaining about a lack of material to certain ends means there's a lack of material to certain ends, perhaps an aspect of the Fighter is being neglected, perhaps it is being dumped with the inadequecy of other classes and nothing actually fills those gaps. [b]At what point does that mean a class is bad and not just the available material in a certain regard?[b] Who cares if x ability of class !Fighter is overpowered? It has nothing to do with Fighters needing a powerup. By being Overpowered it is clearly more powerful than acceptable and thus needs to be nerfed, not the other way round - that's a massive logic fallacy. It doesn't matter if two aspects are broken in combination, because if they then become overpowered - guess what - it needs a nerf and rules tightening, not a ramp up of everything else to match it. People can and do make effective 20th level Fighters, plenty of feats are worth taking after 12th, plenty of feats will make a massive impact to a character after 12th. Read threads on the subject and you'll see examples of how the culmination of feats actually builds up the total effectiveness of the Fighter. All these excuses and reasons for Fighters to get a power-up never refference the class itself, they always go on about how something isn't good enough compared to something else. Sure some feats are dodgy and others might not always be the best choice, some things do need to be revised (which is a sad thing for a revision to need), still nothing to do with the Fighter itself needing a power up. Design issues are power related either, the Fighter being front loaded is complete crap compared to how frontloaded some other classes are. The Dead levels are meaningless when you consider that you get double benefits afterwards and other little perks anyway. Perhaps the Fighter should get something more unique to it, this would assist when everything else gets an automatic and specific power-up in a shody splat book. That's not advocation for a power-up to the class, just a change in it's nature and how it's handled. If you ask me, practically every class in existance absolutely needs a revision of that kind. Doubt you'll see it happen in 3.5 though.
Tony Vargas 06-01-05, 01:33 PM	So about 36% asked think the fighter is underpowered, and 64% think he isn't.Of those who bothered to vote, yes. My experience in defending the fighter in various threads is that only a handful - 2 or 3, such as Nyferto & myself - actually bother to do so, while quite a few critics of the fighter class chime in. That certainly created the impression that many more folks found the fighter lacking than found him acceptable. This thread has at least served to dispel the myth of any such 'consensus.' Moreover, if the question were instead asked: "Is the Fighter underpowered after 12th level?" I think there would be many more who think the Fighter is underpowered. You'd be right. I've been keeping track of 'qualifiers' that have been posted along with votes, and 10 no votes mention problems at higher levels. Two of those were clearly couched in terms of casters being overpowered at high levels, so there's also some question of where you'd peg 'balanced.' :rolleyes: That still leaves 8 that could be read as "Fighter underpowered after 12th level" or close to it. That'd make it 70 to 52, a somewhat closer contest, though still nothing like the ratio of strident fighter-critics (dozens) to vocal fighter-defenders (perhaps 3 or 4).
Tony Vargas 06-01-05, 02:04 PM	Edit: and another vote! BTW, my 'final tally' post was not meant as a bump, but, non-the-less, it sparked more discussion - and 6 more votes. :rolleyes: 4 (3 typically unequivocal, and terse; one qualified) 'no's, and 2 (typically 'qualified' - one even answered a slightly different question) 'yes'. That's 82 & 46. Now, 38 of those 82 no votes had 'qualifiers' - that is, they opined that the fighter wasn't underpowered, only if certain conditions were met. Some had multiple qualifiers, so the following breakdown should add up to more than 37: Player 12 - felt that the fighter was fine, when played 'well' or 'properly' or as 'part of a team' etc Level 8 - found the fighter good, or even powerful at low level, but weaker the higher you went. Non-Core6 - felt the fighter was competative only if some non-core material (usually feats) was in use. DM 5 - percieved problems with the fighter are really DM problems. PrC 3 - felt that including PrCs /saved/ the fighter. Flavor 2 - the problem is flavor, no power. Casters 2 - Fighters aren't underpowered, casters are overpowered. NonCmbt 1 - Balanced, overall, but overly combat-focused. Similarly, there were 33 of 46 yes votes were qualified: Level 19 - The biggest complaint, fighter's don't stack up after low levels. Non-Core 7 - The fighter is just too dependent on non-core material in order not to suck. Slightly 4 - Underpowered, technically, but still probably playable. DM 3 - A DM could compensate for the figher's weakness, but shouldn't have to. PrC 2 - Again, PrCs could save the fighter. non-Combat 2 - The fighter's real problem is lack of non-combat abilities. Player 1 - Takes a good player to compensate for the fighter's weakness. Ad Populum 1 - So many "fighter sux" threads can't be wrong.
Scifione 06-01-05, 03:40 PM	No. (over all) No. (in combat) Yes! (out of combat) No! (at epic levels) The fight is consistently good in combat. This is the best thing that can be said for the fighter. A fighter that is more specialized is better at what he can do. A fighter build that tries to do everything is weaker. A fighter specializes in using a direflail, disarming, and triping opponents. His abilities compliment each other. His goal in combat is to trip, disarm, and then flail his opponent. He may not be great at archery, but he my be ok at it as a backup. The one thing the fighter is missing is skills. The fighter should have at least profession as a skill. Every other core class has it. Has anyone ever heard of the warrior that returns home to his crops. Think profession (farmer). How about the dwarf miners that fight in the tunnels. Think profession (miner). There are many examples. Also consider listen and spot. If your primary class ability is fighting, it would make since to be able to see and hear your enemy before he could hear you. The best feat I have found to alleviate this short coming is “cross class learning” from the “Net Book of Feats.”
True Archon 06-01-05, 06:23 PM	Too bad this particular forum doesn't have the 'poll' option like others do. I'm not going to hop around to a bunch of different threads, so here are my votes, in a concise manner: Monk: Fine, though with some builds his damage can be a bit obscene for a 'secondary' combat class. Rogue: Personally, I feel the Rogue is too good - he's a one trick pony, and that should be -avoided- with classes. His sneak attack is so good - that's all he does. To me, the ability is too good. Paladin: Fine, but he suffers in the skill department the same way the Fighter does. He could use a very small nudge to even him up. Sorcerer: Slightly weak, even considering his versatility over the Wizard. Not noticably, though. He could use a very small boost at lower levels to make him better - and at high levels he'll be ludicrously powerful like all D&D spellcasters. If that's balanced, then yes.. he's pretty good. Wizard: Same as Sorcerer.. if being 'bait' at low levels and painfully, ludicrously powerful at high levels is balanced, the Wizard is fine. Ranger: Balanced. Could use one or two more options in his combat style, but that's more of a flavour issue. Bard: I have no opinion on the bard. I don't use them. Ever. Barbarian: Fine. By looking at the problems that you listed above, and the sheer quantity of classes with said problems, it could also be construed that... Just about every class is balanced, while the Barbarian is unbalanced and overpowered. Also, given that Cleric and Druid weren't listed, I'm guessing that you have no problems with either of those classes as well (I could be wrong, though). So, are they to also to be viewed as "overpowered" and as "unbalanced" as the Barbarian? Of those who bothered to vote, yes. My experience in defending the fighter in various threads is that only a handful - 2 or 3, such as Nyferto & myself - actually bother to do so, while quite a few critics of the fighter class chime in. That certainly created the impression that many more folks found the fighter lacking than found him acceptable. This thread has at least served to dispel the myth of any such 'consensus I completely agree. There are a lot more anti-fighter people who vocalize their opinions of the class in greater detail. Even then, a lot of those say that the fighter is fine at lower levels, but less so at higher levels. So it makes you wonder where they find the Fighter to be unbalanced. Is it overall, or just at a certain point? Also, is that enough to say that the class is unbalanced? If so, then classes like the wizard and sorcerer could also be viewed in a similar, if reversed, light of lower level balance issues. Are they to be unbalanced as well? The power of each individual feat isn't reflective of a classes power, just like how a spell doesn't mean a class that can cast it is great or weak. Fighters have all the basics and then some. I don't know, a big reason quite a few anti-fighter posters view the Fighter as being underpowered is because of spellcasters receiving spells like: Righteous Might and Polymorph. No, really, I agree with you on this point completely. A number of class balance issues revolve around a few feats and spells, not around the classes as a whole. On that point, I don't even want to get to deeply involved with obviously broken feat and spell combinations like... let's say... Natural Spell. Let alone non-core feats like Sudden Metamagic feats. :rolleyes: The above points are reasons upon which I view the Fighter as balanced, and certain abilities or spells that other classes get as unbalancing. Honestly, how many anti-fighter advocates would change their opinions if singular abilities were taken away from the classes that "unbalanced" the other classes. Abilities like the following: Barbarian: Tireless Rage and/or Mighty Rage. Cleric: Righteous Might and/or Divine Power. Druid: Natural Spell or Huge Wild Shape or Elemental Wild Shape. Personally, instead of forbidding such abilities from my games, I just balance them out into my games. I do things like... Run longer combats upon which Rage durations become questionable. Run surprise encounters that don't allow for buff magic to be applied. Run encounters in smaller dungeons where huge shapes can't be taken for extended times. Above all, I also run games where roleplaying factors are just as important as combat ability. A Barbarian is going to be viewed as a savage when he wants to buy his equipment in a city, unless he manages to disguise his social class. A Cleric and/or Druid has obligations and a code of conduct that is dictated by his religion or beliefs. If you think that I'm not going to delve into the finer points of a character's religious/belief choice, you're going to be mistaken. Certain people are going to have negative or adverse reactions to "wild" animals in a party's company. For example, an innkeeper who tells the party that a wolf or shapechanged druid can't stay at the inn is going to cause some discord or separated parties. I believe that the classes are fine as they are, and anyone who doesn't see the balancing factors aren't being shown them by their DMs. If the DMs are showing them those balancing factors, then it's just ignorance or blindness.
Vahenir 06-01-05, 06:36 PM	Just about every class is balanced, while the Barbarian is unbalanced and overpowered. Also, given that Cleric and Druid weren't listed, I'm guessing that you have no problems with either of those classes as well (I could be wrong, though). So, are they to also to be viewed as "overpowered" and as "unbalanced" as the Barbarian? Actually, quite the opposite - I think that my breakdown denotes that I feel most of the classes are general equal, but may or may not have a few minor issues that do not unbalance the class, but could be worth fixing. And as for the Druid and Cleric - I think they're fine.. but honestly I just forgot to list them. I was in a hurry to finish the post as the little lady was bothering me about something. I mean.. I think the Monk is fine, but he might be doing a bit too much damage at high levels. That isn't "he's unbalanced." That's just "it doesn't really affect anything, but it could be toned down without nerfing him." Rogue: Playable but he's a one-trick pony. Again, not really a balance issue, but I still think it's something that should have been addressed in the 3.5 revision. The ONLY classes I listed as weaker than others were: Sorcerer and Fighter. The rest I said were generally okay, and playable, but have quirks about them that could be remedied - like the Rogue being a one-trick pony and the Monk doing too well at combat for a 'second-tier combat class.' So out of 11 core classes.. I said 2 were weak.. one of which only at high levels (the Fighter). How could that possibly be construed as "all classes are unbalanced and therefore balanced?"
True Archon 06-01-05, 06:43 PM	Actually, quite the opposite - I think that my breakdown denotes that I feel most of the classes are general equal, but may or may not have a few minor issues that do not unbalance the class, but could be worth fixing. And as for the Druid and Cleric - I think they're fine.. but honestly I just forgot to list them. I was in a hurry to finish the post as the little lady was bothering me about something. I mean.. I think the Monk is fine, but he might be doing a bit too much damage at high levels. That isn't "he's unbalanced." That's just "it doesn't really affect anything, but it could be toned down without nerfing him." Rogue: Playable but he's a one-trick pony. Again, not really a balance issue, but I still think it's something that should have been addressed in the 3.5 revision. The ONLY classes I listed as weaker than others were: Sorcerer and Fighter. The rest I said were generally okay, and playable, but have quirks about them that could be remedied - like the Rogue being a one-trick pony and the Monk doing too well at combat for a 'second-tier combat class.' So out of 11 core classes.. I said 2 were weak.. one of which only at high levels (the Fighter). How could that possibly be construed as "all classes are unbalanced and therefore balanced?" Ah, I see. I mistakenly read it that most classes were underpowered. My bad. Sorry. As to the little lady... I completely understand. Unfortunately, if it's not the little lady cutting short posts, it's work. Upon which the latter is making me get off the computer now (the former is already at work). Ugh.
The_Wanderer17 06-01-05, 08:26 PM	No.
RadicalTaoist 06-01-05, 08:38 PM	Monk: Disproportionately under developed Rogue: Too flavoured towards Sneak Attack, not very flexable Wizard: Disproportionately powered, very poor Sorc: Needs more flavour options Cleric: Junk Druid: Junk Ranger: Too flavoured, badly handled in expansion material Paladin: Too flavoured, badly handled in expansion material Fighter: Has minor design issues Bard: Too Flavoured, bad base Barbarian: Disproportionately powered, horribly flawed Swashbuckler: Inflexible, too niche Samurai: Inflexible Hexblade: Too flavoured, under developed and too MAD Favoured Soul: Inflexible Shurengeja: Inflexable, under developed Spirit Shaman: Inflexable, too MAD Warmage: Disproportionately powered Warlock: Dispoportionately overpowered and underdeveloped Wu-jen: Underdeveloped Scout: Disproporitonately powered, underdeveloped Ninja: Disproportionately powered, underdeveloped, inflexable Spell Thief: Disproportionately powered, inflexable 3.5: Disproportionately overdeveloped, overpowered, inflexable, horribly flawed 3.5 Psionics: Just about perfect, except for the soulknife, who at least has cool flavor to make up for the fact that he sucks. Fix'd:D
xanadu 06-02-05, 02:39 AM	I do have a question to the 2/3 of the gaming community and the ardent fighter defenders like Tony V. How do you explain the discrepency that a consensus exists at the Char opt boards that the fighter is woefully underpowered whereas on the regular board the fighter has at least lukewarm reception? The unspoken implication is somewhat elitest and rude but still needs to be said - perhaps the people who have spent hours looking over the intricacies of various character abilities and have devised a way how a 20th level build can literally destroy the entire earth just might be in a better position to offer a more in depth and substanative analysis? If you ran a poll asking what was the best spell and fireball came out on top, does that prove absolutely anything?
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-02-05, 03:16 AM	How do you explain the discrepency that a consensus exists at the Char opt boards that the fighter is woefully underpowered whereas on the regular board the fighter has at least lukewarm reception? The character optimization board, from what I've seen, rarely uses any of the core classes by themselves except when building something along a specific line, such as threads "help me make a core-only no PrC character" or some such. The discrepancy lies in the fact that what is "overpowered" or "underpowered" in the classes/prestige classes boards lies in how powerful a class is in someone's opinion, in contrast to the other base classes in what they offer the player, and in general gameplay related balance. I simply don't care if the fighter isn't as overpowered as a class that can crack the earth in two. All that says is that the fighter is less breakable than, say, any of the full spellcasting classes. However, another intriguing thing is, that of the 11 core classes, how many times, in contrast to the other base classes, are the other classes used in any melee builds? How many of them are actually taken to 20th level AND brought up to Char-Op standards? The unspoken implication is somewhat elitest and rude but still needs to be said - perhaps the people who have spent hours looking over the intricacies of various character abilities and have devised a way how a 20th level build can literally destroy the entire earth just might be in a better position to offer a more in depth and substanative analysis? No. Most of these builds are merely mental exersizes to see what's possible in the logical mechanics of a class/PrC combination regardless of any in-game factors, which is what the Char Op board doesn't factor in that most everyone else would. If you ran a poll asking what was the best spell and fireball came out on top, does that prove absolutely anything? This hypothetical poll would conclude that fireball is popularly believed (among those polled) that fireball is indeed the best spell - just as the fighter, in this thread, is, by the majority concensus, not underpowered, which I believe was the purpose of this poll.
Nyferto 06-02-05, 03:46 AM	I do have a question to the 2/3 of the gaming community and the ardent fighter defenders like Tony V. How do you explain the discrepency that a consensus exists at the Char opt boards that the fighter is woefully underpowered whereas on the regular board the fighter has at least lukewarm reception? Define powerful, personally I've seen some of their builds and when they aren't breaking the rules or using odd combinations - they're fairly crappy. Some people here will say a Barbarian who can hit things with an Axe really hard is quite good. It's probably their first line of defence in saying the Fighter is naff - because he can't kill things with a THW as easily as a Barbarian can. Personally, the amount of cuddling such a character needs is pathetic, and when you compare it to the amount of rules bending a spell caster can perform - it'd be more meaningful if you could actually create impact on a battle field, not just kill stupid people who walk upto you and hit you with whatever weapon they have (e.g. most Barbarians). Then there's the other factors, if they use any amount of material with no concearn for character, then of course they can go around building whatever they like with whatever they like. To them a class is powerful if it can be shoved with powerful combinations by 20th level - that's not really a great method of class evaluation. It does however shine the light on the design issues of the Fighter, because it's fairly easy to use for Multiclassing, it's commonly used in that form of a few levels. Essentially the class is allowing them to get a more "powerful" combination, completely ignoring that they're also using another class to get part way and jump off that class with less dead levels than normal. Essentially a class is only powerful to them if it has more broken/overpowered things to lump on in combination and if they can flex the rules to do so. This doesn't mean a class should have broken material opened upto it so it too can be munchtastic. The COB isn't that good for evaluating a class strength.
Tony Vargas 06-02-05, 12:42 PM	IHow do you explain the discrepency that a consensus exists at the Char opt boards that the fighter is woefully underpowered whereas on the regular board the fighter has at least lukewarm reception? The OP board is not about regular play, but about squeezing everything you can out of a build without regard for balance (indeed, achieving imbalance is the whole point). It's an interesting exercise to see how much excess power you can achieve without technically breaking the rules, but it has relatively little bearing on game balance in actual campaigns. The unspoken implication is somewhat elitest and rude but still needs to be said Don't sweat it, the web is elitist by definition, and it's easy to come off as rude, even when you don't mean to. I'm not trying to sound dismisive and condescending in what follows, either, but I'm going to be hard-pressed /not/ to sound that way, and still get the point across. Such are the limitations of the medium. For the record, BTW, I do like to experiment with optimized builds, and I would not object to being described as a 'powergamer.' - perhaps the people who have spent hours looking over the intricacies of various character abilities and have devised a way how a 20th level build can literally destroy the entire earth just might be in a better position to offer a more in depth and substanative analysis?Well, they could certainly point out loopholes that need closing. Usually, though, discussions of class-imbalance don't point up real problems and how to fix them by closing loopholes or reigning in other abuses. Instead, they often consist of whining for power-ups to classes that don't have as many or as juicy exploits as others. That's not terribly constructive, and if successful, only leads to power inflation - a phenomenon that has frankly ruined previous editions of the game. If you ran a poll asking what was the best spell and fireball came out on top, does that prove absolutely anything? It'd prove a lot of people like fireball. Actually, I'd expect fireball to place high in a poll of 'favorite' (one possible way of looking at 'best') spells - it's a flashy, fun, reasonably effective spell, and it's low enough level that it'll become accessible in most campaigns, while the vote would be split on most-powerful/abuseable ('best' in a different sense) spells, since there are so many of them, and powergamers tend to be proud of thier pet exploits.
RadicalTaoist 06-02-05, 08:06 PM	Ironically, there is one Ftr20 build on the CO boards: Snow Savant's Gatling Chain Gun Tripper. It uses about 20 splatbooks from 3.0 and 3.5 though, and has some tactical drawbacks. The thing about the CO boards example is that shocking proof of the fighter's weakness isn't from the lack of 20 level fighter builds (druid, hexblade, psion, and psywar are about the only ones that can be taken pure 20 and remain strong enough for the COBites), but how simply easy it is to outperform a straight fighter at anything and everything. Ease of optimization is how balance is determined on the CO boards. The Druid we know is broken because it practically optimizes itself - there's no effort to it. The Fighter, on the other hand, needs nearly every splatbook in existence to run par for the course. Anyone is welcome to take the fighter debate to the CO boards if you wish. I should warn you, however, that the general consensus on the COB is not just that fighters are underpowered, but that repetitive balance debates belong on the Classes board. You'll probably get a lot of single responses, and then the thread will sink like a rock.
Tony Vargas 06-02-05, 08:31 PM	Ease of optimization is how balance is determined on the CO boards. The Druid we know is broken because it practically optimizes itself - there's no effort to it. You've got a point there. The point of optimization exercises like those is, to an extent, to 'break' the system - to follow all the rules in crafting a built, but have that build come out much more powerful than the designers intended a character of it's level to ever be. The more you see a class featured in such builds, then, the more that class (or, more likely, combo) is in need of revsision, to remove such loopholes, and retain balance. Of course, a lot of builds are so extreme that they're not practical in play, anyway, so aren't a real balance problem. Still, it could be seen as a barrometer of how robustly balanced a class is. The Druid, Wizard, and myriad PrCs, then, would be rather poorly-balanced, easily broken by the determined powergamer, while other classes, like the Fighter, would have to be judged fairly strongly balanced, at least through most levels. A perusal of the OP boards will turn up fighter as /part/ of builds rather often, a brief 'dip' to acquire the right feats to jump start a PrC progression at the earliest level possible. That might highlight a problem with the abuseability of the fighter's 1st level bonus feat....
Tony Vargas 06-17-05, 08:46 PM	Since this thread hasn't been touched in two weeks, I'll assume we're all done voting. Is the Fighter Underpowered, yes or no? No: 83 Yes: 46 Some of those votes were cast with significant reservations, though, so you could also total them up like this: Unreserved No: 45 Qualified No: 38 Qualified Yes: 33 Unqualified Yes: 13 So, what are these 'Qualifiers?' Well on the No side: Player 12 - a good player is all you need Level 8 - strong at low, weak at high, OK overall Non-Core 6 - non-core feats save the fighter DM 5 - OK with a good DM PrC 3 - PrCs save the fighter Flavor 2 - Fighters lack flavor, but balanced Casters 2 - casters are overpowered. non-Combat 1 - fighters balanced, but weak out of combat And, on the Yes side: Level 19 - fighters suck at high level Non-Core 7 - non-core material helps, but core is what counts Slightly 4 - not /that/ underpowered DM 3 - the DM must exert himself to save the fighter PrC 2 - PrCs /doom/ the fighter non-Combat 2 - fighter's non-combat weakness imbalances him Player 1 - a cunning player can salvage the fighter Ad Populum 1 - they must be underpowered, these threads keep getting started
Haldrik 06-17-05, 09:52 PM	Nice tally, Tony!