Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rathan 01-27-07, 12:25 PM	i have heard this almost every where, but in your opinion when does a fighter start to well, suck
Johnny_Angel 01-27-07, 01:15 PM	depends on the campaign
Seerow 01-27-07, 01:35 PM	Level 3.
Belgian Waffle 01-27-07, 01:43 PM	I'd say, under general circumstances... Level Five.
Silverthumb128 01-27-07, 01:44 PM	Class-Skills.
Crimson_Concerto 01-27-07, 01:56 PM	Fighter should never be taken past level 4.
the_narrator 01-27-07, 01:57 PM	Pre-PHB 2, I'd never take a Fighter past 4. Post-PHB2, I still probably wouldn't, but now I actually think about doing it.
Jaxgaret 01-27-07, 01:59 PM	Pre-PHB 2, I'd never take a Fighter past 4. Post-PHB2, I still probably wouldn't, but now I actually think about doing it. :heehee That is some kind of upgrade! :rofl:
malisteen 01-27-07, 06:15 PM	Normally: level 3. With PHBII: Still level 3. Note that they're not noticeably lousy until 5, 3 is just when the downward trend begins. If you give them 4 + int skill points and add balance, spot, listen, tumble, diplomacy, and profession to their class skills... Then a downward trend still begins around five, but they aren't so noticeably lousy until around 9 or 11, about the same time when other martial classes start hurting badly. At that point if you aren't a caster then you need significant casting defences (all good saves, mettle/evasion, spell resistance, etc) or you start looking pretty lame.
navar100 01-27-07, 07:11 PM	The fighter only sucks when you try to compare it as if the PC spellcaster will fight the PC fighter, and even then it suffers the fallacy of not properly equipping the fighter. It is true that high level spellcasters can do wondrous things of great variety while the fighter is pretty much a one trick pony. There is nothing a fighter could do that compares to bringing the dead back to life or unlife, bringing in creatures from other planes and controlling them, and damaging if not outright killing multiple opponents with one standard action from a safe distance. Fortunately, D&D is (supposed to be) a cooperative game where the fighter and spellcasters work together to overcome problems. Though it doesn't have to be every single combat, a spellcaster can be more efficient with his spells with a spell that helps the fighter. The fighter can do a good job keeping bad guys away from the spellcaster so that the spellcaster doesn't have to cast so many spells to defend himself such that he can take offensive action more often. Roleplaying also matters for the game as a whole. The bard, rogue, and warlock can do quite well with the game mechanics of social skills. They should be and are important. However, fighters can talk to NPCs too. They probably can't convince a complete stranger never met before to believe his sandles have untied laces, but given audience with the King to warn about orcs, the fighter can state his arguement and present evidence just as well as the bard since its not really about a Diplomacy roll. The King could just as easily be greatful for the information to the fighter and crown him a Knight upon vanguishing the orcs. Also part of roleplaying is player decisions. The player of a fighter is a player just like the player of the spellcaster. He is just as capable as contributing to the game as the spellcaster player. It has been the stereotypical arguement of a DM to a player who complains his character doesn't have an 18: "It's not about the numbers but what you bring to the character." Maybe the Fighter is the "No 18" character class, but he's not so useless as "everyone" makes him out to be.
FiestFan 01-27-07, 07:23 PM	Yep, Level 3. Take Fighter to 6 if you really, really, desperately need the Feats for your concept. Take Fighter to 12 if you're in a low-Magic campaign and using PHB 2. Take Fighter to 20 if you, personally, took the Masochist Feat.
Repeekluos 01-27-07, 07:35 PM	I like fighter well enough. It lacks class skills, skill points and unique class abilities (minus a few feats that you need req levels for). However, all of that aside, it is still a fun class to play. It is a class that requires a very heavy concept. If you have a direction you want to go, it makes it great. If you want to be a tripper, few are better. The same thing can be said for archery. However, if you just want to have fun with a character, it can do that too. A lot of people will complain about how a fighter doesn't have a role outside of combat. As far as skills go, that is accurate. If you love to roleplay, it is still possible to do, even without the skills to back it up. My personal favorite thing to do with the fighter is gamble. I like to go into taverns, and challenge the biggest beefiest guy in there to a drinking contest. Few tavern goers will deny you, when you slap a few silver on the bar. Does the class lose steam compared to other classes? Yeah. Does that mean you cant make a decent, and fun character out of the class? No. It all depends on your personal preferences. If you like it, great! If not, oh well, play something else.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-27-07, 07:42 PM	Ridiculous drivel. Are you kidding? Surely you can see how ridiculous your ramblings are?
Thubby 01-27-07, 07:55 PM	twelth of never
Issabella 01-27-07, 08:03 PM	when the damage become more then your potion of cure x can readily handle. When you become a drain upon the party that the battle cleric, shifted druid, or summoning caster can replace you easily. Sadly I love fighters but mechanically they are significantly weaker, the longer the game goes on. You can occasionally work out a nich (trip gunner, and such) but it goes south realy quickly when you run into encounters that are immune to your specialty
Romulan_Knight 01-27-07, 08:41 PM	As far as I can tell in D&D, The fighter does tend to go south past the first handful of levels. Ironicly in The Star Wars D20 Game, The Soldier which is basicly the same as a Fighter is probably the 2nd best class past the Jedi Guardian.
Bowmore 01-27-07, 08:54 PM	As far as I can tell in D&D, The fighter does tend to go south past the first handful of levels. Ironicly in The Star Wars D20 Game, The Soldier which is basicly the same as a Fighter is probably the 2nd best class past the Jedi Guardian. QFT. Note that the SW RPG Soldier has 4 + int skill points, one of the best defense bonuses in the game, more feats than the fighter, and it only has to compete with Force-users -- which aren't even necessary for a good game of SW RPG, unlike spellcasters in regular D&D.
navar100 01-27-07, 08:56 PM	Are you kidding? Surely you can see how ridiculous your ramblings are? It is a relief I do not have to depend on you for back up as a party member. Even when I used to think bards suck** I never begrudged anyone from playing one, and when in fact there was a bard in the party, she was an equal party member, treated and regarded as such. The last thing I'd do would tell her how stupid she was for playing a sucky character class. If you did that to my fighter, your character would wake up dead next morning, and I'll be happy if my fighter becomes an NPC evil villain. And if it means I'm out of the playing group, so be it, because I want to play with people with whom I'd have fun with, not chastise me for what character class I play. **I'm still not overly fond of them, but I don't think they "suck".
Romulan_Knight 01-27-07, 09:03 PM	QFT. Note that the SW RPG Soldier has 4 + int skill points, one of the best defense bonuses in the game, more feats than the fighter, and it only has to compete with Force-users -- which aren't even necessary for a good game of SW RPG, unlike spellcasters in regular D&D. Actually, The Fighter and the Soldier both get 11 Free Feats. Yes it is true their Skills are better but in terms of armor (And yes I actually sometimes consider armor in SW, Probably because of the fact critical hits are most of the time instant kills without some form of Armor Damage Reduction, Hell, You could jsut get a very basic light armor with DR2, Mastercraft it up to DR5 and then modifiy it to cut the Armor Check Penalty away and you have something that will help you survive 19 damage at 0 WP and not at -5 WP and dying) it doesnt get much. Problem is Skills are basicly one of the main things in SW, everyone needs skill points, That is why Humans are often more used, +1 Feat and +1 Skill Points a Level. Though a Soldier in SW is generally also taking the basic role of a D&D Monk in terms of Unarmed Combat because of all the feats. Now as for the Fighter, It is basicly a Meat Shield, High AC (Because of Armor), High ATK Bonus (Because of Full Bab and High Str), High Fort (Because of Good Fort Save + Con Bonus), High HP (Because of d10 and Con), However seriously lacking in terms of Combat Damage with only weapons like 1d12 + Enhancement Bonus + Whatever Bonus the weapon has + other bonuses, That is why it is basicly subpar because by the time you are around level 9, The Sorcerers and Wizards are throwing out attacks that do damage equal to about 5 of your attacks and doing all that damage to 10 or so enemies at once. Though, IF the Spellcasting Classes were not so much of Uber Gods in terms of Damage Dealing, The Fighter might be somewhat better.
mkill 01-28-07, 08:21 AM	Wow... this forum managed a full month without fighters suck threads (not counting the ones I chose to ignore or forget). Looks like we are back in business. And no, I won't contribute to the topic. I'll go and look for a dead donkey I can beat.
Khael 01-28-07, 10:08 AM	It is a relief I do not have to depend on you for back up as a party member. Even when I used to think bards suck** I never begrudged anyone from playing one, and when in fact there was a bard in the party, she was an equal party member, treated and regarded as such. The last thing I'd do would tell her how stupid she was for playing a sucky character class. If you did that to my fighter, your character would wake up dead next morning, and I'll be happy if my fighter becomes an NPC evil villain. And if it means I'm out of the playing group, so be it, because I want to play with people with whom I'd have fun with, not chastise me for what character class I play. **I'm still not overly fond of them, but I don't think they "suck". He never said he would grudge you picking a fighter. But as a class it does tend to be rather weak, as shown by the existance of CoDzilla (which simply put: looks at the role of a fighter in combat, and then outperforms the fighter in every way outside of an odd trick or two. The only thing a fighter has on the cleric is a fourth attack at high levels, and a trick like trip for example.)And roleplay? The fighter has nothing a paladin or a rogue or a sorcerer couldn't do better skills-wise... He simply seems to have meant what I put: the fighter is weak after about 3-5 depending on game. Didn't say you couldn't enjoy playing one, didn't say he would yell you down for it.
Bob Loblaw 01-28-07, 10:15 AM	i have heard this almost every where, but in your opinion when does a fighter start to well, suck Looking back over a very long gaming career I have noticed that every class sucks when you don't understand how it's meant to work. There are plenty of times when every class will suck. A fighter sucks, like any character, in the hands of someone who doesn't play their character well. I have played/created fighters from 1st through 40th level with no problems. I don't usually have to multiclass or prestige. If the concept requires it, then I will do so; but since I can usually do what I want better, I don't usually worry about extra classes. The first thing I have to remember is that the fighter is about the options. I use the feats to give me more options in battle. The other fighting classes tend to have only a few tricks while my fighters have at least double those tricks. I take feats and substitution levels that add more options. This is one of the reasons why spellcasters are powerful. They have tons of options. I know there are more reasons, but options almost always make things better.
the_narrator 01-28-07, 10:38 AM	The most people who support the Fighter seem to say is that you "need to know how to play them" to make them decent. The thing is, even if you know them in, out, front and back, there's still another class that can do whatever they can do a whole lot better. This is true starting at about level five or six. Before then, yes, the Fighter is pretty awesome, before the Barbarian can rage too many times, or the Paladin can smite more than a few times, and deffinitely before the party's casters have enough spells to really start being useful. But once the rest of the party gets their tricks in order, the Fighter fades into the background. Once you start hitting high levels, the entire concept they seem to stand for (direct damage) is obsolete, and more and more enemies become immune to tripping, sundering, and disarming. A Fighter sucks in the hands of the unpracticed, yes. But even in the hands of a master, they can't really compare to a Wizard casting Time Stop and flingging out handfulls of Fingers of Death, all while his summoned Solar does the protection job. Even compared to a Cleric who, at that point, just has persistant Righteous Might and Devine Power on top of all his spells, the Fighter pales. And he can only go sulk as he watches the Barbarian fly into a Rage and soak up far more damage than he could dream of, while the Paladin is looking at dealing damage in the thousands with his mounted charge, and the Druid is just a bear for twenty-three hours out of the day. Not to mention the fact that he hasn't seen the Rogue in at least a week, and he's not entirely sure if he's actually helping the sneaky bugger flank that Ogre or if someone's just playing a cruel trick on him. So, by all means, play a Fighter. They can be just as fun as you want. Just be prepared to have everyone be better than you could possibly be by level 10. And remember to put ranks into Craft (bartending). The Wizard likes his frozen marguritas after battle.
Bowmore 01-28-07, 11:42 AM	Actually, The Fighter and the Soldier both get 11 Free Feats. Yes it is true their Skills are better but in terms of armor (And yes I actually sometimes consider armor in SW, Probably because of the fact critical hits are most of the time instant kills without some form of Armor Damage Reduction, Hell, You could jsut get a very basic light armor with DR2, Mastercraft it up to DR5 and then modifiy it to cut the Armor Check Penalty... (truncated for space) Though, IF the Spellcasting Classes were not so much of Uber Gods in terms of Damage Dealing, The Fighter might be somewhat better. Point! My bad, I was looking without counting. And you're right about how armour is more helpful in SW RPG than people think.
levitation 01-28-07, 01:41 PM	!!!GENERAL WARNING!!! Yet another fighter sucks thread has been spawned! Flee from the heathens! Please look at the other 2000 fighter threads for your information. I'm sure nothing you can say right now hasn't been already said. This topic has been discussed to last crumb. This is nothing new!!! Please do a favor for half the other people and read one of the old ones and stop spawning these ridiculous threads!!! !!! END OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR FIGHTER THREADS!!!
Jaxgaret 01-28-07, 02:18 PM	fighters? i prefer peaceable solutions to problems. Oh, did you mean Fighters? Yeah, Fighters are pretty weak. A fighter is a person who fights. A Fighter is a D&D base class. Do you get my... point? :) /pedantry
Crimson_Concerto 01-28-07, 02:25 PM	fighters? i prefer peaceable solutions to problems. Oh, did you mean Fighters? Yeah, Fighters are pretty weak. A fighter is a person who fights. A Fighter is a D&D base class. Do you get my... point? :) /pedantry I don't get it... :confused:
Olskool 01-28-07, 03:07 PM	Fighters are one of the best classes in the game. They never start to suck.
Archangel62 01-28-07, 04:09 PM	Fighters are one of the best classes in the game. They never start to suck. I now have all the proof I need in one regard. Anyhow, the biggest issue that the fighter has is that it can't do too much and remain properly optimal. The fighter can be built around a certain tactic or weapon style, but if the fighter goes that route then they are unable to do other things. A fighter focused on heavy melee will likely not have ranged combat feats, and given how gear dependant the fighter is as is adding in ranged weapons as well and all that you have a major issue. The casters, on the other hand, can switch out their abilities and tactics daily. A caster can be a damage dealer one day, debuffer anouther, troubleshooter another, etc. The barbarian, ranger, and paladin share the problems of being locked into a style but they also have class abilities which help to synergize with their feats and help them to do their thing. Outside of core it becomes more noticeable, the real problem is this, the fighter has nothing that they can really call their own. They have feats, but feats are like seasonings, they're great when added to something else but if they're all that's in the pot the meal gets a little...unappetizing.
Ghenesh 01-28-07, 04:22 PM	As ppl has stated before you only need to know how to "play" the class, the Fighter is the most powerful class ever, they get "feats", and there's nothing better than feats, cause feats can make you Hit Things, In The Face, With An Axe... and no spell is gonna take that away from you... you Face Hitter Fighter. All the previous fluff is just an old bad joke, Fighters start to suck beyond second level.
Eatable_Dice 01-28-07, 04:30 PM	I really like to play fighters, until level 3. Thatīs when you start facing level 2 spells, and someone hits you with a Scorching Ray in the face, and you die.(Remember that you donīt start every encounter with full hitpoints.) Seriously, fighters are really usefull, you get to save one of your spell slots as you donīt need to cast Summon spells every encounter to produce a sub-optimal meat shield.
Archangel62 01-28-07, 04:33 PM	Sad thing is the barbarian ends up being a better tank than the fighter, and also has more mobility and more punch behind them, THAT is what honestly hoses the fighter I think.
Jaxgaret 01-28-07, 07:08 PM	Fighters start to suck beyond second level. Hey! Some of my best friends are 3rd level Fighters! :)
navar100 01-28-07, 07:29 PM	He never said he would grudge you picking a fighter. But as a class it does tend to be rather weak, as shown by the existance of CoDzilla (which simply put: looks at the role of a fighter in combat, and then outperforms the fighter in every way outside of an odd trick or two. The only thing a fighter has on the cleric is a fourth attack at high levels, and a trick like trip for example.)And roleplay? The fighter has nothing a paladin or a rogue or a sorcerer couldn't do better skills-wise... He simply seems to have meant what I put: the fighter is weak after about 3-5 depending on game. Didn't say you couldn't enjoy playing one, didn't say he would yell you down for it. When he tells me what I said was drivel, that tells me he would begrudge me playing a fighter. Other people are giving their opinions on when they think figther starts to suck. I happen to think they don't suck at all and gave my reasons why. I acknowledge that other classes can do more stuff and do more wondrous things by game mechanics, but it's not going to take away what a fighter can do as far as the game plays as a whole. If my party member is a druid, I work with him synergizing what we can do together with him as druid. If he's instead a fighter, I'll do the same and not be upset he's not a druid. I don't care how more powerful the druid can be. People are berating the fighters through game mechanics. I'm supporting them through perspective. Game mechanics are important. A character class has to be competent enough in what it can do in order to be a viable character class. I happen to disagree a fighter fails at this as the levels progress. Perhaps so the fighter becomes more dependent upon his equipment as the levels progress. It is in indirect failing and feature depending upon your point of view. At least they are able to use their equipment well. That is often the fallacy in fighter vs wizard arguments. The fighter is often denied his equipment with a side order of assuming he fails his saving throws.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-28-07, 07:35 PM	I actually wouldn't begrudge you if you chose to play a fighter in my gaming group, I might point you in the direction of the Warblade but if you insisted, you could play one, after all, it's your character, not mine. And BTW, the most common fallacy in Fighter threads are constant effect Antimagic fields that don't seem to affect the fighters stuff but restrict a Wizards spellcasting. Just saying.
Jaxgaret 01-28-07, 07:42 PM	I happen to think they don't suck at all and gave my reasons why. I acknowledge that other classes can do more stuff and do more wondrous things by game mechanics... *snip* The fighter is often denied his equipment with a side order of assuming he fails his saving throws. Those first two sentences don't exactly jive with one another. Either you think that they don't suck, or you think that they do. It has nothing to do with how much fun a person will have playing one, or if they won't completely drag the party under by playing one; Fighters still fare very poorly in comparison to virtually every other class. In other words, they suck. On the second half of the quote: don't bring up past grievances here. They don't apply. Can I have fries with that? :)
Archangel62 01-28-07, 07:44 PM	When he tells me what I said was drivel, that tells me he would begrudge me playing a fighter. Other people are giving their opinions on when they think figther starts to suck. I happen to think they don't suck at all and gave my reasons why. I acknowledge that other classes can do more stuff and do more wondrous things by game mechanics, but it's not going to take away what a fighter can do as far as the game plays as a whole. If my party member is a druid, I work with him synergizing what we can do together with him as druid. If he's instead a fighter, I'll do the same and not be upset he's not a druid. I don't care how more powerful the druid can be. People are berating the fighters through game mechanics. I'm supporting them through perspective. Game mechanics are important. A character class has to be competent enough in what it can do in order to be a viable character class. I happen to disagree a fighter fails at this as the levels progress. Perhaps so the fighter becomes more dependent upon his equipment as the levels progress. It is in indirect failing and feature depending upon your point of view. At least they are able to use their equipment well. That is often the fallacy in fighter vs wizard arguments. The fighter is often denied his equipment with a side order of assuming he fails his saving throws. Yes, none of us are saying that the fighter can't be used, but we are saying that the fighter is generally going to have more issues and be able to do less than any other character class. The fighters saves, excepting fortitude, are going to be rather poor assuming 25pb and without noncore boosts the fighter will either be unable to dodge the spells, or dominated constantly.
navar100 01-28-07, 07:47 PM	The most people who support the Fighter seem to say is that you "need to know how to play them" to make them decent. The thing is, even if you know them in, out, front and back, there's still another class that can do whatever they can do a whole lot better. This is true starting at about level five or six. Before then, yes, the Fighter is pretty awesome, before the Barbarian can rage too many times, or the Paladin can smite more than a few times, and deffinitely before the party's casters have enough spells to really start being useful. But once the rest of the party gets their tricks in order, the Fighter fades into the background. Once you start hitting high levels, the entire concept they seem to stand for (direct damage) is obsolete, and more and more enemies become immune to tripping, sundering, and disarming. A Fighter sucks in the hands of the unpracticed, yes. But even in the hands of a master, they can't really compare to a Wizard casting Time Stop and flingging out handfulls of Fingers of Death, all while his summoned Solar does the protection job. Even compared to a Cleric who, at that point, just has persistant Righteous Might and Devine Power on top of all his spells, the Fighter pales. And he can only go sulk as he watches the Barbarian fly into a Rage and soak up far more damage than he could dream of, while the Paladin is looking at dealing damage in the thousands with his mounted charge, and the Druid is just a bear for twenty-three hours out of the day. Not to mention the fact that he hasn't seen the Rogue in at least a week, and he's not entirely sure if he's actually helping the sneaky bugger flank that Ogre or if someone's just playing a cruel trick on him. So, by all means, play a Fighter. They can be just as fun as you want. Just be prepared to have everyone be better than you could possibly be by level 10. And remember to put ranks into Craft (bartending). The Wizard likes his frozen marguritas after battle. Not every bad guy faced is an undead, construct, or plant, so the rogue will get to sneak attack often. Not every bad guy faces will have fire resistance/immunity so the wizard will get to cast his fireball often. Likewise, not every bad guy faces will immune to tripping, disarming, sundering, etc. Sometimes high level bad guys aren't monsters but ordinary humans. It's wonderful the barbarian can rage and take lots and lots of damage and deal lots and lots of damage. That will help take the pressure off the fighter. However, how easily can the barbarian adapt when he can't run up to the enemy? A fighter could spend some feats on archery and be a sniper while also having melee tricks like power attacking with whirlwind attack. The fighter too can have Spirited Charge like his paladin friend, but will the paladin also have the archery skills and power attack, whirlwind attack, cleave, and all sorts of stuff to fight with when he's can't fight on horseback? As for spellcasters, of course their spells are versatile and powerful. It is no question no warrior feat can compare to summoning a roc or save or die and even if save take 10d6 damage casted from a safe distance. There's also the reality that there will be bad guy spellcasters too attacking the party spellcasters. Bad guy monsters and non-spellcaster bad guys are going to hunt for the spellcasters precisely because they're dangerous. The PC fighters won't be ignored. It's an "NPC party", even if a monster of one, fighting the PC party. Spellcasters can do everything, but they won't be able to do everything. A character is more than what his class text says he can do. Actual game play matters.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-28-07, 07:54 PM	A character is more than what his class text says he can do. Actual game play matters. Actual game play is independent of character class. This does not prove that fighters are viable.
Archangel62 01-28-07, 08:00 PM	Not every bad guy faced is an undead, construct, or plant, so the rogue will get to sneak attack often. Not every bad guy faces will have fire resistance/immunity so the wizard will get to cast his fireball often. Likewise, not every bad guy faces will immune to tripping, disarming, sundering, etc. Sometimes high level bad guys aren't monsters but ordinary humans. It's wonderful the barbarian can rage and take lots and lots of damage and deal lots and lots of damage. That will help take the pressure off the fighter. However, how easily can the barbarian adapt when he can't run up to the enemy? A fighter could spend some feats on archery and be a sniper while also having melee tricks like power attacking with whirlwind attack. The fighter too can have Spirited Charge like his paladin friend, but will the paladin also have the archery skills and power attack, whirlwind attack, cleave, and all sorts of stuff to fight with when he's can't fight on horseback? As for spellcasters, of course their spells are versatile and powerful. It is no question no warrior feat can compare to summoning a roc or save or die and even if save take 10d6 damage casted from a safe distance. There's also the reality that there will be bad guy spellcasters too attacking the party spellcasters. Bad guy monsters and non-spellcaster bad guys are going to hunt for the spellcasters precisely because they're dangerous. The PC fighters won't be ignored. It's an "NPC party", even if a monster of one, fighting the PC party. Spellcasters can do everything, but they won't be able to do everything. A character is more than what his class text says he can do. Actual game play matters. Yes, actual gameplay does matter and I see the problem repeatedly in my games. The fighter does not have enough feats to be able to focus on multiple combat styles and maintain effectiveness, and certainly doesn't have the resources to do so if the wealth by level charts are followed even remotely. Here's the issue, the only way that a fighter can be generally usefull is if they take feats for almost every form of combat...so let's look at that for a moment, shall we? The fighter on 25pb is going to have some issues, assuming melee will be the focus strength and con are important, int and charisma can be dump stats if desired (but then you lose expertise, trip, disarm and other good maneuevers) or we can dump wisdom (and be vulnerable to mind effecting abilities as well as lose access to useful supplement feats like combat focus) Now, consider feats, now a core only fighter might be like this because their selection of feats is so...ahem poor that they can get all the fighting feats, or almost, of course they will be rapidly outpaced by casters but why worry since you never had a hope in the first place. The barbarian is still hitting harder and soaking more damage, the rogue deals more damage than you and has other skills useful outside of combat, same for the Ranger, and of course the paladin is a far better tank as well as having better saves and other abilities to help the group. Feats simply are not enough, feats do nothing without something to build on and when feats only have other feats to work with the enhancements end up being weak and ineffectual.
navar100 01-28-07, 08:06 PM	Those first two sentences don't exactly jive with one another. Either you think that they don't suck, or you think that they do. It has nothing to do with how much fun a person will have playing one, or if they won't completely drag the party under by playing one; Fighters still fare very poorly in comparison to virtually every other class. In other words, they suck. On the second half of the quote: don't bring up past grievances here. They don't apply. Can I have fries with that? :) I said they don't suck, I didn't say they they were the most uber. I have already acknowledged that spellcasters can do wondrous and powerful things no fighter could hope to accomplish. It just doesn't bother me that they can and the fighters can't. I look at what the fighter can do. You need to get past the evil bad guy. Druid:Wild shape into a mouse and walk by him Bard: I fascinate him. Cleric: I use diplomacy to bribe him. Wizard: I cast charm person. Sorcerer: I cast Invisibility and walk past him a bit of a distance away from him. Monk: Flurry of Blows! Rogue: Still thinking of whether to Bluff him or Sneak Attack. Ah screw it, I Hide and Move Silently around him. Barbarian: Power Attack! Paladin: Spirited Charge! Ranger: Rapid Shot! Don't forget he's a favored enemy! Fighter: Studying the situation, would Power Attack, Spirited Charge, or Rapid Shot be best? Different tactics, some with more versatile uses other than to get past the bad guy, accomplish the same thing.
Belgian Waffle 01-28-07, 08:18 PM	Different tactics, some with more versatile uses other than to get past the bad guy, accomplish the same thing. Don't be ridiculous, dude. You're giving way too much credit to the Fighter while ignoring about 95% of what any of the casters could do to get around an evil bad guy. Seriously, way to stack the game here. Just an average illusionist wizard would have about two dozen more options than any fighter would to get through/around an average bad guy. What're you trying to pull?
Jaxgaret 01-28-07, 08:35 PM	Don't be ridiculous, dude. You're giving way too much credit to the Fighter while ignoring about 95% of what any of the casters could do to get around an evil bad guy. Seriously, way to stack the game here. Just an average illusionist wizard would have about two dozen more options than any fighter would to get through/around an average bad guy. What're you trying to pull? Right on.
Kintara 01-28-07, 08:35 PM	Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians, in my opinion, don't have much on the Fighter. Full spellcasting is powerful and versatile in this game, and it's hard to beat. That said, if you just focus on the classes that the Fighter has the most in common with, the power differential ain't that big. The properly built Fighter has flexibility and/or an ability to capitalize on lots of feat synergy, but that doesn't change the fact he doesn't have 9th level spells.
Thubby 01-28-07, 08:53 PM	i love how people keep compairing the fighter and barbarian. in case noone noticed, G wpn secialization gives the same dmg bonus as the best rage. take ?greater fortitude? (that feat from complete warrior) (+1HP per hd) 5 times. with feats you can basicaly make a 1/2 raging barbarian. the differences (at 20th), (in combat only) fighter is 2 lower to hit (dmg is on par) 2 lower will and fort (6 lower against enchantment) hp (assuming same con) are the same dr is 2 lower (with adamntine fplate, which barbs cant wear) hes slower in exchange? the fighters abilities are all permanent, so he might fall behind when the barb rages , but the fighter is always ready to go. the fighters ac never drops, EVER. fighter can wear heavy armors. so his ac will be consistently higher. and the fighters always in his right mind, so he can do things requiring his concentration did i miss anything? barb is more helpful out of combat, no contest. but in the fight, well, thats up to you
Olskool 01-28-07, 09:00 PM	Sad thing is the barbarian ends up being a better tank than the fighter, and also has more mobility and more punch behind them, THAT is what honestly hoses the fighter I think. Nah, Barbarians hit harder sometimes, but they tend to get knocked out or killed twice as much as fighters. I don't blame you for thinking Barbs are a better choice, they look more versatile on paper. But in practice, Barbarians get layed out with the quickness. It's usually the AC hit that does it. Bear in mind though that I only run games up until the broken levels (11th and up) so fighters are actually a better option than wizards too. Most of the game,in general the world over, is played at lower levels. So fighters in practice, not theory, are a very viable class.
Archangel62 01-28-07, 09:52 PM	Nah, Barbarians hit harder sometimes, but they tend to get knocked out or killed twice as much as fighters. I don't blame you for thinking Barbs are a better choice, they look more versatile on paper. But in practice, Barbarians get layed out with the quickness. It's usually the AC hit that does it. Bear in mind though that I only run games up until the broken levels (11th and up) so fighters are actually a better option than wizards too. Most of the game,in general the world over, is played at lower levels. So fighters in practice, not theory, are a very viable class. Well, the Barb has higher HD, built in DR, and more HP when they rage. The barbarians AC might not be as great but at higher levels unless the fighter is playing Tanky mc tanktank his AC isn't going to be hard to hit either.
Bob Loblaw 01-28-07, 09:58 PM	The most people who support the Fighter seem to say is that you "need to know how to play them" to make them decent. The thing is, even if you know them in, out, front and back, there's still another class that can do whatever they can do a whole lot better. Untrue. There is no class that can combine the feats in the same quantity that the fighter can. While other classes may be able to mimic some of the combinations, there is no class that can do them all. But once the rest of the party gets their tricks in order, the Fighter fades into the background. Once you start hitting high levels, the entire concept they seem to stand for (direct damage) is obsolete, and more and more enemies become immune to tripping, sundering, and disarming. Notice that I never mentioned that they would be the heaviest hitters in the group. I said they were all about the combat options. Their role doesn't seem suited to being the heaviest hitters. With the addition of the Tactical feats, Style feats, and interesting new feats that are put out consistently, fighters are far from being limited to tripping, sundering, and disarming. But even in the hands of a master, they can't really compare to a Wizard casting Time Stop and flingging out handfulls of Fingers of Death, all while his summoned Solar does the protection job. Even compared to a Cleric who, at that point, just has persistant Righteous Might and Devine Power on top of all his spells, the Fighter pales. And he can only go sulk as he watches the Barbarian fly into a Rage and soak up far more damage than he could dream of, while the Paladin is looking at dealing damage in the thousands with his mounted charge, and the Druid is just a bear for twenty-three hours out of the day. Not to mention the fact that he hasn't seen the Rogue in at least a week, and he's not entirely sure if he's actually helping the sneaky bugger flank that Ogre or if someone's just playing a cruel trick on him. And not a single thing mentioned falls under the role of the fighter. So he should not be able to compare to any of them in their roles. So, by all means, play a Fighter. They can be just as fun as you want. And if I am having fun, then it can't suck. There are very few things that suck and are worth experiencing daily. Just be prepared to have everyone be better than you could possibly be by level 10. And remember to put ranks into Craft (bartending). The Wizard likes his frozen marguritas after battle. I have yet to be in a group where my fighter was not fun to play. Because whether a class sucks or not is 100% opinion based, there is not going to be any way to prove that it does suck. So long as people have fun playing the class, it will never suck for everyone. Note that I am not saying that the fighter couldn't be improved. I would like to see 2 more skill points per level and 1 or 2 more class skills on the list. Personally, I don't think these little issues are enough to classify the class as sucking.
Olskool 01-28-07, 10:01 PM	Well, the Barb has higher HD, built in DR, and more HP when they rage. The barbarians AC might not be as great but at higher levels unless the fighter is playing Tanky mc tanktank his AC isn't going to be hard to hit either. Fighter'll still outlive him more often than not in my experience. Fighters are tough as nails. Can't forget the pschological differences either. Well played barbarians lose themselves in combat more. That improved damage in a rage is so fun it makes it harder for barbarian players to think strategically. They'll always take one attack too many when instead, they should be falling back or chugging a potion. fighters are a thinking persons class. Not everyone can play them well.
Votan 01-28-07, 10:08 PM	In my opinion: Fighters are a solid choice from levels 1 to 6 Fighters are an okay choice from levels 7 to 10 (where 4th level spells and wildshape and everything else shows up) Fighters are clearly weak from level 11 on Not to say that they can't be played, just that they are weaker than alternatives. In particular, spellcasters seem to steal their niche in the double digit levels.
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:13 PM	Fighter'll still outlive him more often than not in my experience. Fighters are tough as nails. Can't forget the pschological differences either. Well played barbarians lose themselves in combat more. That improved damage in a rage is so fun it makes it harder for barbarian players to think strategically. They'll always take one attack too many when instead, they should be falling back or chugging a potion. fighters are a thinking persons class. Not everyone can play them well. This makes no sense. The reason the barbs are going down, is because they are being dumbasses. The fighter player on the other hand is some sort of genius, and so lives. What if the barb player is not a dumbass? This assumes two different players playing completely different ways when the same way would be more appropriate, and that makes it a weakness of the player, not the class. So, according to you, I would say that the barbarian is also a thinking persons class, and in that sense, the barbarian comes out ahead in surviving, since he has more resources to spend to surviving.
itwasntme 01-28-07, 10:17 PM	In my opinion: Fighters are a solid choice from levels 1 to 6 Fighters are an okay choice from levels 7 to 10 (where 4th level spells and wildshape and everything else shows up) Fighters are clearly weak from level 11 on Not to say that they can't be played, just that they are weaker than alternatives. In particular, spellcasters seem to steal their niche in the double digit levels. this is normoly true however a Tread was made stateing how level 20 pure fighters can be as good as the other level 20 class's it was just stated that it was much harder to play then the other class's it required more thinking on the part of the player more then any other class i beleve so people went "Ok so the fighter is playable up to any level but hes just harder to play later on and requires more thought on his creature ... i came to play D&D to take it easy not to think so i say fighter still suck" You can beleve that point or beleve that Fighters can be just as deadly later on in the game level 2 spells Scoring ray? eh the fighter could allways get a bow out and shot people right? well ok i bet ppl will take this and say "You suck at the bow" eh w/e you dount get what im saying Fighters useoly start to suck if you dount know what your doing after probly level 4? Sense most people dount know what there doing with Fighters they do many other things with them and there just ... horrible things dount ask about the Tread i beleve it got baned coz many of the "Anti fighters" and some of the "Pure fighters" Where breaking so many CoC on argueing with each other wizards just banned the topic i beleve Dount make a repeat of it it was stated in that tread that fighters can do just fine any higher level just required more thought tho you gotta admit eveyone can get killed/raped by some other person take the mightest wizard (Not pun pun the druid none of thouse broken characters) He can still get raped by some other class
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:20 PM	Which class?
itwasntme 01-28-07, 10:23 PM	This makes no sense. The reason the barbs are going down, is because they are being dumbasses. The fighter player on the other hand is some sort of genius, and so lives. What if the barb player is not a dumbass? This assumes two different players playing completely different ways when the same way would be more appropriate, and that makes it a weakness of the player, not the class. So, according to you, I would say that the barbarian is also a thinking persons class, and in that sense, the barbarian comes out ahead in surviving, since he has more resources to spend to surviving. this was a good question but was solved still a Good player behind any class is a good Class any good player can get raped the thing is a Fighter needs more of a thinker then what most other class's play you can play dumb as hell on a barbian and still do ok cant do that very well on a fighter its just stateing Fighters can do well at higher levels there just fewer of them running around then mages Mostly coz i think the fighters took the death insteed of the wizard coz face it how many times do you die as a wizard low level? so if you had 100 of each class i say 20 wizards/druids/scors make it past level 4 fighters/barbians/other melee people can make it where 50 of them make it past level 4 Clerics/paladins/other people in this catagory can make it what? ... 60 people past level 4? well thats just an example your not playing from level 1-20 are you? no each time you die you make a new guy at the same level as before hand try playing the worlds largest dungions take away the 2 bans and negitive things on wizards/druids and you'll still not be able to beat it without a bunch of "Fighters" not barbians ... or rouges ... rouges just get eaten alive in that dungion poor basterds ... and Clerics of course ... possibly Paladins will do the best in it along with the Scor ... for a weird reason but understable reason Thats just 1 type of game tho think more on the fighter and you can do just as well think more on other class's and you can do good just not as much improvement as if you went to the fighter class ture you can still kill the fighter but you can still kill the wizard/druid/barbian/ eveyone eles right?
Thubby 01-28-07, 10:26 PM	Which class? i just done mapping out one against a barbarian (points to post on same page)
Belgian Waffle 01-28-07, 10:29 PM	this is normoly true however a Tread was made stateing how level 20 pure fighters can be as good as the other level 20 class's What thread is this and what were the metrics they used to measure out 'Good'? dount ask about the Tread i beleve it got baned coz many of the "Anti fighters" and some of the "Pure fighters" Where breaking so many CoC on argueing with each other wizards just banned the topic i beleve Oh wait... it was just stated that it was much harder to play then the other class's it required more thinking on the part of the player more then any other class i beleve so people went "Ok so the fighter is playable up to any level but hes just harder to play later on and requires more thought on his creature ... i came to play D&D to take it easy not to think so i say fighter still suck" I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with all this, but I think that you just said that the Fighter sucks. Anything that requires more out of the player than something else is already a subpar option. eh the fighter could allways get a bow out and shot people right? well ok i bet ppl will take this and say "You suck at the bow" Level 2 Wind Wall. And this isn't a Fighter-Specific issue, but more of an issue with non-magical ranged combatants. take the mightest wizard (Not pun pun the druid none of thouse broken characters) He can still get raped by some other class Sure, if the DM totally freaking hated the wizard and was out to screw him. But that sort of bias applies to everyone.
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:32 PM	All I see, since I'm having difficulty grinding through what you wrote, is that a very good fighter player will be good. Well, sure. However, give that same player a druid. What now? I can't think of many things that will kill this guy. He's a tough as hell warrior, and a great caster, and in the hands of a skilled player is nigh invulnerable. A fighter? He matches a decent wizard player. One who does not use contingencies, layer on backup after backup and so on and so forth. A typical blaster mage, with clever uses of defenses for instance, is what a masterfully played fighter can reach. The fighter, in ability caps before the casters. To a degree he caps at about the same time in combat as all the other non-casters or half casters except the rogue. However, all of the half casters or melee characters have greater versatility out of combat, as well as certain niches that they overpower the fighter by a large degree in. The fighter can get at most 3 mastered paths of fighting, be it hitting people, shooting people, grappling people or surviving. They cannot be good enough at enough trees to be considered versatile however. I think that suck is a relative thing. The fighter is at the bottom of the barrel of player characters, and because of this, he sucks. Not as much as NPC classes, but he still sucks compared to other classes.
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:34 PM	i just done mapping out one against a barbarian (points to post on same page) That won't beat a wizard played smartly. It's not what I was asking.
Thubby 01-28-07, 10:41 PM	That won't beat a wizard played smartly. It's not what I was asking. im well aware this wont beat a smart wizard. of corse by that logic a barbarian probably couldnt iether. people were saying barbarians were better, so i did that. i missunderstood, i get it now, you were asking which class had an edge on wizards, sorry. (its late, im brain dead)
Jo_Pistachio 01-28-07, 10:44 PM	im well aware this wont beat a smart wizard. of corse by that logic a barbarian probably couldnt iether. people were saying barbarians were better, so i did that. i missunderstood, i get it now, you were asking which class had an edge on wizards, sorry. (its late, im brain dead) It's cool. :D
Olskool 01-28-07, 11:11 PM	This makes no sense. The reason the barbs are going down, is because they are being dumbasses. The fighter player on the other hand is some sort of genius, and so lives. What if the barb player is not a dumbass? This assumes two different players playing completely different ways when the same way would be more appropriate, and that makes it a weakness of the player, not the class. So, according to you, I would say that the barbarian is also a thinking persons class, and in that sense, the barbarian comes out ahead in surviving, since he has more resources to spend to surviving. Maybe the reason people play barbarians differently from fighters is because mechanically, barbarians support a different style of play. Almost every player I've ever seen plays a barbarian recklessly. At the same time almost every player plays fighters more strategically. My group, like the majority of groups, plays till about 11th lvl. And fighters remain an excellent choice over the course of those levels. They perform as well as Barbarians, Wizards, and even those perrenial board favorites: the cleric and druid. And they consistently outperform them. Again, this is in practice, not theory. Theoretically, people look at fighters and assume they're a poor class. In a real game however, fighters kick much tail. As it should be.
GreyEagle 01-28-07, 11:16 PM	i have a 15th lvl fighter, and hes pretty awesome. the only reason fighters suck anymore is the player is a total idiot.
Votan 01-28-07, 11:21 PM	They perform as well as Barbarians, Wizards, and even those perrenial board favorites: the cleric and druid. And they consistently outperform them. Again, this is in practice, not theory. Theoretically, people look at fighters and assume they're a poor class. In a real game however, fighters kick much tail. As it should be. Fighter is a solid choice from levels 1 to 6; I can do a lot with the class at these levels that can't be done with other classes. Skills haven't started to reach the really high bonuses yet so a raw d20 isn't terrible and the fighter can often be really cool in melee plus very hard for opponents to take out. Clerics get good at some point but they are remarkably average at low levels.
Krevon 01-28-07, 11:36 PM	at level four i had my cleric at +12 to hit and +10 to damage
theotherdraxen 01-28-07, 11:51 PM	Maybe the reason people play barbarians differently from fighters is because mechanically, barbarians support a different style of play. Almost every player I've ever seen plays a barbarian recklessly. At the same time almost every player plays fighters more strategically. My group, like the majority of groups, plays till about 11th lvl. And fighters remain an excellent choice over the course of those levels. They perform as well as Barbarians, Wizards, and even those perrenial board favorites: the cleric and druid. And they consistently outperform them. Again, this is in practice, not theory. Theoretically, people look at fighters and assume they're a poor class. In a real game however, fighters kick much tail. As it should be. Hmm...so you have a build and playstyle for a fighter that doesn't suck? I'd like to see that. i have a 15th lvl fighter, and hes pretty awesome. the only reason fighters suck anymore is the player is a total idiot. Total idiots like the CO regulars? IME, the real problem is the best optimizers in the group tend to try out fighters, and everyone else just plays their characters free-form. I have a friend that is a pretty good optimizer (not the best, but good), and even though he build his character out of a combination of fighter, barbarian, and werewolf, he was still outperformed by the warmage who's player didn't even own a player's handbook and took LA of 4 or so with half-fiend. She knows virtually nothing about the rules, and still outshone him once we got to levels 15+ with a warmage. Last but not least: general concensus concludes that fighters suck (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436).
Johnathan_Vagabond 01-29-07, 12:03 AM	The more feats available to your fighter, the longer it takes him to suck. I've run right up through 15th level straight fighter and didn't lose out. On the other hand, I had 9 books from which to cherry pick feats. I started to lose a little steam next to the casters there at the end, but I made up for it with clever use of dangerous items. Like a helm of brilliance, and a necklace of fireballs, resulting in a crater that caused a universal singularity to punch a hole through the planes simultaniously, as the DM termed it. (Ask me how to cause 340d6+60 fire damage in one round with 10 prismatic rays to boot.)
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 12:21 AM	Maybe the reason people play barbarians differently from fighters is because mechanically, barbarians support a different style of play. Almost every player I've ever seen plays a barbarian recklessly. At the same time almost every player plays fighters more strategically. My group, like the majority of groups, plays till about 11th lvl. And fighters remain an excellent choice over the course of those levels. They perform as well as Barbarians, Wizards, and even those perrenial board favorites: the cleric and druid. And they consistently outperform them. Again, this is in practice, not theory. Theoretically, people look at fighters and assume they're a poor class. In a real game however, fighters kick much tail. As it should be. They do support a different style of play, but that style of play still needs to make concessions to strategy. Otherwise you are comparing a dumb player to a smart player, and that's not a comparison of classes. So as such, I would claim that your group plays barbarians poorly, and simply don't know when they need to slow down and do a tactical retreat. If they are dying because they are too reckless, then their playstyle is obviously flawed in some respect, as they have every resource over the fighter in living except AC. And also, in practice, what are they doing to beat out the casters? What are you fighting? What are the casters doing? In practice, I'm beating melee based encounters in melee with a wizard, and am doing so better than I possibly could with a fighting type, and am immune to far more strategies than a fighter can be. What is possible for a fighter that is not for a caster?
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 12:27 AM	The more feats available to your fighter, the longer it takes him to suck. I've run right up through 15th level straight fighter and didn't lose out. On the other hand, I had 9 books from which to cherry pick feats. I started to lose a little steam next to the casters there at the end, but I made up for it with clever use of dangerous items. Like a helm of brilliance, and a necklace of fireballs, resulting in a crater that caused a universal singularity to punch a hole through the planes simultaniously, as the DM termed it. (Ask me how to cause 340d6+60 fire damage in one round with 10 prismatic rays to boot.) Please name one class that is incapable of doing the afforementioned damage. Items are not making the class strong. Items are making the player able to deal out stupid things despite his lack of class features. Also, please show me some feats that match up with spells like mind blank, or heart of earth. These two last essentially all day or all day, and as such could be considered class features of the people that take them. What does a fighter have that matches just mind blank in sheer ability? In fact, which feats are equivalent to the rangers far better skill selection and skill points? There is no such feat, and it takes all of a characters natural feats to try to match it. A fighters feats can't match up to a well made caster, or even to a well made partial caster. He can only hope to do about as well in certain cases in combat.
Johnathan_Vagabond 01-29-07, 02:07 AM	Please name one class that is incapable of doing the afforementioned damage. Items are not making the class strong. Items are making the player able to deal out stupid things despite his lack of class features. Also, please show me some feats that match up with spells like mind blank, or heart of earth. These two last essentially all day or all day, and as such could be considered class features of the people that take them. What does a fighter have that matches just mind blank in sheer ability? In fact, which feats are equivalent to the rangers far better skill selection and skill points? There is no such feat, and it takes all of a characters natural feats to try to match it. A fighters feats can't match up to a well made caster, or even to a well made partial caster. He can only hope to do about as well in certain cases in combat. Calm down. I was just saying that when my PC lost steam the player picked up the slack with thinking of something the others hadn't. The mechanical equivalent of saying "I'm awesome". What really gave my PC some punch was a few combinations. Combat Expertise Improved Trip Knockdown (free trip on any hit of 10+damage) +2 Fiery Shocking Dwarven Waraxe of Frost. The set up gave me (A dwarf) 1d10+3d6+2+Str damage with each hit. My Str was at 16. So the least I could do was 9 damage. So on every attack that hit I got a trip attempt. With my +4 from Improved Trip, and +4 from Dwarven Sturdy build and my +3 str, I made all trip attempts at +11. So I knocked over just about everyone that I hit, but still managed to have the benefits of a shield bonus to AC. I also had Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, and Improved Overrun. Now, maybe the DM ruled wrong in this case, but, as the cleave feat states that any time you "deal enough damage to a foe to make it drop" you get another attack against an opponent within reach. So, everytime I knockdown dropped a foe I got to swing at the next one free. After that I had 2 more iterative attacks that could go against any opponent, with a +1 for higher ground against prone opponents. Added to that any AoO from getting up dealt more than 10 damage, and knocked them back down again. It was a brilliant scheme. I was whirlwinding most groups of thugs. We also made excessive use of the "pain train" as it were. I picked up some boots of springing and striding for the +10 movement, and then a haste from my buddy the sorcerer. Using my newly improved 40ft move speed I'd make a charge against an enemy 80ft away, overrunning every enemy in a straight line in the way, putting them all on the ground. Since I usually knockdown tripped the charge target, I then knockdown cleaved my way around anyone not within a straight line. Of course, with a massive Con I only failed 3 Fort saves in my career. I absorbed reflex saves into my massive hitpoint pool. (knocking on 200 thanks to a ridiculous Con score and good rolls). And Will saves were for my team mates to worry about. We picked up a custom ring that gave me a +6 against mind-influencing effects. That helped alot in conjunction with Iron Will. I also picked up Willing Deformity for a +2 intimidate, and Willing Deformity: Eye, so I could see invisible at the cost of -2 spot and search. That way I could make creatures shaken so that the sorcerer or the bard could make them panicked. But yeah, around level 11-12 I started losing some steam really. Although I became nigh indestructible in my +3 Dwarven Plate of Etherealness and with my +4 Lion's Shield. Fortunately I could position myself to take more blows than anyone else in the party and come out kicking and hollaring. Ironically, I nearly died at level 2 (the fighter king level) because of a lucky double crit with a great club.
TheCobra 01-29-07, 02:23 AM	plus very hard for opponents to take out. Maybe if you take Iron Will, have high WIS, and are a dwarf. Otherwise, a simple color spray can easily ruin your day.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 03:25 AM	Ok, for all of you who talk about the fighters ability to be useful in many situations, let's analyze that, shall we. Assuming we can use feats outside of core, how are we doing this. Is this fighter meant to be able to use archery as well as melee, not to mention some combat techniques, fine. But, in 25pb we are now raising the total number of stats that have to be set at 14 or higher, making it harder to get a high mod and also meaning that dump stats become more necessary. Add in advanced combat manuevers like tripping and disarming and now we have three psysical stats and a mental stat, and if the fighter feats have been expanded into PH2 you likely want to get the combat focus feas, or maybe just keep your will save from being your downfall, so now 5 stats needing to be raised to be 'versatile and effective' whereas the ranger can be a better archer, the barbarian a better attacker and meatshield, and the paladin a better tank, not to mention better on mounted combat. The way that a player does the character can effect things, but then if the DM alters how the game works in favor or against a certain class it can also effect the way the game is played. To an earlier comment that the fighter is matching the barbarian in damage, incorrect. The earlier assumption of equal damange with max rage only works assuming the barbarian is using a weapon one handed, assuming minimally optimal tactics the barbarian will use a 2 handed weapon and will end up with a much higher boost to damage, a better boost to hit, and be more effective overall.
Scavelock 01-29-07, 03:37 AM	This thread is interesting, and honestly, had I never visited the online DnD community, I might be persuaded to believe that fighters were okay well into their teens. That said, I wonder if this issue is more prevalent among those who play the game more often than others. I suppose that I consider myself a casual gamer, and the people I game with are lucky to meet for a game once every two weeks to a month. Maybe we're playing the game wrong, but we don't seem to run into obsolescence with our characters classes. While the argument is convincing to me that warrior classes are in fact weaker than wizards/druids/clerics, I wonder what percentage of gamers crunch the numbers or even know how to optimize their characters to this point. Anyway, thank you for the information.
navar100 01-29-07, 04:14 AM	Yes, actual gameplay does matter and I see the problem repeatedly in my games. The fighter does not have enough feats to be able to focus on multiple combat styles and maintain effectiveness, and certainly doesn't have the resources to do so if the wealth by level charts are followed even remotely. Here's the issue, the only way that a fighter can be generally usefull is if they take feats for almost every form of combat...so let's look at that for a moment, shall we? The fighter on 25pb is going to have some issues, assuming melee will be the focus strength and con are important, int and charisma can be dump stats if desired (but then you lose expertise, trip, disarm and other good maneuevers) or we can dump wisdom (and be vulnerable to mind effecting abilities as well as lose access to useful supplement feats like combat focus) Now, consider feats, now a core only fighter might be like this because their selection of feats is so...ahem poor that they can get all the fighting feats, or almost, of course they will be rapidly outpaced by casters but why worry since you never had a hope in the first place. The barbarian is still hitting harder and soaking more damage, the rogue deals more damage than you and has other skills useful outside of combat, same for the Ranger, and of course the paladin is a far better tank as well as having better saves and other abilities to help the group. Feats simply are not enough, feats do nothing without something to build on and when feats only have other feats to work with the enhancements end up being weak and ineffectual. I happen to think a 25 point buy is too weak for any character. I prefer dice rolling myself. Since abilty score creation methods varies from game to game, that there is a game play circumstance that will affect fighters, let alone every class. By the same token, any character with no ability score below 15 is also going to be quite strong. Anyway, there are ways for the fighter to increase his damage. Power Attack is the obvious. There's also Weapon Specialization. With only 25 points, he will suffer MAD and probably can't do Power Attack trees and Combat Expertise trees, but not eveyr campaign is 25 point buy. Some might be 32. Others might be dice rolling. The potential is there to do both trees. Archery is also viable. Sure, a nice Dex would be optimal, but even a 25 point buy can afford a 10 DX to avoid a penalty. Get a composite bow to add strength damage. The Mounted Combat tree is still viable. Spirited Charge synergizes well with Power Attack and will be able to put the hurt into undead and constructs where the rogue cannot. Not to sound like a cop out, but fighters aren't the only ones with a poor will save to be vulnerable against domination. Wizards best be careful against the fortitude save or die spells, themselves. Still, if it is problem for a particular fighter, the player can always take Iron Will as a character feat. No kidding it's no Mind Blank, but it's there. This is also where proper equipment can come in. Of course there's no guarantee, but cloaks and rings of resistance are common as far as magic items go, and the cleric or druid doesn't have a monopoly on Wisdom boosting items. As for feats needing something else, Power Attack at 20th level allows for +40 damage. No, it's no Meteor Swarm; it's no Horrid Wilting, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. A fighter's 4 attacks makes that +160 damage. That's not bad for a feat that can be taken at 1st level which is a prerequisite for all sorts of others tactics. Of course, a -20 to hit will be tough to make a hit. It would take someone who planned on that one particular tactic in trying to find ways to boost his overall to hit modifier. Can a fighter do that as a straight 20th level fighter given only his feats and equipment? I don't know. Would he need a buff from a spellcaster? Probably, but I'd say that would be a nice tactic for a spellcaster to do. He'll cast his other powerful "I win" spells all he wants, but even bad guys make saving throws and have spell resistance such that his spellcasting is also not a guarantee. Party member team work, what a concept. That's another thing. Some people deride the fighter for "needing" help from a spellcaster to do his thing. That's not a bug; that's a feature of being in a party. When my cleric last campaign had Augment Summoning and summoned creatures, I always said that every attack against one of my summoned creatures is one less attack against the party. Every attack against the buffed fighter is one less attack against the spellcaster who buffed him. It is a symbiotic relationship. The fighter knows he's going to get pummeled. It's his job. Summoning creatures is good for spellcasters, but it's possible that buffing the fighter will do a better job than that summoned creature or some other spell. Not every time. Not you must do it or else you're a bad a party member. It's synergizing. It's tactics.
navar100 01-29-07, 04:19 AM	Don't be ridiculous, dude. You're giving way too much credit to the Fighter while ignoring about 95% of what any of the casters could do to get around an evil bad guy. Seriously, way to stack the game here. Just an average illusionist wizard would have about two dozen more options than any fighter would to get through/around an average bad guy. What're you trying to pull? I'm showing that just because a druid can wild shape into a dire bear, even with all his spellcasting and other wild shaping choices thus yes the druid is more versatile, doesn't mean the fighter can't do what he does well. The wizard could just as easily cast Finger of Death the bad guy. Heck, just Dimension Door. I'm not arguing the fighter is more powerful than spellcasters. I'm just arguing they don't suck.
navar100 01-29-07, 04:21 AM	Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians, in my opinion, don't have much on the Fighter. Full spellcasting is powerful and versatile in this game, and it's hard to beat. That said, if you just focus on the classes that the Fighter has the most in common with, the power differential ain't that big. The properly built Fighter has flexibility and/or an ability to capitalize on lots of feat synergy, but that doesn't change the fact he doesn't have 9th level spells. "Right on".
Ghenesh 01-29-07, 08:44 AM	"Right On" tickles. Do you guys know how many 15th level Fighters from all over the world are needed to screw in a lightbulb? - Both of them.
Leo 01-29-07, 09:02 AM	How many lv 20 wizards that actually had to level up from 1 to 20 do you need to screw a lightbulb? Oh, wait, they are all dead. D4 life sucks. And while the fighter hasn't got 9thlevel spells, he doesn't need them. He has a +5 vorpal sword plus heavy armor with either a butload of buffs or antimagic field. How many heads can a spellcaster lose anyway? If you ignore the mighty weaponry the fighter has acess to, I see no reason to believe in those so called 9th level spells.
Bob Loblaw 01-29-07, 09:14 AM	Is this fighter meant to be able to use archery as well as melee, not to mention some combat techniques, fine. But, in 25pb we are now raising the total number of stats that have to be set at 14 or higher, making it harder to get a high mod and also meaning that dump stats become more necessary. Four problems here though. The first one is assuming that everyone is using 25 point buy. The second is that those stats will never be improved beyond what was assigned at 1st level. Third, feats require odd values rather than even values to qualify. This means that the 14 prerequisite is probably only a 13. Finally, that the fighter isn't choosing his feats better. Not every feat that will enhance his combat prowess has or needs stat prerequisites. Add in advanced combat manuevers like tripping and disarming and now we have three psysical stats and a mental stat, and if the fighter feats have been expanded into PH2 you likely want to get the combat focus feas, or maybe just keep your will save from being your downfall, so now 5 stats needing to be raised to be 'versatile and effective' whereas the ranger can be a better archer, the barbarian a better attacker and meatshield, and the paladin a better tank, not to mention better on mounted combat. So you are saying that if the fighter tries to do a lot of things he can't be really good at one of them. That is completely true. The same holds true for every character. The more dilute you make the character's abilities, the less effective he will be at any single one. The way that a player does the character can effect things, but then if the DM alters how the game works in favor or against a certain class it can also effect the way the game is played. Which would mean that fighters cannot universally suck. They can suck for some and be wonderful for others with plenty of room in between.
Clawhound 01-29-07, 09:31 AM	Getting back to the original question: fighters lose steam when the player asks, "Where to from here?" This is generally the point where the player has all the feats that he needs to make the fighter work for that particular build. That doesn't mean that the fighter stops being useful. Fighters only stop being useful when the party stops cooperating. Parties have kept fighters useful all the way to 20th level and found them valuable. Part of a fighter's usefulness depends to the difficulty of your game. A fighter in an "average" game does well. A fighter in a "challenging" game has problems. This has to do with the dynamics of power escalation among the classes. Part of measuring a fighter also depends on your attitude towards equipment. Good game theory says that you shouldn't need equipment to balance your character. Game fact is that that is exactly what the designers did. A fighter with "proper equipment" is capable of engaging level-appropriate encounters. At the end of the day, no matter how good or bad any class is, it's the PLAYER who chooses the class, not this board. Your party is what it is. Now it's up to the party to succeed.
Kresalak 01-29-07, 09:43 AM	The Fighter is awesome. I'll even list all his neat abilities. DMs arbitrarily favor them Closet trolls don't exist Gets a Major Artifact at level 10 Spellcasters stupid enough to use direct damage Fellow party members have feeble (at best) grasp of tactics Can roleplay better than everyone else (read the rules, only Fighters are allowed to be good roleplayers) Supported by fanatics with hordes of anecdotal evidence
Votan 01-29-07, 09:47 AM	Maybe if you take Iron Will, have high WIS, and are a dwarf. Otherwise, a simple color spray can easily ruin your day. This is true at high levels where saves begin to matter. At 1st level it isn't so clear. A common 1st level wizard (INT 15; elite array) casts a colour sray with a DC 13 to save. The Human Fighter with wis 8 saves on a 14+ (35% chance) The Dwarf Cleric with a 15 wisdom saves on a 7+ (60% chance) These are are two extreme cases; what is worth noting is that the worst likely will save (-1) isn't so different from the best (+6). At higher levels this gap widens and so does the difference for will saves. But, by then, the saves problem is no longer the major issue facing the Fighter. [Although, mechnaically, there are only Dwarf Fighters unless you don't plan to wear heavy armor because I can't see any reason to pick any other race with standard point buy (25 or 28) or the elite array].
Irving 01-29-07, 09:51 AM	I love fighters for several reasons: First, their consistency. Yes, the wizard can cast wish and demolish any given monster. What do you do with the second huge encounter that day? (Or if the spell fails for any of a number of reasons?) Or the third encounter? Or the ninth? I can't help but notice that all these "fighters can't cope with X" threads offer other ways that other classes can deal with them... but all those options other classes have only a limited number of uses per day. Fighters hit for less damage, but they hit every single time for the same (consistently higher than average) levels of damage. Fighters do what they do best all day long. Second is their tactical value. A good fighter isn't locked into one role by virtue of two simple feats - Power Attack and Combat Expertise. That nice high attack bonus fighters have isn't just a number - it's a resource. A fighter can use Combat Expertise to serve as a tank, boosting his AC by 7 fighting defensively, until another character moves into position to deal heavy damage. Then he can drop the combat expertise and boost his damage output, or at high levels start tripping, disarming, sundering, or otherwise maximizing the damage output of another character and rescuing the opponent's options. Again, the attack bonus of the fighter is a resource - no class can pull off these special manevers as easily as the fighter. Maybe it's not as sexy as dropping an enemy's hp as rapidly as possible, but anyone who's played an MMORPG knows that there are many roles PCs can play in combat that are as important, if not more so, than simply dealing damage. Again, I've noticed that most of the "fighter's can't do X" comments never refer to the miniatures, or the tactical position of any given fight. Positioning and terrain - and its manipulation - are a big part of what makes a fighter sing, and excluding them dimishes one of the class's strengths.
Seerow 01-29-07, 10:23 AM	Tell me, do you usually run 9 encounters in a day? Because the normal number is 4, and many people think that's absurdly high.
Jaxgaret 01-29-07, 10:31 AM	The Fighter is awesome. I'll even list all his neat abilities. DMs arbitrarily favor them Closet trolls don't exist Gets a Major Artifact at level 10 Spellcasters stupid enough to use direct damage Fellow party members have feeble (at best) grasp of tactics Can roleplay better than everyone else (read the rules, only Fighters are allowed to be good roleplayers) Supported by fanatics with hordes of anecdotal evidence :ayyyy!:
Irving 01-29-07, 10:40 AM	Tell me, do you usually run 9 encounters in a day? Because the normal number is 4, and many people think that's absurdly high. Campaign day? Or gaming session? There's a difference, after all.
TheCobra 01-29-07, 10:59 AM	This is true at high levels where saves begin to matter. At 1st level it isn't so clear. A common 1st level wizard (INT 15; elite array) casts a colour sray with a DC 13 to save. The Human Fighter with wis 8 saves on a 14+ (35% chance) The Dwarf Cleric with a 15 wisdom saves on a 7+ (60% chance) These are are two extreme cases; what is worth noting is that the worst likely will save (-1) isn't so different from the best (+6). I don't know about you, but I think there's a big difference between a 65% chance and a 40% chance of dying. But, by then, the saves problem is no longer the major issue facing the Fighter. Will saves are a problem for fighters, rogues, and rangers until mind blank comes. We're talking about at least 14 levels. First, their consistency. Yes, the wizard can cast wish and demolish any given monster. What do you do with the second huge encounter that day? (Or if the spell fails for any of a number of reasons?) Or the third encounter? Or the ninth? The fighter won't last any longer unless somebody heals him.
Irving 01-29-07, 11:18 AM	The fighter won't last any longer unless somebody heals him. (shrug) Sure. D&D is a team sport. That's one of the points I'm trying to make here - evaluating a class as "strong" or "weak" in isolation, without considering her impact on the party's success as a whole, is sophistry. And it's a whole lot easier to heal up the fighter than to get that 9th level spell back, after all...
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 11:22 AM	Calm down. I was just saying that when my PC lost steam the player picked up the slack with thinking of something the others hadn't. The mechanical equivalent of saying "I'm awesome". What really gave my PC some punch was a few combinations. Combat Expertise Improved Trip Knockdown (free trip on any hit of 10+damage) +2 Fiery Shocking Dwarven Waraxe of Frost. The set up gave me (A dwarf) 1d10+3d6+2+Str damage with each hit. My Str was at 16. So the least I could do was 9 damage. So on every attack that hit I got a trip attempt. With my +4 from Improved Trip, and +4 from Dwarven Sturdy build and my +3 str, I made all trip attempts at +11. So I knocked over just about everyone that I hit, but still managed to have the benefits of a shield bonus to AC. I also had Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, and Improved Overrun. Now, maybe the DM ruled wrong in this case, but, as the cleave feat states that any time you "deal enough damage to a foe to make it drop" you get another attack against an opponent within reach. So, everytime I knockdown dropped a foe I got to swing at the next one free. After that I had 2 more iterative attacks that could go against any opponent, with a +1 for higher ground against prone opponents. Added to that any AoO from getting up dealt more than 10 damage, and knocked them back down again. It was a brilliant scheme. I was whirlwinding most groups of thugs. We also made excessive use of the "pain train" as it were. I picked up some boots of springing and striding for the +10 movement, and then a haste from my buddy the sorcerer. Using my newly improved 40ft move speed I'd make a charge against an enemy 80ft away, overrunning every enemy in a straight line in the way, putting them all on the ground. Since I usually knockdown tripped the charge target, I then knockdown cleaved my way around anyone not within a straight line. Of course, with a massive Con I only failed 3 Fort saves in my career. I absorbed reflex saves into my massive hitpoint pool. (knocking on 200 thanks to a ridiculous Con score and good rolls). And Will saves were for my team mates to worry about. We picked up a custom ring that gave me a +6 against mind-influencing effects. That helped alot in conjunction with Iron Will. I also picked up Willing Deformity for a +2 intimidate, and Willing Deformity: Eye, so I could see invisible at the cost of -2 spot and search. That way I could make creatures shaken so that the sorcerer or the bard could make them panicked. But yeah, around level 11-12 I started losing some steam really. Although I became nigh indestructible in my +3 Dwarven Plate of Etherealness and with my +4 Lion's Shield. Fortunately I could position myself to take more blows than anyone else in the party and come out kicking and hollaring. Ironically, I nearly died at level 2 (the fighter king level) because of a lucky double crit with a great club. I know you are. I don't care if you are awesome or not. The fighter in this case, obviously wasn't. As for what you were doing with the improved overrun, that was illegal. You are not allowed to make even a 5 foot move between cleaves, even when overrunning. Ideally, you should have taken supreme cleave and did it that way. I'm not sure, but I think supreme cleave may require you actually causing the damage. I'm opposed to the custom ring they gave you that you claim helps the fighter. A +6 bonus to will saves is what it really comes out to. And if you did not have that, what protects you from dominate? Nothing much. Casters funnily enough have a harder time keeping you at bay without killing you, which hinders the party. So from what I've seen you had fun, which is great. However, you did so using an illegal use of an ability, as well as a custom item. These two things stood out as crucial to your survival and contributions as a fighter. Does that not speak loudly about what they are like?
Johnathan_Vagabond 01-29-07, 11:24 AM	The fighter won't last any longer unless somebody heals him. Come on man, neither will anyone else thats not a cleric, bard, or druid. Everyone gets hit. Maybe if you take Iron Will, have high WIS, and are a dwarf. Otherwise, a simple color spray can easily ruin your day. If you reread my post I had Iron Will, and I was a dwarf. I didn't mention my Wis, which was 10. But being completely blunt, after level 6, color spray didn't matter. Bestow curse, now that could have boned me. Inflict spells would have been bad if I didn't have a silly amount of hp, same for harm. It would take a 20th level cleric to down me. Now figments screwed with me alot. I remember at least 2 times I completely fell for a Minor or higher image and worked against the party's best interest. But what fun is a PC that can't be beaten. "You see a great wyrm red dragon before you." "Sigh. How long is this going to take?"
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 11:27 AM	(shrug) Sure. D&D is a team sport. That's one of the points I'm trying to make here - evaluating a class as "strong" or "weak" in isolation, without considering her impact on the party's success as a whole, is sophistry. And it's a whole lot easier to heal up the fighter than to get that 9th level spell back, after all... OK teammate. What are you going to give me? What are you giving the cleric? Please note my wizard in this case does not need a blocker. AC 45 and HP 152 at level 16. I also don't need you for positioning. The most a fighter can grant me is a +2 flanking bonus. Same goes for my cleric. Team sports need to be reciprocal. I give, you give. Otherwise, we have some mook chugging down my resources with no real sense of teamwork other than gimme gimme gimme.
Kintara 01-29-07, 11:52 AM	OK teammate. What are you going to give me? What are you giving the cleric? Please note my wizard in this case does not need a blocker. AC 45 and HP 152 at level 16. I also don't need you for positioning. The most a fighter can grant me is a +2 flanking bonus. Same goes for my cleric. Team sports need to be reciprocal. I give, you give. Otherwise, we have some mook chugging down my resources with no real sense of teamwork other than gimme gimme gimme.Yes, the Cleric and the Wizard are awesome. You can say that every single time and it'll never lose its trueness. But if you look at all the other classes in the same boat as the Fighter, then you'll see that that's just how things work at high levels. The 16th level Wizard has a boatload of power. Hell, a group of four Druids can do away with even the Wizards and be plenty bad ass. At any rate, I still think you're overstating the case. The Fighter (/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian, and even the Rogue) may not be polymorphing or casting Time Stop, but I think there's a tactical place for him if you try to take advantage of the resources you're given. And if it really bothers you that he's draining a couple of cure spells off of the team, you can make the Fighter buy wands of CLW for the Cleric.
Jo_Pistachio 01-29-07, 12:33 PM	Yes, the Cleric and the Wizard are awesome. You can say that every single time and it'll never lose its trueness. But if you look at all the other classes in the same boat as the Fighter, then you'll see that that's just how things work at high levels. The 16th level Wizard has a boatload of power. Hell, a group of four Druids can do away with even the Wizards and be plenty bad ass. At any rate, I still think you're overstating the case. The Fighter (/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian, and even the Rogue) may not be polymorphing or casting Time Stop, but I think there's a tactical place for him if you try to take advantage of the resources you're given. And if it really bothers you that he's draining a couple of cure spells off of the team, you can make the Fighter buy wands of CLW for the Cleric. Rangers who can do about the same as the fighter in combat, but can also heal. Same with the paladin. These two can contribute plenty. Rangers and barbarians can also do the nature stuff that most others suck at, and the paladin makes a very good face. The rogue is just different. He's the one that can deal with traps and so forth. He seems like he's not helping anyone but himself, and he's not. He just happens to be able to do what no other classes can do. The fighter? He fights. And he's not even scary at it. It is no overstatement to say that a fighter can do very little to make other party memebers better. At best he can sop up all of everyone elses resources and come out at what everyone like their characters to be at. And it's not even special for fighters. Buff a commoner enough and he can still be fairly fomidable. Not as good as the fighter of course, but anyone buffed to the nine hells will be good.
the_narrator 01-29-07, 12:54 PM	Untrue. There is no class that can combine the feats in the same quantity that the fighter can. While other classes may be able to mimic some of the combinations, there is no class that can do them all. Notice that I never mentioned that they would be the heaviest hitters in the group. I said they were all about the combat options. Their role doesn't seem suited to being the heaviest hitters. With the addition of the Tactical feats, Style feats, and interesting new feats that are put out consistently, fighters are far from being limited to tripping, sundering, and disarming. And not a single thing mentioned falls under the role of the fighter. So he should not be able to compare to any of them in their roles. And if I am having fun, then it can't suck. There are very few things that suck and are worth experiencing daily. I have yet to be in a group where my fighter was not fun to play. Because whether a class sucks or not is 100% opinion based, there is not going to be any way to prove that it does suck. So long as people have fun playing the class, it will never suck for everyone. Note that I am not saying that the fighter couldn't be improved. I would like to see 2 more skill points per level and 1 or 2 more class skills on the list. Personally, I don't think these little issues are enough to classify the class as sucking. I never said anything about feats. I'm saying anything a Fighter -does-, someone else can do better. Melee damage? Rogues, Barbarians, and of course all manner of spellcaster, and even the oft-maligned Ranger. Meat shield/ caster protection? What's better, a 20th level fighter or a Gated Solar, which is like a Fighter, but also a Cleric. Crowd control? Sleep, Mind Control, Charm, take your pick. The Fighter *can* excel in but two categories above everyone else: Archery and Battlefield Control. But wait, Archery is just ranged damage. Arcane casters still trump the fighter there. So that leaves battlefield control. Tripping, sundering, and disarming work great, spectacularly, even against almost all lower and mid-level normal enemies. But when things have, say, natural attacks, multiple legs, or are just plain untrippable (I might add that these conditions often all apply to one creature), then you're just another guy with a sword.
TheCobra 01-29-07, 01:08 PM	Come on man, neither will anyone else thats not a cleric, bard, or druid. Everyone gets hit. Fighters tend to get hit more. Wizards and such can often avoid taking damage, and can heal themselves just fine at higher levels. Paladins can also heal themselves. If you reread my post I had Iron Will, and I was a dwarf. Well, those two things certainly help.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 01:28 PM	Ah another Fighter thread. Might as well throw these out then. Fighter Myths 1) The Fighter is a Versatile Character. The fighter is actually one of the least versatile characters in the game. A level 10 fighter has 9 feats that never change. Ever. No matter how useless they are in a situation or how long a fighter has to prepare. A lot of people complain that the wizards and clerics portrayed always have the best spell available for a situation, but at least that is theoretically possible for them. When the wizard learns the next adventure is in the Ice Palace he replaces his cone of cold. With a fighter, when you learn that Improved Disarm is going to be useless for the next fight there is nothing you can do except cry. 2) The Fighter can fight all the time while casters are limited. The fighter has one resource that fights decrease. HP. When it’s out he can’t fight. Now, on average the fighter has 2 more hp per level then the cleric. But the fighter has no way to personally recover that HP. So unless the cleric is decreasing his personal resources, the fighter approaches uselessness (dead) at around the same point as the cleric approaches nap time. (Note 1: This actually is unfair for the cleric, as it is likely an unhealed fighter will die long before the cleric who saved healing spells runs out of firepower.) (Note 2: Other non casting classes have skills that are usable all the time. Even the Barbarian gets Uncanny Dodge and Trap Avoidance which while not great is better then nothing.) 3) The Fighter isn’t weaker if you play smart. Hardly. Perhaps, if you play smarter then everyone else at the table, but the fact that you can optimize or strategize better then everyone else at the table just makes you a better player then your peers. It does not vindicate the fighter. If two characters are played by equally intelligent people, the fighter will be left behind; because the fighter has worse skills then everyone (including Farmer Bob) and their “class features” are limited entirely to combat. Children raised by wolves miles from civilization have more out of combat potential then a fighter. BTW: I loved that Fighter that was trying to be a Barbarian posted earlier. “If you burn all but 2 of your bonus feats you’re almost as strong as a barbarian in combat! As long as you’re wielding a specific weapon that you can never change.” I’m not impressed. Try the charge builds, they do better. It still doesn’t justify the overall class weakness, but it doesn’t look quite as bad until you realize that the Fighter sacrificed all of the Barbarians out of combat abilities for an extra 40 or so damage at level 20.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 02:24 PM	I happen to think a 25 point buy is too weak for any character. I prefer dice rolling myself. Since abilty score creation methods varies from game to game, that there is a game play circumstance that will affect fighters, let alone every class. By the same token, any character with no ability score below 15 is also going to be quite strong. Anyway, there are ways for the fighter to increase his damage. Power Attack is the obvious. There's also Weapon Specialization. With only 25 points, he will suffer MAD and probably can't do Power Attack trees and Combat Expertise trees, but not eveyr campaign is 25 point buy. Some might be 32. Others might be dice rolling. The potential is there to do both trees. Archery is also viable. Sure, a nice Dex would be optimal, but even a 25 point buy can afford a 10 DX to avoid a penalty. Get a composite bow to add strength damage. The Mounted Combat tree is still viable. Spirited Charge synergizes well with Power Attack and will be able to put the hurt into undead and constructs where the rogue cannot. Not to sound like a cop out, but fighters aren't the only ones with a poor will save to be vulnerable against domination. Wizards best be careful against the fortitude save or die spells, themselves. Still, if it is problem for a particular fighter, the player can always take Iron Will as a character feat. No kidding it's no Mind Blank, but it's there. This is also where proper equipment can come in. Of course there's no guarantee, but cloaks and rings of resistance are common as far as magic items go, and the cleric or druid doesn't have a monopoly on Wisdom boosting items. As for feats needing something else, Power Attack at 20th level allows for +40 damage. No, it's no Meteor Swarm; it's no Horrid Wilting, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. A fighter's 4 attacks makes that +160 damage. That's not bad for a feat that can be taken at 1st level which is a prerequisite for all sorts of others tactics. Of course, a -20 to hit will be tough to make a hit. It would take someone who planned on that one particular tactic in trying to find ways to boost his overall to hit modifier. Can a fighter do that as a straight 20th level fighter given only his feats and equipment? I don't know. Would he need a buff from a spellcaster? Probably, but I'd say that would be a nice tactic for a spellcaster to do. He'll cast his other powerful "I win" spells all he wants, but even bad guys make saving throws and have spell resistance such that his spellcasting is also not a guarantee. Party member team work, what a concept. That's another thing. Some people deride the fighter for "needing" help from a spellcaster to do his thing. That's not a bug; that's a feature of being in a party. When my cleric last campaign had Augment Summoning and summoned creatures, I always said that every attack against one of my summoned creatures is one less attack against the party. Every attack against the buffed fighter is one less attack against the spellcaster who buffed him. It is a symbiotic relationship. The fighter knows he's going to get pummeled. It's his job. Summoning creatures is good for spellcasters, but it's possible that buffing the fighter will do a better job than that summoned creature or some other spell. Not every time. Not you must do it or else you're a bad a party member. It's synergizing. It's tactics. 25pb might be weak, but it is what the games internal balance was built on. It also works well for the purposes of standard comparison because it lets us show how a design works without huge inequities in the stats. And yeah, the wizard has to fear fort based save or dies, but those aren't until mid to high levels anyhow, and by that point they have dozens of potent spells themselves. However, sleep and color spray might as well be save or die spells at level 1. Also, while the ranger, barbarian, and paladin also have lower will saves they have compensations. The ranger needs a decent wisdom to use their spells, a paladin is the same way and also gets their charisma bonus, and the barbarian gets a bonus to their will save while they are in a rage. The question that I have is this, is a party better off with a fighter, or with a barbarian? Assuming 25pb, which is going to be more of a benefit to the group as a whole? Or, let's try again, would another cleric be better, a druid?
Clawhound 01-29-07, 02:36 PM	The question that I have is this, is a party better off with a fighter, or with a barbarian? Assuming 25pb, which is going to be more of a benefit to the group as a whole? Or, let's try again, would another cleric be better, a druid? Let's pick an "optimal" party. How many times can the group play with the exact same optimal party before the game gets stale? If no one wants to play yet-another optimal party, is that party optimal? Some classes will always be better optimal picks, but sooner or later, those classes will cease being desirable to one or more players. The game has lots and lots of classes. I think we are all poorer if we limit ourselves to those few classes that get rated as "best".
Archangel62 01-29-07, 02:38 PM	Let's pick an "optimal" party. How many times can the group play with the exact same optimal party before the game gets stale? If no one wants to play yet-another optimal party, is that party optimal? Some classes will always be better optimal picks, but sooner or later, those classes will cease being desirable to one or more players. The game has lots and lots of classes. I think we are all poorer if we limit ourselves to those few classes that get rated as "best". I'm just asking from the standpoint of survivability and what the character would bring to the group, and I'm trying to remain core in this. In many other arguments the pro-fighters went outside of core constantly but screamed bloody murder if the pro-logic crowd did the same.
Seerow 01-29-07, 02:42 PM	Let's pick an "optimal" party. How many times can the group play with the exact same optimal party before the game gets stale? If no one wants to play yet-another optimal party, is that party optimal? Sure. There's THOUSANDS of character combinations. Many of them provide beneficial things that are unique and powerful. There are many different ways to be "optimal". So long as the group in question has creative players with new concepts, they can always come up with a new concept to optimize, which will give them a new experience compared to the last time. Though really, I don't see how that argument could even be an argument for the Fighter, because playing a straight Fighter gets stale after a session or two, let alone a whole campaign. I can understand a game with nothing but Pun-Puns would be boring, but there's a difference between everyone playing the most powerful thing ever, and playing something that can contribute on his own. To the person who asked me if I meant per day or per gaming session, I meant per day in the campaign world. ie 4 encounters before your characters have a chance to rest and refresh their abilities. Whether that takes a day, a week, or a month in real time to get through.
magmer2 01-29-07, 02:52 PM	He has a +5 vorpal sword Is +5 vorpal sword short hand for +1 shocking, sonic, magebane, holy, impacting, corrosive that had a cleric cast GMW on it now days?
Kresalak 01-29-07, 03:03 PM	Yes, the Cleric and the Wizard are awesome. You can say that every single time and it'll never lose its trueness. But if you look at all the other classes in the same boat as the Fighter, then you'll see that that's just how things work at high levels. The 16th level Wizard has a boatload of power. Hell, a group of four Druids can do away with even the Wizards and be plenty bad ass. At any rate, I still think you're overstating the case. The Fighter (/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian, and even the Rogue) may not be polymorphing or casting Time Stop, but I think there's a tactical place for him if you try to take advantage of the resources you're given. And if it really bothers you that he's draining a couple of cure spells off of the team, you can make the Fighter buy wands of CLW for the Cleric. Full spellcasters can do crazy ****. A Rogue can UMD a Wand of Grave/Golemstrike* and throw a barrage of acid vials with TWF and do 66d6 with 6 touch attacks. A Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger can suck at everything and never compete. *The Rogue could also UMD a Staff of Holy Word with a jacked up check and straight out kill everything, but that's not fun and people don't usually play like that.
magmer2 01-29-07, 03:04 PM	2) But the fighter has no way to personally recover that HP. There is a feat in the Fiendish codex that can basically gives fast healing (2d6+level)/2, also with Tome of battle the fighter (or anybody) can just start up faux encounters and heal 3+level.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 03:12 PM	There is a feat in the Fiendish codex that can basically gives fast healing (2d6+level)/2, also with Tome of battle the fighter (or anybody) can just start up faux encounters and heal 3+level. You have to admit, starting fake fights for HP gain is gaming the system pretty bad. It's like stabilizing someone by putting their head in a bucket of water and having them deliberatly fail the fort save to go to -1. I don't have the Fiendish codex so that might actually make the cut. How does the feat read?
Archangel62 01-29-07, 03:26 PM	There is a feat in the Fiendish codex that can basically gives fast healing (2d6+level)/2, also with Tome of battle the fighter (or anybody) can just start up faux encounters and heal 3+level. You could also use the combat form feats and keep sparring, but as mentioned that is a bit cheap. However, that might point something else out too, needing to be that cheap in order to make the fighter effective and long lasting.
magmer2 01-29-07, 03:37 PM	To an earlier comment that the fighter is matching the barbarian in damage, incorrect. The earlier assumption of equal damange with max rage only works assuming the barbarian is using a weapon one handed, assuming minimally optimal tactics the barbarian will use a 2 handed weapon and will end up with a much higher boost to damage, a better boost to hit, and be more effective overall. The fighter has +4/+6 and +5 to one attack in the round, the barbarian will have +5/+6 at level 20, and weapons under 100k of the kind that the fighter wants should be easily attainable through shops.
magmer2 01-29-07, 03:41 PM	You have to admit, starting fake fights for HP gain is gaming the system pretty bad. It's like stabilizing someone by putting their head in a bucket of water and having them deliberatly fail the fort save to go to -1. I don't have the Fiendish codex so that might actually make the cut. How does the feat read? From memory You pop pimples to heal 2d6+level as a swift action, you have pimples equal to your con+3 and they grow back in a minute. They can also do other stuff, but I don't recall them.
magmer2 01-29-07, 03:43 PM	You could also use the combat form feats and keep sparring, but as mentioned that is a bit cheap. However, that might point something else out too, needing to be that cheap in order to make the fighter effective and long lasting. I think the fighter is about on par to a cleric thats being played one level below how the fighter is. Doing the spar/heal would be like the wizard using gate to get 3 scrolls of gate.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 03:53 PM	From memory You pop pimples to heal 2d6+level as a swift action, you have pimples equal to your con+3 and they grow back in a minute. They can also do other stuff, but I don't recall them. Oh that thing, I recall a thread on that. Yeah.... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that feat probably should never have seen print. Weren't some of the other benifits it had even more atrociously worng? And of course it probably requires you be evil.
Cael 01-29-07, 04:33 PM	I seriously do not see how people keep saying that the level 1 Wizard/Sorcerer will die horribly all the time. I have yet to see a Wizard/Sorcerer die at low levels. In fact, in three games that I have played, the first to go down was (in order) the Ranger, the Rogue, the Cleric, another Cleric, and the Monk. Meanwhile, the Wizards and Sorcerers cleaned house with the simple Sleep spell. As default, my low level Wizards and Sorcerers carry around a Scythe for CdG purposes. A level 1 Wizards/Sorcerer tricked out for Enchantment kills will have (using the elite array), a save DC of 15. Best case scenario would be a Elf Fighter, because they are immune to Sleep (that is when Colour spray comes in handy). The average Fighter, though, will have a Will save of +0 (Wis 10, starting 0). That is a 70% chance of autokill, and Sleep has a 110ft range. Other than that, the simple Grease is a great Fighter stopper, what with the armour check penalty they have, and the combination of low skill points and Balance not being on their class skill list. At higher levels, you are looking at a 1 round-kill on any Fighter by a Wizard. At level 11, you are talking about a Feeblemind (Will save) + Quickened Ray of Stupidity kill. Feeblemind, being an Enchantment (I think) segues neatly with the Sleep-kill Wizard. The base DC for that will be 21. More if the Wizard get a hold of items. At higher levels, Polymorph Any Other, Gate, Time Stop and Prismatic Spray comes into play, and the Fighter is toast. If you'll pardon my French, at all levels, the Fighter is the Wizard/Sorcerer's female canine.
krossbow 01-29-07, 04:35 PM	Personally, I don't think we need to fix the fighter-- warblade did that already.
navar100 01-29-07, 04:57 PM	Getting back to the original question: fighters lose steam when the player asks, "Where to from here?" This is generally the point where the player has all the feats that he needs to make the fighter work for that particular build. That doesn't mean that the fighter stops being useful. Fighters only stop being useful when the party stops cooperating. Parties have kept fighters useful all the way to 20th level and found them valuable. Part of a fighter's usefulness depends to the difficulty of your game. A fighter in an "average" game does well. A fighter in a "challenging" game has problems. This has to do with the dynamics of power escalation among the classes. Part of measuring a fighter also depends on your attitude towards equipment. Good game theory says that you shouldn't need equipment to balance your character. Game fact is that that is exactly what the designers did. A fighter with "proper equipment" is capable of engaging level-appropriate encounters. At the end of the day, no matter how good or bad any class is, it's the PLAYER who chooses the class, not this board. Your party is what it is. Now it's up to the party to succeed. "Good answer" - Family Feud contestant
navar100 01-29-07, 04:58 PM	The Fighter is awesome. I'll even list all his neat abilities. DMs arbitrarily favor them Closet trolls don't exist Gets a Major Artifact at level 10 Spellcasters stupid enough to use direct damage Fellow party members have feeble (at best) grasp of tactics Can roleplay better than everyone else (read the rules, only Fighters are allowed to be good roleplayers) Supported by fanatics with hordes of anecdotal evidence Survey says -- X "buzz"
Seerow 01-29-07, 05:02 PM	No, I'd say he's right on the money. This thread is bringing all the fanatics with anecdotal evidence, closet trolls, and stupid spellcasters with poor tactics.
navar100 01-29-07, 05:08 PM	This is true at high levels where saves begin to matter. At 1st level it isn't so clear. A common 1st level wizard (INT 15; elite array) casts a colour sray with a DC 13 to save. The Human Fighter with wis 8 saves on a 14+ (35% chance) The Dwarf Cleric with a 15 wisdom saves on a 7+ (60% chance) These are are two extreme cases; what is worth noting is that the worst likely will save (-1) isn't so different from the best (+6). At higher levels this gap widens and so does the difference for will saves. But, by then, the saves problem is no longer the major issue facing the Fighter. [Although, mechnaically, there are only Dwarf Fighters unless you don't plan to wear heavy armor because I can't see any reason to pick any other race with standard point buy (25 or 28) or the elite array]. Not everyone plays point buy, let alone nothing higher than 28! What is so different from a dwarf fighter who bumped a natural 14 to a 16 than a human fighter who naturally got the 16? If hit points matter so much to a player that you need a dwarf for the +2 CO, a human fighter can use his bonus feat for being a human for Improved Toughness and get the same thing. Since a dwarf and a human in heavy armor move 20', the dwarf has no speed advantages, so the human might as well get his AC as high as possible without feeling bad he's not a dwarf, should a player choose this tactic. Being a dwarf synergizes well for fighters. The 2 CO does help and the -2 CH means diddlysquat. Bonuses to saves is good too. Human also synergizes well with fighter. The bonus feat allows the fighter to start a feat tree three levels earlier. Heck, unlike the paladin, he can have Spirited Charge at 1st level if he wants. The bonus skill point per level is a virtual +2 IN.
Cael 01-29-07, 05:10 PM	No, I'd say he's right on the money. This thread is bringing all the fanatics with anecdotal evidence, closet trolls, and stupid spellcasters with poor tactics. He missed two features: War Cry, and At level 20 Fighter, all the Fighter's hair falls out, his skin darkens, his features change to match that of a certain Sam, Son of Jaque, his Charisma gains a +1000 racial bonus, and he automatically wins the game.
aelryinth 01-29-07, 05:10 PM	Full spellcasters can do crazy ****. A Rogue can UMD a Wand of Grave/Golemstrike* and throw a barrage of acid vials with TWF and do 66d6 with 6 touch attacks. A Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger can suck at everything and never compete. *The Rogue could also UMD a Staff of Holy Word with a jacked up check and straight out kill everything, but that's not fun and people don't usually play like that. Staffificer UMD-style caster level buffing does not work. Even the Diehards on the Char Opt boards concede the fact. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-29-07, 05:11 PM	There is a feat in the Fiendish codex that can basically gives fast healing (2d6+level)/2, also with Tome of battle the fighter (or anybody) can just start up faux encounters and heal 3+level. Riiiight. In other words, the fighter has to cheat and bend the rules to be effective. That's not a good argument for the class. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-29-07, 05:13 PM	Oh that thing, I recall a thread on that. Yeah.... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that feat probably should never have seen print. Weren't some of the other benifits it had even more atrociously worng? And of course it probably requires you be evil. Well, you just need to be a devil sworn to the service of Glasya, so I'm assuming any fighter can take it. ===Aelryinth
navar100 01-29-07, 05:18 PM	OK teammate. What are you going to give me? What are you giving the cleric? Please note my wizard in this case does not need a blocker. AC 45 and HP 152 at level 16. I also don't need you for positioning. The most a fighter can grant me is a +2 flanking bonus. Same goes for my cleric. Team sports need to be reciprocal. I give, you give. Otherwise, we have some mook chugging down my resources with no real sense of teamwork other than gimme gimme gimme. Fighter: I'll take first watch DM: Okay, it's first watch. Everyone is asleep. You hear a noise. Fighter: Cool. First, I coup de gras the wizard. I use full Power Attack just to be sure. Can I cleave into the cleric as well? Eh, wishful thinking out loud. Doesn't matter, just the wizard will do. If anyone asks, I'll say I heard a noise and something got the wizard before I could get to it. I only have a 20ft move after all. Naturally, the rogue and bard will see through my bluff, what with me having no ranks in it, an 8 Charisma, and pitiful skill points. No matter. Frank, love your game, but I prefer to play with people who want me around. Bye.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 05:19 PM	The fighter has +4/+6 and +5 to one attack in the round, the barbarian will have +5/+6 at level 20, and weapons under 100k of the kind that the fighter wants should be easily attainable through shops. Actually the damage bonus will be higher, I have yet to see a barbarian that did not use a 2 handed weapon.
Seerow 01-29-07, 05:21 PM	Fighter: I'll take first watch DM: Okay, it's first watch. Everyone is asleep. You hear a noise. Fighter: Cool. First, I coup de gras the wizard. I use full Power Attack just to be sure. Can I cleave into the cleric as well? Eh, wishful thinking out loud. Doesn't matter, just the wizard will do. If anyone asks, I'll say I heard a noise and something got the wizard before I could get to it. I only have a 20ft move after all. Naturally, the rogue and bard will see through my bluff, what with me having no ranks in it, an 8 Charisma, and pitiful skill points. No matter. Frank, love your game, but I prefer to play with people who want me around. Bye. Is this supposed to be a pro-fighter argument? Because you really highlighted a lot of problems people have with the Fighter in your example. Seriously, when someone asks what you can contribute to the party, and your answer is "I won't kill you in your sleep while I'm playing the part of the Guard (which I suck at cause I have no skill points and listen/spot are crossclass)" it's not earning you any points. At all.
Seerow 01-29-07, 05:25 PM	Actually the damage bonus will be higher, I have yet to see a barbarian that did not use a 2 handed weapon. That +5/+6 assumes a 2handed weapon. And that he has weapon focus in that weapon, which I disagree with (discussed below) And really, sadly, with the PHB2, the Fighter is better at hitting and damaging things than the Barbarian. They really end up in opposite roles of what people expect. The Barbarian ends up with the same AC (give or take 2), better HP, and Damage Reduction. The Fighter Ends up with a better attack sequence (+24/+24/take-10 +14/+9 compared to +24/+19/+14/+9) which lets him hit more often, then he has the same bonus to damage. The Barbarian ends up with the ability to use any weapon he wants, which makes him more versatile than the Fighter, letting him switch from a Greatsword, to a Glaive, to a Bow, without losing much of his power. This is counterintuitive, because most expect the Fighter to be the versatile combatant who can use many different styles of fighting.
navar100 01-29-07, 05:31 PM	25pb might be weak, but it is what the games internal balance was built on. It also works well for the purposes of standard comparison because it lets us show how a design works without huge inequities in the stats. And yeah, the wizard has to fear fort based save or dies, but those aren't until mid to high levels anyhow, and by that point they have dozens of potent spells themselves. However, sleep and color spray might as well be save or die spells at level 1. Also, while the ranger, barbarian, and paladin also have lower will saves they have compensations. The ranger needs a decent wisdom to use their spells, a paladin is the same way and also gets their charisma bonus, and the barbarian gets a bonus to their will save while they are in a rage. The question that I have is this, is a party better off with a fighter, or with a barbarian? Assuming 25pb, which is going to be more of a benefit to the group as a whole? Or, let's try again, would another cleric be better, a druid? All I really care about is that we have a tank, spellcaster, skill-monkey, and remove-afflictions. If the tank is a barbarian, wonderful. If the tank is a wild shaped druid, wonderful. If the tank is a paladin, wonderful. If the tank is a fighter, wonderful. If the tank can only ever be a tank, thus never in a million years can he also be a spellcaster, skill-monkey, or remove-afflictions, I just don't give a darn. If I'm not the tank, I want him to be the best tank he can be with whatever it is he can do. If I can give him a hand in that with whatever it is I do, I will do so. If I am the tank, I will do whatever I can with I can do to be the best tank I can possibly be. If other party members are able to help me, I would want them to.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 05:33 PM	Fighter: I'll take first watch DM: Okay, it's first watch. Everyone is asleep. You hear a noise. Fighter: Cool. First, I coup de gras the wizard. I use full Power Attack just to be sure. Can I cleave into the cleric as well? Eh, wishful thinking out loud. Doesn't matter, just the wizard will do. If anyone asks, I'll say I heard a noise and something got the wizard before I could get to it. I only have a 20ft move after all. Naturally, the rogue and bard will see through my bluff, what with me having no ranks in it, an 8 Charisma, and pitiful skill points. No matter. Frank, love your game, but I prefer to play with people who want me around. Bye. So, how did he climb up into the rope trick the wizard set up for himself and the cleric?
Seerow 01-29-07, 05:35 PM	So, how did he climb up into the rope trick the wizard set up for himself and the cleric? I still want to know why the guy with no perception at all is standing guard rather than the Rogue.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 05:39 PM	All I really care about is that we have a tank, spellcaster, skill-monkey, and remove-afflictions. If the tank is a barbarian, wonderful. If the tank is a wild shaped druid, wonderful. If the tank is a paladin, wonderful. If the tank is a fighter, wonderful. If the tank can only ever be a tank, thus never in a million years can he also be a spellcaster, skill-monkey, or remove-afflictions, I just don't give a darn. If I'm not the tank, I want him to be the best tank he can be with whatever it is he can do. If I can give him a hand in that with whatever it is I do, I will do so. If I am the tank, I will do whatever I can with I can do to be the best tank I can possibly be. If other party members are able to help me, I would want them to. You know, if you don't care if a class is underpowered or not why are you arguing in a thread about when a class becomes underpowered? I admit your party dosn't get cancer if they have a Fighter in it. It's just that if they had been more fortunate and had ANY OTHER TANK CLASS instead they would be doing better. And saying 'D&D is a team game' and 'you just need a tank' doesn't change that fact.
navar100 01-29-07, 05:43 PM	Is this supposed to be a pro-fighter argument? Because you really highlighted a lot of problems people have with the Fighter in your example. Seriously, when someone asks what you can contribute to the party, and your answer is "I won't kill you in your sleep while I'm playing the part of the Guard (which I suck at cause I have no skill points and listen/spot are crossclass)" it's not earning you any points. At all. No, it's not a pro-fighter arguement. It's an arguement against demanding the fighter give you something in order to use up your precious spells resources to cast a buff spell on him. I once quit a game for just that reason, and I wasn't even playing a fighter.
Seerow 01-29-07, 05:48 PM	Why is it bad to expect a player to contribute something to a party? If all you're contributing is fighting, you'd better be DAMNED GOOD at it. But the Fighter isn't. Hell, in half the combat you're likely to face, he may find himself useless, or near it, because his primary trick doesn't work. The Fighter needs to be both stronger and more versatile than ANYBODY ELSE to be worth anything if he's not able to contribute anything to the rest of the party beyond his tanking ability.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 05:49 PM	No, it's not a pro-fighter arguement. It's an arguement against demanding the fighter give you something in order to use up your precious spells resources to cast a buff spell on him. I once quit a game for just that reason, and I wasn't even playing a fighter. Cleric - "Hey Steve. You know how you keep asking me to cast greater magic weapon on your sword every day? I was wondering if you could pick up a pearl of power for me so I can do that and still prepare spells for myself." Fighter - "Hey it's your job to buff me whenever I want! You'll do what I say or I'll kill you in your sleep!" Yeah. Real team player there. Edit: Once again, if the Rogue doesn't need help to skill monkey, the Cleric doesn't need help to heal, and the Wizard doesn't need help to do everything else, WHY does the fighter need help to tank?
Coffee_Dragon 01-29-07, 05:51 PM	He missed two features: War Cry In case a war breaks out, the fighter has the ability to stand and cry while the others march off to deal with it?
Khael 01-29-07, 05:53 PM	No, it's not a pro-fighter arguement. It's an arguement against demanding the fighter give you something in order to use up your precious spells resources to cast a buff spell on him. I once quit a game for just that reason, and I wasn't even playing a fighter. Actually give the caster something for healing? You were right on I reckon there. Charging a character should always be done after the battle. Making sure to have a spell ready of course first. But that still fails to cover up the fact the fighter doesn't give the party anything after the first few levels as blocker... which messes up the D&D is cooperative argument to support the fighter specifically. And 'I stopped your butt getting killed off seven levels back' is not a cooperative response, when you need: Buffing, healin, support etc. for somethnig the cleric and druid could do to themselves for equal if not better effect. And they can unleash the freaking wrath of a god.
RadicalTaoist 01-29-07, 05:54 PM	The Fighter needs to be both stronger and more versatile than ANYBODY ELSE to be worth anything if he's not able to contribute anything to the rest of the party beyond his tanking ability. Not necessarily, he just needs to be strong and versatile enough to deal with at least the majority of the challenges before him in a way that doesn't waste party resources. (I've been arguing that without 20 splatbooks he can't even do that.)
Seerow 01-29-07, 06:00 PM	In case a war breaks out, the fighter has the ability to stand and cry while the others march off to deal with it? :rofl: Not necessarily, he just needs to be strong and versatile enough to deal with at least the majority of the challenges before him in a way that doesn't waste party resources. Well, I was thinking along the lines of my Fighter, where he gains versatility from combat styles, and power from stances and Height of Battle. He becomes powerful enough to deal with a variety of challenges without having to turn to the Cleric for help.
Irving 01-29-07, 06:21 PM	OK teammate. What are you going to give me? What are you giving the cleric? Please note my wizard in this case does not need a blocker. AC 45 and HP 152 at level 16. I also don't need you for positioning. The most a fighter can grant me is a +2 flanking bonus. Same goes for my cleric. Team sports need to be reciprocal. I give, you give. Otherwise, we have some mook chugging down my resources with no real sense of teamwork other than gimme gimme gimme. First off - math please? Second: I'm not giving you, the cleric, anything. I'm helping the whole party by: - Keeping the enemy off the casters by taking multiple attacks of opportunity - Providing the flank bonus to the rogue, who does need it, instead of you. - Grappling the enemy spell caster before he fries you (unlike you, I've got a high enough attack bonus to do this successfully). - Disarming, tripping, and sundering the major opponent to keep him suboptimal while you take some swings. All right, maybe I will help you. If your attitude improves. For mercy's sake, folks. You need linebackers and quarterbacks to play the game. Quid pro quo is not how teamwork works. You help somebody becuase it makes everyone succeed, not becuase they've helped you. Grow up, already.
Cael 01-29-07, 06:26 PM	In case a war breaks out, the fighter has the ability to stand and cry while the others march off to deal with it? :rofl:! No. War Cry - The Fighter can as a free action, yell out a profanity laden scream. Every swear word used will increase the Fighters to-hit and damage bonuses by 1 up to a maximum of half his Fighter level (rounded up). Each swear word within a single war cry cannot be repeated. Multiply these bonuses by 2 if any of the following words are used: mother-ing, mother-er, axe, face. If all three are used, multiply the bonuses by 6x ("I am going to hit you in the mother-ing face with the mother-ing axe, mother-er!" is very effective in this regard). Note that those four swear words may be repeated, but the phrase must make sense.
Seerow 01-29-07, 06:29 PM	First off - math please? Second: I'm not giving you, the cleric, anything. I'm helping the whole party by: - Keeping the enemy off the casters by taking multiple attacks of opportunity - Providing the flank bonus to the rogue, who does need it, instead of you. - Grappling the enemy spell caster before he fries you (unlike you, I've got a high enough attack bonus to do this successfully). - Disarming, tripping, and sundering the major opponent to keep him suboptimal while you take some swings. All right, maybe I will help you. If your attitude improves. For mercy's sake, folks. You need linebackers and quarterbacks to play the game. Quid pro quo is not how teamwork works. You help somebody becuase it makes everyone succeed, not becuase they've helped you. Grow up, already. 1) Because at high levels the enemies AREN'T just teleporting around you, or flying over you. Face it, at this point casters are doing more battlefield control than you could ever hope to do simply by casting Dimensional Anchor/Lock. 2) The Rogue has some form of invisibility/blink at all times by now. He doesn't need your flanking anymore, unless the enemy has True Sight or similar. 3) And the caster didn't have a ring of freedom of movement, or even had it cast (it's a long duration buff) when you grappled him? He deserved to get killed. 4) Disarming? Sure, if you're fighting humanoids, you can do this. If you blow one of your 11 class features, you can even be good at it! Tripping? Against humanoids, sure. Against any monster you're likely to face at this level? Good luck. Have you seen the bonuses those huge+ creatures get against being tripped? Sundering? Thanks you *******, you just destroyed my treasure. You are right that you need teamwork, and a tank does have its place in the party. The primary problem is, the primary melee combatants DON'T FILL THE ROLE OF TANK APTLY AT HIGH LEVELS. Any Divine Caster, Gish, Martial Adept, etc, fills the role BETTER THAN YOU DO past level 10 or so.
Cael 01-29-07, 06:29 PM	First off - math please? Second: I'm not giving you, the cleric, anything. I'm helping the whole party by: - Keeping the enemy off the casters by taking multiple attacks of opportunity - Providing the flank bonus to the rogue, who does need it, instead of you. - Grappling the enemy spell caster before he fries you (unlike you, I've got a high enough attack bonus to do this successfully). - Disarming, tripping, and sundering the major opponent to keep him suboptimal while you take some swings. All right, maybe I will help you. If your attitude improves. For mercy's sake, folks. You need linebackers and quarterbacks to play the game. Quid pro quo is not how teamwork works. You help somebody becuase it makes everyone succeed, not becuase they've helped you. Grow up, already. A Cleric or Druid tricked out to do the same is as effective, and still bring other benefits to the party. Thus, the Fighter is not neccessary for any of the above.
Cael 01-29-07, 06:33 PM	a good idea except as I found out by posting on several other fighter threads is that most of the people here are power gamers and many I have seen on the CO boards, they all claim that they look at the fighter as they that he theoretically sucks, but as soon as you mention role playing (perhaps the foundation of D&D) they start to go like retarded kids who think they just got cheated. Trying to talk with them is useless, and will not change anything, many of them are stuck up casters-lovers who are arrogant to hell and almost all of their characters would be banned by a sensible DM. And if they seen anything that even seems to come close to their mighty cleric they freak out and start a f@*king nerf fest. Example thread I once saw: Power Attack, is it over powered? it's f@*king power attack!! Yes. And it is the core of many high damage Fighter builds. Now, someone once said of DM: Persistent that if it was the core of so many builds, it should be nerfed. However, now that we turn it back on the anti-casters, we get a scream of dismay? Fair is fair, folks. You try this crap on the casters, you should be mature enough to take it back in return. If you don't like it, stop trying this crap. It is that simple.
Belgian Waffle 01-29-07, 06:48 PM	a good idea except as I found out by posting on several other fighter threads is that most of the people here are power gamers and many I have seen on the CO boards, they all claim that they look at the fighter as they that he theoretically sucks, but as soon as you mention role playing (perhaps the foundation of D&D) they start to go like retarded kids who think they just got cheated. Trying to talk with them is useless, and will not change anything, many of them are stuck up casters-lovers who are arrogant to hell and almost all of their characters would be banned by a sensible DM. And if they seen anything that even seems to come close to their mighty cleric they freak out and start a f@*king nerf fest. Example thread I once saw: Power Attack, is it over powered? it's f@*king power attack!! and for gods sake please making these threads, they are really repetitive and all of this stuff has been gone over ...hmmm...in the last THOUSAND Fighters Suck threads! I'm not sure who you're insulting here, but I think that most of us in the Buff Fighter group would also enjoy the Cleric getting nerfed as well. Hell, I can turn this right around on you guys and say that the only reason that you want the fighter to continue sucking is so that the full casters remain in their seat of ultra-super-mega-power. Their Golden Throne of ULTRASUPERMEGA POWER, if you will. Yeah, I can also pull wild assumptions out of my ass too. Let's not go down that road because it is ugly and smells.
theotherdraxen 01-29-07, 06:53 PM	a good idea except as I found out by posting on several other fighter threads is that most of the people here are power gamers and many I have seen on the CO boards Like me? Am I a power gamer? they all claim that they look at the fighter as they that he theoretically sucks Or, maybe we see it in actual play and then get upset about it. Please, don't insult us and pretend that you know our arguments and experiences better than we do. It is both objectively baseless and incredibly condescending. but as soon as you mention role playing (perhaps the foundation of D&D) they start to go like retarded kids who think they just got cheated. What, do you need the backstory on Codos Iberas and a video-taped session in order to see just how hard I RPed that character? I'm damned proud of how well I roleplayed the general, so don't come around here assuming that the whole fighters suck thing is because I don't roleplay. Because, dammit, I do. Trying to talk with them is useless Because we use anectdotal evidence and deny it when logical fallacies are pointed out to us? Like making Sweeping Generalizations? and will not change anything, many of them are stuck up casters-lovers Or, maybe we like melee types, which is why we hate to see our fighter fall behind when he is, according to the designers, the best melee class in the game. who are arrogant to hell and almost all of their characters would be banned by a sensible DM. And if they seen anything that even seems to come close to their mighty cleric they freak out and start a f@*king nerf fest. Like ToB characters? The CO regulars seek to power them down since they can compete with clerics (to an extent)? Example thread I once saw: Power Attack, is it over powered? it's f@*king power attack!! I don't understand this point. and for gods sake please making these threads, they are really repetitive and all of this stuff has been gone over ...hmmm...in the last THOUSAND Fighters Suck threads! And yet, no matter how many times people hammer the facts in, we still get people making baseless claims, committing logical fallacies, and reusing old, refuted and defeated arguments to death. Besides, if you don't like a thread, don't post in it.
levitation 01-29-07, 06:57 PM	Yes. And it is the core of many high damage Fighter builds. Now, someone once said of DM: Persistent that if it was the core of so many builds, it should be nerfed. However, now that we turn it back on the anti-casters, we get a scream of dismay? builds??? blatant power gaming term...admit it... now suppose a new player tries a fighter, whats he gonna take at first level : cleave, he likes the feat, so he goes for greater cleave: requirements-power attack. Power Attack is a pretty common feat requirement, ex: improved bull rush, improved sunder. The player with a brain realizes "hmm, this is a good feat, it could be really usefull in some situations, such as fighting a golem when ac isnt too hard to hit, dm reduction 10 isn't too bad as I can afford to give up a 5 points of bab to hit an ac of 18, 22, 26.(fighter attack +12 average) And my caster is going to be in the corner crying. and as I will agree the fighter in total theory is weak(low skills, one good save, feats aren't that great, no class abilities that are useful), remember that, that is theory, as in your head where nobody cares, in real game play that statement cannot hold, why? to many random variables-like dice (and if you rig your dice, the somebody needs to stab you in face) and how much the dm likes you after your caster ruined the boss battle that he wanted to make elaborate.
levitation 01-29-07, 07:01 PM	I don't understand this point. you actually had some valid claims, but after reading the above part, i just ignored them...seriously ...nerfing power attack...what don't you understand?
Seerow 01-29-07, 07:03 PM	Strawman Arguments left and right. I think I'll let Cael take it for a bit.
Irving 01-29-07, 07:05 PM	[QUOTE=Seerow;11326477]1) Because at high levels the enemies AREN'T just teleporting around you, or flying over you. Face it, at this point casters are doing more battlefield control than you could ever hope to do simply by casting Dimensional Anchor/Lock. 2) The Rogue has some form of invisibility/blink at all times by now. He doesn't need your flanking anymore, unless the enemy has True Sight or similar. 3) And the caster didn't have a ring of freedom of movement, or even had it cast (it's a long duration buff) when you grappled him? He deserved to get killed. 4) Disarming? Sure, if you're fighting humanoids, you can do this. If you blow one of your 11 class features, you can even be good at it! Tripping? Against humanoids, sure. Against any monster you're likely to face at this level? Good luck. Have you seen the bonuses those huge+ creatures get against being tripped? Sundering? Thanks you *******, you just destroyed my treasure. Oh, so we need to bring magic items to the game to even the field? 'Kay. Tell you what. Total up the GP cost of all the items you need to make the fighter irrelevant. Then let's go see if we can find some nice items to the fighter that equal him out. Want to bet what kind of end result you get?
Khael 01-29-07, 07:07 PM	builds??? blatant power gaming term...admit it... now suppose a new player tries a fighter, whats he gonna take at first level : cleave, he likes the feat, so he goes for greater cleave: requirements-power attack. Power Attack is a pretty common feat requirement, ex: improved bull rush, improved sunder. The player with a brain realizes "hmm, this is a good feat, it could be really usefull in some situations, such as fighting a golem when ac isnt too hard to hit, dm reduction 10 isn't too bad as I can afford to give up a 5 points of bab to hit an ac of 18, 22, 26.(fighter attack +12 average) And my caster is going to be in the corner crying. Yes builds... two-handed weapon fighter... The fact everyone can figure out the build themselves now... does this mean every new player is a power gamer cursed to the CO board? And melfs acid arrow. It's neat. So crying was it... and as I will agree the fighter in total theory is weak(low skills, one good save, feats aren't that great, no class abilities that are useful), remember that, that is theory, as in your head where nobody cares, in real game play that statement cannot hold, why? to many random variables-like dice (and if you rig your dice, the somebody needs to stab you in face) and how much the dm likes you after your caster ruined the boss battle that he wanted to make elaborate. Dice are one variable. DM's flavour doesn't count(because if he's that bias he's probably either going to be a player short after, or simply balancing up). But the same can be said for the fighter... Being so reliant on his attack he is more reliant on luck. A wizard now... Can autohit with some spells, or ranged touch, and get a bigger hit in. Which balances out a bit I feel. In other words dice, personal intelligence over the other players and a DM's bias, should not have to be the cure to a classes weaknesses.
Seerow 01-29-07, 07:09 PM	Oh, so we need to bring magic items to the game to even the field? 'Kay. Tell you what. Total up the GP cost of all the items you need to make the fighter irrelevant. Then let's go see if we can find some nice items to the fighter that equal him out. Want to bet what kind of end result you get? No, you miss my point. Most people claim the Fighter uses item X or item Y to shore up his weaknesses. While he's buying these items, other classes are buying items that enhance their abilities, making the gap in power level wider. So it isn't a matter of getting the items that make the fighter irrelevant, it's a matter of totalling up what it takes to make the Fighter overcome his inherent problems, and see what he has left to spend after that. Last time we went through this, pro-fighters had actually listed over a million GP worth of equipment without realizing it.
theotherdraxen 01-29-07, 07:16 PM	builds??? blatant power gaming term Or maybe the path to creating a character concept not normally allowed by the standard classes? It should be noted that fighter 20 is technically a build. ...admit it... now suppose a new player tries a fighter, whats he gonna take at first level : cleave, he likes the feat, so he goes for greater cleave: requirements-power attack. Power Attack is a pretty common feat requirement, ex: improved bull rush, improved sunder. The player with a brain realizes "hmm, this is a good feat, it could be really usefull in some situations, such as fighting a golem when ac isnt too hard to hit, dm reduction 10 isn't too bad as I can afford to give up a 5 points of bab to hit an ac of 18, 22, 26.(fighter attack +12 average) And my caster is going to be in the corner crying. Or using Gate, Polymorph, ect., in order to outdamage him? and as I will agree the fighter in total theory is weak(low skills, one good save, feats aren't that great, no class abilities that are useful), remember that, that is theory, as in your head where nobody cares, in real game play that statement cannot hold, why? to many random variables-like dice (and if you rig your dice, the somebody needs to stab you in face) and how much the dm likes you after your caster ruined the boss battle that he wanted to make elaborate. Okay, but in play, he comes out weak too in many cases. Hence why he was voted the third weakest class. And it's easier to make an unacceptably overpowered caster than it is to make an unacceptably overpowered fighter. Or...maybe I gave an example which was completely counter-intuitive to this point earlier in this thread. you actually had some valid claims, but after reading the above part, i just ignored them...seriously ...nerfing power attack...what don't you understand? What it has to do with this entire debate. What does a thread about nerfing power attack have to do with most of the people here being power gamers? Does this relate to your original thesis in any way? Also, do not commit the Ad Hominem fallacy. If I had valid claims, they remain valid regardless of my ability to understand your example (which really looks like either Red Herring or a Non-Sequitor).
Seerow 01-29-07, 07:19 PM	core-stuff isn't that much of power gaming CoDzilla disagrees.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 07:20 PM	You misunderstand me. I gots nothing agaianst the people on the CO boards. My beef is with the CO board itself. The purpose of it, if it's ever actually used to affect a game, is to give people an unfair edge over other players, and to annoy a probably already overworked DM. There is no positive to the CO boards as I see it. And for the record, people who think the fighter is lousy are looking at the issue not from experience, but from theory. You can tell them what actually happens with a fighter in a game, and how it can properly be played. But they won't believe you because they're looking at the game from an entirely different (and entirely theoretical) perspective that they get from sources like the CO boards rather than from actually playing the game itself. Actually most of us are talking from a play experience. I have seen the fighter almost constantly get overshadowed unless the fighter prestiges and if the DM makes sure that the fighter gets stuff that they need. I have seen stuff from the CO boards, and excepting the thought experiments I have seen some of their builds used in my game, and I have see those builds cause problems for me as a DM, maybe I'm just that good.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 07:25 PM	Actually most of us are talking from a play experience. I have seen the fighter almost constantly get overshadowed unless the fighter prestiges and if the DM makes sure that the fighter gets stuff that they need. I have seen stuff from the CO boards, and excepting the thought experiments I have seen some of their builds used in my game, and I have see those builds cause problems for me as a DM, maybe I'm just that good. Actually I have someone running an almost CO Fighter build in one of my games, and it's actually kept up with the party to level 12. CO is what allows fighters to keep playing long past their normal sell by date. It helps that I'm playing my cleric stupid, our mage took a vow to never use polymorphs or summons and our rogue is the face though.
Seerow 01-29-07, 07:27 PM	Which CO fighter is he using? I know Jack B Quick and the Molester are fairly good. Though the former is only good against certain enemies, and the latter is better done with at least SOME Crusader in there (as most of its power comes from Devoted Spirit maneuvers/stances) And yes, you illustrate wonderfully how the Fighter can be competitive when the rest of the party is voluntarily gimping themselves (or unintentionally sucking as it may be)
ORC_Tuhteth 01-29-07, 07:27 PM	Okay, had to delete a whole subtopic of this thread because it was off-topic and inflammatory. Do not make insulting comments about an entire message board in our community; even if you don't mean those comments to be applied to the patrons that use those boards, you are guaranteed that people are going to take it that way. For the record, it's been my experience that CO builds exist primarily as thought experiments, essentially pushing the boundaries of the rules to see how far they go. I find it to be an interesting read and, more importantly, very useful for anyone who works as a RPG designer, developer, or editor (e.g. me) -- the best way to write good rules is to try to address the normal circumstances in which you expect them to be used and then see what it takes to break them. Sometimes it's as simple as combining X levels of Y with A levels of B, sometimes it's more obscure -- but it's a good thing to think about whether working professionally or just making house rules. (Still, I agree that players should make their own characters, not just borrowed concepts from CO -- the creative process of designing your own character is a big part of what makes the game fun, at least for me and my group. :) )
Khael 01-29-07, 07:29 PM	core-stuff isn't that much of power gaming did I read it correctly apparently the clay golem heals some from acid damage...and the other ones, dont give a f@8k. (wizard shuffles back into the corner crying, not having enough acid arrows prepared) Core not power gaming... CoDzilla as said, metamagically pumping spells to kill everything... And I expect my wizard will have fun... its not hard after all to fly out of reach or similar, or summon something to drop something heavy on that golem... I advise that fighter of yours... sure, the dm is going to be p****d anyways... So... he won't be annoyed if your fighter crits with a greatsword and takes the BBEG out? Because its not hard to get round that without getting angry...
Archangel62 01-29-07, 07:29 PM	builds??? blatant power gaming term...admit it... now suppose a new player tries a fighter, whats he gonna take at first level : cleave, he likes the feat, so he goes for greater cleave: requirements-power attack. Power Attack is a pretty common feat requirement, ex: improved bull rush, improved sunder. The player with a brain realizes "hmm, this is a good feat, it could be really usefull in some situations, such as fighting a golem when ac isnt too hard to hit, dm reduction 10 isn't too bad as I can afford to give up a 5 points of bab to hit an ac of 18, 22, 26.(fighter attack +12 average) And my caster is going to be in the corner crying. and as I will agree the fighter in total theory is weak(low skills, one good save, feats aren't that great, no class abilities that are useful), remember that, that is theory, as in your head where nobody cares, in real game play that statement cannot hold, why? to many random variables-like dice (and if you rig your dice, the somebody needs to stab you in face) and how much the dm likes you after your caster ruined the boss battle that he wanted to make elaborate. What, so thinking ahead is power gaming now, wow, I must be a real power gamer in life because I'm taking classes at my college to help me get a degree in psychology rather than running around taking different courses at random. Power attack isn't that great, it can be the prerequesite for some good feats and is wonderful in the hands of a barbarian, but the fighter can usually find better feats. The point we keep trying to make, and that you can't seem to grasp, is that the fighter fails to work mechanically and we have all pointed to issues in games as well. If the fighter is run against a large and diverse set of opponents, they do have problems. I have yet to see a full fighter simply because there are so many feats out there that are better and more effective for the fighter overall.
Seerow 01-29-07, 07:30 PM	Hear, hear WizO_the_Hutt
Archangel62 01-29-07, 07:34 PM	All I really care about is that we have a tank, spellcaster, skill-monkey, and remove-afflictions. If the tank is a barbarian, wonderful. If the tank is a wild shaped druid, wonderful. If the tank is a paladin, wonderful. If the tank is a fighter, wonderful. If the tank can only ever be a tank, thus never in a million years can he also be a spellcaster, skill-monkey, or remove-afflictions, I just don't give a darn. If I'm not the tank, I want him to be the best tank he can be with whatever it is he can do. If I can give him a hand in that with whatever it is I do, I will do so. If I am the tank, I will do whatever I can with I can do to be the best tank I can possibly be. If other party members are able to help me, I would want them to. Yes, but if I am the head of a group of adventurers looking for someone to be a 'tank' I will compare them and see what each one has to offer and choose accordingly. Many of you keep screaming about RP, well this is RP, my life is on the line and I want to make sure that the person I have with me is capable and can bring many options. A crusader will be a more appealing tank than a fighter due to a greater amount of options, and if I have a choice I will ask the crusader to join the group before the fighter.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-07, 07:43 PM	Which CO fighter is he using? I know Jack B Quick and the Molester are fairly good. Though the former is only good against certain enemies, and the latter is better done with at least SOME Crusader in there (as most of its power comes from Devoted Spirit maneuvers/stances) And yes, you illustrate wonderfully how the Fighter can be competitive when the rest of the party is voluntarily gimping themselves (or unintentionally sucking as it may be) Charge build. It can be done better with other classes of course. Of course he's admittedly not really straight fighter either. Sadly the DM hadn't gotten Tome of Battle when the character was made so we couldn't use it for the game. She doesn't let anything from a book she doesn't own into the game just because she likes knowing the mechanics the PCs can use. Still it's holding about even with my cleric in terms of raw combat output. Of course his character would have been useless outside of combat if we didn't A: roll our stats, and B: Allow Cross class ranks to be bought 1 for 1. CO allows fighters to be playable in combat for longer. They're still the red headed stepchildren of the game though. To tell the truth that's the biggest nail in the fighters coffin. If a good build is only equal to a 8 int cleric, a face rogue and a direct damage wizard and requires house rules to be effective outside of combat the class just isn't up to par.
Cael 01-29-07, 07:55 PM	Strawman Arguments left and right. I think I'll let Cael take it for a bit. Why, thank you, kind sir. I may just take up you on your generous offer. builds??? blatant power gaming term...admit it... now suppose a new player tries a fighter, whats he gonna take at first level : cleave, he likes the feat, so he goes for greater cleave: requirements-power attack. Power Attack is a pretty common feat requirement, ex: improved bull rush, improved sunder. The player with a brain realizes "hmm, this is a good feat, it could be really usefull in some situations, such as fighting a golem when ac isnt too hard to hit, dm reduction 10 isn't too bad as I can afford to give up a 5 points of bab to hit an ac of 18, 22, 26.(fighter attack +12 average) And my caster is going to be in the corner crying. and as I will agree the fighter in total theory is weak(low skills, one good save, feats aren't that great, no class abilities that are useful), remember that, that is theory, as in your head where nobody cares, in real game play that statement cannot hold, why? to many random variables-like dice (and if you rig your dice, the somebody needs to stab you in face) and how much the dm likes you after your caster ruined the boss battle that he wanted to make elaborate. Tsk tsk tsk. Gone straight from the indefensible to the blatant flaming now, have we? Now, then, yes, Power Attack is a very useful feat. I never said otherwise. However, so is DM: Persistent, *if* you meet the very steep requirements, which, if you compare to the Power Attack's pre-requisite of virtually nil, means that DM: Persistent *should* be more powerful than Power Attack. Instead of Bullrush and the like, we get Divine Power, animal buffs, you name it. However, one is broken, but the other is not? Wow. Words fail me. Now, why is it that the Fighter can love a feat and take it, but a caster cannot? Other than bias on your part, that is. And if things like the above were a non-issue, why are you even here trying to convince us that the Fighter does not suck? Surely a non-issue would be so obvious that it would not require your vast intellect to be focused on it, desperately trying to be the lone (incorrect, I might add) voice in the wasteland. By your very actions, you have proven that it is not a non-issue. The laws of statistics prove that it is not a non-issue, but let us not go there. After all, what has facts, figures and petty things like class ability restrictions got when compared to your boundless imagination? After all, all Fighters fly (100000000000000000000000000ft, perfect), automatically have True Sight with unlimited range, able to kill dragons in a single blow, has laa-sers coming out of their eyes and like to say "Feel the Force, mother-!", right? Seriously... someone that advocates DM bias at the table in favour of himself... This is the first, last and only proof I'll every need that the person that advocates that is an immature, whiny git that don't deserve to be playing this great game. Seerow, I hope this suffices, sir?
Geogoose 01-29-07, 08:13 PM	I see these threads crop up often. One one side of the arguement are the players who have either played or been in a group with fighters who were consistantly outshined in and out of combat or are simply comparing class abilities of different classes. On the other side we have the people who play fighters under multiple houserules and DM favors and also those who deny/disagree that ANY class could be considered weak in a team/roleplaying game. My opinion cetainly falls into the side of fighters experiencing a dramatic decline in power relative to full spellcasters as levels advance. The exact level fighters go obsolete is up for debate and depends on the party make-up. Knowing this, I believe the DM can and SHOULD make the game fun for each player. Some call this a cop out, which is true to some extent. I'm not in favor of special treatment to fighters to coddle them, but adventures can (should) be designed around the players classes/abilities. In summary: Fighters are both less capable to deal with generic combat and non-combat challenges than full spellcaster counterparts at high levels, but this in not an impossible task to create an adventure around which does not leave the fighter player out in the cold.
Jaxgaret 01-29-07, 08:27 PM	I feel like being completely random and posting this: Fighter, Fighter, White Mage, Black Mage Ah, those were the days.
Seerow 01-29-07, 09:06 PM	lol Final Fantasy. Except in Final Fantasy, Fighter was the best class. Period. My how times change. Seerow, I hope this suffices, sir? It does. I approve.
Otto the Bugbear 01-29-07, 09:37 PM	i have heard this almost every where, but in your opinion when does a fighter start to well, suck Player's Handbook, page 38, under the heading "Game Rule Information".
Seerow 01-29-07, 09:39 PM	Player's Handbook, page 38, under the heading "Game Rule Information". :rofl: You know it's a great thread when I have to use that emoticon TWICE in one thread. I very rarely use emotes at all.
Kresalak 01-29-07, 09:45 PM	Could you guys stop talking about the CO board like it's some sort of singular entity? Most of the people there aren't even good at min/maxing. I mean seriously, I saw Enlightened Fist being suggested there. Also, just to clarify, when I said "closet troll" I didn't mean internet trolls. I mean literal closet trolls, monsters that are better than you will ever be at melee, and hence dangerous in enclosed spaces such as closets. Trolls are a prime example of these.
Votan 01-29-07, 09:58 PM	I seriously do not see how people keep saying that the level 1 Wizard/Sorcerer will die horribly all the time. I have yet to see a Wizard/Sorcerer die at low levels. In fact, in three games that I have played, the first to go down was (in order) the Ranger, the Rogue, the Cleric, another Cleric, and the Monk. Meanwhile, the Wizards and Sorcerers cleaned house with the simple Sleep spell. As default, my low level Wizards and Sorcerers carry around a Scythe for CdG purposes. I am very surprised that you got any mileage out of a spell with a full round casting time. Trying to cast sleep has often been the death knell of mages that I have played except at long range (shooting the enemy caster is always an attractive idea when he is in the middle of a spell --I have the same issue with Summon Monster). My mages often die at low levels -- if the blockers aren't doing their job at least. If the rangers and clerics are dying it is to protect the mage so that is more a measure of the good playing on the part of the other players than any robustness on the part of the mage.
Seerow 01-29-07, 10:03 PM	I am very surprised that you got any mileage out of a spell with a full round casting time. Trying to cast sleep has often been the death knell of mages that I have played except at long range (shooting the enemy caster is always an attractive idea when he is in the middle of a spell --I have the same issue with Summon Monster). Well yeah. If you're at close range you cast Color Spray, not Sleep. =P
Cael 01-29-07, 10:05 PM	I am very surprised that you got any mileage out of a spell with a full round casting time. Trying to cast sleep has often been the death knell of mages that I have played except at long range (shooting the enemy caster is always an attractive idea when he is in the middle of a spell --I have the same issue with Summon Monster). My mages often die at low levels -- if the blockers aren't doing their job at least. If the rangers and clerics are dying it is to protect the mage so that is more a measure of the good playing on the part of the other players than any robustness on the part of the mage. Not really. The monster has to get to me first, and you can take a 5ft step out of cover before completing the spell. The 110ft range is golden. For a close range combat, you nail him with a Grease first, and then step away and Sleep him. You can move 60ft in that time (30ft after Grease, 30ft before starting to cast Sleep).
Cael 01-29-07, 10:07 PM	Well yeah. If you're at close range you cast Color Spray, not Sleep. =P Nah. Standard loadout is 1 Sleep, 1 Grease, a Light Crossbow and a Scythe for a level 1 Wizard. If my starting Int is 20, then I'd put in a Mage Armour as well.
Irving 01-29-07, 11:37 PM	No, you miss my point. Most people claim the Fighter uses item X or item Y to shore up his weaknesses. While he's buying these items, other classes are buying items that enhance their abilities, making the gap in power level wider. So it isn't a matter of getting the items that make the fighter irrelevant, it's a matter of totalling up what it takes to make the Fighter overcome his inherent problems, and see what he has left to spend after that. Last time we went through this, pro-fighters had actually listed over a million GP worth of equipment without realizing it. I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you. My stance is that a fighter can contribute to the party pretty much naked. You state that the rest of the group doesn't need the fighter if they have magic items X, Y, and Z. That's comparing apples and oranges - or flour and cake, perhaps. Now, if you'll give the fighter X, Y, and Z - or its equivelents - we'll talk. I claim dibs on the antimagic aura as a protective, by the way. Your mage can go cry now.
Seerow 01-29-07, 11:50 PM	My stance is that a fighter can contribute to the party pretty much naked. Really? Give a Fighter a sword, and no buffs, and he'll contribute meaningfully? I don't believe you. ou state that the rest of the group doesn't need the fighter if they have magic items X, Y, and Z *sigh* you still don't get it. I never said the Group could go on without the Fighter by having items X Y and Z. I said the Fighter having X Y and Z items is the way most people claim he's contributing. Anytime Weakness X is brought up, a pro-fighter brings up Item Y as a solution. The Fighter isn't replaced by items. The Fighter is replaced by a decent class.
Bob Loblaw 01-30-07, 12:59 AM	I think the biggest problem here is how everyone is defining "suck." Personally, I feel a class sucks when no one has any fun with it. If even one player in my group enjoys the class, then it cannot suck, at least for us. You can throw around scenario after scenario and one build after another, but you will never be able to convince me that any single class is excellent in all situations. It is impossible. If it were possible, then there would only be one class ever played. Ever class has it's role. In the all games I've been in (I'll admit that that it's not a lot, I've only been playing for 28 years), every class we've played has been useful. Then again, we don't really care who dealt the most damage or who heard the ambush first. All we have cared about is having fun. Maybe the group dynamics need to be different for certain classes to shine. Maybe the game needs to be different. Not to say that any one way is right or wrong, just saying that even CoDzilla is useless at high levels in many situations. I know, I've played through them.
Votan 01-30-07, 01:00 AM	Not really. The monster has to get to me first, and you can take a 5ft step out of cover before completing the spell. The 110ft range is golden. For a close range combat, you nail him with a Grease first, and then step away and Sleep him. You can move 60ft in that time (30ft after Grease, 30ft before starting to cast Sleep). The wording makes the 5 ft step out of cover complex (as it goes off at the beginning of your next turn before you take actions). A spell combo that takes 2 rounds to set up, while not bad, is tough for a 1st or 2nd level wizard as they need both spells prepared and have a rather limited number. Under ideal circumstances I have gotten sleep to work but I just find it rather tricky. Color Spray works well at close ranges but then the issue is more what did you happen to prepare. This is not to defend the fighter -- just to say that low level mages require tender loving care to thrive.
Archangel62 01-30-07, 03:48 AM	I think the biggest problem here is how everyone is defining "suck." Personally, I feel a class sucks when no one has any fun with it. If even one player in my group enjoys the class, then it cannot suck, at least for us. You can throw around scenario after scenario and one build after another, but you will never be able to convince me that any single class is excellent in all situations. It is impossible. If it were possible, then there would only be one class ever played. Ever class has it's role. In the all games I've been in (I'll admit that that it's not a lot, I've only been playing for 28 years), every class we've played has been useful. Then again, we don't really care who dealt the most damage or who heard the ambush first. All we have cared about is having fun. Maybe the group dynamics need to be different for certain classes to shine. Maybe the game needs to be different. Not to say that any one way is right or wrong, just saying that even CoDzilla is useless at high levels in many situations. I know, I've played through them. I base my defenition of suck on mechanical capability to contribute meaningfully to the group. This is why I enjoy classes like the binder, artificer, warlock, and other classes that can fill a few different roles if the situation calls for it and yet still be able to do their own thing too. I dunno, maybe I'm just big on backups.
navar100 01-30-07, 04:04 AM	You know, if you don't care if a class is underpowered or not why are you arguing in a thread about when a class becomes underpowered? I admit your party dosn't get cancer if they have a Fighter in it. It's just that if they had been more fortunate and had ANY OTHER TANK CLASS instead they would be doing better. And saying 'D&D is a team game' and 'you just need a tank' doesn't change that fact. The OP asked when do people think the fighter starts to suck. I happen to think the fighter never sucks and gave my reason. Then everyone got on my case, starting with calling what I wrote "drivel". That a character class that's not the fighter can be the tank and do something else won't change the fact that I don't care, and I find the fighter makes for a good tank for the purpose of someone being the tank. I don't need to be anything else or the party is doomed. Should the fighter player want to multiclass and/or go into a prestige class, more power to him. Should he remain a fighter to level 20, more power to him.
navar100 01-30-07, 04:29 AM	Cleric - "Hey Steve. You know how you keep asking me to cast greater magic weapon on your sword every day? I was wondering if you could pick up a pearl of power for me so I can do that and still prepare spells for myself." Fighter - "Hey it's your job to buff me whenever I want! You'll do what I say or I'll kill you in your sleep!" Yeah. Real team player there. Edit: Once again, if the Rogue doesn't need help to skill monkey, the Cleric doesn't need help to heal, and the Wizard doesn't need help to do everything else, WHY does the fighter need help to tank? I already said a spellcaster doesn't have to buff the fighter every combat. I quit that game because I was never buffed while everyone else got buffed to the willy nilly and got yelled at when I asked. I was playing a rogue/order of the bow, and we were fighting undead with magic DR. I had no magic arrows and there was no way to get any in the forseeable future since we were in a dungeon complex and going to be in it for a significant period of time. Since I couldn't sneak attack the undead and my arrows were doing diddlysquat, instead of just sitting there twiddling my thumbs, I didn't think asking the cleric for a Greater Magic Weapon on my arrows would be such a bother so I could be useful in combat instead of just waiting around for another trap to disarm or door to unlock. The roof came off the hosue for all the chastisement I got for daring to ask for that spell. All they would say was "buy +1 magic arrows" instead of helping me out for this particular occasion. Anyway, the fighter doesn't "need" help. You are committing the fallacy of denying the fighter equipment. He will have a magic weapon to get through DR. He may have a silver weapon or cold iron weapon. If he doesn't have the "proper" weapon for a particular encounter, he might have Power Attack to get the extra damage he needs. It is the DM's fault if the party is constantly fighting monsters the fighter can't hit let alone damage. A difficulty for one fight is a challenge, for every fight the DM is being a jerk. When that challenging fight does come along, it wouldn't kill the spellcaster to cast that useful buff. The fighter taking the swing is taking the swing not against the spellcaster. Also, spellcasters have to deal with SR in some creatures, some mind-affecting immune creatures, some energy-type creatures, and so forth. SR doesn't stop a fighter's sword. The charm and dominated immune to ghoul is not immune to the sword. The fire-elemental is not immune to the +2 sword that deals +1d6 cold damage. If I were the fighter, yes I would help the cleric buy the pearl of power. He is asking nicely and is not an unreasonable request. However, saying "I have to waste a fourth level spell on you. You're good for nothing but a glorified meat shield which I could summon on my own if I really needed to or use that spell slot for something else like Divine Power and I'd be a better fighter than you. You should get me a pearl of power to compensate!" means one dead cleric and possibly one less player at the game table.
Qwicksilver 01-30-07, 04:40 AM	Mmm to me a fighter is perhaps the hardest class to play well, both on a rp and a combat level. I'll qualify that with this analogy: people often say that the fighter is like vanilla, a good base to put other flavors on top of. I say that a fighter isn't like vanilla so much as whipped eggs and cream, frozen with no sugar. Sure it's a base, but i mean it has no real substance of its own. It has no prompt for fighting style, no prompt for rping, so in a sense all the options are out there, but also it's hard to know what to do with those options. Beyond that there are actual "flavors" or classes, that do have a prompt for fighting style and rp flavor. So our poor fighter is kind of left, i feel, because he can be made to do many of the things say, a ranger, or a barbarian can, but they are specifically meant to do that thing from the onset. I'm currently playing a level 7 scythe wielding fighter, and i suppose i enjoy it, but it's just been such a trial to actually get into him as I would some other character. Moreover, most of the good feats (in core) that i want to take have already been taken by me. I've got whirlwind attack already, and have the weapon specializations and focuses still to take, but they never struck me as "ooh that's real cool +2 to damage...wow". My friend and I often talk at length about D&d, and i find that him being a more experienced player seems to have him more for casters and less for fighting classes. I also find that newer players seem to be biased in the other way, (ie. fighters suck and what the hell can we do about it). My friend says "fighter's not crappy anymore, not with the phb2." And i think, yeah he may be right, of course at first he thought some of those feats were truly too overpowered, but I feel it's a cop out to give a fighter merely more feats, and let him use more books. I can hear it now, "why do the fighting classes get to use non-core books" etc. etc. Fighters, I think, suffer from lack of any niche that they can fill better than another. Their real major asset is to grub tons and tons of feats from large and long feat trees. It would be nice to make them some kind of master of battle awareness or battle forms and tactics, which is what i hear TOB does. But it looks like we're gonna have to wait for 4.0 until the raw fighter is in any way enhanced. It seems every time this thread pops up, people say, fighter is good for a 4 level dip max. I wouldn't disagree with them, but perhaps later I'll tell you about how my fighter fairs compared to our party barbarian.
navar100 01-30-07, 04:47 AM	What, so thinking ahead is power gaming now, wow, I must be a real power gamer in life because I'm taking classes at my college to help me get a degree in psychology rather than running around taking different courses at random. Power attack isn't that great, it can be the prerequesite for some good feats and is wonderful in the hands of a barbarian, but the fighter can usually find better feats. The point we keep trying to make, and that you can't seem to grasp, is that the fighter fails to work mechanically and we have all pointed to issues in games as well. If the fighter is run against a large and diverse set of opponents, they do have problems. I have yet to see a full fighter simply because there are so many feats out there that are better and more effective for the fighter overall. And I'm not saying the fighter is all uber it puts wizards to shame. All I've been saying is that I think the fighter can do a good job doing what he does provided you let him have his equipment, and I don't care that other classes can do it too while able to do other things, and as a minor thread topic, I would resent any party member who refuses to help me should I play a fighter because he thinks I can't do anything useful because I'm a fighter.
Cael 01-30-07, 04:54 AM	The wording makes the 5 ft step out of cover complex (as it goes off at the beginning of your next turn before you take actions). A spell combo that takes 2 rounds to set up, while not bad, is tough for a 1st or 2nd level wizard as they need both spells prepared and have a rather limited number. Under ideal circumstances I have gotten sleep to work but I just find it rather tricky. Color Spray works well at close ranges but then the issue is more what did you happen to prepare. This is not to defend the fighter -- just to say that low level mages require tender loving care to thrive. They do require care, but they don't need the Fighter as all the pro-Fighters are claiming. The casting time is 1 round. You can take a move action before casting (or just waste it). Your casting completes next round after a move action. However, you can still take a 5ft step before completing the move action requirement of the spell. I think this was ruled to be OK somewhere. Similarly, you can cast a touch spell, move and hit someone with it in the same round. As for the two round combo, that only happens if the Fighter managed to sneak up on the caster to close range. Other than that, Sleep is the first spell to go off.
navar100 01-30-07, 04:54 AM	Yes, but if I am the head of a group of adventurers looking for someone to be a 'tank' I will compare them and see what each one has to offer and choose accordingly. Many of you keep screaming about RP, well this is RP, my life is on the line and I want to make sure that the person I have with me is capable and can bring many options. A crusader will be a more appealing tank than a fighter due to a greater amount of options, and if I have a choice I will ask the crusader to join the group before the fighter. It's a game! You are playing with friends and/or potential new friends. Sure, you can suggest to a player to try a crusader because you think it's a better class, but if he really wants to play a fighter, then he plays a fighter. He's there to have fun and will have fun playing a fighter. If that's a stick in your craw, tough noogies. To not cooperate with each other because of it is just stupid, bad playing, and leads to resentment.
navar100 01-30-07, 05:01 AM	I see these threads crop up often. One one side of the arguement are the players who have either played or been in a group with fighters who were consistantly outshined in and out of combat or are simply comparing class abilities of different classes. On the other side we have the people who play fighters under multiple houserules and DM favors and also those who deny/disagree that ANY class could be considered weak in a team/roleplaying game. Actually, I did use to think bards suck. :) I'm still not overly fond of them, but I no longer think they suck. However, even when I did think they sucked, if I played a cleric with a bard in the party, I would still cast the occasional Eagle's Splendor on him if he wanted and would not yell at him for not choosing it as his own known spell or demanding he compensate me for using up the spell slot. I would certainly never tell the player "Don't play a bard, be a druid instead. They're awesome!"
Kresalak 01-30-07, 07:52 AM	I have a challenge for you. Create a 5th level Fighter who is able to defeat a Troll in single combat. No single use items, and you do not need to deal lethal damage to the troll, simply knock it out.
Irving 01-30-07, 08:14 AM	Really? Give a Fighter a sword, and no buffs, and he'll contribute meaningfully? I don't believe you. I don't need a sword to trip, grapple, bull rush, disarm, or even hit something. I can create a good AC with Combat Expertise and still maintain a viable attack bonus. How good is that cleric bereft of all equipment... including holy symbol and spell components? *sigh* you still don't get it. I never said the Group could go on without the Fighter by having items X Y and Z. I said the Fighter having X Y and Z items is the way most people claim he's contributing. Anytime Weakness X is brought up, a pro-fighter brings up Item Y as a solution. But I'm not making that argument. Listen to me, and stop making the same argument you've always made. I have named zero magic items in my argument. I'n fact, I'm taking the opposite tack - that if everyone has no magic items, then the fighter stacks up on par with other classes. The Fighter isn't replaced by items. The Fighter is replaced by a decent class. Can you name class a that can: - go from the defensive to the offensive (courtsey of Combat Expertise and Power attack) in one round? - do so in ten nonconsecutive combat rounds without expending any resources at all? - Use every tactical option in the PHB successfully? - Be viable and interesting at every level and every power level (not just imaginary 20th level high-magic campaigns?) - Provides the same level of consistency as a fighter in every circumstance, every round? Fighter may not be a "sexy" class on paper. He doesn't have a lot of fireworks. But in some important ways, that's the point.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 09:23 AM	You know, it doesn't matter if a class can use tactical options from the PHB or do the same thing every round. Most of those tactical options stop working past level 5, and being able to be mediocre round after round doesn't matter if the enemy is dead.
Khael 01-30-07, 09:25 AM	It's a game! You are playing with friends and/or potential new friends. Sure, you can suggest to a player to try a crusader because you think it's a better class, but if he really wants to play a fighter, then he plays a fighter. He's there to have fun and will have fun playing a fighter. If that's a stick in your craw, tough noogies. To not cooperate with each other because of it is just stupid, bad playing, and leads to resentment. Actually, I did use to think bards suck. :) I'm still not overly fond of them, but I no longer think they suck. However, even when I did think they sucked, if I played a cleric with a bard in the party, I would still cast the occasional Eagle's Splendor on him if he wanted and would not yell at him for not choosing it as his own known spell or demanding he compensate me for using up the spell slot. I would certainly never tell the player "Don't play a bard, be a druid instead. They're awesome!" I would resent any party member who refuses to help me should I play a fighter because he thinks I can't do anything useful because I'm a fighter. All true, but then I don't think anyone here has said they would bawl you out, yell at you, resent you etc. for choosing a fighter. They might express that they don't believe you'll be able to provide consistant aid later on, but not as a dig at you yourself. In fact really if they did bawl you out over it...I'd suspect either they should go play a solo game since they don't seem able to able to work with others at all. That said... some people like to be able to win and see others doing this with them. Therefore if they have three players all flying under they're own power, buffs etc. but they need to contribute to get that fighter with them... they're liable to turn that argument on you: You're choice of class is limiting their fun, since he's so dependant in them. It's a careful balance after all (and while I'm like to like i'm actually on your side of the fence for this sub-argument), if D&D is such a cooperative game, both sides(or in this case classes) need to be able to back the other up, and all players must have fun. The fighter player Vs the others, with the DM in the middle suggests this isn't likely to go well. Fighters sadly can be very limited in this, and in a general way the unfortunate counter to that may well hamsting everyone else to hlep one player.
Bob Loblaw 01-30-07, 09:44 AM	I have a challenge for you. Create a 5th level Fighter who is able to defeat a Troll in single combat. No single use items, and you do not need to deal lethal damage to the troll, simply knock it out. Why the restriction? What are you afraid of, that the fighter might actually be useful? Why not just allow the character as it stands?
Kresalak 01-30-07, 09:47 AM	What? No, I'm limiting single use items so you don't go loaded up with consumbles and win via those. Seriously, that accusation is nonsense.
Irving 01-30-07, 09:48 AM	Originally Posted by Kresalak I have a challenge for you. Create a 5th level Fighter who is able to defeat a Troll in single combat. No single use items, and you do not need to deal lethal damage to the troll, simply knock it out. As a CR 5 monster, a troll is meant to be a fair fight for a party of 4 5th level characters, not one character. That being said, I'll take 4 5th level horse archers FTW. We can outdistance the troll's run speed and outdamage its regeneration rate. Not even hard. Add in some poison and it becomes even easier.
Bob Loblaw 01-30-07, 09:52 AM	You know, it doesn't matter if a class can use tactical options from the PHB or do the same thing every round. Most of those tactical options stop working past level 5, and being able to be mediocre round after round doesn't matter if the enemy is dead. If that were true, then we wouldn't see builds that exploit those tactics on past 20th level on the CO board. I think you may be missing the point of all the pro-fighters here. Not a single one of us is saying that the fighter is the most powerful, or most useful, or most enjoyable class. What we are saying is that those of us who have figured out what we want from the class have found that it doesn't suck like many on the boards claim. We have found that we enjoy the class through all levels of play. Maybe we have different campaign or play styles than many others here and that's why the fighter works for us. Maybe we're just beating the odds. Maybe our groups don't see anyone as a hinderance. Maybe we all see each member as an asset and have figured out how to make it work with our groups. I think the anti-fighter crowd is too quick to ignore these little details that are an integral part of the game.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 09:58 AM	I don't give a **** what they do on the CO board. They are not very good. They do crap like suggest builds involving Dread Pirate or other worthless classes that should have never seen the light of day. Just because something appears on the CO boards does not mean it can do level appropriate things. A CR 5 creature is a match for 20% of a 5th level party's resources. A level 5 Fighter is supposed to be 20% of a 5th level party. Hence, it should go 50/50 with a troll. This can also be stated in the following manner. 5th level Fighter is CR 5 (allegedly). Troll is CR 5. Are you telling me that 5=/=5? Or, a party of 4 5th level characters can go 50/50 with a CR 9 creature. Halve the party, reduce CR by 2, so a 2 man party goes 50/50 with a CR 7. Do that again, and a single character goes 50/50 with a CR 5. By the way, the horse archer loses. The troll's environment is a cold mountain, not a featureless plain.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 10:03 AM	By the way, the horse archer loses. The troll's environment is a cold mountain, not a featureless plain. Now that is a little unfair. I've certainly had the PCs encounter trolls in fields and other fairly open areas before.
Irving 01-30-07, 10:20 AM	\ 5th level Fighter is CR 5 (allegedly). Troll is CR 5. Are you telling me that 5=/=5? Taken directly from the DMG, pg. 48: A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters. By the way, the horse archer loses. The troll's environment is a cold mountain, not a featureless plain. Fantastic! According to the DMG, 50% of all mountain terrain is gradual slopes in alpine meadows. That doesn't effect movement at all, but gives you a +1 attack bonus for attacking from higher ground. Killing the troll just got that much easier.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 10:29 AM	I see you ignored all my reasoning. Also, cite the source of that "cold mountains=sloping meadows" thing. Plus, I don't even care if a horse archer can kill a troll. A horse archer can kill nearly any monster in the MM if you give it a featureless plain to run on.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 10:38 AM	Plus, I don't even care if a horse archer can kill a troll. A horse archer can kill nearly any monster in the MM if you give it a featureless plain to run on. Only stupid, slow monsters with no ranged attacks. Granted, there are quite a few of those, but we ain't talking about every monster in the MM. Also, fighters can get flying mounts at higher levels, so they don't always need featureless plains.
Irving 01-30-07, 10:43 AM	I see you ignored all my reasoning. Also, cite the source of that "cold mountains=sloping meadows" thing. "Reasoning"<the actual rules in the book. As for the mountain citation: DMG, pg. 89. Plus, I don't even care if a horse archer can kill a troll. A horse archer can kill nearly any monster in the MM if you give it a featureless plain to run on. You set the challenge. I met it. Didn't see anything about "no horse archers" in there. Or is your position "fighters except for horse archers are weak"?
Bob Loblaw 01-30-07, 10:43 AM	I don't give a **** what they do on the CO board. They are not very good. They do crap like suggest builds involving Dread Pirate or other worthless classes that should have never seen the light of day. Just because something appears on the CO boards does not mean it can do level appropriate things. A CR 5 creature is a match for 20% of a 5th level party's resources. A level 5 Fighter is supposed to be 20% of a 5th level party. Hence, it should go 50/50 with a troll. This can also be stated in the following manner. 5th level Fighter is CR 5 (allegedly). Troll is CR 5. Are you telling me that 5=/=5? Or, a party of 4 5th level characters can go 50/50 with a CR 9 creature. Halve the party, reduce CR by 2, so a 2 man party goes 50/50 with a CR 7. Do that again, and a single character goes 50/50 with a CR 5. By the way, the horse archer loses. The troll's environment is a cold mountain, not a featureless plain. Actually, I was speaking of the pure fighter builds that I have seen on the boards. The characters are optimized to be effective in the role that the player wants. If you want to hand wave away that, that's your prerogative, but it lessens your credibility fast. Also, the game is built on 4 PCs, not 5. That would make the fighter 25% of the party's resources (assuming that you see each character as a resource which is not how the game is set up). 25% of the party's resources includes the casters' spells, everyone's magic items, each character, etc. You can't just single out a small portion and call that good. So, back to your troll v fighter example, why did you place the restriction on magic items? What are you afraid that the fighter may be able to accomplish? What single-use item would break this class to make the pro-fighter crowd right? See the problem isn't whether or not the fighter would win. The problem is whether or not the fighter is a valuable member of the party. In the games I have played, the fighter has always been a great contributer. Let's look at your example anyway. Fighter level 5 (human) Feats: Weapon Focus (longsword), Toughness, Combat Expertise, Endurance, Diehard, Weapon Specialization (longsword). Hp (assuming 12 Constitution): 40 AC (assuming 12 Dex): Plate Mail +1, Heavy Shield +1: 23 (with combat expertise, this can go to 28). Let's have the fighter sacrifice 4 points of attack bonus for an AC of 27. Attack Bonus (assuming 12+2 Strength): +8 (+1 more for the sword) +1 Longsword, +1 Armor, +1 Shield, Gauntlets of Ogre Power (I still have about 1,000 gold left over) Troll's AC: 16 Troll's Attack Bonus: 2 claws +9 melee (1d6+6) and bite +4 melee (1d6+3) The fighter should hit on a 11 or better for 1d8+5 damage (1/7 of the troll's hit points) The troll needs to roll a 18 or better with each claw and a natural 20 to hit with his bite at all. Each attack will deal 9.5, 9.5, and 6.5 points of damage. Notice that the fighter can adjust his AC even more and not affect his ability to hit all that much. What if the fighter decides to put himself into a better position like fighting from higher ground (+1 to hit)? Now he can place his AC that much higher making your troll less effective (your troll now has a 10% chance of hitting while my fighter still has a 50% chance of hitting). This means that my fighter should be able to take on your troll just fine. Now let me have things like potion of bear's endurance and I am just that much better (I just gained 10 hit points and can go 1-2 rounds more). So, tell me how my fighter fares? Notice that I actually chose subpar feats and abilities and haven't spent all my money yet.
Seerow 01-30-07, 10:49 AM	I don't need a sword to trip, grapple, bull rush, disarm, or even hit something. I can create a good AC with Combat Expertise and still maintain a viable attack bonus. So wait, you're not using magical items, throwing your BAB to **** with combat expertise to compensate for your lack of items, and you still actually think you're going to hit ANYTHING? And good luck bull-rushing or tripping ANY level appropriate encounter, level 10 or up. Seriously, show me your Fighter, at key levels (say 2, 8, 12, 16). I'm curious as to how you're doing this. How good is that cleric bereft of all equipment... including holy symbol and spell components? What you're asking isn't "Who's better, the Fighter or the Cleric" you're asking "Who's better, the Fighter or the Cleric minus all of his class features" which is ********. I gave you a sword. A spell component pouch and holy symbol together costs less than that. But I'm not making that argument. Listen to me, and stop making the same argument you've always made. I have named zero magic items in my argument. I'n fact, I'm taking the opposite tack - that if everyone has no magic items, then the fighter stacks up on par with other classes. No, now you're arguing that a Cleric, or Wizard, stripped of their spells because they lack components that cost less than 5 gold pieces, are inferior to the Fighter. We know this. We KNOW what makes the Cleric and Wizard powerful is their spells, which rely on relatively cheap items. That's not the problem. The problem is when all things are equal, going with the wealth ASSUMED BY THE GAME the Fighter comes up short because he's spending his money to cover weaknesses, while say the Wizard is spending money on a Metamagic Rod to make himself even stronger! Can you name class a that can: - go from the defensive to the offensive (courtsey of Combat Expertise and Power attack) in one round? - do so in ten nonconsecutive combat rounds without expending any resources at all? - Use every tactical option in the PHB successfully? - Be viable and interesting at every level and every power level (not just imaginary 20th level high-magic campaigns?) - Provides the same level of consistency as a fighter in every circumstance, every round? Any full BAB class that takes Combat Expertise and Power Attack? Seriously, the Fighter isn't even doing what you advertise. He CAN'T use every tactical option in the PHB successfully. At best he has a +4 bonus on these. Every creature out there that's not just flat out immune to them has much larger bonuses, from size, strength, and other such things that the Fighter simply can't match. If that were true, then we wouldn't see builds that exploit those tactics on past 20th level on the CO board. What builds are these? The only thing that comes to mind is the Gattling Tripper, which only really manages to trip larger creatures due to the way D&D works. He gets off tons of trip attempts every round, so rule of probability says one of them will succeed by the end of the round. If instead of tripping, he had just attacked, the creature he attacked would be dead. I think you may be missing the point of all the pro-fighters here. Not a single one of us is saying that the fighter is the most powerful, or most useful, or most enjoyable class. What we are saying is that those of us who have figured out what we want from the class have found that it doesn't suck like many on the boards claim. We have found that we enjoy the class through all levels of play. I have seen this argument over and over again. Yet nobody can give me a straight answer when I ask if they would play a Warrior NPC Class, and if they would, and they enjoyed it, would that make it a balanced class that is useful at all levels of play? Taken directly from the DMG, pg. 48: Quote: A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters. It goes on to say how an encounter should take 20% of a party's resources. It also goes on to say how any classed creature has a CR equal to their class level. This means a 10th level human Fighter is a CR10, the same as a CR10 Fire Giant, or the CR10 Cleric. Does that Fighter pose the same challenge to the party as the Fire Giant? As the Cleric? I highly doubt it. At the very least, the Fighter should compete with the Fire Giant, as they both fill the -exact- same Niche (guy who hits things hard) but in reality, the Fire Giant is simply stronger. So, back to your troll v fighter example, why did you place the restriction on magic items? What are you afraid that the fighter may be able to accomplish? What single-use item would break this class to make the pro-fighter crowd right? Arrows of Slaying, Scrolls of Whatever High Level Spell and Fighter focused on UMD, Candle of Invocation, there's a long list of things. these one-shot items tend to destroy these sorts of comparisons. It's easier just to say no.
Irving 01-30-07, 11:22 AM	If instead of tripping, he had just attacked, the creature he attacked would be dead. PHB, p.96, Improved Trip: ...If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. Also, you get an attack of opportunity against the opponent when he stands... a successul trip nets you two attacks for the price of one, with bonuses to boot. And of course (continuing my "Fighters contribute to the party in general" argument), a tripped opponent has no DEX bonus. Your rogue will thank you. I have seen this argument over and over again. Yet nobody can give me a straight answer when I ask if they would play a Warrior NPC Class, and if they would, and they enjoyed it, would that make it a balanced class that is useful at all levels of play? Irrelevant. We're talking about fighters, not warriors. It goes on to say how an encounter should take 20% of a party's resources. Define "resources", please. Do they include, say, one-shot items? Please note that one of the points I'm making is that a fighter consumes far less resources than a spellcaster in any given encounter. It also goes on to say how any classed creature has a CR equal to their class level. This means a 10th level human Fighter is a CR10, the same as a CR10 Fire Giant, or the CR10 Cleric. Correct. Each of these is meant to be a reasonable challenge to a group of 4 10th level PC's. - and PC's of different classes, I expect. What's your point? I think I've spent a fair amount of effort here making the point that a fighter can do a great deal more than "hit things hard"...
Clawhound 01-30-07, 11:26 AM	I've cranked on the Fighter vs. Fire Giant problem using the elite array and recommended wealth per level. At best, using only 750 gp of consumable wealth (a potion of displacement) and core feats, I could get a 50/50 chance for the fighter to win. 50/50. That's perfect. That's EXACTLY where a balanced class should be. Just so that you know he wasn't a one-trick-pony, I took that fighter though a series of other CR 10 encounters. He won 1/3, lost 1/3, and 1/3 came down to lucky die rolls. Again, that's EXACTLY what you would expect to see in a CR 10 vs a CR 10. I took that fighter through many CR 8 and CR 6 encounters. He generally rocked and rolled through those. A few of the extremely magical encounters gave him problems. Again, I changed NO equipment for this challenge. *IF* you follow the charts in the DMG, a fighter can contribute quite well through 10th level. I did not test beyond that. A CR 10 encounter is not just a single creature. It's also 2xCR8, 4xCR6, and 8xCR4. Those usually proved even easier fights for the fighter. After going through those exercises, I concluded that the suckiness of fighters was quite overstated. This doesn't mean that the class doesn't have problems. The structural inflexibility of the class is quite a significant problem. This is why I usually call fighters "problematic".
Seerow 01-30-07, 11:42 AM	Also, you get an attack of opportunity against the opponent when he stands... a successul trip nets you two attacks for the price of one, with bonuses to boot. But if you're making 10 attacks and hoping for a natural 20 to make the trip (which is what it comes down to when trying to trip high CR monsters, assuming they're not just FLYING) then you gave up 10 attacks for 1. Which was my point. If just just took the full attack, it'd probably be dead. Instead you wasted your time trying to trip a monster that was better at tripping than you were. And of course (continuing my "Fighters contribute to the party in general" argument), a tripped opponent has no DEX bonus. Your rogue will thank you. Perhaps. I'd rather see the monster already dead than be the rogue and get in close for a sneak attack against the tripped oponent. Irrelevant. We're talking about fighters, not warriors. It is very relevant though. If no class can suck if one person can have fun playing it, if I claim to know somebody who has fun playing a commoner, does that mean it doesn't suck? A Warrior? An Adept? This is a valid question to determine where you draw the line of suck. Ignore that they're NPC classes and pretend someone decides to play them in a normal campaign, contributes by killing some stuff now and then, and roleplays his character magnificently. Does this make these NPC classes suitable for PC use, or are they still considered unplayable? If they're unplayable, why? Sure you can say there's no point to play the Warrior because the Fighter is better. I can say there's no point to play a Fighter because the Cleric et all are better. So what's your answer? Are NPC classes good PC classes, or is there a possibility the Fighter can be underpowered despite people being able to play one in a party and have fun? Define "resources", please. Do they include, say, one-shot items? Please note that one of the points I'm making is that a fighter consumes far less resources than a spellcaster in any given encounter. In theory, it's supposed to. In practice, it's impossible to force a player to use 20% of their limited-use items in combat. But yes, it's supposed to include items, spells, and hit points. In theory, by the 4th encounter, the party should be half dead and want nothing more than to rest. Correct. Each of these is meant to be a reasonable challenge to a group of 4 10th level PC's. - and PC's of different classes, I expect. What's your point? are you honestly going to tell me that you think the Fighter is the same level of challenge to a party as a Wizard or Sorcerer of equal level? I think I've spent a fair amount of effort here making the point that a fighter can do a great deal more than "hit things hard"... I have seen no proof yet. You haven't yet disputed that all high level enemies are larger than you, fly, or have high strength, or some combination of the three. Many don't use weapons. This makes most of the Fighter's "Options" irrelevant entirely.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 11:50 AM	1D8+5 on 11+, 50% of 9.5; 4.75 damage per round Crit on 10%, confirm 50%, crit 5% of the time for total +50% damage. Fighter damage 7.125 per round; -5 for regeneration, 2.125 damage per round. Fighter takes 30 rounds to kill the troll. Troll 2 1d6+6 on 18+, 2(15% of 9.5); 2.85 damage per round. Troll 1d6+3 on 20, 5% of 6.5; .325 damage per round Troll Rend 2d6+9 0.0225%; .36 damage per round Crits for the troll are negligible. His total damage per round is 3.535. He kills the fighter in 12 rounds. Huh, who wins?
Irving 01-30-07, 12:36 PM	Perhaps. I'd rather see the monster already dead than be the rogue and get in close for a sneak attack against the tripped oponent. Personally, I'd rather be the rogue and get the chance to do what I do best in a really cool manner... maybe it's just me. My point here is that a fighter contributes to the party as a whole, after all. I'm also advancing the notion that having fun at the table matters more that killing stuff and taking the loot, but again, that's just me... So what's your answer? Are NPC classes good PC classes, or is there a possibility the Fighter can be underpowered despite people being able to play one in a party and have fun? If an orange is an apple, does that make my apple worth less than your apple? Sorry, no. Logical fallacy. Avoiding the imabalaced if/then statement you're making, though, I will submit that any PC with any class can find a way to contribute to the party's success, have fun, and increase the amount of fun that everyone else is having at the table. In that context, can you explain what "underpowered" even means? are you honestly going to tell me that you think the Fighter is the same level of challenge to a party as a Wizard or Sorcerer of equal level? Depends on the party, the warrior, the wizard, and way too many factors to even consider here. have seen no proof yet. You haven't yet disputed that all high level enemies are larger than you, fly, or have high strength, or some combination of the three. Many don't use weapons. This makes most of the Fighter's "Options" irrelevant entirely. Depends entirely on your game. In my campaign, the "high level" enemies I expect to face are enemy clerics. They neither have high strength, fly, nor are larger than me. If you're going to toss out Sorcerers and Wizards as enemy threats in one sentance, then make a comment like this in the next, perhaps you need to take a break and come back when you can argue logically?
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 12:42 PM	Just a question how does the Gatling tripper avoid being return tripped? Because I've stopped trying with my fighter. The only thing that a trip attempt will do for me past level 9 is make me lose my weapon when the Huge+ creature returns the favor off my failure.
magmer2 01-30-07, 12:52 PM	1D8+5 on 11+, 50% of 9.5; 4.75 damage per round Crit on 10%, confirm 50%, crit 5% of the time for total +50% damage. Fighter damage 7.125 per round; -5 for regeneration, 2.125 damage per round. Fighter takes 30 rounds to kill the troll. Troll 2 1d6+6 on 18+, 2(15% of 9.5); 2.85 damage per round. Troll 1d6+3 on 20, 5% of 6.5; .325 damage per round Troll Rend 2d6+9 0.0225%; .36 damage per round Crits for the troll are negligible. His total damage per round is 3.535. He kills the fighter in 12 rounds. Huh, who wins? Why is the fighter going toe to toe? Shouldn't he move in and out to avoid half of the full attacks?
Seerow 01-30-07, 01:01 PM	Personally, I'd rather be the rogue and get the chance to do what I do best in a really cool manner... maybe it's just me. My point here is that a fighter contributes to the party as a whole, after all. I'm also advancing the notion that having fun at the table matters more that killing stuff and taking the loot, but again, that's just me... Sure. But the rogue can do his trick without relying on a tripped oponent. He could be dealing with a flanked oponent (which doesn't require the Fighter to waste his actions tripping). And of course, you assume sneak attacking is "what the rogue is good for". The Rogue is a skill monkey. When he uses his skills, that's what he's good for. The Sneak Attack is icing on the cake. If an orange is an apple, does that make my apple worth less than your apple? Sorry, no. Logical fallacy. How is it a logical fallacy? The initial argument was no class can be underpowered if ANYBODY have fun playing it. My counter was, if ANYBODY could play a Commoner and have fun playing it, is it still possible to be underpowered? I'm trying to figure out if you actually draw lines, or if you DO accept NPC classes as viable classes. Because honestly, the minute you try to convince me a Commoner or a Warrior is a valid PC class, that's the point where I can ignore you and know Im missing nothing important. Avoiding the imabalaced if/then statement you're making, though, I will submit that any PC with any class can find a way to contribute to the party's success, have fun, and increase the amount of fun that everyone else is having at the table. In that context, can you explain what "underpowered" even means? Being underpowered results from having options that are easily nullified, adding less to the party than anybody else you could add instead, and relying entirely on the party to be a useful contributing member. Really, I find the Fighter weak because it doesn't have any real options, which is why I find your assertions of the Fighter's many options in combat utterly hilarious. Depends entirely on your game. In my campaign, the "high level" enemies I expect to face are enemy clerics. They neither have high strength, fly, nor are larger than me. If you're going to toss out Sorcerers and Wizards as enemy threats in one sentance, then make a comment like this in the next, perhaps you need to take a break and come back when you can argue logically? When did I toss out enemy Wizards and Sorcerers as threats? I specified high level enemies are stronger, larger, or more mobile than you, or some combination of the three. The Wizard and Sorcerer have the mobility, can have the size and strength through commonly used spells on their list. The Cleric has Size, Strength, and general ability over the Fighter -if he wants to-. Or he can summon something else that has that ability over the Fighter. They do however lack -most- of the mobility, they have the qualities of other high CR encounters. (Clerics with Travel Domain are much better) In fact, the only things that DON'T have those qualities of a high CR encounter, are, ironically, a high level melee class.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 01:05 PM	Just a question how does the Gatling tripper avoid being return tripped?Typically by using a 'trip weapon' that can be dropped when that happens - though a high STR and Improved Trip (and the occassional Enlarge Person) can minimize that occurance. The only thing that a trip attempt will do for me past level 9 is make me lose my weapon when the Huge+ creature returns the favor off my failure.Well, and not bothering to try tripping creatures with a substantial size/STR advantage over you, of course... The trip manuever, because it is a relatively non-scaling roll, is a really good low-level tactic, as you can maximize your check fairly early, and when you face a more experienced foe, his superior BAB doesn't matter. After low levels, when you find yourself more often the one with superior BAB, Disarm is a better option for that sort of character (the kind with Combat Expertise & Improved Trip, that is) - not only is it a scaling roll, but, at higher levels, you're more likely to encounter foes armed with particularly dangerous magical weapons. However, with all tactics overall effectiveness in a given campaign depends very much on the style of the DM. What it comes down to is that you generally want more than one tactic - either a few highly-availability tactics (feats, rogue, spontaneous spells, permanent items, etc), or a myriad of one-shot ones (prepped spells, scrolls, potions, etc). The 'Gattling Gun Tripper' is an exercise in optimization more than a serious character concept, and it does do its thing 'optimally' - it just doesn't do much else. Swapping a single feat for Improved Disarm, for instance, makes it a theoretically sub-optimal tripper, but gives it some added tactical flexibility at higher levels (when he may have a much higher BAB than STR/size adavantage - and Improved Disarm negates the counter-disarm). Putting even less emphasis on tripping to get some high-damage melee or ranged options has a greater effect. Exactly where you reach the tipping point between optimal and playable depends (again) on DM style. A DM who responds to an easy PC victory by (just) turning up the power dial is best aproached with optimization - since he'll just keep throwing the same thing, but more so, at you. One that responds to an easy PC victory with a radically different (and unpredictable) challenge, OTOH, demands more tactical flexibility. A DM with a penchant for 'telegraphing' varied /and/ powerful encounters (giving away upcoming encounters may be tactically unsound, but it can serve dramatic purposes), OTOOH, demands strategic flexibility. While one who throws out utterly unpredictable, overpowered encounters demands a certain type of flexibility from the player, not the charcter (the flexibilty to look for a new DM...).
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 01:07 PM	Why is the fighter going toe to toe? Shouldn't he move in and out to avoid half of the full attacks? Then the troll gets more regen in.
Irving 01-30-07, 01:11 PM	Then the troll gets more regen in. No, a troll heals 5 subdual damage a round, actions don't play into it. He's suggesting taking a move action and a standard attack action each round, instead of standing toe to toe and each round both combatants taking full actions. Honestly, fighting a troll by going toe to toe is like fighting a pig by getting down on your hands and knees and trying to bite it to death. There are smarter ways of doing it.
Generic Poster 01-30-07, 01:15 PM	A goblin fighter riding a wolf with a lance would make short work of a troll at 5th level. Feats would be: mounted combat ride-by-attack spirited charge wild cohort mounted archery You wouldn't need to be in any sort of flat plain either, you just need to be in an area clear enough that you can charge, which is made easier by being a medium creature. If you can't charge during the round you can still use your bow to keep his hitpoints down. I don't know off hand how much gold I'd be allowed to spend for equipment, but you should have enough to make this work.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 01:16 PM	How good is that cleric bereft of all equipment... including holy symbol and spell components? Still pretty good. He can cast things like gate, implosion, holy word, and harm just fine. A naked cleric could contribute a lot more than a naked fighter. Why is the fighter going toe to toe? Shouldn't he move in and out to avoid half of the full attacks? Yeah, I guess that would be a little better. Two attacks vs. one instead of three vs. one. a tripped opponent has no DEX bonus. Ah, if only that were true...
Seerow 01-30-07, 01:17 PM	Okay, now how does that Mounted Archer Fighter compare to what most people expect out of the Fighter? People say he's a tank, battlefield controller, frontline Fighter. If you're playing skirmisher, you're taking the Rogue or Scout's job in combat, leaving the Cleric or Druid to take over for tanking.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 01:23 PM	Okay, now how does that Mounted Archer Fighter compare to what most people expect out of the Fighter? People say he's a tank, battlefield controller, frontline Fighter. If you're playing skirmisher, you're taking the Rogue or Scout's job in combat, leaving the Cleric or Druid to take over for tanking. Shhh.... Let them keep digging. Seriously at high levels the fighter is just a speed bump on the way to the casters. One trample or overrun and it's on to the real threats.
Coffee_Dragon 01-30-07, 01:33 PM	I think Jack Handy said it best: Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous class in the world is not the cleric or the druid or even the wizard. It's a fighter riding on a shark riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see, and then trying to trip the bloody remains.
TekknoMancer 01-30-07, 01:36 PM	Seriously what the fighter needs is a bone to be thrown. I don't mean new feats and such, but actual stuff added to their 1-20 progression. Fighters are weak compared to casters, but a little bit of tweaking would go a long way to making them a competitive class. That...and toning down the casters a little. I have seen boatloads of new systems and total overhauls for the fighter. If you want an overhaul, justs play the warblade. I think better saves, better skills, and a general utility ability would go a long way. What could this other ability be? Speed as an initiative bonus (since many high level battles are determined by who goes first) or as extra actions each round. Another ability thrown around here is "Foil Action" which allows you to basically interrupt an enemy's action. This would make use of the fighter's swift/immediate actions, which are simply wasted as set up.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 01:44 PM	Okay, now how does that Mounted Archer compare to what most people expect .... ... a tank, battlefield controller, frontliner.I think the character in question wasn't a dedictated archer, but was more focused on mounted combat in general, including a lance. The mobility and reach of a lance-wielding mounted character make him pretty good at battlefield control. The lance is also useable with a shield when mounted, giving him a higher AC for tanking (and Mounted combat helps protect the mount, which had better be pretty darn tough). And, the lance charge provides some high-damage potential at the front line, particularly compared to what weapon & shield can do on foot. Mounted Archery, of course (even if it's the character's only archery feat), make him a pretty good skirmisher, too - combining full moves and full attacks with high AB, and a variety of magical arrows (even if you can't afford a magical bow to go with your magical lance). If you're playing skirmisher, you're taking the Rogue or Scout's job in combatWell, the Scout is certainly a skirmisher, and the Rogue has to be to avoid absorbing too many full attacks. A mounted combatant, though, more has the option to skirmish - he can do it, and do it well (especially via mounted combat or ride-by attack), but he should have the hps and AC (and a tough enough mount) to trade full attacks (most likely following a charge), as well, if that's the best way to occupy an enemy that'd otherwise make short work of other party members. Of course, one of the big objections to mounted combat is the vulnerability of the mount. There are a number of ways to deal with that. The Mounted Combat feat, obviously, using protective magic (items) on the mount, acquiring a very tough mount (via leadership or animal handling or wealth investment or a class feature of some kind), or using a 'disposeable' mount that can be easily replaced... .
Generic Poster 01-30-07, 01:45 PM	Okay, now how does that Mounted Archer Fighter compare to what most people expect out of the Fighter? People say he's a tank, battlefield controller, frontline Fighter. If you're playing skirmisher, you're taking the Rogue or Scout's job in combat, leaving the Cleric or Druid to take over for tanking. I was just taking the scenerio on how to best deal with a 1 on 1 fight. If where talking an entire party where I was also expected to tank, I could just replace monted archery with combat expertise and then stay in melee after hitting him with my lance. I would then be in a similar situation as the sword and board fighter made earlier to take on the troll. My stats would be slightly worse then the earlier build, but I would have already made a significant dent in the trolls hit points with my initial charge and I would have similar equipment available. Regardless, I would be able to tank better then the cleric at 5th level and still be have the maneuverability of a scout. Honestly, Ride and Handle Animal wouldn't be on the fighters class skills if it wasn't meant to be used.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 01:49 PM	Honestly, Ride and Handle Animal wouldn't be on the fighters class skills if it wasn't meant to be used.There are certainly some concepts - knights, warg-riders, steppe archers, etc - that call for them, but there are others that don't at all. Mounted combat is certainly an effective combat option, but it's one of many - only a minority of which are really mechanically jilted by the system.
MerlintheTuna 01-30-07, 02:03 PM	If that were true, then we wouldn't see builds that exploit those tactics on past 20th level on the CO board.Because without spells or ToB, there's not a whole lot to do but charge, and that's already been done. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=401662) And for the record, the Fighter isn't even necessarily the best at this. There are two worthwhile Fighter builds on CO at the moment. Gatling Chain Gun Tripper (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005) has extremely limited effectiveness unless a spellcaster is around to help him out as he has no means to increase his size. Note that one explicitly cannot trip an opponent more than one size larger than him. Also... Now, an optional variant to this build removes 4 levels of Fighter for 1 level of Knight of the Middle Circle (Combat Sense +2, Blindfight) & 3 levels of Exotic Weapon Master (Flurry, Trip Attack, & Twin Ex. Weapon Fighting). But this entails taking away 2 feats. Admittedly, this variant is stronger than Fighter-20, but I posted Fighter-20 up first because, well, I wanted to make a Fighter-20 build that actually looks unique.The second worthwhile Fighter build is Caelic's Jack B. Quick (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=646185), an exercise in getting as many attacks as possible, with a side of tripping. Note that Jack also has no means to increase his size, which means he too can only trip Large creatures unless he petitions for help from a spellcaster. Also, note one of Caelic's responses: 2. The basic build is most definitely that: a basic build. There are all sorts of things you could do to trick it out and jazz it up. I like the PsyWar idea in particular. To me, though, that's the beauty of a basic build--everyone can take it and add their own touches and make it uniquely theirs. The Blade Bravo version is just cool...I've always liked that class.This is in response to a number of responses that included superior options to Fighter levels. Even as good as that Fighter is, there are plenty of ways to make him better, and almost all of them involve fewer Fighter levels. Finally, on a less specific note, I refer to The Logic Ninja's (currently incomplete) Practical Optimization thread for the Fighter. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=733597) The Fighter doesn't have that many advantages: Full BAB, his 18 feats over 20 levels, and a good fort save. He suffers from a few of weaknesses: a poor Will save (and general vulnerability to magic), a limited set of options in combat (hit, trip, move, basically), and hitting things not being nearly as viable a tactic as many of the ones spellcasters have availible to them. ***** You sure do have a lot of feats, though. Which is okay, because there's plenty to spend them on, presuming you're not running a core-only game (if you are, your Fighter 20 will be utterly terrible, and no amount of optimization will really help). ***** Suggestion:In fact, any discussion of high level Fighters at 15-20th level cannot be discussed at all without PAO being considered into the equation. Reply:I, uh, don't plan on covering that, actually. Fighters shouldn't plan on getting the benefits of PAO, because PAO shouldn't ever be cast. It's one of the game's most broken spells, almost totally unsuitable for real play and allowing it does more harm than good to the fighter's relative ability to compete (I remember using it to turn myself into a gold dragon, INT and all, as a wizard--and that was before I had anything more than a primitive grasp of optimization). This is one of those spells--like Shapechange--that's broken, and fairly likely to be game-breaking. It just plain shouldn't be used. Conclusion:Well, with all due respect, you almost HAVE to discuss PaO for high level fighter play. Literally, you have to. I've been playing 3.0~3.5 D&D for 5 years now in 3 different groups [+ Living Greyhawk]. The vast majority of the games I've played have been from levels 12 to 20. PaO is the pure fighter's saving grace. A fighter who doesn't get it is left behind in the dust. Again, this is talking about things from a pure character optimization standpoint. Regardless what you think about the balance level of PaO (and related spells like Shapechange), it is core and it is used by a significant chunk, if not majority, of the game groups I've seen. Unfortunately, using this spell to allow the fighter to keep up with the spellcasters is also a tacit admission that the fighter is the arcanist's *****. Which sucks. But that's the reality of hi level optimized game playThe bottom line is that when CharOp makes new Fighter builds, it's literally just for the sake of having a worthwhile Fighter build. It's not optimal so much as "optimal given the restriction of being forced to use a terrible class." Further, the class has an obscene dependence on non-Core material (to the point of being physically useless in a core-only game) and/or the most confusing, broken spells in the game. Further, the exploited tactics you make mention of are described as "a limited set of options in combat." Not exactly as stellar a review as you make it out to be. This is not a good class.
OneWinged4ngel 01-30-07, 02:36 PM	This is not a good class. Right. Honestly, I'm not willing to discuss this much anymore; most of the people still disagreeing are either newbies who haven't read any past arguments (and should be referred to them) and aren't really aware of how balance works out, or they're just really hard-headed and rely on illogical trains of thought or are tricked into thinking their fighters don't suck by DM coddling. In all honesty, just like Seerow demonstrated, you can post up an *OPTIMIZED* 20-level fighter class with all the feats filled in and just change the names... and many of these very same people will (and did) call it underpowered. Unless they actually realize it's a Fighter. Then it's a sacred cow, and can't possibly be one of the weakest classes around :rolleyes:
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-30-07, 02:38 PM	Could you please link me to a thread where you did that, I would be ever so grateful.
Seerow 01-30-07, 02:44 PM	I did that some months ago. I posted the Fighter as a "Combat Specialist" with the Weapon Supremacy Tree and the Combat Focus tree as his primary class features, reflavored. It was an interesting way to guage it, because not everyone had PHBII at that point. it didn't really get as much feedback as I had hoped though, and someone spoiled the joke about 10 posts in.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 02:49 PM	Why is the fighter going toe to toe? Shouldn't he move in and out to avoid half of the full attacks? Because, lacking Spring Attack, he can't attack every round. If he doesn't, the troll regenerates ALL the damage he does, and he eventually loses. You can't win a war of attrition with something that regenerates.
krossbow 01-30-07, 03:02 PM	Personally, here's my view of how to make a fighter flexible: Give them wildcard feats at level 6, like the man at arms has in iron heroes. Each day, the fighter can meditate for an hour, bringing various moves to the front of his mind, and allowing him to pick his level 6,8,10,12,&14 bonus feats for the day. This would allow him to change it up each day for the encounters to come. At level 16, 18 & 20 give him "improv. feats"; at the beginning of an encounter, the fighter can try and remember various stunts he's seen and try to imitate them to the best of his ability; after a number of rounds in combat, his style breaks down since he doesn't really know the feats, and he can't continue doing them. Something like being able to keep the feats/fighting style together for 6+int rounds, and requiring 10 minutes of rest to be able to repeat another attempt to imitate feats. Also, give him a concentration save like the ritual warrior from arcana evolved; A number of times per day equal to your con modifier, you can make a concentration check instead of any save (allowing limited defenses vs. his weak saves) Of course, most of these ideas have been suggested long ago by much better informed people.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 03:04 PM	you can post up an *OPTIMIZED* 20-level fighter class with all the feats filled in and just change the names... And you'd have a redundant class, one much less desireable than the fighter - since the fighter class could be used to duplicate that class's ability, in addition to being used to fill other concepts. It'd be comparable to positing a class that worked exactly like a given caster class - but with a set 1/day spell-like ability replacing each of it's daily spell slots. Even if loaded with well-chosen, obviously broken spells, it'd still be redundant compared to the class it was based on. Redundant doesn't exactly equal underpowered - but it sure gives the impression of underpoweredness.
Seerow 01-30-07, 03:06 PM	And you'd have a redundant class, one much less desireable than the fighter - since the fighter class could be used to duplicate that class's ability, in addition to being used to fill other concepts. It'd be comparable to positing a class that worked exactly like a given caster class - but with a set 1/day spell-like ability replacing each of it's daily spell slots. Even if loaded with well-chosen, obviously broken spells, it'd still be redundant compared to the class it was based on. Redundant doesn't exactly equal underpowered - but it sure gives the impression of underpoweredness. Wizards come with a built in way of changing their spells daily. Fighters don't. There's a big difference there.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 03:07 PM	No, it wouldn't. A Fighter can only be one thing ever. Different Fighters can be different things-but that does not impact the power of that single Fighter. If an optimized Fighter isn't good, then the class isn't good, no matter if the Fighter could have chosen to be Swordy McStabslash instead of Trippy McTrippster.
Cael 01-30-07, 04:16 PM	Right. Honestly, I'm not willing to discuss this much anymore; most of the people still disagreeing are either newbies who haven't read any past arguments (and should be referred to them) and aren't really aware of how balance works out, or they're just really hard-headed and rely on illogical trains of thought or are tricked into thinking their fighters don't suck by DM coddling. In all honesty, just like Seerow demonstrated, you can post up an *OPTIMIZED* 20-level fighter class with all the feats filled in and just change the names... and many of these very same people will (and did) call it underpowered. Unless they actually realize it's a Fighter. Then it's a sacred cow, and can't possibly be one of the weakest classes around :rolleyes: THE Fighter Fix FTW!!!!! :D
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 04:20 PM	Wizards come with a built in way of changing their spells daily. Fighters don't. There's a big difference there.I didn't specify wizards. There is a difference in degree, but it's the same sort of thing. However optimized your non-choice hypothetical class is, it's still strictly inferior to the fighter, who could do exactly the same thing, or choose something else as the character develops... A Fighter can only be one thing ever. Different Fighters can be different things-but that does not impact the power of that single Fighter. And a wizard can only have one slate of spells chosen in a single day. It's a matter of degree - fighters and sorcerers face a choice at level-up; wizards when they prep thier spells - but it's still a choice, and it's better to have a choice than not. It's more extreme the more choice is taken away from you. Choosing a sorcerer's spells known for him for his entire career is not as bad as choosing a wizard's spells prepared for him for his entire career - but they're both still bad. Positing a class that's strictly inferior to the fighter, and then claiming that a poor reception for that class somehow proves the suckitude of the fighter is a pretty weak argument. Maybe that's why you didn't get a lot of reaction to the exercise. Now, if you could get people to trash a class that's strictly superior to the fighter (can precisely duplicate any fighter build and then some), and get people to label it underpowered, you might have something.
Ogreman 01-30-07, 04:20 PM	Another thing to keep in mind, and this is important: Balance doesn't occur at level 20, it occurs at all levels. Level 1? Who can kill more goblins without going down, a wizard with a few magic missiles and rays of frost, or a sword-and-board fighter with heavy armor? Sure, the wizard outstrips the fighter, so does the cleric and druid, but at lower levels the fighter is the most important member of the group. He keeps the monsters from interrupting those Concentration checks, or getting at the 5 or 6 wizardly hit points.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 04:25 PM	Level 1? Who can kill more goblins without going down, a wizard with a few magic missiles and rays of frost, or a sword-and-board fighter with heavy armor? A wizard with sleep and/or color spray and a x4-crit weapon. A fighter will last a bit longer, but not much longer without some healing.
1CentSage 01-30-07, 04:27 PM	I have a challenge for you. Create a 5th level Fighter who is able to defeat a Troll in single combat. No single use items, and you do not need to deal lethal damage to the troll, simply knock it out. I am a little late for that one (did not dare to gaze into the abyss of yet another fighter thread until now) and this challenge is of no importance for this topic anyway, but since it is so easy ... Dwarf fighter 5 25 standard Point buy incl. racial modifiers: Str 16 (10pts), Con 16 (6pts, +2 racial), Dex 13(5pts) Int 10 (2pts), Wis 10 (2 pts), Cha 6 (0pts, -2 racial) hp: 10+4d10+15= 47 average AC:29=10+1 (Dex)+8 (full plate)+ 6(+2 Tshield)+4 (dodge vs. giant) attack: mw dwarven waraxe +10 (BAB+5,+1WFocus+1MW+3Str, no penalty for tower shield) dmg: 1d10+5 / 5.5 average (5.5 +3 Str+2WSpec- 5 regeneration) Feats: Wfocus (DWaraxe), WSpec (DWaraxe) +3 other Gear: full plate (1500gp), +2 Tshield (4180gp), mw DWaraxe (330gp), ~3000gp left The fighter has a 75% chance to hit the troll, which means that he needs about 15 rounds for a knock out neglecting crits. The troll hits only on a 20 , so with 45 attacks in 15 rounds he will hit less 2.25 times on average which will not be enough to deal 47 pts of damage even if crits and his rend ability would be taken into account. Even an additional attack of opportunity every round due to clever movement combined with reach will lead only to 3 hits over 15 rounds. The only chances for the troll to win are either hit and run tactics or grappling. Both seem not to be in line with the description of the troll's reckless fighting style in the MM and even grappling is not a save method to always beat the fighter. With the additional feats and equipment the fighter might have a chance also against 2 trolls. Using a dwarf here is of course a bit cheesy, ... , but there is so much room for additional feats, gear, etc. left that I dare to suggest that it would also work out with a human for example. I was just to lazy to do that. Finally, to make one thing clear: All the above said as well as the fact that I responded to this challenge is in no way intended as a statement on the capabilities or suckiness of the fighter class in general.
OneWinged4ngel 01-30-07, 04:33 PM	Now that's funny. I think that people who think fighters suck are mostly munchkins who play with incompetent DMs. They think the wizard is so powerful because they don't take into account it's limitations. This is because their DMs handwave known spells limitations. Wizards aren't supposed to know every spell on their class list. Players that do know every spell on their class list are the lucky recipients of DM coddling. But what about hte Cleric and Druid? Same thing. These blissfully unaware players get every spell from every splatbook automatically. When, if their DM is not a moron, they should'nt have automatic access to this. Then they take all their Dm's gifts and assume that the fighter is only effective in the case of DM largesse, that's the definition of irony. A core-only spellcaster is much better off than a core-only fighter. In fact, many of the best spells are core. The same cannot be said for feats. Additionally, as has been mentioned many times before, the Fighter has many more limitations than any spellcaster. Say your DM is particularly strict. You can't add spells to your spellbook, you ONLY get them on level up. You can't use any supplements. This could hardly be considered DM coddling. You still have way more versatility and options than the Fighter. You still outperform the Fighter with access to all his splatbooks for the majority of levels. Even if the DM is restrictive on casters (and I am in my own games) they still outstrip fighters with ease so long as the player doesn't suck at playing casters. No matter what you do, the Fighter is pretty much limited to hitting things. Almost every other option is not as effective, including trip at a certain point in the game where it doesn't work on almost all enemies, unless the DM is... guess what? Coddling you! The Fighter can't even hit things as well as other classes. He doesn't tank well, because he doesn't really have anything to make him an attractive target, nor does he have any particularly useful abilities to protect his teammates. The only way he's tanking is if the enemies arbitrarily make a poor tactical decision and go straight for the Fighter while the real classes tear him apart. you know what situations that happens in? When the DM is coddling you! The Fighter doesn't contribute at all outside of combat in any mechanical way. He doesn't get any better equipment than anyone else, so the arguments that the Fighter gets the magic items and such is bunk. In reality, he itemizes worse than any spellcaster (all of whom can make their own items and gain access to all the effects of potions cheaper, in scroll and wand form), and the only class that you can really argue balance on terms of itemization is the Artificer, who has a significant advantage in that regard. The only case where the Fighter is going to have that awesome sword and the Cleric arbitrarily won't get it is a case where... you guessed it: the DM is coddling you. If monsters arbitrarily use idiotic tactics so that the Fighter can get an ubercharge on them (easily interruptable) and only deal direct hit point damage with things like Fireball? Then the DM is coddling you! On the other hand, if the DM is playing hardball, the Wizards can step up (even with plenty of limitations imposed on them), and the Fighters will just die, short of some player ingenuity that has nothing to do with their class that some other class could do better anyways. All the Fighter has is combat feats. One every other level. Half of his levels are dead levels. Feats aren't as good as real class features. Anything you get beyond that... is gained because the DM gives it to you. The fact of the matter is, the Fighter has many more limitations than the Wizard. Additionally... much of your response borders on a straw man argument. Now that's funny. I think that people who think fighters suck are mostly munchkins who play with incompetent DMs. They think the wizard is so powerful because they don't take into account it's limitations. Like? This is because their DMs handwave known spells limitations. Wizards aren't supposed to know every spell on their class list. Did I ever say they did? Players that do know every spell on their class list are the lucky recipients of DM coddling. I would agree. However, I certainly wasn't arguing from such a standpoint, so you're making a straw man argument here. But what about hte Cleric and Druid? Same thing. These blissfully unaware players get every spell from every splatbook automatically. When, if their DM is not a moron, they should'nt have automatic access to this. I never included that in my argument... although that *is* how it works by RAW. Essentially, you're saying that it isn't a powerful feature because the DM will change it through house rules because he realizes it is a powerful feature... which is self-contradictory, and identified as the Oberoni fallacy.
Coffee_Dragon 01-30-07, 04:34 PM	Positing a class that's strictly inferior to the fighter, and then claiming that a poor reception for that class somehow proves the suckitude of the fighter is a pretty weak argument. On the contrary, it's a pretty strong point. Those who claim the fighter doesn't suck are backpedalling to the point where they say the fighter doesn't suck because you can have fun with it and play in such a way that everyone can ignore the suckitude and not have to deal with it. The obvious thing to ask is then whether this doesn't hold true for any hypothetical class however paltry. This they refuse to answer. It's essentially a form of the Oberoni fallacy. It doesn't suck, because you can pretend it doesn't. Cael, Seerow et al. are really quite admirable for not throwing out a lot more frustrated "wtf squared" as their points are dodged and their explanations ignored. Here's one from me.
Cael 01-30-07, 04:41 PM	Another thing to keep in mind, and this is important: Balance doesn't occur at level 20, it occurs at all levels. Level 1? Who can kill more goblins without going down, a wizard with a few magic missiles and rays of frost, or a sword-and-board fighter with heavy armor? Sure, the wizard outstrips the fighter, so does the cleric and druid, but at lower levels the fighter is the most important member of the group. He keeps the monsters from interrupting those Concentration checks, or getting at the 5 or 6 wizardly hit points. I would say the Wizard with Mage Armour, a Cat Familiar, Sleep, a x4 crit weapon and a mundane quarterstaff you take down more Gobbies than bog standard level 1 Fighter. Considering that I have seen a naked level 4 Fighter go down to 4 bog standard Kobolds, let's just say I am not impressed with the class...
TheCobra 01-30-07, 04:45 PM	no penalty for tower shield Why not?
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 04:49 PM	And a wizard can only have one slate of spells chosen in a single day. It's a matter of degree - fighters and sorcerers face a choice at level-up; wizards when they prep thier spells - but it's still a choice, and it's better to have a choice than not. It's more extreme the more choice is taken away from you. Choosing a sorcerer's spells known for him for his entire career is not as bad as choosing a wizard's spells prepared for him for his entire career - but they're both still bad. It's a pretty big degree. If you can change up your abilities to fit your situation every day you are vastly more flexable then a person who is locked into their abilities once they choose them. Lets view the following, a wizard takes sleep at 1st level. A sorcerer takes sleep at first level. A fighter takes Improved Trip as his bonus feat at 1st level. Now around 6th level when sleep is starting to become useless the sorcerer swaps it out. The wizard just stopped memorizing it a while back, but if it ever (somehow) became useful again he'd have it the next day. Meanwhile around 9th level when Improved Trip becomes a liability the fighter gets to.... keep Improved Trip. It should also be noted that a sorcerer can, if everything goes wrong and he doesn't have the right spells for the job, get scrolls and wands with little to know loss of effectiveness. If the fighter finds out he needs a slashing weapon, but his weapon of choice is bludgening, he starts having to shell out even more cash to get a sword that won't be nearly as effective as his primary weapon. The wizard of course just takes a nap and does some light reading and is just as powerful as always.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 04:54 PM	On the contrary, it's a pretty strong point. Those who claim the fighter doesn't suck are backpedalling to the point where they say the fighter doesn't suck because you can have fun with it and play in such a way that everyone can ignore the suckitude and not have to deal with it. So, you're saying it's an illogical and obviously false rejoinder to an illogical and obviously false assertion. Fair enough.
1CentSage 01-30-07, 04:54 PM	Why not? Fighters automatically get the Tower Shield Proficiency feat, that removes (only) the attack penalty, see PHB p.101 Edit: Just looked at it again, what I said is not true. There still is the -2 to attack. This will however not change the outcome of the battle (Either take a normal shield +2 together with a full plate +1 and Dodge, or fight a few rounds longer).
Coffee_Dragon 01-30-07, 05:01 PM	So, you're saying it's an illogical and obviously false rejoinder to an illogical and obviously false assertion. Nah, it's not really a statement that can be evaluated as true or false. It's like saying, "If you think your argument is sound, do you also think this other thing that follows from it is reasonable?" If the answer is no, something is fishy about the argument. If the answer is yes, then the argument stands, but it may also reveal that it's not really that relevant to a discussion of game balance.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 05:33 PM	Meanwhile around 9th level when Improved Trip becomes a liability the fighter gets to.... keep Improved Trip. Well, the rebuilding rules from PHB2 help with that problem.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 05:37 PM	Well, the rebuilding rules from PHB2 help with that problem. The PHBII apparently does quite a bit for the fighter (though I am unconfortable saying that it allows the fighter to not suck horribly) but it requires going out and getting the PHB II to get that fix. I opted for Tome of Battle instead so I can't comment to heavily on the material. Still if rebuilding costs any resources the fighter is once again left behind in the power curve, because the casting classes get to do it for free.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 05:47 PM	Still if rebuilding costs any resources the fighter is once again left behind in the power curve, because the casting classes get to do it for free. Well, I doubt fighters would match caster even if they could switch out all their feats as a free action. But hey, it's something. By the rebuild rules as I understand them, a fighter could theoretically switch out a feat at every level. Such simple rebuilding doesn't cost anything. As a DM, I probably wouldn't allow this, but that's a different matter.
krossbow 01-30-07, 05:54 PM	PHB II did indeed do alot to fix the weaker classes, and tried to sneak in a few major nerfs in the hopes that a few of the classes (hint, hint, druid) would mistakenly think it was intended to help them and self-nerf. For example, the flanking ranger is a rouge's best friend, and is infinitely superior to the crappy animal companion they get, distracting strike is a must have for rogues, and the shadow companion is a great boost (much needed) for hexblades (not to mention it makes them GREAT team players with spellcasters, since they soften them up and then let the mages rip them apart with save or dies). However, the fighter still lags behind, since they weren't able to just come out and say "Okay, the fighter sucks! We're giving it some bonus class material!", but rather swapped out feats for useful abilities. Now, while feats aren't all that great (Though the PHB II makes them much better for high levels), these abilities should really have simply been inserted into their dead levels. But that would of been admitting wrong (Like, say, errating the shifter druid, instead of putting it forth as "an option"), so they couldn't do that.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 06:00 PM	While I'm here I'd like to point out yet again even if the Fighter was good at fighting it would still be the worst PC class in the PHB. Why? Because that's all a fighter can (theoretically) do. They have 2+Int skills (lower then any non full caster class) combined with a class skill list that makes commoners look good. And unlike every other class in the game none of their class features are useful outside of combat. In short outside of combat the fighter is the absolute worst class in the game. And that includes NPC classes. "But it's called the fighter. It should be good at fighting. It doesn't need these other bonuses." A Cleric or Druid can match the fighter in combat and heal and buff the party. A Wizard or Sorcerer can match the fighter in combat and teleport, go invisible, fly or do other wizard BS. A Rogue, can almost match the fighter in a fight and is the only person who can find magic traps in addition to their other myriad talents. A Bard can almost match the fighter in a fight and can basically dominate small towns by playing the flute. A Paladin, or Ranger can match the fighter in a fight and have skills and spells to help in and outside of combat. Even the lowly Monk can almost match the fighter in a fight and brings a number of unique tricks that most characters cannot duplicate in addition to a great deal more skills. And the Barbarian can match the fighter in a fight and has better skills and an ability to avoid danger. In short the fighters advantage in fighting is not enough to justify his lack of non combat options. If he was an unstoppable combat force? Maybe. But as it stands the fighter, even in the eyes of fighter supporters, is not powerful enough to justify their lack of non combat abilities.
TheCobra 01-30-07, 06:05 PM	The fact that fighters don't have listen and spot as class skills is the most insulting thing in my opinion. I would think the ability to avoid ambushes would be part of any warrior's training.
Belgian Waffle 01-30-07, 06:07 PM	The fact that fighters don't have listen and spot as class skills is the most insulting thing in my opinion. I would think the ability to avoid ambushes would be part of any warrior's training. Haha Warriors don't get listen or spot either :(
krossbow 01-30-07, 06:09 PM	Eh, I think that may be a bit harsh daidoji; while the fighter isn't exactly incredible, he isn't overshadowed in battle quite that much. They aren't that far away from your surmission, but they aren't quite that easily trumped for the purpose of hitting things (I'd wager monks are worse) However, going back a few pages to the fighter killing the people in their sleep because he wasn't appreciated: I remember one time as a cleric, one fighter in the party almost drove me insane. He was basically useless (level 7), and was constantly asking me for shield other spells and cure serious wounds. Finally, I just told him "No. I have save some of these spells for the contributing members." and dispelled the shield other spell (I was almost dying every fight because of his damage). He acted like I had just stole his characters sword; but in the long run it was better off, as I shield othered the rogue who did his job immensely better, and got the fighter to make a caster when he died (next battle).
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 06:10 PM	Nah, it's not really a statement that can be evaluated as true or false."Invalid," then, perhaps? I'm sorry, I was groping for less-offensive adjectives...
TheCobra 01-30-07, 06:10 PM	I didn't mean the class. :P They should also get it, though. Fighters also need four skill points per level and good Ref saves.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 06:21 PM	Eh, I think that may be a bit harsh daidoji; while the fighter isn't exactly incredible, he isn't overshadowed in battle quite that much. They aren't that far away from your surmission, but they aren't quite that easily trumped for the purpose of hitting things (I'd wager monks are worse) My point is that the Fighter has to be nigh invincible in battle in order to ballance out the fact that he is nigh useless everywhere else. Even if the other classes are a little weaker then the fighter in a fight it doesn't make up for their incompetence off the field. Especially since out of battle actions can seriously effect the tone of a battle. A surprise round can be the deciding factor in a fight, and a Fighter is useless in stopping the enemies from gaining surprise and is usually a hindrence for the party gaining surprise.
Skarsgard 01-30-07, 06:30 PM	I agree on the fighter getting 4 SP per level and oppening up a few more feats. My fighters are always given 3 things. A decent charisma, skill focus in Use Magic Device and the Magical Aptitude feat. At higher levels this gives the fighter the ability to use wands/scrolls to buff themselves. A fighter at 10th level with a CHA of 14 and the above will have about a +12 to Use magic device, which gives him a bit more than a 50-50 chance to use a wand. But in terms of fighter fix, what do you guys think of a magic resistance feat? Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells).
Belgian Waffle 01-30-07, 07:04 PM	But in terms of fighter fix, what do you guys think of a magic resistance feat? Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells). Now everyone gets SR. That's the problem with trying to make feats like this. And making them fighter only would be hard to justify. They just don't have the flavor for that sort of thing. My fighters are always given 3 things. A decent charisma, skill focus in Use Magic Device and the Magical Aptitude feat. At higher levels this gives the fighter the ability to use wands/scrolls to buff themselves. Heh.
Irving 01-30-07, 07:11 PM	I never included that in my argument... although that *is* how it works by RAW. If you're going to tell me that Pelor allows his clerics access to Dispel Good and Animate Dead, then you've got a goldfish for a DM.
Kresalak 01-30-07, 07:12 PM	Well, I doubt fighters would match caster even if they could switch out all their feats as a free action. But hey, it's something. By the rebuild rules as I understand them, a fighter could theoretically switch out a feat at every level. Such simple rebuilding doesn't cost anything. As a DM, I probably wouldn't allow this, but that's a different matter. K actually showed how, even given every Fighter feat ever printed, Fighters still weren't able to compete.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 07:13 PM	But in terms of fighter fix, what do you guys think of a magic resistance feat? Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells). Problem is that most of the nasty spells don't have SR. Not to mention that while this would help the fighter avoid being slaughtered by casters is doesn't keep him even with the rest of the party when fighting colossal earth elementals or other non magical problems. The fix to the fighter class is going to have to be from the core mechanics up. Feats alone do not a class make.
TekknoMancer 01-30-07, 07:14 PM	I agree on the fighter getting 4 SP per level and oppening up a few more feats. My fighters are always given 3 things. A decent charisma, skill focus in Use Magic Device and the Magical Aptitude feat. At higher levels this gives the fighter the ability to use wands/scrolls to buff themselves. A fighter at 10th level with a CHA of 14 and the above will have about a +12 to Use magic device, which gives him a bit more than a 50-50 chance to use a wand. But in terms of fighter fix, what do you guys think of a magic resistance feat? Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells). I would say 4 skills/level, AND at level 1 choose 2 skills to be added to the fighter class list. While this is unique, the fighter is supposed to be able to represent a large number of archetypes. I think choosing 2 skills would go a great way towards this. I'm not sure if I would go the route of SR though. The problem is 2-fold: 1)SR "protects" against beneficial effects like buffs and healing. 2)You would need quite a bit of SR for it to really be useful. If you want to copy an ability from the monk, I would grant all 3 good saves. Maybe build upon that further by allowing saves against spells that allow SR but no save. The only irrestible spells would be those with no SR or save. I wouldn't make the SR (or if you use my suggestion) a feat however. As the previous poster said, it would be too available to other classes. I would make it a straight-up class ability gained at a specific level.
Cael 01-30-07, 07:29 PM	Who says munchkins lack imagination? You've just shown me that you're out of ideas here champ. Nice to know you have such a disfunctional gaming group though. It helps me know where you're coming from and what you're game is like. You have my sympathies. Mmm-hmmm. I suppose I can't really reply to this. After all, how does one decently riposte to a "Your Momma!"?
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 07:40 PM	My point is that the Fighter has to be nigh invincible in battle in order to ballance out the fact that he is nigh useless everywhere else.Do you really think so? I mean, why does the party need the rogue to scout-out the enemy when the nigh-invincible fighter will just kill them anyway, with or without surprise? Why does the wizard need to prep any combat spells, when the party has a nigh-invincible fighter around? Who needs an encouraging ditty from the bard or the blessing of the Cleric when you're already nigh-invincible? And when you come up against an enemy powerful enough to make that fighter aware of the 'NIGH' portion of his nigh-invincibility, what does it do to the rest of the party? And how does a typical session play out? Rogue disarms some traps (two rolls each), Wizard casts a few utility spells, Fighter kills everything the party encounters, cleric casts Cure Light Wounds because the fighter actually got hit once (because he's only nigh-invincible)? It'd be pretty hard on the other warrior-types, too. Can you imagine the interviews? Bard: "And why should we consider you for membership in our band of hearty adventurers?" Barbarian: "Well, I get really mad, and when I get really mad, I hit real hard." Bard: "Ah, I see. Whould you say that, while 'really mad,' you're 'nigh-invincible?'" Barbarian: "Uh, well, I guess not really - I'm easier to hit when I'm mad, and I usually get real tired in less than a minute, so if the fight's still on at that point..." Bard: "Yeah, whatever, we already have two nigh-invincible fighters. Do you have any other qualifications?" Barbarian: "Well, gee...well, my hearin's pretty good..." Bard: "The rogue and I have Listen covered - and Spot. Plus, the Wizard has See Invisible, and the Cleric, Invisibility Purge." Barbarian: ".oh, OK, and, uh... I can find food in the willderness..." Bard: "Ah, survival! An excellent skill. Of course, you have the Track feat..." Barbarian: "Actually, I'm still working on the Power Attack Tre-" Bard: "NEXT!" OK, seriously (yes, none of that was really serious, "nigh-invincible" just set off the part of my brain that's normally only active when watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail, sorry)... ... it is true that the fighter has the fewest non-combat-aplicable abilities of any core class. However, it's also true that non-combat abilities just aren't valued as highly as in-combat ones. That's partly because D&D just has a strong emphasis on combat, but, more generally, combat is always there as a last resort. You can't negotiate with some enemies, for instance, but any enemy you can negotiate with, you could instead just fight. So, even if the fighter's combat abilities were otherwise identical in nature to those of other classes (which, of course, thier not), the class would still gain a relatively small combat edge over them. Now, if you were running a game in which combat was rare and unimportant enough that 3/4 of a typical party could sit it out without feeling uninvolved in the game, then, yes, you could re-balance things such that there's a difference in combat ability between classes comparable in magnitude to the differences in non-combat ability among them. (To turn that around, though, that means the game is balance around the idea that non-combat should be infrequent/unimportant/quickly-resolved enough that 1/4 of the typical party can sit it out without feeling uninvolved in the game - make of that what you will about the game we all play).
krossbow 01-30-07, 07:42 PM	Mmm-hmmm. I suppose I can't really reply to this. After all, how does one decently riposte to a "Your Momma!"? "No, YOUR momma!"? :P Well, one ability for the fighter could be something called "parry spell". once per round, a fighter wielding a magic weapon can attempt an attack roll vs. a caster power check; if the fighter beats the caster power check, he manages to block/dispel the effect with his blade and avoid the spell. This would only apply on spells with a targeted effect, such as dominate person or searing ray. This would allow for a way for fighters to avoid being screwed by magic (to a limited degree) and would allow for a sensible way for a fighter to counter magic. However, this would elevate the fighter above the levels of a mundane guy who just goes into battle with a blunt/sharp object and kills things. One of the main problems with a fighter is this: The concept is that of a normal guy, which, when placed side by side with people possessing supernatural abilities (even evasion and many shot are in that realm), cannot hold up, and thus the fighter's flavor may be incompatible with not sucking in the D&D universe. However, on Pelor not allowing evil spells: What if your a chaotic good cleric opposing a lawful good paladin who wants to execute a murderer who has turned from his ways? In such a case, I could see Pelor, being a good and understanding god, allowing such a spell as the situation calls for it, such as magic circle against good to protect your charge. Or, flipside, a lawful good paladin trying to bring a criminal to trial with chaotic good characters trying to kill the criminal rather than risk a mistrial. However, when it comes to combat, my sessions generally turn into this: PC's move around dungeon/castle/ancient city of the damned. Rouge scouts, disarms traps. Rogue finds area impassable by normal means. Wizard uses abilities to figure out a way through (one time, to get through a tower in an antimagic field, he tossed the crusader at it with his adamantine sword out). Cleric attempts to find way to avoid ultra-powerful, unkillable stalker, and/or way to permanently kill it/halt regeneration. Party encounters big, big encounter at end. Party smashes thing up. half of it, or more is spent using other skills really.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 07:46 PM	Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells).The objection isn't that the fighter can't stand up to spells - no one is really asking that the fighter be simply unbeatable - rather, it's that the sheer breadth of what is possible with spells (not gonna list 'em here) far outshines the few things that can be accomplished with mundane combat (dead enemies, unconscious enemies, prone enemies, etc). Giving the fighter SR doesn't give him more to do, it just leaves him around a little longer. One of the questions you want to ask yourself when fixing the fighter is: Do you want any non-magical classes, at all? This is a fantasy game, and having PCs that don't embrace the magical aspect of it might not be desireable. If you don't find a need for the mundane, then the fighter can just go - swap in the classes from ToB, for instance. If you do, then you have to ask yourself, "How do I make a mundane character /interesting/ in the midst of all this fantasy stuff?" Because, if there's a need for non-magical PCs, there must be something you want them to be doing...
RadicalTaoist 01-30-07, 07:49 PM	K actually showed how, even given every Fighter feat ever printed, Fighters still weren't able to compete. oh?
Kresalak 01-30-07, 07:50 PM	A while back; I forget the thread. Probably Playing the Same Game,
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 07:53 PM	K actually showed how, even given every Fighter feat ever printed, Fighters still weren't able to compete. I've heard about this, but I've never seen proof. Does anyone here have a link?
ContinuityLapse 01-30-07, 07:54 PM	The fact that fighters don't have listen and spot as class skills is the most insulting thing in my opinion. I would think the ability to avoid ambushes would be part of any warrior's training. In fairness, out of the base classes only Druid, Monk, Ranger and Rogue get Spot as a class skill. If you gave it to the Fighter, you'd probably have to give it to the Barbarian, and possibly the Paladin, for the same reason (which isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's worth noting). I suppose the idea is that the archetypal Fighter is basically a highly trained soldier, not necessarily suited to guerilla warfare (unlike the Ranger). Are there any feats that can add class skills to a character's list? If so, the Fighter would be well-equipped to make use of them if he could spare a feat or two.
Cael 01-30-07, 08:00 PM	"No, YOUR momma!"? :P I said "decent", not "immature brat" :D
DaidojiTaidoru 01-30-07, 08:11 PM	Do you really think so? I mean, why does the party need the rogue to scout-out the enemy when the nigh-invincible fighter will just kill them anyway, with or without surprise? Why does the wizard need to prep any combat spells, when the party has a nigh-invincible fighter around? Who needs an encouraging ditty from the bard or the blessing of the Cleric when you're already nigh-invincible? And when you come up against an enemy powerful enough to make that fighter aware of the 'NIGH' portion of his nigh-invincibility, what does it do to the rest of the party? Thus the problem with the idea that fighters should be ballanced around combat. If they're actually good enough at it to justify being a loud bell around the parties neck that's only purpose is to soak trap damage and bust down doors at low levels then they make combat a joke. ... it is true that the fighter has the fewest non-combat-aplicable abilities of any core class. However, it's also true that non-combat abilities just aren't valued as highly as in-combat ones. That's partly because D&D just has a strong emphasis on combat, but, more generally, combat is always there as a last resort. You can't negotiate with some enemies, for instance, but any enemy you can negotiate with, you could instead just fight. So, even if the fighter's combat abilities were otherwise identical in nature to those of other classes (which, of course, thier not), the class would still gain a relatively small combat edge over them. Now, if you were running a game in which combat was rare and unimportant enough that 3/4 of a typical party could sit it out without feeling uninvolved in the game, then, yes, you could re-balance things such that there's a difference in combat ability between classes comparable in magnitude to the differences in non-combat ability among them. (To turn that around, though, that means the game is balance around the idea that non-combat should be infrequent/unimportant/quickly-resolved enough that 1/4 of the typical party can sit it out without feeling uninvolved in the game - make of that what you will about the game we all play). The thing is any competent powergamer can tell you that every skill can be applied to combat. I think it's roleplaying rule #3, but I get fuzzy after the first ones. There are 2 fight setups. 1 - The party is ambushed/blunders into a fight. Every non fighter class gets an ability or spell to try to avoid this. Even the Barbarian gets listen. The fighter gets nothing. 2 - The party knows a fight is coming/ is likely and can plan accordingly. The more skills and spells the better traps/ plans/ contingencies you can make. Anyone who's played with a good tactical party knows that a PC ambush can wipe out equal CR encounters in a round with no loss of HP. This is because with skills and spells any area can be made into a killing ground. The fighter sadly can add nothing to this setup. The way to effortless victory is through skills and spells. Base BAB doesn't cut it in a tactically inclined party.
Archangel62 01-30-07, 08:16 PM	The biggest issue that I think the fighter faces isn't a lack of power or anything like that, it's that the fighter has nothing that really makes them unique. Feats aren't enough and I think that many designers came to realize that issue, but the question is what do we do about it. I'm not going to disagree that there are some overpowered spells out there, nor will I disagree that some classes are probably a wee bit too potent. However, the problem is that the fighter simply lacks the ability to properly hold their own in combat and out of combat they have no hope. I understand the root of the issue, powerful feats are dangerous because they are always on and can create strange synergies, but feats like combat focus and other things that give temporary bonuses that are more potent are far better for the fighter. Maybe something like giving the fighter a path, combat focus, weapon master, something in that vein.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 09:04 PM	Thus the problem with the idea that fighters should be ballanced around combat. If they're actually good enough at it to justify being a loud bell around the parties neck that's only purpose is to soak trap damage and bust down doors at low levels then they make combat a joke.Quite right. You can't balance the fighter's relative lack of non-combat abilities with comparable superiority in combat, without leaving other characters in the dust as soon as a combat starts - and you do need to keep most characters meaningfully effective in combat, enough of the time to keep the game enjoyable. The game does try to balance the classes in spite of that, and, in many ways, doesn't do a bad job at all (until, that is, you start trying to break it intentionally). Every class has something to do in combat - wizards and sorcerers cast, bards & clerics buff, rogues flank & SA, etc. All of those things are effective - some of the time. Spells, though, run out, and SA doesn't affect all enemies. OTOH, the sword that the fighter, paladin, barbarian or ranger is swinging doesn't just go away after a few swings, and works on a broader spectrum of foes than does a sneak attack - plus, those classes are generally more durrable in combat than the others, so they spend less time withdrawing and more full attacking. So, even though you have some characters (rogues, wizards, bards, etc) having far more non-combat ability than others (fighters, barbarians, pallies, etc), all can make meaningful contributions in combat - the less combat oriented ones just have to be more careful about it, and won't always be able to make the same level of contribution in every combat. A similar balancing act goes on within the melee-type characters. Barbarians and paladins get a bit more non-combat ability relative to the fighter, and less relative to the ranger. Yet, all those classes are roughly comparable when doing their combat thing: raging, smiting evil, or fighting favored enemies with his Combat Style. FEB, though, only comes up when the DM decides it will come up, while Rage works only a few times a day - and smite evil faces both issues to a lesser degree. The fighter, OTOH, brings the same abilities to every fight, regardless of the foe faced or how often he's used them that day. And it doesn't stop there - the Fighter also chooses his class abilities (11 bonus feats), while Pallies and Barbs always get thier Rage & Smite evil (and other abilities) in the fixed pattern. That kind of choice also counts for something when balancing classes (because class balance has to consider the desireability or relevance of a class, not just the power of a given member of that class). It's actually pretty well done, especially considering all the baggage that came with the system, and the shortcomings and sacred cows inherent in that system. But, it's far from perfect, and it can be fragile. There are better systems, of course, but, well, they're not D&D.
Archangel62 01-30-07, 09:08 PM	Well, this might be a silly idea, but what about doing something similar to Iron Heroes tiered feats. Except how we do it is that we mark certain feats and the fighter gets an additional boost for the feat, maybe getting a +2 on cleaves, or something of that nature when they take cleave and get the ability to supreme cleave at the 8th level of fighter if they take great cleave. Just a thought, it would make the fighter a bit more capable as well as meaning the fighter doesn't need a metric ton of abilities added to make it more viable.
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 09:17 PM	I suppose you could tack a 'special' on to the end of a lot of feats of the general form "Special: If you are a fighter of at least X level, you gain Y bonus with this feat." With Y possibly being additional abilities or mechanical variations rather than a simple numeric bonus. It'd be a fair bit of work, it'd be something that'd have to be kept up with each new feat added (though not as complex as the 'feat synergies' idea), and I'm not sure it'd go very far towards satisfying those unhappy with the fighter, but it's not a bad concept.
Archangel62 01-30-07, 09:52 PM	I realize that it isn't perfect, but I also realize that something should be done and this method requires the least amount of work. It also means that the fighter might actually have some reasons to not want to prestige, or at least for prestiging to be less necessary to work effectively.
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 09:58 PM	I always thought that the best fighter fix would retain the "combat template" feel of the class. I figured that a feat at every odd level and a special ability at every even level might make the class more worthwhile. Special abilites might be things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, or stuff to give yourself a medium like the Scout's fort save and Battle Fortitude) or high reflex or will save (your choice). Maybe even things like Superior Cleave, or even custom stuff like Unending Cleave (one move action while cleaving). Most fighter fixes offer fixed solid abilites. I like Seerow's fix, but he made it into a new class, and not so much a 'combat template' as I'd rather it was.
Otto the Bugbear 01-30-07, 10:04 PM	Some of this type of work has already been done. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=772135)
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 10:12 PM	Some of this type of work has already been done. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=772135) Yes, but that fighter doesn't offer the degree of customization that I look for when playing a fighter. I want more options and less "here's what you get". It is certainly better and more flexible than some fixes which offer plainly locked abilities, though.
ContinuityLapse 01-30-07, 10:28 PM	What about just extending the feat streams and giving Fighters faster feat progression (I'm thinking two every three levels)? That would mean you wouldn't have to go through and make extra notes for every feat, so you could avoid all the nitpicking that would inevitably entail.
WizO_Shadow 01-30-07, 10:38 PM	Forgive me for being frank but the amount of reported posts begs the question, Is there a point to keeping this thread open? Renee Shadow
Tony Vargas 01-30-07, 10:46 PM	What about just extending the feat streams and giving Fighters faster feat progression (I'm thinking two every three levels)? I know that 'just plain more feats' doesn't cut it with a lot of folks, but, it does make sense on another level. When you're choosing abilities as you level up - as with feats (for anyone, not just fighters), Sorcerers's known spells, and so forth - as the list of possible choices expands, the value of each choice, in a sense, decreases. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but, in an RPG, it can actually feel that way. It's not that you don't have plenty of choices - it's that the universe of things you're /not getting to/ gets too big, or the number of 'must haves' starts to aproach the number of slots you ultimately get (making a customizeable class much less customizeable). New feats can also come in sort of countering-pairs (actually, it's usually a lot subtler than that). That is, a new feat is introduced that has a substantial impact on something your character does, so you really /need/ to get it, or get another feat to help you deal with it if you come up against it. That really starts to burn through available feats. So, it might well be worthwhile to increase the number of feats characters get, and the number of bonus feats classes with bonus feats get - the more aplicable feats you add to the campaign. If you're using CW & PHII, you might, indeed want to give the fighter 2:3 feats/level. If you're using every WotC published book, you might want to give 'em a feat per level - and all characters a feat at every odd level. Yes, it's a power up, but it also prevents... I don't know what to call it, maybe "errosion of competence." (Pre-PHII, you might've been about as good an S&B type as you could get - with Improved Shield Bash and that feat from the abberations book and whatnot - then PHII hits and suddenly your several must-have shield feats behind - from mastery to mockery with no technical loss of power).
Ghenesh 01-30-07, 10:53 PM	Is there a point to keeping this thread open? Other than being the hottest thread in the first page of this forum? About the Fighter with 14 bonus feats... that's the first Fighter fix i saw, not solving the issue that the Fighter is a dip class, but overall a nice idea, as Tony Vargas said, the more splatbooks with fighter feats are used, the more feats are needed to keep the fighter versatile, i completely agree on the subject.
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 11:39 PM	Forgive me for being frank but the amount of reported posts begs the question, Is there a point to keeping this thread open? Renee Shadow Well, we like this thread topic, but I've PMed a pro-fighter poster to try to coordinate a tamer and more rational fighter discussion. I haven't got a response yet, but havig the help of a WizO in the process would be nice. :) Ban Olskool from the discussion, and this would actually be a very rational, and possibly even enlightening debate, really. Don't let a few stubborn people flaming the rest of us as dirty power gamers ruin a perfectly good thread. This is a good point (though I do not necessarily direct it at Olskool). No one has the right to flame a thread they don't like in order to shut it down. Many times, arguments are given on both sides that are simply ignored or retorted with illogical or even inflammatory words. I don't know about you, Shadow, but I don't think that a few trolls should be allowed to force a thread close if the other posters are interested in a tame, rational debate. Rather, the posters should be dealt with, and not the thread. Really, this has been a strategy of trolls: to troll a thread until it gets locked. It is the internet equivalent of a filibuster, and unless you take measures to stop this strategy, then no progress can be made where they do not want to see it. They are essentially handed moderator-equivalent power. Please, put the power in your hands, and not in theirs. And Theotherdraxen: If you want customizability in a fighter fix, I'm sure you're familiar with mine? Oop, my bad. I didn't look at it close enough. All I saw was Height of Battle: I never realized it was so versatile. I'll toy with it a little and see if I can make the archetypes (namely defensive footman, cavalier, and army-slayer) I want to out of it, but it looks good. I just needed ot read down a little more...
Archangel62 01-31-07, 12:55 AM	I'm an idiot, I just got an idea that could work fairly well. We divide the fighter into several traditional 'styles'. We then do it so that they get the feats for that style whether or not the meet the prerequesites, similar to the ranger. We then have little bonuses for that style in the dead levels (bonuses to ride for the charger, bonuses to AC or initiative for the tank...)
Bob Loblaw 01-31-07, 01:46 AM	Please forgive this long post. I'll try to keep it as short as possible. I work 12 hour days right now and can't respond as often as everyone else here. What builds are these? The only thing that comes to mind is the Gattling Tripper, which only really manages to trip larger creatures due to the way D&D works. He gets off tons of trip attempts every round, so rule of probability says one of them will succeed by the end of the round. If instead of tripping, he had just attacked, the creature he attacked would be dead. I have seen several builds that are feasible. You even gave one example. Note that I am not saying that the fighter is the best at anything. I am only saying that he is not useless and can be a lot of fun if built and played right. I have seen this argument over and over again. Yet nobody can give me a straight answer when I ask if they would play a Warrior NPC Class, and if they would, and they enjoyed it, would that make it a balanced class that is useful at all levels of play? Don't confuse unbalanced with sucks. They are two different terms with different meanings. It goes on to say how an encounter should take 20% of a party's resources... I have read the same thing and came to the conclusion that the resources of the party are not limited to only the characters themselves. Arrows of Slaying, Scrolls of Whatever High Level Spell and Fighter focused on UMD, Candle of Invocation, there's a long list of things. So now that there is a viable fighter build it shoud be discarded? Why not limit the casters in the same way? No metamagic feats for their builds. No single-use items for them either. If the gear fits the fighter, then let him have it. I am all for saying "No gear specifically designed to elimitate this one monster." It would be unreasonable to make a build like that to support a point. 1D8+5 on 11+, 50% of 9.5; 4.75 damage per round Crit on 10%, confirm 50%, crit 5% of the time for total +50% damage. Fighter damage 7.125 per round; -5 for regeneration, 2.125 damage per round. Fighter takes 30 rounds to kill the troll. Troll 2 1d6+6 on 18+, 2(15% of 9.5); 2.85 damage per round. Troll 1d6+3 on 20, 5% of 6.5; .325 damage per round Troll Rend 2d6+9 0.0225%; .36 damage per round Crits for the troll are negligible. His total damage per round is 3.535. He kills the fighter in 12 rounds. Huh, who wins? My fighter isn't dumb enough to not change his tactics as he's fighting. He does have an Intelligence of 13+. By moving my attack bonus around and moving into better postions just to get more bonuses to hit, I should do just fine. I also never took into account any mundane equipment that may be of some use. Don't assume that any other class will do much better. Rogues will simply be eaten in half the time. The casters had better have been prepared and hope that they aren't in melee yet. They may not last long. To be fair, they should start in melee range just like I started the fighter. Sure. But the rogue can do his trick without relying on a tripped oponent. He could be dealing with a flanked oponent (which doesn't require the Fighter to waste his actions tripping). How is the rogue contributing to the party when he needs someone else's help to get that flank? Seems to me the rogue may suck (by the definitions given so far). How is it a logical fallacy? The initial argument was no class can be underpowered if ANYBODY have fun playing it. My counter was, if ANYBODY could play a Commoner and have fun playing it, is it still possible to be underpowered? Actually, that was my argument and definition. The initial argument was "when do they begin to suck." Only one other person has specifically stated their definition of sucks. Archangel62 was the only other person to actually provide his definition. As it stands, everyone else is simply arguing with no real foundation to their argument. I'm trying to figure out if you actually draw lines, or if you DO accept NPC classes as viable classes. As PC classes? Of course not. They are also not meant to be. A simple read through them shows that. However, they do not suck. They serve their role in the game as well. Okay, now how does that Mounted Archer Fighter compare to what most people expect out of the Fighter? People say he's a tank, battlefield controller, frontline Fighter. If you're playing skirmisher, you're taking the Rogue or Scout's job in combat, leaving the Cleric or Druid to take over for tanking. Why isn't this a valid character? It is a fighter? Just because it isn't what some may envision as a fighter, it doesn't change the fact that it is. Because without spells or ToB, there's not a whole lot to do but charge, and that's already been done. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=401662) And for the record, the Fighter isn't even necessarily the best at this. And also for the record, no one is claiming that the fighter is the best at anything. We are saying that the class doesn't suck. Even as good as that Fighter is, there are plenty of ways to make him better, and almost all of them involve fewer Fighter levels. This all depends on what you want out of the character. Honestly, since there are millions of players, there are probably millions of play styles. Not a single one is better than any other one. Why does my fighter have to match your play style? On the contrary, it's a pretty strong point. Those who claim the fighter doesn't suck are backpedalling to the point where they say the fighter doesn't suck because you can have fun with it and play in such a way that everyone can ignore the suckitude and not have to deal with it. The obvious thing to ask is then whether this doesn't hold true for any hypothetical class however paltry. This they refuse to answer. I didn't refuse, I worked all day (and will again tomorrow) so I didn't have time to comment. I am not backpedalling at all. In fact, read my first post and you will see that I started with that statement and have continued with the same premise all along. I also did not say that one should ignore problems with the class. I said a good player can deal with them. There is a significant difference. Every class has it's weakness. There is no such thing as a class that can do everything well all the time. It does not exist. Every class can fill the role it is meant to fill, when given the opportunity. That is and has been my position from the beginning. Well, I doubt fighters would match caster even if they could switch out all their feats as a free action. This is the problem I have been having all along. The fighter was never meant to match the casters. To say that the one class sucks because it is not another class is really unfair to the argument. Time to get ready for another long day at work and see two more pages of posts pop up. Hopefully I don't fall behind too far in the discussion.
navar100 01-31-07, 02:15 AM	Mmm to me a fighter is perhaps the hardest class to play well, both on a rp and a combat level. I'll qualify that with this analogy: people often say that the fighter is like vanilla, a good base to put other flavors on top of. I say that a fighter isn't like vanilla so much as whipped eggs and cream, frozen with no sugar. Sure it's a base, but i mean it has no real substance of its own. It has no prompt for fighting style, no prompt for rping, so in a sense all the options are out there, but also it's hard to know what to do with those options. Beyond that there are actual "flavors" or classes, that do have a prompt for fighting style and rp flavor. So our poor fighter is kind of left, i feel, because he can be made to do many of the things say, a ranger, or a barbarian can, but they are specifically meant to do that thing from the onset. I'm currently playing a level 7 scythe wielding fighter, and i suppose i enjoy it, but it's just been such a trial to actually get into him as I would some other character. Moreover, most of the good feats (in core) that i want to take have already been taken by me. I've got whirlwind attack already, and have the weapon specializations and focuses still to take, but they never struck me as "ooh that's real cool +2 to damage...wow". My friend and I often talk at length about D&d, and i find that him being a more experienced player seems to have him more for casters and less for fighting classes. I also find that newer players seem to be biased in the other way, (ie. fighters suck and what the hell can we do about it). My friend says "fighter's not crappy anymore, not with the phb2." And i think, yeah he may be right, of course at first he thought some of those feats were truly too overpowered, but I feel it's a cop out to give a fighter merely more feats, and let him use more books. I can hear it now, "why do the fighting classes get to use non-core books" etc. etc. Fighters, I think, suffer from lack of any niche that they can fill better than another. Their real major asset is to grub tons and tons of feats from large and long feat trees. It would be nice to make them some kind of master of battle awareness or battle forms and tactics, which is what i hear TOB does. But it looks like we're gonna have to wait for 4.0 until the raw fighter is in any way enhanced. It seems every time this thread pops up, people say, fighter is good for a 4 level dip max. I wouldn't disagree with them, but perhaps later I'll tell you about how my fighter fairs compared to our party barbarian. Interesting perspective. From what I understand you feel a lack of flavor text to help you come up with one on your own and a class feature of just getting another feat a repetitive boringness. I would agree the splat books and PHB2 do help the fighter become a bit more interesting than just the PHB alone. They all do for all the classes, which is rather the point, and the spellcasters will continue their out of this world dooziness. I still fondly remember my cleric with Divine Metamagic Persistent Greater Visage of the Deity. No fighter can top that buff, but through the books they are exposed to new tactical options to make combat more fun. I love Book of Nine Swords. Using the maneuvers definitely makes combat fun. A plus for fighters is that they can use their bonus feats to be able to use some strikes and stances. If you are really into the maneuvers you are better off playing one of the martial adepts, but there are nice feats out there too that would be fun to use, and a fighter could have an easier time getting them, so the option is at least there for a straight fighter to benefit from both as best as he can or wants. A high level warblade can deal +100 damage on top of his base damage in one attack for the round. The fighter can't do that in one round unless somehow he has a very unusually high strength and unusual magic weapon, and probably even then in a very special circumstance where as the warblade could do it any time he wants. On the other hand, while the warblade only gets one attack for that +100 damage, the fighter can do four attacks which together can do comparable damage, the caveat being all must hit. Whether that third attack, let alone the fourth attack, will hit is game dependent because each DM has to determine what bad guys with their various AC's the party will face as well as the equipment the fighter will have gained from treasure.
navar100 01-31-07, 02:36 AM	All true, but then I don't think anyone here has said they would bawl you out, yell at you, resent you etc. for choosing a fighter. They might express that they don't believe you'll be able to provide consistant aid later on, but not as a dig at you yourself. In fact really if they did bawl you out over it...I'd suspect either they should go play a solo game since they don't seem able to able to work with others at all. That said... some people like to be able to win and see others doing this with them. Therefore if they have three players all flying under they're own power, buffs etc. but they need to contribute to get that fighter with them... they're liable to turn that argument on you: You're choice of class is limiting their fun, since he's so dependant in them. It's a careful balance after all (and while I'm like to like i'm actually on your side of the fence for this sub-argument), if D&D is such a cooperative game, both sides(or in this case classes) need to be able to back the other up, and all players must have fun. The fighter player Vs the others, with the DM in the middle suggests this isn't likely to go well. Fighters sadly can be very limited in this, and in a general way the unfortunate counter to that may well hamsting everyone else to hlep one player. Let's see: I was told my opinion on why I don't think fighters suck was drivel. I was told if I'm the fighter I asked a spellcaster for a buff spell for the occasional help for the sake of the help because it would be nice to have or in the hopefully few cases I'm underequipped I should have to compensate him for using up the spell slot as well as be derided for asking because I need a buff spell to be effective. I was told that if I chose to be a fighter I wouldn't be picked to join the party because the "leader" of the party would rather I was a crusader. And now I'm being told my choice of class is ruining their fun. How could I possibly think I'd be resented if I chose to play a fighter straight to 20th level? :rolleyes: Really, really wanting to play a chaotic evil Dread Necromancer of Nerull who will raise an undead army hoard in a party where everyone else is a Paladin of Heironeous, a Cleric of Pelor, A Druid of Ehlohnna, a Rogue of Kord, and a Wizard wanting to be a Celestial Mystic of Bahamut, yeah, I can see how a player's choice of a class can "ruin" everyone else's fun. Being upset because your Wizard needs to cast a Fly spell on the Fighter to help fight the 20 harpies where as if he was a Druid he could fly up there himself? Please!
navar100 01-31-07, 02:40 AM	I think you may be missing the point of all the pro-fighters here. Not a single one of us is saying that the fighter is the most powerful, or most useful, or most enjoyable class. What we are saying is that those of us who have figured out what we want from the class have found that it doesn't suck like many on the boards claim. We have found that we enjoy the class through all levels of play. :clap: :clap: :clap:
navar100 01-31-07, 03:24 AM	While I'm here I'd like to point out yet again even if the Fighter was good at fighting it would still be the worst PC class in the PHB. Why? Because that's all a fighter can (theoretically) do. They have 2+Int skills (lower then any non full caster class) combined with a class skill list that makes commoners look good. And unlike every other class in the game none of their class features are useful outside of combat. In short outside of combat the fighter is the absolute worst class in the game. And that includes NPC classes. "But it's called the fighter. It should be good at fighting. It doesn't need these other bonuses." A Cleric or Druid can match the fighter in combat and heal and buff the party. A Wizard or Sorcerer can match the fighter in combat and teleport, go invisible, fly or do other wizard BS. A Rogue, can almost match the fighter in a fight and is the only person who can find magic traps in addition to their other myriad talents. A Bard can almost match the fighter in a fight and can basically dominate small towns by playing the flute. A Paladin, or Ranger can match the fighter in a fight and have skills and spells to help in and outside of combat. Even the lowly Monk can almost match the fighter in a fight and brings a number of unique tricks that most characters cannot duplicate in addition to a great deal more skills. And the Barbarian can match the fighter in a fight and has better skills and an ability to avoid danger. In short the fighters advantage in fighting is not enough to justify his lack of non combat options. If he was an unstoppable combat force? Maybe. But as it stands the fighter, even in the eyes of fighter supporters, is not powerful enough to justify their lack of non combat abilities. Outside of combat, the party discusses what they want to do and how they want to do it. Social skills such as Bluff and DIplomacy, and scouting skills such as Search and Disarm Traps, which happen outside of combat, are important. They do help the party move forward to further the adventure towards success. However, it's not like the fighter player just sits there all quiet twiddling his thumbs. He's talking with his party members contributing his ideas. He agrees or disagrees with a course of action. He's free to talk to NPCs just as any other character, and it wouldn't always be necessary to make a Diplomacy roll. Even if he has to make some opposed rolls, such as Sense Motive vs Bluff, Spot vs Hide, it's not like every single NPC he'll interact with has lots of skill points to put into those skills, let alone have any skill ranks in them at all. In short, there are class abilities that can significantly affect game play outside of combat, but for the purpose of the game, any player character's particular class is irrelevant. In this part of the game, all that matters are the players.
navar100 01-31-07, 03:49 AM	However, going back a few pages to the fighter killing the people in their sleep because he wasn't appreciated: I remember one time as a cleric, one fighter in the party almost drove me insane. He was basically useless (level 7), and was constantly asking me for shield other spells and cure serious wounds. Finally, I just told him "No. I have save some of these spells for the contributing members." and dispelled the shield other spell (I was almost dying every fight because of his damage). He acted like I had just stole his characters sword; but in the long run it was better off, as I shield othered the rogue who did his job immensely better, and got the fighter to make a caster when he died (next battle). I was being absurd to demonstrate the absurdity that spawned it. No, the fighter should not demand to get a buff spell all the time. No, the cleric or wizard doesn't have to buff him every combat or else they are not being good party members. What I was objecting to is that if I am the fighter and for that one particular combat I'm ill equipped for whatever reason - don't have the proper sword for overcoming DR, I need a better AC, I need some maneuvering help, whatever, I shouldn't be chastised for it and be made to compensate the spellcaster for using up a spell slot to help me. It's called being a party. It's called being friends. It's called working together as a whole to be greater than the sum of its parts. It's called not worrying or caring what I could have done had I been a class that was not the fighter just because you personally would never ever play a fighter and realize over the course of the campaign that in other combats where I was not ill equipped and didn't "need" that spell I did a find good job. It's called understanding that using that spell to buff me could be a more efficient use for that particular combat than some other spell or it could have been an indifferent choice such that it really didn't matter so why not buff the fighter. It's called realizing that I contribute to the party and the game as a whole beyond mere combat such as strategizing what the party will do to succeed in our quests. Just how many Shield and Cure Light Wounds spells is it worth to you after I figured out the puzzle lock that unlocked the door to the Great Treasure at the end of the last game session? It's called not keeping score point by point of who "contributes" more because that is just stupid. I question why you think this 7th level fighter was "useless". Is it because the player was just a jerk and doing stupid things even after being told he was being stupid just in case the player really didn't understand? Then I wouldn't begrudge you your action and hopefully you can teach the player to be a better player. On the other hand, if it was just because he was a 7th level fighter and you don't think a 7th level fighter is competent, then yes, I would say you were being a spoilsport. For a particular combat, the cleric casting Shield Other on the fighter and continually healing him and himself in combat is an effective strategy. It would help if the cleric casts Sanctuary on himself or were otherwise somehow invisible. Doing it for every single combat is not a good idea because you become too dependent on it, and when something goes wrong, and it will, you will be devestated. Plus, being the cleric, you are entitled to have your fun and be able to do something different in combat, for variety if nothing else. The fighter will also be a better fighter by learning and using different tactics in fighting for different combats.
navar100 01-31-07, 04:00 AM	I agree on the fighter getting 4 SP per level and oppening up a few more feats. My fighters are always given 3 things. A decent charisma, skill focus in Use Magic Device and the Magical Aptitude feat. At higher levels this gives the fighter the ability to use wands/scrolls to buff themselves. A fighter at 10th level with a CHA of 14 and the above will have about a +12 to Use magic device, which gives him a bit more than a 50-50 chance to use a wand. But in terms of fighter fix, what do you guys think of a magic resistance feat? Most of the problem stems from fighters being outdone by spellcasters so why should the monk be the only class with SR (apart from getting it from spells). That's a nice strategy, good outside the box thinking. Another way for a fighter to be good properly equipped. You can use wands of Fly should it become necessary. There are also a nice number of crowd control 4th level and lower spells to choose from, and you're not limited to one particular class's spell list. No, this is not a unique feature for fighters, and yes, some classes can do this much easier, but that's not the point. The point is that this is one way for a fighter to help himself, which is good for everyone. Also cuts down on the snobbish spellcasters demanding compensation. Yeah, I can hear the spellcasters now telling the fighter "Don't you dare ask me to make a wand for you."
ORC_Tuhteth 01-31-07, 04:40 AM	I have a challenge for you. Create a 5th level Fighter who is able to defeat a Troll in single combat. No single use items, and you do not need to deal lethal damage to the troll, simply knock it out. No problem. I can do it without using anything outside the core rules -- and I won't be trying to pull the Improved Trip stuff, either. :) Both of the following assume the troll uses a full attack each round and the fighter gets toe-to-toe and stays there. Fighter #1: Dwarf fighter 5 Str 16, Dex 13, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 6 (25 point buy, +1 Str @ 4th) AC 25, 29 vs. giants (+9 armor, +3 shield, +1 Dex, +1 dodge [+5 vs. giants], +1 deflection) hp 55 Melee +10 +1 dwarven waraxe (1d10+6/x3) Feats: WF (dwarven waraxe), WSpec (dwarven waraxe), Power Attack, Toughness, Dodge (5 total: 1st, 3rd, fighter bonus at 1st, 2nd, 4th) Equip: +1 full plate, +1 heavy steel shield, +1 bastard sword, +1 ring of protection (total value: 8,150 gp, less than the 9,000 gp wealth-by-level for 5th level) Comparing his attack bonus to the troll's AC, our dwarven friend decides to put 2 points into power attack (+8 attack, 1d10+8/x3 damage), yielding an average of 9.6525 dmg/round, reduced to 4.6525 dmg/round because of the troll's regeneration; he will knock the troll down in 13.54 rounds. Meanwhile, the troll needs a natural 20 to hit, so he deals an average of 1.37875 dmg/round; he won't knock down the dwarf until 39.89 rounds into the fight. Not even close -- the troll would require an unbelievable run of good luck to even have a good shot in a straight-up fight. Now, he's a dwarf and dwarves are very good at fighting giants (the +4 dodge bonus), so this isn't an entirely fair example. Add on the fact that dwarves are exceptional fighters (+2 Con and free proficiency with the dwarven waraxe) and this is definitely a slanted example. :) So, let's see if we can do it with a human fighter: Fighter #2: Human fighter 5 Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8 (25 point buy, +1 Str @ 4th) AC 25 (+9 armor, +3 shield, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 deflection) hp 45 Melee +10 +1 bastard sword (1d10+6/19-20) Feats: EWP (bastard sword), WF (bastard sword), WSpec (bastard sword), Combat Expertise, Toughness, Dodge (6 total: human bonus, 1st, 3rd, fighter bonus at 1st, 2nd, 4th) Equip: +1 full plate, +1 heavy steel shield, +1 bastard sword, +1 ring of protection (total value: 8,150 gp, less than the 9,000 gp wealth-by-level for 5th level) Since he has an enormous hits-per-attack advantage over the troll, he pumps Combat Expertise up to a +4 dodge bonus (AC 29, attack +6). At this rate, he deals an average of 6.9575 points of damage per round, reduced to an average of 1.9575 dmg/round because of the troll's regeneration; he will take the troll down in 32.184 rounds. The troll, meanwhile, deals an average of only 1.37875 dmg/round (he needs a natural 20 to hit with all of his attacks), so he will take the fighter down in 32.64 rounds. On average, the human fighter wins -- or at the very least it's a draw. :) There you go -- a 5th-level fighter, and a relatively balanced one at that (nothing more than a +1 item, no flaming swords or anything), can be an even match for a troll (CR 5), and a dwarf fighter can smoke him. Either fighter would actually do slightly better by attacking and moving away each round (drawing the attack of opportunity), thereby keeping the troll from getting a full attack each round (1 claw attack and 1 claw AoO instead of 2 claws and 1 bite, alternating between the two routines on each round and losing about 13.8% in total damage output) -- so the scenarios I describe above aren't even optimal for the fighter! :)
MerlintheTuna 01-31-07, 07:09 AM	Either fighter would actually do slightly better by attacking and moving away each round (drawing the attack of opportunity), thereby keeping the troll from getting a full attack each round (1 claw attack and 1 claw AoO instead of 2 claws and 1 bite, alternating between the two routines on each round and losing about 13.8% in total damage output) -- so the scenarios I describe above aren't even optimal for the fighter! :)Well done, but this particular claim is borderline bogus. If you back away, the troll can either back away and give itself some breathing room, letting its regeneration swing the fight, or it can charge.Trolls have no fear of death: They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent. Even when confronted with fire, they try to get around the flames and attack.So the former, while a superior option, is less likely to be taken according to the Flavor-Text-As-Written. But charging still raises the Troll's damage output for a round, and the human doesn't even have Power Attack to take advantage of the troll's lowered AC in that case. The dwarf is still in good shape, but the human is getting into dangerous territory. In the case of letting regeneration take over, the fighters are doubly screwed. They both have a movement speed of 20ft, whereas the troll has 30 ft -- when the battle starts/continues is pretty much his decision. The fighters pretty much get stuck watching their opponent regrow himself if they don't keep pressing the attack. It's very much a "Gee, I wish I had class features" moment. And incidentally, who in the name of biscuits picked these monster feats? I mean, I know that Alertness and Iron Will are standbys for whatever reason, but why on earth would you give all trolls Track without giving them a single rank in Survival? Power Attack? Anyone? No?
Kresalak 01-31-07, 08:03 AM	Hutt, did you factor in the chance of Rend? It's miniscule, but it might increase average damage to the point where you lose. And yes, if the troll is given feats that don't suck, it starts making high AC fighters cry by Power Attacking for 4 on every attack.
MerlintheTuna 01-31-07, 08:35 AM	Hutt, did you factor in the chance of Rend? It's miniscule, but it might increase average damage to the point where you lose.As a 1 in 400 chance, it's not likely to change things much. Ultimately, that's the kicker. Trolls aren't CR 5 because they have regeneration. Oh, that certainly helps, but it really isn't want pushes them up there. The big deal is that they absolutely shred anyone who doesn't have solid AC thanks to the Rend damage. Hutt's decisions (sword and board, Combat Expertise instead of Power Attack) take that out of the equation, thus negating the troll as a threat. It's worth noting, though, that this approach gets increasingly difficult as levels go up. A Dire Bear is only CR 7, two steps up from the Troll -- can you get your AC up to 39 without gimping yourself? If it does happen to land a claw, are you going to be able to get out of the grapple? The assigned task was completed, and pretty much perfectly. Kudos to Hutt for answering what I imagine was supposed to be a rhetorical question. But the question of scaling remains, and it still barely looks like a question at all -- especially because of the Fighter's lack of short-term adaptability.
Bob Loblaw 01-31-07, 09:22 AM	What I think many people here are forgetting is that DnD is designed as a group event. By singling out any character you are depriving said character of one of the most important aspects of the game. If you want to run solo, then do so. Note that your ability to run solo has no affect on the quality of the fighter. Even if the fighter is for a solo campaign, the DM and player should not be sending this character into unwinnable situations. The fighter should not be going up against things he cannot defeat on a regular basis. Just like the wizard should not be going up against golems all the time. Rogues should not be headed off to battle undead regularly. My point is that the character has a niche and if he isn't being played in that niche, then the problem isn't with the fighter but with the scenario. I'm noticing that the anti-fighter crowd can't seem to admit when they've been shown where they are wrong. When the challenge has been met (3 or 4 times now), the next thing is to complain that the monster wasn't optimized, or it's time to increase the challenge (best 2 out of 3, 3 out of 5, etc.). Is it now time to admit that the fighter doesn't completely suck?
Clawhound 01-31-07, 09:35 AM	The assigned task was completed, and pretty much perfectly. Kudos to Hutt for answering what I imagine was supposed to be a rhetorical question. But the question of scaling remains, and it still barely looks like a question at all -- especially because of the Fighter's lack of short-term adaptability. In a character's career, how many equal CR challenges will a solo character face? How many CR+4 encounters will the party face? Very few, possibly none. This is why I feel that the scaling question is moot and most equal-CR questions are moot. This question investigates a problem which occurs rarely, and when it does happen, has an advertised "high chance of character death." This makes this a poor metric to measure a character by. I do like thought exercises. They are fun challenges to work on. As long as you recognize that these are exercises, and not how the game is actually played, they are very instructive. When these exercises become proofs of a character's performance inside a party, the exercise loses validity. The creatures were designed against parties, not individuals. When creatures are compared against solo characters, the results can be misleading. If a character loses, you need to both ask: why did the character lose and would this issue be an issue in a four person party? If the character wins, you need to ask: why did the character win, and would this tactic work in a four person party? Let's drift back to the troll example. The fighter above that "failed" against a troll by "only" lasting 12 rounds. How many parties would take 12 rounds to defeat a troll? Most parties would take four or five rounds, IF that many. The fighter is never even in serious danger short of bad luck. Let's use a hypothetical wizard. He could fly, then burning ray the troll. Easy win! However, in a four person party, three characters are left in peril while the wizard flies out of harm's way. The win is no longer so cheap. Party members take damage. "Fly" goes from the ultimate win card to an impractical tactic. That's why solo challenges can be misleading.
Kresalak 01-31-07, 10:15 AM	Remember though, the difference between the time the troll needs and the time the fighter needs is 0.456 rounds. If the damage from Rend increases enough, then the troll wins. Alright, now let's put the Fighter up against some other CR 5 monsters. The Greater Barghest has 67 hp, AC 20, attacks at +13/+8/+8 for 1d8+5/1d6+2, and has Blink, Levitate, Misdirection, Rage, and Invisibility Sphere at will, and Charm Monster, Crushing Despair, Dimension Door, Mass Bull's Strength, and Mass Enlarge Person 1/day. Actually, nevermind. This thing isn't CR 5. Maybe CR 6 or 7. Let's try a Bearded Devil... It begins with the Battle Frenzy, giving it 57 hp, 17 AC, attack +11/+6 for 1d10+6+infernal wound, has damage reduction 5/you don't have it, and can attempt to summon another one with a 35% chance of success. Any time it hits you, you take 2 damage each round per hit. It has +6 initiative, so it wins. It begins by summoning another one. Already, you have a 35% chance of losing outright, since there's no way you can beat two of them. Then it moves to a position where you can't charge it. Round 1 Before the devil Frenzies, the Dwarf is best Power Attacking for 2, and dealing an average of 4.275 damage. This brings the devil down to 40.725 hp. Then it Frenzies and, assuming no summon, full attacks with the optimal -0 for 5.69 damage. Because of Infernal Wound, we have to calculate how often he hits; his first attack at +11 hits on a 14, which is 35%, and the second on a 20, for a total of 61.75% chance of missing, meaning next round the dwarf takes .8 damage. He's at 49.31 hp. Round 2 (6 rounds of Frenzy) The optimal Power Attack for the Dwarf is now -4/+4, which makes him hit on 10 numbers and deal an average of 5.25 damage per round. The devil got 12 hp from his increases Con, and was at 52.725, but is now down to 47.475. The dwarf takes .8 and is down to 48.51. The dwarf's hp at round x can be found by the recursive function f(x)=f(x-1)-(.8x+5.69) where f(0)=55 while the devils hp after x-1 rounds (since the average damage changes after it frenzies) can be found by the function f(x)=f(x-1)-5.25, where f(0)=52.725. The devil can be written as y=-5.25x+52.725, where x is the number of rounds and y the hp. He dies after 10.043 rounds. The dwarf's hp is found by an exponential function, though I forget how to go from a recursive function to an exponential.
krossbow 01-31-07, 11:22 AM	I I question why you think this 7th level fighter was "useless". Is it because the player was just a jerk and doing stupid things even after being told he was being stupid just in case the player really didn't understand? Then I wouldn't begrudge you your action and hopefully you can teach the player to be a better player. On the other hand, if it was just because he was a 7th level fighter and you don't think a 7th level fighter is competent, then yes, I would say you were being a spoilsport. For a particular combat, the cleric casting Shield Other on the fighter and continually healing him and himself in combat is an effective strategy. It would help if the cleric casts Sanctuary on himself or were otherwise somehow invisible. Doing it for every single combat is not a good idea because you become too dependent on it, and when something goes wrong, and it will, you will be devestated. Plus, being the cleric, you are entitled to have your fun and be able to do something different in combat, for variety if nothing else. The fighter will also be a better fighter by learning and using different tactics in fighting for different combats. No, the character wasn't a jerk; he become quite palatable after he change classes. He was indeed useless because he was a fighter, not because he was a "fighter" and I assumed he was useless, but because, in truth, he offered very little to the party to contribute. His AC was not better than mine, and he sacrificed con so he could have both great strength and decent dex for a bow. However, he had lower damage than a rogue, and was constantly getting bashed around by spells and bigger monsters. I had to use shield other simply to keep him alive. It was not that he was being incredibly stupid; he was just lacking in abilities. I had to cut off his spells because frankly, he WAS a detriment to the party; his consumption of party resources (I.E., my spells) meant that I was unable to reserve healing spells for myself and the rogue (the wizard stayed in the back and used spells to avoid taking damage), and I was unable to safely enter melee combat due to the massive liability that shielding him was. "Spoilsport" or not, I believe I did the right thing when faced with the option of A. having no healing spells to keep others alive, and one or more other members dying or B. cutting him off which lead to his death in the next battle. As things went, I finally decided that it was better for the party to simply divine power and rightous might myself and wade in than wait 4 rounds, in which time the rogue was constantly in serious danger. In all of my experience, I have seen fighters to be massive drawbacks, and even detriments to parties that I have been in. From the fighter (another person, not the previous player) that almost killed the mage and warlock that he was supposed to be "protecting" when he got dominated, to the seperated one that broke a lever because he lacked the ability to open doors and was fumbling around alone (when our party got their an hour later, it was discovered that this was a dwarven vault via the writing, and that it was now unreachable till we got better spells), I have never seen a strategic reason to have one in your party. Now then: on to the fighter problem: Should he be attemtpting to divert enemies towards him, or should he simply be trying to kill enemies as quickly as possible? If the answere is "divert attention" then maybe he should have some feats or abilities, like Robilar's gambit, which make him a juicy target, be allowed at lower levels for a fighter? (reduce the BAB requirement if your a fighter?)
Seerow 01-31-07, 11:25 AM	Reducing BAB requirements "if you're a fighter" only makes the Fighter more of a dip class.
Jo_Pistachio 01-31-07, 11:37 AM	I was told if I'm the fighter I asked a spellcaster for a buff spell for the occasional help for the sake of the help because it would be nice to have or in the hopefully few cases I'm underequipped I should have to compensate him for using up the spell slot as well as be derided for asking because I need a buff spell to be effective. I was told that if I chose to be a fighter I wouldn't be picked to join the party because the "leader" of the party would rather I was a crusader. And now I'm being told my choice of class is ruining their fun. How could I possibly think I'd be resented if I chose to play a fighter straight to 20th level? :rolleyes: Really, really wanting to play a chaotic evil Dread Necromancer of Nerull who will raise an undead army hoard in a party where everyone else is a Paladin of Heironeous, a Cleric of Pelor, A Druid of Ehlohnna, a Rogue of Kord, and a Wizard wanting to be a Celestial Mystic of Bahamut, yeah, I can see how a player's choice of a class can "ruin" everyone else's fun. Being upset because your Wizard needs to cast a Fly spell on the Fighter to help fight the 20 harpies where as if he was a Druid he could fly up there himself? Please! You also flew completely off the handle back on page four after taking my comment both completely out of context, and completely failed to get the point I was trying to make anyway. A fighter needs to contribute something of some value to the party, he does not by necessity need to pay me back with money or goods. He may however, owe me a favour. One which, in general, he will never be able to repay. I save his ass by giving him a share pain. Sure, fair enough. I do this maybe 5-6 times the entire campaign. Fighter gives me nothing. Why? I'm a tank as well. I don't need him to take shots for me. I don't gain very much for flanking, so he's not really any help there. He can't heal me, so I do it myself. At some point, I'm going to question whether or not the fighter is more of a liability to the party than he is help. If he's holding his own for the most part, taking things down, causing damage, fine, I'll give him his stuff when he needs it, gladly. I'm not, however going to cast buffs on him every day without payment in pearls of power. Wants magic weapon greater? Buy me a pearl of power. He's saving money by using me, I'm not losing spells over him. It's win-win. Healing is different. I think that a party cleric should treat HP damage as a challenge that he is meant to deal with to a degree. Same with rogues. No teamwork should be expected in disarming traps. (however, rogues, in return should not be asked to provide other in combat increases to the other party members.) After a while, this may start to ruin my fun, if you constantly need my help. If it is only once in a while, sure, but then how is this a team game? The only time that you can really ask for teamwork is when all the party members can do something to make every other party member better. Cleric casts recitations, wizard takes advantage of lowered saves and also uses sphere of invisibility, which helps the rogue who can now sneak attack, bard plays his bardic music, making everyone better. Fighter? He takes all of that, but can never add more to the pot. That's why the fighter sucks as a team player. What can he do? He can cause damage, which everyone in the game can do. He can block... For a 15-25 foot radius. Not enough, and not well enough for it to really come into play against intelligent creatures, and again, the cleric or druid does this job fine. He can survive a ton of hits. Yeah, but this only really helps him. Other classes can survive in other manners that require less healing afterwards. Only archer fighters can claim this, and certain AC builds that are even more useless in a fight. Neither are making the team better. As such, I would prefer if you were not a fighter, and IC would recommend that the character find some other path. Leave brochures to the warblade schools under his pillow at night. If he ignores me that's fine. He can play whatever he wants. However, respecting that, I can also play my character however I want, and if that includes requiring payment for services, then you should allow for that as much as I allow you being a fighter. Also, better choice for the wizard is to just toast the harpies and have the fighter use a lonbgow to hit them. It's more economic, and frankly, if the fighter needs another character just to tag flyers, he's not a well thought out character anyway. No character build should be completely helpless against a certain type of foe.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-31-07, 12:41 PM	What I think many people here are forgetting is that DnD is designed as a group event. By singling out any character you are depriving said character of one of the most important aspects of the game. If you want to run solo, then do so. Note that your ability to run solo has no affect on the quality of the fighter. Even if the fighter is for a solo campaign, the DM and player should not be sending this character into unwinnable situations. The fighter should not be going up against things he cannot defeat on a regular basis. Just like the wizard should not be going up against golems all the time. Rogues should not be headed off to battle undead regularly. My point is that the character has a niche and if he isn't being played in that niche, then the problem isn't with the fighter but with the scenario. The thing is, a wizard against golems can pack spells to deal with golems (and theres a massive number of them if you get into splat books). The rogue can, with difficulty, use UMD to bypass undead, or just sneak past them. A fighter, when presented with certain foes, just dies. D&D isn't a solo game, but solo performance is a good indicator of weakness. Besides if the party ever gets split up it's bad to know your the only character whos performance just dropped through the floor. I'm noticing that the anti-fighter crowd can't seem to admit when they've been shown where they are wrong. When the challenge has been met (3 or 4 times now), the next thing is to complain that the monster wasn't optimized, or it's time to increase the challenge (best 2 out of 3, 3 out of 5, etc.). Is it now time to admit that the fighter doesn't completely suck? No. Mainly because single challenges are a bad way of doing things. I'm certain you can build a fighter to kill almost anything. The problem is that fighter will be useless against a different CR X monster except in very limited cases. And unlike the spellcasters he won't be able to do anything about that.
Otto the Bugbear 01-31-07, 12:44 PM	Yes, but that fighter doesn't offer the degree of customization that I look for when playing a fighter. I want more options and less "here's what you get". It is certainly better and more flexible than some fixes which offer plainly locked abilities, though. That's where the tiered feats come into play. By only needing to take one feat to accomplish a certain "schtick", like TWF or mounted combat or whatever, that increases the versatility through feats instead of through class abilities. Both options are a good path to follow. And honestly, both paths have at least been started by quite a few members; myself, Seerow, Szatany, etc. One thing I must admit this thread has done is interest me in making sample characters for all the various schticks that a fighter should be able to choose from. If I can get more than one schtick at a competent level, that'll be quite awesome. I'm less worried about low levels (1-5) than later levels, so I'll probably ignore those. In a character's career, how many equal CR challenges will a solo character face? How many CR+4 encounters will the party face? Very few, possibly none. This is why I feel that the scaling question is moot and most equal-CR questions are moot. This question investigates a problem which occurs rarely, and when it does happen, has an advertised "high chance of character death." This makes this a poor metric to measure a character by. I do like thought exercises. They are fun challenges to work on. As long as you recognize that these are exercises, and not how the game is actually played, they are very instructive. When these exercises become proofs of a character's performance inside a party, the exercise loses validity. The creatures were designed against parties, not individuals. When creatures are compared against solo characters, the results can be misleading. If a character loses, you need to both ask: why did the character lose and would this issue be an issue in a four person party? If the character wins, you need to ask: why did the character win, and would this tactic work in a four person party? Unfortunately, it's inevitable that someone will bring up the solo-encounter method as "proof", when that's going about it all wrong. If a challenge is posted first, then the "proving character" is made to defeat it or come as close as possible (look, a troll). If the "proving character" is posted first, the challenges are brought up that defeat that character (look, a bearded devil). More often than not. The real solution is a thought exercise. (I can't call it "simple" or "complex" because it's always based on what each person is willing to invest in the thought exercise, but I digress.) If an 8th level fighter, of any LA+0 race, is supposed to be a CR 8 encounter, how does it compare to other CR 8 encounters if a party has to go up against it? Do other CR 8 monsters offer a party a much larger hurdle to overcome than that 8th level fighter? If so, what is the CR of that 8th level fighter more likely to be pegged at? (CR 5 or 6, I'd guess). Or, how about this... An 11th level party is expected to face 4 random encounters of CR 11 and survive by using ~20% of their resources for each encounter. If that party, unbeknownst to them (but knownst to us) just so happens to face 4 differently built 11th level fighters, are they using up the same amount of resources they would with 4 random CR 11 creatures out of the monster books? That's a better way to try to evaluate if that class much weaker than claimed based on the rule that a single classed character is that CR. NOT how does that 8th level fighter fight a random CR 8 monster. And that, ultimately, is where this sort of thing runs awry. Some people will just glance at it and say "yep! fighters are fine." Others will look at it objectively and say "wow, those 15th level fighters are really each around CR 10." And then the arguments will follow. Cheers Otto :)
magmer2 01-31-07, 12:44 PM	Because, lacking Spring Attack, he can't attack every round. If he doesn't, the troll regenerates ALL the damage he does, and he eventually loses. You can't win a war of attrition with something that regenerates. Actually he can, moves foward attacks. Troll Full attacks. Fighter- attacks moves away.
magmer2 01-31-07, 12:48 PM	Personally, here's my view of how to make a fighter flexible: Give them wildcard feats at level 6, like the man at arms has in iron heroes. Each day, the fighter can meditate for an hour, bringing various moves to the front of his mind, and allowing him to pick his level 6,8,10,12,&14 bonus feats for the day. This would allow him to change it up each day for the encounters to come. At level 16, 18 & 20 give him "improv. feats"; at the beginning of an encounter, the fighter can try and remember various stunts he's seen and try to imitate them to the best of his ability; after a number of rounds in combat, his style breaks down since he doesn't really know the feats, and he can't continue doing them. Something like being able to keep the feats/fighting style together for 6+int rounds, and requiring 10 minutes of rest to be able to repeat another attempt to imitate feats..I would give him the wild card feats at 7th and every odd level after words, that way he gets something on odd levels. And give him an ability at 15th or so that reduces the trance to a full round action.
ORC_Tuhteth 01-31-07, 01:37 PM	Well done, but this particular claim is borderline bogus. If you back away, the troll can either back away and give itself some breathing room, letting its regeneration swing the fight, or it can charge. I freely admit this was an afterthought; this point would only be true if the troll has some reason to stay engaged (e.g. it needs to kill the fighter ASAP) and the fighter has some way to remove or screw up the charging option (e.g. switch to a "set for charge" reach weapon, use terrain features that will restrict a charge, etc.). In a vacuum, however, with none of these conditions in play, the tactic definitely wouldn't work, so I withdraw the comment and save it for a trick fighter (such as the reach weapon, set-for-charge, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip twink :D ). Hutt, did you factor in the chance of Rend? It's miniscule, but it might increase average damage to the point where you lose. Yep, it's in there. It's very inconsequential to the troll's damage output in both cases. And yes, if the troll is given feats that don't suck, it starts making high AC fighters cry by Power Attacking for 4 on every attack. True, but the CE fighter can adapt to PA, not using CE at all (still allowing the troll to only hit on a 20) but now dealing more damage himself because he hits more often. (A fighter who has PA and CE is outrageously adaptable; neither of these do because of the partcular scenario, but it's a very good idea for any pure fighter to be as adjustable as possible.) The guessing game comes into play when the fighter has to figure out how much PA someone is likely to use. In any event, it's not relevant to this particular case; the challenge was to beat a troll, not a hypothetical rewritten troll. :D Remember though, the difference between the time the troll needs and the time the fighter needs is 0.456 rounds. If the damage from Rend increases enough, then the troll wins. Actually, my rounds-to-kill numbers were simplifications because I was just subtracting the troll's regen from the fighter's damage. In reality, the troll goes down (for the human fighter) in 29.63 rounds on average, but his regeneration will get him back above 0 hp on his next turn. At that point, the troll is really screwed because he either (1) has to draw an AoO to get up and then get one good attack or (2) try to fight from prone. In either case, the fighter can get him down and keep him down pretty easily at that point, so the real difference in rounds-to-kill is about 3.01 rounds -- that gives the fighter a little more breathing room. :)
Kresalak 01-31-07, 01:47 PM	Unfortunately, it's inevitable that someone will bring up the solo-encounter method as "proof", when that's going about it all wrong. If a challenge is posted first, then the "proving character" is made to defeat it or come as close as possible (look, a troll). If the "proving character" is posted first, the challenges are brought up that defeat that character (look, a bearded devil). More often than not. I brought up the Bearded Devil as the 6th level AC Fighter proved a rough match for the troll. Now, I never actually finished that calculation-I didn't calculate the zero of the dwarf's hp, so I don't know how long it takes to kill him. I know it's less than the time taken to kill the devil, but I don't know how much. What I intended to do was take the dwarf Fighter (the best one provided) and run him through a bunch of CR 5 melee encounters, and see how he fared. Since he himself is a CR 5 melee encounter, he should be equal to them. Offensively he loses to the troll, though he was able to win via massive defense; against the devil, he excelled defensively, but was beaten down by persistent damage. I refuse to make a judgement on the high defense Fighter until I've ran it through more CR 5 monsters.
Clawhound 01-31-07, 01:47 PM	Or, how about this... An 11th level party is expected to face 4 random encounters of CR 11 and survive by using ~20% of their resources for each encounter. If that party, unbeknownst to them (but knownst to us) just so happens to face 4 differently built 11th level fighters, are they using up the same amount of resources they would with 4 random CR 11 creatures out of the monster books? When we were doing some character vs. multiple encounters earlier this year, we developed a ranking system. Rather than pass/fail, we instituted a scored system. The hardest creatures encounters to rate were the intelligent ones. On a strictly mechanical level, these creatures weren't tough. Despite that, battles against them often proved far more complicated and harder to adjudicate than you would think. The sheer number of actions and reactions was astounding. For example, Fighter NPCs can heal. They can have single-use items of heal. NO monsters have anything close to that. They may each pack in a single-use fireball item. You just can't know what their tactic will be. That may not strictly be part of the class, but it is certainly part of their LEVEL, and THAT is why classed encounters get rated so hard.
MerlintheTuna 01-31-07, 02:41 PM	Regarding the validity "solo challenges": It's true that these are not be-all, end-all litmus tests of the Fighter's capabilities; I know that I personally don't treat them as such. But they do still serve a distinct purpose. That is, they compare two creatures of the same niche of (supposedly) equal ability and provide a good means to evaluate whether the claim of equality is true. Now, a Troll and a melee Fighter have pretty similar niches. They're big guys that buckle down and slug it out, the Troll with high HP and regeneration, the example fighters with high AC. Hence, when someone says "Show me a 5th level Fighter that's as good as a Troll," bringing in a Mounted Archery build isn't entirely relevant, as we're no longer comparing two similar combatants. It'd be akin to claiming that a Mind Flayer is better than a Fighter because it can use Mind Blast and the Fighter has a shoddy Will save. True, it's a method the Illithid can use to defeat the Fighter, but he's not doing it by taking the Fighter's role and doing it better. That's why bringing up things like Dire Bears still bears mentioning. The Dire Bear is a tank. The archetypal Fighter is a tank. Given the appropriate 7th level wealth and abilities, an archetypal fighter should go roughly 50/50 with the Dire Bear. The question then is, "Is this the case?" If not, something is wrong with one of the CRs. In this particular comparison, the Dire Bear has vastly better attack, damage, HP, saves, and battlefield control ability (it takes up more space thus threatening more squares and blocking more movement, and it has Improved Grab and a pretty impressive grapple modifier). High ranks in Listen and Spot are an arguable advantage, as well. A CR 7 fighter will almost automatically have a better AC than the Dire Bear, but that may well not be enough to be competitive.
magmer2 01-31-07, 02:41 PM	Reducing BAB requirements "if you're a fighter" only makes the Fighter more of a dip class. How about if you take this feat at fighter level x or above..
Leo 01-31-07, 02:42 PM	Well, that's the purpose of single use items. If a lv11 fighter attacks a group of lv11 adventurers, he probably has some tricks up his sleeve to think he can win, other way he must have an int and wisdom score of 1. EDIT:Also, the dire bear can't use items. And if he fights a flying ranged enemy, what's he suposed to do? Cry? Something people seem to forget is that a character isn't just made from his abilities, but also from his equipment and his player's resourfoulness. The fighter, with high strenght and pletny of feats to allow him to walk over the battlefield and use a great array of weapons while keeping a good AC allows for all kind of nice tricks. The fighter won't be an idiot and confron the dire bear in one to one combat. He'll position himself in higher terrain and spray him with arrows(or alchemist's fire for the matter.) One use items are there for a reason. To be used against tough encounters.
Tony Vargas 01-31-07, 02:56 PM	You just can't know what their tactic will be. That may not strictly be part of the class, but it is certainly part of their LEVEL, and THAT is why classed encounters get rated so hard.That may be part of it. IMHO, though, the real reason characters are rated at CR=thier level is to make the CR of a /party/ work out. If a party faces a clone of itself, by definition, it's facing a 50/50 shot, and that's a CR+4. For 4same-level critters to pose a CR+4, they must each have a CR=level. Remove a single character from that party synergy, though, and you run into basicaly the same problem as you do running a solo character through same-CR duels. Even so, a lone same-level PC class (with NPC equipment) should pose a standard same CR speed-bump to a party - assuming that the EL is also same-level. EL, of course, is more than the number and CR of the enemy, it also takes into account circumstances that may be favorable or unfavorable to that enemy (and for different encounters, the exact same circumstances may be favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) - for instance, a wizard that has exacting knowledge of the party he plans to attack, and chooses the the time and place of his attack, without giving away his presence to the party beforehand, is a much higher EL than the same wizard surprised by the party in a small room while in the middle making a magic item. If you could come up with situations that neither favor nor disfavor either the lone PC-class encounter, or the party, and you designed the PC to challenge a party (and lose), rather than contribute to a party (and win), then, yes the CRs would probably turn out about right. Even then, of course, the party wouldn't use up the same resources to fight a succession of 4 members of the same class as they would 4 random encounters: 4 similar encounters might put a real strain on the resources of a generally-prepared iconic party, as the best spells for the challenge are expended in the first two encounters, for instance (while a party with spontaneous rather than prepped casters would likely experience more even resource expenditure, since they can keep meeting similar threats with the same spells). Conversely, if the challenges are similar enough, the party could begin adopting strategies to tilt circumstances in their favor, lowering the EL of later encounters.
magmer2 01-31-07, 03:20 PM	That may be part of it. IMHO, though, the real reason characters are rated at CR=thier level is to make the CR of a /party/ work out. If a party faces a clone of itself, by definition, it's facing a 50/50 shot, and that's a CR+4. For 4same-level critters to pose a CR+4, they must each have a CR=level. The problem with that is that the normal NPCs would have equipment of far inferior value normally. So a party facing of against a mirror match would have a better than 50% chance of victory, though losses may happen.
TheCobra 01-31-07, 04:06 PM	so the scenarios I describe above aren't even optimal for the fighter! They certainly aren't optimal for the troll either, as a smart troll would run away and regen when things got bad. As he's faster than the fighter, he'd eventually win. Of course, most trolls aren't smart, so the fighter probably would win. f a party faces a clone of itself, by definition, it's facing a 50/50 shot, and that's a CR+4. Except that NPCs normally have much less gear, so the party would still have the advantage. Aways, this thread has made me want to throw some fighters at my PCs. We'll see how they do.
Irving 01-31-07, 04:08 PM	I freely admit this was an afterthought; this point would only be true if the troll has some reason to stay engaged (e.g. it needs to kill the fighter ASAP) and the fighter has some way to remove or screw up the charging option (e.g. switch to a "set for charge" reach weapon, use terrain features that will restrict a charge, etc.). Heh. I was flipping through Frostburn and came up with a nice choice if the Int 6 troll does develop a sense of tactics and back away - a harpoon. Harpooned targets can only move half their speed, and can't charge or run. You can pull the harpoon out of you, but it take a full action and does the same amount of damage going in as it did going out. If you make an opposed Strength check, the target can't move further than 30 ft away. I'd abandon the trailing rope (you'll never pass the Strength check even if you did want the troll that close) and pepper the troll with poisoned arrows. (The troll's Fort save is big, but everyone rolls low eventually, and the more I chip down that Con the easier it gets.) At half speed, the troll will never close the range. If the troll does take a full round to deal another 1d10+my strength to itself, I whip out another harpoon and do it all over again. I'm also amused at the possiblity of using this tactic on flying critters, especially the vaunted flying mage. Harpooned critters also have to pass a Concentration check to cast a spell, and I know that I can pass that Strength check to keep him grounded (or at least tethered to earth like a Macy's day parade float - tie the mage to a boat anchor for added style points). This tactic also has no direct interaction with the Freedom of Movement spell... the DM would have to make a judgement call, but the mage is neither tied, bound nor grappled - just impaled.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-31-07, 04:24 PM	Aways, this thread has made me want to throw some fighters at my PCs. We'll see how they do. Get butchered horribly in my experiance but then the party I'm running can go stealth, which basically prevents the fighters from setting the battlefield. Also I'm running mostly Core (for easy learning reasons) so Fighters are even further behind the curve...
Clawhound 01-31-07, 04:39 PM	Get butchered horribly in my experiance but then the party I'm running can go stealth, which basically prevents the fighters from setting the battlefield. Also I'm running mostly Core (for easy learning reasons) so Fighters are even further behind the curve... Although I like fighters, fighters really are deadmeat against PC's without a trick up their sleeves. This is because fighters are essentially melee monsters, and the party faces that threat in every battle. The players learned to handle this type of battle against orcs, gnolls, and other humanoids. Now, a group of fighters with dogs (who have scent and can smell invisibles) can make a party's life interesting. The dogs (or bears, even better) can sniff out the stealths.
TheCobra 01-31-07, 04:40 PM	Get butchered horribly in my experiance Yeah, that's probably what'll happen. I don't really know, though. I don't think I've ever had my PCs fighter straight fighters. Maybe some some mooks... I'm gonna make them dwarves, and as tough as I can. The stealth thing really is a problem. The PCs will probably get a surprise round and murder them, but we'll see.
Archangel62 01-31-07, 07:24 PM	Well, the fighters could have dogs that serve as guards, or they could have combat focus which gives limited blindsense. Fighters, like several other classes, items races and spells end up stronger on the DM side than the pc side.
Clawhound 02-01-07, 07:52 AM	In my game coming up, I have some giants with some defenses. Dog packs on the perimeters. Umber hulks at the gates chained into stone. Those two should make much stealthiness hard. I haven't accounted for flight yet. Maybe if they have a magic widget of ''alarm''? There's a handy thing for NPC's to have.
navar100 02-02-07, 04:47 AM	You also flew completely off the handle back on page four after taking my comment both completely out of context, and completely failed to get the point I was trying to make anyway. A fighter needs to contribute something of some value to the party, he does not by necessity need to pay me back with money or goods. He may however, owe me a favour. One which, in general, he will never be able to repay. I save his ass by giving him a share pain. Sure, fair enough. I do this maybe 5-6 times the entire campaign. Fighter gives me nothing. Why? I'm a tank as well. I don't need him to take shots for me. I don't gain very much for flanking, so he's not really any help there. He can't heal me, so I do it myself. At some point, I'm going to question whether or not the fighter is more of a liability to the party than he is help. If he's holding his own for the most part, taking things down, causing damage, fine, I'll give him his stuff when he needs it, gladly. I'm not, however going to cast buffs on him every day without payment in pearls of power. Wants magic weapon greater? Buy me a pearl of power. He's saving money by using me, I'm not losing spells over him. It's win-win. Healing is different. I think that a party cleric should treat HP damage as a challenge that he is meant to deal with to a degree. Same with rogues. No teamwork should be expected in disarming traps. (however, rogues, in return should not be asked to provide other in combat increases to the other party members.) After a while, this may start to ruin my fun, if you constantly need my help. If it is only once in a while, sure, but then how is this a team game? The only time that you can really ask for teamwork is when all the party members can do something to make every other party member better. Cleric casts recitations, wizard takes advantage of lowered saves and also uses sphere of invisibility, which helps the rogue who can now sneak attack, bard plays his bardic music, making everyone better. Fighter? He takes all of that, but can never add more to the pot. That's why the fighter sucks as a team player. What can he do? He can cause damage, which everyone in the game can do. He can block... For a 15-25 foot radius. Not enough, and not well enough for it to really come into play against intelligent creatures, and again, the cleric or druid does this job fine. He can survive a ton of hits. Yeah, but this only really helps him. Other classes can survive in other manners that require less healing afterwards. Only archer fighters can claim this, and certain AC builds that are even more useless in a fight. Neither are making the team better. As such, I would prefer if you were not a fighter, and IC would recommend that the character find some other path. Leave brochures to the warblade schools under his pillow at night. If he ignores me that's fine. He can play whatever he wants. However, respecting that, I can also play my character however I want, and if that includes requiring payment for services, then you should allow for that as much as I allow you being a fighter. Also, better choice for the wizard is to just toast the harpies and have the fighter use a lonbgow to hit them. It's more economic, and frankly, if the fighter needs another character just to tag flyers, he's not a well thought out character anyway. No character build should be completely helpless against a certain type of foe. We'll just have to be mutually happy we're not in the same playing group. You will be upset that I'd be willing to play a fighter should I choose to do so, thus you wouldn't want to play with me. I would be upset that your out of character problem with that would be such a problem that you would take it out on me in character, for which I wouldn't want to play with you.
Archangel62 02-02-07, 04:52 AM	We'll just have to be mutually happy we're not in the same playing group. You will be upset that I'd be willing to play a fighter should I choose to do so, thus you wouldn't want to play with me. I would be upset that your out of character problem with that would be such a problem that you would take it out on me in character, for which I wouldn't want to play with you. Actually his point would be in character, if you were draining resources at a great rate and had the threat of 'kill while sleeping' that doesn't make you sound like someone I'd want to play with either and I applaud anyone who can take a fighter a full 20 levels and make it fun, viable, and a strongly contributing member of the party.
navar100 02-02-07, 05:02 AM	Actually his point would be in character, if you were draining resources at a great rate and had the threat of 'kill while sleeping' that doesn't make you sound like someone I'd want to play with either and I applaud anyone who can take a fighter a full 20 levels and make it fun, viable, and a strongly contributing member of the party. I was being absurd to demonstrate the absurdity. Do you remember what prompted this? Being demanded I pay for being helped, as opposed to just being a party and help each other for the sake of helping. I did play in a party like that, and I wasn't even a fighter, as I've mentioned. In reality I quit the game, so everyone was happy. Fortunately, I play with people who actually help each other for everyone to succeed and not worry who is "contributing" the most.