Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Archangel62 02-24-07, 05:06 PM	The debate on the fighter, questions of strength and weakness, attempted fixes, all of them seem to lack one cruical element. The question of what the fighter was intended as when it was designed. The other martial classes can give hints, class abilities coupled with skill sets can do quite a bit to help show the 'optimal' design for the class in question. The barbarian gets bonuses to strength and constitution, movement speed, and damage reduction. The barbarian seems to be a power type character, they hit hard and they are chargers. They stand and slam. The Ranger has skills that help them observe and spy, they have light armor proficiency as well as favored enemies and an animal companion (or a very nice substitution option in PH2). They even have two paths that give them bonus feats for a particular combat style, the ranger is either a TWF skirmisher or a ranged sniper. (I'm more a fan of sniper myself but, meh) The paladin has heavy armor proficiency, a free mount that advances with them, the ability to heal with a touch, spellcasting, and all kinds of abilities to boost saves as well as strike down foes. The paladin is easily built as a tank or a mounted warrior, with spells and boosts they can get a high AC or lance an enemy into the next millenium. The fighter, though, seems problematic. They have a lot of feats, certainly, but no class abilites. Their skill list is rather squalid, as is the number of skillpoints. Some people argue the fighter was meant to be a tank, others a weapon master (as evidenced by fighter only feats like weapon specialization and the weapon focus tree). My guess is that the fighter was designed not to be any one thing, but instead many things. The fighter was meant to be a sort of catch-all kind of class. If you wanted to play a master tripper the fighter could do that. If you wanted to be a master archer but didn't like some aspects of the ranger the fighter could do that. A tank, a weapon master, a generalist who had several styles, the fighter could do that. This was the great strength of the fighters design but also its greatest weakness. The fighter was built to be anything, unfortunately this conflicts with the nature of the D&D system. The fighter is a generalist, a blank slate, a template, but the d20 system promotes and rewards specialization. A barbarian is mechanically rewarded for using 2 handed weapons and power-attack related feats because of the boosts of rage. The fighter has no class abilities so the average person, or a new player, doesn't know what to make the fighter. And once they decide, they have to have appropriate stats to make it work (this is somewhat an idictment on pointbuy but I understand the need for it to try to make some form of internal balance). The fighter cannot expect to have 18s across the board, so they are generally forced to focus entirely on one style or just dip slightly into another but remain rather sub-par. Since the fighter has no class abilities to focus their feats around gear becomes the key focus. The archery build needs bracers of archery, gloves of dexterity, and other items related to ranged combat. The tank needs a good shield, strong armor, and items that boost deflection and natrual armor. This is where one of the big problems comes in, the issue isn't that the fighter needs gear (all classes need gear) the problem is that the gear becomes the only way for the fighter to advance their style. This same gear is available to any other class, and in many cases those classes have abilities to enhance their style of choice as well. And if the wealth by level rules are followed equally then the fighter probably can't afford to do too many styles or techniques simply because the weapons and items best for each style are rather expensive and are hard to gain with the money provided. This is part of the problem with the fighter, but more with the fixes shown. Each fighter fix does nothing to make the fighter more versatile, or better able to do diferent styles, instead it just makes the fighter more of a tank, or deal more damage, basically shoehorning the fighter into a set design. This is part of why I'm reluctant to try to create a fighter fix, because I still sincerely feel that the real strength of the fighter should be versatility and strength in combat, not in being a one trick pony.
Silverthumb128 02-24-07, 05:19 PM	The focus of the Fighter is their feats, and they are the class abilities. Fighter represents the highly-trained warrior who spends his whole life perfecting his combat-craft, much in the way Monk does, but to a different end. I have, in my sig, my take on what the Fighter would look like with more focus on the Fighter's training above just feats.
Bhaal006 02-24-07, 09:18 PM	a human fighter gets 19 feats this a build that makes a fighter good at more than just one combat style Exotic Weapon Prof Bast. Sw. Oversize TWF TWF ITWF GTWF Improved Buckler Defense Mage Slayer Dodge Mobility Spring Attack Quick Draw Improved Initiative Point Blank Shot Precise Shot Improved Precise Shot/or Multishot Rapid Shot Mounted Archery Mounted Combat Ride By Attack
Marcotic 02-24-07, 10:59 PM	where is the mage slayer feat?
Waterhammer 02-25-07, 12:55 AM	A few more class skills would help the Fighter. We could do away with the Swashbuckler, and just add it's skill list to the Fighter's. You can build a Swashbuckler using a Fighter, except for the skills.
Khan the Destroyer 02-25-07, 01:33 AM	A barbarian is mechanically rewarded for using 2 handed weapons and power-attack related feats because of the boosts of rage. Rage only really affects the damage he deals by wielding a two-handed weapon. It has no affect on his power attack potential. At 20th level, the difference in damage between a fighter and a raging barbarian is 6 points from his +8 strength, which can be made up with the 6 points to damage a fighter gets with the Weapon Specialization feat chain (including Melee Weapon Mastery). The barbarian also has +4 more to attack, which he can dump into Power Attack for 8 more damage. The fighter can also have a +4 to attack from his Weapon Focus chain (including Melee Weapon Mastery). He dumps it for another 8 points of damage as well. So this mechanical advantage is nonexistant, or at the very least, *can* be nonexistant. The fighter has no class abilities so the average person, or a new player, doesn't know what to make the fighter. And once they decide, they have to have appropriate stats to make it work (this is somewhat an idictment on pointbuy but I understand the need for it to try to make some form of internal balance). The fighter cannot expect to have 18s across the board, so they are generally forced to focus entirely on one style or just dip slightly into another but remain rather sub-par. The game is created assuming 25 point buy. You really don't need uber stats to play the game. Since the fighter has no class abilities to focus their feats around gear becomes the key focus. The archery build needs bracers of archery, gloves of dexterity, and other items related to ranged combat. Anyone that is focused on archery is going to use magic items related to archery. It is optimal. The fighter doesn't need gloves of dexterity any more than any other dex-based character does (like a ranger archer, or a weapon-finessing rogue). The tank needs a good shield, strong armor, and items that boost deflection and natrual armor. This is where one of the big problems comes in, the issue isn't that the fighter needs gear (all classes need gear) the problem is that the gear becomes the only way for the fighter to advance their style. I think I am missing your point. Would you be able to elaborate? I think I may agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure :).
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 01:39 AM	where is the mage slayer feat? the Mageslayer feat is in the complete arcane
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 01:43 AM	Im all for changing the fighter skill list, all my fighters use the swashbuckler skill list except replace escape artist with handle animal, and Tumble with intimidate, also replace balance with hide and use rope with ride, also same skill points
Marcotic 02-25-07, 04:33 AM	Here's what im considering for a fighter in my champain, Fighter D10 skills 2 per level add listen, tumble, diplomacy and knowlege (geography) to class skills At level one you get three options A. Skirmisher at level 5 and every 5 levels there after you gain a +5 to your light armor&load speed At level 10 and every 10 levels there after you gain a +5 to your medum armor&load speed. At 11th level, you can tumble in medium armor and or while carring a meduim load, (with a -10 penalty) further you can travel across turrain that would normally slow your movement with no penalty. (supposed to be flawless stride too lazy to look up) B. Gaurdian At level 5 and every 5 levels there after, you gain bonus hit points. At level 5 you gain 5 extra At level 10 you gain 10 extra at level 15 you gain 20 extra at level 20 you gain 40 extra At 11th level, the toughness feat grants +5 to HP and improved toughness grants a +1.5 per level increase in HP (these feats are improved retro actively) C. Tactician At level 5 you gain an insight bonus to hit to any opponent you have seen in combat. At level 5 it is 1 at level 10 it is 2 at level 15 it is 3 at level 20 it is 5 As a standard action, you can explain the weakness that you found in your enemies defence to any allie that can hear and understand you, granting them this same insight bonus At 11th level, you gain a +2 on opposed trip, disarm, and fient checks. You also gain the ability to attack an opponent immeadietly after they fail one of these checks against you All fighter's can gain feats even if his ability scores would normally deny it to him (monks get somthing like this) after 11th level yeah, this isn't much, but i think its enough to make you not completely regret being a fighter through to level 20. It doesn't fix the magicVmundane, but it does help make the fighter I dunno, not a completely stupid choice as far as a base class. i think that letting them retrain there feat selection wouldn't be broken because all it alows is a fighter the ability to custom fit his "style" so that a badass meleer can jump to being a skilled archer or the like, it's not broken cus' its not like a fighter becomes BETTER, just not as likely to be left in the cold due to a situational thing, the only reason I see against it is how unrealistic it is but this IS dnd after all Except he couldn't change feats that grant more HP (a little to clunky IMO)
ElIsRa 02-25-07, 08:39 AM	Are you kidding me? Everyone thinks they *need* to fix everything anymore. The fighter is exactly what it is, it doesn't need fixing. It can become super specialized in one style of combat, or dabble in a dozen. The fact is, I don't see any other class where I can get Whirlwind attack with a spiked chain in six levels. How can any class that can do that be underpowered? If you really feel the need to fix something, fix the Wizard who is dying a slow death at the hands of the Sorcerer, Battle Mage, Warlock, Beguilder, Dread Necromancer, and the whole Psionics system.
Silverthumb128 02-25-07, 09:01 AM	If you really feel the need to fix something, fix the Wizard who is dying a slow death at the hands of the Sorcerer, Battle Mage, Warlock, Beguilder, Dread Necromancer, and the whole Psionics system. How is the Wizard dying slowly?
malisteen 02-25-07, 09:08 AM	Because the game isn't six levels long? Fighters don't have problems in fights early on, they have problems in fights later on. They have problems out of fights all the time. Rogues are the 'unparralleled masters of skills', with more skills then anyone else by a wide margin. But they still get medium attack bonus, sneak attack, evasion, and a number of other class abilities that make them useful in a fight as well. So no matter what the situation is, the rogue potentially has something to do. The same can be said for spellcasters (who, with judicious spell selection, can be useful in any situation). Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins, while not as versatile, have at least [/i]something[/i] interesting they can do both in and out of combat. What does the 'unparrallelled master of feats' do that is so bloody amazing that he deserves to get the worst skill list in the game (worse then commoners!), the worst skill points in the game, and no class abilities (or even bonus fighter feats) that are of any use outside of combat? Does he really rock combat so much harder than any other character that he doesn't deserve to participate meaningfully in any other encounters?
TB 02-25-07, 09:25 AM	Are you kidding me? Everyone thinks they *need* to fix everything anymore. The fighter is exactly what it is, it doesn't need fixing. It can become super specialized in one style of combat, or dabble in a dozen. The fact is, I don't see any other class where I can get Whirlwind attack with a spiked chain in six levels. How can any class that can do that be underpowered? I completely agree. I would like to see the fighter with an adaptable in-class list though. have 10 in-class skills of the players choice, rather than the set list. I think this would give the player the best ability to create the focused or well rounded fighter possilble... Or you could multi-class with something like the ranger, who gets a good range a skills.
Szatany 02-25-07, 09:27 AM	Each fighter fix does nothing to make the fighter more versatile, or better able to do diferent styles That's not true. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9891676&postcount=3)
aotrscommander 02-25-07, 09:35 AM	This is part of the problem with the fighter, but more with the fixes shown. Each fighter fix does nothing to make the fighter more versatile, or better able to do diferent styles, instead it just makes the fighter more of a tank, or deal more damage, basically shoehorning the fighter into a set design. This is part of why I'm reluctant to try to create a fighter fix, because I still sincerely feel that the real strength of the fighter should be versatility and strength in combat, not in being a one trick pony. I have, in my sig, my take on what the Fighter would look like with more focus on the Fighter's training above just feats. My own Highly Dubious (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11535571) Fighter (and Warrior) 'fix'1works on those sort of lines; I gave them more feats and additional utility to a small collection of feats (which my grow as I get more ideas). I rigouressly avoided increasing feats that have a direct effect on combat bonuses (i.e weapon focus), because in my own opinion, Fighters don't really need more pluses as much as they need to be able to Do Stuff better. 1By my own admission it's not a complete fix, but a partial one, suited to my specific purpose.
ElIsRa 02-25-07, 10:26 AM	I completely agree.Thank you.:tie: Because the game isn't six levels long? Fighters don't have problems in fights early on, they have problems in fights later on. I would tend to disagree. A well conceived Fighter can excel on the battlefield well into the later levels. This is especially true since the birth of the Weapon Focus/Specialization tree in 3.5e. Rogues are the 'unparralleled masters of skills', with more skills then anyone else by a wide margin. But they still get medium attack bonus, sneak attack, evasion, and a number of other class abilities that make them useful in a fight as well. So no matter what the situation is, the rogue potentially has something to do. The same can be said for spellcasters (who, with judicious spell selection, can be useful in any situation). Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins, while not as versatile, have at least something interesting they can do both in and out of combat. What does the 'unparrallelled master of feats' do that is so bloody amazing that he deserves to get the worst skill list in the game (worse then commoners!), the worst skill points in the game, and no class abilities (or even bonus fighter feats) that are of any use outside of combat? Does he really rock combat so much harder than any other character that he doesn't deserve to participate meaningfully in any other encounters?I would like to see the fighter with an adaptable in-class list though. have 10 in-class skills of the players choice, rather than the set list. I think this would give the player the best ability to create the focused or well rounded fighter possilble... Or you could multi-class with something like the ranger, who gets a good range a skills. I'm willing to concede that the Fighter's skill list is not exactly what it should be. I think that its more of a throw back to 2nd ed skill proficiencies more than anything, and probably needs revamping to reflect the true nature of the fighter as a master strategist and expert tactician. That said, I must point out that unlike the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, or any other class, the Fighter's primary; nay, sole occupation is war. While Diplomacy and Knowledge( Arcane ) are fine skills, they are best left to the diplomats and sages. So an adaptable skill list, IMHO, is not appropriate. Perhaps a compromise on this would be a series of alternate skill lists, representing different backgrounds.
Clawhound 02-25-07, 10:29 AM	I've argued with you alot. This is to say, that's a fair summary of the actual issues with the class. Well said. Thomas Covenant convinced me that its not the POWER of the class that is the problem, it's the PLAY of the class. Your assessment pretty much reaches the same conclusion.
malisteen 02-25-07, 10:44 AM	I'm not overly concerned with power level in fights. It's an issue, but one that won't really be resolved until the caster/non-caster issue is resolved. It's the lack of contribution in any other situation that bothers me. 4 skill points/level and better skill list (listen, spot, diplomacy, tumble, balance, know (nobility), know (history), and know (architecture) at the least should be there) are a must. Give me that and I'll still feel the fighter falls behind, but not by so much that I'll be complaining.
mkill 02-25-07, 10:45 AM	I can explain the intention behind the fighter. In all old versions of D&D, or rather, in the first 25 years of gaming, the fighter was ... the combat guy. Everybody else had something special, the fighter was... well, the fighter. Give him armor and weapon, he'll roll for attack every round while the rest does the thinking. Actually, what few people remember, high level AD&D fighters had something like an automatic Leadership feat. While wizards would cast high-level spells, the fighter would come with an army. Then came optional rules books, to make the fighter more interesting. In 3rd ed, they decided to make the "more interesting" fighter core, and the feat system was born. And they gave the fighter a feat every 2 levels. Since this fighter was much better than the fighter in every edition before that, they decided to leave him at that. So yes, a fighter is, well anything. Archer, tank, heavy hitter. And in fact, a straight fighter PC is a useful addition to the party, until a certain level. That's why they introduced Prestige Classes in 3rd edition. Yes, taking levels in fighter is a good way to enter Prestige Classes quick, and that's it. There is nothing "wrong" or "to be fixed" about that. The fighter was always outshined by wizards and clerics after level 10. That's how D&D always was. Actually, in 3rd edition, he has already gained ground. But no, a straight fighter can't keep up with an optimized Ftr 4/PrC X/PrC X/PrC X or even a straight druid or wizard, and he was not designed to be. Just accept it. As a player, you don't build "a fighter" anyway. You build a character after a concept. And that concept can include pretty much any class, there is nothing that forces you to pile Fighter level on Fighter level if you think that such a character would be too weak or would not have the abilities you want him to have.
Archangel62 02-25-07, 11:04 AM	Rage only really affects the damage he deals by wielding a two-handed weapon. It has no affect on his power attack potential. At 20th level, the difference in damage between a fighter and a raging barbarian is 6 points from his +8 strength, which can be made up with the 6 points to damage a fighter gets with the Weapon Specialization feat chain (including Melee Weapon Mastery). The barbarian also has +4 more to attack, which he can dump into Power Attack for 8 more damage. The fighter can also have a +4 to attack from his Weapon Focus chain (including Melee Weapon Mastery). He dumps it for another 8 points of damage as well. So this mechanical advantage is nonexistant, or at the very least, *can* be nonexistant. In regards to Power Attack I meant that the bonus to hit from Rage can offset the penalty to hit from Power Attack. A fighter might take a -2 to hit at fourth level, a Barbarian can take a -4 at the same level and still have the same net bonus to hit and a much higher bonus to damage. And yes, a fighter can do that with all those feats but the barbarian can do all this pre-feats. The game is created assuming 25 point buy. You really don't need uber stats to play the game. Never said you did, but I had pointed out in some earlier threads that if you want a fighter that can power attack, trip, fight at range, enter combat focus, and have a decent con score you either ended up with 5 13s and an 8 or a 14 3 13s, and a 12 and 8. Maybe those stats aren't bad, but you won't be that good at your different styles in regards to range or melee damage. Anyone that is focused on archery is going to use magic items related to archery. It is optimal. The fighter doesn't need gloves of dexterity any more than any other dex-based character does (like a ranger archer, or a weapon-finessing rogue). I had meant more that the problem came to be that those other classes had the gear +their class features which I saw as somewhat of a problem for the fighter. I think I am missing your point. Would you be able to elaborate? I think I may agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure :). My point is that without any defining class abilities the fighter has to use their gear to define and advance their tactical options. The fighter will not have enough money, using the wealth by level charts, to fill more than one role when it comes to combat, and their gear has to start becoming a choice between general utility and boosts in their style du jour. People have mentioned vile feats, abyssal heritor or pact feats, etc. While I will admit that those can work I'm not so sure that saying the fighter can sell his soul to be an equal contributor is quite fair to the fighter...though it might explain the sheer number of martially oriented demons and devils now that I think about it.:thinks:
AllisterH 02-25-07, 11:15 AM	I can explain the intention behind the fighter. In all old versions of D&D, or rather, in the first 25 years of gaming, the fighter was ... the combat guy. Everybody else had something special, the fighter was... well, the fighter. Give him armor and weapon, he'll roll for attack every round while the rest does the thinking. Actually, what few people remember, high level AD&D fighters had something like an automatic Leadership feat. While wizards would cast high-level spells, the fighter would come with an army. Then came optional rules books, to make the fighter more interesting. . That's not entirely true. The fighter (along with the rogue) were the default class if you didn't roll high enough for one of the good classes like say Paladin or Ranger. Until Unearthed Arcana brought in Weapon Specialization in 1E, there really was no reason to be a fighter if your rolled high enough. Paladins and rangers were just plain better. This, more than anything else, is what kept fighters a viable choice. The fact was, unless you got lucky, you weren't going to have a paladin when you created the character.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 11:20 AM	The barbarina can do that pre feats BECAUSE HE DOESNT GET AS MANY, fighters have feats to spend, its their class feature, just like rage is a class feature, you guys say a fighter needs to spend more money, maybe with such high base attack bonus you dont really need that +5 to hit and dam, +2 enchant on a bow is good enough, meaning a +2 equivalent, not +2 to hit and dam, otherwise enchant the arrows, thats cheaper, at max you need at least one +10 weapon, with the build i have my secondary is a +4, and my armor is +10, with this i think im like 100,000gp over standard(not the same list posted on the other thread, same feats though)
Archangel62 02-25-07, 11:31 AM	The barbarina can do that pre feats BECAUSE HE DOESNT GET AS MANY, fighters have feats to spend, its their class feature, just like rage is a class feature, you guys say a fighter needs to spend more money, maybe with such high base attack bonus you dont really need that +5 to hit and dam, The problem is this, the barbarians abilities are far better than feats. Since the barbarian can get those bonuses with ANY weapon. Also, feats like leap attack, shock trooper, combat brute, those do far more in the hands of the barbarian than they do the fighter. The barbarian might not have many feats, but they don't need that many either.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 11:35 AM	They dont need that many because THEY DONT GET THAT MANY, fighters do thats why they get them, i swear its like talking to a bunch of retarded babies.
JLaurHughes 02-25-07, 11:49 AM	I posed this question in anothe thread with a fighter fix, so I will pose it here too. Why does the fighter need to be "Fixed?"
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 11:55 AM	the only thing a Fighter really needs and i mean "REALLY" needs is skills, thats it, other things would be nice, but man if only i had skills.
Khan the Destroyer 02-25-07, 11:56 AM	The problem is this, the barbarians abilities are far better than feats. Since the barbarian can get those bonuses with ANY weapon. On the flip side, the barbarian can only rage so many times per day, is fatigued afterwards, and still falls behind in straight bonuses to the fighter. The barbarian's bonuses come at level 1, 11, and 20. The fighter can finish his chain by level 12. Also, feats like leap attack, shock trooper, combat brute, those do far more in the hands of the barbarian than they do the fighter. I don't understand what the deal is with charging. It is one attack. That's it. To base your character on charging just seems like shortchanging yourself. The barbarian might not have many feats, but they don't need that many either. And yet, you just listed Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Combat Brute, which require Power Attack, Improved Sunder, and Improved Bull Rush. So... your uberness comes in at what... level 12? Assuming human. The fighter gets all of those by 8th level, plus an additional 3 feats. That's four levels before the barbarian. And, a simple Enlarge Person spell makes up for the barbarian rage with a size bonus to trip and bull rush. Is this demonstrating that the fighter is better than the barbarian? No. It demonstrates that a fighter can do his job. If the barbarian is good with those stats, a fighter should be too.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 12:03 PM	Thanks again Khan for your inelligent and articulate contribution
Khan the Destroyer 02-25-07, 12:09 PM	:ayyyy!: No need to thank me, I like debating. I actually debated pretty hard against the fighter class on the CO Boards. But, I've had a change of heart.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 12:14 PM	maybe it was divine inspiration, maybe you finaly saw the light.
Archangel62 02-25-07, 12:14 PM	On the flip side, the barbarian can only rage so many times per day, is fatigued afterwards, and still falls behind in straight bonuses to the fighter. The barbarian's bonuses come at level 1, 11, and 20. The fighter can finish his chain by level 12. Yes, but the rage lasts a rather long period. At low levels the barbarian is only going to get one rage, probably saving it for the big fight of the day. But with one feat, extra rage, the barbarian just gained more. I don't understand what the deal is with charging. It is one attack. That's it. To base your character on charging just seems like shortchanging yourself. Not saying the barbarian is based off of it, but the feats synergize well and it makes for an excellent opening salvo. And yet, you just listed Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Combat Brute, which require Power Attack, Improved Sunder, and Improved Bull Rush. So... your uberness comes in at what... level 12? Assuming human. The fighter gets all of those by 8th level, plus an additional 3 feats. That's four levels before the barbarian. And, a simple Enlarge Person spell makes up for the barbarian rage with a size bonus to trip and bull rush. Yes, the fighter does, but the barbarian can do this again, without needing potions or extra gear. Is this demonstrating that the fighter is better than the barbarian? No. It demonstrates that a fighter can do his job. If the barbarian is good with those stats, a fighter should be too. In theory anyhow. Part of my point in this thread too was that the fighter does not live up to its design as a martial master. The point I have been trying to make is that every other class has features and abilities that synergize with feats, that augment styles. Feats are like a seasoning, they can add a lot to something but if you make a soup with just seasoning it probably isn't going to taste that great.
Khan the Destroyer 02-25-07, 12:30 PM	Yes, but the rage lasts a rather long period. Perhaps even until the end of combat. But at 1st level, you only get one. In any combat other than the one you rage in, what are you? I would argue... worse than the fighter. No? At low levels the barbarian is only going to get one rage, probably saving it for the big fight of the day. Meaning he is not as effective in any other fights for that day. In the same way a druid can only Wild Shape once a day at level five. Of course, it lasts for five hours. But, who knows when your encoutners will happen. And what if you can't be in animal form for some reason? Such as, you need to climb a wall, or swim underwater, or squeeze through a passage? You have to shift back to normal form. Guess what? No more wild shape for other encounters. This is like the low level cleric that has no access to Divine Power, Righteous Might, or whatever other buffs you need. These are costs that usually aren't taken into account. But with one feat, extra rage, the barbarian just gained more. On top of Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Sunder, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper. So, now your feat combo gets pushed back to level 15. Not saying the barbarian is based off of it, but the feats synergize well and it makes for an excellent opening salvo. I agree that a powerful charge is a great start to an encounter. But I don't think those feats synergize so much better for the barbarian. I think we just expect the barbarian to be a damage-dealing charger. Yes, the fighter does, but the barbarian can do this again, without needing potions or extra gear. No gear is needed. Enlarge Person is a 1st level spell. The wizard can cast it. And if the tank was a barbarian instead of a fighter, the wizard should cast Enlarge Person on him too. In theory anyhow. Part of my point in this thread too was that the fighter does not live up to its design as a martial master. The point I have been trying to make is that every other class has features and abilities that synergize with feats, that augment styles. Feats are like a seasoning, they can add a lot to something but if you make a soup with just seasoning it probably isn't going to taste that great. I see your reasoning, but I don't agree with your analogy. Feats to me are like building blocks :).
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 12:53 PM	Heres the thing, i post a list feats, so far all but like 2 people thought that list was great, the fighter IS a master of martial combat, i think i proved that nicely, it seems to me that your mad because the fighter doesnt work the way YOU want it, and thats fine, some classes dont work the way I want them to, that doesnt mean they suck, it means i dont play them, dont keep telling me the fighter is broken cause you "..cant get it to do right."(spacecataz)
Archangel62 02-25-07, 07:34 PM	Heres the thing, i post a list feats, so far all but like 2 people thought that list was great, the fighter IS a master of martial combat, i think i proved that nicely, it seems to me that your mad because the fighter doesnt work the way YOU want it, and thats fine, some classes dont work the way I want them to, that doesnt mean they suck, it means i dont play them, dont keep telling me the fighter is broken cause you "..cant get it to do right."(spacecataz) Actually most people didn't comment on it, you had a few complaints and one act of praise, so it's actually in the complainers favor in terms of numerical weight. Your experience with the fighter is based on a unique campaign with multiple mitigating circumstances. I see your design as being rather poorly set, you have a very low chance of hitting your targets on average beyond the first...maybe second hit. Your dependance on your gear to maintain rough parity is noticeable. For a general fighter, the problem is simply this, the fighter isn't versatile, they have theoretically dozens of build options. But in order to do more than one or two styles they need multiple high attributes, they need to be able to alter between several sets of gear, and if that gear is to remain useable in any encounter and follow the wealth by level guidelines you're looking at rather mediocre weapons.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 07:50 PM	it doesn't require that much money to work! holy crap, is that what your stuck on, did you just choose to ignore the fact that i REPEATEDLY! said that it has worked excellently in another campaign WITH normal wealth lvls. interesting how you ignore every statement if it doesnt conform to the way you view thing, Because i responded to that statement honestly no one thinks this can work without abnormal wealth. It works, i remain effective, im sorry you lack the capability understand that
Archangel62 02-25-07, 07:54 PM	it doesn't require that much money to work! holy crap, is that what your stuck on, did you just choose to ignore the fact that i REPEATEDLY! said that it has worked excellently in another campaign WITH normal wealth lvls. interesting how you ignore every statement if it doesnt conform to the way you view thing, Because i responded to that statement honestly no one thinks this can work without abnormal wealth. I am rather doubtful that it worked "excellently" in other campaigns. But maybe it did, but as we have pointed out here, campaigns mean very little, I can point to many situations in campaigns that I have played in and run where the fighter was limited to basically sitting out a combat if they did not prestige. And even then they had issues if they were faced by things that weren't of their realm of combat. I've played in tournaments, conventions, and regular groups, the only times I've seen the fighter working at high levels was either if they prestiged, multi-classed, or were being favored by the DM so blatantly that it wasn't funny.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 08:14 PM	I'm sorry none of the fighters "you" know of can do well without breaking the game, doubt it all you want, im not saying fighter is perfect, Im saying it "can" work, that a fighter "can" be effective, that it is possible without being favored by the DM, and without taking a Prc, and the whole point of this build is to be effective in multiple areas of combat, and are you sure that the DM is being biased, And maybe the reason the fighter works well is because the DM isnt favoring you.
FrostHammer 02-25-07, 08:40 PM	I don't understand what the deal is with charging. It is one attack. That's it. To base your character on charging just seems like shortchanging yourself. Then you're not taking the right magic items or the right feat. You can make a FULL attack after the charge with either one of those. And feats are important to any class. No one denies that. Feats just aren't as good as class abilities. The barbarian who spends his 7 feats wisely is better than a fighter who has 19 feats to spend. If you think otherwise, go optimie a fighter, and then go get someone on the Character Optimization boards to optimize a Barbarian, and then see which one does better in a dungeon and/or a straight fight.
Bhaal006 02-25-07, 09:12 PM	I'm sorry wealth is not the issue(ive only seen a psionic power that allows you to take a full attack after a charge, and psionics aren't widely accepted in most setting)
Thomas_Covenant 02-25-07, 09:22 PM	Fundamentally, I feel many classes increased in power for 3.X (spellcasters with casting defensively, 5' step, more slots and multiple spells/round) and the Fighter not only did not, but was left the least versatile as a base. At the same time Feats failed to achieve the combination of power and versatility to make up for this. Complete Warrior's tactical feats, and PHBII's high-level options helped here, but nowhere near far enough, imho. I'm leery to risk a side discussion on previous editions, but I feel it's warranted: In 1st AD&D, Fighters were very nearly required. (Paladins were almost impossible to qualify for but equally good, Rangers were quite good but I think Armor was an issue, and Barbarians had complex restrictions and the equivalent of non-core) Only the current +1 BAB classes got iterative attacks....ever. When the spellcasters were starting to get the truly powerful spells and enough slots to use them, the Fighters were getting multiple attacks, while no one else was. The Fighter with weapon spec got 2 attacks/round at level 7 (in my experience, this was every Fighter) and the Cleric/Druid/Rogue/Thief did not. BAB (well, the equivalent) scaled more in the Fighter's favor. Fighters got 1/1 (or 2/2, don't ask) Clerics 2/3, Rogue/Thief 1/2, Wizard 1/3. By level 4, the Fighter typically has +3 to hit over every non-Fighter, and that assumes equal Str and gear, neither of which are actually likely. The Fighter's iterative attacks actually weren't, every attack was at full bonus. Haste was a common trick in the *truly* critical fights, and outright doubled attacks. Meaning 4 attacks at level 7, which lays down smack quite fast. Spellcasters also leveled slower, the Rogue/Thief really got over here but the Fighter often had a level advantage over primary spellcasters. Saves were truly wonky, but mid-level Fighter had quite good ones, a high-level excellent ones. In 3.X, much of this is opposite. By Level 9, the Fighter has a +3 to-hit over medium BAB classes, and the other classes all now have high-powered options. Last level 3/4 BAB classes gained their second attack, the Fighter has to synergize tricks (meaning feats) to do something significant at all. His saves are arguably the worst in Core, actually by a fair margin. By d20 rules, the Fighter's Hps aren't that much better than CoDzilla 24/7. Overall, any class can get Heavy Armor and Martial weapons with minimal (if any) sacrifice, and that assumes they even want them. Again, his base mechanics have taken major hits. Which is leaves us the 3.X Fighter's true schtick: Feats. Sadly, feats were never thought out that well, and leave much to be desired. There are now hundreds of feats out there, and many of them are just awful. Yes, the Fighter gets lots of them. Yes, the Fighter can potentially get synergies easier than anyone else, or at least pull them off earlier. He can likewise choose feats that look decent, but are useless in play. There will never be an absolute conclusion as to how effective feat combinations can be; the sheer number of combinations begins to use numbers that only have meaning in statistics, and we haven't taken DM preference or even campaign arc tendencies, much less individual battles. What *can* be shown is how easy it is to build a godawful Fighter. I don't want to single out specific feats, someone always argues over every one, it seems. Seriously though, look at the PHB Fighter bonus feats, and look at what happens when you take 7 of the "worst" ones (in your opinion) for a Ftr12 and think how bad a character that makes. With a fairly new player, or just one who isn't smart/good at optimizing, you'd be surprised at how close you can get to this result. Every class has this problem to some degree, but I argue the Fighter is the worst of the lot. (Sorceror may well compete, but only if he *really* tries.) You have a notable problem with margin for error in heavy Fighter builds. A level 1-6 Barbarian can be handed to a player who's never played DnD, and be enjoyed. The Fighter's options take considerable rules knowledge to do much of anything, both in tactics on the battlemat, and feat selection that can not be easily changed. I recently tried to introduce a younger brother to the game (not entirely successfully, but meh.) and Barbarian was the stand-out choice for an easy, competent class in low-mid levels. Fighter builds are not easy or simple, and they are exceedingly unforgiving. For all this difficulty, you don't get a lot of reward. You don't have earth-shattering powers, you tend to get surprised in every surprise round, you have awful inherent movement on the battlegrid, and your options are entirely dependent on gear and selectable class abilites. (gear which every class should have equally, unless someone is using item creation feats or DM fiat) You are also exceedingly vulnerable to DM whim/bias: You are among the most item dependent of classes, and you can't make items. Most feats are either weapon type/class specific, situation specific, or both. Even unintentionally, the DM can easily hose major parts of your build by not providing/allowing good weapons for your feat trees, or shifting heavily to campaign arcs full of opponents your feat tree just can't affect at all. Basically, yes, the Fighter has real problems, and they are notable. Some are a more general Melee vs. Spellcaster issue, and some are unique or nearly unique to the Fighter, and that makes me a bit sad. Fighter has been an archetype for about as long as I've been alive, and I actively discourage players, particularly new players, from taking many Fighter levels to make sure they enjoy the game.On the flip side, the barbarian can only rage so many times per day, is fatigued afterwards, and still falls behind in straight bonuses to the fighter. The barbarian's bonuses come at level 1, 11, and 20. The fighter can finish his chain by level 12. I don't understand what the deal is with charging. It is one attack. That's it. To base your character on charging just seems like shortchanging yourself.It really depends on level for Fighter vs. Barbarian, and that argument doesn't really go anywhere. (Fighter rules Barbarian in AC, which in my experience isn't impressive, but some campaign arcs AC honestly can be king.) Honestly, I'm not sure spending multiple feats to match the Barbarian is wise for the Fighter at all. I'd honestly say tactical feats and tricks benefit the party more, but the Fighter still has problems either way. A level one Barbarian with 14 Con Rages for 7 rounds. I'm not sure I've been in a fight over 7 rounds that could be defined as "one encounter" in 3.X at all. Disregarding character optimzation, if the Players have any knowledge of tactics, that's a lot of actions trying to kill the opponents, fatigue is an issue in fantasticly rare cases. Barbarian has problems at high level; no question here. A Warrior is honestly effective from level 1-4, it becomes a question how much better your class in than an NPC class. I have a distinct personal preference for the Barbarian as a base, and I feel this preference is grounded in mechanics, but he also needs to be thinking about where he's going at high levels. Charging is one trick that a melee type can do without spells. I really don't like it unless you have the ability to actually pull it off in most situations, which Fighters and Barbarians have trouble with. (At least Barbarian has Listen and more movement, but that's not enough for me.) With something like the Drunken Master's ability to very nearly charge every round and some pounce ability, it can get ugly quick, but I know for a fact you're aware of that.where is the mage slayer feat? Complete Arcane is the 3.5 version. (Miniatures Handbook was 3.0, but it was changed notably for 3.5)Thomas Covenant convinced me that its not the POWER of the class that is the problem, it's the PLAY of the class. Your assessment pretty much reaches the same conclusion. Yay me.:rolleyes: And....:eek: ....excessively long post, sorry about that.
FrostHammer 02-25-07, 09:27 PM	I forgot which magic item gives you the ability to do a full attack after charge, but I *know* there is a manuever in Tome of Battle that lets you do it. You have to do burn a feat or two to get it, but it's worth it. Look, as others have said before, it's not really the damage that's the problem for fighters. Fighters can do PLENTY of damage if you use enough splatbooks. The problem most of us have with the fighter (and to be frank, many other melee classes suffer from this, but the fighter and the barbarian the most) is this: The problem with fightetypes is not that they can't deal damage in direct melee, it is that they can do nothing else. Lets say that there is a dragon, flying, making breath attacks, etc... What can fighter do to him? Ranged attacks aren't (unless you are specialized in archery) nearly good enough to earn your partyslot. Your boots of flying aren't nearly enough to keep up with a dragon. You can't even stand between spellcasters and dragon as meatshields, because AoE breath, flying, etc... You can get full attack if spellcasters first immobilize dragon but at that time, they could just kill him themselves. No matter how much damage you can theoretically deal, unless you actually get to help in combat, you are useless. No matter if you are barbarian, fighter or whatever. If the best thing you can do is quickly finish immobilized opponents to save a few spellslots from the mage, you are not an useful team member. Sure, you can be if wizard uses rounds to buff you up, but those are rounds he could have used to kill the dragon. If you need the rest of the party (cleric to heal, wizard to buff) to babysit you before you can contribute, you are not useful. This same problem is with practically every meleeclass, except Paladin (who can circumwent some of this because of easy access to flying mounts, self-healing, etc.). It gets worse if fighting big and bad monsters. Lets say a tarrasque. DR 15 you can't bypass (say, you have 5 attacks. it means 75 damage per round is taken away from DR, 40 more from regeneration.). You deal 200 damage per round? Okay, you need 12 rounds to kill tarrasque and be constantly healed by a cleric... Fighters are obsolete at high levels, because they just can't do anything really, even if they deal 300 damage per round. Same with barbarians. At low-mid levels they still have their tripping, but at high levels... Every big opponent is either hard to trip or grapple (like tarrasque) or can use magic to just get past the fighter. Only way to make fightertypes viable at level 15+ is to have them deal so much damage on a charge that if they get one charge off, the enemy is finished. However, this makes the combat dull, in my opinion, when only thing fighters can do is just try to get one charge in each battle... The bottom line is, the fighters I've seen you list can't do anything close to the optimized chargers that have been built. You have versatality at the expense of POWER in your builds, while many other classes have BOTH versatality and power to a certain extent. Now I'm not sure how your DM does his campaigns, but the Fighter just can't handle nearly as much as the casters and the Tome of Battle classes can.
Argaud 02-25-07, 10:10 PM	I'm sorry wealth is not the issue(ive only seen a psionic power that allows you to take a full attack after a charge, and psionics aren't widely accepted in most setting) There are other options. On top of my head: Claws of the Leopard (Complete Adventurer) is a magical item that allows for full attack after a charge, for instance. Pouncing Charge martial maneuver, that can be taken as a feat, also allows full attacks after charging (Tome of Battle).
Archangel62 02-25-07, 10:20 PM	The bigger problem is simply this, the fighter has nothing that they can do that other classes can't do themselves. The other thing is this, yes if the fighter has really high stats then they can be great, but the same is true for a barbarian, a cleric, hell a MONK. But let's try an example of a game on 25pb. The fighter becomes a less appealing option because other classes can be used, classes that are less MAD to be really useful and even able to circumvent the attributes (Druid, cleric, etc.)
Waterhammer 02-25-07, 10:39 PM	Some notes on Thomas_Covenant's* comments on AD&D. Paladin, and Ranger both could weapon specialize. Rangers could wear any armor at no restriction. The armor restrictions came with 2nd ed. The Ranger ruled in AD&D (as Far as martial types went). Paladin was second best, and you only played fighter of you could not qualify for the other two or you did not want to play a goodie-goodie. *White-gold, Wild-magic Wielder, Ur-Lord, and Unbeliever. :D
Khan the Destroyer 02-25-07, 11:10 PM	Then you're not taking the right magic items or the right feat. You can make a FULL attack after the charge with either one of those. Ugh. So, we shouldn't need to rely on magic items to perform well in combat, yet here is an anti-fighter telling me I am not choosing the right magic item and that is why I think charging is not the end-all-be-all fighting style. What feat are you referring to? Snow Tiger Berserker? And feats are important to any class. No one denies that. Feats just aren't as good as class abilities. The barbarian who spends his 7 feats wisely is better than a fighter who has 19 feats to spend. Um... what if the fighter spent his 7 out of 19 feats wisely? And then another 7 wisely? And then the remaining 5 wisely? Do you *honestly* believe that the difference of 4 strength between the barbarian and the fighter is realy going to make a significant difference in damage output? You really think that the fighter cannot have an impact in an encounter with the same 7 feats that the barbarian chose? Do you really think that it doesn't mean anything that the fighter gets those feats at least 4 levels before the barbarian? Or that he has many feats left over to do well in archery, or on a mount? If you think otherwise, go optimie a fighter, and then go get someone on the Character Optimization boards to optimize a Barbarian, and then see which one does better in a dungeon and/or a straight fight. I've played both a fighter and a barbarian. And I have helped people optimize both on the CO Boards. It doesn't matter who does better. It matters if the fighter does well. Honestly, I'm not sure spending multiple feats to match the Barbarian is wise for the Fighter at all. I'd honestly say tactical feats and tricks benefit the party more, but the Fighter still has problems either way. I agree on tactical feats. Though I actually like the Weapon Focus chain after Melee Weapon Mastery came out. Weapon Supremacy also allows for you to Power Attack more reliably against harder-to-hit foes (though I'm not a large fan of Weapon Supremacy). I was flipping through my MM while at work and I think a fighter can actually do better at tripping and bull rushing at higher levels, when gear and polymorph become available. At the low levels (1-3) I think the fighter can trip as well. But some of those CR 4-6 monsters would be hard to maneuver in my opinion. A level one Barbarian with 14 Con Rages for 7 rounds. I'm not sure I've been in a fight over 7 rounds that could be defined as "one encounter" in 3.X at all. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I was pointing out that a barbarian's rage will likely last him the whole fight (which I refer to as an encounter). Does encounter mean something else (my friends don't use it that way)? Disregarding character optimzation, if the Players have any knowledge of tactics, that's a lot of actions trying to kill the opponents, fatigue is an issue in fantasticly rare cases. Right, but fatigue is there. It may come up sometimes. I know I've been in games where we are getting harassed every moment in a certain arc. There was no barbarian in the party, but had there been and he had just finished raging, fatigue would have come into play. The point is... there are goods and bads with everything. But usually, no one takes into account uses per day of rage or wildshape, when uber buffing spells are ready, and other issues. And now the lame dragon issue... Lets say that there is a dragon, flying, making breath attacks, etc... What can fighter do to him? Gee I don't know... attack him? Ranged attacks aren't (unless you are specialized in archery) nearly good enough to earn your partyslot. Why not? There is a feat that lets you ignore up to 5 points of DR. Alternatively, a Shadowstriking bow ignores any and all DR. And the Splitting enhancement doubles the number of arrows you fire. And this doesn't have to be a fighter with only archery feats either. He can be specialized in Archery as well as the Power Attack/Leap Attack chain. Your boots of flying aren't nearly enough to keep up with a dragon. So... isn't there a spell that stops creatures from flying (I could have sworn there was)? If the dragon is strafing by simply breathing fire, you just keep smacking him with arrows while the wizard and cleric keep blasting him with spells. Eventually, he will realize he needs to start getting serious about killing all four of you and stop putzing around in the air. You can't even stand between spellcasters and dragon as meatshields, because AoE breath, flying, etc... You can get full attack if spellcasters first immobilize dragon but at that time, they could just kill him themselves. No matter how much damage you can theoretically deal, unless you actually get to help in combat, you are useless. No matter if you are barbarian, fighter or whatever. If the best thing you can do is quickly finish immobilized opponents to save a few spellslots from the mage, you are not an useful team member. Is it possible that there are some encounters where a party member will not be able to provide as meaningfully as he has in other encounters? In your little example here, what was the rogue doing? Sneaking around dangerously? How about the monk? Punching the air menacingly? And the paladin? Yeah, he was showing the dragon how powerful his Smite is on an unlucky nearby kobold. Wow, it is starting to seem like all non-caster classes are underpowered because they can't meaningfully contribute to an encounter with a flying dragon. Why is archery apparently obsolete? What is wrong with hitting things with arrows?
Thomas_Covenant 02-25-07, 11:33 PM	I'm not sure what you're saying here. I was pointing out that a barbarian's rage will likely last him the whole fight (which I refer to as an encounter). Does encounter mean something else (my friends don't use it that way)? Right, but fatigue is there. It may come up sometimes. I know I've been in games where we are getting harassed every moment in a certain arc. There was no barbarian in the party, but had there been and he had just finished raging, fatigue would have come into play. The point is... there are goods and bads with everything. But usually, no one takes into account uses per day of rage or wildshape, when uber buffing spells are ready, and other issues.Uses per day does matter for Rage, I'll never argue. Until the Barbarian gets 3/day, I view it more a BBEG buff, not a CR equal to party issue. (Extra Rage exists, but I've never actually seen it taken, usually feats are better spent elsewhere, unless its for Bear Warrior or the like.) Fatigue.......not so much. I've never played that style of campaign arc, but I presume it exists. I emphasized "encounter" because many don't seem to realize how easily and consistently the Barbarian meets that definition, and never actually suffers fatigue penalties on any die he rolls. I'd go so far as to say using a debuff spell to remove Rage is far more likely to come up than it running out while a battle is still going on. Wild Shape is 12 hours/day at level 6, 24/7 at level 8. The Druid can maintain an impressive amount of buffs for long durations, especially with cheap Rods of Lesser Metamagic: Extend, its actually scary. Clerics tend to rely on DMM: Persist or possibly DMM: Quicken, and your infinite buff complaint has merit on occasion, most good Cleric buffs are short duration. Yeah, we all know CoDzilla rocks, being less capable is hardly a class criticism, but Druid really can maintain 24/7, really borders on ridiculous.
NineInchNall 02-25-07, 11:45 PM	That's four levels before the barbarian. And, a simple Enlarge Person spell makes up for the barbarian rage with a size bonus to trip and bull rush. If you're comparing a buffed Fighter to an unbuffed Barb, you're doing a disservice to us all. You should assume they get the same buffs.
Khan the Destroyer 02-26-07, 12:12 AM	Uses per day does matter for Rage, I'll never argue. Until the Barbarian gets 3/day, I view it more a BBEG buff, not a CR equal to party issue. I understand. But when people argue that a barbarian's rage is better than fighter feats, and therefore the barbarian is better than the fighter, what is the barbarian when he cannot rage? This needs to be considered when the barbarian does not have the ability to rage all of the time. The same goes for the cleric at low levels, before his sweet buffs. Otherwise, you're saying the barbarian is better than the fighter, once a day. (Extra Rage exists, but I've never actually seen it taken, usually feats are better spent elsewhere, unless its for Bear Warrior or the like.) Fatigue.......not so much. I've never played that style of campaign arc, but I presume it exists. I emphasized "encounter" because many don't seem to realize how easily and consistently the Barbarian meets that definition, and never actually suffers fatigue penalties on any die he rolls. I'd go so far as to say using a debuff spell to remove Rage is far more likely to come up than it running out while a battle is still going on. I agree. I haven't seen a barbarian get fatigued in combat either. Wild Shape is 12 hours/day at level 6, 24/7 at level 8. The Druid can maintain an impressive amount of buffs for long durations, especially with cheap Rods of Lesser Metamagic: Extend, its actually scary. Clerics tend to rely on DMM: Persist or possibly DMM: Quicken, and your infinite buff complaint has merit on occasion, most good Cleric buffs are short duration. Yeah, we all know CoDzilla rocks, being less capable is hardly a class criticism, but Druid really can maintain 24/7, really borders on ridiculous. Understood. But even then, it may not always behoove the druid to remain in animal form for 12 hours. But YMMV. Also, I don't understand the difference between saying 'A druid can double his wildshape easy with a Rod of Lesser Metamagic: Extend' and 'A fighter can double his attacks and deal more damage with a Splitting bow'. Yet, one gets cries of 'You're just proving that fighters need equipment to be useful' and the other doesn't. If you're comparing a buffed Fighter to an unbuffed Barb, you're doing a disservice to us all. You should assume they get the same buffs. No, I'm neither doing a disservice to anyone, nor should I assume the same buffs for both. Because I am not saying a fighter is better than the barbarian because he has spell buffs. I am saying that a fighter with Enlarge Person can have the same bonuses as a barbarian does with Rage. Therefore, a fighter with the help of a caster's 1st level spell can perform with his bonus feats, but also with some of the proclaimed strength of the barbarian. In other words, the abilities of the barbarian can be somewhat mimicked at low levels with a spell. So that you can have a fighter with his combat feats, and your barbarian too. Mimicry should be easy enough to understand here, since everyone uses it to mistakingly 'prove' the fighter is underpowered. The *real* disservice is making people believe that the fighter can do nothing because others can do something.
NineInchNall 02-26-07, 01:05 AM	Khan. Dude. Man. No, I'm neither doing a disservice to anyone, nor should I assume the same buffs for both. Because I am not saying a fighter is better than the barbarian because he has spell buffs. I am saying that a fighter with Enlarge Person can have the same bonuses as a barbarian does with Rage. This tells us nothing of any use, however. It tells us that one character can improve the performance of another via a buff spell. That is definitionally true. We knew that. Therefore, a fighter with the help of a caster's 1st level spell can perform with his bonus feats, but also with some of the proclaimed strength of the barbarian. In other words, the abilities of the barbarian can be somewhat mimicked at low levels with a spell. So that you can have a fighter with his combat feats, and your barbarian too. Mimicry should be easy enough to understand here, since everyone uses it to mistakingly 'prove' the fighter is underpowered. But they're not being mimicked by the Fighter. They're being mimicked by the Fighter and a Wizard. The comparison is thus flawed. The *real* disservice is making people believe that the fighter can do nothing because others can do something. No, the real disservice is presenting a vacuous statement as informative. That the Fighter can do nothing because others can do something is obviously fallacious, and I wonder why you even bring it up, as no one is arguing that. This is obviously a thread devoted to relative, comparative efficacy, so differences in efficacy are relevant to the verdict.
Greendevilman 02-26-07, 01:05 AM	INo, I'm neither doing a disservice to anyone, nor should I assume the same buffs for both. Because I am not saying a fighter is better than the barbarian because he has spell buffs. I am saying that a fighter with Enlarge Person can have the same bonuses as a barbarian does with Rage. Therefore, a fighter with the help of a caster's 1st level spell can perform with his bonus feats, but also with some of the proclaimed strength of the barbarian. In other words, the abilities of the barbarian can be somewhat mimicked at low levels with a spell. So that you can have a fighter with his combat feats, and your barbarian too. Mimicry should be easy enough to understand here, since everyone uses it to mistakingly 'prove' the fighter is underpowered. The *real* disservice is making people believe that the fighter can do nothing because others can do something. Uh... no. Just... no. You really should be assuming the same buffing care is lavished on each one. Once the Barb has enlarge person cast on him he is again stronger than the fighter and by the same margin (though not the same proportion). This is like me saying that the Barb is better because he can have heroics cast on him and replicate the fighter's feat chains perfectly. And unlike enlarge person that spell (in high enough doses) really *does* completely obviate the fighter.
Archangel62 02-26-07, 02:36 AM	My point about the rage wasn't to equate it to feats, but it helps if you remember what I said about feats, they're like seasoning in a recipe, they're additives. Rage, Favored enemies, spellcasting, those things are like vegetables and meat. They are the core of something that the seasonings can be added to to improve the meal and make something truly memorable. The barbarians rage helps offset power attack penalties, pushes well to two-handed weapons, and the speed boosts make them good chargers. Yes, the barbarian is also effectively locked into melee, because their abilities don't work well at range. But the fact is that the barbarian DOES have some useful class features that can be boosted further with feats. The fighter is a soup made entirely out of seasonings, and while it can sometimes work (Chaingun Tripper, Jack-be-Quick, Master Archer) more often it fails. And yes, gear dependency is argued frequently, but perhaps I should make it clearer what the issue is. All classes need gear, I acknowledge this but the question is on return ratios. If a druid can do for 4000, what a fighter needs 12000 to do there is a compelling question there. Also, the question of how much of a victory is due to the gear versus the abilities of the fighter is debatable. A fighter will choose gear that amplifies their style of choice. A crit-monger will have a keen maiming mercurial weapon, where a tripper will use a spiked chain geared to knock enemies on their rears. They don't need skill boosters and combat styles are fairly easy to gear for, and maybe that was part of the theoretical balance factor, that the fighter would get the advantage of gear because they could customize it to their style more readily. Notice that the treasure charts deal heavily in potions, weapons, and armor. But then we also have to ask, if we gave a warrior, even a commoner, those magic items would they also be able to have a high success rate against their foes? The theory may have been that the fighter would be a constant factor, an example of pure stability, unfortunately this is actually inaccurate. Most other classes still have things that can be done if their method of combat/contribution is removed. A fighter fights, and if their style of choice is removed then they can't go as far or as hard against their foes. They might switch to a secondary item, but the question remains, do they have enough resources to maintain that gear and make sure it can compensate for their limited focus on that area?
Squirrelloid 02-26-07, 03:03 AM	You want an actual analysis of the fighter class vs other classes? Contribute to the Party Balance Experiment. (Its all explained through the link in my sig). Some serious data arrived at scientifically in a party environment is the only way to get everyone on the same page.
Particle_Man 02-26-07, 03:59 AM	Getting outside of core, I would submit that the Knight does the "hold the bad guys at bay, away from the poor Wizard, until said Wizard can unleash magical death on said bad guys" schtick better than the Fighter.
Khan the Destroyer 02-26-07, 01:11 PM	No, the real disservice is presenting a vacuous statement as informative. That the Fighter can do nothing because others can do something is obviously fallacious, and I wonder why you even bring it up, as no one is arguing that. This is obviously a thread devoted to relative, comparative efficacy, so differences in efficacy are relevant to the verdict. Aww nuts. I'm not keeping track of threads properly. This is fighter vs. other classes thread. So you're right. I goofed. Peace out!