Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prator_the_Legendary 03-08-07, 09:40 PM	It seems like wherever I go these days, people are ALWAYS saying that pretty much anything trounces a fighter, or fighters are unimpressive, or other classes do a fighter's job better than it can, and so on and so forth... I like fighters. I often play them. They're easy to generate, pick up, and play, but... If they're really worthless even by the standards of the "balanced" core rules... I don't know what to believe...
Seerow 03-08-07, 09:42 PM	there's 2 lengthy topics on this subject in the first two pages, both of which contain arguments for both sides, and Fighter builds that show a good ammount of combat potential. Read through those, then come back and tell us if you need more convincing to one side or the other.
jaelis 03-08-07, 09:47 PM	Forget all that nonsense. Fighters are great fun to play. You get to attack every round, you can plan out elaborate feat trees, and the class is flexible enough to work out almost any character concept. Who cares whether or not they are technically the most effective class in this or that situation? Dnd is a game we play for fun, not a damage contest we're trying to win.
OneWinged4ngel 03-08-07, 09:50 PM	It seems like wherever I go these days, people are ALWAYS saying that pretty much anything trounces a fighter, or fighters are unimpressive, or other classes do a fighter's job better than it can, and so on and so forth... I like fighters. I often play them. They're easy to generate, pick up, and play, but... If they're really worthless even by the standards of the "balanced" core rules... I don't know what to believe... In all honesty, contrary to moderately popular belief core rules are not balanced at all, and newer things actually tend to be narrower on the power scale. WotC itself has admitted in numerous articles that Core is wildly unbalanced and that, for example, 90% of magic items suck, martial classes suck, animated shields suck, and all sorts of other things. (Which makes it all the more sad/funny when people come out and say "WotC thought long and hard on this do you think you know better than them because they thought it was balanced!!11", regardless of the fact of WotC themselves disagreeing with that sentiment. Indeed, their original policy was just to put the rules out there without much concern for balance, as Monte Cooke revealed in this article: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) Just to give at least one example: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a The point is... anyone saying core's balanced, noncore's broken tends to be... inexperienced and lacking in knowledge about the finer aspect's of D&D. Also yes, the Fighter is inadequate compared to most other classes. He can seriously be outclassed by his Cohort if he ups his Charisma and takes Leadership. He feels too much like an NPC class past low level, and is so inflexible and limited in tactics that he is either slightly versatile but pretty weak for his level at the things he does, or a one-trick pony who just hits things over and over the same way. ___ However, if you don't take my word for it, just look at the other *huge discussions* on these pages, read the arguments on both sides, and make your own decision.
Kouk 03-08-07, 10:33 PM	The main thing the fighter has is his Feats. Feats don't scale as well as say, fireball does at higher levels so he tops out after a while. While the design seems a bit dull, if you choose good feats you can do some great things. Perhaps the best way to fix the Fighter is to make some more powerful Fighter-only feats, or feats with required levels of fighter. Like the weapon specializations but more varied than just higher damage.
RealMad 03-08-07, 11:04 PM	What I'm thinking of doing in my campaign is to give a fighter a class ability which is, at 6th level, he can choose a feat tree and that feat tree automatically grows without him having to expend a feat. So if a fighter has Weapon Spec, it automatically goes to Imp Weap Spec once he reaches the pre-req as well as a sufficient level. I still don't think it's great but I gotta do something for those who want to stick with their fighters. Our last campaign, the fighters were really relegated to almost lackey status by the high level casters, so much so that only one character wants to stay with fighter for this go-round. I just want to give him a bit of a boost to at least keep up with the other melee char who is going to play SS or WB.
Illithid_Tentacles 03-08-07, 11:26 PM	Good luck with that.
Kadasbrass 03-08-07, 11:32 PM	Balance of the classes also depends on the group and the encounters in the DM's Campaign. So there are degrees of variance in a persons view and expereince with the fighter depending on these factors.
dragynson1 03-09-07, 12:04 AM	one of the biggest problems with fighters is the feats. that sounds weird? first as has been mentioned is they dont scale at all. look at your special combat manuevers. grapple, trip , bullrush, overrun. if you play a core race your medium size, and limited to not being able to effect anything above large size with those feats. Sunder and disarm well they work against foes over large size, not well because those foes get a +4 per size category and if they have improved disarm or sunder themselves your special +4 from the feat is negated. And they almost require a two handed weapon to make decent use of for another +4, which is negated if your opponent has a two handed weapon of their own. and good luck using those on natural weapons in any case. Which basically leaves you with the emminently viable options of power attacking as your one usable special attack feat against anything larger than largesized. i can hit you , i can hit you harder!!! or i missed because i power attacked. it turns the whole thing into a probability calculation becuase thats the one thing you can do with any sort of effectiveness. HOw much fun is that? Oh and dont forget anything over large sized means your going to get swung at at least once ebfore you can get close enough to try even that A quick fix is to grant somesort of powerful build to the fighter at 7th he can affect huge oponents at 14th collosal for instance, and give the fighter a +1 per level which can only be used to negate size/stability bonuses when using those feats. But then you run into why the barbarian/ranger/paladin doesnt get that sort of thing also. well give it to them at 10th and 20th, with a +1 per two levels of negating size/stability bonuses. The problem is combat feat scaling, so instead of recreating the fighter, as has been done SO MANY TIMES give the guy who specializes in combat feats some class abilities with those feats to keep them usable. Modify the feats. Skills and sitting around doing nothing after combat is a problem every non spell casting class faces, hence the popularity of gishes. I am going to take a page from salvatore for this. Bureunor(SP) creating aegis fang how? he is a fighter. He cant cast spells. Allow non casters to take item creation feats. change caster level to character level. The catch is they pay 1/2 gold and 1/10 exp of market value. And they have to have sufficient crafting skill to make a masterwork item of that type. SO they lose more exp but they are basically subbing the magic with their own life force. Just like Bureunor battlehammer did.
scienceman47 03-09-07, 01:22 AM	Just to give at least one example: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a Thats really disappointing to read. I feel better now that I really don't see his name in the design credits anymore. Timmy cards are fluff for MtG. They have no business in DnD, where people want to feel empowered by trying to play a desired role, which is the whole point.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 01:28 AM	Thats really disappointing to read. I feel better now that I really don't see his name in the design credits anymore. Timmy cards are fluff for magic. They have no business in DnD, where people want to feel empowered by trying to play a desired role, which is the whole point. I'm happy that they seem to be recognizing some of their flaws... because honestly a lot of magic items really are crap. And nothing can be fixed unless flaws are recognized. So... why do you find it disappointing to read? I was happy to read that, and disappointed to read the DMG and various supplements with magic items in them that no one would ever use. However, I'm not really familiar with the term "Timmy cards." Could you elaborate?
Flan 03-09-07, 02:03 AM	In all honesty, contrary to moderately popular belief core rules are not balanced at all, and newer things actually tend to be narrower on the power scale. Core is broken. Post core is more broken. The power ramp with the new spells and metamagic feats is stupid. The multi-classing with new prestige classes is huge. So while player power shoots up with each splatbook the CR of monsters hasn't changed and HP haven't gone up significantly. I don't know about your campaigns, but we pretty much don't even have a fight under "overpowering" anymore, and we're not even trying to min-max. WotC itself has admitted in numerous articles that Core is wildly unbalanced and that, for example, 90% of magic items suck, martial classes suck, animated shields suck, and all sorts of other things. ... Just to give at least one example: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a Andy Collins clearly knows what he's talking about for the most part, he is dead on wrt the "hows" of balance, but he's coming from the wrong view and needs to listen to Monte Cook a bit more about the "whys." Either that or he's just trying to sell you another book by saying how bad the stuff you have is and how good the new item on the shelf is so you must buy it... Yes, some magic items are better than others. Thats just how it is and it is completely and totally unavoidable. It is impossible to perfectly balance them and thinking it can be done is a huge fallacy. There will always be the 10% of items that make up the "top 10 list" of 90% of players, and the 90% of items that get used 10% of the time. There are thousands upon thousands of magic items, and there is only so many ways to give a player an armour bonus or a to-hit bonus before you have to make an item thats interesting and situational instead of optimal. Calling them "aweful" is wrong. Indeed, their original policy was just to put the rules out there without much concern for balance, as Monte Cooke revealed in this article: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) That is not even close to what he said, in fact the word balance isn't even IN the article. The two main points he made was that the rules were written to remove inconsistencies, and to reward players who put in effort to mastering the game.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 02:08 AM	As a fighter, you get the option of hitting them over again and again...and that's about it, if you're fighting monsters bigger than you. Monsters generally don't use manufactured weapons, so they can't be disarmed. If they're two categories bigger than you or more, they can't be tripped either. Good lukc trying to bull-rush anyone much bigger than you, since they probably have massive strength. Same with grapple. That leaves you with...Charging...and...firing arrows. Yay! All I do is declare "ATTACK!" every single turn! That can be fun once in a while but...
navar100 03-09-07, 02:35 AM	Play your fighter. If you are having fun, then you have nothing to worry about. If you are not having fun then question what is it that is causing you not to have fun. What is going on in the game that's making you say "Man, I hate this"? Are you never able to do anything in combat? Then 1) Make sure you do not have poor feat synergy like Power Attack with Two-Weapon Fighting. A poor character build, regardless of class, will make for frustrating play. 2) Make sure the DM is not stacking the monsters against you, meaning the DM is constantly setting the party up against monsters you can never fight such as you never have the weapon with the right DR or every single monster is flying thus your trip is useless or every single monsters is undead, elemental, construct, ooze, or plant such that your crit optimization is useless. Are you never able to do anything out of combat? Then 1) You aren't being imaginative enough. You only see numbers on your character sheet and because you don't have a +10 in a skill you think you can't do anything. Stop thinking like that. Go out and do stuff. 2) Your DM is only seeing numbers on your character sheet and assumes because you don't have a +10 you'll automatically fail at any task you try. For example, every NPC you meet has maxed Bluff, Initimidate, and Diplomacy such that you can't get a word in edgewise. You can never find out anything beacuse the DCs for any Gather Information check is always arbitrarily so high you can't make it on a roll of 20 because otherwise the rogue could make it on a 1 if he did not. Is it your party members not treating you like one of the team or hogging the spotlight? Then 1) They might not even realize it. They are caught up in what they are doing. Talk to them. 2) Are you trying? Maybe you are caught up in possibility #1 in the preceding paragraph. Maybe you are a shy person but wishing you weren't. Talk to your DM. Have him give you a little push, such as an important or interesting NPC has an interest in your success. The DM gives you a little downtime backstory to inspire you and let you run with it. When you're engaged in the world, people take notice. 3) The players are just jerks, especially after you thought it was possibility 1) and talked to them but they still leave you out. Stop playing with them. There's no point continuing to play with them if you never have fun playing with them. They aren't treating you like a party member so why be in their party? It sucks, but you're then free to find people who will play with you and not at you. It never matters what game mechanics other classes can do. What only matters is what you do with your class's game mechanics, how the DM treats you, how the other players treat you, and how you treat everyone else.
Kouk 03-09-07, 03:54 AM	It can be tough to challenge a high level caster AND a fighter at the same time. Possibly some DMs automatically make encounters that can stand up to the punishment of the mages and forget about the little fighter guy. It is a team effort, and if your party buffs you or helps you flank or "aids another" you can be more effective. Most players like to exercise their power alone though.
Derren S. 03-09-07, 04:14 AM	Fighters are good..... for qualifying for PRCs. Thats all they can do. Everything else a other class can do better.
scienceman47 03-09-07, 04:18 AM	I'm happy that they seem to be recognizing some of their flaws... because honestly a lot of magic items really are crap. And nothing can be fixed unless flaws are recognized. So... why do you find it disappointing to read? I was happy to read that, and disappointed to read the DMG and various supplements with magic items in them that no one would ever use. However, I'm not really familiar with the term "Timmy cards." Could you elaborate? I believe he had it in his article. Its the idea that you make an option like a feat or magic item (or class as the case may be), which is meant to be flavorful or entertaining or appear as such, but is actually terrible as punishment for those who fail to "master" the system. 3.5 and the complete books were chock full of this philosophy, which is where your leap attacking shock trooper frenzied berzerkers(dangerous) versus sword of heironious(pathetic) come from. The idea that fun and effectiveness are not to be found in a character concept, but in complete mastery of the system. This idea is extremely harmful to DnD. In addition to making it more difficult to actually have fun, it chases away players who fail to choose correctly their options. I believe I used the term "fluff" in error. I meant to say "filler", or perhaps "trap". They actually managed to outdo the king of traps, Gygax himself. They created cursed items and trapped feats that can not only weaken a character forever but actually drain the energy from the dissatisfied player (no save, SR applies).
scienceman47 03-09-07, 04:36 AM	It can be tough to challenge a high level caster AND a fighter at the same time. Possibly some DMs automatically make encounters that can stand up to the punishment of the mages and forget about the little fighter guy. It is a team effort, and if your party buffs you or helps you flank or "aids another" you can be more effective. Most players like to exercise their power alone though. "I shall summon the power of Garkishamera to bring absolute death to t-" "Hey dude, what do you think your doing?" "I'm invoking the power of Gar-" "Well stop it, your not being a team player :tantrum:" "I'm a high archmagus, I can just kill him immediatl-" "Aid another, and I'll finish him off in like one hit." "But i've got all this arcane power an-" "TEAM PLAYER! :tantrum::tantrum::tantrum:" "Fine" Pit Fiend:"Oh **** yeah, the fighter browbeat the wizard into aiding another" "drops the wizard" "Well **** guys, were all doomed. Without the wizard, we can't win this fight. Maybe next time you all should aid another" "Can't you do anything about it?" "Not really. I'm a fighter, so I can't do much unless everyone works together and spams buffs on me." "How about I kill it, I mean, I'm a cleric and I can-" "STOP BEING A CHEATER, THATS MY DOMAIN!!!:tantrum: "
Faithkeep 03-09-07, 08:03 AM	It should be expected in any game that non-magical beings such as fighters be less powerful than spellcasters late in the game. Well, spellcasters use magic whether it be arcane or divine and "realistically" speaking, they will be able to do things that normal people holding four-feet sharp metal tools can't. It's only expected that these spellcasters be weaker at the start while lording it over everything in the end. I guess what's unfortunate is that oftentimes, these spellcasters can and will be better than fighters at what fighters are supposed to be best at - fighting melee. If I am a fighter, even though my friend the wizard can kill a monster with just one fireball, I would still love life as long as no one else can compare to me at picking up a sword and fighting toe-to-toe with a big ogre. I wouldn't care if the wizard can kill faster than me and at range too. It's okay. I love fighting close to my enemy and hacking off his limbs one at a time. I wouldn't expect to stop time because that is just not my thing, but I would also not expect any of the spell-slingers out there to put on armor and tank damage while duking it out with a minotaur inside a fifteen by fifteen feet room. I'd love my job as long as I'm the best at what I do. I wouldn't care if hitting monsters with metal objects is weaker than blasting them with a ball of fire or crumpling their skeletal structure with a single spell. I wouldn't care as long as I'm the only one who can hit those monsters with metal objects. That unfortunately is not the case. You see, if I was a fighter, I would also have another spellcaster friend, a cleric, who picks up his mace, puts on armor, buffs himself up and joins me inside that fifteen by fifteen feet room, hitting the minotaur with blows that seem to hurt more than mine. I would hate the fact that he can do what I can do too. Yeah, I may have tricks like I can trip the man-bull, or disarm his greataxe, but then I realize that my cleric friend can do that too if he decides to be just like me. And then he can even make himself stronger and bigger with his spells if he wants too. Add to that, if our fight with the minotaur goes bad, he can heal both of us too! This is probably what's making fighters seem weak. Some other classes, if they want to do it, can do what he can do best. They can fight in the brutal-toe-to-toe-metal-clashing sense of the word. And later in the game, maybe, just maybe, they can even do it better. I love being a fighter because I love bringing the fight up close to my enemies and I love wearing armor and using weapons but I also love being able to pull my weight and contribute to the team even in the later stages of the game. If you love being a fighter then just play it and have fun. Just make sure you never forget to do your share of helping the team.
Mordar 03-09-07, 10:36 AM	the fighter is like it was mentioned before, a one trip ponny, even with the thousands and thousands and thousands of feats, they basically at higher levels only "attack" every single round, and that's it, I like the fighter because is a "flawless" class in the fact that he does what he is meant to do, but let's face it, there are hundred of better things to do that just "charge and attack", and personally I don't like playing a fighter because he is so incredibly item dependant that just makes me sick spending over 100-200k gp on weapons and armor that can be easily deactivated through a dispel effect, or sundered, or tripped, or well...everything
Banatine 03-09-07, 11:17 AM	I have played fighters on numerous occasions. They always seemed like a good class to me, but I always wanted a bit of magic on the side, since my attacks normally werent great next to the barbarian, and I wanted to make him a little less generic. Then came the problem of not being able to wear armour, having less skill points, and so on. Then, the duskblade appeared, and I became as useful as a ToB character. I had always dreamed of the concept of the true fighter-mage, which the duskblade encapsulates perfectly. Fighters are easy to generate and make, but ultimately, after a short while, you start wishing you could do just a little bit more. They become dull once you realise you can't do anything that other classes can't, if they really want to. Fighters can be lost in the crowd, but other classes all have much more personality.
malisteen 03-09-07, 11:36 AM	With the Dungeonscape substitutions, and the knockback feat from SRD in the Dieties & Demigods section, and that other feat (I forget where, ask on the charop boards) that lets you shift things to the side when you bull rush them, your fighter can do a pretty decent truckload of damage by walloping something with a maul, forcing it back and to the side with a free bull rush, causing it to bump into a wall for a bunch more damage. If you take ToB feats to get the thicket of blades stance, you even get an attack of opportunity on him for the bull rush movement. Sure you're a one trick pony, and it won't work on fliers or incorporeal enemies, but at least it works on big things, and keeps you in fighter long enough to qualify for melee weapon mastery. For the bull rush build, fighter is no longer a two level dip. It's a six level commitment. Of course, after that you still want to PrC out as quickly as possible, and six full levels of fighter will murder your skills.....
alangriffith 03-09-07, 11:57 AM	NOTE: I will refer to the fighter as 'he' because it is easier to write than 'he/she' and because most fighter characters are male. If you want to call me sexist then fine, I'm sexist. You win, go away. It seems like wherever I go these days, people are ALWAYS saying that pretty much anything trounces a fighter Exaggerated. What they mean is that pretty much any class can be optimised to trounce a fighter, and a few classes (cleric, druid once he gets wildshape, wizard once he gets to about level 9) don't need to be optimised very hard at all to acheive this. Still, people often exagerate how easy it is to take down a fighter with a mid-level caster. A caster in a duel is full up on spells, knows the enemy is there and usually starts further away than charge distance. He also knows he can freely blow all his good spells for the day and possibly some XP or limited-use feats/items. The caster is also fighting without anything to protect (allies, a home, their library etc.) and are thus free to use fly or etherealness or whatever to stay away from the fighter. When a caster meets a fighter in a dungeon, the situation *can* (not necessarily will) be more complex. Still, I am not saying fighters equal casters, they are certainly somewhat inferior. I'm just saying that some in the anti-fighter crowd exagerate somewhat. or fighters are unimpressive Unfortunately, that is true. Whereas magic is always going to be more impressive than hitting someone with a sword, rogues and bards can do cool things with uber-skills, and rangers and monks get shiny tricks (hide with no cover, dimension step, impossible ninjing), once the levels get quite high. Personally, I like this. I actually like a character who can kick ass in a magical world with no magic (except from equipment). I dislike obviously magical abilities tacked onto non-casters, particularly when there isn't even a divine explanation (e.g. monks are just implausibly good martial-artists... who can speak any language and dimension door... somehow) That is why I have never wanted to buy tome of battle. If I cared that my fighter was sub-optimal, I would play a buff cleric, using the power of my god to make me mighty. I want to play the equivalent of Aragorn or Bullwei (13th warrior) or Tordek, me and my (possibly enchanted) beatstick against the world. I do not want to play Cloud or Sephiroth, with obviously magical abilities coming from within to supplement my melee abilities. This of course is my own personal prejudice, but it is why I still play fighters and barbarians and rogues over duskblades and psions and tome of battle. If I have magic, I want it to come from a god or years of studying ancient books, not be some supplement to ninj. Prestige classes can give martial cool stuff to fighters, of course (most cool characters in films etc. you might think of as fighters are actually prestige classes, look at any of the 'D+D stats for [insert cool non-magic film character]' threads and they almost always have prestige classes.) Personally I see nothing wrong with playing a fighter at low-level and prestige-classing if and when you feel suboptimal or unimpressive. Just because I like fighters doesn't mean I feel I should play one to 20th level. How many wizards don't prestige class? (PHB 2 does have some sweet feats for high-level fighters though. Most can still be taken by a fighter/prestige multiclass guy, but weapon supremacy requires fighter level 18.) I like fighters. I often play them. Then play them. I also like playing and GMing for fighters, and the problems many people forsee with them never come up in my play or GM experience (see below for more on that). They're easy to generate, pick up, and play Therein lies a lot of their appeal. Casters, particularly those who prepare spells, take a good deal of work even if you aren't trying to optimise. Wizards are the worst because you need to pick spells known *and* spells prepared today, on top of the item and feat complexity posessed by every class. but... If they're really worthless even by the standards of the "balanced" core rules... Then what? I don't see your problem, to be fair. If you like fighters, play fighters. Nothing anyone on these boards say is going to have any effect on your play experience or fun unless you let it. No-one is going to laugh at and mock you if you bring a fighter to a game (well, no-one worth knowing is going to seriously mock you and make you miserable, anyhow. Some gently ribbing is common whatever class you play). You are unlikely to reach some mystical level and suddenly find your fighter totally worthless (and if you do, then you had fun up to then and can now make a new non-fighter character to play at high levels). The other PCs will not throw out your fighter for being a drain on resources (or if they do, I suggest you find new players). Faithkeep is right on about roles. The only thing likely to make your fighter character seem worthless is if another player steals his role and does better than you at it. Personally, I consider this a problem with the player, not the game rules. No other character can totally replace or overshadow the fighter without trying to do so. A cleric who buffs himself does not outdo the fighter except in a few battles, because the best buffs are short duration and thus take time to cast at the start of combat, as well as only lasting for one or two encounters per day. Without these buffs, the cleric lacks the BAB, damage output and HP to outdo the fighter in melee (casting touch spells is not outdoing the fighter, it is a cleric role just like healing and buffing the party is). This is the base nature of things. In order for the cleric to outdo the fighter the players has to therefore spend effort (and feats, spells and items) on doing so, be it persistant spell, nightsticks, metamagic feats or whatever trick you wish to choose. This may therefore be disruption. Ask the player why they want to replace your fighter with their character. If they just want to fight in melee and refuse to play a 'gimped' fighter, then make your fighter into an archer, or fight alongside them and stop obsessing over being a bit less effective, or play something else in that party and be a fighter in a different group. Not all groups are for fighters, just like not all groups are for paladins. Still, you are not the problem for playing a worthless fighter, they are the problem for making their perfectly good support/buff/hit a bit cleric into a divine fighter. The same theory applies to a wizard who uses polymorph, buffs or whatever to outdo the fighter, a bard, ranger, monk or rogue who uses feats/items/wands to be primary meleer and better than the fighter in all ways, a druid who constantly uses wildshape and buff spells to melee instead of blasting from the air, healing, buffing other party members etc. and so forth. They require effort to outclass the fighter or to replace his role, rather than remain in their own. It doesn't happen by accident (well, maybe the druid), the player is purposefully taking your role. Ask them why. Classes designed to take the fighter role (barbarian, paladin) have their own strengths and weaknesses compared to the fighter. You should feel an equal beside them, not a clone or inferior. The same applies sort of to the monk and twf ranger, but those are both designed as support melee, not fighter role. If any of these are outclassing your fighter, they are likely optimised when your fighter is not, Ask the player to help you build a better fighter. So, I have rambled for ages. The most essential point is this: IF YOU LIKE PLAYING A FIGHTER, PLAY A FIGHTER. SUB-OPTIMAL =/= NOT FUN. Despite the nay-ayers, a fighter is not nearly worthless, or so crap as to be no fun to play (or similar to playing a commoner, which the odd person does actually do for fun). This is not to say the fighter isn't underpowered, at mid-high levels he is (some optimisers can put this off to the high levels). But in a normal game you will not feel you are rubbish with a fighter unless another player is deliberately usurping your role.
malisteen 03-09-07, 12:05 PM	If you play a fighter, either be sure the DM allows retraining (see PHBII), or be very careful in your feat selection. Feats are all you get as a fighter. If you find you've chosen some bad feats, and your DM doesn't allow retraining, then that's it. Even a sorcerer can swap out spells every few levels, and other non-caster classes have set powers so they're harder to mess up. A fighter needs to be either very careful or have the ability to change his feats later, or he can actually be terrible. Sub optimal is fine and good, but bad feat selection for a fighter takes sub optimal and drops it right down into lousy.
Flan 03-09-07, 12:25 PM	It should be expected in any game that non-magical beings such as fighters be less powerful than spellcasters late in the game. Final Fantasy XI is a fairly popular MMORPG and warriors are one of the best classes and no one calls samurai, thieves or monks bad either. Hero system bricks and speedsters are just as good as any other build. Magic doesn't automatically mean unbalanced, it's just that DnD simply has an ridiculously broken magic system. Anyone thats played with a "modern" RPG should be able to see DnD magic system for what it is, an outdated 1st draft that hasn't been fixed for 30 years.
Arcane Guyver 03-09-07, 02:01 PM	I find that the Fighter's effectiveness is directly connected to the style of the game. In much the same way a game where scrolls are rare hurts Wizards, a game that doesn't have lots of sweet weapons and armor hurts Fighters. I know the flaw in saying "the gear makes the Fighter," but in some cases it sort of rings true...the Fighter has unparalleled access to the various feats that make them better at using equipment. That said, the Profession skill, Weapon Aptitude, as well as some fun abilities for the dead levels would increase the enjoyment of the class a great deal.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 02:05 PM	I believe he had it in his article. Its the idea that you make an option like a feat or magic item (or class as the case may be), which is meant to be flavorful or entertaining or appear as such, but is actually terrible as punishment for those who fail to "master" the system. 3.5 and the complete books were chock full of this philosophy, which is where your leap attacking shock trooper frenzied berzerkers(dangerous) versus sword of heironious(pathetic) come from. The idea that fun and effectiveness are not to be found in a character concept, but in complete mastery of the system. This idea is extremely harmful to DnD. In addition to making it more difficult to actually have fun, it chases away players who fail to choose correctly their options. I completely agree. Timmy cards of course have their place in card games, but in an RPG you should be able to be effective in whatever role you choose. Part of what's supposed to be great about pen and paper is that you can be whoever you want to! However, there is a *heavy* incentive not to choose many (and indeed most) classes, spells, feats, and magic items because they are just plain not useful, and even directly overshadowed by other options without any tradeoff. It's just painful.
malisteen 03-09-07, 02:25 PM	I know the flaw in saying "the gear makes the Fighter," but in some cases it sort of rings true...the Fighter has unparalleled access to the various feats that make them better at using equipment. True, but unlike, say, paladins, there is no Fighter Specific equipment. And, unlike a Wizard in a Scroll-less environment, a Fighter is not able to simply make the items he needs. If the DM doesn't give you a phenominal magic version of your Specialized weapon, then your Fighter's just stuck, unless there's an artificer in the group, or the party wizard or cleric burned a feat on Craft: Magical Arms & Armor.
Khan the Destroyer 03-09-07, 02:29 PM	Prator, don't let these boards fool you. The fighter is not a one trick pony. In fact, he gets more options as he branches out in tactics. At higher levels, he doesn't need spell buffs from the casters to do anything (though as with anyone else, it always helps). A fighter would pimp slap that pit fiend into oblivion. For the most part, people that complain about the fighter simply have a vision of the fighter that isn't replicated in D&D. Truth be told, the fighter needs magic items at higher levels if he wants to toss around large enemies. But that's a preference thing. People want the human warrior to be able to trip the Tarrasque with his bare hands. Oh well. The other arguments are that casters can use their spells to tank in melee as well. Meaning it may be mroe efficient to have a caster tank than a fighter. Again, preference. It doesn't meant the fighter can't do the job. It all comes down to what you want to play and what you want to expect out of your character.
itcamefromthedeep 03-09-07, 02:57 PM	---Fighters are sub-optimal in combat at med to high levels, for various reasons that have been exhaustively demonstrated elsewhere. That fact makes me really thankful that in a good campaign that is completely irrelevant. Read the "best lines ever" section for why this is true. ---I made a fighter for a recent campaign, only to find out once I got in that the campaign is heavily roleplaying based. After the third session I expressed to the other players my desire to make a sixth attack roll. Yes, a sixth attack roll for the campaign. Needless to say, My character had to find a personality outside of being able to hit things. It is entertaining to play the most stereotypical fighter build I could think of (full plate, tower shield, bastard sword), but I needed something more. ---Pollux the 3rd level fighter has a great time insulting the competence of every 1st level town guard he passes. You quickly learn how much fun it can be to have an armor check penalty of 17. Pollux makes a big deal about his morning exercises and reading the Litanies of Battle in his spare time. The best part of the character, though, was standing with a 4th paladin in the face of a lich and bravely insulting the lich's sexual prowess. Of course, when things turned ugly we made a swift retreat but it was worth it merely for the look on the DM's face as the boss creature was interrupted mid-monologue by wisecracks about his impotence. D&D is about playing a character and having fun with personality, the dice rolls are merely there to add to the entertainment value. Anyone who believes otherwise is more deluded then those who believe that all magic items are equally valuable.
Khan the Destroyer 03-09-07, 02:59 PM	---Fighters are sub-optimal in combat at med to high levels, for various reasons that have been exhaustively demonstrated elsewhere. It's also been demonstrated elsewhere that this is not the case.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 03:17 PM	It's also been demonstrated elsewhere that this is not the case. Such as? There's not even anything on the CharOp boards that makes the Fighter good... and they're pretty good at breaking things there. At best there's one trick ponies, like uberchargers and archers. In fact, most every build there that initially involves the Fighter is *further optimized* by taking *less actual fighter levels.*
the_narrator 03-09-07, 03:21 PM	A Fighter is very much a one-trick pony, if he wants to do anything well. Sure, he can branch off into other things, but he's not going to do any of them to a worthwhile degree. And people who say that the Fighter is easy to build are either inexperienced, don't know what they're talking about, or have really low standards when it comes to "good" characters. Making a Fighter requires a mess of splatbooks as well as a well-thought-out feat progression. You can't really just pick up the PHB and roll up a Fighter and expect him to be especially good. Plus, feats can be almost a liability. While when it comes to devine casters, when new books come out, they immediately get a power boost, the Fighter usually ends up wishing the book had come out several levels ago while he looks at all the new and nifty feats.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 03:24 PM	A Fighter is very much a one-trick pony, if he wants to do anything well. Sure, he can branch off into other things, but he's not going to do any of them to a worthwhile degree. And people who say that the Fighter is easy to build are either inexperienced, don't know what they're talking about, or have really low standards when it comes to "good" characters. Making a Fighter requires a mess of splatbooks as well as a well-thought-out feat progression. You can't really just pick up the PHB and roll up a Fighter and expect him to be especially good. Plus, feats can be almost a liability. While when it comes to devine casters, when new books come out, they immediately get a power boost, the Fighter usually ends up wishing the book had come out several levels ago while he looks at all the new and nifty feats. Pretty much. A Fighter requires a significant deal of optimization to do *one thing* well. Not one role, mind, but one combat tactic. And when he does that one thing well, it tends to easily be countered. After all, how many ways are there to counteract a charge? A trip? An AoO? The answer is simple: A heckuva lot. They lack adaptability in play.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 03:31 PM	Khan, I believe you should read their statements as: The Fighter can only be COMPLETELY OPTIMIZED in *one* particular tactic. He may be decent at others, but only completely optimied in one of them, and they don't like that.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 03:37 PM	Khan, I believe you should read their statements as: The Fighter can only be COMPLETELY OPTIMIZED in *one* particular tactic. He may be decent at others, but only completely optimied in one of them, and they don't like that. I don't see how he becomes decent in many tactics. If you're level 15, what multiple tactics are you good at? Well, tripping isn't that useful because everyone can fly or be a giant or whatever. AoO? A mediocre tumble gets past you... or any of the movement spells. Charging? Anything can get in the way of charging... you have to actually have a perfect straight line. You're likely to get interrupted by an AoO too, considering the large number of very large things with reach. Better hope they're flat footed and there are no obstacles at the beginning of the fight. Sunder, Bull Rush, and so forth? You'd have better luck with a normal attack much of the time. You can be an archer, but you're going to have to be investing your feats in that, and you can't really do much of anything else.
scienceman47 03-09-07, 03:37 PM	---Fighters are sub-optimal in combat at med to high levels, for various reasons that have been exhaustively demonstrated elsewhere. That fact makes me really thankful that in a good campaign that is completely irrelevant. Read the "best lines ever" section for why this is true. ---I made a fighter for a recent campaign, only to find out once I got in that the campaign is heavily roleplaying based. After the third session I expressed to the other players my desire to make a sixth attack roll. Yes, a sixth attack roll for the campaign. Needless to say, My character had to find a personality outside of being able to hit things. It is entertaining to play the most stereotypical fighter build I could think of (full plate, tower shield, bastard sword), but I needed something more. ---Pollux the 3rd level fighter has a great time insulting the competence of every 1st level town guard he passes. You quickly learn how much fun it can be to have an armor check penalty of 17. Pollux makes a big deal about his morning exercises and reading the Litanies of Battle in his spare time. The best part of the character, though, was standing with a 4th paladin in the face of a lich and bravely insulting the lich's sexual prowess. Of course, when things turned ugly we made a swift retreat but it was worth it merely for the look on the DM's face as the boss creature was interrupted mid-monologue by wisecracks about his impotence. D&D is about playing a character and having fun with personality, the dice rolls are merely there to add to the entertainment value. Anyone who believes otherwise is more deluded then those who believe that all magic items are equally valuable. Liches don't care about sexual prowess. Their dead. And can you make a good character out of the fighter outside of combat, without being a joke?
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 03:46 PM	I don't see how he becomes decent in many tactics. If you're level 15, what multiple tactics are you good at? Well, tripping is useless because everyone can fly or be a giant. AoO? A mediocre tumble gets past you... or any of the movement spells. Charging? Anything can get in the way of charging... you have to actually have a perfect straight line. You're likely to get interrupted by an AoO too, considering the large number of very large things with reach. Better hope they're flat footed and there are no obstacles at the beginning of the fight. Sunder, Bull Rush, and so forth? You'd have better luck with a normal attack much of the time. You can be an archer, but you're going to have to be investing your feats in that, and you can't really do much of anything else. Well, you *could* dispel their flight, although it's debatable whether that turn would be better spent doing other turns to the enemy. The DM *could* just throw you against enemy adventurers instead of throwing you against giants every time, but that's campaign-specific. As long as the DM gives you medium/large humanoids to fight half the time, the Fighter can be pretty decent at a number of things. The point is if the DM will do that.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 04:00 PM	Well, you *could* dispel their flight And then they walk around you. Or tumble through your space. Or just pummel you since you used your turn just to get rid of their buff and they can blast you. And of course, if the Fighter could dispel that ability, so could anyone else... and other people have better battlefield control and tanking abilities. although it's debatable whether that turn would be better spent doing other turns to the enemy. Certainly. The DM *could* just throw you against enemy adventurers instead of throwing you against giants every time, but that's campaign-specific. The enemy adventurers have all sorts of advantages themselves. Also, plenty of them are likely to be large anyways, thanks to Divine Might or Enlarge Person. Or have reach weapons. Or fly. Or use actual high level tactics, which is even worse for the Fighter. Spell and class feature combos and the like. As long as the DM gives you medium/large humanoids to fight half the time, the Fighter can be pretty decent at a number of things. The point is if the DM will do that. Like what? All the special combat maneuvers have a tendency to be less optimal than just actually hitting the guy in the face with a sword, because they often are harder to pull off, put you in more danger, and still have less effect. Trips are fairly easily avoided past low level... since you should be able to *fly* by then, and thus be immune to tripping until that's dispelled. Also, the linchpin in the Fighter being good at multiple tactics is that the bit of advantage he'd have over a Warrior with the same gear and level using one of his tactics is gone as soon as he branches out. And a Warrior is an NPC class. For something to be anywhere close to being compared in usefulness to an NPC class should be a pretty strong indicator to you.
Flan 03-09-07, 04:02 PM	I don't see how he becomes decent in many tactics. If you're level 15, what multiple tactics are you good at? Well, tripping is useless because everyone can fly or be a giant. AoO? A mediocre tumble gets past you... or any of the movement spells. Charging? Anything can get in the way of charging... you have to actually have a perfect straight line. You're likely to get interrupted by an AoO too, considering the large number of very large things with reach. Better hope they're flat footed and there are no obstacles at the beginning of the fight. Sunder, Bull Rush, and so forth? You'd have better luck with a normal attack much of the time. You can be an archer, but you're going to have to be investing your feats in that, and you can't really do much of anything else. Much better to be a fighter that can do all those things. Wizards on the other hand are completely useless since everything past level 15 is magic immune and the fights all take place in dungeons where you can't teleport or summon. Fighters may not be the strongest class but at least they can contribute something, unlike the mages.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 04:06 PM	Much better to be a fighter that can do all those things. Not really... he can do one, maybe two, of these things decently enough to be kinda near level-appropriate. everything past level 15 is magic immune :rolleyes: No, that's just golems. And there's plenty of indirect or no SR magic you can use against them anyways. This is the point of the pro-fighter argument we call "blatantly ignoring reality."
Flan 03-09-07, 04:08 PM	No, that's just golems. And there's plenty of indirect or no SR magic you can use against them anyways. Nope, I'm quite sure everything past 15 is magic immune and there is nothing wizards can do to them. I looked in the monster manual of yours where everything is flying and huge and immune to everything that a fighter can do and lo and behold they were also all completely immune to everything a caster can do too. Thats quite the monster manual you have there.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 04:10 PM	Nope, I'm quite sure everything past 15 is magic immune and there is nothing wizards can do to them. I looked in the monster manual of yours where everything is flying and huge and immune to everything that a fighter can do and lo and behold they were also all completely immune to everything a caster can do too. Thats quite the monster manual you have there. If you'd actually read the monster manual, you would see that indeed many things past low level can either fly, have large sizes, or reach, or tumble or have movement abilities to get around the Fighter, ranging from burrow to teleportation. And *anyone* can counter a charge, because *any* obstacle stops it. They have plenty of abilities that hinder what the Fighter can do. You're just acting petulant, immature, and most of all ignorant at this point.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 05:00 PM	Fleet of Foot and boots of Flying can make Charging pretty easy, since you can now not only change angles, but also fly over obstacles. And DON'T forget you acn always JUMP over obstacles even without flight. But yeah, when I make a fighter, I usually go Raptoran. Natural Flight is a beautiful thing, especially when you do 2x damage on a dive.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 05:13 PM	Fleet of Foot and boots of Flying can make Charging pretty easy, since you can now not only change angles, but also fly over obstacles. And DON'T forget you acn always JUMP over obstacles even without flight. Very true. I was forgetting about that. However, the point still stands that if you get really good at it, it's the one thing you do... and it uses something people typically consider cheese anyways. Additionally, many other classes (from Tome of Battle Classes to the mere Paladin) can ubercharge at least as efficiently as the Fighter, while having more versatility in a variety of areas.
crimsonwolf 03-09-07, 05:20 PM	go to crystal keep look up all the class vairents for fighters some good stuff there
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 05:21 PM	Paladins aren't much better, to be perfectly honest. Beyond 5th level, Paladins don't have that much to offer. And barbarians have even less options. They can hit things...really hard, and have less feats than the fighter. Now, I'm the first person to argue that Fighters (and paladins, barbarians, Samurai, Rangers) need a buff, so you're kind of preaching to the converted.
Razefire 03-09-07, 06:10 PM	I think the real problem with Fighters is, as combat machines, the feats they have access to and their class abilites are lame in comparison to other martial abilties or their feats may be simply inefficient over just hitting something hard. So, while I fully support Fighter as a combat class ONLY, they would fare better with superior abilities or feats that have more combat flexibility on the battlefield, and perhaps superiority in armed combat tactics over non-martial classes, since the Fighter is a combat only class. Other martial classes, like Ranger (a personal fav of mine) as a mixture between martial and roguery have a host of abilites and skills to employ. The problem is Fighters fall short because of lack of skills and useful abilities that are even remotley on par with other martial classes, except maybe for Barbarian. The solution is simply eliminate Fighters as a class, since theyre are plenty of other martial classes that have good fighting ability and awesome skills and abilites useful in and out of combat. I hate to say it, but theyre are enough other "combat" base classes to eliminate Fighter in the next version of D&D.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 06:12 PM	Or replace the fighter with the Warblade.
Flan 03-09-07, 06:45 PM	You're just acting petulant, immature, and most of all ignorant at this point. No, I'm acting amused at someone who is both completely clueless and completely dedicated to proving a point so obviously and blatently wrong, and doing it in such a ridiculously poor way. All monsters don't have flight, reach, large size and tumble, and know what, none of that matters anyway. The fact that you think any of that shuts down a fighter shows you have absolutely NO CLUE what you're even talking about. I mean, just, wow... you're so out of it to think an obstacle renders a fighter useless. Just... wow.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 07:08 PM	They certainly do not make the figher useless. They just make his job a lot harder if they have all of those.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 07:48 PM	No, I'm acting amused at someone who is both completely clueless and completely dedicated to proving a point so obviously and blatently wrong, and doing it in such a ridiculously poor way. That's funny, because odds are my opinion on these boards is taken a lot more seriously than yours. I would also point out that it's not "obviously and blatantly wrong" on the grounds that the majority supports that Fighters are substandard, including the people who are often seen as the leading authorities on mechanics on these boards. I hate to gloat, though, so I'll just leave it at that. However, let's just say that you're not going to win anyone over by calling me completely clueless, seeing as I have a reputation on these boards as being... well, the complete opposite. And you're a Feb 2007 join who doesn't know his way around the community (unless of course this is just a new account). So... if you're going to throw mud, you had better actually have some argument to back it up. And in the rest of your post... you just continue to say "Nuh-uh!" or just plain make straw men. All monsters don't have flight, reach, large size and tumble I said that *many* monsters have at least *one* of those things. Would you like me to count the number and percentage of things over CR 10 that do? Let alone CR 15. (The poor old cow Tarrasque gets left out there... but not much of anyone else). I can also guarantee you that any well-played PC over level 10 will have access to at least a few of those things. and know what, none of that matters anyway. The fact that you think any of that shuts down a fighter shows you have absolutely NO CLUE what you're even talking about. I mean, just, wow... you're so out of it to think an obstacle renders a fighter useless. Just... wow. Did I say that made them useless? Do a quick control+F. See if I ever said useless outside of this post right here. Oh wait... I didn't say it, did I? As a result, you're making a straw man argument (Which is to say, committing a logical fallacy), and continuing to act petulant, immature, and ignorant. As a matter of fact, I specifically said they could do one tactic pretty decently if built well. No, I referenced those abilities as making various tactics not work. I also never said they were useless at all. I've said that they're *underpowered*. Like a Warrior is. No one's absolutely useless, because even one level 1 commoner adds one more body into the field. However, the Fighter can quite handily be outclassed by his own cohort at his own job... because he just doesn't do it in any level-appropriate way. Now then, have you provided any evidence on how Fighters somehow do their supposed role in a better or more versatile way than a Warblade, Psychic Warrior, Druid, or Cleric. They certainly do not make the figher useless. They just make his job a lot harder if they have all of those. Exactly, and further the Fighter cannot overcome these difficulties nearly as handily as other classes, which contributes to them being *underpowered*.
Flan 03-09-07, 08:06 PM	That's funny, because odds are my opinion on these boards is taken a lot more seriously than yours. Ah, hurt your feelings did I? Fact that you've said a bunch of very silly things and got called on them making you look bad, trying to save face? OMG obstacle, fighter can't get around, omg, flyer, fighter can never fly, omg! Something is sized large, it's impossible for a fighter to do anything to it! :rolleyes: I would also point out that it's not "obviously and blatantly wrong" on the grounds that the majority supports that Fighters are substandard, including the people who are often seen as the leading authorities on mechanics on these boards. You should leave it to them to argue it then since you've proven you are obviously NOT a leading authority on game mechanics. I hate to gloat, though, so I'll just leave it at that. Sad. However, let's just say that you're not going to win anyone over by calling me completely clueless. Your posts speak for themselves, I don't have to win anyone. I can also guarantee you that any well-played PC over level 10 will have access to at least a few of those things. Including the fighter. Did I say that made them useless? No, I referenced those abilities as making various tactics not work. I also never said they were useless at all. At best there's one trick ponies, like uberchargers and archers. Well, tripping is useless because everyone can fly or be a giant. You said they were one trick ponies whose tactics were rendered useless by flight, size, obstacles (among other things.) I guess you don't even know what you've written. If you believe a fighter is some bumbling idiot on a battlefield, stymied by obstacles, incapable of dealing with large creatures, completely blunted by flyers then you're just flat out not playing DnD and have no clue what you're talking about. And that you've proven.
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 08:09 PM	Ah, hurt your feelings did I? Fact that you've said a bunch of very silly things and got called on them making you look bad, trying to save face? OMG obstacle, fighter can't get around, omg, flyer, fighter can never fly, omg! LOL, you made me look bad with unsupported blanket statements. Right. Something is sized large, it's impossible for a fighter to do anything to it! :rolleyes: Actually, I said that it made it more difficult for him to charge, and that it would hinder him in trying to rely on tripping at high level... which is generally agreed on because it's true. You're turning my specific statements regarding specific tactics into overgeneralizations about the fighter being completely useless based on one factor, which is in essence a *straw man argument* and is thus invalid. I've said this a few times, but either you don't care and are just trolling, or you actually can't understand what that is. Including the fighter. Sure will! Never said otherwise. And that makes it difficult to trip people... which you are for some reason fervently arguing against, under the grounds that "you can't trip flying people with perfect maneuverability" means "The Fighter is completely useless because people can fly" in your twisted little mind that lacks basic reading comprehension. You said they were one trick ponies whose tactics were rendered useless by flight, size, obstacles (among other things.) I guess you don't even know what you've written. Yes, many of their options are rendered useless by various things, and their inflexibility contributes to their lack of power. That doesn't mean that the Fighter himself is without use. I know exactly what I've written... you just have shoddy reading comprehension. If you believe a fighter is some bumbling idiot on a battlefield, stymied by obstacles, incapable of dealing with large creatures, completely blunted by flyers then you're just flat out not playing DnD and have no clue what you're talking about. And that you've proven. ...I mentioned that specific *tactics* were foiled or mitigated by those things, and made it difficult for him to be versatile.
JBW 03-09-07, 08:32 PM	I've run two games that both had Fighters in them. In the first, we had a Warforged Barbarian 2/Fighter 8. Sure, it multiclassed with Barbarian to get some neat stuff (Rage is fun when you're immune to fatigue), but at heart it was a feat-stacking combatant - a Fighter. This character was great fun for the whole group, and the player never felt he was 'useless' or even 'sub-par' whencompared to the rest of the group. In the second, we had a Dwarf Fighter 12 that ony used one oddball ruling - that he could swap out familiarity with the Dwarven Urgrosh for familiarity in the Dwarven Warpike (see complete Warrior for details). Ths charcer was tough and did great as a part of the party. He never single-handedly won the day (except for one amazng critical with his waraxe...), but he as vita to the party's success every time. Fighters have a place, and they can fill it. You might be albe to take some of the newer materials (ToB) and outperform the Fighter, but IMO that's more an example of power creep than the Fighter being insufficient for the task.
FrostHammer 03-09-07, 08:37 PM	You offer anecdotal evidence...without any numbers or even descriptions of the actual situation. Are we just to take your word on it? (Playing devil's advocate here. not saying you'r a liar) In what situations did they fuilfill their role? WHAT were their roles? How did the fulfill it it? Was it a situation biased towards Fighters?
The_Jhereg 03-09-07, 08:48 PM	JBW, just out of curiousity, how was the party and the opposition played? Some DMs have a dragon with 13 int getting into melee with guys with swords and doing flyby attacks with a breath weapon against guys with arrows and spellcasters with various energy resistances. Other DM's have the opposite tactical choices made. Also, some players think Magic Missile is the best level 1 spell for a wizard 1 to learn, and other people take Color Spray. Some people don't use polymorph and other transformational magic as written, some do. Some clerics cast cure critical wounds in combat, while some cast divine power. Depending on the tactical skills of the players, the character building decisions of the players, and the DM's tactical abilities and relative ratios of creatures functionally immune to fighters abilities, the power of fighters might vary enormously from "nearly unplayable by level 5" to "Still keeping pace at level 10". How optimized were the characters? What non-core books were allowed? What campaign setting was this? How many party members other than fighters were there, and what were their classes? What spells did casters select? What builds did characters follow? What were the enemies like? What spells were used to buff martial characters? The spellcasters? Was polymorph allowed as written? How about other spells? Seriously, any and all of these could have a serious impact on the games' balance, and without knowing the context of a game it can be difficult to assess stuff accurately. If everyone's happy, good! If not, houserules to power up the characters underperforming the opposition and/or nerf the characters overperforming the opposition may be in order, after discussion between both players and DM.
Fenris_Lathiin 03-09-07, 08:49 PM	I just want to know why the combat classes can't do things like stab people in the legs and immobilize them or hit them in a vital area and stun them. I mean, granted, fighters can take Stunning Fist at 8th level or something, but that's really kind of it. The Tome of Battle has done a good job adding some status effects to the combat classes, but I'd like to see it added to the core classes, personally. I've always had it in my mind that the combat classes would be the natural debuffers. They would injure, cripple or dismember their opponents before killing them. If a Fighter is supposed to hold off the monsters before they reach the spellcasters, wouldn't it be prudent to chop off their legs at the knee caps?
Alpha_Moose 03-09-07, 09:24 PM	The biggest problem with Fighters is that, while they are not useless, they are usually outclasses by most other classes. Fighters can be played well, contribute to the party, and can be fun to play. Realistically though, there is someone better. They also can be, mechanically, boring. Everyone can do every special attack that a Fighter can. Even if he can do these things better, they don't get something special. Paladins and Rangers aren't amazingly better, but they have a special 'power' (either smiting or hiding) that can't be replaced with a straight Fighter. The class is mechanically replaced by the Warblade, not just in terms of power, but in fun.
JBW 03-09-07, 09:35 PM	You offer anecdotal evidence...without any numbers or even descriptions of the actual situation. Are we just to take your word on it? (Playing devil's advocate here. not saying you'r a liar) Fun doesn't really need evidence, and having fun is the most important part of playing a game, right? I'm just suggersting that you go out and try playing rather than all of the idiotic CO strategies that are thrown around on these boards. A theoretical Pun-Pun with no play time is infinitely inferior in every way to any Ftr 1 that actually sees play and brings enjoyment to the players. :cool:
OneWinged4ngel 03-09-07, 09:40 PM	Fun doesn't really need evidence, and having fun is the most important part of playing a game, right? Of course it's the most important part of playing the game. However, you're giving a red herring (another logical fallacy, actually) here... that point has no actual bearing on whether or not the Fighter is underpowered.
Ezell Pike 03-09-07, 10:33 PM	As often as I have posted about the limitations and drawbacks of fighters I have never actually witnessed them in play. Many on the boads harp about their crappy will saves. Not really much of an issue. That would be because the DM targets the fighter. The following will explain why. Fighters will often flunk will saves, sad but true. The fighter can be expected to have an impact on every combat encounter. (barring the flunked save) They dish out damage, maybe great, maybe not so hot. :fight!: They can soak damage from spells. (fireball anyone) They can avoid being killed in one hit. ( I'm looking at you rogue) They can avoid being hit because of their ac. ( :nonono: rogue) Mages will make the will save often. The bad guy is only going to be here for 4 rounds or so, thusly every round must count. Hitting the mages, and to a lesser extent clerics, with a spell that they are almost certain to fail, they DIE. :ghosted: So in an effort to create tension, without killing characters outright, the DM is left with only one option.:ahem: :teach: Just last week an assassin:incog: death attacked a dread necromancer in our group and guess what. She died.:OMG! funny thing was that they anticipated an attack from the guy but miscalculated his profession.:schemes: BTW sorry for the glut of emoticons I felt like vandalizing my post. :D
scienceman47 03-10-07, 12:08 AM	Rogues are kinda fragile, but their AC is more than capable. Whatmore, its high-quality touch AC, which protects against ghost hands and rays and the like. Clerics however are notoriously hard to put down. Good fortitude and will saves, good stats in both of those, full plate and shield, and spells to increase any one of those higher and higher. The HP is only 1 point a level below the fighters. Getting caught off guard is a good way to put down a spellcaster. Wizards have magic to protect against that, from alarms to contigents to magnificient mansions. Barring that, a rogue should have been on guard. They have the skill points to catch opponents in the act, and unlike the casters they lack the need to sleep often. Rangers and monks are also very good for this, and to a lesser extent the barbarian. And crappy will saves are a great danger, and fighters suffer in this regard more than most because- 1. Low class progression 2. An odd sort of mad needed to get the better core feats (int 13 for combat expertise, dex 14 for combat reflexes, etc) so will ends up on the short end just above CHA 3. No class abilities to shore it up. Barbs gain resists while raging, rogues at least get slippery mind, etc. Dominates, charms, confusions, holds, these and more are waiting for the fighter. Oddly enough, harping on the casters and rogues is encouraged in most books. Mages should at least be forced to make a showing in the defensive front, before they destroy the enemy with a lone spell.
Khan the Destroyer 03-10-07, 01:08 AM	Such as? Such as the few builds I posted on another fighter thread on this board. There's not even anything on the CharOp boards that makes the Fighter good... and they're pretty good at breaking things there. Could that be because no one really wants to try? Because everyone is so convinced of this mass hysteria that no proof is needed? (As an example... review this thread and notice the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever pointing to the balance or lack thereof of the fighter.) (Of course, there are threads dealing with maxmimizing Bull Rushes and AoO's among other things on the CO Board, but we'll ignore those for now.) At best there's one trick ponies, like uberchargers and archers. See, these statements are so... silly. It is false, and you provide no base for it whatsoever. People are going to read your post and think 'Wow, fighters are that bad?' And in reality, they aren't. The fighter builds I posted could bull rush the Tarrasque, disarm a titan, deal butloads of damage on a mounted charge, deal lots of damage with an arrow volley, trip a titan, etc. Hardly a one-trick pony. He can swing and hit/miss like any other meleer, as well as remove an enemy's weapon from his hand, push him around the battlefield, sunder his gear, leave him prone on the ground, remain mobile on the battlefield, and had a decent Will save before gear. And there are builds and numbers to back this up. In fact, most every build there that initially involves the Fighter is *further optimized* by taking *less actual fighter levels.* Wow. And the vast majority of wizard builds don't take a wizard level after 5th level. OMG. The wizard is underpowered!
navar100 03-10-07, 01:15 AM	First it was: Fighters suck because they can't kill monsters. This was demonstrated as not true by some example builds. Then it was: Fighters suck because other classes can fight well. This was demonstrated as irrelevant because another class being effective does not take away the fighter being effective. Then it was: Fighters suck because they need a buff spell. This was demonstrated as not true by some example builds. Then it was: Fighters suck because they can't give anything back via class ability for deserving a buff spell. This was demonstrated as irrelevant before proof the assumption was true via the warlock. Then it was: Fighters suck because they use gear. This was demonstrated as absurd because the game assumes such for everyone and everyone uses gear. Now it's: Fighters suck because spellcasters use their gear in a better way. This is absurd because it's a matter of player preference. Next!
Khan the Destroyer 03-10-07, 01:29 AM	Next! The fighter is underpowered because a wizard can carry his most important gear in a small pouch. The fighter has to carry around at least a backpack. This shows that a fighter is severely underpowered and needs a fix. He should be able to carry his equipment in a component pouch just like a wizard.
navar100 03-10-07, 01:35 AM	You're right! That settles it then. :)
Faithkeep 03-10-07, 01:43 AM	The fighter is underpowered because a wizard can carry his most important gear in a small pouch. The fighter has to carry around at least a backpack. This shows that a fighter is severely underpowered and needs a fix. He should be able to carry his equipment in a component pouch just like a wizard. :D Good job! :D
Flan 03-10-07, 01:47 AM	The fighter is underpowered because a wizard can carry his most important gear in a small pouch. I love how a 5gp pouch can contain (for a cleric anyway, lots of examples for wizards too, but it escapes me right now) an infinite number of tuning forks so the cleric can plane shift anywhere in the multiverse as many times as they want. On the other hand fighters never have to sharpen their swords or patch their armour. Or go to the washroom...
Argaud 03-10-07, 02:01 AM	I don't see how he becomes decent in many tactics. If you're level 15, what multiple tactics are you good at? Well, tripping isn't that useful because everyone can fly or be a giant or whatever. AoO? A mediocre tumble gets past you... or any of the movement spells. Charging? Anything can get in the way of charging... you have to actually have a perfect straight line. You're likely to get interrupted by an AoO too, considering the large number of very large things with reach. Better hope they're flat footed and there are no obstacles at the beginning of the fight. Sunder, Bull Rush, and so forth? You'd have better luck with a normal attack much of the time. You can be an archer, but you're going to have to be investing your feats in that, and you can't really do much of anything else. Not true. Tumble? Check the monsters skills. Out of 16 enemies at CR19-20 in the DMG only one has tumble. Only 3 out of 11 character classes have tumble as class skill. Fact is less than 10% of the fighter’s enemies will have tumble. Flight? All the PCs can fly by the time flying enemies are difficult. Flight is cheap. Charging? A charge specialist can turn in a charge, and an AoO does nothing to stop a charge. Archery? A fighter archer can do 12 attacks/round at +42 base to hit by level 20 using just 8 feats (meaning the fighter still has 9-10 more for other things). And doing over 400 hp/damage to any enemy with AC under 40. This build has been posted many times.
Argaud 03-10-07, 02:42 AM	That's funny, because odds are my opinion on these boards is taken a lot more seriously than yours. Probably not. I would also point out that it's not "obviously and blatantly wrong" on the grounds that the majority supports that Fighters are substandard, including the people who are often seen as the leading authorities on mechanics on these boards. You mean like... Khan? I grant you it is not quite "obviously and blatantly wrong". But neither is "obviously and blatantly wrong" the opinion that fighters do fine in the battlefield.
scienceman47 03-10-07, 02:47 AM	I love how a 5gp pouch can contain (for a cleric anyway, lots of examples for wizards too, but it escapes me right now) an infinite number of tuning forks so the cleric can plane shift anywhere in the multiverse as many times as they want. On the other hand fighters never have to sharpen their swords or patch their armour. Or go to the washroom... Characters never need to take care of certain... hygiene problems. Foul smell, bathroom needs, and other difficulties that normally trouble the average joe never come up. Fighters took the "Poop, what is this poop you speak of?" bonus feat.
Red_Rabbit 03-10-07, 09:21 AM	Ignore all this fighters don't suck. It's just these people start out thinking fighters suck. So they don't think how am I gonna make this fighter awsome and what are some good tactics. I've made fighters that have run up and down Druids and clerics. This is gonna sound rude, but I'd call people who call fighters weak just have a lack of talent and thought. The Rabbit
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 01:33 PM	Actually AoOs can stop a charge, but it requires a specific feat for it I think. And also, it really depends on what you think "suck" is. If you think lack of supreme adaptability at high levels sucks, then the fighter sucks.
OneWinged4ngel 03-10-07, 01:39 PM	Charging? A charge specialist can turn in a charge, and an AoO does nothing to stop a charge. Archery? A fighter archer can do 12 attacks/round at +42 base to hit by level 20 using just 8 feats (meaning the fighter still has 9-10 more for other things). And doing over 400 hp/damage to any enemy with AC under 40. This build has been posted many times. And, like I said, a Fighter can do impressive damage with charging or archery. However, both of those builds require specialization, and lack versatility. What I was addressing in that quote was the claim that you could do *many things* well. In that case, your feats get spread much more thinly. In fact, I was *asking* how they could do many things well, in hopes that the person's view might be explained and supported. As I keep telling you, you're responding out of context and turning my comments into something they're not, and frequently using straw man arguments. It's quite annoying.
Argaud 03-10-07, 02:12 PM	In fact, I was *asking* how they could do many things well, in hopes that the person's view might be explained and supported. As I keep telling you, you're responding out of context and turning my comments into something they're not, and frequently using straw man arguments. It's quite annoying. Then read Khan's fighter build.
Leo 03-10-07, 02:21 PM	And, like I said, an archer can do incredible damage with charging or archery. However, both of those builds require intense specialization, and lack versatility. What I was addressing in that quote was the claim that you could do *many things* well. In that case, your feats get spread much more thinly. In fact, I was *asking* how they could do many things well, in hopes that the person's view might be explained and supported. As I keep telling you, you're responding out of context and turning my comments into something they're not, and frequently using straw man arguments. It's quite annoying. Well, the fact that you use fallacies that most people don't know at all it's quite anoying as well. Fighters are fun for lots of people, believe it or not, and they manage to hold their own in battle, unless your DM has a a great preference for will or die effects at late levels. But then it's a matter of tastes. The DM may as well love to use poisons and fort saves area effects like roar and the like, in wich case the mages are up for an hard time. The big problem is that fighters demand a completely diferent sytle of play than casters. One works with one shot powerfull effects, the other with permananent bouns that, altought they may seem weak, are ALWAYS AND NO MATTER WHAT working.
HamHam 03-10-07, 02:25 PM	The DM may as well love to use poisons and fort saves area effects like roar and the like, in wich case the mages are up for an hard time. No they're not. Mages have spells for countering that sort of thing.
OneWinged4ngel 03-10-07, 02:34 PM	Well, the fact that you use fallacies that most people don't know at all it's quite anoying as well. No, I don't use them, I mention that others use them. Anyways, if you don't know what it means, take 2 seconds on google or wikipedia. It's that easy. Most people already know logical fallacies, if not their proper names, because they're really just common sense.
Clawhound 03-10-07, 02:54 PM	The only way that I can restore any faith in the fighter is to say: there are people who play fighters and have fun. Their fighters are effective in combat and are valued by their parties. Simply because someone claims that the class is lacking doesn't mean that everyone across the world playing a fighter suddenly stops having fun and suddenly finds their characters ineffective. People who aren't having fun playing a fighter usually multiclass into something that is fun. That's pretty much true of every class. You see, there's no "right" way to play the game.
Qube 03-10-07, 03:19 PM	They're easy to generate, thats your first mistake. you might as well say that choosing spells for a wizard is simple: yust choose alphabeticly :D. Feats must be chosen carefully and with planning, yust like a wizard choses his spells. the amount of time put into this will determine your power: if the fighter is weaker then the wizard, a fighter with a good feat selection, will still be better then a wizard with poor spell selection. The main thing the fighter has is his Feats. Feats don't scale as well as say I don't agree with this: the fighter feats that are dependant on BAB scale very well. yes the AC of monsters increases, but so dus their elemental resistance and spellresistance. That leaves you with...Charging...and...firing arrows. Yay! All I do is declare "ATTACK!" every single turn! That can be fun once in a while but...as opposed to declare "I cast a spell" every turn? A fighter is as versitile as you make it. I currently play a half-human/half-dragon fighter level 2 : I do the following things - intimidate - attack with tower shield and claw/bite - attack with glaive - trip with claw or glaive. - grapple - rescue the wizard, because the monster hit him once :D - move into a flanking position for the rogue (as fighter you can survive behind enemy lines better then a rogue) Fighters are good..... for qualifying for PRCs. Thats all they can do. Everything else a other class can do better. 4 words: core non sniping archer "TEAM PLAYER! " nice dialog: now try: DM: and does a full attack on the wizard wizard: hey I can't survive that. hey fighter, what happend to team player? everyone who says fighters are one-trick ponys, I reply "so are wizards, if they only choose evocation[fire]". if you build your fighter to be a one-trick pony, don't complain about it. as fighter you get 11 bonus feats. you can't put them ALL in trip OR bullrush OR grapple ... (can you??) The fighter will perhaps be sub-optimal in trippling and grappling and such. can I give you guys a hit: use it against enemies who suck at it. don't try and trip a centaur. sunder his weapon instead. don't try and sunder the adamantium weapon of the lvl 20 halfling. trip him instead. suboptimal vs sucks? suboptimal wins. personal oppinion concerning no items: we have a loose DM on that subject that custom made items can be made. though they cost a pretty penny, it gives my character some spellcasting capability. A fighter would pimp slap that pit fiend into oblivion.completely agree: the sucker only has AC 35. laughable. the top-of-my-head fighter has attack 20+8str+5Magic+2feats=+35. to bad for the balor you can't roll a -1 on a d20 :D to the optimizers: this is the wrong thread the OP didn't want to know which class was strongest or if the fighter was easy optimizable. only if they suck or not. ---I made a fighter for a recent campaign, only to find out once I got in that the campaign is heavily roleplaying based. After the third session I expressed to the other players my desire to make a sixth attack roll. Yes, a sixth attack roll for the campaign. Needless to say, My character had to find a personality outside of being able to hit things. It is entertaining to play the most stereotypical fighter build I could think of (full plate, tower shield, bastard sword), but I needed something more. what is your point? the evoker of the party would have the same problem woudn't he? OneWinged4ngel: - don't say that trip is useless because some enemies fly and stuff. the counter argument is that golems are almost immune to magic, most high level monster heve spell resistance, and resistance to elements. At level 20, the 3 core enemies, as i call them are: great red wyrm, balor and tarrasque OKe, the fighter would go down against this one. But: red dragon starts with cone of cold on the wizard; bet he didn't see that one comming; Or: you though you were hunting for a white dragon (guess what illusion can do :D) and look at its saves: +32 / +22 / +30laughable AC for the fighter. damage reduction type that are standard for demons (cold iron and good; what inexperienced fighter goes demon hunting without cold iron good aligned weapons?) . wizards need to take in account SR 28, immune to immunity to electricity, fire, and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, spell resistance 28, true seeinglaughable AC, but DR 15/epic; wizards need to be thinging of Carapace(deflecting all rays, lines, cones, and even magic missile spells. There is a 30% chance of reflecting any such effect back at the caster), SR 32, immunity to fire, poison, disease, energy drain, and ability damage. both will have problemns killing it. - calling this argument "blatantly ignoring reality."? right back at ya: every tacktic has a counter. Yes, most monster are large or bigger. not that the fighter has a equal strength compared to monsters. improved trip and grapple give you +4 (what is equal to the size). - IMO it's the DM's yob to balance to party: if the wizard overshadows the party, he should throw in some magic resistant monsters. If the fighter overshadows the party, throw in some high AC dudes. thowing only flying an non-trippable monsters against a 'tripper' is bad DMming IMO - try this tacktic: try grappling a monster. I thought you got multiple attempts. if 1 succeeds, the monster is grappled until its his turn. This is the moment the rogue steps in and launches a full attack with sneak attacks, the wizard can make touch attack spells (the grappled monster doens't threathen squares) the monster on the other hand may 'waist' his round getting loose. oh, and 1 small remark: That's funny, because odds are my opinion on these boards is taken a lot more seriously than yoursIs this possible because it is the more popular one? (on the other hand, I wouldn't call you clueless) I respect your oppinion, yust as I do Khan the Destroyers, and Stormwind in short: - most fighters suck because most people think that building fighters is easy. - they also think that they are weak at high level because spellcasters are flashier - balance is in the eye of the beholder, meaning the DM
not Yoda 03-10-07, 03:20 PM	No they're not. Mages have spells for countering that sort of thing. Yeah, and you never hear " I didn't memorize that one today." do you?
RooktheFury 03-10-07, 06:00 PM	Your faith should be restored! Mine was only strengthened. Surely there must be more tactics than were listed here: grappling, sundering, tripping, chargering, and disarming. Someone should list some other tactics. Also, someone should come up with additional fighter builds to post here as evidence that fighters do not, in fact, suck. Furthermore, we need to stop bi***ing at eachother and arguing and come up with some new feats/applications of feats or other stuff to fix the problems. Lastly, optimization seems to be a synonym, in this case, for creativity. Anyone that like to rp is obviously creative, so lets think outside the box on this one!
malisteen 03-10-07, 06:20 PM	They can soak damage from spells. (fireball anyone) How do you soak damage from fireball? It has good range, and an area affect. The fighter taking damage from it does not mean anyone else is taking less damage. There's no soak there, just splatter. They can avoid being hit because of their ac. ( :nonono: rogue) How so? Chain shirt is only one armor less then fullplate, and buckler is only three less then tower shield, so thats only a four point ac differance past mid levels. less in the first couple levels (since the fighter can't afford expensive armor), or if the fighter uses a 2 handed weapon (which most do in order to deal anything resembling respectable damage). The fighter does not have a significant AC advantage on the rogue. Hitting the mages, and to a lesser extent clerics, with a spell that they are almost certain to fail, they DIE. :ghosted: Clerics is a non-extent. Their base fort is just as good as a martial character, and they can afford to take a less potent weapon in favor of a better cloak of charisma. Like fighters, con is their second best score, so a cleric will have just as good a fort save as a fighter, if not better. Wizards and Sorcs are an issue, although con is still their second best stat, while wisdom is typically not on a fighters good list (they need strength first, then con, then maybe int if they're trippers, then wisdom, so wis is their third or fourth stat, not their second), so a wizards or sorcerers should be more able to pass a fort save then most martial characters are able to pass a will save. And wizards might even be able to keep death ward up all the time at higher levels. So in an effort to create tension, without killing characters outright, the DM is left with only one option.:ahem: :teach: Just last week an assassin:incog: death attacked a dread necromancer in our group and guess what. She died.:OMG! funny thing was that they anticipated an attack from the guy but miscalculated his profession.:schemes: It happens. Instant death happens, whenever a DM decides to include it, whether it's dominate or death attack, or what have you. That's just the way it goes sometimes. The dread necro still probably had a better chance to save against that then the fighter would have to save against a will based death attack. The fact that a DM has to have enemies target the fighter, even playing them as stupid to have them do so, and that the fighter has no way of stoping them from attacking his other party members if they so wish, just goes to show you how the tank characters in core D&D simply don't have the tools necessary to do their job. BTW sorry for the glut of emoticons I felt like vandalizing my post. :D no probs. Emoticons are cool, I'm just too lazy to use them most the time. ;)
Duedaine 03-10-07, 06:23 PM	If Khan would be so kind as to provide a link... there's a lot of threads/posts to go through!
Flan 03-10-07, 07:58 PM	The fighter does not have a significant AC advantage on the rogue. Generally not, but the fighter does have more HP, and if they're in a situation that they need the AC they may very well have improved expertise which allows them to toss an extra dodge bonus on to AC equal to their level, or they'll have a bit of damage reduction that the rogue generally won't. Clerics is a non-extent. Their base fort is just as good as a martial character, and they can afford to take a less potent weapon in favor of a better cloak of charisma. Like fighters, con is their second best score, so a cleric will have just as good a fort save as a fighter, if not better. Probably not for a couple reasons. Often con is the first stat for a fighter, not second. Some fighters will take the +2 fort feat and few clerics will. Fighters often dip a couple levels while clerics rarely do and they get a bunch of extra fort for it. Wizards and Sorcs are an issue, although con is still their second best stat, while wisdom is typically not on a fighters good list (they need strength first, then con, then maybe int if they're trippers, then wisdom, so wis is their third or fourth stat, not their second), so a wizards or sorcerers should be more able to pass a fort save then most martial characters are able to pass a will save. And wizards might even be able to keep death ward up all the time at higher levels. Steadfast Determination is basically a required feat for fighters at higher levels. Among other things it gives the fighter their con bonus to will saves. Mage Slayer, which is a very common feat is another +1, along with Iron Will which is somewhat common for +2. With the standard cloak of resistance +5 thats between 20-24 will save at level 20 depending on which feats you took and con. 24 isn't amazing, the standard DC for a 9th level spell by a 30 stat caster is 29, but you'll generally make it. And luck swords are only 22k per. The fact that a DM has to have enemies target the fighter, even playing them as stupid to have them do so, and that the fighter has no way of stoping them from attacking his other party members if they so wish, just goes to show you how the tank characters in core D&D simply don't have the tools necessary to do their job. This is true. Goad is simply too weak. Defensive Sweep is very good for making the fighter less desireable to ignore and I think should be something fighters get for free. Same with Hold the Line. If those three feats were given to fighters for free and Goad was made so a monster could actually fail it's save on it, fighters would be much better blockers instead of watching the monster run up and one-shot the wizard. most high level monster heve spell resistance, and resistance to elements Spell resistance isn't something that bothers mages. At all. There are feats to render it completely irrelevant and at higher levels Assay Spell Resistance is cheap and easy to use and also renders spell resistance moot. WotC was truely haveing a brain-damaged moment when they added that crap in.
FrostWolf 03-10-07, 08:06 PM	Prator_the_Legendary --> Can someone restore my faith in Fighters? Book of Nine Swords: Warblade. Now take that, and just call it a fighter. And that is the best I can do for you, friend.
malisteen 03-10-07, 08:16 PM	Fighters often dip a couple levels while clerics rarely do and they get a bunch of extra fort for it. While I accept the other points you make, "fighters have better saves because they take levels in other (read: better) classes" doesn't count for much with me, at least in terms of defending Fighter as a class. It falls right in there with "fighters are a good base class because they qualify for good prestige classes" and basically boils down to: "Fighter is a balanced 20 level class because it's an excellant 2 level dip." which is just not a convincing argument. Any arguement in defence of the Fighter class as published that lists one of it's primary advantages as the ability of a fighter to take levels in some other class just seems self-defeating. It's like saying paladins are good arcane casters because they can jump to sorcerer after two levels and head for eldritch knight.
ferretferret 03-10-07, 08:26 PM	You are my hero Qube. Here's my two cents. Fighters suck hard...... if your playing massive 20 level built players. Now, if your actualy playing the game with some friends of yours to have fun, no class sucks and no class pwns all that dare darken it's doorstep. It's pretty much up in the air whose the best player. This is the real problem. everyone who says that fighters will never be good are the people forever cursed to look at there characters and see only the numbers onthe characther sheets. those who for ever counter all bluffs with a sense motive roll, as apsoed to just being suspicous and bluffing back. Those who throw away there family sword just because the one they found dose alittle more damage. they think, would i rather do 4d6 damage in a large radiuos for 2 or 3 rounds or 1d8 damage evry time i hit? Need i go on.
malisteen 03-10-07, 08:54 PM	I'm not saying a fighter can never be good. I'm saying you're handicapping yourself in combat if you stick with fighter to high levels, and handicapping yourself severely in out of combat encounters (ie, with challange ratings, not belching contests at the bar) by doing so. A given, well built fighter can be fine in a party of casually built characters. I never meant to argue that. But a Commoner can be a perfectly entertaining and enjoyable character to role play (and with their superior skill list will likely have more interesting things to do then a fighter outside of combat). That doesn't change the fact that a commoner isn't a PC class, and isn't mechanically anywhere near as good as one. And neither is the fighter. And, to be frank, a better built base class would give you more options for what your character could do, opening up more options for situations to role-play, not fewer. So just because I know that the numbers are there doesn't mean I can't act my arse off at the kitchen table, whether I'm playing a Crusader or a Fighter or an awakened Turkish Van with levels of Aristocat. It's called the Stormwind Falacy. Google it.
Flan 03-10-07, 10:30 PM	and basically boils down to: "Fighter is a balanced 20 level class because it's an excellant 2 level dip." Other way around. Fighter dips 2 levels in something else, like monk 1/reaping mauler 1, or dervish 1/ whatever, barbarian 1/ frenzied berserker 1, monk 1/ tatooed monk 1 etc. Casters can't really dip into anything that doesn't have "+1 level of spellcasting class", but a fighter's feats stack nicely with pretty much anything. Dipping two levels you can still get weapon supremecy.
Khan the Destroyer 03-11-07, 01:57 AM	Actually AoOs can stop a charge, but it requires a specific feat for it I think. The only way I know of for AoO's to stop a charge is to use your AoO to trip or bull rush the opponent. Are you thinking of Cometary Collision from PHB 2? And also, it really depends on what you think "suck" is. If you think lack of supreme adaptability at high levels sucks, then the fighter sucks. And pray tell, what other non-caster has *supreme* adaptability at high levels? The rogue? I use skills, and sneak attack stuff. The barbarian? I will rage. And attack... as usual. The ranger or paladin? I attack. And I will cure you for 12 points of damage. Ignoring the fact that your statement is a false implication and the fighter is adaptable of course. That leaves you with...Charging...and...firing arrows. Yay! All I do is declare "ATTACK!" every single turn! That can be fun once in a while but... What in the world does a buffed up cleric do? He is certainly not pulling off a combo like Charge->Leap Attack->Sunder->Sundering Cleave->Trip->Power Attack->Knockback Bull Rush->Directed Bull Rush->Domino Bull Rush->Trip Which then gives him bonuses next turn from Momentum Swing *and* Advancing Blows. No. Of course the cleric isn't doing that. Because he doesn't have the feats for it. He is busy taking Extend/Persistent Spell, Divine Metmagic, and Extra Turning. I think the cleric is simply declaring "ATTACK" every single turn. Because he is just a pile of big stats. The reality is, the fighter assesses the situation, and decides what to do. 'Hmmm, that sword looks pretty nasty, but I think my adamantine hammer can take it down. I'll sunder it (improved sunder), and then cleave into him (combat brute), hoping the force of my attack will knock him over (knockdown).' or... 'That creature is pretty quick and agile. I'll ready myself for his next attack and try to sweep his legs out from under him. I'll follow the trip with an attempt to grapple him. Then maybe the rogue can finish it.' The cleric... well, he's just swinging. And, like I said, a Fighter can do impressive damage with charging or archery. However, both of those builds require intense specialization, and lack versatility. Wrong. Charging is essentially Shock Trooper/Power Attack. Throw in Leap Attack for a higher to-hit/damage ratio. That would be 3 feats, or 4 with Leap Attack. Hardly lacking in versatility or requiring intense specialization. And dishing out 3 times your BAB in damage is impressive. Alternatively, you can grab Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge with a lance. Now, you get 6 times your BAB to damage. Even more impressive, for 6 out of your 19 feats. The only archery builds I've seen were specifically tailored to take out a balor. In my opinion, archery doesn't have much to choose from. Rapid Shot gives you more attacks on a full attack. Manyshot leaves you a move action while still firing the same number of arrows as a full attack, and Shot on the Run allows you to move while firing your bow. Useful for cover. If I wanted to do damage with a bow, I might just grab Rapid Shot and acquire a Splitting Bow. That's three feats and a magic bow. Done deal. I still have 10 feats left. I could grab the Weapon Supremacy chain for my bow, since that helps a lot on the full attacks (and increases the damage significantly with a Splitting bow as well as shore up your likely lower ranged to-hit). That's 7 mre feats, leaving me with 3. I'll grab Combat Focus, Combat Vigor, and Combat Stability. Now, my base will save is 10 after my first attack in combat, I have fast healing, and I'm hard to overpower. I deal impressive damage on a charge, with a bow, and can do the usual power attacking stuff on regular attacks. As I keep telling you, you're responding out of context and turning my comments into something they're not, and frequently using straw man arguments. It's quite annoying. Hold. The. Phone. You basically dismissed Flan's opinions as insignificant because of his join date on these boards. Further, you tried to boost your own position not by providing any sort of evidence, but by claiming you are some sort of hot shot around here. Seeing as these are both fallascious arguments, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lecturing people on fallacies.
AllisterH 03-11-07, 04:24 AM	Er, fighter with Equipment I do think is a bad case of how D&D is different than what we expect. As I'vbe mentioned in other threads, take a look at the sources for D&D fighters. From Western sources such as Conan, Legolas, Hercules, Lancelot to Eastern sources like anime/manga and the history of console RPGs. The fighters explictly didn't have a lot of magic items. Maybe just a signature sword like Excalibur or some impressive magic item (Hercules lion cloak that made him invulnerable). But gerneally speaking, ask anyone that plays D&D to name a "fighter" from fantasy/mythology, I'm willing to be that at most they have 3 items with the majority having none. Yet Conan regularly faced down Elder gods and demons from the pits of Hell and came out on top with just hit wits. It is hard to translate that to D&D where pretty much everyone above a certain level REQUIRES a magic caravan. True, all classes suffer from this but conversely, the fighter, the class that is mundane, is affected the most. Give a 20th level fighter the gear he had at 1st level and in most situations, he do worse than the cleric with the same restriction. Both aren't going to be doing as well versus a Balor but I'm willing to bet that the cleric would probably do better versus a lower level Devil/Demon than our fighter friend.
Qube 03-11-07, 04:24 AM	The fighter does not have a significant AC advantage on the rogue.[QUOTE=malisteen;11728817] lets see: if they use the same non-armor/shield boost weapons. a fighter can use a +5 fullplate with +1 dex and a +5 towershield = +23. the rogue can have +8 bracers of amor and a +5 bucker, gloves of dex +6 = +17. They would have the same AC if the rogue has a natural dex-mod of +6 which is doable. [QUOTE=Flan;11729502]Spell resistance isn't something that bothers mages. At all. There are feats to render it completely irrelevant and at higher levels Assay Spell Resistance is cheap and easy to use and also renders spell resistance moot. WotC was truely haveing a brain-damaged moment when they added that crap in.though I agree, the same can be said for shock trooper. @ malisteen one could say: "an other advantace of the fighter is that he easely multiclasses" compared to wizard, ...
HamHam 03-11-07, 12:59 PM	Hold. The. Phone. You basically dismissed Flan's opinions as insignificant because of his join date on these boards. Further, you tried to boost your own position not by providing any sort of evidence, but by claiming you are some sort of hot shot around here. Seeing as these are both fallascious arguments, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lecturing people on fallacies. Wait... what? Argument from authority isn't a fallacy. It's not the best option most of the time, but it is a valid argument.
Khan the Destroyer 03-11-07, 01:54 PM	Wait... what? Argument from authority isn't a fallacy. It's not the best option most of the time, but it is a valid argument. I don't see an authority anywhere in this thread. Just someone touting that his opinion is better than someone else's because he's been here longer and these phantom people apparently think it's better. Besides, the anti-fighter camp is riddled with poor arguments anyways. If you can call them arguments. It's mostly just opinions stated as facts. And Appeal to Authority is inevitably a fallacy.
malisteen 03-11-07, 02:09 PM	Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, its basically ad hominem. And most of us have tried to be polite on both sides. Lets please try to keep it that way?
OneWinged4ngel 03-11-07, 02:31 PM	Hold. The. Phone. You basically dismissed Flan's opinions as insignificant because of his join date on these boards. Slander. You're misrepresenting what I said. I had pointed out the irony of his comment that *my* opinions were invalid because I was "clearly clueless" etc. I in no way said, nor suggested, that the rest of his statements were invalid because of that. I merely said he's not going to win any arguments by saying that my opinion is superfluous and something that can just be blown off (which somehow you're now trying to tack on me instead of him, just because I'm on the other side). Observe the relevant quote in context, because making up your own context is exactly why you guys are committing so many straw men. Further, you tried to boost your own position not by providing any sort of evidence, but by claiming you are some sort of hot shot around here. Again, this is pretty much a straight up farse and attempt at argumentum ad hominem. I did not use that as any sort of means to further my points on the Fighter. Seeing as these are both fallascious arguments, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lecturing people on fallacies. Taken out of context, of course. I wasn't trying to boost my own position, I was pointing out how he's not going to get anywhere by saying that I'm some clueless newbie, especially in his position... and that in itself was argumentum ad hominem. Honestly, it seems like I can't say a single thing in this thread without you guys trying to wildly twist my words. And twisting the words into some argument your opponent didn't make is a straw man argument (such as me saying "Yeah, bull rushing isn't that useful in a lot of cases" get turned into "HOW DOES THAT MAKE THE FIGHTER USELESS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?!" when I in fact had never said that the Fighter was a useless party member.), and as such that's why you're getting called on logical fallacies. If you guys don't want to be called on them, don't use them. It's much more civil that way. Pretty simple. Don't use them, don't get called on them. And seriously, if you want to have any sort of progressive and civil argument, you have to take into account actual logic. At this point, you can't actually argue... you have to repeatedly try to clarify your statements from people who keep making arguments against something you didn't say. To have to deal with that for *pages* is utterly ridiculous. I don't see an authority anywhere in this thread. Just someone touting that his opinion is better than someone else's because he's been here longer and these phantom people apparently think it's better. Taken in context, it was a counter to his absurd claim that I was a clueless newbie who couldn't be taken seriously (when instead, I'm a veteran member of the boards, while he is in fact the new member) that he gave in place of any real argument. Besides, the anti-fighter camp is riddled with poor arguments anyways. If you can call them arguments. It's mostly just opinions stated as facts. I would agree. Both sides have more than their fair share of idiots. And Appeal to Authority is inevitably a fallacy. Yes, it is, and I wasn't using that quote you juts gave to further my point, I was using that quote you just gave to shoot down his comment that I'm clearly a clueless newbie whose opinion doesn't matter that was given first in order to shoot down *my* argument without any real counterpoints (which is argumentum ad hominem) and highlight its irony. I pointed out that that's a rather odd statement to make, considering that he's the one who's new to the boards, and I've garnered something of a reputation over the course of my time here. I made no statement or claim that this made my opinion on this matter right. Again, you're taking things wildly out of context in an attempt to slander the opposition. Look at the relevant quoted text that went with what you quoted. What it basically comes down to is that you're taking a quote out of context in order to try to disavow anyone who disagrees with you, which is argumentum ad hominem.
Otto the Bugbear 03-11-07, 03:03 PM	Can someone restore my faith in Fighters? Sure. Just you just have to ignore one thing. You just have to ignore how easy it is to completely hose yourself with poor choices while advancing in the Fighter class, causing you to be stuck with a poor character and no way to change it around, short of retiring the character and bringing in one that hasn't been hosed. Unless of course you want to bring in a supplement that specifically included optional rules to help relieve that burden.
OneWinged4ngel 03-11-07, 03:14 PM	Sure. Just you just have to ignore one thing. You just have to ignore how easy it is to completely hose yourself with poor choices while advancing in the Fighter class, causing you to be stuck with a poor character and no way to change it around, short of retiring the character and bringing in one that hasn't been hosed. Unless of course you want to bring in a supplement that specifically included optional rules to help relieve that burden. One option would be PHB II's retraining rules (they've got a whole chapter on it) if you can get your DM to allow it. This definitely takes off a bit of the burden of having to choose your path so carefully in order to be competitive. Also, you'll want to have access to a lot of non-core supplements, since core only kinda leaves you dry for many of the popular fighter builds.
Otto the Bugbear 03-11-07, 03:39 PM	One option would be PHB II's retraining rules (they've got a whole chapter on it) if you can get your DM to allow it. This definitely takes off a bit of the burden of having to choose your path so carefully in order to be competitive. Also, you'll want to have access to a lot of non-core supplements, since core only kinda leaves you dry for many of the popular fighter builds. Yeah. That's the supplement I was subtly alluding to.
OneWinged4ngel 03-11-07, 04:01 PM	Yeah. That's the supplement I was subtly alluding to. I know, I was just elaborating for the sake of the OP ^^;;
dragynson1 03-11-07, 04:17 PM	Just a quick question , yes or no answer. PLS Does everyone here agree that a completely core, PHB 1, only fighter is very underpowered?
AllisterH 03-11-07, 04:37 PM	Just a quick question , yes or no answer. PLS Does everyone here agree that a completely core, PHB 1, only fighter is very underpowered? You probably won't get even that. What you can best hope for is that the core-only fighter can be easily built wrong by a novice. As well, it is very focused in at best 2 areas of combat (trip/mounted) which are highly campaign dependent.
Flan 03-11-07, 07:14 PM	Just a quick question , yes or no answer. PLS Does everyone here agree that a completely core, PHB 1, only fighter is very underpowered? Core only is a completely different game. Spell resistance can actually hinder casters. Casters get to choose from less than 20 spells in a level instead of 200. No Divine Metamagic. If they also got rid of metamagic rods from DMG then casters would be looking 16 levels not being completely broken.
malisteen 03-11-07, 08:01 PM	Sadly, metamagic rods are core, and pure core druid has natural spell and can wild shape for massive con & hp boosts, all day long by mid levels (unless the polymorph revision is actually errata and written into srd?). So, at high levels: core fighter is terrible, core casters are still broken. Non core high levels: monoclass fighter doesn't suck in a fight (he's still far from what you might call 'powerful', but I wouldn't necessarily call him 'weak'), but core caster classes with non-core upgrades are completely broken.
FrostHammer 03-11-07, 08:31 PM	metamagic rods ar eint he DMG. I'd say that's core.
Otto the Bugbear 03-11-07, 09:53 PM	metamagic rods ar eint he DMG. I'd say that's core. Oooo! Sorry. No Jepardy final round for you. Enlarge, Extend, Silent, Quicken, Empower and Maximize. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm
navar100 03-11-07, 10:50 PM	Er, fighter with Equipment I do think is a bad case of how D&D is different than what we expect. As I'vbe mentioned in other threads, take a look at the sources for D&D fighters. From Western sources such as Conan, Legolas, Hercules, Lancelot to Eastern sources like anime/manga and the history of console RPGs. The fighters explictly didn't have a lot of magic items. Maybe just a signature sword like Excalibur or some impressive magic item (Hercules lion cloak that made him invulnerable). But gerneally speaking, ask anyone that plays D&D to name a "fighter" from fantasy/mythology, I'm willing to be that at most they have 3 items with the majority having none. Yet Conan regularly faced down Elder gods and demons from the pits of Hell and came out on top with just hit wits. It is hard to translate that to D&D where pretty much everyone above a certain level REQUIRES a magic caravan. True, all classes suffer from this but conversely, the fighter, the class that is mundane, is affected the most. Give a 20th level fighter the gear he had at 1st level and in most situations, he do worse than the cleric with the same restriction. Both aren't going to be doing as well versus a Balor but I'm willing to bet that the cleric would probably do better versus a lower level Devil/Demon than our fighter friend. That's just a matter of taste. D&D utilizes having the proper gear. Considering the stereotype of deriding the idea of people playing Drizzt clones, it can go equaly against palying a Conan, Legolas, Sir Lanceleot, Hercules clone, and just play your own original character. However, that's also just personal taste.
navar100 03-11-07, 10:52 PM	Sure. Just you just have to ignore one thing. You just have to ignore how easy it is to completely hose yourself with poor choices while advancing in the Fighter class, causing you to be stuck with a poor character and no way to change it around, short of retiring the character and bringing in one that hasn't been hosed. Unless of course you want to bring in a supplement that specifically included optional rules to help relieve that burden. Which is true of all classes, even if some classes have an easier time of recovering than others.
navar100 03-11-07, 10:57 PM	Just a quick question , yes or no answer. PLS Does everyone here agree that a completely core, PHB 1, only fighter is very underpowered? Not in comparison to completely core only other classes. That is not saying the fighter is uberoverlord over everyone, just not uberweakling. Spellcasters can yell Natural Spell, Gate, and Divine Power all they want. That doesn't take away that the fighter can do alright.
navar100 03-11-07, 11:01 PM	Oooo! Sorry. No Jepardy final round for you. Enlarge, Extend, Silent, Quicken, Empower and Maximize. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm And fighters get magic items too, like boots of speed, a helm of teleportation, cloak of resistance, mithral full plate +5 with heavy fortification, and other things. Or are we going back to the idea spellcasters just have "better" items?:rolleyes:
Khan the Destroyer 03-11-07, 11:30 PM	Slander. You're misrepresenting what I said. I had pointed out the irony of his comment that *my* opinions were invalid because I was "clearly clueless" etc. I in no way said, nor suggested, that the rest of his statements were invalid because of that. I merely said he's not going to win any arguments by saying that my opinion is superfluous and something that can just be blown off (which somehow you're now trying to tack on me instead of him, just because I'm on the other side). No, I'm not tacking it on you other than him because you're on the other side. I'm tacking it in you other than him because I agree with him. I find it absolutely pointless to point out that any monsters can be difficult for a fighter to trip, bull rush, hit, etc. The fighter has feats and equipment to help him overcome obstacles. Just like every other class has resources to overcome obstacles. So, enlighten me. What was the point of your posts that Flan replied to if it wasn't to show that a fighter can be shut down? Observe the relevant quote in context, because making up your own context is exactly why you guys are committing so many straw men. Again, this is pretty much a straight up farse and attempt at argumentum ad hominem. It's not an attempt at anything logic-man. I'm just stating what I observed. He said 'Dude, you're clueless' and you pretty much said 'A lot of people here seem to think I'm not'. What's your point? I did not use that as any sort of means to further my points on the Fighter. You are right. That was my mistake. You haven't used anything to further your points on the fighter. Taken out of context, of course. I wasn't trying to boost my own position, I was pointing out how he's not going to get anywhere by saying that I'm some clueless newbie, especially in his position... and that in itself was argumentum ad hominem. Yes, you pointed out the futility in his statement by commenting on how other people wiould disagree with him. Both comments sound equally worthless to me. Honestly, it seems like I can't say a single thing in this thread without you guys trying to wildly twist my words. And twisting the words into some argument your opponent didn't make is a straw man argument (such as me saying "Yeah, bull rushing isn't that useful in a lot of cases" get turned into "HOW DOES THAT MAKE THE FIGHTER USELESS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?!" when I in fact had never said that the Fighter was a useless party member.), and as such that's why you're getting called on logical fallacies. If you guys don't want to be called on them, don't use them. I don't really care if you call anyone, including myself, on logical fallacies. It seems to be the only thing you can comment on that isn't an unsupported opinion. And I agree. You haven't said a fighter is a useless party member. You have only said that they are one trick ponies. It takes a heavy amount of specialization to even get them to be one trick ponies. And even then they are easily countered. So not in so many words, but let's not try and rewrite history either. You have clearly demonstrated your opinion of the fighter's power. It's much more civil that way. Coming from someone who has called people ignorant and immature. And no, honesty is not always civil either. I would agree. Both sides have more than their fair share of idiots. Wait.. are we being civil or engaging in hypocrisy? What it basically comes down to is that you're taking a quote out of context in order to try to disavow anyone who disagrees with you, which is argumentum ad hominem. Oh please. I would be reduced to that level if you had actually provided evidence that I cannot refute demonstrating the fighter's underpoweredness. Then I might resort to personal attacks. Instead, I have someone that hasn't provided a single argument at all against the fighter lecturing people on how to argue. Even in this entire post you have failed to provide anything except more talk on fallacies. Yay. I have wikipedia as well.
mobius2702 03-11-07, 11:33 PM	It seems like wherever I go these days, people are ALWAYS saying that pretty much anything trounces a fighter, or fighters are unimpressive, or other classes do a fighter's job better than it can, and so on and so forth... I like fighters. I often play them. They're easy to generate, pick up, and play, but... If they're really worthless even by the standards of the "balanced" core rules... I don't know what to believe... I'll give it a shot. Here's a stab at a core only fighter/20. He doesn't have a title, because I can't think of one. But here are his final stats: HP: 154 avg. Saves: Fort +14 Ref +11 Will +10 Not too bad for saves. His out of combat skills of note: Diplomacy +14.5 Sense Motive +9 and 5 languages. Seems like a good diplomat to me. Not overpowering, but he isn't going to make things worse, and more than likely will improve the attitudes of NPCs. +14.5 is a great place to put Diplomacy for "attitude adjustment" purposes, and easy to get to as a fighter. And Sense Motive +9, not great, but 50% chance of getting that "hunch". His "Guarding" skills: Spot/Listen: +18.5 - That's as good as it can get for cross-class skills without bumping WIS. But +18.5 is still pretty good. And what can he do in combat? Fire 5 arrows at +25/+25/+20/+15/+10... while mounted, any time he wants to during the mount's move. While ignoring anything less than total cover/concealment. Into melee. And let's not forget he can pick up almost any weapon and attack four times/round at a +21/+16/+11/+6. Oh, and he still has 3 FBF that I haven't gotten around to placing. I don't think this combat approach is possible with any other straight 20 class. (I know shortbow is only 1d6, we've all seen the effects when items are added into the mix.) And this had to have been done before. I'm not that smart. Is it impressive? Not compared to Wizard/Cleric/Druid 20. The out of combat abilities pale in comparison to rogue (but rogue can't come close in combat abilities). Rangers can meet the prowess with a bow (but not while mounted), and Paladins can do cool stuff with a mount (but never meet the prowess with a bow). Is this an attempt to show fighters are the best class? No. This is an example of what a fighter/20 can do that no other straight class can do. Characters like this are why fighters are fine as is. Thanks for your time. *shuddering in corner waiting to be torn to shreds...*
OneWinged4ngel 03-11-07, 11:40 PM	It's not an attempt at anything logic-man. Now you've even resorted to name calling in your continuous baiting. Besides, if you're opposed to a man being logical, what does that make you? Illogic-man? I'm just stating what I observed. He said 'Dude, you're clueless' and you pretty much said 'A lot of people here seem to think I'm not'. And then you went and said that, instead of that being a response solely to that, I was trying to disavow all arguments by doing so... which is either a case of you being seriously mistaken or active baiting. You are right. That was my mistake. You haven't used anything to further your points on the fighter. See, the sad thing is that you're probably being sarcastic here, when that's exactly what I've been telling you this whole time. Yes, ever since the post you keep harping about, I have not made any real effort to make *any* point on the Fighter. *ALL* I asked for in that post was for you to validate your claim that Fighters can be effective at many things at high levels, and all that got me was a bunch of crazy rotweilers screaming at me and getting some sort of twisted meaning out of asking a question. All my posts from that point have been an apparently futile attempt to clarify my intent to people who apparently refuse to listen to any reason (as evidenced by your revulsion at following the basic principles of logic). My real, extensive arguments were done with a good while ago, and I've not bothered to repost any of that here. I simply asked "How can they be decent at many things?" I asked for validation of the claim that they indeed could do so many things. That's not a real argument, and if you think it is... then you're pretty much fighting straw men. Which is to say you guys have been attacking a bunch of imaginary arguments I didn't actually make in any of the relevant posts, and indeed flaming and baiting. The entire exchange has been ridiculous, and as I pointed out on many occasions (and you don't really seem to care, indeed making "being a logical person" into some sort of twisted insult) completely illogical. :nonono:
Khan the Destroyer 03-11-07, 11:48 PM	Mobius, can you give us your starting stats and any items you're using? I'm confused about your saves and skills bonuses. I will throw up some builds tomorrow as well. Now you've even resorted to name calling in your continuous baiting. Besides, if you're opposed to a man being logical, what does that make you? Illogic-man? I am not opposed to logic. I am opposed to a focus on logic to the exclusion of any sort of discussion. If you'd like to refer to me as Illogic-man, feel free. And then you went and said that, instead of that being a response solely to that, I was trying to disavow all arguments by doing so... which is either a case of you being seriously mistaken or active baiting. Not baiting. You seem to be caustic enough without needing to bait you. And in fact, I was mistaken. It seemed to me that you were refuting his comment that you didn't know what you were talking about because other people respected your opinion. Seems simple and honest enough. Yeah, ever since the post you keep harping about, I have not made any effort to make *any* point on the Fighter. *ALL* I asked for in that post was for you to validate your claim that Fighters can be effective at many things at high levels, and all that got me was a bunch of crazy rotweilers screaming at me and getting some sort of twisted meaning out of asking a question. All my posts from that point have been an apparently futile attempt to clarify my intent to people who apparently refuse to listen to any reason (as evidenced by your revulsion at following the basic principles of logic) See, you're calling me a dog, crazy, and illogical. And I'm not going to fret about it, because it doesn't really matter. I apologize for not linking to the builds. I'll have some builds up tomorrow hopefully. I'll get a link to the other three in a second. EDIT: Whoa. Holy crazy edits Batman!
OneWinged4ngel 03-11-07, 11:51 PM	I am not opposed to logic. I am opposed to a focus on logic to the exclusion of any sort of discussion. I might point out that I was trying to further the discussion by stopping the ridiculous straw men arguments that were going on just because I asked a simple question. EDIT: Whoa. Holy crazy edits Batman! Heh, I have a terrible habit of posting something then editing it several times within about 30 seconds of posting, especially in the case of me doing multiple quotes. I do it all the time. Sorry about that... I know it can be annoying to people who post immediately after I do. See, you're calling me a dog, crazy, and illogical. And I'm not going to fret about it, because it doesn't really matter. I apologize for not linking to the builds. I'll have some builds up tomorrow hopefully. I'll get a link to the other three in a second. I'll try to think of a nicer term for people flinging severe insults at me for no apparent reason and with no real basis, then. And yes, I do think that you are making illogical arguments. I personally don't see how there's anything wrong or rude with pointing that out. ___ Let me put something straight, since you guys seem to get a lot of implied and assumed meanings: On interpreting my posts: My parlance rarely contains implied meanings of any kind; if you are receiving an implication not explicitly stated word for word in the post, it’s likely a misinterpretation. What you see is generally what you get, and unless very specifically said so, is meant in a friendly context even if and ESPECIALY if the post refutes a point you may have made.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 12:02 AM	OneWinged4ngel, fair enough :). I'm putting this whole fiasco behind me. Here is a link to the post containing the three revised fighter builds I made. http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11672608&postcount=661 Those are all without the Mounted Combat feats due to some complaints over the Leadership feat being used to acquire a mount. The original build had Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, and Leadership to gain a Pegasus mount. It also had a lot of mistakes. If you see any mistakes here, it isn't because I'm trying to cheat, it's because I'm human. The items I have assumed are the Belt of Mighty Champions (Complete Divine), a composite longbow with the Splitting enhancement (Champions of Ruin), and a very specialized melee weapon. In the case of the Flail, it would be a +1 Adamantine Sweeping, Disarming, Shadowstriking Flail. This would accomodate tripping, sundering, disarming, and damage reduction. I haven't given much thought to armor and other defensive items. And I'd like to get more builds up. For skills, this particular fighter would have 4/level. I might put those in Handle Animal (for trained scouts and guards), Intimidate (to be a presence during negotiations), Jump, and Climb. EDIT: More edits? Let me know when you're done ;). Also, I forgot to add... for those builds that include Knockback (I think all three do), I assume that the fighter pays for a permanent Enlarge spell at level 9 (the earliest it can be done).
mobius2702 03-12-07, 12:07 AM	Mobius, can you give us your starting stats and any items you're using? I'm confused about your saves and skills bonuses. I will throw up some builds tomorrow as well. STR 12 DEX 15 CON 14 INT 14 WIS 14 CHA 10 32 point buy. Sorry if that's too high. The campaigns I play in use that, so it's what I'm used to. As far as items? Didn't equip the guy at all. I could post the detailed build, but I didn't want to bore everyone with the process. I was only interested in the results. And I apologize for one other mistake. It's not "PHB Core" only. I used Complete Warrior for a couple of feats as well (Improved Mounted Archery, Improved Rapid Shot). Again, the campaigns I play in default allow that, so that's what I'm used to. And meh, take those away from the experiment, and ranger suffers too (which, as far as I can tell, ranger is the only class that can approach this combat style), and the fighter has 5 feats available which could serve nicely in specializing in a melee weapon.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 12:14 AM	Well then, would you mind going in detail? How is your reflex save +11 when your dexterity is 15 for instance? Same with your Will save. And your Spot check. Is this due to feats? Or am I just too tired to do math correctly (I should really go to bed)?
mobius2702 03-12-07, 12:17 AM	Well then, would you mind going in detail? How is your reflex save +11 when your dexterity is 15 for instance? Same with your Will save. And your Spot check. Is this due to feats? Or am I just too tired to do math correctly (I should really go to bed)? The dex is 15 at 1st level, the 5 level bumps took it to 20. Will save is Iron Will Spot is max cross-class, Skill Focus (Spot), and Alertness. ANd there's a chance I did some math wrong too.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 12:23 AM	Ahh, that makes more sense now, thank you :).
HamHam 03-12-07, 12:45 AM	And fighters get magic items too, like boots of speed, a helm of teleportation, cloak of resistance, mithral full plate +5 with heavy fortification, and other things. Or are we going back to the idea spellcasters just have "better" items?:rolleyes: They do. Metamagic rods are force multipliers, essentially, easily doubling a character's power if used properly. I can't think of one core magic item that can do the same thing for a Fighter: the vast majority add liniarly to his abilities or shore up weaknesses (also a liniar increase).
Qube 03-12-07, 03:53 AM	the core-only fighter can be easily built wrong by a novice. QFT core casters are still broken IMO: CoDZilla is broken, arcane spellcasters need to be aware of their mortality. They do. Metamagic rods are force multipliers, essentially, easily doubling a character's power if used properly. I can't think of one core magic item that can do the same thing for a Fighter: vorpal weapons, heavy fortification armor to name a few.
FrostHammer 03-12-07, 04:20 AM	a vorpal weapon does not double a fighter's effectiveness. Very useful, yes, but doubling, no.
navar100 03-12-07, 04:27 AM	They do. Metamagic rods are force multipliers, essentially, easily doubling a character's power if used properly. I can't think of one core magic item that can do the same thing for a Fighter: the vast majority add liniarly to his abilities or shore up weaknesses (also a liniar increase). It's called individual player's taste.
Otto the Bugbear 03-12-07, 07:34 AM	And fighters get magic items too, like boots of speed, a helm of teleportation, cloak of resistance, mithral full plate +5 with heavy fortification, and other things. Or are we going back to the idea spellcasters just have "better" items?:rolleyes: :uh-huh: WTF?! I mean, really? He posted that "Metamagic rods are not in the DMG, so not core" I responded with "Yes they are" And then it seems you read that, and interpret it as, "Fighters don't get to have nice shiny items too"? What translator are you using, exactly? Sheesh. When I said that yes, metamagic rods are in the DMG, here's what I meant... are you ready? I bet you can see this coming... I meant, Yes they [metamagic rods] are [in the DMG]. Sure, it may have stemmed from some argument about "core magic items", but go take it up with those people. My post was exactly what it says. Nothing between the lines. Nothing hidden. Nothing alluded to. Sometimes knee-jerk reactions can be useful or helpful, but it's pretty rare. And, completely unrelated to the topic but, learn to multi-post. I'll bet your posts get ignored more often when you have 71* in a row, rather than 1 compressed post. * Obvious exaggeration to relieve the tension!
Greendevilman 03-12-07, 07:37 AM	It's called individual player's taste. So gear that has measurable mechanical effects on class efficiency can't be compared because some players prefer one kind of gear to another? Or gear that merely seems to be giving concrete mechanical benefits in fact does not and the overall effects of these benefits are totally subjective? Because I'm not sure I understand what your argument here is. Is an item that gives a x2 multiplier only to be preferred to one that gives a static +4 modifier as a matter of taste (assuming we're capable of getting whatever is being multiplied to +3 of higher)?
AllisterH 03-12-07, 09:51 AM	IMO: CoDZilla is broken, arcane spellcasters need to be aware of their mortality. . I tend to agree with this as well. Arcane spellcasting isn't broken. The wizard, yeah, he's broken (the limitation of spells per day is too easily circumvented via the scaling effect of spells and the item creation feats) AND certain spells (I'm looking at you 9th level and Polymorph) but arcane casters, nope. Few people consider the warmage, beguiler and dread necromancer "broken" and the sorceror is regularly considered the weakest of the core spellcasters by a good margin. It gives me good hope that WOTC has realized that in 4 edition that the main culprit are the spells (notice, WOTC is putting out more spontaneous/at will arcane classes AND separating the Polymorph school which to me means that it isn't the system itself that's broken). Its weird that clerics/druids have gone from "weakest class" to "strongest class" though. I know they wanted people to play them but I don't think they intended for them to be so overpowered.
Argaud 03-12-07, 11:23 AM	They do. Metamagic rods are force multipliers, essentially, easily doubling a character's power if used properly. I can't think of one core magic item that can do the same thing for a Fighter: the vast majority add liniarly to his abilities or shore up weaknesses (also a liniar increase). Boots of Haste. Split bows. Valorous weapons. Two-weapon fighting feat chain.
malisteen 03-12-07, 11:34 AM	The only one of those that does that is split bows, a forgotten reams upgrade from a book intended for villains run by the DM. The others are all linear increases. Not bad, but not great, and certainly none of them constitutes a straight multiplier of your effectiveness. As a side note, for some reason the Splitting upgrade is commonly decried as broken, while metamagic rods, for some reason, aren't, which I find strange.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 11:41 AM	The only one of those that does that is split bows, a forgotten reams upgrade from a book intended for villains run by the DM often decried as one of the most broken upgrades in existance, and thus is unlikely to be allowed. That can be said about many things. If people are constantly comparing the fighter to the wizard or cleric, and don't take steps to determine what powerful spells will be 'unlikely allowed', it seems unfair to start calling fighter resources 'broken' and 'unlikely allowed'. I personally don't think the Splitting enhancement is that strong relative to everything else in the game. So fighter's can deal damage at range now? Cool. Still nowhere near as powerful as a caster. And if relative power to the caster is regarded when determining a fighter's underpoweredness, it should be regarded when determining his overpoweredness as well no? EDIT: In other words... If a fighter is underpowered because a caster can cast Polymorph, Righteous Might, Haste, and Divine Power... then wouldn't it follow that a fighter's splitting bow is not overpowered because a wizard has Maximize Spell, Twin Spell, Repeat Spell, Split Ray, and Quicken Spell, all of which double the power of his spells? And can be stacked. I think both are faulty logic. But if you assume one...
HamHam 03-12-07, 12:07 PM	That can be said about many things. If people are constantly comparing the fighter to the wizard or cleric, and don't take steps to determine what powerful spells will be 'unlikely allowed', it seems unfair to start calling fighter resources 'broken' and 'unlikely allowed'. The point is not so much that it might be overpowered, but rather that it isn't Core. I specifically said "core magic item". Splitting is not Core.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 12:14 PM	The point is not so much that it might be overpowered, but rather that it isn't Core. I specifically said "core magic item". Splitting is not Core. That was not Malisteen's point, or at least, not all of it, which is what I was responding to. You can tell because I quoted him ;). I'm not really interested in whether there is a core item that grants the same virtual effects of a metamagic rod for the fighter, because I'm not interested in comparing the fighter to the wizard to determine his strengths. My point is that dismissing the Splitting enhancement because it seems overpowered to some people is inconsistent with the current trend of determining power levels relative to caster power levels. Compared to a caster's resources, the Splitting enhancement is not overpowered.
Flan 03-12-07, 12:49 PM	No one has mentioned martial scrolls and I'm wondering why. For 50 GP a Martial Spirit or Child of Shadow scroll lasts all day and while they're not exactly mind blowingly powerful it's pretty decent at mid levels for mobile melee or melee that get in lots of hits. Admittedly fighters casting "Heal" at 7650GP a pop gets expensive with Strike of Righteous Vitality for anyone pre-epic, but still, it's an option.
HamHam 03-12-07, 12:52 PM	That was not Malisteen's point, or at least, not all of it, which is what I was responding to. You can tell because I quoted him ;). Actually, you misunderstood his point. I can tell, because you quoted him. What he actually said was "Splitting is from a sketchy Forgotten Realms book, and thus unlikely to be allowed in many campaigns, because it's from a sketchy Forgotten Realms book.
AllisterH 03-12-07, 01:04 PM	You know, given the supplements out there, has anyone ever put together a list of feats they would like to see for a fighter assuming that it had to be the same number as currently in the PHB?
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 01:10 PM	Actually, you misunderstood his point. I can tell, because you quoted him. What he actually said was "Splitting is from a sketchy Forgotten Realms book, and thus unlikely to be allowed in many campaigns, because it's from a sketchy Forgotten Realms book.Along with the fact that it is intended for villain-use and that it is considered broken. I know what he said. He didn't only mention the fact that it was Forgotten Realms. He concluded that it was unlikely to be allowed for a number of reasons: 1. It is a forgotten realms upgrade. 2. It is supposedly intended for villain-use by the DM. 3. It is considered a broken upgrade. Now, I responded mostly to point number 3 (though in certain instances, my point can be expanded to points 1 and 2 as well). I don't see where I misinterpreted anything. If I did, Malisteen can clear it up later if he deems this issue important enough. Clearly, he refers to Split bows as an upgrade in his post, one that is both Forgotten Realms in origin, intended for villain-use, and considered broken by many people.
malisteen 03-12-07, 01:26 PM	That can be said about many things. If people are constantly comparing the fighter to the wizard or cleric, and don't take steps to determine what powerful spells will be 'unlikely allowed', it seems unfair to start calling fighter resources 'broken' and 'unlikely allowed'. Champions of Ruin is a Campaign-Specific Book of Vile Darkness. There is no reason to think anyone outside of Forgotten Realms would know it, and even within Forgotten Realms is specifically tagged for villains. Even ignoring the latter, it's still campaign specific, and specific to a high powered campaign with even more powerful spell casting options. Everything in Forgotten Realms gets a bonus power boost because it's for Forgotten Realms, especially their caster options, but I don't see their caster options instantly put down when mentioned in other threads on this board, the way Split Bows have been. FR specific melee upgrades, like the regional feat for tripping big things (itself restricted not only by setting but by region within that setting and available only to first level characters) and split bows for me do not make good arguements for power comparisons between core or generic setting material. One doesn't say that a Greyhawk Fighter has a powerful answer to wizards in the form of the 'Channel Spellfire' feat. Note that I don't have a problem with Split Bows, I've just noticed that they seem to fall under the banhammer more quickly then core magic spells, or even FR campaign setting spells. It's true that the power issue isn't so necessary to the point, although one can still argue (and I still believe) that a fighter is lackluster compared to spellcasters even in a polymorph-free, divine metamagic-free, post-errata-wild shape world. Still, I'll go back and edit it out if need be. The point was that of those items mentioned, only the split bow actually multiplied a warriors output, and access to that item cannot be assumed since it is inherently limited to a single, high-powered campaign setting. That DMs who look at it respond with instant bannings (when they don't apply such bannings to metamagic rods or broken spells) is a separate issue, and one that points towards the "magic can do cool things, swords can't" mentality, which is terribly outdated in the world of modern fantasy.
Khan the Destroyer 03-12-07, 01:35 PM	Champions of Ruin is a Campaign-Specific Book of Vile Darkness. There is no reason to think anyone outside of Forgotten Realms would know it, and even within Forgotten Realms is specifically tagged for villains. There is nothing evil, vile, or villainous about the Splitting weapon enhancement. I don't see why a DM would restrict it solely to villains or evil PC's. That's like saying only elves, halflings, and raptorans can use the Blurstrike weapon enhancement because it appears in Races of the Wild. Even ignoring the latter, it's still campaign specific, and specific to a high powered campaign with even more broken spell casting options. Do you say fighters have a fine answer to magic because they can burn a feat on 'Channel Spellfire', or whatever it's called? You're arguing something else now. I said I don't think that the Splitting enhancement is broken. Further, I said that people who argue fighters are underpowered by comparing them to casters should continue to compare fighters to casters before they call something overpowered. I didn't say it was a fighter's answer to casters. You included the power level in your assessment, which is what I responded to. I can see the 'campaign-specific' argument. But again, this is really dependent on the game. I know some people (my DM's actually) that pretty much allow anything from any of the books, even campaign-specific material. On the flip side, I'm sure without a doubt there are people that don't allow FR stuff in their games. Oh well. EDIT: I didn't catch your edits before I posted.
malisteen 03-12-07, 01:48 PM	no problem. I have a bad habit of posting and then re-reading to edit afterwords. I apologize. And you were right to respond to my origional statement on power balance. I did not phrase it as intended. I wasn't trying to say that it was overpowered, but rather that many DMs might dissalow it as such who wouldn't do so for core material that puts casters in front of fighters (personal opinion!) to begin with. It's probably just personal experience on my part that DM's are quicker to see non-caster options as 'overpowered' and ban them then caster options, but it's been so frequent in experience that it's hard for me not to think of it as a general trend.