Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 glimeral_dup Dec 12, 2004 0:57:18	Tacticians, Grunts and Everyone in between:A discourse on playing a good fighter. Fighters are not a class for the feint hearted. Classically fighters are painted as the cop-out class requiring very little knowledge of the rules in order to play them effectively. This is no longer the case. I state this for the record. Fighters are no longer the cop-out class. Barbarians are. Within this article I hope to paint fighters in the light of how they are intended to be played. Player's who are looking for a simple character should look over the fighter in preference to a class with a more established framework, only using the fighter as a feat engine and tool to enhance the framework of your desired class(es). Classically, a fighter is painted as a simple two-dimensional class. This concept has been driven into the minds of gamers, movie watchers and novel readers for more than three decades making it a very hard image to shatter. The third edition fighter struggles desperately to break away from this stereotype. No longer are they simple meatshields who stick a sword in the nearest creature. Now they are tactical masters of the battle field, able to change the tide of battle quickly and with precision providing, of course, that they are well made, and well played. The classic image of the fighter which has been handed down from gamer to gamer for the last three decades would be the grunts on the battle field. The grunts who, more often than not, were hacked down and littered the field with their blood in the hundreds. Soldiers of this kind who survived a battle did so, not through skill but through luck. In the real world, fighters who survived were ones who surveyed the ebb and flow of the battle around them and picked their battles, unless of course their battles picked them. These fighters looked for any way possible to not only even the playing field, but turn the tide of battle in their advantage, seeking the best tactical option at their disposal in each second so that they could end the fight before their opponent could react. These warriors who survived, rose through the ranks of their military unit to become tacticians and generals leading armies of grunts into battle and making swift decisions to change the course of entire battles. Fighters who wade through battle without a tactical thought would not last more than a few battles in the real world. Sadly, the image painted above has been imprinted into the minds of gamers everywhere. Unfortunately, such an image is wrong. The third edition fighter struggles desperately to break away from this image and become the tactician he was meant to be. To create perspective here, I will compare the fighter with other more focused combatants, informing you of how the fighters greatest strength, his versatility, is also his greatest weakness when compared with the framework offered by his other militant cousins. For the sake of comparison, this discourse will only compare the fighter against stereotypical representatives from each class. While exceptions exist within every class, the fighters' militant cousins exist in a framework that makes following their stereotype very tempting for many players. Paladins To begin this comparison we look to the Paladin. The paladin has a repertoire of supernatural abilities, good combat ability and a small selection of spells at his disposal. His feat selection is quite limited meaning that most paladins will choose feats which either accent their already formidable powers, or give them combat tactics outside those granted by their core abilities. Having the same proficiency with weapons and armor as his fighter cousin, with the exception of tower shields, the paladin is the equal of the fighter in terms of combat ability. Painted stereotypically as being holy knights, many players play their paladin characters with a very archetypal knightly feel choosing feats which accent this image of the heavy plated warrior on horseback. To reinforce this stereotype, the paladins 5th level ability grants them a supernatural steed that carries them into battle. For this reason, most paladins will choose feats that accent their combat ability, improve their mounted options, or improve their divine might. This framework focuses the player of a paladin character so that they are more inclined to build onto this framework and choose their feats, weapon and armor choices and special abilities accordingly. Rangers Where the paladin brings to mind the image of the exemplary platemailed knight on horseback, the ranger paints the image of the bow wielding, forest running sniper or the swashbuckling defensive warrior, which is only further enhanced by their combat style class features. Being a class focused on tracking, specialized combat against favored foes and wilderness survival, most rangers choose feats which optimize their combat styles, improve their survivability in the wilderness, or hone their skills against their favored enemies. The rangers favored enemy bonuses tend to drive the class towards being a more specialized warrior, deadly against their hated foes, but mediocre against others. As many of their class abilities require light armor, the ranger tends to focus on their Dexterity so that they can go toe-to-toe against other warriors without taking a hit as frequently. For this reason, even the melee ranger strongly considers taking weapon finesse as one of their feat choices and is more likely to wield lighter weapons than another militant warrior, especially when weighing up the penalties of fighting with two light weapons vs. fighting with heavier weapons. With slightly less frequency, a melee ranger will focus on their strength with equal or more preference than their dexterity so that they can wield heavier weapons. In the long term however, the reliance on two statistics begins to wear on the ranger who must divide their attention between two important statistics. Missile rangers on the other hand, tend to universally focus on dexterity as it both boosts their combat ability and their armor class. Missile rangers also tend to wield lighter weapons and take weapon finesse so that they can take advantage of their high dexterity scores. At the cost of one feat, weapon finesse is not a feat that a smart ranger passes up. For this reason, a well planned ranger will statistically do slightly less damage in melee combat against most opponents, and slightly more damage against their favored enemies, than warriors of other types despite having the same base attack bonus, due to favoring light weapons over heavy weapons. Barbarians Barbarians are painted as being uncivilized, boorish thugs, and while not all barbarians fit this stereotype, it nevertheless is how most people play them. Barbarians have the highest hit dice, best base attack bonus and few special abilities that require much thought. Their defensive abilities and high hit points ensure that, even an inexperienced player can afford to make a few tactical mistakes, such as accidentally setting themselves up for an opponent to easily flank them. Their primary offensive ability and low feat selection often means that most barbarians will take feats which enhance their ability to inflict massive amounts of damage. For this reason we find Power Attack, Cleave, Sunder and many rage related feats in the hands of Barbarians far and wide. Given that by not taking feats in this way, a barbarian will more often than not disadvantage themselves when it comes to their defining traits, that being the ability to deliver massive amounts of damage, the feat selections of a barbarian character are pretty straight forward making this class ideal for an inexperienced character. Rogues It is disappointing to see so many rogues who are still in "thief" mode, especially when the rogue tries to break out of their stereotypical role almost as hard as the fighter does. Nevertheless, rogues are almost as difficult to play effectively in combat as a fighter is. They have far less hit points than warrior classes, a weaker base attack bonus, and a class ability list which gears them for more tactically orientated use. Such tactics being specifically geared towards tumbling, stealth, flanking and mobility (hit and run) assaults against their foes. Lacking the skills to survive toe-to-toe against a trained warrior of any kind for long, many rogues use their limited feat selection to take feats which boost their primary offensive power, boost their non-combat effectiveness or grant them some other edge which evens the playing field moreso. Ultimately however, a rogues primary combat ability is not dependant on their feat selections and so they are as unfettered when it comes to choosing their feats as they are when choosing their skills. Monks Monks are very effective combatants and are much simpler to play than fighters. A monks primary combat ability is to get close to an opponent quickly and efficiently, and then disable them with a variety of unarmed maneuvers. Having less hit points and a weaker base attack bonus, the monks tactics tend to rely more on disarming, tripping, stunning and grappling their foes in order to tip the balance of power in their favor. For this reason, the feat selection of monks is enticingly geared towards expanding on their ability to do these things. Tactically, a monk tends to rush towards their opponent as quickly as possible and harry their opponent so they are unable to effectively defend themselves or launch a counterattack, tumbling efficiently if they have to avoid an attack of opportunity provoked by their movement. Fighters Fighters by definition are experts of combat. By extension, fighters need to know the ebb and flow of combat (and its associated rules) inside and out. Like a deadly game of chess, a fighter must know the strengths and weaknesses of himself and his opponents in order to survive in this high-stakes game of Russian roulette. A fighter's only defining quality is his versatility--which is his greatest asset and his greatest weakness. As he has no framework which lends itself to a specific style of feat, a fighters feat selection is critical in determining whether they are successful or not. Given that in order to properly judge what feats a fighter would most likely need in order to be successful, they must know the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents as well as have a firm understanding of the varied rules and tactical options of combat including, but not limited to, reach, attacks of opportunity, threatened area, squeezing, special attacks, special defenses, grappling, trip attacks, trample and overrun, mounted combat, aerial combat, spellcasting, flanking, disarming, and sundering. Once they have a firm understanding of these mechanics they must then choose one or two styles of combat and determine their feat selection accordingly, always keeping in mind the tactical advantages and disadvantages of their choice. For this reason, players desiring to play fun, enjoyable and successful fighters must have a vast understanding of the varied feats, classes, combat rules, tactics, spells and special abilities available in the game and whether the character is weak or strong against each of the above. Since the list of things a fighter needs to keep track of keeps growing, this can quickly overwhelm the player of a fighter character when building their fighter, often resulting in an overlooked critical flaw which hampers them throughout their career. Unlike another class however which has other abilities to fall back on, a fighter who has a poor feat selection is a very sad individual indeed. Another detail which needs to be considered from a roleplaying perspective when it comes to playing a fighter is this. As all good gamers play their character according to his or her intelligence, and since intelligence is one of the mechanically recognized dump statistics of the fighter class, many players end up playing a tactically weak fighter, as a low intelligence fighter is more likely to have a more straight forward technique in preference to a tactical one. This is good roleplaying. However, it is also a major drawback to the fighter class as mechanically the fighter class is trying to break away from this stereotype due to all the tactical options available to them via their feat selections. Given that mechanically, a fighter attempts to paint itself a new image of being the tactical think tank of battle who quickly turns the tide of combat due to his quick thinking and carefully laid out strategy, having a low intelligence is actually a downside to the class from a roleplaying perspective. For this reason, I feel that intelligence, from a roleplaying perspective, is a very important statistic for the third edition fighter unless that fighter has been built to be a battering ram comparable to the barbarian, except that while the barbarian is a battering ram inherently as a result of class features, the fighter has done so through feat selection. The problem with this is that there is no easily identifiable reason why a fighter should have a good intelligence except if you look at the rules from a roleplaying perspective, that an intelligent fighter would use the varied combat tactics in the rules over a less intelligent character and, as has been pointed out many times, not everyone plays the same style of game. Mechanically a fighter with an intelligence of 3 has just as much option tactically in regards to special attack actions as a fighter with an intelligence of 18. The only advantage a fighter with high intelligence has mechanically is more languages, higher skill points, and higher skill checks with cross-classed intelligence based skills. I feel that this is a major oversight to the class although I cannot think of a good reason why a fighter would mechanically favor intelligence even though the spirit of the class suggests that they do. Finally, while the other combatant classes presented above are more inclined towards a very focused selection of feats as a result of class abilities which entice characters of that class to take them, the fighter has the option of becoming any of the above archetypes, plus so many more that it would be impossible to describe the different types here. In conclusion, the versatility of a fighter can make for a very individualized character, with gross differences in style and feat selection from his peers unlike other more focused classes who tend to only differ in small ways. At the same time, that same versatility means that the player of a dedicated fighter character must be very careful when planning their character concept and feat selection lest they cripple themselves at higher levels of play. On this final note, the dedicated fighter is not a class for the feint hearted or inexperienced player, however, if you are planning on playing a character with a more focused archetypal role such as another core class and/or prestige class, the fighter makes an excellent feat enhancing engine.
#2 loopy Dec 15, 2004 11:08:40	I must disagree with your assessment of Rogues in combat. They have the potential to do exponentially more damage than your common fighter. A well-placed summoned monster or warrior character as well an intuitive use of the delayed action can allow your Rogue to dual-wield and sneak attack for BUCKETS of six-siders. They are weak against specific kinds of targets, but so is every other character class. They all have a Kryptonite monster group out there somewhere.
#3 callista Dec 15, 2004 22:55:33	I agree that a good fighter should fight intelligently; however, I don't think he has to have an INT much above 10 to do so. In our world, just about any student, even those with a normal or slightly low IQ, can pass a calculus class; they'll just have to study more than the guy with the MENSA membership. For that matter, chances are they'll be able to use and teach the information better than the guy who spends 20 minutes studying before the tests and aces the class--just because they've put so much sheer effort into it. Same goes for your average-INT D&D character: Practice makes perfect. Low intelligence just means you need more practice. Training can easily make up for an average intelligence (though probably not a low one); the only difference being that the intelligent PC will learn more quickly the same things that the PC with average intelligence must practice to learn. For example, if you want your INT 10 fighter to use good strategy, he can spend his evenings practicing with his sword, reading about fight strategy, etc.; or he can spend his downtime getting training with a master of combat. High WIS can also make up for an average intelligence. Though a high-INT fighter can think up complicated strategies, the high-WIS fighter (or, for that matter, one with a WIS of 12-13) will think up common-sense strategies, which is often just as good or better. It really doesn't take a sky-high intelligence to do things like seek the higher ground, flank, trip, feint, or use cover; what it does take is an intuitive grasp of what's going on around you. Anyone with a high-average WIS can do that. Naturally, low-level, average-INT fighters won't be as good as low-level, high-INT fighters at using strategy; but neither will be as good as a high-level fighter whatever his intelligence score. Simple practice can teach the average-INT fighter what he needs to know about strategy; and by the time he's level 10, he's probably fought hundreds of opponents in combat. That sort of practice, whatever your IQ, really adds up. So why not role-play your fighter learning about combat through practice, as he levels up? For that matter, any average-Intelligence character can learn about combat, or anything else, this way--for example, strategy in spellcasting or skill use. For example: My level 3 sorcerer started out as a horrible strategist; she drew attacks of opportunity, accidentally Color Sprayed allies, and generally made a nuisance of herself (I will admit these strategic mistakes were partly mine, though they thankfully fit into the RP). Her Intelligence is 12, average; and she is fairly young, so her strategic thinking isn't very good yet. Right now, she is to the point where she's found a few good strategies that generally work, and she uses them; however, a recent party death (partially her fault--and no, I do not advocate letting party members die so you can RP better; this was my mistake as well as my character's) has caused her to begin focusing on her own capabilities in battle, both with spells and with weapons, when she's unable to cast or has run out. Currently I'm having her practice with weapons during the evenings when the party is camped, giving her an excuse to get better strategically despite her average intelligence. Eventually she will multiclass to Ranger; by that time, hopefully, both she and her player will have learned enough strategy not to trip the party up. (And, of course, she'll be getting Fireball eventually... if she's not to kill her party, she *needs* strategy!). So, anyway, that long anecdote is an example of what you can do with role-play to offset an average INT. Through practice, your fighter can learn what he needs to know.
#4 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2004 9:33:11	I must disagree with your assessment of Rogues in combat. They have the potential to do exponentially more damage than your common fighter. A well-placed summoned monster or warrior character as well an intuitive use of the delayed action can allow your Rogue to dual-wield and sneak attack for BUCKETS of six-siders. They are weak against specific kinds of targets, but so is every other character class. They all have a Kryptonite monster group out there somewhere. They don't do any damage on their own though, they absolutely need someone else to try and do this damage, and many things will negate it. Basically they have the potential, but they have no ability of their own to really realise it reliably. As for the thread on whole, it's a good point. I remember Fighters who used to dual wield blunt weapons and just hit things till they or the opponent fell. The over simplistic combat is probably the bane of modern D&D. With combat more three dimensionally pronounced than before, the entire wealth of options presented in feats grants a large array of diversity to all classes. Because of this a Fighter can shine through by handling more of these tactics than other classes, even if they can't out specialise the specialist they can usually deploy counter tactics easily.
#5 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2004 15:36:12	Let me start off by saying good job on showing how the fighter SHOULD be played. However, I also agree that you did not give the Rogue the credit that it deserves. You said that "a rogues primary combat ability is not dependant on their feat selections" - every rogue that I've seen has always depended on their feat selection: Improved Feint being at the head of the pack. I would say that Rogues have only one or two 'sets' of feats that they can take, which include the set that improves sneak attacks (Stunning Fist, Deadly Precision, etc.) and the set that improve attacks by sacrificing Sneak damage (Bleeding Wound, Hamstring). And you left out the other path that many monks choose to follow as well: the Ninja-Monk. You described a martial artist who disables its opponent, but you left out the stealthy monk who relies on catching its opponent flat-footed to deal unholy amounts of damage with a flurry of blows: where each attack will actually deal damage due to the targets lower AC! If someone is looking to play a monk deals damage rather than disables opponents, then feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, and Prone Attack are much more preferable than Improved Disarm and Improved Grapple.
#6 glimeral_dup Dec 20, 2004 3:32:37	Yes I have to admit I did forget about the ninja-monk. What I meant by the rogue wasn't that feats CANT be important to the character, only that their CORE abilities are not feat dependant. A rogue can sneak attack very well by setting themselves up in a flanking situation without needing improved feint. Improved feint makes it easier to be sure, although I have read other threads where many have questioned the usefulness of feinting against characters with full BaB, at this time I have not tested this out so I am choosing not to make an opinion on whether it is useful or not. A fighter IS his feats. A rogue isn't, neither is a monk. They have skills, non-combat applications etc. A fighter isn't one-dimensional, however, they shine in RP situations just as readily as the next character (but not necessarily in skill driven RP situations). Combat is their forte though.
#7 Radagast Jan 06, 2005 11:53:13	Good article, but there IS a game mechanics reason to play Fighters who are at least a bit smarter than average: Combat Expertise requires INT of 13, minimum. Not sure if any other combat-related feats have INT requirements, but others are dependent upon Combat Expertise, so the intelligent fighter (or at least a Fighter who is smarter than average), does have more choices than his dim-witted kin. High intelligent also grants more skill points, though there isn't much in combat a Fighter can do with that... maybe knowledge checks about foes? Or, if one feels the need, put points into Sense Motive to get around Feign attempts by Rogue-types.
#8 vintar Jan 10, 2005 10:04:54	The only thing I disagree with you on is that I think Fighters have a very good reason to get an Int. of 13 - to get access to my favorite feat tree - Combat Expertise. This in turn lets you get Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, Improved Trip, and Whirlwind Attack.
#9 glimeral_dup Jan 10, 2005 18:49:20	I agree, Int 13 is needed to enter the combat expertise tree (my favorite tree also) but, other than that one requirement, there is no reason to have a high Int.... and a fighter who doesn't have Combat Expertise (or related feats) due to going in a different direction, should be no less intelligent is what I'm saying. Of course a character who wants to take Combat Expertise must fulfill its requirements, but what of a mounted Archer, a fighter who focuses on bullrush, overrun/trample, disarm, grapple, trip etc.... All of these tactics assume at least an average intelligence (and training in the use of how to perform them) and yet a fighter with Int 3 can still make these tactical choices just as easily. Take the TACTICAL feats for example. By their very definition, they imply intelligence, yet feats like Elusive Target do not have an Intelligence requirement to use meaning that the most simple minded fighter can be just as TACTICAL as a genius commander. It's feats like Elusive Target which I'm referring to whereby there is no mechanical reason to have intelligence (even though there should be) since the cinematic interpretation of Elusive Target in action would be setting yourself up to be flanked, acting like you are vulnerable and, using your intelligence to pick the right moment, dodge at the very last moment so that the opponent strikes their ally (in respect to one application of the feat). By rights, this feat should have an Int requirement at the very least (most likely in the 13 to 15 range) yet it doesn't. There are numerous other examples of tactics, feats etc which SHOULD not be available to simple minded characters since they require quick thinking and intelligence to use (when you look at it cinematically from a RP perspective).