Why, one might ask. Most of the threads die by detrition. Giving examples and counter examples, and discussions between two people, greatly increases the size of a thread (this means less new people will join), while the people who joined at the start either get bored (possibly by opinion bump posts (“OMG FIGHTER SUX !!1!”) ), lose interest, or find there opinion is enough stressed.
Enter Regdar's Repository. This forum works slower, and opinion bump posts get filtered out.
Now for my opinion...
I find the fighter ... perfect.
< enter brief period so that everyone can get the “OMGWTFBBQHAX” out of their system>
I see a fighter as someone who trains rigorously, unlike the barbarian who uses his emotions to control the battlefield, the paladin who takes of time from training to pray, ...
The core fighter class fits this image perfectly.
The fighter: he fights
The fighter does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-fighter should agree with me that this is what the fighter does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the Fighter can’t do much else but fight. (The skill-focused-fighter, who uses his non-bonus feats to increase non-combat skills (like diplomacy, or UMD), is the reason I said ‘much’). Someone who trains only at fighting, can only fight. Perfectly realistic.
The fighter: no special abilities
The fighter gains no special abilities. This is quite logical. Suppose the fighter build exists out of four feat-chains. Any barbarian can do, partially, the same as the fighter (by taking one or two feat chains). Is this logical? Yes. Even without the fighters rigorous training (represented by the bonus feats), a barbarian or a paladin can be just as good a tripper, if he trained for it (represented by using up his normal feats).
The fighter: a simple class
Everyone can train with a weapon. Its simple. You swing a sword for about 1000 times, and you’ll fight better with it. The fighter class represents this: its like a commoner on XTC. Instead of one feat every 3 levels and a weak base attack bonus, the fighter gets almost one feat per level, and a high base attack bonus. Again perfect: if you train only fighting, you’ll end up with the same abilities as a high level commoner: someone who didn’t train as rigorously as the fighter, but had much more time.
The fighter: a splashable class
Someone will be better in a fight if they can do something out of the ordinary (a blow below the belt, magicly doubling your size,...). This again, is perfectly represented by the fighter class: As most will agree, the fighter becomes stronger if you ‘splash’ in a few levels in other classes. (a level wizard, a level or two rogue, ...)
The other side of the coin: people who need some combat practice, pick up a sword and swing it 1000 times. Because of some short, but rigorous, training, they will improve greatly. Again perfect with the fighter class: a few levels of fighter could give the character just what he wanted
The fighter: a difficult class
If someone swing a sword 1000 times , he will be good at it. But if he just keeps on swinging, he won’t improve that much. Those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong. The same is for the fighter. The fighter is more then just taking a few feats. The feats should be carefully planned. A fighter build that loses focus will manifest in a fighter who deviated from his training’s plan: fights will get harder and harder, until you finally lose your life.
For those who want some good fighter ‘training plans’, check out the char op forums, you’ll find some there.
The fighter: advanced training
So now you know how to swing a sword. That is what the fighter class gives you. As I said before, that is the only thing the fighter class gives you. General rigorous training only brings you so far. So does the fighter class. Now you want something more. You want to live and die by the sword. You want to become a knight on a white horse. You wanted to become the ultimate defender.
Enter the prestige classes: these classes represent focused training.
You wanted to become someone who lives and dies by the sword. Check out kensai.
Knight on a white horse is more of your thing, then cavalier would be right up your ally.
Defenders? Check out the dwarven defender.
This part of the game mechanism works again perfectly, since it’s the fighter that has it easiest to become able to take prestige classes.
So my conclusion: the fighter
- only fights: as expected
- no unique features: some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- a simple but difficult class: quite realistic
- splashable: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- easy prestige classes: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
Anyone of humble origins could pick up a weapon, figure out how it works, and set out to make his fortune. The same guy could learn how to be nimble, perceptive, and precise enough to be a rogue, or how to flip out and hit somebody really hard. And as the ranger's spellcasting doesn't come along for some time after adventuring has already started, a wilderness explorer-type isn't exactly out of reach for most people in a DnD world. Not just anyone can learn how to handle heavy armor, though, and not just anyone is going to be trained and talented enough to be a Fighter instead of an NPC Warrior. That sort of thing isn't covered by simply "swinging a sword a thousand times." There's a lot that goes into learning the fighting arts that simply picking up a weapon and waving it around just doesn't cover. You're cheapening the entire concept of the Fighter class with your post. You may like the simplicity, but there's supposed to be more to it. The peasant you describe that picked up the sword and swung it a thousand times might be a good start for a character origin, but if such a background was presented for a Fighter in a campaign I was running, I would strip everything but the BAB and proficiency in one weapon, and reduce the rest to a Commoner until there's some in-character training and some XP earned. Because the Fighter may not be the most stacked class in the world for features, it certainly involves more training than that. As you said: "those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong." Nevermind that you went on to immediately contradict it - you were right at that moment.
And honestly, having one class out of so many being the only one left minding the "limitations of humanity" long before approaching epic levels is sort of sad.
Now while you can say that Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc. are limited by their Stats too, their power is EXPONENTIAL in comparison, that is to say, they get 3-4x what they put in it. Most single Feats don't scale by level in that regard, rather 3-4 Feats down the tree require Super-Human levels in a givin Stat, which means that any Fighter with only 10 in that Stat has to spend more than his entire career in pursuit of that level of DEX, STR, INT, ETC.
It's not the Fighter that's broken it's their pre-conceived notions of what a Fighter should be capable of (ie The Ultimate Fighting Generalist) and then provide "fixes" in the Form of Prestige Classes for him, while providing the "Superhumans" (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, etc.) with extra Feats that only "they" qualify for so that they are capable of exceeding him in that 1 thing.
I've had ideas for a Fighter that:
1. only uses a Longbow, Unarmed Fighting, Grappling, and Armor Spikes interestingly enough while he is proficient with the Spikes and Longbow he has to spend 2 Feats (IUS + IG) to truly apply for the base form of that style.
2. as above, but without the Longbow and I run into the same problem, it should be noted that i simply don't want to play a Monk.
In any case, the fighter is among my favorite classes. I believe its controversy comes from its inadvertent oxymoronic nature: It's among the simplest classes to quickly build a character from, yet the pressure to make the character competent is almost entirely on the player. It is not a "self-made" class.
To use an analogy, you can't design a car with all-terrain capability, race car speed, truck-hauling power and tank-like durability and still get excellent gas mileage. Similarly, a fighter has almost endless customizability, being given more feats and access to feats than any other class. . . and the temptation to diversify must be weighed carefully with the benefits of specialization.
A fighter with Run is not going to outmaneuver a barbarian.
A fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike is not going to out-box a monk.
A fighter with Spring Attack will not flank more effectively than a rogue.
A fighter with Iron Will cannot resist enchantments better than a cleric.
It is not the quantity or quality of feats, but the freedom to choose almost any combination of them that makes a fighter competent. A fighter with Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, Quick Draw, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave and Improved Initiative can go from flat-footed to the only person standing in a blink of an eye, yet such a combination of eight feats can be easily attained by 8th level.
On the other hand, the transition from customizability to competence is not automatic. Again, it's not a "ready out of the box" class and, if assembled improperly, it will not compete. A fighter with Far Shot, Iron Will, Power Attack, Blind-fight, Dodge and Combat Reflexes is far from useless, yet not likely to do anything particularly well.
I think this is why I like the fighter so much: It relies on a player-created identity more than any other class. It is not inherently a "tank", "archer" or "skirmisher". . . it must be built to be role-played, and thus role-played to be built.
The problem with the fighter class is at the core everyone is an amateur fighter. Even the wizard can, on occasion, poke someone with a dagger. While the fighter gets a few fighting related things slightly better than non fighters the key problem is that it is only slightly. His slight advantage in fighting is opposed by the fact that he has no partial abilities of the other classes that have partial abilities as a fighter. The wizard has some fighting skill but the fighter has no wizardly skill whatsoever.
If you come with me into the way back machine you will notice that pure fighters had more than slightly better fighting options, they had actual unique features. The very rare multiple attacks per round in 1E was a perk that gave a big advantage to the fighter. I remember a campaign where my dwarf fighter was given the option of a slightly rule breaking chance at being a paladin and I turned it down because I thought that loosing the specialization wasn’t worth it for the character.
As I stated before the fighter doesn’t currently have anything “unique” in his class. One can even argue that his slight advantage in fighting is often upset by other classes getting a greater fighting assist through class features. Thus the best way to describe the fighter is the “little engine that almost could.” He does look good at first chugging up the mountain of level progression but he can never make the top. He is worse than being a “vanilla character.” He is the “unflavored gelatin character.”
In conclusion: The fighter ought to be better than the semi-fighters (ranger, paladin, barbarian and monk) when it comes to fighting. The fighter definitely needs to be better at fighting than clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, etc. The former is because every other class, including all the semi-fighter have some other somewhat unique feature that the fighter doesn’t get. Getting a few extra feats is not enough of a unique feature to balance out the class, either mechanically or flavor wise. This is why people find the fighter tasteless. (Because he is in fact unflavored.)
So basically any discussion of 'balancing' the fighter should only involve changing the number of feats they gain?
You might have figured it out, by reading the title. This is a Y.O.F.T., yet an other fighter thread. Well, not just an other fighter thread. One posted on Regdar's Repository, and does not discuss the complete balance issue.
Why, one might ask. Most of the threads die by detrition. Giving examples and counter examples, and discussions between two people, greatly increases the size of a thread (this means less new people will join), while the people who joined at the start either get bored (possibly by opinion bump posts (“OMG FIGHTER SUX !!1!”) ), lose interest, or find there opinion is enough stressed.
Enter Regdar's Repository. This forum works slower, and opinion bump posts get filtered out.
Now for my opinion...
I find the fighter ... perfect.
< enter brief period so that everyone can get the “OMGWTFBBQHAX” out of their system>
I see a fighter as someone who trains rigorously, unlike the barbarian who uses his emotions to control the battlefield, the paladin who takes of time from training to pray, ...
The core fighter class fits this image perfectly.
The fighter: he fights
The fighter does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-fighter should agree with me that this is what the fighter does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the Fighter can’t do much else but fight. (The skill-focused-fighter, who uses his non-bonus feats to increase non-combat skills (like diplomacy, or UMD), is the reason I said ‘much’). Someone who trains only at fighting, can only fight. Perfectly realistic.
The fighter: no special abilities
The fighter gains no special abilities. This is quite logical. Suppose the fighter build exists out of four feat-chains. Any barbarian can do, partially, the same as the fighter (by taking one or two feat chains). Is this logical? Yes. Even without the fighters rigorous training (represented by the bonus feats), a barbarian or a paladin can be just as good a tripper, if he trained for it (represented by using up his normal feats).
The fighter: a simple class
Everyone can train with a weapon. Its simple. You swing a sword for about 1000 times, and you’ll fight better with it. The fighter class represents this: its like a commoner on XTC. Instead of one feat every 3 levels and a weak base attack bonus, the fighter gets almost one feat per level, and a high base attack bonus. Again perfect: if you train only fighting, you’ll end up with the same abilities as a high level commoner: someone who didn’t train as rigorously as the fighter, but had much more time.
The fighter: a splashable class
Someone will be better in a fight if they can do something out of the ordinary (a blow below the belt, magically doubling your size,...). This again, is perfectly represented by the fighter class: As most will agree, the fighter becomes stronger if you ‘splash’ in a few levels in other classes. (a level wizard, a level or two rogue, ...)
The other side of the coin: people who need some combat practice, pick up a sword and swing it 1000 times. Because of some short, but rigorous, training, they will improve greatly. Again perfect with the fighter class: a few levels of fighter could give the character just what he wanted
The fighter: a difficult class
If someone swing a sword 1000 times , he will be good at it. But if he just keeps on swinging, he won’t improve that much. Those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong. The same is for the fighter. The fighter is more then just taking a few feats. The feats should be carefully planned. A fighter build that loses focus will manifest in a fighter who deviated from his training’s plan: fights will get harder and harder, until you finally lose your life.
For those who want some good fighter ‘training plans’, check out the char op forums, you’ll find some there.
The fighter: advanced training
So now you know how to swing a sword. That is what the fighter class gives you. As I said before, that is the only thing the fighter class gives you. General rigorous training only brings you so far. So does the fighter class. Now you want something more. You want to live and die by the sword. You want to become a knight on a white horse. You wanted to become the ultimate defender.
Enter the prestige classes: these classes represent focused training.
You wanted to become someone who lives and dies by the sword. Check out kensai.
Knight on a white horse is more of your thing, then cavalier would be right up your ally.
Defenders? Check out the dwarven defender.
This part of the game mechanism works again perfectly, since it’s the fighter that has it easiest to become able to take prestige classes.
So my conclusion: the fighter
- only fights: as expected
- no unique features: some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- a simple but difficult class: quite realistic
- splashable: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- easy prestige classes: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
Your entire description makes it sound like an NPC class. Now, it's okay if you want to play a Warrior-flavor character, but that doesn't actually make it fit in with the PC classes. "Just another fighting man who can hold a sword" is the Warrior's role. The Warblade better represents a "heroic" fighting man, IMO.
Fighter simplifies this by just saying, "A fighter gets good hit points, good fortitude, and can pick feats specifically labeled as Fighter feats." This allows a generic idea specialize in any field of fighting he wants.
Now if the other classes could be reduced into something generic enough players could do the same thing with them, but as it stands now there's 1 arcane casting class that gets bonus feats and about 20 feats for him to take (just counting core). As is he'll never get half of those!
Now for my opinion...
I find the warrior ... perfect.
< enter brief period so that everyone can get the “OMGWTFBBQHAX” out of their system>
I see a warrior as someone who trains rigorously, unlike the barbarian who uses his emotions to control the battlefield, the paladin who takes of time from training to pray, ...
The core warrior class fits this image perfectly.
The warrior: he fights
The warrior does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-warrior should agree with me that this is what the warrior does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the warrior can’t do much else but fight. (The skill-focused-warrior, who uses his non-bonus feats to increase non-combat skills (like diplomacy, or UMD), is the reason I said ‘much’). Someone who trains only at fighting, can only fight. Perfectly realistic.
The warrior: no special abilities
The warrior gains no special abilities. This is quite logical. Suppose the warrior build exists out of four feat-chains. Any barbarian can do, partially, the same as the warrior (by taking one or two feat chains). Is this logical? Yes. Even without the warriors rigorous training [](represented by the bonus feats),[] a barbarian or a paladin can be just as good a tripper, if he trained for it (represented by using up his normal feats).
The warrior: a simple class
Everyone can train with a weapon. Its simple. You swing a sword for about 1000 times, and you’ll fight better with it. The warrior class represents this: its like a commoner on XTC. Instead of one feat every 3 levels and a weak base attack bonus, the warrior gets almost one feat per level, and a high base attack bonus. Again perfect: if you train only fighting, you’ll end up with the same abilities as a high level commoner: someone who didn’t train as rigorously as the warrior, but had much more time.
The warrior: a splashable class
Someone will be better in a fight if they can do something out of the ordinary (a blow below the belt, magically doubling your size,...). This again, is perfectly represented by the warrior class: As most will agree, the warrior becomes stronger if you ‘splash’ in a few levels in other classes. (a level wizard, a level or two rogue, ...)
The other side of the coin: people who need some combat practice, pick up a sword and swing it 1000 times. Because of some short, but rigorous, training, they will improve greatly. Again perfect with the warrior class: a few levels of fighter could give the character just what he wanted
The warrior: a difficult class
If someone swing a sword 1000 times , he will be good at it. But if he just keeps on swinging, he won’t improve that much. Those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong. The same is for the warrior. The warrior is more then just taking a few feats. The feats should be carefully planned. A warrior build that loses focus will manifest in a warrior who deviated from his training’s plan: fights will get harder and harder, until you finally lose your life.
For those who want some good warrior ‘training plans’, check out the char op forums, you’ll find some there.
The warrior: advanced training
So now you know how to swing a sword. That is what the fighter class gives you. As I said before, that is the only thing the warrior class gives you. General rigorous training only brings you so far. So does the warrior class. Now you want something more. You want to live and die by the sword. You want to become a knight on a white horse. You wanted to become the ultimate defender.
Enter the prestige classes: these classes represent focused training.
You wanted to become someone who lives and dies by the sword. Check out kensai.
Knight on a white horse is more of your thing, then cavalier would be right up your ally.
Defenders? Check out the dwarven defender.
The fighter is... an NPC class with 11 extra feats. You're going to blow 4 of them on weapon focus/specilization. Pretty much anything you can do with a fighter, the warrior can fill the same role.
Again... a feat-less and featureless NPC class can do almost, if not exactly the same thing as the fighter. Doesn't that say something is seriously wrong with the fighter both as a class and concept?
One question. Is it fun?
Yes, a different kind of fun than barbarian fun.
Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No.
I agree.
but a fighter can trip, disarm, and grapple, and that is fun, as well as bull-rushing, which is super-fun when a ledge in involved.
Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard?
if they have spell resistance or the wizard is being counter-spelled, you will be out damaging the wizard.
Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so.
Umm, wasn't that wizard that was out damaging you a second ago supposed to do something?
And that's all that really matters. And as for your prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
If they wanted players to stand on their own two feet, they would only have one class that could do everything. D&D is played as a team.
The fighter's purpose is to bull rush evil knights into volcanoes and grapple with wizards, beating them to crap! They disarm the barbarian when he gets dominated by vamps and trip hill giants to the ground to let your paladin smite them to hell!
Fighters are bull-rush, tripping, disarming, grappling machines.
they win through strategy and tactics, not massive blows of the axe. Barbarians get really big numbers, fighters get really cool fights.
When 3e came out, the two really flashy new things were Feats and Prestige Classes. Customizable options for your character! Neat! And with this, they needed a simple way to show off this new feature of the game, which quickly became one of the most core concepts overall. Feats were everywhere, they dominate every book. Prestige classes are a close second, and they need feats to get. So what they needed was one class that really played into these new mechanics - someone who would just simply get a lot of feats and therefore be easily able to qualify for a lot of prestige classes, quickly.
Enter the fighter. To the new player just picking up the game, his role is clear - he has a lot of feats! Cool! This is a comforting thing for the fourteen-year-old player just getting into it. I run a lot of games for young kids at my local comic shop, and believe me - while the wizard might be far more powerful if every class is played by an expert gamer, when you have every character played by a ninth-grader, fighter becomes the best. Because it's easy to play, simple to learn, and has very straightforward applications, it is comforting. It's also fun at that stage of gamer evolution; new players don't always want to set up for a bigger payoff like rogues do, or plan ahead like wizards. And, I've noticed, they like rolling dice - meaning they'd rather be the ones attacking then cast a spell that the monster rolls dice to resist. These aren't game balance issues - they're player issues. Health-of-the-genre issues. And the fighter addresses them well.
Plus, there's plenty of realism there. A fighter is a soldier, a trained man-at-arms. And men-at-arms, as they advance, either specialize or retire. A soldier either gets enough experience to become promoted into a specialized roll (gets a prestige class), or he pulls his obligatory few years of service and then goes on with his life in a different way (multiclasses). Very few soldiers ever dedicate their entire life to soldiering and stay the rank of private, even if they're a very good private. Which means that fighters at level 20 probably would be more rare than any other class at that level, because you would have to be pretty lethargic to gain that much fighting prowess yet never do anything with it besides fight orcs in the town militia.
And lastly, the class is modular. It can fill many roles. This makes it a great boon to any DM that just wants a certain NPC to do a certain thing - "Okay, easy, he's fighter level X." Game balance isn't the issue - no amount of tweaking, ever, is going to make any game system perfectly balanced. It doesn't really have to. Maybe Warblade is much better class overall. But I can explain, in three minutes, to a twelve year old kid who's never played the game, what a fighter can do. I can't do that with a Warblade.
So in terms of expert-level play among veterans of the game, maybe the fighter isn't great. All I know is, for all these kids having fun learning to play D&D because of me, it's chapter one.
- Johnny
@MatthiasKaiser
Since when is everything black and white: Isn't it possible that part of someone’s opinion is contradictory?
> "There's a lot that goes into learning the fighting arts that simply picking up a weapon and waving it around just doesn't cover"
That's what covered in feats and prestige classes: specialization.
- Power attack would be a special attack. The same for cleave, combat expertise and even weapon focus.
- You can even have more specific training in defending (dwarven defender), zen archery (Order of the Bow initiate), ...
> "it certainly involves more training than that. As you said: "those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong." Never mind that you went on to immediately contradict it - you were right at that moment."
that is because I was simplifying the point.
Take kendo for example:
- The basics are also swinging your sword (and every session this is trained). This is the base attack of the fighter
- Tricks and special techniques are the feats.
@Dragonchild
Mostly because all fighter threads die of opinion bumps and discussions between a small group of people, getting really of topic.
This is not possible on this forum: to post here, you need to have something to say, something more then "OMG FIGHTER SUXXX!!1!"
I agree with your opinion, that diversification needs to be weighed carefully, and that is what I find realistic about it. No one can be extreme fast, great at special moves, have an indomnable will, etc ...
@Tzor
The fighter is good at fighting.
Yes the paladin is better at fighting evil, and yes, the barbarian is good at fighting for short bursts. That's what they are trained to do, if the fighter would be better in fighting evil than the paladin, and better in fighting short fights then the barbarian, those 2 classes would be underpowered.
And the fighter does have wizardry: magic items. Helm of teleportation, teleports 3x day. ring of the ram: force damage, ...
IMO, Tzor, don't look at classes as fighter, semi-fighters and non-fighters; but look at them as meleers and non-meleers.
@no_sane_DM
yep, that about covers it: no special attacks, only more 'mundane stuff' then others.
@OneWinged4ngel
Why not? In many series there are characters that resemble fighter.
(in all honesty, I haven't read the sourcebook from warblades, so I don't know that much about the class)
@Minmaximus
this corresponds with my opinion, in that: if you don't really know what you're doing, you're not going to be a great fighter
@lord_zack
One answer: yes.
> "Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect?"
Well, actually, yes. It’s the "w00t, I rolled a critical"-moment instead of the "yet an other enemy not immune to fire"-moment
> "Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard?"
Well, feeling the heat of battle, adrenaline pumping through you body, carefully deciding your next move ... against "yeah, for a change I cast the highest prepared damage spell"
At level 20, I'm currently playing a fighter with 2d6+21 wounding damage,
Three attacks; power attack, shock trooper, leap attack, and 17-20/x2 crit’s
The wizards 20d6 (average of 70 damage, that's without spell resistance, energy resistance ...)
My fighter deals easily 4d6+50+2CON (count’s as holy, cold iron and adamantine); so is that so much less damage then the wizard?
> "Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save?"
And finally having DM’s permission to hit the get-of-my-ivory-tower-for-I-am-uber-and-you-are-weak wizard? YES, oh God, YEEESSSS !!! (oh man that felt good :D )
To compete, the fighter -- despite having more feats than any other class -- must trade in the very versatility he's given and become a specialist. A high-level fighter that does not max out weapon specialization and a relevant combat style tree will not keep up. Note, however, that by no means am I saying the fighter can't keep up.
If improvements are warranted, I usually apply the following tweaks:
1) Higher end heavy armor, which is obsolete at higher levels as-is
2) More, and more powerful, fighter-exclusive feats (with feat-heavy prerequisites)
Every splatbook adds more feats to the pile, but most of them are generic, accessible to everyone or, even worse, class-exclusive feats the fighter cannot use. This includes most feats in "Complete Warrior". The fighter started out competent enough, but has been getting neglected by WotC itself.
Just because my character has 2 more Warlock levels than Fighter levels doesn't mean he's any less of a fighter. I just wanted my fighter to have a bunch of at will spell like abilities. He's still a fighter. That's his role, and he tears it up in every combat.
There must be a million DMs out there that don't allow multiclassing or something. Who says you have to play the fighter as a straight class ever? I like the Fighter class just fine as a tool for making a good combat character. Call em whatever you wanna call em.
A PC is meant to be atypical, and in a good way. Maybe not as rare as platinum, depending on your setting, but a cut above the masses at the least. An everyman class (such as what your description of the fighter seems to be) does not fit in the scheme of things. Fun? Fun is in the eye of the beholder. Realistic? Maybe. PC-worthy? That is the question.
I am of the belief that a class should be able to stand on its own merits. A class that encourages prestiging or multiclassing is not a proper class IMHO. The TOB classes, whatever you think of them, at least give a major incentive for taking all 20 levels. They also let you do some crazy **** which is only fitting in a fantasy game. Fighter 20 should be as respectable and fearsome as Wizard 20. Not in the same way, but both should be legends in their own right.
Is that the current state of things? Would a Fighter 20 BBEG make a level 10 party quake in their boots? A Wizard 20 most likely would. That +2 damage from weapon specialization doesn't look so hot once you realize a bull's strength can replicate that with any weapon.
So my conclusion:
PCs should be special. A fighter is not special (the barbarians ability to increase his stats just by getting angry is pretty special). Therefore the fighter does not fit.
Tactical Bonus Feats: At 3rd level, a fighter gets a bonus tactical-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 3rd-level character gets. The fighter gains an additional tactical bonus feat at every two fighter levels thereafter (5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th).
These bonus feats must come from the Tactical section feats in the Complete Warrior: Cavalry Charger, Combat Brute, Elusive Target, Formation Expert, Giantbane, Raptor School, Shock Trooper, Sun School (p 108-112) or Players Handbook II: Blood-spiked Charger, Combat Cloak Expert, Combat Panache, Einhander, Mad Alchemist and Shadow Striker (p 92-95). If Tome of Battle is used, these tactical feats are also eligible: Clarion Commander, Distant Horizon, Faith unswerving, Gloom Razor, Perfect Clarity of Mind and Body, Reaping Talons, Scorching Sirocco, Shards of Granite and Stormguard Warrior (p 34-36). The Weapon Style feats from Complete Warrior can also be bought with these feats: Anvil of Thunder, Bear Fang, Crescent Moon, Hammer’s Edge, High Sword Low Axe, Lightning Mace, Net and Trident, Quick Staff, Spinning Halberd, Three Mountains (p 112-114).
A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.
These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of tactical bonus feats when choosing regular feats.
One question. Is it fun? Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No. Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard? Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so. And that's all that really matters. And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
Even if you don't have fun with the fighter, that doesn't mean nobody has. Lots of people on the boards like playing fighters as they are.
So my conclusion: the fighter
- only fights: as expected
- no unique features: some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- a simple but difficult class: quite realistic
- splashable: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- easy prestige classes: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
Great post and right on the button IMHO. You allude to, but don't quite put in black and white the corollary: the Fighter is the right class to include in D&D to give some players the simple, streamlined character they desire. Equally good for novices setting out, or grognards tired of the complexities of their Warblade/Druid/Prcs.
You capture the idea nicely in your conclusion. Fighter. Only fights: as expected.
Brilliant.
-VK
One question. Is it fun? Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No. Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard? Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so. And that's all that really matters. And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
Thanks for telling me what is fun. :D
Also thanks for being completely subjective. Fighters can be incredibly effective in combat. It is very case by case.
The fighter: he fights
The fighter does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-fighter should agree with me that this is what the fighter does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the Fighter can’t do much else but fight. (The skill-focused-fighter, who uses his non-bonus feats to increase non-combat skills (like diplomacy, or UMD), is the reason I said ‘much’). Someone who trains only at fighting, can only fight. Perfectly realistic.
So the fighter is better in this respect (focus) than a Warrior in what manner, especially considering that he can't even effectively focus on many kinds of "just fighting." Anything dependent on Tumble, especially.
The fighter: no special abilities
The fighter gains no special abilities. This is quite logical. Suppose the fighter build exists out of four feat-chains. Any barbarian can do, partially, the same as the fighter (by taking one or two feat chains). Is this logical? Yes. Even without the fighters rigorous training (represented by the bonus feats), a barbarian or a paladin can be just as good a tripper, if he trained for it (represented by using up his normal feats).
But how is this a GOOD thing? It's a GOOD thing that anything a fighter can, anyone else can as well? There's a word for that: superfluous.
The fighter: a simple class
Everyone can train with a weapon. Its simple. You swing a sword for about 1000 times, and you’ll fight better with it. The fighter class represents this: its like a commoner on XTC. Instead of one feat every 3 levels and a weak base attack bonus, the fighter gets almost one feat per level, and a high base attack bonus. Again perfect: if you train only fighting, you’ll end up with the same abilities as a high level commoner: someone who didn’t train as rigorously as the fighter, but had much more time.
Again: Warrior NPC class. Fighter is less like super-commoner than warrior, but a little better. He doesn't really get much better at absorbing punishment (no DR, and lower hp than a barbarian) or dishing it out (he gets no options other than Weapon Specialization that other classes don't also get).
The fighter: a splashable class
Someone will be better in a fight if they can do something out of the ordinary (a blow below the belt, magically doubling your size,...). This again, is perfectly represented by the fighter class: As most will agree, the fighter becomes stronger if you ‘splash’ in a few levels in other classes. (a level wizard, a level or two rogue, ...)
The other side of the coin: people who need some combat practice, pick up a sword and swing it 1000 times. Because of some short, but rigorous, training, they will improve greatly. Again perfect with the fighter class: a few levels of fighter could give the character just what he wanted
So the fighter is a 2 level dip? It DOES have the advantage of being rather front-loaded compared to spellcasters, but tends to lose steam quickly.
The fighter: a difficult class
If someone swing a sword 1000 times , he will be good at it. But if he just keeps on swinging, he won’t improve that much. Those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong. The same is for the fighter. The fighter is more then just taking a few feats. The feats should be carefully planned. A fighter build that loses focus will manifest in a fighter who deviated from his training’s plan: fights will get harder and harder, until you finally lose your life.
For those who want some good fighter ‘training plans’, check out the char op forums, you’ll find some there.
So you have to plan ahead? So does every other class.
The fighter: advanced training
So now you know how to swing a sword. That is what the fighter class gives you. As I said before, that is the only thing the fighter class gives you. General rigorous training only brings you so far. So does the fighter class. Now you want something more. You want to live and die by the sword. You want to become a knight on a white horse. You wanted to become the ultimate defender.
Enter the prestige classes: these classes represent focused training.
You wanted to become someone who lives and dies by the sword. Check out kensai.
Knight on a white horse is more of your thing, then cavalier would be right up your ally.
Defenders? Check out the dwarven defender.
This part of the game mechanism works again perfectly, since it’s the fighter that has it easiest to become able to take prestige classes.
There are varying schools of thought on this, but the DMG says prestige classes should be optional. If PrCs aren't optional, then the fighter class might as well stop at level 10.
And as to fulfilling prerequisites: the fighter's short skill list is going to prevent him meeting many skill requirements, or delay it long enough that other classes would have easier access. He will never efficiently gain access to classes that require special abilities, or more than 3 or 4 skills.
So my conclusion: the fighter
- only fights: as expected
- no unique features: some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- a simple but difficult class: quite realistic
- splashable: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- easy prestige classes: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
I say to that: fighter = warrior+1; bland, linear progression, and totally failing to consider that it does not exist in a vacuum devoid of magic. It's my opinion that no class should fail to take magic into consideration, as it is the D&D equivalent of electricity: it influences everything, and anyone failing to fully exploit it is destined for obsolescence. The only classes that don't USE magic prepare defenses against it or actively reject it. The fighter just says "La la la; I can't hear you, magic!"
No other class feels quite so acutely the lack of magic, or at least defense against magic, as the fighter. He has 2 poor saves (like many classes, admittedly) and no save-enhancers (Evasion, Mettle, Divine Grace, etc). He has no SR, no DR, no energy resistance; nothing. Other classes share these weaknesses, but none have ALL of them; even the barbarian gets +2 to Will saves in a rage. It's like he expects to never have to face spellcasters; like, as I said, he exists in a vacuum, or a world populated only by other fighters.
Neither does he possess abilities to effectively overcome magical enemies: no ability to bypass defenses, no ability to prevent magical retreat, no (core) method to prevent spellcasting on the defensive, no way to enhance his weapons. Nor does he harness the pervasive power of magic in any way to enhance his own natural ability: he can't make himself stronger, tougher, faster or more canny. He is the Luddite of D&D: he ignores all of the advantages of magic to no gain. Sure he can perform better than many others in zones of dead magic, BUT he has no ability to create those zones himself! His only true advantage is not within his power to invoke!
The fighter doesn't "Only fight." The fighter "Only fights other fighters of his own size or smaller." That is not "realistic" by the standards of the world in which the fighter lives: an elite warrior will at some point be required to combat spellcasters, and he lacks the ability to do so, whereas the spellcaster has access to a plethora of effective anti-fighter spells (Wall of Basically Anything But Fire, Hold Person, Charm Person, any non-Fortitude based save-or-die, Invisibility (fighter doesn't have Listen OR Spot, which also makes him a poor archer)).
The idea behind the fighter is a classic: the guy who doesn't need magic to prevail. But it's flawed, because he won't prevail, because everyone else realizes that they can surpass that guy by using magic.
I recall myself from 2ed days that multiple attacks were reserved to Fighters only. Not even Paladins could get it. I recall that when I had my STR 18/00 Paladin fighting alongside a Fighter of equal level, the Fighter could deliver the pain much more effectively. As mentioned above, all of the classes now have access to multiple attacks, when I think perhaps only the sub-fighter type classes and Monks "might" get access to it, restricting it to perhaps an optional class ability to choose instead of something else (akin to a Ranger having to select either Two Weapon Fighting or Archery, a Paladin needs to give something up to take on Multiple Attacks, and classes like Wizard cannot take it.)
I also recall that in 2ed the Fighter (and other classes) received followers automatically by 9th Level. In Dark Sun, the amount of followers gained for Fighters at every level after the first batch gained, grows into a decent sized army. The Leadership Feat seems watered down for a Fighter (especially with avg to low CHA) who aims for gathering an army.
Multiclassing is now something every class can get, and Fighters only get followers if they take a feat.
Fighters can wield magic arms and armor and wear other magical gear that can offset vulnerabilities to some magical effects, so I never saw this aspect as debilitating. A smart fighter will prepare properly when facing an opponent skilled with mind tricks, and such a foe should never assume and overestimate that mind tricks will always work on fighter types.
What we have now is a class where the benefits comes across as having what all the other classes have or can easily get, just that the Fighter is just a bit better. That means that taking feats properly remains as the primary means of making the Fighter more than "just a bit better" from other classes, but again there are feats that Fighters can take as part of their bonus class feats, but there are no feats "only" fighters can take.
I think "readymade" or "out of the box" is a wonderful way to describe the other classes since the Fighter has evolved into such a bland result. The "dash" and "flavor" of a truly spectacular Fighter concept must be developed more actively by Players. I agree, that just saying "I swing a sword" comes across to me as a bit patronizing. It's much more impressive to say "I'm the 6th Descendent Sword Grandmaster of the House of Korga'am, and my sword is an extension of my being. Our skill redefines the cosmos. I name my sword D'lacht, earned in the battle against the Blood Bone Orcs of Keln."
I think the Fighter class can be tweaked a bit more to reserve options other classes cannot attain, and I think if done well, that Prestige Classes, or multiclassing wouldn't then need to be the only solution to spice up a Fighter sans a creative player. Maybe breaking out special abilities from Prestige classes and simply having them as options available for Fighters at appropriate levels instead of, or maybe in addition to, their bonus feats. Maybe a return of something like "kits" from 2ed.
I would like to see a return and improvement of the Follower ability/ Leadership feat to accommodate concepts of those wanting to build armies. A Fighter with this option should excel at carving out territories, competing against others for the same prize.
Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No.
Good thing they can do more than that, then. For example, I made a Driving Attack build that can launch someone backwards 80+ feet with a tap from a halberd (doing over 90 damage in the process), in addition to its other fun abilities. Now, I don't know how realistic that is... :P
Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard?
Wait, what? I'm not up to speed on Wizard powergaming, but I thought that Wizards could only do like 200-300 damage per round, and only for a few rounds? I've seen Fighter builds pushing that before accounting for crits, and they can do it all day. Granted, Wizards are waaaaay more powerful, but I don't recall it being due to blasting.
And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
Feh, so there's some kinks to work out. They're still worth it, even if not nearly as often.
So what if we take a lesson from 1st edition (AD&D) and "nerfed" all the other classes by saying that only fighters, paladins, barbarians, and rangers can get multiple attacks in a round. So for example, while a fighter and a cleric might both have a BAB of +6, only the fighter gets a second attack.
Maybe this will fix some of the overpowering of the clerics, druids, etc., and simultaneously beef up the fighter to make it more attractive to achieve higher levels in that class. So far I like the sounds of it.
I kind of like this because it would go a long way toward gearing down the cleric and druid, etc (which are problematic because they outshine even fighters at fighting) and beefs up the fighters so that there is incentive to achieve higher levels in those classes.
I think I'll add that to my list of house rules for the next campaign I start...
Great points. I am a big fan of the fighter. People really down play the feats. Calling them mundane. Feats get exponentially better if you get lots of them. Also if you don't munchkin your fighter a little he will look inferior. It is a good class for someone who really understands the nuts and bolts of the system. And I promise, when your half-orc fighter wielding a falchion 'leap attacks' for 6 damage for every one he gives up to power attack, he won't look mundane.
10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
the problem is the Stats, anyone who doesn't have that grasp of the system will run into that wall, no matter how much Feat Re-training they do. Simply because they have to prove they qualified for the Feat at those levels when they re-train them.
It's not a matter of getting the Feats it's qualifying for them in the first place, and the fact that the rules were balanced around Power-Gaming does not help matters in the least.
I find that the fighter is incredibly realistic. The 'commoner swinging a sword 1000 times' is realistic in that he gets used to the weight of the sword!!! thus swinging the sword faster and being able to keep up with others in his training. Also, if the commoner swinging the sword took a level in fighter, it doesn't matter if he knows the principals of sword fighting yet, as he would only be around 2nd or 3rd level! and they do not know much about how to fight either.
This is what i think, also, i find that when your character who you spent hours working on to get just right for your campaign dies in 5 minutes of starting, a fighter is a quick and easy option to get right back in the game, and they are quite easy to integrate into the storyline (well, they are easier than paladins anyway, i mean, common, you play in a campaign where there are no alignment restrictions one time and everyone else chooses evil.)
...
The fighter: he fights
The fighter does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-fighter should agree with me that this is what the fighter does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the Fighter can’t do much else but fight. (The skill-focused-fighter, who uses his non-bonus feats to increase non-combat skills (like diplomacy, or UMD), is the reason I said ‘much’). Someone who trains only at fighting, can only fight. Perfectly realistic.
I'll give you this in part. The fighter, as is, can't do much else but fight.
Realistic? I don't know. It might be realistic if he could feint. That's part of fighting if you ask me. It might be realistic if he could fight in difficult situations, like when balancing. That's part of fighting if you ask me. It might be realistic if the average fighter could do these things without necessarily having to burn feats.
The fighter: no special abilities
The fighter gains no special abilities. This is quite logical. Suppose the fighter build exists out of four feat-chains. Any barbarian can do, partially, the same as the fighter (by taking one or two feat chains). Is this logical? Yes. Even without the fighters rigorous training (represented by the bonus feats), a barbarian or a paladin can be just as good a tripper, if he trained for it (represented by using up his normal feats).
Well, I think that it would be realistic if someone that spent his whole life fighting would be good at it, you know, by default. For example, a warblade that selected the worst feats and maneuvers with no synergy would still be a pretty decent fighter- certainly much better than a poorly optimized fighter.
The fighter: a simple class
Everyone can train with a weapon. Its simple. You swing a sword for about 1000 times, and you’ll fight better with it. The fighter class represents this: its like a commoner on XTC. Instead of one feat every 3 levels and a weak base attack bonus, the fighter gets almost one feat per level, and a high base attack bonus. Again perfect: if you train only fighting, you’ll end up with the same abilities as a high level commoner: someone who didn’t train as rigorously as the fighter, but had much more time.
I don't even know how to respond to this. If you consider the fighter a beefed up commoner, then at least give him spot and listen.
The fighter: a splashable class
Someone will be better in a fight if they can do something out of the ordinary (a blow below the belt, magically doubling your size,...). This again, is perfectly represented by the fighter class: As most will agree, the fighter becomes stronger if you ‘splash’ in a few levels in other classes. (a level wizard, a level or two rogue, ...)
The other side of the coin: people who need some combat practice, pick up a sword and swing it 1000 times. Because of some short, but rigorous, training, they will improve greatly. Again perfect with the fighter class: a few levels of fighter could give the character just what he wanted
Again, I don't know how to respond to this. I think that a dip in another class should be beneficial but not automatically advantageous. This is a difference of opinion so I'll leave it at that.
The fighter: a difficult class
If someone swing a sword 1000 times , he will be good at it. But if he just keeps on swinging, he won’t improve that much. Those who think combat is just swinging your sword, are wrong. The same is for the fighter. The fighter is more then just taking a few feats. The feats should be carefully planned. A fighter build that loses focus will manifest in a fighter who deviated from his training’s plan: fights will get harder and harder, until you finally lose your life.
For those who want some good fighter ‘training plans’, check out the char op forums, you’ll find some there.
I'll agree that the fighter is a difficult class. I think that is a bad thing however. Not everybody is into character op. Some people like to pick feats and abilities that look cool and get playing. Many of these players like to play the fighter archetype. And, again, I think the fighter should, by default, be good at fighting.
The fighter: advanced training
So now you know how to swing a sword. That is what the fighter class gives you. As I said before, that is the only thing the fighter class gives you. General rigorous training only brings you so far. So does the fighter class. Now you want something more. You want to live and die by the sword. You want to become a knight on a white horse. You wanted to become the ultimate defender.
Enter the prestige classes: these classes represent focused training.
You wanted to become someone who lives and dies by the sword. Check out kensai.
Knight on a white horse is more of your thing, then cavalier would be right up your ally.
Defenders? Check out the dwarven defender.
This part of the game mechanism works again perfectly, since it’s the fighter that has it easiest to become able to take prestige classes.
Again, a difference of opinion. Why make the fighter 20 levels long if it is only meant for 2 to 4 levels? Agree to disagree. :D
So my conclusion: the fighter
- only fights: as expected
- no unique features: some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- a simple but difficult class: quite realistic
- splashable: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
- easy prestige classes: again some say weakness, I say beautifully realistic
I'm not fond of the word 'realistic' when referring to anything in D&D. The word seems to imply realistic in terms of real world physics, which is most certainly not the case; not even with the fighter. Here are my conclusions:
- Only fights, not always well. Not as I expected. I guess it was the word 'fighter' that threw me off.
- No unique features. Bland. Add in dead levels and uselessness outside of combat for an extra helping of boring.
- A deceptively difficult class. Newbie's beware!!!
- A waste of 16-18 levels.
- Requires prestige classes. See above.
This means that he can take a 10 to get a long-jump check result of 37, allowing him to jump 35 feet. In full plate-mail.
The world record for the long jump is no more than 30 feet.
Realistic? I think the last hope of realism had left even the Warrior at about level 10.
If I were to remake the fighter, I would give him battle related skills, control of his body (strong reflex saves), the ability to avoid danger (uncanny dodge, evasion) as well as a few feats to boost combat. Fortunately for me, there's a class that fits the ideal warrior for me: the ranger.
One question. Is it fun? Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No. Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard? Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so. And that's all that really matters. And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
Well, I, personally, do enjoy being one of the only steadily damaging characters in a party, because you are almost always useful in combat. For that matter, a great many people must enjoy repetitive combat, with only minor differences each encounter, or else the Gauntlet series would not even exist anymore.
If you build and play your Fighter true to the roll you plan, the Fighter may be the most fulfilling classes to play. The Fighter is the best character at what he does and that is Fight. If you stick with this ideal and play it right you'll take the spotlight whenever the swords are drawn.
I should also add that if your Fighter is played well you will be giving the other players at the table the chance to play their characters to the fullest by keeping the bad guys busy so the can cast there spells, make there sneak attacks and the like.
1. Normally, Exotic Weapons proficiencies are acquired one at a time. In the same way, Martial Weapon proficiencies are only one at a time for the classes that don't have them. How about letting a Fighter (only), take some weapons in related bundles, such as taking all the weapons that are normally for two handed use as martial weapons, but can be used one handed as exotic weapons, if the character expends a single feat, all as one package? In the same way, a group of 'knightly' weapons, or weapons specifically designed for overcoming an enemy's real armor (and not natural armor, magic, etc.), could be very functional as one feat.
Since the fighter is the 'most realistic' class, it's worth noting that the last feat, properly detailed, focuses armored guys with swords on doing what they 'realistically' did best.
2. Skill - Know: 'Gear'. The Fighter knows combat equipment. A successful roll on a formal Knowledge skill could mean the Fighter knows a particular foe is using a 60 year old rapier design, made in the southern islands. The basic rules are full of often disregarded tid-bits that fit this skill, such as Long Bows not being usable from Horseback as Short Bows are. The Fighter should be the guy who understands the finer points of weapons and armor, although it will be necessary for the DM who adopts this approach to decide how often this ability should actually affect combat numbers. And really, why should Magic Users get Know: Arcane without the Fighter getting a corresponding skill? Probably this could be a cross class skill for everyone else.
This is less useful than new feats, The Fighter doesn't necessarily get enough skill points to be interested in taking another skill, even if it's more suited to the fighter class than any other.
3. Tweak the armor rules so that Fighters get less of a maximum Dexterity hit than any other class, so a high Dex Fighter can wear heavier armors before they begin to offset his or her dexterity bonus. This could start at +1 from origin, and go up every 3 to 5 fighter levels. There are several methods of tweaking the armor or shield rules so that a fighter gets a bit more benefit from the same gear than any other class. While I've suggested one that mostly helps the fighter who has either high starting dexterity or a willingness to build dex as part of his or her ability score increases, there are plenty of more general tweaks possible here.
My main point is, the Fighter class can't even become as broken as some other classes could be, because it is presented simply and straight forwardly enough that many adjustments are easy, they can be made for clear reasons such as 'increasing realism', and there are plenty of possible tweaks that don't interact with other tweaks. Just consider making any changes to the MU familiar rules, and how many other parts of a Wizard or Sorcerer abilities this would affect. Changes to the fighter class are easier than for any other core class, and probably less likely to disrupt the entire campaign as well.
A fighter IS NOT a well trained commoner. A well trained commoner is a warrior, a soldier or a militia. The PCs of a group are supposed to become demigod heroes whether they are wizards, priests, thieves or fighters. Those kind of people are expected to gain many abilities through their experiences and their experiences are not something anyone could get. So why everybody gains something by experience while the fighter gets something that is gained by simple training? Why does a commoner has the chance to be on the same level as a future demigod, at least until a certain point?
I like the fighter class; it contains the meaning of D&D IMO: struggle, fight your way through endless perils and become someone who would be known to the whole world for his deeds, evil or good. But the thing is that the class is just too "common" to be heroic. There is nothing unique in it. The main ability it gets is feats. Well everybody gets feats whether they are fighters or not. Fighters don't have more weaknesses than other classes. A wizard may fail his fortitude save as easily as a fighter can lose his will save or a cleric his reflex save. Everybody is strong in something and weak in something else. It's just that everybody else is someone with something unique while the fighter is someone who has trained a lot. I don't know the solution to the problem; my opinion would be to add more fighter-exclusive feats that would specialize in different weapons. If you get to fight at least have a very unique style of fighting.
Sorry for the long post.
You also bring up the issue of the fighter as "realistic." In many ways, he is. The problem here is that you seem to think that "realistic" is a praise-worthy goal for a class.
The fact of the matter is that if you allow some characters to perform feats far beyond the scope of realism (say, shooting a green laser out of his finger that reduces another person to ash) and some characters to be brutally grounded in reality, you've created a pretty big gulf of capability. You end up with no semblance of balance. And while balance isn't necessary an issue in a novel, it is in a group game like D&D. Unless a person goes into the game expecting to be a support character, getting wholly outclassed is going to frustrate him, in turn disrupting the game and the group. And frankly, "Guy with large axe" doesn't sound much like a support role to most people.
With that in mind, it also bears mentioning that Fighters are already capable of being unrealistic. Improved Precise Shot lets you play William Tell. Far Shot lets you do it from half a mile away. Deflect Arrows is suicide in real life. Great Cleave probably wouldn't work even if you were fighting an army of marshmallows. Manyshot physically [u]will not work.[/url] These are core feats that extend well beyond the realm of feasibility. Further, look at how skills work. If you're past about 7th level and can still be described as "realistic," there is something seriously wrong. A seventh level commoner would likely survive being shot with a ballista.
Realism is not a virtue in D&D. If you believe it to be so, I encourage you to look for another gaming system that does what you wish it to, or never advance beyond about 5th level. High level characters are not ready for the Olympics. High level characters are ready to kick God in the nuts. Mister Realistic is advised not to show up for that adventure.
Warblades, Crusaders, Barbarians and their ilk are much better at fighting than fighters. Not only can they hit more, deal more damage and take more damage, they also have more skills. Quite frankly, a fighter is only one step up from a warrior, and has a fairly even chance of losing against warriors of the same CR, given equal gear.
It is precisely because fighters are written to be "realistic" by real-world standards, that they are both mechanically underpowered, and thematically inappropriate, for a high-powered game like D&D. If "dragons" were just alligators/crocodiles/komodo dragons, magic was just people tossing around bags of medieval gunpowder (saltpeter, guano and charcoal), and "monks" could jump or fall 10 feet safely, then yes, the fighter base class RAW, would be useful and perhaps even "beautiful," as some of you think of it.
However, dragons in D&D in fact are physically impossible monsters, intelligent flying super-dinosaurs who breathe fire and cast magic, magic can stop time and ignore the laws of conservation of energy and matter, and monks can jump or fall 100 feet safely. In a world where all of these can be taken for granted, the fighter is internally inconsistent, in other words, the fighter is unrealistic by the standards of his world, which follows different laws of physics than our own.
D&D (and D20 in general), as a level-based system, is inherently designed to be unrealistic. Skill-based systems, wherein highly experienced characters may only ever be twice as powerful as green characters (as opposed to the D20 mechanic which results in highly experienced characters being 10-100 times more powerful than green characters, depending on class), are much more appropriate for trying to approximate "reality."
If you try to apply the standards of D&D to real-world people for example, even after you remove most/all spellcasting from the equation, it's physically impossible for anybody to be analogous to anything higher than a 4th-8th (depends on class, and the standards of judging) character. Joan of Arc as a 4th level paladin, Bruce Lee as a 5th level monk, William Shakespeare as a 6th level bard, and Alexander the Great as a 7th level marshal is being generous, considering that no matter how intelligent, educated, and experienced a lot of us board members like to think we are, the vast majority of us would only qualify as 1st level commoners and experts with the standard array. Even the vaunted "Sage" is probably the equivalent of a 2nd level bard.
No real person can come close to being a 20th or even 10th level D&D character, regardless of class. "Realism" in D&D is not only unimportant, it's actually counter-productive.
And the mechanic is there in some of the other D20 genres. (e.g. 'Defense bonus')
So, skip the WIS to AC bonus that Monks get, but the +1/5 levels might be a good idea.
The fighter already gets these superhuman abilities.
The Warblade better represents a "heroic" fighting man, IMO.
But the problem is, the warblade shouldn't exist. It's in the dmg- if you make a character more skilled at fighting than the fighter, you have gone astray.
THAT sucks, since the fighter IS just a little under-handed. However, WoTC have offered a house-rule fix for this:
FIGHTER
The fighter, with nine dead levels (one at every odd level), has one of the most logical progressions of special abilities. They gain a bonus feat every two levels if you imagine the first bonus feat to be granted during a conceptual "0" level for apprentices. As an option-based class, their dead level abilities also incorporate a degree of choice in keeping with the overall fighter level design.
Physical Prowess (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter gets a bonus to some aspect of his ability checks that makes him a better warrior. The fighter gains an additional bonus at 5th level and every two fighter levels thereafter (7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th). The bonus must be drawn from the following list.
Applied Force (Ex): A fighter can administer force to the weakest points of inanimate objects effectively, giving the character a +1 bonus on Strength checks to break or burst items (see page 165 of the Player's Handbook).
Designer's Note: At most, physical prowess can be abused by taking the same bonus nine times in a row. Having done so, however, the character will be a 19th-level fighter and should be rewarded for his devotion to a single class without multiclassing. If that means the character can easily bend bars or break doors, so be it. Such destructive force is their due.
Combat Bearing (Ex): A fighter can steady himself to fight in precarious situations, giving the character a +1 bonus on Dexterity checks to avoid falling when damaged while balancing or moving quickly across difficult surfaces (see Balance on page 67 of the Player's Handbook).
Stamina Reserve (Ex): A fighter can push his body more than normal, giving the character a +1 bonus on Constitution checks to continue running (see page 144 of the Player's Handbook) and to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march (see page 164 of the Player's Handbook).
Designer's Note: At most, physical prowess can be abused by taking the same bonus nine times in a row. Having done so, however, the character will be a 19th-level fighter and should be rewarded for his devotion to a single class without multiclassing. If that means the character can easily bend bars or break doors, so be it. Such destructive force is their due.
One question. Is it fun? Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No. Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard? Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so. And that's all that really matters. And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
And why I fixed the class up in my campaign long ago.
No ability to EVER cast spells? (spell casters can fight) then damn hard to effect with spells.
BAB that other classes with special abilities also have? Then when multiple attacks are attained by level the fighter does them at full BAB.
That type of thing.
One question. Is it fun?
Quite often it is.
Is it fun to swing a sword over and over in an encounter, occasionally power attacking, cleaving, critting, ect? No.
I find this to be incorrect. A fighter is actually hugely versatile over the standard image you just presented. Even a good old Sword and Board fighter can have the ability to trip, dual wield a spiked shield, power attack whenever it is feasible, crit more or less softer or harder depending on the sword used, destroy things on a charge, and so much more. You still think fighters are limited?
Is it fun doing pathetic amounts of damage compared to the Wizard?
I can do 64d6+248 on a full attack with a half giant(aberrant limbs[arms) fighter build, and STILL have five or six feats left over. And, unlike the mage, I can make it so I can score a critical once per eight attacks, so that I do even more damage. Did I mention that this is a touch attack too? And I can do that ALL DAY LONG, not just four or five times.
Being charmed or dominated without hardly a chance to save? I don't think so.
No different then a rogue or barbarian. Or a wizard getting hit by any trap, breath weapon, poison, most spells, etc.
And that's all that really matters. And as for you're prestige class point, why? Why should the fighter be so weak without prestige classes the wizard and cleric can stand on they're own two feet, why not a fighter?
Because in many a one-on-one, I can make the fighter prevail, deal massive damage, cut through hundreds of monsters, and have him do this all day long, for years even assuming he's undead. And the fighter doesn't always need prestige classes. He does if he wants to specialize beyond a certain point, but then again, so does every other class.
And all the while, your wizard is hoping he has the right spells prepared, uses them at the right time, that I don't make my saves, and, to be blunt: that I don't get to point blank range, because that's all I need to kill him.
One: A fighter is not merely someone who has swung a sword at a dummy 1000 times, that is a warrior - someone who has experience in fighting but not "sophisticated training", according to the DMG. A fighter is someone who has trained under a teacher or highly experienced fighter, someone who has been taught as opposed to self taught. If you don't have anyone to correct your mistakes, you will make the same mistakes over and over again, and they will be hard to correct. If you do have someone to correct said mistakes, you will stop making that mistake, learn from it, and be much better than someone who has set that mistake in stone when determining their style.
Two: A fighter is, I admit, a somewhat one-sided class. Its specialty is combat with weapons. On the other hand, the wizard has almost no weapons experience, with its poor BAB. The barbarian is a fighting machine with a different style. Not everyone's class has to be as versatile as an eldritch knight - the epitome of the sword-swinging spell-slinging adventurer. That's why the fighter should be in an adventuring party, and when encountered in a one-on-four fight as an NPC, he's still a challenge. Making a fighter that can enlarge himself with a few levels of wizard also takes away from his fighting ability with arcane spell failure chance, and seems somewhat like character optimization, not roleplaying.
In summary, the fighter does have its restrictions, yes, but it is a well-trained combat machine that does well with the help of others, teamwork. It doesn't need a few levels in wizard, nor does a wizard need a few levels in fighter, which it wouldn't get any armored help from. (When to wizards voluntarily engage in combat anyway?) The fighter is fine as is.
It's the perfect character for a irregular campaign as he can adapt to any situation.
But, my favorite, is the ranged kind of fighter. With the feats, no one, and i mean NO ONE, can surpass him.
I'm not against fighters nor I think he is weak vs other classes; he must be thought CAREFULLY and then you just adapt him to the situation.
1/ D&D is a heroic game. So i don't care about realism.
2/ D&D is a game. So i want fun.
When a Fighter always has few actions available (power attack on low AC opponents, and some rare other feats, all usable only during fights), Spellcasters have many more (either in or outside of fights) and pseudo-fighters have more (spells and special abilities).
3/ D&D is a team game. So i want to get my share of heroic opportunities.
Heroic opportunities for Fighters can only be be fights.
But while a Fighter inflicts decent damages, Spellcasters are better at it.
MMORGs organizes parties with fighters protecting Spellcasters.
All very well for the team game concept, but is the role of protecting Spellcasters not more for NPCs henchmen ?
4/ D&D takes you in your character, you don't want to lose him.
When a Fighter is weakening, he has no special ability to allow him to escape or heal - especially when in non-light armor -
And don't talk me about Archers builds...
Tome of Nine Battles presents real heroic fighter classes. It's a must-have. Fighter will become somewhat of an NPC class here, only first 2 levels are used... to optimize character builds !
My 2 cents.
Logain.
Great points. I am a big fan of the fighter. People really down play the feats. Calling them mundane. Feats get exponentially better if you get lots of them. Also if you don't munchkin your fighter a little he will look inferior. It is a good class for someone who really understands the nuts and bolts of the system. And I promise, when your half-orc fighter wielding a falchion 'leap attacks' for 6 damage for every one he gives up to power attack, he won't look mundane.
Feats are not much are mid-high levels when one can resurrect the dead, grant wishes, and alter reality.
One major issue that as come to my gaming groups attention is the fighter class invests a lot of its power in a chance to have more HP. They don't actually get more HP only the chance. It is possible that a situation can come up where wizard could end up by fourth level with more HP than a Fighter who had bad HP roles. There is no randomization of spells you get or other class features. So what at first glance seems like a weakness in other classes can actually turn out to be a strength. Lower variance in HP can be more useful than higher potential.
PrC's and splashing to make up for fighters lack of power is by virtue of the fact admitting that the class doesn't have what it takes. How ever Fighter is a useful stepping stone towards other strengths. So what really is the point of level 10 + as a fighter if most people are taking a PrC or splashing away from it. I think the reason for this leads on to my next point about the class.
Feat builds end. No matter power powerful or good a feat build is it reaches an end point. At this point you start a new feat path. To my knowledge there are no feat builds that start at level 10. Perhaps there should be more making Fighters more interesting at this point. Dodge is still dodge if I take it at level 1 or at level 20. Someone else pointed out about prerequisite for feats being a big drain on a fighter. An idea that came from this Fighters have a special feature to get around such problems. Adapted training a fighter might take a fighter feat for which they fail to meet the ability requirement by 1. Every four levels this is increase by 1. Too 2 at 8th level 3 at 12th and so on.
But the problem is, the warblade shouldn't exist. It's in the dmg- if you make a character more skilled at fighting than the fighter, you have gone astray.
THAT sucks, since the fighter IS just a little under-handed. However, WoTC have offered a house-rule fix for this:
The problem is the system, not the warblades fault that the fighter was poorly built and ill conceived in the context of the game. The ToB classes are frankly very well balanced and well built, they have strong limitations and also feel more consistent with the world that D&D is than the fighter does. The fighters key problem quite frankly is that it is a class that is told that it is to fight, but is unfortunately kicked by the system rather heavily.
As levels increase the fighter loses in economy of actions, available tactics and in comparison to monstrous foes. It's a poor design choice that a LA race will almost always be a better fighter than a fighter without the LA because the class itself is so mundane. The fighter is a class that has power that is supplied from without rather than within, the class itself functionally offers little and provides little to no tactical support for a party as a whole. The fighter depends heavily on their basic stats and many of their best tricks and techniques begin failing without heavy external support or extreme specialization.
In the context of the real world a fighter might be realistic, in the context of D&D the fighter strains credulity. The fighter is among my list of classes that I consider advanced NPC classes, classes that have a logical reason to exist in the world but generally are not versatile or strong enough to properly function as adventurers. Other examples are the Warmage and healer but there are others that I do not have the memory to name at the moment.
An interesting post, but what I find sad is that you compared a Fighter to a Commoner with some experience, and came away from it without noticing that everything you'd attempted to say was good about the Fighter got wiped away by that one simple act.
And honestly, having one class out of so many being the only one left minding the "limitations of humanity" long before approaching epic levels is sort of sad.
In response to this and any number of similar posts, have you guys indoctrinated anyone new into D&D lately?
FGS preserve one simple class! It doesn't have to be potent. It doesn't have to be winning. It can be awful for all I care.
It has to be simple. It has to do what it said on the tin (even if crappily). My n00b has to be able to understand it in 1 frigging second.
A new player I have chose Druid. What a wise, potent choice, right? No. They are frigging lost. I've had to spend a lot of valuable DM time with them. (Your time might not be valuable, but mine ******* is!)
Had they chosen fighter they would right now be having more fun.
So, you're all playing for some other reason, right? Care to let us innocents in on it?
-vk
Fighters are the ultimate DIY class since they have no pre-set abilities at any level, it's all feats you have the option to take or not take as you see fit. Fighters can have the same option of going more for archery than melee combat like rangers but just have a different way of doing it. However the one thing I find that most people don't take into account is the fact that you need someone with a decently high armor class and/or a lot of hit points standing between the bad guys and the spellcasters as well as the archers as well as the healers so they can all do their schtick by virtue of the fighter doing his/her thing.
Most of the time I play Fighters that take heavy armor and usually put myself up front where I generally get swarmed while the rest of the party picks them off of me, in fact there was one time where I locked up one flank of a fight our group was in while everyone else focused on the other flank.
Besides in the end it all comes down to personal preference, and that's what I prefer.
If you try to apply the standards of D&D to real-world people for example, even after you remove most/all spellcasting from the equation, it's physically impossible for anybody to be analogous to anything higher than a 4th-8th (depends on class, and the standards of judging) character.
Actually, we're all epic level, because we don't have fear death at the claws of a merciless kitten. As it stands, D&D rules are so profoundly different that you can't convert characters into real people or real people into characters.
I agree internal consistency is the most important thing, but our standards should be the baseline. There's nothing wrong with a high-level fighter being able to hit superhumanly hard, but there is something wrong with fighters gaining no defensive ability as they increase in skill. There's something wrong with armor being less useful for agile character. Cats being able to murder commoners is not good.
As it is, almost everything about D&D reminds you that it's a game. It's becoming increasingly hard to explain the action without referring to mechanics. Maybe you like that. I don't. I say realism is a virtue, and I'll stand by that. Realism should be the base. Superhuman feats come on top of it.
Every class does it's part in D&D, and the fighter is pretty freaking good at what he or she does.
Realism not important in DnD? I don't know. the group I play with likes realism. if a wizard throws a fireball on goblins who stand on a carpet, the carpet is burned ... when a ship sails full speed into cliffs, it breaks ... when the grab a bodak from behind, keeping its head directed to the floor, it can't use its gaze attack anymore.
In my group, many medieval strategies are used (sometimes spliced with magic). If realism wouldn't be important, what should I, as DM, say?
"Sorry that doesn't work. It too realistic?"
For all those that say realism is not important, I got a question for you:
if someone gets his head cut off (note: not someone tries to cut of his head; but the head actually gets separated from the torso), does he still gets a fortitude save or something?
> DM: the dwarven defender gets his head cut of
> player: I make my save. My character stands up and goes looking for his head.
Of course not. If a head is cut off, the DM won't allow a save: survival is impossible. Isn't that common sense ? Isn't that ... realistic?
Now this thread doesn't (or wasn't meant to) debate the power of the fighter compared to others. It was just to note that it's quite realistic that 'dumb' fighter builds s*ck. than that I find that a good thing. and also that the current mechanism available for fighters (feats, and prestige classes) fit nicely in the realistic class.
Another example: ambushes. Neither fighter nor wizard have Spot or Listen as a class skill. As such, they are equally vulnerable to being ambushed... or are they? A fighter can have Improved Initiative. A wizard can have an extended Foresight (Greater Metamagic Rod of Extend) up, then launch Celerity, Time Stop, wait out the daze, set up Cloudkill/Forcecage on each attacker... and this is all without rolling initiative. In the surprise round. A high-level fighter, while realistic, is not able to even remotely hold his own against a full caster who goes out of his way to win. In fact, for wizards, poor strategy is actually bad roleplaying: their intelligence is, of course, astronomical, so why would they make stupid tactical decisions?
In short, while I recognise that the fighter can be very fun to play, the realism of the class should not be a point in its favour. And why, if a fighter is a commoner who spends a lot of time with a weapon, does he have such a worse skill list? Why is a fighter hamstrung by lack of access to valuable skills like Tumble or Knowledge: (Strategy and Tactics)? Why can't he feint or misdirect his opponent, avoid an ambush, or fight effectively on board a ship in a storm? All these issues stem from his lack of class skills. I accept that a fighter should be forced to choose one, or maybe two, of these things to do well, but he should equally be able to choose them effectively, and he cannot because of his abysmally short class skill list.
Sorry for the short essay.
At the same time, he performs adequately well on a full attack, provides enough HP to survive adequately, and proves very versatile inside of combat if only within mundane limitations.
The fighter provides a class that is simple and direct enough for a beginner to understand and like, but only proves his real effectiveness in the hands of a skilled gamer who can milk his feats into powerful synergistic combat prowess.
People say the Warblade outclasses the fighter. This is a close approximation, but not entirly accurate. A warblade is superior on a standard action, so far superior as to be ridiculous, but on a full attack, a fighter can meet and even exceed the Warblade. Usually with some combination of Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper.
People point out that a fighter is the only one with the feats to pick up Bull Rush, Trip, Grapple, and Disarm all in the same character in a reasonable amount of time. But even with the feat, past level nine most seriously dangerous creatures are simply to large or strong to be affected by Trip, Grapple, and Bull Rush, while using natural weapons to be immune to Disarm. This leaves these tactics effective only classed medium size creatures, with the occasional large creature.
It boils down that, yes, the fighter is fairly realistic. He specializes in the most basic act in the game, fighting other creatures toe to toe. And plenty of people want to a simple fighting man, who makes his way with nothing but tactical ability and a strong sword arm. But D&D is not a game of realism. Most warrior type classes exceed realism by level 4-6. Any spellcaster exceeds it at level 1.
A fighters feat do not scale to match the higher power of high levels. Only recently, with the PHII, has this begun to change. While the fighter is gaining lots of low intensity, always on abilities, most classes have several always on abilities that are better than any feat (uncanny dodge, evasion, divine grace) and are also gaining a higher intensity, high powered ability that can be used when times get tough (rage, smite evil, wild shape, any spell casting). The fighter has now ability to replicate this kind of extreme effort ability
Couldn't a good, reasonable fighter be put out there, one who is easy to learn, represents an exceptional warrior worthy of being a PC without extreme feat specialization, not a realistic warrior who can't keep up with his comrades.
As a side note, this is the fighter I use in my campaign:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11692496&postcount=120
I believe this more accurately represents a heroic warrior who lives only by his skill with a weapon. Even from first level, he can spend a hour and understand the finer workings of any weapon he chooses to wield. He has more will power than the typical man. He has several additional skills that are vital to a specialized warrior; Sense Motive to see through feints and Spot and Listen to locate, identify, and keep track of threats. At level three, he gains an ability that represents his ability to push himself to the absolute limits when pressed into a corner.
And finally, at level 5 he gets what I believe is the absolute most important thing here. Mastery of War represents a fighters absolute dedication to wielding his weapon with extremely deadly proficiency.
Ambidexterity can let the fighter out dual wield a ranger, unless the ranger backs his skill with his limited spell selection. There are several good spells for this.
Master of Grappling 1 and 2 let the fighter wrestle and pin almost anything he can grab, rendering them impotent to harm him or his allies.
Swift Strikes allows the trained fighter to run up to somebody and smack them up to three times with his weapons in six seconds.
One major issue that as come to my gaming groups attention is the fighter class invests a lot of its power in a chance to have more HP. They don't actually get more HP only the chance. It is possible that a situation can come up where wizard could end up by fourth level with more HP than a Fighter who had bad HP roles. There is no randomization of spells you get or other class features. So what at first glance seems like a weakness in other classes can actually turn out to be a strength. Lower variance in HP can be more useful than higher potential.
You aren't alone in this one. I prefer to instead of rolling for HP to take half the highest result and add one. This would be 6 for fighters. Ability scores and HP are the only things you don't determine on a character, which is why I prefer point buy and taking average.
Currently there are multiple fighter type builds running though it doing just fine, there is one build that went though the gauntlet in 4 rounds or less. Impressive considering the rulings.
So in all due respect with the other tread and there add-on gauntlet I happen to believe that they have answered the fact that a fighter can be quite powerful at later levels or, to better answer the tread, they have there own form of power open to them.
Now basically people have quit arguing about "Is the fighter powerful", and started saying "Is the Fighter fun?". In which case it is to many players.
To answer some questions, there are feats that can only be taken past level 10, Some feats trees can only be completed past level 10 as well.
I think at the lower levels, where most of the games I've seen played, the fighter is fine - and a blast to play. It seems to be the higher levels where the fighter falls out of favor.
One of those reasons is the feats he acquires. Feats don't scale like spells, and all but three feats are available to all the other classes.
I'm not particularly fond of ToB because there is too much of an oriental flair (in the name of the styles and some of the supernatural abilities). I'd rather see fighters feats remain generically named, but scale up in abilities, especially above 8th level. There's a whole slew of abilities that could be granted to fighters that don't smack of "magical" or supernatural abilities.
Also, with feats being the bread and butter of the class, not only should fighters get the most feats, they should have feats only their class can get. If they hadn't already been opened up to the other classes, I really think that the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, Dodge tree, Power Attack tree, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat tree and Point Blank Shot tree (not to mention feats like Combat Reflexes and Improved Critical) should have been only available to the fighter, with other classes being forced to dip into fighter to get access to them - just as if someone wanted to cast divine spells they would have to take levels in cleric (or druid). I would have given Rangers access to TWF or PB tree for their combat style, Power Attack to Barbarians and Mounted Combat tree to Paladins - subsets of the "fighting" trees that fit those classes. Unfortunately, I don't think that genie can be put back in the bottle without a huge outcry ensuing.
Finally, the third problem I have with fighters is the dependence on magic items to be relevant at higher levels. I can't think of another class, that if stripped down to mundane gear that would be at the same disadvantage at higher level. Fighters should have a few tricks up their sleeves to take on the high level challenges without being required to have a set of magic items to take it on. Magic items should supplement characters - not be crutches, as in the case of the fighter.
As an aside, I agree with the sentiment that it was probably a bad idea in the end to grant the other classes multiple attacks from high BAB. It likely would have been wisest to make additional attacks feats that could be taken with BAB requirements.
Hit points: Hit points aren't necessarily the number of hits you can take. They're how an experienced character can shrug off a hit, or make a big hit in to a smaller hit.
I don't know anyone in the world now or ever who could take a direct hit from a claymore and continue standing. For that matter i don't know anyone who has taken a dagger in the back and continued living. Hit points couldn't possibly be a reflection of how much damage you could actually sustain. Action movies anyone?
Feats: fighters are a class that spends its entire professional existence learning the art of combat. Sure you could have a fighter that knows a little of everything but anyone could name a real or fictional character who embodies a character that would be a fighter that specialized in their feats.
Myth: Traditional story telling in the days of yore had characters that were exceptional. Not everyone in a game world has the outstanding skills or abilities that even a 1st level character has. It can't be denied that such in-equality exists in real life.
I would say that d20 uses a significant amount of artistic license.
The challenges of Fighter v ______ always is placed outdoors and it makes for a defeat for the fighter from round 1. Why? Because in that environment, the D&D world is not merciful. Magic can rule outdoors.
Now, take the fighter underground with the wizard, cleric, rogue, monk, etc. Note their vision limitations (60' normally for all), note if a light source is needed which is quite common when the party isn't all darkvision.
Underground, in the dark, the enemy normally sees the party first. In these circumstances, who do you think is in the front of the party? The Rogue? Yeah, possibly. But, chances are the Rogue is in trouble with a few hits from the unseen enemy in the dark. The Fighter would withstand attacks from such and as the party closes in, the Fighter is taking the brunt.
I've seen many different type of melee-characters. The fighter is different because of his FEATS. In most cases, he's like the wizard that knew ahead of time what spells to memorize - he's versatile. But, he always is. The wizard has to get lucky with his choices. I should know since wizards are my favorite.
All in all, I survive because of fighters and other melee types. Fighters are my meatshields in every sense of that. They know I can come along blasting - but if you have a DM that launches multiple encounters in a day, the wizard starts counting his spells. So does the cleric, druid, etc.
Claim the fighter just doesn't work? Try multiple encounters in one day with your spellcasters depleted in spells. I've had my wizard fight with his melee weapons when all else was expended. At that moment in life, the wizard smiles at the fighters, "dang. You really are good with that sword."
You are a fighter, of 4th level. (Lets assume not human)
You have: 5 feats, all armor and ALL shield and all martial and lower weapons.
Lets assume you built your fighter to be a fighter who counters other peoples moves on him.
Combat Reflexes, Close-Quarters-Fighting, Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Improved Unarmed Strike
Bare with me here, watch this.
You are standing in your common clothes after a hard day of adventuring, you just got out of your full plate and are wearing your sleeping studded leather armor. You left your weapon back at the camp, and decided to look over the cliff at the view.
Little did you know, a orc rogue/barbarian is sneaking up behind you. His CR is of equal level. (rogue 1/barbarian 4). This is gonna suck. You don't have spot or listen. He comes up behind you with his knife and attempts a grapple check. Having failed your listen and spot check you are horribly flat-footed....
Well, you have combat reflexes, so you get your AOP. He has improved grapple, but you have close-quarters fighting, so you get to take your AOP anyway, you have improved unarmed strike, so you take said AOP. In the following round, the rogue uses a wand of invis to get the edge on you...well you have blind-fight, and you keep your dex against invisible foes, not only that, you also keep any AC gained from your combat expertise feat.
This is a situation the fighter can handle. Isn't that cool? As he gains levels, he becomes harder and harder to kill. Assuming he takes Endurance and Die-Hard, he keeps fighting until he's killed, which is hard to do. With Combat Focus feats, you won't succeed any check made to make him do things he doesn't want to do, and god forbid he also has shield focus/shield ward...
After those feats are considered, he is nigh impossible to actually bullrush, over-run, grapple etc... Only hit point damage can hurt him...oh...Combat Vigor? He fast Heals too? Damn.
I don't know any other class with enough feats for this, so the fighter, albeit he cannot stop time. He can however, survive many situations like the above. Sneaky attackers getting the drop on a wizard, which will never happen because he uses divination magic or some such, but lets say the DM (who controls the world right?) Uses magic to counter that divination magic, and opens a dual-enemy surprise round.
Enemy 1: Dispel Magic (from spell list, spell-like, or wand/item)
Enemy 2: Delays till after enemy 1, runs into melee with wizard, readies action to strike wizard if he casts a spell. Note: He is using a reach weapon and has a bite attack, or he is using a spiked chain. AKA a 5ft step is useless.
This simple situation, usually stumps wizards. "I teleport away..." I take my readied action, I use it as a grapple....
"I use my spell to kill them" >> I take my readied action, I use the greataxe power-attacking for 8, AC 28? Remember, all your normal buffs are down because of the first enemy, does AC 28 hit your non-magical AC? Good, you take 1d12 + 16 + other mods, in damage, magic a really hard concentration check....etc.
I could go on forever. The only class in the game I know to be able to survive this kind of encounter, an encounter designed by the DM which is, not overpowering in terms of CR, but overpowering in terms of smart enemy tactics, is the fighter (or barbarian, big strength...)
I think when a fighter feels ineffective, most likely it's in a gaming group that doesn't know how to play together that well, or perhaps aren't making any effort to do so...if we have a fighter in the party, we typically use him as the core of our combat, which the fighter can do well. Spellcasters and sneaks that don't use their skills and spell selection to help the fighter are as annoying as melee combatants that allow their companions to get squashed while they are off doing their own thing.
I think the best way to tell if a class has merit isn't by looking at the situations in which he fails by himself, but by looking at the class and deciding whether or not he can be effective in gameplay. If the group plays together I think not only can a fighter be effective, but the dominant player when it comes to most combat situations.
Given the DM's style and makeup of the party, any player can be rendered ineffective... anyone. If solidly incorporated in the gameplay though, I think a fighter has more than enough OOMPH to hang with any class, and possibly more-so.
@Logain (and others)
Realism not important in DnD? I don't know. the group I play with likes realism. if a wizard throws a fireball on goblins who stand on a carpet, the carpet is burned ... when a ship sails full speed into cliffs, it breaks ... when the grab a bodak from behind, keeping its head directed to the floor, it can't use its gaze attack anymore.
If by 'realism' you mean internally consistent, then yes, realism is important. D&D has different physical laws than our world. As long as D&D is consistent with itself, then there is no problem. If by realistic you mean "pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are" then no, realism is not important. In your above example, casting a fireball spell is not 'realistic'. The whole evocation school involves creating energy from nothing- completely impossible in the real world. In d&d things can catch on fire so it is internally consistent in D&D for a rug to catch on fire when exposed to fire (regardless of the source). If you really want to enforce 'realism' in your games, you have to ban magic for starters, add in a slew of extra cumbersome rules (breaking bones from falling, auto death from taking a dip in lava and on- not my cup of tea but if that's your thing then cool) Some rules in D&D physics resemble ours but then not really. I don't care how tough you are in the real world; a 100' fall will almost always kill you. At the very least you won't be able to get up and fight afterwards. A sword wielded by a weakling still has a good chance of killing you. If a cobra in real life bites you, you don't get a save. You die if you don't get medical assistance. There are countless other examples in D&D where 'realism' doesn't apply. And that’s ok. D&D is an escape from reality.
In my group, many medieval strategies are used (sometimes spliced with magic). If realism wouldn't be important, what should I, as DM, say?
"Sorry that doesn't work. It too realistic?"
As long as the strategy makes sense, filtered through 'D&D realism', than you should absolutely allow it! Just because it shares some similarity to the real world doesn't make it incompatable with D&D.
For all those that say realism is not important, I got a question for you:
if someone gets his head cut off (note: not someone tries to cut of his head; but the head actually gets separated from the torso), does he still gets a fortitude save or something?
> DM: the dwarven defender gets his head cut of
> player: I make my save. My character stands up and goes looking for his head.
Of course not. If a head is cut off, the DM won't allow a save: survival is impossible. Isn't that common sense ? Isn't that ... realistic?
I'm not aware of any rules regarding cutting off one's head (does 3.5 have vorpal swords?) but there are coup de grace rules- essentially slitting another’s throat. That allows a fortitude save. I'm not sure if that is realistic in the real world but it is in D&D. Hmmmm... You can survive having your head cut off if you have regeneration so it's not impossible to survive decapitation in D&D. I still can't find any rules for decapitation however. I think the Tarrasque used to have a vorpal affect in earlier editions but I'm not sure. If it did before, it doesn't now.
Consider, who ever takes a fighter as their cohort with Leadership?
Anyone who says that any other full BAB class can't do as well as a fighter is kidding themselves. 11 feats don't make up for anything. Consider how many feats rage is equivalent to at first level: Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Iron Will. That's 5 feats! As the rage improves it's worth even more between additional damage (more weapon focus/specialization), extra hit points (toughness multiple times). While it is 'limited' in the number of uses per day, remember that the standard game assumes only 4 encounters per day.
Compare an animal companion to a fighter. Most of the time the animal companion comes out ahead, and it's a single class feature. Which would you rather have at 1st level, a 1 hd fighter, or a 2 hd wolf with improved trip as a free class feature? How about a riding dog?
Running with the 4 encounters per day standard as it applies to casters: At low levels (5 and below) it might be an a issue, but past level 7 or so if you're running out of spells, you're doing something wrong. You basic wizard at 7th level is going to have 5 1st level spells, 4 2nd level spells, 2 3rd level spells, and a 4th level spell if they only have an int of 14. That 4th level spell is probably a combat ender by itself at that level, and the 3rd level spells are going to be nothing to sneeze at either.
Can the fighter be 'effective' in game play? Sure, in the same way a fallen branch, safety clip and piece of string can be an 'effective' fishing pole.
I still think that a good number of people who think the straight fighter is a weak willed class don't look at the actual merit of the character in the context of gaming. They instead look at it and say, "Can my character beat this character at X level in a one-on-one fight?...No? Then it's unbalanced."
No, it's really more of an issue of "Can my character have any hope of doing anything even remotely useful in most high-level fights, especially core?"
And the answer is as such: "Yes, but he needs the buffs that by this point the cleric will be casting on himself."
Furthermore, another question arises: "What can I do that any other class in the game can't do better?"
The answer is "be a feat monkey." But unlike many abilities that are always useful, a fighter's feats can often be negated by common foils: natural weapons negate disarming, large 4 legged creatures (and my gosh, there's certainly none of THEM at high levels!) negate tripping, and just about every other class out-damages, out-saves, out maneuvers and just out-classes (pun intended) the fighter.
In addition, the fighter lacks any substantial defenses, as I've previously noted. At best, he can burn three of his natural feats to boost his saves by +2 each, but the benefit is dubious with the number of save-for-partial spells and powers out there. He lacks Evasion or Mettle, and any buffs he might get from a teammate are spells that COULD have been Finger of Death or whatever.
The paladin gets Divine Grace, the rogue gets Evasion, the barbarian gets a free +2 on Will saves in a rage, arcane casters get Contingency, and clerics get to be clerics. What's the fighter got? He's got fewer hp than the barbarian, the worst saves in the game, no special defenses, and a paltry number of skills and skill points.
He can't even be much of an officer in an army, since he doesn't have Diplomacy. The fighter is the "big dumb guy with a sharp object," except that the barbarian is better at that role.
The fighter is supposed to be the unrivaled master of combat, but he's not. You remember the scene in Indiana Jones where Indy shoots the crazy guy with the sword? The fighter is the sword guy; the wizard is Indy. What I mean is that the fighter is the unrivaled master of combat IF you deliberately ignore the effects of anything other than sharp objects in combat.
As Indy's gun is to the crazy guy's swords, magic and other special powers are to the fighter.
Even if we ignore magic, as the fighter does, he is outclassed physically by many high CR creatures. Oh, he has +4 on Bull Rushes? So does the Large creature, but without wasting a feat. He has +4 on trips? The 4 legged creature has a +4 bonus to resist. He has Combat Reflexes? He can still only AoO any particular creature once per round. He has Blind Fight? So the enemy only has 25% chance to negate the only thing the fighter can do, if the fighter can even guess which square the enemy is in? Don't forget that fighters don't get Listen as a class skill. He has Diehard? Then the monster hits him one more time, or even funnier, retreats 5 feet further than a partial charge allows.
There's a time and place for the fighter: the time is levels 1-4, and the place is in a city, where he gets to fight nothing other than enemies of his size or smaller wielding weapons to be disarmed. Assuming they don't use stealth. Or spells. Or traps.
Maybe I used a bit too much hyperbole, but my basic point remains. Compared to the cleric, wizard, barbarian, ect. the fighter is both weaker and not as interesting.
1: you mention barbarian here, which means you really don't know what a fighter can offer. I have done a comparison of fighter bonus feats and barbarian class abilities (here it can be found in the spoiler) and they come out about equal, if not with the fighter ahead (depending on your priorities). The biggest difference is, the fighter isn't restricted to what it can do like the barbarian.
2: weaker how? in comparison to what? other class's, as in arena duels? or weaker as in, what it can do compared to other class's so long as you ignore the limitations of those other class's and tailor against the limitations of the fighter (IE compared to spellcasters theoretic spells, discounting the limitation on spells known, spells prepared and spells used)?
I'd like to make a point about the nature of the in-combat uselessness of a fighter. It's not that the wizard is outdamaging you on the blasts. A blasting wizard is as sub-optimal as a reach tripper build with Toughness instead of Combat Reflexes. It's the save-or-die and save-or-lose effects that really get on your nerves. When you look at the horrible demon, steel yourself and... the balor falls over dead at a word from your skinny buddy in the robe. A wizard can either win or negate four encounters per day past level 5.
Your forgetting an instrumental part of all those spells... what happens when they save? will he have the spells enough to still handle four encounters per day, will he survive long enough to cast a second spell?
If the encounters aren't what you expected, can you still handle them?, will handling them cut into your ability to deal with the other 3 encounters? many of the save or ___ spells are limited to single targets (not all, but many), how do you deal with multiple opponents when your remaining spells are all single target, or vice versa, how do you deal with a single strong target, when your only remaining spells are all for weaker, large numbers of opponents? can you prepare enough of both without sacrificing your other needs? I've only seen one spell list for a caster in all my time arguing this topic, and it was a hastily made, core only spell list. and even without having all those non-core spells to dilute his options, it was still lacking in repeatable defensive spells. It had only 1 fly spell for the day, no invis or stoneskin and nothing outside core.
A fighters method may not be as efficient as a casters, but it is always effective, and it is not limited by times per day.
A wizard can either win or negate four encounters per day past level 5.
A fighter can easily extend that by a great deal, especially with a little help from the low level spells that aren't used to typically deal with appropriate level encounters.
Another example: ambushes. Neither fighter nor wizard have Spot or Listen as a class skill. As such, they are equally vulnerable to being ambushed... or are they? A fighter can have Improved Initiative. A wizard can have an extended Foresight (Greater Metamagic Rod of Extend) up, then launch Celerity, Time Stop, wait out the daze, set up Cloudkill/Forcecage on each attacker... and this is all without rolling initiative. In the surprise round. A high-level fighter, while realistic, is not able to even remotely hold his own against a full caster who goes out of his way to win. In fact, for wizards, poor strategy is actually bad roleplaying: their intelligence is, of course, astronomical, so why would they make stupid tactical decisions?
A fighter typically has the AC and HP's to survive the surprise round. It's unpleasent and costs resources in the end (but then again, a 6th and a 9th, just to avoid the surprise round is a pretty high resource cost as well, thats before you've even addressed your opponents) As for the wizard, forcecage is exceptionally expensive, so i generally ignore it when people use it in an argument, but your still ignoring something... If your being ambushed, then your opponents are hidden, you ether have the option to use celerity after the first one reveals himself, and then will have to use your non-exsitent spot check to find the remaining ones that are still hidden, and if you fail to find any of them, you suffer from being flat footed all the same once their turn comes around. Or you suffer same as the fighter, waiting out while those hidden reveal themselves, accepting the flat footed attacks you take. or are you assuming single target ambush's?
Oh, what happens when the wizard doesn't have time stop? after all, level 17 plus is a long way in. More improtently, considering how many tactics hinge on both time stop and another 9th level spell (time stop gate in a beasty and buff it. Time stop, prismatic orb and reverse gravity. etc. etc.), whats the chances it hasn't already been used?
In short, while I recognise that the fighter can be very fun to play, the realism of the class should not be a point in its favour. And why, if a fighter is a commoner who spends a lot of time with a weapon, does he have such a worse skill list? Why is a fighter hamstrung by lack of access to valuable skills like Tumble or Knowledge: (Strategy and Tactics)? Why can't he feint or misdirect his opponent, avoid an ambush, or fight effectively on board a ship in a storm? All these issues stem from his lack of class skills. I accept that a fighter should be forced to choose one, or maybe two, of these things to do well, but he should equally be able to choose them effectively, and he cannot because of his abysmally short class skill list.
Sorry for the short essay.
The rest i more or less agree with to a point, though most other class's suffer from the same issues (and with cityscape, a fighter can have tumble). A barbarian has it only a little better, a cleric playing tank has it far far worst (int becomes a dump stat, 1 point is a must to put into concentration, leaving very little to put into an utterly different skill list thats just as bad, if not worst, then a fighters for those suggested skills. However, i don't believe it's enough to put the fighter in such dire straights as some here claim it's in.
--
--
too many of the comparisons in ability i see hinge on the ability to spontaneously cast (no preparation limit) any spell that may be available (no spell known limit), any number of times per day (no times per day limit), usually against a single, unspecified, always suseptable opponent (no chance on using the wrong spell). doesn't seem like a very realistic comparison to me
Besides, no character in a game would ever be optimized. Because no character in a game will ever know what you know. And if they don't, they can't follow that path. Seems to me the problem is separation of player and character knowledge, here.
I haven't thought about fighter vs. other melee, but fighter vs. caster is easy pickings in my opinion.
First of all, lets not for a moment consider magical items, for they can do many things, but it really depends on the game environment, how many and which ones you get.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
Fighter Level 8
15 str, 14 con, 13 int, 12 dex, 10 wis, 8 cha
Stat Boost: Str, Stat Boost: Con
Wizard Level 8
15 int, 14 dex, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 str, 8 cha (always a good dump stat)!
Stat Boost: Int, Int (lets be honest, what wizard doesn't shoot for an 18 asap?)
A fighter will on average at this level have
64.5 hitpoints
Wizard:
29.5 hitpoints
An appropriate encounter, is either
8th level rogue
5th level ogre barbarian
8th level classed PC race (any class non-NPC classes)
Mind-Flayer
etc...
A well built Rogue, (I've done this) appropriately challenging, can in one surprise round hit, from 60ft away (crossbow sniper), from hiding (easily done), deal a good 20-30 damage (not counting a critical hit, which only raises the damage by around 5-6 anyways)
How did I do this?
4d6 sneak (free baby!), 1d8 crossbow (35gp), 3d6 alchemical capsule (400gp), arrow of biting (+1 arrow, 305gp).
14 + 4.5 + 10.5 + 1 (30 damage on average). Then whoever he strikes gets a DC 16 Fortitude save or he takes 1d6 constitution. If the rogue is actually a rogue 5/assassin 3, they also get a DC: 13 + int mod fort save or die, if he also had a giant wasp poison (250gp), DC 18 fort or lose 1d6 dexterity
This is an appropriate encounter. The hit and run assassin. He hides, he shoots once, he runs away and hides further up along the path. If party does not pursue he sneaks back up slowly, and fires again, rinse and repeat.
Standard Party, Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric, will need the rogue
11 ranks spot, 12 wisdom (lets give him that!). +12 spot
to succeed a DC (assuming I take 10 on the hide check)
29 spot check
(11 ranks, 2 dex, -6 range penalty). Lets not assume the assassin uses a first level spell camouflage to score +10 more on hide...39 DC spot. Or worse, an elixir of sneaking and hiding! (which stacks with spell effect if the DM were really screwing the PC's!).
Back to the fighter vs. wizard
Fighter eats the 30 damage, has 34 HP left.
On average without items or feats, he has a +8 fort save. He has to roll 8 for the biting, likely 5-7 for the death, and 10 for the wasp poison. He has 34 hitpoint left, and survives relatively unscathed, assuming the average roll of 10 on all rolls (bad rolling could result in death, but hey, natural 1's happen to the highest level of people!)
The Wizard goes to -1 hitpoints (on average damage). Falls unconcious and unstable
He has an average of +3 fort save (assuming no items, and no feats)
He has to roll 13 to save against the biting (average 3 con, reduces his hitpoints by 8 more, he drops to -9 if he fails his save!)
He has to roll 10-13 average (depending on int or ability focused assassin) to save against death (lets give it to him, he rolls high)
and he has to roll 15 against the giant wasp venom (he likely fails and loses from ability to hit with a ray...considering his +6 bonus to hit just dropped....that's bad!)
Again, I stipulate, that this random encounter while traveling through some woods between two towns, is appropriate for this non-geared party. Assuming gear, we can assume the wizard has +1 more on saving throws, some pearls of power, and some neat trinkets (maybe giving him the ability to heal his own wounds when conscious...more armor class for the original attack roll from bracers, etc... lets assume he isn't dumbly equipped. He might have some ability to neutralize poisons in his system as a standard action for the second saves he will inevitably fail)
The fighter will have his armor, his weapons, and maybe the party actually considering giving him an item they found usable by anyone that allows him a decent AOE effect (A bit out of his gear per level in this case, but a Harrow Rod comes to mind for higher levels...9d6 acid, 30 ft cone, reflex 17 half, 3/day, 15,000gp)
So lets recount
The fighter is at 34 hitpoints, and likely with items, hasn't failed his saving throws barring really bad rolling (which happens to the best of us).
The wizard is at -9, unstable, and has likely lost some con and dex, albeit we gave him a successful save on the death attack just because it could just be an 8th level rogue who had poison on his arrow).
If the cleric is wearing full plate, and is further than 20ft away from the wizard, and hasn't got increased speed at the current moment. The fighter, or rogue are the only ones capable of getting to the wizard at -9. Assuming they don't have garbage wisdom (but they don't have amazing either). They likely have to roll 13-15 to stabilize him, as a standard action.)
(move to get to him, standard to heal check). The cleric who might be within 20ft could just use a cure spell, but if he is further, he'll have to hope he has some ranged curing available today (close wounds helps!)
Otherwise, it's a 90% chance that the wizard is dead. 1/4 party resources in one well aimed shot.
I realize this is a very anti-wizard encounter, and that I've assumed that the rogue will 100% of the time hit (he silent true strikes from a UMD'd wand, and rolls a 2, he likely hits anyone he wants in the party ignoring miss chances and concealment aka he can sneak if he hides well)
But this encounter could also be aimed at the fighter, he realistically assuming not botched saves against instant death or some such. CANNOT DIE in the surprise round. He can't. It's not really possible. He can't be dropped the the hitpoint negatives, he has too many to do that, he's a fighter.
The wizard doesn't have many hitpoints, which is a VERY BIG WEAKNESS. I've got two party members in my level 12 campaign, who have 40-50 hitpoints because of either d4 hitdice, or bad con but good hitdie.
The sorcerer and favoured soul (the two low hitpoint characters). Are having to spend the first 3 rounds of any random encounter that surprised them, getting their buffs up, or retreating. Because if they don't, they die. The fighter and Druid, with good con scores, and good hitpoints, cover their retreat, and always feel threatened but not immediately "We could die here" threatened.
I've seen wizards with all their buffs up, and full hitpoints, be alive at full everything at the end of their turn, and dead by the beginning of their next turn.
It all depends on your encounters. If the wizard is known for being able to REALLY tear into enemies (ray of enfeeblement + enervation + another strength dropping spell). And the encounter is
Party Level 12
Dragon (2 CR's lower than party level)
NPC human wizard (2 CR's lower than party level)
Level 4 Goblin Warrior (not really a challenge, no XP to gain from this dude!)
The goblin moves into melee (or within a 5ft step of the dragons reach) of the wizard, and total defenses.
The wizard benign transpositions the dragon with the goblin (quickened, it's a 5th level spell) and dispel magics the wizard (to remove potential buff spells) He gets a check against each buff, using a d20 + 10 (DC: 23)
Dragon 5ft steps, full rounds wizard, bite, claw claw, wing wing, tail-slap, quick breath weapon on party (makes sure to include wizard).
Barring VERY WELL planned party lay-out, and really amazing initiatives. This tactic will usually kill the wizard, and the encounter level is equal to the party level.
NOTE: It is possible that this may kill the fighter too! Albeit it is much harder to do!
I realize this is a VERY LONG post. Really what I'm saying is
Game Balance is up to two things
The Dungeon Master (who controls everything, including what encounters to send, how many, and how he runs them which is the most important)
The Players (How intelligently and tactically they play their characters in any given encounter, be it social or combat)
If the DM is always sending melee brutes into melee with the fighter to get owned by the wizard, yes the wizard will seem like the ****. But if he actually attempts to think intelligently on how to defeat this amazing caster first, before the caster can obliterate the encounter. He will usually succeed, even using CR's lower than the party (even using EL's lower than the party).
A well placed pit-trap, activated by a lever, in a very confined dungeon room, defeats any character of any class who fails a saving throw (and for really large entire room pit-traps) no save. Any situation along these lines, can screw a caster. Especially if it raises the DC of and forces concentration checks to cast their spells.
You fall 30ft, onto some spikes, with poison, and there is a wraith, or ooze, or some other beasty at the bottom. Have fun.
On another note, I feel that you wrongly named this thread. When I read it I thought this was going to be a fighter bashing thread, but it turned out to be a fighter praising thread. Also, the "...realistic?" part is totally not relevant. In the real world the fighters would be the MOST likely to exist and DID exist.
Also this should probably be in the Classes category.
As an afterthought I do think that the fighter is one of the least interesting classes to play. Though, it is an excellent cross class choice. Gaining a few levels in fighter greatly boosts ones fighting skills.
BoN
Four man party. Wizard, Rouge, Cleric, and Fighter. All lvl 20. The Wiz is using one of the crazy damage builds from this board (forgot which one). Rouge is a crossbow sniper (as exampled above). Cleric is a melee-oriented cleric. Fighter has Weapon Focus-> Weapon Mastery and the Mage Killer string of feats from the Complete Arcane. The party is 20th level, mind you. No multiclassing whatsoever.
So here we are, camping in the middle of a forest, resting after defeating a Great Wyrm Green Dragon. Everyone's ready to go and has all of their equipment ready. Now, it turns out that the dragon had a mate, so we got a nice call from the other Great Wyrm Green Dragon. The oh-so-powerful wizard goes splat in the surprise round, a victim of a heavily scaled belly. A lot of good all that Celerity and Time-stoppage did there. The cleric goes into melee and uses a bunch of divine feats and buffs, and closes in. Sadly, but at the strange time humorously, the dragon gets an anti-magic field going and poof, the Cleric gets eaten one round later, proof that stomach acid is no laughing matter. The Rouge uses his run away class feature to skidaddle the hell out of there, leaving the fighter, armed with naught but his Great Falchion, standing there, going toe to toe with the dragon. So far, 3 rounds have passed. The dragon has 200-ish HP left. The fighter has a nearly equal amount. The rest of the combat goes like this.
Fighter: Okay, I attack with my weapon.
DM:......you realize it's a Green Dragon
Fighter: What's your point?
1) Dragon uses breath weapon. Fighter loses about half of his hit points, thanks to breath-enhancement feats.
2) Fighter gets 5 attacks, thanks to his feats. Crits 3 times. Kills said dragon.
Now, I bet most people are going to say "Lol nub, learn 2 play ololololol." But seriously. In that one encounter, my friend did something that even the melee cleric and the uber-wizard (me) could not. And since then, I have never looked down on the fighter class. Sure, a maxed out frenzied beserker could probably kill almost any fighter you threw up against it, but personally, I think that it's not nearly as much fun if everyone is so focused on building the most kick-ass-damaged-dealing-spell-slinging-mofo-that-not-even-an-entire-country-could-stop, that entire encounters could be solved with one guy. It turns a team game like DnD into "The Story of the one 1337 guy and the other, not-so-effective guys that kind of follow around and keep him from getting shanked in the middle of the night." In almost all of the games I have played, I have seen even the most "useless" and "underpowered" class perform well on a regular basis; even the Hexblade, Marshal, and the non-OA Samurai.
At the same time, all of the weaknesses of the fighter can be shored up or even negated with appropriately timed and ingeniously applied tactics. Has any fighter thought about taking ranks in Craft (Alchemy)? Sure, the Wizard or Cleric can dispell the smoke from a smoke stick easily, but that's another spell down the drain. Plus, how many classes do you know that take Blindfight as a bonus feat? With the simple application of an item that costs 5 gp, you've just given yourself an advantage that the average min/max can't easily adapt to (Imagine that) or, at the very least, you've made them waste one of their precious spell slots.
In short. Every class has it's merits and downfalls. Even the basic Fighter who's little better than an NPC warrior according to popular opinion.
I used spellcasters - Sorcerers, Wizards, etc, and while they were able to do great damage without having to put their head between their legs and pray to the high heavens that the critical that orc scored on you doesn't kill the tank, I personally enjoy being more on the melee end.
In a way, I was always torn between feats to choose when I level. I've seen jobs of the almost exact same builds, classes, skills, spells, etc, beat each other bloody, but because Fengalon had a one-feat difference, it tipped the scales heavily in his favor, as he turned the other wizard into bacon.
The fighter is my favorite of the many classes I played. A decently-built fighter can hold his own quite well. He gains many bonus feats, which offsets my constant three-hour decision on what new feat I want upon reaching level 12. I can build a fighter, give it a test run and see if I like it, if not, scrap and try again. I can create a fighter ahead of time and run dozens of test simulations with other classes on his side, versus different opposing parties/monsters, and find the best circumstances where the fighter shines over those wizards/sorcerers/druids, and such.
I've seen things that most DnD players would say is not right. I've seen a rogue one-shot a Ranger that started 160 feet away and had blink and teleport, I've seen a sorcerer in an anti-magic field swing a shortspear and score a deathblow on a gargantuan sized creature. Of the most criticized one, my fighter defeated a Warblade with a two-level difference that used Iron-heart endurance every time I took him down 50% or so on HP.
Part of it is how you play your character. My fighter is a brawler, his base attack is 22/17/11 at lv 13, and he carries a Manticore Greatsword with Full plate. I won't get into all his specs, to save time. A favorite feat of mine is Power attack, because with my two-handed weapon, I get double the damage for lowering my base attack, as you all should know. Now here's the thing.
Warblade 165 HP. level 15 Longsword, assortment of maneuvers, etc, you warblade lovers know how it goes. Stack on the Maneuvers! I'll take a second helping!
Fighter 121 HP, level 13 Greatsword, lots of feats which fighters tend to love. You few hardcore fighter lovers out there know how finicky we are with our builds.
Some of you say that the warblade wins easily. True. Even a decently-played Warblade against a good fighter can still open him up like a can of sardines. The fighter usually stands little chance. Now take this for an example.
That warblade was one of the most powerful I have ever seen. I don't use "Broken" or "Overpowered" as terms, I prefer "Well built." I was lucky to have scored a deathblow on him, despite crunching out well over 230+ damage in a matter of turns with some serious critical hits.
Even still, the Warblade can do the Iron heart Endurance, laugh, and flatten you.
Classes can be well built, well-strung, but if they are poorly played, that is how a person tends to not like it. Each class has its own mechanics - The fighter is a fighter, but he can be much more. Sure, he hits hard, but wielding weapons and armor and sporting the right feats/skills can make all the difference in how a job works. I personally have no qualms about jobs, I like them all, and I believe they all have important roles in a party.
The best players aren't the strongest, fastest, or the most bad-***** tank out there. They are the ones that can face the challenge no matter what the odds, fight to the end, and walk away happy winning or losing.
But meh. That's my opinion. I'm a fighter, what do I know.
A fighter can spend one of his endless feats to take these ones that boost team skills a lot. As the other PC's only have to meet easy requirements (I think anyone can give Hide 1 rank so it can benefit from the tactical feat) it's a great improvement to the team.
I will say no more, as the other advantages are expressed in other posts in this thread.
Cheers!
P4yne
The only real problem I have with them is their skills got nerfed big time. And it's because of their skills that they are restricted in how people play them. Move silently and even some basic skills like spot or listen would greatly boost the fighters appeal. I mean, they don't even have profession as a class skill. Like, seriously? A fighter is incapable of learning how to cook as well as a ranger? Thats just dumb.
I hearby create the Give the Fighter Skills Club. Constantly lobbying for 4 skill points a level and more to choose from.
BoN
Every time a good feat comes out, the fighter class gets slightly stronger.
You are like me, and think like me: The fighter is a strong, simple and I say a really good class, because he just fights!
Fighting is a key-part of D&D, and therefore, the fighter fits in so well!
All the feats also makes him good (I mean, Mighty Cleave at level 4 or 5, that's something!).
I have never had a chance to play the fighter, since I'm a DM, but I've looked through a lot of source books, and the fighter is still my favorite (warlock is number 2)!
You can make the fighter any way so he fits in your fight-thinking because of all the bonus feats, so the fighter could easily (well, not easily, some thinking is needed) be played by any person who wants to play the fighting guy!
He trains, he fights, he sleeps and he eats! That's a wonderful life...
And if he gets bored, give him some levels of rogue and you got yourself some extra d6s in damage!
Or make him a fighter/wizard and use True Strike at the beginning of a battle!
Yeah, the fighter is good... So good I wish I didn't became Dungeon master.
I want to be a Thri-Kreen Fighter...
There are dozens of options for making melee-focused characters in DnD. IMO, the fighter isn't meant to be used as a single-class-character anyways, his strength is his versatility and ability to improve just about any other class. This doesn't make the fighter any worse because he can't "stand up by himself", that's just what the fighter is!
I just don't see the point in arguing about whether he is as good as the other classes; if you're not a power gamer it shouldn't matter anyway!
1) Dragon uses breath weapon. Fighter loses about half of his hit points, thanks to breath-enhancement feats.
2) Fighter gets 5 attacks, thanks to his feats. Crits 3 times. Kills said dragon.
Now, I bet most people are going to say "Lol nub, learn 2 play ololololol." But seriously. In that one encounter, my friend did something that even the melee cleric and the uber-wizard (me) could not.
No offense to your story, but 1 person died before getting to do anything (wizard), 1 had their defining abilities taken away and then killed (the cleric), and the rogue ran away. So the fighter, the only person left, ended up being right next to the dragon to make a full attack at 5 attacks, and critted 3 times to kill the dragon... and that makes him good?
The dragon killed the real threats first. If the fighter hadn't been in the ideal position and critted three times, would the dragon have died?
If instead of using an anti-magic field the dragon had disarmed/sundered your weapon or disjunctioned the fighter, do you think he would have fared better than the cleric?
The fighter did about 200hp of damage in a round with 5 attacks, 3 of which were crits at 20th level.... A warrior, power attacking with a 2 handed weapon will (with 3 crits) output over 108 damage with nothing but power attack damage (no str mod, no other feats, no weapon damage, no magical bonuses) and only taking a penalty of 12 to hit. With just a str of 18 and a +5 great Falchion added in that's 204 damage from just the crits.
Yeah, it's cool that 'that one time the fighter saved the day' as it were, but was there anything about him being a fighter that saved the day?
I'll admit, my opinion of the fighter has increased recently. But still, I think they need a little bit more to make them really shine.
[\QUOTE]
Agreed. In all the boards, I don't think you'll find a single person defending the fighter who won't admit to this. But for the most part, the fighter functions well (he could use some skill points and better selection, retraining rules and the warblades weapon adaptability powers would make appropriate class features but as it stands now, the class functions well) and we just generally try to debunk the claims the fighter is unusable, sucks, obsolete, etc. There are many options to fill the role, fighters is as much one of them as any other class, different at performing the same role.
------
As no actual round by round scenario was given, I can't for sure determine how things actually played out in the dragon/fighter fight with wizard paste and cleric appetizers, but...No offense to your story, but 1 person died before getting to do anything (wizard),
Wizards have Low HP's, It's a weakness/limitation of the class. And the consequences of that particular limitation is that they die easy, and thus make good first targets. The fighter could have survived this attack and doing so would leave the wizard free to cast spells, thus using it on the fighter was a poor choice and using it on the wizard was an intelligent choice. So many people say fighters need the DM's to coddle them to survive, but all i see right now is a DM who choose not to coddle anyone, and you objecting because it resulted in the wizards death (I guess that means DM's actually need to coddle casters for them to survive, yes?)
Also note, had the dragon reversed things, crushing the fighter and metabreathing the wizard, the wizard likely would have died then too.1 had their defining abilities taken away and then killed (the cleric),
Again, a vulnerability, clerics are claimed to be better then fighters at melee, plus having spells (I have yet to see it successfully demonstrated, but i won't deny it's possible, if you ignore such limitations as dispels and AMF), the dragon negated both those threats (The melee as good as fighter and the spells) with a single spell of his own. He could have used it on the fighter, but it would have resulted in a far less significant return (still strong melee, though somewhat reduced due to stat and enhancement reductions, and no spellcasting to impact). so once again, using it on the fighter was a poor choice and using it on the cleric was an intelligent choice. So many people say fighters need the DM's to coddle them to survive, but all i see right now is a DM who choose not to coddle anyone, and you objecting because it resulted in the clerics vulnerability and eventual devouring (I guess that means DM's actually need to coddle casters for them to survive, yes?)and the rogue ran away.
Not a bad choice, all things consideredSo the fighter, the only person left, ended up being right next to the dragon to make a full attack at 5 attacks, and critted 3 times to kill the dragon... and that makes him good?
two things: 1: the dragon crushed the wizard and AMF'd the cleric, so really, is it so hard to imagine the fighter is within a 5ft step? 2: the cleric got eaten the next round, which mean the dragon got at least 2 actions (3 including the surprise round), giving the fighter at least 1 round before the killing full attack (this is a discrepancy that does make me wonder about the scenario though. what did the cleric do on that round, or was he also pinned?)The dragon killed the real threats first.
Seems to me the fighter was a real threat too, he did kill it after all.If the fighter hadn't been in the ideal position and critted three times, would the dragon have died?
The fighters job is to get into idea positions and do damage, and with a falcion and a fighters to hit bonus's, critting 3 out of 5, although unlikely, isn't impossible (an axe on the other hand might be hard to believe, but I have seen it done. And since he never mentioned what kind of weapon /shurg.) who knows, maybe 1 or 2 crits would have been enough to kill it, or would the dragon been able to kill him outright on it's turn? lots of questions, but that doesn't negate the fact he claims it was done, or that it was possible.If instead of using an anti-magic field the dragon had disarmed/sundered your weapon or disjunctioned the fighter, do you think he would have fared better than the cleric?
then the cleric in an AMF? yes. Fighters higher BAB and typically higher base str (melee clerics really more on magic to keep their Str on par).
would the fighter have faired better in the overall fight then the cleric? yes, because, although his magic items would have been made ineffectual, he would have still contributed a great deal to the fight (likely only 50-60%), and would have had a cleric with full spellcasting filling the gap created by the loss of magic.The fighter did about 200hp of damage in a round with 5 attacks, 3 of which were crits at 20th level.... A warrior, power attacking with a 2 handed weapon will (with 3 crits) output over 108 damage with nothing but power attack damage (no Str mod, no other feats, no weapon damage, no magical bonuses) and only taking a penalty of 12 to hit. With just a Str of 18 and a +5 great Falchion added in that's 204 damage from just the crits.
not sure what point your trying to make here, that it can be done? you've just proven it can be, and a fighter has access to the weapon sup line to make that even more doable. based on your numbers, plus adding in +6 to damage per hit from weapon spec line, and the +4 to hit being transfered into PA for an additional +8 damage per hit, for a total of +14 per hits or an extra 80 damage (not including superior Str). seems to me, doing that kind of damage at that level isn't so unlikely for a fighter after all, also seems the crits aren't as required. now, we don't actually know what the fighter build was, so we can't determine for certain how it played out.
I find it amusing you can demonstrate a warrior can kill the dragon, and yet, the fighter, who can do it better and easier, with no added limitations or vulnerabilities, you don't think is a real threat. what does have have to do to be a real threat, kill it and all it's kin in a blink of an eye?Yeah, it's cool that 'that one time the fighter saved the day' as it were,
do you deny that this scenario could happen?but was there anything about him being a fighter that saved the day?[/QUOT]
"was there anything about him being a fighter that saved the day?" you mean aside from the misconception of the lack of threat posed by a fighter that caused the dragon to overlook him? I'd say his durability and high damage output is one thing. if you want to say something along the lines of, a warrior could have done that too... so what? the warrior is a foundation that was built upon to make the fighter, if a warrior can succeed at doing something, that does not take away from the fighter, it only supports that the fighter can do it, and if that something is significant, such as killing a dragon in a single round, perhaps it demonstrates that warriors are as weak as you assumed, and thus some extra HP's and feats were all that was needed to make it into a PC class.
I just don't see the point in arguing about whether he is as good as the other classes; if you're not a power gamer it shouldn't matter anyway!
Exactly! But at least some people can appreciate what it means to be a fighter! To focus on fighting and not try to get random special powers and nonsense abilities.
The dragon killed the real threats first.
But that is part of the strength of the fighter! Other classes use flashy magic and are made of glass or backstab in light armor. They paint a large target over their heads. But the fighter, he is more subtle. He is the one who is left standing, who does not get targeted in the surprise round.
Besides, all of these complaints about fighters just really tells me that people do not know how to play a fighter and step into the role.
I really don't see what all of the fuss is about. A fighter is a fighter. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want to make the fighter better, go ahead, it's DnD! If your DM won't let you, play a warblade, or a hexblade, or a whatever-you-feel-like-blade.
There are dozens of options for making melee-focused characters in DnD. IMO, the fighter isn't meant to be used as a single-class-character anyways, his strength is his versatility and ability to improve just about any other class. This doesn't make the fighter any worse because he can't "stand up by himself", that's just what the fighter is!
I just don't see the point in arguing about whether he is as good as the other classes; if you're not a power gamer it shouldn't matter anyway!
Except the problem is that a class SHOULD be able to function regardless of prestiging or multi-classing. The fighter is generally a 2, or maybe 4 level class at most in many games. The problem that I have with the fighter is what I've said before, I feel it needs more options and more versatility. We have learned that a fighter can be built to deal with certain types of foes and that feats by themselves can be fairly useful. The gauntlet showed us a lot in that regard honestly (though the higher end stuff still needs to be done). My bigger question though is why you say it only matters if you're a power gamer. I have been in many games where the problem is that the others are doing more than the fighter can, the fighter needs templates and magical gear out the wazoo to keep up and even then it isn't perfect.
Yeah, it's cool that 'that one time the fighter saved the day' as it were, but was there anything about him being a fighter that saved the day?
Did there have to be? that's the thing is the point is not that the fighter is an uber class but that it is capable of holding its own which is true and cannot be taken away.
Unfortunately, attrition is a delicate issue at the very high levels where fighters battle obsolescence. With daily-use items, potions, scrolls and wands at their disposal, it takes a staggering amount of pressure to run a party dry. Even then, characters have means of getting their R&R in (e.g., ring of sustenance). The near-constant pressure needed to give the fighter the spotlight gives most players the impression the DM is picking on them. Even at best, an attrition-themed adventure is done sparingly.
Wizards have Low HP's, It's a weakness/limitation of the class. And the consequences of that particular limitation is that they die easy, and thus make good first targets. The fighter could have survived this attack and doing so would leave the wizard free to cast spells, thus using it on the fighter was a poor choice and using it on the wizard was an intelligent choice. So many people say fighters need the DM's to coddle them to survive, but all i see right now is a DM who choose not to coddle anyone, and you objecting because it resulted in the wizards death (I guess that means DM's actually need to coddle casters for them to survive, yes?)
Also note, had the dragon reversed things, crushing the fighter and metabreathing the wizard, the wizard likely would have died then too.
No, I'm pointing out that killing a player during a surprise round, through whatever method, doesn't demonstrate that that class sucks or another class is better. I would have said the same thing about ANY class that was killed in the surprise round before doing anything.
You however completely missed the point in your rush to defend the fighter.
Again, a vulnerability, clerics are claimed to be better then fighters at melee, plus having spells (I have yet to see it successfully demonstrated, but i won't deny it's possible, if you ignore such limitations as dispels and AMF), the dragon negated both those threats (The melee as good as fighter and the spells) with a single spell of his own.
Again, missed the point completely. You'd be whining your head off if the dragon instead of casting an AMF had Mazed the fighter, or destroyed his weapon thus rendering him useless. You've fallen into the horrible idea that negating an entire class's abilities is a good thing to do to show balance.
He could have used it on the fighter, but it would have resulted in a far less significant return (still strong melee, though somewhat reduced due to stat and enhancement reductions, and no spellcasting to impact).
See below for the problems with this statement.
so once again, using it on the fighter was a poor choice and using it on the cleric was an intelligent choice. So many people say fighters need the DM's to coddle them to survive, but all i see right now is a DM who choose not to coddle anyone, and you objecting because it resulted in the clerics vulnerability and eventual devouring (I guess that means DM's actually need to coddle casters for them to survive, yes?)
Given that the fighter would probably have had problems hitting the 42 AC and by-passing the DR 20/magic without a magical weapon, not so much. And thats before the grapple of +64. Of course the dragon seems to have dismissed the AMF for no reason to breath weapon the fighter, a much poorer tactical choice than the 10d8+8d6+84 (150 average damage compared to only 144 for a maximized breath weapon) and initiating a grapple from a full attack on the fighter while still in the AMF.
Seems to me the DM coddled the fighter and went balls to the wall on the casters....
two things: 1: the dragon crushed the wizard and AMF'd the cleric, so really, is it so hard to imagine the fighter is within a 5ft step? 2: the cleric got eaten the next round, which mean the dragon got at least 2 actions (3 including the surprise round), giving the fighter at least 1 round before the killing full attack (this is a discrepancy that does make me wonder about the scenario though. what did the cleric do on that round, or was he also pinned?)
Yes it's hard to imagine the fighter within a 5' step. The dragon in this case has a reach of 20', 30' with the bite. There's never a reason for the dragon to be closer than 20' from any target.
Seems to me the fighter was a real threat too, he did kill it after all.
Luck isn't skill. With 3 crits at 20th level and the dragon at about half health, I'd expect it to die. As for being a threat since he killed it, a 20th level commoner could have killed it. Anything should have been able to kill it at 20th level with 3 crits.
The fighters job is to get into idea positions and do damage, and with a falchion and a fighters to hit bonus's, critting 3 out of 5, although unlikely, isn't impossible (an axe on the other hand might be hard to believe, but I have seen it done. And since he never mentioned what kind of weapon /shrug.) who knows, maybe 1 or 2 crits would have been enough to kill it, or would the dragon been able to kill him outright on it's turn? lots of questions, but that doesn't negate the fact he claims it was done, or that it was possible.
No one said it was impossible. But it's almost exactly analogous to me saying that the fighter got a triple 20 and thus killed the dragon outright. It doesn't prove jack squat about the fighter. Put in a commoner: rolled 3 20s! and it died! Commoners can hold their own! Put in a sorcerer: rolled 3 20s! and it died! Sorcerers can hold their own! Put in anything, and the store doesn't really change.
As for different weapons, with a scythe it would still take 2 crits. All hail the scythe! - I mean all hail the commoner with the scythe... I mean fighter with the scythe... er all hail anyone with the scythe!
It's not the fighter that makes the story, it's the 3 confirmed crits which anyone could have done. Let me put it this way: to do 250 points of damage with 3 crits and only a x2 multiplier, you only have to do 42 points of damage per hit. With a power attack of 10 and 2 hander, that's actually just 22 points of damage per hit. The weapon probably does about 6 of that for the base weapon, so that's about 16 points of "extra" damage. If a decent strength (22 base) that's 9 of that damage, leaving 7. Make is a +5 weapon and that's 2 unaccounted for point of damage.
Let that sink in a minute. Seriously go back and read that. Notice that the fighter isn't required for anything in there?
Is that the high light of the story here? A fighter does 2 more damage per hit than anyone else with the same stats and items would at 20th level?
then the cleric in an AMF? yes. Fighters higher BAB and typically higher base str (melee clerics really more on magic to keep their Str on par).
And how do the fighters keep there strength on par? Magic. Seriously think about this for a minute: assume the cleric has a 14 (for feat purposes) and puts nothing else in. The fighter has 18 and drops in +4 from levels. Total difference in mods? +4 pre magic items. That's almost nothing, especially at 20th level.
would the fighter have faired better in the overall fight then the cleric? yes, because, although his magic items would have been made ineffectual, he would have still contributed a great deal to the fight (likely only 50-60%), and would have had a cleric with full spellcasting filling the gap created by the loss of magic.
No, without magic and the lucky crits the fighter would be almost completely ineffectual against the dragon. 20 BAB +9 Str (18 base +5 levels, +5 tome) +2 (weapon focus and greater weapon focus) +1 master work weapon = +32 total to hit vs the dragons base AC of 43. So you've got about a 50% hit chance on the first attack or two, your best attacks. If you do hit, each of those is -20 to damage due to the dragons innate DR 20/magic. You also can't hope to match the dragon's grapple check. Without magic items the fighter is a joke, not just the weakest of the player classes.
not sure what point your trying to make here, that it can be done? you've just proven it can be, and a fighter has access to the weapon sup line to make that even more doable. based on your numbers, plus adding in +6 to damage per hit from weapon spec line, and the +4 to hit being transfered into PA for an additional +8 damage per hit, for a total of +14 per hits or an extra 80 damage (not including superior Str). seems to me, doing that kind of damage at that level isn't so unlikely for a fighter after all, also seems the crits aren't as required. now, we don't actually know what the fighter build was, so we can't determine for certain how it played out.
I find it amusing you can demonstrate a warrior can kill the dragon, and yet, the fighter, who can do it better and easier, with no added limitations or vulnerabilities, you don't think is a real threat. what does have have to do to be a real threat, kill it and all it's kin in a blink of an eye?
Again, missed the point completely. Anyone could have done it. It doesn't say jack about the fighter. Anyone who can output 42 damage for 3 hits could fill in for the fighter in this story.
This is the problem with much of the 'fighter is fine' crowd. "The fighter did fine!" Yeah, and a Pinto will get me to work too. Why would I drive a pinto when I could drive a BMW?
You think I think the warrior is a threat? I don't don't! I never made that argument, you did! I think it's worse than the fighter, and yet it can do the exact same thing! A commoner can do the exact same thing. So can any other class we want to swap in in place of the fighter. If any class can do it, why do we care about the fighter in this example?
"was there anything about him being a fighter that saved the day?" you mean aside from the misconception of the lack of threat posed by a fighter that caused the dragon to overlook him? I'd say his durability and high damage output is one thing. if you want to say something along the lines of, a warrior could have done that too... so what? the warrior is a foundation that was built upon to make the fighter, if a warrior can succeed at doing something, that does not take away from the fighter, it only supports that the fighter can do it, and if that something is significant, such as killing a dragon in a single round, perhaps it demonstrates that warriors are as weak as you assumed, and thus some extra HP's and feats were all that was needed to make it into a PC class.
Yeah, the weakest of the PC classes. Look, his damage was sub-par at 20th level (it took 3 crits to get 250 damage, I've already show how poor that is), his fighter lived because the dragon used "good" tactics against the casters and then got stupid on the fighter.
Basically you're saying the fighter did good, and so the fighter deserves some respect and isn't weak. I'm pointing out that it didn't do good because anyone else could have done the exact same thing given 3 crits. Do you see the problem here?
But for the most part, the fighter functions well (he could use some skill points and better selection, retraining rules and the warblades weapon adaptability powers would make appropriate class features but as it stands now, the class functions well) and we just generally try to debunk the claims the fighter is unusable, sucks, obsolete, etc.
"The fighter is fine, except that he needs {list of extra stuff}, but otherwise he does fine!"
Yes, he can hit things. So can everyone else. The fighter doesn't do it, or anything else, particularly better than anyone else with a full BAB does (and some without full BAB as well), save the NPC classes. So yes, the fighter is still the weakest PC class.
Seriously is that is hard to accept that someone has to be on the bottom and the class with nothing special is it?
For a fighter with 16 con to have 200 hit points (average being the considered). Lets also assume he has a belt of con +4. For a total of 20 con. He has improved toughness (I'm trying to LOWER the level of the party). He'd have to be around level 15-17. Lets assume 16 as our middle ground.
Assume the fighter concentrated on the unholy weapon known as the falchion (this makes critical hits more viable).
Weapon Focus, Greater Focus, Spec, Greater Spec, Melee Mastery, Improved Critical, (6/15, 16 if human). He has 9 feats to play around with, I already argued improved toughness, and power attack was mentioned. So 8/15 feats used up (Note, this is more than any class that doesn't get bonus feats, even if they are human).
He will have, 16 base attack. He will have around 22 strength (I'm being generous, normally I see 24-28 around this level). He will have +4 to hit from specializations, and +6 to damage.
He critically hits on 15-20. (30% of the time he threatens to critically hit).
Lets assume he has the fabled +5 weapon (not unreasonable at this level).
+16, +5 (weapon), +4 (specs), +6 (str). That's around, +31 to hit.
So. +31/+26/+21/+16 (non-hasted) for (2d4 + 20) [15-20/x2]
AMF: +24/+19/+14/+9 (non-hasted) for (2d4 + 10) [15-20/x2]
(likely in AMF his str is 18)
However, as noted, it wasn't the fighter in the AMF. So, here we go.
A dragon of CR 16 has approximately 30 armour class (check green dragon, mature adult, CR 16).
So, this generic fighter above (who WAS hasted) since he had 5 attacks. Did the following.
+32/+32/+27/+22/+17 (Lets assume power attacking for 10).
+22/+22/+17/+12/+7
Remember, he threatens a critical hit, 30% of the time, so out of this full-round, he will threaten 1-2 times per round, ON AVERAGE. (30% of his attacks, are 1.5 attacks per full-round.) So he got, slightly lucky, not REALLY lucky, slightly lucky.
Lets assume he rolled 15 on the first 3 attacks, and confirmed with a 15. He has to roll 18 to strike with his 4th attack, and 20 to strike with his 5th attack. (Remember, this fighter I have created is devoid of any real magical item substance, and still have 7 feats unaccounted for, and current party buffs are haste....it it a good measure to assume that he has alot more, but to simplify, I am showing just the bare minimum.)
His damage, is 4d4 + 80 for the first 3 hits. That's 240 before rolling. The dragon is dead. (4d4 + 60 in AMF) (180 before rolling)
The cleric can output a similar amount of damage, albeit he has the have the following conditions applying to him.
Not in an AMF
Not dispelled
Able to have the time to use self-buffs
Able to be in position to full-attack (This also applies to the fighter, but consider that the fighter heads into melee round 1, whereas the cleric uses buffs. Even if they are quickened divine might/normal righteous might, that's 1 round the fighter has, that the cleric does not.)
Able to move after a dragons full-attack/breath/damaging and disabling things (this also applies to the, more hit points, usually higher armour class, usually more resistant fighter).
Please remember; that when an intelligent creature sees one mortal man grow into a large sized combat behemoth, and sees another mortal man using a magical falchion. Yes. They normally will target the behemoth first. Also, when a really intelligent creature (lets use a dragon as an example shall we?) Sees in the back of these 2 people, a robed figure looking through a pouch that may or may not be spell-components, yes, they will consider that person a very threatening target.
I am not saying the fighter is perfect. But this kind of moment, where hit points, attack bonuses, and anti-magic fields, is where the fighter can pick up the cleric and rip him in half. He's just, that much better in this situation. Feel free to imagine what kind of pain the fighter could do with those 7 other feats....
I'll give you an idea. Brutal Strike.
1/round, when you power attack, opponents are forced to make a saving throw (DC 10 + Bonus Damage from Power Attack) or be sickened for 1 round) In this case, the DC was 30 fort, or 50 on the critical hits. That's...very hard...for the dragon who has +18 to fort saves (consider the fighter could add another 12 or 24 on crit to the DC for full-power-attack).
Please remember; that it doesn't make the fighter terrible that the cleric is better than him assuming that 5-6 conditions apply. It makes the cleric good. However, take away any condition which is caster only, and the fighter shines.
No, without magic and the lucky crits the fighter would be almost completely ineffectual against the dragon. 20 BAB +9 Str (18 base +5 levels, +5 tome) +2 (weapon focus and greater weapon focus) +1 master work weapon = +32 total to hit vs the dragons base AC of 43. So you've got about a 50% hit chance on the first attack or two, your best attacks. If you do hit, each of those is -20 to damage due to the dragons innate DR 20/magic. You also can't hope to match the dragon's grapple check. Without magic items the fighter is a joke, not just the weakest of the player classes.
I believe the DR/magic also goes away in an antimagic field. I seem to remember seeing an answer form the Sage on that relating to the changes AMFs make to DR/X or magic, DR/X and magic and DR/magic overlapping with DR/X.
Hopefully someone can find this, or confirm it.
I will assume the dragon was the generic dragon equal to the party level, to show you something about said fighter.
-snipping lots of 'add in these feats, and items and it hits this and does this much damage'-
Lets assume he rolled 15 on the first 3 attacks, and confirmed with a 15. He has to roll 18 to strike with his 4th attack, and 20 to strike with his 5th attack. (Remember, this fighter I have created is devoid of any real magical item substance, and still have 7 feats unaccounted for, and current party buffs are haste....it it a good measure to assume that he has alot more, but to simplify, I am showing just the bare minimum.)
His damage, is 4d4 + 80 for the first 3 hits. That's 240 before rolling. The dragon is dead. (4d4 + 60 in AMF) (180 before rolling)
I don't know why you're using a CR 16 dragon and 16th level fighter when it was explicitly stated that the Dragon was the top age category for greens and a 20th level party, well actually I suspect because the AC is easier to hit among other things so you can make the occurrence of hitting and confirming 3 crits more look more plausible, but whatever.
Before rolling, but with crits. Want to see it with power attack as the only feat enhancing damage using the same weapons and str score? 4d4+68. That's 204 before rolling. The fighter is looking a little weak from my perspective.
The cleric can output a similar amount of damage, albeit he has the have the following conditions applying to him.
Not in an AMF
Not dispelled
Able to have the time to use self-buffs
Odd, if we give the cleric the same strength, power attack feat and weapon, he does "4d4+68. That's 204 before rolling." Yeah, really gimped the cleric there having no running buffs or using any spells and no prep-time.
I guess you meant to say: "The cleric can output a similar amount of damage without anything the fighter doesn't have too under the same conditions."
Able to be in position to full-attack (This also applies to the fighter, but consider that the fighter heads into melee round 1, whereas the cleric uses buffs. Even if they are quickened divine might/normal righteous might, that's 1 round the fighter has, that the cleric does not.)
If they're quickened, they don't slow down the cleric, if they're persisted, they don't slow down the cleric, and as we can see from above, running spells or buffs aren't an impediment to the damage itself.
Able to move after a dragons full-attack/breath/damaging and disabling things (this also applies to the, more hit points, usually higher armour class, usually more resistant fighter).
Higher armor class? From what? What does the fighter have that the cleric wouldn't also have for armor? How is the fighter more resilient? Because he has d10 rather than d8 for hit dice? That's a difference of 20 hp on average. Everything else the cleric can get too.
Please remember; that when an intelligent creature sees one mortal man grow into a large sized combat behemoth, and sees another mortal man using a magical falchion. Yes. They normally will target the behemoth first. Also, when a really intelligent creature (lets use a dragon as an example shall we?) Sees in the back of these 2 people, a robed figure looking through a pouch that may or may not be spell-components, yes, they will consider that person a very threatening target.
So you're saying weakness is a benefit because it means you don't die early? Sure, I'll go along with that. I'd rather have someone along who will help the party rather than be the weakling of the group though.
And there's still the fact that the dragon would have done much better to keep the AMF up to deal with the fighter.
I am not saying the fighter is perfect. But this kind of moment, where hit points, attack bonuses, and anti-magic fields, is where the fighter can pick up the cleric and rip him in half. He's just, that much better in this situation. Feel free to imagine what kind of pain the fighter could do with those 7 other feats....
Yeah, because this is going to be constructive, not "I can top that!"
I'll give you an idea. Brutal Strike.
Ahhh... that would be the same Brutal Strike Feat anyone can pick up? Yeah, that's so got me quaking about the fighter using it rather than the druid wildshaped into a huge earth elemental and using it with reach and higher strength, or the barbarian using it with rage, or the cleric using it just because anyone could. That commoner over there? He can use it too! What does this have to do with the fighter?
-snipping pointless Brutal Strike math-
Please remember; that it doesn't make the fighter terrible that the cleric is better than him assuming that 5-6 conditions apply. It makes the cleric good. However, take away any condition which is caster only, and the fighter shines.
As I point out above, the fighter in this case is hardly even marginally better than anyone else doing the same thing. The damage difference is minimal, it's all about the crits.
Look, if I came and said: "Please remember; that it doesn't make the commoner terrible that the cleric is better than him assuming that 5-6 conditions apply." You'd laugh me off the boards. That's the argument you're making: 'It can sort of do this thing good sometimes, so it's not bad.'
Can you play a fighter or commoner and have fun? Sure! Does that make it strong? No. You don't argue the commoner is a good class. Everything that makes you not do that is the exact same thing that makes the fighter not a good class.
Most everybody plans out their fighter...it doesn't take radical character optimization to this. The fighter has so many feats by the time you reach high level, if you misplace one or two feats your still not lacking them to put together in order to do serious destruction.
Many characters can out pace the fighter's damage. Few characters can out pace the fighter's damage in every situation, without rounds spent in prep, or serious prior planning given the encounter.
I have had just as many well thought out, carefully planned, absolutely evil and possibly unfair encounters set to smash my players that failed because the fighter hacked the holy crap out of a key element of the encounter the first round as I have had wizards or clerics "instant death" a key component of an encounter.
As far as fighters not being fun...once again this is something I often hear about but rarely see in my campaign. It's easy to come up with fun roleplaying concepts for the fighter because such examples are simply everywhere in both fantasy and real life. As far as combat options go..trip, disarm, grapple, pin, sunder, unarmed combat(yes the fighter can excel in unarmed combat), reach weapons, hurled weapons, ranged weapons (yes believe it or not a fighter can also excel at ranged combat) and quite literally dozens of feats by the time you reach high level to either use them or offer different attack options rarely leaves most fighters I play with getting bored.
To add to it, the supplements that are now out offer solid options for the fighter. Not only that (I know everybody hates this argument) but it's easier for the fighter to add a few levels of other classes with little or no risk to his overall character. This makes changing your mind about what you want your character to be easy at later levels... I know some people who love the fighter for just this reason.
The one area where I wish they improved the fighter is in skills...this is the only area of gameplay I consider the fighter truly lacking. His base skill points are low, Int is worthless to him unless you need the 13 for CE, he doesn't have a wide variety to pick from, and the few he does have typically suffer greatly under the weight of armor.
No, I'm pointing out that killing a player during a surprise round, through whatever method, doesn't demonstrate that that class sucks or another class is better. I would have said the same thing about ANY class that was killed in the surprise round before doing anything.
I never claimed the wizard dying meant it sucks or the fighter is good, I merely claimed the wizard has it's vulnerabilities, contrary to popular belief, and in this particular case, it was used against him. You seem to be crying foul about that, though i do recall you suggesting casting Maze or sundering the weapon as things the dragon should have done over killing the casters. Seems to me you think it's acceptable against the fighter, but not against casters.
Again, missed the point completely. You'd be whining your head off if the dragon instead of casting an AMF had Mazed the fighter, or destroyed his weapon thus rendering him useless. You've fallen into the horrible idea that negating an entire class's abilities is a good thing to do to show balance.
I'm not the one crying foul at the dragons tactics. you can claim you think you know what I'd do, and whether I would or would not "whine" (I suspect I'd want more info on what really happened in the encounter before i passed judgment on fair or not), doesn't change that fact that you're projecting. considering that much of the fighter debate is based around trivializing/negating what the fighter does (claiming a commoner does it as well (see below) and ignoring the potential of the feats, casting maze or sundering first chance, etc), seems rather hypocritical of you to be calling me out on this.
Given that the fighter would probably have had problems hitting the 42 AC and by-passing the DR 20/magic without a magical weapon, not so much. And thats before the grapple of +64. Of course the dragon seems to have dismissed the AMF for no reason to breath weapon the fighter, a much poorer tactical choice than the 10d8+8d6+84 (150 average damage compared to only 144 for a maximized breath weapon) and initiating a grapple from a full attack on the fighter while still in the AMF.
Seems to me the DM coddled the fighter and went balls to the wall on the casters....
Are you really saying that casting AMF to hit the fighter instead of the cleric was a better option? You later claim anyone can do what the fighter can (trivializing him), this would assume the cleric as well(?), now you're objecting that he had a choice of negating the fighter and his melee abilities (questionable, but I'm using your perceptions of the fighter here), or negating another character, with those same melee abilities (anyone can do it, right?) as well as full casting. Are you seriously trying to argue the DM was coddling the fighter in making the above choice? You're arguing that the fighter sucks while simultaneously trying to say he should have been targeted first. Which is it, does the fighter suck (and thus is not a real threat) or is the fighter capable and a threat worthy of being targeted first? You can't have it both ways. You can't say the fighter sucks so he should be targeted first or else the DM's coddling him.
Yes it's hard to imagine the fighter within a 5' step. The dragon in this case has a reach of 20', 30' with the bite. There's never a reason for the dragon to be closer than 20' from any target.
It was also round 3 when the fighter killed the dragon (Presumably this is also why the dragon was down HP's, the fighter had beat on him the round before (and maybe even a first round charge. shame not enough info was given to fairly assess the example)), so the issue of how the fighter got in range is moot. The climax of his story though was the fighter standing up to the dragon once all his allies were gone, and winning.
Yes it's hard to imagine the fighter within a 5' step. The dragon in this case has a reach of 20', 30' with the bite. There's never a reason for the dragon to be closer than 20' from any target.
He did mention the wizard was "crushed", that involves entering the wizard's square. (Not sure how that killed the wizard mind you, which is why i said in my first post i was leery about the example to begin with.)
No one said it was impossible. But it's almost exactly analogous to me saying that the fighter got a triple 20 and thus killed the dragon outright. It doesn't prove jack squat about the fighter. Put in a commoner: rolled 3 20s! and it died! Commoners can hold their own! Put in a sorcerer: rolled 3 20s! and it died! Sorcerers can hold their own! Put in anything, and the store doesn't really change.
Just an aside, a commoner or sorcerer wouldn't have survived the breath weapon. I'll continue on this below.
It's not the fighter that makes the story, it's the 3 confirmed crits which anyone could have done. Let me put it this way: to do 250 points of damage with 3 crits and only a x2 multiplier, you only have to do 42 points of damage per hit. With a power attack of 10 and 2 hander, that's actually just 22 points of damage per hit. The weapon probably does about 6 of that for the base weapon, so that's about 16 points of "extra" damage. If a decent strength (22 base) that's 9 of that damage, leaving 7. Make is a +5 weapon and that's 2 unaccounted for point of damage.
And a commoner is doing this, what happened to the 42 AC? Can a commoner, pumping all 10 of it's BAB into PA confirm the crit? I guess it's not as likely an option as you're trying to make it out to be. You're taking a single aspect of what was done (the damage) and are ignoring the remainder to prove your point (the metabreath breath weapon and the confirming the hits). You're intentionally skewing the results in an attempt to trivialize the fighter's contribution.
Additionally,
Let that sink in a minute. Seriously go back and read that. Notice that the fighter isn't required for anything in there?
You mean aside from allowing him to hit the thing while using PA 10, or potentially increasing the threat range on his weapon to make those 3 crits more likely. Aside from the fact that the fighter can actually make 5 attacks in a round, your commoner can't. And as you said it comes out 2 points short per hit (what weapon spec grants, not including the remainder of the feats (possibly including MWM)), I kind of think the fighter is offering something there. Perhaps not entirely unique, but I suspect that has more to do with the fact so few feats were given in the example.
Go back and read what the original example said. He never specified how much damage he did, only that he killed the dragon with it. He never specified if he required the crits to kill the dragon, only that he did crit 3 times. He never specified what feats he had, so he could have the full weapon sup chain to help him with hitting as well as making the potential grapple a moot issue.
Is that the high light of the story here? A fighter does 2 more damage per hit than anyone else with the same stats and items would at 20th level?
Kind of skewed view on things there, even if your calculations above hold up (losing 10 to PA means a Full BAB is required, and even that may not be enough to hit AC42), that doesn't mean that the fighter did exactly 2 damage more, all it says is that the fighter needed to do 2 damage more to succeed, he could have done 44 damage more per hit for all we know (thats more Robilar's overpowering attack kind of damage, I know, just saying.). And without knowing what feats the fighter had, and which were used in the fight, we don't really know what the fighter does on top of all that (your calculations only require 3 feats. PA, WF and WS, there are still 15 feats left (some of which are MWM and mage slayer)), but that isn't to say he's not doing anything. once again, your trivializing the fighter.
And how do the fighters keep there strength on par? Magic. Seriously think about this for a minute: assume the cleric has a 14 (for feat purposes) and puts nothing else in. The fighter has 18 and drops in +4 from levels. Total difference in mods? +4 pre magic items. That's almost nothing, especially at 20th level.
+4 bonus is +8 strengths, nice way to try and minimalize it. 8 Str is more than righteous might gives (and thats what I meant by using magic to stay on par). Now, that loss of 8 Str on top of the magically enhanced BAB and HP's makes for a fighter performing better in an AMF then a cleric. Thats all I was saying. In an AMF, the fighter performs better then the cleric, are you really arguing this?
No, without magic and the lucky crits the fighter would be almost completely ineffectual against the dragon. 20 BAB +9 Str (18 base +5 levels, +5 tome) +2 (weapon focus and greater weapon focus) +1 master work weapon = +32 total to hit vs the dragons base AC of 43. So you've got about a 50% hit chance on the first attack or two, your best attacks. If you do hit, each of those is -20 to damage due to the dragons innate DR 20/magic. You also can't hope to match the dragon's grapple check. Without magic items the fighter is a joke, not just the weakest of the player classes.
In comparison, we have a cleric 15BAB +4str (14 base, +4 book), +1 (WF. domain) +1 (MW weapon) for +21 to hit AC 42, needs a natural 20 and can't confirm a critical without another one. guess the fighter is better off in an AMF then a cleric. Hell, even if he put a level point into str and got a +5 book, he still needs a natural 20 to hit and confirm.
Oh, and you ignored the potential of MWM (which he said the fighter had) and weapon Sup improving (no mention of that one) his attack rolls and making the grapple a non issue.
And lastly, If they're in an AMF, then the dragons supernatural DR20/magic is also negated. Nice try though.
Again, missed the point completely. Anyone could have done it. It doesn't say jack about the fighter. Anyone who can output 42 damage for 3 hits could fill in for the fighter in this story.
First off, you were short 2 points per hit, so apparently, not everyone can do it after all, secondly, you ignored the need to hit your target, assumed a commoner with only str and weapon bonus's to hit (used BAB for PA) could hit the AC 42 dragon.
This is the problem with much of the 'fighter is fine' crowd. "The fighter did fine!" Yeah, and a Pinto will get me to work too. Why would I drive a pinto when I could drive a BMW?
And if I thought the fighter was a pick-up, not a pinto? Durable, rugged, and a gas guzzler (AKA has it's problems), but more desirable for me due to the work I did and the terrain I drove, am I wrong?
Yeah, the weakest of the PC classes. Look, his damage was sub-par at 20th level (it took 3 crits to get 250 damage, I've already show how poor that is), his fighter lived because the dragon used "good" tactics against the casters and then got stupid on the fighter.
Correction, He got 3 crits (it doesn't say he needed them), and did "more then" 250 damage (it says nowhere that's all he did, you made that claim up), and the damage is sub par in comparison to what? A 20th level commoner hitting an AC 13 opponent with 3 extra attacks and the fighter without the benefit of any feats?
Basically you're saying the fighter did good, and so the fighter deserves some respect and isn't weak. I'm pointing out that it didn't do good because anyone else could have done the exact same thing given 3 crits. Do you see the problem here?
Yes, I see the problem, your reasoning. So, someone can't do well if someone else can do just as well? An Olympic athlete isn't a good athlete because several other countries worth of athletes are also good and made it to the Olympics?
As for the "everyone can do it" argument, I've already shown otherwise. It takes a full BAB class to do it, both for the number of attacks and without the to hit bonus's, hitting and confirming the crits will be difficult at best
"The fighter is fine, except that he needs {list of extra stuff}, but otherwise he does fine!"
"Could use" and "need" are two completely different things. I said "could use", similarly, I'm doing well for myself, But i could use a raise (or win a lottery). This doesn't mean I'm broke.
Yes, he can hit things. So can everyone else. The fighter doesn't do it, or anything else, particularly better than anyone else with a full BAB does (and some without full BAB as well), save the NPC classes. So yes, the fighter is still the weakest PC class.
Particularly better? does that mean he does to it marginally better? that would in turn mean the other FULL BAB class's don't do it better then the fighter, I guess everyone sucks because they all perform "not better" then everyone else.
Seriously is that is hard to accept that someone has to be on the bottom and the class with nothing special is it?
I for one feel, at the very least, the barbarian and fighter are even, one may be preferable, depending on preferences, but overall, they rank even. I find the paladin difficult to compare, their abilities are nothing alike, but thats still not to say one is better then the other.
And finally, even if the fighter did rank on the bottom (please note the "IF"), that doesn't automatically mean it is unusable, that it sucks. If the fighter ranks 0.025 points under the next lowest ranking class (numbers chosen randomly simply as an example to my point), and only 4 points under the highest ranked class in a 50 point ranking system, does being at the bottom really mean that much?
Why do you feel the need to rank everything in terms of best to worst, and condemn the one at the bottom, regardless of it's actual value (your only argument this entire thread has been, "other people can do it", but at no point has it been said that it isn't of value. you simply try to devalue it by demonstrating how common it can be if you skew the comparisons by ignoring the rules and the opponents)?
All that being said, I still feel there isn't enough information in the dragon/fighter poster's example to glean any real information one way or another, I was simply trying to point out the arguments you were making were based on assumptions and double standards.
1. Spot and Listen become class skills.
2. Extra bonus feats for Weapon Focus (level 1), Specialization (level 4) and Improved Critical (level 9).
3. 4 + In skill points per level.
Myself, personally, I don't have anything against the Fighter Class. I wouldn't choose it, because I think it is, as many people have said, tasteless. There is nothing "Unique" about the Fighter. "It does exactly as it says on the Tin" as it were.
If you want to make the Fighter class Unique, do one of the following,
1) Fighters may ignore ability prerequisites on Feats.
Example:
TWF - 15 Dex
A fighter can just ignore the 15 Dex. So, effectively, a Fighter could have PTWF by 20th level (ignoring the 25 Dex for the feat).
That would make Fighters powerful. I still wouldn't choose them myself, but that would make them more flexible and have an unlimited range of feats available to them (especially at Epic Level. Ignoring all those 25+ requirements).
2) Give Fighters attacks like a Monk's "Flurry of Blows". So, instead of having a "Good" attack rating they have an "Excellent" attack rating, meaning they get 5 or 6 attacks, instead of 4.
Example: (all at level 20)
Wizard (Poor) - 10/5
Cleric (Average) - 15/10/5
Ranger (Good) - 20/15/10/5
Fighter (Excellent) - 25/20/15/10/5
or
Fighter (Excellent) - 20/20/15/10/5
or
Give them a Unique feat (much like "Weapon Specialization") which increases there base attack by 5. Thereby allowing them to go from,
20/15/10/5 (normally) to 25/20/15/10/5 (with the Feat).
3) Make more feats only available to the Fighter. That could be like saying, "The fighter has learned the ways of combat few others will ever come close to mastering. As a result, a Fighter has access to the following feats (Fighter Only)..."
Weapon Specialization
Epic Weapon Specialization
Advanced Training (increase base attack by +5)
etc etc
I think that would give the Fighter more "flavour" and maybe make it more Unique and better than the likes of the Monk, the Ranger, the Barbarian, etc.
However, as i mentioned above, i lost this thread at the start of the 3rd Page. Originally i thought it was a discussion on the pros and cons of the Fighter, then it went on to improvements and weaknesses and then i lost it. So, they are my opinions. If they are not welcome in this thread, feel free to ignore this post. Like i said, i lost this threads intent half-way through reading.
People say that the fighter is weaker compared to other classes. Depending on how you play your fighter, this can be true. However, a properly developed fighter can be devastating. Here's a example:
my 12th lvl fighter has the following stats:
str 22
con 20
other abilities largely irrelevant
using just the core books and phb2, he has the following attacks:
26/21/16 damage: 1d10+1d6+19, for an average of 28 dmg per attack, or a possible 84 dmg per round
he has 135 hit points
a 12th level wizard with fireball could do an average of 35 dmg in a round, albeit to multiple opponents. Disintegrate allows a fortitude save for partial dmg. fighters excel at fortitude saves.
so pit the fighter and wizard against each other. the fighter can absorb multiple of the wizards best attacks, whereas the fighter can easily hit a wizard. Given the stats above, the fighter can kill a wizard of the same level in two rounds.
One last thought: wizards run out of spells, rogues can't sneak attack all the time, and barbarians run out of rage, but swords never run out.
I agree with the OP. The fighter is fine.
Now, it is my firm conviction that any class that doesn't have any magic at all, be they spells or funky abilities, should get at least Int+4. Furthermore, Fighters should get some additions to their Class Skill package. I'd add Diplomacy, Knowledge: Battle, Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, Knowledge: History, Profession: Soldier, and Perform: Weapon Drills. Also, my gaming acquaintances all believe that all adventuring classes should get Spot and Listen, because adventurers who aren't alert don't last very long.
That said, if there's one truism to this game, it's that arcane magic trumps everything. Therefore, classes that have a lot of it are at colossal advantages compared to classes that don't, or don't have much. If you need to kill one hoss NPC, you've got such goodies as Phantasmal Killer and Disintegrate. If you need to kill swaths of goons, there's Fireball and Lightening Bolt. Need to sneak? Invisibility. Need to hide? Rope Trick. Need to talk NPCs into something? Charm Person, Charm Monster, etc. Fix stuff? Mending. Make stuff? Conjuration magic. Get somewhere quickly? Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport. And so on. If there's something that a non-arcane caster can do, chances are an arcane caster can do it at least as well if not better with the right spell - not necessarily exactly the same way, mind you. No one is going to deny that a Fighter swings a sword way better than a Wizard. However, we're talking end result, not effect. A Wizard can smoke single foes without having to get close enough to touch them with a 10-foot pole (and it amuses me no end that such an item is listed under adventuring gear in the PHB), and the only way a Fighter could match the performance of a Wizard in minion-mowing would be if Fighters could get access to Supreme Cleave, which they can't, short of taking levels in a Prestige class.
Mind you, with most reasonable builds, you really don't need to take Fighter much past Level 6. The only build I've ever used where I needed to continue a Fighter into high levels is the one I'm currently playing. I decided that the Weapon Specialization progression (plus Improved Crit) and the Two Weapon Fighting progression could compliment each other really well if taken for the same character. The build was a little weak at first, but has been scaling up nicely. The Feats in PHB2 help a lot - Two Weapon Pounce, Two Weapon Rend, Melee Weapon Mastery, and I'm aiming for Supreme Weapon Badassitude (aka Weapon Supremecy) when my character hits Level 18. He's got Power Attack in case he needs to muscle through DR, Oversized TWF so he can fight with a pair of longswords, and Cleave...well, just 'cause. Without PHB2, I probably would have capped my Fighter progression at around Level 10. It looks like I'll actually be taking this one to Level 20, because once I hit Level 18 as a fighter, multiclassing really doesn't seem to make much sense. However, the only reason I'm taking a Fighter so far is because the progression I chose is so Feat-intensive - it's really two progressions mashed into a greater whole. It's probably the most phenomenal Fighter build I've ever done...and yet it still gets outperformed by arcane spellcasters of the same level.
-Obliteration is at hand
If anyone actually remembers me, I am a staunch defender of the fighter to the bitter end... Now, before anyone crams this down my throat, I have not only suggested "patches" to "fix" (cough) the fighter, and have even modified the fighter for my own world... That is neither here nor there, but I will comment anyways...
One thing and it may be touched on already is that the only special ability the fighter has is their feats... While most scoff at this for rage and other more flashy things, with the increased number of books that opened the floodgates for fighter feat paths and groups, there is virtually no limit to what a good fighter can do if built well... That is up to the opinions of others, but as a side note, feats for the most part are unlimited in uses per day, and also for the most part can not be negated, taken away, or canceled as most other classes' special abilities can...
Also, yes, other classed can master some of the same feat chains that the fighter can, but count your feats and at what levels you can get them at, then look at the same chain with a fighter, noting the same levels you can get them at, and then also count the number of feats you still can take, sometimes even at lower levels...
Better yet, take two different feat chains and do the same... Still have feat slots left by 20th level, don't you?...
The fighter is fine; you just may not know how to use it...
I never claimed the wizard dying meant it sucks or the fighter is good, I merely claimed the wizard has it's vulnerabilities, contrary to popular belief, and in this particular case, it was used against him. You seem to be crying foul about that, though i do recall you suggesting casting Maze or sundering the weapon as things the dragon should have done over killing the casters. Seems to me you think it's acceptable against the fighter, but not against casters.
What "vulnerabilities" did the wizard have exactly that no one else does in the example?
Are you really saying that casting AMF to hit the fighter instead of the cleric was a better option?
No, since since AMF is a personal range spell. It's on the dragon. The dragon only had to leave it up to make the fighter basically ineffective against him. The dragon had no reason to drop the AMF after taking out the cleric, and a huge number of reasons to leave it up.
You later claim anyone can do what the fighter can (trivializing him), this would assume the cleric as well(?), now you're objecting that he had a choice of negating the fighter and his melee abilities (questionable, but I'm using your perceptions of the fighter here), or negating another character, with those same melee abilities (anyone can do it, right?) as well as full casting.
No, I'm saying the dragon could have nulled both of them by simply leaving the AMF up. Of course you have to understand AMF's range and targeting for that to make any sense, which would also help you understand the rest of what I'm talking about.
The climax of his story though was the fighter standing up to the dragon once all his allies were gone, and winning.
No, the climax is three crits. Take the crits out and what happens? The fighter does some damage to the dragon and is then killed. Woohoo. Put in anyone else doing the crits with the minimum damage and the story doesn't change.
He did mention the wizard was "crushed", that involves entering the wizard's square. (Not sure how that killed the wizard mind you, which is why i said in my first post i was leery about the example to begin with.)
Probably by the dragon's crush attack which is listed in the MM.
Just an aside, a commoner or sorcerer wouldn't have survived the breath weapon. I'll continue on this below.
Actually, a commoner or sorcerer can easily survive a maximized breath weapon if they make the save with on a con of 14. If they have a con of 14 and a +6 enhancement bonus to con from an item or spell, they could survive a maximized breath weapon even on a failed save.
And a commoner is doing this, what happened to the 42 AC? Can a commoner, pumping all 10 of it's BAB into PA confirm the crit? I guess it's not as likely an option as you're trying to make it out to be. You're taking a single aspect of what was done (the damage) and are ignoring the remainder to prove your point (the metabreath breath weapon and the confirming the hits). You're intentionally skewing the results in an attempt to trivialize the fighter's contribution.
Nope, it's a trivial contribution that you're trying to make out as something fantastic and amazing. The only fantastic or amazing aspect of the story is 3 crits.
You mean aside from allowing him to hit the thing while using PA 10, or potentially increasing the threat range on his weapon to make those 3 crits more likely. Aside from the fact that the fighter can actually make 5 attacks in a round, your commoner can't. And as you said it comes out 2 points short per hit (what weapon spec grants, not including the remainder of the feats (possibly including MWM)), I kind of think the fighter is offering something there. Perhaps not entirely unique, but I suspect that has more to do with the fact so few feats were given in the example.
I was using power attack as the example since we could assume 3 crits. But since you've latched onto that as the "must happen" thing, I suggest you read below.
Go back and read what the original example said. He never specified how much damage he did, only that he killed the dragon with it. He never specified if he required the crits to kill the dragon, only that he did crit 3 times. He never specified what feats he had, so he could have the full weapon sup chain to help him with hitting as well as making the potential grapple a moot issue.
Go back and read what the original example said.
The dragon has 200-ish HP left.
Thus he had to do at least 200 damage. I didn't assume what the "ish" part referred to and took the middle of 200, i.e. 250 as the goal. I suspect that it was much closer to 200 than 250 though.
So basically what you need:
Items:
Boots of Speed
Belt of Battle
+5 Collision Great Falchion of Dragonbane (+8 weapon total)
+6 con item
+6 str item
+4 str tome
Elite stat array:
Str 15 +3 levels +6 enhancement +4 inherent (+9)
Dex 13
Con 14 +2 levels +6 enhancement (+6)
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 8
Feats:
Weapon Prof.:Falchion, Weapon Focus:Falchion, Improved Critical:Falchion
So, at this point against said dragon any character will be at +17 to hit before anything else and doing 2d4+2d6+30 (42 average) damage per non-crit, non-power attacking crit. On a crit, that damage will become 4d4+2d6+60 (77 average). Now we'll add in the Boots of Speed for another +1 to hit and an extra attack at the highest base attack bonus.
That means that right now, if we said that this was a commoner, they would be at +28 to hit the dragon, which means a 15+ on the dice roll to hit with the first and second attacks, and a natural 20 to hit on the last. He also confirms on a 15+. Using the Belt of Battle to supplement his normal full attack, the commoner is going to get 6 attacks (+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23). With 3 crits, said commoner will out put 231 points of damage. Probably enough to drop said dragon since I was being generous when I said 250. Said commoner also has an average of 171 hp, more than enough to survive a full grown green's maximized breath weapon even on a failed save.
At this point I haven't added in race, am using NPC stats, the worse class in the game (commoner), only 3 feats, and only 334,373 worth of gear. And in the story... I have replaced the fighter. Moral here? The story was about the crits, and had nothing to do with the fighter.
Moving on to tactics. If the dragon had keep the AMF running...
Fighter 20
Feats:
Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Falchion, Weapon Specialization: Falchion, Greater Weapon Focus: Falchion, Melee Weapon Mastery: Slashing, Greater Weapon Specialization: Falchion, Improved Critical: Falchion, Weapon Supremacy
Strength of 30 for a +10 mod (assuming 18 base str with +2 racial, +5 from levels and a +5 tome).
Given a masterwork weapon for another +1, the fighter will be at +35 to hit. His damage will be 2d4+21 (26 average).
He will get 4 total attacks against the dragon at +35/+30/+25/+20. So he'll need a 8, 13, 18, and natural 20 to hit. Adding in Weapon Supremacy we can get that to an automatic first hit by taking 10 (the optimal use for it) and applying the +5 to the second attack so he'll need a 8+ for the second attack, a 18+ for the 3rd and natural 20 for the 4th attack to hit.
Assuming he hits all 4 attacks, that's an average damage output of 104 damage. Not enough to kill the dragon in the example by a long shot. In fact if he crits all 4 times, he barely hits 208 damage.
The above fighter's grapple check compared to the dragons in the AMF? Fighter +30 vs Dragon +64. The dragon will automatically grapple the fighter. You don't even want to go into the dragon sundering at this point.
So, when the dragon dropped his AMF, he was doing the fighter a favor plain and simple.