I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?
I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?
Sorry, while in my 3.5 gaming expereince it is weaker than some (cleric & barbarian) I have not found it to be particularly a weak class. IMO they hold their own all the way to high levels. I am with your friend.
I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?Sorry, while in my 3.5 gaming expereince it is weaker than some (cleric & barbarian) I have not found it to be particularly a weak class. IMO they hold their own all the way to high levels. I am with your friend.
He agrees that clerics, wizards and druids are better... the problem that I am experiencing is fighter vs barbarian and ranger mostly. Sorry for not being more clear. I really appreciate the responses though!
Though it's counter-intuitive, I think the fighter is a rather hard to play class. As a barbarian, you switch on rage or as a spellcaster hurl your spells at the enemy.
Given high strength and good dexterity, high skills in stuff like riding and jumping, and a good selection of feats, you have a lot of options with a fighter. Using them and using them combined with each other makes them much more effective than just standing there and power attack.
|
simple reason fighter is weaker than barbarian & ranger. all can fight well (the new favored enemy changes have worked well) but not all can use skills equally. the amount of skill points and their in class list really hurt the Fighter. having heavy armor prof is actually a class flaw. it tricks you into having a low DEX and no maneuverability ( with movement based skills and a slower movement rate) if things turn bad in a combat, the ranger and barbarians can escape better (ranger darts around a corner and hides, the barbarian just out races the foes)
that being said, my group is so gunshy of Fighters, i can only speculate on how much the Pathfinder Fighter has address these issues. (skill point system helps, but 2+ for someone who cant afford a great INT sucks still. armor mastery prolly helps some with the heavy armor burden, but i need to see an added movement rate bump to armors at later levels)
not to mention that other melee classes are customizable and not BLAND.
This doesnt even bring spellcasters into the situation.
having heavy armor prof is actually a class flaw. it tricks you into having a low DEX and no maneuverability ( with movement based skills and a slower movement rate) if things turn bad in a combat, the ranger and barbarians can escape better (ranger darts around a corner and hides, the barbarian just out races the foes)
[...]skill point system helps, but 2+ for someone who cant afford a great INT sucks still. armor mastery prolly helps some with the heavy armor burden, but i need to see an added movement rate bump to armors at later levels
not to mention that other melee classes are customizable and not BLAND.
I agree. Maximizing AC makes fighters very boring to play. More skill points make a real difference, as you could make a great number of cool things even with climb, jump, ride, and swim, IF you can actually bring these skills up!
But I disagree that fighters are bland. The 8 Dex-Full plate-power attack fighter is bland, but there are so many more options that are much more fun, and you can always throw in a couple of levels as rogue, ranger, or barbarian.
|
It has to come down to feats (in 3.5, entirely down to them, but also in PFRPG the feats are the dominant fighter class feature). Stack up a bunch of fighter bonus feats against the class features of the other full BAB classes and see what you think (and for PFRPG you can chuck in the armour and weapon mastery). Personally, I think that the Ranger is also combat-underpowered, although at least their new AC (in the revision Jason posted) won't be completely useless. Barbarian rage keeps them more relevant and they can at least move farther, wheras high-AC fighter-turtle doesn't seem very impressive (although perhaps the new feats like Lunge will make them more worthwhile).
|
I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?
The problem with the fighter is that the class doesn't have anything really "exclusive".
Each other class, in some way, breaks the mold of the basic-common-man game rules: wizards have spellbooks and cast a large variety of magicks, sorceres know few spells but cast a large number of them, clerics are armored channelers of divine power, druids shapechange and have nature magic, rogues can access an astounding number of skills and sneak attack, bards fast-talk anyone and cast some spells, barbarians rage and soak up damage, paladins have auras, smite and heal, rangers hunt enemies without peers, monks have flurry of blows and a good chunk of exotic abilities.
Fighters? They have a larger number of feats available. Feats that with some planning are available to any other class. Well, duh.
That does not mean that the class is inherently weaker, it's just that it does not feel as much characterful as the others do.
PFRPG Alpha/Beta rules do something in this regard, with weapon and armor mastery, but even if they're good class features, the "bland class" feeling lingers on.
My answer would stay in exclusive fighting styles that develop in variety and power during class progression, but I also think that this would be a major problem regarding backwards compatibility.
The problem with the fighter is that the class doesn't have anything really "exclusive".
Except Weapon Specialization.
And that has been a staple of the class right from the beginning.
|
The problem with the fighter is that the class doesn't have anything really "exclusive".Except Weapon Specialization.
And that has been a staple of the class right from the beginning.
And all those funky feats in the PHB2, admittedly they're not in the SRD, but a well constructed high-level fighter with the obligatory (greater) focus/spec and a good selection of PHB2 feats is a force to be reckoned with. Admittedly they still don't afford you a huge amount of flavour, but that's where the roleplay comes in :).
|
And the barbarian gets that anyway in limited times, with extra hps and everything.
Sure that extra 2 to damage is nice, but it's always been an afterthought to me. 'Oh yeah, I'm a fighter, I'm the only one who can get this so I might as well since I have the feat slot to spare.'
Compare that to a paladins divine grace or such and it feels pretty lackluster.
Illessa: You are right in that, as I imagine they do give the fighter some extra toys (I'd like to try a Weapon Supremacy(knife) fighter one of these days), but that doesn't help us in Pathfinder. And once again, it's just more numbers tacked on to the fighter, at high levels where every enemy has bigger numbers than you anyway.
|
|
True that, but a moderate/low bonus in damage dealing still does not qualify for a remarkable class feature.The problem with the fighter is that the class doesn't have anything really "exclusive".Except Weapon Specialization.
And that has been a staple of the class right from the beginning.
Compared to barbarian rage, ranger favored enemy, rogue sneak attack, paladin smite, the fighter weapon specialization is probably the best of the damage-increasing class features. It doesn't have as much flavour as a wild-man hunting down gnolls for revenge, but mechanically it is more useful.
I think Pathfinder does a good job of improving the idea of specialization into other areas of combat such as AC, criticals, etc.
In other words, it isn't the class feature it's how it was presented.
Barbarian: You fly into a fit of rage like the Incredible Hulk.
Paladin: You call upon the holy power of righteousness to smite your enemy.
Ranger: You have studied your foe to learn their weaknesses.
Rogue: You stab your opponent in between the ribs as they lower their guard.
Fighter: You train a long time and use your weapon better.
|
|
Compared to barbarian rage, ranger favored enemy, rogue sneak attack, paladin smite, the fighter weapon specialization is probably the best of the damage-increasing class features. It doesn't have as much flavour as a wild-man hunting down gnolls for revenge, but mechanically it is more useful.
You think that weapon specialisation is better than sneak attack (which scales nicely and now works on nearly everything)?
|
|
I have two fighters being played in my AoW campaign. We're now at 16 th level. These guys are lethal. If you're stupid enough to get near them, your're going to die.
However, they use a range of feats from various sources and they use very clever selection of magic items to ensure their mobility remains high.
I have to agree with an earlier poster. Fighters are harder to play well than some would have you believe. My players learnt all their tricks the hard way, over a long compaign. I don't think building a 15th level fighter from scratch would be very easy at all.
People are saying the splat books are no good to Pathfinder etc. but I was under the impression the system was meant to be backwards compatible. You can still use those books for your pathfinder games.
Cheers
*shrug*
In the 2.5 years we played 3e, the Fighter was the one class that constantly kicked all manner of ass...all day long...every day...any situation.
I keep hearing about how 'weak' the fighter is...and I can only assume that because most of the people in our group learned with 1e or 2e, that our perceptions of what was "fair and balanced" is considerably different than one who may have learned the RPG ropes with 3e. Also, our 'style' of play is quite a bit different than what is expected of 3e. A good example is that we never really considered the possibility of buying magic items. It just never really came up, and when it did, the DM would be using his 1e/2e 'yardstick' for measuring the chance and price of a magic item. Wanna buy a couple potions of healing? Ok, (rolls 1d4...) "The apothecary has 2 potions he'll part with for 250gp each". Wanna buy a +1 sword? "Magic sword? You think someone would be foolish enough to sell a magic sword? *haha ha ha haaaa...* You crack me up...". Definitely "skewed" from the premise of 3e.
Another thing was how our campaigns played. They played with a distinctive 1e/2e "concept"; that the world goes on without the PC's. That the PC's are 'above average in potential', but initially nothing special. That the world will go on, bad guys will continue to do bad stuff, and $#!t happens. In game terms, the plot/story continues on as it would logically play out, unless the PC's mess it up.
So, if you all think fighters are 'weak', play in a campaign that uses ONLY the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1), and play a 'converted' 1e/2e adventure. Then come back and tell me fighters suck. After the barbarian has 'raged' 3 times that day and it's not even noon yet, and yet *more* goblins come screaming out of the underbrush, the fighter will still be just as effective as he was right after breakfast.
I'm convinced that most 3e groups don't have more than, say, 3 to 5 combats in a 6 hour session. Back in 1e, you'd have 3 to 5 combats in the first hour. If you play in such a, uh, "tame" campaign, where the DM lets you rest up after all the barbarians rages are used, the cleric is almost out of spells, and the wizard only has Read Magic and Affect Normal Fires left...they I guess fighters are 'sucky'...because the DM is catering to the strengths of the *other* characters. He should be neutral, intent on letting the logical conclusions of the game events happen, even if it means the barbarian has no rages, the cleric no heal spells and the poor magic user is stuck chucking daggers, eventually resulting in a TPK. IMHO, of course.
|
|
You think that weapon specialisation is better than sneak attack (which scales nicely and now works on nearly everything)?
Compared to barbarian rage, ranger favored enemy, rogue sneak attack, paladin smite, the fighter weapon specialization is probably the best of the damage-increasing class features. It doesn't have as much flavour as a wild-man hunting down gnolls for revenge, but mechanically it is more useful.
Yes. Overall, I was considering lower (below 10th) levels. Another advantage of Specialization is that it requires two things: four levels of fighter and one bonus feat. To make Sneak Attack scale you need to stay as a rogue through your career.
But at higher levels it is still pretty close: +4 damage in all situations, or +10d6. Rogue looks great at 20th level until you run into an opponent that is immune to precision-based damage. (Incidentally, this thread was about the 3.5 fighter).
However, with each iteration of the game "Sneak Attack" gets better and better, while fighters actually lose unique advantages to other classes. So yeah, the fighter needs some love. But it isn't the dead horse everybody keeps beating on.
So, if you all think fighters are 'weak', play in a campaign that uses ONLY the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1), and play a 'converted' 1e/2e adventure. Then come back and tell me fighters suck. After the barbarian has 'raged' 3 times that day and it's not even noon yet, and yet *more* goblins come screaming out of the underbrush, the fighter will still be just as effective as he was right after breakfast.
I agree completely.
On the other hand, 3E does, after all, assume that you're going to have...what is it, four?...encounters and then rest. It's hard to fault people who cut their teeth on 3E for playing it the way it was intended to be played.
|
|
A barbarian is supposed to out-damage output a fighter. That's a Barbarian's shtick. A ranger has some cool abilities and some spells to lean on to help him with his shtick. I think the problem a fighter encounters is that a lot of people want to do a hit-by-hit comparison between classes and they tend to ignore some other factors.
A fighter has a crap-ton of feats. A bunch will be used to help him hit more often and deal some more damage, but a lot of others will go to things like Combat Expertise. Sure the Barbarian can hack that BBEG for more damage but I can decide whether to trip him, disarm him, sunder his weapon, bullrush, grapple, etc....
A fighter is flexibility in combat options whereas a Barbarian is massive damage output and ranger is....well...a dude with a critter who casts lousy spells and can't turtle-up with the heavier armors but is good at outdoorsy stuff. How many Barbarians are willing to give up a combat feat to take improved initiative? A fighter almost always will because they have a ton of feats. Add in a couple of suppliment books like PHB2 and some others and fighters have some really nice options for feats.
That's my take on the fighter and I think they are just fine if you look at them in that way.
I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?
Not enough chainsaw swords.
I can't convince my friend that the fighter (3.5) is weaker than other classes.. can someone help?Not enough chainsaw swords.
LOL, you're right, maybe we should play W40k Dark Heresy!
The most powerful character I've ever played was a a straight-up fighter, no splatbooks. (We had just switched to 3.5 and didn't have the Complete Warrior until halfway through the campaign. I never did get to use anything from it.) She could mow through monsters all day long, and had to since we were stuck in a dungeon with the only exit being on the other side of all the monsters. It got pretty boring after a while, both because of a lack of variety in my actions and because the rest of the group was not having much fun watching her fight after thay'd used up all their resources in the first couple of battles.
The thing about playing a fighter is that it looks easy and is anything but. You have to carefully plan your feats and examine every action tactically to fully take advantage of your abilities. If you're not naturally a tactical thinker or you pick your feats rashly, your fighter will suck royally. The fighter can be the best there is, but there's no room for error. Other classes have features that can prop you up if you make a feat choice mistake or didn't plan carefully enough at character creation. Not so the fighter. It's too easy to screw up.
Anyone who thinks a fighter is weak does not know how to properly build a fighter. Let me know what character class you're playing as, and I will build a fighter who can kill you.
I do think the fighter is ridiculously skill-starved, though. I like the variant fighter from the Midnight campaign setting. If I recall correctly he gets 4 skill points + int bonus per level. Also check out the "dead levels" article on the Wizards board.
And yeah, the PHBII feats for fighters increase their damage and staying power greatly. I think this was necessary with the number of VERY powerful new classes like the Duskblade and the Tome of Battle classes.
|
|
I agree with the "pro-fighter" side. One of my favorite characters was a fighter. In 3.0 I made a fighter that specialized in the katana(bastard sword with style) while working for the Deepwood Sniper PrC at the same time. I would rain poison arrows on them from afar with my Mighty Comp. Longbow (+3 Str), and then quick draw my Icy Keen Katana for a full attack of DOOM if they were stupid enough to get close to me... Not to mention how hard it was for them to hit me, what with my masterwork chain shirt, dodge, and combat expertise shooting my AC far too high to be hit while I cleaved through their ranks. Fighters can afford to branch into a few different feat chains to be useful in almost any situation, rather than be great in the woods but not out in the open surrounded on all sides, or able to take out a large group of enemies in a blast of flame twice a day but next to useless the rest of the time.
Also, an interesting character background can go a long way to making a character fun to play no matter what the numbers say.
|
I agree that the Fighter is one of the best classes, as long as you don't build your Fighter foolishly. The class requires planning, and can easily become highly specialized in a single area(be a Mounted Combat Monster, but moderately effective off the horse), or built to be usefull in many situations.
The only failing of the Fighter, is that the class has practically nothing to fall back on, they're pure physical combatants.
|
|
I agree that the Fighter is one of the best classes, as long as you don't build your Fighter foolishly. The class requires planning, and can easily become highly specialized in a single area(be a Mounted Combat Monster, but moderately effective off the horse), or built to be usefull in many situations.
The only failing of the Fighter, is that the class has practically nothing to fall back on, they're pure physical combatants.
For the high-level fighter, Use Magic Device is a must-have. You never know when a scroll of fly or a wand of invisibiliy will save your bacon.
This would be more readily accessible if fighters got more skill points.
For the high-level fighter, Use Magic Device is a must-have. You never know when a scroll of fly or a wand of invisibiliy will save your bacon.This would be more readily accessible if fighters got more skill points.
More skill points is really needed, but that wont happen. I use 4 in my games and it really does make a difference in the fighter
Fighters make the perfect pre-prestige class. Whenever someone in our group plays a fighter, they always end up going into a a PrC, even if they don't intend to at first. With the numbers of feats, you can quickly get your basic needs (power attack, inproved sunder, two-weapon fighting) taken care of, get the required feats, and start leveling in a class where you do get some special abilites.
Fighters are fine right up until about 6th level. Once the cleric can get his godzilla going and the casters can spam battlefield control spells, they're pretty much hosed in my experience.
Think about how you attack monsters. You attack their casters first. You don't want them healing. You don't want them casting Black Tentacles or Solid Fog. You don't want them charming your fighters. You don't want them invisible and spamming summoned monsters. Basically, standard tactics in my campaign are to target all casters until such time as you have to deal with the brutes. And then you cast something that targets their poor will save and you're done. Or you just toss a tanglefoot bag at them.
And there's nothing the fighter can do about it, really. He can't force people to attack him, so there's nothing to prevent smart monsters from ignoring him and moving past him to attack the more dangerous and more fragile foes. And his single attack is really not going to be as bad as the barrage of spells that he's going to face if he doesn't get past you. He can't cast fly to get to flying casters. Trips and grapples against size large or better monsters are a suckers game.
And once you get access to fifth and sixth level spells, the fighter is little more than a pawn, tactics-wise. You're better off with summoned monsters; at least you don't have to heal those.
And the party always, I mean always, rests when the casters are out of spells.
I don't want to spend a long period of time playing an ineffectual character in a game about fantasies of power. I certainly don't want to be the party's damsel in distress, always begging for a spell to get me out of trouble. Fighters can't do anything but fight in this game. And, frankly, he doesn't do that well in my experience.
If that's not your experience, ask yourself if your DM is:
* not targeting your will save with holds, charms, illusions, and dominates.
* not using size large grappler opponents who make tripping and grappling impossible for you, but easy for them.
* not immobilizing you or having enemies wall you off for later.
* not using flight to stay out of your reach.
* always having somebody with your exact set of weaknesses.
* always having somebody target you while the sorcerer is nuking them, the wizard is controlling the battlefield, and the Godzilla is powering up
* not using incorporeal creatures.
* not forcing you to spend tons of money on the golf bag of weapons ("Where is the dratted weapon that gets through this monster's DR? Let's see, I have weapons that are... cold iron, silver, cold iron and silver, good aligned, cold iron and good, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, cold iron and magic, silver and magic..." etc.)
* often designs adventures such that the party can't rest when they start and makes it so that casters don't have enough wands and scrolls to do their thing all day, every day.
Because if he's doing these things, he's pitying you to make sure that you have fun. That's good DMing, but don't confuse it with a well-designed class. And he's sacrificing simulating very smart opponent tactics simply to help you out. It's a hand out, not a hand up.
And it's great that you're being a selfless team player and all making it easier for the rogue and the casters to outshine you for the party good. But that is not the same thing as a well-designed class.
The high level straight fighter: worse than being a low level cleric.
I agree that the Fighter is one of the best classes, as long as you don't build your Fighter foolishly. The class requires planning, and can easily become highly specialized in a single area(be a Mounted Combat Monster, but moderately effective off the horse), or built to be usefull in many situations.
The only failing of the Fighter, is that the class has practically nothing to fall back on, they're pure physical combatants.
For the high-level fighter, Use Magic Device is a must-have. You never know when a scroll of fly or a wand of invisibiliy will save your bacon.
This would be more readily accessible if fighters got more skill points.
That wand requires a DC 20 check in a cross class skill based on charisma, of all things. You need to spend 22 skill points on that just to get a 50-50 shot if you have CHA as your dump stat. And, really, doesn't the caster or even the rogue do this much better than you already?
So, if you all think fighters are 'weak', play in a campaign that uses ONLY the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1), and play a 'converted' 1e/2e adventure. Then come back and tell me fighters suck. After the barbarian has 'raged' 3 times that day and it's not even noon yet, and yet *more* goblins come screaming out of the underbrush, the fighter will still be just as effective as he was right after breakfast.I agree completely.
On the other hand, 3E does, after all, assume that you're going to have...what is it, four?...encounters and then rest. It's hard to fault people who cut their teeth on 3E for playing it the way it was intended to be played.
Excellent point. And it assumes that you don't have a druid, ranger, barbarian or rogue to make it very hard if not impossible to track you via spells or survival checks to hide tracks. And once you get out of the level 1-6 sweet spot of fighters and into high level play... there's absolutely no reason for the party not to teleport home.
And that also assumes that you're not out of hit points.
So, yes, if you ignore key assumptions about encounter design in a repetitive manner AND play in the fighter's sweet spot AND ignore other classes' abilities to make your ability to "go all day" irrelevant AND your DM purposefully takes the time to draw maps and arrange figures and run waves of unchallenging trash mobs for your party then yes, you're right. You'll forgive me if I don't find this argument for the fighter's design very persuasive.
"* not targeting your will save with holds, charms, illusions, and dominates.
* not using size large grappler opponents who make tripping and grappling impossible for you, but easy for them.
* not immobilizing you or having enemies wall you off for later.
* not using flight to stay out of your reach.
* always having somebody with your exact set of weaknesses.
* always having somebody target you while the sorcerer is nuking them, the wizard is controlling the battlefield, and the Godzilla is powering up
* not using incorporeal creatures."
A DM purposefully abusing the weaknesses of a class on a regular basis is, in my opinion (and the opinions of ALL of my many roleplaying friends), bad DMing. A DM determined to defeat a character could just as easily take out a wizard or any casting class...they ALL have weaknesses. Anti-magic fields, silence, spellthieves, golems, demi-liches, spell resistance, the spellwarped template, rings of spellturning, any other magic-proof powers or abilities (Beholder's center eye, anyone?) and taking advantage of a wizards low reflex and fortitude saves (for example)would be JUST as devastating to one of THOSE classes as any of the fighter weaknesses you suggest. How well would a wizard hold up against a disintegrate spell? A lot worse than a fighter.
It may all come down to initiative. Get a fighter up close on a wizard and give that fighter greater weapon specialization, weapon supremacy, improved critical, devastating critical, the mage slayer feat, power attack, knockdown, improved initiative, a nice heavy plus WHATEVER two-handed weapon, weapon mastery, etc. and that low HP wizard could DEFINITELY go down in one round. I've seen it happen, and to clerics and druids as well.
And the only reason the party rests when the caster is out of spells is because he CAN run out of spells. A fighter can't run out of swings.
My parties have always rested when the fighter is low on HP, too, unless there's healing available...and I've been in a LOT of parties.
You'll forgive me if I don't find your argument for a caster's perpetual superiority very persuasive.
"The high level straight fighter: worse than being a low level cleric."
You make a low-level straight cleric, I'll make a high-level straight fighter, and we'll go at it. See who's left standing.
A DM purposefully abusing the weaknesses of a class on a regular basis is, in my opinion (and the opinions of ALL of my many roleplaying friends), bad DMing.
Not really. It's just different good DMing.
And that lengthy list was to showcase the workarounds that DMs have to go through just to keep plain jane fighters relevant at the high levels. But with the wizard/cleric/druid in a party context, I find myself game planning for their strengths to let the combat last long enough to be challenging. With the fighters and rangers, I find myself game planning to not make use of their weaknesses to keep them in the game. That becomes increasingly improbable and unbelievable as the party faces more intelligent foes higher up on the villain food chain.
It's also a misrepresentation of my position, which was that if the DM was always eliminating your weaknesses for you, it would account for why you might find the fighter to be more compelling than I do or than I think the class would actually play. An example: I have a DM who almost never uses charms, dominates, and holds... which makes characters with high will saves somewhat less powerful and those without them somewhat more powerful. It does erode my suspension of disbelief at times though.
At no point did I recommend that DMs always pound the weaknesses of a class as an element of good DMing.
A fighter can't run out of swings.
My parties have always rested when the fighter is low on HP, too, unless there's healing available...and I've been in a LOT of parties.
Clearly, you acknowledge they can run out of swings. We can abandon this argument then, having both agreed on the same position.
Anti-magic fields, silence, spellthieves, golems, demi-liches, spell resistance, the spellwarped template, rings of spellturning, any other magic-proof powers or abilities (Beholder's center eye, anyone?) and taking advantage of a wizards low reflex and fortitude saves (for example)would be JUST as devastating to one of THOSE classes as any of the fighter weaknesses you suggest. How well would a wizard hold up against a disintegrate spell? A lot worse than a fighter.
Nobody's denying that every class has weaknesses. What I am willing to say is that the other classes can do something about their weaknesses, while the fighter cannot. The rogue and bard can gather info about their opponents. The ranger can scout out their opponents. The wizard, cleric, sorcerer and druid can use divinations and companions for info gathering and protections to do something with the info. The barbarian at least has listen as a class skill, which offers them some warning sometimes. The fighter has no skill at getting info on potential opponents and nothing that they can do about any info that they do get spoonfed.
"The high level straight fighter: worse than being a low level cleric."
You make a low-level straight cleric, I'll make a high-level straight fighter, and we'll go at it. See who's left standing.
I was referring to game play, not a duel.
And, incidentally, all of this was based on playing a fighter outside his levels 1-6 sweet spot in a party context. Duels are pretty irrelevant to most game play and I don't really see the relevance of such thought experiments.
[snark] Worried about flying enemies? There's this great thing called a composite longbow. It's really nifty! It lets you make these things called ranged attacks and, guess what, fighters are proficient with it! Any member of that class who fails to carry one has no sympathy from me; unless, of course, they compensate by, oh, buying potions of fly or boots of flying or a flying carpet or taking Leadership and getting a flying mount. Those poor, poor, land-bound fighters.[/snark]
I find myself game planning to not make use of their weaknesses to keep them in the game. That becomes increasingly improbable and unbelievable as the party faces more intelligent foes higher up on the villain food chain.
So the enemies can get more intelligent, but the fighters can't? Sounds like you've had the misfortune to play with some unimaginative "me smash!" type fighter players. No wonder you are so obviously biased. I have had DM's who pretty much try to destroy the party (within reason....somewhat) every time we have a combat encounter, using ALL available means...spells of all sorts, huge monsters, etc. Any fighter player worth his salt (or any player of ANY class) would do everything in their power to address these weakness you speak of. Flying opponents? My friend Saern just cleared that one up.
Dominate, or other mind-affecting spells? Ring of mind shielding. Any other spell? Ring of spellturning. There are many options for a fighter who is willing to look for them, and not ONE of these listed solutions even uses up one of a fighters many, many feats.
At no point did I recommend that DMs always pound the weaknesses of a class as an element of good DMing.
It did not sound like you recommended that DMs pound the weakness of A CLASS. It sounded like you recommended that DMs pound the weakness of specifically ONE CLASS, the fighter, and leave the other classes weaknesses alone.
Clearly, you acknowledge they can run out of swings. We can abandon this argument then, having both agreed on the same position.
But we do not agree. A fighter can run out of hit points, a caster can run out of spells....AND hit points, and that MUCH easier than a fighter. How does a caster do all that damage in the first place? By hiding behind the person who takes the hits FOR him. I know not of one caster who would even MAKE IT to high level play without a good front liner to hide behind. Fighters, by the way, make EXCELLENT front liners....if you know how to properly build and play one, which apparently many people do not.
Nobody's denying that every class has weaknesses. What I am willing to say is that the other classes can do something about their weaknesses, while the fighter cannot. The rogue and bard can gather info about their opponents. The ranger can scout out their opponents. The wizard, cleric, sorcerer and druid can use divinations and companions for info gathering and protections to do something with the info. The barbarian at least has listen as a class skill, which offers them some warning sometimes. The fighter has no skill at getting info on potential opponents and nothing that they can do about any info that they do get spoonfed.
I believe almost all of a fighter's weakness have been addressed here. I will concede that with a lack of information gathering and practically no "warning system" in place for a fighter, that that would seem to be their greatest weakness that they can do nothing about...except utilize the other members of the party for help. Not a problem, since they themselves utilize the fighter to avoid GETTING KILLED. And while the fighter may get "spoonfed" information, there are things they can do about it. GO there, and KILL it. That's what most characters DO. You want diplomacy, go play a bard. ;)
Now what would a caster do about lower hit points? Death effects? Disintegrates? Yes, there are ways around them...a caster could just as easily have a ring of spellturning. But it's just as easy in my experience to get around the fighters weaknesses as it is to CONSTANTLY make up for a caster's low hit points.In the parties I've played (high AND low level), no one's really worried about protecting the fighter because he can take it. The first thing they do is "protect the wizard!"...because they usually tend to DIE first.
Deathedge wrote:
You make a low-level straight cleric, I'll make a high-level straight fighter, and we'll go at it. See who's left standing.
I was referring to game play, not a duel.
And, incidentally, all of this was based on playing a fighter outside his levels 1-6 sweet spot in a party context. Duels are pretty irrelevant to most game play and I don't really see the relevance of such thought experiments.
Pardon my misunderstanding. I was under the impression that if one were "worse" and one were "better", that one could defeat the other. I'm sure you understand.
Ring of mind shielding protects you from detection of your alignment, detect thoughts, and discern lies. It's of no use in protecting you from effects that target your will save.
Ring of Spell Turning costs 98K. You should not be able to afford that until 13th level and that would leave you with just 12K for your golf bag of weapons.
The composite long bow will allow you to deal 1d8+STR, which is pretty trivial compared to what the casters can put out there, especially since the fighters we're talking about here are melee builds.
And, in general, I find the suggestion that the fighter fix its deficiencies through spending on magic items to be begging the question. First, these items often duplicate what other classes can already do. Second, spending your money to duplicate what others can do by class ability puts you that much more behind the curve. You're spending to cover for the many weaknesses of your class's design while the others are spending their money on maximizing what they can do. Which is more fun? Finally, item buying is saying that the class works to the precise extent that it stops acting like a fighter and gets access to cool magic effects like the ones casters get as class abilities. Wouldn't the better solution be to have a better designed class?
I'll note that the inability to alter the battle field and the inability to impose negative conditions on a wide variety of opponents has not been really answered yet.
The fact that 3/7ths of your class skills get nerfed by armor check penalties is annoying. The fact that you get only Intimidate to help you to achieve role playing goals is doubly so. Crafting and Professioning and working at the stables are your best bets for skill-supported role-playing endeavors back in town.
I'm also curious as to whether you're playing core races and no prestige classes or if what makes these fighters interesting is that they prep you faster to get out of the class than a ranger does.
I would argue that nobody's really concerned about the fighter's safety in battle because they don't need him to win. If the cleric or the wizard goes down, your team is toast in every game that I've seen. If the fighter goes down, then you summon allies or use the animal companion.
And lets be brutally frank: the fighter's the most tactically boring class to play. Its chief ability is based on what it can do huge numbers of attacks, but the only way to get them is to have your guy stand in one place. (This applies to trip monkeys, chargers, and other one such one trick ponies too, just in a different way.) Compare this with the vast array of choices that casters and rogues get to play with.
Even worse, you're the most likely to die. To the extent that you somehow succeed to force people to focus on you, is to the extent that a disproportionate number of attacks target you. (That is, if you manage to do this despite your lack of mobility or ability to alter the battle field or impose egregiously bad conditions on people.) This fact makes up for the extra hit points. And as soon as you die, you are much more likely to fall even further behind the rest of the party due to level loss or your GP spent on the material components to bring you back.
Well, hopefully, this presented the loyal opposition's viewpoint to the OP, who did, after all, ask for why the fighter seems so inferior to others.
My elevator pitch: the fighter's designed to have virtually no out-of-combat powers (lack of skill points and class skills), which makes achieving role playing goals the hardest of all the classes, while their combat utility rapidly fades after 6th level due to an inability to control the battle field, their designed immobility (full attacks, heavy armor, AoOs), and their linear power progression compared to the nonlinear power progression of the casters. And if you do your job extraordinarily well, despite your class's design, your job is to absorb punishment while the artillery and air force strikes down your foes.
In short, the fighter's less fun than virtually any other class in the game, inside and outside of combat, and it gets worse the longer you play them. That's what makes high level fighters worse than low level clerics. At least with low level clerics, you know that your time in the sun in still ahead of you. The fighter's sun never rose.
|
|
okay then. To remedy the situation of the fighter being the worst and most boring class and casters being the best and most fun class, lets balance everything so that no one can do anything that another person can't do. Everyone can blast spells and stand up to an insane amount of punishment, all the while healing and sneaking and disabling traps.
Does anyone recall that D&D is a game based around having an effective party? A party full of wizards would get eaten. Fast. Clerics would be like a wall. A wall that can't hit for very much. Fighters would fall into a big pit trap full of spikes because no one was there to tell them to not step on the pressure plate. Rogues would get eaten. By undead (for those of us still playing 3.5).
Everyone gets their time to shine. Fighters can take on hoards of enemies. Clerics keep the party alive. Wizards are crowd control. Rogues are scouts and skill junkies. Wizards would drop like flies without a bodyguard to keep them from getting hit until they gain access to those powerful spells.
It's all about balance, people. Some are better early, some are better late.
To remedy the situation of the fighter being the worst and most boring class and casters being the best and most fun class, lets balance everything so that no one can do anything that another person can't do. Everyone can blast spells and stand up to an insane amount of punishment, all the while healing and sneaking and disabling traps.
Does anyone recall that D&D is a game based around having an effective party? ...
Everyone gets their time to shine. Fighters can take on hoards of enemies. Clerics keep the party alive. Wizards are crowd control. Rogues are scouts and skill junkies. Wizards would drop like flies without a bodyguard to keep them from getting hit until they gain access to those powerful spells.
It's all about balance, people. Some are better early, some are better late.
I certainly agree with your sarcastic first paragraph: that's not the solution. I'm not opposed to discrete party rolls. My basic argument, stripped down, however, is that the fighter doesn't fill his party role after level 6 or 8.
Opponents are much better off avoiding the fighter and taking out the wizard and cleric. And there's no real way for the fighter to force people to go through him first, due to mobility issues, size modifiers to special attacks, and inability to cause negative conditions or control the battlefield. Look at what you wrote: both fighters and wizards are dealing with the hordes. The hordes can scoot right around the fighter even with one or two AoOs, while the wizard can control the battlefield with area of effect damage and battlefield control spells. And we're not even raising the fact that the druid, once he gets wild shape and a decent animal companion, can fill the role of the fighter while doing other things too.
And I could not disagree with you more when it comes to your approval of early/late balance. You admit that fighters and casters are unbalanced late, so we agree there. That's a terrible design in my opinion. It's incredibly unsatisfying for players of fighters to get committed to a character over the space of months and then, just when the story is getting good, maybe getting close to its climax, to have your character become increasingly less satisfying. Given the time commitment that DnD campaigns require, early/late balance is the worst solution possible to this problem.
|
|
When I said that wizards are crowd control, I meant it in more of a general sense; they can affect large numbers of enemies/NPCs in many various ways. Fighters are more "chop him up, then chop him up, then chop him up...". Wizards could cast sleep or illusions to "control the crowd".
I personally like playing fighters because I plan for the late game. Yes, I said I plan a fighter for late game. I've never found it satisfying to just scorch every encounter with a Maximized Fireball and call it a day, but I have found it very satisfying to dart past enemies whilst chopping them to pieces. When I play D&D, it's all about having fun. If that means I have to bludgeon the wizard over the back of the head so I can cut some people up, so be it. He'll get over it ;)
If you can't have fun with a high-level fighter like I can, just don't play them. If you don't play them but still complain about them being underpowered, then go see a therapist about your need to argue about things that really don't matter to you personally.
Here's another question: Anyone ever play in a low/no-magic campaign? It's a refreshing reprieve from trying to get in a hit before the wizard turns the opposition to ash
In all seriousness, what exactly would constitute this desired balance between the fighter and the wizard? I ask this because I have difficulty seeing how, in an all around way, a fighter could ever truly be balanced with a wizard. The fighter is a knight, a warrior, the "normal guy" in D&D. Part of the class's identity is that they don't get supernatural powers and abilities (but see more later). That is the antithesis of the wizard, whose power is the reshaping of reality. The wizard can break open time and space, defy the laws of conservation of energy, and otherwise make a physics book into a laughing stock. How could there ever be a comparison?
But you know all that, because everyone has agreed that making all the classes identical is not the solution.
The point? We need to define what we're talking about here. I fully agree that all classes should be viable and capable of playing a meaningful, significant role in combat. They should all be a valuable member of the party. I personally think a fighter does just fine with that, but others disagree.
In other words, fighters need to be good at their role. That's what numerous people have been getting at all ready; some think they are, some think they aren't. This may stem partially from disagreements about what that role is. So, let's look at that role. The fighter is the front-line warrior. I say this means he needs to embrace his role as the meat-shield. That front-liners are just such a thing has never been a secret. They are there to stop (or more likely, slow down) opponents and keep the squishies and glass-cannons in the back nice and safe and alive. I turn to the barbarian for further evidence. The barbarian is the melee damage master. To make the fighter equal would be to diminish the barbarian, and I consider that a no-no.
So, then a fighter's role is very much to soak up damage, and likely to use special maneuvers like trip and disarm. I can see how tripping may be a problem for high level fighters who fight big monsters. I use a lot of leveled humanoid NPCs myself, which keeps the field more even. I could suggest that as a remedy for the fighter, although it's actually a DMing style and therefore won't satisfy those who feel the class needs repair. So, perhaps give the fighter an inherent bonus to these special maneuvers. It could be a class feature, or a special clause within the feat itself. There is a precedent for making feats work differently depending on class: Stunning Fist comes to mind. Monks get far more out of it than anyone else. So, perhaps fighters could get an extra boost with these feats, perhaps one that scales to their level (+1 on associated rolls per four levels in the class or something; or perhaps a fighter can sunder a weapon even if it has a higher enhancement bonus than his own).
I would be worried about that unbalancing encounters with humanoids, however, where the bonuses are brought back into line and the figher already has a decent chance at pulling off those maneuvers. And there will certainly be foes who are simply too large to trip or grapple, and they may well use claws and bites and this be immune to disarming and sundering. What's the fighter to do then? This drives at the other issue that's been brought up: basically being a decent "tank" (in MMO terminology). Perhaps make a special clause in the Intimidate skill which allows it to be used as a taunting mechanics, drawing foes to attack you. Perhaps fighters could get an intercept ability, which allows them to designate a friendly target and move up to their speed (or maybe even charge) as an immediate action X times per day or something. That would help them protect the aforementioned squishies and glass-cannons.
Maybe a fighter could have their own stunning ability, similar to the previously discussed Stunning Fist monks have access to. This would take some of the punch away from the monk (pun fully intended), but I think it would be all right. That would give the fighter the ability to do some crowd-control or apply negative conditions to enemies. Perhaps they could do it on a charge, similar to the Warrior in WoW (Gasp, dare he make such a suggestion? Yes, he dares!).
Those are thoughts off the top of my head that one might implement if one finds the fighter to be underpowered. What I wouldn't recommend is giving them increased ranged capabilities. A fighter can already become a master archer if he so chooses. For other fighters, a "mere" 1d8 plus Strength modifier may seem small, but that's too damned bad. The fact that it seems that way is because said fighter has chosen to specialize in melee, and therefore shouldn't also be a terror with a bow. Let the rangers and mages take care of that field; it's part of their identity. You can help and not be completely useless by carrying around that bow; just realize you aren't going to be the top of your game with it. As I've already stated, those who consider it a big enough priority to invest some resources do have the ability to overcome gravity.
Another 2cp for the collection.
In other words, fighters need to be good at their role. That's what numerous people have been getting at all ready; some think they are, some think they aren't. This may stem partially from disagreements about what that role is. So, let's look at that role. The fighter is the front-line warrior. I say this means he needs to embrace his role as the meat-shield.
The fighter has several problems fulfilling that role:
Those are some adjustments that sound good for melee vs magic. If someone says something like encounters could end too fast, the encounters can easily be written to have some defenders for the big bad magic slinger, or some other other obstacle. Encounters should be shaped around the party if the opposing enemies had possible advanced notice about the party. There's no need to run an encounter "as is."