|
In my game I'm opening Weapon Spec/Greater WS to Paladins/Barbarians/Rangers and Warriors. The main reason I'm doing this is that Fighters should no longer hold this advantage over the other melee classes as they have their own class specific melee abilities.
Sound off on what you think...This is fully backwards compatible, as none of the other melee types have these feats.
|
|
Don't care. They're crappy feats that should never be taken by anyone. So yeah, let the wizard take them too. It really doesn't matter.In my game I'm opening Weapon Spec/Greater WS to Paladins/Barbarians/Rangers and Warriors. The main reason I'm doing this is that Fighters should no longer hold this advantage over the other melee classes as they have their own class specific melee abilities.
Sound off on what you think...This is fully backwards compatible, as none of the other melee types have these feats.
LOL, hate these feats eh Squirrel?
In my game I'm opening Weapon Spec/Greater WS to Paladins/Barbarians/Rangers and Warriors. The main reason I'm doing this is that Fighters should no longer hold this advantage over the other melee classes as they have their own class specific melee abilities.
Sound off on what you think...This is fully backwards compatible, as none of the other melee types have these feats.
I find that line of feats to still be quite a benefit for the Fighter class, and granting it to other classes is a strong benefit. That said, I never denied weapon specialization to the other fighter type classes in 1st edition - didn't hurt anything too much.
I don't think this should be core, but certainly nothing wrong with it. They are strong core feats, but still take a non-fighter's more limited feat slots. Rangers (with 5 bonus feats now) could more easily take them than most others (which somewhat suits the 1st edition requirement to be a Fighter or Ranger...)
|
Its very small numbers. +2 damage is most certainly not worth a feat. The melee classes needs capabilities, not bigger numbers (unless those numbers are really big, and then he still needs capabilities). Feats and magic items are the only places new capabilities are coming from for the most part, especially if you're a fighter. So feats like Combat Reflexes and even Improved Trip are vastly preferable to Weapon Spec.
The smallest number worth spending a feat on in general is +3 (and not if its damage - damage isn't worth a feat unless its +6 or more). That's large enough that you notice it given the variance of a d20.
You're in luck! There's a new game built entirely with this style of play in mind. It's called D&D 4e. Give it a try. It's closer to what you want then Pathfinder will ever be.
Sam
The melee classes needs capabilities, not bigger numbers (unless those numbers are really big, and then he still needs capabilities).
Not true. While capabilities are good, and certainly needed, there should always be the option of just increasing your numbers, keep things simple, and have a concept that doesn't rely on remembering lots of activated abilities.
That's where the fighter comes in: While he can gain lots of capabilities with the right feats, you certainly can stick to numbers and play it simple. That's especially useful for people who don't want to remember lots of stuff. Just look at the sheet, roll, hit, rejoice.
The smallest number worth spending a feat on in general is +3 (and not if its damage - damage isn't worth a feat unless its +6 or more). That's large enough that you notice it given the variance of a d20.
Except that I can't think of a single instance where you use a d20 for damage. 3.0 had high-level monks, but even that turned into 2d10 with 3.5. Usually, the dice you roll top at 1d12 or 2d6, and if you go for stuff besides high damage dice (falchion or scythe with their good crits, or spiked chain for the stuff you can do with it), you're in for 1d8 or 2d4. Same for sword-and-board: hard to get more than 1d10, and even then it's often 1d6 or 1d8. And then, you have two-weapon fighting, where you have 1d6, maybe even 1d4 (kukris for the win!).
In light of all that, +2 can be quite nice.
Care to give your opinion on weapon focus?
|
And against melee brutes his numbers simply can't compete at mid-high levels. A fire giant is outright better than a fighter 10 or even fighter 12, and will beat him into a bloody pulp in not too many rounds - but its the only type of creature he can actually get into melee with. Assuming of course the fire giant doesn't decide its time will be more productively spent attacking someone threatening.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise here. As an individual sure the FIghter has a LOT major limitations. But then so does every class. In a team the Fighter can be a major force.
For example...
I had fighter. The scenario called for us to pick a champion and the enemy would pick a champion. The two would fight. If we won we got the information we were seeking. I was picked. The Merid (our enemies) chose a 7-headed cryo-hydra. At the time it was about 1 CR above me. The mage and cleric started buffing. Then into the fight I went.
I won. Barely, but I won. I used defensive fighting, Tower shield (to chug healing potions), cold resistence, buffed up armor and strength and HP. I slug fested with the SOB and won.
Without the benefits of my team I would have died. But then so would every other member of the team.
BTW +2 to hit is equal to +10% not bad. I'll take it. +2 damage on a d8 is 25% more damage. I'll take that too. Along with every other point I can dig out of the system. Along with every other maneuver and ability I can wrangle as well. The large number of Fighter feats allows me to do both.
And it all comes down to personal preference. Some people are going to go for Tripping or Two-handed weapons, others sword and board. Some will go for more points to hit and damage, others for more abilities. Some will go for a mix of it all.
If you don't like a feat, don't take it.
|
|
For reference purposes: A d20 is a discrete uniformly distributed randome number generator where n=20.
The Expected Value (aka "mean" or "average") of an unmodified d20 is 10.5.
The Variance of an unmodified d20 is 33.25. Variance is the average squared distance from each data point to the mean. Is measures the "scatter" of the data points.
The Standard Deviation (StDev; what Squirrelloid has been referring to as "variance") is ~5.766. For a number of reasons, StDev is a statisitcally meaningful number to use than is Variance.
I think is trying to say that given a StDev of 5.766, a +1 isn't a large enough proportion to make a difference. A +3 bonus would be a more significant proportion of the StDev. You would really need a +6 bonus to "beat the standard deviation" though (just looking a the problem purely in mathematical terms).
The fact that Power Attack equates +1 attack to +2 damage is unfortunate. As KaeYoss pointed out, damage dice are smaller than attack dice. A +2 damage bonus is actually more meaningful than a +1 attack bonus (if the criteria for meaningfulness is comparing the bonus to the StDev of the di rolled). But not all damage dice StDev's are equal, so a +2 is more meaningful for some dice than for others.
For example:
d4: StDev = ~1.11
d6: StDev = ~1.7
d8: StDev = ~2.29
d10: StDev = ~2.87
d12: StDev = ~3.45
This is all an academic exercise anayway, but an interesting discussion regardless.
-Skeld
|
|
Because you'll never notice a 5% bonus during actual play. The variance and standard deviation is so large that a character with the feat and a character without the feat wouldn't be able to tell the difference between their performance given some sane number of trials. You'd need to roll something like 10,000 times to detect a statistically significant difference in performance.It appears you need to make your own game Squirrel...
a +1 on a d20 is a 5% bonus...why do you need a 15% bonus? that throws the entire mechanic of a d20 off...sorry you play a different type of game than I do...
Actually that is not true. Using a d20 you always have a 5% chance any single number will appear. Shifting the result up 10% every time is a significant modification.
And as for damage it becomes even higher. +2 is 25% of a d8 damage roll. That is a huge bonus to damage.
Now, where these numbers may get lost...STR +4, +3 weapon, Situational modifiers in combat (like charge and flanking and higher ground) +6. We are at +13 before even adding in +2 to hit. All told we increase our result +65% to +75%. Then the +10% is starting to loose its luster. But when it turns out the monster has an AC of 35 instead of 33, that +2 looks REAL good.
|
|
Using a d20 you always have a 5% chance any single number will appear.
Krome has a good point here, and something I failed to mention in my post aove (ran out of time).
Uniform distributions have no Mode; therefore, no result is any more likely than any other result.
I see alot of indications when people start talking percentages and statistics on the boards, that they're stuck in a mindset where they're thinking about a Normal distribution. As Krome mentioned, all results of the Uniform distribution have an equal probability of occurance.
For example, as I pointed out in my above post, the Expected Value of the d20 is 10.5, calculated mathematically. However, no matter how many times you roll, you'll never get that result. Your Expected Value (if you roll enough times) ought to converge to 10.5, but you'll never get it on a sinlge roll.
Also, keep in mind, that the Variance (and by extension, the Standarad Deviation) is a function of the distance of the data points from the mean. For the Normal distribition, you get more points about the mean and fewer out at the edges. Not so with the Uniform Distribution; since all points have equal probability, you have no "clustering" of data near the center. The data are equally dispersed over the limits.
-Skeld
|
|
I believe that Squirreloid meant was not that a plus one would have no mathemathical effect, but that the bonus effect would seem barely noticeable. I used to be hitting on 10 and now its 9, wow! You need larger number variations for the player to really FEEL the effect of the bonus. +3 so now I hit on a 7, that is a bonus I'm much more likely to notice more immediately and regularly.
The point is when compared to getting other feats like shock trooper, why would you really care about a small bonus on only one weapon-type? I'd certainly like be getting more out of my iconic class ability (as a fighter)
You're assuming the PC is always rolling the exact minimum to hit. The actual perception is "well, I used to hit from 10 to 20. Now I hit from 9 to 20." I would rather hit 11 out of 20 times rather than 10 out of 20. The advantage of Weapon Focus is the stacking with other abilities to eventually provide a huge difference.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
IMO, if you want to make the feat available to the other combat classes, you should award it to fighters for free at the levels they would qualify for it. It still reflects the fact that fighters are 'students of war' so to speak, but does not give them inherent superiority to the other combat classes.
IMO, if you want to make the feat available to the other combat classes, you should award it to fighters for free at the levels they would qualify for it. It still reflects the fact that fighters are 'students of war' so to speak, but does not give them inherent superiority to the other combat classes.
Fighters weapon training is enough of a bonus to not automatically give them Weapon Spec/GWS when they hit 4 and 16...
They get 11 bonus feats, it's easy enough to take the specializations out of those 11 feats...
So a 20th level fighter with Greater Weapon Specialization has a total of a +6 attack and +10 to damage with a critical multiplier increase.
I'm reading that greater weapon specialization adds an additional 4 damage on top of the +2 damage from specialization, as both Weapon focus and Greater weapon focus add +1.
Whether or not the players notice it during play is unimportant, the fact is that it does make a difference, a 5% one. In other words, if you roll a d20 10 times, chances are 50-50% that you will hit at least once simply because of your weapon focus. If you roll the d20 20 times, chances are near 100%. A high level fighter might get 5 attacks a round on a full attack, more if he is TWF. That's a lot of chances that it might make a difference. And as the above poster said, with so many feats that fighters get, why wouldn't you pick WF up?
As for specialization, I think it's good. It's a wealth saver is what it is. Weapon Spec is adds slightly less damage than a +1 enchantment on his sword (like flaming), and greater weapon spec adds slightly more. So it's almost like having a +2 enhancement on your sword at the cost of a couple of feats. Some might argue that it's better than I proposed because it's not elemental damage.
The fighter who didn't take WF, however, took something awesome like Karmic Strike or Shock Trooper or one of the many other good feats in existence instead. That feat has a noticeable effect just within 1 level.
So, burn a feat for a modifier you can't tell you have statistically speaking, or use that feat for awesome. I know what I'd choose every time.
Well, that raises the issue: "Should all feats be equally awesome, or should all feats equally suck?"
Out of all of the feats available to fighters in the Pathfinder RPG, a grand total of one or two would I arguably call "awesome" (Devastating Blow, maybe Medusa's Wrath or Improved Vital Strike), and those don't even fit your criteria because they just improve damage. So your advice to take an awesome skill instead is useless to someone playing with the core PfRPG rules.
Personally, if I want to play a non-caster melee character I'll just stick with the Warblade from the Tome of Battle and forget about the Fighter class altogether.
|
|
In my game I'm opening Weapon Spec/Greater WS to Paladins/Barbarians/Rangers and Warriors. The main reason I'm doing this is that Fighters should no longer hold this advantage over the other melee classes as they have their own class specific melee abilities.
Sound off on what you think...This is fully backwards compatible, as none of the other melee types have these feats.
Actually, just thinking about it, why should other melee classes have this? Just because the Fighter has a few class features now, doesn't mean he should have to give one up to others. The other melee classes all have their unique class features as well, and I don't see the Barbarian giving up Rage or the Paladin giving up Lay on Hands or Smite.
Those are some doozey of advantages to hold over the other melee classes.
|
|
Medusa's Wrath and Improved Vital Strike are significant enough to probably be worthwhile. I mean, my claim is not that damage isn't worth a feat, its that only 2 damage isn't worth a feat. Medusa's Wrath is certainly worth enough damage to justify taking, and Improved Vital Strike probably is as well. I haven't looked as closely at devastating blow, but I'm mostly seeing charge-style shenanigans every time I do.
But fighters really do need better feats.
I absolutely agree with the last bit, but it's interesting that you're ragging on Weapon Focus (which at least, as a bonus to hit, becomes more valuable as a higher level warrior's average damage per hit increases - ditto for Specialization, which improves as you hit more often). Feats like Improved Vital Strike, in my mind, are actually worse, because they look like they give you a benefit when in fact they REDUCE average damage per round.
A while back, I did some number-crunching while analyzing the monk, comparing it to a Fighter 20 using various feats. There were some interesting findings - here's the short version:
Assume a Fighter 20, Str 28 (base 15, +2 race, +5 for levels, +6 for belt), wielding a +5 greatsword, with +4 Weapon Mastery (heavy blades), Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Improved Crit. Used AC 36 (Karzoug's AC from RotRL) as the target for sake of comparison.
I won't bore everyone with the math, but that Fighter's average damage PER HIT was about 31. The effect of Weapon Focus, then, (adding 5 percent to each of four chances to hit for that damage) is about +6 points of damage per round. Nothing great, but at least something. Since said Fighter hits, on average, about 3 times per round, Weapon Specialization also accounts for about 6 points of damage per round.
All in all, Mr. Fighter, without using any other feats, does about 144 points of damage per round on average, once crits are factored in (including the level 20 mastery ability). I don't have the exact calculations in front of me, but approx. 13 percent of that damage is due to the combo of Weapon Focus and Weapon specialization.
Now, if the same Fighter uses Power Attack (the fixed penalty, PF Beta version), his average damage per hit increases, but chances of hitting drop significantly. So in actuality, his average damage per round DROPS to about 140.
Improved Vital Strike is even worse, dropping average damage per round to about 122. Using PA and IVS, together, drops it to 104.
If the Fighter is "enlarged" (increasing the damage dice on his sword and thus boosting the benefit of IVS), he's still better off with straight attacks. Enlarged, the Fighter does 170 damage per round on average using no additional feats, 153 with PA, 155 with IVS, and 151 with PA and IVS.
So, yeah, I think it's worth having a discussion about whether Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec. provide a worthwhile boost (although there's something to be said for simplicity -- I know a lot of players that prefer a straight bonus rather than a new ability). But at least it actually offers a bonus -- I'm far more concerned with "Trickster Feats" that appear to offer a benefit but actually make you worse in a way that's not immediately obvious.
As a side note, Devastating Blow is good. Overhand Chop's ok (weak at low levels, better than Weapon Specialization once your Strength is 20 or higher). For simplicity's sake, Backswing should probably apply to every attack made as a full-attack action, so someone with Overhand Chop and Backswing gets Str bonus x2 with two-handed weapon on all their attacks.
I absolutely agree with the last bit, but it's interesting that you're ragging on Weapon Focus (which at least, as a bonus to hit, becomes more valuable as a higher level warrior's average damage per hit increases - ditto for Specialization, which improves as you hit more often). Feats like Improved Vital Strike, in my mind, are actually worse, because they look like they give you a benefit when in fact they REDUCE average damage per round.
The usefulness of (Improved) Vital Strike depends on what you're giving up, of course. If your iterative/off-hand/natural attacks aren't hitting (or do puny damage), then there's no harm giving them up. But you're right -- it's not good in every circumstance.
|
|
The usefulness of (Improved) Vital Strike depends on what you're giving up, of course. If your iterative/off-hand/natural attacks aren't hitting (or do puny damage), then there's no harm giving them up. But you're right -- it's not good in every circumstance.
I absolutely agree with the last bit, but it's interesting that you're ragging on Weapon Focus (which at least, as a bonus to hit, becomes more valuable as a higher level warrior's average damage per hit increases - ditto for Specialization, which improves as you hit more often). Feats like Improved Vital Strike, in my mind, are actually worse, because they look like they give you a benefit when in fact they REDUCE average damage per round.
I should have clarified: Vital Strike is great for a monk (and IVS is REALLY great for a multi-class Monk/Fighter). But only because the Monk gets lots of attacks, all with damage dice greater than 2d6. An enlarged, greatsword-wielding fighter benefits about as much as any fighter could, and it's still a net decrease in damage.
(Just for giggles, the average damage per round for an enlarged, Monk 15/Fighter 5 with monk's robes, using IVS: 212, including crits.
Looking at my old notes just now, I realize I calculated that without Improved Natural Attack. Enlarged, with natural attack and IVS, the monk tosses 24d6+bonuses on each hit ... quick calculation puts average damage per round at ... 303. That's hot.)
Seems like Imp/Greater Vital Strike go great with Imp/Greater 2WF...
(isn't it slightly bizarre that Power Attack's "option-itis" was cut out,
only to re-introduce it in the form of Vital Strike....????)
|
|
Seems like Imp/Greater Vital Strike go great with Imp/Greater 2WF...
(isn't it slightly bizarre that Power Attack's "option-itis" was cut out,
only to re-introduce it in the form of Vital Strike....????)
But it's not as lop-sided as power-attack was at 1st level since you need a higher BAB for Vital Strike and improved vital strike...and it just doubles/triples the dice rather than adding straight damage.
Seems like Imp/Greater Vital Strike go great with Imp/Greater 2WF...
It also goes well with a few puny natural attacks (which you can gain with Alter Self/Polymorph or with the barbarian's Animal Fury power).
I think you guys (other than squirreloid) need to stop thinking about the +2 on damage rolls as a percentage of the original dice, but more in terms of overall effectiveness - have you seen the hp pool of mid to high level monsters? +2 damage is not going to make a difference, and is certainly not worth taking a feat for. The Weapon Focus line of feats is equivalent to cantrips, as another poster mentioned previously; if you're going to take weapon focus, it should scale up with level, as should the damage bonuses from Weapon Specialization.
Now, what fighters REALLY need are feats that scale the following:
Fighters need to do a LOT more damage. The weapon damage dice should scale up like a Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage. This could be done through feats, Weapon Training, or both. Let them get special attacks that do insane damage plus status effects.
Power attack should get better as you level up, similar to Frenzied Berserkers from the Comlete Warrior.
Fighters need more ways to force the enemy to deal with them instead of ignoring them. Dazzling Display was on the right track, but fighters need to instill fear, halt enemy movement when conditions are met, or penalize enemies for ignoring them (this is one thing that I liked about 4e - ignoring the fighter is hazardous in and of itself).
Fighters need mobility, remove the dex penalties and movement penalites from heavy armor entirely. Right now there is no reason to use heavy armor, it doesn't net you the best ac if you have a dex belt. Let them use variations of Leap Attack or something to suddenly cover a lot of ground and intercept an enemy brute.
Fighters need survivability; current AC doesn't get high enough to make him survive against high level brutes. Add feats that give greatly more AC, so you can get 60 to 70 ac in heavy armor, or make enemies deal with a "miss chance" like displacement or mirror image does (for example, a shield fighter forces enemies to deal with a 30% miss chance or something). This will allow fighters some of the survivability that spellcasters enjoy (although casters can teleport and fly, and don't need to rely on tertiary defenses like mage armor and shield spells anyway).
Fighters need the ol' Power Attack from 3.5, it had its place and I prefer 3.5 PA to 3.P PA. Also, I think since everyone "in the know" take ShockTrooper, PA should allow fighters to choose if they want to sacrifice AC for damage or do the normal hit-to-damage conversion.
Fighters need special attacks that inflict status ailments on the enemy, think of the old "called shot" rules from 2e only simplified. You can daze, stun, nauseate, knockdown (great feat to add), hit the enemy with ability damage and hp/con bleeds, get free trip, bullrush, overrun etc. attempts with successful melee hits. All this stuff can be feat-based.
Fighters need some tricks that force a "save or die" or "save or get KO'ed" or "save or lose spellcasting for x rounds" or SOMETHING that bypasses the monsters' massive hp pool and takes the wind out of their sails before they 1 or 2 round the fighter.
As it stands now, fighters are straight-up attrition characters, who suffer at high levels because of the same arms race with monster hd that makes evocation/blasting not an optimal choice at those levels.
Let fighters "bend the rules" when using weapons they specialize in. Let fighters attack adjacent enemies with reach polearms; for a swift action he can change grips and then change back again. Let them do double damage on a charge with weapons that normally can be set for a charge; let them set weapons agaisnt charges that can't normally be set like that. When's the last time you saw a good polearm fighter?
|
|
I think you guys (other than squirreloid) need to stop thinking about the +2 on damage rolls as a percentage of the original dice, but more in terms of overall effectiveness - have you seen the hp pool of mid to high level monsters? +2 damage is not going to make a difference, and is certainly not worth taking a feat for. The Weapon Focus line of feats is equivalent to cantrips, as another poster mentioned previously; if you're going to take weapon focus, it should scale up with level, as should the damage bonuses from Weapon Specialization.
Now, what fighters REALLY need are feats that scale the following:
Fighters need to do a LOT more damage. The weapon damage dice should scale up like a Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage. This could be done through feats, Weapon Training, or both. Let them get special attacks that do insane damage plus status effects.
Power attack should get better as you level up, similar to Frenzied Berserkers from the Comlete Warrior.
Fighters need more ways to force the enemy to deal with them instead of ignoring them. Dazzling Display was on the right track, but fighters need to instill fear, halt enemy movement when conditions are met, or penalize enemies for ignoring them (this is one thing that I liked about 4e - ignoring the fighter is hazardous in and of itself).
Fighters need mobility, remove the dex penalties and movement penalites from heavy armor entirely. Right now there is no reason to use heavy armor, it doesn't net you the best ac if you have a dex belt. Let them use variations of Leap Attack or something to suddenly cover a lot of ground and intercept an enemy brute.
Fighters need survivability; current AC doesn't get high enough to make him survive against high level brutes. Add feats that give greatly more AC, so you can get 60 to 70 ac in heavy armor, or make enemies deal with a "miss chance" like displacement or mirror image does (for example, a shield fighter forces enemies to deal with a 30% miss chance or something). This will allow fighters...
Looks like you want to play 4e, not Pathfinder, and you're not even fully familiar with Pathfinder since Armor training already gives higher AC, reduces skill penalties and increases max dex bonus.
a 70 AC is ludicrous...it would make venerable great wyrms unable to even hit them except on a critical...
I also find it interesting that you mention frenzied berserker...a class some DMs have banned for being broken...
I think you guys (other than squirreloid) need to stop thinking about the +2 on damage rolls as a percentage of the original dice, but more in terms of overall effectiveness - have you seen the hp pool of mid to high level monsters? +2 damage is not going to make a difference, and is certainly not worth taking a feat for. The Weapon Focus line of feats is equivalent to cantrips, as another poster mentioned previously; if you're going to take weapon focus, it should scale up with level, as should the damage bonuses from Weapon Specialization.
Now, what fighters REALLY need are feats that scale the following:
Fighters need to do a LOT more damage. The weapon damage dice should scale up like a Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage. This could be done through feats, Weapon Training, or both. Let them get special attacks that do insane damage plus status effects.
Power attack should get better as you level up, similar to Frenzied Berserkers from the Comlete Warrior.
Fighters need more ways to force the enemy to deal with them instead of ignoring them. Dazzling Display was on the right track, but fighters need to instill fear, halt enemy movement when conditions are met, or penalize enemies for ignoring them (this is one thing that I liked about 4e - ignoring the fighter is hazardous in and of itself).
Fighters need mobility, remove the dex penalties and movement penalites from heavy armor entirely. Right now there is no reason to use heavy armor, it doesn't net you the best ac if you have a dex belt. Let them use variations of Leap Attack or something to suddenly cover a lot of ground and intercept an enemy brute.
Fighters need survivability; current AC doesn't get high enough to make him survive against high level brutes. Add feats that give greatly more AC, so you can get 60 to 70 ac in heavy armor, or make enemies deal with a "miss chance" like displacement or mirror image does (for example, a shield fighter forces enemies to deal with a 30% miss chance or something). This will...
70 ac is a bit of an exaggeration, but it was ponted out elsewhere on the board that AC does not scale appropriately for classes that need it most, and it is a yes/no attribute rather than an "active defense" such as displacement and mirror image. I don't think mages should have vastly superior melee defenses to a sword and board fighter. Most appropriate cr monsters at mid-high and high levels are only going to miss the fighter on a roll of 1 to 3, and many of them are simply going to bypass ac with other forms of offense... if they don't bypass the fighter completely. He needs some way to force the enemies, especially mobile brutes, to deal with him first.
I don't prefer 4e to 3.x, but there are SOME things that 4e did in spirit, if not in practice, that I agree with. The fighter is actually worth playing in 4e because he can do most of the things I mentioned. Intelligent enemies will not run past him becasue he poses the least threat; he isn't going to get killed in 1 or 2 rounds by an equal cr brute; his damage dealing powers aren't rendered inefficient due to monster hd/hp vastly outscaling his damage per round, and the wizard can't trump him at *every *single *thing *he *does.