Wizards can do all sorts of interesting stuff with spells, like flying, turning invisible, and throwing fireballs, and change them daily. Feats just give you a bonus to the stuff you already do, remove penalties, or give you a single extra combat option. That's not particularly interesting. I like the idea of what the Fighter was supposed to be and do, but bonus feats were a boring way to go about it.The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland.You've actually missed the whole design purpose of the class. It's like saying the Wizard is lacking because it doesn't have access to Druid spells.
The class is not a class that is supposed to come with flashing lights and lots of bells and whistles. Wizards are built around their spell lists primarily. By choosing different spells you can have anything from a diviner to an Invoker. The fighter is the same with regards to feats. The feats are the fighter's spell list while the abilities that it does come with accentuate those feats. The fighter does what it is designed to do but it's design is subjective which means you may not like it but it's still properly designed.
I am going to have to disagree. I like having access to alot of feats, to be this "mundane" dude who can roll with the mystical forces. It is a character that I can get immersed in, whereas it is harder to pull that off with a Wizard who does all the other mumbo jumbo stuff.
I think it is just a different flavor of tea, which is why there are a plethora of base classes to choose from. You choose the one that meets your playstyle and go from there. Every class isn't for every playstyle.
I am going to have to disagree. I just don't like bonus feats as a main class feature.
|
I am going to have to disagree. I just don't like bonus feats as a main class feature.Wizards can do all sorts of interesting stuff with spells, like flying, turning invisible, and throwing fireballs, and change them daily. Feats just give you a bonus to the stuff you already do, remove penalties, or give you a single extra combat option. That's not particularly interesting. I like the idea of what the Fighter was supposed to be and do, but bonus feats were a boring way to go about it.The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland.You've actually missed the whole design purpose of the class. It's like saying the Wizard is lacking because it doesn't have access to Druid spells.
The class is not a class that is supposed to come with flashing lights and lots of bells and whistles. Wizards are built around their spell lists primarily. By choosing different spells you can have anything from a diviner to an Invoker. The fighter is the same with regards to feats. The feats are the fighter's spell list while the abilities that it does come with accentuate those feats. The fighter does what it is designed to do but it's design is subjective which means you may not like it but it's still properly designed.
I am going to have to disagree. I like having access to alot of feats, to be this "mundane" dude who can roll with the mystical forces. It is a character that I can get immersed in, whereas it is harder to pull that off with a Wizard who does all the other mumbo jumbo stuff.
I think it is just a different flavor of tea, which is why there are a plethora of base classes to choose from. You choose the one that meets your playstyle and go from there. Every class isn't for every playstyle.
Which has nothing to do with the design of the class except for the fact that you don't like it.
Base
Attack Fort Ref Will
Level Bonus Save Save Save Special
1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat
2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus feat, bravery +1
3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Armor training 1
4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Weapon training 1
6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat, bravery +2
7th +7/+2 +5 +2 +2 Armor training 2
8th +8/+3 +6 +2 +2 Bonus feat
9th +9/+4 +6 +3 +3 Weapon training 2
10th +10/+5 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat, bravery +3
11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +3 Armor training 3
12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat
13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +4 Weapon training 3
14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +4 Bonus feat, bravery +4
15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +5 Armor training 4
16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat
17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +5 Weapon training 4
18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat, bravery +5
19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +6 Armor mastery
20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +6 Bonus feat,
weapon mastery
I see a lot of nice class features besides the bonus feats.
You do, I don't. You asked why some people don't like Fighters, and I answered. Whether or not you agree with me is irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are great at fighting, but they don't have any abilities that deviate from fighting. I guess that's where people feel that fighters get bland. In order for the fighter to shine outside of combat, the fighter needs to be a creative player and the GM needs to allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are great at fighting, but they don't have any abilities that deviate from fighting. I guess that's where people feel that fighters get bland. In order for the fighter to shine outside of combat, the fighter needs to be a creative player and the GM needs to allow it.
The problem is that "Fighting" is a lot more broad than just having high weapon and AC modifiers. Beyond that, a Fighter has little to no way of addressing combat problems that begin early and become more and more frequent. Shallowsoul presented a 10th level Fighter who would scarcely survive a CR 3 encounter in one of my games, because combats are more dynamic than his Fighter could handle.
Lumiere Solace provided a Fighter with more presence in combat, but still lacking in the ability to actually deal with the many combat obstacles that occur in the game, particularly by mid to high levels.
I wouldn't mind that Fighters are nothing but fighting if there were definitely the best damn thing at fighting around. But they're not. Many other classes have more presence and general use in combat, or at dealing with combat situations, while being good enough at the weapon and physical defense aspects to still excel there too.
Still going?
♪This is the thread that goes on and on♪
Everybody else gets interesting things to choose from. Barbarians get rage powers. Cavaliers get orders. Rangers get favored enemies and terrains and spells. Paladins get all sorts of divine powers. They also all have a fair bit of out of combat utility. Fighters get none of this. Fighters get feats. Feats are boring. I want something more interesting. Why not new combat manoeuvres only they can learn or Book of Experimental Might-style fighting domains that only they can have?Hi.
Intersting is a very subjetive concept, if the class does nnot fit your concept that does not means the class is objetively lacking.
This is an opinion thread. Objectivity has absolutely no place in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing with fighters (or almost any class for that matter), if you don't have an idea of where you want your character to go you will find it difficult to get there. Some classes require more work from the player to get to a concept than others. While you can have a variety of different paladins, they are all very similar to each other as well. The fighter doesn't have a concept built in and that makes it very difficult for new players or annoying for experienced players.
The fighter can be used to build many concepts, and bringing in archetypes can bring in even more. That isn't really what people are complaining about though. What they see as the problem is that the fighter doesn't spell out what it can do and if you want it to do more than hit things, you need to know more than a handful of feats.
To build and play an effective fighter you will need to know:
1) Combat feats and which ones work best for your concept. You will need to know how far down a chain you want to go. You will need to know how many branches from that chain you want to go. You can be an effective two-weapon fighter even if you only take Two-Weapon Fighting and don't go any further, as long as you know what your design goal is.
2) Combat Maneuvers and how they work. You need to know which ones work against which types of opponents. You need to understand melee and ranged tactics more than many other classes. You need to understand the difference between cover and concealment. You need to understand how flanking works. You need to understand how to get every little circumstantial bonus you can. You need to understand how standard actions and full-attack actions differ and what you can do with each. You need to understand tactical movement, like how to avoid attacks of opportunity. The combat section can get very interesting.
3) You need to be able to plan for the far future. You can't just pick feats in the hopes of getting some good bonuses. If you are a master of tripping but only fight large 4-legged creatures, you are going to be disappointed. The ranger can just pick another favored enemy later. The wizard can just buy new spells. The cleric and druid can wait until the next day. Some classes are more flexible with bad choices than others.
4) Because you don't have much in the way of healing, you need to understand how hard you are being hit and how much of a beating you can take. The barbarian has this problem as well and needs to be even more careful lest he come out of a rage and die from the beating he took.
5) To be good at skills you need to understand how they work. You need to know what the static DCs are and which skills need more because they are opposed checks. You need to understand how and when to Take 10 and Take 20. Because you will typically have fewer skills than other characters (more accurately, you will have lower bonuses overall), these can have more of an impact on how much you invest. If the ranger puts a few ranks into Profession (cobbler) but realizes that he doesn't need it, no big loss. The fighter would be at a bigger disadvantage making the same error.
To a degree, all characters need to know this stuff. Because the fighter doesn't have spells, extra skill points, or potential rebuilding on the fly, it can be more of a challenge to be effective. Campaigns are dynamic and no build that I or anyone else posts would look that way in a real campaign. I have the advantage of knowing what I am building to specifically on the boards. It's very different in an actual game.
I think that when people say that the fighter is lacking, it looks like they are saying that it is weak. What they are really saying is that it doesn't have the features that they would like it to have. There is a difference between "weak" and "doesn't do what I want."
Fighters may not be social powerhouses, but they're not as bad as some people make 'em out to be. Gimme 3 skill points per level (9 INT, human bonus and FC skill point) and that's all I need to have 8 or 9 skills (some high, others middling) that allow me to do something other than swing a sword. Remember, skills don't have to be maxed in order for you to be successful. Bonus - even with a 7 CHA, I can still be reasonably active in diplomatic situations with a 12 Diplomacy.
Fighters don't have be gimped in non-combat, but plenty of players and DMs choose to make that the case.
Fighters can run lower INT and CHA scores and that doesn't mean that they should be auto-gimped for it. The game takes those things into consideration already.
As for pure combat, a well-built Fighter takes pressure off his comrades and makes every encounter that much more survivable. He's got the best AC in the game and if he takes steps to deal with his Will save deficiency, and if his cohorts look out for his low Touch AC vulnerability, he will kick some butt and take some names.
Fighters rock. :)
|
i love fighters bacuse they switch hit so well. you can make a fighter that can shoot like a ranger, hit like a barbarian, and get 9 attacks in a round with TWF. no other class can do that.
and my god that kicks so much ass in combat. yeah some barbarian on a mount ragelancepouncing is good in theory... but it has blaring weaknesses in combat. a well made fighter could decimate any cr encounter with little issue, put them in a good group with a buff mage and my god you're unstoppable.
the main thing theorycrafters forget... you dont need to hit for 80 billion damage per round, you only need to defeate the encounters for the day.
|
|
the main thing theorycrafters forget... you dont need to hit for 80 billion damage per round, you only need to defeate the encounters for the day.
I've said the same thing with regards to Skill DC's. Doesn't matter if you have +90 on all your skills, as long as you are hitting the DC's with no problem then all is good.
Never had problem with a fighter. I like feats. I understand that someone could not be interested in feats. I suggest another class. If someone doesn't like spells, better he don't roll a wizard. The problem of the fighter is not in the combat.
i love fighters bacuse they switch hit so well. you can make a fighter that can shoot like a ranger, hit like a barbarian, and get 9 attacks in a round with TWF. no other class can do that.
and my god that kicks so much ass in combat. yeah some barbarian on a mount ragelancepouncing is good in theory... but it has blaring weaknesses in combat. a well made fighter could decimate any cr encounter with little issue, put them in a good group with a buff mage and my god you're unstoppable.
the main thing theorycrafters forget... you dont need to hit for 80 billion damage per round, you only need to defeate the encounters for the day.
Can't pounce with manufactured weapons. The pounce ability given by the totem works only on natural attacks (designer clarification).
|
|
Can't pounce with manufactured weapons. The pounce ability given by the totem works only on natural attacks (designer clarification).i love fighters bacuse they switch hit so well. you can make a fighter that can shoot like a ranger, hit like a barbarian, and get 9 attacks in a round with TWF. no other class can do that.
and my god that kicks so much ass in combat. yeah some barbarian on a mount ragelancepouncing is good in theory... but it has blaring weaknesses in combat. a well made fighter could decimate any cr encounter with little issue, put them in a good group with a buff mage and my god you're unstoppable.
the main thing theorycrafters forget... you dont need to hit for 80 billion damage per round, you only need to defeate the encounters for the day.
-.- They said that he can't in a thread about barbarians...
Oh, doesn't matter, I'll never let someone punce with a lance. Maybe make and attack with both hands, but never never multiattack with a lance, no way. It's just ridicolous.
|
|
-.- They said that he can't in a thread about barbarians...
Oh, doesn't matter, I'll never let someone punce with a lance. Maybe make and attack with both hands, but never never multiattack with a lance, no way. It's just ridicolous.
Four charge attacks all in one go with a lance is a bit extreme and needs to be addressed.
I've said the same thing with regards to Skill DC's. Doesn't matter if you have +90 on all your skills, as long as you are hitting the DC's with no problem then all is good.
the main thing theorycrafters forget... you dont need to hit for 80 billion damage per round, you only need to defeate the encounters for the day.
TheSideKick - right, you don't need to be able to do max damage ALL the time. What you do need to do is decide if you're gonna be offensive or defensive and then build accordingly. To be the best that you can be you're gonna need to focus on the martial abilities (STR and CON), probably to the exclusion of things like INT* and CHA.
shallowsoul - right, skills don't need to be maxed in order to be usable and effective. I'd much rather have a Fighter with 8 or 9 middling skills as opposed to one with 2 or 3 maxed skills.
*/ of course some people don't dump INT at all if they're going for certain Feat trees. You have to know what Feat you want, and why, so that you can allot your stats accordingly.
The fact that a complicated game has some bug in it it's not an excuse to play it blind minded. Btw, I don't pretend that everyone plays my way. If you like that a player use lance as ak47 do it :)
The fact that a complicated game has some bug in it it's not an excuse to play it blind minded. Btw, I don't pretend that everyone plays my way. If you like that a player use lance as ak47 do it :)
1500+ posts means that I'm not being rude when I ask you to explain what exactly it is that you mean here.
A lance isn't a typical melee weapon, where you attack with it multiple times; rather it's a "charging" weapon, where it is most effective in a single attack.
/ a Chevalier charge is glorious thing BTW
|
However, loaba, the devs have ruled that a character with the Pounce ability can move and make his full attack routine with his lance. Thus there are characters that can make four charge attacks with a lance instead of the usual one.
(Personally, I believe I would rule a lance pounce to only deal the double damage on the first hit, and have all others be at normal damage.)
However, loaba, the devs have ruled that a character with the Pounce ability can move and make his full attack routine with his lance. Thus there are characters that can make four charge attacks with a lance instead of the usual one.
(Personally, I believe I would rule a lance pounce to only deal the double damage on the first hit, and have all others be at normal damage.)
Okay - educate me - how does a typical, meaning non-monster, Fighter pick up the Pounce ability?
Lance should not only give double damage on first hit, but should not give extra attack at all, doesn't matter if you have +20 BAB. Even using it outside a charge is strange, but you can make horse raise on hind legs then fall with his weight and so you can attack with the lance even if not moving.
I'm still not seeing where the creature ability, Pounce, has any bearing on a Lance-wielding Fighter (who likely is using the Ride By Attack feat anyway).
Plains domain. Greater Beast Totem. Monk of the Four Winds archetype, Aspect of the Tiger.
Okay - educate me - how does a typical, meaning non-monster, Fighter pick up the Pounce ability?
Plains domain is Divine, so how many Clerics are out there Pounce/Lance-charging? I mean, really?
Greater Beast Totem sounds like a Barbarian thing. Barbies run around lance-pouncing to?
Four Winds Monk-thing - is lance even a Monk weapon?
Aspect of The Tiger - this is a spell yeah? I guess I could see where it could be cast on Fighter target.
All in all, I'm still not seeing where the Fighter hate comes from, at least in relation to possible abuse of the Pounce ability. And it is clear to me that when you Pounce when you're charging with a lance, you're just kinda "out there" now.
I think that this topic about ragelancepounce should be abandoned. It's clear that if some melee classes got pounce and can use it with all weapons or we give this options to all melee classes or to none. I think that this could be discussed for normal weapons, but not for lance. a bit of seriousness :)...
I think the problem with the barbarian is the Pounce ability was actually meant to be used with the claws that it receives from the lesser beast totem ability but a designer figured oh what the hell we will make it their manufactured weapon as well.
I'm fairly certain that "Lance-Pouncing" would be right out in my group, but hey, you know, if you're group likes it... :)
|
|
Fighter hate? People were still talking about that? My bad.
loaba, just pointing out that the devs have said lance-pouncing works. You can talk about how only certain classes get it and how it wouldn't work in your game, but it is a simple fact that it exists in the game according to the devs. That's all.
Fighter hate? People were still talking about that? My bad.
I guess I didn't pick up on the whole "Lance-Pounce" tangent thing, so it's kinda my bad.
Original Topic - don't hate the Fighter and don't adhere to some anonymous poster's determination that the class is Tier 3 or somehow sub-par. A good player can make any class shine and Fighters are no exception to that.
Sub-Topic: Lance-Pounce just seems silly.
Ok, now there's someone that playtested a variant of fighter class? I give it 4 skill/level and more class skill based on warrior type (more or less works like knight orders). It functions well. Someone wants to try?
However, loaba, the devs have ruled that a character with the Pounce ability can move and make his full attack routine with his lance. Thus there are characters that can make four charge attacks with a lance instead of the usual one.
(Personally, I believe I would rule a lance pounce to only deal the double damage on the first hit, and have all others be at normal damage.)
It's not that bad. My group had the 3.5 version of AM BARBARIAN in it. Most of these new PF options aren't actually new at all. Barbarians in 3.5 got the option to pounce via splatbooks (lion totem, if I recall correctly, and they gave up fast movement for it; hmmmm). It was pretty much considered required after it came out, to deal with the movement + full attack issue that had become more of a problem in 3.5 than 3.0 (in 3.0 haste gave an extra standard or move action, so with some boots of speed you could move twice your speed up to your target and begin full-attacking).
Our barbarian could theoretically 1-shot anything in the Monster Manual, short of the oldest of gold dragons. Her strength score also rivalled those dragons while she was in a raging frenzy. She had some web-enhancement feats which gave her an animal companion (her horse), and a feat that allowed her to share the benefits of her rage/frenzy with her horse.
The funny thing is...she still wasn't overpowered next to the rest of the team. She had particular shtick. She charged something and it would usually die. However, she had to be careful because if that thing had friends around, she'd get clobbered when the ones outside of her initial reach took revenge. Certain types of defenses really ruined her day too (concealment effects, incorporeality, etc). Plus there were the times when she couldn't charge due to terrain problems (she eventually got her some horseshoes of the zypher to let her horse run on air).
Dealing massive damage to a single target is probably one of the least broken things a GM will need to deal with. :)
*posts*
Hey loaba, long time no see! I'm glad to see you're still around, and I must say I'm happy to see your solutions. Reminds me of the practical optimization thread again. ^-^
My problem is not only damage, but the scene :) now imagine that lancepounce... seriously!
Fighter hate? People were still talking about that? My bad.I guess I didn't pick up on the whole "Lance-Pounce" tangent thing, so it's kinda my bad.
Original Topic - don't hate the Fighter and don't adhere to some anonymous poster's determination that the class is Tier 3 or somehow sub-par. A good player can make any class shine and Fighters are no exception to that.
Sub-Topic: Lance-Pounce just seems silly.
Tier 4 actually, but I don't put a lot of stock in tiers myself. :P
My problem is not only damage, but the scene :) now imagine that lancepounce... seriously!
Have some imagination. Ever played a game with degrees of success? Maybe those extra attacks represent - for this barbarian - the ability to place that lance strike at precisely the right point. Maybe mechanically the barbarian rolls 5 d20s and counts hits and rolls damage, but then when the description shows up the barbarian just lands a single earth-shattering blow, that tears the head off of his foe, or guides his lance and drifts his horse in such a way as to tear apart multiple foes with the same thrust. Or some other fluffy thing like that.
Oh, in this way you can play everything, but just no. There's a limit to this. I could have accepted this 10, 15 years ago, not now. I would instead give other charge feats if my players want. So it will be really a single massive hit.
Hey Ash - I won't pay attention to tiering until somebody says Fighters are Tier 1. Heh
As for Pouncy-lancing, I think the big kicker is whether or not the front-loaded x3 damage dice pass on to iterative attacks. If the rest of the attacks are "normal", then it's not quite the awesome sauce that people are talking about. And I still think I need to read up on lances and how Full-Attack work in conjunction with one another.
Fighter is by far the most powerful class in the game. Sure they need a cleric or spellcaster helping them with will saves, but you should be playing as a team anyway, and if at double digit levels the team has not figured out how to act as a team then you have problems. The fighter outdamages the barbarian, the ranger, the cavalier, and even the paladin. Their weapon training allows them to do more damage than a smite when combined with power attack. Any additional buffs placed on them let them reak havok. I have never seen anything outdo the fighter and I play with powergamers who really know how to min/max. Paladins are probaly a very close second when done properly under the right conditions against critters with the evil descripter.
Fighter is by far the most powerful class in the game. Sure they need a cleric or spellcaster helping them with will saves, but you should be playing as a team anyway, and if at double digit levels the team has not figured out how to act as a team then you have problems. The fighter outdamages the barbarian, the ranger, the cavalier, and even the paladin. Their weapon training allows them to do more damage than a smite when combined with power attack. Any additional buffs placed on them let them reak havok. I have never seen anything outdo the fighter and I play with powergamers who really know how to min/max. Paladins are probaly a very close second when done properly under the right conditions against critters with the evil descripter.
First, I agree with what you got there, but I just gotta ask you; have you ever seen a mid-level Cavie on the Charge? It's pretty crazy stuff.
Charge is situational. Small dungeons. 20 x 20 rooms with 6 enemies. Mountain side terrain. A tavern. Flying creatures. Thick forest. Delay plus move. Deep caverns. The charging cavalier doesn't always shine.
Hey Ash - I won't pay attention to tiering until somebody says Fighters are Tier 1. Heh
As for Pouncy-lancing, I think the big kicker is whether or not the front-loaded x3 damage dice pass on to iterative attacks. If the rest of the attacks are "normal", then it's not quite the awesome sauce that people are talking about. And I still think I need to read up on lances and how Full-Attack work in conjunction with one another.
Lances deal double damage anytime you are making an attack from the back of a charging mount. So you do get the bonus when you full attack during a charge. This was a common tactic in 3.5 too, and many dedicated fighter builds would dip a level of barbarian for the lion-totem class feature just so you could get pounce.
Generally if you couldn't get pounce somehow, folks in optimization would consider the melee build suspect, since you had little to no way to get your full-attack on if your enemy was very mobile. However, with pounce + magic items (such as horseshoes of the zypher, celestial armor, winged boots, whatever) you could generally get your charge on if you were smart about it.
Shock Trooper was commonly used (or even abused) with this, as shock trooper allowed you to apply your to-hit penalty from Power Attack to your AC instead of your attack rolls for the round, which allowed you to plow damage like some sort of industrialized mega-fighter, which allowed warriors to splatter enemies like the Barbarian from Diablo II. Just blood and guts everywhere. :3
The lance stuff is a bit of a problem, not because of the mechanics but because people won't let fighters have nice things. Someone sees something that a normal person can't do, or wouldn't make sense doing, and they try to deny them that. I've seen it with other mundane classes too. GMs not allowing Rogues to Evasion if the AoE encompasses the room, etc. This junk about not letting martials have their pounce-lancing is pretty much the same deal. GMs are incapable of seeing outside of their own narrow little perfect world, instead of letting them have nice things.
If someone is going to nerf it because it doesn't fit in their idea of how a superhuman warrior with a lance is going to fight with it, then create an option that gives them the same benefit. Make lances deal additional - comparable - damage on a charge based on the iterative attacks you could have used or something. Maybe increasing the multiplier by x1 for iterative attacks (at 1st-5th level you deal x2, at 6-10th you deal x3, 11th-15th you deal x4, 16-20th x5, etc). Is that a ton of damage? Well of course, that's the entire point of a lance build! There's a reason they're classically used to slay dragons. >.>
EDIT: As to fighters being tier 1, it won't ever happen. Tier lists are based on 2 things. Adaptability/options and raw power. Sorcerers win out in raw power but lack adaptability, making them tier 2. Casters such as wizards, clerics, and druids, have raw player + adaptability, making them tier 1. Most of the hybrid classes like Bards, Rangers, and Paladins tend to be in the tier 3 category (assuming Pathfinder, as 3.5 Paladins didn't possess nearly the same benefits). Barbarians and Fighters have traditionally remained Tier 4, because while they can usually be optimized for a particular shtick, but lack problem solving abilities. However, the Pathfinder Barbarian has been given a huge upgrade in terms of general problem solving and opportunity benefits, so if they're still tier 4, they'd be on the high end of tier 4.
What I meant when I said I don't put a lot of stock in tiers is that it's perfectly possible to play with tier 4-1 in the same group and do amazingly, and the tiers are meant to account for the limits of the classes, so someone playing a tier 1 class might stink it up if they're not particularly good at that class (I've seen my brother seem overpowered with an NPC-stat expert, next to a party with core PC classes at low levels).
Some people try to decide what to let in their games and what not to, based on tier lists. I'm not that anal about them. I see the tier list as a quick gauge, and I think it helps people to understand that power and success don't necessarily come from big numbers. I still believe that Fighters can be played alongside wizards, and their being tier 4 at best has never stopped me from rolling one if playing a Fighter is what I feel like.
Charge is situational. Small dungeons. 20 x 20 rooms with 6 enemies. Mountain side terrain. A tavern. Flying creatures. Thick forest. Delay plus move. Deep caverns. The charging cavalier doesn't always shine.
No doubt, charging is highly situation. So when the Cavie gets a chance to skewer something we don't begrudge him the kill. The Fighter does less damage then skewering Cavie of course, but then he's much less "sitiationa" of course.
Gotta love the Fighter, all 20 levels of him. :)
Most dedicated charger builds work more like that lil' dog from the Labrinth. Small race on a small or medium sized mount. Then later, horseshoes of the zypher or similarly flavored item (maybe anklets of the zypher for riding dogs or whatever) are a good bet. That way you can fit into dungeons and stuff that normal characters can get to, and you can avoid most of the pitfalls of dealing with mounts.
Meanwhile, your damage drops from 1d8 to 1d6, but most of your damage in a charge build comes from your static modifiers getting multiplied. So a goblin (a good race for a mounted character due to +4 racial to ride) charger might be riding on a medium animal, with a 1d6+3 for your damage at first, but on a charge you get 2d6+6. Power attacking? 2d6+12. Weapon specialization? 2d6+16. Barbarian rage? 2d6+18. Spirited Charge? 3d6+27. Etc, etc, etc.