Unbreakable Fighter: Worth the trade-off?

[sunbeam]

I'm kind of getting the urge to roll up a sort of generic fighter focusing on the greataxe.

I guess he won't be so vanilla because I was thinking of the Unbreakable archetype.

But looking at this, while he certainly does well against magic, he really loses out on damage. Weapon Training and the glove of class equalization really are big losses. If you somehow made it to 20th level you leave +6 to hit/+6 damage on the table.

Obviously an Unbreakable fighter will do very well in some situations, but from actual play do you think the tradeoff is worth it? I mean the guy will be nowhere near the offensive threat other archetypes or the straight fighter is.

Also I think a barbarian can do anything this archetype can do as far as resisting magic, probably better practically. And he would be a heck of a lot more of an offensive threat to boot.

[Seranov]

The only reason I ever even looked at the Unbreakable is because you use a 1 level dip of it to get a headstart on feats for the Tank Barbarian.

If you want to play it, by all means, but it's not a particularly strong option on its own, I think.

[Marthian]

It honestly depends. If you focus on saves, you can make it really easy to make saving throws.

I made a Dwarven Unbreakable Fighter 13/Paladin 5/Rogue 2. Long Statblock short: He hadsaves of 30+, with a +5 vs spells.

[Major_Blackhart]

I think it's a great option.
Go half orc, deathless zealot route is a lot easier with Unbreakable.
Not only that, but Eldritch (as someone in another thread suggested to me) is an awesome addition.