D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a 3.5 fighter?

[Deset Gled]

I have always found fighters to be one of the most versatile classes. They certainly have the most breadth of any warrior class in the core rules.

The fighter is really the only class that has the ability to successfully invest in multiple feat trees. Other classes must carefully choose their feats for a specific build. You don't take levels of fighter because you want to be an archer. You take levels in fighter because you want to be an archer, and a spring attacker, and a tripper.

It is true that splat books have added classes that outshine the fighter in many aspects, but they have also added a large number of desirable feats that are easiest to get if you are a fighter. As power creep increases, I find that the fighter becomes less desirable for single class builds, but more desirable for a few level dip.

 

[Fajita McJones]

Here's the concern: armor. Full plate reduces speed (-4 to jump) and has a hefty ACP. Lighter/less armor solves that problem but makes you more vulnerable.

It is a concern, but if you're playing with Shock Trooper you're going to be using the "Heedless Charge" feature I mentioned before (when you charge and power attack you trade AC instead of attack bonus) and by that point you probably no longer give two sh*ts about your AC. If you're 8th level and charging for a full power attack (like you should be with that feat) you've dropped your armor by 10 for the rest of the round. It's around this point I just said screw it to being a giant tin can, picked up a really really really nice magic chain shirt for any time I might have been surprised and also bought some boots of striding and springing (which are dirt cheap and awesome).

I guess the main idea is trade a lot of protection for the ability to move 80 feet across the map and fell a foe in a round or two. You're doing so much damage that you're laying foes out before they can completely destroy you. It's risky, but it's also part of the fun.

 

[Dandu]

Moving the spellcaster into the right spot is key (up against a wall, or even better is into a corner) and that requires being able to direct a bull rush. Also, readied actions are completely necessary if the spellcaster takes a 5 foot step you can smack him hard.

We tried that. The problem was getting close to him; he played it so my team (three mage-slayers) could not do it. Contingencies, illusions, and battlefield control made it hell.

Something I realized about your example from earlier. Tripping enemies without provoking AoOs requires Improved Trip, which requires Combat Expertise. Using the maneuver in Shock Trooper to push one enemy into another will let you trip them both, but that provokes 2 AoOs.

 

[Deset Gled]

Edit: The comment I responded to was removed, so I am removing my response.

 

[Dandu]

I didn't think the question was phrased very well, so I removed it. If you've got a good answer as to how to handle the MAD, feel free to post it.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Im pretty sure I can say whatever and no one will listen...

so bannana

I am sorry, but I do not think this answers any questions about the "why are fighters a worthwhile class" question.

I did, however, read your tale. The dragon talks too much and should just die already, once he's, you know, dead.

 

[Fajita McJones]

Something I realized about your example from earlier. Tripping enemies without provoking AoOs requires Improved Trip, which requires Combat Expertise. Using the maneuver in Shock Trooper to push one enemy into another will let you trip them both, but that provokes 2 AoOs.

The only thing that would provoke an attack of opportunity is the Bull Rush at the beginning, but you have Imp. Bull Rush so that doesn't provoke anything. Everything else is resolved as a free action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. That's rules-as-intended and how every DM I've ever talked to handles it at least. The thing is with some of the tactical feats you might need to determine the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. You're not tripping either of the two opponents, you're slamming one of them into each other and knocking them over like a row of dominoes and the most reasonable way the designers found to resolve that was with opposed trip checks.

Here's another example. There's one tactical feat built specifically for Paladins (and in my opinion is the only one a Paladin should ever spend feats taking, but that's for another thread) that is quite awesome called, well.. Awesome Smite. One of the features of that one is something called knockdown smite where after a smite (maybe a smite on a charge, I can't remember 100%) you get the chance to knock down your opponent as a free action. This is resolved by opposed trip checks as well, and if you fail your opponent can't try to trip you back. Now, as intended this is supposed to be a Paladin smiting a BBEG and bringing his sword down so hard in an overhand chop that after it connects the BBEG is laying on the ground in a crumpled mess instead of "he hits him, then he tries to trip him" but using the free trip check was the best way they found to do that mechanically.

If that makes the tactical feats sound really powerful, good. They are really powerful and the majority of them work best when used by Fighters who can meet the prereqs and still have room to focus on other areas of their character.

 

[FEADIN]

They're fun to play because you can always fight, you need no buff to start a fight
Because they come from the earlier days of D&D when you had no options, they're iconic.
Because it's fun to try to control the battlefield, stop the big monster who wants to eat your friends take tons of HP while they make use of those spells and class abilities to overcome the challenge WITH you.
Because you can also play him stupid.

 

[Nifft]

I can't think of anything any other full BAB class gets at 1st level as good as Improved Initiative, in terms of combat utility. Going first is always great, but when you are a fighter-caster, you want to go first more than anybody. Barbarian and ranger are acceptable, but Fighter is equal to or better than all other choices for EK. Rage eventually becomes a waste of time. A ranger who takes Improved Initiative voluntarily simply trades 2 hit points and medium and heavy armor for some skill points, which is a pretty good trade, but not clearly better. I think going any further on this would be a digression, but that's my thoughts on the matter.

You like going first? Then you better find a way to get some ranks in Spot and/or Listen.

Barbarian grants 4x(4+Int) skillpoints (+8 over a Fighter), and has Listen on his list.

Ranger grants 4x(6+Int) skillpoints (+16 over a Fighter), and has both Spot and Listen on his list. You can also get a head start on Concentration and four decent Knowledge skills (though not Arcana).

If you like going first, you'll really like getting an extra Standard action before the first round of combat.

- - -

A Ranger who takes Improved Initiative trades 2 hit points and armor (which he might not use) for some skill points, AND a better skill list, AND +2 Reflex, AND the Track feat (which is probably useless), AND the ability to use Ranger wands like Cure Light Wounds. Oh, and he gets a single Favored Enemy at +2.

Even if it were just skill points and the superior skill list, it would be worth -2 hp. Being unable to use your (2+Int) skill points on Concentration means you are behind the curve for defensive casting when you finally get to cast spells at 2nd level.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Sorry_Charry]

...no class is better than anyother, unless you want the choice of what to do, that is where fighters reign supreme, in choice

Ditto. Succinct & to the point.