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

[Nifft]

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.

1/ Fighters do need buffs to fight, they're simply incapable of casting their own buffs. They rely on potions and charity.

2/ In the earlier days of D&D it was only Fighters who had no options. Thief, Magic-User, Cleric... they had options.

3/ "Playing stupid" is a niche I had honestly never considered. Is this a large source of value for you?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Speaking for myself, the Big Dumb Fighter* is a fairly rare archetype for me to play...but when I do, he has usually proven to be a blast to play. (See post#9 for Bear's story.)



* I've also played BDFs who were not Fighters- besides obvious ones like Barbarians, there have also been some idiotic Paladins, Monks, and a standard Sorcerer/Fighter...

 

[Dross]

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.

1/ Fighters do need buffs to fight, they're simply incapable of casting their own buffs. They rely on potions and charity.

2/ In the earlier days of D&D it was only Fighters who had no options. Thief, Magic-User, Cleric... they had options.

3/ "Playing stupid" is a niche I had honestly never considered. Is this a large source of value for you?

Just being a bit pedantic: no buffs needed to START a fight.
It probably does need it to FINISH a fight though.

We don't use the Complete books so I can really only go on PHB classes (and currently trying MiniHB classes)
Playing stupid can be done "viably" by only 2 classes,
barbarian: which is somewhat counter-intuitive to me since they need some street/wilds smarts to survive;
and fighter: awaits orders to hit things hard or is dumb and hit things hard.

The rest require some smarts to use all those options usefully

Playing stupid could be fun for me but only for a short while.

While I agree that mechanically a fighter is "generally weaker" than the other classes (especially skill choice where it could easily be combat orientated), they are a class the allows for a lot of choice theme wise (at least initially, it has been diluted as more options become available for other classes [Urban Ranger I'm looking at you]). The other martial classes all tend to have a specific theme as part of their core build.

Plus, I personally just like playing them

 

[pawsplay]

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

There's always ridiculously cheap Wondrous items.

 

[pawsplay]

1/ Fighters do need buffs to fight, they're simply incapable of casting their own buffs.

Why do they NEED buffs? They have the highest to-hit bonuses, the most feats, and the widest selection of weapons and armor. In a pinch, they can do without them in most combat situations.

They rely on potions and charity.

How is charity to work as a team? As powerful as a cleric or wizard is by buffing, they can get even more bang for their buck if they also buff the fighter. That's like claiming it's charity for a fighter to ready an action to block opponents who would rush the wizard, or charity to flank for the rogue.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Why would any body want to be core fighter when then are other combat focus classes who have better saves can do more damage and have more hit dice than a core fighter?

Maximizing a characters lethality index is not the only thing everyone is interested in. Maybe I don't want to be a half-monkey Death-Dealer/Lord of the Wasteland/Feared-by-Gods/World-Breaker 2/4/8/16 with a twist of lemon. Maybe, just maybe, there are a few people out there who still see fun possibilities in just being a Guy-with-a-Sword, level 4. That's all.

 

[Nifft]

Just being a bit pedantic: no buffs needed to START a fight.

In that case, NOBODY needs a buff to start a fight. That's not exactly pedantry -- you're dismissing FEADIN's post while quoting mine.

Playing stupid can be done "viably" by only 2 classes,
barbarian: which is somewhat counter-intuitive to me since they need some street/wilds smarts to survive;
and fighter: awaits orders to hit things hard or is dumb and hit things hard.

The rest require some smarts to use all those options usefully

Having seen the spreadsheets some CharOp guys made to figure out the best uses for Power Attack, I'm not at all convinced that playing a Strength-based melee dude must be simple.

They're complicated, and they're ineffective.

Why do they NEED buffs? They have the highest to-hit bonuses, the most feats, and the widest selection of weapons and armor. In a pinch, they can do without them in most combat situations.

Because their to-hit bonus is inferior to that of a raging Barbarian, their feats are linear in a geometric game, and armor is just another way to fail Climb, Jump and Swim checks (which is half the Fighter's list).

Let me repeat part of that: feats are a linear power boost in a game about geometric power. Having the most $2 tokens is great at the $2 poker table, but by 7th level the spellcasters are playing at the $20 table, and by 17th they're throwing around $2k chips.

How is charity to work as a team? As powerful as a cleric or wizard is by buffing, they can get even more bang for their buck if they also buff the fighter. That's like claiming it's charity for a fighter to ready an action to block opponents who would rush the wizard, or charity to flank for the rogue.

It is charity if you spend your entire attack action moving to set up the Rogue's attack. Likewise, it is charity if the Cleric spends his entire attack action buffing a Fighter instead of himself.

Do you frequently (like more than twice per encounter) ready an action to defend the Wizard? I've never played with a group that was like that.

Maximizing a characters lethality index is not the only thing everyone is interested in. Maybe I don't want to be a half-monkey Death-Dealer/Lord of the Wasteland/Feared-by-Gods/World-Breaker 2/4/8/16 with a twist of lemon. Maybe, just maybe, there are a few people out there who still see fun possibilities in just being a Guy-with-a-Sword, level 4. That's all.

Those people have a valid preference, and they should have a good option.

Unfortunately, the Fighter is not a good option. As you level up, it is both increasingly complicated and increasingly ineffective.

Cheers, -- N

 

[radmod]

How is charity to work as a team? As powerful as a cleric or wizard is by buffing, they can get even more bang for their buck if they also buff the fighter. That's like claiming it's charity for a fighter to ready an action to block opponents who would rush the wizard, or charity to flank for the rogue.

Hear, hear. Unfortunately, I can't xp you again; I have to spread.
I have seen this concept crop up many times over the years. A cleric refuses to waste his 'precious' healing spells on the fighter who's always in combat. "Fine," says the fighter, "then I'll just let the next monster beat on you for awhile." The cleric usually wises up quickly, or dies.
Quite frankly, I'm always amazed to hear how mages/clerics/druids, etc. are so much better than fighter types. In my worlds, none of them will survive without their meat shields protecting them.

And, now that I think about it, when I've allowed people to play two characters at a time, it was the group who demanded that one of them had to be a fighter type.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the past, I've compared a D&D party to an aircraft carrier strike group, with the Wizard (or other primary caster) being the metaphorical carrier.

While the carrier is far and away the most powerful ship in the group, every other ship in the group perfoms a vital role to the group's successes and failure. And though the carrier has the equipment to perform nearly any other ship's role, it cannot do all of them at once. That's why the group has cruisers & destroyers (warriors & monks), subs & radar ships (rogues of various kinds) and missile & resupply/support ships (divine casters).

 

[FEADIN]

In fact nowadays it seems that the contest is to be better than the others, rpg are about gathering with friends and live fantastic lives not about I'm better than you because I get x y or z power/class/ability, 30 years ago I played with youngs (I was too) and this kind of behavior is typical, that's why computer games appeal to the young and why rpg are more and more like them.
To play a fighter is feeling the sweat when the Big monster is closing and knowing that your hp total is going to rush down but you get the pencil and are ready to count and in your turn you can take options and swing that good old sword to cut him in half, in fact that's a feeling that you never have when playing another class, disintegrating an enemy is totaly impersonnal, cuting him in pieces is very "sensitive".
On top of that I think that every player has a better feeling for one class or style my oldest friend always plays wizards because he is fearful and very protective, for me it's roguish I like the best but I'm very fond of fighters too.