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

[ProfessorCirno]

To answer the OP:

Because you want to be an ubercharger.

There is literally zero other reason to not be another, better class.

Fluff? Every class has fluff. There isn't a single type of "fighter" that you couldn't have made in another class.

Feats? Feats are almost never as good as solid class abilities.

Simplicity? Fighters aren't simple in the slightest. Every feat choice you make is with you for life. You need to plan your character in advance big time in order to stay effective.

Effectiveness? Hahahahahahahaha!

Fun things to do? What things? You have 2 skills, no int focus, and a terrible skill list. Your actions in combat are limited to charge and full attack or using maneuvers that either 1) you focus entirely on, like tripping, and become nothing more then "that character that does nothing but trip cheesily," or 2) try to spread around to each one, find you're terrible at them, and most autofail past level 7 anyways.

So yeah. 3e fighters were terribly designed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So yeah. 3e fighters were terribly designed.

The problem wasn't a lack of design. When 3E was first released there wasn't anything underdesigned about fighters. They had all kinds of ways to be tweaked to make them anything but ordinary fighters. The problem was the unrestricted excesses of everything else introduced since 3E was first released. All the new overbuilt classes, prestige classes, and feats in the constant stream of new supplements without an "ordinary" fighter being given commensurate boosts in power and utility. That was the design problem - not the vanilla fighter.

 

[Dandu]

All the new overbuilt classes, prestige classes, and feats in the constant stream of new supplements without an "ordinary" fighter being given commensurate boosts in power and utility. That was the design problem - not the vanilla fighter.

Fighters got plenty of feats and alternate class features in the PHB2, Complete Warrior, Heroes of Battle, Champions of Valor, Complete Champion, Dungeonscape, Cityscape, Unearthed Arcana, and probably other books that I'm forgetting.

 

[Nifft]

The problem wasn't a lack of design. When 3E was first released there wasn't anything underdesigned about fighters. They had all kinds of ways to be tweaked to make them anything but ordinary fighters. The problem was the unrestricted excesses of everything else introduced since 3E was first released. All the new overbuilt classes, prestige classes, and feats in the constant stream of new supplements without an "ordinary" fighter being given commensurate boosts in power and utility. That was the design problem - not the vanilla fighter.

Disagree. All you need to surpass the Fighter is the stuff in the SRD.

Sure, you can make other classes even better by using supplements, but those supplements aren't necessary if your goal is just to make the Fighter look bad. He was like that already.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

So you're saying a Fighter can compete with a dog, but only if the dog makes bad feat choices.

I don't see anywhere in this entire thread where I have said that. Feel free to point out any example where that has been stated, or demonstrated.

This is incorrect. First off, the dog's AC is 16 and his attack bonus is +4 (with Weapon Focus) all the time. Your dude can't even pretend he has AC 16 if there are two or more opponents (because Dodge kinda sucks). Since Dodge kinda sucks, it's not true that taking it raises your AC by 1.

That is not "incorrect." You have made a valid, yet fairly inconsequential point. I think AC 16, a good deal of the time, is pretty equivalent to AC 16, pretty much all of the time.

If you want to concede melee combat, I'm more than willing to accept that humanoid 1st level Fighters are way better at archery than Riding Dogs.

Cheers, -- N

If you're willing to concede that a Riding Dog is roughly equivalent to 1st level level human fighter with the feats Toughness, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, wielding a club, then we're in business.

 

[pawsplay]

Fun things to do? What things? You have 2 skills, no int focus, and a terrible skill list. Your actions in combat are limited to charge and full attack or using maneuvers that either 1) you focus entirely on, like tripping, and become nothing more then "that character that does nothing but trip cheesily," or 2) try to spread around to each one, find you're terrible at them, and most autofail past level 7 anyways.

You left off 3) become fairly conversant with the combat chapter and discover that with some versatility, you have something interesting and useful to contribute to almost any fight.

 

[pawsplay]

I always thought that meant that you couldn't apply templates to them.

Considering that many things you can train a dog for in real life, I wouldn't have a problem with a Riding Dog picking up other feats.

Think of it as the difference between having a watchdog, an attack dog and a sled dog. Watchdog might stick with Alertness, but the attack dog might have Weapon Focus (or some other combat feat), and the sled dog probably takes Endurance.

That's a reasonable position. But I think it's also reasonable to suppose that beng typical for its kind means pretty much what it says on the can. The typical Riding Dog has Alertness. I think there certainly are Riding Dogs with Weapon Focus, but it's not clear to me that animal companions come that way.

 

[Dandu]

Perhaps someone would care to put up an example build to demonstrate exactly what abilities a fighter would have so that we can talk about something more substantive than hypotheticals?

But wait, is it not the custom to only ask of others what you would be willing to do yourself?

Yes, it is.

Here you go.

 

[Nifft]

I don't see anywhere in this entire thread where I have said that. Feel free to point out any example where that has been stated, or demonstrated.

Well, you're saying you want to be able to pick the Fighter's feats, but the Riding Dog shouldn't be allowed to trade Alertness for Weapon Focus.

Perhaps it was uncharitable of me to assume you wanted to limit the dog's choices in an attempt to win the argument. If I'm mistake, please accept my apology.

Let me ask you explicitly: why should the Riding Dog not be allowed to take Weapon Focus, like his brother Wolf did?

That is not "incorrect." You have made a valid, yet fairly inconsequential point. I think AC 16, a good deal of the time, is pretty equivalent to AC 16, pretty much all of the time.

A +1 vs. one opponent isn't the same as a +1 vs. all opponents. Even at 1st level, you can expect to fight more than one opponent at a time (e.g. 4 kobolds is a level 1 encounter; 8 kobolds is a level 2 encounter, which is perfectly kosher for a party of level 1 PCs; heck, 4 kobolds + 1 white dragon wyrmling is only a level 3 encounter, which is acceptable as a difficult encounter for 1st level PCs).

Dodge is one of the feats I dislike most in all of 3.5e. The idea is decent, but the execution is bad. If it were reworked into something like "once per round as an immediate interrupt, gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC"... but we didn't have immediate interrupts back then.

If you're willing to concede that a Riding Dog is roughly equivalent to 1st level level human fighter with the feats Toughness, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, wielding a club, then we're in business.

... with fast movement, a better AC, better saves, better skills, a free feat slot, he can't be disarmed, and he has a better version of Improved Trip? Sure thing.

(... plus he can Track like a Ranger, with Scent, and he has a better carrying capacity, so the dog is quite useful out of combat ... but that really is irrelevant to the discussion.)

You left off 3) become fairly conversant with the combat chapter and discover that with some versatility, you have something interesting and useful to contribute to almost any fight.

Your opponent is a Large quadruped who doesn't use a weapon.

What fun options are there for the Fighter?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Borthos]

Agreed.

Not to be negative about a character you like -- and certainly not to question the value of setting people on fire -- but aren't you delighting in the abilities granted you by the Swordsage class rather than the Fighter class?

Cheers, -- N

You do have a point there, but I was trying to show the usefulness of the fighter. I would not be able to make this character how I want it to be without the fighter. Now if I wanted to I could take out the Swordsage levels and still have a formidable Human fighter who, (I know you guys have been using the spread stats, right? well this guy was with the 4d6 drop lowest) with 18 dex, at level 1 has:
AC 18, +3/+1 with a crit range of 18-20, and 12 hp
Feats: TWF, EWP (elven Thinblade), Weapon Finesse
STATS: Str 16 Dex 18, Con 14, int 16, Wis 12, Cha 10
Equipment: 2 elven thinblades, chain shirt
these are the same stats, taking out ToB stuff, in order that I have planned my character at level 1. I kept the Ability Scores the same because i value tumble checks to get around AoO's. Yes, before anyone says anything, the fighter doesn't get tumble, but the swordsage does, I simply took it out for this example

Perhaps someone would care to put up an example build to demonstrate exactly what abilities a fighter would have so that we can talk about something more substantive than hypotheticals?

But wait, is it not the custom to only ask of others what you would be willing to do yourself?

Yes, it is.

Here you go.

Just out of curiosity, why is he carrying a holy symbol on him?


EDIT: I forgot you can't use WF with a scimitar so I changed it to thinblades, but it only changes the ac by 1, so it's still viable.