D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a 3.5 fighter?

I think you are confused about what is meant by "versatile." Versatile doesn't mean being able to grapple a humongous scorpion, it means not having to.
By being a spellcaster, right?

Though honestly, a spellcaster can grapple a humongous scorpion, thanks to spells like shapechange and divine power and righteous might.

For better or worse, powerful magic abilities rule 3.5. Much as I love the Fighter - it may be my favorite class - it is weak. I have played in high-level games where the Fighter (and only the Fighter) has gained a bonus feat every level instead of every other; he still doesn't hold a candle to the full spellcasters, and never will. Even by level 10 or 12, he is the most dependent of all classes upon magic items and buffs from fellow party members to survive.

The Fighter works best in a "Fighter-only" custom campaign; perhaps one which admits rogues, monks and barbarians as PCs.
I bet one could make a game in which Fighters were better than useless just by limiting the class selection to "tier 2" and below. One might allow:
- Barbarian
- Bard
- Binder
- Dragon Shaman
- Dragonfire Adept
- Fighter
- Marshal
- Monk
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Totemist
- Warlock

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I agree that banning all full casters really is the quickest way to balance 3.x.
Banning all non-full casters is another way to balance 3.5e, and IMHO a more interesting choice.
- Archivist
- Artificier
- Beguiler
- Cleric
- Cloistered Cleric
- Dread Necromancer
- Druid
- Healer
ha ha ha just kidding
.
- Psion
- Sorcerer
- Warmage
- Wilder
- Wizard

Cheers, -- N
 

By being a spellcaster, right?

Though honestly, a spellcaster can grapple a humongous scorpion, thanks to spells like shapechange and divine power and righteous might.

If you really want to see some hot fighter-on-scorpion action, you can, just cast enlarge person and grease on the fighter. It's just... pointless.
 







Remove ads

Top