A Fighters skill points....

[Ketjak]

Baffled

That's a pretty bold claim.

In 3 levels, the Ranger gets 2 combat feats - one of which is really good (Rapid Shot) and one of which is fairly good (3.5 Endurance). The Ranger also gets a Favored Enemy Bonus, and many skills which are directly useful in combat and is often more survivable as he trades 4 hit points for 2 points of reflex save. He otherwise has 2 normal feats, which can be spent on anything he wants (and are largely interchangeable for the Fighter's basic feats as the Ranger meets all the BAB limits the Fighter does.

In 3 levels the Fighter gets 2 combat feats - which are selectable off of a limited, but larger, list.

So in what way is the Fighter "better" at combat? Is it the Tower Shield proficiency? Or the part where he has a lower Reflex Save, no Listen and spot skill, and a lower reflex save?

Cause to me that sounds like kind of a wash in combat. The Fighter is going to have a much worse AC against poorly hidden foes, and has the same number of combat bonuses. In exchange, he can carry a larger, more expensive, harder to transport set of armor - which will give him an advantage in some circumstances and a disadvantage in others. That and he has 4 whole hit points.

So from a strictly combat standpoint - the Ranger is better on the attack and has 4 less hit points. In what way does that make the Fighter better in Combat? Last time I checked, if people could take "Favored Enemy" or "Toughness" as a feat - people would line up to get the Favored Enemy bonus. And the ranger is strictly better as a scout, diplomat, and assassin.

How is that balanced?

-Frank

You're basing class balance and combat ability on the first three levels of either class' advancement? How does that contribute to either argument about relative class balance or one class being better at combat?

 

[FrankTrollman]

Because most games start at first level?

Thus, there are more first level characters than third, more 4th than fifth, and so on. And of course, since you've already admitted that PrCs are better - 6th level Fighters and Rangers are both underpowered, right?

So it only makes sense to base a comparison on an early level - not a late one.

I could compare at 2nd level - but a sencond level is half again as good relative to hise level as a 4th level one. In the long run, a Fighter gets 11 bonus feats in 20 levels - at 3rd level he's 2 for 3. That's still better than his overall average, but close enough for comparison.

-Frank

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Also because you have to start at somewhere when you take a class. If it's not worth taking the first level, why should the fifth or sixth matter? I can understand taking offence at the idea if you're always starting at level 5+, when it's worth looking at the big picture of the character all at once and not level by level, but that shouldn't be a standard occurance.
As for prestige classes, I feel that they should be more powerful in ONE SPECIFIC AREA. The problem I see with most prestige classes is that they don't focus on one concept very well, and try to put out raw power. Necromancer, Illusionist, Defender (high AC), and Archer, these are all valid prestige classes, IMO. Also, IIRC, one of the designers, at one point, said that the reason the prestige classes were so good is because you had to give up a lot to get them. I leave it for what it's worth.
Magius out.

 

[dcollins]

God forbid I get involved with this one, but... yes, a number of point-evaluation schemes for base classes have been developed in the past few years. For example, here's one that's been made available for some time by "Shadowcraft Studios":

www.community3e.com/dn/class/class_d20cce.pdf

In this system's evaluation, Fighters are just barely below the mean: they are rated above Clerics, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards, equal to Barbarians. They are rated below Bards, Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Rogues.

Of course this could be argued, but that brings me to my point. Someone asserting that the point-system they're still working on will definitively prove Fighters to be underpowered is suffering from a spot of egomania.

 

[Magic Slim]

I tampered a bit with the fighter class (amongst others, see link in sig), and although I didn't give it more skill points, I gave it, at each level that it didn't receive a Bonus fighter feat, a "Combat Technique". The table for combat techniques is:

Combat techniques: Apart from feats, Fighters learn special combat
techniques to help them further in the field that they excel in: Combat.
At each level that the fighter learns a new technique, she can choose
from the list below. Each technique can only be learned once. 
A fighter's level + her Intelligence modifier indicate which technique
can be learned.

Fighter's Combat Techniques

Level
+INT
Mod	Technique		Effect
1	Instant mastery		4 ranks of a skill in which the character
				has no ranks

2	Toughness		+3 hit points

3 	Willpower		+2 bonus on Will saves

4 	Health			+2 bonus on Fortitude saves

5 	Agility			+2 bonus on Reflex saves

6 	Shield mastery		Ignore armor check penalty of shields
				(except tower shield)

7	Armor mastery		Armor check penalty or armors reduced
				by 3 (min 0)

8	Long life		Instead of dying at -10 hp, the fighter dies
				at -10- Con modifier hp.

9	Defense			+1 dodge bonus to AC

10 	Offense			+1 to attack rolls

12 	Leather skin		+1 natural armor bonus to AC

14 	Perseverance		Once per day, the fighter may re-roll once
				(whatever the reason), using the new roll.

16 	Thwart opponent		Once per day, the fighter may make his
				opponent re-roll once (whatever the
				reason), using the new roll.

18	Imprevious to pain	Once per day, the fighter may consider the
				damage of one melee attack (after
				damage is rolled) to be treated as
				subdual damage instead.

20 	Deathblow		Once per day, the fighter may consider an
				attack that has hit an automatic
				critical hit.

Slim

 

[The_DarkAngel]

That system isnt half bad, except for one major flaw: they charge 10 points for armor. Any class can get armor as a feat. So a fighters armor (total) should be 25, not 35. So he would be rated at 235, not 245. My system is very similiar, and some what based off of this one.

The other problem with this system is that, it does not judge magic weilding well. As show, a Mage is far more powerful then the system shows, as spells increase in power, and that is not accounted for. This system also does not not show 3.5 versions but if it did, for one, the Ranger would have way more points as his skills have increased to 6 per level.

DA

 

[Humanophile]

Frank, I'll halfway bite your bait. I'll happily grant that the mid-high level straight Fighter is in several ways "underpowered". But aside from skill selection, I don't think that the fighter class per se is anything unbalanced. It's all about processing the info correctly.

Low-level Fighters shouldn't be compared point-to-point with Rangers. Endurance, for example, is a nice feat, but half its benefit is thrown away on a Ranger (who can sleep in Medium armor, but who's built to wear ony Light), and the other half requires a quality DM. Most games I've played in, both players and DM's tended to forget little things like harsh conditions or suboptimal battlegrounds. Fighters, on the other hand, with their superior armor selection tend to have higher AC's than low-level Rangers, and climb their feat trees faster. By the time Rangers have Rapid Shot, fighters have Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot, and Precise Shot. Opening these options to low(er) level characters and allowing them to fill their "concept" earlier is a perk of the Fighter feat machine. So I think your low level comparisons miss the point.

The problem with mid-high level fighters is twofold, though. First, that habit most gamers have of missing annoying little details kicks in. Players tend to fall into adoring one combat style, and DM's tend not to have their baddies exploit every dirty trick they can. So the Fighter early on becomes great at his one chosen trick (a good thing, IMHO; Fighter levels let you zoom in on certain parts of your archetype early), and after that can't think of good uses for his feats. He hacks things with his sword, why should he waste time and effort learning mounted combat feats? (Hint: The answer should be "because if he doesn't, a talented DM will tan his hide with a mounted knight". But many DM's seem to content themselves with dungeons and foot soldiers.)

So this is where many players pick up a prestige class. In many cases, if they didn't have the Fighter levels, they wouldn't meet the feat requirements, so early Fighter levels aren't exactly a waste. And the prestige classed character would probably be hurt if the DM forced them to fight outside of their style; it's just that if the counterbalancing situation comes up rarely if ever, that's skewing the balance scales. (Let me note that some thought does have to be given here; if a special ability is cool, but useful in a situation overlooked by most DM's, it's not really that much of a balance factor.) But even then, when the prestige classed character wants to grab a few more feats, he picks up a few more levels of Feat Machine, AKA Fighter.

So I'll grant that a combination of common play styles and lack of high level focus makes pure high level fighters uncommon. Creating some higher branches to feat trees may well help; people seem to love climbing them as quickly as possible. Requiring a multitude of combat style skills will too, but sadly that's something that takes a lot of practice for a DM. And in some ways, it's OK if Fighter is a PrC feeder class; if it does its job as Feat Machine well, I'd like to see a balanced alternative that doesn't step on any other archetype's toes or exaberate feat fatigue problems. (I know AU has its own fighter class. I don't have AU. Would someone with that book and more experience playing veterans with flexible combat skills please cover for me here?) If someone can cover those bases for me, I'd like to see it. I just don't want to set any power creep precedents.

 

[FrankTrollman]

and the other half requires a quality DM. Most games I've played in, both players and DM's tended to forget little things like harsh conditions or suboptimal battlegrounds.

Earlier in this very same thread it was claimed that Fighters were not underpowered in a strict comparison to Barbarians because of harsh conditions and sub optimal battlegrounds.

So which is it? Are Fighters directly underpowered when compared to Rangers, or to Babarians? You can't have neither - and therefore the class is strictly underpowered.

-Frank

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Slim: Could you please trim down that post of yours? It's stretching the board, and that's really annoying.
Humanophile: I like where you're coming from on this, but I think there are a few too many people complaining about it to just say that there's no problem with it. Heck, the main reason I play a fighter is to make exactly the kind of combat character I want. Could he use a bit of a boost? Yeah, but that can be taken care of with a lengthier list of feats (maybe make a full Dodge tree, or add in the Cleaving Charge/Trail of Blood feats from Spycraft).
Heck, let's go through some of our favourite rulebooks and figger out which trees to throw into the mix to catch people's eye.
Or not, it's up to you.
Magius out.

 

[Crothian]

Could he use a bit of a boost? Yeah, but that can be taken care of with a lengthier list of feats (maybe make a full Dodge tree, or add in the Cleaving Charge/Trail of Blood feats from Spycraft).

Ya, but does he work out well? I concede some of their proof, but until I actually see a problem in my game, how can I truely believe the fighter is underpowered? All this proof that it is or not is second hand, the only true proof is how it actually handles in the game. So, I ask in your game with the fighter you are playing do you feel you are underpowered?