A Fighters skill points....

[Ketjak]

And this right here could be the massive difference in perspective.


The fighter has the potential to be the bard of combat -- as one character, he can be a backup archer, backup tank, backup two-weapon guy, and backup special-trick-dude, all in the same combat.

Wrong. At the point where he has enough feats to do this, the Fighter would need to have magical gear allowing him to be effective with all of those styles. Unless the DM is giving out truckloads of items and gold to the Fighter to help him out, he is still going to only be doing one thing well.

Your statement is as valid for Fighters as it is for Rangers or any other combat class. The levels at which Fighters have two or more combat styles either mastered or under development mandate the use of magic for all classes. For what it's worth, by tenth level the Fighter has all the combat feats/style of a Ranger-archer and is on his way to Whirlwind Attack. If the Ranger has chosen TWF path and the Fighter is emulating the Ranger, the Fighter has Whirlwind attack. Putting everything they have into it, Rangers get Whirlwind attack at 15th level.

First, the Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations. All the classes you just admitted are better than a Fighter in various combat styles completely blow the Fighter away in social situations, survival situations, or stealth situations. Furthermore, D&D is a game of specialization. Generalization weakens a character, making them ineffecient compared to those who specialize. The fact that you claim the Fighter needs to be generalized is merely proving the point that the class is underpowered.

This is a factually incorrect statement, including Takyris' statement about Rangers being better than Fighters at their chosen path (except for one occasion at 11th level). All respect is given to all participants in the following paragraphs!

First, the Ranger is not better than the Fighter at the combat style he chooses except at 11th level. The Fighter achieves superiority again at 12 th level, and his damage output never wavers. If the Fighter specialized in the same weapons as the Ranger, the Ranger is only barely better than the Fighter at - and only at - 11th level.

Second, each of those classes gets a narrow-band benefit pending the existence of certain conditions (raging, versus twice-favored enemy at 11th level, target is flanked and not immune to critical hits or sneak attacks). While those conditions exist, it is possible they're doing more damage than a Fighter. Groovy for them! When those conditions don't exist (calm emotion spell or after rage, in any combat besides with a favored enemy, or against undead/constructs/oozes/uncanny dodgers), the Fighter continues tearing down the bad guys.

A benefit that provides a bonus in a narrow range of situations is worth less than a benefit that provides the same benefit across a wide range - or all - situations. To be equal, the narrow benefit should be greater than the wide benefit. Of all the narrow-benefit warrior types, the Barbarian is about equal and only the Fighter's diversity in technique makes the Barbarian his marginal, but arguable, inferior in combat.

However there's a much bigger problem. The Desert Raider, the Pirate, the Crusader, and all the other "Fighter Variants" - are in fact different Core Classes. You can multiclass between them freely.

I don't recall seeing those in the PHB or another WotC prodct. I don't own them all, though - can you tell me where I can find them?

Ranger gets: Combat style (worth 3 feats), Track, Wild Empathy, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Endurance, Hide in plain Sight, Light armor, Shields, Favored enemy (worth 3 feats atleast), Spells (worth 3 atleast), swift tracker, animal companion equals: 95 points.

Favored enemy is not worth three feats. Though it provides +2 to five skills (normally worth 2.5 feats) and the equivalent of Weapon Specialization with all weapons (1 feat), these effects are only useful against one category or sub-category of opponents. The skill bonuses are at best worth half that value, and more likely less. The Weapon Specialization bonus benefit is canceled out by the restrictive nature of the ability, so it's probably 1 feat. A minor quibble.

Hide in Plain Sight is arguably the best of the other features. While it allows the Ranger to use Hide skill, he can only use it in restricted conditions ("natural terrain"). Still, it's quite useful.

Each of the other abilities the Ranger gets is non-combat, and is not worth the same as combat abilities considering the orientation of the core rules and in context with them. Individual campaigns may vary as Takyris described, and that's wonderful to see. In heavily political games, the Fighter is not as useful as the Rogue or Bard, or even the Cleric. The class was not designed to be.

Fighters don't need skill points or more magic than any other class. They get combat feat versatility, making them the master at combat. They don't do as much damage as the Barbarian does when he's raging, which does not happen all the time. The Ranger must choose the same enemy two, then three, times to keep up with damage output, but he's out-fought by the Fighter against enemies of another type. The Rogue must be in position, probably behind enemy lines to use his ability.

The Fighter needs a weapon to use most of his abilities. That's it.



[edit: fixed a spelling error]

 

[Curugul]

# of encounters a day...

I think this is a large part of the imbalance between the Fighter and all other class's who outshine him in combat: Duration. Yes, the paladin/sorceror/barbarian/what have you are better than the fighter in a combat, but they can't do it all day... But how many games HAVE combat's one after another all day?

In my experience most games have 2-4 largish combat's, and thats it, in a given day. While it works in a game like Icewind dale, its a PAIN to fight 50 small things, when you can just fight a smaller number of powerful foes, for the same gain.

I'm curious how many games have lots of small encounters?

Would you agree in a game with 3 big combat's a day, the fighter is eclipsed by nearly everyone (especially spellcasters / barbarains)?


I think this is a pretty core part of whats wrong with the fighter: Their designed to go all day, but (almost) never do.


Curugul

 

[Najo]

Fighter skills

Something I haven't seen anyone address regarding the fighter's skill set is this:

Becasue Fighters get the following class skills: climb, craft, handle animal, intimidate, jump, ride, and swim, and they only get 2 skill points per level, that they can only keep 2 class skills maxed or 1 cross class skill, and in doing so can not have any other skills.

Now, classes who want to remain competive in a skill should keep that skill's level either maxed out or at least near the high end. Way I see it, even the INT 10 fighter should be good at three or four of his skills. He spends all of this time being phyiscal, but his skills don't get to reflect that.

Another thing to consider with the fighter, they need their STR, CON, and DEX all with good scores. They can not spare a good roll to INT. Wereas the wizard places his best score in INT, and then that synergy gives the wizard skill points. Likewise, the rogue has so many class skills and doesn't need a high STR or CON, that a high INT works very well for him.

Finally, what balances a fighter class in skills compared to other classes is that they have very few class skills. Class skills are what is valuable because their maximum level is your level +3. Cross class skills can only be half that. So the fighter will always be last in line with skills no matter how many skill points he recieves.

Giving the fighter 4 skill points allows them to:

a) Keep climb, jump, ride, swim maxed out (or any of the other skills)

b) Keep two of those class skills maxed, and have one cross class skill (such as listen or spot) maxed.

c) and you can easily create playable pirates, as the one listed earlier (aside from the skill points being wrong) should be good at those skills, not just having a +1 in them.

Using the level 1 human crow's nest pirate (INT 8) example with current PHB fighter: Climb +2, Profession - Sailor +1, Swim+2, Spot +1.
Even though he has no other skills, and all of his training has gone to being a pirate, he is only half as good at his chosen career as other physical classes can be.

But if the skills were 4 per level. Then you get this build at level one, which to me makes more sense: Climb +4, Profession - Sailor +2, Swim+4, Spot +2.

I suppose you could argue that the pirate is better made from a rogue (which makes sense actaully), but still it proves a point - fighters with at least some variance to their concept (such as nobles or guards) are nearly impossible to build with 2 sps per level, and giving a fighter 4 sp per level doesn't affect their balance against other classes at all. All it does is makes the fighter more interesting to play.

Nate

 

[pyk]

I think everyone is forgetting something in regards to class balance. And that is there is no balance between the core classes, and there should not be. Each class has it's role(s) to play, and the real balance comes when several classes get together. The party balance is what matters.

A fighter is good for what the class name is, fighting. And, given the current skill set, feats, abilities, etc. no other class is better at fighting than the fighter. Same with all other classes.

Anyway, the other thing is, I noticed someone saying that a fighter needs a good DEX. This is not true. A fighter with a high DEX limits his choices of armor. Full Plate armor, which is unarguably meant for the fighter class, allows a DEX bonus of one. Therefore, unless the fighter wants to make his high DEX useless, or stick to little or no armor, he can do quite well with a low DEX, which then allows a higher INT. Which is the opposite of other classes like Barb, Bard, Rog, etc.

 

[youspoonybard]

I see it more as "A fighter with a low dex limits himself to 20' a round".

But, having Int 13 is more important than Dex 13 in my book, if you have to choose...

 

[LuYangShih]

I respectfully disagree. I always considered two +2 weapons better than one +3 weapon, considering that I was spending approximately the same amount of money. With 3.5's changes to DR, this is even more true. I can understand if you personally want to be armed with one +4 weapon and nothing else, but please don't assume that your strategy is the only viable one.

[/b]

A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons. You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.

"Narrow combat situations" is an oxymoron in D&D. If you've built yourself an extremely specialized fighter and he's doing well in every combat, then your DM is either stupid, unimaginative, or very very forgiving of the fact that you've specialized yourself into a niche.

The Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations. If the arena they are fighting in is at all different from a standard dungeon, they quickly become disadvantaged. They lack any skills that would see them through combat situations over a bridge, in a forest, on icy ground, and so on.

As for what I admitted, I'd appreciate you not twisting my words. What I said was that a member of one of those classes who specialized in a class-favored style (hit-and-run for rogues, tanking for barbarians, archery or two-weapon fighting for rangers) would outfight a generalist fighter using that same style. A fighter specializing in one of those styles will do just as well, generally speaking, as his class-specialized counterpart.

Actually, no, he would not. Fighters do not have the hitpoints, Rage, or DR of the Barbarian. Not to mention the faster speed. Barbarians are always better tanks. Fighters do not have Sneak Attack, Hide, Move Silently, or any detection skills. The Rogue is always better at hit and run. Rangers so completely outclass Fighters in the ranged combat area it is luaghable.

We've seen enough arguments and counterarguments about the barbarian versus the fighter in tanking contests that it's obvious, to me at least, that they are close enough to be considered approximately equal.

Not really.

So what I said was:

Generalist Fighter is more flexible than Specialist Ranger/Rogue/Barbarian, but not as good as the R/R/B in the area that the R/R/B specializes in.

Flexibility is fairly valueless in a party based game. Remember the poll recently on the worst fifth party member? Monks clearly won, and that is because while they are extremely flexible, with varied abilities, they lack any true specialization, making them weak.

Specialist Fighter is just as good as the R/R/B in that area.

Not really.

As for your "they totally trounce the fighter in other areas" argument, I don't see at all how the Ranger beats the Fighter socially, the Barbarian beats the Fighter at stealth, or the Rogue beats the Fighter in survival situations. Oh, wait, you want me to compare the Barbarian's Survival -- his biggest strong point -- to the Fighter's? Well, um, duh. Yes, the fighter also fails to turn undead or cast spells. He is not as alert as the ranger or rogue, the TWO core classes that get spot. Congratulations.

I would be fine with this, if it wasn't for the fact that Fighters not any better in combat than any of those classes. The Warmain from AU has been mentioned previously. Look at that class to see what the Fighter should have been.

It seems like this argument is devolving into an endless series of repetitions of basic premises. One side feels that the fighter is more powerful in combat, and is therefore balanced by being weakest out of combat -- and that people who want a fighting-person who is also gifted with social graces should multiclass. The other side either denies that the fighter is more powerful in combat (and I'm happy to continue arguing against that one) or says that fighters are only a little more powerful in combat but are a lot less powerful out of it.

Fine. You want to prove this? Create a Fighter, completely specialized in any area, and I will create a character from another class who can defeat him at least half the time.

I'd say that whether or not that's still balanced probably depends on your campaign. The designers obviously felt that combat was important enough that a minor combat advantage had to be balanced with a major out-of-combat disadvantage.

Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes. Your example proves nothing, by the way. The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot.

 

[LuYangShih]

Well, the Fighters skills are much more useful then Basket weaving, and it is up to the DM and the PC alike to make use of the skills.

The Fighters skills more useful than Basket Weaving, you say? How so? Climb, Jump and Swim are pointless at higher levels. They have no long term investment power. Ride suffers from the same problem. The only time you would ever bother with it is if you wanted to go into a mounted PrC, and the Paladin and Ranger are better suited for that anyway. Craft is a joke. All the Fighter has that might be somewhat useful is Intimidate, which he only gained in 3.5. Basket Weaving would not be any worse than what is currently available for Fighters.

 

[Crothian]

The Fighters skills more useful than Basket Weaving, you say? How so? Climb, Jump and Swim are pointless at higher levels. They have no long term investment power. Ride suffers from the same problem. The only time you would ever bother with it is if you wanted to go into a mounted PrC, and the Paladin and Ranger are better suited for that anyway. Craft is a joke. All the Fighter has that might be somewhat useful is Intimidate, which he only gained in 3.5. Basket Weaving would not be any worse than what is currently available for Fighters.

Climb, Jump, and Swim are very useful at all levels. You are assuming that the character will have access to magic that will make it useless, this is not always the case. Ride is very useful as well, and not just for a mounted combat character. Horses are the most common form of transportation, it's not like they have cars. Craft can also be useful, it depends on the game. DM's should be making situations were skills are useful at all levels, and players should be ready to embrace their skills to use them. Just because DMs and PCs limit themselves to not using them, doesn't make the skills useless.

 

[LuYangShih]

This forum is called D&D rules, not House Rules, for a reason. I am assuming standard magic as detailed in the DMG, not special case scenarios that vary from campaign to campaign. By the book, parties will have access to magic and items that make all of those skills redundant or useless, thus they are not useful skills to have on the Fighter skill list.

 

[Crothian]

Even with standarnd amounts of magic does not mean they will choose to have magic that makes their abilities worthless. Do you get items that find traps, so the rogue doesn't need to search anymore? You can have magic replace any skill, so why choose the few things the fighter can do? The chooses are making the skills worthless, this doersn't have to be the case.