A Fighters skill points....

[Darklone]

... Hows about you put forward your builds without equipment, then we can compare two characters fulfilling the same roll in a party with the same equipment.

Comparing characters with different equipment, especially at high level, is more a test of min/maxxing the equipment than the character. It is obviously fruitless to compare characters with different equipment. So here's the plan:

Ok, Frank, so we compare a Fighter with heavy armour with a rog/rgr/bbn/ftr mix in heavy armour, eh?

The possibility to use his stuff in heavy armour is an advantage of the fighter which is ignored by your rules.

You may be able to build specialists that are better at one thing the fighter can do, but be assured that someone here can build specialist fighters that can do it better. Most fighters will be good at several things that your build can't keep up with.

Edit: Thanks for telling us that you only keep up with this thread till you think you've been right

 

[FrankTrollman]

You may be able to build specialists that are better at one thing the fighter can do, but be assured that someone here can build specialist fighters that can do it better. Most fighters will be good at several things that your build can't keep up with.

That's a bold claim that you have yet to actually back up in any way.

I came out with two builds: one was a mounted/ranged/melee character and the other was a straight hitting machine. They both had more relevent abilities than a single classed Fight could. One was focused in one area and the other was spread between several areas of expertise.

So let's see these supposed "specialists" or these characters "good at several things". I already showed one character who specialized, one who diversified. The 16th level "Fighter" would have less total abilities and would definitionally fulfill either the diversified or specialized roll worse. And that's not even counting the fact that both had a huge pile of skill points - many of which could be in combat skills like Spot - which in turn account for additional powerful combat abilities that the "Fighter" could not match.

So rather than hand waving - let's see you throw down.

Put up or shut up.

-Frank

 

[Darklone]

Frank, the only builds I see in this thread use PrClasses. The others already told you, but if you keep claiming a coreclass is broken because you can do better with a prestige class.... then go trolling elsewhere and watch your tone.

If not: Wanna see a strong Fighter? Take Quintessential Fighter and use some nice fighting styles and optional rules there. In case you're one of the silly dudes who think it's balanced because WotC publishs it and everything else is crap (which is right concerning Quint Fighter balancewise)... then welcome to my personal ignore list.

 

[reapersaurus]

I've lost track:
Frank - is your point that fighters are more underpowered (in-combat & out-of-combat) than all the other classes, or is your point that multiclass characters are stronger than single-class characters?

It seems like you kind of flipped your focus there in the middle....

If your point is the former, than there is discuss-able points there.
If your point is the latter, than only a fool would argue that single-class characters are as strong as multiclass characters. That says nothing about the fighter class in particular, though.

 

[FrankTrollman]

reapersauraus: It's both, actually - that's not a flip-flop, it's simply that both are true.

The reasons that a multiclassed character is better than a single classed character are:

1> Saves add up in stupid ways for a multoiclassed character. This is a seperately solvable problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular class.

2> Warrior Core Classes get objectively less per level as they rise within their class, while Rogues and Spellcasters get objectively more every level as they rise within their class. This is a problem with each of the warrior classes, and has to be solved on the end of the classes themselves.

A Wizard gets 2 (or more) new spells every level - cumulatively. Both known and castable. And the spells he gains at each level are at least as good as the ones gained at each previous level - and often better. A Fighter gets one new feat every level - which I could argue one way or another whether it is better or worse than two spells - but after a few levels the Fighter goes down and starts getting only 1 feat every other level. That's simply no contest. 2 Spells is obviously superior to nothing, which is what the Fighter is walking away with at 7th level.

So the warrior classes - all of the warrior classes - need an infusion of butt kicking in the later levels so that they can compete with wizards of equal level - and for that matter so that they can compete with people who simply took two different Warrior Classes.

Now the Fighter needs it worse than the others. His osolescence with regards to level advancement happens at level three. Heck, Paladin levels don't hand out a dud until level six. Many games don't even go to seventh level - Paladins are fine in those circumstances. Almost every game goes until level 3, so almost everyone notices the underlined point that Fighters should bail out of their class as soon as it starts to suck.

---

The multiclassed Saving Throw problem is a real problem. But the lack of good mid-level support for the Warrior Classes is a problem as well. Wizards get something cool every single level, Fighter/Ranger/Barbarians get something cool every level - "Fighters" need something cool every single level as well - because they are supposed to be playable and balanced in a party with a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian and a Wizard in it.

For the saves, I suggest handing out static and stackable bonuses for every level where you have a good save and a different and smaller bonus for every level where you have a bad save. Say 3/4 and 1/2. That way, a Rogue/Fighter will have the same save total as a Rogue or a Fighter - instead of the crap we have now where he has more.

---

In addition to that, however, the Fighter's combat schtick is not especially superior to that of the Barbarian or Paladin - and is often about the same. But what the Fighter does have - in addition to going obsolete early - is a very crappy non-combat ability in the form of class features or skills. A paladin has a very restricted skill list - but it's still better than a Fighter's and the Paladin has Detect Evil at will which is really cool. The Barbarian has all kinds of neat skills and the skill points to use them.

Even after you fixed the Fighter class features and save accumulation system so that from a combat perspective you were not losing out by taking more levels of Fighter instead of multiclassing - the fact remains that being a Fighter is still sacrificing your non-combat schtick for nothing. The Barbarian or Paladin are still matching you in combat and they are doing cool and useful things outside of combat that you can't match.

If the Fighter had 4 skill points and a bunch of skills that the Barbarian didn't have (such as Knowledge History and Sense Motive) - then the Fighter would have its own theme from a character standpoint. Right now it's just a Barbarian who traded 2/3 of his feats and half his skills and skill list in order to be able to spend those feats on a wider list. That's not balanced or flavorful.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

A Wizard gets 2 (or more) new spells every level - cumulatively. Both known and castable. And the spells he gains at each level are at least as good as the ones gained at each previous level - and often better. A Fighter gets one new feat every level - which I could argue one way or another whether it is better or worse than two spells - but after a few levels the Fighter goes down and starts getting only 1 feat every other level. That's simply no contest. 2 Spells is obviously superior to nothing, which is what the Fighter is walking away with at 7th level.

Although I agree with your analysis, I disagree with your conclusions.

It is true that spell casters start gaining slightly more each level at mid to higher levels.

However, the assumption you are making which is extremely invalid is that the spell casters will survive to those higher levels in order to accomplish that.


If NPCs (characters or creatures) are played stupidly by a DM, then sure, you can keep your Wizards in the back ranks and your Fighters in the front ranks and the Wizards will have a high survivability.

But, if you play your NPCs plausibly (i.e. in a manner which is conducive to success for them), then your spell casters will get attacked in combat nearly as often as your Fighters.

At low level, this means that they will die more often due to considerably lower AC and hit points.


So sure, spell casters get more powerful at higher levels, but it should be the somewhat uncommon spell caster who survives that long (unless your DM goes out of his way to protect them). Obviously, YMMV, but that is one of the issues with these types of discussions. People focus on numbers at certain levels without looking at the overall picture. IMO.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

'course, that does bring up an interesting point. Most of the classes give you better and better things as you go up in level (ranger - TWF/Bow trees, Cleric/Sorc/Wiz spells, etc). The fighter does not. Indeed, if you go by straight up core rules (3.0 or 3.5, whichever), you could argue that the fighter has a diminishing return on his special ability. If you're character's point is having the highest AC possible, then you're going to run out of feats to take pretty quickly (around level 8, IIRC), and you need to look at other sources to further develope the character concept.
This also goes for most other tight-knit fighter builds (greatsword duelist, hand to hand specialist, etc). Let's just leave prestige classes out of the mix for the moment; I think we can all agree (or at least, agree to disagree) that they all are overly general for something that's supposed to be tightly focused.
Anyways, just throwing that in for what it's worth. I still think fighters need a better skill list/more skill points (maybe), but that's beside this point.
Magius out.

 

[Crothian]

The feat trees are in theory the high level abilites of the fighter. Like the ranger, the fighter can take the twf and bow trees.

 

[DrSpunj]

The feat trees are in theory the high level abilites of the fighter. Like the ranger, the fighter can take the twf and bow trees.

This has been an entertaining thread so far, and some good points have been made (as usual) all around. I've seen Crothian's point brought up in similar discussions, and it has some merit. No other core class offers the feat versatility that the Fighter enjoys.

However being able to complete 2 or more trees (each of which if taken straight through are easily achievable to any straight-classed Fighter by levels ~6-8, GWF & GWS notwithstanding) means the Fighter essentially gets access to 2+ mid level trees at higher levels.

To me that's like telling a Wizard or any other spellcaster, "Hey, good news! After getting a bunch of 4th spells, we're going to let you go back and gain access to a completely different set of spells of levels 0-4 instead of going on to get spells of 5th level or higher! Doesn't that sound great?"

I'm still not decided about what I'd like to see to fix that. Higher level feats would be an obvious start. With them I think Fighters would clearly dominate in combat (as I think everyone believes they should, setting aside for the moment individual opinions on whether they do now or not) and giving up the non-combat schtick would then be more tolerable/acceptable.

Just my 2 cps. Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Yes, yes. However, let's take for granted that the fighter has the ability to meet the prerequisites for the feats he needs. The only thing keeping the fighter from finishing the feat tree at level 4 (for TWF) is the fact that he needs a BAB of +11. Indeed, most of the feat trees that the fighter would be traversing can be done with between 4 and 8 feats (I think).
Unarmed tree: 5; Whirwind tree: 5; Bow tree: 7; Power Attack tree: 6; Weapon Focus tree: 4.
Assuming that all of the top-end feats of each of these trees is about the same power-wise, every time you finish a tree, the power of your next feat drops dramatically. In the cases where the concept is extremely focused, then you only have one or two trees that you'll be traversing. No reason to go into higher levels at all.
Of course, with a concept like "I want to be the best fighter", or something else the like, you're going to end up using most of the trees. However, I don't like working off such a general concept, so I hardly ever run a fighter like that.
This all is, of course, for what it's worth.

Edit: Dr. Spunj: you beat me to the punch, and said what I'm saying so succinctly. The simple solution, of course, would be to add more feats to the end to all of the trees. Maybe make more feats that combine trees. However, that seems a bit brute-force to me, so I'll leave it at that.

Magius out.