Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 1134500" data-attributes="member: 1049">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.</blockquote>

Verification