Are the alternate base classes becoming core?

[Marshall]

Fighter is a 4 level class. Any comparison using only 4 levels of FTR, or little more than 4 levels of FTR, isnt going to show the FTRs true suckitutde.

Take your Goliath and make him a FTR4/BRB2 and you will double his effectiveness as both a Roll play and Role play character.

 

[Faraer]

I... what? I'm pretty sure that nearly every player I play with buys around 8 supplements a year. That's the average. Then there's the completeists (the DM and myself) who buy just about every non-FR supplement that's printed.

Millions of people play D&D, while the books sell in tens of thousands.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Fighter is a 4 level class. Any comparison using only 4 levels of FTR, or little more than 4 levels of FTR, isnt going to show the FTRs true suckitutde.

Take your Goliath and make him a FTR4/BRB2 and you will double his effectiveness as both a Roll play and Role play character.

Isn't this a bit strong? I mean, I can understand pre-PHBII posts about how the fighter wanes after so many levels, but can one honestly claim that one's class will improve one's roleplaying? Sure, if roleplaying only comes out of one's class then adding another class should increase roleplaying. but when I role play ... I seldom role play to a class. I typically do mechanics according to the roleplaying I want to do.

As per the fighter being bad ... I think they have come a long way with the PHB II. I think they are a legitimate class if built properly and played within their role. But then again, I like the Favored Soul, too. Oh, and I seldom optimize characters for combat. Our group only participates in combat and earns XP through combat about 5% of the time. So fighters may not be as bad in one of my games as a group around the table in which you must optimize or be useless.

 

[Nyeshet]

Until PHB2 came out the fighter was unarguably the weakest of the classes, and few took the class much beyond 4th level. After PHB2, however, I tend to think that the fighter has risen a few pegs on the ladder. I would now arguably suggest that the monk be considered the weakest of the classes. With the various useful and interesting feats in PHB2 the Fighter, I believe, can hold his own until around 18th level (and that only because there are no 'Ftr 20th level' pre-req feats in the PHB2).

On the other hand, the Cleric was considered the strongest class all throughout 3e. Then the revisions came in 3.5e, and the Druid jumped up past the cleric to become the number one in power. The wizard still holds his own around third strongest, although some have suggested that during 3e (not 3.5e) he should have been considered 2nd strongest instead of 3rd.

In the middle we have classes like the Rogue, Barbarian, and Ranger - which in my opinion are the ones that class balance should be based upon. The Warlock can probably also be tossed in there, although it is a bit weaker at higher levels, becoming something of a one-shot pony, if you'll excuse the pun.

I think there was a thread a while back where voting determined how the population of ENWorld viewed the power of the classes. I'll see if I can find it . . . . If I can I will post the results in this post later.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is another thing I've seen a lot of on the board but just haven't seen in our own games. That and the fighter is still actually not out classed by the castors and we're at tenth level.

Meh. In some games, the Warforged is balanced.

I don't think that the fighter is ever really outclassed by the casters, but if I make a dwarf fighter and I make a dwarf warblade and I ask them both to take the "front-line attack absorber and first wave attacker" route, I think it'll be pretty clear which one performs better at that role.

"Balance" has never been an exact science, but, well, more of a careful act. Certain weights land with a bigger thud than others.

 

[Darklone]

Until PHB2 came out the fighter was unarguably the weakest of the classes, and few took the class much beyond 4th level. After PHB2, however, I tend to think that the fighter has risen a few pegs on the ladder. I would now arguably suggest that the monk be considered the weakest of the classes. With the various useful and interesting feats in PHB2 the Fighter, I believe, can hold his own until around 18th level (and that only because there are no 'Ftr 20th level' pre-req feats in the PHB2). ...

People seem to play different games here.

PHB2 was a big boost to the fighter, yet I didn't have one fighter or fighter multiclass in the group in the last years since 3.0 came out that anyone would have called weak. The fighter was always at least second in power. He wasn't exciting, but he dished out and ate damage the whole day long and didn't leave combat all the time to take a nap like the barbarians.

I played usually till around level 12 or 15... so I can't speak about high and epic levels.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

I think it all comes down to individual gaming groups, just like nearly every discussion of this type. Some groups will use them a lot, some a little, and others not at all. All it does is provide more options. Ultimately, every gaming group (and DM) must decide whether or not to use these options.

I love new classes and can't get enough of them, personally. I have always been bored by sorcerers, barbarians, paladins, and some of the other standard core classes. I still use most of these on a regular basis, but when I want something a bit different (which is often), I go for another class.