• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Evolution of the Fighter

I still have yet to see a compelling argument as to why fighters are so bad, especially in 3.x D&D. Having not played much 4e, I can't really comment yet, but in all my experience with permutations of 3rd ed. the fighters are always fun to play and get plenty of time to shine. The fact that 4e "fighters" tend to be pushed into the tank role kind of irks me a bit too. Most fighters in my games are tanks, but not in the sense that they're actively defending other party members via special abilities. They defend by rushing the monster and kicking the crap out of it, thus letting the squishy wizards and rogues do their things with less distraction.

I too felt the article has a very strong "4e is so much better" sort of vibe. I like the division of roles by class in 3.x much more than the divisions in 4e, personally.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A pretty sloppy article. To hear Wizards talk, the 3e fighter's dozens of possible feats was boring while the warlock was a genius of innovation... both are, in 4e terms, classes with a healthy choice of at-will powers.
Hmm? This is what they say about the 3E fighter:

"When 3rd edition released with its wealth of skills, feats, and options, the fighter still existed as a rather basic class, with excellent base attack bonuses and many extra feats . . . but little else in terms of special class features. Their number of attacks per round, however, did increase fairly dramatically:"

Fighter as a relatively basic class? Yep, many people consider that a positive boon.

Excellent attack bonus? Yep.

Many extra feats? Yep.

No special class features? Yep.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

I also missed the warlock reference. Where is it?
 

Nope. It came years before in Unearthed Arcana. (With some earlier references in more ephemeral publications.)

Years before that.

White Dwarf issue 4 (Dec 1977) had a Barbarian class designed by Brian Asbury (a contributor to APAs of the day - offline blog/forums, if you will).

It hugely predated UA, and was far, far better (and more usable).

Possibly what you are considering by ephemeral publication?

Cheers
 

I still have yet to see a compelling argument as to why fighters are so bad, especially in 3.x D&D.

Lack of options, really. He has no problems dealing tons of damage, but that is pretty much it. Compare the fighter to a warblade and his flaws will become all too apparent.
 

Lack of options, really. He has no problems dealing tons of damage, but that is pretty much it. Compare the fighter to a warblade and his flaws will become all too apparent.

On the CO board, last time I checked, it was determined that the fighter's main flaw was that it was rude of him to kick the warblade's butt.

I think most dismissals of the 3.x fighter are based on the idea of the fighter being "a rather basic class." What kind of experience would someone have if they approached the wizard with the idea of picking out a couple of cool spells and just rolling with it? The fighter can be extremely formidable, but this depends, of course, on common sense and good tactics.

The fighter's main weakness is his relative lack of utility abilities. Obviously, fighters cannot normally fly, conjure food, teleport, etc.
 


Lack of options, really. He has no problems dealing tons of damage, but that is pretty much it. Compare the fighter to a warblade and his flaws will become all too apparent.


How is having a billion feats to pick from "lack of options"? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I think the people who complain about this just don't use the feats they have very well. I know that there are plenty of feats that suck or are too powerful, yet I still think there are plenty of things for Bob the Fighter to do. Personally, I allow my characters to buy cross-class skills for only one point per rank, so this allows Bob to actually take some ranks in skills for flavor without eating into his precious 2 per level.
 

Basically, the fighter has many feats to choose from, but they don't really let him do anything he couldn't do before (whack things). Conversely, they don't get anything to help them shore up their conventional weaknesses. The fighter outstrips the warblade in terms of damage dealing capability. I don't deny that. I just look for other factors as well.

The warblade has a better skill list, and his maneuvers accord him a lot of versatility in dealing with a myriad of different scenarios. His standard-action maneuvers allow him to maintain his damage potential against mobile foes who might otherwise rob the fighter the chance to make the full-attack action. Defensive maneuvers like iron heart surge, mind over body, the reflex version (in tandem with ring of evasion) let him deal with annoying effects like a mindflayer's mindblast or fireball.

I don't want a 1-trick pony that can 1-shot a tarrasque, yet automatically lose vs will-save effects, forcecage/maze and other debilitating effects. You can say that it is ultimately a matter of preference, but I have played a warblade to satisfaction, and can safely vow that I will never again go back to playing a 3e fighter (except as a 2-lv dip for the bonus feats). ;)

This is an abridged version because I am pressed for time at the moment. I will try to prepare a more in-depth version later.:)
 

Lack of options, really. He has no problems dealing tons of damage, but that is pretty much it. Compare the fighter to a warblade and his flaws will become all too apparent.

What options? Some series of number bonuses?

Fighter had the most options of all the classes. They didn't have to worry with spells, or what armor they could choose for some ability.

They pretty much had a free run of anything without any drawbacks. They were the class that was told "NO" the least often, when gave them more option than any other class.

Wizard: I want plate armor
D&D: No
Cleric: I was a sword
D&D: No
Rogue: I want to pick pockets while wearing chainmail
D&D: No
Fighter: I want to....
D&D: Yes!
 

Fighter had the most options of all the classes. They didn't have to worry with spells, or what armor they could choose for some ability.
Options in and out of combat, not just character build options.

Here are my observations from having played a warblade, as compared to my prior experiences of having run a fighter.

1) I have probably said this umpteen times, so just bear with me. A decent skill list (balance, diplomacy and tumble!), and enough skill points (4+int mod) to let you invest in a reasonable array of skills. It does not hurt that the warblade also receives a small number of bonuses from having a moderate/good int score, so you don't feel like you are wasting precious stat points (starting with 14 at 1st lv, you can eventually improve this to 20 with a headband of intellect+6, for a +5 bonus on a variety of checks, not really heaven-shaking, but still good to have).

Contrast this with the fighter, where you had to "waste" points just to raise your int to 13 or 14 in order to pick up expertise (since it was a prerequisite feat for quite a number of important feat chains). His skill list stank, and rarely ever saw use. He was basically useless outside of combat.

2) Lesser reliance on full attack. At higher lvs, the fighter is extremely reliant on using the full-attack action to maintain his damage output. Unless he can access a means of pounce (such as dipping in 1 lv of barb), he is at a disadvantage vs extremely mobile foes who can move after making a single attack (which can be a standard action such as a SLA). Conversely, the warblade can still consistently deal a decent amount of damage with standard action strikes like diamond blade nightmare, ancient mountain hammer or strike of perfect clarity, which allows him to take a move action beforehand.

3) Higher mobility. The typical fighter wears fullplate, which reduces his base speed to 20ft. Even with speed boosters like haste/magical boots, he may still be at a disadvantage vs faster foes. Likewise, difficult terrain (such as a blade of grass in his path) can hinder charging, further restricting the ease with which he can navigate the battlefield. It is amazing how tricky terrain can screw with PCs in ways that optimized npcs never will.

On the flip side, the warblade has the advantage with the shadow hand teleportation maneuvers (which he can readily access using the martial study feats, since they do not have prereqs). The ability to teleport 50-ft as a move/swift action is very useful, not least because it lets you easily move into a favourable position regardless of how cluttered the battlefield is, while still allowing you to make a standard action attack (or full attack, such as time stands still or feral death blow). Quicksilver motion also gives you an extra move action, so you can move+full attack.

It lets you ignore difficult terrain and more importantly, escape a forcecage, a spell popular with higher level spellcasters which can immediately shut down a fighter with minimal fuss.

4) Versatility. A fighter who goes down the weapon spec tree is locked into his choice forever. If you specialized in greatswords, and need to chuck it for daggers when attending a dinner party incognito, tough luck, 6+ feats just got rendered useless. Conversely, the warblade who opted to take this same weapon spec tree can adjust his entire selection on a whim. He can use using greatswords today, longspears tomorrow, a spiked chain the day after and morningstars when he expects that he will be facing skeletons.

And his maneuvers work with any weapon, even soup spoons. You don't get any cooler than initiating lightning throw to deal 10d6 damage to all foes in a line with the wooden toothpick you happened to be cleaning your teeth with.:cool:

5) Crappy saves. It used to be that the player controlling the fighter could expect to sit out just about every fight involving some sort of will saves. In dnd, most will saves usually involved some sort of debilitating effect that either disabled/killed you (if you were lucky) or turned you against your party (if you lucked out). If your party faces a group of mindflayers, expect to be stunned/charmed for the remainder of the battle. Ditto for reflex saves (to a lesser extent, since it typically involves large amounts of damage, rather than save-or-die effecys).

The warblade is not as vulnerable. Moment of perfect mind lets you make your will save with relative ease (since concentration as a skill is much easier to boost than saves). Same for action before thought (which combos nicely with a ring of evasion). Mind over body is less important (since it affects your strongest save, but since fort saves also include save-or-die effects, it helps to have the extra assurance).

6) Adaptive style lets the warblade swap in a new array of maneuvers as a full-round action, allowing him to rapidly tailor his list of maneuvers to best suit any given situation. Facing a dragon? Bring in moment of perfect mind (vs its frightful presence), emerald razor (touch attacks are a given) and action before thought (vs its breath weapon). Facing simple brutes like a hill giant? Swap out the save boosters and bring in more damage dealing maneuvers. Fighting a wizard specializing in rays? Wall of blades takes care of your crap touch AC. Moment of alacrity effectively gives you that lost round back. You should never be caught dead with a less than optimal array of maneuvers.:)

Meanwhile, the fighter is left using the same tricks vs every foe he faces, however effective/ineffective it may be. A tripper facing huge+ foes? Tough luck. Sunder master, but facing foes not wielding weapons? Too bad.

7) Iron heart surge. Because being hit with a waves of exhaustion or maze spell really sucks for anybody (especially since they do not allow saves). Pity it does not let you counter an immobilizing effect like hold person, but hey, I am not greedy.:cool:

8) The warblade's variety of maneuvers make playing him more fun overall. I don't just move and attack/5-ft and full attack every round. I move, use a swift-action boost, and initiate a cool maneuver. Then my foe attacks me, and I initiate a counter. Plus, tapping the maneuver cards to signal their use is just too nostalgic for an ex-Magic player like myself.:p

There are a few other minor reasons, but these are just the main advantages I feel that a warblade has over and above a fighter. Basically, martial adepts made melee fun again, by giving them the options normally restricted to casters, but without the hassle of accounting for slots.:)
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top