Fighters are Weak? I think not!!

[Thresher]

The "Complete Warrior" sourcebook is well worth it for a player who's into fighters, lots of interesting feats in there, some of the Tactical ones are really nice and a whole heap of others involving weapon moves after a long set of feats.
While they dont suit everyone's choice of weapons, there is a preceedent there for a long feat chain-fighting style that could be applied to anything really if you wanted to modify them to fit in.
Theres also some work done to the 2-weapon styles to bolster them up somewhat, as is the 2H weapon/Power Attack is laying down the 'ownzed' on baddies.

But I'd agree with a lot of people here, a 'dip' at some stage or another is more or less essential for fighters to make them distinct if nothing else.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm in the fighters suck camp.

I see two problems.

1. already mentioned lack of high level stuff to give you a reaosn to stay fighter, its just lame that at high levels you just start another feat chain that you oculd of started at level 1.

2. fighters may be the best combatants but not by nearly enough of a factor to justify there absolute suckage out of a fight. D&D by deciding combat is the most important balancing factor made every class competative with the fihgter in a fight. The rogues help in the damage dealing almost as much as the fighters, mages/clerics rock out the save or dies which make them just as effective if not more in a fight etc. Yet out of a fight the fihgter is close to useless compared to the abilities of the other classes. So yes fighters suck.

 

[Avouz]

I don't think it's that, actually. IMHO, the problem is that which gfunk suggested: Fighter is just fine for a few levels, but is far better for dipping. Ftr4/Rgr6/PrC10 makes a better archer than a straight fighter, Ftr4/Bbn16 (or Ftr4/Bbn6/FB, but that's just dangerous) makes a much more effective melee combatant, and Ftr4/Pal1/Clr15 is a better all-round character. The thing that is needed to fix this, IMHO, is a real set of class abilities (not just feats), more and better high-level feats, or a combination of same. IMC, I give fighters a medium Will save (which they desperately need, having only one good save and, unlike other one-save classes, no means to boost save effectiveness through divine grace, rage, evasion, slippery mind, etc.) and allow them (only) to choose from a much more powerful selection of feats from 10th level onward, including Armor Skin, Improved WWA, Overwhelming Critical, and a few others from the ELH (though not the heavy hitters like Damage Reduction and Fast Healing). I also give them Profession as a class skill.

I'm starting to hear echoes of the criticisms of the 3.0 ranger. It's good if you take a few levels (4 would seem to be optimum to get weapon spec), but not good enough to stick with it for the whole of your PC's career.

If that isn't proof that the class needs some kind of tweak, I don't know what is. Still, I like your suggestions, although I would lean towards the better feat suggestion (I like the fighter's versatility.) Feats in 3.5 like Improved Weapon Focus were a start, but there need to be more of them.

 

[AeroDm]

IMC, I give fighters a medium Will save (which they desperately need, having only one good save and, unlike other one-save classes, no means to boost save effectiveness through divine grace, rage, evasion, slippery mind, etc.) and allow them (only) to choose from a much more powerful selection of feats from 10th level onward, including Armor Skin, Improved WWA, Overwhelming Critical, and a few others from the ELH (though not the heavy hitters like Damage Reduction and Fast Healing). I also give them Profession as a class skill.

Although I like the sentiment, granting more powerful features at level 10 seems a little late. I'd be hard pressed to play a character with the promise that things would turn around at level 10, when the majority of campaigns i've seen cap between 7-15. Gez's variant fighter has a similar logic (sans the will save) but grants them much earlier. He already plugged it, so scroll up to his link.

 

[Nifft]

I think the new Greater Weapon Focus & Spec are going to extend the "optimal" envelope for multiclassing from 4th to 12th level or so, at which point the character is significanly a Fighter.

I can't wait to throw 12th level Archers at my PCs... *drool, drool*

-- N

 

[takyris]

I'm starting to hear echoes of the criticisms of the 3.0 ranger. It's good if you take a few levels (4 would seem to be optimum to get weapon spec), but not good enough to stick with it for the whole of your PC's career.

If that isn't proof that the class needs some kind of tweak, I don't know what is.

There's gonna be someone who complains about every class.

Wizard: Not as many spells per day as sorcerer. Why shouldn't I be better than the sorcerer?

Sorcerer: Not as many spells known as the wizard. I'm forced into a limited role.

Fighter: Not enough skills.

Rogue: My non-combat abilities get ignored because magic can do them better.

Cleric: I'm the most powerful class in the game, and yet nobody wants to play me because most gamers still equate me to "Heals on Wheels". Wait, that's not a complaint...

Anyway, the fighter-rogue is great until you're fighting oozes, undead, constructs, and so on. I've also found that a lot of folks aren't making best use of their feats. If you're level 11 or so, by the third round of combat, you should know what your opponent's AC is -- and you should, therefore, be Power Attacking to improve your chances. If you don't wanna guess, write up some little Perlscript thingie that lets you input your primary attack bonus, number of attacks, BAB, and opponent's AC, and spits out the best combat option for you that round in terms of "Amount to Power Attack". As a DM, I'd rather have a player discreetly consult his laptop or Palm Pilot between turns and then quickly say, "Power Attack Five" than have them agonize over what to do and then sigh and just unload a full attack with nothing special on it.

My players are currently running through a d20 Modern Action Movie -- they're 12th level heroes fighting 2nd or 6th-level ordinaries, and watching their combat tactics evolve has been wonderful. They're power attacking, disarming the best weapon-wielders, tripping like nobody's business, and having a great old time. My only regret is that I keep rolling so well on the massive damage saves (which won't happen in D&D quite as often, I know).

 

[Cbas10]

I'm in the fighters suck camp.

I see two problems.

1. already mentioned lack of high level stuff to give you a reaosn to stay fighter, its just lame that at high levels you just start another feat chain that you oculd of started at level 1.

2. fighters may be the best combatants but not by nearly enough of a factor to justify there absolute suckage out of a fight. D&D by deciding combat is the most important balancing factor made every class competative with the fihgter in a fight. The rogues help in the damage dealing almost as much as the fighters, mages/clerics rock out the save or dies which make them just as effective if not more in a fight etc. Yet out of a fight the fihgter is close to useless compared to the abilities of the other classes. So yes fighters suck.

There are a lot of comments I'd like to respond to, but this one seems to sum most of them up.

As to Point 1.: Who says that the only feats out there are the ones related to combat? Sure, by 20th level, you have 11 feats that MUST be fighter-related feats, but you have 7 or 8 others that can be anything. I can easily specialize a fighter into one style of combat (melee, ranged, two weapon, sneaky, etc), use those 11 feats, and STILL need to dip into my "regular" feats to really finish all of the improvements I want. This does not even take one major point into consideration: many of my feats get devoted to something that is not specifically set out to make him kewler and badder in combat, dealing more and MORE damage. If anything, the fact that fighters have 11 feats by 20th level for nothing but combat crunchiness, leaving 7 other feats open for whatever they want, makes them even MORE versatile (thus "useful") than many other classes.

As to point 2: If rogues fight only single opponents who are always aware of where they are at...if you drop a wizard in a dead-magic area...etc etc...THEY are going to be completely worthless, too, if you play a character by the numbers and powurz listed in the books. The really fun part of this game is the fact that all characters are more or less meant to be stronger or more valuable in certain areas. Thus, they depend on each other to cover each other's weak spots. Thus, the group dynamic becomes very fun.

If your fighter completely sucks outside of combat, it is not our fault or the fault of the game designers. Maybe it is your fault; maybe it is the fault of your DM or his style of play. I can tell you that a few simple additions to a "standard" fighter can make a world of difference. Take the Cosmopolitain feat from FRCS (I cannot remember if it was added to the 3.5 PHB list); choose something like Diplomacy, a Knowledge, or even Spellcraft as the associated ability (assuming of course, you have an appropriate background). That will certainly change the dynamic of the character and how much you can contribute outside of combat. Even if something is not a class-skill, take a Skill Focus feat in something you want your character to be able to focus on. Non-class skills don't mean that you are not able to learn those skills; rather they are not typical for such classes and are usually more difficult to integrate into the character's normal activity of training and improving himself. I can easily see a fighter-type learning nearly any skill to go with any particular concept.

Someone mentioned the fact that it is almost necessary to multi-class with rogue levels in order to "keep up" with the damage-dealing capacity of others. I would love to rant, but that is not constructive. However, I DO have one question for a lot of you: why are numbers, optimization, and kewl powurz so much more important than character concepts and roleplaying the person who makes up your character?

 

[johnsemlak]

However, I DO have one question for a lot of you: why are numbers, optimization, and kewl powurz so much more important than character concepts and roleplaying the person who makes up your character?

Extremely well put

 

[Avouz]

However, I DO have one question for a lot of you: why are numbers, optimization, and kewl powurz so much more important than character concepts and roleplaying the person who makes up your character?

In an ideal world, I would agree with you, but the game anticipates a certain level of success versus obstacles, and if you are playing a character that is less able to be successful at what he/she is supposed to excell at than other characters (as I stated earlier, a fighter vs a fighter/rogue), it's less fun.

The fighter should be the best at combat in D&D and considering the posts in this forum, most do not believe so.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

My suggestions for the fighter.

Give them two more skill points per level (really, up all the 2pts/lvl to 4pts/lvl, fighters included in this) and increase the range of class skills to include basic stuff like Profession, maybe Sense Motive (for feint defense), Knowledge (Tactics) or something similar.

The core idea of the Fighter is sound, but I think the non-combat role needs a bit more build up. A couple of extra skill points and 1-3 more class skills make Fighters a bit more than the tanks they are in combat.

- Ma'at