Fighters are Weak? I think not!!

[Scion]

As for the effectiveness of fighters, I have only to point to the poll taken in early 2002 that showed fighters as one of the most common class components

Exactly, components, not a major. Just something to take in order to grab a couple of extra feats and move on to your real class choice.

Someone should make a poll to see which is the most popular straight 10th level class, 15th, 20th. This will help to show what is really being asked, and shown.

 

[Scion]

Um, if I was the player in one of your games, you can be certain that I'd have no problems with you giving out massive numbers of feats, class skills, and feat selections. It wouldn't cause any problems with me.

By that same logic, you could say that because giving Tacky $2000 didn't cause any problems, Tacky must have been living in poverty.

Please, test this theory. I dare you.

I'm not really sure what you are babbling here. Could you explain it in another way?

There were no problems with balance, there were problems with balance before I made the changes. So FIXING the problem that was already there caused no problems in the game. It only made things better

It has been tried and true, it gives a reason to actually take the class beyond 4th level, doesnt even come close to stepping on the other classes toes (they pretty much all get stuff every level anyway), and all the while just makes the fighter player feel like being a fighter actually is better than being some other character class when it comes to what they should be good at. Fighting, in most any form they want. They can afford to specialize in three different weapons in order to give them the breadth and width of knowledge and experience in order to cover their job. This is important, and seems to be what you are overlooking

 

[TracerBullet42]

Ummm, link on page one of this thread.

Oh...duh. Thanks. I should have seen that.

<hangs head in shame>

 

[takyris]

I'm not really sure what you are babbling here. Could you explain it in another way?

Certainly. What I was babbling about was the fact that the evidence you're presenting as a solid argument that fighters needed a lot of fixing was not, in fact, solid evidence that fighters needed a lot of fixing.

I assumed, and herein may lie my error, that your definition of "no problems" was synonymous with "no complaints from players, no complaints from me". Since players rarely complain about their characters getting MORE powerful, or even the characters of their friends (provided that said friend does not negate any need for their own character as a result), I don't see that "the players didn't complain when I added a great deal of power" is evidence for "the fighter was severely in need of fixing".

There were no problems with balance, there were problems with balance before I made the changes.

I'm really not sure what you're babbling about here. Could you explain it in another way?

You keep trying to say "the fighter is underpowered", but it keeps coming out sounding like "I run a game that is unbalanced in such a way that the advantages of the fighter are not fully realized".

The thing about fighting feats, in my utterly subjective opinion, is that by and large, once you get past the few big cool ones, you end up with a lot of stuff that might be good but is not flashy. If you gave a fighter thirty-six feats at first level, with the caveat that every one of those feats had to be a skill-booster (Skill Focus, Alertness, Stealthy, etc.), he'd certainly be a ton more powerful, but he wouldn't necessarily be any flashier. As a result, his overpoweredness wouldn't be rubbed in the faces of the other players, and it is unlikely that players would complain about the extra thirty-six feats that the fighter was getting.

Does that mean that adding thirty-six feats to the fighter's class abilities as a first-level feature will not overpower the class?

What about giving the fighter 2d10 hit points per level instead of 1d10? Many players will never notice. The fighter will just need healing a bit less often. It's hardly a "flashy" ability. Unless the player makes a big deal of it ("Oh, no, I'm down to 179 of my 213 hit points!"), the other players will likely just think "Good, one person fewer to heal." Does that mean that adding an extra d10 hit die to each fighter level is a great idea? By your logic, it seems that we'll be seeing a lot of 2d10 HD first-level fighters with 36 extra feats.

The issue here is perceived power compared to actual power. In actual power, fighters are excellent. In perceived power, they stink, because their abilities are not cool or flashy. The player has to do all the work of making a fighter seem cool, whereas even a pretty lazy player can make a dude who flings balls of exploding fire seem pretty neat -- exploding fireballs are flashy.

There's the old rule about not giving crunchy bonuses for fluffy penalties -- no combat buffs in exchange for roleplaying drawbacks, and so forth. My opinion is that you are confusing the fighter's lack of flair for a genuine lack of power, and are giving him more power to compensate. The result will be a more powerful fighter who is still, in all likelihood, fairly dull -- but your players will be happy because they got a few free feats out of you.

Your mileage may vary, and no offense is intended -- except for the babbling bit. I'm firing back on the babbling bit.

 

[Manzanita]

Right, the point on fighters for me, is not if they're underpowered, but that they're boring. They generally contribute no unique non-combat attribute. The dearth of class skills and skills ranks, and the propensity of feats towards combat make them unappealing to me. Combine this with their clearly inferior first level status vis a vis Barbarians, say, and I've found myself disinclined to play a pure fighter. They're nice as a multiclass.

Fighters are very popular, & I think that's because they represent a common figure in heroic fantasy. A soldier, knight etc. I think it's fine that people play them for that reason, but I would like to see a class that has a bit more non-combat flexibility to it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Much earlier? Gez's stunts start at 8th level, which is only a two-level difference. I do like his variant, but I think the fighter needs a bit raw power further down the line, which more and better feats will fix. Making him better outside combat is, IMHO, a bit of a lost cause; what I'd like to see is a single-classed armsman who can actually go toe-to-toe with a barbarian or a not-absurdly-powergamed multiclasser. Of course, I'd definitely go for a combination of Gez's fighter variant and my own house rules on feat selection...

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

Well, just because that's the case doesn't mean that some complaints aren't more relevant than others. I complain about the swill I get at my college cafeteria; William Grimes complains about the dry, rubbery scallops he received at one meal at Alain Ducasse. Each of us feels aggrieved, but I'd tend to rate the reasonability of my complaint higher.

Incidentally, I don't know anyone who complains that wizards get too few spells a day, but maybe I game in different circles.

 

[ruleslawyer]

double post.

 

[Scion]

There are other people on this thread who have already stated what the problems are better than I can. Thats why I didnt feel like restating it yet again.

In any event here is a partial list:

Other primary fighter types tend to be just as good or better than the fighter in combat. (this is of course imo, but it is based off of actual play as well, along with lots of threads on here that run the numbers)

These same other fighter types also get lots of other beanies for out of combat.

Looking at the fighter he is nearly worthless outside of a fight, which means that inside of a fight he should be absolutely incredible while fighting.

Even if you dont agree that others are on par or better everyone should be able to see that they just dont have much out of combat uses. If it is going to be balanced then they need a large boost in several areas.

The extra feats in my campaign gave people the ability to pick up a couple of feat chains while still having a few feats here and there to use in other areas. Overall making much more interesting characters that had their moments in the sun on occasion.

At one point in time we had equivalent level barb and fighter in the party. The fighter went the tank route and the barb went the beserking charger as is their wont. After a short amount of time the fighter character came to me after a session and said that they were a bit frustrated about what was going on. Even with a bit of min/maxing for a specific concept the barb still out hit, out damaged, and out lived him in the vast majority of cases. While at the same time the barb easily had 3x the options outside of combat.

After talking with the others we changed his character to be what I said above. It made the fighter be what the fighter should be. A little good at most every combat style, and very good at a couple of them. Able to actually see an ememy sneak up on him, and have lots of combat options when it did happen. He still wasnt great outside of combat, but his sheer amount of options inside of combat no matter what happened was what he wanted and was going for.

It wasnt over powered, it wasnt out of balance, and I really dont believe it is just my campaign that has had these problems. The fighter class is supposed to be about being a great fighter. You pick up some combat chains to be really good at, you pick up some combat options, and fighters have a lot of cool options open to them without being overpowered at all. I dont know how to stress this enough.

Apparently you think I just make these changes on the fly and throw whatever I feel like into the pan seeing what happens. Very untrue. Is there anything else you would like to know? No more need to make up a lot of pointless examples about 36 feats or 2d10 hps

I understand about responding to the babbling bit, I was hopeing you would ::chuckles::

Oh yes, lots of feats from a ton of sources is needed, otherwise every fighter looks the same. This is unfortunate. But if you just go by normal d&d then a 20th level fighter useing only the phb will look nearly exactly the same anyway with having to choose 18 feats from a fairly short list.

 

[takyris]

Other primary fighter types tend to be just as good or better than the fighter in combat. (this is of course imo, but it is based off of actual play as well, along with lots of threads on here that run the numbers)

Disagree. It's been done to death. Both sides have a lot of numbers. My argument is that the fighter, if built properly, has the ability to be as good as a specialist in one area and better than an ordinary person in other areas -- for example, being as good a tank as the barbarian and ALSO a better archer than someone without specific archery feats. This thread lasted 8 pages on the Rules forum, and nobody convinced anyone of anything they didn't already believe. For every barbarian-rage tactic, there's a feat that lets the fighter outlast a barbarian of equal level. For every fighter feat, there's a barbarian or ranger class ability that SEEMS cooler. And so on.

Basically, agree to disagree. I think that the fighter is better in a fight, on average, if the fighter builds well and the DM provides a variety of combat styles (ranged, clustered, etc.). I wholeheartedly agree that the fighter is useless out of combat, provided you play in simple, two-dimensional dungeons that don't require climbing or jumping, and you don't have more of these hazards per day than the wizard has Fly spells.

Looking at the fighter he is nearly worthless outside of a fight, which means that inside of a fight he should be absolutely incredible while fighting.

My fighters ARE incredible while fighting? What's the matter with yours?

But yes. As I said, I agree that anyone who wants to have a skill-intensive fighter should consider a multiclass combination. I never said that multiclassing was not a good option, or a valid option. But then, I'm in d20 Modern right now, and I'm sort of a multiclassing junkie.

Possible counterpoint that sometimes gets offered: Because the fighter has so many combat feats, he can afford to spend some of his normal feats on Skill-Boosting feats, or save-boosters. That flexibility is a form of power, even though it's not the crunchy power we want. The Fighter is, along with the rogue and bard, probably the most flexible class out there -- almost more of a starting template than a class in itself. He's the starting template for "Guy who Fights", and can be any brand of "Guy who Fights" that you want.

Even if you dont agree that others are on par or better everyone should be able to see that they just dont have much out of combat uses.

Agree.

If it is going to be balanced then they need a large boost in several areas.

Disagree, respectfully. I think that, given the number of combats in a normal D&D campaign, a small combat boost requires a large non-combat penalty to make up for it. Combat is that important and that frequent. That is what the designers were using for balance.

If you're in a low-combat game, then sure, this requires a change, to make it balance again. But then, if you're in a low-combat game, why are you complaining while trying to play a fighter? I don't complain while trying to play a wizard in a low-magic game, or a paladin in an all-evil campaign.

The extra feats in my campaign gave people the ability to pick up a couple of feat chains while still having a few feats here and there to use in other areas. Overall making much more interesting characters that had their moments in the sun on occasion.

Sure. Making all fighters into half-dragons with no level adjustment would ALSO make them more interesting and give them the ability to shine on occasion. I don't see that as a viable balance decision, either.

At one point in time we had equivalent level barb and fighter in the party.

Anecdotal evidence. In my campaign, we had a barbarian and a fighter. The barbarian missed everything and got hit by falling pillars all the time, while the fighter kept earning the love of redeemed succubuses, and ended up getting a yacht and a giant gun that shot katanas. Check it out -- our anecdotal evidence cancels out!

In a separate thread, I'd be happy to help do hypothetical power builds, but usually, in a tanking contest, if they have devoted their resources equally, the fighter lasts a bit longer than the barbarian but doesn't look as cool, unless the DM has skewed combat presentation that favors the barbarian.

Apparently you think I just make these changes on the fly and throw whatever I feel like into the pan seeing what happens. Very untrue. Is there anything else you would like to know? No more need to make up a lot of pointless examples about 36 feats or 2d10 hps

See, the thing is, your explanation doesn't show me why my system -- 36 bonus feats at first level and 2d10 hp/level -- is any less logical than yours. I mean, here, watch me think about it: Hmmmm. The fact that you thought about it really hard is not valid supporting evidence, especially not on the Net, where everyone has some strange opinion about which they have thought carefully.

Sure, my example is absurd. I don't think anybody here would disagree with you on that, including me. But please tell me why it is absurd, and yours isn't, and use something beyond "Because I thought about it, and none of the five people in my campaign have complained." In my campaign, we have a mandatory flogging every time someone gets someone else's PC killed, but I don't see any need to petition for that particular tidbit to be included in D&D version 3.75.

It's a power creep. The fighter gets more feats, and then the barbarian says, "Aw, man, now I'm not that good at fighting, and my skills hardly ever get used, so they don't count," so he gets better skills, which means that you have to give the rogue better attack progression so HE doesn't feel bad, and then the ranger needs better spells so that he isn't just a nerfed rogue...

It's like Everquest, with the curse of the attentive designers. Whoever whines the most gets a power boost in the next version.

 

[Scion]

Yes, your example is beyond absurd. There are already lots of examples all over, if you have not seen the problem in your campaign though then there is no helping you currently. Perhaps someday the arguement will be made that will convince you, or at least show you the problem so that you can choose.

Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but I never said it was anything but. What I said was that I had that, along with all of the other evidence from other sources. Plus, if the new fighter did not overpower then obviously there is something to that, even if you refuse to see it. Thats ok, if you want to make everyone have those 36 feats and double hd enjoy. I am not going to stop you.

This thread was asking about the problems. I stated the problems that I have had, how I solved it, and that it worked perfectly to fix the problem inherant. Apparently you need no such fix (although how that comes about is beyond me, the problem is not a small crack, it is a gulf).

You see no need to petition to flog players, good to know. On that note I shall bow out and leave. All of the evidence is stated, people can make their choice either way, hopefully they will make the correct one for their campaigns. Until then I shall hope someone official notices that fighters arent very good at most of the jobs they are supposed to do according to the phb.