Fighters are Weak? I think not!!

[Scion]

Just so that most people here will disregard me I will also throw in that I did increase the number of spells per day that wizards and sorcerers get to cast.

Of course there are also no save or die spells, no way to get incredibly high DC's for the saves, and only a fraction of the spells they cast each day be combat spells. So all in all the only real change is that they have more options.

Now that that is also out I am sure I will be berated for other things in my campaign. Overall everyone is happy, having fun, and everyone gets their chance to shine. That is what the game is all about. It helps that with the few changes i've made here and there it is all balanced as well, even makes it easier to plan encounters based on the characters supposed difficulty.

Just have fun with your own game, but if people feel as though it'd be better for them to be another character for lack of fun/something to do it is time to change something.

 

[Dark Jezter]

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?

Because a lot of people like hack 'n slash more than deep-immersion roleplaying. I know I do.

 

[takyris]

Scion, glad we can agree to disagree amicably. I haven't seen the fighter problem in my game, so I have no problem. I also haven't added my absurd modifications, because I see numerical reasons not to do so. Similarly, I see numerical reasons not to add other power to fighters, since Fighters in my game were doing just fine as they were. Glad that your balance shift has worked in your campaign.

And, respectfully, if you look at the title of the thread, it was: Fighters are Weak... I think Not!!, was it not? The original poster's feelings may be somewhat different than you believe.

 

[Epametheus]

How boring fighters are depends on how they're run.

Playing yet another "Hulk smash!" type with a two-hander can and will be boring.

I rather liked my dwarf that did kung-fu in spiked full plate, though. OA has good feats for that sort of thing. Especially Improved Grapple.

Armor spikes only do 1d6 damage, so killing someone with that guy was a long and gruesome process (though greatly sped up if the other fighter was nearby). But being able to say in all honesty "I've wrestled dragons, mind flayers, giants, and pyrohydras and won" is neat.

Okay, "survived" is more accurate in the case of the dragon.

Regardless, you have a lot of leeway as a fighter. It's all about what you do with that leeway. Fighters not being good at most skills didn't bother me. I stole the party's thunder when we fought battles; I'm not gonna tread on their toes in the areas where they should be better than me.

Granted, I also have the patience to sit around and just occasionally give advice (my dwarf was actually one of the smarter PCs) while the rest of the party did their business. I guess most players couldn't stand doing that.

 

[jasamcarl]

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.

Why do you say that?

The very poor assumption many are making is that the real test of balance is whether the fighter will outperform every other class at an equal level. That is not the case. Rather, its the amount of damage a fighter can expect to dish out over the course of a long campaign against a variety of opponents. All things being equal, the fighter will get more attacks than the barbarian, have a higher ac, and/or have the ability to dish out an insane amount of additional damage in specific circumstances. Given this larger view, the fighter does well from levels 1-20.

And, by the way, combat balance means EVERYTHING in this game, so a barbarian should have the ability to dish out just as much expected damage as a fighter, given that their defenses (AC, saving throws, etc) are pretty much a wash.

 

[Cbas10]

Okay; I'll get over the powergaming bit. I promise to try not to harp on you guys anymore.

So, to the topic. Fighters boring, bland and underpowered? I think not! As I have already pointed out the array of feats they get and how you can use them for non-combat situations, I'll stick with the combat situations this time.

Barbarians: Instead of bonus feats, they can rage, get a tiny bit of Damage Reduction, and maybe some other minor things (I have never played a barbarian, so I cannot remember their stuff off the top of my head). Whoopidee-doo....while the Barbarian is getting all angry and stronger, he becomes easier to hit when a fighter uses a couple of extra feats for anything related to archery or staying out of the barbarian's way. So the barbarian has more hit points; on the average, he'll have 20 extra at 20th level.

Rangers: I have no idea why woodsmen should fight with two weapons (I call it the Drizz't Era of Rangers), but whatever. The archery path certainly helps them out, though. Not nearly as much as fighters, who can specialize in the weapons for nifty archery action, though. Rangers get Endurance and another feat or two as bonus feats. Not only can fighters match those feats, but they can still get better than the ranger - and I am only talking about the BONUS fighter feats. So the ranger gets a pet animal to help him fight. Might as well put a big bullseye on them; a stupid animal nuisance can easily help a serious threat flank at a key opportunity. Plus...they have fewer hit points.

Paladins: A few smites, a couple of very useful spells, and better saving throws. Meanwhile, the ability scores needed for those peripheral combat abilities detract from the physical abilities. Additionally, if the opponent is not evil or a demon or something, the fighter will be far less likely to lose advantages.

Think about it: 18 feats of combat goodness! Even at 10th level, that is still 9 feats compared to most classes' 5 or 6 (including bonuses). I'd have to TRY to find feats to take to fill all those slots. Additionally, if you open up other d20/OGL sources, fighter combat prowess goes off the charts.

 

[Ackem]

So the barbarian has more hit points; on the average, he'll have 20 extra at 20th level.

100 more, given equal base Constitutions. The +8 Constitution from Raging is quite potent.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

100 more, given equal base Constitutions. The +8 Constitution from Raging is quite potent.

Till the rage ends. Which, admittedly, isn't always likely to be a limiting factor, but it still isn't quite that cut and dried.

Now, to anyone who feels fighters are weak, I'd like to ask one question: What does that make bards?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let's take a look at the other combat classes for a minute:

* Barbarian: Walking target. More HP? Woop dee doo. Not being able to wear heavy armor makes them a big, damage absorbing mook. Sure, they can dish out more damage than a fighter, but only for a bit, then they're useless, and a second-level spell undoes them. The Fighter, meanwhile, can dish out his slightly less damage more consistantly over the course of a dungeon. In one combat, the Barbarian is going to seem to shine. Through an adventure, not so.

* Paladin: Sure, they're great at smashing up fiends, but so what? So's a Cleric. Paladins are hardly physically powerful creatures, at most being able to smite something for craps and giggles while on their pokemount charging with a lance. A fighter can do all that except the smite, which is no great claptraps. And facing lawful or good adversaries (or even those who simply aren't POWERED BY TEH EVUL!), a fighter clearly comes out ahead.

* Ranger: The woodsman is as frail as a twig. Once you spot the blighters, they fall like chaff before the flail (or pretty much anything else). Nearly everything a ranger gets (like a paladin) can be done with feats earlier by a fighter, and the ranger's left with some stealth and a pet meatbag, I mean animal companion.

* Cleric. Some gripe about the clerics UBER POWERZ, so we might as well bring him in. Give him War and Destruction, too, why not. Give him some buffs, and send him scampering. Now he's as well defended as a fighter, plus with uberstats. Well, (a) those buffs would've worked better on the fighter in the firstplace, (b) you've spent your entire class's power making up for the area in which you lack, (c) you don't have healing or divination left, which basically makes you a one-trick pony who the fighter STILL outclasses when the enemies get dispellin'. And he won't be the frail little twig like the Ranger, either.

So the point is no one comes close to the fighter in doing what he does. Just make sure you actually know what he's supposed to do before you change him to, say, meet the barbarian's role and then some....

 

[Ackem]

Till the rage ends. Which, admittedly, isn't always likely to be a limiting factor, but it still isn't quite that cut and dried.

At level 20, which is what we were discussing, the barbarian's rage would last 7 rounds even if he had base 10 constitution and no constitution boosting magic items. I can count on my hands the number of times I've seen a 3e combat last over 5 rounds and the majority of those were low level. And it's not like the barbarian can't just rage again if he runs out.

Now, to anyone who feels fighters are weak, I'd like to ask one question: What does that make bards?

Bards are pretty strong. Aside from the fact that it's an annoying whince-inducing class, I don't get why everyone hates them and degrades them as useless.