Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1261697" data-attributes="member: 5171">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.My fighters ARE incredible while fighting?  What's the matter with yours? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.Agree.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification