I would play a bard if. . .

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But Bards are tough to play and some people just are not up to the challenge.

QFT. I also feel the same about Fighters and Sorcerers.

 

[trollwad]

...hell froze over

 

[krunchyfrogg]

QFT. I also feel the same about Fighters and Sorcerers.

Really? I always took Fighters as the easiest class to play.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Really? I always took Fighters as the easiest class to play.

I thought the same before 3E.

My evidence stems from the plethora of "Fighters Suck" threads. I have seen many effective Fighters built by (as Crothian puts it) people up to the challenge. But in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to choose feats that synergize? That's when you get the FS threads. I now find the Barbarian to be the easiest class for a newbie. Tactics are pretty standard and "Do I rage or not?" helps them learn resource management. A Fighter in the hands of a newbie (even using Core Only) - here, look through all these feats and pick two or three. It can overwhelm a new player.

 

[irdeggman]

I thought the same before 3E.

My evidence stems from the plethora of "Fighters Suck" threads. I have seen many effective Fighters built by (as Crothian puts it) people up to the challenge. But in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to choose feats that synergize? That's when you get the FS threads. I now find the Barbarian to be the easiest class for a newbie. Tactics are pretty standard and "Do I rage or not?" helps them learn resource management. A Fighter in the hands of a newbie (even using Core Only) - here, look through all these feats and pick two or three. It can overwhelm a new player.

Ahh but that is not "playing" one that is "building" one.

Fighters in 3.x have more choices and that is what bogs them down, but once the "type" of fighter is chosen it is fairly easy and they are generally not as instrinsically tied to role-playing as are bards.

Classes that rely on interaction to shine (like a bard) require more player skill to pull off and that is what I think he was referring to.

IMO people who think that bards suck tend to be looking at them from a purely mechanics viewpoint and not the skills/role-playing aspect.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ahh but that is not "playing" one that is "building" one.

Fighters in 3.x have more choices and that is what bogs them down, but once the "type" of fighter is chosen it is fairly easy and they are generally not as instrinsically tied to role-playing as are bards.

Classes that rely on interaction to shine (like a bard) require more player skill to pull off and that is what I think he was referring to.

IMO people who think that bards suck tend to be looking at them from a purely mechanics viewpoint and not the skills/role-playing aspect.

Not just building. Playing also requires tactical and strategic skills, not just roleplaying skills. A fighter might not shine in roleplaying encounters, but they shine when they are used tactically/strategically as battlefield control. Some people call this a myth and the examples they use to prove that battlefield control is a myth usually proves that they are not up to the task of building nor playing an effective fighter.

 

[irdeggman]

Not just building. Playing also requires tactical and strategic skills, not just roleplaying skills. A fighter might not shine in roleplaying encounters, but they shine when they are used tactically/strategically as battlefield control. Some people call this a myth and the examples they use to prove that battlefield control is a myth usually proves that they are not up to the task of building nor playing an effective fighter.

But the fighter's role is chosen by his feat selection. Therefore once the fighter's role is chosen (that is his design) his feats follow in that order and then his battlefield position is picked by the feats. For example the fighter can be an archer, sword and board, two-handed, two weapon or mounted combatant. He can't be real good at all of them, he can excel at one or maybe two of them.

That is what drives them. They unfortuneately do not have a lot of skills that are real useful on the battlefield. Ride is the big one, but heck they only get 2 sp per level to work with and only a handful of class skills to choose from.

 

[dagger]

Bards get 2 good saves and I allow the player at creation to pick which two he wants.

Still only seen one bard played...and he made it to 7th.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But the fighter's role is chosen by his feat selection. Therefore once the fighter's role is chosen (that is his design) his feats follow in that order and then his battlefield position is picked by the feats. For example the fighter can be an archer, sword and board, two-handed, two weapon or mounted combatant. He can't be real good at all of them, he can excel at one or maybe two of them.

That is what drives them. They unfortuneately do not have a lot of skills that are real useful on the battlefield. Ride is the big one, but heck they only get 2 sp per level to work with and only a handful of class skills to choose from.

I disagree. S&B, 2H, and TWF are not styles. These are all-front-liners, but its what you do in the front-line that makes you an effective fighter.

Usually people complain that the "Fighter sucks" because the Barbarian can dish more damage. That's because that's what a Barbarian does. He doesn't get enough feats to do much else. A Fighter trying to match the Barbarian will come up short. Choice of synergistic feats and tactical battlefield positioning (not just am I in back, up front or charging by) will make the Fighter shine in ways other melee classes will be hard-pressed to mimic.

 

[irdeggman]

Usually people complain that the "Fighter sucks" because the Barbarian can dish more damage. That's because that's what a Barbarian does. He doesn't get enough feats to do much else. A Fighter trying to match the Barbarian will come up short. Choice of synergistic feats and tactical battlefield positioning (not just am I in back, up front or charging by) will make the Fighter shine in ways other melee classes will be hard-pressed to mimic.

No disagreement here.

But note that it requires the use of "synergistic feats" and hence the role of the fighter is mostly "locked" even though the class is extremely versatile each individual fighter is not. As I pointed out they can be extremely good at one or two things but not at all.

Bards rely on using their skills (mostly) which are predominantly interactive and thus ever changing based on the circumstance. No matter what feat chain a fighter takes it is still a feat chain and thus is limited in its versatility.


Do not get me wrong - fighters are extremely important in controlling the battlefield. But each individual one has a more specific role than does a bard - whose entire shtick is his "versatility".