Psychic Warrior vs. Fighter

[Scion]

Now you have feats that allow pounce-like charges. Hey, fighters get lots of feats. Advantage for them, I guess.

Bye
Thanee

Lots? yes.

Enough? no.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So you agree that they are lacking and dull, and yet you are trying to say above that they are fine in power compared to other fighter types? Sounds like you were burned by a caster as a baby

The fighters only need a few thing to be a worthwhile class. More skill points, better skill selection, a couple more class abilities or extra feats (even if these extra feats are even more limited.. say to things like the save boosters, skill focus, and a few other things). How does one make a general? Not with a fighter, no skills. How does one make a combat specialist? Not with a pure fighter, possibly a couple of levels to flesh it out at best. How does one make a good fighter type who can handle many situations? Probably the psychic warrior, he has abilities enough to try. Or you can multiclass a fighter with some other classes to do it. Pure fighter doesnt cut it though. Effectively they have no nitch to fill. Even if they did they wouldnt be up to it without a whole lot of dm help (including piles and piles of feats).

For all that your whole argument up until this point has been "fighters suck in combat and suck harder outside of combat", your perception of how to fix them doesn't seem to focus on giving them more combat abilities as much as it does non-combat abilities.

More skills? Usefulness outside of combat. (Which is probably somewhat overstated anyway; fighters can be useful outside of combat ATM, they just have very limited options).

A couple more class abilities or extra feats (save boosters and skill focus)? If this would make them effective enough in combat, then they're obviously not nearly as badly off as you make them out to be.

For the record, I think you're wrong about fighters not stacking up to barbarians and paladins. I've never observed them to have much problem. The real downfall of the single-classed fighter is the ease and availability of multi-classing. I've seen far more Barbarian 2/Fighter X or Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Rog 3/Prestige class 1 2/Prestige class 2 1/Prestige class 3 3/Prestige class 4 1 etc. characters than single-class fighters. However, most such builds end up with more fighter levels than barbarian levels. That doesn't mean single classed fighters suck. It just means that the temptation to take "just a level or two" of barbarian or monk or paladin or whatever is very great in D&D 3.x The only fighting class I see straight-classed on a regular basis is Paladin.

 

[Scion]

Skills are very important in combat. Easy ones are things like tumble, but just as useful are knowledges and all sorts of others. Very important.

Also, stressing the need for more feats and feat trees that are powerful enough for them to compete effectively amounts to the same thing. So, since they just dont cut it where they should then they need a boost.

Also, needing to multiclass to pick up useful abilities definately hurts the case of fighter being all right by itself. Other classes get better as you get more levels in them, fighters do not. Your 12th feat choice is much like the 11th is much like the 10th. They dont scale properly, offer enough power, or make up for the lack of everything else.

Poorly made, boring, and weak.

Before making any choices they are very strong, but once you start pulling those choices into something and setting them in stone the versitility is gone.

Perhaps if a fighter was able to change out feats. A day of training to change one feat to another. It would be odd of course, but then it would allow the fighter to change his focus every now and then to be more specific to his needs. That would also go a long way towards making them useful.

 

[Spatula]

Wow. You are really coming from left field with this "fighters suck" business, my friend. I play one, I know the opposite to be true. I'm interested to hear how you got this idea.

Just as Thanee can't resist going on about how broken he thinks the XPH is, Scion can't keep from talking about how terrible the fighter class is. There's not much point in arguing with either one on those topics; it's been tried before and they're not budging.

Are you planning on remaining a single-classed fighter with your dwarf, or do you plan to move onto another class or PrC in the future?

 

[Thanee]

Just as Thanee can't resist going on about how broken he thinks the XPH is...

But they are...

If I hear a convincing argument, I always give in. I just havn't heard any yet.
And it will be very hard to find a good argument, why Dispel Psionics or Metamorphic Transfer isn't broken, for example.



Anyways...

Multiclassing warrior classes is definitely the most powerful route for them.

A barbarian/fighter/ranger is always more powerful than either of them played straight.

Because none of the warrior classes have any useful high level abilities, but lots of useful low level abilities. Barbarian gets the two best abilities at first level. Fighter gets all there really is at 4th. The ranger is a bit better now, tho, I guess a ranger could be pretty ok as a single class, actually.

But that still doesn't make them weak overall.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ForceUser]

Ah, that explains it. I thought I was communicating with someone who could be reasoned with. Thanks for the heads up.

I am considering taking three levels of dwarf paragon (from Unearthed Arcana) very late in the character's career, perhaps at levels 18-20. Just for fun. To be honest, my character is a barbarian 1/fighter 9. The single level of barbarian, combined with the Extra Rage feat, was too much fun to pass up. My character kills stuff good, but I admit he's better in dungeons than out in the open, which is the paladin's forte. When we fight aboveground, I usually move up defensively and wait for my foe to charge me. Then I kill him.

 

[Thanee]

One barbarian level and Extra Rage is really powerful.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ForceUser]

One barbarian level and Extra Rage is really powerful.

Bye
Thanee

True, but not as powerful as nine fighter levels and the associated feats.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

One barbarian level and extra rage? I'm surprised you could resist the urge to go for two barbarian levels and get uncanny dodge as well.

 

[Scion]

Ah, that explains it. I thought I was communicating with someone who could be reasoned with. Thanks for the heads up.

Then again, I feel the same way about you and your 'I fought off 3 fire giants by myself' guy. Still havent seen you actually explain how it was done, though I asked you twice. Even after I worked out the math that you should have died horribly and rapidly.

I am considering taking three levels of dwarf paragon (from Unearthed Arcana) very late in the character's career, perhaps at levels 18-20. Just for fun. To be honest, my character is a barbarian 1/fighter 9.

Ahh.. so not a fighter. Check. There is part of the issue right there. Your build about how great the fighter is has a level of not fighter.

Still, no explanation about this '3x as much damage as the paladin'. Probably a very inept paladin.

Perhaps someday you shall explain yourself. Until then, I would have to say your situation is that you have incredibly lucky dice. Any build can be good in that situation, no matter how bad the base.