Replacing the Fighter

I don't need your first post, I already agree with your thread title.

I've not found anything that a Fighter can do, that a number of other base classes couldn't do as well or better. And with classes like Psychic Warrior and Warblade, Fighter-only feats aren't for fighters only anymore.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



If a group optimizes for it (and often if they don't), they don't even need a specialized melee combatant. If using the base four of a cleric, rogue, wizard, and fighter, the fighter and rogue can easily go archery or thrown, while the cleric and wizard have plenty of ranged spells. Melee only tends to happen because lots of NPCs would be lacking at strict range.
 


Well yeah, that's just dumb.
YOu say this to the assertaion that mellee classes are not indespensible to surviving lover levels. I know in a previous thread I did assert something similar to this, and of course this is not true (I didnt say "indispensible" though, i think "crucial" is what I said which is a much different word and implies different things; at least I took "crucial" not to mean "required" but instead to mean simply "important"). A group of 4 wizards CAN survive to higher levels. However, the DM must tailor the encounters so that such a group CAN survive. Tell me that a the usual encounters given (at lower levels not just level 1) can be overcome by a group of 4 wizards, their spells would run out and they would be almost helpless (unless one turned into a melee wizard with high str. etc).

. THe Dm would have to tailor make the adventures so that they have a chance of surviving, without making it to easily of course (which there is nothing wrong with that, in fact thats what we whould do anyway).

Even so Melee classes SHINE at lower levels and that is a point on their side in the spellcasters vs melee debate (in my eyes tailor fitting a cleric to be burly at lower levels is turning it into a melee character at those levels). Magic simply sucks at lower levels (not until levels 5 does anything good happen, of course level 2 spells are nice, but...). Of course melee is weaker at lower levels than higher ones but, but melee classes have MUCh more survivability (at lower levels cleric is a melee class, in my eyes and for these purposes, becuase of their potential to wear nice armor and walk into the thick of battle).
 
Last edited:

Dude, more often than not your posts evoke the same feelings as your avatar.
Nostalgia for a simpler time when the news came in only two colors, a man came home to a well cooked meal and a charming young son, and American automobiles were something to be proud of?

YOu say this to the assertaion that mellee classes are not indespensible to surviving lover levels. I know in a previous thread I did assert this, and of course this is not true. A group of 4 wizards CAN survive to higher levels. However, the DM must tailor the encounters so that such a group CAN survive. Tell me that a the usual encounters given (at lower levels not just level 1) can be overcome by a group of 4 wizards, their spells would run out and they would be almost helpless (unless one turned into a melee wizard with high str. etc).

. THe Dm would have to tailor make the adventures so that they have a chance of surviving, without making it to easiy of course (which there is nothing wrong with that, in fact thats what we whould do anyway).

Even so Melee classes SHINE at lower levels and that is a point on their side in the spellcasters vs melee debate (in my eyes tailor fitting a cleric to be burly at lower levels in turning it into a melee character or those levels). Magic simply sucks at lower levels (not until levels 5 does anything good happen, of course level 2 spells are nice, but...). Of course melee is weaker at lower levels than higher ones but, but melee classes have MUCh more survivability (at lower levels cleric is a melee class, in my eyes and for these purposes, becuase of their potential to wear nice armor and walk into the thick of battle).
Alright, let's test your assertion that magic sucks at lower levels. You come up with a list of diverse challenges a level 1 party should face, and I'll provide a level 1 party of all casters. We'll throw them at encounters until the party cannot continue any longer and see how they do.

I imagine we could go with:
[sblock]
Sorcerer 1:
Spells known (5/day): Sleep, Magic Missile
Sorcerer 2:
Spells known (5/day): Mage Armor, Magic Missile
Sorcerer 3:
Spells known (5/day): Mage Armor, Grease

Stats:
STR: 8 DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 10 CHA: 16
Saves: FORT: +4, REF: +2, Will: +0
HP: 6
AC: 16
Initiative: +6

Familiars:
Rats

Feats:
Improved Initiative
Eschew Materials

Equipment:
Light Crossbow
Bolts
2 healing potions each

Cloistered Cleric, Domains: Luck, Travel
Spells: Bless, Protection from Evil, Entropic Shield
STR: 8 DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 16 CHA: 10
Saves: FORT: +4, REF: +2, Will: +0
HP: 8
AC: 17
Initiative: +6

Feats:
Improved Initiative
Extend Spell

Equipment:
Light Crossbow
Bolts
Studded Leather Armor
Heavy Wooden Shield
[/sblock]

Now, for simplicity's sake, we could go to the d20 SRD and use the Monster Filter to generate a long list of monsters that would be appropriate for a level 1 party. I favor the alphabetical approach, which gives us:

Small Air Elemental
Small Animated Object
Small Camel
Darkmantle
Lemure
Riding Dog
Duergar Dwarf
Small Earth Elemental
Drow
Small Fire Elemental
Shrieker Fungus
Ghoul

I could go on down the list but this seems to be an adequate series of challenges. What do you think? I think the party would be able to advance to level two myself.
 
Last edited:

That seems reasonable to me (and before I bite my words with the whole magic sucks at lower levels bit, healing magic, buffs, and magic like silent image are very useful (and many other low level spells) however the number of times per day or the selection of spells and the poor offensive capabilities makes them weak). Also, I am guessing that a group of fighters and rangers and barabarians could surivive more challenges than a group of spellcasters (I dont know about a group of clerics though).

So your group consists of 4 similar sorcerers?
 

Actually, I edited it to include a cloistered cleric because he's still a non-combatant caster. I don't have an issue with a party of 4 sorcerers if healing potions can be purchased, though.

Want to start running the gauntlet?
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top