I agree there is nothing wrong with the fighter. If you want versatility in a fighter, that is what other fighting classes are for. Paladin, ranger, knight, (hexblade well that one sucks but), duskblade, swashbuckler and thats just the icing try looking in a different book. Stop trying to convert the class and either make a new one or pick a different one.
Versatility is trying something new
- Thread starter Nopal
- Start date
gamecat
Explorer
Hm, I'll bite.
I personally like fighters. I don't think they're all that weak, either. My gamut of house rules runs along gestalt and feat-every-level lines; and players still find fighters irresistable. I think it's how many feats a fighter packs in early on; to build a gestalt with any other full BAB class leads to a feat-starved character, even in an environment with triple feats.
Now, staying with fighter for twenty levels is certainly a suboptimal choice; but then again, so is staying w/ the reviled arcane spellcaster classes.
So I guess I agree with you, but I'm playing such a mutated game of D&D it's hardly recognizable.
I personally like fighters. I don't think they're all that weak, either. My gamut of house rules runs along gestalt and feat-every-level lines; and players still find fighters irresistable. I think it's how many feats a fighter packs in early on; to build a gestalt with any other full BAB class leads to a feat-starved character, even in an environment with triple feats.
Now, staying with fighter for twenty levels is certainly a suboptimal choice; but then again, so is staying w/ the reviled arcane spellcaster classes.
So I guess I agree with you, but I'm playing such a mutated game of D&D it's hardly recognizable.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Apart from its class skill package and pathetic skill points, and the fact that it's a 2- or 4-level class, sure! Nope, nothing wrong at all!
MAD, and must be Lawful Good.
Not worth bothering with.
Inaccessible if you don't have Players Handbook II, and not that great anyway.
Yes, and it's inaccessible if you don't have Complete Warrior.
Inaccessible if you don't have Players Handbook II.
A 3-level class at best, *and* inaccessible if you don't have Complete Warrior.
Not everyone has other books to look in. Not that this is the only reason one might wish to fix what is wrong with the Fighter, but hey, it's probably worth mentioning anyway.
'Make a new one'. . .? Well, yes. A new Fighter.
FWIW, I don't see anyone stopping, just because the idea doesn't appeal to you. Especially seeing as you are basically trying to tell them (well, us) what to do.
The fighter is better than all those other fighting classes as far as I'm concerned. Nobody fights better than a fighter. People say the barbarian does, but a well built fighter would destroy a well built barbarian.
Until spells come into play. The main problem with the fighter is it's a mortal man who then finds himself hanging out with a bunch of demi-gods. It's like Rambo adventuring with Magneto. Rambo's a bad bad man, but come on.
Until spells come into play. The main problem with the fighter is it's a mortal man who then finds himself hanging out with a bunch of demi-gods. It's like Rambo adventuring with Magneto. Rambo's a bad bad man, but come on.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
My main problem with the debate, which is actually caster vs. noncaster, is that it has somehow turned into a focus on ONLY the Fighter. When in fact the Fighter is better than the Monk, Paladin, and possibly Ranger. The Barbarian is about equal, but is hailed as a perfect example of balance, for being good in combat and having a few out of combat skills, as well as getting something at every level (yay, trapsense +1! 
). While the Fighter, probably better in a fight by a slight margin if built well, and with much more tricks up his sleave due to the feats, is universally pitied as pathetic and useless aside from dips. THAT is what annoys me. Don't even get me started on how the Rogue and Bard seem to have been forgotten in all of this balance talk lately...
True, I made Fighter improvements. But most benefit later levels, and are to ADD versatility. I gave Fighters more skills and skill points. I gave higher level class features. I gave them the Weapon Aptitude they should have had all along. I gave them some ToB maneuvers with recovery mechanics, and the freedom to pick up as many more as 1/encounter abilities as they liked. I even allowed them to use their class-gained maneuvers to pick ANY discipline's manuever. They just can't get as high a level in the non-class disciplines. In short, I didn't screw with what made them unique (versatility) and tried to make Fighter 20 a tantalizing idea.
I also made additions to the other non-casters, at least theoretically. Some have not been put in place in game yet despite being written up. Others, like the Monk, I'm still trying to figure out how to help. (Current idea: Can use Flurry of Blows on any attack action, gaining extra attacks for the -2 penalty, the penalty of course later going away. That way, a Spring Attacking Monk would be freaking scary. Nevermind one that adopted spears as a monk weapon via feat and set vs. charge...)
). While the Fighter, probably better in a fight by a slight margin if built well, and with much more tricks up his sleave due to the feats, is universally pitied as pathetic and useless aside from dips. THAT is what annoys me. Don't even get me started on how the Rogue and Bard seem to have been forgotten in all of this balance talk lately...True, I made Fighter improvements. But most benefit later levels, and are to ADD versatility. I gave Fighters more skills and skill points. I gave higher level class features. I gave them the Weapon Aptitude they should have had all along. I gave them some ToB maneuvers with recovery mechanics, and the freedom to pick up as many more as 1/encounter abilities as they liked. I even allowed them to use their class-gained maneuvers to pick ANY discipline's manuever. They just can't get as high a level in the non-class disciplines. In short, I didn't screw with what made them unique (versatility) and tried to make Fighter 20 a tantalizing idea.
I also made additions to the other non-casters, at least theoretically. Some have not been put in place in game yet despite being written up. Others, like the Monk, I'm still trying to figure out how to help. (Current idea: Can use Flurry of Blows on any attack action, gaining extra attacks for the -2 penalty, the penalty of course later going away. That way, a Spring Attacking Monk would be freaking scary. Nevermind one that adopted spears as a monk weapon via feat and set vs. charge...)
Celebrim
Legend
Ok, several things.
1) No PrCs at my table. Hate them.
2) I don't see why we need 14 dozen base classes to cover what is essentially 1 role, especially when the core base class (fighter) is so flexible.
3) The fighter is the strongest class in the game up to about 6th level.
4) The problems with the fighter really only develop after 12th level, and are shared by _all_ the non-spellcasting classes to a greater or lesser degree.
5) Bo9S 'fixes' the fighter, albiet at the cost of making everyone a spellcaster, which is fine for some games and some tables, but not mine.
6) I'm already on record as saying that 3/4's of the problem with the fighter isn't the fighter, but the high level play environment and that 90% of the problem with the fighter can't be fixed by twiddling with the class designs. And by that I mean that neither nerfing the spellcasters nor buffing the fighter is a real solution in and of itself. Any fix of the fighter that includes nothing but changes to one or more class features is IMO not getting it, and hense any suggested fix of the fighter that offers nothing but alternate fighter classes doesn't get it either. There is some clear buffing needed by the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Rogue) at high levels relative to what spellcasting classes obtain at those levels, but most of the problem requires fixing the things that make martial classes 'go' - feats and skills. The problem with the fighter is in effect, as if not only did the wizard not get many high level spells, but all those spells sucked.
1) No PrCs at my table. Hate them.
2) I don't see why we need 14 dozen base classes to cover what is essentially 1 role, especially when the core base class (fighter) is so flexible.
3) The fighter is the strongest class in the game up to about 6th level.
4) The problems with the fighter really only develop after 12th level, and are shared by _all_ the non-spellcasting classes to a greater or lesser degree.
5) Bo9S 'fixes' the fighter, albiet at the cost of making everyone a spellcaster, which is fine for some games and some tables, but not mine.
6) I'm already on record as saying that 3/4's of the problem with the fighter isn't the fighter, but the high level play environment and that 90% of the problem with the fighter can't be fixed by twiddling with the class designs. And by that I mean that neither nerfing the spellcasters nor buffing the fighter is a real solution in and of itself. Any fix of the fighter that includes nothing but changes to one or more class features is IMO not getting it, and hense any suggested fix of the fighter that offers nothing but alternate fighter classes doesn't get it either. There is some clear buffing needed by the Fighter (and to a lesser extent the Rogue) at high levels relative to what spellcasting classes obtain at those levels, but most of the problem requires fixing the things that make martial classes 'go' - feats and skills. The problem with the fighter is in effect, as if not only did the wizard not get many high level spells, but all those spells sucked.
Very well I will agree to that
Starbuck_II
Explorer
Lots of classes do. That is one of the problems.
I find it funny you say "A Barbarian does, but a well built Fighter" showing that a Fighter can easily be not beat a Barbarian.
That is the Fighters problem you have to know featsw very well to make him decent. It isn't newbie friendly. You need to be an expert.
And you only get better than another non-magical class when you pick feats just right: since you do fight magical enemies that doesn't say much.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
He said that people say... As in, OTHER people. Nowhere in his post did he mention his thoughts on poorly built Fighter vs. poorly built Barbarian. But you know, of course that will be true to some extent. The Fighter has more choices to make, so there will be more room for error or powergaming. Is that a bad thing? And frankly, a Barbarian requires not having Power Attack to be poorly built*. Anything short of that is not the case. It would take a pretty messed up Fighter to lose to a Barbarian without Power Attack consistently. And even a poorly built Fighter will be a strong party member in combat up through level 6 at least.
*Barbarians CAN be good without power attack, but it's nearly impossible for them to be terrible if they have it, just to rebut you prematurely.
*Barbarians CAN be good without power attack, but it's nearly impossible for them to be terrible if they have it, just to rebut you prematurely.
Similar Threads
