Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4097791" data-attributes="member: 40177">So, Hunter - you post asking why people think fighters are weak, and then you keep posting to defend it. I've played through STAP, and I can tell you from experience that at 10th level, those fighters get replaced by &quot;better&quot; characters.&nbsp; What's funny, is you keep suggesting &quot;fixes&quot;.&nbsp; Well, isn't a fix sort of admitting there's a problem?You didn't ask &quot;What's wrong with the 3e fighter you've dreamt up to replace the RAW 3e fighter&quot;.&nbsp; Many of us have &quot;fixes&quot; for the fighter.&nbsp; Hell, wotc built a whole book to fix the fighter, and it seems to sell fairly well.In short, while the fighter can deal damage, he is generally out-damaged by other characters even at mid levels.&nbsp; The few assets he has (hit points, AC) become less and less important as he progresses (100 hp at level 8 isn't all that great, when you're up against poison attacks and save or die effects that neatly bypass HP).&nbsp; And he does become a one-trick pony.While he CAN sunder, disarm, etc... as you point out, in many cases that isn't feasible.&nbsp; Sunder means destroying potentially valuable gear (and how many players want to do that?), while Disarm is risking dealing no damage at all to prevent an opponent from attacking you - whereas a straight attack can potentially critical, thus killing the opponent (and thereby preventing the opponent from attacking you...) Not to mention that you're pigeonholed into using the same weapon every encounter, due to the fact that you've probably (wisely) invested in weapon focus feats, and because the wealth by level guidelines mean you'll probably only have one or two &quot;good&quot; weapons on you.&nbsp; Really, if I was going to play a character, I might a dip into fighter, but I wouldn't stay in the class.&nbsp; In the long run, Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin are all more enjoyable roles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 4097791, member: 40177"] So, Hunter - you post asking why people think fighters are weak, and then you keep posting to defend it. I've played through STAP, and I can tell you from experience that at 10th level, those fighters get replaced by "better" characters. What's funny, is you keep suggesting "fixes". Well, isn't a fix sort of admitting there's a problem? You didn't ask "What's wrong with the 3e fighter you've dreamt up to replace the RAW 3e fighter". Many of us have "fixes" for the fighter. Hell, wotc built a whole book to fix the fighter, and it seems to sell fairly well. In short, while the fighter can deal damage, he is generally out-damaged by other characters even at mid levels. The few assets he has (hit points, AC) become less and less important as he progresses (100 hp at level 8 isn't all that great, when you're up against poison attacks and save or die effects that neatly bypass HP). And he does become a one-trick pony. While he CAN sunder, disarm, etc... as you point out, in many cases that isn't feasible. Sunder means destroying potentially valuable gear (and how many players want to do that?), while Disarm is risking dealing no damage at all to prevent an opponent from attacking you - whereas a straight attack can potentially critical, thus killing the opponent (and thereby preventing the opponent from attacking you...) Not to mention that you're pigeonholed into using the same weapon every encounter, due to the fact that you've probably (wisely) invested in weapon focus feats, and because the wealth by level guidelines mean you'll probably only have one or two "good" weapons on you. Really, if I was going to play a character, I might a dip into fighter, but I wouldn't stay in the class. In the long run, Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin are all more enjoyable roles. [/QUOTE]

Verification