D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a 3.5 fighter?

[Borthos]

Basically, I keep hearing (in a long list of posts this generality) "The Fighter has no flavor nor good abilities so he must be terrible!"

Well first there are the abilities. Having so many feats means customization. Customization is good. You can take any weapon and do anything you want with it. You may have to multiclass to get a class skill you need, but to me, the only downside for fighters is the limited class skill selection.

Straight fighters are powerful, no matter what level, no matter what game. You guys are also assuming strength based fighter builds. What about Weapon Finesse? Dex based Fighter? I don't wanna hear "Well why not play a Swashbuckler?" or some other class, because I don't want to play one, because this character spent his life honing his martial prowess with the Mohoocan Bloodgobbler sword, or any other weapon, and it takes finesse and dedication to do. Fighter. Maybe he's an Asian themed Tai Chi Swordmaster who lost his way and doesn't see a reason for hand to hand martial arts? Fighter.

The Fighter's flavor and playability comes from the player. Almost every other class out there has it's own flavor, it's own specific way to play that class. The Fighter is Tabula Rasa for D&D. Do what you want, how you want it, with whatever you want to do it with.

 

[Nifft]

Well first there are the abilities. Having so many feats means customization. Customization is good.

You want customization? Play a prepared spellcaster. You can customize your character every day by changing your spell selection.

Fighters are static. They spend life-long resources to get good at one trick. If that trick fails, they can't prepare a different trick tomorrow (or later today).

Straight fighters are powerful, no matter what level, no matter what game. You guys are also assuming strength based fighter builds. What about Weapon Finesse? Dex based Fighter?

If you insist on being even less effective, I won't stop you.

(Note that archery-based Dexterity Fighters are quite good, as a 4 level dip for a Ranger.)

The Fighter's flavor and playability comes from the player. Almost every other class out there has it's own flavor, it's own specific way to play that class. The Fighter is Tabula Rasa for D&D. Do what you want, how you want it, with whatever you want to do it with.

Every class is like that. You can re-flavor anything. D&D is a great big toolbox.

The Fighter has nothing special in this regard.

 

[Dandu]

Perhaps someone would care to put up an example build to demonstrate exactly what abilities a fighter would have so that we can talk about something more substantive than hypotheticals?

But wait, is it not the custom to only ask of others what you would be willing to do yourself?

Yes, it is.

Here you go.

I reiterate my request that someone else come up with a fighter build to demonstrate their point that a fighter can be a powerful, versatile combatant.

 

[Borthos]

You want customization? Play a prepared spellcaster. You can customize your character every day by changing your spell selection.

Fighters are static. They spend life-long resources to get good at one trick. If that trick fails, they can't prepare a different trick tomorrow (or later today).

If you insist on being even less effective, I won't stop you.

How are other classes (prepared spellcasters and divine spellcasters barred) not one trick ponies as well? Barbarian can rage, Ranger can track and deal with animals, and a monk beats stuff down with his fists.

So if a player wants to play a barbarian because of the midgame trapsense he gains in addition to being able to rage. your logic says why not just be a rogue and be able to spot traps better? Because that person wants to be able to rage. So he plays a barbarian.

Fighters can do anything a ranger can do in combat. anything a monk can do in combat, a fighter can do. maybe not deal the same unarmed, but, wait for it, there are feats for that! holy cow! who woulda thunk it.

Sometimes you don't want a monk, you want a back alley bar fighter. so play a human fighter with superior unarmed strike, throw anything, and improved improvised weapon, and go from there.

 

[Nifft]

How are other classes (prepared spellcasters and divine spellcasters barred) not one trick ponies as well? Barbarian can rage, Ranger can track and deal with animals, and a monk beats stuff down with his fists.

Rangers are prepared spellcasters and divine spellcasters, so they're barred for being too cool to compare with the Fighter. That leaves us with the Barbarian and the Rogue -- oh, the Rogue gets Use Magic Device, so he can kinda cast spells from wands & scrolls. Is the Rogue barred? He has lots of tricks.

Anyway, looks like the Barbarian is the only one you want to talk about, since he's the only other class (out of 13 in the PHB) who doesn't have access to magic.

Here's a fun Barbarian trick: he can pick up a bow and walk away while shooting his foe. If the opponent is some kind of lame heavy armor melee humanoid, his foe can probably only move 20 ft. (and can't run), so his foe can double move or charge at most 40 ft., which the Barbarian can do as a single move action (in addition to shooting an arrow). He can do this trick without spending any feats.

(This is why I love adding one level of Barbarian to a Bard Archer... also, note that Inspire Courage is compatible with Rage. SKALDS ARE AWESOME.)

So if a player wants to play a barbarian because of the midgame trapsense he gains in addition to being able to rage. your logic says why not just be a rogue and be able to spot traps better? Because that person wants to be able to rage. So he plays a barbarian.

Man, what?

Fighters can do anything a ranger can do in combat.

Cast spells? Rangers start doing that at level 4. Spells like entangle can win a combat flat-out, and longstrider allows the Ranger to pull off the Barbarian's running away trick.

anything a monk can do in combat, a fighter can do.

Fast movement, flurry of blows, and dimension door?

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

You could instead politely request that folks focus a bit more on the initial topic. But maybe people are out of things to say about it. We generally don't enforce staying on topic unless people are being rude about it.

I'm definitely done with it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Anyway, looks like the Barbarian is the only one you want to talk about, since he's the only other class (out of 13 in the PHB) who doesn't have access to magic.

You forgot monk. But that's ok, everyone seems to forget monk. As I sit here bemused at people calling NOT the worst class in the PHB the worst class in the game...

 

[pawsplay]

I reiterate my request that someone else come up with a fighter build to demonstrate their point that a fighter can be a powerful, versatile combatant.

AC is not as good as a tricked out cleric, and damage is going to be lower than a power attacking barbarian, but I might play something like this. It's too bad there's not room in the budget for an adamantine weapon, but he can beat a CR 11 stone golem's DR with every single damage roll in melee, so that's probably an ok risk.

Basically, a fairly high mobility melee/ranged double threat, who can understudy the rogue with magic item use and perception. Very fun, totally able to go toe to toe with CR-appropriate dragons, and very buffable. Damage output in melee is in the neighborhood of 35 hp/round, compared to about 36-72 for a wizard with Empowered Fireball and let's say 70 or so for a raging barbarian with a two-hander using PA.

Human Fighter 12
Str 16 (20), Dex 12 (14), Con 14 (16), Int 14, Wis 9, Cha 10
Initiative +6
AC 22 (+2 Dex +7 armor +2 shield +1 deflection)
hit points 106
Fort +14 (+8 +3 Con +3 resistance), Will +8 (+4 -1 Wis +3 resistance +2 misc), Ref +9 (+4 +2 Dex +3 resistance)
BAB +12/+7/+2, melee +17, ranged +14, grapple +17
Speed 40 feet

Feats: EWP (bastard sword) (B), Iron Will, Blind-Fight, Skill focus (UMD), Magical Affinity, Point Blank Shot, W focus (bastard sword), W Spec (bastard sword), W focus (longbow), W Spec (longbow), Precise Shot, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes.
Skills: Handle Animal 5 (+5), Climb 6 (+9), Jump 6 (+9), Listen 7 (+6), Ride 15 (+17, rapid dismount +15), Spellcraft 1 (+5), Spot 7 (+6), Use Magic Device 7 (+12).

Attacks:
+3 bastard sword +21/+16/+11 1d10+10/19-20
+3 bastard sword (two-handed) +20/+15/+10 1d10+12/19-20 (drops AC by 2)
+1 composite longbow +18/+13/+8 1d8+9/x3 (drops AC by 2)
cold iron morningstar +17/+12/+7

Equipment
bastard sword +3 18335
cold iron morningstar 16 gp
+2 elven chain 8150 (AC -2)
+1 composite longbow (Str +5) 2900
+1 buckler 1165
amulet of health +2 4000
gloves of dexterity +2 4000
cloak of resistance +3 9000
ring of protection +1 2000
belt of giant strength +4 16000
bracers of archery, lesser 5000
boots of striding and springing 5000
handy haversack 2000
potion of prot from evil (x6) 300 gp
oil of magic weapon (x6) 300
wand of cure light wounds 750
100 cold iron arrows 4
100 silver arrows 6
= 83926

 

[Nifft]

You forgot monk. But that's ok, everyone seems to forget monk. As I sit here bemused at people calling NOT the worst class in the PHB the worst class in the game...

Scroll down in that same post you quoted and you'll see me mention one of the Monk's spell-like abilities.

He's not forgotten. He is magical.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Scroll down in that same post you quoted and you'll see me mention one of the Monk's spell-like abilities.

He's not forgotten. He is magical.

If you gave the Fighter Create Water at will, it wouldn't make it a better class.

Monk gets a handful of extremely limited magical abilities, many of them not until well past when spellcasters can do it (and better) anyway, none of them particularly helpful to the monk's combat role or skills, or anything else.