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

[Alexander123]

Yes it is! Didn't spot that. It did seem a bit odd at first, considering it was such a huge improvement over a wolf.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Polar Bear's not that great for the level adjustment compared to brown bear. Unless for style reasons you specifically want a polar bear downing a Coca Cola as he mauls an enemy to death, it's probably not worth it to get one.

Dire Bear at level 13 might be worth the upgrade, but brown + companion bonuses is still pretty competetive with it.

 

[Alexander123]

Alright thanks, thats why I was asking. Learn from other peoples experience.

 

[Nifft]

Should I change my animal companion from a polar bear to anything else? Does summoning a polar bear from a scroll of SNA V count as having "seen" a polar bear?

Much as I enjoy discussing Druids, this isn't the right thread for it, except for comparing them to Fighters.

If you want to start a new thread, I'd be happy to advise.

Cheers, -- N

 

[CuRoi]

How is charity to work as a team? As powerful as a cleric or wizard is by buffing, they can get even more bang for their buck if they also buff the fighter. That's like claiming it's charity for a fighter to ready an action to block opponents who would rush the wizard, or charity to flank for the rogue.

Precisely. Its all an exercise in teamwork -if- you are doing it right. I see a lot of negative ideas about the fighter and I see alot of "well this class is better because it can kick a$$ by itself" responses. They all seem to be missing the point that unless you are just really lonely, you're playing DnD with a group. Each class / player can contribute something interesting and necessary to the mix. If only a few classes/players are consistently outshining everyone, your DM isn't doing his/her job.

Sure, you can make any sort of broken combination of feats and powers to be a one man adventuring party by using the wealth of WotC material out there. Some people enjoy playing that way. You know, to each his own.

However this style of play tends to ignore the fact that there are several other people at the table, which, if they were working as a team, could accomplish things more effectively.

So anyway, why play a fighter? Because someone needs to be able to go toe to toe with the badguys and match them sword blow for sword blow. Why can't someone else do it you ask? I don't know, could be any number of reasons...maybe...

Your Barbarian is napping after his hulk-out performance

Your "Battle Cleric" used all his spells on Buffs for himself in the previous fight (good your AC and Combat Expertise kept you from getting hit cause this guy doesn't heal -anyone-)

Your Paladin's horse can't fit in the dungeon so he is dutifully waiting out front with the party mounts.

Your Wizard just failed a Fort save and is taking a dirt nap (lucky you didn't even to roll to suceed)

Your Sorcerer was just shut down by a simple Obscuring Mist (or other vision hampering spell)

Your Rogue is just hiding somewhere waiting for someone, anyone that can actually survive in melee reach of the BBG to give him a flank.

etc. etc.

In my groups and my campaigns, Fighter has always been a viable choice. I'm positive mileage may vary per player and DM. However, IMO if the core fighter is suddenly not a viable class in a game, some adjustments need to be made in the way you are playing the game. The DM needs to either place limits on material that can be used so the core rules aren't obsolete; modify the fighter class so it isn't obsolete; or just go ahead and replace it entirely with the "cool new option" that works in their game. Frankly, I'm not a fan of the endless rule stretching supplements available and prefer creative players with vanilla rulesets as opposed to creative rules with predictable players. Again, to each his own.

 

[Nifft]

Each class / player can contribute something interesting and necessary to the mix. If only a few classes/players are consistently outshining everyone, your DM isn't doing his/her job.

Well, either every DM out there is failing at his or her job, or the Fighter simply contributes less than other classes.

Sure, you can make any sort of broken combination of feats and powers to be a one man adventuring party by using the wealth of WotC material out there.

Nah. It's more like every resource spent on a Fighter could be better spent on a non-Fighter. My support-centric Cloistered Cleric could be buffing a Fighter, sure, but he could instead be buffing a Druid (or the Druid's dire bear) or a battle Cleric.

The Druid and the battle Cleric might just return the favor. That Fighter guy is a selfish bastard who never buffs or heals -anyone-.

In my groups and my campaigns, Fighter has always been a viable choice. I'm positive mileage may vary per player and DM. However, IMO if the core fighter is suddenly not a viable class in a game, some adjustments need to be made in the way you are playing the game. The DM needs to either place limits on material that can be used so the core rules aren't obsolete; modify the fighter class so it isn't obsolete; or just go ahead and replace it entirely with the "cool new option" that works in their game.

This is a common misconception. The Fighter doesn't suck because of supplements. The Fighter sucks because it comes after Barbarian, Cleric and Druid. There's nothing "sudden" about the Fighter sucking. It's sucked from day one.

Most of the powerful game-changing spells aren't from supplements. They're right in the PHB. You don't need to go poring through obscure books to find gate or shapechange.

That last bit of your post is puzzling. Are you saying that Fighters don't suck because they can be thrown away and replaced by something that doesn't suck?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Alexander123]

Nah. It's more like every resource spent on a Fighter could be better spent on a non-Fighter

Agreed.

 

[PolterGhost]

Interjection: Even though this is a thread about 3.5 Fighters, how did the 2e Fighters stack up against the same issues of powerful monsters and other far more outright versatile classes? I'd like a sense of how far the 3.5 tiers are from how things originally operated in the preceding edition.

 

[Jhaelen]

Interjection: Even though this is a thread about 3.5 Fighters, how did the 2e Fighters stack up against the same issues of powerful monsters and other far more outright versatile classes? I'd like a sense of how far the 3.5 tiers are from how things originally operated in the preceding edition.

IME, fighter levels were only ever taken to give a boost to your hit points.

Almost everyone was either playing humans who started as fighters and later dual-classed into the class they were _really_ interested in or they were multiclassed fighter/x/y half-elves.

Noone ever played a pure fighter.

 

[Walking Dad]

IME, fighter levels were only ever taken to give a boost to your hit points.

Almost everyone was either playing humans who started as fighters and later dual-classed into the class they were _really_ interested in or they were multiclassed fighter/x/y half-elves.

Noone ever played a pure fighter.

Not sure... weapon specialization was a good ability... And the paladin had a hard limit on items owned...

Of course it was better once you added a kit.