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

[pawsplay]

Because their to-hit bonus is inferior to that of a raging Barbarian,

... for 3 + Con modifier rounds, during which time they cannot use a number of useful tactics...

their feats are linear in a geometric game, and armor is just another way to fail Climb, Jump and Swim checks (which is half the Fighter's list).

That's ridiculous. Light and most medium armor causes very modest penalties to Climb, Jump, and Swim, and by the time you can afford good heavy armor, you're not going to be failing any checks at all, unless you just want to show people it can be done.

Let me repeat part of that: feats are a linear power boost in a game about geometric power.

I disagree entirely. Even the humble Weapon Focus is basically a percentage increase on your entire damage output, whatever that damage may be. Improved Sunder scales in effectiveness to match whatever weapons or items your opponents are wielding. Some feats in some situations have only a linear effect, but in general, the available of good feats scales upwards as you increase in level. Combining W Focus, Power Attack, and Impr Critical is substantially more than the some of its parts.

And wizards to not geometrically increase. They consistently hover at around 1.25 dice of damage per level, for about one spell per round, plus the occasional quickened spell or contingency, when firing at peak effectiveness. Spells that hold or harass foes become steadily more useful, but also harder to pull off.

Both fighters and wizards must contend with multiple variables. Everything in context.

It is charity if you spend your entire attack action moving to set up the Rogue's attack. Likewise, it is charity if the Cleric spends his entire attack action buffing a Fighter instead of himself.

Is it charity for the fighter to spend his entire attack action keeping the cleric alive? ... Avoiding a TPK is charity?

Also, spending an action in combat to buff yourself is not necessarily an action well spent. With that same spell, you could buff the fighter, who can use a full complement of actions to make use of it. It is, in fact, better for the cleric to buff both himself and the fighter, if the situation calls for the team to work at full efficiency. The cleric actually attacking is about the third thing down on the list worth doing.

 

[FEADIN]

Thanks for the xp Radmod my fellow goblin

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks for the xp Radmod my fellow goblin

Complete & utter threadjack- is anyone besides me looking forward to FEADIN getting enough XP to hit "Troll?"

FEADIN the Troll?

C'mon!

 

[Nifft]

That's ridiculous. Light and most medium armor causes very modest penalties to Climb, Jump, and Swim, and by the time you can afford good heavy armor, you're not going to be failing any checks at all, unless you just want to show people it can be done.

You were trying to tell me that Fighters have an advantage over Barbarians, who get Light and Medium armor. If you weren't talking about Heavy armor, what was your point?

I disagree entirely. Even the humble Weapon Focus is basically a percentage increase on your entire damage output, whatever that damage may be. Improved Sunder scales in effectiveness to match whatever weapons or items your opponents are wielding. Some feats in some situations have only a linear effect, but in general, the available of good feats scales upwards as you increase in level. Combining W Focus, Power Attack, and Impr Critical is substantially more than the some of its parts.

And wizards to not geometrically increase. They consistently hover at around 1.25 dice of damage per level, for about one spell per round, plus the occasional quickened spell or contingency, when firing at peak effectiveness. Spells that hold or harass foes become steadily more useful, but also harder to pull off.

1/ Wizards get more spells per day as they go up in level. Each of those spells gets more potent as they go up in level, and higher level spells tend to affect more opponents per action. Wizards are the definition of geometric power even if you only look at damage (which is the wrong way to look at them), since those 1.25 dice per level are applied to more enemies at a time as level increases.

"Spells that hold of or harass foes", like grease and wall of ice? How is wall of ice harder to pull off than grease? How is maze harder to pull off than hold person? (They're not. Higher level spells are just plain better than lower level spells.)

The problem is that Clerics, Druids & Wizards are Batman. They have all the awesome utility spells and they can -- with forethought and preparation -- overcome almost anything. The problem is that the point comes where they can also out-damage, out-survive, and potentially out-fight the characters who aren't Batman, which leaves no niche at all for the non-Batman PCs.

Both fighters and wizards must contend with multiple variables. Everything in context.

Wizards must contend with being a gun. Fighters must contend with bringing a knife to a wizard fight.

Is it charity for the fighter to spend his entire attack action keeping the cleric alive? ... Avoiding a TPK is charity?

It sounds like you're saying that the Cleric's life is worth more than the Fighter's life, if spending all your actions to save the Cleric is the same as avoiding a TPK.

Also, spending an action in combat to buff yourself is not necessarily an action well spent. With that same spell, you could buff the fighter, who can use a full complement of actions to make use of it. It is, in fact, better for the cleric to buff both himself and the fighter, if the situation calls for the team to work at full efficiency. The cleric actually attacking is about the third thing down on the list worth doing.

The Cleric can summon a meat-shield and let him play Fighter, plus the Cleric won't have to heal him after combat. Summoning spells become effective around 7th level. Druids are even better at this than Clerics or Wizards.

This is even more effective than usual when you're fighting things that destroy equipment (rust monster, bebelith), things that fight in annoying environments (aboleth), things that kill you for touching them (chaos beast), things that drain your stats (allip), things that poison you, or things that fly, swim, or are made of fire.

Wizards can bind planar critters for longer-term service, and Clerics can call a planar ally. This is like a free feat -- Leadership, the best feat in the game -- except it stacks with Leadership.

A single Druid's class feature (Animal Companion) is better at fighting than a Fighter at 1st level, and the Druid doesn't even have to pay to replace it if it dies.

- - -

To recap: at 1st level, a Fighter is worse than a Druid's wolf.

At 7th level, a Fighter is worse than a buffed Cleric.

That's the beginning and the end of your Fighter's effectiveness window, levels 2 through 6.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

A single Druid's class feature (Animal Companion) is better at fighting than a Fighter at 1st level, and the Druid doesn't even have to pay to replace it if it dies.

- - -

To recap: at 1st level, a Fighter is worse than a Druid's wolf.

No he's not. I am so freaking sick of this lie. With enough buff spells expended on a companion, it might surpass the fighter at damage dealing and grappling, but that's it. And it is never as good as a fighter on its own.

Level 1 Wolf has about the same hit points (Fighter got a max d10 and a better con score, wolf gets half on his two d8 HD, too bad so sad). Fighter has better AC. Better attack bonus. MUCH better damage. Better bonus on combat maneuvers generally. Wolf has scent, free trip attempts when it hits, and higher base speed. Nice things, sure, but Fighter's the better melee character by far. I'll not even touch on the tactical reasoning differences between a "big stupid fighter" and a "no seriously, if it were a human it'd be beyond retarded" intelligence animal and how that can effect decisions in the heat of battle.

At 7th level, a Fighter is worse than a buffed Cleric.

Buffed Cleric will eventually surpass fighter, level 7 is too early, though. Not enough spells per day to surpass him other than one combat per day, after wasting a few rounds on buff spells while hte fighter kills things. Unless you have DMM Persist spell, of course. I ban Persistent Spell, many others ban DMM. If you choose to play in a game that allows Nightsticks, you deserve to experience complete and utter broken gameplay...

 

[pawsplay]

You were trying to tell me that Fighters have an advantage over Barbarians, who get Light and Medium armor. If you weren't talking about Heavy armor, what was your point?

My point was that fighters won't be failing skill checks due to armor, unless they have unusually heavy armor and unusually low skill ranks. A fighter can swim in full plate armor at 3rd level or so in calm water.

1/ Wizards get more spells per day as they go up in level. Each of those spells gets more potent as they go up in level, and higher level spells tend to affect more opponents per action. Wizards are the definition of geometric power even if you only look at damage (which is the wrong way to look at them), since those 1.25 dice per level are applied to more enemies at a time as level increases.

But the rate at which they cast spells stays mostly the same. Wizard damage increases mostly linearally, and their endurance in a fight increases mostly linearally. Their overall effectiveness is geometrically increasing.... but that is equally true of the fighter, who becomes more damaging as well as more tough, meaning he, too, does more damage over more time.

"Spells that hold of or harass foes", like grease and wall of ice? How is wall of ice harder to pull off than grease?

For one thing: "Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed. A successful save indicates that the spell automatically fails." I was mainly talking about spells with saves as opposed to environmental effects; it just so happens you picked a bad example.

Wall of ice is a different sort of spell. At 20th level, it has 60 hit points per section, which many fighters can destroy in a single round.

How is maze harder to pull off than hold person? (They're not. Higher level spells are just plain better than lower level spells.)

Well, it's an 8th level spell and has a shorter range. Those are two ways in which it is not as good: higher cost, and requiring you to be closer to your target.

The problem is that Clerics, Druids & Wizards are Batman. They have all the awesome utility spells and they can -- with forethought and preparation -- overcome almost anything. The problem is that the point comes where they can also out-damage, out-survive, and potentially out-fight the characters who aren't Batman, which leaves no niche at all for the non-Batman PCs.

Other than being Superman. And, of course, Batman is much more effective when he teams up with Superman, hence, the JLA.

Wizards must contend with being a gun. Fighters must contend with bringing a knife to a wizard fight.

Very apt. In a close range fight, a knife is more deadly, more reliable, and much more reusable than a gun.

It sounds like you're saying that the Cleric's life is worth more than the Fighter's life, if spending all your actions to save the Cleric is the same as avoiding a TPK.

Since the fighter is capable of saving the Cleric, that means that he is worth at least as much as the cleric.

The Cleric can summon a meat-shield and let him play Fighter, plus the Cleric won't have to heal him after combat. Summoning spells become effective around 7th level. Druids are even better at this than Clerics or Wizards.

Fighters are not meat shields. They can serve as one, but they are ultimately tactical specialists. Anyone who plays a fighter as a meat shield will likely be underwhelmed, just as anyone who plays a wizard as a living fireball wand. Specifically, there is nothing you can summon that has the feat selection of a fighter, and few things as versatile at tactics. Summoned creatures also don't have their own equipment, and they take a round to summon.

Other problems with summoned creatures: they are easily defeated by the second level spell, Magic Circle; they can be banished or dispelled; the duration is so short your opponents can often just retreat and regroup, leaving you the worse for one spell slot; they frequently require investments in spells or languages to be able to tactically direct them;... oh, yeah, and typically, they have worse numbers.

This is even more effective than usual when you're fighting things that destroy equipment (rust monster, bebelith),

A fighter is one of the best equipped to handle a rust monster, actually. Rather than endanger his equipment, he can simply kill it with his bare hands, experiencing almost no danger at all.

Bebiliths can be easily dispatched by ranged attacks.

things that fight in annoying environments (aboleth),

Why go there? And if you do, why not grab freedom of movement?

things that kill you for touching them (chaos beast),

... ranged attacks...

things that drain your stats (allip),

Seriously? An allip is dead against a fighter. If he doesn't have any magical weapons, he can always run away.

things that poison you,

Good thing you have good Fortitude saves.

or things that fly, swim, or are made of fire.

Which you can kill with your composite bow.

Wizards can bind planar critters for longer-term service, and Clerics can call a planar ally. This is like a free feat -- Leadership, the best feat in the game -- except it stacks with Leadership.

And only grants you relatively straightforward monters, not fully featured cohorts. And who can still be banished, hedged, etc.

A single Druid's class feature (Animal Companion) is better at fighting than a Fighter at 1st level, and the Druid doesn't even have to pay to replace it if it dies.

That's utter bollocks. A fighter can take on a wolf... even in melee, which doesn't even have to happen. And a 1st level fighter is the best chance an animal companion is very going to have at the heavyweight title. After that, it only gets worse for the animal. At 20th level, the wolf has ... BAB +10. And it has to be taught its tricks.

A human 1st level fighter could take Toughness, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip (not that I'm recommending this combo, but...) and have more hit points, a higher to-hit bonus, a better AC, and a better shot at tripping opponents. He can't... well, he can't track by scent.

 

[Nifft]

I am so freaking sick of this lie.

Unless you intended to accuse someone of deliberate falsehood, you might want to tone down the rhetoric.

it is never as good as a fighter on its own.

Lucky for him he comes with a free Druid, isn't it.

Level 1 Wolf has about the same hit points (Fighter got a max d10 and a better con score, wolf gets half on his two d8 HD, too bad so sad). Fighter has better AC. Better attack bonus. MUCH better damage. Better bonus on combat maneuvers generally. Wolf has scent, free trip attempts when it hits, and higher base speed. Nice things, sure, but Fighter's the better melee character by far. I'll not even touch on the tactical reasoning differences between a "big stupid fighter" and a "no seriously, if it were a human it'd be beyond retarded" intelligence animal and how that can effect decisions in the heat of battle.

Fighter gets 10+con hp; Wolf gets 2d8+4 (13) hp. A Fighter with a 15 Con loses. Advantage: Wolf.

Wolf has AC 14 (touch 12, flat-foot 12). A Fighter might be in scale mail (AC 14), plus a shield or a Dex bonus. Advantage: Fighter.

The Fighter's speed in that scale mail is 20 ft. (4 squares). The wolf's speed is 50 ft. (10 squares). Advantage: Wolf.

The Wolf's attack bonus is +3. A Fighter with a 14 Str or higher beats this, and 15 can be expected. Advantage: Fighter.

The Wolf's saves are 5/5/1. The Fighter is worse at Fort unless his Con is 16 or higher, he can't win Reflex, and he could tie or win Will if Wisdom was a priority. Advantage: Wolf.

The Wolf's skills include spot and listen, and it has a half-decent bonus on them (though not as high as a dedicated 1st-level human could have). The wolf can track by scent, but who cares, that's not going to matter in combat. Perhaps I value Spot and Listen too highly, but they seem to be the skills that get checked the most often, and the skills where a high result is rewarded in many combat situations. Skill advantage: Wolf.

The Fighter can expect to be swinging around a longsword (if he is using a shield) or a greatsword. The damage on his greatsword is probably 2d6+4, but even a longsword used by a Fighter with a 15 Strength is better damage than the Wolf's 1d6+1. Advantage: Fighter.

However, the Wolf can initiate a trip attempt with every hit. This is very good. The best tactic that melee types can hope for is Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes, because standing up provokes an AoO, and you can re-trip on an AoO. The Wolf lacks Combat Reflexes, but he's got the Improved Trip angle covered. A human Fighter could have the required feats at level 1, but none of the others could*. Also, the Fighter's prerequisite feat demands a 13 Int, which is painful for a Fighter, because he has to invest in Str, Con, Dex and Wis already. Finally, the Fighter probably wants a trip weapon like a flail or halberd, which lowers his damage a trifle. Advantage: Wolf.

Wolves are cute and cuddly, and chicks dig them. If you walk around with a Fighter on a leash, you won't get any chicks. Advantage: Wolf.

*) I'm counting Weapon Focus as a requirement, since without it the Fighter would not decisively beat the Wolf's attack bonus.

- - -

They're more evenly matched than I had remembered. Still, the wolf wins on HP, saves, skills, and tactical maneuvers. The ability to charge an archer 100 ft. away is just gravy.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wolves are cute and cuddly, and chicks dig them. If you walk around with a Fighter on a leash, you won't get any chicks. Advantage: Wolf.

1) if the fighter on the leash is Aaaaahnold, he can kill other guys so you can hear the lamentation of the...wait...if it's Jet Li, he can kill the other guys so you can...errr

2) wolves get funky over time, and don't like bathing.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Unless you intended to accuse someone of deliberate falsehood, you might want to tone down the rhetoric.

It's an extremely common "internet fact" that animal companion is stronger than fighter, you're far from the first person to say so, and it really irritates me, sorry.

Lucky for him he comes with a free Druid, isn't it.

By your post, I thought you meant the companion itself was stronger. Anything with a full spellcaster buff machine is good, doesn't make the thing getting buffed good. In terms of resources, a druid buffs his companion, a wizard buffs the fighter, both are down a spell. D&D's a team game, not a singles matchup. As long as the casters buffing the deignated meat shield, doesn't much matter which meat shield it is.

Fighter gets 10+con hp; Wolf gets 2d8+4 (13) hp. A Fighter with a 15 Con loses. Advantage: Wolf.

Heh, I play with high point buy (and usualy dwarf if making a fighter), guess I'm used to high scores. Still, Wolf is basically winning by 1 hp, and only the 1st level, it's barely a win.

The Wolf's attack bonus is +3. A Fighter with a 14 Str or higher beats this, and 15 can be expected. Advantage: Fighter.

Wolf's bonus is +3 because it took Weapon Focus. Without that feat, Fighter's at +3 with a 14 str or a +4 with 16 str (most important stat, a 16 starting is fair to assume for many games...). With that feat, each has another +1. Fighter wins. If the wolf spends its only feat and Fighter gets better stuff, possible tie.

The Wolf's saves are 5/5/1. The Fighter is worse at Fort unless his Con is 16 or higher, he can't win Reflex, and he could tie or win Will if Wisdom was a priority. Advantage: Wolf.

Wolf wins, but I think you're overstating the importance of Reflex, especially at level 1. Other than reflex, they're fairly even, wolf has +1 fort save on fighter.

The Wolf's skills include spot and listen, and it has a half-decent bonus on them (though not as high as a dedicated 1st-level human could have). The wolf can track by scent, but who cares, that's not going to matter in combat. Perhaps I value Spot and Listen too highly, but they seem to be the skills that get checked the most often, and the skills where a high result is rewarded in many combat situations. Skill advantage: Wolf.

I don't think spot/listen make that large a difference in combat for melee classes, I'd call this irrelevant for the comparison, mostly. Otherwise...Fighter can talk. Fighter can presumably talk his way out of some fights or garner a surrender. If you're going to include spot/listen as relevant, I call it a draw. Tie.

The Fighter can expect to be swinging around a longsword (if he is using a shield) or a greatsword. The damage on his greatsword is probably 2d6+4, but even a longsword used by a Fighter with a 15 Strength is better damage than the Wolf's 1d6+1. Advantage: Fighter.

A huge margin. Wolf might trip something it hits. Fighter most likely will kill or incapacitate what he hits.

However, the Wolf can initiate a trip attempt with every hit. This is very good. The best tactic that melee types can hope for is Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes, because standing up provokes an AoO, and you can re-trip on an AoO. The Wolf lacks Combat Reflexes, but he's got the Improved Trip angle covered. A human Fighter could have the required feats at level 1, but none of the others could*. Also, the Fighter's prerequisite feat demands a 13 Int, which is painful for a Fighter, because he has to invest in Str, Con, Dex and Wis already. Finally, the Fighter probably wants a trip weapon like a flail or halberd, which lowers his damage a trifle. Advantage: Wolf.

Level 1 Human Fighter could have a Guisarme with Combat Reflexes, Expertise, and Improved Trip. Dwarf Fighter has all of that but Combat Reflexes. Tie.

Wolves are cute and cuddly, and chicks dig them. If you walk around with a Fighter on a leash, you won't get any chicks. Advantage: Wolf.

If you walk around with a Fighter on your leash, you'll get extremely kinky chicks. Tie.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Nifft, WTF? By your own calculations, Fighter beats Wolf in AC, to-hit and damage, and is -1 in hp. And for melee-types everything else is really a far distant second, and you must know this. Are we there yet?