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

[Wyvernhand]

In reality, sundering a hydra's heads is the most inefficient use of actions. The 11 headed hydra in question is CR 10 and has 118 HP and an AC of 21. Fast Healing doesn't work when you're dead, so they just have to drop it. If 4 fighters can't do 118 damage in a single round, they are either WAY under leveled, or they need to hang up their swords and pick up a bar rag. Heck, if 1 level 8ish fighter can't do 118 HP in a round against an even CRed hydra, he's probably dead weight anyway.

Like I said, a Fighter* has his uses. He's an inexhaustable supply of free damage, and can generally soak a few. He generally has abilities that make his foes uncomfortable (like lockdown, Three Mountains, Intimidate, etc) and decent, non-AC based defences including something to bring up his Will save and some way to prevent getting locked down himself.

*Fighter the archtype, not the actual class.

I'd be interested in seeing that CR18 dargon. I actually have a level 14 cleric sitting around that would make for an interesting fight against such a foe, even in an EL = APL+4 "boss" encounter.

 

[Dandu]

I'm going to skip to the parts that bug me the most, if you don't mind. I'll add in other points as I go on.

Dandu, I have already told you before that I consider picking at details to be wasteful discussion.
...
Plus, you're posting all these ridiculous big beater fights right after asking to see a powerful and versatile combatant; that's some serious goal post moving.

I never claimed that the fighter was a powerful and versatile combatant. I simply demanded proof, which involves seeing how the fighter works against actual opponents.

Do you have an issue with this?

ow a fighter fares against a hydra "in close quarters" has about as much relevance as how a wizard fares against a golem in an anti-magic zone.

Alright, I guess I'll just ask you outright: You are the one who agreed with the position that the fighter can be a powerful and versatile combatant. How would you propose to ascertain the validity of this statement?

Like the lich. It is very likely that in a real fight, the fighter runs up to the lich, the wizard counterspells the contingency or anything else the lich tries to do, and the fighter proceeds to whale on the lich. It's not Angel Summoner and the BMX bandit so much as Colossus + Wolverine executing a fastball special.

I agree with you. In a party, everyone will do something to bring down the enemy. It just seems that what a fighter does is somewhat... less than necessary because all the hard work is being done by others. This is possibly why the question "Why play a fighter" is asked, because your contribution to the team may be limited, regardless of how well you roleplay.

The problem with arguing with people who disparage fighters is that since they don't like or play them, they tend to have very little experience playing them in-game.

I've played barbarians, fighters, monks, and paladins.

Trust me, I've been around.

I don't know that necessarily applies to everyone who has decided to jump into this "why to play a fighter" thread and tried to explain why not to play one, but I get the sense that many of these scenarios have not been considered realistically.

Then let us consider them realistically, but be warned that may involve minute details which I know you don't like.

 

[pawsplay]

I think it's already been established that, with the exception of the hellwasp swarm, even a party of four identical fighters can find a way to deal with some fairly annoying threats and situations, however inefficiently. You complained about archery, yet the fighter's ability to shift between archery and melee at need is one of the things being showcased. Look, there's a giant scorpion. Guess what? The fighter can likely take it down with nary a scratch. That's the valid point being demonstrated.

What is there left to demonstrate, other than the fighter easily demolishing more normal foes with the support of party casters? Is there some purpose in elaborately showing how a party of four differently constructed fighters can easily dominate most monsters in one domain or another? Just as a for-instance, teaming up a high defense fighter, the versatile fighter I posted, a power attacking beater, and a focused archer, the hydra becomes trivial, completely trivial.

Alright, I guess I'll just ask you outright: You are the one who agreed with the position that the fighter can be a powerful and versatile combatant. How would you propose to ascertain the validity of this statement?

What evidence would persuade you?

 

[pawsplay]

Then let us consider them realistically, but be warned that may involve minute details which I know you don't like.

I would like it a bit more if you picked less purely theoretical examples, and didn't repeatedly misread what I wrote or misread the rules.

 

[Wyvernhand]

What evidence would persuade you?

This:

Just as a for-instance, teaming up a high defense fighter, the versatile fighter I posted, a power attacking beater, and a focused archer, the hydra becomes trivial, completely trivial.

Builds, your idea of what a "high defense fighter", a "versatile fighter", a "power attacking beater" and a "focused archer" look like. Just how well thought out are they? Can they REALLY handle multiple, versatile, CR appropriate challenges in a given adventuring day? Full sheets, if you would, any average ECL, including WBL appropriate gear. Just so I have an idea of what you consider a "good fighter".

I mean, I've already seen a group of casters do it in the Arcane Adventures series of threads over on GitP.

 

[Dandu]

I would like it a bit more if you picked less purely theoretical examples, and didn't repeatedly misread what I wrote or misread the rules.

I'll try, but as you've no doubt notice yourself, keeping track of everything accurately isn't easy.

You complained about archery, yet the fighter's ability to shift between archery and melee at need is one of the things being showcased. Look, there's a giant scorpion. Guess what? The fighter can likely take it down with nary a scratch. That's the valid point being demonstrated.

Yes, I agree that the fighter's ability to shift between archery and melee is what is being discussed. That is why I asked you to show how he'd do in melee.

What evidence would persuade you?

Nitpicky details, I'm afraid to say. Basically, mechanical evidence to back up the claim.

 

[Walking Dad]

... Look, there's a giant scorpion. Guess what? The fighter can likely take it down with nary a scratch. That's the valid point being demonstrated.

...

But if the giantscorpion hits just once, the fighter has to beat a very high grapple check or is toast. Also, besides the archery route, I don't see any other option for a supposed versatile class, what was the aim of the suggestion. You cannot sunder, trip, bullrush or grapple it.

And his option vs swarms, consist of using UMD.

Magical Aptitude only gives a bonus to UMD, BTW, and doesn't make it a class skill. And the fighter gets 2+ Int mod skill points / level.

 

[pawsplay]

This:

Builds, your idea of what a "high defense fighter", a "versatile fighter", a "power attacking beater" and a "focused archer" look like. Just how well thought out are they? Can they REALLY handle multiple, versatile, CR appropriate challenges in a given adventuring day? Full sheets, if you would, any average ECL, including WBL appropriate gear. Just so I have an idea of what you consider a "good fighter".

"Full sheets, if you would?" How about, no, go find your amusement elsewhere.

 

[pawsplay]

But if the giantscorpion hits just once, the fighter has to beat a very high grapple check or is toast. Also, besides the archery route, I don't see any other option for a supposed versatile class, what was the aim of the suggestion. You cannot sunder, trip, bullrush or grapple it.

I think you are confused about what is meant by "versatile." Versatile doesn't mean being able to grapple a humongous scorpion, it means not having to.

And his option vs swarms, consist of using UMD.

That's only for fire-resistant swams that are immune to weapon damage.

Magical Aptitude only gives a bonus to UMD, BTW, and doesn't make it a class skill. And the fighter gets 2+ Int mod skill points / level.

I already posted the fighter in question's character sheet. As you can see, he has the appropriate number of skill points.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

For better or worse, powerful magic abilities rule 3.5. Much as I love the Fighter - it may be my favorite class - it is weak. I have played in high-level games where the Fighter (and only the Fighter) has gained a bonus feat every level instead of every other; he still doesn't hold a candle to the full spellcasters, and never will. Even by level 10 or 12, he is the most dependent of all classes upon magic items and buffs from fellow party members to survive.

The Fighter works best in a "Fighter-only" custom campaign; perhaps one which admits rogues, monks and barbarians as PCs.