Valiantheart said:
Well if you want to just throw politeness to the wind im the guy to argue with. I spent a lot of time arguing on the WOTC boards with people much less considerate than you sir!
Excellent. Let us begin, then, sir, though in the spirit of chivalry, I must beg you to secure yourself to your computer chair, lest the awesome vituperation of my wit hurl you bodily to the ground.
Your response to my assertions was:
Maybe....just maybe other people have had different experiences with fighters vs. barbarian effectiveness than you. Maybe the fighter's player, the DM, and the barbarian's player are none of those things you described.
It is entirely possible that your opinion might actually differ from others without them being idiots who dont see the oh so obvious greatness of lots of mediocre feats.
I disagree. It is
not entirely possible that others can, in good thinking, overlook the potential of the fighter's feat list, and the wealth of opportunities presented by such a list. I will gladly rescind my scathing declaration of idiocy and replace such hot-tempered phrasing with "poorly thought out" or, with almost no judgement at all, "picking the wrong class for what they want to do".
Softening my words so as not to cause panic in horses and young children, however, does not countermand the idea behind my earlier message, which is, at its heart, the assertion that the fighter is the best multi-purpose non-spellcasting combatant on the field, hands down. Beyond the kind words and thoughts of those sweet souls who have gently uttered words similar to my own, I would add the following:
1) Comparing classes without magical items is folly. In a world without magical items and spells, no one save a fool would play anything but a monk. Therefore, restrict your comparisons to the wealth levels listed in the DMG.
2) Comparing classes by who would beat who in a one-on-one fight in the middle of an open arena with no obstacles is, again, sheer folly. When attempting to argue that one class is the "best warrior", it is vital that all forms of combat be considered, including sword & shield, two-weapons, two-handed weapon, exotic/special-purpose weapons, long-range weapons, short-range thrown and melee weapons, special combat maneuvers, combat versus one powerful opponent, combat versus a number of weak opponents, combat versus spellcasting specialists, stand-and-fight combat, hit-and-run combat, and so forth. Like the cleric, the fighter manages to be second-best in a number of areas, the best in a few, and utterly fails in none.
As a warrior, he is not as good at fighting spellcasters as the monk, given the monk's defensive prowess.
Barring words of wisdom from the mathematicians, I would allow that he is edged out by the barbarian in two-handed-weapon combat, given that the barbarian's rage ability is equal to greater weapon specialization and not weapon-specific.
He is approximately equal to the monk in terms of special combat maneuvers, since the monk gets supernatural abilities while the fighter has a better chance of winning opposed disarm, trip, or sunder checks, and has easier access to feats that improve those abilities.
He is the equal of the ranger with two-weapon fighting or archery, and possibly superior to the ranger, since his abilities can be used even in heavy armor.
He loses out to the rogue, the monk, and the barbarian in hit-and-run combat, given the other classes’ abilities to tumble and move quickly, but gains some ground with easier access to Spring Attack (by having more feat slots available).
With all other fighting styles, he is at least an equal, and usually, with his improved access to feats, superior to any other class.
3) You knavishly declare that the fighter’s feat choices are mediocre. This I refute with every fibre of my being, and declare that you have sunk low to slander the fighter’s feat choices in such a manner. From what grievance draw you such dissatisfaction?
Is it that most feats do not improve over levels, but instead have “improved” or “greater” versions that must be purchased separately? If this is your grievance, than you have confused class abilities with feats. If Evasion were a feat, would you complain that it did not automatically become “Improved Evasion”? If the monk were simply a fighter, and the increases in unarmed damage simply a series of feats, would you complain that they did not automatically increase with no other cost? You will note that most (though not all) “improving” class abilities improve at levels when little else is gained, which is not unlike the fighter gaining a feat that allows him to improve an earlier feat he took several levels ago.
Or are you otherwise so contentious that you can find no feats to make you happy? Would you not take the opportunity to Power Attack, even if you do not plan to Sunder or Cleave? Have you never tasted the joy that is a charging Power Attack, or the combination of Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, and a reach weapon against a tide of oncoming foes? And Dodge, humble Dodge, so often lambasted as a mere “requirement feat” on the great chains, provides an AC bonus that stacks with anything and continues to be useful for the entirety of a character’s life. After all, every character has been missed by exactly 1 at some point in his career.
For the fighter alone lies the path of flexibility in combat – the chance to either specialize completely and become a weaponmaster or remain a jack of all trades. For the fighter alone lies the ability to dual-wield, fire a ranged weapon, attack with a two-handed weapon, or make a special combat maneuver, along with the feats necessary to excel in every one of these areas. A paladin can become a good power-attacker, as can a barbarian. A ranger can become a good two-weapon fighter or archer. A rogue can become decent at fighting with expertise, tripping or disarming his foes. But only a fighter has the ability to become
all of those things at once while still having feats left over for whatever else
The only people who could disagree with such a statement are those who have not the intelligence to pick the appropriate feats, those who have not the wisdom to use their feats at the appropriate times, those poor souls trapped in a game where the DM has each fight start with the combatants forty feet apart and end with toe-to-toe fighting, or those who must watch a character with much better stats shine at the expense of their own character.
Beyond the circumstances of the fighter’s utility lie the argument that the fighter fails to be flashy, special, or exciting, which remains the province of flavor text and cooperation between the DM and the players.
Come at me, then, bold challenger, and meet my assertions with assertions of your own, for the simple denial of what I have stated with nothing more than idle nitpicking and vague hyperbole serves only to brand you and your ilk as the dissatisfied few, destined to sit on the sidelines complaining while the others clutch at glory, regardless of which class you choose.
