D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a Fighter? (3.5)

[Henry]

Yeah. And the fighter can't even run away and wait for a couple rounds 'til the Rage has ended. 'cause barbarians can run faster!

That's when the fighter pumps up his combat expertise to full value, and watches the barbarian tucker himself out, and THEN proceeds to lay the smack down...

I've actually seen this happen. Combat Expertise (or just Expertise) will make your AC five points higher, countering the +2 bonus from rage; the -2 AC for the enraged barbarian will help ameliorate the effects of the -5 to hit that the fighter gets. When about seven to ten rounds have passed, the fighter if he wishes can then switch back to butt-whoopin' mode on the barbarian who is not only less strong, but tired and more vulnerable. It works, but it's just not as sexy as turning on the Rage and laying waste.

 

[Henry]

I also think I will slide this over to Rules Forum, where it really looks like it belongs.

 

[Skinwalker]

IMHO, D&D has always been a Fighter's game, even back to the original D&D and the AD&D editions. Anyway, with 3.5's expansion of weapon specialization, there is no way I would consider the current iteration of the Fighter a weak class.

 

[takyris]

Players also need to have a full understanding of what they're getting into. If you take Fighter and then complain because he's not as good as a bard outside of combat, well... duh.

THAT is probably the reason that I wouldn't play a fighter for a full 20 levels -- not because the class isn't good, but because I'd have more fun playing a multiclass with some additional skills. I'm not saying that the fighter is bad or weak or lame because of my personal choice, though. If I wanted to play the world's most experienced combat veteran, survivor of countless battles, master of a thousand weapons, who knew every trick in the book and could gradually wear down, fake out, and run through any opponent, I'd play a Ftr20.

 

[billd91]

But as pointed out above, the barbarian is much easier to make interresting; they have an "in- built flavour" which the fighter lacks, and skills that are usable in non- combat situations. The two 3.0- fighters I've played have been one arms master- kind of guy and one gladiator/professional duelist, both of which were fun to role play and fitted well with the class, but I suspect those concepts might be a bit boring in the long run.

The way I see this whole flavor thing, making a barbarian, ranger, or paladin character is like working with a dinner kit where the spices and herbs are pre-measured and packaged up. I just heat it all up, mix as directed, and I'm done. But making a fighter character is like making dinner from scratch with just the raw ingredients. It's up to me to decide the flavor I want and make it so.
Just as any cook who can't make a flavorful meal from scratch should hang up his apron, any player who can't make the fighter a flavorful character should hang up his dice bag.
Or at least stick to the more pre-packaged varieties.
If you can make a flavorful meals from scratch but happen to prefer microwave burritos, then more power to you. You're a philistine, but more power to you.

 

[Fedifensor]

By that logic, the only ability that matters is movement rate.

Actually, in systems from D&D to Champions to Star Fleet Battles, speed is king. Any system that focuses on position and tactics will by definition have a high emphasis on movement. D&D even caters to this with the Spring Attack feat. Probably the toughest character in my current game is the barbarian/fighter multiclass with Spring Attack. And she hasn't even gotten a movement-enhancing item (like Boots of Striding and Springing) yet.

Sure, having a few levels of fighter pays off. The strongest reward comes in the first 4 levels, where you get three feats, and the option to get Weapon Specialization. There is an extra payoff all the way up to 12 levels of fighter...though most feat chains don't need that many feats. Once you get Greater Weapon Specialization, the class has nothing new to offer, and you've already taken the best feats from the available choices. As for Greater Weapon Focus...the extra +1 to hit is nice, but if you're going 8 levels of Fighter you may as well go 12 for the extra +2 to damage.

4 Fighter levels = Great
12 Fighter levels = Good
20 Fighter levels = Why?

I will say this...the fighter is THE most friendly option to multiclass, followed by rogue. There's no unique high-level options that you'll miss out on by multiclassing. Just make sure you take your other class first, to get the better choice of skills.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Now, what kind of moron must the barbarian be to engage the fighter in melee? He's got a 40' move versus the fighter's 15', and the fighter can't use a bow since he's got a frickin' DOOR on his arm.

Let's see. Melee is what barbarians are best at--that's probably the first reason he'd engage the fighter in melee.

However, one other reason the barbarian might engage the fighter in melee is that the fighter has a "door" on his arm. You see, if the barbarian wants to kill the fighter and the fighter has a tower shield, the barbarian cannot possibly kill the fighter with a bow. The fighter just takes 100% cover behind the shield and that's that.

Or the fighter pulls some javalins and starts hurling them at the barbarian. Assuming the barbarian is within range, the fighter is likely to win that exchange too. . . as long as he doesn't run out of javalins (he should hope he has a quiver of Ehlonna).

Barbarian backs up, draws his masterwork composite longbow (+3 Strength bonus), and fires at the fighter. Then it's just a matter of whittling the fighter down with arrows that do 1d8+3 per hit.

Firing at 100% tower shield cover, he has 0% chance of ever doing anything....

For that matter, why fight the fighter at all? He's got the hit points to survive a round of combat, so even if the fighter is guarding a choke point, the barbarian can take the hit from the attack of opportunity and outdistance the fighter within two rounds.

You mean other than to resolve the question of who would win in a one on one fight? (Which was the question the comparison set out to answer).

Any number of reasons. Maybe the barbarian is the champion of his tribe and the fighter challenged him to single combat in order to win safe passage for his adventuring party. Maybe it's a judicial duel. Perhaps it's a duel of honor. Perhaps the fighter is the champion or general of an evil army and the barbarian is the last member of the strike team sent to assassinate him. There are plenty of reasons the barbarian might fight the fighter.

Incidentally, warhorses are a very nice way for fighters to negate the speed differential (which is only 20' to 40' unless the fighter is heavily encumbered). And if the fighter is really guarding a choke point, the barbarian's only way past him is either:
A. Killing him
B. Tumbling past him
C. Overrunning him.
All of those are possible but the one most barbarians choose (IME) is A.

 

[Simulacrum]

Hmm, two words: WEAPON MASTER
Now you can kiss the barbarian goodbye.

Honestly the fighter kicks ass.
I can create a fighter that so ulitmately lays waste of anthing resembling a barbarian that its not funny anymore.
Even without prestigeclasses you can make hard rocking fighters.
If you want more skills and better saves take the Samurai from OA. Or multiclass with Monk for even more fun and versatility.
I should probably post some examples of Fighters that
a) have longer staying power than any barbarian would have
b) Is the ulitmate 1 on 1 horror.

It's simply true. Fighters are better than Barbarians. They are alot more flexible. Have better AC. Bigger choice in what they can do.
ALOT MORE FEATS. And with a rogue cohort with the leadership feat as your advisor and sergant, (you are the general of course) you do your lack of skill away.
Can please someone post a Barbarian (only wotc products builds please) that I couldnt lay waste with a fighter? I know I will win.
max: 32 poinbuy. (FR standart) but I prefer lower pointbuy like 28 or 30.

edit: And someone mentioned that Fighters are prone to being grappled by big monsters or monks: HAHHAHA
thats what the close quarter fighting feat is for. No one will ever try to lay his hands / claws / tentacles / maw upon you now...

 

[Hejdun]

Honestly the fighter kicks ass.
I can create a fighter that so ulitmately lays waste of anthing resembling a barbarian that its not funny anymore.
Even without prestigeclasses you can make hard rocking fighters.

That's when the wizard lifts his finger and obliterates the fighter.

Honestly, Barbarian vs. Fighter isn't really applicable, since they are both good at melee. The problem is melee vs. spellcasters, because that's where fighters get shafted. Fighters might be better than barbarians, but wizards trump fighters every day of the week.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

That's when the wizard lifts his finger and obliterates the fighter.

Honestly, Barbarian vs. Fighter isn't really applicable, since they are both good at melee. The problem is melee vs. spellcasters, because that's where fighters get shafted. Fighters might be better than barbarians, but wizards trump fighters every day of the week.