Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Why be a Fighter? (3.5)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="med stud" data-source="post: 1035678" data-attributes="member: 1211"><p>I have only played fighters through my D&D- career (starting with second edition), and I feel the fighters of 3rd edition (and 3.5) have become both better and worse; before 3rd edition, the only way to make a fighter unique was by using backstories and descriptions; mechanically they were all alike. So in that sense, 3rd edition came as a saviour with all the new choices in feats, and more actions during combats, and with the introduction of cleave, the fighter became more viable in combats vs lots of creatures. All in all, in versality and combat, I felt the 3rd edition fighter went up a whole lot in style and efficiency. In combat, that is.</p><p></p><p>OTOH, as I never experienced in 2nd edition, now the fighters (and all characters) have been straight jacked by the skill system to be incompetent in everything besides riding, climbing and jumping. In 2nd edition, a fighter could be a great leader or woodsman by using secondary skills (for all their shortcomings), but now thats almost impossible; a fighter makes a lousy leader now, as he/she is gullible (no Sense motive) and unable to communicate well with the masses (no Diplomacy), two problems that werent so appearent before.</p><p></p><p>On the efficiency versus other classes, I think the point buy system favours fighters; with heavy armor, Dex over 12 isnt really needed and no other abilities are essential to a fighter; you can sink lots of points into Str and Con, while a paladin or ranger needs to spread out their abilities, making them less powerful in combat. The barbarian is an alternative for power in combat, but I think they are losing out in combats in the long run.</p><p></p><p>1) The main strength of barbarians are capability to deal large amounts of damage in short amounts of time by using Rage. To fully utilize Rage, a two handed weapon is needed. Any combat where a two handed weapon is not practical makes the barbarian to a feat-less fighter; with a one handed weapon, the Rage becomes a 3-7 round weapon focus + specialization with a -2 AC modifier and an Aid-spell. With a bow, Rage is useless.</p><p></p><p>2) As a consequense (sp?) of 1), the barbarian will often have a weak defense. In early levels, this is very noticable, but even in late levels, especially when going up against enemies with power attack, its not really worth the +3 HP/level the barbarian gets by using rage and having a d12 for HD. (this is 3.0 observations, 3.5 may very well change this, but I think most of this still is true, especially with the toned down haste).</p><p></p><p>3) The barbarian lacks many of the stalling feats the fighter has; improved disarm and/or sunder vs armed foes, improved trip vs enemies with multiple attacks, for example, or power attack + cleave vs masses of enemies. A fighter can contribute to a combat in more cases then a barbarian in unusal circumstances.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>In conclusion, IMO the fighter is still the king of combat of the full BAB-classes, but they have lost essentially all of their out of combat usefulness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="med stud, post: 1035678, member: 1211"] I have only played fighters through my D&D- career (starting with second edition), and I feel the fighters of 3rd edition (and 3.5) have become both better and worse; before 3rd edition, the only way to make a fighter unique was by using backstories and descriptions; mechanically they were all alike. So in that sense, 3rd edition came as a saviour with all the new choices in feats, and more actions during combats, and with the introduction of cleave, the fighter became more viable in combats vs lots of creatures. All in all, in versality and combat, I felt the 3rd edition fighter went up a whole lot in style and efficiency. In combat, that is. OTOH, as I never experienced in 2nd edition, now the fighters (and all characters) have been straight jacked by the skill system to be incompetent in everything besides riding, climbing and jumping. In 2nd edition, a fighter could be a great leader or woodsman by using secondary skills (for all their shortcomings), but now thats almost impossible; a fighter makes a lousy leader now, as he/she is gullible (no Sense motive) and unable to communicate well with the masses (no Diplomacy), two problems that werent so appearent before. On the efficiency versus other classes, I think the point buy system favours fighters; with heavy armor, Dex over 12 isnt really needed and no other abilities are essential to a fighter; you can sink lots of points into Str and Con, while a paladin or ranger needs to spread out their abilities, making them less powerful in combat. The barbarian is an alternative for power in combat, but I think they are losing out in combats in the long run. 1) The main strength of barbarians are capability to deal large amounts of damage in short amounts of time by using Rage. To fully utilize Rage, a two handed weapon is needed. Any combat where a two handed weapon is not practical makes the barbarian to a feat-less fighter; with a one handed weapon, the Rage becomes a 3-7 round weapon focus + specialization with a -2 AC modifier and an Aid-spell. With a bow, Rage is useless. 2) As a consequense (sp?) of 1), the barbarian will often have a weak defense. In early levels, this is very noticable, but even in late levels, especially when going up against enemies with power attack, its not really worth the +3 HP/level the barbarian gets by using rage and having a d12 for HD. (this is 3.0 observations, 3.5 may very well change this, but I think most of this still is true, especially with the toned down haste). 3) The barbarian lacks many of the stalling feats the fighter has; improved disarm and/or sunder vs armed foes, improved trip vs enemies with multiple attacks, for example, or power attack + cleave vs masses of enemies. A fighter can contribute to a combat in more cases then a barbarian in unusal circumstances. 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. In conclusion, IMO the fighter is still the king of combat of the full BAB-classes, but they have lost essentially all of their out of combat usefulness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Why be a Fighter? (3.5)
Top