Why do some folks think fighters are useless?

[Lord Pendragon]

This post was prompted by a comment in another thread:

Fighters are obsolete already. Simply by not being made into a class that is far enough away from an npc class to matter. They get a lot of fighter feats that is true, but feats dont scale properly to keep the fighter up and running. Springboard for other classes, sure. Useful class in its own right? not even close.

Why is this? It seems so inaccurate to me. In my last campaign, the most potent combat character was the greatsword-wielding fighter. In the campaign I currently play in, the most potent combat character is the greataxe wielding fighter. He (in both cases) does the most damage in the group, hands-down.

Now, my last campaign only lasted to 6th-level, and we're currently only at 4th, so perhaps this is a mid to high-level problem? Or is there something else?

I'm currently playing a paladin in the game with the half-orc fighter, and the fighter still out-damages me. Granted, my character is sword and board, but even were I to wield a greatsword I wouldn't be as effective as he is, in a pure damage-dealing capacity.

So tell me...what is it about the fighter that makes people think the class sucks? How are they obsolete? I feel like I'm missing an inside joke here, the way it keeps coming up as taken-for-granted.

 

[Sado]

Don't know. It's my favorite class. It's a pretty straightforward class, with plenty of room for individual customization. I like it.

 

[Dark Jezter]

IMC, the fighter is the one who usually ends up dealing the most damage over the course of an encounter. The mage may be good at slinging fiery death at groups of weaker enemies, but when it comes to taking on the big, tough baddies, it's usually the fighter who ends up hurting it the most.

Because of this, I can't understand why some people call fighters useless.

 

[DM_Matt]

Because players usually like to make specialized fighters.

A Human Fighter gets 19 feats over 20 levels, and unless he branches out, he is going to run out of stuff he really wants long before that, creating a diminishing returns situation. Additional sourcebooks help here, but its still more effective to specialize by means of PRCs, or sometimes to just play a different class altogether, like a TWFing Ranger or an Elf/War Domain Cleric.

 

[green slime]

I believe the true reason for this somewhat incorrect appraisal of the fighter lies with the fact that the fighter suffers from only gaining his special ability every other level (special ability being an extra feat).

Take a look at any other class in the PHB. Most of them gain something every level. Sure, the Rogue has two boring no-gain levels at level 14 and 20. Paladins have a dull 13th level. Spellcasters are always gaining something, Rangers too.

Look at almost all fighter-type PrC. They too, gain abilities and feats at an accelerated pace.

But fighters? They bite the bullet at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th level! That is 9 times, the player of the fighter, sits around examining his navel, while his companions enjoy their new toys (character feats not withstanding, as all characters get to pick those).

Many of the classes do not obtain feat-worthy abilities every level, yet the implication is there. This coupled with the fact that there may not be "enough" feats of a type the player desires. Sure, he can "move down another feat-path" yet why should he have to try and find something else for his character to do? Why can't he continue improving what he is already good at, the fighting style he has started on?

There are quite simply, not enough high-level feats for a fighter to invest in. And IMO, if the PrC are going to have feats and abilities like they do, fighters should gain more feats. This also would rectify the inferiority complex that can be generated by the Cleric or PsyWar visavis the Fighter.

 

[gtJormungand]

The problems seem to lie at higher levels. In my experience, my epic level fighter characters (though the had prestige classes at that point, this point is still valid) were unable to do anything in fights; the wizards and sorcerers ended up finishing the fights before I could do anything.

High level fighters depend entirely on their equipment to be viable; hence, Mordenkainen's Disjunction is such a horrible spell when cast upon fighters due to their already weak Will saves. The spell destroys almost all of their equipment and makes the fighter almost worthless.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That is 9 times, the player of the fighter, sits around examining his navel, while his companions enjoy their new toys (character feats not withstanding, as all characters get to pick those).

It's true that all characters get to pick feats at every-3rd level, but that ignores the observation that the fighter works through the interesting feat chains much faster than other classes. This generally makes the fighter's feat choices more interesting, especially on the double-feat levels, where a fighter can immediately pick up a cool ability that another class is gonna need to wait at least three more level for.

I've never played a high-level fighter, so I can't speak to the "useless fighter" question at those level, but from experience I know that through at least 10th level they're far from useless.

 

[S'mon]

Fighters were pretty useless in 3.0 - buffed Clerics fought better than Fighters did, while Hasted wizards & sorcs could do more damage to individual opponents (the Fighter forte) with their fireballs than a fighter could do with full-attacks! 3.5 boosted 2-handed power attack greatly, nerfed Haste, and nerfed the Cleric buffs, while giving Fighters Greater Weapon Spec; so I'd say Fighters were now viable vs other classes at least in a standard point buy standard magic campaign. Lower-wealth games will still tend to nerf fighters at higher levels, but in 3.5 the Fighter certainly stacks up well vs the Rogue and probably the Sorcerer, if not the Cleric.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, Spellcasters gain acess to really "new" spells (spell levels) only every 2 (in case of bards every 3) levels, so I wouldn`t count that...
And the fighter gets his attack bonus every level (but so do ranger/barbarian/paladin)

Maybe some people make the mistake in forcing their fighter to specialice in only one or two things, because their character lacks the int or dex to take the rest of the fighter feats.

My highest level Fighter so far has been a Fighter12 or so, IIRC. He didn`t seem weak or useless...

 

[Timely Drought]

Visit the Chracter Optimization board on the Wizards site for a rundown on why the fighter is the weakest class of all. Basically the feats do not scale well at high level. At low levels the fighter is an excellent class if the player makes good use of feats.