Why do some folks think fighters are useless?

[Timely Drought]

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...

Spellcasters still gain more spells per day, even if they don't get a higher spell level. You'll see fighters shine when the party runs through more encounters per day. If the party has less control over the number of encounters per day, most other classes will greatly diminish in effectiveness while the fighter remains at full strength, assuming the party still has access to healing.

 

[Li Shenron]

This post was prompted by a comment in another thread:Why is this? It seems so inaccurate to me.

...

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.

Like you, I don't feel like the Fighter is weak at all, IMXP. However there is something which makes them unsatisfying to play after a while...

It's all about FEATS of course: they should make the class very flexible, but in practice there are not very many paths to follow: if you want a melee fighter you always take Power Attack & Cleave, if you make a range combatant you alwyas take Point Blank Shot & Precise Shot, etc...

The prerequisites for feats seems to give an edge to fighters: "to get the great high-req feats, you need bonus feats to spend". But the high-req feats are not so great. And most importantly, while this idea seems to imply that the other classes are stuck with only the basic combat feats, the other classes have many other things to take with non-combat feats!

Finally the feat chains also have a hard entry barrier: want to get some interesting alternative-tactics feats? Must be Int 13+ and always start with Combat Expertise. While this makes sense and has good flavor, it's very feat-costly to follow more chains. It always ends up that the player gets the same 4-5 feats in one single chosen feat chain (archery, power melee, agile defense, Int-based, mounted...), and then multiclass to look for something else. IMXP the Fighter class is the MOST USED in multiclass combination, but because it's actually hard to exploit all the bonus feats, but it is the LEAST USED as single class.

The 3.5 version is only slightly better, because even tho GWF and GWS are good feats, they are just bonus but not something that makes you really thrill about them.
Also it looks like supplementary books - despite the tons of feats - don't help that much after all. The diversity given to character abilities by combat feats is not nearly close to the diversity that spells give to spellcasters.

These are IMHO the reasons why usually the players of fighters at mid level look forward to multiclass to get a more interesting character. But if you want to just maximise your "output damage" (my spine shivers while I write this... ), as long as you find feats that stacks I suppose you could go straight Ftr forever.

 

[Agamemnon]

IMO, the biggest obstacle that a single-class fighter is that he is BORING. Boring, boring, boring. All he can do with is hack and chop with his sword, while the wizards walk through walls, the druids turn into dinosaurs, the monks walk on water and the rogues dance in a thunderstorm without getting wet.

A fighter is THE most generic class of the game. Even with the right kind of feat selection, he's still just that, generic. Given a fighter's lack of class abilities and abysmal skill points, they're forever doomed to be nothing more than a damage disher. Anything else another class can do better.

 

[green slime]

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.

At 18th level, when the Fighter is looking at Improved Initiative, or Great Fortitude, it isn't fun. This does not compare well to the Paladin's Holy Sword, the Ranger's Freedom of Movement. I guess the fighter can try to get some sympathy from the Barbarian, who is staring Trap Sense +6 in the face and complaining about having too few feats... but I doubt that he'll find success there either.

Complete Warrior's Tactical Feats were a start; but we need more similar feats, that require dedication and reward it.

I agree with Li SHenron that the fighter is not weak, just that the run out of opportunities to exploit their strength (a plethora of feats that develop the character along lines that inspire the player to continue the fighter path).

IMO, a lot more should be done to introduce more feats that expand the role and definition of the fighter rather than introducing Base Classes (Pirates, Duelists, and so on) and PrC (swashbuckler, master of chains, exotic weapons master, munchkin of Smackdownland, ....) which introduce features and abilities at a rate that cheapen the fighter.

 

[Thanee]

Fighters were pretty weak in 3.0 and still are not too great at really high levels, where spellcasters rule every game, anyways, unless it is set in a dead magic zone.

But other than that, and which is surely true for the levels, which see the most actual play, fighters are far from weak.

In low level play, fighters even are among the best classes hands down.
In mid level play, fighters can still compete in the upper regions.
After that, they slowly degrade and at really high levels, their magical equipment becomes more important than their own abilities.

So, no, I don't think fighters are weak overall.

Bye
Thanee

 

[MonsterMash]

I do think low level fighters are among the strongest PC classes till about 3rd level (in 3.5) then average and drop off at higher levels, but the usefulness of the class depends on the campaign. Lots of combat = fighters useful, low combat lots of diplomacy, etc = fighters not so useful.

 

[green slime]

...low combat lots of diplomacy, etc = fighters not so useful.

"...not so useful." is the understatement of the decade.

 

[Belen]

Fighters are exceptionally weak starting at around 12th. They just cannot compete with casters and their low will save makes them easy dominate candidates. Also, fighter feats just do not scale. The chains that a fighter really wants can be had by 8th or 9th level. Greater Focus and Specialization is a joke. Why would a fighter want another +1 to hit and +2 to damage?

In reality a fighter needs to be able to pick up a melee and ranged chain, but ability scores begin to be a problem with this. Also, a fighter has to spend a huge amount of money on weapons and armor while other classes are free to pick up cool items. Thus, a high level fighter will not even have the varied items that another class is free to have. Finally, the feats slow down at upper levels. They just do not get feats as often.

I have been thinking about some fixes though.

Magic weapons should be priced the same as armor. Weapons should not cost double the cost of armor. Why would a tiny sword cost the same to enchant as plate? Why is masterwork double when armor required a messload more material? That is a joke!

Weapon Focus/ Specialization: In my game, a fighter chooses to focus/ specialize in either slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. For example, a fighter that is focused/ specialized in slashing gets the use of those feats with all slashing weapons.

Bonus feats: I added bonus feats at 13, 16, and 19 for fighters.

Fighter Abilities: I have played around with the idea of giving fighters a special ability as 4, 8, 12, and 16. I was thinking that they could get align weapon (1 type) at 4th, Greater Align (2 types) at 8th, Mettle (evasion for fort and will) at 12th, and Spell Resistance (10+con) at 16th.

Just some thoughts. What do you guys think?

 

[Shallown]

I think at higher levels has maxed out his feat chains. I mean he can get another but often they conflict in style. Some fighters don't want the power attack/sunder and so forth and the Spring attack feat chain. Yeah as a High level fighter you can get both but is it what you want. I like the style feats in Complete Warrior since they are a start to giving the style more flexibility. I know greater wpn focus/spec is available to fighters but what else do they get that's limited to just fighters? Seems all other classes get something even if it is a style/flavor something that you can only get. Those 4 fighter only feats aren't that "Cool".

Now as far as effectiveness goes the high level fighter rocks. I think it depends on the campaign though but my last one ran 14-15th and the fighter characters were as scary if not more so than the wizards etc. Spell resistance is a great equalizer at higher levels. DR is seldom that big an issue. At least in my experience.

later

 

[Henry]

Perhaps in theory he looks bad (never studied it thoroughly myself), but in practice, all fighters I've known and played have kicked booty, especially if played as the traditional two-handed weapon weilding heavy armor tank. What the fighter cannot do with spells and flashy effects he makes up for with staying power. Drop an anti-magic shell on him and he laughs (though not quite so hard as a monk); dispel a wizard's magics or make the wizard fight beyond his daily capacity, and he gets far less effective. A fighter can use his feats constantly, whereas spell-casters run out of power over time. In games where staying power is not an issue (very few combats in a day's time, ample chance to rest, etc.) the fighter does get lackluster; in games where energy must be conserved and rest is not always an option, the fighter shines much more. The only thing a fighter really needs, is his hit points and a decent will save, and he's an engine of destruction.

I will say this much; I have seen a lot of players never put higher than a 10 in their fighter's INT score, and I have to marvel at that. I'm playing a fighter currently with Combat expertise, and I'm lovin' it!