PDA

View Full Version : No more Fighter?



Woot Spitum
2007-12-07, 10:15 PM
I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring. The only unique feature of the the class is access to a few specific feats (the weapon specialization tree) that aren't particularly good. Even the three classes that consistantly get the most hate for being weak (monk, samurai, and soulknife) at least have some unique flavor.

Why not get rid of the fighter class altogether, and replace it with classes dedicated to each of the main styles of fighting (sword-and board, two-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, and ranged). Each new class gains what the fighter currently lacks: focus and fluff. Focus makes it easier to balance and add higher end abilities, as well as helping out new players who want to be good at melee combat, but are unsure what feats work together best as the new class-specific abilities choose many of the best options for them. Fluff will give new players more archetypes to explore, as well as making it easier for people to have different melee combatants in the party without making anyone feel that they're just another copy of the last guy (this will be especially beneficial for low or no magic settings).

Dhavaer
2007-12-07, 10:21 PM
The Fighter is still useful to dip into. Sometimes you just need quick feats.

Kyeudo
2007-12-07, 10:22 PM
4th ed comes out soon, and will basicly replace Fighters with Warblades, so why bother with 3rd ed any more?

martyboy74
2007-12-07, 10:25 PM
Because not everyone will immediately switch to 4th edition, 4th edition isn't coming out until may, and 3.5 will still be a valid version even once 4th has come out?

Dhavaer: That's not really what a class is supposed to be about. I think.

Dhavaer
2007-12-07, 10:29 PM
Dhavaer: That's not really what a class is supposed to be about. I think.

Sure it is. Not every class can be a Ranger or a Binder. There are some classes you take to 20, some you prestige out of at first opportunity, and some, like the Fighter, that you take when you need a couple of extra feats.

FinalJustice
2007-12-07, 10:32 PM
What about those that want to be melee AND ranged? Remember, not everyone likes to be an one-tricky-pony, even if the trick is a cool one. The idea of specialized classes is cool, but the fighter as he is should survive (maybe adding some fluff).

Soups
2007-12-07, 10:40 PM
Fighter quite honestly isn't the worst class out there. I can only speak from the casual crowd that I hang with. Our group knows how to break classes in half, but our DMs make sure no one is useless. A good DM that is working with a group that isn't out to break the game in half makes all classes work to thier potential.

It does require splat books, but if you have complete warrior, fighter is the quickest way to many prestige classes, especially the really great ones, such as Kensai. Yes, it is usually the first to be crossclassed, but that probably makes it one of the valuable classes. When your prestige class is done, you can always depend on fighter for Feats.

It does require good DMing to make fighters "playable". Straight core, it quite boring and difficult for begginers, if your with others who know the game better. But getting ride of fighter would be a mistake (I haven't checked 4th out yet) to get rid of fighter. Making it split into 2 catagories would give it direction, so it has a role, would improve the class to those who need it, but it would probably turn into samurai varients, and people would complain how the new fighters get less feats. Therefore, they would start to suck again.

With a good DM, it doesn't matter what class you take.

the_tick_rules
2007-12-07, 10:46 PM
i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-07, 11:24 PM
What about those that want to be melee AND ranged? Remember, not everyone likes to be an one-tricky-pony, even if the trick is a cool one. The idea of specialized classes is cool, but the fighter as he is should survive (maybe adding some fluff).You can still manage this, especially if you spend your nornal feats on whatever area your class doesn't specialize in.

As for dip levels, you could simply allow anyone to sacrifice progression in their current class level for bonus feats at the same rate that multiclassing into fighter would give them.

I know the fighter isn't the worst class around, the idea of this is to make it easier to specialize in a unique fighting style without any extra splatbooks or advanced planning to meet prestige class prerquisites. To make new melee specialists that are usable "as is" without extensive knowledge. In other words, to make it harder to make an ineffective character due to lack of knowledge about the game.

In my experience, most people new to the game want to make a melee type, and are naturally drawn to the fighter class. Why not make things easier on them?

tyckspoon
2007-12-07, 11:33 PM
In my experience, most people new to the game want to make a melee type, and are naturally drawn to the fighter class. Why not make things easier on them?

It's probably quicker and easier to achieve this by making the existing feats for those other specialized melee styles not suck so hard. Rolling the TWF/ITWF/GTWF line into a single BAB-scaling feat is a common first move for helping dual-wielders, for example.

Nebo_
2007-12-08, 12:41 AM
Why not get rid of the fighter class altogether, and replace it with classes dedicated to each of the main styles of fighting (sword-and board, two-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, and ranged). Each new class gains what the fighter currently lacks: focus and fluff.

Fighters don't need focus built in. Choose feats that focus on what you want to do - there, the fighter is focused. I love that the fighter doesn't have much fluff. WotC has no right to tell me how my fighter should be, less fluff written in a book means that I can make my own. They ruined the Warlock like that.

ErrantX
2007-12-08, 12:53 AM
i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

Hear hear sir, hear hear. I agree totally. I <3 Fighter. That is the best way to be.

-X

de-trick
2007-12-08, 12:56 AM
Fighters are easy to level 2 skill points, +1 BAB, a feat or 2 and your done. So if you don't want to spend the time to look for new spells and reading up on a ability, go with fighter. I once put a level in fighter cause I'd wanted to play a quick video game.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-08, 01:17 AM
Fighters don't need focus built in. Choose feats that focus on what you want to do - there, the fighter is focused. I love that the fighter doesn't have much fluff. WotC has no right to tell me how my fighter should be, less fluff written in a book means that I can make my own. They ruined the Warlock like that.An effective power attack build requires experience and splatbooks to pull off, something a new player is unlikely to have. Even if the class stays, some example focused builds would help newbies a great deal. New classes would also force the creation of new abilities to help the rather forlorn sword-and-board and TWF fighting styles.

Helping new players is the whole point of this idea (saving them from the horror that is monkey grip + weapon focus and that sort of thing), as experienced players don't need help building any character class. That, and I think it would be nice if the fighter had more abilities that no one else had.

Mojo_Rat
2007-12-08, 01:19 AM
I honestly like the fighter. One of the things I always found strange Is one of the comon complaints people see to make about fighters is that they are apparently not very versatile. Which is rather strange considering a fighter can really be built to do just about everything combat related effectively.

I also think the 'its only a dip class' comentary is honestly a fallacy. given that with PRc's just about /every/ main class Is a dip class.

I was in a game a while ago where I had a fighter planned out to do every tricky combat thing Sundering triping disarming bullrushing. Was alot of fun but the campaign only lasted til seventh level so I never got to finish it.

didnt realize til then what a great feat improved overrun was.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-12-08, 02:59 AM
Yeah know, I've always thought fighters were one of the best designed base core classes, along with rogue. Why? They are not pidgeonholed into one role, and they are flavorless. A base class as envisioned in 3.x should fit into any campaign setting, be playable by anything in that setting, and be able to have any flavor slapped onto them. They should also present a lot of different options about how to play them. Yes this can make it hard for a new player to pick them up, so maybe there should be examples of decent to good builds in the books. Still, it's kinda hard to build a fighter that sucks (a bit moreso a rogue). But as long as your rogue has good physical stats, he should be good. You can build a fighter and then forget to use his cool abilities (new players don't get power attack I swear). The fighter and rogue both do both these things better then any other class. Psychic Warrior also does it nicely (the one core gish class that does).

Fighter is a dip class because A. people understimate feats. B. People try to build a fighter like a barbarian, and then go barbarian cause it's got a higher will save. C. TWF, mounted combat, and archery are rarely used/underestimated/actually suck at high levels (twf). D. Sword and Board is done sooo much better with a gish/psi gish. And E. Tech fighters get their asses kicked by Giants, dragons, and anything that flies and/or teleports. But the real problem with all fighter types IMO is that a lot of monsters are built to tank, and they've got to be built to fight the whole party. So naturally as the casters scale in power, so do enemy tanks. Poor meatsheild defender is left in the dust.

SoD
2007-12-08, 03:48 AM
Also, fighters can be one of the easiest to start new DnD players with, instead of explaining what half a dozen new class abilities do, where they're useful, when they need to be used, at every level...instead you just explain how a few feats are useful. Personally, the hardest bit for me as a DM is explaining how new abilities work, so fighter is nice 'n' easy.

Of course, when you're taking in a bunch of new people, none of whom have played before...that's when the fun begins!

Weasel2007
2007-12-08, 05:06 AM
I like the fact that the fighter isn't pigeonholed but I can see where you're coming from.
I think it might be a good idea to split the fighter into two classes, one that is specialised in some path such a ranged or 2wf but with another class that is a real generalist. Maybe this class could take some of the generic class feats to let them do more stuff and give them the ability to choose one or two class skills and some more skill points.

Matthew
2007-12-08, 07:00 AM
The Fighter is a broad archetype, much like the Wizard, Cleric or Rogue who are also exactly as conceptually 'boring'. The other Martial Classes are variations on the Fighter. They tend to be more powerful because that is the nature of 'power creep' in a heavily expanded rule set. Fighters are perfectly generic.

DraPrime
2007-12-08, 07:11 AM
The fighter is just a very broad class. I could make a lawful good fighter, give him two swords, and call him a samurai. I could have a fighter with weapon finesse, and levels in the duelist PrC, and call him a swashbuckler. In the end, the beauty of the fighter is that you provide the flavor. While the fighter is underpowered, I really like it because you can have fighter be almost anything you want it to be. Want a hexblade but don't have CW? Just multiclass into sorcerer and learn some inherently dark spells. The point I'm trying to make, is that the fighter is only as flavorless as you make it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-08, 07:32 AM
4th ed comes out soon, and will basicly replace Fighters with Warblades, so why bother with 3rd ed any more?
...

Because 4e hasn't come out yet? And will be expensive to upgrade to? And will, if the current previews are any indication, suck?

Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

AslanCross
2007-12-08, 08:10 AM
i play fighters and i like it. to heck with those who put them down.

Amen. I love the warblade and I love the fighter. If a person can enjoy it despite being mechanically superior, then let them enjoy.

Nebo_
2007-12-08, 08:11 AM
The point I'm trying to make, is that the fighter is only as flavorless as you make it.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, just said better.



Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

Easier said than done. Also, that doesn't fix it.

Kioran
2007-12-08, 08:25 AM
The problem lies not with the Fighter, but with the Combat System and the unbalanced nature of Feats in this edition. Fixing these "external" factors would fix the Fighter more thoroughly than any alteration to the class itself - which, by the way, rocks due to itīs universal flavor (You have learned to fight well, however you did it).
So a fix with more balanced feats prevents a less canny player from totally screwing himself, and a more flexible combat system gives everyone more options than "I cast a spell", "I move and attack" or "I full Attack".

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-08, 08:32 AM
Easier said than done. Also, that doesn't fix it.
It's easier said than done, true, but it can be done. (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/fighter) And it can easily fix it, depending on what you give.

ocato
2007-12-08, 08:48 AM
Personally, I also like fighters. However, I feel that the main problem with them is that their fighter only feats are mildly lackluster. I think that a bit more fighter only feats are just the thing to spruce them up. Some fighter fixes give fighters neat new abilities, which are nice, but making these abilities into feats allows you to still go "X ability is nice but I'd rather have cleave" or whatever, hence keeping fighter versatility.

And I'm aware that any ability that isn't as good as cleave probably isn't that great, that was just an example.

Stephen_E
2007-12-08, 08:48 AM
1) Fighters are a lot of fun.

2) Fighters are simple.

3) Fighters are extremly easy to design to taste.

4) Fighters are reasonably powered if you aren't playing with optimisers or Druidzillas/Batmen, which oddly enough quite a lot of people don't.

The two biggest problems outside that are IMHO -

a) Fighters should get 4 skill points + Int per level (but I think every class should get minimum 4pts per level)

b) They need more feats at higher level and/or some of the feats need compacting i.e. TWF/Imp TWF/Greater TWF, Imp Sunder/Imp Bullrush/ Imp Grapple, Dodge/Mobility, Combat Expertise/Combat Reflexes. Basically they struggle to get the fancy Weapon Styles and Tactical feats with all the prereqs required. Maybe if Fighters could use their Fighter bonus feats to take a general feat, fighter feat, or one of specified group of fighter feats, as mentioned above.

Stephen

DraPrime
2007-12-08, 08:53 AM
...

Because 4e hasn't come out yet? And will be expensive to upgrade to? And will, if the current previews are any indication, suck?

Anyway, the fighter is one of the easiest classes to fix. Just put some appropriate special abilities in all those dead levels it has. Bam, done.

It's not the fighter that needs fixing. It's the spellcasting classes.

WhiteHarness
2007-12-08, 09:12 AM
I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring.

I vehemently disagree.

The monk is far, far more bland, generic, and downright boring. That whiff of what you term "unique flavor" that you detect around the monk is nothing more than typical Western "the grass is greener on the other side" fascination with all things Asian. At least the fighter gets cool toys and lots of feats to play with. The monk gets absolutely jack.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-08, 09:17 AM
Personally, I think the Fighter should be redesignated as an NPC class, replacing the Warrior entirely. Warblade effectively replaces it.

DraPrime
2007-12-08, 09:38 AM
Personally, I think the Fighter should be redesignated as an NPC class, replacing the Warrior entirely. Warblade effectively replaces it.

Really? I fail to see how. Warblades are a fun class, but they just aren't the same. They don't even get heavy armor proficiency. The whole point of the fighter is that it's simple, and extremely customizable. As I said before, a fighter can be almost anything you want it to be as far as non magical combat goes. The warblade is, and always will be a close ranged warrior with flashy moves. Fighters can clearly do ranged combat, but for a warblade that isn't as much of an option.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-08, 09:45 AM
Yeah, the fighter IS generic, so the player can build it from scratch with his bonus feats. That's what the fighter is, a template for you to build what you want. Heavily armored knight, nimble swordman, axe wielder viking, pirate, wanderer, whatever.
The problem is that the feats, by itself, are not enough to make a good class.
So, the fighter have the perfect fluff: Whatever you want! It doesn't come with a built-in generic fluff ("I'm a wizard, I studied with a master/school/learned by myself, and will adventure to seek more power","I'm a cleric/paladin, I represent an idea/my religion/my deity, and gained special training to reach an higher power to gain divine magic", "I'm a barbarian, I'm Conan with the Hulk's temper").
The problem is with his crunch. It's too weak compared with other's class features.
The warblade is an attempt of trying to put the fighter in the right way, although some people doesn't like it. Apparently, the ability to occasionally run faster, walk and be able to hit with two weapons at once, hit harder, is "too anime" for most people.

KoDT69
2007-12-08, 11:18 AM
An effective power attack build requires experience and splatbooks to pull off, something a new player is unlikely to have.

Not true. You only really need the Complete Warrior and a DM willing t spend 5 minutes telling the noob player hey there are these few powerful builds you'll have fun with. Do any of them sound fun? Here's the feats you will need to start with!

The fighter class is OK. The fact that it has little fluff is awesome. Nothing there to dictate your character concept. Definitely easier than some convoluted story to explain being stuff like a Warlock or Teifling or Half-Dragon.

The fighter is great for new players, and workable for experienced players. Even though Batman Wizards are going to be more powerful, not every encounter excludes the fighter. If the party Wizard was smart, he would make sure the fighter has the gear required that will help him do his job.

There can be encounters that will overwhelm or catch the casters off-guard, YES even with Premonition up, it isn't invulnerability. If the wizard pulls his Celerity, Timestop, yadda yadda and deals with everything he sees as a threat before anybody else can act, there can still be more than he expected. His premonition senses will be tingling because of all the stuff he sees and can't guarantee protection from unseen threats at that point. The Wizard will be glad there were 2 fighters in the group to rescue his butt at that point. And yes, I've had this exact situation more than once in ACTUAL games, not just a thought exercise.

vrellum
2007-12-08, 11:30 AM
I like the fighter. Personally I don't think there should any reason for a lot of the base classes to exist. Ranger, barbarian, knight, samurai, etc. all of these are "fighters" and a better system would allow you to build all of them from the same base class.

One big problem the fighter faces is he doesn't get enough skill points nor is his skill list long enough to fill many of the archtypes the class should represent.

I'm not too fond of the warblade. I'm sure he's effective and all that, but one of the things I like about the fighter is that he isn't a magic user. I'm not sure that can be said about the warblade.

Draz74
2007-12-08, 12:51 PM
I'm not too fond of the warblade. I'm sure he's effective and all that, but one of the things I like about the fighter is that he isn't a magic user. I'm not sure that can be said about the warblade.

It can.

Don't get me wrong, a Warblade can be magical if you force it to be. (So can a Fighter -- cross-class ranks in UMD, etc. A Warblade is almost that hard to force.)

But unless you're one of those people who says, "Oh no, he's using a powerful ability that can't be used at-will! It must be magic!", even though what the character is actually doing is "swinging his sword, really hard, with a twist of his wrist, using his expert combat experience to find the perfect moment when his opponent is off-guard," then the Warblade really isn't magical at all.

Crusader or Swordsage, you can argue, although they can "make" themselves nonmagical just by choosing their maneuver selection right.

....
2007-12-08, 12:55 PM
I always imagined a fighter should be good at all forms of melee combat, with perhaps more of a focus on a certain type of weapon he likes.

Think of a guy fighting with a greatsword, but getting disarmed, and then pulling a dagger and still managing to do about as well, then sticking said dagger into someone and grappling someone to the ground, taking his sword, and continuing to wreck shop.

A fighter should, you know, fight. No other melee class should be as good as a fighter at fighting.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-08, 04:36 PM
I always imagined a fighter should be good at all forms of melee combat, with perhaps more of a focus on a certain type of weapon he likes.

Think of a guy fighting with a greatsword, but getting disarmed, and then pulling a dagger and still managing to do about as well, then sticking said dagger into someone and grappling someone to the ground, taking his sword, and continuing to wreck shop.

A fighter should, you know, fight. No other melee class should be as good as a fighter at fighting.That's the problem I have with the fighter class. Theoretically, the fighter should be superior to all other melee classes in the area of pure fighting (or at least weapon use). In practice though, the fighter can do nothing that all the other melee classes can do, with the exception of the weapon specialization tree (which isn't even that good).

What the fighter is left with is bonus feats. This allows a few builds that cannot be easily built by other classes, but dipping a few levels of fighter is nearly always enough to get those few extra feats you need, especially if you're human.

Fluff can easily be rewritten. After all, there's little reason to balance fluff. As long as it fits into the campaign, you and your DM can make it work (this is my main gripe about all the hate Tome of Battle's fluff, if you don't like it, just rewrite it).

Fighter should have some uniqu abilities. As it is, I don't see anything it can do that couldn't be done with another class.

DraPrime
2007-12-08, 07:34 PM
Fighter should have some uniqu abilities. As it is, I don't see anything it can do that couldn't be done with another class.

Really? Could you make a ranger good at two weapon fighting and ranged combat? I think not. A fighter can do this. The whole thing with a fighter is that it's generic class features are the very thing that make it so unique. There is so much possible customization. YOU control how unique the fighter is, not it's class features.

Frosty
2007-12-08, 07:57 PM
2) Fighters are simple.

3) Fighters are extremly easy to design to taste.

aha...he...hehe....HAHAHAHA! Ok sorry, had to get that out of my system. The comment is just too funny. :smallsmile:

I love the fighter and all, despite its weaknesses, but SIMPLE it is not. Simple to mess up, maybe, but not simple for a newbie to just pick up the pHB and be able to stand up to high level monsters.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-08, 08:05 PM
Really? Could you make a ranger good at two weapon fighting and ranged combat? I think not. You can make a ranger that is good at both TWF and ranged combat. Simply specialize in one and put your feats into the other.

A fighter can do this. The whole thing with a fighter is that it's generic class features are the very thing that make it so unique. There is so much possible customization. YOU control how unique the fighter is, not it's class features.But doing this gives the fighter the same sort of problems that are suffered by the mystic theurge and the eldritch knight. By choosing versatility over focus you can do more things, but are much less effective at them. That is not to say that you can't have fun with such a character, but you still will be less effective.

D&D rewards specialization over versatility. Why can't the fighter class be like the rest of the game?

Suzuro
2007-12-08, 08:22 PM
I don't know if any of you have the Complete Champion, but in it is alternate abilities for the fighter which actually give them a little bit of fluff while adding some differing abilities.


-Suzuro

Matthew
2007-12-08, 08:39 PM
That's the problem I have with the fighter class. Theoretically, the fighter should be superior to all other melee classes in the area of pure fighting (or at least weapon use). In practice though, the fighter can do nothing that all the other melee classes can do, with the exception of the weapon specialization tree (which isn't even that good).

What the fighter is left with is bonus feats. This allows a few builds that cannot be easily built by other classes, but dipping a few levels of fighter is nearly always enough to get those few extra feats you need, especially if you're human.

Fluff can easily be rewritten. After all, there's little reason to balance fluff. As long as it fits into the campaign, you and your DM can make it work (this is my main gripe about all the hate Tome of Battle's fluff, if you don't like it, just rewrite it).

Fighter should have some uniqu abilities. As it is, I don't see anything it can do that couldn't be done with another class.

Why should the Fighter have unique Abilities? Why should he be better than other Martial Classes at 'pure fighting'? To please your aesthetic? The Fighter is the definition of 'all round combatant'. That a bunch of Martial Classes have since been introduced that do specific things better than the Fighter is neither here nor there. That's just power creep and it's typical of an expanded rule set.

I take issue with the idea that you can change fluff, but mechanics are inviolate. The way I see it, they are part of a composite whole. Both can be changed and should be changed in combination. The DMG provides several examples of doing this.

Of course, the DMG also says 'if you create a class better at fighting than a fighter, then you have gone astray' (paraphrasing). Well, Wizards didn't listen to that particular writer/editor/designer's advice, but the intention is clear. It's not the Fighter that's wrong, it's every other class that intrudes on his territory. :smallwink:

DraPrime
2007-12-08, 09:38 PM
You can make a ranger that is good at both TWF and ranged combat. Simply specialize in one and put your feats into the other.
But doing this gives the fighter the same sort of problems that are suffered by the mystic theurge and the eldritch knight. By choosing versatility over focus you can do more things, but are much less effective at them. That is not to say that you can't have fun with such a character, but you still will be less effective.

D&D rewards specialization over versatility. Why can't the fighter class be like the rest of the game?

Was that a response to me or some imaginary poster? I said nothing of versatility. If I want to make a specialized fighter, then I can. I don't need to take levels in the samurai class to be a samurai. I take a fighter with a lawful alignment and give it some nice two weapon fighting feats, ranks in intimidate, and anything that makes it feel samurai-like. My whole point is that the fighter can be so many things. It can be specialized, it can be versatile, it can be combined with other classes, and many other things. In other words, your argument is dead.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-08, 11:28 PM
Was that a response to me or some imaginary poster? I said nothing of versatility. If I want to make a specialized fighter, then I can. I don't need to take levels in the samurai class to be a samurai. I take a fighter with a lawful alignment and give it some nice two weapon fighting feats, ranks in intimidate, and anything that makes it feel samurai-like. My whole point is that the fighter can be so many things. It can be specialized, it can be versatile, it can be combined with other classes, and many other things. In other words, your argument is dead.By the same token though, I don't have to take levels in fighter to be a master of melee combat, since any class can take feats. If the fighter had dozens of exclusive feats and fighting styles, I could understand the purpose of the class as something beyond a dip exclusive class. At the very least the fighter should be able at level ten and several other levels thereafter to have the option of choosing from an assortment of exclusive high level abilities (sorta like the rogue does). He can still choose to take a bonus feat instead of a higher order ability, but now there's a compelling reason to take the fighter beyond level twenty.

Hawriel
2007-12-09, 12:24 AM
I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring. The only unique feature of the the class is access to a few specific feats (the weapon specialization tree) that aren't particularly good. Even the three classes that consistantly get the most hate for being weak (monk, samurai, and soulknife) at least have some unique flavor.

Why not get rid of the fighter class altogether, and replace it with classes dedicated to each of the main styles of fighting (sword-and board, two-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, and ranged). Each new class gains what the fighter currently lacks: focus and fluff. Focus makes it easier to balance and add higher end abilities, as well as helping out new players who want to be good at melee combat, but are unsure what feats work together best as the new class-specific abilities choose many of the best options for them. Fluff will give new players more archetypes to explore, as well as making it easier for people to have different melee combatants in the party without making anyone feel that they're just another copy of the last guy (this will be especially beneficial for low or no magic settings).

Yes lets get rid of that one boring class and make 5 classes instead that focus on one weapon or figting style. I sure would love to have a sword and board class character....oh my shield just got smashed/dropped/lost oh crap. Im being sniped at by goblin archers from ontop of a bluff. Hmm well I cant use a bow. Wish I could use a bow. Great I lost my shield that would have protected me and I cant attack back. I sure wish I picked that archer class now. I wish there was a character class that can pick any combat feat in the book that can specialise in their weapon and fallow any combat style they want. Lets also give that class a crap load of feats so they can fallow two full feat chains. Then we would have a class that would be able to fight any way that would be needed. Lets call it a FIGHTER.

DraPrime
2007-12-09, 09:44 AM
By the same token though, I don't have to take levels in fighter to be a master of melee combat, since any class can take feats. If the fighter had dozens of exclusive feats and fighting styles, I could understand the purpose of the class as something beyond a dip exclusive class. At the very least the fighter should be able at level ten and several other levels thereafter to have the option of choosing from an assortment of exclusive high level abilities (sorta like the rogue does). He can still choose to take a bonus feat instead of a higher order ability, but now there's a compelling reason to take the fighter beyond level twenty.

No, you don't have to take levels in fighter to be a master of melee. But you can. That's like saying "you don't have to take ranger to be good at two weapon fighting." And the fighter isn't all about melee. You can just as easily make an archer as you can make a swordfighter. The fighter can do all types of combat. You can specialize in one as a fighter, or in many. The fighter doesn't have to have dozens of exclusive feats and fighting styles. You can MAKE YOUR OWN FIGHTING STYLES. All it takes is a little imagination. Other classes can take feats, but the number of feats they get is NOTHING compared to what the fighter gets. As I've said so many times before (and I'll say it again), the fighter is as unique, exclusive, and special as you make it.

UserClone
2007-12-09, 11:40 AM
aha...he...hehe....HAHAHAHA! Ok sorry, had to get that out of my system. The comment is just too funny. :smallsmile:

I love the fighter and all, despite its weaknesses, but SIMPLE it is not. Simple to mess up, maybe, but not simple for a newbie to just pick up the pHB and be able to stand up to high level monsters.

And in which case should a newbie be playing against high-level monsters?!? I call shenanigans!

the_tick_rules
2007-12-09, 12:49 PM
i've got my broom.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-09, 12:54 PM
Stuff

LOL

The fighter is meant to be bland, it is basicly a blanksheet to make whatever fighting character you want. It doesn't work perfectly but it works pretty well as long as you forget about power compared to other characters.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-09, 01:44 PM
Yes lets get rid of that one boring class and make 5 classes instead that focus on one weapon or figting style. I sure would love to have a sword and board class character....oh my shield just got smashed/dropped/lost oh crap. Im being sniped at by goblin archers from ontop of a bluff. Hmm well I cant use a bow. Wish I could use a bow. Great I lost my shield that would have protected me and I cant attack back. I sure wish I picked that archer class now. I wish there was a character class that can pick any combat feat in the book that can specialise in their weapon and fallow any combat style they want. Lets also give that class a crap load of feats so they can fallow two full feat chains. Then we would have a class that would be able to fight any way that would be needed. Lets call it a FIGHTER.
You know that due to being proficient with shields and all simple and martial weapons, a fighter can do this at first level. So can the barbarian, the paladin, and the ranger, and that's just the core classes. Moving beyond core it quickly becomes apparent that practically every melee based class can do this from level one. If there's a class for every combat style in the game, I can follow any combat style I want without picking the fighter. Which is what I'm proposing.

DraPrime
2007-12-09, 02:27 PM
You know that due to being proficient with shields and all simple and martial weapons, a fighter can do this at first level. So can the barbarian, the paladin, and the ranger, and that's just the core classes. Moving beyond core it quickly becomes apparent that practically every melee based class can do this from level one.If there's a class for every combat style in the game, I can follow any combat style I want without picking the fighter. Which is what I'm proposing.

Really? Barbarians, paladins, rangers, and the like could switch fighting styles, but nowhere near as effectively as a fighter. A fighter can specialize in a certain style, but can also use other options if the need arises. It's all thanks to the huge amount of feats they get. Unlike a paladin or any other "style specific" martial class, the fighter can specialize fairly well and be versatile at the same time. And it's not possible for there to be a class for every combat style because the possibilities are endless. With a fighter you can invent your own fighting style.
Basically, you're saying that tons of time and effort should be wasted towards making a huge amount of classes just so that your character can be "unique" instead of having one class that can be customized to the players choice. Think, if you could have a car custom made exactly how you want it, or you would have to choose one car from a huge list of many, and both options have the same price, which would you choose? I would go with custom car. It's the same with fighters and other martial classes. There are ones from that list that I might choose, but the customization option is just as good, and sometimes better.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-09, 04:06 PM
And it's not possible for there to be a class for every combat style because the possibilities are endless. With a fighter you can invent your own fighting style. Such as? What sort of fighting style is there left that cannot be duplicated by another class?

Yakk
2007-12-09, 06:00 PM
First level Spiked Chain Improved Trip monkey cannot be done by any other class, as far as I know. :)

tyckspoon
2007-12-09, 06:06 PM
First level Spiked Chain Improved Trip monkey cannot be done by any other class, as far as I know. :)

Human PsyWar. Both the Fighter and the PsyWar will have to wait for second level to pick up Combat Reflexes and really complete the combo.

DraPrime
2007-12-09, 06:12 PM
Such as? What sort of fighting style is there left that cannot be duplicated by another class?

A fighting style that focuses on getting the biggest crit range and the most crit damage? With the right feats and magic items a fighter could have more than a 25% chance of getting a potential critical every time they make an attack roll, bonuses to confirm crits, and huge amounts of damage. Find me a base class that can do all that, and remain flexible enough to switch to different methods of fighting.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-09, 06:40 PM
I've been thinking, of all the classes in D&D, fighter is the most bland, generic, and downright boring.
I'm sorry but whenever I hear someone say this I can't focus on anything else they might say for all the bells screaming in my head *LAZY ROLEPLAYER* *LAZY ROLEPLAYER* *LAZY ROLEPLAYER*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you like your character's flavor to be predetermined for you by his class, that's fine for you but some of us enjoy creating our own flavor. Because of this, many consider the fighter to be the coolest class in the game along with the rogue because it is king of customization. Tons of feat to build the warrior you want and no excuse for the DM to tell you "you're not playing your class correctly! bad roleplayer!"

You want a warrior that's really good at smashing things and not have to think much about character history or personality? Play a barbarian! Want a dynamic warrior that can pull a bunch of cool tricks and still go toe to toe with a dragon and create a cool and original character? The fighter just can't be beat!

Stephen_E
2007-12-09, 07:30 PM
aha...he...hehe....HAHAHAHA! Ok sorry, had to get that out of my system. The comment is just too funny. :smallsmile:

I love the fighter and all, despite its weaknesses, but SIMPLE it is not. Simple to mess up, maybe, but not simple for a newbie to just pick up the pHB and be able to stand up to high level monsters.

Fighters are indeed simple to make, relative to any class other than the Barbarian.

As someone else mentioned, throwing newbies against high level monsters is a DM problem, not a class problem.

In general simple high level fighters can handle many high level monsters, and if a DM throws those monsters that fighters can't handle well unless their CR is lower than the party (Dragons are one example) then that is again a problem with the DM, not the Fighter.

CR's are guidelines, not ironclad straitjackets. Encounters should allow for the actual strength of a party, not some theorectical capability.

Stephen

#Raptor
2007-12-09, 08:39 PM
Such as? What sort of fighting style is there left that cannot be duplicated by another class?

Hmm... how about heavily armored unarmed combatant?


You want a warrior that's really good at smashing things and not have to think much about character history or personality? Play a barbarian!

Well, IMHO if you want to choose a super-simple character without much character history & personality, you can play either.

Hello, my name is fighter, i served in the army for a few years and i'm really good at hacking away at things with my sword. Now i'm looking for adventure.

Hello, my name is barbarian, i grew up in a tribe of people who live a very primal life and i'm really good at getting angry and smashing everything. Now i'm looking for adventure.

And those 2 really aren't the only ones where this works.


Well, you can do that, or you can think about what kind of character you want to play and build a real character history and personality and all that... not saying i'm particulary good at that, but i like to give it a shot, no matter what class i'm writing a backstory for.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-09, 08:57 PM
I'm sorry but whenever I hear someone say this I can't focus on anything else they might say for all the bells screaming in my head *LAZY ROLEPLAYER* *LAZY ROLEPLAYER* *LAZY ROLEPLAYER*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Oddly enough, I hear a similar voice in my head whenever someone tells they're making a fighter "because all the other classes are too complicated.":smallsigh:


If you like your character's flavor to be predetermined for you by his class, that's fine for you but some of us enjoy creating our own flavor.Personally, I think each individual player should be able to determine his own character's personality regardless of how he builds his character. However, class fluff is very helpful for new players who are still learning the basics of roleplaying.


Because of this, many consider the fighter to be the coolest class in the game along with the rogue because it is king of customization. Tons of feat to build the warrior you want and no excuse for the DM to tell you "you're not playing your class correctly! bad roleplayer!"I could see the fighter as it is working in a more generic system. If D&D consisted of three classes such as fighter, specialist(beefed up version of the expert), and magic user(beefed up version of the adept). The new classes get bonus feats appropriate to their specialties. But as the system stands, the fighter seems out of place to me.


You want a warrior that's really good at smashing things and not have to think much about character history or personality? Play a barbarian!I usually tell people this about the fighter, but I could be slightly biased as far too many fighters I've seen built are two-handed warriors that are really good at smashing things without much character or personality.

Want a dynamic warrior that can pull a bunch of cool tricks and still go toe to toe with a dragon and create a cool and original character?You mean like the warblade?

Yakk
2007-12-09, 10:27 PM
Human PsyWar. Both the Fighter and the PsyWar will have to wait for second level to pick up Combat Reflexes and really complete the combo.

Psi War cannot get EWP: Spiked Chain at level 1.

tyckspoon
2007-12-09, 10:41 PM
Psi War cannot get EWP: Spiked Chain at level 1.

Oh, right, BAB requirement. I keep forgetting those are there.. don't know why they bother with the +1 BAB requirements, all it does is force Dex-rogues to go without Weapon Finesse for several levels..

*shrug* Then the PsyWar grabs Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes at first level and finishes with EWP: Chain at second, while the Fighter starts with the chain and gets Combat Reflexes at second. They both take the same number of levels to finish the combo; you can't be a proper trip/AOOmonkey if you're limited to one AOO a round.

Kompera
2007-12-09, 10:46 PM
First level Spiked Chain Improved Trip monkey cannot be done by any other class, as far as I know. :)This is not a class specific combination. It's a class/race specific combination. Unless you use the spiked chain without the EWS, that is.

The true balance for the Fighter is to curtail the potency of the casting classes. Barring that, here are a few perks which can help the Fighter be more than a 2 level "I need 2 more Feats" dip class:

- Fighters are proficient with all exotic weapons as a class feature at level 3. (Alternatively: Fighters may select one EWS per level. This has the disadvantage of giving something extra to those who take a 2 level Fighter dip, which I've tried to avoid. So perhaps: Fighters may select one EWS per level as a class ability starting at 3rd level.)
- Fighters who chose Toughness gain +3 HP/3 Fighter levels. Toughness is not able to be taken multiple times by a Fighter.
- Weapon Specialization as a class feature at 4th level. Weapon Focus prerequisite removed.
- GWS as a free Feat at Fighter level 12th.
- A Fighter who selects TWF gains TW Defense as a free Feat at Fighter level 4, ITWG as a free Feat at 6th Fighter level and GTWF as a free Feat at 11th Fighter level.
- A Fighter who selects Weapon Focus gains GWF as a free Feat at 8th Fighter level.
- A Fighter who selects Precise Shot gains IPS as a free Feat at 11th Fighter level.
- A Fighter who selects Rapid Shot gains Manyshot as a free Feat at 6th Fighter level.


This is not completely fleshed out, additional Feats outside of Core such as Imp. TWD could be built in fairly easily. It should free up enough Feats to allow the Fighter to either chose more Feat chains, or to select seldom used Feats to improve their skills or other areas of customization.

Hawriel
2007-12-09, 11:51 PM
Such as? What sort of fighting style is there left that cannot be duplicated by another class?

OH YEAH???

well let me ask you this what one class can do any thing any other melee class can do.....the freaken fighter. Then he will do another style.

The only class that out performs a fighter in fighting in one style is the monk. Hold on let me tell you why....damag dice. if a fighter becomes a boxer they get at best what 1d3 +str? A monk gets up to 2D10. Burn the monk and give the figher the unarmed combat crunch as a class feat tree option.

kpenguin
2007-12-09, 11:54 PM
OH YEAH???

well let me ask you this what one class can do any thing any other melee class can do.....the freaken fighter. Then he will do another style.

The only class that out performs a fighter in fighting in one style is the monk. Hold on let me tell you why....damag dice. if a fighter becomes a boxer they get at best what 1d3 +str? A monk gets up to 2D10. Burn the monk and give the figher the unarmed combat crunch as a class feat tree option.

With superior improved unarmed strike and various further bonus feats, Fighters can become superior than the monk in unarmed fighting.

Monks suck that much.

Aquillion
2007-12-10, 12:16 AM
Oh, right, BAB requirement. I keep forgetting those are there.. don't know why they bother with the +1 BAB requirements, all it does is force Dex-rogues to go without Weapon Finesse for several levels..

*shrug* Then the PsyWar grabs Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes at first level and finishes with EWP: Chain at second, while the Fighter starts with the chain and gets Combat Reflexes at second. They both take the same number of levels to finish the combo; you can't be a proper trip/AOOmonkey if you're limited to one AOO a round.Don't forget Expansion. If a Psywar takes that as their first-level power, they can use it to get reach even without the spiked chain (although, with a duration of only 1 round at first level, so mostly for attacks of opportunity). Once they have the chain, they'll be even worse. And, of course, Expansion lets them get around one of the big limits on trip builds -- the size restriction on tripping.

In most ways, the PsyWar is probably better at the trip build than the fighter.

Snooder
2007-12-10, 12:59 AM
Honestly, if you want a better fighter (or at least a close fascimile thereof) just take a Warblade. Shave off the d12 and give it d10 hit die. Then add Heavy Armor proficiency. Voila fighter that's got versatility, flavor and style. Heck if you really want to you could even take out Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge and replace em with bonus feats.

Granted, he's not awesome with the ranged, but if you replace the Uncanny dodge's with feats, he can specialize in ranged attacks that way. (Or at least until someone comes up with a Martial Discipline that focus on ranged attacks)

Sure, its not called "Fighter" and it's not in the PHB, but you know what? The PHB is broken and the fighter mechanics were a ghastly mistake. At least WoTC had the foresight to fix the mistake in a decent fashion.

Hawriel
2007-12-10, 03:50 AM
The PHB is considerd broken only after a crap load of splat books came out adding a crap load of classes, feats, spells and what ever els that did not even consider how it fit within the core rules. TOB is over powered camp that was made after all the other splat crap so it would pretend to "fix" core melee classes that where not broken to begin with.

The PHB is very well balanced by its self. Yes some tweeks can be made here and there. From what Ive seen on these boards not alot of chainges are mentioned. From the few changes that are suggested they are limited to some small additions, subtractions or substitutions to almost every class. Granted the druid and monk get a little more than the rest.

mabriss lethe
2007-12-10, 03:58 AM
While Fighter isn't one of the classes I play often, I enjoy them. They're fun and an adaptable enough of a base to really let my creativity flow. That's what I most enjoy about character creation. The act of creating.

Here's an experiment. Behind a tag because I got a bit carried away.

Pick a race at random... (flip,flip,flip)
Drat. Human. Was hoping for something a little more exotic for the example, but I'll take what I'm given.

Feats: I'll pick two from random from core then once those are settled I'll hand pick the third. Fair?
1)magical aptitude
2)Blind fight.

Sooo... My fighter seems to be something of a mystic. In my mind he's shaping up to be something of an almost scholarly warrior. Maybe trained to be a bodyguard to wizards or priests? He knows something of their ways, and has probably been imbued with some minor magics along the way as either a reward or part of his training. Flipping through some splatbook-esque feats I think Necropolis born would fit that flavor nicely.

3)Necroplois born: A handful of SLAs that should make him pretty darned interesting.

I now have an almost darkly enlightened warrior. A strange sigil is inked onto his left forearm and hand. A parting gift from a sorcerous master. At times, just out of the corner of your eye, it seems to almost writhe with an unnatural glow. When he isn't plying his trade as a swordsman, you can find him devouring book after book on any subject he can get his hands on. His eagerness to learn, it's almost an addiction. It came as little surprise to his masters when he finally unlocked the secrets of magic contained within objects like scrolls and wands. His academic grasp of the magical arts was something any wizard would be proud to see in an apprentice. His discipline, almost appalingly inhuman. There's an intensity about him. It's frightening to behold.

now I have some basic idea as to the type of fighter I have in my hands.

He's smart a voracious reader, so pretty high int. give him a 16? he's almost a little too curious for his own good, too intense. maybe a mediocre to low wisdom to reflect that. Decent Charisma so that he can actually get some use from his magical aptitude feat. now onto the physical end of things. Nothing we've seen so far really describes him physically. Well, since he's a bodyguard, he'll find himself in between his charge and a blade on a regular basis. He's going to bleed a lot. Mid to high Con is a plus. He's passingly strong, but his bulk isn't that important to his task. maybe a 12. Dex is probalby a bit higher, since speed of both body and thought are important in his training.

At first level, our fighter has 24 skill pts to blow (2+3)X4 =an additional 4 for being human.
not too shabby really.

For a bodyguard...hmm. Really the only class skill he has that would fit is Intimidate. Lets go ahead and max that out. 4 ranks at four points. he's a scary sonofa-B.

Now, Spot and UMD come to mind from the cross classes, lets go ahead and max them out. 2 ranks each for a total of 8 points. 12 down, 12 to go. \

Time to flesh him out a little. No character sits around all day doing nothing but swinging a sword and nosediving through obscure texts. He needs a hobby, perhaps something he originally trained in before becoming a bodyguard. A profession? maybe, but might as well opt for a craft to get the most out of his skill points. Blacksmith springs to mind, but that is sooo overdone it's almost cliche. Let's make him a former tinker's apprentice. To bright for his own good, eventually scrabbling out of the muck and piss and into a more dangerous career. but still knowsa bit about working with a variety of materials . None of the crafts listed in the SRD really cover it, Lets settle on saaaay...Armorsmithing then. During his noviciate, he spent a great deal of time mending armor under the order's smith. 4 ranks for 4 points. 8 to go.

Back to his duties as a bodyguard. Sense motive comes to mind. Needs to see those threats before they're obvious. 2 ranks for 4 points. Now, I'll focus a bit more on his academic aptitudes. Maybe a rank each in spellcraft and Decipher Script. That takes care of my skill points.


Craft Armorsmith 4
Intimidate 4
*
Decipher script 1
Sense motive 2
Spellcraft 1
Spot 2
UMD 2

I've got a decent idea about what his stats should be. I'll flesh them out a bit better some other time. I have a picture of a darned interesting character in my head to finish fleshing out. where does he start, maybe his charge is another PC. maybe his charge is dead and he feels a failure, and exiled because of it. I sort of like the latter. Gives him a very anti-heroic feel. Even better. His charge is missing. This bodyguard is on the hunt to find out what happened. Will stop at nothing to learn the truth. with what we already know of him his alignment is definitely non-good. but could be any of the chaos to law alignments depending on what parts of his personality I want to focus on. I think that slightly reckless intensity bears closer scrutiny. For now lets call him Chaotic Neutral. He's not a bad guy, just definitely not a virtuous person. We've got his languages to do now. He's studied some pretty obscure and possibly heretical material in his time. Common, Draconic, Elven and just for kicks...infernal.

Are you telling me that this character doesn't sound like a blast to play?
I just made him up on the spot and I want to find a new game to put him in already.

edited: I just rolled him up the old fashioned way and (aside from the 16 I've already placed, I got 10, 10, 10, 14, and 13. So that would be a...25ish point build? sorry, don't use point build very often. Sooo.

Str:10* Con: 13* Dex:10* Int:16 Wis:10 Cha:14
*I might transpose Con with either Dex or strength later. not sure. I'm thinking he might wind up a weapon finesse character, but time, and whim, will tell.
Not the exact configuration I brainstormed, but one I can live with.

Ossian
2007-12-10, 04:37 AM
The previous post should go into literature; it's a textbook example of compelling background drafting to give you some vivid and credible campaigns.

I had a long rant loaded, full of "forget rules fluff, write a better story" and "this is not marvel super heroes!". I really don't get this thing about flavor in class and trillions of Prc. I had all that to say,but mabriss said it all and better. This is exactly how characters should be generated!!!

O.

Mordokai
2007-12-10, 04:42 AM
I bow to your mastery in creating characters mabriss. However, there is a problem. According to you, this guy would have stats, something around 12/14/15/16/10/12. That's 89 total, not small task for rolling. If you go for point buy, as my group usually does, that nets you 34 point buy, much more than most DMs will give you.

But he is indeed a very interesting character :smallsmile:

mabriss lethe
2007-12-10, 04:51 AM
I bow to your mastery in creating characters mabriss. However, there is a problem. According to you, this guy would have stats, something around 12/14/15/16/10/12. That's 89 total, not small task for rolling. If you go for point buy, as my group usually does, that nets you 34 point buy, much more than most DMs will give you.

But he is indeed a very interesting character :smallsmile:
Yeah...the stats are a bit high right now. I left the noncritical stats vague and better than they'll end up in the final draft...pretty much deliberately. (non-critical in this case are stats that don't have an impact on the flavor of the character at this time.) Gives me some wiggle room for later. I have a motto for character creation that sums it up:

Aim for the stars build from the ground.

Like I said, none of it is set in stone anywhere. I tend to shoot high when I draft a character then bargain my way back down to the hard and fast numbers. I fixed int so that I could figure out skill pts. and then just sort of ballparked the rest to get a better picture how the character operates. What I'd draft vs what it'll be in the end are two different animals. this way just gives me a place to start working from.

Voyager_I
2007-12-10, 04:57 AM
The PHB is considerd broken only after a crap load of splat books came out adding a crap load of classes, feats, spells and what ever els that did not even consider how it fit within the core rules. TOB is over powered camp that was made after all the other splat crap so it would pretend to "fix" core melee classes that where not broken to begin with.

The PHB is very well balanced by its self. Yes some tweeks can be made here and there. From what Ive seen on these boards not alot of chainges are mentioned. From the few changes that are suggested they are limited to some small additions, subtractions or substitutions to almost every class. Granted the druid and monk get a little more than the rest.

I am somewhat bewildered by this statement coming from someone who has presumably spent more than five minutes on this forum...

Without any disrespect, I suggest you give the forum a quick search-through on Core balance, as the arguments have already been repeated ad nauseum by those more knowledgeable than me.

AstralFire
2007-12-10, 05:32 AM
The PHB is considerd broken only after a crap load of splat books came out adding a crap load of classes, feats, spells and what ever els that did not even consider how it fit within the core rules. TOB is over powered camp that was made after all the other splat crap so it would pretend to "fix" core melee classes that where not broken to begin with.

The PHB is very well balanced by its self. Yes some tweeks can be made here and there. From what Ive seen on these boards not alot of chainges are mentioned. From the few changes that are suggested they are limited to some small additions, subtractions or substitutions to almost every class. Granted the druid and monk get a little more than the rest.

How much time have you spent looking at the PHB?

With the notable exception of Divine Metamagic, splat has mostly improved balance, on the whole.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-10, 12:18 PM
Are you telling me that this character doesn't sound like a blast to play?
I just made him up on the spot and I want to find a new game to put him in already.This is indeed an excellent example of an interesting character. But it still doesn't answer my question of why is the fighter necessary. I could easily use this same background for a ranger, a rogue, a hexblade, a binder, a warblade, a swordsage, or a swashbuckler. Furthermore, the changes I proposed in my initial post (seperate classes focused on specific fighting styles, with some new, unique abilities thrown in) would not make this character impossible.

Frosty
2007-12-11, 11:12 AM
By and large, Core is the most UNBALANCED book I've seen. In a Core-only game, Fighters really, really get the short end of the stick, while Druids reign supreme. Core already has Polymorph and Wildshape and Natural Spell. It doesn't really get too much more powerful with splatbooks. The best feat for a fighter in Core? Power Attack.

It is only in non-core that more powerful feats allow Fighters to catch up a litle bit.

KoDT69
2007-12-11, 12:26 PM
This is indeed an excellent example of an interesting character. But it still doesn't answer my question of why is the fighter necessary. I could easily use this same background for a ranger, a rogue, a hexblade, a binder, a warblade, a swordsage, or a swashbuckler. Furthermore, the changes I proposed in my initial post (seperate classes focused on specific fighting styles, with some new, unique abilities thrown in) would not make this character impossible.

Why is the fighter necessary? Why are any of those other classes necessary? No class is necessary for the game to run. You don't need a wizard or a cleric or a druid to have a successful campaign. I've been in them kind and you just have to be much more cautious. No charging headlong into a mob of ogres at 3rd level, with a bard. Fighter exists for the same reason the Beguiler and Favored Soul exist, options. You have the option to NOT play a fighter, but that doesn't mean that the option should be removed. There are like 500 base classes and PrC's now. If the fighter should be cut, so should most of the other junk that's gotten redundant. You can only mix so many game mechanics before you have 4 similar classes that have but the slightests differences.

Qwernt
2007-12-11, 08:16 PM
There was a time when Fighter wasn't left behind. Back when you had: Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric. The roles were clear. The checks and balances were clear. Certainly in a single fight, a Wizard could probably beat a fighter, but a good DM doesn't allow the Wizard to expend all of his resources in one fight and then recoup before the next.
As I said, there was a time. The problem came with the entry of the "other" fighter classes. I remember when I first read up on the Paladin and thinking: "Man, I have never rolled that good". While I disagree with the idea of rewarding good rolling, I also don't think free power has help either.
Why play a fighter when a Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian does the same stuff I need plus does it better because of (x). There was never an addition to the fighter that allowed it to scale with these other fighting classes, especailly those cross classes that can cast spells, though even many of the Barbarian's skills scale some (can rage more, etc). A high level Ranger does some spell work and then can still do the fighter work if he needs to - maybe not quite as well as a fighter can, but well enough... and when you add in his spells and his other class features, well... there you go.
I have often wondered why these classes exist. The tracking feat exists... low level cleric (druid) cross classing can happen... Why do we need a base class that is both? Why isn't the Barbarian's "class features" nothing more than feats? Why not have a Fighter that can trade the "default" fighter "feats" for "feats" - example, trade heavy armor for rage, maybe with a limitation that for true "animal rage", you can't soil your spirit with civilized iteas or items...
Obviously there is a whole lot of not D20 here... More of a homebrew approach (or gurps), but maybe the problem isn't fighter or if it is, maybe it is because everyone else's scale problem is the real problem... at least for the non spell casters. As for the spell casters, their problem is usually DM kindness... Can't shine as a melee man if the DM only throws 1 encounter per rest period. An encounter every 5 hours would sure screw up most spell casters and make fighters/rogues/etc look a lot better.
In the end, it would be nice to have a rule set that allowed generalization to be successful without DM intervention. Or maybe (as was pointed out earlier in the thread), the players need to take thing into their own hands - spend those spells supeing up the ftr. Allow others to be the focus rather than just going for the insta-kill.

I think this qualifies as 2.5 cents worth...

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-11, 08:31 PM
Personally, I think each individual player should be able to determine his own character's personality regardless of how he builds his character. However, class fluff is very helpful for new players who are still learning the basics of roleplaying.
I feel the same way. But I get irritated when people like you back up their complaints with the apparent assumption that all players rely on class fluff as if it were their first time playing. You think the fighter is bland and boring because those that you've seen played are basic and unoriginal? That's not the class' problem, that's those players' problem.

Frosty
2007-12-11, 08:52 PM
There was a time when Fighter wasn't left behind. Back when you had: Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric. The roles were clear. The checks and balances were clear. Certainly in a single fight, a Wizard could probably beat a fighter, but a good DM doesn't allow the Wizard to expend all of his resources in one fight and then recoup before the next.
As I said, there was a time. The problem came with the entry of the "other" fighter classes. I remember when I first read up on the Paladin and thinking: "Man, I have never rolled that good". While I disagree with the idea of rewarding good rolling, I also don't think free power has help either.
Why play a fighter when a Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian does the same stuff I need plus does it better because of (x). There was never an addition to the fighter that allowed it to scale with these other fighting classes, especailly those cross classes that can cast spells, though even many of the Barbarian's skills scale some (can rage more, etc). A high level Ranger does some spell work and then can still do the fighter work if he needs to - maybe not quite as well as a fighter can, but well enough... and when you add in his spells and his other class features, well... there you go.
I have often wondered why these classes exist. The tracking feat exists... low level cleric (druid) cross classing can happen... Why do we need a base class that is both? Why isn't the Barbarian's "class features" nothing more than feats? Why not have a Fighter that can trade the "default" fighter "feats" for "feats" - example, trade heavy armor for rage, maybe with a limitation that for true "animal rage", you can't soil your spirit with civilized iteas or items...
Obviously there is a whole lot of not D20 here... More of a homebrew approach (or gurps), but maybe the problem isn't fighter or if it is, maybe it is because everyone else's scale problem is the real problem... at least for the non spell casters. As for the spell casters, their problem is usually DM kindness... Can't shine as a melee man if the DM only throws 1 encounter per rest period. An encounter every 5 hours would sure screw up most spell casters and make fighters/rogues/etc look a lot better.
In the end, it would be nice to have a rule set that allowed generalization to be successful without DM intervention. Or maybe (as was pointed out earlier in the thread), the players need to take thing into their own hands - spend those spells supeing up the ftr. Allow others to be the focus rather than just going for the insta-kill.

I think this qualifies as 2.5 cents worth...


I believe in Unearthed Arcana there are rules for such "trading" and building customized classes.

horseboy
2007-12-11, 11:32 PM
I feel the same way. But I get irritated when people like you back up their complaints with the apparent assumption that all players rely on class fluff as if it were their first time playing. You think the fighter is bland and boring because those that you've seen played are basic and unoriginal? That's not the class' problem, that's those players' problem.

I don't find fighters bland and unoriginal, but confining and restrictive. The system works hard into putting you into "hit it with a big stick" mode and if you want to do anything more, you're going to be fighting the system harder than any encounters.

mabriss lethe
2007-12-12, 02:57 AM
This is indeed an excellent example of an interesting character. But it still doesn't answer my question of why is the fighter necessary. I could easily use this same background for a ranger, a rogue, a hexblade, a binder, a warblade, a swordsage, or a swashbuckler. Furthermore, the changes I proposed in my initial post (seperate classes focused on specific fighting styles, with some new, unique abilities thrown in) would not make this character impossible.

Because you really don't need to expend the effort to do so? The basic ingredients are already there to create very specialized combat classes. If you want to split them all up? Go right ahead. I don't have to agree that it's necessary. I might still enjoy the end result despite or even because of it. More options are always good.

you're right, It could be the backstory of any number of classes. you know why? Because a good character defines the class, not the other way around. I could take this same idea and be perfectly happy playing him as any of the classes you mentioned. He's actually a better fit as a hexblade than as a fighter. I saw that early in the creation process. Doesn't mean I can't play him as a fighter and enjoy it immensely. I might even do it out of spite now (I know I'm not a very nice person...)

They aren't flavorless, as had been suggested. They are like the simplest stock in a soup. From it you can make nearly anything. That's what I like about the fighter and the other "bland" classes. They're simple and nearly infinitely adaptable. As mentioned earlier, I could have chosen any of the classes you listed, but as a fighter, I have the option to choose, maybe not all of the nifty tricks they can do, but a lot of them, even options that might require crossclassing between the ones you listed were the fighter to be abolished.

Honestly, Despite what people seem to say, I've never had a tough time playing a fighter, a monk, a bard, even in high level games. Sometimes I have a challenge in situations, but nothing to lose any sleep over. Heck, challenges make you play smarter if nothing else, and I love a challenge.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-12, 07:05 AM
The PHB is considerd broken only after a crap load of splat books came out adding a crap load of classes, feats, spells and what ever els that did not even consider how it fit within the core rules. TOB is over powered camp that was made after all the other splat crap so it would pretend to "fix" core melee classes that where not broken to begin with.

The PHB is very well balanced by its self. Yes some tweeks can be made here and there. From what Ive seen on these boards not alot of chainges are mentioned. From the few changes that are suggested they are limited to some small additions, subtractions or substitutions to almost every class. Granted the druid and monk get a little more than the rest.

Hm.

I don't know if you've looked at the core rules lately, but in them, there's this class called "druid." In core, druids have three major features -- wild shape, animal companion, and full spellcasting progression -- that are all, each, individually, more powerful than the entire fighter class (in core). And they can use all three. At the same time.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 10:41 AM
Hm.

I don't know if you've looked at the core rules lately, but in them, there's this class called "druid." In core, druids have three major features -- wild shape, animal companion, and full spellcasting progression -- that are all, each, individually, more powerful than the entire fighter class (in core). And they can use all three. At the same time.

Not true.
- Wild shape turns you into an animal. Animals rarely have DEX to compete with fighters at high levels, when initiative is king (besides AC). Plus, wild shape can lure a druid to melee more often, which is bad since he has less hp and less feats and less weapons than a fighter. Altogether, no wildshape turns a druid into an archer, quite the contrary. And without resorting to permanecied telepathic bond, a druid turned animal has difficulty to communicate with the party.
- the animal companion is comparably weak. One of the cheapest potions in the game (hide from animals) will negate it. It normally has no equipment to be equal to the fighter. If able to fly, it will be physcially weaker. If not able to fly, it cannot attack flying creatures.Basically, an animal companion is a weak party member, which either eats up party resources to keep alive when often used in combat, or gets killed often, slowing down the party for at least a day for the druid to get one back (apart from the roleplaying flavour problems).
On top of it all, a fighter with a single feat (leadership) can get a mount that outclasses the animal companion by far. Meanwhile, the druid might also use a leadership feat, but at a penalty due to his animal companion.
- spellcasting is good, but only in complete combination with the above druid abilities will equal the fighter on average throughout levels 1-20.

- Giacomo

Dode
2007-12-12, 10:58 AM
Not true.
- Wild shape turns you into an animal. Animals rarely have DEX to compete with fighters at high levels, when initiative is king (besides AC). Plus, wild shape can lure a druid to melee more often, which is bad since he has less hp and less feats and less weapons than a fighter. Altogether, no wildshape turns a druid into an archer, quite the contrary. And without resorting to permanecied telepathic bond, a druid turned animal has difficulty to communicate with the party.Druids have spells superior to anything an archer can dish out and their strength (which determines both accuracy and damage) makes the Fighter look like a pantywaist.

- the animal companion is comparably weak. One of the cheapest potions in the game (hide from animals) will negate it. No it won't, for several reasons. You've been debunked on this claim repeatedly.

On top of it all, a fighter with a single feat (leadership) can get a mount that outclasses the animal companion by far. Sure, if you consider 'the same thing minus the bonus HD, AC, spell sharing and bonus feats' outclassing. Which I'm sure you do.

- spellcasting is good, but only in complete combination with the above druid abilities will equal the fighter on average throughout levels 1-20. The Druid's spellcasting alone surpasses the Fighter. But to be on the safe side, he has melee forms that are both far stronger then the Fighter and even has special attacks that the Fighter simply cannot access. And he has a free minion that shares his superbuffs.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-12-12, 11:04 AM
Personally, I don't think the fighter class should be done away with. I believe it's by far the easiest class to learn, and therefore the best class for beginners of D&D. When I started playing, my first character was a hobgoblin fighter, and I had a lot of fun with it. I see a lot of people saying that there's no fluff. But, when it comes down to it, fluff doesn't make a good character. Fluff doesn't make a character good in combat. In my mind, fluff is all the extra stuff that fleshes out a character. It's the personality of the character and how it's role played, not how it's built. With the right prestige classes and concept, a fighter character can be a blast to play. I've had a lot of fun playing the fighter with the 6 intelligence and wisdom before, and have equally as much fun playing one that is actually smart.

Snadgeros
2007-12-12, 11:15 AM
Look, WotC would have to be STUPID to get rid of the fighter class. It's the very core of DnD. This game is basically designed for combat and the fighter is the basis for that, a class designed specifically for combat. Without the four base classes (wizard, rogue, fighter, and cleric) this wouldn't be DnD. Those four are the heart and soul of this game, the foundations for every other class.

Sure, the game's not balanced, but just because a class isn't Batman or CoDzilla doesn't make him unworthy of being in your game. Unless you've got an entire party of min/maxing munchkin powergamers, a fighter is going to serve a purpose. Sure, a party of druids, clerics, and wizards could overcome virtually any obstacle, but who here honestly plays in a group with that many munchkins? If you answered yes to that, you need a new group.

I'm not here to argue the statistics of the classes and how they rank up next to each other. I'm just saying that the fighter is a base class, it always will be, and it always should be. Flavor is entirely for roleplay, and you get out of it what you put into it.

Frosty
2007-12-12, 11:23 AM
The animal companion counts as a magical beast or something, doesn't it?

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-12, 04:10 PM
I don't find fighters bland and unoriginal, but confining and restrictive. The system works hard into putting you into "hit it with a big stick" mode and if you want to do anything more, you're going to be fighting the system harder than any encounters.
If you don't like to focus on the combat aspect of the game, and it's no surprise that you don't as your idea of killing something seems to be hitting it with a stick :smallconfused:, you should be playing a class that focusses on those other aspects not complaining about the fighter class because it focusses on combat.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-12, 04:10 PM
I don't find fighters bland and unoriginal, but confining and restrictive. The system works hard into putting you into "hit it with a big stick" mode and if you want to do anything more, you're going to be fighting the system harder than any encounters.This sums up my gripes about the fighter. If you want to run around with a greatsword or spiked chain, there are dozens of feats and abilities out there to help you. But if you want to try sword-and-board you get...shield bash. You can sacrifice your normal attack to hit for less damage while also losing the protection your shield gives you, protection that is the whole point of using a shield in the first place. Plus, adding insult to injury, there are animated shields.

If you want to fight with two weapons, you get feats allowing you to make extra attacks...at increasingly massive negatives. No variation on shock trooper to change those penalties to AC either.

While it probably wasn't intentional, the fighter seems to be strongly steered in the direction of two-handed fighting. I think that should change. If new classes have to be invented so that other fighting styles get some options, so be it.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-12, 05:28 PM
On top of it all, a fighter with a single feat (leadership) can get a mount that outclasses the animal companion by far.
You forgot that druids can also take leadership. Oops.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 06:03 PM
You forgot that druids can also take leadership. Oops.

Nope. Read my above posts. Unfortunately, the druid has two disadvantages vs the fighter concerning this powerful feat
1) the druid has less feats to spare
2) since the druid has an animal companion, this means a penalty to the leadership score



Druids have spells superior to anything an archer can dish out and their strength (which determines both accuracy and damage) makes the Fighter look like a pantywaist.

Nice claim. Care to back it up? At all levels? At the relevent distances?
I would never say that a druid's spells are worthless. But overall, over levels 1-20, the powers of druid and fighter roughly even out in core. Outside core, it depends on what expansions you use. There are tons of threads on this subject on the WoTC site. Check them out.


No it won't, for several reasons. You've been debunked on this claim repeatedly.

No, I have not been "debunked". Which is the funny thing about it.
Once again, the spell "hide from animals" is not "invisibility from animals".
In a usual combat situation, it will greatly upset the druid's combat plans.
1) he will order the animal to attack. This the animal will not do since it believes there is no one there to attack (not only thinking the opponent is invisible, it will simply believe no opponent is there. If the DM is fair, the animal will simply lie down and yawn - with the druid unable without wasting detect magics, more command actions etc to exactly tell what is going on).
2) then, the druid can (if prior cast speak with animals beforehand) push the animal into doing something it would not normally do: attack empty air. Round per round, this costs the druid a move-equivalent action - at low levels, with a considerable chance of failure (DC 25).
3) the animal may attack the target under the influence of a hide from animals potion. However, it can never charge/pounce, and always has a miss chance (50%) apart from the normal chance to hit the opponent's AC (not that bad in the case of a, say, fighter). Actually managing to hit the opponent will never end the spell, only the spell recipient actively trying to touch will. Grappling may work, but at high level most opponents in one way or another are immune to grappling or grappling kings themselves.
Meanwhile, the combat rages on. The 2-5 rounds it may take the animal companion to start again contributing to the fight, the opponent may already have mopped the floor with the druid (turning the animal companion into a normal animal which then likely flees).


Sure, if you consider 'the same thing minus the bonus HD, AC, spell sharing and bonus feats' outclassing. Which I'm sure you do.

Yep, I do. Look up the cohort rules. The intelligence alone makes a huge difference.


The Druid's spellcasting alone surpasses the Fighter.

Yep, his big advantage - logic, since the fighter cannot cast.


But to be on the safe side, he has melee forms that are both far stronger then the Fighter

stronger, yes. But hp? feats? AC? You know, the stuff that decides melee besides STR?
Plus, do not forget that a fighter also has access to morph buffs if needed (and do not go around praising the druid's morphing is grand but balanced, whereas polymorph is broken and should be banned, giving the druid a nice, safe power monopoly - it's odd reasoning, but I have already seen it posted on these boards)


and even has special attacks that the Fighter simply cannot access. And he has a free minion that shares his superbuffs.

The buff sharing is great, true (actually it was put in so that the animal companion has a chance at all of surviving in a group of the druid's level). But buffs cost time and are of limited duration (and the companion needs to be close at the casting of the buffs, so in combat may be complicated). And intelligent fighter will make use of his advantage that his "buffs" (i.e. feats) are permanent.

Do not get me wrong. I love playing druids. And they have great class abilities. But they do not outshine everyone else (including the fighter), considering the balancing drawbacks and what other classes (including the fighter) can do.

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain
2007-12-12, 06:11 PM
But overall, over levels 1-20, the powers of druid and fighter roughly even out in core.
Nice claim. Care to back it up?

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-12, 06:30 PM
Nice claim. Care to back it up?

Sigh. It was discussed already with a monk vs a druid duel at 11th level, with a monk using UMD and a wand of core polymorph spell. Then the use of polymorhp was objected to, while the druid wildshape was potrayed as OK. This already tipped the balance in favour of the druid - but still, the situation was far from 100% either side (again in favour of the classes in balance). There is too much effort generally put into comparisons like these which almost never prove anything.

Considering a fighter, likely that fighter will make use of the unparalleled ability to use the greatest martial weapons in the game - composite longbow (of exceptional STR) and the greatsword, or better, reach weapons, and power them BOTH up with feats.
Equipment will go a long way to level the playing field the higher the level is. UMD alone means the fighter could get access not only to lvl 1-4 druid spells, but to ALL 1-4 level spells.
However the druid likes, he will never surpass the fighter in sheer combat. Outside of combat, of course he has more options. Again-balance.

Let us put it this way. Two-man group. One group: a druid, his ac, and the fighter. The other group: two druids and their acs.
Personally, I would choose the mixed group 1. But balance-wise, it does not matter. Both groups can be played inefficiently, both groups can be maxed to hell.

- Giacomo

tyckspoon
2007-12-12, 06:34 PM
You're wasting your time, Kurald. Better to start an alignment discussion; it'll be more productive.


If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature,

Round one: The fighter or whoever wastes his standard action to drink a potion of Hide From Animals. The druid burns a free action to give an attack command to his animal companion and does.. whatever else he feels like. Advantage Druid- he can take an active tactic, while the fighter is using an action to counter only one part of the threat he faces.
Round two: The fighter attacks somebody. Hide ENDS. He is now fighting both druid and animal again. Yay dead fighter.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-12, 06:48 PM
Sigh. It was discussed already with a monk vs a druid duel at 11th level, with a monk using UMD and a wand of core polymorph spell.
Ah yes, so you're saying that a druid isn't balanced to a fighter, but to a polymorph spell. That I agree with: druid and polymorph can be considered to be of equal power level - a level which is miles above the fighter.

You know how it works:
Tier one: Wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer
Tier two: Rogue, paladin, bard, and many non-SRD classes
Tier three: Barbarian, fighter, ranger, and many non-SRD classes
Tier four: Monk

horseboy
2007-12-12, 08:30 PM
If you don't like to focus on the combat aspect of the game, and it's no surprise that you don't as your idea of killing something seems to be hitting it with a stick :smallconfused:, you should be playing a class that focusses on those other aspects not complaining about the fighter class because it focusses on combat.

D&D has more aspects than combat? :smallamused:

Idea Man
2007-12-12, 11:55 PM
Dumb question: if a character, such as a fighter, can pull off the successful use of a skill, such as UMD, how is that not part of the character's effective combat ability? So what if it isn't a class skill? Sure, it's not playing on his "base abilities", but how is it "cheating"?

Let's say the fighter chose to allocate his skill points that way, to give him an advantage. I'll bet my bottom dollar that the druid is going to take natural spell so he can cast as a dire wolf, or whatnot. I'll bet the druid takes points in concentration so he doesn't have to stop being a spellcaster in melee.

Are the fighter's special abilities as cool or powerful as a druid's; no. UMD, however, is available to all classes (cross-class or not), and if the fighter gets more out of it than the druid, so be it.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-13, 03:18 AM
Thank you, Idea Man. This is exactly what I am trying to bring across here.

However, more and more I get to realise that the uber caster believers base their beliefs even on wrong rules perceptions. My quest appears to be to keep correcting all of these errors and fallacies, but it tends to get tiring. Believe me or not, never has one of these caster supporters ever admitted on being wrong.

Here's another test.

@tyckspoon:
- hide from animal lasts quite long (10 minutes), so it may have been drunk before. Even during combat, a fighter using a standard action to reduce the number of opponents by 50% is hardly wasting his action. Ah, and btw likely the fighter has a higher initiative.
- telling your animal companion to attack something it is convinced does not exist is "pushing" an animal. This requires a move-equivalent action, not a free action, by the druid. And a DC 25 check. Tough until mid-high levels.
- so, on his turn the druid does not have an "advantage". He has to realise first that something is impeding his animal companion. And then has to react to that or pursue the combat without his animal companion. Hardly "advantage". Likely the druid wastes more actions than the fighter drinking the potion.
- then, the fighter chooses when to attack the druid at his leisure, ignoring the animal companion. That attack then ends the hide from animal effect, but could very well end the druid's life.
The fighter could also use tactics that greatly put the druid into problems, but do not count as direct attacks (e.g. area effects like eversmoking bottle, smokesticks, horn of fog, etc.)
Ah, and the one who used the potion could well be another spellcaster who has the usual indirect summoning tactics at his disposal.

@Kurald Galain
Your comparison does not hold water. I am not comparing the polymorph accessible by all to the whole druid, but only to his ability to wildshape. The ability of non-casters to make more use out of polymorph simply is added to their respective vast array of class abilities.

- Giacomo

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-13, 03:22 AM
But overall, over levels 1-20, the powers of druid and fighter roughly even out in core.

That is the single most ridiculous claim I have ever heard made about class balance in D&D. Even from you. Unless you intended to compare the druid's animal companion with the fighter. Which is about even with the fighter, in core.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-13, 03:37 AM
Maybe this post by a much better rules savant than myself can convince you...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13000555&postcount=129

(the poster is the creator of the much-discussed and well-liked fighter lockdown build)

- Giacomo

Edit: the post talks about non-core comparison, but I guess outside core many would have believed the fighter even more at a disadvantage.
In core, the archer fighter with appropriate items can do the job to balance vs the druid nicely.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-13, 03:45 AM
Maybe this post by a much better rules savant than myself can convince you...

You're quoting that out of context.

The rest of that thread does a rather thorough job of debunking that post.

You can assert all you want, but evidence supports the other side. Facts trump opinion.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-13, 05:31 AM
In core, the archer fighter with appropriate items can do the job to balance vs the druid nicely.

So, fighters can only be archers in core, got it. That really sucks, given how much hate there is for archers in core. Wind Wall, Deflect Arrows, Gloves of Arrow Snaring, etc.

A blast-it mage sorcerer fills the "I do lots of damage from a distance" role much better, in spite of it being a waste of his talents to do so.

Stephen_E
2007-12-13, 07:37 AM
- hide from animal lasts quite long (10 minutes), so it may have been drunk before. Even during combat, a fighter using a standard action to reduce the number of opponents by 50% is hardly wasting his action. Ah, and btw likely the fighter has a higher initiative.


Hadn't seen this misread of the rules "animal companions are weak" previously.

Your Fighter drinks the Hide from Animals and then gets attacked by the animal companion since he's unaffected by the potion.

Animal Companions are Magical Beasts! Not Animals! And treated as Magical Beasts for the purpose of all spells that depend on type. Exception been for the purpose of its Druid casting spells on it.

And even if that wasn't so, that potion has a Will save of DC12. Any Dire Companion is extrtemely likely to make it, and non-dire companions of a 1st level Druid have at least 50% chance of making.

I will make one concession re: the post you jumped on with your usual "Druids aren't tough" rubbish. A PHB only Animal Companion probably isn't quite as powerful as a PHB Fighter unless all buffed up, but it's pretty marginal.

Stephen

horseboy
2007-12-13, 11:44 AM
Dumb question: if a character, such as a fighter, can pull off the successful use of a skill, such as UMD, how is that not part of the character's effective combat ability? So what if it isn't a class skill? Sure, it's not playing on his "base abilities", but how is it "cheating"?

Let's say the fighter chose to allocate his skill points that way, to give him an advantage. I'll bet my bottom dollar that the druid is going to take natural spell so he can cast as a dire wolf, or whatnot. I'll bet the druid takes points in concentration so he doesn't have to stop being a spellcaster in melee.

Are the fighter's special abilities as cool or powerful as a druid's; no. UMD, however, is available to all classes (cross-class or not), and if the fighter gets more out of it than the druid, so be it.

The problem with this idea is the fighter's lack of skill points. If all he ever does is put his skill points in one skill, then he's never going to be able to jump out of the pit, climb down to the next level to provide the rogue with a flanking bonus. Let alone enough for the other cross-class skills like the 5 requisite skill ranks in balance to keep from being flat footed, having enough heal to stabilize the cleric if he goes under, or God forbid, a little diplomacy, search, listen, or spot.

It's a viable tactic for rogues, and indeed, one of the reasons they're considered more viable at higher levels.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-13, 12:48 PM
Dumb question: if a character, such as a fighter, can pull off the successful use of a skill, such as UMD, how is that not part of the character's effective combat ability? So what if it isn't a class skill? Sure, it's not playing on his "base abilities", but how is it "cheating"?

Let's say the fighter chose to allocate his skill points that way, to give him an advantage. I'll bet my bottom dollar that the druid is going to take natural spell so he can cast as a dire wolf, or whatnot. I'll bet the druid takes points in concentration so he doesn't have to stop being a spellcaster in melee.

Are the fighter's special abilities as cool or powerful as a druid's; no. UMD, however, is available to all classes (cross-class or not), and if the fighter gets more out of it than the druid, so be it.Dumb answer: since everyone can use UMD, the druid can use it too. In fact, everyone can use it. By bringing up UMD in a relative power discussion, the whole battle comes down not to who has the most useful class abilities, but who has a better knowledge of magic items, who has the most splatbooks, who can make the best unbeatable magic item combos and so on. Ultimately, it doesn't provide an accurate measure. Magic items are a privilege, not a right. To provide an accurate picture of class balance, your strategy should be able to work almost as well even without magic items. If it doesn't, you're not really playing with your class abilities. Proper use of magic items can defeat any challenge. Therefore, if UMD is factored in, a commoner is just as powerful as any other class.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-13, 12:57 PM
Fighters are worse than pretty much everything in the power department and you'd be a fool to use one in PVP but they're still fun. I haven't played a fighter that wasn't fun to play.

Dode
2007-12-13, 01:12 PM
Nice claim. Care to back it up? At all levels? No, just until he gets Wild Shape (Large)

I would never say that a druid's spells are worthless. But overall, over levels 1-20, the powers of druid and fighter roughly even out in core. Outside core, it depends on what expansions you use. There are tons of threads on this subject on the WoTC site. Check them out.


No, I have not been "debunked. Oh yes you have. Watch:
Druid directs animal into "empty" square. Animal has bodily contact (unwitting collision) with foe. Spell goes poof.

Yep, I do. Look up the cohort rules. The intelligence alone makes a huge difference. Cohorts don't share spells, don't get bonus hit dice or AC, don't share spells, don't get bonus feats. They have a decent int score true, but the Druid has an empathic link. The best part is a Druid can get a cohort AND an animal companion. Oh yes, he has a -2 leadership score penalty because of said companion, but a decent charisma score ensures that it will make no difference thanks to the "two levels lower" cohort cap.

stronger, yes. But hp? feats? AC? You know, the stuff that decides melee besides STR? He has buffs to HP and AC to make up for any lack thereof, in addition to wildshapes that add to AC and HP and give him access to monstrous attacks that the Fighter has no way of matching.


Plus, do not forget that a fighter also has access to morph buffs if needed (and do not go around praising the druid's morphing is grand but balanced, whereas polymorph is broken and should be banned, giving the druid a nice, safe power monopoly - it's odd reasoning, but I have already seen it posted on these boards) "Wizard mooch" does not a valid class make.

The buff sharing is great, true (actually it was put in so that the animal companion has a chance at all of surviving in a group of the druid's level). But buffs cost time and are of limited duration (and the companion needs to be close at the casting of the buffs, so in combat may be complicated). And intelligent fighter will make use of his advantage that his "buffs" (i.e. feats) are permanent. Druids have buffs that have duration lasting in hours, including Wild Shape. With an Extend Metamagic Rod and use of an Extend metamagic feat, many more druid buffs can also be in effect all day.

Frosty
2007-12-13, 02:24 PM
I don't consider polymorphing a class ability to be honest. that's like saying a Fighter can win because he can use Candles of Invocation. It's not showcasing the primary strengths of the fighter.

Fighter isn't unplayable. But they could use some work. A bonus feat every single level and 4+int skill points would go a long way.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-14, 01:44 AM
What Fixes are out there for the fighter?

Here is mine:

d12 HD
Wildcard* Feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level
4+int skill points
Bonus Class Skill at 1st level
A +1 competence bonus to strength, dexterity, or constitution ability checks every odd level except 1st.

*A wildcard feat is a feat that is left blank, and can be chosen on the fly. There are a variety of options, but the one I use for this is as follows:

level 5- 1/day, as a full round action, you gain access to a feat or your choice whose prereqs you meet. You keep this feat until the next day.

level 10- 2/day, as a standard action, you gain access to a feat or your choice whose prereqs you meet. You keep this feat until the next day.

level 15- 3/day, as a swift action, you gain access to a feat or your choice whose prereqs you meet. You keep this feat until the next day.

level 20= 4/day, as an immediate action, you gain access to a feat or your choice whose prereqs you meet. You keep this feat until the next day.

Armads
2007-12-14, 02:41 AM
- hide from animal lasts quite long (10 minutes), so it may have been drunk before. Even during combat, a fighter using a standard action to reduce the number of opponents by 50% is hardly wasting his action. Ah, and btw likely the fighter has a higher initiative.
- telling your animal companion to attack something it is convinced does not exist is "pushing" an animal. This requires a move-equivalent action, not a free action, by the druid. And a DC 25 check. Tough until mid-high levels.

You don't actually read the posts saying that the druid can just order the animal to bump into the fighter, do you?



- so, on his turn the druid does not have an "advantage". He has to realise first that something is impeding his animal companion. And then has to react to that or pursue the combat without his animal companion. Hardly "advantage". Likely the druid wastes more actions than the fighter drinking the potion.
- then, the fighter chooses when to attack the druid at his leisure, ignoring the animal companion. That attack then ends the hide from animal effect, but could very well end the druid's life.


The fighter has to realise that the sparrow sitting on a tree chirping happily is a druid. So the fighter won't suspect that the druid is nearby, so the druid can attack the fighter at HIS own leisure. The animal companion could be another sparrow, sitting next to the druid (via shared Shapechange).

The fighter could also use tactics that greatly put the druid into problems, but do not count as direct attacks (e.g. area effects like eversmoking bottle, smokesticks, horn of fog, etc.)[/quote]



And you have a party that will actually let you use the eversmoking bottle, which ruins everyone? That's like the fighter saying "I'm balanced because I can make the rest of my team much weaker with my items, so that they're on par with me!"
Ah, and the one who used the potion could well be another spellcaster who has the usual indirect summoning tactics at his disposal.



Considering a fighter, likely that fighter will make use of the unparalleled ability to use the greatest martial weapons in the game - composite longbow (of exceptional STR) and the greatsword, or better, reach weapons, and power them BOTH up with feats.
Equipment will go a long way to level the playing field the higher the level is. UMD alone means the fighter could get access not only to lvl 1-4 druid spells, but to ALL 1-4 level spells.
However the druid likes, he will never surpass the fighter in sheer combat. Outside of combat, of course he has more options. Again-balance.

While the druid will make use of the unparalleled ability to use the druid spell list - with spells like Transmute Rock to Mud, Wall of Thorns, he completely shuts down the fighter. At higher levels, Shapechange makes the druid better than the fighter.

The druid can surpass the fighter in sheer combat, via Shapechange, Polymorph (hey, if the fighter can use polymorph, so can the druid, and the druid gets buffs such as Greater/Superior Magic Fang, Bite of the Werebear, Barkskin).

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-14, 03:04 AM
Why is this even a question? Class Features tend to be better than feats. Spells are better than most class features. Druids get awesome class features AND full spellcasting. Fighters just get lots of feats.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-14, 04:51 AM
OK, I am starting to realise that you guys get a bit blinded by your ironhard mindset about certain opinions of the game.

No-one correcting Stephen E's odd perception that hide from animals does not work on an animal companion because it has become a magical beast? Incredible.

And why do you keep saying that I have been disproven on the hide from animals effect power to negate an animal companion (at least for a likely decisive time period, in particular at higher levels)?

READ the RULES, guys, please! Then we can continue discussing.

SRD: (Bold emphasis mine)
Hide from Animals
Abjuration
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One creature touched/level
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes
Animals cannot see, hear, or smell the warded creatures. Even extraordinary or supernatural sensory capabilities, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense, cannot detect or locate warded creatures. Animals simply act as though the warded creatures are not there. If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients.

So, no free directing your animal companion, no saving throw, no "simply bump into the square of the opponent" etc. And, btw, last time I checked you had to make an attack roll to actually touch someone, anyhow (not that it matters for this case, since it has to be the warded creature who has to do the actively touching part).

Now, some remarks on the general discussion:
1) When I say I believe the fighter and druid are broadly balanced over 1-20 I of course do not mean they are 1:1 equal at all levels.
The druid may be ahead in lvl 1, the fighter in lvls 2-8, the mid level about equal, then at high level the druid's easier access to spells make him overall more important.
This, plus the superiority of the fighter in pure combat alongside the druid's drawbacks make the classes balanced imo.
In core, I know of two basic kinds of fighters capable also at highest levels (would be glad if people pointed out more instead continually praising the druid): the archer and the combat control character (like snow savant's spiked chain-tripper). Both will have magic items to survive long enough for most challenges. Some focused chargers/AMF grapplers are also quite good, but this more the avenue of the barbarian and monk classes.
2) Magic is part of the game. And like it or not (actually I do not like this balancing part for flavour reasons), magic items with the wbl guidelines are assumed part of ALL characters. Some buffs like polymorph benefit non-casters more, divine power for instance benefits greatly the medium BAB melee-capable clasess (druid, cleric, monk, rogue) etc.
3) what this boils down to is that magic and spells become increasingly powerful for the casters as the levels advance, but at the same time they become also more readily available to all via
- npc casting (including cohorts - leadership may not be for all campaigns, true, I also do not think it is that great, but it is PART OF THE RULES to balance the game)
- items (including using UMD for them)
Saying UMD should only be used by the UMD class skill classes is like saying only the d10 and d12 hit point classes should enter combat.
And a druid's powerful wildshape ability, while awesome in lvls 5-10, say, will get outclassed again by the access of non-caster classes to polymorph spell (outclassed, that is, for only some encounters since polymorph lasts so much shorter). This is called balance.
Now, many would argue that this sort of highly attractive shapechanging greatly distorts the game (in particular flavourwise) - I would also tend to agree. However, once again it is PART OF THE RULES to balance the game (and there are plenty of drawbacks and countermeasures to morhped pcs or npcs besides!). You may not like this particular aspect and houserule it to be otherwise, but then you cannot continue saying the core rules are unbalanced.
Please guys, remain honest with yourselves here.

- Giacomo

EDIT:
As a PS: the link I gave is a far cry from disproving my position. Actually, it was a prelude to Aelryinth's thread of the lockdown build (non-core 1-20 pure fighter) to illustrate what kind of fighter could shine at high levels (also superior to a druid in combat besides).
That link is one of the longer ones in WoTC board history, and througout slowly many posters came to take Aelryinth's position, contributed constructively to that fighter build, except for a couple of diehards whose arguments resemble yours in a hauntingly familiar way.
Here's the link:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-14, 05:04 AM
The fighter has to realise that the sparrow sitting on a tree chirping happily is a druid. So the fighter won't suspect that the druid is nearby, so the druid can attack the fighter at HIS own leisure. The animal companion could be another sparrow, sitting next to the druid (via shared Shapechange).


Just saw that one.
You do realise, that wildshape as a supernatural ability costs a standard action to turn into something or back? So no surprise here. Druid turns into his original form from a sparrow again, sits on a tree, spotted by fighter, initiative is rolled, fighter wins. If druid buffs before, fighter hears a sparrow casting spells, then attacks sparrow.
The shapechange idea (viable from around lvl 17) is quite cool - the best thing would be to fly to an unsuspecting archer fighter and sit on his shoulders (cute!). And then turn into druid/ac as a free action, gaining a surprise round. That's a great idea!
Hmmm...can't think of a countertactic of the fighter right now, will think on it.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-14, 05:12 AM
While the druid will make use of the unparalleled ability to use the druid spell list - with spells like Transmute Rock to Mud, Wall of Thorns, he completely shuts down the fighter. At higher levels, Shapechange makes the druid better than the fighter.

The druid can surpass the fighter in sheer combat, via Shapechange, Polymorph (hey, if the fighter can use polymorph, so can the druid, and the druid gets buffs such as Greater/Superior Magic Fang, Bite of the Werebear, Barkskin).

Why do you think the fighter will not have tactics to oppose this? They may be risky, but negating them is what makes this discussion so difficult.

Vs Transmute Rock to Mud - flying effect, easily attained via item at that level.
Vs Wall of Thorns - simply walk through it, the fighter has enough armour to not care.
Vs shapechange - AMF by that level is a viable tactics, either via scroll or at highest levels via spell storing ring. Besides, the druid has the shape, but not the feats for melee combat then.
Bite of the werebear is non-core.
Magic Fang: can be permancied on a fighter if necessary, but usually the fighter will be less often the recipient of a polymorph (that is much better for the monk, or even the barbarian), but of other buffs. For the druid, the polymorph abiliy is truly actually better than for a fighter since he has sometimes the feat to fight unarmed. (improved grapple and such).

- Giacomo

Armads
2007-12-14, 05:18 AM
And why do you keep saying that I have been disproven on the hide from animals effect power to negate an animal companion (at least for a likely decisive time period, in particular at higher levels)?

<Hide from Animals Spell Description>

So, no free directing your animal companion, no saving throw, no "simply bump into the square of the opponent" etc. And, btw, last time I checked you had to make an attack roll to actually touch someone, anyhow (not that it matters for this case, since it has to be the warded creature who has to do the actively touching part).

And how many times has someone else said that the druid can get the animal to touch the person with an attack roll? It has a 50% miss chance, but it still can attempt an attack?

Another counter strategy against the fighter: The druid summons an army of dire bears which surround the fighter, and dispel the Hide from Animals. Or it could just dispel the spell altogether.



You do realise, that wildshape as a supernatural ability costs a standard action to turn into something or back? So no surprise here. Druid turns into his original form from a sparrow again, sits on a tree, spotted by fighter, initiative is rolled, fighter wins. If druid buffs before, fighter hears a sparrow casting spells, then attacks sparrow.

The fighter doesn't hear a sparrow casting spells. The noises made by the animal are substituted for the sound component. Read Natural Spell. Also, the Druid can fight as a sparrow perfectly well. He has spellcasting.



That link is one of the longer ones in WoTC board history, and througout slowly many posters came to take Aelryinth's position, contributed constructively to that fighter build, except for a couple of diehards whose arguments resemble yours in a hauntingly familiar way.

I am pretty sure that aelryinth admitted that his lockdown build could not defeat a caster later on in the thread. It is a great fighter build (and can take down melee druids), but it cannot compare to the batmannery and stuff of wizards (or druids who spend all their team casting spells).



- npc casting (including cohorts - leadership may not be for all campaigns, true, I also do not think it is that great, but it is PART OF THE RULES to balance the game)

Leadership? Balance the game? There are so many dirty tricks and abusive things to do with leadership.



- items (including using UMD for them)
Saying UMD should only be used by the UMD class skill classes is like saying only the d10 and d12 hit point classes should enter combat.
And a druid's powerful wildshape ability, while awesome in lvls 5-10, say, will get outclassed again by the access of non-caster classes to polymorph spell (outclassed, that is, for only some encounters since polymorph lasts so much shorter). This is called balance.

It's too costly to continuously burn money on scrolls, wands, and stuff like that. It does work for PvP contests, but PvP contests are not a way to measure game balance.

EDIT:



1. Vs Transmute Rock to Mud - flying effect, easily attained via item at that level.
2. Vs Wall of Thorns - simply walk through it, the fighter has enough armour to not care.
3. Vs shapechange - AMF by that level is a viable tactics, either via scroll or at highest levels via spell storing ring. Besides, the druid has the shape, but not the feats for melee combat then.
4. Bite of the werebear is non-core.
5. Magic Fang: can be permancied on a fighter if necessary, but usually the fighter will be less often the recipient of a polymorph (that is much better for the monk, or even the barbarian), but of other buffs. For the druid, the polymorph ability is truly actually better than for a fighter since he has sometimes the feat to fight unarmed. (improved grapple and such).


I have numbered your points, just to address them more conveniently (and to avoid confusion).

1. Flying is NOT easily achieved at level 9 (or 10). It costs 36k to get the Wings of Flying, and you only have 49k at level 10. So, no flying at level 10.

2. The point of wall of thorns is not to kill the fighter with it by itself. The main ability of it is this:

Creatures can force their way slowly through the wall by making a Strength check as a full-round action. For every 5 points by which the check exceeds 20, a creature moves 5 feet (up to a maximum distance equal to its normal land speed). Of course, moving or attempting to move through the thorns incurs damage as described above. A creature trapped in the thorns can choose to remain motionless in order to avoid taking any more damage.

It's ridiculously difficult to break through the wall of thorns (because the typical level 10 fighter does not have a strength mod of +10 or so, it's actually very hard to move at all). So, the druid can follow up with stuff like Wall of Fire, Call Lightning (weak, but cruel). The druid's also immune to the wall of thorns, because of woodland stride.

Also,
A wall of thorns can be breached by slow work with edged weapons. Chopping away at the wall creates a safe passage 1 foot deep for every 10 minutes of work. Normal fire cannot harm the barrier, but magical fire burns it away in 10 minutes.

It'll take forever to chop through, and the wall of fire will not burn it down too quickly.

3. It's quite difficult to get an AMF against a flying target, because you need flight to get up, and not many stuff have Ex flight.

4. So? If it's core only, then you'll NEVER be able to get an AMF against a druid who's flying 50ft (or an distance above 20ft) above the ground.

5. Permanencied Magic Fang is dispellable. Unless you get a high-level caster, then it turns from weak, to cheesy. And cheese is bad...

Kurald Galain
2007-12-14, 05:22 AM
Precisely. Also, such combinations as the Omniscificer, the Megaton Hurler, and the Mortiverse are also part of the Rules, to Balance the game. WOTC has never made any mistakes in creating their Rules and has never written a single rule that is even moderately unBalanced, nor have they ever needed to issue errata or an intermediary edition to fix the Rules that Balance the game. As we all know, the game is most fun (not to mention Balanced) if everybody plays our favorite kobold. Because it follows the Rules.

Compared to infinity, all numbers are equal. Compared to utter cheese, all builds are balanced.

Armads
2007-12-14, 05:29 AM
Precisely. Also, such combinations as the Omniscificer, the Megaton Hurler, and the Mortiverse are also part of the Rules, to Balance the game. WOTC has never made any mistakes in creating their Rules and has never written a single rule that is even moderately unBalanced, nor have they ever needed to issue errata or an intermediary edition to fix the Rules that Balance the game. As we all know, the game is most fun (not to mention Balanced) if everybody plays our favorite kobold. Because it follows the Rules.

Compared to infinity, all numbers are equal. Compared to utter cheese, all builds are balanced.

Nice one. Mind if I sig this?

Kurald Galain
2007-12-14, 05:34 AM
Nice one. Mind if I sig this?

Be my guest.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-14, 11:31 AM
If a druid is using spells only it is very likely to be flying, so the fighter won't be able to hurt it at 5-10. After 10 it is full caster terriotory.

How do druids and fighters compare at 1-5?

Segial
2007-12-14, 11:31 AM
The problem with this idea is the fighter's lack of skill points. If all he ever does is put his skill points in one skill, then he's never going to be able to jump out of the pit, climb down to the next level to provide the rogue with a flanking bonus. Let alone enough for the other cross-class skills like the 5 requisite skill ranks in balance to keep from being flat footed, having enough heal to stabilize the cleric if he goes under, or God forbid, a little diplomacy, search, listen, or spot.

It's a viable tactic for rogues, and indeed, one of the reasons they're considered more viable at higher levels.

I think 2 skillpoints per level is fine for a fighter, but what I dont understand is why the fighter skill-list is so small. The figher class is the basis for concepts like soldier, guard or knight, so why are the following skills not on the fighter skill-list?

Spot, Listen, Heal, Survival, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) or Tumble

It's not like every fighter needs to pull skillpoints in them, but I dont see why it's something outside his area of expertise for a soldier to know how to survive in the wilderness, bandage his wounded comrade or learn how to spot an ambush. I think the fighter class as a whole would benefit alot for a larger skillsection without unbalancing it.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-14, 11:34 AM
The first two we'll never know.
The heal and survival might possibly trying to make you play ranger against the fighter who is obviously better at fighting.
This is again something we'll never know.
Fighter's were meant to wear rmour tumblers weren't is all I can see.

Frosty
2007-12-14, 11:37 AM
If you spend a feat, you can Wildshape as a move action. I like it. It's not like Druids are feat-starved because they don't really need that many. I personally like Extend Spell in addition to Natural Spell. Sometimes you pick up augment summoning as well.

horseboy
2007-12-14, 12:48 PM
Just saw that one.
You do realise, that wildshape as a supernatural ability costs a standard action to turn into something or back? So no surprise here. Druid turns into his original form from a sparrow again, sits on a tree, spotted by fighter, initiative is rolled, fighter wins. If druid buffs before, fighter hears a sparrow casting spells, then attacks sparrow.
The shapechange idea (viable from around lvl 17) is quite cool - the best thing would be to fly to an unsuspecting archer fighter and sit on his shoulders (cute!). And then turn into druid/ac as a free action, gaining a surprise round. That's a great idea!
Hmmm...can't think of a countertactic of the fighter right now, will think on it.

- Giacomo
And your fighter who's spent all his skill points in UMD spots the druid how? What is this Schroedinger's skills now?

I think 2 skill points per level is fine for a fighter, but what I don't understand is why the fighter skill-list is so small. The fighter class is the basis for concepts like soldier, guard or knight, so why are the following skills not on the fighter skill-list?

Spot, Listen, Heal, Survival, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) or Tumble

It's not like every fighter needs to pull skill points in them, but I don't see why it's something outside his area of expertise for a soldier to know how to survive in the wilderness, bandage his wounded comrade or learn how to spot an ambush. I think the fighter class as a whole would benefit a lot for a larger skill section without unbalancing it.
I agree with everything but tumble. I also thing perform(dance) should be there too. It's a rare misanthrope that doesn't know how to dance in midevil society. I also think they should have more than 2 skill points. 2 skill points doesn't let you develop a character, only a cliche.

Dode
2007-12-14, 02:36 PM
And your fighter who's spent all his skill points in UMD spots the druid how? What is this Schroedinger's skills now?
We're talking about the Giacomo fighter, who's maxed the cross-class Spot skill to make sure he can make his max cross-classed Spellcraft check, so he can use his maxed cross-class Move Silently to beat the Druid's class skill Spot to ambush him before the Druid can cast its all-winning buffs, and then start using his maxed cross-class UMD skill and then cross-class Tumble his way through the Wild Shaped Druid's reach.

Jayabalard
2007-12-14, 02:48 PM
I also thing perform(dance) should be there too. It's a rare misanthrope that doesn't know how to dance in midevil society. Perform dance is quite a bit beyond "knowing how to dance" ... personally, I find it quite silly that someone would need skill ranks in order to dance at ordinary events (plain country dancing, or even ballroom dancing at court) rather than trying to perform for people.

so, unless you want to be some sort of expert, or a dance instructor, imo you don't need perform(dance) any more than you need perform (eat with knife and fork)

Kurald Galain
2007-12-14, 03:20 PM
so, unless you want to be some sort of expert, or a dance instructor, imo you don't need perform(dance) any more than you need perform (eat with knife and fork)

You do need Knowledge: Dinner Settings to figure out which fork to use for which dish. That's what separates the gentry from the rabble.

horseboy
2007-12-14, 03:22 PM
Perform dance is quite a bit beyond "knowing how to dance" ... personally, I find it quite silly that someone would need skill ranks in order to dance at ordinary events (plain country dancing, or even ballroom dancing at court) rather than trying to perform for people.

so, unless you want to be some sort of expert, or a dance instructor, imo you don't need perform(dance) any more than you need perform (eat with knife and fork)

Scope and scale have always been a problem with 3.x.

Thane of Fife
2007-12-14, 04:30 PM
You do need Knowledge: Dinner Settings to figure out which fork to use for which dish. That's what separates the gentry from the rabble.

Oh, man - I blew my Craft (Bite-size piece of meat) roll.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-15, 12:20 AM
Perform dance is quite a bit beyond "knowing how to dance" ... personally, I find it quite silly that someone would need skill ranks in order to dance at ordinary events (plain country dancing, or even ballroom dancing at court) rather than trying to perform for people.

so, unless you want to be some sort of expert, or a dance instructor, imo you don't need perform(dance) any more than you need perform (eat with knife and fork)

Have you done much medieval dance? It is not as simple as you make it out to be. If you don't want to make a fool out of yourself, you have to put some effort into knowing the dances. Of course, Aristocrat has perform dance, so that is really moot. Who expects the town guard to dance at a ball?

Armads
2007-12-15, 01:12 AM
We're talking about the Giacomo fighter, who's maxed the cross-class Spot skill to make sure he can make his max cross-classed Spellcraft check, so he can use his maxed cross-class Move Silently to beat the Druid's class skill Spot to ambush him before the Druid can cast its all-winning buffs, and then start using his maxed cross-class UMD skill and then cross-class Tumble his way through the Wild Shaped Druid's reach.

His Fighter's stats are Cha>Int>Con>Wis>Dex>Str, i think. He polymorphs all the bad stats away.

Snooder
2007-12-15, 01:17 AM
His Fighter's stats are Cha>Int>Con>Wis>Dex>Str, i think. He polymorphs all the bad stats away.

A 'fighter' with Str as a dump is no fighter at all.

Armads
2007-12-15, 02:15 AM
A 'fighter' with Str as a dump is no fighter at all.

Polymorph. It's there to balance the game :smallbiggrin:

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 06:33 AM
Hi guys,

having fun?:smallbiggrin: Let me disturb your fun a bit with the rules and what is possible to do with the fighter with them (and what is not possible to do with them with casters)...then you may continue with your houseruled perceptions.
And as I thought, nobody even had some small "oops, yes, guess that was wrong, thanks Giacomo for pointing it out". Despite the many mistakes I pointed out above.


And how many times has someone else said that the druid can get the animal to touch the person with an attack roll? It has a 50% miss chance, but it still can attempt an attack?

You see, I will repeat it as many times as necessary (although it gets tiresome, I tell you) - IF THE ANIMAL TOUCHES THE WARDED CREATURE THE SPELL DOES NOT END.


Another counter strategy against the fighter: The druid summons an army of dire bears which surround the fighter, and dispel the Hide from Animals. Or it could just dispel the spell altogether.

AND EVEN AN ARMY OF DIRE BEARS DOES NOT CHANGE THIS RULE. And remember that for your untrained summoned animals, you need to first spend a standard action for a speak with animals spell to be even able to explain them to attack thin air when they believe no opponent is there.
Now dispelling - that is a much better strategy, since it actually has a chance to work. Still, the 1st level effect triggers a 3rd level spell by the druid (standard action besides). IF the druid has a dispel magic learned for the day - at levels 1-6 impossible, not always learned or still available at later levels.


The fighter doesn't hear a sparrow casting spells. The noises made by the animal are substituted for the sound component. Read Natural Spell. Also, the Druid can fight as a sparrow perfectly well. He has spellcasting.

Oh yes, the fighter hears the sparrow casting spells - if he makes the appropriate spellcraft check. Nothing in the feat description says that the automatic spellcraft rule check is abandoned or influenced in any way. You further below accuse me to mention npc permanency spellcasting as "cheesy" (you know, the stuff coming from npc who are intended to RAISE dead characters etc., quite powerful if you ask me). And you wish to turn the already VERY good feat into something truly broken?
And the druid cannot fight as a sparrow "perfectly" well - because of its size it is mightily endangered to grappling and tripping (which may be among the arsenal of a fighter). It has better AC and movement (and can fly), but the druid is not in "perfect" fighting shape - otherwise you will not see the many druid players preferring the large animals in combat.


I am pretty sure that aelryinth admitted that his lockdown build could not defeat a caster later on in the thread. It is a great fighter build (and can take down melee druids), but it cannot compare to the batmannery and stuff of wizards (or druids who spend all their team casting spells).

Yes, you are pretty sure. But there are 40+ pages with debate roaring on this subject, so it would strike me as odd that Aelryinth admitted anything of that kind (in particular since the build gets continually improved by an increasing number of posters).
Note that what Aelryinth and me are referring to is the sheer combat ability at high levels, where a fighter can shine with the appropriate anti-caster tactics. Neither of us would argue that the fighter can contribute as much as the other classes, casters in particular, outside combat.
But imo that is what creates the balance, alongside
- combat superiority at low levels
- drawbacks of the caster classes.


Leadership? Balance the game? There are so many dirty tricks and abusive things to do with leadership.

Yep, many dirty tricks like the "infinite" follower chain (cohort taking leadership feat taking cohort taking leadership feat etc.) that I already disproved (hint: you are getting access to an npc via this feat - guess who runs and designs the npcs in the game - the DM!).


It's too costly to continuously burn money on scrolls, wands, and stuff like that. It does work for PvP contests, but PvP contests are not a way to measure game balance.

They are a very bad way - but there is unfortunately no other except anecdotal evidence. And direct build comparisons, maybe. And rules discussion like these (more on that below).
So at best your opinion would lead to the notion that class balance cannot be proved by any means - and thus your fighter bashing is mere opinion, not backed up by facts.



I have numbered your points, just to address them more conveniently (and to avoid confusion).

1. Flying is NOT easily achieved at level 9 (or 10). It costs 36k to get the Wings of Flying, and you only have 49k at level 10. So, no flying at level 10.

Winged boots. Core. A bargain at 16,000. Potions of flying besides. Ah, and the often overlooked figurine of woundrous power - bronze griffon, 10,000. And there may be even more (potion of gaseous form, anyone? A kicker in the hands of a monk whose movement enhancement counts for all movement modes).
Seriously - no-one of the druid-supporters and fighter bashers corrected this obvious mistake (just like the animal companion = magical beast one). This truly convinces me that it is not very worthwhile arguing with you guys.


2. The point of wall of thorns is not to kill the fighter with it by itself. The main ability of it is this:
(...)
It's ridiculously difficult to break through the wall of thorns (because the typical level 10 fighter does not have a strength mod of +10 or so, it's actually very hard to move at all). So, the druid can follow up with stuff like Wall of Fire, Call Lightning (weak, but cruel). The druid's also immune to the wall of thorns, because of woodland stride.

Also,

It'll take forever to chop through, and the wall of fire will not burn it down too quickly.

Yep, the wall of thorns is a powerful spell. Some remarks:
- woodland stride may not help the druid move through his own wall since it is magically created. Read the woodland stride ability description. Apparently the wall of thorns entry for creatures that are able to pass through overgrown areas does not apply to the druid. Hmmm, likely as a DM I would rule it in such a way as to try to keep the spell fairly balanced. Since I think the wall of thorns spell is already quite powerful as it is, the class description rule (which is more clearly worded) trumps the spell description rule in this case, I'd say. But I guess what your interpretation would be- anything to back up your notion that casters are uber, bemoan the rules for not being able to deliver a balanced game when the fix is so easily available. Ah, well...
- then, the fighter could have potions of blinking or gaseous form to escape (even a highly useful ring of blinking may be within the range of the wealth limit by then)


3. It's quite difficult to get an AMF against a flying target, because you need flight to get up, and not many stuff have Ex flight.

Which is why the AMF is brought up when the druid (or other caster) is in range, not before. More about this subject in Aelyrinth's lockdown build link above. Those who use AMF tactics are not stupid.


4. So? If it's core only, then you'll NEVER be able to get an AMF against a druid who's flying 50ft (or an distance above 20ft) above the ground.

Never? Fighter also flies magically, flies above druid, activates AMF, falls down through druid, both take damage from fall and fall prone. Druid cannot escape from AMF that round. Druid is dead.


5. Permanencied Magic Fang is dispellable. Unless you get a high-level caster, then it turns from weak, to cheesy. And cheese is bad...

There is nothing cheesy about taking expensive npc casting. It is assumed to happen by the game (take only the expensive raise dead spells). But I already commented on your interpretation of cheesy above.

Summing up: you presented countertactics to my countertactics, to which in turn I presented countertactics.
Doesn't this tell you something, oh all you caster uber power believers? Yes. Once again. Balance.

- Giacomo

Morty
2007-12-15, 06:38 AM
So... you provided one specific tactic for fighter to defeat a druid, which even if works -I'll let others point out why it doesn't, they'll do it better- relies on magic items and cross-class skills without utilizing fighter's class features and you claim it's balance?

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 06:55 AM
Of course it's balanced! After all, a fighter needs only a one-level dip to become Pun-pun, which is the epitome of balance!

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 07:47 AM
So... you provided one specific tactic for fighter to defeat a druid, which even if works -I'll let others point out why it doesn't, they'll do it better- relies on magic items and cross-class skills without utilizing fighter's class features and you claim it's balance?

So...you saw some specific spells or a specific animal the druid turned into and believe this will guarantee a win vs fighters 100% of all times?
And I did not provide "one specific" tactic, but so many by now that I lost track. Face it: for every single spell a druid can cast, there is a countermeasure available for the fighter. For every move a fighter can do there is a countermeasure of the druid. But both cannot predict all contingencies.

Or turned the other way round - fighters most often will have ranged attacks available. And always the typical countertactics of a wind wall is quoted - so that would not be specific in your eyes? All druids would always have this (otherwise crappy spell) learned several times? Sure.

Ah, and the "rely on magic items" fallacy that uber caster believers so often use:
- I already said that I likewise think this balancing part in the rules can restrict the games into directions I do not always like.
- The rules unfortunately (apparently a grievous designer error, since they counted on common sense) did not provide an example of how to balance the game if you wish to play "magic poor" campaigns (i.e. only with a fraction of the item wealth per level).
- otherwise, the DMG (p.135) is pretty clear about it:
"The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this 'wealth by level' guideline as a basis for balance in adventures."

But continue to distort the rules, houserule and then whine about balance losses, make fun of my comments. Maybe some posters will read this and get some new aspects for the game that are useful for them.

- Giacomo

Morty
2007-12-15, 07:55 AM
So...you saw some specific spells or a specific animal the druid turned into and believe this will guarantee a win vs fighters 100% of all times?

No, I've seen a class that can do fighter's job while casting spells at the same time. It's just you who refuse to belive it.


And I did not provide "one specific" tactic, but so many by now that I lost track. Face it: for every single spell a druid can cast, there is a countermeasure available for the fighter.

Only if DM wants to kill the druid and pulls out a fighter that's customized to kill that druid. Why would DM do that and how would s/he justify it, eludes me. Not to mention that all those "countermeasures" fighter can use every single class can use as well.


Or turned the other way round - fighters most often will have ranged attacks available. And always the typical countertactics of a wind wall is quoted - so that would not be specific in your eyes? All druids would always have this (otherwise crappy spell) learned several times? Sure.

Why not? It's an excellent way to make yourself invunerable to archers. And it's not like ranged attacks help against the druid.


But continue to distort the rules, houserule and then whine about balance losses, make fun of my comments. Maybe some posters will read this and get some new aspects for the game that are useful for them.

- Giacomo

Whoa, a strawman so horrible it's hard to comment on it. Where did you seen any houserules in this discussion? Or do you claim that all people who debunk your "ways to balance the casters" use houserules?

Spiryt
2007-12-15, 08:04 AM
But continue to distort the rules, houserule and then whine about balance losses, make fun of my comments. Maybe some posters will read this and get some new aspects for the game that are useful for them.

- Giacomo

Mate, damn it, people houserule to make that game more balanced, not other way around...

I mean, half threads in homebrew section is about making fighter better class.
Or about nerfing spellcasters spell list. So what are you talking about ?

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 08:09 AM
OK, I'll try it once more, but I fear this discussion leads nowhere.


No, I've seen a class that can do fighter's job while casting spells at the same time. It's just you who refuse to belive it.

Cross-class skills are an aspect of the game. Items are an aspect of the game. Do you stop reading the rules after the class descriptions? Incredible. So yes, you can have fighters with UMD and listen. Yes, you can have wizards with tumble skill to move out of an AMF without AoO. Yes, you can have monks with spellcraft. Yes, you can have a wizard with UMD and a wand of cure light wounds. Yes, you can have a monk reading an AMF scroll. Yes, you can have a rogue using a divine power effect. And so on and so on.


Only if DM wants to kill the druid and pulls out a fighter that's customized to kill that druid. Why would DM do that and how would s/he justify it, eludes me. Not to mention that all those "countermeasures" fighter can use every single class can use as well.

Yes, I start to realise what is at the heart of the problem. A DM challenging a caster is bad. A DM challenging a non-caster is only doing his job.
And there are many abilities of the druid also available to other classes and no one feels anything bad about it.
And many items and cross-class skills synergise nicely with the fighter, more than others.
For instance, the spot skill (for an archer fighter).
The enlarge spell (for a spiked chain reach fighter).
etc


Why not? It's an excellent way to make yourself invunerable to archers. And it's not like ranged attacks help against the druid.

It is excellent, but not foolproof (other opponents walking through, flying archers shooting from above, the caster is frozen in is place). And Windwall is ONLY useful vs archery. For other situations, those one or more windwall spells are just dead weight. Only for highly specific situation the windwall spell is useful.


Whoa, a strawman so horrible it's hard to comment on it. Where did you seen any houserules in this discussion? Or do you claim that all people who debunk your "ways to balance the casters" use houserules?

Houserule examples:
- ignoring the caster drawbacks, even though there are pages of rules for this.
- houseruling animal companion to a magical beast
- houseruling hide from animals spell can be stopped by touch from animals
- houseruling that fly is not available to non-casters below 11th level
- houseruling that...ah, I guess you get the idea.

- Giacomo

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-15, 08:18 AM
- ignoring the caster drawbacks, even though there are pages of rules for this.
Where?
- houseruling animal companion to a magical beast
Pg 36
- houseruling hide from animals spell can be stopped by touch from animals
If A touches B then B is touching A
- houseruling that fly is not available to non-casters below 11th level
That's probably a mistake.
- houseruling that...ah, I guess you get the idea.
No.

Morty
2007-12-15, 08:21 AM
Cross-class skills are an aspect of the game. Items are an aspect of the game. Do you stop reading the rules after the class descriptions? Incredible. So yes, you can have fighters with UMD and listen. Yes, you can have wizards with tumble skill to move out of an AMF without AoO. Yes, you can have monks with spellcraft. Yes, you can have a wizard with UMD and a wand of cure light wounds. Yes, you can have a monk reading an AMF scroll. Yes, you can have a rogue using a divine power effect. And so on and so on.

A class is supposed to use its class skills and features. It it's forced to use cross-class skills to achieve an effect it's supposed to achieve normally, it's a problem.


Yes, I start to realise what is at the heart of the problem. A DM challenging a caster is bad. A DM challenging a non-caster is only doing his job.

Again, a strawman argument. Your ways for DM to challenge casters involve heavy planning in order to completely destroy the caster. To challenge a fighter, all it does it spellcaster or something similiar.


And there are many abilities of the druid also available to other classes and no one feels anything bad about it.

Examples, please.


And many items and cross-class skills synergise nicely with the fighter, more than others.
For instance, the spot skill (for an archer fighter).

How about archer cleric?


The enlarge spell (for a spiked chain reach fighter).

How about barbarian?


It is excellent, but not foolproof (other opponents walking through, flying archers shooting from above, the caster is frozen in is place). And Windwall is ONLY useful vs archery. For other situations, those one or more windwall spells are just dead weight. Only for highly specific situation the windwall spell is useful.

How is being shot by archers "specific"? And yes, the caster is frozen in place. But it renders ranged archer useless. He can't attack the druid, while druid can still attack him with spells.


Houserule examples:
- ignoring the caster drawbacks, even though there are pages of rules for this.

I don't see how is dismissing overly sophisticated reasons as to why casters may feel uncomfortable from time to time because DM wants to screw them over "houseruling".


- houseruling animal companion to a magical beast

Well, I guess I have to grant you this one.


- houseruling hide from animals spell can be stopped by touch from animals

Ekhem:


If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients.

So the druid just orders an animal to run into fighter. Sooner or later the animal will bump into him.


- houseruling that fly is not available to non-casters below 11th level

It is, but they're forced to spend a lot of gold on it.


- houseruling that...ah, I guess you get the idea.


I'm afraid I don't.

Spiryt
2007-12-15, 08:30 AM
Cross-class skills are an aspect of the game. Items are an aspect of the game. Do you stop reading the rules after the class descriptions? Incredible. So yes, you can have fighters with UMD and listen. Yes, you can have wizards with tumble skill to move out of an AMF without AoO. Yes, you can have monks with spellcraft. Yes, you can have a wizard with UMD and a wand of cure light wounds. Yes, you can have a monk reading an AMF scroll. Yes, you can have a rogue using a divine power effect. And so on and so on.



Yeah , and it is very cool. However I don't know how it helps fighter. Considering that he must have listen and UMD to defeat the Druid, why don't play rogue or even ranger?

They at least don't have to cross-class to get listen.


All your arguments are based on assumption that fighter is very clever, takes his skills in really clever way e.c. And druid is obviously idiot who will be outskilled by fighter, even though he have much more skillpoints and class skills...

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-15, 08:33 AM
Like rogue vs wizards, people say the UMD rogue doesn't defeat the wizard. Someone wanting to be a wizard beats the wizard same here.

The magical shapechanger doesn't defeat a druid. Something wanting to be a druid beats the druid.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-15, 09:08 AM
The only real difference the fighter has to a warrior is the amount of feats they get. Hopefully even Giacomo will agree that the Druid is superior to an NPC class? If so then the arguement needs to be about the use of feats in the game and in possible combat based builds. Cross-classing skills and using expensive magic items to out cast a caster is a flaw in the system.

So do the extra feats offer a similar level of return to class features, such as spellcasting? I've got to say no, not even with cheesey tactics, seemingly endless skill-points to burn and caster-lite items.

Armads
2007-12-15, 09:50 AM
You see, I will repeat it as many times as necessary (although it gets tiresome, I tell you) - IF THE ANIMAL TOUCHES THE WARDED CREATURE THE SPELL DOES NOT END.

As Emperor Demonking said, if A touches B, then B touches A.



AND EVEN AN ARMY OF DIRE BEARS DOES NOT CHANGE THIS RULE. And remember that for your untrained summoned animals, you need to first spend a standard action for a speak with animals spell to be even able to explain them to attack thin air when they believe no opponent is there.
Now dispelling - that is a much better strategy, since it actually has a chance to work. Still, the 1st level effect triggers a 3rd level spell by the druid (standard action besides). IF the druid has a dispel magic learned for the day - at levels 1-6 impossible, not always learned or still available at later levels.


The point of the bears is to prevent the fighter from moving at all. In addition, the druid can just buy a wand of dispel magic. He doesn't even need UMD to use it.



Oh yes, the fighter hears the sparrow casting spells - if he makes the appropriate spellcraft check. Nothing in the feat description says that the automatic spellcraft rule check is abandoned or influenced in any way. You further below accuse me to mention npc permanency spellcasting as "cheesy" (you know, the stuff coming from npc who are intended to RAISE dead characters etc., quite powerful if you ask me). And you wish to turn the already VERY good feat into something truly broken?

How does the fighter know that it's casting spells? He has to choose to make the spellcraft check. Also, how does your fighter have UMD, Spellcraft, Spot and Listen - all cross-class skills? Does he have 18 Int, human and Nymph's Kiss or something?



And the druid cannot fight as a sparrow "perfectly" well - because of its size it is mightily endangered to grappling and tripping (which may be among the arsenal of a fighter). It has better AC and movement (and can fly), but the druid is not in "perfect" fighting shape - otherwise you will not see the many druid players preferring the large animals in combat.

He can fly. That's enough.



Yes, you are pretty sure. But there are 40+ pages with debate roaring on this subject, so it would strike me as odd that Aelryinth admitted anything of that kind (in particular since the build gets continually improved by an increasing number of posters).
Note that what Aelryinth and me are referring to is the sheer combat ability at high levels, where a fighter can shine with the appropriate anti-caster tactics. Neither of us would argue that the fighter can contribute as much as the other classes, casters in particular, outside combat.
But imo that is what creates the balance, alongside
- combat superiority at low levels
- drawbacks of the caster classes.

His build is a good fighter build. It can contribute to combat effectively. However, it cannot compare to a flying, invisible, sculpted AMF wizard, can it?



Yep, many dirty tricks like the "infinite" follower chain (cohort taking leadership feat taking cohort taking leadership feat etc.) that I already disproved (hint: you are getting access to an npc via this feat - guess who runs and designs the npcs in the game - the DM!).

So DM fiat balances the game. Just say it already, instead of claiming it's a interpretation of the RAW.



They are a very bad way - but there is unfortunately no other except anecdotal evidence. And direct build comparisons, maybe. And rules discussion like these (more on that below).

So it's fine because it's the only way, even though it's flawed?



So at best your opinion would lead to the notion that class balance cannot be proved by any means - and thus your fighter bashing is mere opinion, not backed up by facts.

Class balance can't be proved? Alright, then Wizards are no better than commoners.



Winged boots. Core. A bargain at 16,000. Potions of flying besides. Ah, and the often overlooked figurine of wondrous power - bronze griffon, 10,000. And there may be even more (potion of gaseous form, anyone? A kicker in the hands of a monk whose movement enhancement counts for all movement modes).


For all your 'casters have spells/day limit', Winged Boots have a 3/day limit. Potions of flying are expensive.



Seriously - no-one of the druid-supporters and fighter bashers corrected this obvious mistake (just like the animal companion = magical beast one). This truly convinces me that it is not very worthwhile arguing with you guys.

Somebody did.



Yep, the wall of thorns is a powerful spell. Some remarks:
- woodland stride may not help the druid move through his own wall since it is magically created. Read the woodland stride ability description. Apparently the wall of thorns entry for creatures that are able to pass through overgrown areas does not apply to the druid. Hmmm, likely as a DM I would rule it in such a way as to try to keep the spell fairly balanced. Since I think the wall of thorns spell is already quite powerful as it is, the class description rule (which is more clearly worded) trumps the spell description rule in this case, I'd say.

Orly? "Cannot move through terrain magically manipulated to impede movement" or "Creatures able to move through overgrowth are not affected and can move at normal speed without taking damage". Which is more clearly worded?



But I guess what your interpretation would be- anything to back up your notion that casters are uber, bemoan the rules for not being able to deliver a balanced game when the fix is so easily available. Ah, well...

And your interpretation is that all classes are balanced, so you're using anything to back up your notion that all classes are balanced.



- then, the fighter could have potions of blinking or gaseous form to escape (even a highly useful ring of blinking may be within the range of the wealth limit by then)

Ring of blinking costs 27k. Winged Boots cost 16k. Are you really going to buy both at level 9 (or 10)?



Which is why the AMF is brought up when the druid (or other caster) is in range, not before. More about this subject in Aelyrinth's lockdown build link above. Those who use AMF tactics are not stupid.

How are you going to do that? When you activate your AMF, you start falling.



Never? Fighter also flies magically, flies above druid, activates AMF, falls down through druid, both take damage from fall and fall prone. Druid cannot escape from AMF that round. Druid is dead.

You can fly above a druid? Eagles fly at 80ft. Fighters fly at 60ft. Good luck.



There is nothing cheesy about taking expensive npc casting. It is assumed to happen by the game (take only the expensive raise dead spells). But I already commented on your interpretation of cheesy above.

Okay. It's not cheesy to buy a CL 20th Greater Magic Fang + Permanency at 1150 gp + 1500 xp? It's 48.95k cheaper than a +5 weapon.



Summing up: you presented countertactics to my countertactics, to which in turn I presented countertactics.
Doesn't this tell you something, oh all you caster uber power believers? Yes. Once again. Balance.

It tells me something. This is a debate. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 10:08 AM
Ah, it threatens once more to come to too many posts to reply to all. Plus, the discussion appears to get pointless. One more try.


- ignoring the caster drawbacks, even though there are pages of rules for this.
Where?

"ex"-class sections, rules on spellcasting (line of sight, components, line of effect etc), rules on gaining back spells, rules on dispelling/surpressing magic (AMF).


- houseruling animal companion to a magical beast
Pg 36

There is nothing on p. 36 in PHB to back that up. It even says things like "...is superior to a normal animal of its kind..." and then only lists special powers which do not change its type. The word "animal" is used throughout.
This is even more important since for other animals like a paladin's mount or a familiar, it is explicitly said that the type changes to magical beast, or that at least it is considered a magical beast for xy purposes.


- houseruling hide from animals spell can be stopped by touch from animals
If A touches B then B is touching A

Yes, in our everyday sense of the wording. But in DDspeak combat, to touch someone who is unwilling you need an (touch) attack roll. Then immediately it means for the hide form animals part, that only an active touch from the warded creature will trigger the end of the spell. In this respect, it is like the invisibility spell.


- houseruling that fly is not available to non-casters below 11th level
That's probably a mistake.

yep. Grats. You are the first in the replies to my posts with orignally a different opinion to admit a mistake.


- houseruling that...ah, I guess you get the idea.
No.

I hope you do now.


A class is supposed to use its class skills and features. It it's forced to use cross-class skills to achieve an effect it's supposed to achieve normally, it's a problem.

Nope. Noone is forced to take UMD cross-class, there are also plenty of other items giving spells. Plus, what apparently quite many forget - the UMD thing is only there to show
1) the non-casters can get along by themselves vs high-level casters and
2) the non-casters can make use of the great personal only buffs of lvls 1-4 with wands fairly easily (divine power, mirror image etc.)
The NORMAL case is a group of non-casters and casters working together.
And then, the non-casters make great use of all the buffs that are more useful on them than on the casters.


Again, a strawman argument. Your ways for DM to challenge casters involve heavy planning in order to completely destroy the caster. To challenge a fighter, all it does it spellcaster or something similiar.

Building an npc spellcaster with smart tactics is easier to build a non-caster or monster to challenge a pc spellcaster? Well, DM laziness does not count, but I would concede that much more maxing fu exists on spellcasters than the other way round.


Examples, please.

Spells (Windwall, dispel magic etc), ability to gain a companion, various of the class skills, disguise self effect, no ageing effect. Ah, there are so many it makes no sense to list them all.
Plus, even if the druid has a unique ability or spell like wildshape or wall of thorns, the EFFECT can be emulated by other classes as well.


How about archer cleric?
How about barbarian?

You'll notice I did not say that the fighter makes better use than ANYBODY. Only than some classes. Still, it can be argued that for levels 1-10 (mostly played area) the spot/archer combo is best for fighters and rangers.


How is being shot by archers "specific"? And yes, the caster is frozen in place. But it renders ranged archer useless. He can't attack the druid, while druid can still attack him with spells.

It's like an AMF. That renders spellcasters useless. Still, that gets accepted, but an archer not. Strange double standard (and there are many more ways around windwall than around AMF, appropriate for the respective spell levels, see my prvs post).


I don't see how is dismissing overly sophisticated reasons as to why casters may feel uncomfortable from time to time because DM wants to screw them over "houseruling".

Yep, the "spellcaster challenge is DM fiat, non-caster challenge is normal way of play" fallacy again.

The rest of your post is similar to the prvs one, so read the comments above.

Finally,...

@Spiryt: noone is arguing that the druid should be played as an idiot. As you can see from the many tactics, countertactics, countertactics to countertactics etc. the issue is much more complex. I call it balance. Just assume both parties are equally maxed or created by an equally smart player.
In a world where magic is common, you can bet that non-casters devoted to win fights will react to spells with their tactics.
And of course, UMD can be taken by all classes cross-class, but all will try to use different items that differently synergise with their class tactics.
The fighter with a reach weapon in enlarge state simply makes better use of that than most classes, since he has the great many feats to make an appropriate combat strategy from early levels on!

@mostly harmful:
Now, finally, a new issue brought up:
Yes, we may consider the fighter vs druid comparison based on what the extra 11 feats can do (besides the higher hp, the tower shield proficiency and the better armour and martial weapon proficiency).
Will it equate less skills/skill points and the druid spells as well as the ac?
Getting the ac out of the picture, let us assume the fighter took leadership as one of his feats.
That is now 10 feats extra.

For the further comparisons we need to bear in mind that
- many of the most powerful druid spell effects can be emulated with magic items available for all, thus while the druid may also take them, their additional use for him is lower.
- feats, on the other hand, are very difficult to emulate with magic items.
- in particular the feat tree combinations can be quite powerful, in particular for combat.

My view is that yes, the feats are powerful enough in core, combined with the appropriate items, that a fighter will be
- stronger in combat at low levels
- equal at higher levels
- maybe slightly at a disadvantage at highest levels (AMF tactics alone, though, do quite a lot to level the playing field here).
- outside combat, the druid is clearly ahead, but this is balanced by the drawbacks of the class and preconditions for his spells to work at all.

Thus, balance over levels 1-20.

- Giacomo

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-15, 10:14 AM
Sorry your right about its still an animal.

It is immune to hide from animal though. Line 2-3.

I don't think infinate Cohorts actually work.

Morty
2007-12-15, 10:17 AM
Building an npc spellcaster with smart tactics is easier to build a non-caster or monster to challenge a pc spellcaster?

Of course. High level caster enemy can wipe the floor with non-caster of the same level. But not the other way around.


Spells (Windwall, dispel magic etc), ability to gain a companion, various of the class skills, disguise self effect, no ageing effect. Ah, there are so many it makes no sense to list them all.
Plus, even if the druid has a unique ability or spell like wildshape or wall of thorns, the EFFECT can be emulated by other classes as well.

At great expense of resources, and without using any of their class features, but yeah, who cares.


You'll notice I did not say that the fighter makes better use than ANYBODY. Only than some classes. Still, it can be argued that for levels 1-10 (mostly played area) the spot/archer combo is best for fighters and rangers.

Still, they don't contribute as much as druid does.


It's like an AMF. That renders spellcasters useless. Still, that gets accepted, but an archer not. Strange double standard (and there are many more ways around windwall than around AMF, appropriate for the respective spell levels, see my prvs post).

I don't accept Wind Wall. It's horribly broken spell. But it once more proves that druid and wizard are broken. It's in no way comparable to AMF, as non-casters have no way of getting AMF without spending gold on scrolls to be used via UMD. But apparently UMD is single most important class ability for fighters, and WoTC didn't give them this as class skill just by mistake.


Yep, the "spellcaster challenge is DM fiat, non-caster challenge is normal way of play" fallacy again.

You wouldn't call it a fallacy if you for once bothered to read what people are typing instead of repeating your arguments over and over.

Sir Giacomo
2007-12-15, 10:30 AM
Arrrggg...can't...resist...urge...to...correct...b latant...mistakes...


As Emperor Demonking said, if A touches B, then B touches A.

Nope, explained above. You may houserule it differently.


The point of the bears is to prevent the fighter from moving at all. In addition, the druid can just buy a wand of dispel magic. He doesn't even need UMD to use it.

The wand is quite expensive. Getting the bears there in the first place is a full-round action which the druid cannot do if he wants to push the animal. The fighter can have various means to escape enemies surrounding him at that level (in particular since I do not believe you can summon enough dire bears at that level to completely encase the fighter - but I am too exhausted to do the math).


How does the fighter know that it's casting spells? He has to choose to make the spellcraft check. Also, how does your fighter have UMD, Spellcraft, Spot and Listen - all cross-class skills? Does he have 18 Int, human and Nymph's Kiss or something?

Human. INT 14 (for expertise, improved trip etc.). 5 skill points. 20% devoted to spellcraft, with maybe later a skill focus feat.
Other fighters with less INT and class skills will have other tactics not relying on spells to be recognised.


He can fly. That's enough.

No, not against an archer.


His build is a good fighter build. It can contribute to combat effectively. However, it cannot compare to a flying, invisible, sculpted AMF wizard, can it?

Only an archmage can do that in core. Highly specific. And even that archmage gets affected by an opponent AMF. Ah, and btw, the wizard can still be attacked via arrows - while the wizard can cast nothing through his own AMF.


So DM fiat balances the game. Just say it already, instead of claiming it's a interpretation of the RAW.

Yes, DM fiat is following the explicitly written rules. Thanks.


So it's fine because it's the only way, even though it's flawed?

No, if it were the only way it would be fine. But it is not the only way, as I also point out. Do not make an argument out of nothing, there is plenty of stuff to disagree besides.


Class balance can't be proved? Alright, then Wizards are no better than commoners.

Nope. That is easily compared. And even explicitly written in the DMG. PC classes is what is difficult to compare.


For all your 'casters have spells/day limit', Winged Boots have a 3/day limit. Potions of flying are expensive.

Yep, it is difficult to admit that you are wrong, isn't it?


Somebody did.

Yep, sure. You did not.


Orly? "Cannot move through terrain magically manipulated to impede movement" or "Creatures able to move through overgrowth are not affected and can move at normal speed without taking damage". Which is more clearly worded?

The class ability.


And your interpretation is that all classes are balanced, so you're using anything to back up your notion that all classes are balanced.

Anything from the rules, yes. When confronted with possibility to interpret, I usually go with the less broken/more balanced one. Do you? Apparently not, because you believe in absolute caster superiority.


Ring of blinking costs 27k. Winged Boots cost 16k. Are you really going to buy both at level 9 (or 10)?

With ring of blinking, the boots are not necessary at that level. Ring of blinking was brought up specifically vs the wall of thorns. But a potion could also cover that rare occurance (rare including: will the druid even be able to cast that spell or will a readied attack of the fighter hit him first?). Or potion of blink. Take your choice.


How are you going to do that? When you activate your AMF, you start falling.

Yes, you fall through the druid's squre, his magic ends, he falls simultaneously. Cool, eh?:smallwink:



You can fly above a druid? Eagles fly at 80ft. Fighters fly at 60ft. Good luck.

Yep, eagles can fly faster. Though not faster than a fighter with flying ability and boots of haste. And likely not outside arrow range (wind wall does not work when flying so high, btw).
And eagles cannot fly straight up (they do not have perfect flying), so the fighter may make it to end above the druid (in particular with readied move actions).



Okay. It's not cheesy to buy a CL 20th Greater Magic Fang + Permanency at 1150 gp + 1500 xp? It's 48.95k cheaper than a +5 weapon.

Sigh. A +5 greater magic fang is inferior to a +5 weapon in various ways:
- you do less damage than the weapon (normally, when you are a monk not which is once again class synergy)
- it can be dispelled, the magic weapon cannot be dispelled
- it is up to the DM if you can contact a lvl 20 npc caster. The +5 weapon is more easily available


It tells me something. This is a debate. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong.

Yep, I guess your opinion will not be swayed by this post.

Will take a break now.

- Giacomo

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-15, 10:40 AM
He can't use winged boots and boots of haste.

Dode
2007-12-15, 04:33 PM
You see, I will repeat it as many times as necessary (although it gets tiresome, I tell you) - IF THE ANIMAL TOUCHES THE WARDED CREATURE THE SPELL DOES NOT END. If A touches, B touches A.

AND EVEN AN ARMY OF DIRE BEARS DOES NOT CHANGE THIS RULE. And remember that for your untrained summoned animals, you need to first spend a standard action for a speak with animals spell to be even able to explain them to attack thin air when they believe no opponent is there. They just need to stand there and breathe in order to pin the fighter who's powerless to stop them. Me though, I'd just direct one of them into the fighter's square.

Oh yes, the fighter the sparrow casting spells - if he makes the appropriate spellcraft check. Neither of which he can do reliably as they're both cross-class skills (even a level 18 Fighter with 14 INT and Skill Focus (Spellcraft) could only do identify a 4th level spell 75% of the time, and a 0% chance of being able to make a listen check long after a max-spot checked Druid sees the Fighter and starts buffing itself). So that's a mighty big if. Oh wait, we're talking about the Giacomo Fighter who instead of spending feats on things like "Power Attack", spent them all on Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and (Listen).

And the druid cannot fight as a sparrow "perfectly" well - because of its size it is mightily endangered to grappling and tripping (which may be among the arsenal of a fighter). It has better AC and movement (and can fly), but the druid is not in "perfect" fighting shape - otherwise you will not see the many druid players preferring the large animals in combat. Freedom of Movement is a Druid spell that can last all day if the Druid spends a feat to do so. Tripping and grappling aren't much of a threat. But then, they aren't much of a threat anyway from the Giacomo Fighter who has STR as a dump stat.


Yep, many dirty tricks like the "infinite" follower chain (cohort taking leadership feat taking cohort taking leadership feat etc.) that I already disproved (hint: you are getting access to an npc via this feat - guess who runs and designs the npcs in the game - the DM!). Seeing as the Druid can have an animal companion and do this trick, I still don't see how it's a boon for the Fighter.

So at best your opinion would lead to the notion that class balance cannot be proved by any means - and thus your fighter bashing is mere opinion, not backed up by facts. It's backed by the fact that the only way you can make a Fighter viable in your mind is by doing its level best to emulate spellcasting classes at the complete expense of the Fighter's class skills and abilities, using methods that can be employed by any class, including other spellcasters.


Never? Fighter also flies magically, flies above druid, activates AMF, falls down through druid, both take damage from fall and fall prone. Druid cannot escape from AMF that round. Druid is dead. Druid flies faster then the Fighter. Unless you're operating under some sort of different version of Pythagoras' theory then the rest of us, this tactic simply can't work.


There is nothing cheesy about taking expensive npc casting. It is assumed to happen by the game (take only the expensive raise dead spells). But I already commented on your interpretation of cheesy above. Oh my, not the "Wizard Mooch is totally valid" argument again. Considering you haven't presented onetactic yet that couldn't also be done by an Aristocrat, I'll just chalk this up to another build that is basically NPC caster vs. Caster, with Fighter at the sidelines.


Summing up: you presented countertactics to my countertactics, to which in turn I presented countertactics.
Doesn't this tell you something, oh all you caster uber power believers? Yes. Once again. Balance.

- Giacomo
"Wizard Mooch" is not a valid class or evidence of balance. It's a statement on how dependent you are on spellcasters to even have a hope of taking on another spellcaster.

Snadgeros
2007-12-15, 04:41 PM
What does Druid vs. Fighter have to even do with this thread?! We've established that CoDzilla and Batman are beyond broken, but that does not mean the fighter needs to be nixed. Fix the game, but keep the fighter. He's the core of DnD, and it'll always be that way. Honestly, I leave this thread and all of a sudden it devolves into ANOTHER PvP thread?! Seriously, is PvP all this board lives for? Get back on topic!

EDIT: For clarification, this topic isn't about balance, it's about whether or not the fighter needs fluff.

Morty
2007-12-15, 04:53 PM
Seriously, is PvP all this board lives for?

Apparently, Giacomo's way to balance classes is to find far-fetched ways to beat casters in PvP.

Snooder
2007-12-15, 05:42 PM
You see, I will repeat it as many times as necessary (although it gets tiresome, I tell you) - IF THE ANIMAL TOUCHES THE WARDED CREATURE THE SPELL DOES NOT END.




If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients.


See the quote above? It's from the text of the spell Hide From Animals. It clearly states that if the warded creature (Your Fighter) touches any animal the spell ends. Generally speaking unless your fighter somehow has gaseous form, I fail to see how he can avoid touching an animal that is within his 5' square. The spell doesn't make the Fighter invulnerable to animals, it just means they don't know where he is, they can still be directed to his location with no problem.



Oh yes, the fighter hears the sparrow casting spells - if he makes the appropriate spellcraft check.


And exactly what fighter has the skillpoints to spare for SPELLCRAFT? 2+Int on a class where int is usually 13 or less is rather few skill points. And to top it off, spellcraft is a cross-class skill so the highest the fighter can get without wasting money and skill focus on it is 11. And he does it at twice the expense of a class skill so he's effectively replacing 2 good skills with one mediocre one. The DC for identifying a spell being cast is 15+spell level so maximum of 24. 24 - 11 = 13. Fighter has just wasted several skill points for a 35% chance of finding out what spell is being cast. Doesn't mean he can even do anything about it, he just knows what it is. This is a poor choice when faced with limited resources. if the fighter had an infinite amount of skill points, it might be ok, but when doing so means NOT putting points into more useful skills like Intimidate, or Climb or Ride, its a bad idea.

Assuming a fighter has cross-class skills like UMD or Spellcraftis like assuming that the druid walks around in full plate. Neither is a plausible tactic for that class and should be obviously discounted in a rational discussion of balance.

Here's a tip Giacomo, if any tactic you come up with for the fighter involves cross class skills with high DCs like UMD or Spellcraft, it's not workable. Quit bringing it up.



Neither of us would argue that the fighter can contribute as much as the other classes, casters in particular, outside combat.
But imo that is what creates the balance, alongside
- combat superiority at low levels
- drawbacks of the caster classes.


Yes, thats essentially what the debate boils down to.
a.) is the fighter equal to a caster in high level combat? Answer: NO
b.) are the drawbacks to the casters able to offset the imbalance? Answer: NO

more on this later.



Yep, many dirty tricks like the "infinite" follower chain (cohort taking leadership feat taking cohort taking leadership feat etc.) that I already disproved (hint: you are getting access to an npc via this feat - guess who runs and designs the npcs in the game - the DM!).


Leadership is another example of a "balance" that you like to tout but it ultimately useless and doesn't bring much to the debate.
1. Leadership is available to all classes. Lets say Class A has X ability and Class B has Y ability. X ability is stronger than Y ability. Class A is thus stronger than Class B. Lets say that both classes also have Z ability. It should be clear from basic math that Class A is still stronger than Class B because an ability that both have does not change the equation in any way shape or form.
2. When talking about class "imbalance" we are talking about the class abilities specific to each class. Leadership is not a class ability. Hell, unless the DM is being nice about it, you aren't even supposed to be able to take it. It's right there in the rules. Taking leadership to give you access to another class' abilities say nothing about how weak/strong yours are, it merely indicates that yours sucked from the beginning and now you need to make up the lack.




Winged boots. Core. A bargain at 16,000. Potions of flying besides. Ah, and the often overlooked figurine of woundrous power - bronze griffon, 10,000. And there may be even more (potion of gaseous form, anyone? A kicker in the hands of a monk whose movement enhancement counts for all movement modes).


Caster's get flight at 5th level. Druids get it whenever they can wildshape into a creature that can fly, like a sparrow. A fighter cannot afford your winged boots till 9th level. Remember, he isn't supposed to spend more than half his wealth on a single magical item and 16,000 * 2 = 32,000. He can get the bronze griffon at level 8th. WOO.

And that leaves aside the key point you seem to keep ignoring, spending money on stuff like that is counterproductive. Fighters have a limited amount of gold. Thus, the most logical choice would be for them to spend their gold first on what they are supposed to be doing. Namely, combat. A 9th level fighter thus has a choice between a +3 armor, +3 shield and +3 weapon, with 2000g left over for a couple potions and other utility items or wasting 16,000g on the boots and not having that +3 weapon. Winged Boots or +3 weapon? I think its pretty clear which way the fighter will go.

The caster doesn't face this problem because his power comes from spells that renew themselves daily. Fighter has to choose between flight or actually hitting things. Caster simply learns both Bull's Strength and Fly. If he need to fly, he flies, if he needs to hit things, he buffs. If he can only do one, and picked the wrong one, he retreats, rests and comes back. Oh and best of all, he still has 36,000g to spend. Fighter dies because he can't magically turn his boots into a +3 weapon on the fly now can he?

Simply put, if your special magical item to defeat one situation or give a slight edge costs more than 10% of the fighter's gold it's not balanced. And there are very few magic items that are cost-effective vs spells.



Seriously - no-one of the druid-supporters and fighter bashers corrected this obvious mistake (just like the animal companion = magical beast one). This truly convinces me that it is not very worthwhile arguing with you guys.


That's because no correction was needed.



- then, the fighter could have potions of blinking or gaseous form to escape (even a highly useful ring of blinking may be within the range of the wealth limit by then)


right, all these potions that the fighter has because of his infinite wealth.

Seriously, the magic item "balance" is a non-starter. Casters have access to more free money than fighters do. Why? Because they don't need to spend almost all their gold on a +X weapon, armor and shield. They also can use more items because they can use wands, scrolls e.t.c.



Never? Fighter also flies magically, flies above druid, activates AMF, falls down through druid, both take damage from fall and fall prone. Druid cannot escape from AMF that round. Druid is dead.


How does the fighter have access to flight? Through a spellcaster? If it's through a caster then it's not his class ability and has no basis in the discussion. And it should be clear from my comments above that a magical item is not an appropriate way for him to gain flight at an equivalent level to the druid.


Ok, now that I've responded to specific statements, time to go back to teh overarching debate.
First, is the fighter equal to a caster in high level combat?
No, and here's why. Spells are better than feats. This should be clear to anyone who has read the PHB. Toughness is not comparable to Sleep, and Greater Weapon Spec is not comparable to Summon Monster VI, Chain Lightning or Contingency. I chose those because they are example of feat to spell comparisons that one might take at about the same level. Not to mention the fact that very few feats scale, while EVERY spell scales. And the fact that the highest level feat in the PHB requires fighter level 12, which implies that they should appropriate for 12th level play at best. But spells go to 9th level so the best spells are more powerful than the best feats.

Now you'll respond that ok, fighter's aren't quite as good as casters at high level combat, but its made up for by the "vulnerability" of casters to certain rules.
This is also false, and here's why. There are two drawbacks to being a caster that you have noted. The first is a limited resource base as opposed to a fighter, i.e. spells run out. The second is AMF.

The first was the original balancing point that was designed into the system, but it didn't really work out due to narcoleptic parties. If the caster needs to rest, he will. The player is the one who decides what actions his character takes. He can decide to walk away from danger at any point to rest, that's his right as a player. The only way to counter it is to have danger follow him. Unfortunately this is a poor solution because at a certain point, it becomes implausible to have continuous danger. A PC resting at an inn in town shouldn't be attacked by ninjas every morning. In fact most of the time he should get a perfectly safe and restful nights sleep. Why? Because doing otherwise is unrealistic and smacks of DM bias.

The AMF balancing is just a horrible, horrible idea. Either you throw AMFs into most combats, or you reserve it for special occasions. If it's reserved for special occasions, then the caster is still imbalanced most of the time so what's the point? If it's tossed around like candy, then the caster is completely useless. Not to mention, throwing something like an AMF or a null magic zone into play is like giving every opponent the PCs face an immunity to physical damage. It's just plain mean and doesn't foster the idea of everyone having fun, which is the point of balance.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-15, 06:15 PM
The AMF balancing is just a horrible, horrible idea. Either you throw AMFs into most combats, or you reserve it for special occasions. If it's reserved for special occasions, then the caster is still imbalanced most of the time so what's the point? If it's tossed around like candy, then the caster is completely useless. Not to mention, throwing something like an AMF or a null magic zone into play is like giving every opponent the PCs face an immunity to physical damage. It's just plain mean and doesn't foster the idea of everyone having fun, which is the point of balance.

Not only that, but it doesn't work. AMF may have been included as a reactiont to the power of spellcasters ("I know! Occasionally, they'll be useful!") is a spell that very few enemies can cast. Those who can cast it are spellcasters, and they'd be pretty foolish to do so. You might be able to create an NPC fighter with AMF in his Greater Ring of Spell Storing... but then when the party kicks his ass (the flying wizard ignores him, perhaps Calling a creature or using instantaneous conjurations;the party takes him on; etc) they get a Greater Ring of Spell Storing. So unless you want to give the party 100k every time they fight an enemy, this is a poor option... not to mention patently ridiculous for every enemy to look like that.

About the only monsters for whom AMF is a viable tactic are big flying brutes who also have spellcasting. Now, those do exist in the game: dragons with high-level spellcasting, Planetars, Solars. They can reasonably cast antimagic field...
...at which point you have either a TPK or the party teleporting away, because nobody in the party can take on a solar or a dragon without spells and items. "Dragon with an AMF" isn't an anti-spellcaster tactic, it's an anti-everything tactic. That spell just wasn't meant for dragons.
(Along similar lines, giving a dragon five levels of Abjurant Champion doesn't just give it a horrific AC from Mage Armor and Shield, it sets its Caster Level equal to its BAB... and its BAB equals its HD... and its HD is like twice its CR.)


Edit: some casters can actually fly from third level, thanks to Master Air for the Druids and the cheesy goodness of Alter Self for the arcanists.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-15, 06:22 PM
What does Druid vs. Fighter have to even do with this thread?!Nothing, it's just a law of nature that once any thread with the word "fighter" in the title gets past a certain number of posts it will turn into a fighter versus (insert class name here) thread.:smallsigh: Just once I'd like to see things degenerate into a binder versus warlock thread, just for variety.

If anything, the current direction of the thread has only reinforced my belief that the fighter class needs to be ditched/changed. If the only thing keeping the fighter balanced is the ability to replicate spell effects with UMD and items, I don't want balance. I want fighting itself to remain relevent at high levels. I want real options that don't involve magic. I want multiple fighting styles that are (more or less) equally effective.

I suppose I should stop asking for ways to do this in core and just go out and buy Tome of Battle and start calling warblades "fighters." But hey, I can dream can't I?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-15, 06:26 PM
If anything, the current direction of the thread has only reinforced my belief that the fighter class needs to be ditched/changed. If the only thing keeping the fighter balanced is the ability to replicate spell effects with UMD and items, I don't want balance. I want fighting itself to remain relevent at high levels. I want real options that don't involve magic. I want multiple fighting styles that are (more or less) equally effective.

I suppose I should stop asking for ways to do this in core and just go out and buy Tome of Battle and start calling warblades "fighters." But hey, I can dream can't I?

Or you could wait for 4E, which sounds like it's exactly what you're looking for. Much less importance placed on magic items, fighters with their pick of multiple viable talent trees, better balanced spellcasters...

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 06:48 PM
Nothing, it's just a law of nature that once any thread with the word "fighter" in the title gets past a certain number of posts it will turn into a fighter versus (insert class name here) thread.:smallsigh: Just once I'd like to see things degenerate into a binder versus warlock thread, just for variety.
There's just a handful of people that turn "balance" debates into "PVP" debates, and assert that because a highly obtuse build of class X can allegedly defeat a regular build of class Y in a highly specific arena battle, that therefore X is as useful as Y in a regular adventuring party (non sequitur, I know), even if the earlier alleged defeat doesn't actually use any of X's class abilities (double non sequitur, for the bonus points).

Anyway, the warlock totally kicks the binder's ass. So there!
Actually I suspect he actually won't, because Warlocks are rather weak in practice, but I can't really comment on this since I haven't read the book the Binder is in.



Edit: some casters can actually fly from third level, thanks to Master Air for the Druids and the cheesy goodness of Alter Self for the arcanists.
Even beyond that - a first level transmuter with the PHB2 ability can fly, if only for a round at a time, as can anyone with the Swift Fly spell from the spell compendium.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-15, 06:52 PM
Anyway, the warlock totally kicks the binder's ass. So there!
Actually I suspect he actually won't, because Warlocks are rather weak in practice, but I can't really comment on this since I haven't read the book the Binder is in.


Warlocks and Binders are pretty even, I'd say. The Warlock has tricks like Hellfire Warlock availible, and if you pick your invocations right he becomes decent. Binders are decent, too.


Even beyond that - a first level transmuter with the PHB2 ability can fly, if only for a round at a time, as can anyone with the Swift Fly spell from the spell compendium.
Those don't really count, though--if you can't stay in the air (and out of harm's way) it doesn't really do much.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-15, 07:03 PM
Those don't really count, though--if you can't stay in the air (and out of harm's way) it doesn't really do much.

True enough, but it is cool.

I had a DM once who put in "flying" as a skill (this was an ElfQuest session, and one tribe of EQ elves can fly as an innate ability). Boy, was that overpowered :smallbiggrin:

Armads
2007-12-15, 07:57 PM
Arrrggg...can't...resist...urge...to...correct...b latant...mistakes...

You're stuck in your position too. There's no amount of reason that's going to make you change your point, but I'll just say it because I can.



The wand is quite expensive. Getting the bears there in the first place is a full-round action which the druid cannot do if he wants to push the animal. The fighter can have various means to escape enemies surrounding him at that level (in particular since I do not believe you can summon enough dire bears at that level to completely encase the fighter - but I am too exhausted to do the math).

HOLY COW A WAND OF DISPEL MAGIC! It costs 11500 gold for a CL 5 wand. If you want a CL 10 wand (and it's quite easy to get), it costs 22500 gold. Compared to your wand of polymorph, ring of blinking AND scroll of AMF, it's not a lot, is it?

Btw, he doesn't need to someone dire bears. It's just that dire bears are really really good. 1d4+1 brown bears (Summon Monster 6)



Human. INT 14 (for expertise, improved trip etc.). 5 skill points. 20% devoted to spellcraft, with maybe later a skill focus feat.

20% devoted to spellcraft? That's 1 skill point each level? By level 10, you'll have 6 ranks in it, +3 from skill focus. That's +9 total. Which means you only have a 50% chance to detect a druid is casting Freedom of Movement. Or any another 4th level spell.



Other fighters with less INT and class skills will have other tactics not relying on spells to be recognised.

Examples please. Blatant assertion doesn't work.



No, not against an archer.

Why don't you just build your fighter for everyone to see. Currently, it's just a fighter that has his feats, skills, loot, ever-changing to meet whatever challenge it's at hand. That simply doesn't work.



Yep, sure. You did not.

So it's compulsory for me to repeat what others have already said? And then maybe put an edit saying "Ninja'ed" even though I'm one day late?



Only an archmage can do that in core. Highly specific. And even that archmage gets affected by an opponent AMF. Ah, and btw, the wizard can still be attacked via arrows - while the wizard can cast nothing through his own AMF.

HAHAHA. "Highly Specific". Your fighter is so specific it's like a needle aimed to poke through animal skin to kill druids yet is unable to pierce paper. It uses: UMD, AMF, Ring of Blinking, Unlimited Potions of Stuff, Spellcraft, Spot, Listen.

Sculpted AMF is excluding the wizard, so he can cast his own spells. And AMFs do not block line of effect.



Nope. That is easily compared. And even explicitly written in the DMG. PC classes is what is difficult to compare.

Um, why? Why is it easy to compare "I have any 10 skills as class skills" from the expert to being weaker than the wizard? The expert is even better than your "UMD, Spellcraft, Blah" fighter, because he can actually make the skill checks, since he has the class skills and skill points to spare. Tadah. Expert is balanced with fighter. Also, both can become Pun-pun, so they're perfectly balanced! WHEE.




The class ability.

Why? Magically Manipulated to Impede Motion is ridiculously vague. Could it be a charmed fighter standing around with a readied action to grapple something? Grappling is impeding motion, and the fighter is magically manipulated. Would it work? By RAW, it might.



Anything from the rules, yes. When confronted with possibility to interpret, I usually go with the less broken/more balanced one. Do you? Apparently not, because you believe in absolute caster superiority.

So you're houseruling. Just say that it's a HOUSERULE, that you're basically interpreting the RAW to nerf casters?



With ring of blinking, the boots are not necessary at that level. Ring of blinking was brought up specifically vs the wall of thorns. But a potion could also cover that rare occurance (rare including: will the druid even be able to cast that spell or will a readied attack of the fighter hit him first?). Or potion of blink. Take your choice.

With ring of blinking, you have a 50% miss chance on all attacks. Unless you go out of core to do that, where there are better things for the druid to do. Like cast Bite of the Werebear, and summon stuff as standard actions.




Yes, you fall through the druid's squre, his magic ends, he falls simultaneously. Cool, eh?:smallwink:

How do you fly through the druid's square? Also, what if the druid decides to dispel magic you?



Sigh. A +5 greater magic fang is inferior to a +5 weapon in various ways:
- you do less damage than the weapon (normally, when you are a monk not which is once again class synergy)
- it can be dispelled, the magic weapon cannot be dispelled
- it is up to the DM if you can contact a lvl 20 npc caster. The +5 weapon is more easily available

At the level you can get it (around 10th? Maybe 8th?), 20th level spell effects can't be dispelled. Magic weapons CAN be dispelled, too. Also, magic weapons can be sundered/disarmed. Also, you don't deal less damage with a natural weapon. For example, a brown bear's claw does 1d8 - standard of most weapons. Improved Natural Attack is like a Monkey Grip, but tons better. Also, is dealing 1 or 2 points less damage a big deal when you're saving 48k?



Yep, I guess your opinion will not be swayed by this post.

Yours too.



Yep, eagles can fly faster. Though not faster than a fighter with flying ability and boots of haste. And likely not outside arrow range (wind wall does not work when flying so high, btw).

And you are actually going able to damage meaningfully with arrows? With Stoneskin existing (OMG SO EXPENSIVE 250 GOLD PER CAST), or even just casting Control Winds to make the fighter's life a misery? So far your fighter is melee-oriented (hellooo polymorph). Does he have some sort of hidden feats or special abilities a normal fighter doesn't have?



And eagles cannot fly straight up (they do not have perfect flying), so the fighter may make it to end above the druid (in particular with readied move actions).


Okay, so the druid buys his own boots of haste. Or maybe uses a wand of haste. You also can't fly straight up, because your maneuverability is Good, not perfect.

EDIT: Minor typos and editing errors

Freelance Henchman
2007-12-15, 08:29 PM
I could swear I've read this entire thread before.

Snadgeros
2007-12-15, 11:29 PM
Alright. One last attempt at getting this thread back on topic.

Yes, druids are overpowered, let's hope they fix this in 4E. Can we please stop the druid vs. fighter mini-thread here? Or at least move it to a NEW thread?

Anyways, no, the fighter needs no fluff. If he were given fluff, it'd probably be stuff such as "was in the military" or "always an expert in one weapon." I don't want that, I like the flexibility of the class. The roleplay you get out of it is equal to the amount you put in. For example, I'm currently working on a lizardfolk lawful evil fighter who, although charismatic and likable, is a ****ing twisted sadist in combat. He gets off to the screams of his enemies and occasionally eats some of their remains. Besides that though, he's the kind of guy you'd have a drink with in the local tavern. Will he be super-optimized megacheese killerman? Probably not. Will these quirks be fun to play? Hell yes. See that right there? That's creativity. Grow some sometime and you'll have a lot more fun and find yourself favoring the flexible classes (screw paladins and their stupid alignment restrictions).

If you want a fighter focused on specific combat styles, however, I recommend Tome of Battle. Don't worry about optimizing, you'll be fine with almost anything from that book. Just pick a fighting style and stick with it. I'm partial to the unarmed swordsage who specializes in throwing people, but then again, I love monks. Something just screams "awesome" about a person who beats people up with his fists. It's even cooler with drunken master, because then you're basically Jackie Chan.

Kompera
2007-12-16, 12:41 AM
You don't actually read the posts saying that the druid can just order the animal to bump into the fighter, do you?

How does the Druid know to give this order? The Druid has no problems perceiving the Fighter, there is no reason for him to order his AC to "bump into the Fighter" when for every other encounter the AC is ordered to attack/kill.

mabriss lethe
2007-12-16, 01:00 AM
- it can be dispelled, the magic weapon cannot be dispelled
nitpick:
Taken from the SRD

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcasterís spell.

Yeah, besides that, the pvp needs to stop. Because frankly....who cares? Answer: obviously, too many people care. why do I bother asking.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 03:07 AM
How does the Druid know to give this order?
Spellcraft. Unlike the fighter, the druid has it on his class list, and unlike the fighter, the druid has enough skill points per level to effectively raise it.




Anyways, no, the fighter needs no fluff. If he were given fluff, it'd probably be stuff such as "was in the military" or "always an expert in one weapon."
I agree - fighters (and preferably, most base classes) don't need fluff. In my opinion a fighter-ish class should be able to encompass most things from lone vigilante to swashbuckler to knight to samurai to common soldier. Hence I don't really appreciate the existence of classes like the swashbuckler, although I realize that class was made because the PHB fighter was less effective at swashing than intended.

So the good thing about 4E is that they appear to be heading this way - drop the excess classes (D&D doesn't need 25 character classes!) and make the fighter broader. The bad thing about 4E is that they appear to be sticking mandatory (and cliched) fluff in other classes, as well as races.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-16, 03:26 AM
Fighter doesn't need fluff. What it needs is versatility. The fighter should be as good at combat techniques as the wizard is at using magic. Which mostly comes down to the fighter needing to have feats he can switch out from day to day, or some other class feature that gives options. Fighters as they are now lack the skill points to do anything interesting with them.

Kompera
2007-12-16, 03:45 AM
Spellcraft. Unlike the fighter, the druid has it on his class list, and unlike the fighter, the druid has enough skill points per level to effectively raise it.
You're right, the Druid has more skill points and Spellcraft as a class skill.

But Spellcraft doesn't do that.

The closest it comes is the DC 20+spell level chance to:

Identify a spell thatís already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.And given that Hide from Animals does not effect the Druid in any way, it's difficult to see how to justify the Druid as being able to "see or detect the effects of the spell."

I'm not at all saying that the Fighter is a superior class to a Druid. I'm just saying that all of the posts I've seen which suggest that the AC attack a square or in some other way try to get around the fact that the AC can not detect the Fighter who is under the effects of Hide from Animals requires some metagaming on the part of the Druid. At the very least, the first order to attack the Fighter would fail, since the AC has no way to follow that order. At that point the Druid can try to determine why his AC did not attack, using non-metagaming methods.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-16, 03:54 AM
Unless the druid can, say, Speak with Animals. Or has a telepathic bond with his animal companion. Or has the AC included in the telepathic bond of his adventuring party.

Kompera
2007-12-16, 04:53 AM
Unless the druid can, say, Speak with Animals. Or has a telepathic bond with his animal companion. Or has the AC included in the telepathic bond of his adventuring party.None of that lets the Druid know, before he gives a command to attack, that the Fighter is Hidden From Animals.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-16, 05:14 AM
Okay. The animal companion loses a turn, at worst. But actually, since talking is a free action, "attack him!" "There's no one there." "...attack the air over there!" "You're wacky, two-legs, but okay. GRAWR McRAWR!"

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 05:19 AM
None of that lets the Druid know, before he gives a command to attack, that the Fighter is Hidden From Animals.

Speaking is still a free action, as is telepathy.

Druid: attack that guy!
Animal: what guy?
Druid: okay, just move over there.
Animal: [bump]
Fighter: D'oh!

And before you start arguing that the druid couldn't possibly think of this all that quickly, remember that Hide From Animals is on the druid's spell list. At level one. Hence if any character is familiar with that spell, it is the druid.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-16, 05:26 AM
Personally I don't think any classes apart from paladins should have any fluff with them. Which means a fighters lack of fluff is a good thing in my book.

How does the druid do the telepathic bond, the only way I can see it to use a wizard spell, which makes you no better than the fighters.

Armads
2007-12-16, 05:51 AM
Personally I don't think any classes apart from paladins should have any fluff with them. Which means a fighters lack of fluff is a good thing in my book.

How does the druid do the telepathic bond, the only way I can see it to use a wizard spell, which makes you no better than the fighters.

He uses Speak with Animals, instead.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-16, 06:05 AM
Personally I don't think any classes apart from paladins should have any fluff with them. Which means a fighters lack of fluff is a good thing in my book.

How does the druid do the telepathic bond, the only way I can see it to use a wizard spell, which makes you no better than the fighters.

There's a difference between a Permanencied buff and assuming you have all the short term spells you want.

Kompera
2007-12-16, 06:08 AM
Okay. The animal companion loses a turn, at worst. But actually, since talking is a free action, "attack him!" "There's no one there." "...attack the air over there!" "You're wacky, two-legs, but okay. GRAWR McRAWR!"I agree, the Druid would be able to eventually get the AC to take some kind of action which might impact the Fighter. I think you've short circuited the back and forth a bit, using metagaming again. But eventually it would get to that point.

RAW doesn't give you unlimited free actions, so each GM would have to set their own rule on how long the back and forth takes.


Free actions donít take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.

So, is it house ruling if the RAW does explicitly state that there "may be limits", but takes no time to provide any examples the GM can use to come to a judgment?

When I GMed I allowed soliloquy to halt all actions (i.e. to be a free action, though this was prior to v3.X), but not conversation. I got tired of the following exchange:

GM: <insert name of BBEG> speaks to you, saying
Player A, butting in: "I immediately attack!" *rolls dice*

But I also didn't want an entire strategic planning session to occur for each melee round, slowing combat to a crawl and ruining any sense of excitement and also seeing the more power gaming players tend to run the less power gaming players characters in combats.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 06:14 AM
When I GMed I allowed soliloquy to halt all actions (i.e. to be a free action, though this was prior to v3.X), but not conversation.

Oh, that's easy. "Evil Villain Soliloquy That Stops Time While It's Going On" is an actual mutant power in the Paranoia RPG.

Denying the players full strategic planning and conversation during combat is quite reasonable given what RAW says about free actions, not to mention given some semblance of realism. Besides, barring telepathy, anything you say in combat is likely to be heard by your enemies. Oops...

Kompera
2007-12-16, 06:27 AM
Speaking is still a free action, as is telepathy.

Druid: attack that guy!
Animal: what guy?
Druid: okay, just move over there.
Animal: [bump]
Fighter: D'oh!



I'm not able to find the RAW which describes the chance for an animal which "simply act[s] as though the warded creatures are not there" to bump into a person who is there. Can you point that out for me, please?

I did find this:

Ending Your Movement

You canít end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.The Fighter is not helpless, so by RAW the AC can not halt in the same square even though it doesn't know the Fighter is there.

And if the AC is ordered to move through the square, the closest I can find would be an Overrun attack. RAW allows the Fighter to avoid these attacks, unless the AC has the Imp. Overrun Feat.

The defender has the option to simply avoid you. If he avoids you, he doesnít suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by.)

The Fighter has the option to either take an AoO or to let the AC by. If he lets it by, there is no [bump], which neatly removes the need to argue about the RAI of "If a warded character touches an animal or attacks any creature, even with a spell, the spell ends for all recipients."

For the record, I do not agree with those who state some version of "if A touches B, B touches A". I read the RAW as written ""If a warded character touches", and not "If a warded character is touched by". Those who argue the A <-> B thing are adding to the RAW, otherwise known as house ruling for their own advantage.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-16, 06:47 AM
How exactly does the fighter benefit from Hide from Animals? The effect ends if he attacks any creature? Is he using the time to cast buffs or something? While letting the Druid beat on him? Oh wait! Fighters don't have any buff to cast! Just WBL to rip through!

Which kinda sucks, since Fighters need to spend more money on equipment (of the non-single use variety) than Druids do. I should know. I played in a game where the party had no magical equipment whatsoever. I pretty much soloed the entire plot arc, and then we got to go back to WoD (freakin' paradox realms).

Kompera
2007-12-16, 06:54 AM
How exactly does the fighter benefit from Hide from Animals? The effect ends if he attacks any creature? Is he using the time to cast buffs or something? While letting the Druid beat on him? Oh wait! Fighters don't have any buff to cast! Just WBL to rip through!
I don't think it's a good tactic. I think it's a pretty lousy tactic, unless the Fighter intends to run away. I just saw people using metagaming and tactics which are against the rules to try to overcome the Hide from Animals effect, and asked a few questions.

Talic
2007-12-16, 07:57 AM
AMF is best used not to negate casters, but as a tool to force the party into dealing with a fight without magic items. This way, martial classes get abilities, and casters can do some things. Keep in mind, most spells that create THINGS will persist in Anti magic. So will Wall of force. Casters have options, and AMF has a blessedly short range. Good for keeping people going toe-to-toe with you from snarking you with a GMW'd Keen Coup-de-grace rapier +5 while sitting in his mithril chain shirt of heavy fortification. It lets those brutish beatsticks intimidate a higher level party, without nullifying, when used right.

Fighter, oddly enough, is great for what it is. Something to go to for a few feats. It's flexible, and versatile for people who want a healthier array of feats.

Is it imperfect? Yes.

Does it fill a role that other classes can't? Yes.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 08:13 AM
Does it fill a role that other classes can't? Yes.

And what role would that be?

kamikasei
2007-12-16, 08:14 AM
Fighter, oddly enough, is great for what it is. Something to go to for a few feats. It's flexible, and versatile for people who want a healthier array of feats.

There should not be a base class in the core book with a name like "Fighter" (suggesting that someone who wants their character to primarily Fight should take it in its entirety) which exists solely so other classes can take one or two levels of it to get feats.

A core base class called "Fighter" should be what you take at level one and continue to twenty if you want to be better at fighting with weapons than anyone else.

Snadgeros
2007-12-16, 11:21 AM
Really, although the fighter can be outclassed in melee combat by clerics and druids due to inherent brokenness, he does have one area he surpasses all others in: weapons. The fighter is the best there is at fighting with a single weapon, or, with the weapon mastery tree, a single TYPE of weapon. With his vast array of bonus feats and availability of the weapon focus tree, no class can even compare with him when it comes to focusing on a single weapon.

So if you're in a campaign where there's some kind of superweapon you'll use for the entirety of it (a mystical sword, for example), or one with a DM who will give you magical upgrades to your weapon of choice (as opposed to screwing you over by giving you a different one), then the fighter's going to be dishing out some serious damage. Coming up with a combination from another class that can compare with the damage from a full power attacking fighter with a +5 greatsword and the entire weapon focus/weapon specialization feat trees is going to be tough. Also, weapon supremacy is just AWESOME.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 11:37 AM
Coming up with a combination from another class that can compare with the damage from a full power attacking fighter with a +5 greatsword and the entire weapon focus/weapon specialization feat trees is going to be tough. Also, weapon supremacy is just AWESOME.

It's very easy to find another class that can compare.
A barbarian's rage (+2/+2, or +3/+3 from level 11) outclasses the weapon focus/weapon spec combo at most levels.
The ranger's +0/+6 against fave enemy also compares pretty well, as does the paladin's +5/+10 smite attack.

Aside from that, any feat and any magical weapon the fighter can take, the other martial classes can use as well. Well, except monks, of course, but they are the weakest PHB class for a reason.

Snadgeros
2007-12-16, 12:09 PM
It's very easy to find another class that can compare.
A barbarian's rage (+2/+2, or +3/+3 from level 11) outclasses the weapon focus/weapon spec combo at most levels.
The ranger's +0/+6 against fave enemy also compares pretty well, as does the paladin's +5/+10 smite attack.

Aside from that, any feat and any magical weapon the fighter can take, the other martial classes can use as well. Well, except monks, of course, but they are the weakest PHB class for a reason.

Okay, yes, a barbarian can deal more damage, but at the cost of AC and pretty much all other abilities, but that's the tradeoff, so that's balanced.

Rangers' and paladins' abilities are useful, but circumstantial. The advantage of a fighter is that his feats work against almost any combatant, with few exceptions. Grapple? Trip? Bull Rush? Fighter can do it.

Sure, you can use the fighter's +5 greatsword, but you won't be nearly as good at it. You lack the fighter's weapon focus and weapon mastery feat trees. No, not any martial class can use these. No other martial class offers this many bonus feats, and none of them can take weapon specialization or above (those are fighter only).

Lastly, monks don't suck. They deal less damage and with a lesser BAB, true, but they have other areas that they excel in. Movement speed, saves (name one other class with amazing saves for every category), and skills. Unlike fighters, they actually have spot, listen, hide, and move silently as class skills, along with many others. Not to mention they actually have enough skill points to create a decent spread. If you want a combat role for your monk, stop focusing on flurry of blows (it's underpowered an circumstantial). Use your high movement speed and give him spring attack. Voila! Your monk is now a hit-and-run guerilla warfare style combatant. This works great with a drunken master, as you can hit your enemies with a 10-foot ladder for reach too.

Frosty
2007-12-16, 12:35 PM
The monk is worse than the fighter. Spring attack is something the Fighter can do as well. So can stunning fist. Movement speed can be had with items. The only thing Monks have over fighters are saves. That's it.

Snadgeros
2007-12-16, 02:05 PM
Yes, but the fighter is spending feats and money on things that the monk gets for free. You have an item that increases speed? Monk uses that and once again, he's faster. Not to mention skills and skill points. Put a bunch of them into tumble and jump and you'll have a character with unparalleled mobility on the ground. I'm excluding flying from this equation because flying in DnD is messed up to begin with. 3D movement doesn't fit well with primarily ground-based game.

A fighter with spring attack is a bad idea though. First off, his primary role is to tank, not to run around. By using spring attack, he can't full attack, which is bad considering he has full BAB. Also, unless you're using magic items, your movement is going to be 20 at best when wearing heavy armor (which he needs to because he doesn't get WIS bonuses to AC). So congratulations, you've made a fighter that can move in 10 feet, partial attack, and move back out 10 feet. The enemies will reach you easily, and your stunning fist is useless since fighters don't fight unarmed. You'd be much better off just doing combat reflexes + spiked chain if you wanted to waste feats and make a distance fighter.

Lastly, the monk has one major advantage over the fighter: equipment. Your fighter is going to be spending thousands on his armor and weapons, and still need to buy magic items to boost himself. The monk will need no armor and no weapons, and can instead spend all of his precious GP on BETTER magic items with higher bonuses. Finally, his fists become magical, and believe me, this IS very useful. There are many creatures with DR and every little bit helps when it comes to passing it.

horseboy
2007-12-16, 06:29 PM
The only thing Monks have over fighters are saves. That's it.
And skills.

Armads
2007-12-16, 08:47 PM
Yes, but the fighter is spending feats and money on things that the monk gets for free. You have an item that increases speed? Monk uses that and once again, he's faster. Not to mention skills and skill points. Put a bunch of them into tumble and jump and you'll have a character with unparalleled mobility on the ground. I'm excluding flying from this equation because flying in DnD is messed up to begin with. 3D movement doesn't fit well with primarily ground-based game.

The fighter is spending feats because FEATS are what he has. If he doesn't spend them, he's no better than a warrior (except having 20 more hp at level 20).



A fighter with spring attack is a bad idea though. First off, his primary role is to tank, not to run around. By using spring attack, he can't full attack, which is bad considering he has full BAB. Also, unless you're using magic items, your movement is going to be 20 at best when wearing heavy armor (which he needs to because he doesn't get WIS bonuses to AC). So congratulations, you've made a fighter that can move in 10 feet, partial attack, and move back out 10 feet. The enemies will reach you easily, and your stunning fist is useless since fighters don't fight unarmed. You'd be much better off just doing combat reflexes + spiked chain if you wanted to waste feats and make a distance fighter.

Fighters have no fluff. They have no fixed role, so not all of them are tanks. There are archers, hit-and-run fighters (mainly using Weapon Specialization for bonus damage), TWFers (weak, but still doable with enough martial study feats). They can fight unarmed, and fight with anything that they focus on.



Lastly, the monk has one major advantage over the fighter: equipment. Your fighter is going to be spending thousands on his armor and weapons, and still need to buy magic items to boost himself. The monk will need no armor and no weapons, and can instead spend all of his precious GP on BETTER magic items with higher bonuses. Finally, his fists become magical, and believe me, this IS very useful. There are many creatures with DR and every little bit helps when it comes to passing it.

The monk cannot hurt incorporeal creatures, though (magical for overcoming DR is not magical for everything). Also, the monk needs equipment more than the fighter. He needs his (expensive) stat boosts (in the form of +enhancement and tomes), and his bracers of armor, his (ridiculously expensive) amulet of mighty fists. And the fighter with a +1 greatsword also has it count as magical for overcoming damage reduction AND can hurt incorporeal creatures.

EDIT: Monks do have more skills, and better skills, though. But fighters can acquire Tumble via a Citiscape skill-trade variant.

Azukius
2007-12-17, 12:02 AM
this has morphed from a druid vs fighter thread to a monk vs fighter thread. evolution in action!

Snadgeros
2007-12-17, 12:08 AM
Oh god, Azukis is right, and I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR IT! I've become what I've been yelling at! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Let's get this back on topic then! No more <class> vs. <other class>! I want everyone's opinion on whether or not the fighter needs fluff and/or needs to be broken into separate classes for different fighting styles (sword and board class, TWF class, bow and arrow class, etc.)

I say nay! Fighters are the core of fighting. You can make any of those sub-classes with a little effort and the right feats. Many are underpowered, but the tools for fluff are readily available to you. If you want specific styles of fighting, go buy ToB. It's very good.

Talic
2007-12-17, 01:25 AM
There should not be a base class in the core book with a name like "Fighter" (suggesting that someone who wants their character to primarily Fight should take it in its entirety) which exists solely so other classes can take one or two levels of it to get feats.

A core base class called "Fighter" should be what you take at level one and continue to twenty if you want to be better at fighting with weapons than anyone else.

Ummm... Are you actually serious? With the array of PrC's out there, more characters take a class to 5, so they qualify for a PrC, and leave it in the dust. Few take Barbarian or Ranger to 20. Heck, few people even take Druid or Wizard to 20, without dipping into other classes, or PrC's. CoDZilla is the best chance of seeing a 20 level base class build, but that's still not likely.

The Fighter class represents complex fighting training, compressing into a couple years abilities that take most people a decade to pick up. Some people can train under a Fighter for a time, and use what they've learned to complement their other skills.

It's like when a Web Designer learns about business because he's going to open a business. He's not going 100% Business Administration, nor is he solely taking Web classes. He's taking a bit of each, to give him the skills he needs to not royally screw up his new company.

Like it or not, splashing is a part of character optimization. They've made it a bit harder to do, by spreading the bonuses for most base classes out over the first few levels, but it's still the best way to build what is termed a power character. And if we're comparing a beatstick class against a full caster, arguably one of the strongest all around full casters, power character building is in order.

There are classes you CANNOT qualify for by level 5 without at least a few levels of fighter. There are a few that you can't qualify for without 4 levels of fighter (look for PrC's that require 5-6 feats, depending on whether human is an allowed race for the class).

The problem with your point is that you're arguing the pure base class against the pure base class, as if that's the only option... As if D&D didn't have rules for multiclassing, like Favored Class. The way it really works is COMPLETELY different from that. Just as people in the real world can be physics teachers and black belts, so too can characters in D&D learn more than one trick.

Snooder
2007-12-17, 01:31 AM
Let's get this back on topic then! No more <class> vs. <other class>! I want everyone's opinion on whether or not the fighter needs fluff and/or needs to be broken into separate classes for different fighting styles (sword and board class, TWF class, bow and arrow class, etc.)


Personally, I agree with you that the fighter shouldn't be broken up into different classes, but for a different reason.

The way I see it, all fighters are really supposed to be basically the same. All this high dex/no str spiked chain trip fighter nonsense is, IMO not really what the fighter was meant to be. The fighter was supposed to be like an Armsman if you will, a guy who fights on the battlefield but does it with training and practice rather than brute strength. Whether he uses a spear, a sword and shield, two axes, e.t.c. he still that guy. Especially if you look only at the PHB, you'll notice that the feat trees aren't very deep. My guess is, the feats were supposed to round out the fighter and make the really buff dude who hits hard slightly different from the dextrous guy who hits several people at once, but still have both be the same basic idea. Like the difference between a necromancer and a illusionist. They play completely differently, but they're still both wizards.

Snooder
2007-12-17, 01:36 AM
Ummm... Are you actually serious? With the array of PrC's out there, more characters take a class to 5, so they qualify for a PrC, and leave it in the dust. Few take Barbarian or Ranger to 20. Heck, few people even take Druid or Wizard to 20, without dipping into other classes, or PrC's.

That's not what he means. A fighter PrC is usually considered a fighter, just a like a rogue who PrCs into assassin is still a rogue and a wizard who prestiges into archmage is till a wizard.

The problem is the idea that you aren't playing a fighter, but playing a rogue and you dip into fighter to pick up quickshot. Or a playing a ranger who dips in. That's not playing a fighter at all and it's a serious problem with the class.

Fighter isn't supposed to be a "dip class" it's a base class with a full 20 level progression. Just because the designers goofed doesn't mean that's how things should be.

Talic
2007-12-17, 01:54 AM
That's not what he means. A fighter PrC is usually considered a fighter, just a like a rogue who PrCs into assassin is still a rogue and a wizard who prestiges into archmage is till a wizard.

No, they're Assassins, and Archmages. You generally ID the character by the PrC, not the base class. What you're saying is a lot like calling a Neurosurgeon a Med Student.


The problem is the idea that you aren't playing a fighter, but playing a rogue and you dip into fighter to pick up quickshot. Or a playing a ranger who dips in. That's not playing a fighter at all and it's a serious problem with the class.

Why? Why is it bad to take a level or two of a class? Is it so bad for a character to have an avid hobby, something that's not quite his area of expertise, but that he's interested in? Is diversification really a dirty word? If so... WHY is it a serious problem? What does this "dipping in" do to seriously undermine the structure and fun of the entire game? I wouldn't consider a problem "serious" unless it's a significant threat to the purpose of the game.

Or is it just that fighter purists don't want other classes looking at fighter for anything? Would it be better if each of the core classes was so different as to be utterly useless to build a dual character concept? Look for a Tempest build without both Ranger and fighter. It's not happening. It could, granted, but without fighter to complement this full BAB progression class, it takes off much slower.


Fighter isn't supposed to be a "dip class" it's a base class with a full 20 level progression. Just because the designers goofed doesn't mean that's how things should be.
And it still is. Just because you can dip your strawberries in chocolate, doesn't mean you can't eat the chocolate by itself too. The limits to the classes are almost 100% of the time equal to the creative limit of the character designer. Just as people often dip rogue for evasion, or barbarian for rage and movement, people dip fighter for feats. Is it a bad thing if the fighter has the most universally USEFUL commodity? Not everyone needs evasion, or rage.... Almost everyone can use an extra feat or two.

Snooder
2007-12-17, 02:17 AM
No, they're Assassins, and Archmages. You generally ID the character by the PrC, not the base class. What you're saying is a lot like calling a Neurosurgeon a Med Student.

more like calling a Neurosurgeon a doctor. Better application of general to specialization.



Why? Why is it bad to take a level or two of a class? Is it so bad for a character to have an avid hobby, something that's not quite his area of expertise, but that he's interested in? Is diversification really a dirty word? If so... WHY is it a serious problem?


Ah, I think you misunderstand. It's not the idea of dipping that's a problem. It is the idea that the only purpose of the class is to dip. If someone wants to play a Rogue18/Fighter2 that's cool, just like playing a Fighter with some stealth as a Fighter18/Rogue2 would be cool too. The problem is with the idea that the only reason to ever take levels in the class is to tack on a couple feats to a pre-existing character. Imagine if the only reason to take any levels in rogue was to add a d6 of sneak attack damage, that'd be pretty lame, no?

Talic
2007-12-17, 02:47 AM
more like calling a Neurosurgeon a doctor. Better application of general to specialization.

I disagree. Most doctors have specializations within fields, so doctor has a level of respect all its own. Perhaps more accurate would be referring to the Master Electrician or Head Contractor as a construction worker. Yes, he may work at new house sites, but he's as far away from that base as the base is from a common laborer. Doctor was perhaps an imperfect analogy, as any doctor has an area of expertise (referring to M.D.).



Ah, I think you misunderstand. It's not the idea of dipping that's a problem. It is the idea that the only purpose of the class is to dip. If someone wants to play a Rogue18/Fighter2 that's cool, just like playing a Fighter with some stealth as a Fighter18/Rogue2 would be cool too. The problem is with the idea that the only reason to ever take levels in the class is to tack on a couple feats to a pre-existing character. Imagine if the only reason to take any levels in rogue was to add a d6 of sneak attack damage, that'd be pretty lame, no?

Isn't the only reason to get rogue a bit of skill points and Evasion?

Seriously, with all due respect, I think you're dead wrong. There are several feat intensive character builds that cannot be done effectively out of other classes. You need at least the 4 or so levels of fighter to get it out of the way. And when you factor that most PrC's begin at level 6, especially Martial ones, it's possible to have a competent character with a majority of his Base class levels being Fighter.

One of my personal favorite Melee Qualifying paths is Fighter 4/Barbarian 1. Note that Barbarian is the splash class, for the rage and movement. Fighter is the bulk of the build. You can qualify for most purely martial classes with that setup, get the best of the barbarian, the best of the fighter, and be ok.

Alternates are Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Barbarian1, and the like.

Bottom line, for most martial classes, your most important levels are the first five. That's what gets you into the average PrC. I think that Fighter could be a bit better balanced by moving the level 6 bonus feat to level 5, thus giving a benefit for people who take the full 5 to qualify for their classes.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-17, 03:12 AM
And when you factor that most PrC's begin at level 6, especially Martial ones, it's possible to have a competent character with a majority of his Base class levels being Fighter.

While that, of course, is pretty much the point of prestige classes, the point remains that Druid/20, Rogue/20 (well, rogue/19 to be precise) and Barb/20 are viable builds, whereas Fighter/20 isn't really. The reason for that is because every class gets better class abilities at higher levels (including a nice capstone, in several cases) - the only classes that don't, are the NPC classes and the Fighter.

Hyrael
2007-12-17, 03:32 AM
I think the Fighter would be vastly improved by a very simple addition:
4+int skill points/level, and More class skills. Specificaly:
Know (local), Sense Motive, Maybe Gather Info, and a few others.

The point is to make them more rounded, worldly individuals. For one thing, it makes them more beleivable Watchmen (seriously, what kind of force of Fighters and Warriors can keep order in a city when they are incapable of telling when someone is lying, knowing the layout of acity, or pumping informants for info). Any Mercenary has to be pretty adept at finding jobs, knowing the local color, and telling when someone is scamming them.

It turns Fighters into people that, outside of combat, can ask around, be suspicious of people, and act as a font of earthy knowledge and cunning. Its seems such a simple, easily-solved problem.

Talic
2007-12-17, 04:00 AM
While that, of course, is pretty much the point of prestige classes, the point remains that Druid/20, Rogue/20 (well, rogue/19 to be precise) and Barb/20 are viable builds, whereas Fighter/20 isn't really. The reason for that is because every class gets better class abilities at higher levels (including a nice capstone, in several cases) - the only classes that don't, are the NPC classes and the Fighter.

And yet, it still doesn't take away much from the game. At best, that's a minor annoyance. It's hardly a serious enough issue to warrant this much fuss.

I look at it this way. Fighter is a very flexible class. It's hard to give it too much of a capstone that's universally good for all builds. Rogues and rangers both have choices in theirs, Barbarians enhance the only point of the class (expanding that Rage even further). Do fighters need a new mechanic, as the Barbarian has? Not at all. Do they need a flexible capstone, like the ranged/two weapon of the ranger, or the rogue special tricks? I don't think so.

Why?

Because PrC's take over where the feats leave off. PrC's provide the additional oomph to any build you can hope for of fighter, making any capstone that'd be added redundant. Fighter is like the GURPS of the martial community. No real expertise, but able to do anything passably, and usually faster than, the other martial classes. No other class can get Combat Brute faster. No other class can get into the Feat heavy PrC's that were designed with fighter in mind... Well, not as quickly, at least. That is where Fighter outshines other classes... It's a foundation. It truly is a BASE class. It's designed to have other things built on top of it.

Several base classes can be the whole building... Yeah, but with something as flexible as fighter, it's hard to do. Look at wizard. Where's the Capstone? Level 17, at the acquisition of 9th level spells? Yes, that's immensely powerful, but since there's 8 schools of magic, and general wizards, you can't really give them a single class-specific boost that sorceror can't also have at level 18. Druids, well get wild shape, but many of the most powerful classes (Cleric and Wizard) get very little that another class doesn't already have. They're still viable without the capstone because what they have is good.

There's a gap in the Feat trees that don't take advantage of the really staggering amount of feats fighters get... Special unique attacks, enhanced uses for the old ones, and the like. If the fighter is weak anywhere, that's it. That feat trees don't go far enough to take a character from 1 to 20 down one tree. What if Power Attack had 12 more feats stacked, going down, that get progressively better and more painful? What if going the Combat expertise route eventually could make you more resistant to magic? What if Toughness had it's own chain, focused on making a character that just...won't....DIE? What if there were trees like this that even fighters couldn't take more than one of, and, if taken at every fighter bonus feat, gave several different "schools" of fighter?

That's what book of 9 swords did, but they removed it from the feat mechanic, and allowed feats to get some maneuvers.

But if you want to make fighters better, make feats that are feat intensive. Something the average class can't get. Perhaps cleave eventually could get multiple 5 foot steps between them... Perhaps certain feats could force saves vs status effects, like dazed, or nauseated. Short term, obviously, but it's a thought.