PDA

View Full Version : Is Fighter really an NPC class?



Frosty
2008-09-02, 02:08 PM
We've all seen that yes, a straight Fighter is most likely not the most optimized character out there. However, I've seen people contend that the Fighter should be relegated to being an NPC class. Fighter is not the strongest, but is it weak enough to count as an NPC class? What do you think should be the BENCHMARK of what class is an NPC and which ones not?

Perhaps if the class is weaker than the Adept, it is an NPC class?

monty
2008-09-02, 02:10 PM
Well then so are monks, soulknives, and samurai. That's starting to make an unnecessary number of NPC classes. I'd just call it "balance issues" and go play a wizard or something.

streakster
2008-09-02, 02:15 PM
Hooray! Impending flame war!

*Pulls up lawnchair*
*Gets hot dogs, marshmallows*

Someone tell me when we get to the Arena battle that will settle this once and for all, 'k?



In all seriousness, we'd have to agree on a measure of class power first, before we could even start. And what to judge them on? Straight damage? Who'd win in a fight? Versatility? Movement speed? Skills? Narrative effect? Duel? Battling armies? Weightlifting? Trivia questions?

Heck, there's a whole thread just on that.

Anywho, I'm gonna wait for the fire...



So, I think the benchmark of a NPC class is versatility, both on and off the field of battle. If you only function off the field of battle, perhaps you aren't a PC class (note that every PC class has combat function, and at least limited non-combat function).

-argus

I remember a 50 (or was it hundred) page thread from old gleemax, arguing whether or not the fighter had any worth out of combat. Good times. Devolved into a leadership argument.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 02:15 PM
Well, if the Adept is the benchmark, then I'm certain some folks would say the poor Fighter is doomed to NPC status (caster cheese and all).

Personally, I think Fighters are fine powerwise (look at Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Leap Attack, and related silliness). I think if they didn't have the versatility they have, they could be tossed into the dustbin of NPC classes. If you think about it, that's what ties the NPC's together: lack of versitility and ability. Warriors can do little other than hit stuff in fairly unimaginative ways. Adepts, even with their spells, don't have too many options. Aristocrats can't do jack-squat, nor can Commoners. Experts have the most utility of any NPC class, but they can't hold a candle to PC's in combat, even the weakest combat class is still going to outclass them by miles, simply because they have nothing BUT skill points.

So, I think the benchmark of a NPC class is versatility, both on and off the field of battle. If you only function off the field of battle, perhaps you aren't a PC class (note that every PC class has combat function, and at least limited non-combat function).

-argus

Hal
2008-09-02, 02:18 PM
NPC classes are what they are because they're (relatively) easy to make. Throw some gear on them, pick a few basic feats and they're good to go.

Fighters, having as many feats as they do, are more complicated to build. Not by much, mind you, but still more complicated.

Really, ANY class can be an NPC, it's just a matter of how much work you want to put into building it.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 02:19 PM
NPC classes are based partly on numbers: are the capabilities of low level fighters appropiate for an army of soldiers? And should places that favour well trained armies have Fighters, or just Warriors, with conscipt hordes being Commoners?

If Warrior is underpowered compared to members of real-life, large standing armies of any pre-modern era, then Fighter might actually make more sense.

fractic
2008-09-02, 02:20 PM
NPC classes are NPC classes because WOTC put a NPC class stamp on them. Comparing a fighter to an adept is pointless. You should compare it to a warrior if anything. Anyone looking to play a fighter isn't going to play an adept because it's better any more then they'll play a wizard. Fighter is a class intended for PC use so it's a PC class. It just fails at anything.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 02:24 PM
if the warrior is underpowered compared to what it is supposed to represent (a basic trained soldier) some people might swap it out for fighter and use the various alternative classes, like knight, for what used to be fighters.

fractic
2008-09-02, 02:26 PM
if the warrior is underpowered compared to what it is supposed to represent (a basic trained soldier)

No it's not. It represents trained soldiers quite well. Full BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, larger hit die than the average person and a good fort save.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-02, 02:30 PM
Fighter is good as a dip for some builds. So is the monk, soulknife, ranger, and in some very specific cases even (GASP!) samurai. The only NPC class that's good for dipping is expert, and only in those cases when the skill you want is not on rogue's skill list.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-02, 02:32 PM
No it's not. It represents trained soldiers quite well. Full BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, larger hit die than the average person and a good fort save.

Nah, Trained Soldiers can see and hear enemies coming.
Fighters are just hired guards/bodyguards. They can take a hit and give it out.

Rangers are better representation of soldiers. I think it would be insulting to any military to be called D&D Fighters.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 02:35 PM
Seems reasonable. How much difference would turning Warriors to Fighters make? As far as I know, the gap in abilities between warriors and fighters is not large. And you might expect veterans (soldiers with 20 years of duty odd: to be capable.

Would doing them as 10th level warriors work, or multiclass warrior/fighters, or would you expect the capabilities of a vetern of, say, Roman legions, to be statted out as full fighter? And are they numerous enough, that you'd expect them to be NPC classed?

point to be made is that if NPC soldiers are both numerous enough to be Warriors and unusually capable compared to D&D warriors, it would make sense to upgrade the warrior class. If the fighter class at mid level is far too powerful to represent even a veteran, then warrior class should be unchanged.

Spiryt
2008-09-02, 02:38 PM
Nah, Trained Soldiers can see and hear enemies coming.
Fighters are just hired guards/bodyguards. They can take a hit and give it out.

Rangers are better representation of soldiers. I think it would be insulting to any military to be called D&D Fighters.

Well, to be fair, classes can represent many different persons. And Fighter, do it quite well - can represent a lot of fighting types, with right feat selection.

And modern soldier - maybe, although you are probably talking about some Marines guys - I doubt that common conscript spends "seeing" or "hearing" quarter of time he spends peeling the potatoes :smalltongue:.

And medieval soldier was supposed to stay in line and fight, hearing wasn't so important, and scouts or so were doing that (same thing today, really).

Frosty
2008-09-02, 02:40 PM
Fighter is good as a dip for some builds. So is the monk, soulknife, ranger, and in some very specific cases even (GASP!) samurai. The only NPC class that's good for dipping is expert, and only in those cases when the skill you want is not on rogue's skill list.

Actually, why dip Expert can you can dip Factotum? ALL skills are game.

Hmm, so the idea of Versatility both on and off the field are mentioned. What can fighters do off the battlefield? Intimidate people with their...8 charisma?

Telonius
2008-09-02, 02:44 PM
Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list. Now I know that a Fighter isn't the best class around, but surely a Fighter20 could mop the floor with an Adept20. I'd be willing to bet that a Samurai20 could, too.

fractic
2008-09-02, 02:47 PM
Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list.

Wouldn't they get bonus spells from a high ability score?

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 02:55 PM
I would say that Fighter as written is an NPC class because: what's the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior? Some feats that you could have taken anyway? So at level 20 you can do 3 things that a Warrior could do instead of just 1?

PC classes do real things. Everyone can hit things with a Sword. Heck, I can build a level 20 Commoner with WBL that can Ubercharge for damage OVER 9000! Every other level, the worst class in the game gets better at hitting things with a sword. Every third level it gets a feat.

To be a PC class, you need to be able to do something that no one else can do, if that's Cure wounds super well, or Rage and associated things, or Fireball, or whatever, it needs to be something that you can do and a Commoner can never do, not that a Commoner can do at lesser effectiveness.

Fighters need class abilities, not bigger numbers and more feats.

Vonriel
2008-09-02, 02:56 PM
Hamish, you're going waaay too high to be talking about normal trained soldiers. Your typical real-life human won't ever see above 4th level, likely not above 3rd, so statting out something like a trained roman soldier at those levels would be ridiculous.

snoopy13a
2008-09-02, 02:58 PM
Well, to be fair, classes can represent many different persons. And Fighter, do it quite well - can represent a lot of fighting types, with right feat selection.



I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.

As for whether or not it is an NPC class, the proper comparision would be against the warrior. Warriors have slightly less hitpoints and no bonus feats so fighters are obviously better. Fighters may be a very weak PC class but they aren't an NPC class.

fractic
2008-09-02, 03:00 PM
I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.


Quite the opposite really. A specific class is by definition not versatile, a fighter can do multiple things at once. Also the extra books make the fighter stronger thanks to the larger amount of feats to choose from.

Spiryt
2008-09-02, 03:01 PM
I agree. The fighter class was designed to be flexible. One can create the traditional high strength build with heavy armor or they could create a high dex archer or even a high intelligence, high dex swashbuckler-type build with the combat expertise type feats.

What hurts the fighter is the addition of new melee classes through more books. Why create a swashbuckling fighter when there is a swashbuckler class option? More specific classes hurt the fighter class's verstility.

As for whether or not it is an NPC class, the proper comparision would be against the warrior. Warriors have slightly less hitpoints and no bonus feats so fighters are obviously better. Fighters may be a very weak PC class but they aren't an NPC class.

I forgot to add that while Fighter ca represent many guys, he does it quite poorly...

Let alone the fact that he's rather weak class, the most halfway optimized choices are rather similar to each other.

And as far as I know, additional classes realy doesn't hurt Fighter as much as his poor design already does.

Swashbuckler looks pointless after 3rd level...

And additional books really makes Fighter WAY more interesting and stronger.

Really, look at the feats in core - on max 9th level of Fighter you probably would have almost any feat that have some, even abysmall quality for you - both mechanic and fluff.

With few books with decent feats, situation looks much better - a lot of feats with interesting effects.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 03:02 PM
Arms and Equipment guide, sample mercenaries, warriors of up to 12th level. DMG: specialsts, even higher. Cityscape, master craftsmen are 10th level experts, city guard veterans are 10th level warriors.

So there is precedent for assuming a high level warrior or expert will be around 10th level. EDIT: A veteran, in other words, as suggested.

Interestingly Heroes of Battle seems to favour human armies made up of mostly 1st level fighters, not warriors.

Vonriel
2008-09-02, 03:05 PM
A single veteran, yes. But you were talking about an entire roman legion - more likely than not, there'd be variation between first and third level for almost all the grunts. The subcommanders would be a bit higher, the commanders higher still, etc.

fractic
2008-09-02, 03:06 PM
A single veteran, yes. But you were talking about an entire roman legion - more likely than not, there'd be variation between first and third level for almost all the grunts. The subcommanders would be a bit higher, the commanders higher still, etc.

The very high ups would probably have levels of aristocrat too.

snoopy13a
2008-09-02, 03:09 PM
Quite the opposite really. A specific class is by definition not versatile, a fighter can do multiple things at once. Also the extra books make the fighter stronger thanks to the larger amount of feats to choose from.

Agreed. However, let's assume that you are looking for a character idea such as a heavy soldier, archer, or swashbuckler.

A fighter build can fit all three niches but there are other classes that can fit each individual niche just as good or better. Many people are going to concentrate in one area to try and avoid the jack of all trades syndrome. For example, most people who want to play an archer would likely choose ranger over fighter even though one can use the fighter class to make an archer build.

Vonriel
2008-09-02, 03:10 PM
The very high ups would probably have levels of aristocrat too.

Well, I won't get into the patronage policy among the Roman Empire just now. :smallwink: But yes, you're right.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 03:10 PM
not whole legion, but sections: Triarii are 20-year men. Do not have to be promoted to have had a lot of experience.

fractic
2008-09-02, 03:11 PM
Agreed. However, let's assume that you are looking for a character idea such as a heavy soldier, archer, or swashbuckler.

A fighter build can fit all three niches but there are other classes that can fit each individual niche just as good or better. Many people are going to concentrate in one area to try and avoid the jack of all trades syndrome. For example, most people who want to play an archer would likely choose ranger over fighter even though one can use the fighter class to make an archer build.

That's all true. But just because people don't use a fighter to represent their idea, doesn't mean that you couldn't. So the existance of those other classes doesn't hurt the fighters potential even though that potential wouldn't come into play often.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 03:20 PM
Adepts only get 2 5th-level spells maximum daily at level 20, and from a pretty limited list. Now I know that a Fighter isn't the best class around, but surely a Fighter20 could mop the floor with an Adept20. I'd be willing to bet that a Samurai20 could, too.

It's not about an arena deathmatch. It's who is more useful. And hey, one of the spells they get is Polymorph. Another is Heal. Not too shabby.


I would say that Fighter as written is an NPC class because: what's the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior? Some feats that you could have taken anyway? So at level 20 you can do 3 things that a Warrior could do instead of just 1?

PC classes do real things. Everyone can hit things with a Sword. Heck, I can build a level 20 Commoner with WBL that can Ubercharge for damage OVER 9000! Every other level, the worst class in the game gets better at hitting things with a sword. Every third level it gets a feat.

To be a PC class, you need to be able to do something that no one else can do, if that's Cure wounds super well, or Rage and associated things, or Fireball, or whatever, it needs to be something that you can do and a Commoner can never do, not that a Commoner can do at lesser effectiveness.

Fighters need class abilities, not bigger numbers and more feats.


Well, with Martial stance, an Expert (or even commoner) can perform Sneak Attacks. Does that mean Rogues are almost-NPCs if not for Trapfinding?

BRC
2008-09-02, 03:30 PM
It's not a matter of "A fighter can't do anything a warrior can't", its a matter of "A fighter does stuff a warrior does, but Better."

Hitting things with swords is pretty much the common denominator of DnD, every class is capable of using a weapon to deal damage, some classes more so than others however. However, every other class has, for lack of better words, a feature, whether it's sneak attacks, or spellcasting, or rage or combat styles, every class has some rules that apply to it that don't apply to the other base classes, except a fighter.

However, This dosn't mean that the fighter should be delegated to NPC-class status.

Also, the fighter is only really weak if you play games where the purpose of every character is to out-munchkin the others. I'm not going to claim to be an expert here, but my group has had fighters, monks, non Zilla clerics ect all be useful members of a party, and everybody had fun. If your going to take the opinion that any class that can't be munchkined into the most powerful class in the game isn't worth playing, then wizards would be the only class anybody would play.

emeraldstreak
2008-09-02, 03:32 PM
So,

Fighter = NPC

Barbarian =/= NPC


hrmmm...

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 03:41 PM
I've seen lots of people play the fighter class. I've yet to see someone play a warrior.

So, I guess the fighter is indeed a playable character class.

Notice the P stands for "playable".

Fighters aren't really easy to build, but when done right.

As for the lack of listen/spot, well, he's suposed to be a frontline medieval soldier, not a modern comando who has acess to weapons that can one shot his enemies at great distances.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 03:57 PM
Mmm...medieval Counterstrike...

BOOM, HEADSHOT with the Artic Heavy Crossbow mk. II!

Spiryt
2008-09-02, 04:07 PM
Heh, this could be so fun. But it wouldn't be really so Counter Strike, as emphasis would have to be put on melee wepaons.

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 04:10 PM
Mmm...medieval Counterstrike...

BOOM, HEADSHOT with the Artic Heavy Crossbow mk. II!

Then spend an entire minute reloading the damn thing while running away from the guys with pointy sticks...Hmm, could be interesting. Now I just need to learn Half-mod moding:smallbiggrin:

Altough I've been myself knifed to death plenty of times in Counter strike, stupid slow computer...:smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-09-02, 04:26 PM
I've seen lots of people play the fighter class. I've yet to see someone play a warrior.

So, I guess the fighter is indeed a playable character class.

Notice the P stands for "playable".

Fighters aren't really easy to build, but when done right.

As for the lack of listen/spot, well, he's suposed to be a frontline medieval soldier, not a modern comando who has acess to weapons that can one shot his enemies at great distances.

Would you say the Warrior is non-playable then? They're not easy to make competent either,b ut I suppose it *can* be done.

BRC
2008-09-02, 04:28 PM
Would you say the Warrior is non-playable then? They're not easy to make competent either,b ut I suppose it *can* be done.
Alright, picture this, you have a butterknife, could you cut a tough steak with it, probably not, maybe you could, but it would be very difficult. You could however, cut said steak with a steakknife. In this case, the fighter is the stakeknife and the warrior is the butterknife. Fighters get better saves, bonus feats, and better hit dice than warriors.

Deepblue706
2008-09-02, 04:31 PM
Alright, picture this, you have a butterknife, could you cut a tough steak with it, probably not, maybe you could, but it would be very difficult. You could however, cut said steak with a steakknife. In this case, the fighter is the stakeknife and the warrior is the butterknife. Fighters get better saves, bonus feats, and better hit dice than warriors.

And while the steak knife is best for hearty meats, it's no-good for delicate jobs, like slicing french bread (Rogues are totally serrated slicers).

Frosty
2008-09-02, 04:31 PM
Fighters get better saves, bonus feats, and better hit dice than warriors.

When did fighters get better saves? And do warriors have d8 HD or something?

But think about it this way: Compared to the Warblade, the Fighter is the comparitive butterknife, yet we're not saying that the Warblade should be the Pc and the Fighter the NPC. Where does it stop? Why is the FIGHTER not weak enough to be an NPC class but the Warrior is? What benchmark are you judging against here?

Or even the Paladin compared to the Crusader.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-02, 04:32 PM
A warrior might win with a samurai, if the warrior used a two-hander and had a charger build while the samurai fought with two weapons as CW samurai are supposed to (because apparently every single samurai took lessons from Miyamoto Musashi). And would probably beat a monk up.

Deepblue706
2008-09-02, 04:35 PM
A warrior might win with a samurai, if the warrior used a two-hander and had a charger build while the samurai fought with two weapons as CW samurai are supposed to (because apparently every single samurai took lessons from Miyamoto Musashi). And would probably beat a monk up.

The warrior doesn't get bonus feats. That'd be at a high level, where the warrior would develop good charging ability. Are you really that confident in this assertion?

Spiryt
2008-09-02, 04:38 PM
Well, Fighter is WAY better than Warrior, better Hit Dice is nothing, but those bonus feats, even though they're kinda weak compared to other classes stuff, really make the difference.

And Fighter is PC, beacuse he was made to be so. As a player class, compared to more plain guard, ec.

His real power level compared to other classes one, isn't really important in that matter, beacuse compared to a well planed Batman (PC) or other classes are NPC's, tops.

If such division (PC vs NPC) is really good idea, this is another question.

BRC
2008-09-02, 04:38 PM
When did fighters get better saves? And do warriors have d8 HD or something?

But think about it this way: Compared to the Warblade, the Fighter is the comparitive butterknife, yet we're not saying that the Warblade should be the Pc and the Fighter the NPC. Where does it stop? Why is the FIGHTER not weak enough to be an NPC class but the Warrior is? What benchmark are you judging against here?

Or even the Paladin compared to the Crusader.

Warriors do get d8 hit dice.


And those bonus feats can count for alot in terms of combat effectiveness. I'll admit that the fighter isn't the most optimized class in the game, and who knows what qualifies as a PC vs an NPC class, but I would say a fighter is a good deal tougher than a warrior.

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 04:38 PM
Would you say the Warrior is non-playable then? They're not easy to make competent either,b ut I suppose it *can* be done.

The fighter/barbarian/warblade classes grants everything the warrior gets, and more.

So, there really aren't any reasons to play a warrior.

Fighter is the fastest way to get feats, and most melee builds love feats. No other class can get feats as fast as the fighter.

2-4 lvs of fighter is very juicy and the only way you can make those uber feat chains at low-mid levels.

2-4 lvs of warrior...Eeer, not so sweet.

So, you probably could build a competent warrior, just like you could make a competent commoner, but the figther/barbarian/warblade would be better whitout arguing, because he clearly gets everything the warrior gets and more, and not just magic that temporarily gives you similar abilities like the casters do, wich is not automatically better.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 04:38 PM
When did fighters get better saves? And do warriors have d8 HD or something?
Fighters have the same saves as warriors (good Fort, poor Ref/Will). They get d10's, where warriors do get d8's.

-argus

EDIT: Damn ninja's, pwning my posts. :smallfurious:

snoopy13a
2008-09-02, 04:45 PM
And do warriors have d8 HD or something?

But think about it this way: Compared to the Warblade, the Fighter is the comparitive butterknife, yet we're not saying that the Warblade should be the Pc and the Fighter the NPC. Where does it stop? Why is the FIGHTER not weak enough to be an NPC class but the Warrior is? What benchmark are you judging against here?



The difference between the two is:

1) Warriors have d8 HD, fighters has d10HD. That's only about a hitpoint per level though.

2) Bonus Feats

The feats are the benchmark being judged. A level 2 fighter has two more feats then a level 2 warrior. A level 20 fighter has 11 more feats then a level 20 warrior.

Eldariel
2008-09-02, 04:52 PM
Also, a ton of alternative class features enable to make Fighters who can do more than what feats allow. Therefore, Fighter's feats are more powerful than just plain feats, so Fighter is far from weak with sufficient splatbook support (although they're already competent with Complete Warrior - for real Fighter-fun though, PHBII does something, Robilar's Gambit, Combat Form, a bunch of handy ACFs, etc.], ToB [this too, duh], Dungeonscape, Complete Champion, Cityscape Web Enhancement, Champions of Valor Web Enhancement and Drow of the Underdark).

Tengu_temp
2008-09-02, 04:58 PM
The warrior doesn't get bonus feats. That'd be at a high level, where the warrior would develop good charging ability. Are you really that confident in this assertion?

Barbarians don't get bonus feats either, and what's the most popular build for them?

Uberchargers don't need that many feats to be effective.

Spiryt
2008-09-02, 05:01 PM
Barbarians don't get bonus feats either, and what's the most popular build for them?

Uberchargers don't need that many feats to be effective.

Barbarian gets rage and better speed to performs his "ubercharges" though.

Those are certainly big charge empowering factors.

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 05:17 PM
Barbarians don't get bonus feats either, and what's the most popular build for them?

Uberchargers don't need that many feats to be effective.

Cough lion totem for punce barbarian cough rage.

Ironically the best chargers are multiclassed barbarian/ fighters. Barbarian 1/fighter 4 can be sick.

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 05:20 PM
Well, with Martial stance, an Expert (or even commoner) can perform Sneak Attacks. Does that mean Rogues are almost-NPCs if not for Trapfinding?

Thank you for taking me as out of context as possible, but by that logic, nothing is a PC class, because Commoners can be able to cast spells if they take the right feat.

The point is that more feats does not always contribute to having a stick besides hitting things really hard.

All I want is the fighter to have class features and an obvious niche.

Barbarian is Waarg (he needs buffing too, but that's another story) so Fighter is Tactical Smart warrior. So give him some actual Tactical Smart class features instead of just saying, have a bunch of feats and Dumpster Dive to look even halfway like you should.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-02, 05:26 PM
Barbarian gets rage and better speed to performs his "ubercharges" though.

Those are certainly big charge empowering factors.

There are ubercharger builds for fighters too. Barbarians are the best at it because of rage and pounce, but every full BAB class can do it. And some with weaker BAB too.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 05:30 PM
The difference between the two is:

1) Warriors have d8 HD, fighters has d10HD. That's only about a hitpoint per level though.

2) Bonus Feats

The feats are the benchmark being judged. A level 2 fighter has two more feats then a level 2 warrior. A level 20 fighter has 11 more feats then a level 20 warrior.

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

1) Fighters have d10. Warblades have d12. But as you said, this is a small point.

2) Stances and Maneuvers

A Warblade 20 has like what...43 feat-equivalent abilities or something like that compared to the Fighter's 22 or something? I remember reading something like that on the gleemax forum. If we use the Warblade as the benchmark, the Fighter can be considered the NPC.


Thank you for taking me as out of context as possible, but by that logic, nothing is a PC class, because Commoners can be able to cast spells if they take the right feat.

The point is that more feats does not always contribute to having a stick besides hitting things really hard.

All I want is the fighter to have class features and an obvious niche.

Barbarian is Waarg (he needs buffing too, but that's another story) so Fighter is Tactical Smart warrior. So give him some actual Tactical Smart class features instead of just saying, have a bunch of feats and Dumpster Dive to look even halfway like you should.

Again, I was playing devil's advocate. But try to explain your views to snoopy13a, who believes that feats DO make the different. I myself believe the fighter could use some help as well.

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 05:45 PM
A Warblade 20 has like what...43 feat-equivalent abilities or something like that compared to the Fighter's 22 or something? I remember reading something like that on the gleemax forum. If we use the Warblade as the benchmark, the Fighter can be considered the NPC.


No, because a maneuver=/=feat.

A fighter can take maneuvers with his feats, but the warblade can't take fighter feats with his maneuver slots.

Also the warblade bonus feats have are much weaker than the feats the fighter has available to him.

Plus the fighter gets extra proefeciencies. And he can pick maneuvers and stances from any school.

It's those small details that make the diference(or the equality, on this case).

Frosty
2008-09-02, 05:47 PM
Well, he *can*...up to 3, and then only up to 5th level maneuvers near the end of his career.

Many contend that you're right...maneuver != feat...they're better than feats.

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 05:52 PM
Well, he *can*...up to 3, and then only up to 5th level maneuvers near the end of his career.

Many contend that you're right...maneuver != feat...they're better than feats.

How many maneuvers do you need to win a fight anyway? 3 are more than enough.

Anyway, your second afirmation is wrong. A maneuver allows you to take a feat, but the inverse can't happen, so feats are superior to maneuvers.

fractic
2008-09-02, 05:53 PM
How many maneuvers do you need to win a fight anyway? 3 are more than enough.

Anyway, your second afirmation is wrong. A maneuver allows you to take a feat, but the inverse can't happen, so feats are superior to maneuvers.

Three maneuvers of level 5 and lower with an IL less then 10 won't be enough for a level appropriate encounter.

Belial_the_Leveler
2008-09-02, 05:55 PM
Well, a fighter with specialization, greater specialization, focus, greater focus and mastery with a weapon gets +4 to hit, +6 damage with that weapon. And that's just half the feats of the fighter alone. It is a larger bonus than even the full barbarian's rage unless you put Frenzied Berzerker into the mix.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 06:03 PM
How many maneuvers do you need to win a fight anyway? 3 are more than enough.

Anyway, your second afirmation is wrong. A maneuver allows you to take a feat, but the inverse can't happen, so feats are superior to maneuvers.

The symbol "!=" means "does not equal" in the C++ programming language.

And yeah, what Fractic says. The balor will probably laugh at your maneuvers that can only be performed once per battle, and likely only 2 of them are actually level 5 maneuvers (because there are prerequesites)

Oslecamo
2008-09-02, 06:05 PM
Three maneuvers of level 5 and lower with an IL less then 10 won't be enough for a level appropriate encounter.

By themselves maybe not. But backed up by the fighter feats, well, you can get some very nasty tricks.

Cubey: See above. And if you're playing the Balor on killer mode(full use of his powers and smart tactics), then everybody but the batman wizard has reasons to be afraid.

snoopy13a
2008-09-02, 06:24 PM
.



Again, I was playing devil's advocate. But try to explain your views to snoopy13a, who believes that feats DO make the different. I myself believe the fighter could use some help as well.

Actually, never mind.

If you think that fighters are an NPC class how about writing a letter to Wizards of the Coast? Arguing with you over semantics is a complete waste of my time.

Vazzaroth
2008-09-02, 06:29 PM
Core fighters suck.

Fighters who draw from all sourcebooks and have a real dedicated weapon and style rock. They are the masters of passive buffs.

Edit: It's not that the Fighter is Underpowered, its that the Warblade is overpowered. And I love both of them.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 08:26 PM
its that the Warblade is overpowered.

Compared to what? Core Fighter or Dipping McSplatalot?

streakster
2008-09-02, 08:41 PM
Core fighters suck.

Fighters who draw from all sourcebooks and have a real dedicated weapon and style rock. They are the masters of passive buffs.

Edit: It's not that the Fighter is Underpowered, its that the Warblade is overpowered. And I love both of them.

The warblade is overpowered? How so?

Vazzaroth
2008-09-02, 09:09 PM
Not super overpowered, just a bit.

Mostly its the bonus feats (Albeit less frequent and less varied than fighter), d12 hit die, and the fact that the adaptable weapon... thingy, is something I think all fighters should have ret-conned into their 1st level features

Frosty
2008-09-02, 09:48 PM
But then fighters will become even MORE of a dip class then before! Maybe give it at fighter level 4? :smalltongue:

Draken
2008-09-02, 09:50 PM
When I think of a level for weapon Aptitude, the first one to come to mind is level 3.

Because of Thog's immortal words.

Frosty
2008-09-02, 10:30 PM
Fighter level 3 not stupid...it's just a stepping stone onto fighter level 4!

Orzel
2008-09-02, 11:20 PM
Fighters aren't NPC class. It's just that Feats are just low powered character feature on their own. This makes them fit for NPCs more than PCs if the feat is not modifiying a nonfeat character feature. Because Fighters only get feats, its feats only affect other feats and Stuff We All Get.

The more stuff pure Fighters don't get, the weaker they (and the feats available to them) become.

monty
2008-09-03, 12:15 AM
Not super overpowered, just a bit.

Mostly its the bonus feats (Albeit less frequent and less varied than fighter), d12 hit die, and the fact that the adaptable weapon... thingy, is something I think all fighters should have ret-conned into their 1st level features

d12 HD isn't that special, though. It only averages out to an extra 1 hp/level (and another at first for the auto-max hp). Could be easily mitigated by convincing your DM to let you take Improved Toughness as a bonus feat.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 12:22 AM
Fighters aren't NPC class. It's just that Feats are just low powered character feature on their own. This makes them fit for NPCs more than PCs if the feat is not modifiying a nonfeat character feature. Because Fighters only get feats, its feats only affect other feats and Stuff We All Get.

The more stuff pure Fighters don't get, the weaker they (and the feats available to them) become.

But I thought the point is that fighters get nothing BUT feats?

Kurald Galain
2008-09-03, 02:11 AM
But I thought the point is that fighters get nothing BUT feats?

Yes. And virtually no feats scale by level (with power attack as one of the few counterexamples).

On the class tiers listing, fighters are trumped by at least one actual NPC class (i.e. the adept). Then again, fighters still rank above monks in terms of usefulness.

Orzel
2008-09-03, 02:13 AM
But I thought the point is that fighters get nothing BUT feats?

The more stuff allowed in the game that pure Fighters don't get, the weaker they (and the feats available to them) become.

Add divine magic, Fighters get weaker
Add arcane magic, Fighters get weaker
Add psionics, Fighters get weaker

Each time you add something new, the pool of feats fighters use drops a tier.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 02:26 AM
Yes. And virtually no feats scale by level (with power attack as one of the few counterexamples).

On the class tiers listing, fighters are trumped by at least one actual NPC class (i.e. the adept). Then again, fighters still rank above monks in terms of usefulness.

Wouldn't the Expert be better if he abuses UMD?

Kurald Galain
2008-09-03, 02:58 AM
Wouldn't the Expert be better if he abuses UMD?

Well, yes, but most DMs won't actually let you do that.

If you play the game like that, the tiers become
(1) Any full caster
(2) Anybody with UMD on their class list
(3) Anyone with decent int or cha synergy
(4) Monks :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 06:54 AM
The more stuff allowed in the game that pure Fighters don't get, the weaker they (and the feats available to them) become.

Add divine magic, Fighters get weaker
Add arcane magic, Fighters get weaker
Add psionics, Fighters get weaker

Each time you add something new, the pool of feats fighters use drops a tier.

No so, Wild Talent is a general feat the fighter can take to take Psionic feats (a few are Bonus feats if he qualifies).

Frosty
2008-09-03, 10:28 AM
Well, yes, but most DMs won't actually let you do that.

If you play the game like that, the tiers become
(1) Any full caster
(2) Anybody with UMD on their class list
(3) Anyone with decent int or cha synergy
(4) Monks :smallbiggrin:

According to Giacomo it's actually

(1) Any full cast = Monks = Other classes

Lycar
2008-09-03, 02:12 PM
On the topic of fighters and their abilities:

What about Armour Proficiency (Heavy) ?

Fighters get it, as do clerics and Paladins.

Now i assume that most people are familiar with the fact that there is little reason to wear a medium armour if you can get a a good heavy one.
Else, just stick with chain shirts and magic them up.

Now there is another reason why, say, barbarians want to stick to light armour: Some class features don't work with medium armour (or a medium load for that matter). Other classes have special abilities negated even by medium armours.

So this suggest one thing: The fighter (and cleric and paladin) are pretty much supposed to be running (at x3 speed :smalltongue:) as the party's tin cans.

Other classes aren't. So being able to make full use of the AC 8 armours and being able to neglect dexterity for protection is sorta a fighter feature too one might say. :smallconfused:

Now enter mithril: Shell out a few kilocredits thousand gp and make your set of armour one category lighter for : '.. purpose of movement and other limitations' and they quote the barbarian's fast move ability as an example.

Soo.... some people apparently interpret this to mean that making a full plate out of mithril negates the requirement of actually being proficient in the use of heavy armours to begin with.

Maybe it's not having English as first language but i do not consider a prerequisite to be a limitation. I consider it a prerequesite.

In other words: Mithril is a nice way to gice characters a chance at medium armours without negating some of their class features. And the difference between light and medium armours is small enough.

It should NOT allow people, who are not proficient in the proper use of heavy armours, to cheat themselves out of having to cough up the Heavy Armour Proficiency feat, or *gasp* take a dip in a class that does have heavy armour proficiency (and Fighter 1 even comes with a nice bonus feat!).

So how do YOU handle this? :smallconfused:

Lycar

Oslecamo
2008-09-03, 02:16 PM
According to Giacomo it's actually

(1) Any full cast = Monks = Other classes

Assuming all the players are bastards trying to overpower each other and start chaining efreetis to become pun-pun:

Casters have a power of:

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999

Monks have a power of:

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999998,9

Wow, the power diference is indeed ashtounding!

Frosty
2008-09-03, 02:20 PM
Lycar: I dunno. It hasn't been an issue in my game. My players tend to prefer chain shirts to be honest and then pump dex.