Why Play a Fighter? (DND/Pathfinder)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

No. My issue is that people think a fighter's being weaker and lacking options makes it impossible to play as one in a party. D&D isn't a competition where the best class wins. It's a game where a party is encouraged to work together to handle certain tasks.

---

No it isn't. Or it isn't automatically. Clearly it is in your game and that is fine. I just returned from a long weekend of highly competitive play where the best builds did, in fact, win. A third option in a roleplaying game involves, you know, Roleplaying? Where the wizard may, or may not, be a team player who wants to spend all his time buffing the party. Maybe his PC doesn't get along with the fighter's PC, insists on dividing gold evenly and never preps a buff. Different games play differently, and cooperative play is hardly the only game in town.

Also, the fighter's incompetence is a real roleplaying setback when your concept is "Mighty Warrior" and the actual result is much less impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

I believe a flying fighter can actually just drop, fall as a free action, and avoid the AoO that way.

---

Where are you getting that falling doesn't provoke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terazul

Well, let's give this same crazy technobike to the Angel Summoner. Now he's Angel Summoner AND has a crazy technobike.

As others have pointed out, Wealth By Level isn't a class feature because everyone gets it.

---

Sure but the WBL doesn't really empower a tier 1 anymore than he is out of the gate. Angel Summoner on the technobike is just as dangerous as Angel summoner without it because... you guessed it, he's going to just summon an army of angels.

With proper magical equipment the fighter is able to counter a lot of the barriers angel summoner will put in his way so that he can make his full attack. All of the big anti fighter defenses are wrapped up in going first cheese with Celerity and contingency, which aren't made any stronger with the addition of magical items. My experience is that money makes wizards last longer or let them repeat the attacks they were doing anyway, while wealth acts as enablers for the melee classes.

I don't notice much of a power difference between a naked tier 1 and a fully equiped tier one since they're all gating in 40HD solars anyway.

I'm not saying the fighter is remotely on par, but he has all he needs to get the job done and for a lot of people, is very enjoyable to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul H

(But the thread was about Fighters):smallsigh:

---

Yeah, why play a fighter, when you could be playing a warblade or a crusader and focus on White Raven if you wanted a real teamplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Where do people get this "good game design" thing from?

---

If you think something doesn't need changing or shouldn't be changed or worked around, you're accepting it, implicitly, as good game design.

Because if it were bad game design you would attempt to fix it if you really wanted to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

And for what it's worth, this isn't Peter and Paul.

---

No, it is Peter and Paul, because those are the players. :smallwink:

And if you have to spend actions to let another player's character do anything given that they haven't been actively taken out of the fight somehow, that's just bad and not something that you should expect people to enjoy.

And if you have to pool the party goal in order for another player's character to contribute at all, then that goes beyond the class being "a little weak," and clearly goes into "the class is a troll class and sponge" territory.

Knowing this information and accepting the set up that you're presenting, the person that makes the willing decision to play a Fighter is saying to the rest of the group "Hi, you know that gold you guys earned? I'm going to be demanding it now from the word go." Which makes playing a fighter into less of a underpowered option and more of an "I'm actively sabotaging the rest of the group's characters" kind of situation.

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

---

Though from that perspective, it's worth noting that the higher the ratio of Fighters to other classes becomes, the easier the WBL distribution becomes. In an all-Fighter party (or, say, 3 Fighter and a Healer), you can hand out normal wealth and everyone can contribute equally, assuming the DM gives challenges an all-melee group can overcome. Tiers are only an issue when they're not all the same, remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

If you think something doesn't need changing or shouldn't be changed or worked around, you're accepting it, implicitly, as good game design.

Because if it were bad game design you would attempt to fix it if you really wanted to use it.



No, it is Peter and Paul, because those are the players. :smallwink:

And if you have to spend actions to let another player's character do anything given that they haven't been actively taken out of the fight somehow, that's just bad and not something that you should expect people to enjoy.

And if you have to pool the party goal in order for another player's character to contribute at all, then that goes beyond the class being "a little weak," and clearly goes into "the class is a troll class and sponge" territory.

Knowing this information and accepting the set up that you're presenting, the person that makes the willing decision to play a Fighter is saying to the rest of the group "Hi, you know that gold you guys earned? I'm going to be demanding it now from the word go." Which makes playing a fighter into less of a underpowered option and more of an "I'm actively sabotaging the rest of the group's characters" kind of situation.

And RNG help you if two people want to play Fighter, I don't think you'll be able to shaft the rest of the group out of enough gold to make both of them able to contribute in this way.

---

People have already pointed out that wizards need a lot less to be useful. I mean, I understand people have their own playstyle so I'm not going to say you're wrong (sorry if I have in the past, I don't mean to) but I really don't see this "sponge/trollclass" thing.

I'm in a band in my spare time, and we have this band fund. To put it simply, some equipment is way more expensive than other equipment. If all funds were spread evenly, a lot of people would have to go without the things they need. But I don't want to have equal funds. I want the band to work well together. So we'll divide the money in such a way that everyone gets something out of it.

I see the party the same way. I want the group to fight monsters without anyone dying or being useless. I dont care if I have to divide wealth to do that.

The dm can help with this too. Drop a couple magic swords or something and the wealth becomes less necessary. Give the party more wealth so that they can afford to pay a more magic item dependent class.

I'm not saying it's perfect. But the OP is how one could play a fighter, and how it might be interesting. I'm sure a warblade could do better, and for many would be more fun. But most people already know that. I'm working with a scenario, and that scenario is a fighter.

It's been thrown far off the rails, but check this out: the topic isn't "is a fighter hella strong." It's "So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?" I gave a reason: the mundane attributes. It's not strong, and it's probably not intended. But it exists, and it works and it's the appeal to me.

I'm not saying the fighter is best. But in the right circumstances, even if it's not optimal, I can have fun playing a fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

People have already pointed out that wizards need a lot less to be useful. I mean, I understand people have their own playstyle so I'm not going to say you're wrong (sorry if I have in the past, I don't mean to) but I really don't see this "sponge/trollclass" thing.

I'm in a band in my spare time, and we have this band fund. To put it simply, some equipment is way more expensive than other equipment. If all funds were spread evenly, a lot of people would have to go without the things they need. But I don't want to have equal funds. I want the band to work well together. So we'll divide the money in such a way that everyone gets something out of it.

I see the party the same way. I want the group to fight monsters without anyone dying or being useless. I dont care if I have to divide wealth to do that.

The dm can help with this too. Drop a couple magic swords or something and the wealth becomes less necessary. Give the party more wealth so that they can afford to pay a more magic item dependent class.

---

The problem is, this isn't the way the game is balanced. If we were expected to give one class more wealth than another because they needed it, then that would be included as a class feature. Instead, we have the wealth by level table which is the same for all classes. So while you may not agree with it, a fundamental assumption in D&D is that yes, wealth is being split evenly among all party members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

People have already pointed out that wizards need a lot less to be useful. I mean, I understand people have their own playstyle so I'm not going to say you're wrong (sorry if I have in the past, I don't mean to) but I really don't see this "sponge/trollclass" thing.

---

You see no possible way in which it could be interpreted that intentionally picking a class which will place a metagame obligation on others to give their gold to you could be viewed as a less than polite thing to do? Really? :smallconfused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

Though from that perspective, it's worth noting that the higher the ratio of Fighters to other classes becomes, the easier the WBL distribution becomes. In an all-Fighter party (or, say, 3 Fighter and a Healer), you can hand out normal wealth and everyone can contribute equally, assuming the DM gives challenges an all-melee group can overcome. Tiers are only an issue when they're not all the same, remember.

---

Or you've got two fighters and 3 other classes. If it takes the infusion of the wealth of three additional classes to make a single fighter work, halving that wealth isn't going to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Or you've got two fighters and 3 other classes. If it takes the infusion of the wealth of three additional classes to make a single fighter work, halving that wealth isn't going to work.

---

I think the bigger part of that example was "challenges that an all melee party can overcome." because many of those can also be overcome with no magic whatsoever, outside magic weapons that pierce DR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Provengreil

I think the bigger part of that example was "challenges that an all melee party can overcome." because many of those can also be overcome with no magic whatsoever, outside magic weapons that pierce DR.

---

And thus my counterexample of a "balanced" party that was merely slightly larger than "normal," because if the balanced party is expected to sacrifice the wealth of three people to make the 4th one contribute, then half that money (well, possibly less due to half of 3/5 being less than half of 3/4) is not going to cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

You see no possible way in which it could be interpreted that intentionally picking a class which will place a metagame obligation on others to give their gold to you could be viewed as a less than polite thing to do? Really? :smallconfused:

---

Not unless you make it one. I feel it's equally impolite to choose to play a wizard/druid/cleric when I play a fighter. Selecting a playstyle that is incompatible with your group's dynamic is generally a bad idea, but doing so as a fighter is not something I find all that different from doing it any other way.

The solution to all of those problems is to talk to the group before making any sort of character. I typically assume the party is going to do their best to make sure they aren't upsetting the other members.

Either way, wealth by level was only my example. There are plenty of other ways magic can help mundane, many of which don't negatively impact casters in any way even as individuals. For example...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordBlades

Also, what happens when it's not fighter and wizard(which do have different focuses optimally; the wizard can melee better than the fighter, but it's usually better to sit back and cast spells win encounters), but let's say fighter and druid? The bear that rides a bear while summoning bears easily outfights the fighter, while still providing full spellcaster power.

---

Why would a bear ride a bear? How about instead, the fighter rides the bear? As I've said before, celestial aspect is a 3rd level spell that gives flight and also a couple other optional benefits, so have the druid cast it... On the fighter? Course not, the druid can cast it on herself. Now the fighter can fly. He can make full attacks via archery while the druid moves however she wants. If the druid wants to charge, the fighter can take out a lance and deal some damage as well. If for some bizarre reason the druid has low AC (lowered dexterity, perhaps, or something of that nature) the fighter can defend her with ride checks.

In this situation, I'm seeing the fighter as being sort of trivial to the fight in many situations. But he is fighting. He's providing at least a little to the battle and more importantly, the druid isn't really sacrificing anything for it. Turning into a bear was probably her plan anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoryKeeper

It seems like I can make a fighter who's good at hitting things hard and then hitting them harder or who can block an attack and then block an attack slightly better, but I can make a wizard who can burn things, hide things, transfrom things, and summon other creatures to do all sorts of other things. I suppose I can always try to interact with my environment to shake thngs up and give myself more options, but casters seem like they'd be better at that as well (mage hand, telekinesis, fire on demand, etc.)

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter? What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

---

I feel like they are great dip classes. Weapon Master Fighter gets weapon training sooner (3rd lv). Buy the Dueling gloves to boost the bonus when you can afford it.
Be a Barbarian from then on and gain pounce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

And thus my counterexample of a "balanced" party that was merely slightly larger than "normal," because if the balanced party is expected to sacrifice the wealth of three people to make the 4th one contribute, then half that money (well, possibly less due to half of 3/5 being less than half of 3/4) is not going to cut it.

---

I was saying that an encounter that 3 fighters and a healbot cleric can defeat probably doesn't require magic to win anyways, thus wealth isn't the issue to focus in on. glyphstones post talked of equal contribution, and if everyone's a fighter then it doesn't matter if all of them suck and have taken vow of poverty, because they're still equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

I feel it's equally impolite to choose to play a wizard/druid/cleric when I play a fighter.

---

Weren't you going on about getting buffs from those characters while playing a fighter not too long ago?

So it's as impolite to play a wizard and get hit up for both cash and buffs every fight as it is to demand buffs and cash from the rest of the party as a fighter?

How on earth do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Provengreil

I was saying that an encounter that 3 fighters and a healbot cleric can defeat probably doesn't require magic to win anyways, thus wealth isn't the issue to focus in on. glyphstones post talked of equal contribution, and if everyone's a fighter then it doesn't matter if all of them suck and have taken vow of poverty, because they're still equal.

---

Cool. That's not what I was saying though, and does nothing to actually diminish the point I was making.

Further, glyphstone already said pretty much exactly that, which is why I pointed out that it's entirely possible to have 2 parties in a group that's not nothing but fighters and their band-aid box to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Why would a bear ride a bear? How about instead, the fighter rides the bear?

---

How have you not heard this throw away colloquialism before about druids? It's thrown about like hotcakes. :smallconfused:

And is about the druid and how everything's better with bears, because the druid can summon bears, turn into a bear, and have a permanent pet bear that's roughly comparable to the fighter in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

In this situation, I'm seeing the fighter as being sort of trivial to the fight in many situations. But he is fighting. He's providing at least a little to the battle and more importantly, the druid isn't really sacrificing anything for it. Turning into a bear was probably her plan anyway.

---

Or just have two flying bears instead, if the Fighter is a throwaway after thought like you're indicating. Lose nothing, gain something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coidzor

And is about the druid and how everything's better with bears, because the druid can summon bears, turn into a bear, and have a permanent pet bear that's roughly comparable to the fighter in the first place.

---

Each.

blahblahfillingoutminimumletterreqs

Quote:

---

I feel it's equally impolite to choose to play a wizard/druid/cleric when I play a fighter.

---

Quote:

---

Weren't you going on about getting buffs from those characters while playing a fighter not too long ago?

---

Wow.
Thats just, wow. You seem to need to sit back and analyze your argument somewhat.

Here's mine, the only reason to play a fighter in most cases is because
1. You like playing with feats. (Its an inferior options but it does have some interesting interactions that make it fun) I enjoy it nothings wrong with seeing what you can come up with.
2. You're trying to challenge yourself optimizationally.

I really like the whole Bear Calvary druid idea. Its pretty funny when you visualize it. I'm amazed sometimes at just how great a mounted combatant a druid pulls off

anyway the thing is you kinda have to answer "Why do you want to play with strictly inferior options in almost every way."
There are answers to that but the responsible thing is to START with
"I want to play this way because...."
Without resorting to shennigans about how much you can contribute by using other peoples or even universal(in the case of items) resources.

Though honestly if you're going to be a MAB (Magic accessory Barbie) you can totally do that as long as you have access to a magic shop continually, and as long as you take a lot of care with how you optimize your money, people generally won't give you greif about it.
Here though, when you start talking about options people generally expect honestly about the contributions.
One of the arguments I've heard that was really interesting was.
"Wouldn't it be better to buy/maintain a golem" than to keep the fighter around. For that matter, a tricked out undead, or animal companion.

Ultimately, its kinda like why play a fighter when you could play "X" when x is just as viable from a roleplaying perspctive, and is equiped with more options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Not unless you make it one. I feel it's equally impolite to choose to play a wizard/druid/cleric when I play a fighter. Selecting a playstyle that is incompatible with your group's dynamic is generally a bad idea, but doing so as a fighter is not something I find all that different from doing it any other way.

---

True, the burden of being impolite is on the odd man out, whether it's a fighter in a wizard group, or a wizard in a fighter group(although the wizard can lower himself to fighter level of power, unlike the other way around).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Why would a bear ride a bear? How about instead, the fighter rides the bear? As I've said before, celestial aspect is a 3rd level spell that gives flight and also a couple other optional benefits, so have the druid cast it... On the fighter? Course not, the druid can cast it on herself. Now the fighter can fly. He can make full attacks via archery while the druid moves however she wants. If the druid wants to charge, the fighter can take out a lance and deal some damage as well. If for some bizarre reason the druid has low AC (lowered dexterity, perhaps, or something of that nature) the fighter can defend her with ride checks.

In this situation, I'm seeing the fighter as being sort of trivial to the fight in many situations. But he is fighting. He's providing at least a little to the battle and more importantly, the druid isn't really sacrificing anything for it. Turning into a bear was probably her plan anyway.

---

How would a DM provide encounters that challenge both the fighter, and the druid that has both attack and defenses at least 10 points higher?
Also, why would the druid cast celestial aspect, when he can simply turn himself into something flying, and use spell slots for something more useful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midnight_v

Wow.
Thats just, wow. You seem to need to sit back and analyze your argument somewhat.

Here's mine, the only reason to play a fighter in most cases is because
1. You like playing with feats. (Its an inferior options but it does have some interesting interactions that make it fun) I enjoy it nothings wrong with seeing what you can come up with.
2. You're trying to challenge yourself optimizationally.

I really like the whole Bear Calvary druid idea. Its pretty funny when you visualize it. I'm amazed sometimes at just how great a mounted combatant a druid pulls off

anyway the thing is you kinda have to answer "Why do you want to play with strictly inferior options in almost every way."
There are answers to that but the responsible thing is to START with
"I want to play this way because...."
Without resorting to shennigans about how much you can contribute by using other peoples or even universal(in the case of items) resources.

Though honestly if you're going to be a MAB (Magic accessory Barbie) you can totally do that as long as you have access to a magic shop continually, and as long as you take a lot of care with how you optimize your money, people generally won't give you greif about it.
Here though, when you start talking about options people generally expect honestly about the contributions.
One of the arguments I've heard that was really interesting was.
"Wouldn't it be better to buy/maintain a golem" than to keep the fighter around. For that matter, a tricked out undead, or animal companion.

Ultimately, its kinda like why play a fighter when you could play "X" when x is just as viable from a roleplaying perspctive, and is equiped with more options.

---

I did. It was my first post. As I mentioned, X is just as viable... For certain roles, and there are plently of situations where the fighter seems to have interesting implications. But there are some things that for me just feel right when I'm playing the fighter class. Being inferior is, as strange as it sounds, part of the feel of the class, and though I know this was never the intention and was a terrible decision, why not work with it rather than against it? Please note that I've mentioned already: Unless I have a specific roll I'm not playing a fighter. Barbarian often does it better, as does warblade, as does psychic warrior. But this thread doesn't ask about those classes.

My issue at this point is that people seem to suggest that if you can't fight with a wizard the class is useless. My point isn't how great a fighter is. It's that one can be played at all. So from the first post on my point has been solely to suggest that there are some things a fighter can do to contribute in a battle, even with the tier 1 druid. Now, it's certainly not optimal! There are far stronger things you can do with a stronger class. But since this is about fighter I'm going to suggest things that can be done with a fighter.

I also want to hear about what a druid gets from being a mounted combatant. It's a funny vision, for sure, but what does a druid bear get from riding a bear that a fighter doesn't get from riding that same bear. What benefit does a druid have mounted given that is a bear itself? Either way it doesn't matter: If the druid particularly designs himself to outclass the fighter and furthermore designs himself in such a way as to deny the fighter a way to work with him (such as through mounted combat or at low levels, two-weapon fighting and shillelagh), then the fighter is going to be useless. I completely agree. I'm not arguing that the fighter is the best move. I'm arguing that it can be done at all. I've brought up already that certain aspects of the class might have appealed originally, so the fighter is stuck to that goal and now they need to make the best of it in battle.

Also you quoted me twice but didn't address the first quote. People have suggested that it's rude for me to play as a clearly inferior class. So, why is it any less rude to play as a clearly superior class?

One thing people aren't commenting on is how if I play a Zhentarim Dungeoncrasher fighter, and my friends play beguiler, paladin, and warlock, then there aren't really any balance issues to start with. If someone in that group came in and decides "Hey guys, I've rolled my new character, he's a Divine Metamagic cleric." then he's going to really mess with balance, steal a lot of glory, and really just take away from the fun for everyone else. Which is why people discuss it beforehand. Every argument I make is going to assume people discuss what is going to happen before-hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

I also want to hear about what a druid gets from being a mounted combatant.

---

Oh for the love of...

Druid wildshaped as a bear riding a bear is a colloquialism, a figure of speech. It is not meant to be taken literally. I can't tell whether this confuses you or if you're just being obtuse by insisting on doing so. Also name one thing that a wildshaped druid can't do better than the fighter besides maybe hit up the tavern wenches.

The only roles that a fighter is viable in, it is surpassed by every other class, save maybe the npc classes. And even then it doesn't seem to be by much. Heck, one could eliminate the warrior npc class and replace it with the fighter and you would not notice much of a difference.

My problem with the fighter, and this is probably true for other folks as well, is this: I want a fighter to be able to stand on his own two feet just like (nearly) everyone else does. Fighters shouldn't need to be dependent on the kindness of the wizard. The reason for this is quite simple: even in the "classic" party of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, & Cleric the only one that is actually dependent on the others for success is the Fighter. All the others have methods of hitting far above their weight class and dealing with multiple threats at once; whether it is the spells of the Wizard or Cleric or just the fact that the Rogue is sneaky and utilized guerrilla tactics (i.e. TRAPS!) to fight the battle on his own terms, the fact that those three classes have abilities and defenses that are worth a damn, etc... I think you get my point.

Now you acknowledged that the Fighter being a pile of absolute worthlessness was unintentional. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, this is a status quo that could stand to be changed so that a Fighter's status as a "Badass Normal" could perhaps live up to the first half of that description?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Also you quoted me twice but didn't address the first quote. People have suggested that it's rude for me to play as a clearly inferior class. So, why is it any less rude to play as a clearly superior class?

---

Because then you're a net positive (giving out buffs, holding your own in encounters, crafting gear maybe) rather than a net negative (demanding buffs, help in encounters, others' WBL) factor in the party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

I also want to hear about what a druid gets from being a mounted combatant. It's a funny vision, for sure, but what does a druid bear get from riding a bear that a fighter doesn't get from riding that same bear. .

---

Aside from the fact that Daisuke is correct, the druid does have advantages that a fighter does not have as a mounted combatant. He is sharing spells with his pet but only within 5 feet, so by riding the pet he keeps the pet fully buffed. Also, he can take full round or one round actions to spellcast (with appropriate concentration checks), while still being mobile.

Ok I don't have the patience to quote all the things so I'll just address them.

- A bear would cast celestial aspect instead of turning into something flying because a flying bear is awesome. But it'd work exactly the same with a hunting bat or something of that sort, including the "fighter can ride it" part. Though to be fair, celestial aspect grants several interesting abilities other than flight so it could still be worth it. And there are some powerful druid forms which would benefit from a 90 ft. flight speed.

- Also I know the original "bear throwing bears riding a bear" is not meant to be taken literally. I was addressing the part of the post which said "I'm amazed sometimes at just how great a mounted combatant a druid pulls off". I was sort of joking about "instead of the druid" but my point in the argument was that a druid loses nothing to have a fighter on top of him. A fighter focused on archery or mounted charging benefits a lot from a powerful mount. And I'm not sure of this but I think that ride checks, if optimized properly, will be able to surpass the druid's armor class due to the not wearing armor and such, specially if the dm bans wildling clasps. But I don't know, maybe there are ways around that.

- If a wizard joins a campaign with low tier classes and agrees to work with the team rather than overshadow them that's fine. As I mentioned, if the group talks it over and agrees on what's going down, it is likely to be fine.

- I agree, the fighter could use a really nice fix for the people who want to be able to use it in a party with different sorts of units. There is a fix. It's called Warblade, Psychic Warrior, zhentarim, Dungeoncrasher, gestalt with another tier 4 or 5... I hear druid and cleric make better melee units than fighter. But the argument addresses how to have fun playing the fighter, and what might draw people to it regardless of its flaws (and there are many flaws). I'm not saying that a fighter is a great idea, but rather just that it's a possible idea.

To elaborate, I think the idea of fighter is a flawed one fundementally. The fighter seems to represent a weapons master who fights without the use of the supernatural (in the traditional sense of the word). But D&D is a game that almost always features the supernatural. The fighter can't fight them, and that should be obvious because he has no powers, and in a way not being able magical is a class feature for them. They're normal, that's the schtick that makes people play them over the fixes listed above. They live in a world where magic is everywhere and does everything, but they don't do it themselves. It's going to be weaker: the only way to change that is to modify the very concept. Which is fine, psychic warrior is my 2nd favorite class (next to paladin, which is another story because it definitely needs a fix. Pathfinder's on the right track.) But I can't play the peasant fighter without the magic gift if I'm playing a psychic warrior. So I'll play it as a fighter. It'll be weaker but that was the idea.

I must have spoken terribly, for I've given the idea that I think fighter is a viable character with an optimizing druid and wizard. It's not that I think it's viable but rather that it's not totally a lost cause and at the least maybe you can help a little.

Also I have to admit the druid as a mounted combatant seems pretty decent on second look, with the whole "animal companion spells" thing.

Quote:

---

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, this is a status quo that could stand to be changed so that a Fighter's status as a "Badass Normal" could perhaps live up to the first half of that description?
__________________

---

I just want to say that people really won't divert from that status quo of the fighter sucking.
There are innumerable fighter fixes but non are lauded as much as oh say, The OneWinged4ngel paladin fix, for example.
Frankly I find that when people are confronted with a fighter tha does what a fighter should to they call it "broken".
Think aobut all those chargers our there that do level appropriate damage. Not the "does 5 x on power attack" but shocktrooping doing x3 damage on power attack, and sometimes even doing x2 gets broken"
When we start expanding the skill selection and points people complain about how he "Doesn't deserve so many skills" or "The fighters not supposed to have social skills!" Its really hard to fix the fighter, because it seems better or worse people want to keep the status quo.
Not even to begin with the people show unreasonable disonance about how the fighter is and how they think it is.

If we look at it as a concept, it may have a lot of traction, back that up with mechanics and people tend to not like it. . .

I'll usually play a fighter when I get burned out running casters. There's something satisfying about just picking up a weapon and simply wading into combat. Not having to worry about spell selections or crafting magic items is its own reward. You also have more time to dictate camp layouts, party formations, and big picture concerns (like what are the group's goals). Not that a caster can't do any of those things but non-casters are less likely to be sequestered with magic-related tasks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

Because then you're a net positive (giving out buffs, holding your own in encounters, crafting gear maybe) rather than a net negative (demanding buffs, help in encounters, others' WBL) factor in the party?

---

No matter how you slice it, mixing tiers by a difference of more than 2 tends to create problems. even 2 can be a stretch. so if the fighter's involved, it's bad form to take the wizard, pretty much(this assumes the other party members are, say, a monk and a rogue. it's the fighter's fault if the others are a favored soul and a druid, or something such as that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Provengreil

No matter how you slice it, mixing tiers by a difference of more than 2 tends to create problems. even 2 can be a stretch. so if the fighter's involved, it's bad form to take the wizard, pretty much(this assumes the other party members are, say, a monk and a rogue. it's the fighter's fault if the others are a favored soul and a druid, or something such as that.)

---

Oh, sure. But it's less bad to be a cool guy that makes other guys cool like him if he wants to, than it is to be a lame guy that makes other people lamer so he can feel cool. Plus, it's not like it's hard to build a T4 Wizard - scaling down is immeasurably easier than scaling up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Provengreil

No matter how you slice it, mixing tiers by a difference of more than 2 tends to create problems. even 2 can be a stretch. so if the fighter's involved, it's bad form to take the wizard, pretty much(this assumes the other party members are, say, a monk and a rogue. it's the fighter's fault if the others are a favored soul and a druid, or something such as that.)

---

Maybe for you, but not for everyone. My group has been playing for 10 years. Fighters, barbarians, and monks have been mingling with clerics, sorcerers, and wizards the whole time without any problem whatsoever, including one campaign with a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

People have suggested that it's rude for me to play as a clearly inferior class.

---

And demand special treatment like part or all of the share of the loot the rest of the party worked to get in addition to having to be shored up in the first place. Don't forget that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

So, why is it any less rude to play as a clearly superior class?

---

Well, you can hold back and facilitate communications and put an end to hostilities without overshadowing the rest of the party much more easily than you can stop being bad at your job. So there's that bit of flexibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

One thing people aren't commenting on is how if I play a Zhentarim Dungeoncrasher fighter, and my friends play beguiler, paladin, and warlock, then there aren't really any balance issues to start with.

---

Sure, but then you're playing as something with class features, even if they're not spectacular ones. It's not particularly good, but it'll be ok as long as you PrC out when you're supposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

Every argument I make is going to assume people discuss what is going to happen before-hand.

---

So you don't find it potentially offputting to go up to your mate and tell them that you're planning on playing a weak build that's going to have to be shored up by their character and that you expect a part of their share of the loot in order to contribute meaningfully? :smallconfused:

You're going up to them and telling them that you've premeditated this and that you expect them to approve of this decision to leech off of their characters. :smallconfused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord.Sorasen

To elaborate, I think the idea of fighter is a flawed one fundementally. The fighter seems to represent a weapons master who fights without the use of the supernatural (in the traditional sense of the word). But D&D is a game that almost always features the supernatural. The fighter can't fight them, and that should be obvious because he has no powers, and in a way not being able magical is a class feature for them. They're normal, that's the schtick that makes people play them over the fixes listed above. They live in a world where magic is everywhere and does everything, but they don't do it themselves. It's going to be weaker: the only way to change that is to modify the very concept. Which is fine, psychic warrior is my 2nd favorite class (next to paladin, which is another story because it definitely needs a fix. Pathfinder's on the right track.) But I can't play the peasant fighter without the magic gift if I'm playing a psychic warrior. So I'll play it as a fighter. It'll be weaker but that was the idea.

---

Warblade pulls it off pretty well without a hint of magic to the whole deal. Sure, he won't compete with Druids and Wizards truly letting loose but he'll be just fine with Psychic Warriors and Beguilers.

Though using a magic weapon pretty much comes with the definition. Not the whole Christmas tree but the Excalibur and maybe some legendary piece of armor. Fighter doesn't use magic devices but Fighter's weapon is the hottest thing in the town. I'm sure nobody complains Fighters want their +1 Swords. If they can contribute with those, that's not a strike against the class.