Quote Originally Posted by logic_error View Post
Alright. I have been reluctant to delve too deeply into this debate. But let me lay out the details in simple terms:

Q1) Is the fighter as a class useless?
A: Contextually so. In a party of four fighters at a "level" appropriate encounter, of course, a fighter is not useless. He contributes 25% average of the encounter "output" assuming every participant plays optimally and is equally well built. If we use these criteria, of optimal build and sensible play, then the replacement in this group of ONE fighter with ONE core caster from Druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorc makes *all* the three fighters moot. Similar replacements with Half casters such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers make intermediate contributions to the "output", lowering the 25% to significantly smaller values (this is a qualitative analysis, so please don't belabour the issue). Even other mundanes armed with UMD can accomplish the same effect, e.g. Rogue. On this front, however, a fighter definitely outperforms the Monk. But fails to outperform Barbarians (!).

What does this tell us?

This tells us that the prime argument that was being made, that fighters are spectators in an optimally built party with casters, is probably right.



Q2) What is the role of the fighter?
A: It is dealing damage and absorbing it, chiefly. On top of that, the fighter can lay down tactical battlefield control. He can trip, bull rush, overrun and grapple opponents and keep them at bay. Assuming that these options cover all the fighter bases, one can safely argue that casters will do these things significantly, if not incomparably better than the fighter. Summons are known to be better at some things that a fighter can do, and there I believe should be little debate about this. Summons simply make the best damage absorbents for the obvious reason. They are expendable. Be very careful *even* to reason that a fighter does this job better. Aspects that the summons might not be able to cover, such as battlefield control or damage dealing, a caster can easily cover via spells and do so far more devastatingly to the opposition.

This is the second problem. A fighter's core role is easily usurped by full casters. In some cases, even by half casters or other mundanes such barbarians, who can do more damage and absorb more punishment!



Q3) Is there anything that the fighter can do better than other classes?
A: A fighter can go all day given the right supply of HP regeneration without suffering from intermediate penalties that accrue in other mundanes such a barbarians even if they occur temporarily. This is the core argument used to justify the fighter's raison de etre. Unfortunately, there the Rogue outdoes a fighter by being much more capable of avoiding and dealing damage *while* going all day. A fighter *does* shine here, but is outshone by another mundane!

In the verdict, I would say that the real problem is that the Fighter feats are simply not versatile enough. They do not compensate for the lack of spells. A fighter simply can not solve most plot problems that do not involve direct confrontation. He can easily get pigeonholed and thus become dangerously susceptible to *obvious* weaknesses.

This is what is really summarised when someone makes a passing remark "Fighters are useless". Taken in context, they mean "Fighters are useless when full casters, equally optimally built and sensibly played, are present". If you want to play fighters, sure, be my guest. D&D is Role Play and you should be playing what concept you wish to see materialise at the table.
I accept your assessment without agreeing with your conclusion. Just because a Fighter isn't the best at battlefield control, or taking damage, doesn't mean that he's not out there. And, as I've said before, a Fighter can't be dispelled.