Why Play a Fighter? (DND/Pathfinder)

[FatR]

So I guess I'm asking you guys how you avoid getting bored playing a fighter?

The very definition of fighter is being a one-trick Stabby Smurf, therefore boring. The only way is not to play fighter.

What's the appeal that keeps you playing one session after session?

Beats me. The traditional DnD fighter is a complete conceptual dead-end (that's why it remains a pile of fail even though every edition starting from 3.0 specifically tried to fix fighters), so I seriously do not understand why it is still in the game, much less why non-novice players ever pick it... I mean even if I, for some reason, don't want to invest any mental effort in the game, and so pick a character, who can only hit things, there are better - and less optimization-intensive - options than fighter.

[MeeposFire]

The very definition of fighter is being a one-trick Stabby Smurf, therefore boring. The only way is not to play fighter.


Beats me. The traditional DnD fighter is a complete conceptual dead-end (that's why it remains a pile of fail even though every edition starting from 3.0 specifically tried to fix fighters), so I seriously do not understand why it is still in the game, much less why non-novice players ever pick it... I mean even if I, for some reason, don't want to invest any mental effort in the game, and so pick a character, who can only hit things, there are better - and less optimization-intensive - options than fighter.

1e and 2e fighters were good so I don't know what you are talking about (no not as powerful as the mage but they were not the fail that 3e makes them to be). Also 4e fighters are in the running as the best class in the game while being tactically rewarding and being ranked among the most fun to play.

Don't confuse how badly 3e treats the fighter as an indication that there shouldn't be a fighter.

[Starbuck_II]

1e and 2e fighters were good so I don't know what you are talking about (no not as powerful as the mage but they were not the fail that 3e makes them to be). Also 4e fighters are in the running as the best class in the game while being tactically rewarding and being ranked among the most fun to play.

Don't confuse how badly 3e treats the fighter as an indication that there shouldn't be a fighter.

Well, that was because Weapon specialization was gained earlier and included weapon focus. It was Fighting class not Fighter specific (though Grandmaster in it was Fighter specific).

It included extra attack/rd. Fighters got better stats possible (all Fightig classes could get 18/00 and Con bonus at a higher value).
Skill points weren't limited by class: non-proficiency points everyone had.
Granted Thieves had better ability to Climb Walls* (in fact, Climb walls was a special ability above what anyone could climb. If you could just climb no need to roll).

It mirrors 3.5 Disable Device of traps for the Rogue: anyone can disable a trap, but a Rogue does it without needing to describe how (extraordinary ability to).

[FatR]

O
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?

They can't. Never ever. DnD will seriously improve when it will find the guts to decisively bury this illusion.

To explain this is a bit, the harsh reality is, DnD's power level is really frikking high. Noticed how in LotR movies only superhumans like Legolas and Gandalf were able to actually kill stone trolls by themselves, just because a creature three meters tall and proportionally strong that can move as fast as a normal human is actually a near-gamebreaker amongst mortals? And these trolls are small and weakly protected, compared to DnD's stone giants. And stone giants are merely low-to-mid level adversaries. By the middle of your adventuring career an equal number of them is supposed to be a cakewalk. Later PCs go on to fight creatures that literally are castle-sized, and can't even plausibly be hurt without massive superhuman strength.

The point is, an attempt to shoehorn badass normals into being capable of fighting such foes stretches imagination until it rips and breaks suspension of disbelief. Because the feats they are supposed to accomplish are clearly far beyond normal. And because it is a game, where stats for everyone are written down, you can't stealthily give fighters strength, speed and endurance many times human maximum whenever they meet high-level foes, and then take them away when they fight something appropriate for badass normals again (yes, Batman, I'm looking at you). And because it is a collective game, you can't make the plot bend over backwards for a badass normal characters, because players of other characters will not like such favoritism.

So, basically, unless DnD is rewritten to the point of no longer resemble DnD, badass normal characters will inevitably have an "expiration level", and it won't even be very high.

[noparlpf]

Tactical feats definitely give the Fighter more options. For example, Combat Brute (CW pg 110) gives you some nifty things to do with Bull Rush, Sunder, and Power Attack.

[Daisuke1133]

@FatR: I'm calling bull on that. D&D is meant to model the Fantasy genre in general, not just Tolkien in specific. Western Fantasy is replete with warriors who are entirely human performing superhuman deeds, and they don't even need to be Herakles to do it.

Case in point: Beowulf. The man wears chainmail and caries a greatsword and swims with one hand and slays sea monsters with the sword in the other. He wrestles Grendel to the ground and rips its arm completely off. He then goes on to swim down to the lair of Grendel's mother spending weeks holding his breath and hefting a sword meant for a giant before slaying her with it.

And this is a mere sampling of the great feats he accomplishes.

A fighter should be aloud to do things like this. Otherwise why do they even exist alongside wizards in the first place? Other than to play to the revenge fantasies of some hypothetical skinny nerd that was shoved in a locker too many times.

Additionally, people who play non-spellcasters are supposed to just accept that the game bends over backwards to give favoritism to the spellcasters? If this is a collaborative game then no favoritism should be given to either group. Everyone at the table should be contributing in an equally meaningful way. Otherwise the non-contributors are not collaborating, they are just observing. I, for one, did not sign up to be the wizard's cheerleader. I signed up to be his adventuring partner.

[noparlpf]

@FatR: I'm calling bull on that. D&D is meant to model the Fantasy genre in general, not just Tolkien in specific. Western Fantasy is replete with warriors who are entirely human performing superhuman deeds, and they don't even need to be Herakles to do it.

Case in point: Beowulf. The man wears chainmail and caries a greatsword and swims with one hand and slays sea monsters with the sword in the other. He wrestles Grendel to the ground and rips its arm completely off. He then goes on to swim down to the lair of Grendel's mother spending weeks holding his breath and hefting a sword meant for a giant before slaying her with it.

And this is a mere sampling of the great feats he accomplishes.

A fighter should be allowed to do things like this. Otherwise why do they even exist alongside wizards in the first place? Other than to play to the revenge fantasies of some hypothetical skinny nerd that was shoved in a locker too many times.

^This.
I loved Beowulf. Great story.

Also: Darn it, I was about to mention Greek mythology.

[FatR]

1e and 2e fighters were good so I don't know what you are talking about (no not as powerful as the mage but they were not the fail that 3e makes them to be).

In every pre-3E editions fighters, by design, were nothing more than bodyguards, supposed to nurse spellcasters through low levels, where the latter were extremely weak and vulnerable, and then to be relegated to mopping up things after spellcasters destroy all serious opposition and taking out fodder encounters (AD&D loved to put weak creatures even in supposedly high-level adventures). 3.0 was the first edition of DnD to recognize that planned obsolescence of clasess (eventually all of them but the wizard) is maybe unfair.

Also 4e fighters are in the running as the best class in the game while being tactically rewarding and being ranked among the most fun to play.

I don't consider 4E either DnD or a game I feel like talking about.

Don't confuse how badly 3e treats the fighter as an indication that there shouldn't be a fighter.

3.0, taking into account the supplements, PrCing out, and so on, gave the fighters either the best treatment ever, or maybe tied with Rules Cyclopedia. They still were one-dimensional thing-stabbers, of course, because that's inherent in their (sucky) concept. But they were actually able to stab things to death fairly easily with relatively little optimization. 3.5 and PF made fighter's life progressively harder, by comparison. Elimination of many old-school screw-yous, that, as usual, primarily hurt the classes without options, helped. So did mandatory magic gear.

[FatR]

Case in point: Beowulf. The man wears chainmail and caries a greatsword and swims with one hand and slays sea monsters with the sword in the other. He wrestles Grendel to the ground and rips its arm completely off. He then goes on to swim down to the lair of Grendel's mother spending weeks holding his breath and hefting a sword meant for a giant before slaying her with it.

Excellent, you have proved that Beofulf is a fairly heavyweight superhuman. Therefore he is not badass normal by definition. And this means, he falls outside of the conceptual space of the fighter class, as it traditionally exists in DnD.

A fighter should be aloud to do things like this.

I agree! Except that the class doing this probably shouldn't be called "fighter", to avoid needless association with the old baggage.

Additionally, people who play non-spellcasters are supposed to just accept that the game bends over backwards to give favoritism to the spellcasters?

It doesn't. Developers of 3.0, and then PF specifically tried to make fighters equal. Except, without discarding the concept of badass normal (at least as something that's supposed to work past level 5), that is not possible, as was amply demostrated by the failures of their efforts. Even if you juggle numbers enough to give the fighter sufficient killpower, he'll still remain Stabby Smurf, who only can stab, because juggling numbers is not enough to give him the ability to, say, swim underwater for weeks. You have to go ahead and say that this is a superhuman power and therefore he is not a badass normal.

[Provengreil]

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.

actually, the whole maneuvers system is just refluffed and slightly mechanically altered magic. think about it. maneuver level = spell level. limited number of them per recharge time(days for casters, varies in ToB). swap em out for different ones prepared when you take certain types of breaks. mostly standard actions, though the whole range is covered. varied effects rather than flat damage of different kinds, though some are just damage in both magic and maneuvers. divided into schools. there's even 9 schools of both types, if you include "universal" magic as a school you can't specialize in or ban yourself from. face it, even the chapter where the maneuvers are listed is called "Blade Magic." they gave melee nice things by giving them their own magic system. did wonders for balance of the "mundane" community, but they have more than a hint of magic in the whole thing. that's perfectly fine given the huge amounts of magic in d&d, but you can't say they don't use magic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Excellent, you have proved that Beofulf is a fairly heavyweight superhuman. Therefore he is not badass normal by definition. And this means, he falls outside of the conceptual space of the fighter class, as it traditionally exists in DnD.

...

A level 1 human fighter with 18 strength can lift and wield something that weighs 300 lb as an improvised weapon. Using Pathfinder's Catch Off Guard feat, you don't take any penalty to use it.

[Zonugal]

Excellent, you have proved that Beofulf is a fairly heavyweight superhuman. Therefore he is not badass normal by definition. And this means, he falls outside of the conceptual space of the fighter class, as it traditionally exists in DnD.

You seem so keen on laying down vague (and yet absolute) definitions for what constitutes 'bad-ass normal' and 'superhuman.'

Could you perhaps illustrate a more straight forward definition of both concepts? Perhaps with examples (or literary models)?

[Hiro Protagonest]

You seem so keen on laying down vague (and yet absolute) definitions for what constitutes 'bad-ass normal' and 'superhuman.'

Could you perhaps illustrate a more straight forward definition of both concepts? Perhaps with examples (or literary models)?

If his definition of badass normal is "average soldier who can stand up to a dragon if fully buffed by the mage", then that's not badass normal. That's Barely Competent Adventurer with a Bunch Of Temporary Superpowers.

[Optimator]

When I envision 'Fighter', images are brought to my mind of someone who is skilled with weapons, probably a lot of them, and can use them in combat against opponents who are also skilled.

That's why I almost never use the class Fighter, since he cannot achieve this goal.

PsyWar, Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, even Ranger... but Fighter just... mechanically doesn't function.

It's hard to develop the cognitive dissonance and imagine my character as 'one of the world's finest swordsmen' when, in fact, he's the weakest character in the party, and can be bested by a character half his level with pathetic ease.

I know I'm a bit late to the thread but this sums up my opinion of the Fighter quite well. The Fighter has its place and performs admirably in those respects (dips and PrC entry) but on its own underperforms miserably.

In my games Warriors are conscripts, Fighters are career soldiers, and all the other good classes are for actual PCs.

[Terazul]

actually, the whole maneuvers system is just refluffed and slightly mechanically altered magic. think about it. maneuver level = spell level. limited number of them per recharge time(days for casters, varies in ToB.

Because as players, we like to be able to classify things by appropriate level, and having names about them so we can refer to them and know what they do.

Just because something is organized in a specific way does not make it magic.

[Provengreil]

Because as players, we like to be able to classify things by appropriate level, and having names about them so we can refer to them and know what they do.

Just because something is organized in a specific way does not make it magic.

if you put green food coloring in eggs, they become green. they are, however, still eggs.

[Zonugal]

Also, just to gauge the general attitude in the thread, are you all comparing your conceptual model of a 'Fighter' at lower levels or higher levels?

[Terazul]

if you put green food coloring in eggs, they become green. they are, however, still eggs.

That's right! Maneuvers, (excluding the two explicitly supernatural schools) are still mostly completely mundane (Ex!) actions despite having a listed level, name, and list of targets and effects so we know actually know what they do!

It's crazy, isn't it?

[Provengreil]

That's right! Maneuvers, (excluding the two explicitly supernatural schools) are still mostly completely mundane (Ex!) actions despite having a listed level, name, and list of targets and effects so we know actually know what they do!

It's crazy, isn't it?

yeah, it's like magic!

[Greenish]

if you put green food coloring in eggs, they become green. they are, however, still eggs.

And if you have a bunch of round rocks, they look a bit like eggs. They still aren't eggs, though.

Maneuvers are divided into levels, yes, and for the same reason psionic powers, binder's vestiges, arcane/divine spells, or meldshapers' chakras are: so that they may actually scale by level. Maneuver recovery is limited so that you'd have a reason to use maneuvers other than your strongest one. The recovery systems are very different from vancian bullet magic, though.

Of course maneuvers and spells have similarities: they're designed to work in the same system. Fighter and wizard have lots of similarities: both get hitdice (at the same rate, for that matter), skills, BAB, base saves etc. Both have 2+int skills per level and one good save. These are just consequences of being made to work in the same system, and you'll probably agree that they play very differently. Thus it is with sublime way and magic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

yeah, it's like magic!

...Sarcasm.

I've argued hotly with another poster with a similar point of view. So I'm going to ask you this. Are revolvers Vancian Magic?

[Eldariel]

yeah, it's like magic!

Only thing it has in common with magic is organization. The effects, not so much. Maneuvers don't interact with magic meaningfully, they have none of the magic's characteristics and they can't, in fact, do anything. Magical maneuvers exist in two schools, which belong to the "Magic Knight"-class (Swordsage).

Outside that class, the maneuvers available to the mundane classes are mundane and don't do things like teleport, flight, create objects or evoke energy. Or summon creatures or conjure objects. They boil down to fighting well, leadership or shrugging off magical effects.

Also, yeah, you might be /sarcasm. I can't tell.

[MeeposFire]

In every pre-3E editions fighters, by design, were nothing more than bodyguards, supposed to nurse spellcasters through low levels, where the latter were extremely weak and vulnerable, and then to be relegated to mopping up things after spellcasters destroy all serious opposition and taking out fodder encounters (AD&D loved to put weak creatures even in supposedly high-level adventures). 3.0 was the first edition of DnD to recognize that planned obsolescence of clasess (eventually all of them but the wizard) is maybe unfair.



I don't consider 4E either DnD or a game I feel like talking about.


3.0, taking into account the supplements, PrCing out, and so on, gave the fighters either the best treatment ever, or maybe tied with Rules Cyclopedia. They still were one-dimensional thing-stabbers, of course, because that's inherent in their (sucky) concept. But they were actually able to stab things to death fairly easily with relatively little optimization. 3.5 and PF made fighter's life progressively harder, by comparison. Elimination of many old-school screw-yous, that, as usual, primarily hurt the classes without options, helped. So did mandatory magic gear.

Sorry but I can't agree with your extreme postion. Yes casters were very powerful but 3e has the most powerful casters not AD&D and fighters were still very useful because, for instance, they had little staying power and could be disrupted just by being hit (not damage). 3.0 was the first edition that made things so incredibly unfair. 3e is the first edition where warrior classes are not needed at all. 3e is the edition that made warriors obsolete not AD&D.

Well I am sorry you don't care for 4e D&D despite the fact it destroys your argument. I don't frankly care if you like it. It still proves you wrong since you are saying that fighters are always bad in D&D and that is not true.

3.0 is the worst treatment of the fighter class ever. Everything you mention looks nice but actually was better for everybody else. Easy gear hurts the fighter since wands and the like have made it easier for casters to stay working all day. 3.0 screws the warrior classes by giving them bad saving throws, terrible disruption mechanics, removing their advantages in HP, to hit, and number of attacks. All the while making mages better. AD&D fighters weren't sexy it is true but they were effective. 3e fighters look better but are actually worse. All varieties of fighters in 4e look better and are better but you don't care about that.

[Zonugal]

yeah, it's like magic!

Sort of like how Warblades are like Wizards right?

I mean they both have a focus towards intelligence, they can use simple weapons, they have skills, gain hit die and adventure!

I mean Warblades are practically Wizards who just can't cast spells!

[Midnight_v]

@ MeeposFire...

I find myself moved by your last argument. On several boards I've heard many people discuss if "guy who doesn't cast spells, and use melee" deserves a slot. Or is and out moded concept.
I've also noticed that whenever I encounter a fighter doing something comparable to what wizards are doing... people call it broke.
Now, while I'm NO fan of 4th ed, listening to what you said there reminds me, its all about perspective.

Here's the deal though, the concept works, but everyone has to accept that really fighters are NOT supposed to be "badass normals" from 1-20.
Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand 3.5.
So on the topic of "Concept of the fighter" you have to make that fit into the "Context of 3.5" for it to really work.

The fighter has to be someone who is unrestrained by the limits of human potential.

So yeah, he can totally WALK into mordor. Or jump out of a plane and land and just not care about taking 100d6 damage (maybe he's learned how to distribute his weight or something to where the ground takes the damage and not him "go dragoon power".)

The idea that you're "just a man" can stay as long as it coupled with "there's nothing that cannot be achieved if you're hardcore enough".
So yea meepos, thanks for that.

[Killer Angel]

Excellent, you have proved that Beofulf is a fairly heavyweight superhuman. Therefore he is not badass normal by definition. And this means, he falls outside of the conceptual space of the fighter class, as it traditionally exists in DnD.

Nope. Beowulf should be the example of a lev. 20 badass fighter (lev. 20 characters are superhuman).
At a lowest level, he should be able to do less epic things, but still impressive (badass normal).
D&D fails in doing that, but the concept still exists.

[Frosty]

Nope. Beowulf should be the example of a lev. 20 badass fighter (lev. 20 characters are superhuman).
At a lowest level, he should be able to do less epic things, but still impressive (badass normal).
D&D fails in doing that, but the concept still exists.

If you were to try to stat out Beowulf using the Pathfinder system to do all he could do in the epic and in the movie, how would it turn it? Can you come close?

[Midnight_v]

Nope. Beowulf should be the example of a lev. 20 badass fighter (lev. 20 characters are superhuman).
At a lowest level, he should be able to do less epic things, but still impressive (badass normal).
D&D fails in doing that, but the concept still exists.

+1 but honestly he's probbbly not quite level 20, but thats neither here nor there. You're point is kinda the point.
Fighter physical abilities are kinda not supposed to stop growing till he's a tarrasque that has figured out ways of killing flying dudes. . .

[LordBlades]

I do agree that the archetype of 'guy that swings sword' I didn't say normal, because normal guys can't really compete with obviously supernatural individuals that make heads explode with a mere gesture or call down Gods' wrath upon their foes; they need some special powers. These might be less 'magical' than magic (like martial maneuvers) but they're still things that are way out of the reach of the average Joe.

Thing is, unless you want to turn it into something else completely, the 'guy that swings sword' still operates mainly within the boundaries of reality. he might be stronger, faster and more resilient, but what he does is still running, lifting and punching. This means that by the point spellcasters have begun to rewrite the laws of reality to fit their goals, this whole archetype will inevitably become obsolete.

[Killer Angel]

If you were to try to stat out Beowulf using the Pathfinder system to do all he could do in the epic and in the movie, how would it turn it? Can you come close?

I don't think neither PF lets you model a character with Beowulf's abilities.