Why Play a Fighter? (DND/Pathfinder)

[Zonugal]

Leaping Dragon Stance + any Tiger Claw maneuver that requires you to jump.

Are your flying foes buffoons? Because no way are you managing to hit any reasonable flyer with a jump check.

[ranagrande]

The problem is that feats scale horribly when compared with other class features, especially spellcasting.

The best solution, I think, would be a complete reworking of the pool of fighter feats to choose from.

As I have said before, by 20th level, a Fighter should be deciding whether he wants to wield two weapons in each hand or to wear a suit of light armor under a suit of medium armor under a suit of heavy armor with all of the bonuses stacking.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Are your flying foes buffoons? Because no way are you managing to hit any reasonable flyer with a jump check.

You can only ascend at half speed, so those guys with flyby attack aren't gonna be that far away if they decide to go straight up after attacking.

[Zonugal]

You can only ascend at half speed, so those guys with flyby attack aren't gonna be that far away if they decide to go straight up after attacking.

We're assuming they are using melee weapons?

[Hiro Protagonest]

We're assuming they are using melee weapons?

The majority of non-caster enemies with fly don't have ranged weapons. Even manticores can only use four spike volleys each day.

[Coidzor]

Maybe you could stick to the reasonably selected feats for a giant as opposed to cherry-picking feats specifically for your desired reason? Maybe we could do that?

So giants have to be built worse than the fighter now for it to be fair to the ubercharger?

[Zonugal]

So giants have to be built worse than the fighter now for it to be fair?

Every giant should have stand still?

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

Those got thrown out the window a long time ago. Every sane DM gives orcs Power Attack or Weapon Focus instead.

[Zonugal]

Those got thrown out the window a long time ago. Every sane DM gives orcs Power Attack or Weapon Focus instead.

Then why are giants be afforded Stand Still and not the feats they currently have?

[Coidzor]

Every giant should have stand still?

Pointing out an easy counter to the ubercharger is not the same thing as saying what you claim has been said.

Especially when said ubercharger was brought up to win an internet debate in the first place. How, I'm not exactly sure, but that certainly seemed to be the intent, at any rate.

Because if we are going to start cherry-picking feats to win an internet debate we might as well start throwing all those alertness feats out the window.

Alertness probably should not be a feat in light of the changes made to the system over time, but that's rather secondary... A side discussion, more part of how to fix the feat system which is only partially to blame upon the design decisions that lead to the Fighter anyway, than part of the Fighter proper.

Then why are giants be afforded Stand Still and not the feats they currently have?

I imagine because they were serving as a rhetorical device if you're talking about the discussion.

If you're talking about any given game, the reasons are so varied the question you ask is ultimately unanswerable in general and ultimately pointless in the specific case.

[Zeta Kai]

One way to make a Fighter interesting is to get more interesting feats. The feat choices from the PHB are a bit... under powered, at least compared to later offerings from splatbooks. This is one area where homebrew tends to excel, as melee combatants are often given very nice things that are still not out of balance with lower-Tier classes (read: full casters).

For instance, [blatant plug] the Hourglass of Zihaja project, which started out as "just" a campaign setting, has produced many viable options for melee combatants. One of the most obvious are the Style feats, each of which give the PC more options as the character gains BAB. That way, with only a single feat, a Fighter can easily specialize in Sword-&-Board, Einhander, Archery, Dirty Fighting, Swashbuckling, Wrestling, &/or several other combat styles.

Also, HoZ feats can allow a Fighter to easily counterattack, parry, reduce iterative attack penalties, & survive fatal injuries.[/blatant plug] Later splats, like the Complete series, have other melee-related feats, so a Fighter doesn't really have an excuse not to be effective & interesting in combat. Ask your DM if you can use supplemental materials &/or homebrew.

[TheJake]

As a Fighter, your job is to act as a meatshield for the rest of the party, especially the squishies. That's it. If you measure your job by your damage output (compared to the cleric, rogue, wizard, etc) you're doing it wrong.

- J.

[faceroll]

The problem is that when you do that, your damage output is nil (as you pointed out yourself) - at which point, there's very little reason for any monster of above animal intelligence...and even some smarter animals...to spend more than one round flailing away at you, when they can just walk past and munch on the softer people who are actually hurting them.

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

The only way you could possibly be 'wrong' here is the statement of going all day - I suppose the Paladin could Lay on a few Hands or throw a couple Cure Lights, but you're an almost all-Martial party without magical healing, you must be spending money hand over fist for potions/wands. That issue aside, you've got an excellent party balance dynamic...Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Cavalier are all cheerful T4s, with your only T2 (Summoner) happily playing support (which is a question, what's he going with his Eidolon)?

2 gold 7 silver for 1 HP isn't exactly "hand over fist" at level 10. If they lose 200 HP an encounter (20% of 1000 total HP), that only costs 540 gp to heal.

Out of combat healing is entirely trivial beyond level 2 with a party of size greater than 1.

Meanwhile, what he cannot do:

* effectively threaten flying opponents
* effectively threaten opponents with miss chance
* effectively threaten opponents with reach

Itemization brah.
For instance:
*use a throwing stick
*use a more accurate stick
*use a longer stick

[KnightDisciple]

As a Fighter, your job is to act as a meatshield for the rest of the party, especially the squishies. That's it. If you measure your job by your damage output (compared to the cleric, rogue, wizard, etc) you're doing it wrong.

- J.

The problem is, in 3.5 and Pathfinder, being a "meatshield" doesn't work very well. Just standing there gives no incentive for the enemy to attack you, instead of the guy flinging metric tons of arcane and/or divine energy around. By the time they're flying, they can totally bypass you.

Unless you want to introduce a "taunt" mechanic?

If you don't, making yourself a viable target via damage is one of your few options. That, or things like trip, disarm, etc that can inconvenience enemies.

Of course, that's all putting aside the fact that that's a very narrow view where you're telling other that they're "doing it wrong", when the class itself, especially in Pathfinder, is geared toward making a very wide range of archetypes and playstyles, only some of which would work as a "meatshield".

[The Glyphstone]

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

That's kinda the point - if you're contributing nothing (low damage, inability to force monsters to engage you), why are you still in the party? Wizards don't 'never get hurt', they 'never get hurt' by anything that the base Fighter would have a monkey's prayer of stopping from hurting them. If the Wizard's own defenses fail, he's almost certainly facing another caster, against whom the Fighter would be toast.

2 gold 7 silver for 1 HP isn't exactly "hand over fist" at level 10. If they lose 200 HP an encounter (20% of 1000 total HP), that only costs 540 gp to heal.

Out of combat healing is entirely trivial beyond level 2 with a party of size greater than 1.

Point conceded on the HP/GP ratio (though it's worth noting that you don't always have the time to sit and laze about while your Vigor ticks for 20 minutes to repair that damage), but they're still spending money constantly, even if it's not in huge gobs. Then there's poisons, diseases, occasional resurrections...

Itemization brah.
For instance:
*use a throwing stick
*use a more accurate stick
*use a longer stick

Putting aside the 'more accurate stick' thing (because there is no such thing when it comes to miss chances), you're suggesting either having a pet caster to supply you with Greater Magic Weapon spells, or shelling out triple to quadruple your normal expenditure of GP just to be able to contribute against assorted enemies. This isn't a problem?

[Lord_Gareth]

You know, none of the things being suggested by fighter proponents in this thread actually solves the OP's problem; namely, that he wants to be versatile in combat.

Fighters, no matter what kind of fighter they are, invest in one trick. They can't afford not to. He doesn't want to invest in one trick - he'd like two or three or maybe even a dozen tricks. And if you want that while retaining a strictly martial flavor, the solution is, indeed, "play a warblade".

Yes, Fighter can be fun in some circumstances, especially if you don't mind mashing the same button round after round, but those circumstances do not exist in this instance.

[Runestar]

Actually, I find that the main point of the fighter is to deal damage. The advantage they have over the caster in this aspect is that they don't need to expend slots to do it, leaving the wizard free to do more useful things like locking down the battlefield. In this aspect, I feel they excel quite well.

I recall reading a PBP of an age of worms final battle against Kyuss on enworld. The fighter ended up doing the bulk of the damage and was responsible for untimately defeating Kyuss. The rogue did like 3? damage throughout the entire fight.

[The Glyphstone]

Actually, I find that the main point of the fighter is to deal damage. The advantage they have over the caster in this aspect is that they don't need to expend slots to do it, leaving the wizard free to do more useful things like locking down the battlefield. In this aspect, I feel they excel quite well.

I recall reading a PBP of an age of worms final battle against Kyuss on enworld. The fighter ended up doing the bulk of the damage and was responsible for untimately defeating Kyuss. The rogue did like 3? damage throughout the entire fight.

Which most people here agree with - a fighter can deal damage, and can deal lots of it. The problem of the OP, and often fighters in general, is that they can't do anything except deal damage.

[KnightDisciple]

You know, none of the things being suggested by fighter proponents in this thread actually solves the OP's problem; namely, that he wants to be versatile in combat.

Fighters, no matter what kind of fighter they are, invest in one trick. They can't afford not to. He doesn't want to invest in one trick - he'd like two or three or maybe even a dozen tricks. And if you want that while retaining a strictly martial flavor, the solution is, indeed, "play a warblade".

Yes, Fighter can be fun in some circumstances, especially if you don't mind mashing the same button round after round, but those circumstances do not exist in this instance.

I guess it depends on what you count as a "trick". I mean, there's the main "trick" of "hit things with *insert weapon here*". I suppose some of the styles or feats in pathfinder could give you some options, trip or whatnot.

But yes, there's a point where there aren't a lot of "tricks", even if PF gives you a berjillion feats to buy "tricks" with.

[Seerow]

As a Fighter, your job is to act as a meatshield for the rest of the party, especially the squishies. That's it. If you measure your job by your damage output (compared to the cleric, rogue, wizard, etc) you're doing it wrong.

- J.

Then you fail at that job as well. See my earlier post about Fighter defenses.

[Runestar]

Which most people here agree with - a fighter can deal damage, and can deal lots of it. The problem of the OP, and often fighters in general, is that they can't do anything except deal damage.

Then maybe the solution would be to redefine the fighter's actual role, rather than what it ought to be capable of. In 4e terminology, it would like the fighter is more a striker, yet people are complaining that it makes a poor defender, when that was never its intent or purpose in the first place?

[Provengreil]

But if the only other member in the party are casters, it's no big deal, right? Wizards never get hurt in combat, according to these boards....

What glyphstone was saying was that the enemy can take one AoO, which because of your shield won't hurt much, and just walk right past you. keeping most enemy's away from the casters works in theory, but in play it only works when a chokepoint is involved, and sometimes not even then. so you're losing on damage, losing on versatility, sinking most of your gp into making enemies ignore you with your admittedly high armor class, and then you need a small doorway situation to make your build work anyway, which is a little specific unless your entire campaign is sieges. at that point, you're literally leaving everything to the wizard, which makes your character both incredibly bland and impotent, rather than just one, which is often tolerable at least, or neither which is good.

You know, none of the things being suggested by fighter proponents in this thread actually solves the OP's problem; namely, that he wants to be versatile in combat.

Fighters, no matter what kind of fighter they are, invest in one trick. They can't afford not to. He doesn't want to invest in one trick - he'd like two or three or maybe even a dozen tricks. And if you want that while retaining a strictly martial flavor, the solution is, indeed, "play a warblade".

Yes, Fighter can be fun in some circumstances, especially if you don't mind mashing the same button round after round, but those circumstances do not exist in this instance.

Actually, i'd refer you to my previous posts. As I have readily admitted, the fighter still doesn't excel, but one fighter build can be decent enough at grappling, tripping, beating people up with their own weapons(unarmed disarming FTW), getting in the enemy's way, and still have feats to spare for something to keep mobility, like maybe spring attack. ToB does solve the effectiveness problem, but not all DMs allow it(personally, i don't). But, relative ineffectiveness aside, a build like this is only boring if played in a boring fashion. Thus, fighters can be versatile.

[faceroll]

That's kinda the point - if you're contributing nothing (low damage, inability to force monsters to engage you), why are you still in the party? Wizards don't 'never get hurt', they 'never get hurt' by anything that the base Fighter would have a monkey's prayer of stopping from hurting them. If the Wizard's own defenses fail, he's almost certainly facing another caster, against whom the Fighter would be toast.

I was thinking more along the lines of having such a high AC, there's no reason for the monster to concentrate on you, even if you have nice damage output. And having both is quite easy by the mid levels. THF with decent strength and efficient power attack nets you plenty of damage. If you really need that damage, diving mounted spirited charges do quad damage with a lance.

+1 animated mithril tower shield and +1 mithril mechanus gear, and 14 dex, gets you 28 AC. A ring of protection and amulet of natural armor gets you up to 30 AC. That set up costs you about 25k, or about 40% of the gold of an 11th level character. If you take ranks in craft:armor, the cost drops by 4k. And, as a fighter, what are you doing with your 2 skill points a level? Taking ranks in swim, I guess, so you don't drown.

With that, there about 50% odds of being missed by CR13 enemies from MM1. If you can get 40 AC at that level, your chance of being hit drops to 5 to 15%.

The downside to all this is being unable to afford Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, Sovereign Glue, Universal Solvent, a HHH, a Hand of Glory, etc. But in an all fighter party, that kind of stuff should be bought as party gear.

Gear optimization aside, I'm DMing for a melee heavy party. A damage heavy party, actually. The monk can easily do 50 damage a round, maybe more. However, her AC is high 30s to low 40s, so regardless of having a damage output similar to the warblade, enemies simply ignore her, and focus on the warblade who has much lower AC. They would go after the pixie warlock who can do 100+ damage a turn if they could see her or reach her. They ignore the GOD wizard until he does something flashy, in which case, he has to expend a bunch of resources (most importantly, his actions) on not dying, as he is quite fragile with d4 HD and non-existent AC.

It's rather interesting how everything plays out. Action economy ends up being a huge deal, and I don't think that gets accounted for very frequently. With a passive 30 AC and 50 damage a round, you can chug along, dropping an enemy every couple rounds. Wizards end up getting burst "damage", because as soon as that neat effect lands, they're targeted by everyone, and have to spend a couple of rounds not dying (invis, mirror image).

Point conceded on the HP/GP ratio (though it's worth noting that you don't always have the time to sit and laze about while your Vigor ticks for 20 minutes to repair that damage), but they're still spending money constantly, even if it's not in huge gobs. Then there's poisons, diseases, occasional resurrections...

Actually, that calculation was for a wand of CLW, averaging 5.5 HP per cast. If we use vigor, the cost is half that. With a paladin in the party, scrolls of remove disease and (lesser) restoration are fine. It's what a cleric carries, anyway. Resurrections are much harder to get, true. You can always walk back to town and get one, though. And with a paladin, you're probably getting the rez from a friendly church for cost. I agree, though- having a full caster with you makes life much easier, no debate there.

Putting aside the 'more accurate stick' thing (because there is no such thing when it comes to miss chances), you're suggesting either having a pet caster to supply you with Greater Magic Weapon spells, or shelling out triple to quadruple your normal expenditure of GP just to be able to contribute against assorted enemies. This isn't a problem?

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. Reach can be overcome either by going with a reach weapon build, and/or combined with a potion of enlarge person (or by being a large race). I'm fairly certain there's some item out there that lets you ignore miss chance, that is reasonably price in the MIC. Fighters are very heavily dependent on gear, unfortunately, but many of their deficiencies can be mitigated on wisely spent wealth.

With all the feats you get, you can easily be a competent archer until your boots let you fly or you ride on a flying carpet.

Heck, you can pick up Blind-Fight as a fighter bonus feat. That halves your miss chance (unless they're blinking , what a stupid rule). I think a mistake a lot of people make with fighters is overspecializing. Typically you should spend about 1/2 of your feats on a fighting style, 1/4 on a secondary fighting style, and the last 1/4 making up for not having any class features.

What glyphstone was saying was that the enemy can take one AoO, which because of your shield won't hurt much, and just walk right past you. keeping most enemy's away from the casters works in theory, but in play it only works when a chokepoint is involved, and sometimes not even then. so you're losing on damage, losing on versatility, sinking most of your gp into making enemies ignore you with your admittedly high armor class, and then you need a small doorway situation to make your build work anyway, which is a little specific unless your entire campaign is sieges. at that point, you're literally leaving everything to the wizard, which makes your character both incredibly bland and impotent, rather than just one, which is often tolerable at least, or neither which is good.

Hardly. Monster ignores fighter, walks past, kills wizard (which, according to charop boards, never happens, because all wizards are level 20 and invisible, flying and have all spells ready to cast always), then the fighter kills the monster a few rounds later.

Or, the wizard, spends his time using spells to avoid being hit (ironguard, invis, mirror image, etc), while over those rounds of self-buffing, the fighter kills the monster.

Just because the fighter takes 3 rounds to kill the monster, and the wizard gets killed in one round to the same monster, doesn't mean "the fighter isn't doing his job". It means the wizard needs to be smarter.

[Greenish]

Then maybe the solution would be to redefine the fighter's actual role, rather than what it ought to be capable of. In 4e terminology, it would like the fighter is more a striker, yet people are complaining that it makes a poor defender, when that was never its intent or purpose in the first place?

It's not that great a striker, either, since it seriously lacks mobility and, to borrow 4e's terms, ability to target any other defense than the enemy's AC and HP pool.

[J-H]

Here's what I would do to "fix" Fighters.

(1) Mobility in combat
Instead of limiting them to a choice between moving and doing a single attack, or standing still and making a full attack, or doing a build with Pounce and Barbarian to give them the ability to both move and fight like casters and some archers have, make the following change:
1. Every 10' of movement taken (rounded down) reduces AB for iterative attacks by 3, and every 20' moved removes 1 attack (fighter retains a minimum of 1 attack).
A level 1 fighter suffers no effect from this.
A level 6 fighter can move 10' and make 2 attacks, one at full AB and the other at a -3 penalty each. Or, he can move 30' and make 1 full attack as normal.
A level 11 fighter can move 10' and make 3 attacks, 2 of them with a -3 penalty... or, he can move 30' and make 2 attacks, 1 of which is at a -9 penalty.
In the case of haste, distance penalties double (to 20' and 40').

This gives the fighter some increased ability to move around the battlefield and make more attacks--which is half the point of a full BAB class, without giving him the ability to zip hither and thither with no penalties.

It may need some detail work, but I think this is the structure for a decent fit.

(2) Versatility
2a. Modify feat selection. Give fighters the ability to ignore any one feat prerequisite for any feat they wish to select.
Thus, for whirlwind attack they will still need spring attack and whatever else, but may skip Mobility... or they can skip Cleave and go straight to Great Cleave.
This gives them access to more abilities and tricks faster than those who do not specialize in physical combat.

2b. Skill points. Increase the # of skill points available to fighters.
They are fighters...they are trained in the arts of combat. Why is this training not manifested in a diverse skillset?

Here's what a newly trained fighter from a moderately prosperous (rural gentry) with no experience would be expected to do in medieval Europe (the general background for D&D-type fantasy):
-Fight effectively with multiple weapons
-Care for his weapon and armor
-Ride
-Speak 2 languages (French & German, French & English, etc)
-Be able to dodge out of the way of attacks without falling down (Jump & Balance)
-Behave in a reasonably polite manner at court (Diplomacy, maybe Sense Motive)
-Care for his wounds in at least a very rough manner, since he probably served as a squire while training (Heal)
-Have basic familiarity with local geography, politics, and religion, as well as knowing something about any dangerous wildlife or creatures in the area (Knowledge, geography, politics, religion, dungeoneering)
-Tumble (at least to the point of being able to fall off a horse without breaking bones)
-Use and care for his tack and saddle (Use Rope)

I count 12 skills there that an 18 year old who just graduated from Ye Medieval Fighter Apprenticeship should have. Almost all of these will be things that he gets better at if he survives and prospers over the next 10 years.

A default SRD/PHB fighter can put 1 point in 8 of those skills, which represents him being a whole 5% better than an ignorant untrained peasant. At each level thereafter, he can improve 2 out of his 12 core skills.

Ladies & gentlemen, the 3.5 skill point distribution allocation for fighters is broken.

[faceroll]

Fighters should get to make full attacks as a standard action.

[Greenish]

Ladies & gentlemen, the 3.5 skill point distribution allocation for fighters is broken.

It's broken for everyone. 8+int that rogues have isn't really enough for the stuff they should be able to do, especially with Search/Disable Device "role" eating into it.

[Eldariel]

It's broken for everyone. 8+int that rogues have isn't really enough for the stuff they should be able to do, especially with Search/Disable Device "role" eating into it.

They don't have nearly enough and they have the highest accumulation in the game. I've played a 20-Int Rogue with Nymph's Kiss (+1 skill per level; even got it houseruled to +4 on level 1) and still, when I wanted:

- Use Magic Device
- Hide
- Move Silently
- Balance
- Tumble

- Search
- Disable Device
- Spot
- Listen
- Sense Motive

- Diplomacy
- Bluff
- Intimidate
- Knowledge: Local
- Gather Information

Could I get all those skills? Nope. That's 15. I could max 13. Now, that's kind of a basic kit and notice skills that are missing:
- Appraise
- Climb
- Swim
- Forgery
- Use Rope
- Ride
- Open Lock

That's a bunch of basic skills that I ignore 'cause I can negate them with magic. Or in the case of Forgery, one I ignore simply because I can't afford it. And that's not even a very elaborate kit. This guy knows nothing. He has no wilderness skills. He can't make anything, he can't perform and he has no profession. And yet, system makes this much impossible, let alone anything resembling a swashbuckler you'd write into a story. Smooth-talking burglar type just has too many skills.

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, old problem with 3rd edition. Fighter (along side paladin and monk) has very few and weak options, while everyone else (specially casters) got lots and lots of stuff and get all limitations removed.

I suggest looking Substitution Levels/Alternate Class Features. In the end, they're like level-specific feats/class features, making fighters get more effective and interesting to play.

[J-H]

Another low-powered option that might be interesting is to give Fighters automatic proficiency in 2 or 3 exotic weapons... adds a bit of variety and flavor without blowing feats.