Why Play a Fighter? (DND/Pathfinder)

[Lord.Sorasen]

My issue with the fighter argument is that people assume you need an equally powerful class to perform with other powerful classes. But you don't. The party doesn't, for instance, need to split WBL evenly. Does you fighter need a way to fly? The wizard doesn't, and it will benefit the team to put in some money for that. A good wizard can at level 5 cast celestial aspect, which will give a fighter wings for a good few minutes. A druid can cast it on his mount through share spell while retaining the ability to fly himself, and the fighter can ride that as long as the druid (who is a flying bear) stays within 5 feet. Simpler, the druid can be a flying bear and the fighter can ride that bear.

Also, flat-footed opponents can't provoke AoO, so that's one way to avoid reach. Also a fighter can suck it up and do it anyway, so long as the creature wasn't built for the purpose of stopping the fighter. I believe a flying fighter can actually just drop, fall as a free action, and avoid the AoO that way. I think neraphim have some way around it too.

Want to play a fun fighter? Don't play as just a fighter. Play as a fighter on a team. You can be involved in crazy antics even without magic.

Another option is a really weird racial choice. I like raptoran a lot, and they can fly on their own and shoot bows from their feet while wielding a sword in their arms. The "I fight all day" concept can work well with a warforged, who can carry all the things and never tire ever. Dragonborn get a breath weapon...

Like mentioned above, dipping can be a way to gain some more option, and I don't see dipping to be any less fighter than dipping fighter makes a warblade less warblade. A single cleric dip can get you turn undead, which fuel some really interesting feats. If you want to be ridiculous you can dump wisdom, then your cleric dip won't give you spellcasting and you'll stay spell-less. I sort of like the idea of an intelligent fighter who takes a level of cleric to get knowledge devotion. A single level of barbarian gets you pounce, as has been stated, but you can even trade out rage for an archery feat if you really wanted to not rage. Fighter Bonus Feat rogue is basically the same as taking a fighter level but you get less hp and bab and get a bunch of skill points. Thug works too probably.

As for roleplaying? Ask yourself the questions that are fighter-specific. For example, why do you not use magic if it's clearly so effective? How do you feel about barbarians, and rogues, which fight without control and through trickery respectively? Do you take your style to be honorable, or do you just get it done? Wizards don't really get to be self-taught like a fighter does: the wizard has to have spellbooks and therefor some sort of money, but a fighter can so easily be a peasant.

My favorite fighter-type (who's class is, by chance, also called fighter) is Dorcas from Fire Emblem 7. Now, Dorcas isn't really all that interesting. He's poor, he's big and quiet, he follows orders without angst... Which is why I like him. See, Dorcas isn't a mystic child with an epic destiny. He cares about his wife and wants to earn money for her, and he puts himself, without arguing or complaining, into an epic world. And there's something special about that. The fighter who has no real special gifts (and the game reflects it in his subpar stats, probably unintentionally) among the magical, doing his best to make a difference, not caring that he's not as capable so long as he's still useful. A sorcerer can't do this character. A druid can't do this. A rogue can play a similar mindset but somehow the method feels different. Even a barbarian or warblade, two non-magic classes with similar purposes, but have extraordinary (in the traditional sense of the word) abilities, and will be unable to be this character.

The fighter blends in with the warrior NPC class. He's not special, not supernatural, a badass normal at best. He's very skilled but his abilities are just on a lower level. But as they say, it's not your powers but how you use them. So my advice here is to run with it. Be the one who still remembers what it means to be a normal person. Be the one who recognizes the value of a gold piece. The one who doesn't intend to be an adventurer forever does what must be done.

[Thespianus]

^ 1 round since he has 5 HD. At best it's break even. At worst it's a wasted round.

Who has 5 hd? The level 4 fighters in the party being attacked by one flying wizard?

[Curious]

-Snip-

That's all very nice, but if the designers intentionally made the Fighter class weaker than the rest of the classes, why didn't they specify so in the Player's Handbook? Or anywhere else, really? If they really did mean for 'badass normals' to be weaker, then they did a great disservice to everyone who has ever played their game by not stating it bluntly, and letting them believe the classes where inherently balanced.

[NNescio]

Who has 5 hd? The level 4 fighters in the party being attacked by one flying wizard?

Cue the mention of bows and Wind Walls and Giamonk gear...

[Provengreil]

The Wizard has a 50% chance of being affected by something from a CR-appropriate encounter. This is normal. This is supposed to happen. A 75% failure chance is considerably worse.

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

[Kenneth]

Yes. I would've, except I saw a 2e dart combo somewhere so I knew what you were talking about, but this thread is about 3.5 and PF. That's why it's in the 3.X subforum.

SO.. you just ignored teh last 3/4 of my post then?

[Lord.Sorasen]

That's all very nice, but if the designers intentionally made the Fighter class weaker than the rest of the classes, why didn't they specify so in the Player's Handbook? Or anywhere else, really? If they really did mean for 'badass normals' to be weaker, then they did a great disservice to everyone who has ever played their game by not stating it bluntly, and letting them believe the classes where inherently balanced.

Naa, man, I'm pretty certain WotC had no idea about the difference in power between magic and otherwise. I'm not saying the fighter was intentionally made to be weaker. What I'm saying is that it did turn out that way (I do, for what it's worth, believe they wanted the fighter to feel more like a regular warrior rather than a mystic sort. I just figure they didn't realize the power difference that would result from that decision.)

I also think intention is unimportant in this case. The fact is that the fighter, by way of its crunch, gives me a character concept that I enjoy. I want to note that this thread isn't "Is the fighter balanced" or even "Is a fighter well designed". It's "why play a fighter?" I'm just stating one of the reasons I would do it, and one I recommend for people who want a certain type of experience.

[NNescio]

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

The Level 5 Fighter has a Fort Save of +4. Let's be generous and give him a Con of 16 for a +3 Mod. At DC 26 he'll need to roll a 19 or better. Hardly level-appropriate.

Especially since Dragon Bile costs 1500 GP per pop and Dragon Bile traps have a rated CR of 7.

(And while the Fighter will probably not be incapacitated by the poison, that amount of Str damage is going to render him mostly useless.)

[noparlpf]

It's funny, because I used "metric ton of arcane energy" in a very flippant way. I thought it'd be clear it wasn't meant as a scientific measurement, but instead a general statement about "a lot of this stuff".

I tend to take things seriously that weren't meant to be taken seriously. Especially if I know they weren't meant to be taken seriously. Even more so when it's past my bedtime.

[Provengreil]

The Level 5 Fighter has a Fort Save of +4. Let's be generous and give him a Con of 16 for a +3 Mod. At DC 26 he'll need to roll a 19 or better. Hardly level-appropriate.

Especially since Dragon Bile costs 1500 GP per pop and Dragon Bile traps have a rated CR of 7.

(And while the Fighter will probably not be incapacitated by the poison, that amount of Str damage is going to render him mostly useless.)

i didn't specify a level. the only reason i listed that poison in particular is that it's the only one i could think of capable of instantly removing all of a wizard's expectable strength.

[Flickerdart]

Poisons have two stages where they can be avoided - the actual attack, and the poison save itself. The deadliest CR5 poisons, on the Phase Spider and Spider Eater, have a pathetic +8 and +7 to-hit, which considerably reduces their chances of actually affecting something with their poisons, especially once you factor in Mirror Image, Blur or similar staple buffs. The poison attacks are also single-target, so if they're attacking someone with it, they're not attacking anyone else with it, which is already accomplishing something.

[Provengreil]

Poisons have two stages where they can be avoided - the actual attack, and the poison save itself. The deadliest CR5 poisons, on the Phase Spider and Spider Eater, have a pathetic +8 and +7 to-hit, which considerably reduces their chances of actually affecting something with their poisons, especially once you factor in Mirror Image, Blur or similar staple buffs. The poison attacks are also single-target, so if they're attacking someone with it, they're not attacking anyone else with it, which is already accomplishing something.

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.

[NNescio]

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.

The Wizard is generally less likely to be hit by Fort-save targeting effects, whether they come from weapons, projectiles, special abilities, or spells. They are usually further away from the frontlines, have various spells providing miss chances and AC bonuses, are more mobile, and have more options to counter or disrupt magic. And that's not counting the spells that directly help improve saves or let you reroll them.

Yeah, Magic is kinda unfair like that.

[MeeposFire]

Naa, man, I'm pretty certain WotC had no idea about the difference in power between magic and otherwise. I'm not saying the fighter was intentionally made to be weaker. What I'm saying is that it did turn out that way (I do, for what it's worth, believe they wanted the fighter to feel more like a regular warrior rather than a mystic sort. I just figure they didn't realize the power difference that would result from that decision.)

I also think intention is unimportant in this case. The fact is that the fighter, by way of its crunch, gives me a character concept that I enjoy. I want to note that this thread isn't "Is the fighter balanced" or even "Is a fighter well designed". It's "why play a fighter?" I'm just stating one of the reasons I would do it, and one I recommend for people who want a certain type of experience.

No they knew magic was more powerful. They knew that in 1e and it was even told to you in the book then. What they did not realize at first was how badly they screwed up the combat system in the magic users favor. Tactics and abilities that used to keep mages somewhat in their place no longer worked. What they also lacked was the vision to realize that players were not going to use the same play style in 3e as they did before. Blasting is now not great so blasting was left behind. It became trivially easy for a cleric/druid to replace melee classes so now players do. They knew the power but did not realize how much the game would change by taking away a few small things from 2e.

[Flickerdart]

how did we lock onto level 5 poisons? flicker said CR appropriate, and i listed a clearly not CR 5 posion. i just used it as an example of a wizard's weakness where fighter is not nearly so weak, ie fort save targeting effects.

Haha, okay. You want to take this to high levels?

How about the Purple Worm, a monster with DC25 poison? CR12. By level 12, the Fighter has a +8 modifier on his Fortitude save, let's say 20 Constitution (as a secondary stat) and a +2 cloak. Saves on a 10. 50-50 chance.

Wizard. +4 modifier, 20 Con (as a secondary stat), Superior Resistance. Saves on that same 10, except he has no need to be anywhere near enough to the Worm to get hit to begin with.

The higher you go on a Fighter-Real Class comparison, the further the Fighter falls behind, because his lack of class features becomes more and more apparent.

[Paul H]

Hi

In PFS campaign (practically all the PF games I've played), most of the enemy were humanoids, natural animals or undead, with a few extra planar creatures.

Practically all can be critted/sneak attacked. Most were taken down in melee, but when you need an arcanist, you really, really need an arcanist.

In about 70-100 scenarios, my arcane abilities (deperately) stood out in only 3:

1) Wand Magic Missile to distract an Assassin Vine from well smegged party
2) Ok, Druidic Magic to enhance my Alligator to attack incorporeal undead. Dwarven Fighter 5 only 'needed' one weapon, and that wasn't even magical!
3) Magus spellstriking with wand Truestrike. Series of combats over few hours, Cleric out of healing, plus NPC Fighter already dead.

Only thing needed more than melee builds are Healers!

Thanks
Paul H
Edit: Best answer is from Lord Sorason (above):"Want to play a fun fighter? Don't play as just a fighter. Play as a fighter on a team. You can be involved in crazy antics even without magic."

[Flickerdart]

Only thing needed more than melee builds are Healers!

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

[Paul H]

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

Hi

Never said it was. It certainly can't cast Lesser Restoration.

My point is that whilst some scenarios benefit from other builds, we always need a Melee build of some sort, just like we always need Healers.

But most of all Teamwork.

Thanks
Paul H

[Hiro Protagonest]

But most of all Teamwork.

So warblade or crusader with White Raven focus?

[Paul H]

Hi

Not sure what they are, but:
1) If they work,
2) are fun for whole party,
3) and contribute to Team effort

then sure, why not?

(But the thread was about Fighters)

Thanks
Paul H

[Lord.Sorasen]

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

I always sort of wondered what would happen to balance if you removed wands and scrolls. I could be wrong because my group always forgets they exist, but it seems like their primary purpose is to invalidate spells per day.

PS: If your group would make it difficult to play a fighter and you want to be more useful, and you'd rather play a true combat master rather than my above suggestion... Perhaps you can get your dm to let you gestalt in rogue? Bonus feat rogue to be exact, which might mean double the bonus feats if one interprets it that way. I played one once, and to be honest it was really cool. I feel like 8 skill points and a good reflex save is a simple and elegant fighter fix, and in a gestalt game super feats and evasion were also sort of neat. It seems sort of natural that a fighter should be really good at a few skills regardless of intelligence. I've never met a professionally trained soldier who didn't know how to climb and use rope.

[tyckspoon]

Wand of Vigor isn't a build.

He was talking about Pathfinder Society; most of the organized-play rulesets I've seen have rules changes that make it difficult or impossible to use the most common "no, you don't actually need a dedicated PC build for that" workarounds. Specifically, it seems to be very common to ban or greatly restrict crafting feats from PCs, and you generally don't get a chance to buy magic freely. So it's a good idea to have somebody around who can actually do healing off their own resources (I still wouldn't build specifically to be The Healer, but you certainly won't turn down having a positive-energy-channeling Cleric around), because you never know when or even if you'll manage to get a loaded Wand of Cure Light in the scenario loot.

[Sewercop]

If and when i play fighters I always need more than the "me hit you" stick.
It gets old and repetativ fast. So i try to build then more optimized then other classes.I usually play casters,techies,empaths,builders etc in the different games i play. When I play fighters in any game, its usually because no one else wants to. And, in most rpgs ive played, fighters tend to be boring and bad.

But, after a while, fighters(in most games) seem more appealing to me. Not because its a powerful class, but because the power level the class has very low gamebreaking potential. Im an optimizer, and i like roleplaying to, go figure :)
We do excist.

It can be rewarding for me(not saying this goes for all people) to play a mechanical stupid class, to be able to play with my friends. It is actually more fun to play a game then to break a game.

Anyways... Still dislike fighters in 3.5.
Why? They have nothing special... Nothing... Anything they can do, can be done better by other classes.

Guess what, im playing a melee frontliner next d&d.. yup.. a fighter thing.. and its going to be fun :)

[ranagrande]

In one of the groups I used to play with, I played fighter-types almost exclusively. I was much more of an optimizer than the rest of the players, so that was a good way to help keep things balanced.

[Coidzor]

My issue with the fighter argument is that people assume you need an equally powerful class to perform with other powerful classes. But you don't. The party doesn't, for instance, need to split WBL evenly.

Your issue with the fact that someone finds fighters to be weak and lacking options is that one shouldn't care that fighters are weak and lacking options?

And that it's not only acceptable, but good game design to rob Peter to pay Paul?

I always sort of wondered what would happen to balance if you removed wands and scrolls. I could be wrong because my group always forgets they exist, but it seems like their primary purpose is to invalidate spells per day.

Unpleasant things for the fighter, that's for sure. Those guys just love suckling at the teat of sweet, sweet cure light wounds wands.

Additionally, there'd be further unpleasantness, like the further encouragement of the 15 minute adventuring day, and fighters being further devalued by meatshield hirelings.

question: what if level appropriate poison gets involved? it's actually a good counter to wizard or rogue. if the receiver is unlucky, a poisoned dart could put a wizard on the ground for the encounter (there's a DC 26 one that does 3d6 STR). or any other fort save, really. I'd say it's unfair to compare the wizard's effectiveness at saving with his strong save with fighter's weak one, because depending on the level the difference is 10-30% chance of making said save, given identical save-boosting equipment.

edited for grammar.

Biggest one is that poisons are spendy, even if you're crafting them, and it takes a few levels before the fighter can make the DCs to craft the good stuff.

And the best stuff is going to be obtained by just outright milking creatures, which the fighter could train once he had them amicable to being interacted with, but without a certain interpretation of handle animal, would be dependent upon others to pacify initially.

Then there's the bit where poison is only really good for a narrower range of play, between when you can make something decent/afford to make it at all and when it ceases to really be much of a factor due to the ease of immunity and saves.

He was talking about Pathfinder Society; most of the organized-play rulesets I've seen have rules changes that make it difficult or impossible to use the most common "no, you don't actually need a dedicated PC build for that" workarounds.

Indeed, always found that to be a failing of such a format, really. Why, no, you can't have a 15 minute adventuring day, but we're going to forbid you from actually being able to do anything but be a walking band-aid box if you can prepare healing magic.

Just ignore the fact that we gave you a spell list far, far larger than that when we designed the class.

[Killer Angel]

Low int/mindless and/or low level creatures probably, but anything that has at least an average int modifier and is high enough on the CR scale to have fought adventurers above level 1 before would know that casters are more dangerous.

Who would you think the lone survivor of the ogre tribe would fear more: the fighter that swung his longsword 3 times and killed one of their warriors, or the wizard who brought forth magical strands of web to entangle half of the warriors, and then blinded the other half with golden fairy dust?

Certainly the wizard. That's why high level ogres come with class levels: they survived past battles and they know how to recognize dangerous opponents.
For a "basic" ogre, a CR equivalent fighter (or barbarian, anyway, a pure meleer) is a deadly threat.


Edit: I'm not arguing the casters' edge, nor that they're the real main danger. Only, there are cases (which I optimisticly put around 10-15%, depending on the campaign) where the "enemy" will target the meleer.
(that's also 'cause not all the meleers are weak. A chargin' barbarian is not someone to dismiss so easily, IMO)

[LordBlades]

My issue with the fighter argument is that people assume you need an equally powerful class to perform with other powerful classes. But you don't. The party doesn't, for instance, need to split WBL evenly. Does you fighter need a way to fly? The wizard doesn't, and it will benefit the team to put in some money for that. A good wizard can at level 5 cast celestial aspect, which will give a fighter wings for a good few minutes. A druid can cast it on his mount through share spell while retaining the ability to fly himself, and the fighter can ride that as long as the druid (who is a flying bear) stays within 5 feet. Simpler, the druid can be a flying bear and the fighter can ride that bear.

Umm, yes you do.

You can (up to a point at least) make a fighter somewhat functional by having the Tier 1 casters spend their resources and actions on him but that doesn't mean your party's overall effectiveness won't be better off with somebody that can provide the essentials (fly, basic melee survivability, basic offense etc.) by himself while freeing the actions of the casters for offense. While your wizard is casting Polymorph on the fighter, the enemy wizard can be casting Evard's Black Tentacles or Solid Fog.

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.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Your issue with the fact that someone finds fighters to be weak and lacking options is that one shouldn't care that fighters are weak and lacking options?

And that it's not only acceptable, but good game design to rob Peter to pay Paul?

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. Sure many people want a much stronger base class. But it doesn't invalidate another class.

Where do people get this "good game design" thing from? WotC made mistakes with the fighter class and that is obvious. Some people still want to play a fighter. And whenever this happens people throw a big fit, claiming the fighter is too weak or something. But there's another option: find a way to enjoy yourself regardless of your situation. I'm not saying it is good game design. I'm saying "why not do it" because at least to some extent it works.

And for what it's worth, this isn't Peter and Paul. This is angel summoner and BMX bandit. If BMX bandit would do better with a better BMX, angel summoner might as well realize how he pretty much doesn't need to have that wand of even more angels or whatever he was going to buy. Part of the fighter class is being more item dependent. That's just how the magic item system works in D&D. In a campaign I'm in now, the master of many forms//factotum intends to fun the healer//paladin's diamond collection, so that he may cast diamond dust without worrying about it (the player is normally very conservative when it comes to gold.) He's aware that the money he was going to spend probably wouldn't compare to the value he was going to get out of this... And he realized a healer//paladin could use some help while he could just be fleshraker. It's not robbing, it's being part of a team.

[Killer Angel]

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.

In that case, the only vaguely meaningful role that the fighter can fill, is the archer. And even so, it will last when all the bears will be flying bears.

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.

It's not that the peoples think that way. The fighter is weaker and lacks options.
D&D is a social game, so it's obvious the wizard / cleric player, will spend resources to pump the meleer.
But looking the problem from a character pov? The only real reason I can see for a caster, to spend resources on the meleers, thus rendering them a credible threat (instead of summoning jadda jadda), is merely to give the enemy an additional target. Basically, the wiz. thinks "if my companions are valid opponents, maybe the enemy won't try to glasscannon me, 'cause there will be other meaningful targets".

[Covah]

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?

For me, it's easy to avoid getting bored while playing a fighter. Mostly because while you aren't as powerful as other party members, it means that encounters are slightly more challenging to you than anyone else. And the roleplaying of fighters. I have yet to create fighters with similar personalities. Which is pretty difficult since I create a lot of fighters. I think the main reason that I find it hard to get bored with fighters is because they're the easiest class for me to make backgrounds and motivations for. Other classes I build the character and then spend several hours trying to figure out who they are. Fighters, I figure out who they are as I build them. By the time I'm done with building them, I've got half their background. And then I spend like another hour finishing fleshing them out.