The fighter

[VoxRationis]

Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.

[eggynack]

Your point about feats having diminishing returns and everyone already taking the best ones only matters at the end of the road, at levels at or very near 20. For low- to mid-level play, most people don't have "all the good feats."

Possibly, but also relevant is the fact that fighter feats suck, and that's including the ones that aren't trapped in the hole of fighter bonus feats. Fighters can pretty much only take generic feats that don't require any class features, along with combat feats that are wrapped up in long and irritating chains. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the spectrum, casters of all varieties are getting feats that augment spell casting, which are often tremendously powerful, and they're getting them in a form that is unchained, more often than not.

To use one of my preferred examples, compare the power level of something like exalted wild shape to something like improved trip. In fact, compare exalted wild shape to improved trip, plus combat expertise, plus combat reflexes, plus knock-down, and let's toss robilar's gambit in for good measure. Personally, I'd rather have the feat that lets me dimension door every round as a free action, along with a bunch of other exceedingly useful stuff, than have that entire pile of feats. It is often said that class features are better than feats, and it is a true thing, but it can also be said that feats which work to augment class features can often be better than ones that don't. It's obviously not a thing that's universally true, but honestly, it's more about the compared top end than anything else. One or two of those fighter feats would probably win against most of those crappy wild feats, for example.

Edit:

Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.

The point is that those other feats aren't more powerful than shock trooper is. They're just somewhat different. Having a decent number of powerful things is better than having just one, but it's not so much better that it's worth devoting your existence to that fact. Just consider wizards and sorcerers. Wizards are significantly better than sorcerers, so if you were to compare a 6th level wizard to a 6th level sorcerer, the advantage would go to the wizard. He just has a wider variety of those powerful things to do. However, if you compare the 6th level wizard to a 10th level sorcerer, the sorcerer obviously comes out on top. This is because, even though the wizard might still have access to a broader variety of spells, the sorcerer's spells are much better, and that counts for more. Such is the situation of our fighter, reaching a peak, and facing diminishing returns, and crumbling into nothingness.

[Eldariel]

Well, the fighter can have Shock Trooper plus a suite of other things to boot, making them more capable at charging or capable at things other than charging. I'm not sure why you think those extra feats are useless. That level 6 warrior has to more or less focus his entire feat selection on a good feat and its prereqs, or on the feats that are prereqs for a prestige class if he wants to take one, but a level 6 fighter can do that and other things as well.

I never said they're useless, I said they're less useful than the best options, since you take the best options first. That should be trivial, I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. We're talking why Fighter's options are bad and one reason is that the more feats you get, the worse your options get. Fighter's shtick is getting a lot of feats so in effect, the further you go in the class, the worse your class features become.

Yeah, there's enough feats for a reasonable Fighter Charger/Controller shell that makes decent use out of all its feats up to 20 but it pales in comparison to a Barbarian or a Crusader built to do the same; which is more or less the definition of "a worse option", especially since both Barb and Crusader have better shells to go with it (more skills, HD, other abilities, some save bonuses, etc.). The first two levels of Fighters can be useful to this end but the only real reason to go further than that is Dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim Fighter. Hell, a multiclassed martial character with Ranger/Barb/Fighter/Psy War/Monk/etc. can even get way more feats than a straight Fighter, clearly beating Fighter out in its shtick while gaining massive advantages elsewhere too only really losing 1 BAB over its career (even that's avoidable through other classing paths). If that isn't sufficient proof of the class's deficiency, I'm not sure what is.


The question is why Fighter is bad. Well, that is why. If the feat chains were longer and thus made Fighter's feats give improving returns instead of diminishing returns, Fighter could be salvaged even with the terrible class design. If Fighter's unique feats were better than generic feats, the class could be salvaged. Neither is true though, and the Fighter's class design is unarguably horrid. High levels in Fighter don't really give you anything (and they'd need to give you a lot to make single-classing in Fighter worth more than multiclassing, or single-classing in another martial class, let alone casters). PF actually does the class design better but they still fall flat on their faces on the feat design point. And yeah, 3.5 ACFs somewhat extend a Fighter's utility with a few nice uniqueish tricks worth paying a bit of attention to.

[ace rooster]

I find Mobility to not be a key component in this setup you suggest and indeed, I'd rather skip it if possible.



I find it worth more to slow your speed down and Tumble at +14 or take the extra step majority of the time. The number of times where you need the maximum movement and it's optimal to rather use Mobility are rare enough that I don't think it's worth investing a feat into for this. The end goal is always to avoid the AoO entirely, after all, not to provoke and dodge it since that has at minimum the 5% chance of getting hit.



Why not? Nothing in Tumble or Charge rules suggests such; you can Tumble pretty much whenever.



Not only does it require you to invest a feat into crap, it also forces you to invest quite heavily into AC. I don't really see it.



Most of which shouldn't require the feat and again, I posit it's a bad idea to go taking extra attacks you don't absolutely have to, +4 AC or not.



Point wasn't that spellcasters do it better, the point is that a spellcaster in the party makes said use of the feat quite obsolete. Most parties have a spellcaster. I'd much rather pick something that's augmented by magic, such as Power Attack/Shock Trooper, than something that's negated by the presence of magic.



I'll say this: I've played a Swift Hunter myself. I was always able to set up the Tumble for it, use item-based relocation or circumvent the need for it entirely. It is possible to play in a way where it's useful, certainly, but whether the choices that made it useful are optimal in the first place is another question. But I digress; I won't tell you how to play the game. I will say this though: on an objective level, Mobility is pretty hard to consider a good feat in the grand scheme of things due to the alternatives available for the same purpose.

Well I am happy for you that the enemy is always so considerate that you are never more than half movement away from where you want to be. Mine were not.

The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

A charge is a full round action, not a move and a standard. Also why you can't tumble run.

I don't see the AC thing, it is a dex build anyway, with skirmish AC and a damage source that only requires one hand, so a shield is in. Tumble ranks boost your fighting defensively bonus, if you are having trouble, and magic can boost your AC as well as anybody elses. It is AC heavy, but while you stay on top of it, extra AC gives progressively better returns. If the enemy needs a 17 to hit, a +2 will half the number of hits you take. If you are in this position anyway a +4 is huge. Big enough to save all the money you spent on item based relocation (though they do have other benefits).

The tactics don't require the feat, but neither do grappling or tripping require the feats. The feat just makes it safer to try to draw attacks of opportunity for any reason. It does not sound like you have ever tried to do this, but stopping an enemy threatening an area is powerful if used well. Not that healthy for you, but taking one for the team. It was often not a case of taking an attack that wasn't coming, it was taking it instead of somebody else taking it.

Was it an optimal character? Not on his own, certainly, but he was never on his own. He was primarily a disruptive skirmisher, who was able to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Half speed was not an option for him, and he had the AC that he was able to burn people's AoO for fun, and someone could take advantage of that often enough for it to be worth doing. I found mobility to be highly flexible and reliable in ways that tumble was not, though challenging to play. Mobility can make viable an option that is otherwise bad, which is about par from a feat. I can't see dodge or toughness having that much impact, and it is about on par with improved grapple or disarm.

[Eldariel]

Well I am happy for you that the enemy is always so considerate that you are never more than half movement away from where you want to be. Mine were not.

One square = whole movement.

The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

Quoted the important part for you. It's a part of the movement. The rest is just clarification. The relevant part is "Action is not applicable". If you move outside move action, you use Tumble as a part of that action instead.

Half speed was not an option for him, and he had the AC that he was able to burn people's AoO for fun, and someone could take advantage of that often enough for it to be worth doing. I found mobility to be highly flexible and reliable in ways that tumble was not, though challenging to play. Mobility can make viable an option that is otherwise bad, which is about par from a feat. I can't see dodge or toughness having that much impact, and it is about on par with improved grapple or disarm.

*shrug* I still don't think taking AoOs is a good option but if it works for you, fine. I wonder if it was really necessary if you truly had the AC advantage you posit though.

[OldTrees1]

The important part of tumble is
"Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. "

A charge is a full round action, not a move and a standard. Also why you can't tumble run.

Balancing during a Charge
You can make a Balance check to charge across a precarious
surface, but you take a –5 penalty on the check for each
multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.
Charging in this way requires one Balance check for each
multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.
Any check that fails carries the normal ramifi cations for
failing a Balance check (see page 90), likely ending your
movement and preventing your charge.

Flying during a Charge
A creature that fl ies can make dive attacks. A dive attack
works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a
minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make
only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage.

Jumping during a Charge
You can make a long jump to avoid an obstacle as part of a
charge, as long as you continue to meet all other criteria for
making a charge before, during, and after the jump.

Tumbling during a Charge
You can tumble during a charge, as long as you continue to
meet all other criteria for making a charge before, during,
and after tumbling

You can Balance, Fly, Jump and Tumble during a charge

Sidenote: Difficult terrain prevents a charge but it is unclear if "Jumping during a Charge" alters that.

[Vogonjeltz]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?

There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.

[eggynack]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?

Sure. Most of those feats are pretty mediocre, however.

There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.

Sure. Most of those feats are also pretty mediocre, however.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.

Yes. Fighters are strictly better than a class specifically designed to be crappy. They're not better than all classes specifically designed to be crappy though, because adepts exist. Also experts, to a lesser extent, as they're in the same tier.

[Sir Chuckles]

Any reason a fighter can't dip 1 level into warblade to apply all their feats to any weapon they want?

There are a number of feats that require a BAB of 14+, anyone that isn't a fighter can only get 2 (15th/18th), which precludes them from access.

Warriors are entirely inferior to Fighters. Only a d8 HD and Zero bonus feats.

Congratulations, you have explained why Fighters are Tier 5 and Warriors are Tier 6.
The point is not "Warriors are equal to or greater than Fighters", it's "The special things that a Fighter can get are not actually all that special."

[Vogonjeltz]

Congratulations, you have explained why Fighters are Tier 5 and Warriors are Tier 6.
The point is not "Warriors are equal to or greater than Fighters", it's "The special things that a Fighter can get are not actually all that special."

A couple or three posters suggested there were severe limitations because many feats are tied to specific weapons, and that warriors were better than fighters. I was just pointing out that the Fighter entirely superior, and that those limitations are entirely overcome by a 1 level dip.

Sidenote: Eggynack (sorry I didn't multiquote), has Togo been around post board change? Nobody has updated to the test thread.

[eggynack]

A couple or three posters suggested there were severe limitations because many feats are tied to specific weapons, and that warriors were better than fighters. I was just pointing out that the Fighter entirely superior, and that those limitations are entirely overcome by a 1 level dip.

Was that really an issue cited? That's kinda weird. I don't even think optimal warblades make use of that ability outside of occasionally EWP. Anyway, if you dip warblade, the maneuvers are going to be of significantly greater import than the weapon swapping. It's a bit indicative of the disparity between the classes.

Sidenote: Eggynack (sorry I didn't multiquote), has Togo been around post board change? Nobody has updated to the test thread.

He apparently has, or so the latest activity majig on his profile says. It is an odd thing.

[OldTrees1]

Was that really an issue cited? That's kinda weird. I don't even think optimal warblades make use of that ability outside of occasionally EWP.

Yeah it was cited. Post 3. Fighter vs Warblade comparison. Weapon Aptitude and the Situational Int synergy were mentioned right next to the Manuevers.

[eggynack]

Yeah it was cited. Post 3. Fighter vs Warblade comparison. Weapon Aptitude and the Situational Int synergy were mentioned right next to the Manuevers.

Fair enough, though honestly, it seems more like a, "Here's a cool thing that warblades can do," than a, "Here is a critical flaw in the fighter class, which is a heavy contributor to tier."

[Lans]

- Martial feats have negative scaling (that is, the more you get the less powerful each is; just look at Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the further feats have the same effect except they give you that extra attack at penalties instead of full BAB so GTWF is strictly worse than ITWF even tho it's further in the tree)

This is a problem with pre TOB martial in general, compare what a monk, barbarian, or other non TOB class gets in his 1st few levels with what it gets in his next 2 or 6 levels

[Rubik]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a full 45% of the fighter's levels are dead levels. You get nothing that any other full BAB class doesn't give (since you get full BAB, good Fort, and the worst skills of any class in the whole game, and that's it).

[Cicciograna]

Just poppin' in to say that I read the thread title as "Tie fighter" and was already cheering for the fact that someone had somehow managed to flesh out a D&D equivalent of the imperial starfighter.

quietly leaves

[Vogonjeltz]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a full 45% of the fighter's levels are dead levels. You get nothing that any other full BAB class doesn't give (since you get full BAB, good Fort, and the worst skills of any class in the whole game, and that's it).

I consider that the heaviest mark against overall balance, if TOB progression was ok, why weren't the core classes retrofitted to get something (even just a slowly increasing static bonus ala Barbarian DR)?

[Red Fel]

Fair enough, though honestly, it seems more like a, "Here's a cool thing that warblades can do," than a, "Here is a critical flaw in the fighter class, which is a heavy contributor to tier."

That's precisely what I intended by it. Not "Fighter is critically flawed," but "Other classes can do better."

I happen to think that Fighter isn't a bad class, in a vacuum - that designation is specific to those classes which can barely accomplish what they're designed to do. Fighter can do what it was designed to do - it can fight reasonably well, and it gets a bevy of feats. That's basically all it does.

Rather, my position is that Fighter is an inferior class compared to others, because others can do what Fighter does better than Fighter, and in many cases they can also do other things. As an illustration, I listed casters and the Warblade; the former to show the Linear Fighter/ Quadratic Wizard discrepancy, the latter to show that even melee classes can out-Fighter a Fighter. Your observation, Eggy, is exactly what I intended - "Here's a cool thing that Warblades can do that puts them at a level above Fighters when it comes to fighting."

I don't find Fighter to be a bad class, per se; at least, not as bad as core-only Monk, or Truenamer, or things like that. I just find it to be exceedingly bland, and inflexible as melee. A good melee class has to be flexible; there will be times when you're caught without your preferred weapon, or facing a single enemy or a mob of enemies or a mobile or flying enemy. Fighter builds, due to the inflexibility of feats and the various prerequisites for them, tend to be focused on a particular strategy, such as cleaving or TWFing or shield bashing; if you're in a situation where that doesn't work, the bulk of your utility is obviated, and you're left with a good BAB and Fort save and a list of proficiencies. That's all the Fighter is, apart from his feats. Casters don't have that problem. Warblades don't have that problem. Even a Barbarian can Rage, with or without his massive two-handed weapon. Even a core-only Ranger has his spells and animal companion as backup if his preferred combat style is rendered moot. The Fighter lacks that flexibility.

Tl;dr: The Fighter's most defining and unique class feature is the Fighter Bonus Feat. The bonus feat should make him more flexible and more capable at combat than other melee classes. Instead, it tends to make him hyper-specialized, which can be a liability when that specialization doesn't apply. He still functions, but not as well as others can.

[OldTrees1]

Tl;dr: The Fighter's most defining and unique class feature is the Fighter Bonus Feat. The bonus feat should make him more flexible and more capable at combat than other melee classes. Instead, it tends to make him hyper-specialized, which can be a liability when that specialization doesn't apply. He still functions, but not as well as others can.

Double checking, is this specific design failing, a result of too few feats?

[toapat]

Double checking, is this specific design failing, a result of too few feats?

design failure as a result of the FBF. Having too many options caused, for a very long time, the design philosophy of feats for melee to be highly specialized.

[Telonius]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

[toapat]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

no, because enough stuff is on the list that they would have a good selection of combat techniques

[OldTrees1]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

Tier 5: Capable of doing one thing but not very well and not helpful outside of that area
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing well but not helpful outside of that area or Capable of doing many things with a reasonable degree of competence
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing well and helpful outside of that area

Getting all fighter feats would move fighter from Tier 5 to low Tier 4 (like Dungeoncrasher). However Thug or Zhentarim Soldier move fighter from Tier 5 to mid-high Tier 4.

For Fighter to move to Tier 3, Fighter would need a good skill list and plentiful skill points per level in addition to boosts to combat.

[eggynack]

no, because enough stuff is on the list that they would have a good selection of combat techniques

Indeed. The fighter is already almost tier four as is, and is actually tier four with ACF's. They definitely wouldn't stay tier 5 with all the feats. I'm not sure if they'd hit tier 3, however.

[Zetapup]

I wonder... if the Fighter got access to all of the fighter feats (barring things like Martial Study) as soon as it qualified, would it still be in its tier?

Hrm, I'd guess that this would place them in medium high tier 4- good at doing one thing, but meh when that thing isn't relevant. I'm not quite sure what exactly would be needed to make them tier 3, since tier 3 is a bit nebulous. More skills and the ability to switch out their fighter bonus feats at the beginning of the day would help, but I'm not sure if it would be enough. Actual class abilities would prolly do it, but that's beyond the scope of a simple fix.

[Lans]

If you included martial study/stance and gave it the thug variant you would make it tier 3, between the skill boost and non combat abilities from the TOB stuff.

Z fighter and Dungeon crasher could just be iceing


Question-What other fighter feats help it outside of combat?

[Zetapup]

Question-What other fighter feats help it outside of combat?

A quick check of dndtools gave a few feats, none of which seem to be very good: winged warrior, vault, spectral skirmisher, saddleback, and improved diversion. They're mostly just bonuses to various skill checks (although vault makes me want to create a pole vaulter, just to see if it's possible). I guess you could make a case for toughness/improved toughness being useful outside of combat too.

I may have missed a few feats, but it looks like the majority of fighter bonus feats only have combat applications.

[toapat]

For Fighter to move to Tier 3, Fighter would need a good skill list and plentiful skill points per level in addition to boosts to combat.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with normal Expert (not Generic Expert: Badass the vanilla) isnt T3 either. If that was the case then rogue would be T3

[OldTrees1]

Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with normal Expert (not Generic Expert: Badass the vanilla) isnt T3 either. If that was the case then rogue would be T3

Huh? Your claim seems unsupported and counterfactual.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) is Tier 4 because it is frequently not helpful outside of combat
Rogue is Tier 4 because it is not always helpful at combat. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=4874.0
Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with Expert (NPC class) would be good at combat and helpful outside of combat.

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh? Your claim seems unsupported and counterfactual.

Fighter (with all bonus feats) is Tier 4 because it is frequently not helpful outside of combat
Rogue is Tier 4 because it is not always helpful at combat. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...p?topic=4874.0
Fighter (with all bonus feats) gestalted with Expert (NPC class) would be good at combat and helpful outside of combat.

I believe we were still testing this proposition (Fighter pulling weight outside combat) and thus far the Fighter has proven as useful as the Druid.

I think that's a consequence of the nature of role playing, rules just codify some actions, but virtually all social skills can be synthesized via a good conversation. Meaning someone who focuses entirely on combat abilities will still always be able to role play their way through non combat.