Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[Segev]

It just feels like that's such a limited justification for doing anything with the fighter over doing just about anything else. At that point, you might as well just start tossing arbitrary crap at the wall, under the assumption that someone will enjoy the arbitrary crap's crappy game feel. It's also obviously not a justification for fixing the fighter in any fashion, or not adding ToB, if that's a thing that was being argued.

No, that isn't justification for fighter being poorly written. It's justification for a) people who want to play it anyway, and b) the constant efforts to "fix" the fighter in some way or another while still leaving it the fighter rather than just swapping to play Warblades.

It is in no way justification for creating more lousy classes on the hopes that somebody will fall in love with some quirk of its worthless construction. It's not even justification for fighter being bad. It's just an explanation for why you won't convince everybody who likes fighter's mechanical flavor to give up on fighter and play warblades. And, again, reason and motive to try to fix the fighter, for those who are interested in that sort of thing.

[eggynack]

No, that isn't justification for fighter being poorly written. It's justification for a) people who want to play it anyway, and b) the constant efforts to "fix" the fighter in some way or another while still leaving it the fighter rather than just swapping to play Warblades.

It is in no way justification for creating more lousy classes on the hopes that somebody will fall in love with some quirk of its worthless construction. It's not even justification for fighter being bad. It's just an explanation for why you won't convince everybody who likes fighter's mechanical flavor to give up on fighter and play warblades. And, again, reason and motive to try to fix the fighter, for those who are interested in that sort of thing.

But if you can claim a justification for anything, then you can really claim a justification for anything. Thus, I think there needs to be either more justification for the fighter's value along these lines, or otherwise along some other lines. Otherwise, you'd be equally well off spending your time improving the class that consumes pies of various flavors in order to obtain temporary bursts of enlightenment, and then uses that to spout off rants that align with various philosophical models doling out detrimental status effects to listeners that vaguely correspond to confusion and boredom, flavored around the particular philosophy being used. Also, that sounds cool. They should have actually done that.

[Red Fel]

No, that isn't justification for fighter being poorly written. It's justification for a) people who want to play it anyway, and b) the constant efforts to "fix" the fighter in some way or another while still leaving it the fighter rather than just swapping to play Warblades.

It is in no way justification for creating more lousy classes on the hopes that somebody will fall in love with some quirk of its worthless construction. It's not even justification for fighter being bad. It's just an explanation for why you won't convince everybody who likes fighter's mechanical flavor to give up on fighter and play warblades. And, again, reason and motive to try to fix the fighter, for those who are interested in that sort of thing.

See, this is a position I can respect, because it's the same reason I prefer to play melee characters over casters: Sometimes, you just want to play that character. And that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandum; in matters of taste, there can be no disputes.

The problem is when people branch from "And that's why I like X over Y," into "And that's why they should have fixed X instead of creating Y. We didn't need Y. We have X." You lose me there.

At the end of the day, there is no Fighter fix coming outside of homebrew. I've seen some homebrew Fighter fixes. They're good. I can respect them. But the one thing in published sources that fixes Fighter, for me, is ToB. That's how I see ToB; not as some new subsystem to memorize, but as a proper fix, from the ground up, for Fighter and Monk and so forth. A proper fix, with engaging mechanics and healthy flavor. And it's a published source, which lends it credibility (even though it says nothing for balance).

Let's be honest. If I'm making a melee build, about the only thing I'll use Fighter for is a quick dip for bonus feats. Unless I'm specifically making a rage-oriented build, I only use Barbarian for Pounce or Improved Grab. ToB is my go-to.

We have Fighter. And if Fighter is enough for you, great. If it's not, we have ToB.

[OldTrees1]

It just feels like that's such a limited justification for doing anything with the fighter over doing just about anything else. At that point, you might as well just start tossing arbitrary crap at the wall, under the assumption that someone will enjoy the arbitrary crap's crappy game feel. It's also obviously not a justification for fixing the fighter in any fashion, or not adding ToB, if that's a thing that was being argued.

Clairification: The bolded section is not being argued and has not been argued since near the beginning of this thread. Most(all?) of the posters still posting are fans of ToB even if not all of them would play any of the 3 Martial Adepts in that book.

But if you can claim a justification for anything, then you can really claim a justification for anything. Thus, I think there needs to be either more justification for the fighter's value along these lines, or otherwise along some other lines. Otherwise, you'd be equally well off spending your time improving the class that consumes pies of various flavors in order to obtain temporary bursts of enlightenment, and then uses that to spout off rants that align with various philosophical models doling out detrimental status effects to listeners that vaguely correspond to confusion and boredom, flavored around the particular philosophy being used. Also, that sounds cool. They should have actually done that.

I am having trouble finding where you got lost in order to create this strawman. Let me try a simplified restatement:

P1) There exist differences between Fighter and Warblade that are not power/versatility differences. Aka mechanical texture differences.
P2) There exists players that have different preferences when it comes to mechanical textures.
C1) Therefore we cannot conclude that all players would prefer Warblade over Fighter.
P3) There exist players that prefer Fighter's mechanical texture over Warblade's mechanical texture
P4) All players prefer better designed power/versatility
C2) There exist players that prefer Fighter Fixes over Fighters
C3) There exist players that prefer fixing Fighter over using Warblade

See, this is a position I can respect, because it's the same reason I prefer to play melee characters over casters: Sometimes, you just want to play that character. And that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandum; in matters of taste, there can be no disputes.

The problem is when people branch from "And that's why I like X over Y," into "And that's why they should have fixed X instead of creating Y. We didn't need Y. We have X." You lose me there.

Surprisingly this forum sees "And that's why I like X over Y" as "And that's why they should have fixed X instead of creating Y" and criticizes it as such. Well that, and the inability to conceive why someone might prefer Ftr over WarB.

[eggynack]

I suppose my issue is that I don't see how the argument especially connects back to the warblade. People can prefer just about anything over just about anything else, I suppose, but it just seems rather purposeless in its current form, because I don't really know where things go from there. I suppose the conclusion could just be hugs for all. It'd be a better conclusion to a ToB discussion than most.

[Fax Celestis]

Related question: if we have "cleric", "sorcerer", "wizard", "druid" versions of the generic "magic-user", why do we just have "fighter"? I mean, obviously this got expanded upon outside of core (and in-core, I guess you could call barbarian a fighter variant, but paladin and ranger are more cleric and druid variants IMO), but it just seems like a silly design decision to have several levels of granularity for "magic-user" and just one for "fighter" (and one to three, depending upon how you count ranger and monk, for rogue).

[Flickerdart]

Related question: if we have "cleric", "sorcerer", "wizard", "druid" versions of the generic "magic-user", why do we just have "fighter"? I mean, obviously this got expanded upon outside of core (and in-core, I guess you could call barbarian a fighter variant, but paladin and ranger are more cleric and druid variants IMO), but it just seems like a silly design decision to have several levels of granularity for "magic-user" and just one for "fighter" (and one to three, depending upon how you count ranger and monk, for rogue).

Because it's not "Fighters of the Coast."

[OldTrees1]

I suppose my issue is that I don't see how the argument especially connects back to the warblade. People can prefer just about anything over just about anything else, I suppose, but it just seems rather purposeless in its current form, because I don't really know where things go from there. I suppose the conclusion could just be hugs for all. It'd be a better conclusion to a ToB discussion than most.

This is pg 11 of a ToB thread.
Step 1) Someone asks about ToB
Step 2) All the anti ToB posts
Step 3) Conclude all the anti ToB posts
Step 4) Continue praising ToB (as appropriate)
Step 5) Someone states they like ToB but don't like using it themselves
Step 6) Incredulity as people question why this could be
Step 7) The person tries to answer the question
Repeat steps 6 & 7 since the answer seems difficult to communicate and difficult to grasp (added confusion as misunderstandings escalate)
Step 8) Finally the answer is communicated and the questioners understand it
Step 9) Is it page 11 already? Back to ToB discussion right?

[Segev]

But if you can claim a justification for anything, then you can really claim a justification for anything. Thus, I think there needs to be either more justification for the fighter's value along these lines, or otherwise along some other lines. Otherwise, you'd be equally well off spending your time improving the class that consumes pies of various flavors in order to obtain temporary bursts of enlightenment, and then uses that to spout off rants that align with various philosophical models doling out detrimental status effects to listeners that vaguely correspond to confusion and boredom, flavored around the particular philosophy being used. Also, that sounds cool. They should have actually done that.

Sure, why not? If that class is one you want to play, and you have the desire and drive to play it and/or write a homebrew fix for it rather than playing a refluffed...I dunno, Binder or something...that eats pies instead of binds vestiges, go for it.

You don't need justification for preferring mechanics, or for wanting to improve mechanics in a particular area rather than adopting a whole different subsystem. By the same token, you don't have a right to demand others like your preferences.

See, this is a position I can respect, because it's the same reason I prefer to play melee characters over casters: Sometimes, you just want to play that character. And that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandum; in matters of taste, there can be no disputes.

The problem is when people branch from "And that's why I like X over Y," into "And that's why they should have fixed X instead of creating Y. We didn't need Y. We have X." You lose me there.

Agreed.

At the end of the day, there is no Fighter fix coming outside of homebrew. I've seen some homebrew Fighter fixes. They're good. I can respect them. But the one thing in published sources that fixes Fighter, for me, is ToB. That's how I see ToB; not as some new subsystem to memorize, but as a proper fix, from the ground up, for Fighter and Monk and so forth. A proper fix, with engaging mechanics and healthy flavor. And it's a published source, which lends it credibility (even though it says nothing for balance).

Let's be honest. If I'm making a melee build, about the only thing I'll use Fighter for is a quick dip for bonus feats. Unless I'm specifically making a rage-oriented build, I only use Barbarian for Pounce or Improved Grab. ToB is my go-to.

We have Fighter. And if Fighter is enough for you, great. If it's not, we have ToB.

Exactly. If you see Warblade as doing everything you wanted out of Fighter, wonderful. You're happy; have fun playing it! It is silly to bemoan that Warblade exists on the grounds that you think Fighter should have been fixed instead; that wasn't in the cards, and it didn't happen. It is, however, within your rights to say, "I want to make or use a homebrew fix for Fighter; it does things in ways I prefer to how Warblade does them."

[Just to Browse]

I love that premise/conclusion format you've got going OldTrees1. And you're on the money.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This is pg 11 of a ToB thread.
*Snip*

Don't forget to add the occasional "new" poster unfamiliar with previous arguments coming in and possibly rabble-rousing the playground (intentionally or otherwise).


One issue with some of the crowds wishing that WotC instead used later source books to "fix" the Fighter without getting into the whole feat-conundrum is that I could easily see people then throw fits about "power-creep" and generally demanding why they bothered changing something so much when they see it as unbroken.

Yes, ToB presents some of the same problems here with its subsystem, but since DMs and tables would probably look at you funny if you told them that they're using the "wrong" Fighter, I imagine it to be much less elegant. From time to time this still happens with the old 3.0 Mind's Eye articles and other archived excerpts, but a full on Fighter 2.0 with the exact same name as our friend in the PHB in a new book without another edition or edition revision probably would not be the best thing to sell.

EDIT: Missed a typo. #2: Sometimes, I really hate the swipe method of typing.

[dascarletm]

P4) All players prefer better designed power/versatility

[Nitpick]
While I see your over-all point, I'm not sure any statement including "All players" and "prefer" can be made. Surely someone somewhere must disagree.
[/Nitpick]

[OldTrees1]

[Nitpick]
While I see your over-all point, I'm not sure any statement can be made including "All players" and "prefer" can be made. Surely someone somewhere must disagree.
[/Nitpick]

I agree with this nitpick. [counter example]Some people reach the "good enough is good enough" point.[/counter example] So I can't escape the nitpick even if I use the subjective form of better instead of the objective for of better.

[sonofzeal]

There are still some things Fighter is good for in a game with Warblades - things that require combinations of feats, especially at low levels, and especially if it's anything other than swinging melee weapons. Warblades can do most things eventually, but depending on the level of the game a Fighter may fit the niche better.

For instance, one of my favorite low-level builds involves picking up Improved Grapple, Deflect Arrows, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot as early as possible. I know that sounds Monk-y, but Fighters can do all that in heavy armor, martial weapon prof, and full BAB. It's not the flashiest combination, but with good use of terrain, the ability to dominate ranged duels (Rapid Shot + Deflect Arrows is nasty vs archers, especially with solid AC), and the ability to outgrapple most (humanoid) things that get close helps negate the problem dedicated archers get into when pinned down. It's not high-op by any stretch, but a solid Core-only mundane build that does well in humanoid-heavy campaigns some DMs favour.

And it's nothing I would ever use Warblade for.

[Vogonjeltz]

Improved unarmed strike is a static part of a dynamic progression. At first level of the unarmed strike progression, you get improved unarmed strike, the increase in damage, and all of the other stuff in that ability, at level four you get a damage bump, and then it's damage bumps from there on in. It's an uneven progression, but that doesn't make it not a progression. You would be correct if it were just IUS or nothing, but that's not the situation.

Something that never changes isn't part of a progression, because the very meaning of progression is "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages."

The average is good? Since when? The average isn't good, especially if you define the average as "putting no focus in the area whatsoever."

I said (emphasis now added) better than average is good, not average is good.

But you raise an interesting nuance here. What is considered poor? The worst conceivable at a particular level? Because these actions are influenced by BAB we can still tier the basic ability further, so Poor BAB progression is poor, average is average, and good is good. Applying the feat could be considered to be one step above so that average + feat could be considered good (or even slightly above good depending on the level and bab discrepency) and good + feat could be considered excellent.

I'm inclined to conclude that someone with the best BAB progression is already good at something, so adding the feat makes them great, or excellent. YTMV (your terminology may vary).

[Fax Celestis]

There are still some things Fighter is good for in a game with Warblades - things that require combinations of feats, especially at low levels, and especially if it's anything other than swinging melee weapons. Warblades can do most things eventually, but depending on the level of the game a Fighter may fit the niche better.

For instance, one of my favorite low-level builds involves picking up Improved Grapple, Deflect Arrows, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot as early as possible. I know that sounds Monk-y, but Fighters can do all that in heavy armor, martial weapon prof, and full BAB. It's not the flashiest combination, but with good use of terrain, the ability to dominate ranged duels (Rapid Shot + Deflect Arrows is nasty vs archers, especially with solid AC), and the ability to outgrapple most (humanoid) things that get close helps negate the problem dedicated archers get into when pinned down.

And it's nothing I would ever use Warblade for.

I like Evasive Reflexes (sub 5' step for AoO) with Sidestep Charge (+4 dodge AC vs charges, can make AoO if charger misses). Couple with counterstrike bracers to dodge a charge attack, stab the guy in the face, and 5' step out of range of the rest of his pounce.

Feel free to also add Sidestep (make 5' step if you AoO 1/rd), Defensive Throw (if Dodge target misses you, you get a free trip attempt), Great Throw (if you win a trip, you get to put your target prone in any square you threaten), Robilar's Gambit (if you accept +4atk/dam on attacks against you, foes provoke AoOs when they attack you), and Clever Opportunist (if you hit someone your size or smaller with an AoO, you can trade spaces with them as an immediate action) for hilarity.

[Fax Celestis]

I said (emphasis now added) better than average is good, not average is good.

But you raise an interesting nuance here. What is considered poor? The worst conceivable at a particular level? Because these actions are influenced by BAB we can still tier the basic ability further, so Poor BAB progression is poor, average is average, and good is good. Applying the feat could be considered to be one step above so that average + feat could be considered good (or even slightly above good depending on the level and bab discrepency) and good + feat could be considered excellent.

I'm inclined to conclude that someone with the best BAB progression is already good at something, so adding the feat makes them great, or excellent. YTMV (your terminology may vary).

BAB is severely overrated. A trip-focused rogue is--at most--5 points behind a fighter, much less in lower levels. "But rogues don't pump STR!" Well, if they're focusing on tripping (or bull-rushing) people, yes they do.

[eggynack]

Something that never changes isn't part of a progression, because the very meaning of progression is "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages."

Yes, it is. In particular, gaining improved unarmed strike is a part of the monk's movement or development toward the destination or more advanced state of being good at using unarmed strike. On its own, improved unarmed strike is obviously not a progression, but it's part of a bigger progression in this case.

[chaos_redefined]

I am having trouble finding where you got lost in order to create this strawman. Let me try a simplified restatement:

P1) There exist differences between Fighter and Warblade that are not power/versatility differences. Aka mechanical texture differences.
P2) There exists players that have different preferences when it comes to mechanical textures.
C1) Therefore we cannot conclude that all players would prefer Warblade over Fighter.
P3) There exist players that prefer Fighter's mechanical texture over Warblade's mechanical texture
P4) All players prefer better designed power/versatility
C2) There exist players that prefer Fighter Fixes over Fighters
C3) There exist players that prefer fixing Fighter over using Warblade

While I can't talk for anyone else... I'm aware that some people prefer Fighter over Warblade. I'm still not seeing why. The best I've heard is "Because fighter was published first". Which is... not a very good reason.

So, to the people who play fighters and hate warblades... What does fighter bring to the table that warblade doesn't, that makes the fighter a more enjoyable play experience for you? What are the mechanical texture differences that make fighter more engaging?

[OldTrees1]

While I can't talk for anyone else... I'm aware that some people prefer Fighter over Warblade. I'm still not seeing why. The best I've heard is "Because fighter was published first". Which is... not a very good reason.

So, to the people who play fighters and hate warblades... What does fighter bring to the table that warblade doesn't, that makes the fighter a more enjoyable play experience for you? What are the mechanical texture differences that make fighter more engaging?

I answered this back here but in summary, I like using multiple strikes per turn and be able to use them again the next turn and the turn after that. Fighter's way of of augmenting its attacks allows for multiple different types of attacks per turn every turn. I do not have to recharge Knock-down, Knockback, or Staggering Strike and they can be used multiple times per turn regardless of whether it is my turn or not.

It is these factors:
At Will vs Recharged
Multiple per turn vs Single per turn
On turn or Out of turn vs Only on your turn

The cost is Fighter requires higher system mastery for lower power/versatility than Warblade.

[DarkSonic1337]

Something that never changes isn't part of a progression, because the very meaning of progression is "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages."

A progression does not to have even increments. That would be an EVEN progression, which is a subset of progressions in general.

The Monk's Unarmed Strike is simply a slightly front loaded progression, where level one offers more advancement than the rest of the progression. It would be the same thing as upping unarmed damage to 1d8 at level one (from the default 1d3 for medium creatures) and then improving the damage by single die step increments. Or improving the damage by one die step increments except at level X, where it improves 2 die steps. Or by offering completely separate abilities at uneven levels that all provide "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages." None of these violate the definition of progression, and if listed under "Unarmed Strike" in the monk entry would be the Monk's "Unarmed Strike" progression.

[Thiyr]

I will admit that fighter has a lazy design. But the point of laziness is not in their class features. The Designers used the KISS principle when designing the fighter class features. The laziness shows in the skills, the dead levels AND the poor choices for the "class feature that follows a pattern". This is a habit of WotC. Wizard is the same way but with reversed polarity. WotC made feats too weak and lacking versatility just as they made spells too strong and too versatile. In summary the class design is not a sign of laziness, the options available are a sign of laziness.

Strangely, I feel like the fact that feats are sub-par could actually be -attributed- to the fighter's design. Feats are a universal resource. Every character gets them. Fighters just get more. If feats are overall better, that means that he who gets more feats is more powerful. This train of logic is fairly sound. But the trick comes from what can be done with the resources given. If, to use an example, High Sword Low Axe weren't the end of a chain, but was instead a standalone feat, that would be great for fighters. But it would be -better- for, say, a barbarian. If the barbarian wants to use that feat, normally it has to expend four feats. Half of a standard human barbarian's allotment, slightly more if they want a different race. A human fighter, on the other hand, has only used 4 out of 18 (just under 1/5). If we cut off prereqs (say, the weapon focus line), then that's only using up 1/4 of that human barbarian's feats, while that fighters's using 1/9th. So why is that better for the barbarian? Not only are more resources freed up (25% of B's feats, vs 11% of F's feats), but the fighter will eventually start running out of feats that compliment their concept. At that point, they have to start branching out, picking up multiple specializations. And while there is nothing wrong with that, the feats lost by going barbarian are made up for by the class abilities which compliment the feat (for instance, rage).

There are three ways to combat this. One is to just make a LOT of good feats for each concept/style you can think of. Unfortunately, while I'm sure that's possible, eventually there's either gonna be overlap (which they seemed to be trying to avoid for the most part), or you're gonna start running out of ideas. Second way is to put on required fighter levels to certain feats. They dabbled with that already, but the big argument has already been posed: At that point, why not just make it a variable class ability, more like the rogue? You've essentially locked it into the one class, so that that one class has more options than others. It gets the job done, but calling them "better feats" feels somewhat disingenuous, and if they would need to be significant enough that they can compete with opposing class abilities, but not so potent as to render any other class irrelevant. A thin line to walk once you start leaving the realm of the weapon focus line. The third option is increasing the difficulty of acquiring the feats. The only real way to get the fighter, as it stands now, to have an advantage in that race without making it fighter exclusive is to give feats lots of prerequisites. You need enough prereqs that a barbarian is limited in options, but not so many that they're incapable of actually acquiring the feat. Further, if the prereqs are too good, your "solution" is ineffective in limiting (you mean the price of buying this new car is to put gasoline in it first? Sold!), and if they're too bad, we're right at where we are now. All because we're looking for a solution to the question "We have this class which is defined by its increased access to a universal resource, how do we balance that with similar classes". It'd be like trying to make a class who's only ability is that they get 3x WBL. Items are either priced so well for their power that the bonus money doesn't matter, priced so high that they're functionally unattainable to anyone but this hypothetical class, or both are in the middle, and they get more versatility but less bang for their buck (pun unintended). With that in mind, to me it feels less like laziness, more like they had a difficult problem they weren't quite capable of solving given their level of knowledge regarding the system before it was released (which would have probably better been solved by scrapping the idea they had for the fighter and replacing it with something else, which cuts out that whole design problem).

(Aside: This is sort of in response to Bekeleven's statement that fighters are more build-customizable. A fighter actually gets hit hardest by way of this. Yes, you have "decisions" to make more frequently as you progress (compared to the build decision for a cleric, which chooses their god/domains at first level and that's about it). But while they're -finalized- later, if you want to focus on a concept, you pretty much need them all functionally finalized at level 1, due to how prerequisites work. You pretty much can't level-by-level wander your way into something like, say, Jack B Quick. That build is still feat starved because of its concept. On the other hand, if you only want to go as far as the improved X feats, you get more choices, but your efficacy at those roles will be greatly diminished. As a consequence of prereq-based limits, either you make all your decisions before the character hits play, or you become a jack of many trades, master of none. Theoretically the fighter is more customizable, but practically that doesn't end up coming up quite as often. Also, to say that non-class-based feats don't count, I disagree due to the presence of feats which modify class abilities. While every druid is the same in terms of class abilities barring ACFs, PrCs, archetypes, etc, one who focuses on casting vs focuses on wild shape are different. The class doesn't give more choices, but it gives more options to the choices available)


(PS, sorry if this doesn't make a whole ton of sense, got a cold that's leaving me kinda foggy headed. Let me know what doesn't make sense and I can clarify for you if you'd like.)

[Flickerdart]

Yes, you have "decisions" to make more frequently as you progress

This point is really most of my beef with the "pick and forget" classes - you have build decisions, but not gameplay decisions, because at-will abilities have such a high cost in 3.5 that you will never have the option of more. The Trip + Knockback + Stagger + Intimidate guy is going to be doing that every single round for the rest of his life. Sometimes he'll omit one of the actions (because it's inappropriate/unusable in the situation) but he basically runs on autopilot thereafter.

Meanwhile, ye olde cleric, who doesn't really need to think about level ups that much, makes more significant decisions than the fighter every morning when he prepares his spells, and then every round when he decides what to use and how.

[Tvtyrant]

I like ToB, but I don't feel like it matches the feeling of some of the rest of the game. My preference would be a tightened game where DFAs, Warlocks and three school classes (beguiler, etc.) were put along with the ToB classes. But fluff wise it doesn't feel right to me for Warblades and Fighters to coexist, and Barbarians feel completely different altogether.

If I was to fix the core classes ToB would not be it. Barbarians would get their levelx5 as a bonus to all strength and constitution skill checks, fighters would get their BaB as damage on all attacks and would have skill ranks like a Monk, etc.

[geekintheground]

I answered this back here but in summary, I like using multiple strikes per turn and be able to use them again the next turn and the turn after that. Fighter's way of of augmenting its attacks allows for multiple different types of attacks per turn every turn. I do not have to recharge Knock-down, Knockback, or Staggering Strike and they can be used multiple times per turn regardless of whether it is my turn or not.

It is these factors:
At Will vs Recharged
Multiple per turn vs Single per turn
On turn or Out of turn vs Only on your turn

The cost is Fighter requires higher system mastery for lower power/versatility than Warblade.

um... warblade can do all of that too. im with chaos, in what way is fighter different than warblade? i mean other than warblade being mechanically superior. (and, imho, flavorfully.)

[sonofzeal]

What does fighter bring to the table that warblade doesn't, that makes the fighter a more enjoyable play experience for you? What are the mechanical texture differences that make fighter more engaging?

I use both.

Fighter has a more "Combat Pragetist"/"Badass Normal" feel, compared to the "Action Hero"/"Legendary Hero" feel of Warblade. The two aren't necessarily contradictory, of course, but that's the leaning. Warblade encourages me to use maneuvers to solve my problem; Fighter encourages me to concider base rules and options, and think a bit more outside the box. I'm more likely to consider going for an unarmed Trip attack with a Fighter than with a Warblade, even if the Warblade would be just as good at it. It just wouldn't occure to me unless I had something on the character sheet already to encourage it.

Fighters get Tower Shield proficiency (useful for Total Cover shenanigans), and generally superior customization and specialization. Generally I'd play a Warblade if I just want a melee threat, and would use Fighter if I have a particular combat style in mind that I know good feats for.

[OldTrees1]

um... warblade can do all of that too. im with chaos, in what way is fighter different than warblade? i mean other than warblade being mechanically superior. (and, imho, flavorfully.)

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same strike manuever 5 rounds in a row?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. Each manuever can only be readied once. Manuevers are expended when used. Recharging manuevers requires not using your standard action for a manuever that turn. QED
2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. You have one standard action per round. 1<3 QED
3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
No. You only get AoOs and 1 immediate action outside of your turn, neither can be used for Strikes. QED
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

[Vhaidara]

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same manuever 5 rounds in a row?
2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

I believe the meaning of that statement was that Warblade can take Knockback, Knockdown, and Staggering Strike. Maneuvers aren't even part of the issue.

[Fax Celestis]

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same manuever 5 rounds in a row?
2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

1. If it's a boost or a counter, yes.
2. Strikes? No, but he can use a strike, a boost, and a counter. Plus or minus stance effects too.
3. Strikes? No. Counters? Yes. Stance effects? Yes.

[geekintheground]

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same manuever 5 rounds in a row?
2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

no, but the warblade does a normal attack JUST AS WELL as a fighter. no where is it stated that warblades have to use their maneuvers. sure, its smart to, but you dont HAVE to. instead you get class features and some bonus feats (from a narrow list, granted).