Fighter Discussion

[Tanuki Tales]

I do personally buy a summon wand as soon as possible on a caster and nothing stops you from summing multiple monsters before each room, you have so many yummy charges to blow through.

Also, it's been outlined several times by now how good a properly equipped riding dog is, as an animal companion.

Thinking about it, isn't there a feat a cleric could grab to get an animal companion as a druid?

Edit:

Mind, the Wand was more for trap setting off than combat, as it only lasts for one round. You'd probably want scrolls of higher summoning magic.

[Liquor Box]

Well, first off, I was assuming the presence of generic party. Even if your other 2-3 teammates are wizards with their spells expended or commoners you should be able to drop him before the color spray ends. Clerics or rogues or druids or anyone else more useful than a fighter can also be a "striker" for this purpose. Maybe there are 2 ogres, or an ogre and some goblins, and dropping one ogre from the fight turns a deadly encounter into something easy to manage.

Assuming the presence of a party who compliments your skills, either is likely to be successful. A fighter with 2 or 3 companions (of any class) would probably beat the ogre as would your sorcerer. 4 fighters are as likely to be succesful as 4 sorcerers, but as mentioned, complimentary classes are best.

One ogre is never easy for a level 1 party. If the ogre wins initiative, it has a good chance of killing a person before the party even gets an action (a much better chance if there's a sorcerer to target).

Second, your numbers are awful. 3 damage per round? Worst case is the light crossbow once per round, so 4.5 per hit, with +1 dex (you said I had 11AC), so 2.25/round. Even a staff should do 3.5. But most casters can do way better than that. Most sor/wiz bloodlines get a ranged touch attack for 1d6 that should virtually auto-hit. But if I was a caster actually planning on soloing? I would add my own striker. My goat adds a flanker, improving my damage, + 3.5 damage/round/% hit chance. But the real way to win solo is to color spray, then follow it up with sleep. The coup de grace with my non proficient scythe is average 20 damage for a DC 30 fort save or die. And if he rolls a 20 he is still stunned, prone, blind, flanked, and badly injured.

Remember you are a level 1 sorcerer who has color spray as one of your known spells. Is your other known spell the ranged touch attack? At level 1 you get four castings of your level 1 spells (assuming charsima bonus) you've used one for colour spray so you get three more, and then you can't repeat the colour spray if the ogre's not killed in time.

Where do you get a goat? Do you swap your ranged touch attack for a summoning spell, or your color spray? Do you hope the ogre misses you (10% chance say) in the round you spend summoning the goat, or do you colour spray it first and then use one of the rounds when it is stunned up summoning the goat?

Which spell known do you lose for sleep? Colour spray, your ranged touch attack, or summon goat?

I still think odds are heavily against you (the odds of winning initiative, then having the ogre fail its first will save are already against you).

Also, you are designing your sorcerer for this specific encounter (to the point of having him wield scythe) rather than going in with an ordinary sorcerer.

[LTwerewolf]

My bad. Last time I discussed this with someone, the scenario was down a well, and I forgot that I used a different one this time. Have edited previous posts.

What animal companion would you choose that would be welcome in the room of an inner city inn (which was the scenario). I doubt a dog or a wolf would be allowed. Remember that you don;t know this is going to occur, so you wouldn;t choose an animal companion for this specific scenario (liek a snake you could smuggle into the inn).

If a decent combat animal companion was present, I acknowledge the druid might be as good or even better.

Why would a simple riding dog not be allowed inside? Even if the dog is not allowed inside, how difficult would it be to call the dog and have it come (It isn't) and why would the druid not take high offense and find somewhere else to stay, even if that meant staying outside? I personally find it more likely an innkeeper would say "no weapons" than "no basic dogs." How well does your fighter fair without a weapon since we're trying to make sure people don't have parts of their class available?

What animal companion is that you think is "just as good as a fighter, if not better" at level three. I suggest that a wolf (for example) and a druid together would be weaker in melee than a lvl 3 fighter.

I answered this already, but I'll answer it again: a standard riding dog is not only easy to get, but it outpaces fighters decently well into 7th or 8th level.

The spells would only help against the first few monsters, afterward the druid would have run out.

Your fighter also runs out of hit points as well, with no way to replenish them. You're failing to say how many encounters, versus what, and how long they have to recover.

I was not envisaging you building/equiping the cleric/druid/fighter for this specific encounter. Rather using a cleric/druid/fighter you had built and equipped for general play, dropped into this scenario. So, do you generally equip your lvl 3 cleric/druid with a wand of summon monster?

I get a wand of summon monster on any character ever that can use it, including any that get UMD as a class skill, so yes, I do.

Even if you did, I am not certain it would allow a cleric to prevail in the second scenario. You meet the enemy. On your first action you are summoning a weak monster, which on the figther's first action he is attacking the lower CR assailant - possibly winning hte encounter with that single attack. This would seem to open the cleric up to being attacked more often than the fighter.

If the fighter can possibly win the encounter in a single attack, so can a cleric. Fighters at this level aren't getting significant amounts of bonus damage from anywhere (maybe +2 from a 2h power attack, but that puts their BAB on par with a cleric). A cleric is also not required to open up with the summon monster, they have the option to do so. The fighter does not have this option.

Even if a cleric summoned a monster BEFORE entering every room (would it summon both the celestial monkey and the combat moster), a cleric together with a lvl one summoned monster is likely to be less capable in melee than a lvl 3 fighter.

The cleric is aware of the problems of the room before ever entering. This is a significant advantage and reduces the chances of sneak attacks because of the summoned creature getting attacked. This is not nothing, but you seem to want to treat it to be nothing.

I suppose a druid who used the summons in conjunction with a strong animal companion might outdo a fighter in this sceanrio.

There is no way in which a fighter is better in this scenario.

Actually a wand of CLW would probably be better than a summon wand - the fighter druid could use that to heal between each encounter.

The fighter does not get UMD as a class skill, and therefore you're admitting that he needs spells from the cleric or druid class to get by. This is a point in favor of the cleric and druid, not the fighter.

As to triggering the trap - again this depends on your usual play style to be to arm your lvl 4druid/cleric with a summoning wand before entering a dungeon, then to summon its monkey before every room (how many rooms in an average dungeon - say 15?). If that is your usual play style, then fair enough.

I can easily expect to make the 225 gold back from a 15 room dungeon, yes. Not only that, it kept the entire party significantly safer, not just my individual character. It's cheaper to let a single monkey die (15 gold) than to heal 30 hp (75 gold average).

Remember you are a level 1 sorcerer who has color spray as one of your known spells. Is your other known spell the ranged touch attack? At level 1 you get four castings of your level 1 spells (assuming charsima bonus) you've used one for colour spray so you get three more, and then you can't repeat the colour spray if the ogre's not killed in time.

Pathfinder sorcerers get cantrips at will, so they do indeed have ranged attacks that do not run out. D&d sorcerers can still themselves shoot crossbows. At level 1, the fighter has 1 Bab higher than the sorcerer and the damage on a crossbow will be the same.

I still think odds are heavily against you (the odds of winning initiative, then having the ogre fail its first will save are already against you).

An ogre hits for 2d8+7. A level 1 fighter has d10+con, so probably 16 hp. That means even with pretty low damage rolls, your fighter is likely to die in a single hit. You would need a 22 con modifier to be able to be at 0 after an average damage hit. The fighter effectively is no different in hp than the ogre. The difference is the sorcerer has a chance to shut down the ogre with a single spell. With 29 hp, your fighter using a 2h weapon is going to need a critical hit (and a high damage one at that) to kill the ogre in a single hit. The sorcerer has a better chance of winning here.

[Gnaeus]

The Sorcerer spell list has a lot of nigh-useless spells. Does that make it a bad class? The tier system assumes that characters are built with at least some competency, so the bottom-of-the-barrel options can be discarded entirely.

The fighter's abundance of feats didn't save it from being awful in 3.5, and having a slightly smaller feat surplus over other classes doesn't hurt it much in Pathfinder. The PF fighter with Advanced Weapon and Armor Training is a solid combatant and has at least a couple things to do outside of a fight. I'd say they're about on par with the Barbarian.

Lower tier=/ bad class. Sorcerer is higher tier than Dread Necro. But Dread Necro has a much higher optimization floor. Its all about the tier definitions. I could make a perfectly competent archer or chain tripper fighter in 3.5. But I could also make a twf/disarm build that sucked in a way no barbarian could. Tier 4 is "good at something". Tier 5 is "maybe not good even at fighting" and the PF fighter, like the 3.5 fighter, has a real chance of accidently doing that if you fall into one of many traps.

Polymorph was broken as all heck in 3.X even after they patched on the various fixes (polymorph subschool, single-form polymorphs, etc). I'm glad to see it gone.

Also, losing polymorph as an effective buff doesn't affect how good the fighter is - it affects how much time and resources it takes for a wizard to make a fighter competent, but the idea of the tier system is to look at classes on their own, without assuming the presence of allies with any particular abilities.

Better or worse it still hurts the fighter way worse than it hurts the wizard. And no, while I agree it wouldn't alter the tier analysis, it does speak to whether, as was claimed in the original post, he is "definitely in better shape than the 3.5 fighter." Our 3.5 chain tripper, Polymorphed into a 4 armed flying monstrosity with natural attacks and 30-something strength, was absolutely in better shape than any PF fighter will ever be.

[Troacctid]

Fighters more versatile than literally anyone else? They have the lowest skill points in the game with no Int synergies, they have no class features, all their built-in options do one of two things (make it harder for enemy to move or deal damage) and every other class has those same options. I think it's reasonable to argue that Fighter is the least versatile class in the game and because of how the feat chains are structured, they reward hyperspecialization (you can become reasonably competent with one weapon and one combat style by taking all your Fighter-feats).

They are pretty low, but not the lowest. I would put knight, samurai, soulknife, dragon shaman, and swashbuckler all below fighter.

Why would you ever use actual spell slots when a Wand of Summon Monster I is 750 gold?

Because summon spells at CL 1 are trash?

[Tanuki Tales]

Because summon spells at CL 1 are trash?

For summoning something with a fast movement speed and just have it do a trap run?

[AnimeTheCat]

The Fighter doesn't have options. That's the key point. The Fighter, generally, has one option - put the pointy end in the other guy. The Wizard, potentially, has a solution for every problem - monster hunting, trap dismantling, door opening, travel, diplomacy, world hunger. The Fighter hits things with his axe.

Nor is the Fighter a big team player. He has no options that help the team. The Bard has options that help the team - Inspire Courage, for example. The Paladin has an aura and Lay on Hands. Even the Ranger could dredge up a buff or two. The Fighter does nothing for the team except kill the nearest monster. That's not team play, it's solo play around other people.

Hmm, I disagree with these two points. As far as options are concerned, i mean options within combat. With a fighter's big pool of feats you can choose to take Combat expertise, improved trip, and improved disarm as a first level character. Now you can fight in many different ways. You can choose to sit back directly in front of your wizard and provide concealment for him against ranged attacks while simultaneously cutting off attack routes from melee combatants. Another option is to step in and disarm the threat. Third option is to stand between the squishier members of the party and trip the opposition if they try to move past you. Alternatively you can take a more active role where you take improved unarmed strike and improved grapple as a half orc fighter. You can seek out and grapple enemy spell casters and pin them so that they can't use their magic, thereby freeing your caster up to use his. alternatively you can go yet another route and pick up power attack, improved sunder and debilitate your enemies by sundering their weapons, armor, or shields or even cutting the enemy wizard's spell pouch off so he can't cast his spell without first picking up the pouch. That's what i mean by options and those are available from level 1 to level 20. And from all of that, I've shown many options that the fighter has that very much directly support and help the team. That's not including being a flanking buddy, being a buffer between the less heavily armored allies and the charging enemies, etc. Positioning is really important when playing a fighter and it does take an intelligent player to play the fighter effectively. Having more allies capable of doing this is not a bad thing. The fighter is just as supportive to the party as a druid's animal companion because he can use his feats to stack up on battlefield utility. Ok, he doesn't hit as hard. If you want to play a martial class that hits hard, barbarians look good this time of year, or perhaps you would rather do something from Tome of Battle, neat those are tasty too. None of those classes will have the same potential battlefield utility of the fighter by the simple fact that they don't get as many feats built in to their class. Think less specialized and more broad list of combat abilities.

[LTwerewolf]

Anyone else notice that people are trying to argue that fighter is useful at level 1 but don't seem to be arguing very far beyond that? This is not a point in favor of the fighter.

With a fighter's big pool of feats you can choose to take Combat expertise, improved trip, and improved disarm as a first level character.

Fighter gets one bonus feat at level one. Anyone else that wants to do these things is one feat behind.

You can choose to sit back directly in front of your wizard and provide concealment for him against ranged attacks while simultaneously cutting off attack routes from melee combatants.

Anyone can do this, namely barbarians and paladins which are also core.

Another option is to step in and disarm the threat.

Disarming itself isn't very good, but assuming it's useful in the situation this is again not something exclusive to fighter.

Third option is to stand between the squishier members of the party and trip the opposition if they try to move past you.

Not sure how this is very different from the first one, but again not fighter exclusive here. Your options only require two feats, which anyone else can have.

Alternatively you can take a more active role where you take improved unarmed strike and improved grapple as a half orc fighter.

Or take a level of monk and you get significantly more.

You can seek out and grapple enemy spell casters and pin them so that they can't use their magic, thereby freeing your caster up to use his.

Most casters can make the concentration check while grappled, making it far less effective. Entirely useless once freedom of movement comes online.

alternatively you can go yet another route and pick up power attack, improved sunder and debilitate your enemies by sundering their weapons, armor, or shields or even cutting the enemy wizard's spell pouch off so he can't cast his spell without first picking up the pouch.

Still just two feats and not fighter exclusive (in fact clerics can do this better by not spending feats and taking a domain). Not only this, you can't sunder armor other people are wearing (it says this right in the sunder rules).

That's what i mean by options and those are available from level 1 to level 20.

Except the usefulness of those options diminish as levels get higher, many of which become entirely ineffective in most circumstances (disarm vs monsters), or have little chance of actually working (any combat maneuver on a larger opponent).

And from all of that, I've shown many options that the fighter has that very much directly support and help the team.

When they work, which most of the time they don't. Conversely, giving direct bonuses (such as morale bonuses from things like bless) or indirect bonuses (size increase from enlarge person) tend to help much more.

That's not including being a flanking buddy, being a buffer between the less heavily armored allies and the charging enemies, etc.

This is something literally anyone can do. Other classes arguably do it better. A paladin can at least heal themselves and don't rely on others to keep them alive. A barbarian has more hp and damage reduction. "Be a warm body with a weapon that can attack" is the only requirement for flanking. Except the warm body thing doesn't even always apply (lol undead, construct, and reptilian characters).

Positioning is really important when playing a fighter and it does take an intelligent player to play the fighter effectively.

You know classes that position better than a fighter right out of the box? Barbarian, scout, and monk. Because they can move more and two of them have tumble.

Having more allies capable of doing this is not a bad thing.

I agree, but the fighter isn't bringing anything special to the table others can't do.

The fighter is just as supportive to the party as a druid's animal companion because he can use his feats to stack up on battlefield utility. Ok, he doesn't hit as hard.

I'm not sure how this isn't directly saying fighters aren't quite as good as one aspect of a druid's class.

If you want to play a martial class that hits hard, barbarians look good this time of year, or perhaps you would rather do something from Tome of Battle, neat those are tasty too. None of those classes will have the same potential battlefield utility of the fighter by the simple fact that they don't get as many feats built in to their class. Think less specialized and more broad list of combat abilities.

You may want to look at ToB again if you think fighter feats hold up in any way. ToB gives a lot more options than the fighter feats do, while still allowing the adepts to deal more damage (while still being able to move). I would argue every one of the ToB classes have more utility than the fighter right out of the box. Especially as you get higher level, class features get far more powerful than feats. Even at low level, they're not even really equivalent. The fighter gets 11 extra feats that diminish in value over time. The warblade gets 4 bonus feats and explicitly counts as a fighter (of a slightly lower level) for the very very few fighter specific feats. Swordsages actually get pretty large bonuses to tripping from setting sun as well as the ability to deal decent enough damage while probably going first. The crusader, while I don't like its recovery mechanic as personal taste, is incredibly good in most ways, especially at lower levels. It can deal superior damage to a fighter, with the same hit points and armor, while healing itself. Arguably the swordsage might need to specialize a little bit to do the job, but they can still take other maneuvers to maintain their utility. If we consider each known maneuver as a bonus feat, the crusader is getting +14, the swordsage is getting +25, and the warblade +13. Each of them also has superior saves, and superior skills/skill points. I wasn't going to bring ToB content into this discussion because I felt it would be too easy, but I felt the need to respond to the idea that they could somehow be inferior to a baseline fighter.

[eggynack]

What is this scenario, incidentally? Not, like, what the details are, but what's its deal? Why are these monsters arranging themselves one to a room, one after the other, when any form of traditional tactics would dictate grouping those monsters up somewhat? Are they just contractually obligated to make themselves that way? Because the thing is, the monsters probably get an advantage against caster and fighter alike by just being in the same room as each other, because it provides an action economy advantage, but the caster gets a clear advantage over the fighter relative to the monsters by dint of access to BFC effects and the general ability to engage multiple enemies simultaneously through minions and such. This whole situation seems ludicrously contrived.

[AnimeTheCat]

Spoiler: Quoted Text

Show

Anyone else notice that people are trying to argue that fighter is useful at level 1 but don't seem to be arguing very far beyond that? This is not a point in favor of the fighter.


Fighter gets one bonus feat at level one. Anyone else that wants to do these things is one feat behind.



Anyone can do this, namely barbarians and paladins which are also core.


Disarming itself isn't very good, but assuming it's useful in the situation this is again not something exclusive to fighter.


Not sure how this is very different from the first one, but again not fighter exclusive here. Your options only require two feats, which anyone else can have.


Or take a level of monk and you get significantly more.


Most casters can make the concentration check while grappled, making it far less effective. Entirely useless once freedom of movement comes online.



Still just two feats and not fighter exclusive (in fact clerics can do this better by not spending feats and taking a domain). Not only this, you can't sunder armor other people are wearing (it says this right in the sunder rules).


Except the usefulness of those options diminish as levels get higher, many of which become entirely ineffective in most circumstances (disarm vs monsters), or have little chance of actually working (any combat maneuver on a larger opponent).


When they work, which most of the time they don't. Conversely, giving direct bonuses (such as morale bonuses from things like bless) or indirect bonuses (size increase from enlarge person) tend to help much more.


This is something literally anyone can do. Other classes arguably do it better. A paladin can at least heal themselves and don't rely on others to keep them alive. A barbarian has more hp and damage reduction. "Be a warm body with a weapon that can attack" is the only requirement for flanking. Except the warm body thing doesn't even always apply (lol undead, construct, and reptilian characters).


You know classes that position better than a fighter right out of the box? Barbarian, scout, and monk. Because they can move more and two of them have tumble.


I agree, but the fighter isn't bringing anything special to the table others can't do.

You're right pretty much any human can do any of those things out of the box, but none of those classes can do all of that before level 10. The fighter can. You could even throw improved overrun and improved bullrush on there too. I don't even think an animal companion can do all of that at all. That's a lot of different options available to a single person in combat. You fight the way that is necessary for the situation. When grappling a caster you can opt to silence them thereby rendering them unable to cast any spell with a vocal or somatic component (that sounds like most spells) meaning the caster will need to have still silent spells prepared and that is a pretty hefty spell level tax. What the fighter brings to the table is, well... everything, if you think about it in that way. They can do something in every combat situation.

[jywu98]

You're right pretty much any human can do any of those things out of the box, but none of those classes can do all of that before level 10. The fighter can. You could even throw improved overrun and improved bullrush on there too. I don't even think an animal companion can do all of that at all. That's a lot of different options available to a single person in combat. You fight the way that is necessary for the situation. When grappling a caster you can opt to silence them thereby rendering them unable to cast any spell with a vocal or somatic component (that sounds like most spells) meaning the caster will need to have still silent spells prepared and that is a pretty hefty spell level tax. What the fighter brings to the table is, well... everything, if you think about it in that way. They can do something in every combat situation.

The problem with the fighter is that many of these options are in fact traps that are worse than just attacking the enemy. For example sunder is actually detrimental to the party since it destroys your loot if it actually succeeds. Bullrush is only useful to push enemies away from squishies but casters have BFC that does it way better. Overrun is a worse version of grease, and grapple has its own disadvantages, namely only being able to attack with light weapons. Also all these are dependent on opposed checks, which means that if a fighter did not already specialize in one of these options he'll essentially just waste an action.

[ryu]

You're right pretty much any human can do any of those things out of the box, but none of those classes can do all of that before level 10. The fighter can. You could even throw improved overrun and improved bullrush on there too. I don't even think an animal companion can do all of that at all. That's a lot of different options available to a single person in combat. You fight the way that is necessary for the situation. When grappling a caster you can opt to silence them thereby rendering them unable to cast any spell with a vocal or somatic component (that sounds like most spells) meaning the caster will need to have still silent spells prepared and that is a pretty hefty spell level tax. What the fighter brings to the table is, well... everything, if you think about it in that way. They can do something in every combat situation.

You know what most everyone else can do by level 10? Things the fighter can't do at level 20. This is most prevalent with casters, but even other less terrible melee still gets nicer things.

As for the non-issue of grappling would you like a list of solutions available by level and class that render that moot without a single roll? Oh how about things that do that in magic item form that literally anyone can have? Oh or how about the laundry list of ''no you don't get melee range'' tactics? Or a list of ways to be better at grappling than a fighter will ever be while spending less than a tenth of his resources?

[AnimeTheCat]

The problem with the fighter is that many of these options are in fact traps that are worse than just attacking the enemy. For example sunder is actually detrimental to the party since it destroys your loot if it actually succeeds. Bullrush is only useful to push enemies away from squishies but casters have BFC that does it way better. Overrun is a worse version of grease, and grapple has it's own disadvantages, namely only being able to attack with light weapons. Also all these are dependent on opposed checks, which means that if a fighter did not already specialize in one of these options he'll essentially just waste an action.

Sundering a wizard's worn spell component pouch does not destroy it's contents but it does prevent that wizard from casting spells that require them without first picking up the spell component pouch. This is effective starting at first level. You do not have to use sunder to destroy the weapon of the opponent, but except at low levels, picking up every item the enemy was using is not really an effective way of making money. that gets heavy quick.

You know what most everyone else can do by level 10? Things the fighter can't do at level 20. This is most prevalent with casters, but even other less terrible melee still gets nicer things.

As for the non-issue of grappling would you like a list of solutions available by level and class that render that moot without a single roll? Oh how about things that do that in magic item form that literally anyone can have? Oh or how about the laundry list of ''no you don't get melee range'' tactics? Or a list of ways to be better at grappling than a fighter will ever be while spending less than a tenth of his resources?

You're right that other classes do things that fighters can't. I never said that a fighter was better at fighting than wizards, clerics, druids, etc. I did say they have some merits that those classes don't. Namely a fighter can pick up the vast majority of weapons in the game and use it proficiently. Druids, Wizards, Clerics, etc. can't without using a spell to do so. Sure, they can enable themselves to do so, but the fighter doesn't need to. I made no claim that a fighter was better overall than any of the above mentioned classes, but i do still hold that it's not bad and that people tend to give it a bad rap (granted not without reasons). I like fighters and I'm really not trying to make it sound like i'm brushing off anyone's argument. I see them and of course they're valid, so please don't think that i'm simply ignoring the facts that you're putting out there. I'm simply countering the ones I can.

[jywu98]

Sundering a wizard's worn spell component pouch does not destroy it's contents but it does prevent that wizard from casting spells that require them without first picking up the spell component pouch. This is effective starting at first level. You do not have to use sunder to destroy the weapon of the opponent, but except at low levels, picking up every item the enemy was using is not really an effective way of making money. that gets heavy quick.

It's hilarious you think the fighter can actually just get close to the wizard with ease.

Also, just because a fighter can use a bunch of weapons doesn't make it better. You are going to use only a few specific ones anyway. It's like saying McDonald's is a good restaurant because it serves you multiple different flavors of diabetes.

The point is fighters suck because everything they can do another character can do better. The class itself is very feat based, and the thing is most combat feats suck complete ass.

[Big Fau]

We're on the same page when it comes to early levels. For the later levels though, wizards get scribe scroll for free at starting level. They can make scrolls for the fighter to use or to be used on the fighter

First and foremost: Scrolls are absolutely not worth their prices or action economy usage. A single scroll of a 4th level spell is the same price as a 10-charge Wand of the same spell. 10 castings VS 1 casting is a no-brainer in any situation. For higher level spells, Staves with 3 or more spells are significantly more efficient than any number of Scrolls.

Second, Fighters do not get access to UMD. This means they have to either invest CC ranks or rely on someone who can use the scroll innately, which means depending on someone else to help you. Self-reliance is a key portion of party cohesion during encounters: If you can't pull enough weight you need to revise your strategy or there will be a friendly casualty.

Specifically, this:

Decipher a Written Spell
This usage works just like deciphering a written spell with the Spellcraft skill, except that the DC is 5 points higher. Deciphering a written spell requires 1 minute of concentration. (25+Spell Level)

Emulate an Ability Score
To cast a spell from a scroll, you need a high score in the appropriate ability (Intelligence for wizard spells, Wisdom for divine spells, or Charisma for sorcerer or bard spells). Your effective ability score (appropriate to the class you’re emulating when you try to cast the spell from the scroll) is your Use Magic Device check result minus 15. If you already have a high enough score in the appropriate ability, you don’t need to make this check.

Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don’t have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

A Fighter typically doesn't have the Int/Wis/Cha to use a scroll without first emulating the ability scores, he has to identify the scroll himself (there's no rules regarding a friendly Wizard scribing a scroll for someone allowing them to automatically decipher the spell), and then you have to make a final UMD check. 3 checks, and if one of them fails you wasted your Standard action. In-combat this is suicide, and out of combat it still isn't WBL-efficient (for either the Wizard or the Fighter).

in essence putting the fighter where they are effective without having to strain their resources too badly.

WBL and XP may be rivers, but there are better ways to buff than to use scrolls. Seriously, bad idea.

Even if anti-magic or dispel magic are present, the wizard won't be flying either

Barring a pair of monsters from MM4, anything capable of using Antimagic Sphere is literally crippling itself when it does. That's one of the worst "anti-mage" tactics out there, as it relies on you being within 10ft of the Wizard to actually work. How many Wizards do you know get that close willingly? How many beings capable of using magic are going to open with Antimagic Sphere?

and fighters are proficient with bows so flight is a little less painful, but still is a roadblock that has to be overcome. As for "Lasers from your eyes" and all that jazz, it's pretty easy to bolster a fighter's touch ac with two feats and a tower shield.

You're assuming PVP as a balancing point. PVP isn't balanced in any D&D-based system, and is not a good measurement of a class' capabilities due to the nature of Rocket Tag gameplay (that is, whoever wins init can end the encounter).

You can have a touch AC of 15 or higher at first level (if you can charm your way in to a tower shield from your DM). That helps against a large number of rays that could otherwise adversely effect the fighter. Even if you can't get a tower shield that early, you can still easily get a 13 touch AC at first level with a simple heavy wooden shield. You'll also get that shield bonus to resist a lot of combat maneuvers that common enemies like wolves and the like will use against you (trip, bull rush, disarm, etc.). That's pretty good for a character that's planning on being in the face of danger with relatively little effort put in and without gimping them either. That bonus will also be present through the entire game.

Shields do not apply to touch AC without a feat.

I slightly touched on the resources thing, but 50 arrows is a lot more than the 36 spells per day (not including bonus spells) a wizard gets naturally at level 20. Plus, arrows are cheap. While its not the best option, it is still an option.

Counter-point: At nearly every level, Wizards have the ability to end encounters with 2-3 spells (not counting buffs). How many arrows does it take to end a single encounter?

I think my overall idea of the fighter is that when it comes down to it, they can fight in pretty much any situation. They have options, you just have to be creative about how you do it. Same for the wizard. Also, the fighter is really a big team player. The team Can get along without the fighter (or fighter type), but everything goes a little bit better for everyone when you enable the team player and everyone helps.

You kinda just proved a point here: The Fighter is replaceable. Expendable even. The Wizard? Not as much. A party without a Fighter can replace him a number of ways (summons, Planar Binding, Animal Companions, Polymorph effects) that are all cost-effective, but a party without a Mage of some sort is in a bad way without investing numerous resources to replace him. Spells are daily, WBL is not.

[Liquor Box]

Why would a simple riding dog not be allowed inside? Even if the dog is not allowed inside, how difficult would it be to call the dog and have it come (It isn't) and why would the druid not take high offense and find somewhere else to stay, even if that meant staying outside? I personally find it more likely an innkeeper would say "no weapons" than "no basic dogs." How well does your fighter fair without a weapon since we're trying to make sure people don't have parts of their class available?

I generally tend to infer what would and wouldn't be allowed based on real life and vary that based on what would make sense in the campaign setting.

A quick google search couldn't confirm it - but I suspect large dogs were not allowed in the rooms of medieval taverns. Certainly horses (another riding animal) would be stabled but admittedly they are bigger. Do we have a history buff who can confirm whether dogs were allowed to sleep in their master's room in medieval inns? Maybe it never arose because people don't often travel with dogs.

As for weapons, there is plenty of historical precedent for those being allowed in inns, especially in circumstances where the population is well armed (wartime, american frontier etc).

If there were no weapons or animal companions - I suggest the fighter would do better than the others (unless druid that shilleleagh memorised).

I answered this already, but I'll answer it again: a standard riding dog is not only easy to get, but it outpaces fighters decently well into 7th or 8th level.

Yeah, I thought the animal companion powered up at lvl 4, but its actually lvl 3 which changes the balance in the druid's favour somewhat. I still think that a reasonable well built 3rd level fighter would be significantly more powerful than an advanced riding dog.

Your fighter also runs out of hit points as well, with no way to replenish them. You're failing to say how many encounters, versus what, and how long they have to recover.

True, but the figther will have more HP, and likely a high AC (depends - but will probably spend more on armour)

I am thinking of numerous encounters against low CR monstors like kobolds, skeletons, pigs etc.

I get a wand of summon monster on any character ever that can use it, including any that get UMD as a class skill, so yes, I do.

Fair enough

If the fighter can possibly win the encounter in a single attack, so can a cleric. Fighters at this level aren't getting significant amounts of bonus damage from anywhere (maybe +2 from a 2h power attack, but that puts their BAB on par with a cleric). A cleric is also not required to open up with the summon monster, they have the option to do so. The fighter does not have this option.

True, but a fighters would do so more often. Fighters will tend to have a marital weapon, not a simple one, is more likely to have an enhanced weapon (not spending cash on wands), will have higher BA, and will probably have more str on most builds (no requirement for a high wisdom), and is also more likely to have useful feats.

The cleric is aware of the problems of the room before ever entering. This is a significant advantage and reduces the chances of sneak attacks because of the summoned creature getting attacked. This is not nothing, but you seem to want to treat it to be nothing.

Aware because the monkey went in first you mean?

True, if you are sending a monster into each room first it would remove the possibility of your character getting sneak attacked by those few low level monster that have that as a class skill. Not sure how much impact that would have overall though.

There is no way in which a fighter is better in this scenario.

A fighter is better in a scenarion where a cleric sends a celestial monkey into a room then enters afterward, because the fighter is better in combat than a cleric and a celestial monkey combined.

The fighter does not get UMD as a class skill, and therefore you're admitting that he needs spells from the cleric or druid class to get by. This is a point in favor of the cleric and druid, not the fighter.

Yes, that was an admission that the cleric would have the advantage of a CLW wand. I wasn't trying to postulate as an advantage to the fighter. Although I suppose the fighter may buy potions.

I can easily expect to make the 225 gold back from a 15 room dungeon, yes. Not only that, it kept the entire party significantly safer, not just my individual character. It's cheaper to let a single monkey die (15 gold) than to heal 30 hp (75 gold average).

Well the scenariois a 15 room dungeon with no monsters and one trap, so not sure what level of wealth might come out of it. And it wouldn't be a single monkey, it would be 15 monkeys - for 15 rooms with one trap.

But if it is your usualy practice to send a monkey into every room you go into, then fair enough, with that tactic your cleric would outperform the fighter with respect to the trap. My point only stands if most clerics would not do that unless where they had no forewarning that a trap would be in one of the rooms.

Pathfinder sorcerers get cantrips at will, so they do indeed have ranged attacks that do not run out. D&d sorcerers can still themselves shoot crossbows. At level 1, the fighter has 1 Bab higher than the sorcerer and the damage on a crossbow will be the same.

An ogre hits for 2d8+7. A level 1 fighter has d10+con, so probably 16 hp. That means even with pretty low damage rolls, your fighter is likely to die in a single hit. You would need a 22 con modifier to be able to be at 0 after an average damage hit. The fighter effectively is no different in hp than the ogre. The difference is the sorcerer has a chance to shut down the ogre with a single spell. With 29 hp, your fighter using a 2h weapon is going to need a critical hit (and a high damage one at that) to kill the ogre in a single hit. The sorcerer has a better chance of winning here.

I was assuming 3.5 (because i know it better), but we can go to pathfinder if you prefer. This would only mean ranged touch attacks that don't run out if if a ranged attack was selected as a spell know. Remembering that we are no designing our sorcerer for this specific encounter, do you think that ranged touch attacks are a usual selection at lvl 1? I gogoled it and found a thread here which suggested utillity spells (prestigitation, read magic, detect evil, detect magic were the important selections.

As tot he crossbow, it only changes the formula slightly - at an average damage of 4.5 per hit and a 45% hit rate (against the stunned, blinded AC12 ogre) that's 2 damage per rd (2.025). Against 29 hit points, that is 14 rds, plus the rds spent stunning him again (he would need to be stunned 5 times with color spray's average duration of 3.5rds), which comes to 19 rounds for the kill (with crossbow). The elephant in the room here is that a lvl sorcerer can';t cast color spray that many times.

The fighter biggest advantage on attack is his likely str bonus - +4 ( I assumed +4 cha for the sorcerer when setting save DC, so best to be consistent). As this applies to hit and damage (1.5 times if he uses a 2h wpn) it would have a much bigger impace than you give it credit for.

I agree we can assume a HIT by the ogre would kill the fighter on most occasions, but the difference is we can assume that an ATTACK by the ogre kills the sorcerer on most occasions. The difference is not in the hit points, but in the armour class. A lvl sorcerer is likely to have AC close to 10, against the ogre's +8 attack. A lvl fighter's AC may easily be 16 (or 18 with shield), meaning the ogre may only hit half the time or slightly more frequently.

It is extremely likely the ogre would lose to either character.
- Against the sorcerer it wins if get a single attack in - by winning initiative (45%) or by saving against a color spray (30%) or by still being standing when all the sorcerer's stuns have been expended (haven't calculated this - but very likely indeed.
- Against the figher it would get an attack every rounds, and would only need to hit with one (40% - 50%) to win. It would take quite a few unlucky rolls for it to lose.

[LTwerewolf]

Those other classes can do those things at level 10 as well. Wizard? Instead of grappling a single opponent at level 10, he can cast black tentacles and grapple everything in a 20 foot radius, while still being able to do other things. A summon monster spell means you can pick and choose what you summon so the thing you summon can be good at the thing you need. But instead of tripping the opponent, the wizard could dominate them. Now you have not only taken away one opponent, you have added an ally in the same action. With roughly the same chance of success or a fighter trip. The wizard has far more tools to remove opponents from play than the fighter does. Does a wizard want to grapple? Probably not unless they're polymorphing, but they also don't really need to.

Druid? Their animal companion can cover one or two of the options, while the druid can cover the rest with a couple spells, plus still have several other spells left over of things the fighter can't do. Want them immobile? The druid's been able to do that reliably from level one. The difference? Even if they roll their save, they're still partially affected and their movement is reduced. If they roll a success on their grapple check? You wasted your turn, they're next to you, and they get a full round action to turn you into pudding. This is not a favorable situation for you. If you're facing the druid? Your cambat maneuvers have been useless since level seven. Now it's a slugfest between you and the druid. All of this is before getting into the various large sized wild shapes they can go into. I need to grapple. I'm a bear. I want to charge. I'm a rhino, or a smilodon, or a dire lion, or a dire tiger, or a fleshraker, or a deinonychus, or any other number of things. Want to get away? Dire hawks, bats, eagles, etc to fly away if they only have land options. You're not winning a versatility or a power war here. Also kelpstrand. Just kelpstrand.

Cleric? First time I'm actually pulling anywhere but from core here, but I feel it's an important one. Heroics. You may gain a fighter bonus feat for 10 minutes/level. All of that versatility you had the cleric also has. The selling point? The cleric only needed to take combat expertise. They can now give themselves improved trip/disarm/feint. Only need power attack for bull rush/overrun/sunder. Let's say you're doing core only. Well your BAB and extra hp mean a whole lot less when the cleric can give themselves your BAB and extra hp off the top with divine power. Can also get a size bonus to those combat maneuvers you find so handy, so not only can the cleric do them as well, they can do them better.

And this is all ignoring the fact that making the opponent dead faster is a superior solution in any situation that they don't need to be kept alive for some reason. Then again, for those reasons these other classes are better as well. Stun them, sleep them, wrap them up. The fighter has to take penalties to hit for nonlethal damage, then still has to do enough damage to knock them out.

[Liquor Box]

Anyone else notice that people are trying to argue that fighter is useful at level 1 but don't seem to be arguing very far beyond that? This is not a point in favor of the fighter.

Of course it is a point in favour of the fighter - it's just not conclusive. If anything level 1 is probably more relevant than lvl 20, because more campaigns start at level 1 than any other lvl, and many probably don't get to far beyond that. I suspect lvl 1 would be the most played level.

Also, I have argue beyond that - some of my examples refer to a level 4 fighter.

[Troacctid]

Clerics with the War domain do the exact same thing as the fighter, except with -1 or -2 to hit (give or take) in exchange for full 9th level spellcasting. You even get the bonus feats, thanks to Ordained Champion. Not to mention Knowledge Devotion and/or Law Devotion, which take your -1 or -2 to hit and turn it into +1 or +2 to hit. And this is all without DMM or even any in-combat buff spells at all, because just your basic chassis is nearly good enough to match the fighter without any special effort at all.

[LTwerewolf]

Of course it is a point in favour of the fighter - it's just not conclusive. If anything level 1 is probably more relevant than lvl 20, because more campaigns start at level 1 than any other lvl, and many probably don't get to far beyond that. I suspect lvl 1 would be the most played level.

Also, I have argue beyond that - some of my examples refer to a level 4 fighter.

Level 4 is not very far beyond level 1. It is reasonable to expect most campaigns to get right around levels 7-10. It;s also reasonable to expect most campaigns will not get much above that. This seems to be the general experience both by myself and a significant portion of the people I've talked to. Even at 4 the fighter struggles to maintain relevance at all (still not being the best). Any argument that a class is only relevant at level 1 loses before it begins.

Also note I have only once brought anything outside of core for the druid, cleric, or wizard, but have no problem with the fighter going outside of core for whatever feats they desire. Not saying core is balanced, but the options are presented right there in the first book.


You keep saying the fighter is better than a druid and its companion, but you never say how. Let's go with a 36 point buy. Higher point buy puts things more in favor of the fighter. I'll even put the fighter stats really heavily towards doing nothing but fighting beatsticks like ogres. Not worrying about int or skills or anything but smacking around an ogre.

Human Fighter level 3, 18 str, 12 dex, 18 con, 8 int/wis/cha. This gives your fighter 28 hp (taking average hp).
Feats
H
1
F1
F2
3

Fill in the rest there, with weapons and armor. 2700 gold to work with. When you do that I'll go with a pretty basic druid. This is intended to be a little learning exercise.

[Liquor Box]

What is this scenario, incidentally? Not, like, what the details are, but what's its deal? Why are these monsters arranging themselves one to a room, one after the other, when any form of traditional tactics would dictate grouping those monsters up somewhat? Are they just contractually obligated to make themselves that way? Because the thing is, the monsters probably get an advantage against caster and fighter alike by just being in the same room as each other, because it provides an action economy advantage, but the caster gets a clear advantage over the fighter relative to the monsters by dint of access to BFC effects and the general ability to engage multiple enemies simultaneously through minions and such. This whole situation seems ludicrously contrived.

Is this for me?

I hadn't thought about it. Your "traditional tactics" assume the monsters would ally with each other, which seems unlikely if they are all different (I did say different random CR1 monsters).

I suppose it could be a single room where a Cr1 or less monster gets summoned every 20rds or so, and you have to hold out till help arrives. It could be a large expensive inn, where you go room to room killing the inhabitants - typically one or two creatures share a room. Or it could be any environment where (a cave complex, a desert, under the water) where the inhabitants avoid each other (to avoid conflict)

It may seem contrived (it is, I contrived it), but the point is numerous very easy fights. The point is that the fighter can swing all day (better than the druid or cleric) - and this would give it an advantage in some scenarios (it was originally said the cleric and druid are better in any situation). Admittedly, the animal companion makes the druid much closer - although in games I play realistic limitations are imposed on when animal companions will be available - (eg, not in a hotel room, nor even in a city if a bear or other dangerous animal) - I think this also fits in with druid fluff (natural settings, not built up settings).

[Liquor Box]

Level 4 is not very far beyond level 1. It is reasonable to expect most campaigns to get right around levels 7-10. It;s also reasonable to expect most campaigns will not get much above that. This seems to be the general experience both by myself and a significant portion of the people I've talked to. Even at 4 the fighter struggles to maintain relevance at all (still not being the best). Any argument that a class is only relevant at level 1 loses before it begins.

Also note I have only once brought anything outside of core for the druid, cleric, or wizard, but have no problem with the fighter going outside of core for whatever feats they desire. Not saying core is balanced, but the options are presented right there in the first book.

You keep saying the fighter is better than a druid and its companion, but you never say how

A few points:
1. I never said the fighter was better, I only said it was better in some scenarios - particularly those which are unexpected so don;t allow the druid to prepare specific spells, or those when the animal companion (in my view) would usually be denied to him.
2. If most campaigns go to level 7-10, then levels 1-4 is basically half the campaign.
3. I did not talk about only being a beatstick
4. I don't think I have gone outside core even once in my discussions.

. Let's go with a 36 point buy. Higher point buy puts things more in favor of the fighter. I'll even put the fighter stats really heavily towards doing nothing but fighting beatsticks like ogres. Not worrying about int or skills or anything but smacking around an ogre.

Human Fighter level 3, 18 str, 12 dex, 18 con, 8 int/wis/cha.
Feats
H
1
F1
F2
3

Fill in the rest there, with weapons and armor. 2700 gold to work with. When you do that I'll go with a pretty basic druid.

As to your challenge, what are we trying to make the characters do? Fight each other? Does the druid come with his self buffs already cast, and his animal companion in tow, or unbuffed? Do we assume average rolls for hp every level (so 13 from dice for druid 16 for fighter)? Such contests are somewhat contrived if the characters are designed explicitly to fight each other, rather to face the ordinary challenges of adventuring parties.

However, if you want to set down exactly what the challenge is, I may participate (or I may admit the druid wins on those rules, if they involve choosing specific spells in advance for this challenge and self buffing in advance).

[LTwerewolf]

As to your challenge, what are we trying to make the characters do? Fight each other? Does the druid come with his self buffs already cast, and his animal companion in tow, or unbuffed? Do we assume average rolls for hp every level (so 13 from dice for druid 16 for fighter)? Such contests are somewhat contrived if the characters are designed explicitly to fight each other, rather to face the ordinary challenges of adventuring parties.

However, if you want to set down exactly what the challenge is, I may participate (or I may admit the druid wins on those rules, if they involve choosing specific spells in advance for this challenge and self buffing in advance).

I wasn't intending them to fight each other (the fighter would stand no chance at all). I was thinking a same game test. In fact if I set up a same game test would anyone be willing to put together a druid for it so there's no bias?

[eggynack]

Is this for me?

Quite. I'd finished the post awhile before I actually posted it, cause I forgot, and at the time it fit in with the surrounding conversation more naturally. There was also an undirected element of it, because the scenario had entered more general discussion.

I hadn't thought about it. Your "traditional tactics" assume the monsters would ally with each other, which seems unlikely if they are all different (I did say different random CR1 monsters).

Well, you're fighting them one right after the other. It seems weird that 20 completely unaffiliated enemies would attack you one after the other.

I suppose it could be a single room where a Cr1 or less monster gets summoned every 20rds or so, and you have to hold out till help arrives.

Why are they being summoned 20 rounds apart? That just seems dumb. There's not much in the way of limits where summoning timing is concerned.

It could be a large expensive inn, where you go room to room killing the inhabitants - typically one or two creatures share a room.

Why are you killing completely unrelated inn-folk? Are you just in it for the killing or something? Is it something against the inn? This doesn't really make sense.

Or it could be any environment where (a cave complex, a desert, under the water) where the inhabitants avoid each other (to avoid conflict)

So they all avoid each other, to avoid conflict, and none of them avoid you, the one that's constantly killing them. That just seems weird.

It may seem contrived (it is, I contrived it), but the point is numerous very easy fights.

I understand the point. I just don't think the point is reflective of any realistic situation. And if the situation can't happen, then it's not relevant. Sure, some unaffiliated monsters make some sense. Maybe you fight a monster, arbitrarily, and then you fight a second monster, arbitrarily, and then a third, and that makes sense, but twenty or thirty in a row strains the bounds of a realistic scenario. It's also kinda boring, from a meta-perspective, but that's possibly besides the point. The thing is, you need these really really high numbers to give the fighter any kind of plausible advantage, and those really high numbers just don't make much sense. It's as if fighters have an ability that deals a decent amount of damage to laser giants that are wearing toupees and which can only use swords on the first Tuesday each month for dietary reasons. The fighter's advantage in that scenario is pointless because the scenario does not exist in any meaningful sense.

Edit: We actually did a same game test of fighters versus druids at level eight or so awhile back. Things started around here, more or less. Didn't reach much of a conclusion, but it's notable that the druid I designed had summons which individually exceeded the optimized fighter in just about every way possible, up to and including battlefield control ability. And that was two years ago, so it'd probably have some cooler things now.

[ryu]

On the point of sundering spell component pouches did you all know that they cost literally 1GP, are hilariously light, and can be worn in vast numbers without conflict of any sort due to not being magic items themselves? Sunder as many spell component pouches as you please. They're all wasted actions. Thats if you get close enough to get even one to begin with by the way. Are you starting to see why this fight is so one sided? Every tactic that's supposed to be wizard kryptonite has anywhere from one simple universally available and cheap counter to dozens of still pretty cheap counters any one of which you may well have without even having considered its value in countering fighters.

[LTwerewolf]

I generally tend to infer what would and wouldn't be allowed based on real life and vary that based on what would make sense in the campaign setting.

A quick google search couldn't confirm it - but I suspect large dogs were not allowed in the rooms of medieval taverns. Certainly horses (another riding animal) would be stabled but admittedly they are bigger. Do we have a history buff who can confirm whether dogs were allowed to sleep in their master's room in medieval inns? Maybe it never arose because people don't often travel with dogs.

As for weapons, there is plenty of historical precedent for those being allowed in inns, especially in circumstances where the population is well armed (wartime, american frontier etc).

If there were no weapons or animal companions - I suggest the fighter would do better than the others (unless druid that shilleleagh memorised).

Didn't see this part. Weapons were not in fact allowed around most towns in the medieval era. It was a very big deal. Dogs however, were allowed most places except for the higher establishments. If we're talking level one, you're not paying for the highest of establishments. The druid has their dog. The fighter now has no weapon.

Spoiler: Close Rolls, Richard II: December 1393', Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: volume 5: 1392-1396 (1925)

Show

To the mayor and sheriffs of London. Order to cause proclamation to be made, forbidding any man of whatsoever estate or condition to make unlawful assemblies in the city or suburbs of London, to go armed, girt with a sword or arrayed with unwonted harness, carry with him such arms, swords or harness, or do aught whereby the peace may be broken or the statutes concerning the bearing of arms contrary to the peace, or any of the people be disturbed or put in fear, under pain of losing his arms etc. and of imprisonment at the king's will, except lords, great men, knights and esquires of good estate, other men upon entering or leaving the city, and the king's officers and ministers appointed to keep the peace; and order after such proclamation to arrest all whom they shall find acting contrary to the same with the exceptions aforesaid, their followers, the arms, swords etc. found with them, and to keep them in custody in prison until further order, causing their arms etc. to be appraised and answer to be made to the king for them, and certifying in chancery from time to time the names of those arrested and the price and value of their arms etc. and so behaving that henceforward no more mischief be there done by their default; as it has now newly come to the king's ears that there are evildoers and breakers of the peace, some armed, some girt about the midst with swords, and some arrayed as aforesaid, who lurk in divers places within the city and suburbs and run to and fro committing batteries, mayhems, robberies, manslaughters etc., and hindering and disturbing the ministers and officers of the city from the exercise of their offices, in contempt of the king and breach of the peace, to the disturbance and terror of the people and contrary to the said statutes, which the king will not and ought not to endure.

[Nightcanon]

Thats about the only thing I agree with. Barbarians are better fighters.

Fighters are feat machines . There are thousands of feats out there and hundreds of those feats are overpowered and broken just waiting for a cunning player .

I like both Fighters and Wizards . Both are fun to play neither are useless . I cannot imagine a game where fighters are labled "not the best at anything" . I will not question the fighter but that game itself .

This is the key thing, though. Of course a fighter is valuable and can do stuff if we are talking about an abstract concept in fantasy, rather than within the confines of the game. But if we are talking about 3rd edition D&D, then other classes are manifestly better at anything that is important. That's not to say that they should be, or that this is what was intended, but it is the case. Fighters get more feats than anyone else- one every other level. On the other hand, Rogues get an extra d6 of sneak attack, and casters get a whole raft of new and more powerful spells with exactly the same frequency. Are fighters bad? That becomes a question of semantics when other classes are clearly better.

[Jon_Dahl]

No matter how much I try, I have never understood something:
Fighter is all about fighter feats. These feats get better and better until 12th level. That's the end. Then you get epic fighter feats at 21st. What happened to 13th to 20st level fighter feats that outshine their 1st-12th level counterparts? If we simply had lots of cool stuff there, I think we could complain a little less. Maybe.

[Liquor Box]

I wasn't intending them to fight each other (the fighter would stand no chance at all). I was thinking a same game test. In fact if I set up a same game test would anyone be willing to put together a druid for it so there's no bias?

Of course the fighter would stand a chance 1 v 1. It can probably one hit kill the druid (unless you set the druid up as a HP monster specifically for the challenge) all it would need is initiative.

As for the test, again, how would it work (apologies if this is widelyknown). Would the druid have a chance to re-spell depending on who it was fighting? Would it come in already buffed?

[Gale]

Didn't see this part. Weapons were not in fact allowed around most towns in the medieval era. It was a very big deal. Dogs however, were allowed most places except for the higher establishments. If we're talking level one, you're not paying for the highest of establishments. The druid has their dog. The fighter now has no weapon.

Historical accuracy aside, even if an inn had a rule barring animals from entering the establishment it would still be fairly trivial of the party to circumvent this through entirely mundane means. A dog, even a big one, isn't a monster; and an innkeeper has little incentive to strictly forbid it, especially if the druid can demonstrate that it's well-trained and won't create a mess, i.e. handle animal. Any party member with a fair amount of Diplomacy and possible a few gold pieces could easily convince an innkeeper to allow the dog to sleep in the room.