Why play a Fighter?

[Florian]

I really don't care for how 3.5 (especially core) handles alot of it's feats, most of the feat chains don't feel worth the effort and the feats themself feel too weak. Actually that's probably why I don't like the Fighter.

You seem to compare feats to spells/maneuvers/stances, that´s why you don´t appreciate the Fighter Bonus Feats as a class feature.

There´re two rookie mistakes when building a Fighter: Going for raw damage and building a one-trick pony, over investing in one "schtick" and that alone.

The trick has always been knowing how to cherry-pick feats and being able to find synergies between longer and more elaborate feat chains, like combining Shock Trooper with with area denial options of a Chain Tripper and an Overrun specialist. Sure, that is not as impressive as what a Warblade or Uber-Charger Barbarian can do, but it´s tied to martial crowd control and engaging a number of enemies at once, best supported by a BFC Wizard.

[Pleh]

Why play a fighter? We all know the reason(s)
For Feats, Chassis, and Proficiencies, but mostly for Feats.

But everyone gets feats.
Not everyone gets as many as the Fighter does. Say what you will, but there's a reason that the Fighter is nearly as Diptastic as the Barbarian (which, btw, wouldn't be nearly so diptastic without that one Elephant In The ACF).

But Fighter Feats suck.
Most feats suck. The Feat system was subpar because Fighter Linear, Wizard Quadratic. This was because Feats are linear and Spells are quadratic. Weapon Focus gives a static bonus that never changes ever. Burning Hands gives 1d4 PER CASTER LEVEL (up to 5, but still). So, to fix the martial system, we need to help martial features scale with level like spells do (but it can't be Caster Level, because they aren't Casters... maybe Intitiative Levels?). We clearly don't want them to become SwordWizards, because that would be lame, so we'll make their quadratic martial abilities Extraordinary rather than Supernatural (though a few can be supernatural from time to time). But what do we call these Extraordinary maneuvers, since we have to distinguish them from Feats? Anyone got any ideas?

TOB is NOT Core.
Oh, THAT'S what I was thinking of. Yeah, it's not Core. Does it matter that it's not Core?

Saying the best way to play Fighter is to play Warblade kind of says that Fighter Sucks.
Compared to the Wizard, Fighter does suck. Compared to as-listed Goblin in MM1, Fighter is King. What's your point?

There are better options.
Unless you are Pun Pun (or even more trivially, just the DM), there are always better options. Why does that have anything to do with making character choices?

It means the game was designed badly.
I dunno. People are still playing it and talking about it in depth on an internet forum. Seems pretty successful to me.

But it isn't fun to play.
I can imagine a million ways to have fun playing a vanilla, Core Only Fighter. Most of them don't involve traveling alongside Pun Pun Wanna Be Wizards from Tippyverse, but thankfully that is not the sum and total of the ways that I can enjoy playing the class.

Because at the end of the day, that's the whole point of this game.

Use your imagination.

[Deeds]

I play Fighter to grab some feats (usually Weapon Focus, Improved Intiative, and Power Attack) and for the D10 HD. Throw in ranks in swim and call it a day.

[Mordaedil]

Why play a pure fighter?

Because the fluff of other classes doesn't support what you're going for.

There's plenty of ways to build characters in D&D 3.5, but sometimes you just can't fill the niche with a barbarian, because it's not what you are, a monk is too rigid and the TOB classes are too mired in their own variation of fluff that doesn't fit the kind of character you are going for.

That said, fighter mechanical support is really subpar and have costly feat chains that doesn't really help, albeit I'd hesitate to say that "fighter feats suck".

There's 224 different ones. Not all of them are bad. And that gives you a lot of variety for building your fighter. None of it is going to allow you to match a wizard. That isn't really the point though, variety is key for 3.5 and fighter is king of variety in feats.

If I were to allow a person to play a pure fighter at our table though, I'd allow them to pick a background, increase their skill point to 4 + Int and get a few new class skills based on said background.

[zlefin]

feats have too much variation in power level; that's a major part of the problem as well (in addition to just being too weak in general)
the ceiling/floor difference is very big based on which ones you choose.
the ToB classes have much less ceiling/floor variation.

[SirNibbles]

...

They are literally the same as the Warrior (a NPC class) except they have Craft (Which they'll never use) and bonus feats, which aren't a class feature.

So ultimately, what reason is there to play as a Fighter?

What separates a Fighter from a Warrior?

From a roleplaying perspective, I would say it's the study that a Fighter does. A Warrior trains like a common soldier or guard. He gets instructions and he follows them, usually involving drilling or hitting a dummy. A Fighter goes beyond that, reading manuals, treatises, tomes about warriors from the past, etc. to learn about new fighting styles, which he then incorporates into his training. These represent his Fighter Bonus Feats.

The issue is that from a gameplay perspective, none of these feats are that great.

The default 3.5 rules create a high-magic setting, yet the Fighter Bonus Feats are decidedly low-magic or non-magical. In order to become usable, the Fighter Bonus Feats need to have some magical aspects in order to give them power beyond just +1 to hit or damage or which are only situationally useful. Additionally, the fighter is supposed to be skilled with many weapons, but most feats affect only a single type of weapon. He should be able to combine multiple styles, yet most stylistic feats work alone.

I am aware of 221 Fighter Bonus Feats. Of these feats, I think very few would be better than even 1st level spells, let alone 9ths. Most of them are held back by overburdening prerequisites and still they lack the ability to make a significant impact. Of these, I'll discuss a handful which I think are on the right track.

Spoiler: Bonus Feats

Show

Acrobatic Strike
Active Shield Defense
Adaptable Flanker
Agile Shield Fighter
Armor Specialization
Axeshield
Ballista Proficiency
Bane of Argonnessen
Battle Dancer
Blind-Fight
Block Arrow
Blood-Spiked Charger
Boomerang Daze
Boomerang Ricochet
Bowslinger
Braced for Charge
Brutal Strike
Brutal Throw
Cavalry Charger
Chosen Foe
Circle Master
Circle Student
Cleave
Clever Opportunist
Close-Quarters Fighting
Combat Acrobat
Combat Awareness
Combat Brute
Combat Cloak Expert
Combat Defense
Combat Expertise
Combat Focus
Combat Intuition
Combat Panache
Combat Reflexes
Combat Stability
Combat Strike
Combat Vigor
Cometary Collision
Constant Guardian
Coordinated Shot
Crossbow Sniper
Dancing Blade
Daring Warrior
Daunting Presence
Dead Eye
Deadeye Shot
Deceptive Dodge
Defensive Archery
Defensive Strike
Defensive Sweep
Deflect Arrows
Distracting Attack
Dodge
Double Hit
Double Team
Dual Strike
Einhander
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Heavy)
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Light)
Exotic Armor Proficiency (Medium)
Exotic Shield Proficiency
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Expeditious Dodge
Fiery Fist
Fiery Ki Defense
Fist of the Heavens
Flay
Foe Hunter
Forceful Staff Style
Formation Expert
Freezing The Lifeblood
Giantbane
Gnome Tunnel Acrobatics
Goad
Great Cleave
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization
Greater Manyshot
Greater Powerful charge
Greater Two-Weapon Defense
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Grenadier
Haft Strike
Half-Dragon Form
Hammer and Piton
Hammer Fist
Hand Crossbow Focus
Hazing Strike
Heavy Armor Optimization
Holy Subdual
Hurling Charge
Improved Buckler Defense
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Combat Expertise
Improved Critical
Improved Disarm
Improved Diversion
Improved Grapple
Improved Initiative
Improved Mounted Archery
Improved Overrun
Improved Precise Shot
Improved Rapid Shot
Improved Shield Bash
Improved Shieldmate
Improved Sunder
Improved Toughness
Improved Trip
Improved Two-Weapon Defense
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Weapon Familiarity

Intuitive Attack
Ki Blast
Long Strike
Lunging Strike
Manyshot
Martial Stalker
Martial Stance
Martial Study
Martial Throw
Melee Evasion
Melee Weapon Mastery
Mercurial Strike
Mighty are Fallen
Mobility
Mountain Warrior
Mounted Archery
Mounted Mobility
Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting
Pack Feint
Pack Tactics
Paralyzing Fists
Pebble Underfoot
Penetrating Shot
Phalanx Fighting
Pike Hedge
Point Blank Shot
Pole Balance
Pole Fighter
Power Attack
Power Critical
Power Lunge
Power Throw
Powerful Charge
Precise Shot
Prone Attack
Pushback
Quick Draw
Quori Dread
Ranged Disarm
Ranged Sunder
Ranged Weapon Mastery
Rapid Reload
Rapid Shot
Reckless Charge
Resounding Blow
Ride-By Attack
Ring the Golden Bell
Riposte
Robilar's Gambit
Saddleback
Second Slam
Shadow Striker
Shadowborn Warrior
Sharp-Shooting
Shield Charge
Shield Expert
Shield Slam
Shield Sling
Shield Specialization
Shield Wall
Shield Ward
Shieldmate
Shock Trooper
Short Haft
Shorten Grip
Shot on the Run
Single Blade Style
Slashing Flurry
Snatch Arrows
Spear of Doom
Spectral Skirmisher
Spinning Defense
Spirited Charge
Spring Attack
Staggering Blow
Staggering Critical
Stunning Fist
Subduing Strike
Superior Expertise
Surprising Riposte
Trample
Tremendous Charge
Tumbling Feint
Tunnel Fighting
Twin Sword Style
Two-Weapon Defense
Two-Weapon Fighting
Two-Weapon Pounce
Two-Weapon Rend
Undermountain Tactics
Valenar Trample
Vault
Versatile Combatant
Versatile Unarmed Strike
Veteran Knowledge
Vexing Flanker
Water Splitting Stone
Weakening Touch
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Weapon Supremacy
Whirlwind Attack
Winged Warrior
Woodland Archer

Adaptable Flanker - It's cruel to require a swift action to designate a target, especially when a Fighter already needs his swifts for manoeuvres, but otherwise this is a good feat. It does a good job representing the techniques a Fighter could learn to become better in combat and it is quite useful for both the Fighter and his allies. Change it to a 1/round free action to designate a target and it's a good feat.

Combat Focus - This feat is bad (along with most of the feats that have it as a prerequisite), but it's on the right track by giving the Fighter a bit of a magical/mystical element. Unfortunately, most of this magic was only applied to boost mundane things like resisting bull-rushes or bonuses to the Dodge feat. Combat Vigor (Fast Healing 2 or 4) is nice- nearly equivalent to a casting of a third level spell with a feat that requires you to be level 9.

Melee Weapon Mastery - Another feat with a good idea of what it is supposed to represent- the Fighter's expansive training with many different types of weapons. It's not a great feat but it at least has the right direction.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It has less to do with wanting for the feat and whether the fighter can carve a niche for him self with his 11 feats over the barbarians better skills, rage and uncanny dodge. I think the fighter can be better in general combat even if he maybe a worse character overall.

Maybe, I guess it depend on which builds each character have.

The part that makes the fighter suck is that a player might decide to specialize in kamas and nunchucks, and take TWF, and take great cleave instead of one of the narrow number of feat chains that are awesome.

Agreed, it's too easy to screw up a Fighter for it to be a good beginner's class.

It wouldn't be something immune to magic, it would be something immune to what the wizard chose as his spells, if he choose color spray and the enemies are undead, or just immune to mind influencing, or fire if the wizard started with a 5d4 burning hands.

I'd probably take Silent Image, Grease, and Color Spray at the very least. What enemy would be immune to all of those (with a CR appropriate for a level 1 party)?

Not sure if this is the right list your referencing but
Boomerang daze, knock down, vile deformity tall or long limbs, imperious command, or are there other things?

Interesting.

[Psyren]

Agreed, it's too easy to screw up a Fighter for it to be a good beginner's class.

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.


Edit:

That also assumes that the guy helping knows what's he's doing optimization-wise.

[DEMON]

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.

It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

True, but I'd argue that the fact that it's so easy to screw up so many different classes is a flaw in the system.

Plus, there are more noob friendly classes, like the ToB ones for example.

[Psyren]

True, but I'd argue that the fact that it's so easy to screw up so many different classes is a flaw in the system.

Of course it is, and that banal point (the game is flawed, zomg) has been made in threads like these repeatedly.

It's just as possible that the other players in the group are new and all of them show up with subpar characters. The optimization floor is just as low for many other characters, including spellcasters, moreso when they are then played by an inexperienced player.

When everyone is new, then optimization matters a heck of a lot less because they're likely running a module, which are undertuned anyway.

There are certainly cases where (a) everyone is new, so nobody can help the fighter player, and (b) the GM inexplicably runs something too hard. These outliers are then far more likely to become forum posts than the majority of cases that go fine, vastly overstating their frequency relative to the mean.

Plus, there are more noob friendly classes, like the ToB ones for example.

ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly. It's academic regardless, because literally no playgroup that actually goes out and buys a splat like ToB is going to consist entirely of noobs, so even if a new player is present, there's going to be experienced people to help them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly. It's academic regardless, because literally no playgroup that actually goes out and buys a splat like ToB is going to consist entirely of noobs, so even if a new player is present, there's going to be experienced people to help them.

And? I hear it's nigh impossible to screw up a Crusader.

[Psyren]

And? I hear it's nigh impossible to screw up a Crusader.

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

[Cosi]

The idea that the Fighter is a simple class is pretty obviously wrong. There are hundreds of Fighter feats, and almost all of them can be selected as any given bonus feat. Making a Fighter at all requires winnowing a combinatoric explosion of truly impressive proportions down to a single path. Making an effective Fighter is even harder, because you have to do that, and you have to know which paths are good (for example, tripping and charging) and which similar paths are not (for example, sundering and disarming). A simple class is something like a Beguiler where, with the exception of Advanced Learning, the class is almost wholly deterministic once you've started it. Barbarians are the simple martial class, at least in the PHB.

In theory, yes. In practice, this almost never comes up because the new player is going to get their character built for them anyway.

Plenty of players are going to want to build their own character, without someone else doing it for them.

Yes, 3e has a problem with class complexity. You want three kinds of classes:

1. Simple to build, simple to play. For noobs, or people who simply aren't interested in deep engagement with the mechanical parts of the game. Examples in 3e: none if you also condition on effectiveness, Barbarian, Warmage, and similar if you do not.
2. Simple to build, complex to play. For people who enjoy the tactical challenge of having a variety of abilities, but not the research required to build complicated characters. Examples in 3e: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Druid (to a degree, depends on how you count Wild Shape and Animal Companion), Cleric.
3. Complex to build, complex to play. For optimizers, or other people who enjoy exploring complex systems. Examples in 3e: Wizard, Sorcerer.

If you're attentive, you'll notice that I left out "complex to build, simple to play", but I think characters like that probably don't have much of an audience. Of course, these are all sliding scales. The Sorcerer is probably harder to build than the Wizard (because you have less resources to work with), but it's simpler to play for that exact reason. And once you have those categories, you should make sure that broad categories of character like "sword guy" and "spell guy" are represented in all of them. 3e has very few magical classes that are simple to play, and very few complex martial classes. That's bad, and its something the game should fix going forward.

Of course it is, and that banal point (the game is flawed, zomg) has been made in threads like these repeatedly.

Remember kids, if you really love something, you'll ignore all its flaws and insult anyone who acknowledges them! Fun exercise: imagine how Psyren's position sounds if you apply it to people, then die a little inside.

ToB requires knowledge of a whole new subsystem, so I don't know that I'd agree it's noob-friendly.

Wat? If you're a noob, everything is a new subsystem to you, because you don't know any subsystems. We can talk about the complexity of ToB versus the complexity of whatever else, but that's a different debate (and one that looks much worse for Fighters).

[Jormengand]

But by that logic a wizard is in the same boat. Your choices as a wizard are "cast a spell at it, or don't." And sure there are a wide variety of spells, but that still limits the interaction options.

But the wizard has multiple spells he can use on each object. The rogue has multiple skills. The fighter only has one attack worth using on a particular target. Sacrieur kinda responded far more elegantly on this point but was tactically ignored.

At tenth level, for example, a wizard knows 21+INT_AT_FIRST_LEVEL spells, not counting cantrips, at minimum. So maybe 25. He can prepare at least one copy of every single one of them. Faced with an encounter with one interactible object, he has about 15-20 different things he can do, given that some of his spells won't be relevant (Knock against a fire giant, say). Except that he doesn't, because if he knows alter self he has another choice: what creature to turn into. There's probably at least five different things that he might want to turn into. If he knows Summon Monster III, then that gives him 42 different types of creature he can summon one or more of, and potentially multiple locations he can usefully place the creature(s) in question.

A rogue, even, has the option to try to sneak around it, sneak attack it, talk to it, or run away from it, as well as possibly stealing from it or distracting it.

A fighter has a few options when faced with the fire giant: Hit it, shout at it, or run away from it. That's usually about it.

If it's a challenge you want, try playing a Truenamer.

Far easier than playing a competent fighter, still. Or maybe "Take skill focus, max truespeak, use the magic items from the same book and play some race, somewhere which buffs INT" just seems more obvious to me than to most people.

[Necroticplague]

If you're attentive, you'll notice that I left out "complex to build, simple to play", but I think characters like that probably don't have much of an audience.

I'd argue that, for the reasons you listed at the start of your post, Fighters actually do fall in this category. Setting up your 'trick(s)' requires good knowledge of what's available, and what's feasible. But, once you've selected your feats, your mostly just gonna be repeating the same stuff over and over.

[Tainted_Scholar]

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

[Florian]

Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

No, I started with with 3.5, and that was only a couple years ago (I think it was 3 years ago). 3.5 is one of the most popular editions of D&D.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And what? My post speaks for itself. ToB's noob-friendliness, if you even agree with such (not everyone would) is academic - if ToB is in play there is somebody experienced enough at that table to build a decent fighter anyway (even if they're not the one playing it.)

Why would an experienced player let a noob play a Fighter, instead of pointing them toward a better* class?

Better = Easier to build/play.

Today? Any fresh and new group will either go for 5E or PF.

When I first started playing D&D I literally Googled what the best edition was; I got 2nd and 3.5.

I decided to go with 3.5.

[Psyren]

I'd argue that, for the reasons you listed at the start of your post, Fighters actually do fall in this category. Setting up your 'trick(s)' requires good knowledge of what's available, and what's feasible. But, once you've selected your feats, your mostly just gonna be repeating the same stuff over and over.

I concur. There's very little bookkeeping involved once the feats are chosen, and very little in the way of moment-to-moment tactics. Certainly less than an initiator player has to decide, or remember.

Not necessarily, the DM may have heard that the ToB is a well designed book and included it in the first play session. Not every group is going to start with just the core books.

I'm sure, just as there is probably a group out there that combines 3e, 4e, and 5e into some unholy soup of mechanics. Are we concerned merely with what is possible (outliers) or what is probable? New groups avoiding splats - and especially THAT splat - is far more likely.

Why would an experienced player let a noob play a Fighter, instead of pointing them toward a better* class?

Better = Easier to build/play.

Because a new player doesn't have to learn the maneuvers subsystem that way.

There's also the thematic concerns (i.e. the "too anime" complaint.) Fair or not, it's a real thing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because a new player doesn't have to learn the maneuvers subsystem that way.

Maneuvers aren't that hard to learn; neither are Psionics, and the Psychic Warrior is better than the Fighter, and has only three less bonus feats.

There's also the thematic concerns (i.e. the "too anime" complaint.) Fair or not, it's a real thing.

What does that even mean? Anime is an art style, not a genre; there are anime about cooking, sports, music, and dozens of other genres.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest, I really hate the "too anime" excuse.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm sure, just as there is probably a group out there that combines 3e, 4e, and 5e into some unholy soup of mechanics. Are we concerned merely with what is possible (outliers) or what is probable? New groups avoiding splats - and especially THAT splat - is far more likely.

A. Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Allowing splats is in no way comparable to your example.

B. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Especially since 3.5 is very well known, and if someone did start playing it now days, there's actually a pretty good chance of them knowing things such as Fighter's sucking, and the ToB being very well written.

[Psyren]

Maneuvers aren't that hard to learn; neither are Psionics, and the Psychic Warrior is better than the Fighter, and has only three less bonus feats.

For us, here on this board, they're not. But there's still a reason most groups start with core and work their way up, regardless of ease.

What does that even mean? Anime is an art style, not a genre; there are anime about cooking, sports, music, and dozens of other genres.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest, I really hate the "too anime" excuse.

I can't claim to know, but clearly it is a criticism that WotC themselves have heard about ToB.

A. Thanks for strawmanning my argument. Allowing splats is in no way comparable to your example.

B. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Especially since 3.5 is very well known, and if someone did start playing it now days, there's actually a pretty good chance of them knowing things such as Fighter's sucking, and the ToB being very well written.

You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

[AnimeTheCat]

I would think that a new player wouldn't be playing in an advanced world most likely, unless the game they were playing in wasn't new player friendly. That would be a fault of the DM, not the player.

As an experienced player, I would play a fighter because I like the taste of a knight charging in to battle on his war trained steed, but I don't want to be lawful. Example of the image could be a mercenary. This isn't optimized but it's fun in the group and would be fun, easy, and simple for a new player. An experienced player could use it to play up handle animal and have an army of hunting hounds accompany the character.

Do I think other classes can do the same thing? yep. Do I think that other classes doing something that I also do makes my class invalid? nope. What's wrong with two charge focused characters, one lawful good (paladin) and the other Chaotic Neutral (fighter)? If you've got one of each of those in the party, you're probably not an overpowered party. Additionally, a human fighter can take Mounted Combat, Ride-By-Attack, and Spirited Charge all in first level which would smoke most (if not all) other characters at level 1. That's not exactly bad and I would take that over a level 1 wizard pretty much any day of the week.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

I'm not talking about while it was in vogue, I'm talking about 3.5 nowadays.

[ColorBlindNinja]

For us, here on this board, they're not. But there's still a reason most groups start with core and work their way up, regardless of ease.

- Maneuvers and Psionics are simpler than core spellcasting, new players still play Wizards, Druids and Clerics. If they can learn that system, they can manage ToB classes/Psychic Warriors.

- Core only isn't good for new players; adding more books complicates things, but at least then you can achieve a semblance of inter-class balance.

I can't claim to know, but clearly it is a criticism that WotC themselves have heard about ToB.

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.

You mean have I individually polled playgroups to find which percentage started with ToB and which didn't? No, but I can guess by the controversial reaction to ToB (including the article linked above) that adoption of it was not widespread even while 3.5 was in vogue.

Yet, for every critic of ToB you can find, there are at least as many who sing the book's praises.

How can be certain that most new groups will oppose the ToB?

[Psyren]

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.

And that's the main issue with this thread's very premise, and any discussion about Fighters and ToB - logic ultimately has very little to do with consumer preferences, so trying to argue logically that ToB is fine doesn't actually mean anything. Have you heard of the JC Penney Effect?

Yet, for every critic of ToB you can find, there are at least as many who sing the book's praises.

On a message board, maybe (and I would argue, not even then.) At actual tables? I see more instances of ToB being presumptively banned than not.

I'm not talking about while it was in vogue, I'm talking about 3.5 nowadays.

But that's even worse, what with all the books out of print. ToB is what, $70? More?

[OldTrees1]

It's still a bad argument, regardless of who says it.

You mean a badly worded argument. Clearly they do mean something when they say "too anime" and each person saying that is rather consistent in their meaning. The flaw comes from them using the wrong words. We both know that anime is either a brand of animation (the anime = japanese animation definition) or is just a word for animation (the anime = japanese for animation definition). However merely using the wrong words does not render their argument wrong, it merely makes it harder/impossible to communicate to the listener.

Those that find ToB to be too "____" do find it to be too "____" and that is an irrefutable argument. Preferences are not universal (a lesson I hope the Opening Poster has learned).