Why play a Fighter?

[Jormengand]

I've never really understood the "I can solve ANY problem" mentality the optimized wizard players have. As the bbeg, sure. He's one dude. But if you're playing d&d, you have a party, and solving every problem takes away from their fun. As a rogue heavy player, I absolutely hate the knock and find traps spells, because they make my role pointless, and I get relagated to secondary fighter.

I don't think the problem people have with the fighter is that it can't solve any problem, so much as that it can't make real plays. A fighter can be played reasonably competently by a very simple AI because it has no real options: it essentially has a suite of ways of dealing damage to things and one of those ways will generally be better than the others under the circumstances. If you're playing a fighter and you're not in combat, then anything you can't handle by climbing it, jumping on it or intimidating it isn't something you can interact with, and anything you can is something that you only have one interaction with. Ultimately, your options are, for each interactible object, "Interact with this thing in the only meaningful way possible" or "Don't". Often there are clearly better things to interact with. A fighter often has few to no viable options in any situation.

A rogue, on the other hand, has more choices. Fight this thing, move into a position where I can fight this thing better next round (because I have a class feature where flanking actually matters). Out of combat, three different ways to interact with someone by talking, steal this thing, disable this thing without anyone noticing, unlock this thing, so forth. You have meaningful and imaginative contributions to the scene, pretty much always. You can't just do everything, but you do have a lot of different things you can do.

[Jack_McSnatch]

I don't think the problem people have with the fighter is that it can't solve any problem, so much as that it can't make real plays. A fighter can be played reasonably competently by a very simple AI because it has no real options: it essentially has a suite of ways of dealing damage to things and one of those ways will generally be better than the others under the circumstances. If you're playing a fighter and you're not in combat, then anything you can't handle by climbing it, jumping on it or intimidating it isn't something you can interact with, and anything you can is something that you only have one interaction with. Ultimately, your options are, for each interactible object, "Interact with this thing in the only meaningful way possible" or "Don't". Often there are clearly better things to interact with. A fighter often has few to no viable options in any situation.

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.

[ColorBlindNinja]

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.

There are spells that can literally replace the Fighter.

[Psyren]

Those aren't the only reasons mentioned on this thread. Additionally, I understand those reasons so I wasn't focusing on them as much.

So there are reasons you understand, but you're going to keep asking anyway? I'm just trying to understand the endgame here. (If there even is one, other than the onanism that Deeds succinctly summarized.)

[Jack_McSnatch]

There are spells that can literally replace the Fighter.

And I named spells that can replace the rogue, my all time favorite class. What's your point? What's a wizard going to do in situation that requires diplomacy? He's going to cast charm because he doesn't have diplomacy. Oh but wait, you're trying to treat with the king, and his court wizard isn't a dribbling moron? I guess you get to sit down and shut up while the bard does his one job. You can't always solve a problem cause you know the spell.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And I named spells that can replace the rogue, my all time favorite class. What's your point? What's a wizard going to do in situation that requires diplomacy? He's going to cast charm because he doesn't have diplomacy. Oh but wait, you're trying to treat with the king, and his court wizard isn't a dribbling moron? I guess you get to sit down and shut up while the bard does his one job. You can't always solve a problem cause you know the spell.

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.

The real issue is that the Fighter sucks at his job: fighting.

[Tainted_Scholar]

So there are reasons you understand, but you're going to keep asking anyway? I'm just trying to understand the endgame here. (If there even is one, other than the onanism that Deeds succinctly summarized.)

I understand some of the reasons given, but other people have given reasons that I don't understand. I'm asking about the reasons I don't understand.

[Sacrieur]

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.

"By that logic" wizard is not in the same boat and I wonder how you may have drawn this conclusion.

Jormengand's argument was that faced with a particular challenge, such as a cliff, a fighter has but a single choice (or a small number). He extends this to say that for every interaction a fighter has, the number of possible actions is small. He can climb it, or perhaps use a grappling hook.

A wizard, however, often has a copious number of options at his disposal. When faced with a cliff he may levitate, teleport to the top, change into an animal with a climb speed, tunnel through the earth, fly, or summon a creature to carry him. All of these are viable options when faced with this particular scenario and isn't at all an exhaustive list.

"Cast a spell or don't" is a general statement that isn't relevant to his post at all, since casting a spell is just begging the question "which one?" leading to a multitude of options that the fighter does not have access too. Perhaps to add more insult to injury, the wizard has access to the same options as the fighter in this circumstance, and can both climb the cliff or use a grappling hook if he's feeling particularly mundane. He could even buff his strength stat to make it easier.

There isn't a single thing a fighter can do that a wizard can't do more effectively, with more options, and in a more interesting way. Even be a fighter. Further there really doesn't exist a theoretical or real obstacle that sufficiently prepared and leveled wizard can't easily overcome. And this is just on the surface before we begin optimizing using broken content like contingency. You strike me as someone who hasn't played wizard for any extensive period of time in any competent manner. Everyone telling you that wizards are gods know this because they've played it and know firsthand what kind of broken mechanics are at their disposal.

I took a level 3 wizard and created a character who could solo most encounters 5 CL higher with nothing more than a butter knife and a spellbook. It's not a joke.

[Psyren]

I understand some of the reasons given, but other people have given reasons that I don't understand. I'm asking about the reasons I don't understand.

If your goal is to understand everyone on Earth, well, good luck with that. There are going to be some people in there who play Fighter for purely incomprehensible reasons, or reasons they cannot articulate.

[Jack_McSnatch]

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.

The real issue is that the Fighter sucks at his job: fighting.

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If your goal is to understand everyone on Earth, well, good luck with that. There are going to be some people in there who play Fighter for purely incomprehensible reasons, or reasons they cannot articulate.

You don't have to be so snarky. When someone presents their opinion to me, I'm going to try and understand it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

A well built Fighter is powerless against either swarms or tall grass, depending on how he's built.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I don't see that. Sure, a badly built fighter sucks at fighting, but you could say that about any class, even the wizard. A well built fighter does exactly what he's supposed to do. Damage is damage and that's what a fighter does. Whether he's leap attacking with a greataxe, critfishing with scimitars, or making himself an impenetrable shield wall, a fighter built to do his thing does his thing well. I'd still prefer generic warrior, as I can choose my skills, and the fighter could use some fixes, but I've never found fighters perform badly in a regular game. In optimization absolutely, but optimization is a thought exercise. I have yet to find the group where playing a God wizard won't get books thrown at you, and to be honest, I don't want to. That sounds extraordinarily boring.

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

[Psyren]

You don't have to be so snarky. When someone presents their opinion to me, I'm going to try and understand it.

That doesn't change my answer. There are going to be reasons that neither you nor even I will understand, even if the quest takes up the remainder of your lifespan (which, as presented, it likely will.)

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

This goes back to the challenge point. The effort in itself can be rewarding.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This goes back to the challenge point. The effort in itself can be rewarding.

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

[Tainted_Scholar]

That doesn't change my answer. There are going to be reasons that neither you nor even I will understand, even if the quest takes up the remainder of your lifespan (which, as presented, it likely will.)

A. So what, I shouldn't even try? With that attitude humanity would still be a hunter&gatherer society.

B. I'm not asking about morality and the human condition, this is just D&D. It's not that complicated.

[Jack_McSnatch]

A well build Fighter is powerless against either swarms or tall grass, depending on how he's built.

I've never actually had any problem with swarms as a fighter, but that may be because they're so rare. Flying creatures and difficult terrain are annoying, but that's why you have other party members. People on this board often seem to forget D&D is a group effort. Sure maybe the wizard CAN solo a game, but A) who actually plays without a group? And B) That sounds dull and predictable.

[Lord Raziere]

You can, in fact, always solve your problems with spells.

Spoiler: Solving Everything With Spells

Show

I get up early when the sleeping spell wakes me
I take a wake up spell and fill with energy
I power on hard and I check my messages
But I don't have any messages
I take a driving spell and head to my car
I drive around a bit 'cause work isn't very far
I call my phone and I check my messages
But I don't have any messages

All I know is driving on enchantments feels better when they're prescription
All I know is the world looks beautiful, the world looks so damn beautiful

I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now
I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now

Work is anything but quiet these days
I try to medicate my concentration haze
I can see the day unfold in front of me
So I take the stairs and hit the gym
The phone is ringing when I get to my desk
What was a stinging's now a sharp pain in my chest
So I take a Calminex and just chill
And then it's time for lunch again

All I know is work is easy when you don't stress out about deadlines
All I know is I take my magic I always take my magic

And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now
I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now
Right now, right now, right now...

Sometimes I'd like to slow things down
And enjoy the moment
But when I look the moment's gone

Work is over but I can't stay to work late
Got to leave and get ready for my second date
With a pretty girl that I met at the pharmacy
Right in the prescription line
I take a spell for my social anxiety
I get a table and a nice bottle of chablis
Now it's getting late and there's still no sign of her
I have another glass of wine

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don't gotta share it with someone
All I know is the steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better spell

And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now
And I feel fantastic
And I never felt as good as how I do right now
Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day
When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now

[ColorBlindNinja]

I've never actually had any problem with swarms as a fighter, but that may be because they're so rare. Flying creatures and difficult terrain are annoying, but that's why you have other party members. People on this board often seem to forget D&D is a group effort. Sure maybe the wizard CAN solo a game, but A) who actually plays without a group? And B) That sounds dull and predictable.

1. The Fighter can be replaced by virtually any other martial class.

2. Some of us like playing as optimized spellcasters.

[Psyren]

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

I was expecting Commoner as the rejoinder, but Truenamer will do too. When we talk about difficulty, there's a difference between Challenging and Punishing.

Spoiler

Show

One of the elements key to that difference (discussed in the video) for challenge is the player being given all the tools they need to succeed. Fighter accomplishes that goal because everything you need to be a decent fighter, and everything a fighter needs to kill everything in the monster manual, is available through expected play. Truenamer and Commoner fail this metric because their chassis forces them to rely on greater DM assistance than the game intends you to have, breaking its own rules. In the Truenamer's case, it's because the math is so borked that you need very specific things other characters don't, like item familiars and custom amulets, to achieve basic competency, and even when you have all that, the utterances are underwhelming until the very end. For a Commoner, their chassis is so weak that you end up spending a bunch of your wealth just compensating for that (if you're going for a martial route) or you end up becoming a budget artificer and relying on far more consumables than the game expects you to have (for a pseudo-caster route.) Neither is satisfying, but without them, the game just becomes punishing rather than challenging.

[Rhyltran]

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

Can I provide my reason why I play a Monk? Sure it's not a fighter but everyone on these forums knows how bad a monk is. I get asked, "Why not play a swordsage?" which isn't very different from a fighter being asked "Why not be a Barbarian/Warblade?" Same difference. Do I have some illusion that the swordsage is beaten by the monk? Absolutely not. I know the swordsage is a better monk and can do everything the monk can but better. So why is Monk my favorite class?

Probably the same reason why Fighter is some other people's favorite class or one that they're at least willing to play. I've played many different monks, different levels of optimization, and monks that can do very different things. I've made Monk/Psionic Fist/Warshaper, I've made Monk/Fist of the Forest/Bear Warrior, and I've made drunken masters. I can keep going on but I've done it in many different ways. Some with different play styles and others that are relatively similar to each other. For me it's about the challenge (admittedly one that you admit you can understand) but it's more than that for me. I like playing in groups where, as soon as they learn I'm going monk, assume that either A) I'm new or groan thinking that I'm going to be a drag on the party. I like exceeding these people's expectations. I enjoy listening to people state "Wow. I didn't expect a monk of all things to be useful." and in some ways I think it satisfies my ego that I can take such an inferior character and do something with it.

Am I better than the party wizard? Sometimes, if it's a new player but most often times I'm not. I'm not always the strongest party member either but you know what's really fun (and sometimes hilarious)? When you speak to people outside your gaming group about your character. People who don't visit these forums, people who don't know optimization as well as some of us, people who end up surprised that your monk (you know that weak class) is on a level high enough to solo their entire party.

You know what's also fun? When you end up in a group with an open minded DM and a party of relatively inexperienced players and your monk (or in this case fighter) is literally the strongest guy at the table. Who can handle encounters better than the entire team and is looked at in awe. Once again, stroking your ego knowing that you took a worthless character and turned it into something great. You get more responses, more comments, and more compliments than if it was a wizard instead.

I play, almost exclusively, Tier 4-5 characters and not just for the ego trip but because I like taking something and pushing it. I like seeing just how far it will go. If it hits a dead end so be it. I do the same thing in Path of Exile, Diablo, Dark Souls, and other RPG's.


PS: So maybe some people just like playing with a handicap and exceeding against all expectations. See, I'm not finding the right words because I'm bad with them and ego isn't really it. I can't place the actual word I'm looking for but it's the satisfaction that you contributed meaningfully as an inferior class.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was expecting Commoner as the rejoinder, but Truenamer will do too. When we talk about difficulty, there's a difference between Challenging and Punishing.

Spoiler

Show

One of the elements key to that difference (discussed in the video) for challenge is the player being given all the tools they need to succeed. Fighter accomplishes that goal because everything you need to be a decent fighter, and everything a fighter needs to kill everything in the monster manual, is available through expected play. Truenamer and Commoner fail this metric because their chassis forces them to rely on greater DM assistance than the game intends you to have, breaking its own rules. In the Truenamer's case, it's because the math is so borked that you need very specific things other characters don't, like item familiars and custom amulets, to achieve basic competency, and even when you have all that, the utterances are underwhelming until the very end. For a Commoner, their chassis is so weak that you end up spending a bunch of your wealth just compensating for that (if you're going for a martial route) or you end up becoming a budget artificer and relying on far more consumables than the game expects you to have (for a pseudo-caster route.) Neither is satisfying, but without them, the game just becomes punishing rather than challenging.

I played a Truenamer and mostly enjoyed it.

But then again, I play old-school NES games that are way too hard and enjoy them.

Maybe I'm just weird.

[Psyren]

I played a Truenamer and mostly enjoyed it.

But then again, I play old-school NES games that are way too hard and enjoy them.

Maybe I'm just weird.

As written, with no variant rules (like item familiar) and no custom items?

A. So what, I shouldn't even try? With that attitude humanity would still be a hunter&gatherer society.

B. I'm not asking about morality and the human condition, this is just D&D. It's not that complicated.

I'm not telling you how to waste spend your time, but when this thread pops up a couple of weeks later and a few weeks after that, don't be surprised if people just start linking to their responses in the old one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

As written, with no variant rules (like item familiar) and no custom items?

I used an item familiar, but no custom items.

Edit: I started at level one, and didn't get the item familiar until level 9 or so.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not telling you how to waste spend your time, but when this thread pops up a couple of weeks later and a few weeks after that, don't be surprised if people just start linking to their responses in the old one.

I really don't care if this thread shows up again as long as I can get some answers in this one.

[Lord Raziere]

PS: So maybe some people just like playing with a handicap and exceeding against all expectations. See, I'm not finding the right words because I'm bad with them and ego isn't really it. I can't place the actual word I'm looking for but it's the satisfaction that you contributed meaningfully as an inferior class.

I can think of a few words: Elegance? Efficiency? Minimalism? Finesse? Awesome? Risk-Taking? Hardcore? Skill?

I play Deprived in Dark Souls 3, objectively worst class in that game, I still have fun and I have beaten numerous bosses with it. start out with nothing but a wooden shield, a club and loin cloth and the first boss is a giant in armor wielding a halberd who mutates into a big tentacle monster, and no he is not slow, and no your health will not survive more three hits from him if you don't dodge, and no you can't just attack him mindlessly.

[Jack_McSnatch]

It takes alot more effort to build a decent Fighter than to build a decent Wizard, or even a decent Barbarian.

Also don't see that problem. How hard is it to pick feats that let you do what you want to do? Sure there's feat taxes, but everybody has to put up with those. Are you going to tell me that blowing half your feats to make Persist a viable option isn't a feat tax? Are you going to tell me that its less difficult digging through your library for spells than it is for feats? "It's too hard" is a really weak arguement.

1. The Fighter can be replaced by virtually any other martial class.

2. Some of us like playing as optimized spellcasters.

1) but the idea can't. Not every sword wielder is a savage rage blind warrior, a mystic follower of the martial arts, or a gish. Some guys just have a sword and know how to use it.

2) Good for you? Some people like to play a fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1) but the idea can't. Not every sword wielder is a savage rage blind warrior, a mystic follower of the martial arts, or a gish. Some guys just have a sword and know how to use it.

What about Warblades?

2) Good for you? Some people like to play a fighter.

I hardly just play spellcasters.

[Lans]

Fighters can take levels in a non-fighter class, therefore they can beat a class who doesn't have to multiclass to get the ability!

I'm pretty sure taking levels in Barbarian (or whatever dip it is) doesn't prove that fighter are better.

Your missing the point, the barbarian has 1 feature that could make him better that any class can grab with a 1 level dip, and after that going barbarian is worse than going fighter. Getting better rage 9 levels later is beaten by spending a few feats to get another option like karmic strike+Combat reflexes, imperious command+Z-Fighter, or combat reflexes+standstill+reach increases.

That 1 feature is great when it works, but it is also one of the most easily negated things in the game.

He has more HD than the Fighter.

Well thats worth 1 feat, and is unlikely to matter much less than having an extra feat chain

We were comparing Barbarian 20 VS Fighter 20; I suspect the Barbarian is better.

At what? Skills? Maybe, Fighting? I don't think so, the barbarian might be better at charging, but charging is easily negated, and being in melee its better to have a good feat chain over the barbarians class features.

But the Fighter really can't do any of that very well; at least, compared to other classes that perform those roles better.

Well it was what they could fit in core. As it stands a fighter dip really helps a lot to move towards those builds, and the only class that can really do the breadth of the martial subtypess better than the fighter is the warblade, who also does the barbarians job better.

As long as there are people who insist that the Fighter is actually a good class, we will continue to correct them.

Well nobody is saying the fighter is a good class...

[Lans]

What about Warblades?

Warblades are basically fighter 2.0