Fighter Discussion

[AnimeTheCat]

Hey Playground.

I was just posting in the Christmas Tree Effect forum that was recently started and we started to get off the topic of the original OP and in to a fighter discussion. I wanted to start this thread as a place to discuss the Fighter and other classes that are commonly viewed as "Bad" but that I feel are still solid in practical play.

This thread is for:
Any class that anyone feels gets slammed too hard by the common views of the Tier system (Such as Fighter, Rogue, Etc.)
Personal views about whether these common stances on the above classes are warranted or not

This thread is NOT for:
Telling someone they are just wrong for their opinion, unless that opinion is specifically against rules that are not changed by house rules etc.
Getting upset that someone has a different opinion than you

I realize that when opinions come in to play people will get heated about their opinions being different and that's ok, but keep in mind that everyone is entitled to said opinion and that this is a place for a discussion. I will lead off with my generalistic opinion of theses classes.

I feel that the fighter is looked down upon, particularly in an optimization light. I would contest that, particularly in early levels, the fighter can stay relevant in practical play. What I mean by practical play is a group of people playing a story made by a DM or a pre-made campaign designed for levels X through X. Another example is an adventure that might have players from "new" status to "Expert" status playing in it, an adventure with challenges but doesn't break a gaming group. That's the best explanation of "Practical Play" I can give.

Some reasons for this are anecdotal as well as rules evidence. First, as I said in the other thread, a fighter can cast an unlimited number of the spell "sword". They can even cast it in an antimagic field or when dispel magic has been cast on his magic sword. Fact still remains that he can us that sword (or other weapon) regardless of the circumstances. The wizard becomes somewhat useless in these situations because wizards aren't exactly known for their combat prowess. I feel that a DM should be willing to use these resources to great effect when a party wizard is becoming "god-like". I also feel that, in a party environment, the wizard should be enabling the fighter to fight, not hoarding the fight for themselves.

This holds true with other classes too, such as the rogue and monk. Both of those classes get most, if not all, of their abilities in the absence of magic. That should be a huge deal in higher levels where dispel magic, anti-magic, etc are available to many enemies.

For arguments about Planar Binding and the like, from what I understand there is nothing to prevent an enemy magic user from banishing that bound summoned creature back to the plane from whence it came. Unless the Fighter or other martial class is an outsider they likely can't be banished. That is one small dig on the planar binding/planar ally spells that can grant a wizard or other magic user a "better" fighter and thereby making the party martial combatant irrelevant.

I realize that means "the fighter needs the wizard to be awesome but the wizard doesn't need the fighter to be awesome" is an argument, but that directly pulls away from the party and social aspects of the game. The fighter can be awesome and the wizard can be awesome if they're working together.

That's my take on the whole deal. I'm interested to hear counter points and ideas on the situation as a whole.

[Zaq]

True: The Fighter doesn't run out of sword swings.
False: The Fighter has no resources that they can run out of.

Part of the issue is that Fighters (and other martial types) run out of HP, and since nonmagical healing is nearly worthless in 3.5 (unless you use a bunch of tricks, many of which are magical, to turbocharge it, but even then you're going to be ending the adventuring day), you need magic to keep the Fighter's HP at a safe level. ("Safe" is relative, and they don't have to be at 100% capacity, but neither can HP be ignored entirely over the long term.) Maybe that's spells, maybe that's magic items (the most useful ones of which cannot be activated by pure Fighters—Healing Belts are stopgaps, but Wands of Lesser Vigor actually keep your HP good), but that's some kind of magic that the Fighter has a hard time doing alone.

At higher levels, of course, the Fighter also needs magic buffs (whether from items, allies, or both) to handle the challenges associated with high-CR encounters. They need enhanced vision modes (See Invis, True Seeing, maybe even just a way to see in magical darkness), they need enhanced mobility (usually, though not always, flight), they need some way of getting resistance or immunity to the nastiest effects on the field, and so on, none of which they can do without items and such.

I'm not sure what the main question is, really, but that should start things off?

[ComaVision]

Fighters don't really lack power so much as they lack versatility. Nobody is going to called ubercharging weak but it's likely the character isn't performing much else. Certainly, they can keep up as long as they can continue to perform their niche (colossal physical damage). Obviously, this gets difficult as things start flying, being incorporeal, or otherwise flashing the middle finger to the Fighter if he doesn't have the compensatory items.

Playing a Fighter is also very unforgiving. A Cleric can fix a bad spell list any time he prays and be a good character but a Fighter is stuck with his bonus feats regardless of how things go. This is the reason I've added a class feature to Fighters at level 3 in my games that allows them to change out their class bonus feats. I don't think this (and my other minor additions) are enough to keep the Fighter relevant above level 10 with full casters but it at least makes the Fighter a little more forgiving and versatile.

[Flickerdart]

The fighter holds up at the lower levels because the majority of enemies are "fighter," "small fighter," and "fighter with rubber forehead." As soon as enemies become "fighter with wings" or "fighter with frickin' laser beams for eyes" or "fighter with bees in his mouth so when he yells he shoots bees" the regular fighter's usefulness diminishes.

And then we come to challenges that aren't fighters - disarming traps, breaking curses, stealth, and so on. The rest of the party will frequently need to expend their own resources (for example, an extra casting of fly or invisibility) just to shepherd the fighter through a situation that his "infinite spell" doesn't apply to.

[Red Fel]

Hey Playground.

Hey AnimeTheCat.

I was just posting in the Christmas Tree Effect forum that was recently started and we started to get off the topic of the original OP and in to a fighter discussion. I wanted to start this thread as a place to discuss the Fighter and other classes that are commonly viewed as "Bad" but that I feel are still solid in practical play.

That's fine. Let me get my baseball bat, let's beat this dead horse s'more.

This thread is for:
Any class that anyone feels gets slammed too hard by the common views of the Tier system (Such as Fighter, Rogue, Etc.)

... Too hard?

Personal views about whether these common stances on the above classes are warranted or not

Oh, this will end well.

This thread is NOT for:
Telling someone they are just wrong for their opinion, unless that opinion is specifically against rules that are not changed by house rules etc.
Getting upset that someone has a different opinion than you

I realize that when opinions come in to play people will get heated about their opinions being different and that's ok, but keep in mind that everyone is entitled to said opinion and that this is a place for a discussion. I will lead off with my generalistic opinion of theses classes.

Do you really feel the need to tell people to be civil? I mean, with the exception of a few outliers, posters here are pretty chill. And as a general observation, I find that when posts open with, "Hey, don't get upset or stop fighting," the upset/fighting goes from unlikely to almost inevitable.

So, let's see if we can dodge some bullets.

I feel that the fighter is looked down upon, particularly in an optimization light. I would contest that, particularly in early levels, the fighter can stay relevant in practical play. What I mean by practical play is a group of people playing a story made by a DM or a pre-made campaign designed for levels X through X.

So, either a homemade campaign or published module? Isn't that... Every game ever?

Another example is an adventure that might have players from "new" status to "Expert" status playing in it, an adventure with challenges but doesn't break a gaming group. That's the best explanation of "Practical Play" I can give.

How are we defining "Expert" here? Because, on the one hand, a high-op player playing a Fighter in a low-op party can outshine pretty much anybody (which says more about the player than the class), while on the other a mid-op Wizard in a mid-op party can outshine everybody.

Some reasons for this are anecdotal as well as rules evidence. First, as I said in the other thread, a fighter can cast an unlimited number of the spell "sword". They can even cast it in an antimagic field or when dispel magic has been cast on his magic sword. Fact still remains that he can us that sword (or other weapon) regardless of the circumstances.

This is one of the classic observations. It's not wrong, but it's incomplete. Your Fighter can cast "sword" infinitely. That's true. But when your opponent is flying, or invisible, or incorporeal, that "spell" is as useless as the Wizard in the antimagic field.

Now, perhaps your Fighter is smart, and casts "arrow" instead. Clever. But, like the Wizard, he has only finite castings of "arrow."

Further, the game doesn't take place exclusively in antimagic fields. For every scenario in which the Wizard is rendered ineffective - say, due to an antimagic field - there are any number of scenarios that can render the Fighter ineffective. Take away his equipment. Fight a Rust Monster. Flying, incorporeal, invisible enemy. Enemy with DR or fast healing or regeneration. Skill-based encounter. And so forth.

So let's not pretend that "sword," with its infinite number of uses, is superior by merit of that alone. Useful, yes, but false equivalency is false.

The wizard becomes somewhat useless in these situations because wizards aren't exactly known for their combat prowess.

Unless the Wizard has a contingency or feat in place to avoid those things. Also, a Wizard doesn't need to be known for his combat prowess if (1) he can summon something that is, (2) he can turn into something that is, or (3) he can take control of something that is.

I feel that a DM should be willing to use these resources to great effect when a party wizard is becoming "god-like". I also feel that, in a party environment, the wizard should be enabling the fighter to fight, not hoarding the fight for themselves.

So, if a Wizard is too strong, let's create situations that make the Wizard useless? What ever happened to talking to the player?

You're right on that last point, though. A great Wizard - or any class, really - should make the team as a whole more effective, not merely dominate everything himself.

This holds true with other classes too, such as the rogue and monk. Both of those classes get most, if not all, of their abilities in the absence of magic. That should be a huge deal in higher levels where dispel magic, anti-magic, etc are available to many enemies.

It should, but for the fact that many of those abilities are, again, less than powerful. Sneak Attack fails against creatures immune to precision damage. A Monk's unarmed strikes, absent the aid of buffs or items, are woefully underwhelming at levels where antimagic fields are a thing.

"Usable in any situation" does not equate with "effective in any situation."

For arguments about Planar Binding and the like, from what I understand there is nothing to prevent an enemy magic user from banishing that bound summoned creature back to the plane from whence it came. Unless the Fighter or other martial class is an outsider they likely can't be banished. That is one small dig on the planar binding/planar ally spells that can grant a wizard or other magic user a "better" fighter and thereby making the party martial combatant irrelevant.

Valid, but that's only one tool spellcasters have to bring a champion to bear.

I realize that means "the fighter needs the wizard to be awesome but the wizard doesn't need the fighter to be awesome" is an argument, but that directly pulls away from the party and social aspects of the game. The fighter can be awesome and the wizard can be awesome if they're working together.

Agreed completely.

That's my take on the whole deal. I'm interested to hear counter points and ideas on the situation as a whole.

Short version? Despite what I've said, I like the Fighter. As a general matter, I don't like a lot of bookkeeping. Let me keep it simple. Ideally, give me a big list of passive bonuses. Fighter does that.

That said, I prefer almost any other melee class to Fighter. Barbarian does the no-bookkeeping thing better. Warblade does the awesome swordsman thing better. PsiWar gives me a Fighter but with Psionics. Even Monk, provided I can mix it up with something else, gives me more flavor. The only role Fighter has in my builds is a source of feats.

That's not to say it's a bad class. Is it objectively inferior? In many ways, yes. Is it lacking in flavor? On its face, yes. Is it objectively bad? No. It's fun. It's just not very good for what I need, generally.

[Troacctid]

The class is boring, underpowered, and poorly designed. There's not a whole lot of good things to say about it in this edition. I think the floccinaucinihilipilification it receives is well-deserved.

Easily my favorite class in 4e, though! They really spruced it up. Lots of fun to play.

[Pugwampy]

I have played DND for about 8 years most of which i DM,d and well my experience has been the opposite . I always emphasize the absolute need of a good fighter and good cleric for any starting party I DM . Wizards and even rogues are second fiddle .

The big fat barbarian with 150 hp , 20 AC and the mother of all great axes as well as all other hack slashers are the "Over powered heroes. " Its because of these muscle types that I have to double or triple any monster Hp in the Bestiary .

Arcane damage spells start falling off the radar around spell level 4 and 5 yet a warrior keeps getting more Hp more AC more magic goodies and has more attacks easily dishing out 100 damage per smack .

Arcane summons of a pure AC HP and damage can never even be even half as strong as a fighter hero of the same level . A summon with a funny trick is what beats a fighter .

Now we are left with save or suck spells which I assume is where everyone likes to talk of core uber wizards . To be honest thats still kinda 50/50 chance.

Admittedly when a DM plays a wizard or sorcerer then you see these supposed fireworks of godlike nature that everyone here seems to talk about but thats few and far between .

Your average new player freaks out at spells or plays castor type yet only plays with weapons . I do not believe its a case of over powered class but more of an over powered veteran player who can take any class and own the table .

I also think it s a case of how generous or stingy a DM is with magic goodies . A wizard does not need much equipment to thrive in stingy land , but what is he compared to a fighter who can hold more magic goodies in generous land . Item for item a fighter can carry about twice as much artifacts on his person .

This free for all do as you please game where you can expect anything from DM . What is more mathematically logical then having as much AC , HP , ATT and DAM as possible ?

When and if i ever get a chance to play , I am choosing a humble universal wizard because I dont want to stand out or make noobs feel useless .

[Goodkill]

i remember in the final boss battle in neverwinter nights 2 my main character, a wizard, was knocked unconscious after exhausting all his spells. it was up to the party dwarven fighter (Khelgar) armed with many magical items to finish the battle, and he did so.

of course pen and paper is a little different but not that different. ...

[Flickerdart]

i remember in the final boss battle in neverwinter nights 2 my main character, a wizard, was knocked unconscious after exhausting all his spells. it was up to the party dwarven fighter (Khelgar) armed with many magical items to finish the battle, and he did so.

of course pen and paper is a little different but not that different. ...

Pen and paper is completely different. The wizard in NWN2 is reduced to a blasting machine, because key tools like flight, teleportation, and any kind of subtlety are taken away from him, and replaced with stacks and stacks of mooks. In addition, the initiative system and lack of tiles makes it much harder to use BFC spells, and the ridiculous sums of gold the game throws at PCs makes it trivial to obtain godlike fighting prowess. The enemies the game sends at you are mooks of the lowest order, which pose little threat.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm just gonna roll with the punches and say that yes, my description of "practical play" was terrible, even though I tried to make it not. Oops On the other end of the spectrum, thanks for the insight.

First, Zaq:
I didn't mean to imply that the fighter doesn't have limited resources and that the wizard only has limited resources, I was just trying to highlight that a fighter has more of his most potent resource (usually) than a wizard does. In my earlier example casting "sword" is limitless, even when debuffed. I realize that HP is a factor for the fighter but, objectively, it is more so for the wizard or cleric (less on the cleric end and more on the wizard end). While it is true that the wizard should not find himself on the front lines and if he does something has gone very very wrong and it is probably very very bad, but there are also the hazards of ranged combat, similarly teleporting enemies (if the wizard is jaunting around like a horse on a pogo stick), or possibly traps that have been set up in the area as well. Wizards typically have smaller pools of health to pull from and that makes health more of a concern for them in my opinion. A single arrow can potentially deal 2 levels worth of damage in a single go to a wizard (assuming 0 con, which if you do that you're asking for trouble). That same arrow can't do the same to the fighter under most circumstances. So while health is a primary concern for the fighter, as he will be getting much of the heat, that doesn't make it not a concern for the wizard, cleric, or druid. Also, there wasn't really a question at all, this is more of a place to share views, ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc about the general topic of classes that are viewed as "bad" by a lot of people or that are just mechanically not as good due to a lack of class features or weak/poorly written class features.

Next, ComaVision:
I would like to counter the versatility thing just a little bit. The fighter can be an incredibly versatile combatant in areas other than just damage. They have the opportunity to take lots of feats that can alter how they combat (if that makes any sense). For instance, you can have a fighter that is competent in tripping, grappling, AAOing, and attacking all in one person. That's a lot of options that aren't available to just any class, especially at low levels. True they don't have versatility outside of combat, but that is a known issue with the fighter and I'll accept that. They have one of the smallest (if not the smallest) list of class skills and they get the lowest number of skill points per level, especially since fighters aren't known for their monstrous intelligence scores. While it is also true that a barbarian can, and usually does, out damage the fighter, the barbarian can't tank like a fighter since they don't get heavy armor proficiency, tower shield proficiency, and loads of feats that can be used for whatever style (or styles) of combat you want. To make up for that, barbarians get (imo) good class features and better skills. Lastly, I could be wrong here simply because I'm not a rules lawyer, but I believe you can retrain feats as a fighter, including fighter bonus feats. Granted, the feat you replace a fighter bonus feat with has to be another fighter bonus feat, but they aren't necessarily locked in to a single train and if they mess it up they're done. re-roll.

Next, Flickerdart:
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, in essence putting the fighter where they are effective without having to strain their resources too badly. Even if anti-magic or dispel magic are present, the wizard won't be flying either 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 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.

Lastly, Red Fel:
You always provide great insight. Everyone who's posted has so far. You did a great job of a capstone though. 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. I didn't mean to imply that casting "[insert weapon here]" was superior to spells, but less limited by resources which puts it in a different category of spells and, in my opinion, is ripe for augmentation via spells. I do have general magic question though, can a contingent spell work in an anti-magic field? I just don't know the answer to that simply because that situation hasn't come up in my games and I've never had a reason (until now) to search for the answer. As far as dealing with a fighter effectively, I realize there are plenty of ways to do that. Some of those ways (like the rust monster, flying/incorporeal/invisible enemy, etc) are specific to an environment though and aren't always an option or threat. As for the comment I made about the wizard becoming "god-like", I didn't mean to make it sound like the wizard was getting unfairly singled out, but more so to highlight that I think a good DM plans things to make the whole party feel useful and make the rest of the party feel like they don't rely on any one member to be effective. That can be accomplished by having certain characters fall ill, get kidnapped, etc and Shouldn't be done without talking to the player. This can be done to great effect if the person is planning on being out of town or is otherwise not available on the projected game night and keeps their character relevant to the game even without them being there. As for other classes features, I feel very similarly about them as I do about the fighter in general. They may be weaker, but their abilities have fewer resource limitations. I think that's similar to one of the arguments about why archery in D&D is, in general, weaker than melee because it is relatively safer. The list of creatures immune to sneak attack is much smaller than the list that are susceptible to it. Monk is just... well... difficult but as you said, you like your monk augmented with something else and I can't disagree with you.

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.

[Flickerdart]

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

Two things. One - this is still the wizard carrying the fighter. Two, what? Fighters using UMD? Haven't we been here already?

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

Anti-magic is not exactly common, and in the rare cases that it appears, wizards have many, many ways around this. Dispels are even more easy to avoid.

and fighters are proficient with bows so flight is a little less painful

Archery doesn't even do real damage as a primary attack mode, never mind as a backup weapon.

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 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.

Tower shields literally never make your character better.

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.

The fighter is not a team player - he has no way of helping the team, and the team is forced to help him.

The fighter can't fight in most situations - he can only fight in situations when the enemy stands next to him and allows itself to be full attacked, without full attacking back.

[ComaVision]

Next, ComaVision:
I would like to counter the versatility thing just a little bit. The fighter can be an incredibly versatile combatant in areas other than just damage. They have the opportunity to take lots of feats that can alter how they combat (if that makes any sense). For instance, you can have a fighter that is competent in tripping, grappling, AAOing, and attacking all in one person. That's a lot of options that aren't available to just any class, especially at low levels. True they don't have versatility outside of combat, but that is a known issue with the fighter and I'll accept that. They have one of the smallest (if not the smallest) list of class skills and they get the lowest number of skill points per level, especially since fighters aren't known for their monstrous intelligence scores. While it is also true that a barbarian can, and usually does, out damage the fighter, the barbarian can't tank like a fighter since they don't get heavy armor proficiency, tower shield proficiency, and loads of feats that can be used for whatever style (or styles) of combat you want. To make up for that, barbarians get (imo) good class features and better skills. Lastly, I could be wrong here simply because I'm not a rules lawyer, but I believe you can retrain feats as a fighter, including fighter bonus feats. Granted, the feat you replace a fighter bonus feat with has to be another fighter bonus feat, but they aren't necessarily locked in to a single train and if they mess it up they're done. re-roll.

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.

Firstly, locking into one set of options rather than another doesn't fix versatility. The Fighter is also pretty bad for tripping, grappling, and AoOing because it has no inherent ability to increase in size - so no increase in reach or size mods. The Psychic Warrior is immensely better than the fighter in that respect.

I don't agree with your statement that Fighters are better tanks either. Tower shields are almost always a poor choice, and heavy armor has a very small 'sweet spot'. Probably from level 3 to say level 9 or so, the standard Fighter will have more AC than the standard Barbarian by a couple points. I'd rather have the Con bonus from Rage.

Retraining is an option but it can't be done very quickly and on demand, so it doesn't help with the Fighter's versatility very much. You're mostly stuck in whatever niche you're trying to do.

The Fighter as an archetype is easily replaced by a summoned creature or animal companion. A lot of the time, it's just completely unnecessary to have a meat shield. There are a lot of situations where the Fighter is unable to fight unless he has the prerequisite magic items or spell support. Also, the Fighter isn't a team player beyond the capability to flank or the (poor) ability to crowd control. The Wizard is capable of being a force multiplier by casting spells like Haste.

The problem is that Fighter isn't the best at anything, even if you exclude tier 1 and 2 classes.

[Gnaeus]

The big fat barbarian with 150 hp , 20 AC and the mother of all great axes as well as all other hack slashers are the "Over powered heroes. " Its because of these muscle types that I have to double or triple any monster Hp in the Bestiary .

Arcane damage spells start falling off the radar around spell level 4 and 5 yet a warrior keeps getting more Hp more AC more magic goodies and has more attacks easily dishing out 100 damage per smack .

Arcane summons of a pure AC HP and damage can never even be even half as strong as a fighter hero of the same level . A summon with a funny trick is what beats a fighter .

Hardly. Maybe for a reasonably optimized fighter type compared with a caster who is specced for something else completely.

Playing through a PF adventure path currently. 13th level. We have a moderately optimized barbarian. Good Str, Power attack, sufficient rage to be raging whenever it matters, solid charge feats and rage powers that all synergize reasonably well. He can quite plausibly do 100 damage in a round or 70 on a single good crit. He probably has 20 AC and a bit over 120 hp.

I play a summon specced sorcerer. On the day before we enter a dungeon, I lesser planar bind 4 hound archons. They have AC 19 (21 vs evil) 39 hp x4=156 hp and DR 10 evil. They provide me with a constant buff (protection from evil, doesn't suck), and a constant debuff to nearby enemies (aura of menace). Their at will Aid provides a steady source of temp HP and an attack buff to the entire party. They probably will only hit once per round, so likely about 16 points of damage each when power attacking, so they probably average 48-62 damage per round. They are immune to the lightning most of my other pets use. So, defensively, they are equal to or better than the barbarian, offensively they are at least 50%, maybe better because they are less dependent on full attacking.

So round 1 of a typical combat, I will cast a level 6 summon. Lets say an evolved, augmented Kirin. He has 103 HP, DR 5 evil, Diehard and another pile of immunities. He has fly 120, so way better at getting to and engaging hard to reach enemies. His damage is also pretty bad, likely only another 12 points per round, + bleed from his evolution, but he can reliably do about 20 points of fire or electricity if he chooses. He lasts for 14 rounds, so when the fight ends, he will start burning spells for cures on the Archons or other party members. He is my utility/meat shield.

Round 2 of combat I drop back to SM 5. Thats a Bralani Azata. Another 80 HP. DR 10, Diehard and another big chunk of immunities, including at will mirror image. The Azatas can also average a little more than 12 hp/ round + bleed with their weapons. But they can alternate their physical attacks with 21 point lightning bolts (hey, my other guys are immune!), 20 point cure serious wounds, or blurs on the front liners.

So, if I spend the first 2 rounds of every combat using one 6 and one 5th level spell, which I can easily do 6 fights per day, I can pretty much equal the barbarians damage output. (and the familiar also adds damage, see below). My summons have about 3 times his HP, DR, SR, and resistances, and come complete with their own heals, (HP, but also lesser restoration and break enchantment). They control the battlefield better than he does. I can swap the Kirin (meat shield/caster) for a lillend (essentially a bard), or a legion archon (better damage, align weapon, versatile weapon), or a Vulpinal (if I need Charm monster, remove disease, or dispel evil).

After round 2, I can pretty much do whatever I want. Cast haste on my minions to double their damage output. Blast for damage.Cloudkill. Slow. Pull out my comfy chair and sit in the instant fortress making tea.

I also think it s a case of how generous or stingy a DM is with magic goodies . A wizard does not need much equipment to thrive in stingy land , but what is he compared to a fighter who can hold more magic goodies in generous land . Item for item a fighter can carry about twice as much artifacts on his person .

Actually, it is very much the opposite. We can both carry the same, because bags of holding and haversacks are the same, but the caster type can make the goodies he needs, rather than relying on DM generosity, and the more generous the DM is, the more the gap widens. My sorcerer above has one crafting feat (craft wondrous). But with his familiar, he can use twice as many items. His most recent item creation was an instant fortress. Now in any fight that occurs with more than 30 feet headroom, my familiar does battlefield control and damage by dropping towers on the enemy. 10d6 Dc19 ref for half in a 15x15 square + blocking off a big chunk of the battlefield. Can a fighter do that? Yes. But can he make the item? no. Can he afford the item along with his WBL gear? no. Can he do that while he is fighting? no. Does he even have the UMD chops to use wands as well as my sorcs familiar? Pretty unlikely. I can use granted wealth and items at least twice as well as the beatstick. Oh, the familiar also has a wand of lightning bolts, so he can also just casually do another 20 damage or so, right through the Kirin and the Hound Archons.

And when all is said and done, while my minions are equalling his damage, locking down the battlefield, providing more consistent and varied healing than our party's druid, I still have all the utility of a caster. Dimension Door. Teleport. Contingency. Permanency. Greater Invisibility. Greater Dispel Magic. Item creation. 30 charisma so I can diplomance like a boss.

And this is an odd (read weak) level for me. Level 14, he gets +1 bab and a rage power. I get full planar binding and Summon Monster 7, for Shedus and Movanic Devas and gargantuan Celestial Rocs with +31 grapple.

[Liquor Box]

Most discussions of the fighter being low tier assumes that we are talking about high level play. At very low level play the fighter exceeds the wizard both in terms of versatility and fighting ability. Versatility because a fighter is more likely to be able to survive adverse events that are not a fight such as a fall (unless the wizard happens to have spent one of his very limited spell slots on featherfall) or a trap, simply by virtue of having more HP.

The other assumption that gets made when giving the wizard a higher tier is that the wizard will happen to have the appropriate spell available. Sometimes the wizard may be able to divine what challenges will be faced and prepare approrpriate spells, sometimes he will not. For example, one of JaronK's examples is an army approaching the city and about to arrive in a week - which gives the wizard plenty of time to memorise and utilise appropriate spells in preparation, such as creating city walls with wall of force type spells. However, if the army were to arrive that afternoon and the wizard had to rely on spells already memorised he would be far less effective. The fighter is similarly prepared for most scenarios at all times.

Flickerdart said:

Spoiler: Minimised

Show

The fighter holds up at the lower levels because the majority of enemies are "fighter," "small fighter," and "fighter with rubber forehead." As soon as enemies become "fighter with wings" or "fighter with frickin' laser beams for eyes" or "fighter with bees in his mouth so when he yells he shoots bees" the regular fighter's usefulness diminishes.

I don;t think that;s right. There are plenty of magical enemies at low levels, and the low levle fighter is more effectve against them than the low level wizard is. A lvl 3 fighter is more effecive than his lvl 3 wizard party member against the baddy lvl 5 wizard.

Flickerdart said:

Spoiler: Minimised

Show

And then we come to challenges that aren't fighters - disarming traps, breaking curses, stealth, and so on. The rest of the party will frequently need to expend their own resources (for example, an extra casting of fly or invisibility) just to shepherd the fighter through a situation that his "infinite spell" doesn't apply to.

Likewise the wizard generally needs a martial type character to prevent enemies from targeting them directly. So the fighter is expending its resources on behalf ot eh wizard. Of course wizards may be able to get around this (by summoning for example), but fitghjers can get around some of their limitations too (by a ring of invis for example).

[Darth Ultron]

The big thing to keep in mind is that it depends on the play style. And everyone of ''play style A'' will say the same things about fighters, as you can see in countless discussions. Of course, when you don't do ''play style A'' a person thinks differently, but most people stick to ''A''.

So step back and look at your play style. Especially single out and look at anything you say you ''must'' or ''must not'' have in a game for you to play it. Also pay attention to anything you think of automatic. Make a list. That is your play style.

I don't have any problems with fighters in my gaming style, for example. And I know my style does not agree with like 75% of the posters here(source: see any thread that I post in).

[Gnaeus]

Most discussions of the fighter being low tier assumes that we are talking about high level play. At very low level play the fighter exceeds the wizard both in terms of versatility and fighting ability.

Not really. At level 1 my sorcerer could already spam color spray, giving him a better than average chance against enemies of up to 4 HD. (A 4 HD enemy will own any level 1 fighter, do the math). 5 of those a day is way better than a fighter is likely to do. His intimidate and diplomacy were already sick. Daze gave a free way to trade rounds with characters up to 4 HD to lock them down and let the team beat on them unopposed. And his bloodline powers gave a nice, reliable source of touch damage.

Thats a sorcerer vs a wizard of course, and PF, because its mostly what I play. But the wizard gets other utility, like knowledges. And his own awesome tricks. And if you want to insist on 3.5, let me introduce you to the big bag of broken that is Abrupt Jaunt, which actually makes it pretty likely that a level 1 wizard can beat a level 1 fighter at point blank range.

[Pugwampy]

Probably from level 3 to say level 9 or so, the standard Fighter will have more AC than the standard Barbarian by a couple points. I'd rather have the Con bonus from Rage.

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 .

[ComaVision]

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 .

OK, I'll bite, what are Fighters the best at?

[Gnaeus]

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 .

Then feel free to question the game itself. There is pretty much no question but that by level 7, a polymorphed wizard with abrupt jaunt is going to be better in melee than a fighter, a DMM cleric with persisted buffs is going to be better in melee than a fighter, and a wildshaped druid with a bunch of all day buffs and his animal companion sharing all those buffs is going to be better in melee than a fighter. Now, the exact point at which that happens will vary by build. But there really isn't any question that the fighter isn't going to be supreme at fighting over Tier 1s who chose to melee spec after about level 6, and some of them can beat the fighter starting at level 1. Not that melee speccing is the best thing a tier 1 can do. It isn't. But if you told me my primary role in a party was going to be making melee attack rolls and tanking, I would still prefer a well built wizard, cleric, or druid to an equivalently optimized fighter for that role.

Now, PF likes niche protection more than 3.5, so that makes it a little bit better for the poor fighter. But by 10 or so, depending on class and build, most casters can trivially obtain minions who fight as well as or better than the fighter, while still bringing a lot more to the table in and out of combat themselves.

[Extra Anchovies]

The issue with the Fighter is that its theme is "fights well", full stop. The other martial classes all have something else to them - Brawler fights well with their fists, Barbarian fights well by getting angry, Slayer fights well by using their smarts, Medium (via Champion spirit) fights well by using the occult, and so on. Because they're somewhat specialized, those classes all ended up with other things to support their specialization - Brawlers get flurry and maneuver bonuses, Barbarians get damage reduction and rage powers, Slayers get sneak attack and better skills, Mediums get a bit of spellcasting and can switch to a different spirit if they won't be fighting that day, etc.

The Fighter, though, doesn't have any of that sort of thing. They're generically good at combat, and there isn't much that can support that open-ended theme beyond feats and +numbers. My personal recommendation for people who want a character whose central trait is that they're skilled at fighting in general is to play a Slayer or Brawler, because they're both fairly customizable via Slayer Talents and the Brawler's bonus feats, and they have more options and interesting abilities than the Fighter both in and out of combat.

[Troacctid]

Fighters definitely aren't the best at anything. There's nothing they can do that druids and clerics don't do better.

[Deadline]

Fighters definitely aren't the best at anything. There's nothing they can do that druids and clerics don't do better.

They can be pretty hard to screw up and make completely ineffective at low levels. They can deal damage pretty effectively. And they can do the job of "not die, hit other things and make them die" decently enough (again, at low levels). Beyond that, they need serious magical support (spells or items) to continue to do that decently.

They are not completely ineffective in most games, but I don't think anyone has said they were. Not even the Tier system.

That said, yeah, there are tons of ways to make a better fighter than actually using the Fighter class.

[Pugwampy]

Butt Kickers are very very satisfying to play .

Spell Chuckers will never know the awesome feeling of doing a once in a blue moon 3X critical damage or the cheap thrill of rolling the dreaded critical fail that could destroy your weapon .


I am sure its all well and good after 20 years of gaming that Wizard God King players have an answer to everything and anything a DM tosses their way . I kinda feel sorry for you , you sound very bored .
Have you considered the challenge of playing a weaker then a lamb useless Butt Kicker ?

[Troacctid]

Butt Kickers are very very satisfying to play .

Spell Chuckers will never know the awesome feeling of doing a once in a blue moon 3X critical damage or the cheap thrill of rolling the dreaded critical fail that could destroy your weapon .

I mean, you know, unless you're playing a cleric. Or a duskblade. Or honestly, even a warlock; Strength-locks hit harder than fighters.

[AnimeTheCat]

I know I keep bringing it up, but what about when anti-magic and dispelling and counterspelling come in to play for all of this? The fact still remains that even without the buffs a fighter gets his feats, BAB, and Fort save, the Barbarian still gets his rage, class abilities, and saves, the rogue still gets his sneak attack, class abilities, and saves, etc. For planar bound allies/minions you can banish them. For DMM buffs, you can dispel them or suppress them. You can't suppress BAB. You can drop the strength of the target, but to my knowledge you can't damage BAB (I'm sure there's a spell that can though).

What I'm trying to get at is that even in these situations where all of the magic is removed from one cause or another a fighter can still fight. I know my opinion is jaded and biased a bit, but I feel that combating the spells themselves can actually mess up a primary spell caster's day where as it can serve as just a speed bump for the non-magic based classes. I also feel that there needs to be a balance when playing with those non-magic based classes simply so that the fighter still gets to fight. In the games I have played in (and consequently have run) I find ways to challenge the primary magic users while simultaneously challenging the non-spell casters. The answer to every question doesn't have to be "The wizard casts X spell". When I've played wizards, I keep utility scrolls for just in case events, like the rogue just got teleported away by triggering a teleportation trap, we don't have a trap finder now. Good thing I've got this scroll of Detect Traps. Never once did I think "Hmph, I'm just gonna use this and make the rogue feel useless". That's what a lot of you are making it sound like. I realize that you (hopefully) don't mean to and that may not even be what you're implying, but it does come across that way.

Fighters aren't the best at any one thing, but they have the capacity to do A lot of things. True, once you've built in to something you are kind of locked. True it takes time and money to retrain, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. There is downtime in every game. If the fighter needs to respect to fill a vacant need that the wizard/druid/cleric doesn't want to/can't fill what's to stop the fighter from doing that? Better, why Should you stop the fighter from doing that? Does the wizard Need to use planar binding, or is the fighter doing just fine? I haven't played a single game where the fighter was the reason the party had to stop for the day. I've played many a game where the wizard was crying for the party to stop so he could fix his spells that day because they got a tip from a random inn keeper that there was X kind of creature in the forest and he wasn't set up for that, even though we had just gotten all of our gear on and we were about to set off. If the fighter can swing his sword or shoot his bow, he'll be fine.

[Deadline]

Have you considered the challenge of playing a weaker then a lamb useless Butt Kicker ?

Sure, I've played a Warmage or two in my time.

In all seriousness, Fighters have a hard time laying claim to that title after level 6 or so. I've still played and enjoyed them past that point, but my enjoyment of playing a sub-par option doesn't somehow alter the reality of it being a sub-par option. It also doesn't mean that the sub-par option can't be a contributing member of the party. But as others have mentioned, it requires party resources to really thrive in its role at mid-high levels.

If you want to know what a party resource hog the Fighter can be (just to make it effective at what it does), try playing the party cleric (as a healbot) sometime.

[Gnaeus]

Yes, a fighter can often contribute competently in a party at low-mid op play. It is better to have a fighter than an empty slot. They sometimes make good buff targets.

But that role can be filled better by dozens of other classes in 3.5 or PF. The fighter just brings less to the table than the warblade, for example. He needs more support to do his job and cover the many weaknesses intrinsic to the class.

As was said above, it isn't useless. In many games, you could fill the slots with any 4 characters and you could do fine. But fighter is absolutely worse at its niche than most other classes for much of the game.

The real problem for me is predictability. I don't really care that fighter is worse at fighting than druid. There is a place for everyone at the table. But it hurts my character image when my guy, who in my brain is bad ass super warrior, is outperformed by the druid's pet, and in 3.5 that is totally a thing that can happen. Or the cleric just casts a bunch of spells that last all day and turns into a 10 foot tall killing machine that also gets all these other awesome powers. A FIGHTER should be best at FIGHTING. Thats what it is billed as. It just....isn't. Thats a big part of why a lot of people like Tome of Battle/Path of War.

Dispelling is a thing, yes. But the people who can do dispelling are, almost entirely, casters. And casters are way better at killing casters than fighters are. It is really hard for a fighter to make a pre-buffed wizard stand still and die.

AMF's are a little bit more problematic, until you realize that there are a lot of spells that just bypass them. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)Odds are pretty good that the wizard can simply fall back on orb spells or other tricks to kill the AMF generator, while the fighter is at least as hampered as they are because all his buffs and magic gear deactivate the moment he steps up to the plate. The druid's pet can still eat face. The cleric's created undead are unaffected. My summoner sorcerer, for example, can simply cast a Wall of Stone (an instantaneous conjuration) around the AMF user, which blocks the emanation, allowing him to teleport away, or kill all the AMF user's allies then group assault Mr. AMF. It blocks summoned creatures, but not called ones, so my planar allies can walk right in and kick your ass. I can summon bralanis to fly around and shoot you with their bows. There are lots of ways around it.

[Deadline]

I know I keep bringing it up, but what about when anti-magic and dispelling and counterspelling come in to play for all of this? The fact still remains that even without the buffs a fighter gets his feats, BAB, and Fort save, the Barbarian still gets his rage, class abilities, and saves, the rogue still gets his sneak attack, class abilities, and saves, etc. For planar bound allies/minions you can banish them. For DMM buffs, you can dispel them or suppress them. You can't suppress BAB. You can drop the strength of the target, but to my knowledge you can't damage BAB (I'm sure there's a spell that can though).

Well, at higher levels most things are capable of flight, or are incorporeal, or have DR, or are invisible, or have any number of special defenses. How does your Fighter deal with that without his magic toys? At that point there's really not much the Fighter can do. Again, being able to swing a sword well is only valuable when it is applicable, otherwise it's as equally useful as a buff spell that gets dispelled.

And you keep talking about anti-magic fields as if they are monolithic things that encompass the entire party. Barring DM fiat, that isn't the case, unless I've missed something (likely). Most things capable of flight or spellcasting will just stay out of the AM zone, and fling damage in (most damaging conjuration spells work just fine when thrown into an AM).

At mid-high levels, you have two challenges to each fight. You have to defeat the enemy (usually by killing it), and you have to be able to get to the enemy. For the Fighter to do this, you either have the party stack him with buffs so he can participate, have the fighter drape himself in items that do it, or you have the GM force encounters to be applicable to the fighter. At low levels this is easy, because the fighter can get to the enemy. At higher levels, there are many foes he just can't without assistance. If the monsters don't go stand next to the fighter, his "infinite sword spell" is infinitely useless. The GM can help mitigate that by either not using the abilities of higher level monsters, or using high level "bruiser" monsters and having them engage the fighter in melee. Meanwhile, most other classes have options baked in that let them get to the monster.

The GM cooperation thing is even more prevalent when discussing a Fighter's ability to "tank". Unless the GM cooperates and has his monsters go up to the fighter and attack him, the Fighter can't "tank" at all. There are remarkably few ways to force or encourage enemies to attack you, and being a Fighter is not one of those ways. Also, all of the best ways to mitigate damage require magic.

[Darth Ultron]

I know I keep bringing it up, but what about when anti-magic and dispelling and counterspelling come in to play for all of this?

This is a good example of something from ''Play Style A'' : They don't use much anti-magic, dispelling and counterspelling. The use of such things ''makes a magic using characters useless'', and a big part of Style A is for a player to never be made to have any bad feelings, and ''making their character useless'' defiantly applies.

Just picture the player that spent a lot of time making a hard core mechanical roll playing magic using character. They expect to use their character all the time during the game. And, when the DM agrees with that playstlye, you get things like all most no anti magic.

[Troacctid]

I know I keep bringing it up, but what about when anti-magic and dispelling and counterspelling come in to play for all of this? The fact still remains that even without the buffs a fighter gets his feats, BAB, and Fort save, the Barbarian still gets his rage, class abilities, and saves, the rogue still gets his sneak attack, class abilities, and saves, etc.

You know what other class is unaffected by dead magic zones? Commoner. Doesn't mean it's not underpowered.