# A Fighters skill points....



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 12, 2003)

....is it just me or does anyone agree that fighters get shafted when it comes to skill points? To me the Fighter is suppossed to be one of the most diversified classes. Other than feats what else does he get thats so overwelming?

Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at  11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.

DA


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2003)

Fighters are fine for skill points, they do get more then enough feats so they can afford to spend some on Alertness and those type of feats.  I think fighters are fine at all levels of play.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 12, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> ....is it just me or does anyone agree that fighters get shafted when it comes to skill points? To me the Fighter is suppossed to be one of the most diversified classes. Other than feats what else does he get thats so overwelming?
> 
> Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at  11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.
> 
> DA




I'll agree with the weaker class at high level assessment. But 2 sp/level is fine for them. Fighters get few skill points precisely so that they need to depend on skilled companions. D&D--a party-based game--has many such features and even mechanics that are designed to make it a good idea to form a party.

-z


----------



## marshaldwm (Sep 12, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at  11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.
> 
> DA




Well, the fighter would not look so bad, if it were not for all the insane prestige classes out there, of which there are a lot. But I agree a straight fighter of more than 8th level or so is a waste, you can do much better with multiclassing or finding a prestige class.

I would like to see fighters get some kind of special abilities like rogues, at 10th, 13th etc, but more martial. Those would make it far more interesting.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 12, 2003)

I think there are some interrelated issues.

2 skill points per level for fighters is fine when we are talking core PHB classes.  But a lot of PrCs have 4 and/or a better skill list.  That cuts against PrCs being functionally "more focused" than the core classes.

I think it would be better to have 4 skill points per level be the minimum for PHB classes.  That gives wiggle room to design PrCs classes that are not inherently more skillful and flexible than the fighter.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 12, 2003)

The Fighter's Skill Points are a slap in the face.

The Fighter's Skill List is a slap in the face too.

First of all, you notice how there are about a million semi-official "Fighter Variants" who all have slightly different skill lists? They are duelists, corsaires, and all kinds of crazy crap. And they all have different skill lists, and none of them are unbalanced.

These aren't printed on a cocktail napkin - these are suggested in Sword and Fist and Dragon Magazine. If you use all of them, a Fighter could potentially spend their skills on pretty much anything they want.

Want Tumble and Diplomacy? Be a Duelist. Want Knowledge Arcana and Listen? Be a Warrior Monk. Etc.

And this is balanced. And it _isn't any different_ from Fighters just having a whole lot of skills on their skill list. 

Therefore, since we notice that as soon as you get high enough level for your class to be more important than your starting attributes, Fighters are underpowered - that it is probably a good idea to simply give them a lot of extra skills on their class list.

Remember: it's not any different to have a single class of "Fighter" that has access to all the class skills that a Desert Raider, a Pirate, a Duelist, a Bushi, and a Knight would want than to have a seperate class skill kit for each archetype. Except of course, that it's a lot easier to keep track of if there's only one big list than it is if everyone is trying to cherry pick from 12 small lists.

Speaking of jacking the woefully underprepared Fighter up to a level of normalcy - can anyone think of a really _good_ reason why Fighters would only have 2 skill points?

It's not just for stupid brutes, it's also for Generals, Cattle Raiders, Knights, and Zulu Shieldsmen. In order to make a lot of those archetypes work, you really are going to need 4 skills or more. Now, to an extent you can match that by getting an Int bonus - but if you start at 6 you can make your stupid brute character with an Int _penalty_.

I shouldn't _need_ to be more than averagly intelligent to play Pirate. In fact, I should be able to be a "stupid pirate" - and still have:

Profession Sailor
Spot
Swim
Climb

That's just the guy who hangs out on the crow's nest and shouts a lot. This should be doable as a human with an intelligence of 8.

And if the base skill points are 4 instead of 2 we can do that. Otherwise we can't.

Now above and beyond _that_, we still need some bonuses to make Fighter an attractive option past level 2, but that's a whole different problem that can't be solved with skill points at all.

-Frank


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 12, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I'll agree with the weaker class at high level assessment. But 2 sp/level is fine for them. Fighters get few skill points precisely so that they need to depend on skilled companions. D&D--a party-based game--has many such features and even mechanics that are designed to make it a good idea to form a party.



I don't agree with that argument.

And ALL classes should get 2 more skill points per level, as many people have made that change.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2003)

A pirate wouldn't be a fighter.  But even if it is you can easily start out with 3 skill ranks in each of those four skills, and with a slightly above average Int or even playing a human one gets even more skill points.  I think many people try to make the fighter into something it isn't.  Also, most first level characters are not the hardened proffesions people like to think.  They are the beginners, not the generals.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 12, 2003)

FrankTrollman, are you saying that _all classes_ should get more skill points, or that other classes are fine, but the fighter should be bumped up to four?

If the first, I can see it working.  It would allow all the classes to be a little bit more skillful.

If the second, I must disagree.  Fighters aren't Jacks-of-all-Trades.  They are the mercenaries, the prize-fighters, the warriors.  They _aren't_ the Generals (a general would probably have levels of Expert or Aristocrat, pumping those skill points into Knowledge (Siegecraft), Knowledge (Warfare) and others).  They're the soldiers, plain and simple.

To say that a fighter--who should be spending most of his time practicing his swordsmanship, axe-throwing, etc--should have more base skill points than the wizard whose focus is studying, is, IMHO, outlandish.

The fighter is fine with 2 points.


----------



## hong (Sep 12, 2003)

I've just bumped fighters up to 4 skill points in my campaign. With all the other tweaks I've made, this means every class now gets a minimum of 4 points per level. We'll see how this plays out.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 12, 2003)

*re*

I think fighters should receive more skill points and a more versatile skill selection so they can better fill their intended role as professional fighting men or women. A professional fighter should not be just good with weapons, but also be able to pick up on threats and infiltrate with rogues. Currently the fighter is nothing more than an expert with weapons good for melee combat only. The role is too narrow which makes them an unattractive class for all but the most combat oriented campaigns.


----------



## Dirigible (Sep 12, 2003)

> That's just the guy who hangs out on the crow's nest and shouts a lot. This should be doable as a human with an intelligence of 8.




Firstly, an NPC pirate would be a Warrior. A PC pirate would probably be a Rogue/Fighter.

In any case - human fighter, 8 int : 2 sp/level. At 1st level, 8 sp.
Now watch this. This is the clever part.

Profession Sailor   2 ranks
Spot   2 ranks
Swim   2 ranks
Climb   2 ranks

*gasp*

Oh. It seems crothian already made my point for me. How kind.



> but also be able to pick up on threats and infiltrate with rogues.



Pick up on threats? Anyone with a Wis of 6+ can do that.
Infiltrate? Uh. If you're inflitrating Jangling Hitor, City of a Million Clinky Metal Chains, sure.

If it's Midnight we're talking about, though (and we're not), then yes, Fighters need +2 skill points jsut to keep up with the gorssly overskilled variant classes for that setting.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 12, 2003)

This is an amazing thing. I posted this topic on several forums. Some agree more skill for a Fighter would be great and some dont. However, the majority all agree that the Fighter becomes weak at higher levels aka after 10th level. Most people preffer to just multi-class. I think there should be a reason for fighters to be "wanted" at higher levels like a wizard or a monk, or a Barbarian. Also the book states, the Fighter class, is suppossed to be a class that can be involed into a archer, cavalier, so forth and so on.

1st) I think an extra feat at 11th level makes sense, and it does not remotley unbalance this class vs other classes. Infact, this little feat offers a reason for some one to stay a fighter vs jumping off to a multi-class. 

2nd) Speaking of feats, I made a list of new feats (recently tested and will be posted soon) that give fighters another reason to remain a fighter. They are balanced and I will soon post them.

3rd) I like the idea of all classes having a minimum of 4 skill points but the core skills unchanged. Even if just the "Fighter" class was given 4 skill points no extra core skills, I cant see how its unbalancing. How many fighters (not mult-classing) have great or even avg int? A few Im sure but not a whole lot.

DA


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 12, 2003)

*re*



			
				Dirigible said:
			
		

> Pick up on threats? Anyone with a Wis of 6+ can do that.
> Infiltrate? Uh. If you're inflitrating Jangling Hitor, City of a Million Clinky Metal Chains, sure.
> 
> If it's Midnight we're talking about, though (and we're not), then yes, Fighters need +2 skill points jsut to keep up with the gorssly overskilled variant classes for that setting.




How do you figure anyone with a 6+ Wisdom can pick up on threats? I'm not talking about a giant walking up and attacking, I'm talking about stalking animals or some kind of concealed threat. I would like to see a fighter receive the Spot and Listen skill as class skills.

How many times can you read about a badass fighter in a book with hawklike senses and a multitude of skills, then try to play one and you end up with a Ranger 9 times out of 10 because a regular fighter has neither the skill points nor class skills to be anything other than Joe Combat.


----------



## Belbarrus (Sep 12, 2003)

I thought of a similiar problem: that classes just didnt get enough skill points. I mean, once a Sorcerer, with their 2 SPs per level, takes Spellcraft and Concentration, their Skill Points are used up. As a result, no one was ever taking Knowledge, Profession, Crafting, or similar skills. I wanted a way to give everyone a Skill Point boost. 

So I devised "Hobby Skills". Each character gets to select 3 skills from a list of skills that they would be considered to be pursuing as a "hobby". Skills like Decipher Script, climbing, jumping, swimming, survival, knowledge, profession and craft skills. So, no, you could not take Concentration, Bluff or Tumble as a "hobby". 

Hobby Skills progress at maximum gain and are considered Class skills. So, whenever your character gains a level, your hobby skills all go up 1 point (e.g. a 4th level Fighter/3 level Rogue would have 3 Hobby skills at 10 ranks each).

My group and I have been using this house rule for about 1 1/2 years and we find that it works out great.

B


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2003)

First off it's a game not a book.  It's amazing how well rounded and perfect a character I can write up for a story, but games rules wise they usually end up being epic or near there.  Second, multi class!!  It's what that feature is for.


----------



## bensei (Sep 12, 2003)

The fighter class is a multiclassing class (a lot of classes here   ). You want combat feats and a high BAB? Gets some levels a fighter (if you can without XP-penalty).
Up to 10th level it is nice to be single classes fighter due to interesting feat chains and feat combinations. Cleave, Combat reflexes, etc. also keep fighters powerful and fun to play (in combat at least). One the nice feats are there, the fighter suddenly becomes less interesting. Unlike casters or rogues.
In 3.5 fighters have been provided with more feats to choose from then, but to be serious, greater weapon specialization is just boring. If there were nice new maneuvers or features (like the improved precise shot for archers), the fighter class would be very interesting for single classing also at higher levels (also melee, which are the most fighters).


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 12, 2003)

Ask and you shall recieve. These are feats aimed primarily for the Fighter class. Some are repetative Im sure but, they add a reason to continue as a Fighter. all feats have been play tested and thus far no one had found them unbalanced at all. 

New Feats:

Armor Focus [General]
You have learned the effects of wearing armor effectively and can maximize the armor’s benefits to angel off potential harmful blows. Choose one type of armor light, medium or heavy armor for this feat.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with the armor of your choosing.
Benefit: Your AC improves by one when wearing this type of armor.
Special: A Barbarian in a rage cannot use this feat. A Fighter may select this feat as one of the fighter Bonus feats.

Armor Specialization [General]
Your ability to maximize your armor’s benefits has increased to a master’s level.
Prerequisite: Armor Focus with selected armor type.
Benefit: When wearing armor you gain an additional +1 to your AC and a +1 benefit to your armor check modifier.
Special: A Barbarian in a rage cannot use this feat. A Fighter may select this feat as one of the fighter Bonus feats.

Combat Discipline [General]
You are skilled at maneuvering out of harms way against specialized melee attacks.
Prerequisite: Str 13, +4 base attack bonus.
Benefit: You gain a +4 to your opposed roll to resist against Disarms, Sunder and Trip attempts made against you.
Special: A Fighter may select this feat as one of the fighter Bonus feats.

Defensive Nature [General]
Your ability to move out of harms way has been greatly enhanced by your tactical skills.
Prerequisite: Dex 12, Wis 12, +4 base attack bonus.
Benefit: When wearing light armor or none at all, you may add your wisdom modifier to your armor class. 
Special: Something that makes you lose your dexterity modifier also makes you lose this bonus as well. If a character has a similar ability to add wisdom to his armor class, this bonus does not stack. Fighter may select this feat as one of the fighter Bonus feats.

Improved Parry [General]
You are adept at deflecting and countering attacks.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: When using “All out Defense” (described in the Player’s Handbook Combat section) you gain an additional +1 to your AC and if a opponents attack misses you by 10 or more points you may get one single counter attack at full attack bonus. You can only counter attack once per round.
Special: You must be wielding a shield or a weapon in order to use this feat. A Fighter may select this feat as one of fighter Bonus feats.

Weapon Mastery [General]
Choose one type of weapon (such as a long Sword), for which you have already selected for Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus,Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with the chosen weapon, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, 12th Level Fighter.
Benefit: +1 bonus to attack rolls and +1 critical hit multiplier. Normal critical hit rules still apply.
Special: Do to the hardship of learning this degree of mastery you may only gain this feat one time, with one weapon. A Fighter may select this feat as one of fighter Bonus feats.

Shield Focus [General]
You are adept at shielding against attacks.
Prerequisite: Proficiency in the shield you are using. 
Benefit: When using a shield you gain an additional +1 bonus to your AC. You may also use this AC bonus as a +1 attack roll bonus if using the “two-weapon style” in a round.
Special: A Barbarian in a rage cannot use this feat. A Fighter may select this feat as one of fighter Bonus feats.


Shield Specialization [General]
You are adept at shielding against attacks masterfully.
Prerequisite: Proficiency in the shield you are using and Shield Focus. 
Benefit: When using a shield you gain an additional +1 to your AC as well as a +1 benefit to your armor check modifier.
Special: A Barbarian in a rage cannot use this feat. A Fighter may select this feat as one of fighter Bonus feats.

DA


----------



## bensei (Sep 12, 2003)

Where are these feats from?
Are they in the class books?
Are they homebrew?

If they are not core, this is what I meant. You can make the fighter class interesting up to level 20 single classing, if you add some interesting high end combat feats. Actually, more meneuvers would be nice, also, and/or continuing feat chains, as it is done partly in the class books.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 12, 2003)

All of them are made by myself with a reference to the old "Combat and Tactics" book. I have seen a dozen or so similiar feats but these are balanced.

DA


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 12, 2003)

Just a soldier?

Excuse me, what's the "Warrior" class for if not for people who are just soldiers and nothing more?

A Fighter is, according to the PHB:

The questing Knight
The conquering Overlord
The elite foot Soldier
the hardened Mercenary
The Bandit king

According to Sword and Fist (page 53), Fighters also include:

Duelists
Gladiators
Pirates
Desert Raiders
-------------

To put things in a literary context, let's look at Brienne from the Song of Ice and Fire. She's a Fighter, plain and simple. She is awkward socially, not particularly pretty, and has a low charisma. She is _not_ blindingly intelligent. She is however:

Able to out-ride other knights who are themselves named characters (high ride skill).

Able to see farther than other people (high spot skill).

Able to climb a tree quickly in full armor (high climb skill).

Able to jump out of said tree, in armor, and land on her feet without hurting herself (high jump skill).

Able to leap off a cliff into the ocean and effortlessly swim to a boat (high swim skill).

She's normally intelligent (Int 10, +0 bonus), has no particular class skills other than combat ones (only has fighter levels), and has 5 skills raised up to the point of being noteworthy.

She gets 4 skill points per level.
-----------
Literary challenge two:

Orlando Bloom from Pirates of the Caribbean.

There is absolutely no way he has levels in anything but Fighter. He doesn't have a whole lot of smarts going for him, but here's what he does have:

A really good Craft: Blacksmithing skill (Look at those masterwork swords he made!)

A really good Swim skill (consider how long and well he had to fight underwater)

A really good Sense Motive skill (he was able to counter the feints of _Jack Sparrow_)

A really good Spot skill (he was the only person to actually beat Jack Sparrow's palming of the coin)

A really good Escape Artist skill (without which he would have drowned).

A reasonably good Sneak skill (or if not using Arcana Unearthed skills, this would have to be hide _and_ move silently).

Passably good skills in Appraise, climb, diplomacy, jump, listen, sleight of hand, tumble, and use rope - some of which could be explained by just having a good strength and dexterity, and some of which can't.

So unless you want to tell me that he's got an Intelligence of like 18, I'm thinking that he gets 4 skill points per level.
------

Literary challenge three: Little John.

Little John is a strength based fighter who is specifically of below-normal human intelligence. That puts him at Int 8 - if we are generous.

He excells at:

Climbing
Jumping
Sneaking
Listening

Once again, this is modelled _well_ by a base 4 skill points per level, and modelled _poorly_ by a base 2 skill points per level.

-----


4 skill points per level is not unbalanced. It does our literary Fighter types better than 2 does. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this.

People who are "Fighters" in stories have a very great tendency to be:

* Observant (who's the guy who says "do you hear that?" generally it's the hardened veteran and not the singer).

* Sneaky (I don't think for a minute that Roland has Rogue levels, but he sneaks up on people all the time)

* Physically capable (when it comes to riding, jumping, climbing, or swimming, the warrior in the party is supposed to be able to do that).

Now, you can do all that with the Ranger - but the vast majority of these guys in stories _don't_ have animal companions or a connection to the wilderness, or any of that crap.

Just being hard core is supposed to give you all of the stuff that having 4-9 skills maxxed out gets you in D&D.

Fighters do "non magical physical stuff". Under the D&D rules, you _need_ skills to do that. Feats alone do not cut it.

-Frank


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 12, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> First off it's a game not a book.  It's amazing how well rounded and perfect a character I can write up for a story, but games rules wise they usually end up being epic or near there.  Second, multi class!!  It's what that feature is for.




Everybody I know plays this game to simulate fantasy books and movies they have read, and occasionally historical archetypes as well. I don't think it would be a stretch to say the player base is comprised mostly of lovers of fantasy literature and films.

Why shouldn't the classes reflect the characters the player base reads about and desires to simulate in this game? Why shouldn't they be epic?

Giving the fighter more skill points and a more well-rounded skill selection makes the class more fun to play. I don't see how it would break the game.


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 12, 2003)

Fighters are not built around skills. They are built around feats. Those feats are rather nice.

If you want more fighter feats, especially high level fighter feats, I'm pretty sure you'll see some in the Complete Warrior, coming out pretty soon.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 12, 2003)

On a game play level all classes should have more class skills(or the removal of class skills from the game) and more skill points.  There just aren't nearly enough skill points to diversify the characters with.

On a game balance level the fighter doesn't come remotely close enough to owning combat to suck as bad as he does outside of a fight so he needs more skills.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 12, 2003)

Frank, I'm not going to play the "stat literary figures" game with you.  It's silly.  Not only has someone else pointed out that literary figures are impossible to stat in most cases (what was Gandalf?) but I question some of your choices.  (Brienne, for instance.)  It's just not a worthwhile discussion, because it all comes down to opinion.







			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Fighters do "non magical physical stuff". Under the D&D rules, you _need_ skills to do that. Feats alone do not cut it.



No, feats alone _do_ cut it.  If a fighter wants to be good at a skill, he takes _Skill Focus_, _Deceptive_, _Persuasive_, _Acrobatic_, or _Cosmopolitan_ with his normal character feats.  Having fighter feats every other level means he'll still get good feat chains, and he's now good at skills too.

No, a fighter can't use _every feat he has_ for combat, and also be _maxed out_ in half a dozen skills.  But he can use several feats for combat, a few for skill boosts, and have a pretty high skill bonus to several skills.

If the fighter needs more skill points to shore up his one weakness, then I think it's time we start a petition for the wizard to get at least a 3/4 BAB and infinite spells.  While we're getting rid of class weaknesses, we may as well do the job proper.


----------



## TuDogz (Sep 12, 2003)

Fighter skill points are fine.  It is hard to feel sorry for a class that has 18 feats by lvl 20.  And if a fighter is feeling down about his skill abilities then he can boost his Int early with stat placement or in later levels with an inherent bonus.  My only complaint is the skill list is too limited.  I would expand it to include more of the physical skills like tumble and balance.  They seem inherent to combat and in most cases when you learn to fight the first things they teach are how to take a hit, fall and move.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 12, 2003)

Lord Pendragon: that's stupid.

If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken, and no fun to play.

A Fighter currently _only_ gets feats, and _only_ gets a combat schtick.

If she spends her feats to get a non-combat schtick, she no longer has a combat bulge over a Warrior - and is thusly bereft of a Combat Schtick.

As long as the Fighter only gets Feats, and doesn't get enough skills to be non-viable in noncombat situations (including scouting), she is a broken character.

You apparently _want_ the Fighter to be a broken character - but you still haven't explained why it is somehow _balanced_ for a Fighter to be bad at one of the two basic aspects of the game (combat or non-combat).

So the ball is in your court:

Why is it a good idea for a Fighter to be bad at combat situations, non-combat situations, or both?

Before you answer, recall that the Rogue and the Cleric and the Wizard are all good in both combat and non-combat situations.

-Frank


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 12, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> No, a fighter can't use _every feat he has_ for combat, and also be _maxed out_ in half a dozen skills.  But he can use several feats for combat, a few for skill boosts, and have a pretty high skill bonus to several skills.



Well, unfortunately, there aren't, at present, any feats which actually improve your skillpoints. That'd make a pretty nice L1 feat idea, though, a feat which gives you +4 SPs, +1 SPs/lvl, but it doesn't, at present, exist. That means a fighter's feat resources are, essentially, not convertible to skills. The fighter skill selection is also incredibly, horribly, BAD: You have 7 choices: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride, and Swim. Many of these skills can completely unusable: Swim, for instance, is pretty much useless for a typical heavily armored fighter, which could very well be many of them. It's also not terribly useful if your primary area of operations happens to be someplace devoid of large bodies of water, like a desert. Handle Animal and Ride are of little to no value if your character is not planning on entering the mounted combat feat branch. That means that of the 7 skills you can seriously pick from in the first place, 3 or 4 of them can, and probably will, not apply to the character and campaign.

On the flip side, the two skills which *DO* translate directly into combat usability, Tumble and Bluff, aren't on the fighter skill list.

Essentially, fighters find skillpoints to be nearly completely useless, barring heavy use of the Cosmopolitan feat, if available, or multiclassing, and this requires very careful manipulation because the fighter skill list has a very poor rate of overlap with that of other classes that multiclass well with it.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 12, 2003)

If you want to fight and have skills... play a ranger! 
(Little John would be a ranger, too.)

If you want to be a fighter with skills... play a human with decent intelligence!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Psiblade (Sep 12, 2003)

In 3.5, with greater weapon focus and greater weapon spec fighters do rule in combat. Fighters will most likely land second and sometimes third attacks. Fighters outside of combat do have a problem in role play situations. Intimadate does help, but it is still limiting to just one type of character. I did like the fighter variants in Dragon a couple issues ago. I would like a way to customize fighters a little better.



-Psiblade


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 12, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Lord Pendragon: that's stupid.
> 
> If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken, and no fun to play.
> 
> ...



Well, fighters *DO* have a goodly number of feats: 18. Unfortunately, the vast majority of nonmagical feats pertain primarily to hurting people and breaking things: All of the noncombative feats are useless and provide no practical benefit.

Therein lies the problem: How many feats are there in the game which are good OUTSIDE of a combat?

Some of them give you +2 or +3 to skill. Woohoo! Now, if there was a feat, which gave a bonus to SPs/lvl, like I mentioned above, that would be a prime candidate for a fighter to pick if he didn't want to be a swordologist.

However, fighters, we've found, *ARE* potentially useful outside of combat: They excel nicely in the field of (Polish) landmine detection & disarmament, scouting of hazardous and unstable environments, and watercraft ballast.

They're also not bad as projectiles for siege weaponry, but that's sort of combat.


----------



## TuDogz (Sep 12, 2003)

Quote:
___________________
 Fighters will most likely land second and sometimes third attacks. Fighters outside of combat do have a problem in role play situations.
___________________

I think it is more likely that the players of fighters have problems outside of combat situations.  Roleplay is not a function of skills and and numbers generally but a function of player imagination and excecution.  Giving a fighter  bluff skill and using it to bypass the interaction is not an improvement in roleplaying but instead supercedes it.  As DMs we need to reward players who roleplay well and use their characters basic stats and character concept to solve problems with situational modifiers to die rolls (if you even feel the need to roll a die at all, which I often do not).

If a character wants to improve some single skill for character development reasons he can single out one for that objective, mine has.  Everything else can evolve from role playing.  After all, the general concensus is that the fighter skill list sucks, so why not spend a on few cross class or spend one of those 6 standard feats to add a skill to your class list.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 12, 2003)

If you use non-3.5 sources, Cosmopolitan is a nice feat for a fighter.

A feat that grants +1 SP/level (applied retroactively) would be cool, tho.

I have never found a reason to choose Skill Focus besides PrC requirements... either you are good in a skill, then you don't need it, or you are bad, then it won't help.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 12, 2003)

I am not talking about "roleplaying".

Non-combat utility can come in many forms:

* Being able to make the diplomacy roll necessary to save your party from being eaten by the dragon.

* Being able to make the Gather Information roll necessary to discover that the evil wizard you are hunting rides around on a Blue Dragon so you can plan accordingly in the final battle.

* Being able to make the Sneak roll necessary to listen in on the enemy general's battle plan.

* Being able to make the Use rope roll necessary to get your party wizard up the cliff.

* Being able to make the appraise roll necessary to notice that the onyxs are spell-component grade.

* Being able to make the craft roll necessary to make a copy of the king's iron key.

* Being able to make the escape artist roll to get out of your bonds so that you can rescue the other prisoners before the bandits come back down into the cells.

* Being able to make the Spot roll necessary to see the distant ankheg movements.

* Being able to make the search roll necessary to find the princess' diadem in the mire.

* Being able to make the disable device check to unravel the Symbol trap without having it kill anyone.

* Being able to make the Sense Motive check to catch the fact that the prince is possessed, and not to be trusted.

* Being able to make the Sleight of Hand check to palm the cursed coin when noone is looking.

* Being able to make the Survival check to follow the trail of ghouls past the river.

and it can mean the ability to do magical things as well:

* Being able to teleport the party to their destination.

* Being able to suppress the cursed shield's magic long enough to break it apart.

* Being able to use Divinations to determine the exact location of your goal.

* Being able to break the hold of mummy's rot on the village mayor.

* Being able to fly over the forboding wall of brambles which envelopes the sleeping castle.

----

Being non-combat doesn't mean "social", and it doesn't mean "roleplay". You can role play just as well with a 1st level Expert as you can with a 20th level wizard. But every class comes to the table with a certain degree of non-combat utility. And it's important.

And the fighter doesn't have it.

And that's ungamebalancing and anti-fun.

-Frank


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 12, 2003)

Whats with this "Fighters get 18 feats"?!?!?!? They get 11, thats it! A character, of any race or class gets an additonal 7. So the 1st thing here is to look at what the "fighter class" itself, gets. If you need to add in that the fighter overall gets 18 feats well ,the the babrabrian gets 7 feats plus class abilities, the monk gets all his hopla and 7 feats.

Outside his starting 1st level feats whcih seems to benifit multi-classing other than the "pure fighter" class itself, I still havent seen a arguemnet that supports whats so great for a high level Fighter. 

Anyhow, the reason I started this topic is for a supplement e-book that I want to do. Ive been busy working on the art thus far but, now I want to start working on some game changes that I feel is needed. In case anyone hasent seen it this is a new god that I will introduce in the supplement http://www.pdidarkangel.net/pdie8.html

A Fighter with 4 skill points a level, and an extra feat at 11th level does not unbalance this class. Dont believe me? Try breaking down every class by a point system.  

DA

P.S. When you do break the classes down, make sure you only account 11 feats. Again everyone, no matter what class gets 7 addtional feats.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 12, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken




Not true at all. At least, if you take the normal definition of the word "Broken". It may, as you say, be unfun *for you* to play. But it's not broken/nonfunctional.



> A Fighter currently _only_ gets feats, and _only_ gets a combat schtick.




That's because... he's... a Fighter. He fights. That's what he does. That's *all* he does.

If you want a skilled guy that uses weapons, pick a ranger or barbarian. If you want a holy guy that uses weapons, pick a paladin. Or multiclass. But if you want a guy that fights and only fights, guess what? You should pick a Fighter.



> As long as the Fighter only gets Feats, and doesn't get enough skills to be non-viable in noncombat situations (including scouting), she is a broken character.




Again with the misuse of "broken". Stop that.

Look: the Fighter's role is fighting. The class is designed to do one thing well: fight. The class does one thing well: fight. The class successfully fills the role for which it was designed. It is not broken.

Your argument is that the Fighter class--a class intended to be good at fighting and nothing else--should be good at skills as well as fighting. 

Your argument is broken. The class is not.



> you still haven't explained why it is somehow _balanced_ for a Fighter to be bad at one of the two basic aspects of the game (combat or non-combat).




I covered this in my first post. D&D is a party-based game. The Fighter is a class that fulfills one role in the party: that of the person who fights. It is designed so that it needs support from other characters, characters with skills. And those skilled characters that the Fighter needs also need the Fighter, because the skilled characters can't fight as well as the Fighter.

This is balanced and good design.

What--is your next argument going to be that Wizards should get d12 hit die, armor proficiency, and +1BAB/lvl? After all, wizards suck at melee combat--a major part of the game. They've got the "Magic Schtick" and that's it. Surely wizards are broken.



> Why is it a good idea for a Fighter to be bad at combat situations, non-combat situations, or both?




Because then the Fighter wouldn't need party members. Because then the Fighter is too powerful. Becuase then the Fighter would not meet it's designed role. Because then the Fighter would be broken.



> Before you answer, recall that the Rogue and the Cleric and the Wizard are all good in both combat and non-combat situations.




I do recall that. And guess what? All those classes still need the Fighter. None of them fight as well as the Fighter, by design. 

Before you reply to this, recall that D&D is designed to be a 5 player game (a DM player and four players of characters). If the any one class can do everything as well as a specialist, then you break the game concept because there is no need or role for the other three players. 

-z


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 12, 2003)

That's not a misuse of the word "broken".

Broken means: doesn't work.

Often people use it to mean "horribly over powered", as a short-cut to saying that having that thing in the game makes the entire game broken.

But the core meaning is that the item in question doesn't work. When you say "My car is broken." you mean that your car doesn't run, you generally do _not_ mean that your car renders pallanquins obsolete.

If a character is unable to contribute to the party in a combat situation, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.

If a character is unable to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.

Fighters _do not_, at present, out-shine Barbarians or Wizards in combat. However, they _are_ in turn outshined outside of combat. Therefore something is wrong.

The Barbarian is gaining non-combat functionality at the cost of no combat functionality. Which would make us say that the Barbarian is _overpowered_ or that the Fighter is _underpowered_.

However, since _every single other core class_ compares the same way (even the Bard and the Monk), the choice is either to nerf _ten_ classes or boost the Fighter.

Which is the logical choice?

-Frank


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 12, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Broken means: doesn't work.




Yes. Exactly right. The Fighter works as is. He's designed to fight well (and that's it), and he fights well (and that's it). Not broken.



> If a character is unable to contribute to the party in a combat situation, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.
> If a character is unable to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.




No. Wrong. A character specifically designed to be useless in a combat situation is simply useless in a combat situation. He's not broken. In fact, he's the opposite of broken--he works perfectly as designed. You may question the wisdom of that design decision, but the character works as designed.

To go with the car example:
My car doesn't fly. It can't travel through the air. It only drives along the
ground--that's all it can do.

You would say my car is broken. I say that you shouldn't expect a car to be an airplane.



> Fighters _do not_, at present, out-shine Barbarians or Wizards in combat. However, they _are_ in turn outshined outside of combat. Therefore something is wrong.




Also incorrect. Fighters outshine Wizards in melee combat. Wizards outshine fighters in magical combat. One class depends on the other in different situations. This is a good feature for a multiplayer game. Nothing is wrong.
Fighters and Barbarians is trickier since they're both primary melee fighters. Fighters get more armor, shield proficiency, and feats. Barbarians get more skills, special abilities, and a slightly bigger hit die. Which is better? It's a very tough call. A barbarian can never Great Cleave *and* Spring Attack *and* have greater weapon specialization. A fighter can never rage, have 4 skill points/level, or the other class abilities of the Barbarian. Tough call. Balanced. Nothing is wrong.

Or, if you disagree and say that something is wrong, that's your opinion and I bet you could make a good argument that you would have made a different design decision. But that's very different from "broken".



> The Barbarian is gaining non-combat functionality at the cost of no combat functionality. Which would make us say that the Barbarian is _overpowered_ or that the Fighter is _underpowered_.




It's a tough comparison, and outside of the question of whether or nto the fighter is broken.

Does the Fighter perform the role for which it was designed? Yes.

One question: Is the Fighter broken? No. Clearly no. It performs as it is designed, and thus is not broken.

Very different question: Is the Fighter unbalanced, when compared to the Barbarian? Maybe. It's arguable either way.



> However, since _every single other core class_ compares the same way (even the Bard and the Monk), the choice is either to nerf _ten_ classes or boost the Fighter.




Again, now you're talking about tweaking for perceived balance issues. Not fixing something that is fundamentally broken. 

Let me ask you: if you were designing a class that was good at one thing: fighting, how would you design that class?

Your goal is to make a class that kicks butt in hand-to-hand and ranged combat, has built-in dependence on other classes in just about every non-combat situation, and is a desired party member by players of characters that are not primarily combat focused. 

Your restrictions are that it cannot overshadow or negate the usefulness of any other class, and it cannot inherently possess abilities that are the domain of established combat classes such as Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian.

When determining skills for the class, make sure the class does not challenge the utility of the Rogue or Bard (the Skill classes), so it can't have criminal or social skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Wizard and Bard (the Information classes), so no knowledge skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Druid, Barbarian, and Ranger (the Wild classes), so no survival skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Cleric and Paladin (the Holy classes), so no religion or diplomacy skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Rogue, Ranger, or Monk (the scout classes), so no Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move skills. It can't overshadow the utility of the Monk, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric (the special ability classes) so every class feature must be utterly mundane. And it can't be a general jack of all trades class. That's the Bard.

Your goal is to make an extremely generic, customizable, non-magical fighting class that is good at one thing only: fighting. And it must (*MUST*) depend on others for success in non-combat situations.

Go.

-z


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 13, 2003)

> To go with the car example:
> My car doesn't fly. It can't travel through the air. It only drives along the
> ground--that's all it can do.
> 
> You would say my car is broken. I say that you shouldn't expect a car to be an airplane.




If the game was "air warz" - I would be right.

The Fighter is designed to fight as well as the Barbarian and do nothing else. The Barbarian is designed to fight as well as the Fighter and be able to contribute to the success of the party in a wilderness survival and scouting role.

That's the baseline. The baseline is that all the other characters can fight just as well as the Fighter _and_ do something else. It's like you had an airplane that can't fly. It had better be able to do _something_ that the other airplanes can't or you have a lemon.


> Let me ask you: if you were designing a class that was good at one thing: fighting, how would you design that class?




That's an inherently broken concept, but if I were to do something like that, I would make a class that was _better_ at Fighting than the Barbarian, the Rogue, the Cleric, or the Wizard. The PHB Fighter is not "better" - he's not even "as good" at high levels.

The PHB Fighter is weak in combat, and designed to be weak out of combat. That's absurd.



> Your goal is to make an extremely generic, customizable, non-magical fighting class that is good at one thing only: fighting. And it must (*MUST*) depend on others for success in non-combat situations.




That's hogswallop, and I can't believe you expect people to swallow it.

Of course you can have a character who is good in combat and still able to hold his own in _some aspect_ of non-combat situations.

Even if you gave the character 4 skill points and access to _every single skill in class_, he'd still end up relying upon the Rogue, because the Rogue has more skill points and can do more things.

The concept that we need a class whose player may as well _go to sleep_ in between combats is inane. And the concept that it would somehow break the game for all of the players to want to stay awake through the entire game is laughable.

-Frank


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 13, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The concept that we need a class whose player may as well _go to sleep_ in between combats is inane. And the concept that it would somehow break the game for all of the players to want to stay awake through the entire game is laughable.
> 
> -Frank




Whatever you want to call it, it's anything but "broken."

-z


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 13, 2003)

One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.

It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.

On what planet would we have to be living for that to not be broken?

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 13, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Everybody I know plays this game to simulate fantasy books and movies they have read, and occasionally historical archetypes as well. I don't think it would be a stretch to say the player base is comprised mostly of lovers of fantasy literature and films.
> 
> Why shouldn't the classes reflect the characters the player base reads about and desires to simulate in this game? Why shouldn't they be epic?
> 
> Giving the fighter more skill points and a more well-rounded skill selection makes the class more fun to play. I don't see how it would break the game.




And any epic fighter can do all of those things greatly.  They don't need max ranks in any skill.  Most book characters are not first level characters.  Books are written from the imagination, characters are built using specific rules.  Would altering the fighter unbalance it?  Probably not, but it's not needed.  I don't think the rules should be altered when multi classing can easily solve the problem.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 13, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.
> 
> It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.
> 
> ...




Fighters are the best fighters.  They get all those feats that make them better fighters then any other class.  If you want the fighter to be more well rounded, then you must move away from the speciality.  All classes have to do that, so it is balanced.


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 13, 2003)

Except the uber Ranger of 3.5E.  By the way, Little John was quite Intelligent.  If you want one of the Merry Men who had a low Intelligence, look at Much.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 13, 2003)

The fighter class is not balanced. Break it down in a point for point basis vs other classes, then tell me how its balanced. Saying go ahead and mulit-class does not mean the class is balanced. Also, The Fighter is not just a fighter. He can be a archer, a cavalier, ect, ect, am I the only one reading the PH? Another reason why the class has strictly feats as its sole benefit is so you can make into all different types of characters and not have to be troubled creating all new classes for every single little thing. In the end to each thier own. Everyone has thier own side rules. Im just trying to point out the obvious. Agree, disagree I just want to see how many peeps do and dont. 

DA


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 13, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.
> 
> It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.
> 
> ...




I guess a planet with a different definition of the word "broken." On this planet, broken means "doesn't work." Or even "doesn't work as intended."

I disagree with your assessment of the Fighter class. I don't think it's weak. That's fine; we're smart guys who know the rules and we can disagree about balance issues.

But even if you're right and the Fighter is underpowered, that doesn't mean it's broken. Broken doesn't mean the same thing as unbalanced.

The Fighter works as written. The Fighter works as intended. The Fighter is not broken.

So what would I consider "broken", in a game context? The shapechange/polymorph-and-Awaken trick. The "lance is a medium weapon" (and thus can be used one-handed, even while on foot) rule that was in 3E. The "any target hit with a bola is tripped" (automatically--even if it is, say, a Titan or a water elemental in a lake) rule from Sword and Fist. Those rules and combos are broken. They *don't work* in the context of the game, or break the game's intended features.

The value for "skill points" is just a value--there's nothing to break. Well, I suppose it would be broken if Fighters get -1 sp/level. Or 0. Or pi. But, no, the value for skill points is 2. Perfectly good number. It works. If doesn't break the formula for determining starting skill points, or new skill points per level. You may have the opinion that that value is low, but the value itself--and thus the Fighter, in regards to this argument--IS NOT BROKEN.

Rules can be broken. Class features can be broken. Spells can be broken. It's very hard for a class (a collection of rules and class features) to be broken. Unbalanced, sure. But not broken.

-z

PS: the Fighter is not broken.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 13, 2003)

darkangel said:
			
		

> Anyone break the classes down to a point system yet?!?!? I feel so ignored.




Lots of people have broken the classes down into some sort of point system. That's where the disagreements come in.

You see, combat utility is not the same as non-combat utility. No amount of one can justify a bulge or dirth of the other. Bards are weak in combat, and thus despite their significant breadth of non-combat utility they suck. Fighters are useless out of combat, so whatever else they do, they suck.

Furthermore, spells are not of equal value. A first level attack spell (such as Sleep or Color Spray) is a very big deal at levels 1 or 2, but is in fact of no value whatsoever at levels 16 or 17.

The most common system of breaking down character classes is one based on the idea of "feat equivalents" - idea being that you are judging how many feats it would take a Commoner to turn into that character. Now there's no feat that gives a Base Attack Bonus, and there are limits to how many bonuses to saves you can get - but if we lift those restrictions we see a fairly good approximation.

For example, a 6th level Fighter has 3 BAB, 3 Fort Save, 21 hit points, 3 Armor Proficiency Feats, 2 Shield Proficiency Feats, and 2 Martial Weapon Proficiency Feats over the Commoner (whatever melee and ranged weapon you happen to use). Further, he just plain has 4 bonus feats on top of that which are more valuable because they are selected instead of arbitrarily assigned.

Alternately, a 6th level Rogue has 1 BAB, 3 Reflex Save, 7 hit points, 1 Armor Proficiency Feat, 2 Martial Weapon Proficiency Feats, and 54 skill points. Further the Rogue has the Traps ability, the Evasion ability, the Uncanny Dodge ability, and 3 dice of sneak attack.

The Fighter could be roughly simulated by a 6th level Commoner with 17 feats and 4 "bonus" feats. The Rogue could be roughly simulated by a 6th level Commoner with 26 feats (of which 13 are limitedly customizable).

Now, this is a very limited system, as it implies that people care as much about Medium Armor Proficiency as they do about Light Armor Proficiency (which is patently false). Furthermore, it requires that people spend their feats into Toughness (for 3 hit points a pop) or Skill Synnergy (for 4 skill points a pop) - which is patently absurd. Also, it doesn't really address the Rogue's much larger skill list - which is probably worth a feat or three.

Nevertheless, this kind of analysis _has_ been done and the Fighter _universally_ comes out very very poorly in it.

The fact is that a bonus feat is not better than +10' of movement. It is not better than the ability to Rage. And the Barbarian gets both at first level and has more hit points and more skill points.

_If_ you jack up the Fighter's Skill points to 4/level, _and_  you give the Fighter a bonus feat every level from first level through twentieth, they _still_ don't do all that well in that kind of analysis.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 13, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> The fighter class is not balanced. Break it down in a point for point basis vs other classes, then tell me how its balanced.




Give me an accurate list of the point value of class abilities and we can do this.  However, to date no one has been quite able to do this.  There are many out there, but they all live on assumptions that are not accurate.  Unless the makers of the PHB do one, and frankly even theirs would be aargued, there is no way to compaire the classes by a point system.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 13, 2003)

*re*

A big indicator to me of a badly designed class is when no one wants to play it. The fighter falls into that category in my campaign world.

I have people willing to play every other class. 3.5 made Bards and Rangers a whole lot more desirable. Yet, the fighter is still the red-headed step-child for a variety of reasons.

The fighter's bonus feats just do not compete with the other classes special abilities. It makes them a boring class. I really feel that giving them additional skills would make them more fun to play because you could make a variety of fighter archetypes rather than just one. 

The fighter is a generalist class. It has no flavor and skills would go along way in giving the fighter flavor while not hurting the game. Maybe give them 3 or 5 bonus skills chosen at first level that are class skills, kind of like the Expert. That would make them more well-rounded and give them some personality.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 13, 2003)

I tend to agree with Frank, that the fighter - while not broken - is just badly designed.

Maybe just give them 4 skill points per level and a few more reasonable class skills (i.e. Heal, Knowledge (local), Profession, Spot). But then give the Paladin 4 skill points per level as well. And the Rogue 12!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 13, 2003)

Thats a very good way and easy way to judge things FranktheTroll, gj dood. 

Anyhow, I think some of us are also ignoring this one fact:the fighter is suppossed to be the most diversified class (saids so in DM giude and PH! (peeps love to ingnore this fact). Like I have already said 3-4 times, the Fighter can also be a archer, a cavalier, a swashbuckler, ect, ect. No were does it say that the class is suppossed to be played by stupid idiot characters with heavy armor who only hack and slash. That is what Orcs are for. Doh!

The boys a WOTC have said (especially Montecook), that not everything is balanced and to use use your best judgement. Infact its Montecook who has said a great deal of unbalancing is found with prestige classes as an example. Apperently even Dragon magazine has done some Fighter class tweaking.

Furthermore, no one can dispute that if peeps in thier campaign are avoiding the fighter class or only using it to multi-class, theres something wrong with the class.

So if we all take a min to think "outside of the box" and do some comparisons as FranktheTroll did, you can see hence forth the Fighter is lightly unbalanced. I also find the sorcerer lightly lacking too but Ill save that one for another day.

DA

P.S. I think that it was Psiblade who said Dragon magazine made an alternate Fighter, can anyone send me that info, or the info on this complete Fighter thing? Thx ahead of time!


----------



## takyris (Sep 14, 2003)

If nobody is playing a fighter in your campaign, then:

a) everybody is happy with the pre-built character options presented by other classes (the abilities given to monks, or to rangers, or to barbarians), and therefore the customizability of the fighter class is not necessary

b) nobody has the ability to pick their fighter feats successfully

c) the campaign has a lighter focus on combat, and therefore people are quite naturally gravitating to classes that offer more out-of-combat abilities

Complaining in situation (a) is silly -- the fighter is designed to be a strong combatant in either specific or general situations, and can function quite well there.  As the DM, you may not be giving them enough different types of combat and showing how a versatile combatant would really help.

Complaining in situation (b) is silly -- I *can* make the fighter work very well based on the feats I pick, for what I want him to do, and your inability to do so should not necessitate a power bump.  If you want to play the easiest class possible, play a barbarian.  The fighter can be very easy once you get going, but he requires a large amount of character-building work in order to get what you want.

Complaining in situation (c) is silly -- that's like saying, "Rogues are totally broken and useless!  I'm playing in a campaign where all we do all session long is fight mindless undead in melee combat, and my character can hardly do anything!  The rogue needs a better BAB!"


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 14, 2003)

Anyone who complains that rogues are useless merely because all the opponents are unsneakattackable doesn't understand rogues at all.

If you're not able to contribute in the combat...DON'T! You're a rogue, known in previous editions as the "thief". Shouldn't you be helping yourself to the loot while everyone else is fighting?

Fighters, on the other hand, when not in a combat, should focus on annoying the party's wizard by prattling on and on about swords, swordlike objects, and fighting. People who aren't successfully annoying the rest of the group by talking about the above when not in a fight aren't understanding fighters.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 14, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Furthermore, no one can dispute that if peeps in thier campaign are avoiding the fighter class or only using it to multi-class, theres something wrong with the class.



And by the same logic, no one can dispute that if peeps in their campaign are taking nothing _but_ the fighter class, there's _nothing_ wrong with the class.

Well gosh darn it, that's _me_!  So I guess there's nothing wrong with the class.   

Seriously, Dark Angel, the fact that one DM's group avoids or embraces a class is proof of absolutely nothing.







			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Lord Pendragon: that's stupid.
> 
> If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken, and no fun to play.



No, stupid is your logic.  You expect the fighter to perform _as well as_ a rogue or bard outside of combat, and it shouldn't.

The fighter already does perform outside of combat.  He gets 2 skill points per level, and he can make every untrained skill check just like any other class.  The fact the he won't do _as well_ is perfectly balanced by the fact that the rogue, bard, and wizard won't be doing _as well_ as the fighter in melee combat.

I have a pure fighter in my 6th-level role-play-heavy campaign who has no trouble contributing outside of combat.  He comes up with plans.  He interacts with NPCs, he gets along just fine.  And when combat does come up, he's a monster.

If the fighter wants to be better at skills, he can use some of his 11 bonus feats (it's true that 7 of the 18 total feats he gains are not part of the class) to gain skill point equilvalents (+3 to a skill is the equivalent is +6 skill points in a cross-class skill.  Not bad at all.  +2/+2 is the equivalent of +8.)

Not only that, but even if, after spending a few feats, he still feels weak, he can always choose to do the same thing every other class does when faced with a weakness in the character:  buy some magic.  A +10 to Diplomacy ring will make even the 10 Int fighter glib-tongued.  A +10 to Bluff will make even the most simple-minded fighter a decent liar.  And a _Headband of Intellect +4_ will give him 4 skill points per level within the core rules already, at the affordable cost of 16,000gp.

Edit: grammar


----------



## cptg1481 (Sep 14, 2003)

*AEG's Mercenary*



			
				bensei said:
			
		

> Where are these feats from?
> Are they in the class books?
> Are they homebrew?
> 
> If they are not core, this is what I meant. You can make the fighter class interesting up to level 20 single classing, if you add some interesting high end combat feats. Actually, more meneuvers would be nice, also, and/or continuing feat chains, as it is done partly in the class books.





I have the Mercenary book by AEG and all of these feats are in it.  I usually allow all AEG's stuff its pretty ballanced IMO.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

Adding good feats to _possible_ feat choices in no way balances the Fighter.

The Fighter gains 11 feats over the course of the Class.

All +1 BAB/Level classes give _at least_ one feat (or feat equivalent) for the first two levels.

The Prestige Class Creation Guidelines include providing a Bonus Feat (or equivalent) or more at each level from 1st through 3rd.

There is no limit to the number of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes you can have.

You can take 20 levels of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes without taking more than 2 levels of any class. With no more than 2 levels in any class you take no XP penalty regardless of what your favored class is, and regardless of whether you use the stupid 3.r typo that PrCs can cause XP penalties.

Without stretching yourself, you can get _at least_ 20 Bonus Feats by 20th level.

So the "Fighter" class is, in fact, *NINE FEATS IN THE HOLE* at 20th level.

And the Fighter is _also_ supposed to get worse skills to pay for having only slightly more than _half_ the _minimum_ bonus outlay of a multiclassed character with the same BAB and combat role?

How does that work?

The Fighter is *nine levels* worth of class features short of the _minimums_ the official guidelines allow a multiclassed character of his level to have. _And_ they have the worst skills.

They get kicked in the teeth, and then they get kicked in the teeth again.

You want to talk about how this can all be solved "with multiclassing"? Sure it can. Once you introduce multiclassing, there's no reason for the Fighter class to exist past level 2.

If you don't think that's a problem - I don't believe you can be reasoned with.

Fighters are _not_ the best at Fighting. A 20th level multiclassed fighting character has, according to the guidelines, nine more levels worth of "fighting" abilities, and is therefore definitionally superior.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

WEll, taking that many different classes is more like abusing the system.  Plus, prestige classes are better then the core classes, no one is argueing that.  The fighter is the best class for fighting among the core classes.  

The fighter is not behind in feats.  Sure, prestige classes gain abilities that may be the equal to a feat, but rarely are they selected.  The abilites are predesigned were a feat I can choose from a list of hundreds.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

> WEll, taking that many different classes is more like abusing the system




No. It's _using_ the system. That's what the rules mean when they say that you can choose a different class _every level_.

They mean... you can multiclass _every level_.

Every single level you choose which class to take a level in, and those choices are supposed to be balanced.

I can make an argument for massively multiclassing being balanced against taking 20 levels of Rogue or Wizard or Cleric. The fact that I cannot do the same for Fighter should tell you something.



> The fighter is not behind in feats. Sure, prestige classes gain abilities that may be the equal to a feat, but rarely are they selected. The abilites are predesigned were a feat I can choose from a list of hundreds.




Thousands. It's a list of thousands of feats now.

But you select Prestige Classes from a list of thousands too.

Unless you are prepared to tell me that the list of abilities available from _feats_ are _better_ than the list of abilities available from the first level of prestige classes (which I'll remind you: include "Bonus Feat of your choice"), then selecting a new PrC every level is automatically _at least as good_ as taking a level of Fighter that happens to give a bonus feat.

And half the Fighter levels don't even do that. And every level could be the first level of a Full BAB PrC.

Therefore the Fighter class is definitionally underpowered.

Do the math.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

How many prestige classes give bonus feats at first level?  And howe can you not say that taking a different class ever level is not better then any core class?  I can create a wizard that has 20th level spell ability, but way more special abilities, better saves, better hit points.  I can do the same for Cleric minus the hit points.  I actually might be able to get the hit points better if I really tried.  I can do this for rogue and actually create a character with sneak attack the puts a 20th level rogues to shame.  

Prestige classes are better then core classes.  Min maxing them to "use" the sytem will only make that worse.  Using third party products that may be balanced with the core rules but not to each other will make this worse.  

I can see your points in theory, but I don't see them in practice.  I'd like to see your example character that is 20th level with no more then a single level in any class.


----------



## Steverooo (Sep 15, 2003)

Fighters (and anyone else) don't need Knowledge (Siegecraft/Warfare).  Indeed, those skills don't even need to be introduced to the game, exacerbating the skill points problem!

Warfare is already covered by Knowledge (History), and fortifications by Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering).  Unfortunately, Fighters don't get either of those, nor Profession (Bodyguard) nor (Siege Artillialist).

IMHO, Crafts, Perform, and Professions need a different system, and then they need to be sorted through by class...  The Fighter class isn't especially conducive to Craft (Glassblower) - things tend to get broken.  It is conducive to Profession (Bodyguard).  The Wizard class is the opposite.  The Ranger class isn't particularly conducive to Profession (Brewer) - it requires staying in one place too long - but is more conducive to Profession (Sailor).

I don't see too many adventurers, outside of Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, taking Craft (Basketweaving), and not many of those.  Craft (Blacksmithing) would be common to more classes.

Then there's the whole Racial Skills thing...

What I think needs doing is a whole new, additional system, or a total revamp of the skills system.  YMMV.

I favor more skill points, and a choice of class abilities (or Feats) available only to that class, at EVERY level, along with a list of Crafts, Knowledge, Perform styles, and Professions available to each class, which uses a separate system.  Again, YMMV.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

> How many prestige classes give bonus feats at first level?




All of them.

Some of them literally give "one bonus feat" such as the Guardian Paramount or something, some of them give you a specific feat such as "Great Cleave (and a bonus to tumble) for the Master Samurai, "Weapon Specialization" (and Mettle) for the Templar or "Improved Feint" for the Gladiator. And some just give you a special ability that is as good or better than a feat, such as "Defensive Blow +2" (and a bonus against Fear) for the Knight Protector.

The point is that there are literally thousands of these choices. Your choices are so vast when levelling that taking a "bonus feat" of anything off the Fighter list is actually _more restrictive_ than taking one of the prestige class abilities designed for a warrior character. Whether you want to expand your melee, archery, grappling, tripping, or whatever else - taking classes _other_ than Fighter levels has got you covered.

Why take Weapon Specialization by taking two more levels of Fighter when you could get it _and_ the really nice "mettle" ability with only _one_ level of Templar? Your other level could be Ranger and you'd be way ahead on skill points and get some other minor ability as well.

And so on.



> I can do this for rogue and actually create a character with sneak attack the puts a 20th level rogues to shame.




No, you can't.

Everytime you take a level of a class that gives you Sneak Attack, you start your BAB over again (not counting people like the OotBI who have a limited Sneak Attack and a Fighter's BAB). Even though there are in fact hundreds of published classes which give a Sneak Attack at level 1, thereby allowing you to take only levels that give you sneak attack from level 6 through 20 - you wouldn't by any good if you did that.

See, while you'd get +1d6 sneak attack every level, you'd also get +0 BAB every level. So at 20th level, you'd have +18d6 sneak attack, but only a BAB of +3. You could TWF or something, and hand out as many as 36d6 of sneak attack every round.

The straight Rogue, OTOH, has only 10d6 Sneak Attack, but a BAB of +15/+10/+5. With just TWF, he attacks four times a round with all better attack bonuses for a total of 40d6 of sneak attack every round.

Rogue levels don't stack the way Fighter levels do. A Rogue class needs to jstify each set of four levels (the time it takes to finish out the BAB progression and keep it from falling behind). A Fighting class needs to justify _every level_ (because that's how many levels it takes to finish out the BAB progression and keep from falling behind).

I'm sitting here looking at level five of Fighter. It gives no save bonuses, it gives the worst skills in the entire game, and it gives no special abilities at all. How can you say that that level justifies itself against anything?

That happens to the Fighter nine times. That class has nine levels that can't be justified in actually taking.

In order to be balanced it would need to have an ability every level. It would also need to not be in _all ways_ inferior to other sampled classes that give an ability (or more) every level. That means that every level it would need to provide a minor bonus _in addition_ to the bonus feat (similar to a Master Sanurai's Tumble Bonus or a Knight Protector's Shining Beacon) or have better skills and skill points.

That's the minimum just to make the class no longer objectively inferior to not taking the class in the first place.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

Okay, I see what you are saying.  So, the fact that fighters can pick specific feats and prestige classes give specific abilities is meaninless.  The fighter gets a chance to take those high level feats that the other character will never qualify for.  And you are still trying to balance the fighter to prestige classes that are more powerful then a core class.  So, while a character could get a bunch of abilities, they lack the versatility of the fighter.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

What versatility?

You can select a feat, from a list of thousands, every _other_ level.

Or you can select a class feature, from an overlapping list of thousands every _single_ level.

Where's the versatility?

Is it the part where you get less skill points and a more restrictive skill list, or the part where you get to pick your abilities less often?

Having less written on your class doesn't make you more versatile, it gives you less stuff.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

One has to have the qualifications for the prestige classes, so that list of 1000 is really maybe 2.  And the lists are not completely overlapping.  Feats and class abilities have a little over lap but not much.  

Also, since one has to qualify for the prestige classes, a lot of your options are going to be severely limited because you really have to plan ahead to get all the ducks in a row.  Where the fighter just takes the very best feats.

Also, a host of first level abilites are really weak.  One is not going to get whirlwind attack by taking a single class level.  And its doubtful that the reaguliar character feats will get there because they will all be spent trying to qualify for the prestige classes.  

A fighter can have his feats all be toward the same goal.  Where taking a bunch of classes spreads out the focus.  Sure, you might have the equivilant of 20 feats, but if they are all like toughness does it really matter?  

I still think that in theory your idea is sound.  But in practice it doesn't work out that way.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

> And the lists are not overlapping. Feats and class abilities have a little over lap but not many.




Until you stop contraditing yourself, I cannot possibly argue with you.

Either the lists are overlapping, or they are not overlapping, exclusive or. If they overlap a little bit, they overlap.

Since all of the class abilities that aren't "so good you can't take them as feats" are in fact, feats - I can't see how you could possibly cliam that they don't overlap.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

A simple request for clarification was all that was needed.  As it is a minor point, no need to hit the brakes over it especially when it doesn't effect the other points.  

But I really would like to see a sample 20th level character with 20 different classes.

Edit: And I started a general thread about the 20th level character with 20 classes.  I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1124603


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 15, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> You can select a feat, from a list of thousands, every _other_ level.
> 
> Or you can select a class feature, from an overlapping list of thousands every _single_ level.




Could you perhaps give a sample character (say level 15 or so, since you say that the fighter is weaker at higher levels) to give us an idea of the build type you're talking about?

Edit: Crothian has a much faster posting trigger than I.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 15, 2003)

Franktrollman, 

In your opinion, what would a balanced Fighter class aka a "complete fighter class" look like to you in-regaurds to class ablilites? 

Secondly, Pendragon. Just because you are lacking any good arguement doesnt give you the right to call me stupid because you cant think of anything other than "buy magical items" as your solution to balancing classes. Grow-up and stop being a smuck.

DA


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

OK...

Let's take a Dragoon (a warrior type mounted/archer/meleeist) out to 16th level:

Human:
1 Ranger 1: (Mounted Combat, Educated, Track) {Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy, Animal Fondling)
2 Fighter 1: (Power Attack)
3 Paladin 1: (Cleave) {Detect Evil, Smite Evil}
4 Paladin 2: {Divine Grace, Lay on Hands}
5 Fighter 2: (Great Cleave)
6 Ranger 2: (Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot)
7 Knight Protector 1: {Defensive Blow +2, Shining Beacon}
8 Knight Protector 2: (Iron Will) {Best Effort +2}
9 Knight of the Middle Circle1: (Weapon Focus: Composite Longbow, Blind Fighting) {combat sense +2,  one 1st level spell}
10 Ranger 3: (Endurance)
11 Templar 1: (Weapon Specialization: Composite Longbow) {Mettle, one 1st level spell}
12 Order of the Bow Initiate 1: (Precise Shot) {Ranged Sneak Attack 1d6}
13 Order of the Bow Initiate 2: (Close Combat Shot)
14 Divine Champion 1: {Lay on Hands}
15 Divine Champion 2: (Far Shot, spirited charge)
16 Deepwood Sniper 1: (Improved Critical: all ranged weapons) {range increment increae +10 ft.}

A 16th level human fighter attempting to be a Dragoon would have a BAB of +16, Saves of +10/+3/+3, a base of 38 skill points, and 16 feats.

This Dragoon has a BAB of +16, Saves of +14/+11/+13, a base of 66 skill points, and 16 literal feats (of which some are Epic feats and some are crap). But he also gets an additional Charisma bonus to saves, a smite attack, +2 to-hit and damage in melee, heal three times his charisma bonus plus two damage per day, +2 to-hit and AC against one chosen foe, a d6 of sneak attack, the ability to detect Evil at will, the ability to shoot a bow farther than a normal character, the ability to cast a couple of crappy 1st level spells (and use wands of cure light wounds), a Favored Enemy bonus, a +2 bonus on any skill check once per day, and a sneak attack die usable with ranged weapons.

So I ask you, how is _all of that_ not worth more than the zero feats you are expending?

----

Alternately, let's just hit things:

Chaotic Neatral Orc
1 Ranger 1: (Track, Power Attack) {Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy}
2 Barbarian 1: (Fast Movement) {Rage 1/day}
3 Barbarian 2: (Cleave, Uncanny Dodge)
4 Ranger 2: (Two Weapon Fighting)
5 Fighter 1: (Great Cleave)
6 Tribal Protector 1: (Exotic Weapon: Spike Chain, Headlong Rush) {Tribal Enemy, Homeland}
7 Tribal Protector 2: {Wild Fighting}
8 Fighter 2: (Weapon Focus: Spiked Chain)
9 Ranger 3: (Endurance, Expertise)
10 Divine Champion 1: (Lay on Hands)
11 Templar 1: (Weapon Specialization) {Mettle}
12 Divine Champion 2: (Improved Trip, Knockdown) {Sacred defense +1}
13 Templar 2: {Smite 1/day}
14 Templar 3: (Greater Resiliency)
15 Templar 4: (Combat reflexes, Expert tactician)
16 Planar Champion 1: {Favored Plane}

So now you just hit stuff with a chain. Unlike an Orc Fighter, who would have 15 feats, saves of +10/+3/+3 and 38 skill points - you have 19 feats, saves of +21/+12/+5, and 68 skill points. Plus you get a huge pile of special abilities - including the ability to flurry attack and have a smite attack.

---

So yes, you get more feats, more abilities, more skill points, and more save bonuses by taking a mixed bunch of levels than by taking more levels of Fighter.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

Which proves prestige classes are better then core classes.  But you changed from one level per class to a few levels per class.  

You can do this and build a better cleric, and better, wizard, and a better sorcerer as well.  Rogue you might be able to as there are more then a few classes that give +1 BAB and sneak attack damage at level one.  

So, yes you can min max a better fightrer with extreme multi classing into prestige classes.


----------



## CalrinAlshaw (Sep 15, 2003)

You can't become Templar at level 10, being as that Knowledge religion is not a class skill. Max you could have by level 9 is...13/2=6.5, 1.5 ranks short of being a Templar. Your orc as been broken.
As well, the Order of the Bow initiate class is broken, unless of course a DM rules you can, you can't take a feat WHILE you gain a prestige class, you have to HAVE the feats ALREADY, the level BEFORE you get the prestige class. It can't simply be that you take the feat the level you want access to the prestige class, otherwise the Base Attack Bonus requirements would count as 1 level lower since you could simply...take the class and have that BAB and be considered qualified.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 15, 2003)

I never changed my position "from" 1 level per class. That was never my position:


			
				me said:
			
		

> You can take 20 levels of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes without taking more than 2 levels of any class.




Got that? Now, the examples I showed had as many as 3 or 4 levels of a class. That was because I was being lazy.



			
				croth said:
			
		

> So, yes you can min max a better fightrer with extreme multi classing into prestige classes.




Then the Fighter is underpowered. 

End of discussion.


			
				darkangel said:
			
		

> In your opinion, what would a balanced Fighter class aka a "complete fighter class" look like to you in-regaurds to class ablilites?




The absolute minimum of course, is:

1 Bonus Feat
2 Bonus Feat
3 Bonus Feat
4 Bonus Feat
5 Bonus Feat
6 Bonus Feat
7 Bonus Feat
8 Bonus Feat
9 Bonus Feat
10 Bonus Feat
11 Bonus Feat
12 Bonus Feat
13 Bonus Feat
14 Bonus Feat
15 Bonus Feat
16 Bonus Feat
17 Bonus Feat
18 Bonus Feat
19 Bonus Feat
20 Bonus Feat

(Note that the ability to purchase Weapon Specialization is _not_ a class feature any more than the ability to purchase Intimidating Rage is a class feature of the Barbarian class)

Now, every level also needs to provide a minor bonus (such as "Tumble Bonus" or "Best Effort") or provide 4 skill points.

And that's a base minimum to get the Fighter onto the track of the lowest possible values for a character class providing +1 BAB every level.

In addition, however, just as the Rogue begins getting additional abilities from level 10 on, so does the Fighter. A Fighter should get an additional Special Ability (which would in turn be worth approximately one extra feat, just like the Rogue's special abilities) at about levels 10, 13, 16, and 19.

So a Balanced Fighter would look something like this:

Hit Die: d10
BAB: Good.
Saves: Fort: Good; Reflex: Poor; Will: Poor.

Class Skills: Balance, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Eswcape Artist, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Geography, History), Listen, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Sneak,  Spot, Survival, Swim, Tumble.

Skills: 4 + Int Bonus


1 Bonus Feat
2 Bonus Feat
3 Bonus Feat
4 Bonus Feat
5 Bonus Feat
6 Bonus Feat
7 Bonus Feat
8 Bonus Feat
9 Bonus Feat
10 Bonus Feat, Special Ability
11 Bonus Feat
12 Bonus Feat
13 Bonus Feat, Special Ability
14 Bonus Feat
15 Bonus Feat
16 Bonus Feat, Special Ability
17 Bonus Feat
18 Bonus Feat
19 Bonus Feat, Special Ability
20 Bonus Feat

Special Ability: One Bonus Feat, or Mettle, Combat Sense, Defensive Blow, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, or something like that.

-

That would be kind of similar to something that might be balanced for 20 levels.

-Frank


----------



## Corinth (Sep 15, 2003)

The point being, however, that this fact makes the Fighter class a complete waste of a level most of the time; you can get more bang for your buck by taking a level in another warrior class.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 15, 2003)

Wow, that was great insight into things.  They are much clearer now.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 15, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Secondly, Pendragon. Just because you are lacking any good arguement doesnt give you the right to call me stupid because you cant think of anything other than "buy magical items" as your solution to balancing classes. Grow-up and stop being a smuck.



Re-read my post.  I called FranktheTrollman's logic stupid, in response to him calling my argument stupid.  I don't use the term lightly, but if he was willing to forgo courtesy when talking to me, he also foregoes the right to it _from_ me.

Regarding your commentary, I have a very sound, solid argument.  The fact that you and FranktheTrollman refuse to acknowledge it does not change that.

As far as your little snipe goes, I'm going to let it go, since it seems to stem from you misreading my post.  But I suggest that you re-read offending posts in the future, before you start slinging mud at others.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 15, 2003)

Besides the problems already mentioned with your first build, here are a few things that I see as potential problems with it:

You first face the major problem that none of the PrCs you used are core.  In fact, you used a total of 4 different non-core sources (3 splat books and one campaign setting).  Because of that, it cannot be said that they are meant to be 100% balanced with core classes, as well as not meant to be used in conjunction with one another.  You also have the problem of convincing a DM to allow you to use all of them.  On top of all this, these are all 3.0 PrCs used with 3.5 core classes (which, admittedly, is probably a minor thing).

You assume that you are a worshiper of a diety with the composite longbow as a favored weapon.  I know of no such diety (though I don't have Forgotten Realms, so there could be one in there).  If one existed, it would have to be within one degree of Lawful Good, which you are forced to be.

You have 51 skills ranks required for the PrCs you named.  Even without the problem of getting them at the right time, that leaves you with only about 15 skill points left to use as the player sees fit.  This is not even enough to max out a single skill (and barely covers maxing out of Ride, since you already have 4 ranks in it as prerequisites).  Since the original point of this thread was the fact that you thought Fighters didn't have enough skill points to spend, I don't see this as being a good thing.

Finally, the base abilities required for this build are:
Str: 13
Dex: 13
Con: N/A
Int: 10
Wis: 11
Cha: 12
This is a total expenditure of 19 points, using the point buy system.  From your description you wanted a character with good strength (for melee, and to get use of of a composite bow), dexterity (for riding and ranged combat), constistution (as hit points are needed for a melee fighter), and charisma (to get use out of smite and lay of hands).  I don't see this as working out well for someone with point buy, and it would require some lucky rolling.


----------



## Unseelie (Sep 16, 2003)

I skipped over a number of posts, so it's possible that someone else already suggested this, but there's an existing mechanic in d20M that help with skill flexibilty: Occupations.

*From the Modern SRD:*
_A hero may hold other jobs as his or her career unfolds, but the benefits of a starting occupation are only applied once, at the time of character creation.
Many starting occupations have a prerequisite that the character must meet to qualify for the occupation. Each occupation provides a number of additional permanent class skills that the character can select from a list of choices. Once selected, a permanent class skill is always considered to be a class skill for the character. If the skill selected is already a class skill for the character, he or she gains a one-time competence bonus for that skill._

That doesn't solve the perceived problem of a lack of skill points for Fighters. Since I tend to run more skill focused games, I'd be somewhat inclined to give everyone a bonus skill point. I will point out that the d20M equivalent of the D&D Fighter, the Strong Hero, gets:

_Skill Points at 1st Level: (3 + Int modifier)x4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 3 + Int modifier._


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 16, 2003)

ok.....i went all over the place and obtained everyones differnet ways of ripping apart class's into points and evaulated each class by using the best overall methods...aka....balanced methods.

(3.5 rules and 1st thru 20th levels applying here):

I found the weakest class to be: The Fighter, The Paladin (small), and the Sorceror to be the weakest.

The strongest classes are the new Ranger class, and The Monk. 

The bard, cleric and druid were only a little above (all things considered) and the rouge, wizard and barbarian were right in the middle. 

The hardest class to breakdown was the Wizard bacause he is aweful in low levels but out right scary at high levels. However, because most campaigns have a degree of magic items in them, its not to hard to compensate all classes to some degree. Example: a 20th level Wizard throwing spells vs a 20th level Fighter with a magical wpn and magial armor is more than fair in my opinion. 

Allowing a Fighter 3 more class skills, and either  2 skill points a level or a feat above tenth level brings this class up to the middle ground (of-course some worth while feats would not hurt either...aka...wpn mastery). A sorceror could enjoy 2-3 core class skills as well as a 1d6 hit die to be brought up to par...aka...the middle ground. 

Im sure this will be disputed but thats what I found. When I have a day to type all this point system crap up, I will do so. 

DA

Please Note: multi-classing was not a factor however multi-classing restrictions such as the Paladins and the Monks were. Most prestige classes are unbalanced and totally left out of this analysis.


----------



## garyh (Sep 16, 2003)

Unseelie said:
			
		

> I skipped over a number of posts, so it's possible that someone else already suggested this, but there's an existing mechanic in d20M that help with skill flexibilty: Occupations.
> 
> *From the Modern SRD:*
> _A hero may hold other jobs as his or her career unfolds, but the benefits of a starting occupation are only applied once, at the time of character creation.
> ...




D20 Modern's skill points are based on the assumption all characters are human.  Thus, the classes already have the +1 skill point / level factored in.  If you look at the monsters, they all have a note saying "-1 skill point per level."


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 16, 2003)

> The strongest classes are the new Ranger class, and The Monk.




Which just shows that your methods are limited and flawed.

The Monk is dreadful.

While he has a lot of abilities, more abilities in fact than any character except the Druid, they don't mean anything.

The vast majority of the Monk's abilities are the ability to be almost as good without equipment as any other character can be _with_ equipment. Since the game is supposed to be balanced with the assumption that characters in fact _have_ that equipment - all of those abilities are essentially meaningless.

A Monk's unarmed abilities are sort of impressive, but he can't actually win a grapple because his BAB is as low as a Cleric. Furthermore, even at 20th level a Monk can't hurt an incorporeal enemy (ki strike makes the hands count as magical for the purpose of penetrating DR, but not for the purpose of sundering magical weapons or affecting incorporeal foes).

So despite all the wacky things you can do in only your pajamas - none of it actually matters because you still need a magic weapon anyway.

So what you've shown there is that your system is not evaluating things well - the Monk's abilities are numerous but anti-synnergistic. The Monk is a dreadful class. If your analysis didn't show that it's because you weren't acid testing it properly.

-Frank


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 16, 2003)

*re*



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Which just shows that your methods are limited and flawed.
> 
> The Monk is dreadful.
> 
> ...




Hmm. The Monk's hands do not allow them to strike incorporeal creatures? Why? Did they leave in the +1 or better weapon wording, I forgot to look.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 16, 2003)

Frank has some interesting ideas of what makes a balanced fighter. A bonus feat every level. Wow. Incidentally, that'd make it a great multiclass choice, too, since every level you take gets you modest skillpoints, good hitpoints, +1 BAB, and a FREE FEAT.

If you figure that feats have a point of diminishing return, a point at which you have so many of the damn things you don't have anything USEFUL to spend them on, even this impressive class will shortly fall by the wayside to something which gives you something you can actually use.

That aside, could somebody please pass the crack?


----------



## Zerakon (Sep 16, 2003)

Interesting thread.

I agree that the fighter is poorly designed. Great for the low levels + horrible at high levels leads to an extreme multiclass incentive which is poor design. Weapon specialization/greater weapon focus/greater weapon specialization with their "fighter level X" seems merely a half-hearted attempt at a fix.

I almost wanted to say that the problem lies with broken prestige classes, but I think it is moreso that the fighter is a weak baseline. I don't have any splatbooks so my knowledge of all the prestige classes is severely limited, but I will say that when designing my own prestige classes, I feel handcuffed by the fighter's poor baseline.

I'm still debating exactly what my preferred fix would be, but here are some of my thoughts for building a better baseline fighter:

(1) If you think a fighter's skills are too weak and he could use a "non-combat schtick," give him:
4 skill points per level instead of 2 with a much better list of class skills (something on the scale of the rogue's list but with Ride included and drop some specialist stuff like Decipher Script, Use Magic Device, etc.) BUT with the drawback that the maximum rank the fighter can achieve is level+1 rather than the standard level+3.
This would allow the fighter to be somewhat of a minor jack-of-all-trades, truly master of none as he's always 2 ranks behind the best in the party at any particular skill (unless he takes a Skill Focus feat to catch up).

(2) If you think a high-level fighter needs something even more on the combat side, so that there is a reason for not veering off into the good BAB prestige classes and foregoing the high levels of fighter, perhaps something like:
At levels 3/7/11/15/19, the fighter gains cumulative +1 to his Swing Mastery (for lack of a better term). +N in Swing Mastery allows your extra attacks to be calculated as if your BAB was N higher.
This would mean that a fighter's BAB chart would _effectively_ look like this:
Level Attacks
 01   +1
 02   +2
 03   +3
 04   +4
 05   +5/+1
 06   +6/+2
 07   +7/+4
 08   +8/+5
 09   +9/+6/+1
 10   +10/+7/+2
 11   +11/+9/+4
 12   +12/+10/+5
 13   +13/+11/+6/+1
 14   +14/+12/+7/+2
 15   +15/+14/+9/+4
 16   +16/+15/+10/+5
 17   +17/+16/+11/+6  [/+1 if you want to allow a 5th attack]
 18   +18/+17/+12/+7  [/+2 "]
 19   +19/+19/+14/+9  [/+4 "]
 20   +20/+20/+15/+10 [/+5 "]
Now, I don't know if this is too powerful, but it certainly would make one think about whether to pursue those prestige classes for their _cool stuff_ or just sticking with the basic fighter and being simply the best at _straight fighting_. Also, with this rule, reaching fighter level 3 would be significant for multiclassing rather than the blank level it is now. A fighter3/cleric3 would get +5/+1 attacks rather than just +5.

-- Zerakon the Game Mage

edit: lining up columns


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 16, 2003)

Frank, you are way too polarizing and fervent in your exagerrated responses in this thread - it cuts into some good points you made.

I agree with some great statements made by others:
The fighter IS a poor baseline for a class - too weak, too uninteresting, not good for anything but combat, etc.

I loved Celtavian's post:







> Everybody I know plays this game to simulate fantasy books and movies they have read, and occasionally historical archetypes as well. I don't think it would be a stretch to say the player base is comprised mostly of lovers of fantasy literature and films.
> 
> Why shouldn't the classes reflect the characters the player base reads about and desires to simulate in this game? Why shouldn't they be epic?
> 
> Giving the fighter more skill points and a more well-rounded skill selection makes the class more fun to play. I don't see how it would break the game.



Loved Shard O' Glase's:







> On a game balance level the fighter doesn't come remotely close enough to owning combat to suck as bad as he does outside of a fight so he needs more skills.



And Lord Pendragon IS silly for arguing that a fighter should invest in skill feats to make up for a rules problem.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 16, 2003)

celtavian said:
			
		

> Hmm. The Monk's hands do not allow them to strike incorporeal creatures? Why? Did they leave in the +1 or better weapon wording, I forgot to look.




The same reason the Monk couldn't punch incorporeals in 3rd edition.

Incorporeal creatures are immune to nonmagical attack forms (they do not have Damage Reduction, they have immunity).
Monk Ki Strike only works for the purposes of bypassing Damage Reduction, not for any other purpose.

So yes, Monks can't punch wraiths any more than the Tarrasque can.

So a Monk _needs_ a magical weapon in the same way that a Fighter does. So a Monk is just like any other warrior build except that they have Flurry Attack and a low BAB. Or we could use the Orc build above and have a full BAB and a Flurry Attack.


			
				zerakon said:
			
		

> I agree that the fighter is poorly designed. Great for the low levels + horrible at high levels leads to an extreme multiclass incentive which is poor design.




And all the Prestige Classes in Sword and Fist are modelled on the Fighter.

You are supposed to get _at least_ 1 feat equivalent for the first two levels and _at most_ one feat equivalent for every level thereafter.

That's terrible design.

1> It makes people who multiclass _better_ than people who don't.

2> It causes warriors (who stay in a class or three) to gain power _slower_ at high level - a time when I'll remind you spellcasters are gaining power _faster_.

So the front loading makes people take 8 classes or more in 20 levels. The lack of back loading means that anyone who doesn't spends their high levels shuffling their feet while the Wizard does something awesome all the time.

----

There is a solution:

1> Make warrior classes good all the way through (that means keep giving Fighters and Barbarians good stuff after level 2, and Paladins and Rangers good stuff after level 5).

2> Make the Prestige Classes good all the way through.

3> Stop making more PRestige Classes, there are already too many by a factor of ten at least.

4>Fix saving throw and BAB progressions such that you don't end up with better saves as a multiclass character and allow non-warriors to multiclass without losing BAB every time.

---

On the last one, I suggest picking up 3/4 of a save for every level with a Good save and 1/2 of a save for every level with a Poor save, cummulative. That would end up with the highs at +15 at 20th level and the lows +10. That's a lot different from the current system where the High is +40 and the low is +0, and I think that's a good thing.

-Frank


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 16, 2003)

Zerkon, you make a intresting observation in regaurds to the "swing mastery thing" but, I do think its a little too much and a little too easy to require for multi-classes. Perhaps it would server better as something like this:

*Masterful Multi-attack [General]*
Choose one type of weapon, such as a long sword or a great axe. You are adept at attacking an opponent with a barrage of attacks.
*Prerequisite:* Proficiency with the weapon you choose, 8th level Fighter.
*Benefit:* Your Base Attack Bonus changes to the Following with your chosen weapon.
*Level      Base Attack Bonus*
    1st           +1
    2nd          +2
    3rd           +3
    4th           +4
    5th           +5/+1
    6th           +6/+2
    7th           +7/+4
    8th           +8/+5
    9th           +9/+6/+1
    10th         +10/+7/+2
    11th         +11/+9/+4
    12th         +12/+10/+5
    13th         +13/+11/+6/+1
    14th         +14/+12/+7/+2
    15th         +15/+14/+9/+4
    16th         +16/+15/+10/+5
    17th         +17/+16/+11/+6    [+1 “Weapon Mastery Grand, Benefit”]
    18th         +18/+17/+12/+7    [+2 “Weapon Mastery Grand, Benefit”]
    19th         +19/+19/+14/+9    [+4 “Weapon Mastery Grand, Benefit”]
    20th         +20/+20/+15/+10  [+5 “Weapon Mastery Grand, Benefit”]
*Note:* Refer to the Weapon Mastery Grand feat for additional benefits. 
    A Fighter may select this feat as one of the fighter Bonus feats.
*Special:* This feat cannot be combined with the benefits gained with two-weapon fighting or shield weapon style. This feat does not restrict you from holding something in your off-hand including a shield however; do to the demanding prowess needed to attack with your primary weapon, its impossible to combine it with an off-weapon attack.
     You can gain Masterful Multi-Attack several times. The effects do not stack. Each time you choose this feat it applies to a new type of weapon.

Grand Weapon Mastery is another Feat but its good point is that it makes the fighter have to work for it. For some reason I like that this isnt available till atleast 8th level, and its a Fighter only feat.

DA


----------



## Zerakon (Sep 16, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That's terrible design.
> ...
> There is a solution:
> 
> ...




Agreed with the exception of #3. If you fix #1, #2, and #4, then #3 shouldn't matter.  Furthermore, just because companies crank out more prestige classes doesn't mean that the DM should allow them.

Thankfully, since I'm using all homebrewed Prc's, I can easily handle all of this. I'd probably be a bit frustrated if I was playing "by the books."

Btw, do you propose giving anything to single-classed rogues at upper levels, or do you think the only problem is with single-classed fighter-types?


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 16, 2003)

I feel I should probably jump in on this.  Ever since coming to 3rd edition, and up until 3.5 came out, I've been playing a fighter.  Personally, I just love customizing the class to my will (only PrCed once, for my AC god character), but I agree that the fighter has a horrendous skill list and poor skill progression.  With the skill list, you can (with DM approval, of course) swap out some of the skills for others, but even with that, I find that, more often than not, I find I'm running out of skills faster than skill points (Int 14+, human).  I also find that I'm swapping out at least 2-3 skills to build the character concept I want.
Just to clear things up before I go on, this isn't arguing that fighters have too many skill points, it's arguiing that fighters don't have enough skills.  You want to play a knight errant?  Sorry, no diplomacy.  You want to play a witty swashbuckler?  Sorry, no tumble.  Bad implementation, IMO.
Some of you have said that feats are enough to vary the character.  I disagree.  While you can get a practically infinite set of characters from the Fighter as is, you can't get the character concepts you want, at least not from the fighter himself.  And I just don't understand why Profession is a cross class skill for the fighter.  It makes no sense!
At the least, I'd say add in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Proffession; maybe add in Gather Information, Survival, and a few others.  Raise the skill points to 4/level (and this goes for sorcerors as well, maybe even up their HP, but that's for a different topic).  This should bring the fighters closer to the level of other classes.  Maybe add in an ability to go with the odd levels where they currently get nothing (maybe a skill boost, maybe something else, I dunno), then call it a day.
As it is, it's hard to play a fighter without making him a smith of some sort (craft skills), and when you have characters that start looking alike because they can't look any other way, then that's just bad design.
Um...  I've rambled enough on this for now.
Magius out.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 16, 2003)

> Btw, do you propose giving anything to single-classed rogues at upper levels, or do you think the only problem is with single-classed fighter-types?




Right now, the upper levels of Rogue are pretty sweet, excpet for a few that are mysteriously empty.

You start getting Rogue abilities, and Skill Mastery is crazy sweet.

The problem I generally see is that people don't like getting the _middle_ levels of Rogue. That and the PrCs listed in Lute and Loot pretty much suck.

The first five levels give you a sneak attack and/or a cool ability every level. But level 6 gives you Trap Sense +2. Noone cares about Trap Sense +2.

So people want to PrC instead of taking level 6. But when they do, they end up not getting the later Rogue levels - and that really comes back to bite them when they don't have Skill Mastery: Disable Device.

I suggest that the Rogue abilities be moved around and down a bit so they get something nice every level.

Say a progression that looked like:

1 Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding
2 Evasion
3 Sneak Attack +2d6, Trap Sense +1
4 Uncanny Dodge
5 Sneak Attack +3d6
6 Improved Uncanny Dodge
7 Sneak Attack +4d6, Trap Sense +2
8 Special Ability
9 Sneak Attack +5d6
10 Skill Bonus Feat, Trap Sense +3
11 Sneak Attack +6d6
12 Special Ability
13 Sneak Attack +7d6, Trap Sense +4
14 Skill Bonus feat
15 Sneak Attack +8d6
16 Special Ability
17 Sneak Attack +9d6, Trap Sense +5
18 Skill Bonus Feat
19 Sneak Attack +10d6
20 Special Ability

With Skill Bonus feats being just a bonus feat that can only be spent on one of those silly +2/+2 feats or Skill Focus.

Not much of a power-up, but moving things to the mid levels where they are needed.

That and the Rogue PrCs would get a lot more useful if people didn't lose BAB to get them.

-Frank


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 17, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> At the least, I'd say add in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Proffession; maybe add in Gather Information, Survival, and a few others.  Raise the skill points to 4/level (and this goes for sorcerors as well, maybe even up their HP, but that's for a different topic).  This should bring the fighters closer to the level of other classes.  Maybe add in an ability to go with the odd levels where they currently get nothing (maybe a skill boost, maybe something else, I dunno), then call it a day.
> As it is, it's hard to play a fighter without making him a smith of some sort (craft skills), and when you have characters that start looking alike because they can't look any other way, then that's just bad design.




I see where you are coming from, but I think your suggestions go too far.  Different classes have their niche, and I do not see why a fighter should have any hope of attaining the excellence in social skills that a paladin, bard, or rogue can achieve.

In the context of D&D power scaling, a net skill of +5 is a raw journeyman, a skill of +10 that of a master, a skill of +15 or more would be in the legendary range.

Certainly a +5 or even +10 is well within reach of a fighter by spending skill points on cross class skills.  I just think that fighter's mostly need more skill points to do this.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 17, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> And Lord Pendragon IS silly for arguing that a fighter should invest in skill feats to make up for a rules problem.




I agree there.  I am certainly willing to 'waste' a feat to round out a character concept.  But I do not see that one or two feats from the PHB will go far.

I have seen reasonably good results with Cosmopolitan, but that is not core.  IMO Cosmopolitan is more than twice as good for mid-level characters as the run of the mill +2 & +2 feats, and it scales with level.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 17, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> And Lord Pendragon IS silly for arguing that a fighter should invest in skill feats to make up for a rules problem.



And I find the people in this thread who believe the fighter is underpowered to be equally silly.

Now can we stop with the sniping, or are you just looking for a fight?


----------



## Steverooo (Sep 17, 2003)

First of all, the Multiclassing rules just don't work.  There... I've said it!

A 4th level Ex-Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger has the Fortitude save of a 12th level Fughter, as well as +2 Reflex.  Obviously, this is wrong!

The LN Level Two Druid/Monk isn't quite as bad, but has no weakness, like the above's +0 Will.  Again, this is a problem.

The "fix" is to lower DCs, and make "Good" saves +1 first level.  Then this problem will be no more.  Maximum gain/level is +1, for all classes.

Now the Fighter's skills...  IMHO, ALL classes need more skill points, and I see no reason why any class should have a mere +2/level, so I support a boost for all.  For the Fighter's skills, let me digress, for a moment...

Remember 1e?  No one but a THIEF could climb walls, or Move Silently/Hide in Shadows, and even a Ranger had to rely on his better Surprise dice?  Now Fighters have climb!  Why?

Because they're big and strong, and Climb/Jump/Swim are STR skills.  Oh, sure, their archetype doesn't really call for a lot of climbing (although the DC:15 climb check to get up or down a non-knotted rope, when it's away from a wall (IIRC), is annoying), and sure, his armor penalty is working against him, as well as his shield penalty, but oh well, at least he has it!

Now, onto the DEX-based skills, especially Move Silently & Hide...  Seems to me that the same applies here.  Fighters need DEX & CON, let'em have these skills, too.  Sentry-stalking is - most assuredly - primarily a military art!  Again, the average Fighter's Armor & Shield Check Penalties will be working against him, so the ROGUE will still be better (as will the Ranger), but that's all well and good, too.

Next, Spot & Listen.  The military is, and almost always HAS BEEN the primary producer of "trained observers".  There are many in the airline industry, today, but still, unless I miss my educated guess, I'll bet the military still outnumbers them by a wide margin.  Besides...  If I were a Fighter assigned to stand Sentry duty, and I thought someone was stalking me, you betcha I'd develop some Listen skill!

If I were running D&D (and I'm not), I would look carefully at classes to see what skills they needed to do their jobs.  Then, I'd make sure they had them.  I would then see what Professions and Crafts would also fit, and add them to the list (instead of the more general list).  I would bever entertain the idea that a Fighter needed to multiclass in order to be a good sentry, or a good commando, or mounted archer, or any other Medieval military roll.  If he has to, then the D&D Fighter is flawed, and needs fixing.

The same is true with ALL classes.

"So, Steverooo, what's YOUR Fix?"

First of all, see above...

Next, EVERY class gets either Special Class Abilities, OR their choice of Special Class-Only Feats from a list, at EVERY level.  For the Fighter, for example, one of these might be:

*Officer*
You have ascended to high Rank in the military.
Effects: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Local), and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) are added to your class skills.  Skill points/level are increased by two, but these points can only be used for these three skills.

For Druids, Rangers, and perhaps Monks, special extensions to the Improved Unarmed Strike chain could be added, to let their hand(s) do slashing damage.  In general, though, MOST of the selectable Feats should be non-combat-oriented (as opposed to now, when many, if not most, are)!

Gaining new abilities at every level would make more people want to stick with a base class.  There's another thing that would help, though...

The DMG-stated FACT that Prestige Classes are *more powerful* than "normal" PHB Classes is just *wrong*, IMHO.  I hate that.  I would much rather see the following (in 4.0+):

There are no more Prestige Classes, as such.  Instead, all of the PHB PC Classes have a wide variety of Class-only Feats at higher levels (such as the Rogue's), which allow them to be customized to become the equivalents.  Clerics/Paladins or Druids/Rangers might share some Feats/Special Abilities, but then, they do now, so so what?  In 4.0, you can gain the abilities of the Prestige classes through selecting the Feats or Class-Only Feats that you need to gain the abilities.

Another way to do that same thing would be to assign an XP cost to each ability, and then MULTIPLY that by a certain amount, depending upon what level it was gained at...

For instance, gaining 1D6 worth of backstab (uh, I mean Sneak Attack!) might cost, say, 500 XP, times the level.  500 XP at first, 1,000 at second, etc.  (Yes, yes, I know that someone could stay first level and pick up a lot of stuff, but think about it... low saves, low HP, etc.  Perhaps a limit of "no more XP in special abilities than in your class" could fix that?)

Anyway, just some ideas.  Until the PHB Classes are as powerful as the Prestige classes, this problem will only continue...


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 17, 2003)

pendragon said:
			
		

> Now can we stop with the sniping, or are you just looking for a fight?




I'm not especially looking for a fight, but I can't stop sniping you either.

You see, your two "solutions" to the Fighter problem were:

1> Spend a couple of feats on Cosmopolitan.
or
2> Multiclass.

Right.   

---

For the first one, let's look at a 3rd level Fighter:

The only class features of the whole class so far, has been the gaining of 2 bonus feats. If I spend two feats that I otherwise would not have to get a couple of Cosmopolitans, I then have to spend those 2 bonus feats on the combat feats I otherwise would have _without taking any class at all_.

So the net result: I get +2 to two skills, and have the lowest possible number of skill points and no class features at all for three levels. Do I have to draw you a diagram?

---

For the second one:
[sarcasm]
Gosh, you're right! If I _don't take Fighter Levels at all, my Fighter Levels won't drag me down!_ Why didn't I think of that?

Of course, I can make up for the shortcomings of the Fighter class by _not taking Fighter Levels_. That solves everything.
[/sarcasm]

Of course, that's just like saying "The Sorcerer's power and diversity problems are completely solved by just taking your first level as Wizard and taking all of your subsequent levels as Wizard."

That's basically so irrelevent to the discussion that I can't even tell if it's "true" or "false". Any problems with a class can, of course, be removed by taking your levels in some other class - that's not a helpful suggestion.
----


So yes, pendragon - your suggestions are comical to the point where you are the comic relief of this discussion. We can't take you seriously. That's why we make fun of you.

-Frank


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 17, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The only class features of the whole class so far, has been the gaining of 2 bonus feats. If I spend two feats that I otherwise would not have to get a couple of Cosmopolitans, I then have to spend those 2 bonus feats on the combat feats I otherwise would have _without taking any class at all_.



Sorry, Chief, but don't think that actually works. Cosmopolitan, IIRC, is NOT on the list of fighter bonus feats. That, unfortunately, means a fighter CAN'T take them as fighter bonus feats, although if he's a human, he can take two using his standard and racial feats at first level....which is probably the only time you SHOULD take them, since otherwise, you won't actually have any skillpoints to put in them, or will have already burned the skillpoints on cross-class penalties.

But yeah, two skillpoints per level, plus an abyssally bad skill list, does sort of suck. And Spot and Listen aren't even on the class skill list. If a fighter happened to learn his fighting art in a jungle climate, I seriously doubt riding would be high on his list of things-to-know, whereas spotting and listening for enemies hiding in the trees would certainly be on the list of things-to-know.

That, and the idea of spot and listen as skills that one trains in at the expense of something else is a little weird: You don't become WORSE at other skills or lack them entirely because you were observant: In fact, you would become BETTER at other skills, because you were observant and could therefore learn them in less time than others! I'm a fairly observant person: I probably have a decent spot skill (although as a fine connoisseur of explosions, my listen skill undoubtedly suffers): This didn't happen because I spent my time staring into space trying to practice spotting things: It was more or less an innate aptitude, which improved with practice....and you can't really NOT practice them unless you walk around blindfolded with earplugs...which arguably is a great way to practice one's Balance skill.


----------



## BMF (Sep 17, 2003)

> Sorry, Chief, but don't think that actually works. Cosmopolitan, IIRC, is NOT on the list of fighter bonus feats... .




  That's not what he said. 



> If you jack up the Fighter's Skill points to 4/level, and you give the Fighter a bonus feat every level from first level through twentieth, they still don't do all that well in that kind of analysis..





 That shows a flaw in your analysis. I submit exhibit A: 


> 1 Bonus Feat
> 2 Bonus Feat
> 3 Bonus Feat
> 4 Bonus Feat
> ...




 I would never allow someone to play a fighter with that many feats. Clearly, they would be more powerful than any barbarian or paladin or ranger. You are making a dubious association between class abilities and feats. You also disregard the flexibility and versatility that comes with the fighter's broad selection of feats. 

 I agree that fighters don't get enough skills to choose from. I hesitate to give them more skill points though. I don't think they should get Spot, Listen, Hide, AND Move Silently (or Sneak). That is a sweet skill set that is the domain of rogues and other extremely alert characters. Perhaps one or two of those. Spot being my personal choice. 

 Knowledge (tactics) from d20 Modern would be good too. 

 Can you show how a 20th level barbarian is clearly more powerful than a 20th level fighter (like you did with the prestige classes above)?


----------



## Silverglass (Sep 17, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Adding good feats to _possible_ feat choices in no way balances the Fighter.
> 
> You can take 20 levels of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes without taking more than 2 levels of any class. With no more than 2 levels in any class you take no XP penalty regardless of what your favored class is, and regardless of whether you use the stupid 3.r typo that PrCs can cause XP penalties.
> 
> ...




And of those 9 extra Feats that you have got by having 10 classes you will have spent how many that are of limited use in meeting the pre-requisites to take the 5+ prestige classes you have? The probable net result after removing these feats is parity or a net loss. And of all those extra skill points how many have you been forced to spend to meet pre-requisites.

When it comes down to it you seem to want a Fighter that is good in combat and out, well that is what the core classes give you. Take a Fighter 18/other class 2 (Expert, Bard or Rogue are all good).

Ok you might sacrifice a point of BAB, a Feat and 5 or 6 hit points - but in return you get those extra skills you desire so much. Thereby meeting the principle that this character is fractionally worse in combat than a PC with 20 Fighter levels but better in non-combat situations. 

You complain that this proves that Fighters are "broken" because to get a maxed diplomacy and sense motive they have to multi-class. But so would a Wizard who wanted a high diplomacy and sense motive, or a cleric who wanted to track as well as a ranger. The principle holds true across the classes so I can't see how you can use this as an argument that it breaks the Fighter class.

Sorry but I dont agree that the Fighter Class (not a PC who is has the role of fighter) needs more skill points or a wider skill list. That is what multiclassing, skill boosting feats and cross-class skills are for.

EDIT

Just for comparison with an INT 10 non-human (although you would probably have better INT if you wanted to be a skilled fighter.

*Fighter 20*

114 HP, BAB +20, Fort +12, Ref +6, Will +6, 18 Feats
40 Skill Points on Fighter skills

*Fighter 16, Rogue 4*

106 HP, BAB +19, Fort +11, Ref +9, Will +6, 16 Feats
32 Skill Points on Fighter skills
32 Skill Points to spend on any rogue skill.

So that would give this fighter 16 ranks each in Diplomacy and Sense Motive and 2d6 Sneak attack, evasion and uncanny dodge.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 17, 2003)

To some degree everyone has a valid arguement however, my great concern for balanced pc classes is because of one simple reason: I dont like prestige classes (well a good many of them). This doesnt mean I dont use them in my campaign I just limit them. 

Personally Id rather have more veristile and balanced character classes then a ton of unbalanced prestige classes. As Ive said before, I broke down each class and its abilities from 1st to 20th level, and I find the fighter and the sorceror slightly lacking. Apperently Im not the only one. I want to play with balanced class.

The new house rule in regaurds to the Fighter Class is thus follows: 

Class skills: in addition the Fighter can choose 3 class skills from the following list: Bluff, Heal, Knowledge (any except arcana unless he has a really good reason), listen, profession, Search, Sense motive, or Spot.

Class Abilities: 11th level Fighter Feat.

Al the rest remains the same including class skill points.

Next up is the sorceror and 2 new Fighter variant classes one Dex bases, one Skill based similiar to Unearthed Arcana.

DA


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 17, 2003)

BMF said:
			
		

> Can you show how a 20th level barbarian is clearly more powerful than a 20th level fighter (like you did with the prestige classes above)?




Yes and no. While I can show that a 20th level Barbarian moves faster, hits more often, has more hit points and does more damage - I don't think that's what people are looking for out of a comparison.

---

The thing is, Fighters are not versatile and customizable. They don't have "any bonus feat you want". They have a single feat, every other level, which doesn't change.

While the class says:

1 Bonus Feat
2 Bonus Feat
3 
4 Bonus Feat
5 
6 Bonus Feat
7 
8 Bonus Feat
9 
10 Bonus Feat
11 
12 Bonus Feat
13 
14 Bonus Feat
15 
16 Bonus Feat
17 
18 Bonus Feat
19 
20 Bonus Feat

In reality, a specific Fighter might get:

1 Power Attack
2 Weapon Focus
3 
4 Great Cleave
5 
6 Weapon Specialization
7 
8 Mounted Combat
9 
10 Spirited Charge
11 
12 Improved Initiative
13 
14 Expertise
15 
16 Knockdown
17 
18 Improved Overrun
19 
20 Improved Disarm

Looks a lot less impressive, doesn't it? You don't get to switch your bonus feats. Once you've selected them, they aren't "customizable" at all. So if the Fighter is paying anything for his "customizability" (and he he seems to be), then he's paying too much - because he doesn't actually get to enjoy any of it.

Or to put it another way:

Sooner or later you are going to want Rapid Shot if you _ever_ intend to fight with a bow. You could take two more levels of Fighter and get Rapid Shot, 4 skill points, and 2 BAB.

Or you could take 2 levels of Ranger and get Rapid Shot, 12 skill points, a Favored Enemy Bonus, Track, Wild Empathy, a bonus to your reflex saves, and 2 BAB.

As long as you haven't taken 2 levels of Ranger, there's _no reason_ to take 2 more levels of Fighter. And so on, for all the combat classes.

---

Now, the warrior classes also have their own problems - which is that they _also_ have sharp drop-offs where there's no good reason to take them. The Barbarian, for example, is also half as good per level after level 2 than it is at the beginning. The Ranger and the Paladin don't get good things after level 5.

But these classes also start off getting more stuf than the Fighter does. Rage is better than Weapon Focus. By really a whole lot.



			
				silverglass said:
			
		

> And of those 9 extra Feats that you have got by having 10 classes you will have spent how many that are of limited use in meeting the pre-requisites to take the 5+ prestige classes you have?




I don't know. How much do you value Weapon Focus? I think it sucks, and so I am annoyed when a Prestige Class demands that I take it. If you were going to take it anyway (perhaps because you are trying to make use of the Fighter's "ability" to take Weapon Specialization) then that's no cost at all.

On the other hand, I really like the 3.5 Endurance feat. And of course it comes with a level that has 6 skill points, which is practically a feat in and of itself. So I really don't mind getting Endurance as a bonus feat instead of _not_ getting a bonus feat like I would be getting from taking Fighter levels (since it comes on an odd level). The fact that it is used as a prereq certainly doesn't make it _worse_.

-Frank


----------



## takyris (Sep 18, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The thing is, Fighters are not versatile and customizable. They don't have "any bonus feat you want". They have a single feat, every other level, which doesn't change.




Frank, I'm not sure that I agree with you here.  I don't think people were under the impression that they could change their bonus feats at will.  I think that what people were saying was that the bonus feats allow you to make whatever type of fighter you want.  The feats allow you to make an archery specialist, a hit-and-run expert, a two-handed-weapon monster, or a guy who dabbles in a bunch of fields.  In that respect, it IS customizable -- it's the same level of customizability as the wizard, who gets to choose his spells and really has nothing but spells to go with, or the rogue, who gets to choose his skill points and is not a power-contender in most areas beyond skill-usage.

The wizard is the customizable guy with spells.  The rogue is the customizable guy with skills.  The fighter is the customizable guy with the best BAB.

I've found with fighters that what i end up valuing are not so much the bonus feats themselves, which tend to be the stuff I'd take anyway if I were playing a ranger or a paladin -- but the ordinary feats, which I can use for stuff I wouldn't have room for if I weren't playing a bonus-feat-heavy class.

For what it's worth, I personally agree with you that Weapon Focus/Specialization is not the way to go.  I HATE having to rely on a single weapon, when that weapon could be disarmed or sundered -- or when I might find a much better weapon of a different type.  I personally never take that feat when playing a PC.  On the other hand, enough people DO take that feat chain that it apparently IS valuable in somebody's eyes -- just not in ours.

On another side note: You're making a lot of good rules points on these boards, but people are responding more to your tone than to your points.  If you were a little more diplomatic, you'd probably have a lot more supporters.

EDIT: Got rid of rest of Frank's post, which I'd quoted.


----------



## Storminator (Sep 18, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> I don't know. How much do you value Weapon Focus? I think it sucks, and so I am annoyed when a Prestige Class demands that I take it. If you were going to take it anyway (perhaps because you are trying to make use of the Fighter's "ability" to take Weapon Specialization) then that's no cost at all.
> 
> ...




Weapon Focus is the most used feat in the game. How many times do you attack over the course of a career? 2000? 1500? With a 5% return on investment that's 75-100 extra hits. That's a lot of bonus hits. 

Same with WS. Give it a few levels to get there, say 1200 attacks, maybe 3-400 hits, 750 points of damage? Piles up pretty good.

Frank, I'm interested in how you reconcile the "fighter is no good" argument in this thread with the "you're better off taking fighter and wizard levels" argument in the Elven Fighter Mage thread. If you make the fighter that much better, doesn't that make the EK and SS builds even worse? And what does that lead to?

PS


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 18, 2003)

> Weapon Focus is the most used feat in the game. How many times do you attack over the course of a career? 2000? 1500? With a 5% return on investment that's 75-100 extra hits. That's a lot of bonus hits.




Personally, I prefer to take a larger conditional bonus, such as Great Teamwork. I can then modify my fighting to the style that I have. A simple +1 all the time with one weapon is much smaller, because it assumes that I am not putting active effort into flanking (in order to get the Great Teamwork bonus) - which of course I _am_.



> Frank, I'm interested in how you reconcile the "fighter is no good" argument in this thread with the "you're better off taking fighter and wizard levels" argument in the Elven Fighter Mage thread. If you make the fighter that much better, doesn't that make the EK and SS builds even worse? And what does that lead to?




My argument is that the "Fighter" is not very good, and because the Spellsword isn't even _that_ good it is by comparison _awful_.

The Eldritch Knight _is_ better than taking Wizard and Fighter levels. It's just like taking 2 levels of Fighter and the rest as Wizard except that you get extra hit points and BAB with some of the Wizard levels. Unfortunately, the basic fact is that Wizard and Fighter abilities are _so_ anti-synnergistic that that ends up not being all that good a deal.

The Fighter needs to be good at his job for every single level. The Wizard needs to be good at his job for every single level.

Further, the two classes need to be set up so that their abilities synergize instead of cancelling. For example: having armor proficiency should negate Arcane Spell Failure right off (as things stand, part of a Fighter levels built-in balancing factors is that they come with heavy armor - ASF actually nerfs the _fighter_ end of the Fighter/Wizard). But of course, that's a seperate issue. Until the Fighter stands on its own making an intelligent prediction of what would make the Fighter 10/ Wizard 10 viable is difficult at best.

-Frank


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 19, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I'm not especially looking for a fight, but I can't stop sniping you either.



Fine, we'll play it your way.







> You see, your two "solutions" to the Fighter problem were:
> 
> 1> Spend a couple of feats on Cosmopolitan.



Let's stop right there.  Let me go over it again.  It's really pretty simple:

The fighter doesn't need to be fixed.  He has strengths and weaknesses, just like every other class.  His strength is more feats and a full BAB.  His weakness is less skill points than other classes.

You are arguing that that the fighter's low skill points make him unplayable outside of combat.  Setting aside the absurdity of that statement, I offered you a way for fighter-players to increase their bonuses to certain skills: by investing in feats that allow just that.







> 2> Multiclass



I never made this argument.  My argument was that fighters, like everyone else, can invest in the proper magical gear to shore up thier weaknesses.  A wizard with low hp buys an _Amulet of Health_, a monk with a low AC buys _Bracers of Armor_.  And a fighter who wants to excel at skills can buy a _Brooch of Persuasion_, a _Mirror of Vanity_, or a _Ring of Deft Misdirection_.

Each class has inherent weaknesses, and there are ways, such as spending opportunity (by using feats) or money (by purchasing the correct gear) to compensate for them.  None of the classes can or should be able to do everything all the time, as you seem to feel the fighter should.







> For the first one, let's look at a 3rd level Fighter:
> 
> The only class features of the whole class so far, has been the gaining of 2 bonus feats. If I spend two feats that I otherwise would not have to get a couple of Cosmopolitans, I then have to spend those 2 bonus feats on the combat feats I otherwise would have _without taking any class at all_.
> 
> So the net result: I get +2 to two skills, and have the lowest possible number of skill points and no class features at all for three levels. Do I have to draw you a diagram?



No, I can see the inanity without your draw-by-numbers, thank you very much.  Now that you've painted your little sob-story picture of the fighter that couldn't, let's look at the wizard and compare.

The wizard sucks at combat.  The only class features of the whole class so far are 3 spells per day.  If I spend three spells that I otherwise would not have to get a +8 AC bonus and +4 to strength--for one combat--then I've wasted all my class abilities and have nothing left--as if I had _not taken the class at all_.

So the net result:  I get +8 to AC and +4 to strength for one combat, and have the lowest possible number of hit points and no class features at all for three levels.

Sound familiar?   

Instead, let's take a look at a 10th-level fighter.  He has 10 feats to play with, 6 of which were granted by his class.  That's enough for Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise (wait, if he has Expertise that means Int 13, and one extra skill point every level, doesn't it?), Whirlwind Attack, Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack.  That's a nice helping of combat abilities.  On top of that, he has two more feats remaining.  Say our fighter also fancies himself a diplomat.  He wants to be a general in the future, so he things Diplomacy would be a good skill to have.  So he's been putting skill points into it (cross-class) and has five Ranks.  So he decides to use his last two feats on Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Persuasive, netting him another +5:  for an overall +10 to Diplomacy.

No, +10 to Diplomacy isn't as good as a rogue or bard's +13, but it's still plenty good to get the job done.

That's my point, Frank.  That a fighter is plenty powered as is.  That perceived weaknesses can be compensated for (if the player feels it necessary) just as other classes compensate for _their_ weaknesses.







> For the second one:
> [sarcasm]
> Gosh, you're right! If I _don't take Fighter Levels at all, my Fighter Levels won't drag me down!_ Why didn't I think of that?



I didn't think of it either.  How strange.







> Of course, I can make up for the shortcomings of the Fighter class by _not taking Fighter Levels_. That solves everything.
> [/sarcasm]



Lots of good dialogue here.  Yep.  Yesiree.







> Of course, that's just like saying "The Sorcerer's power and diversity problems are completely solved by just taking your first level as Wizard and taking all of your subsequent levels as Wizard."



That's an entirely different question.  Why are you muddying the waters with bad analogies?







> That's basically so irrelevent to the discussion that I can't even tell if it's "true" or "false". Any problems with a class can, of course, be removed by taking your levels in some other class - that's not a helpful suggestion.



You've spent so much time on this that even though it was never my intention, I will address it anyway.

Multiclassing is not a means of fixing the "problems" of the fighter class.  It's a means of strengthening the weaknesses of a character, as a whole.  The fighter class provides serious melee power, but that power comes at a cost in other areas.  If a player wishes to recover some of that non-combat strength, they can multiclass into a class that _has_ that kind of strength.  Of course, they would then be giving up the extra power that additional fighter levels afford, but that's the nature of the Multiclassing Game.







> So yes, pendragon - your suggestions are comical to the point where you are the comic relief of this discussion. We can't take you seriously. That's why we make fun of you.



I'm not sure how to reply to this.  You seem intent on portraying my discussion as farcical, in the way that you might laugh at a child attempting to talk politics with the adults.  This doesn't bother me, because I can see for myself the direction this conversation has followed.

Still, if it makes you feel better to think of me as "comical" and my presence as "comic relief" that can't be taken seriously, then feel free.  It's only fair.  I'm certainly thinking the same of you.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 19, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Multiclassing is not a means of fixing the "problems" of the fighter class.  It's a means of strengthening the weaknesses of a character, as a whole.  The fighter class provides serious melee power, but that power comes at a cost in other areas.  If a player wishes to recover some of that non-combat strength, they can multiclass into a class that _has_ that kind of strength.  Of course, they would then be giving up the extra power that additional fighter levels afford, but that's the nature of the Multiclassing Game.
> <snip>




The thing of it is that you shouldn't have to face that sort of manipulation to make the type of fighter you want.  Let's have a look at one of the classic examples of this: the Knight Errant.  The honorable swordsman who would never strike at his opponent from the back (negating the rogue levels), the warrior who has no magical abilities outside of his equipment (eleminating everything else save Barbarian), and who is definitely well groomed.
This sort of character _needs_ Diplomacy in addition to the standard list of Fighter skills.  And you know what?  He's going to be better at it than he is at making his own equipment, climbing/jumping around, or much of anything else.  Assuming an intelligence of 13 (what's needed for the expertise he'll be taking at some point), he'd have Ride, Diplomacy, and Handle Animal, all on equal footing.
The only way to do this, according to your analysis, is to multiclass or take feats.  I disagree.  This should be one of the basic archetypes that can be built with the fighter, but the simple fact is that it isn't, not without messing with the class itself (something that, if the class were built correctly, you wouldn't have to do), or taking extra feats to do it (feats that could better define the character, and whether you think it or not, 2 feats is an awefully high price to pay to build an archetype).
This, of course, doesn't address the need for more skill points, but I think it's a fairly moot point at this point because the fighter really doesn't have the skills to handle the skill points he has right now.  If you have an int above 15, you're probably going to run out of class skills to define your character!
And I think I've made my point, so I'll stop rambling now.
Magius out.


----------



## Storminator (Sep 19, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> The thing of it is that you shouldn't have to face that sort of manipulation to make the type of fighter you want.  Let's have a look at one of the classic examples of this: the Knight Errant.  The honorable swordsman who would never strike at his opponent from the back (negating the rogue levels), the warrior who has no magical abilities outside of his equipment (eleminating everything else save Barbarian), and who is definitely well groomed.
> This sort of character _needs_ Diplomacy in addition to the standard list of Fighter skills.  And you know what?  He's going to be better at it than he is at making his own equipment, climbing/jumping around, or much of anything else.  Assuming an intelligence of 13 (what's needed for the expertise he'll be taking at some point), he'd have Ride, Diplomacy, and Handle Animal, all on equal footing.
> The only way to do this, according to your analysis, is to multiclass or take feats.  I disagree.  This should be one of the basic archetypes that can be built with the fighter, but the simple fact is that it isn't, not without messing with the class itself (something that, if the class were built correctly, you wouldn't have to do), or taking extra feats to do it (feats that could better define the character, and whether you think it or not, 2 feats is an awefully high price to pay to build an archetype).
> This, of course, doesn't address the need for more skill points, but I think it's a fairly moot point at this point because the fighter really doesn't have the skills to handle the skill points he has right now.  If you have an int above 15, you're probably going to run out of class skills to define your character!
> ...




I'm not sure I agree with this, particularly the part about spending feats. How would you build the archer archetype without spending feats to do it? How would you build a swashbuckler without spending feats? And really, how could feats "better define" the "well groomed" Knight Errant than Cosmpolitan and Education would?

Here's a perfectly viable Knight Errant at 2 different levels, and I think it looks very playable to me. 

Knight Errant
Human Fighter 1
S 15 D 8 C 12 I 13 W 10 Ch 14

Skills (16 points)
Ride 3 (r4) 
Handle Animal 6 (r4) 
Diplomacy 6 (r2) 
Knowledge(Nobility) 6 (r4)

Mounted Combat
Ride-By Attack
Education (nobility and a second one)
*************************************************************
Knight Errant
Human Fighter 6
S 15 D 8 C 12 I 14 W 10 Ch 14

Skills (39 points)
Ride 10 (r9) 
Handle Animal 11 (r9) 
Diplomacy 13 (r9) 
Knowledge(Nobility) 8 (r5) 
Knowledge(History or Religion or local or Geography, which ever fits the PC best) 8 (r5)

Mounted Combat
Ride-By Attack
Spirited Charge

Power Attack
Cleave

Combat Expertise

Cosmopolitan (diplomacy)
Education

PS


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 19, 2003)

Anyone read Arcana Unearthed?

DA


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 19, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Fine, we'll play it your way.Let's stop right there.  Let me go over it again.  It's really pretty simple:
> 
> The fighter doesn't need to be fixed.  He has strengths and weaknesses, just like every other class.  His strength is more feats and a full BAB.  His weakness is less skill points than other classes.




No the fighters strength is supposed to be being the best he is at what he does which is fighting.  The full bab and the feats are mere tools to reach that end.  

So is the fighter the best there is at fighting?   Well, maybe by a smidge.  The problem is the fighter is way more than a smidge worse than everyone else outside of a fight.  Virtually every class in the game comes dang close to equalling the fighter in a fight, and considering how much the fighter sucks outside of a fight compared to these same classes that's just sucks.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 19, 2003)

Good point shard. Also:

Anyone read the "unearthed arcana" version of the Fighter? He has a few knowledge skills (3 of them, imagine that) and 1d12 hitpoints. Only other diff is a few fixed feats like weapon spez, its not a choice and armor spez which adds up too another +2 ac rating if using med or heavy armor). The other nice thing is some heavy armor ratings (no magic included) goes up to a ac rating of 12!!! Now this a  "fighter"!!! My bad, screw the skill points.

Seems Montecook thought the "fighter" could use a little more humpf too. 

DA

Now whats the choice....A) pick the "fighter class" or B) the "variant fighter class" giving me extra core classes, 1d12 hitpoints, and forcing me (ya poor, poor, me) to take weapon and armor spez?

I think I would take the reg Fighter class because it, well, hmmmm.......ok I lied, B it is!


----------



## takyris (Sep 19, 2003)

Okay, my character concept is that my guy is the best warrior in the whole world, and he doesn't wear armor because he relies on dodging blows, and I want him to be amazingly fast and able to leap out of the way of fireballs and stuff, and a really good acrobat.  I want him to be able to handle himself well in social situations -- I like the idea of women swooning over him and such, although he thinks of all that stuff as fake anyway.  He can sneak really well if he has to, although he hates taking people by surprise.  He'd rather win in a fair fight, because nobody's ever used a blade as well as he has.

So what class am I?

I'm an *anime freakin' munchkin wannabe*, is what I am.

Welcome to a balanced roleplaying game.  The guy who's good at talking with people is not going to be as good in a straight-out fight as the guy who does NOTHING but fight.

If your character concept is a Knight Errant, ask your DM if you can trade Climb, Jump, and Swim for Diplomacy, Knowledgeolitics, and Sense Motive as class skills.  That's listed as an option right in the DMG, and it sounds like a GREAT idea for a character.  With an Int of 10, a human guy can have these max'd out -- or he can have several ranks in these skills and a few left over for crafting items.

One aspect of this discussion that hasn't really been addressed is the notion that someone "doesn't count" as skilled in something unless they have full ranks in it.  If the only time a skill is useful is when you've got full ranks, then your DM is screwing you over.  The DM should make sure that many if not most skill checks should be reasonably makeable (say, 50% chance?) by a character with max'd out cross-class ranks in a skill.  This lets the guy who max'd out his cross-class Spot still catch things a lot of the time, while the dedicated Scout character gets to ALWAYS see the same things.  This is just like sending in monsters that your Bard and Cleric can hit sometimes but your Fighter can ALWAYS get a good hit on.  It's making the game fun for everyone.

Skill checks that are only makeable by max'd rank characters should be rare.  If they're not, then your DM is the one to blame, not the D&D system.  The notion that everyone should have max'd ranks or not bother putting ranks in at all is one that should be put to bed.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 19, 2003)

Well first, I would just use the "unferretted class" in arcana unearthed. Hes the complete op of the new fighter class in thier. The unfer, is fast agile, ect, ect, the fighter is armored and damges u to death.

Also, I forgot to mention that dispite the AU fighter having some fixed feats, they # total of 13. Thats 2 better plus the skills and hit dice over the current 3.5 fighter.

Simply amazing.

DA


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 20, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> So is the fighter the best there is at fighting?   Well, maybe by a smidge.  The problem is the fighter is way more than a smidge worse than everyone else outside of a fight.  Virtually every class in the game comes dang close to equalling the fighter in a fight, and considering how much the fighter sucks outside of a fight compared to these same classes that's just sucks.




I agree.  

A Fighter is not significantly better at fighting than a Barbarian, at least not when it comes to in your face brawls.  Maybe a smidge.  Between more skill points and a half decent set of class skills, the Barbarian is vastly better outside of combat.  

The Barbarian looks like a more promising class to make a Knight Errant precisely because he has the skill points to keep Ride high and get some cross class ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility.  Give him mail armor, make him NG, call his Rage a holy fervor; he is ready to join the Round Table.


----------



## takyris (Sep 20, 2003)

Well, with that qualifier, we could just as well say "A wizard is not as good at spellcasting as a sorcerer, at least when it comes to throwing fireball after fireball."

The sorcerer can be VERY good at a few spells.  The wizard can be pretty good at a TON of spells.

The barbarian can be VERY good at ONE type of combat.  The fighter can become VERY good in MANY types of combat.


----------



## Brian Chalian (Sep 20, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> On another side note: You're making a lot of good rules points on these boards, but people are responding more to your tone than to your points.  If you were a little more diplomatic, you'd probably have a lot more supporters.




Avast, matey:  'twas no coincidence he be named, 'Frank'.  Sore taken with plain speakin' he be, 'tis true, but no finer rules lawyer sails the seven seas.  Unless me head be more muddled with grog than normal, 'twas he who first brandished the cleric artjer and the octopus druid on the Wizards boards.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Okay, my character concept is that my guy is the best warrior in the whole world, and he doesn't wear armor because he relies on dodging blows, and I want him to be amazingly fast and able to leap out of the way of fireballs and stuff, and a really good acrobat.  I want him to be able to handle himself well in social situations -- I like the idea of women swooning over him and such, although he thinks of all that stuff as fake anyway.  He can sneak really well if he has to, although he hates taking people by surprise.  He'd rather win in a fair fight, because nobody's ever used a blade as well as he has.
> 
> So what class am I?



Rogue/Fighter/Duellist.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> One aspect of this discussion that hasn't really been addressed is the notion that someone "doesn't count" as skilled in something unless they have full ranks in it.  If the only time a skill is useful is when you've got full ranks, then your DM is screwing you over.



For many skills, they're only good when you have full ranks....and a large number of levels of those full ranks.

For instance, Concentration: Let's consider a very basic task: Defensive casting of a first level spell: DC16.

This means you will not be able to perform this without a +15 Concentration. Since as of 3E, mostly everyone thinks Constitution is important, let's say our wizard has a 14 Con, +2. That means he won't be able to do this until 10th level....when he'll be trying to do this with 5th level spells. In effect, concentration is useless unless maxed out, and even when maxed out, doesn't close the DC gap for many, many levels.

Spellcraft: DC16 to identify a 1st level spell under normal conditions. Say you're talking a wizard, +4 Int mod, which means he'll need 11 ranks. He won't see that until level 8, by which time he'll be trying to cast L4 spells, L1 spells being very old hat. The DC/Skills gap won't close until well into the high levels, when he's casting L6 spells(ID DC: 21) requiring a +20, has a +5 Int mod, and therefore needs 15 ranks, requiring him to be L12.

Spot/Listen: DC27 to detect a cloaked L10 Rogue with a +4 Dex mod operating under T-10. Since you can also use T-10, you'll be required to have a +17 to detect him. If we figure you are NOT a cleric, and there probably do not have much in the way of a positive Wis mod, that'll require you to be level 14....if you max it out, and it's a class skill. If you ARE a cleric, well, Spot and Listen aren't class skills for you, so you're screwed, period. With those skills cross-class, you'll be lucky to detect an oompah band at 30 yards.

Clearly, these are examples of skills, where the DCs are determined by formulaic rules, and NOT by DM fiat, which are useless without maxed ranks, and even then, not useful until a fairly high level.

These types of skills are clearly identified by a DC that starts with a large flat base modifier, and grows with level of user. Oftentimes, you also won't be allowed to take-10 on them, forcing you to make up that gap entirely with skill ranks....IF the skill DCs grow slower than allowed max ranks. If you're not running with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Skills without such DC behaviors CAN be pursued at less than full ranks....but if you do, you're going to shoot yourself in the foot with regard to skills like the above. Of course, because of this, you've turned a skill like the above into a complete writeoff.....which does, helpfully, free up a lot of points for you to acquire "easy" skills with. Too bad you had to write off what was likely an important class feature to do it.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 20, 2003)

Few skills you actually need full skill ranks for.  You add it to a d20, and its not like one has to succedd all the time.  That's no fun.


----------



## Grog (Sep 20, 2003)

I think fighters are fairly well-balanced at low levels. The problem is (as many have already noted) that they suck in comparassion to other classes at high levels.

At 4th level, Weapon Specialization compares well to a barbarian's rage ability. It's not as powerful, but it's usable in every fight. Meanwhile, a barbarian can only rage twice per day, and the party will probably have more than two fights in a day. The barbarian also has fast move and uncanny dodge, but the fighter has three extra feats, which can make a very significant difference at low levels.

But at high levels, the barbarian keeps getting cool abilities, and all the fighter gets is more and more feats. And once you've grabbed all the good combat feats by 8th level or so, what more is there for you to gain?

And also, besides just looking at things from a raw power standpoint, all those extra feats probably won't help the player advance his character concept much.

For example, let's say the player makes a character - Mr. Greatsword. And his character concept is, he wants this guy to swing a greatsword better than anyone else in the world (it's not a very creative or original concept, but it's a concept nonetheless). Now, after he takes Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, WF: Greatsword, WS: Greatsword, and IC: Greatsword, and maybe another feat or two I haven't thought of, there aren't any more feats he can take that will make his character any better at swinging a greatsword.

Meanwhile, a wizard can keep up the concept of a tricky enchanter type until the highest levels, a rogue can keep up the concept of a sneaky infiltrator type until the highest levels, etc. But fighters don't really offer anything in that regard, and I think that's a problem.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 20, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> For example, let's say the player makes a character - Mr. Greatsword. And his character concept is, he wants this guy to swing a greatsword better than anyone else in the world (it's not a very creative or original concept, but it's a concept nonetheless). Now, after he takes Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, WF: Greatsword, WS: Greatsword, and IC: Greatsword, and maybe another feat or two I haven't thought of, there aren't any more feats he can take that will make his character any better at swinging a greatsword.




Blind Fight (how's he the best if he can't fight in the dark?), Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind (so he can cut through the densest of hordes with ease), Endurance, Diehard (how's he the best if he can't keep on swinging after everyone else's gone down?), Combat Reflexes (so you can hit any who draw near), GWF, GWS (can't be the best without the best damage/attack), and Improved Sunder (surely you can use the blade for something other than carving through meat shields).  Lessee...  6 from your analysis, 12 from mine...  That pretty well accounts for the fighter's 18 or so feats.  That leaves him (asuming only an average STR: say 14 or so): +24 attack, +7 damage, 2+ AoO a round, can attack everything within 5', and is good against stealthed characters (invisible, blurred, etc), and you've got 1 or 2 feats left over for other things.
Yes, I've been playing a fighter long enough to do that sort of thing off the top of my head.  I know the fighter class, and I think that he needs some sort of boost outside of combat.  Plus, I still haven't heard a good reason why the fighter doesn't get proffession as a class skill.
Magius out.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Few skills you actually need full skill ranks for.  You add it to a d20, and its not like one has to succedd all the time.  That's no fun.



The d20 represents "noise". Your skill ranks are your signal. When the amount of signal is drowned out by the amount of noise, the skill is meaningless. If something doesn't work in a reliable manner, it may as well not work at all, for all the good it is. At least then it's reliably nonfunctional, and can be treated as such. And keep in mind that the tasks I quoted DCs and ranks for aren't exceptional things: They're simple, basic, DEFINING tasks for the abilities. These aren't exceptional, outlandish tasks that are being performed: These are basics, things that form the core of the skill. If you couldn't identify a common plant every time, would you call yourself a botanist? Hell, no.


----------



## takyris (Sep 20, 2003)

Ditto Crothian.  I don't "need" a +15 to Defensively cast a 1st-level spell.  I "need" it if I never want to fail EVER in that attempt.  There's a pretty sizeable difference.  If you only have fun when your character never misses, always succeeds in his skill checks, and has effectively no random elements in his life, perhaps you should consider writing stories rather than playing games with dice.

(No offense intended.  I'm a writer as well as a roleplayer, and there are strengths to each style of storytelling.  As a writer, I have complete control of my concept -- if I want him to be the best swordsman who ever lived, he IS.  As a roleplayer, I have to be prepared to accept limitations or work the system to get what I want.)

If you max out your ranks in something, you should be considered to be a specialist in that area, sacrificing breadth for depth with respect to your abilities by level.

When I played a rogue, I would almost always spread out my skills.  Sure, there were times when I missed a check by 2 or 3 and thought "Dang, if only I'd maxed out my ranks," but there were also times when the skill I might've maxed out was utterly useless for one or more full sessions, and then I had points elsewhere to do cool stuff with.  Breadth versus depth.

And with respect, I think that some of your examples were a tad skewed.  Your sneaky rogue example has us up against a master of his trade -- he maxed out his ranks and he either is a naturally catlike fellow (Dex+4) or he is using magical items that  enhance his Dex.  Yet you give our hypothetical listener neither the same uncanny natural ability OR any magical items to enhance his abilities.  This is somewhat like pitting me against a world-class marathon runner and then saying that I suck because I lost the race.  (Um, bad example.  I DO suck at running, but the point is that comparing an average person of that level to the minmaxed specialized paragon of that level is sort of not so good.)

Let's say that I'm a level 10 fighter.  I don't have ranks in Spot.  I probably am not going to see him -- at least, provided that he's got half-concealment and can USE that Hide ability.  If he doesn't, hey, wasted skill ranks.  And then he gets close.  He can sneak attack me.  It will probably hit for quite a bit of damage, at least, provided he hits me.  Then I can turn to him and clobber him with my superior fighting ability.  I will take some damage, yes.  The rogue's superior skills, when combined with his special combat abilities, probably mean that we're about evenly matched, percentage-wise.  If he rolled well and gets good rolls right away, he might take me out of the fight.  Otherwise, my nonflashy but very effective whackology system whittles him down right quick.  50/50 chance or thereabouts -- or in other words, about right for two characters of the same level.

If the fighter was in a disadvantageous condition (eg, the dark, a room full of veils where the rogue could always hide, a room where fireballs exploded every round and forced reflex saves), the rogue would win.  If the fighter was in an advantageous position (eg, a well-lit featureless gladiatoral ring, using a magical item that negated invisibility), the fighter would win.  I've seen both types of combats.

The longer I play, the more I believe that multiclassing is not only permissable but expected and even necessary for most character concepts.  Most people are describing their character concept, and the problem with the fighter not being able to handle it does not lie with the fighter.  I don't even think it lies with the player for not wanting to multiclass.  I think it lies in with the designers, who didn't make it clear that multiclassing was the way it was supposed to be -- that single-classed fighters should be rare and that most "fighting adventurers" had a level of rogue or barbarian or ranger in there somewhere.

Dunno.  Could be wrong.  But I'm seeing some underlying accusations that speak to a radically different philosophy in gaming -- ie, having to have full ranks for a skill to be anything other than "shaft-getting", multiclassing being the scourge of the system, etc.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ditto Crothian.  I don't "need" a +15 to Defensively cast a 1st-level spell.



Defensive casting represents one the most basic elements of Concentration, the ability to concentrate and cast spells under adverse conditions: the defensive cast. A first level spell is one of the simplest, most lowly abilities there is. If something this simple, this basic, cannot be performed at a level of competence where failure is a statistically insignificant phenomenon, then you have no business calling yourself a professional in the field. It's that simple. We're not talking about an absurdly complicated task that not even an expertly trained and highly experienced professional would consider to be sane. We're talking about something mindnumbingly basic, the FIRST thing that somebody would even be able to attempt. If you can't do it every time, you just can't do it.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> And with respect, I think that some of your examples were a tad skewed.  Your sneaky rogue example has us up against a master of his trade -- he maxed out his ranks and he either is a naturally catlike fellow (Dex+4) or he is using magical items that  enhance his Dex.  Yet you give our hypothetical listener neither the same uncanny natural ability OR any magical items to enhance his abilities.  This is somewhat like pitting me against a world-class marathon runner and then saying that I suck because I lost the race.



That was entirely not my point: The point is that in order to have a shot at spotting ANYTHING you'd be expected to spot, like a rogue several levels below you, you'd HAVE to max out your skill. If you DIDN'T, it'd be as effective as not having the skill at all, and a hell of a lot less expensive on the points.

And yes, losing the race does mean you suck. Whether you can live with that because you were never supposed to be good at it, or whether it represents your complete and utter failure as a person, depends on what you're supposed to be doing. If you are not a marathon runner, then you were never expected to *BE* one, and the fact that you suck at it is, simply, natural. If you ARE supposed to be one, have poured every aspect of your being into mastering it, and yet you still remain utterly inferior at it, then you are a failure, and should either contemplate a change in career, or suicide.



> Let's say that I'm a level 10 fighter.  I don't have ranks in Spot.  I probably am not going to see him -- at least, provided that he's got half-concealment and can USE that Hide ability.



Exactly. And since you've never bothered to spend points on it, your shot at detecting him is, frankly, zero. But you know what? If you had bought 5 points of it, burning 10 CC SPs, your shot would STILL be zero. Your chances are equally bad, but at least you haven't paid something for nothing. Although, at the same time, having no ability to spot results in the amusing conclusion that the character is blind as a bat.



> The longer I play, the more I believe that multiclassing is not only permissable but expected and even necessary for most character concepts.  Most people are describing their character concept, and the problem with the fighter not being able to handle it does not lie with the fighter.  I don't even think it lies with the player for not wanting to multiclass.  I think it lies in with the designers, who didn't make it clear that multiclassing was the way it was supposed to be -- that single-classed fighters should be rare and that most "fighting adventurers" had a level of rogue or barbarian or ranger in there somewhere.



I concur fully. The way I see it, levels of the fighter class represents focussed martial training in the field of hitting things over and over until they die. Taking only levels of that class leaves you with a character like Fighter of 8Bit. Amusing, but a complete idiot.



> But I'm seeing some underlying accusations that speak to a radically different philosophy in gaming -- ie, having to have full ranks for a skill to be anything other than "shaft-getting", multiclassing being the scourge of the system, etc.



Many skills are intentionally rigged towards only full ranks being meaningful. Similarly, there are skills where full ranks is meaningless and wasted points, for the opposite reasons: DCs are low and easily overcome by good stats and take-20, because the core usage of skill does not involve use in hostile conditions, and the skill may very well be totally useless under those conditions.


----------



## Grog (Sep 20, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Blind Fight (how's he the best if he can't fight in the dark?), Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind (so he can cut through the densest of hordes with ease), Endurance, Diehard (how's he the best if he can't keep on swinging after everyone else's gone down?), Combat Reflexes (so you can hit any who draw near), GWF, GWS (can't be the best without the best damage/attack), and Improved Sunder (surely you can use the blade for something other than carving through meat shields).




Blind Fight doesn't have anything to do with swinging a greatsword better; all it does is improve your ability to fight in the dark. Doesn't matter if you're using a greatsword or a dagger. Expertise, Dodge, and Mobility don't really apply at all. Spring Attack, again, doesn't mean you're swinging the greatsword better, it just means you're good at leaping to the attack. Endurance and Diehard have nothing to do with weapons at all, Combat Reflexes and Improved Sunder also don't improve your ability to swing a greatsword. I will give you Whirlwind, GWF, and GWS, but even with those extras, you can still aquire all the feats by 10th-12th level or so.


----------



## Curugul (Sep 20, 2003)

*Frank*

Your a hero.   Followed your breaking of various class's for a long time.  The octi-druid was priceless.  How did you figure THAT one out?  I like to think I powergame pretty well, but you're a league of your own.  Seriously, you're a bastion of intelligence and logic in an internet sea awash in arguments and opinions so inane my eyes cross.

To this thread:  How is this even up for argument?   With core books used (I'd guess 15% of groups, maby less), and NO prc's allowed, a fighter is among, if not THE, weakest class post 8-12.  It just gets pointless, a feat in NO WAY comes close to new abilities, skills, class features others get in levels 12-20. 

Fighters PRC away at the very first opportunity.  Thats fine, I guess, many class's do.  Whats not fine is how weak they are if they DONT prc/multiclass.   Weak.  The only leg anyone's had to argue on is "Feats r good" or the priceless "In my game...".  We're not talking _generalities_.  We're not talking specific games where rules/situations balance anything based on players, gms whim, and numerous variables.  We're talking about the *core, written, non arguable power a fighter gets*.  His hitpoints aren't up for debate.  Neither are his skills, his class list, any of it.   Compare it, as a pure, single class character, to any other class in the game, levels 10-20.     Compare its Combat Power to any other class made for fighting.   You'll find they either are less, equal to, or better at fighting than a fighter of those levels. That alone should make anyone with a shred of desire for balance pause.  Now compare EVERYTHING ELSE (see: Skills, spells, special powers, utility, ANYTHING to do outside of direct combat that can impact a campaign through the rolling of dice, NOT roleplaying).  Fighter, dead last, by a HUGE margin.   

Seriously, tell me honestly:  Do you really believe the fighter is such a better combatent than Sorcerors, Barbs, Rogues, Clerics, ect, that his power outside combat should be lower than theirs by such an abysmal margin?  


Curugul


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 20, 2003)

Curugul said:
			
		

> To this thread:  How is this even up for argument?   With core books used (I'd guess 15% of groups, maby less), and NO prc's allowed, a fighter is among, if not THE, weakest class post 8-12.  It just gets pointless, a feat in NO WAY comes close to new abilities, skills, class features others get in levels 12-20.
> 
> Fighters PRC away at the very first opportunity.  Thats fine, I guess, many class's do.  Whats not fine is how weak they are if they DONT prc/multiclass.   Weak.



I think it's well-accepted that fighters, as a core class, have an extremely narrow focus that they don't even truly excel at. What, exactly, that focus *IS* is somewhat unknown. Unfortunately, the clearest anyone can come to a readily defined focus for the fighter is "somebody who hits things with weapons". It's a little too general.

This would be far easier if we simply accepted that barring house ruling, fighters are a class with very little redeeming value after about 10 levels, and most people will PrC or multiclass off. The fact that the fighter gets the same thing every 2 levels, combined with the law of diminishing marginal utility, makes it obvious that more and more levels of fighter hold less and less value, until the marginal value of another level of fighter becomes equal to or less than the value of some other class. Is this a problem? Only if you hold to the notion that characters should preferrentially be single-classed, despite the fact that greater strength typically comes through diversity in options: Humans should be able to do many things well. Specialization is for insects.


----------



## Cyraneth (Sep 20, 2003)

I'm siding with Pendragon et al. If you think a fighter's weak 'cause he's lacking in some abilities, you're not looking at the big picture. Fighters excel in fighting (thus the name), not at acrobatics, social graces, or wizardry. If you want that, go for another class. If you do that, however, you won't get the combat prowess of the fighter class. "If you're chasing two hares at the same time, you'll catch neither."

The cleric's a bit overpowered in this area, however, as he's almost got the spellcasting abilities of a wizard (focusing more on buffs and restorative magic, but still) and definitely packs more fighting power. But then again, it seems to work just fine, right?

- Cyraneth


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 20, 2003)

The problem I have with the Fighter is it is nearly impossible to use the class to attain a character concept more complicated than footsoldier.  I recently designed a character for a Midnight campaign, a Dornish Warrior steeped in the culture of his ancestors, who strives to unite his people once again in the face of the Shadow.  I even did what so many here claim is neccessary for proper development of a Fighter, taking two feats allowing me access to skills that are normally cross-class.  It still wasn't enough, as the low skill points reduced me to either a random hodge podge of skills too low to be of any use, or a narrow selection that did not really represent the concept well.  

I ended up multiclassing him as a Rogue, which he will probably take the majority of his levels in.  The character concept was simply unattainable when taking just Fighter levels.  The truly pitiful side of this is the fact that he is better off not only from a roleplaying standpoint, but a combat standpoint as well.  He will be only slightly less powerful than a straight Fighter in face to face combat, and far better in an ambush situation, when flanking, or when being surprised in combat himself.  Given this, I have to agree that the Fighter class needs to be adjusted.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 20, 2003)

Even the Thief needs to be adjusted by a smidge. Anyhow, I love that fact that Ive been ignored about Montecook's fighter. 

90% of arguements for those who disagree that the fighter isnt under powered, are based on the following: role-play them better, or multi-class, or something silly like that.

If you think that the Fighter class is fine, then prove it to me. The rest is just an excuse or you favor other classes. 

What does "proof" mean? It means: if you were going to tell me that aliens built the Stone Hendge, then show me proof (like an alien skull or something). Dont give me excuses like.....my friend Bob said they disguised themselves as humans.

For all of you who think the "fighter" class doesnt need adjustment, tell me how. Lets pretend "you cant multi-class" (so u cant use it as an excuse). Lets also pretend, that you cant go into a prestige class either, (the reason for this is so, we can compare classes 1st thru 20th level) as if there was a point system designed (which would have ended this arguement a long time ago) that compares all abilities. Lets just compare class for class for class.

DA


----------



## Humanophile (Sep 20, 2003)

Let me tackle the "Fighter is too weak" position, point by point:


*Vs. a Prestige class:*  No comparison.  Sadly, this is because core classes tend to be so focused that they have little to give up to get a PrC's powers.  Ask any mage type what's worth giving up for PrC powers.  Add to this the fact that "official" PrC's tend to be on the powerful side, and unofficial ones even more so.  So that's a complete side issue.

*Skill points per level:*  Not truly weak, for the reasons many other people have given.  However, I do agree with many people who think that 2/level isn't enough skill points to give a character interest and versatility.  So while this is fairly balanced powerwise, it leads to boring characters.  More skill points/hobby rules are in order, but across the board fro all character types (or at least all core classes).

*Skill selection:*  Yeah, this just flat out sucks, and should've been improved in 3.5.  I think that stealth and sensory skills are some of the "best skills" out there, and you should think twice before handing them out, but as far as concept versatility goes, the following skills are perfect for fighter concepts without being more powerful than anything else:

-Balance:  You're running around in places where the floor's not maintained, and you're wearing heavy armor.  Fighters should have the ability to do more than comically fall down when trying to engage enemies.  Really, folks, this should be a no-brainer.

-Heal:  You're not a cleric, but I can see more than enough "fighting-type guy" concepts that learned how to patch up their friends on the battlefield.

-Knowledge (Architecture&Engineering, History, Nobility&Royalty):  All three allow for general types who know how to set up a battlefield.  The latter two (especially the last) are ideal for noble night types.  History is good for cranky old veteran wannabes.  All of these seem like Fighter based archetypes.

-Profession:  Like everyone else, I see no reason why anyone except the unsocialized, likely illiterate Barbarian is missing these.  They're all nice background info, and many of them fit quite well with fighting types.

I fully grant that these skills should be givens.  Some of the more powerful/popular ones might be included later, but for now I see no reason why these options would change the fighter's power level one bit.

*Feats and fighting styles:*  Remember what I said about Balance being a no-brainer above?  The same attitude that leads to people missing that ("What?  I thought all caves had flat, even floors.") also leads to the Fighter's feat advantage being overlooked.  A true "master of battle" would be able to handle himself in a large number of situations and tactics.  Feats like Blind Fight, Endurance, Improved (whatever), etc. would be used semi-often, but more attractive to the Fighter with his larger selection of feats.  Instead, while the Weapon Focus/Specialization chain is a nice perk for Fighters, it's usually turned into their _only_ perk, and it pales in comparison with just about any class feature anyone else has, or for that matter pretty much any buff a spellcaster could throw on you.  So while an ideal DM could make the fighter stand out by letting his ability to shine in multiple combat situations be noted, including many sub-par conditions, instead fighters seem to be typed as pure bashers/archers which leads to quickly tapping out their feat options.

So to get at several ends of the arguement, the Fighter shouldn't be expanded outside of his role (read: military scouts should have levels of Rogue, sensory/stealth skills need not go to pure fighters), it seems that their only real advantage is one that's neatly overlooked in most campaigns.  Still, it's less an issue of pure feat-to-feat loss (not all feats are created equal, as anyone with Toughness will tell you), but rather a lack of good high-end feats to chose from.  Give them a little more skill wiggle room and some better feats, and I'd like to see power comparisons then.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 20, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> Blind Fight doesn't have anything to do with swinging a greatsword better; all it does is improve your ability to fight in the dark. Doesn't matter if you're using a greatsword or a dagger. Expertise, Dodge, and Mobility don't really apply at all. Spring Attack, again, doesn't mean you're swinging the greatsword better, it just means you're good at leaping to the attack. Endurance and Diehard have nothing to do with weapons at all, Combat Reflexes and Improved Sunder also don't improve your ability to swing a greatsword. I will give you Whirlwind, GWF, and GWS, but even with those extras, you can still aquire all the feats by 10th-12th level or so.




I'd agree, if the concept wasn't being the best at wielding a greatsword.  True, blindfight, expertise, combat reflexes, Die Hard, and some of the others don't _directly_ affect how well the character wields the greatsword.  However, there's more to being the best at wielding a greatsword if some of the training doesn't bleed into other combat skills?
Let's have a look at the feats I chose and why I chose them, shall we?
Blind-fight: Unless you're playing with a very kind GM, you're going to be fighting in the dark, or against invisible opponents.  If you can't handle these situations with your greatsword, how can you be the best at wielding it?  The fact it affects other weapons is just part of the equation.
Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, and Spring Attack: I admit I didn't list these because they help you wield a greatsword, but because they let you get Whirlwind.
Endurance I took so I could get Diehard.
Die Hard:  Like blind fight, this isn't explained by it makes your swings better, but it keeps you swinging longer.  Unless you're not going to be swinging the sword in combat (and, really, if you're not, how can you prove that you're the best?), then this will help you be the best.
Combat Reflexes: Being the best doesn't just mean hitting the hardest: it also means hitting the most.  This basically gives you up to your Dex mod in extra attacks.  The fact that they're AoO weakens this a bit, but not by much.
Improved Sunder: If you're a smart fighter, you won't always be going for just your opponent.  Often, it'll be better to take out your opponent's weapon(s) and force them to go hand-2-hand with you (letting you use those nice AoOs that you got from Combat Reflexes).

Again, this isn't saying that the fighter is just fine, I'm just saying that with most simple concepts, you can use almost all of the feats.  Some concepts don't use all the feats this effectively (take the AC God concept - only so many feats that up your AC).  Take it as you will.
Magius out.


----------



## Cyraneth (Sep 20, 2003)

I've noticed several messages about the lack of "cultural and thematic flavor" you can squeeze out of the fighter class. As for flavor, a fighter's all about fighting. His choices in weapons, armor, fighting style, and feats *IS* his flavor. If you want something cultural, pick a bard. If you want something "thematic," pick a sorcerer, barbarian, or a cleric with some exotic deity. A fighter's "flavor" lies elsewhere.

Yet, if you do want unusual skills for a fighter, just pick 'em. You might not be able to get as many ranks in those skills as you'd like, but you got 'em. If you want lots of ranks and skills, go rogue instead. You can't have everything.

And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?

- Cyraneth


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 20, 2003)

Thats a good retort Humanophile, thank u. Also, on another note sense so many peeps want to talk baout the "role-playing" side of the fighter. Were the hell are the "kits". I thought they were aweseome (old 2e). Prestige classes are ok, and in rare instances they may be a place for a few of them but, kits make more sense to me, and are more usable at low levels as well.

Problem is the ol' Wotc boys arent fond of giving characters any disadvantage anymore. Which in roleplaying value wise, it sucks.

By the way, when peeps consider saying "oh the fighter is only good at fighting and he dont need skill points because its unbalancing" to other classes, I'd also like to know which classes. The Ranger and Bard are more threating to the Thief in regaurds to "skill points". Some classes are very good at a few things. Rangers are great at skills, great at Fighting, and can dable in spells. Wizards are excellent at fighting but they can pick and choose spells for almost any enviorment. Fighters are excellent in fighting (thats it). A skill boost to 4 and no additional core classes is hardly unfair (unless u can prove otherwise).

DA


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 20, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Thats a good retort Humanophile, thank u. Also, on another note sense so many peeps want to talk baout the "role-playing" side of the fighter. Were the hell are the "kits". I thought they were aweseome (old 2e). Prestige classes are ok, and in rare instances they may be a place for a few of them but, kits make more sense to me, and are more usable at low levels as well.
> 
> Problem is the ol' Wotc boys arent fond of giving characters any disadvantage anymore. Which in roleplaying value wise, it sucks.




<blink> This entire thread is about the disadvantage given to a class by the "WotC boys." (I'm sure Gwendolyn might object to that...) Each class has disadvantages, as has been mentioned throughout this thread.



> By the way, when peeps consider saying "oh the fighter is only good at fighting and he dont need skill points because its unbalancing" to other classes, I'd also like to know which classes. The Ranger and Bard are more threating to the Thief in regaurds to "skill points". Some classes are very good at a few things. Rangers are great at skills, great at Fighting, and can dable in spells. Wizards are excellent at fighting but they can pick and choose spells for almost any enviorment. Fighters are excellent in fighting (thats it). A skill boost to 4 and no additional core classes is hardly unfair (unless u can prove otherwise).
> 
> DA




What's a "thief?" Is that a prestige class? 

This is not an insult: if one doesn't see that each class has strengths and weaknesses, there is no way to "prove" to that person's satisfaction that an increase in skill points per level will disrupt the balance of the classes. The ranger is the "skilled warrior;" if you give the fighter ("combat specialist") more skills, what does the skilled warrior get to keep his edge in skill use? More skills? What do the "skill specialists" - the bard and to a lesser extent, rogue - get to keep their edge over the skilled warrior?

My point is: while the combat specialist is demonstrating knowledge of practical weapon and armor use across the board that makes him shine in combat, the skilled warrior led them there and now either gets to shoot arrows or engage with two light weapons - while wearing less armor.

Part of the problem with understanding the balance - as quoted again and again - is the "fluff" describing the class in the beginning of the listing. Ignore that. Look at the mechanics of the class. They speak more clearly than what amounts to advertising copy, and deal mor ewith game mechanics. 

Multi-classing support character concept building. Pick the classes that support your concept. Don't expect to have everything, as this is a game that's relatively well-balanced and no one person or character should dominate game play.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 20, 2003)

Yeah, the Octopus Druid was me. 



			
				humanophile said:
			
		

> Still, it's less an issue of pure feat-to-feat loss (not all feats are created equal, as anyone with Toughness will tell you), but rather a lack of good high-end feats to chose from. Give them a little more skill wiggle room and some better feats, and I'd like to see power comparisons then.




There's several problems with the solution "just add more good high end feats":

1> Diversity. If you put things into chains, then the Fighter is being _forced_ to put his feats into these chains. After all, we are attempting to make these high-end feats justify the class at high levels. Therefore, if the Fighter is _not_ spending all his feats into one of these high-powered chains, he's still underpowered. The versatility of each Fighter character is gone - he's just as one-dimensional in combat style as the Barbarian - but he still has no non-combat schtick and is screwed.

2> Multiclassing. If the high end feats are instead regulated by BAB or something that anyone can get - then you are better off waiting until you get to those levels to take Fighter levels _at all_. The first two levels of Fighter give you two feats, the next two levels of Fighter give you only one. Therefore, if taking feats becomes a better proposition later in your character's life - you are manifestly getting more out of each of your Fighter levels if you take them later than if you take them earlier. Since Barbarian and Paladin levels give you a static bonus when taken early or late (and Ranger levels give you _more_ bonuses when taken early than late), it would be obviously better to take levels _other_ than Fighter until these "super feats" became available than to take Fighter levels straight off.

3> Class Concept. If you get access to a superior feat as a class feature, and a bonus feat - you aren't really getting a customizable class feature at all! You are in fact, getting whatever ability that class feature feat gives you as a class feature - and then getting the "option" of trading it for another ability that is explicitly inferior to it (a non-upgraded feat). So you have a class with no custization at all, except that it can trade its mandatory abilities for _worse_ abilities when it goes up in level. That's kind of like how a Rogue has the option of spending all of his skill ranks into cross-classed Knowledge: Poodles - except that to make the metaphor exact the other choice would have to be to have the DM spend all of your skill points for you.

So no. Better high-end feats doesn't solve anything and is not a solution in any way shape or form. More feats is a start, but better feats is not.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 20, 2003)

Fighters have enough feats to take many changes though.  Sure a darn good high level feat might require five feats to get it, but the fighter has enough ferats and many of those lesser feats are still very useful.  Requiring a high BAB as well as many feat prequites is usually the way to go.  This give fighters an advantage since they get lots of feats and other classes would have to spend all their feats to acheive one of this high level feats.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 20, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Multi-classing support character concept building. Pick the classes that support your concept. Don't expect to have everything, as this is a game that's relatively well-balanced and no one person or character should dominate game play.




Multi-classing is not a solution to balancing classes. Balanced classes and "then" multi-classing is a solution. And how is it, you know the boys made such balanced classes. Did they personally give you a formula that shows you they are? By all means share with it us. Please prove me in my opinion is wrong because I cant follow peeps with out challenging thier reasoning.

And lastly, yes classes have thier weakness in the general sesne of no class is "perfect" nor should it. The Fighter cant use armor in all enviorments, he isnt good at willfull magic, or vs traps, or skills. Hes good at one thing by a smidge compared to the Barbarian directly. Tell me "how" 2 other skill points per level off sets this class, becuase I dont see it.

DA


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 20, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> <snip>
> This is not an insult: if one doesn't see that each class has strengths and weaknesses, there is no way to "prove" to that person's satisfaction that an increase in skill points per level will disrupt the balance of the classes. The ranger is the "skilled warrior;" if you give the fighter ("combat specialist") more skills, what does the skilled warrior get to keep his edge in skill use? More skills? What do the "skill specialists" - the bard and to a lesser extent, rogue - get to keep their edge over the skilled warrior?
> 
> My point is: while the combat specialist is demonstrating knowledge of practical weapon and armor use across the board that makes him shine in combat, the skilled warrior led them there and now either gets to shoot arrows or engage with two light weapons - while wearing less armor.
> <snip>




This is all well and good, except for the fact that in this case, the skilled warrior is just as good as the combat specialist in most combat situations (and if you're going ranger, you'll probably be going with either the two-weapon tree or the ranged tree anyways), and he excels in stealth, detection, and survival, as well as a few other things.
IMO, this isn't a balanced state of affairs.  Yes, the fighter gets an ungodly number of feats to play with, but you need to know how to place them, and most feats are combat oriented; those the fighter gets are almost exclusively so.  In the end, we have two characters that are good in most combat situations; one that can do well with several different attacks, the other that can do well with dual wielding/ranged combat.  Is this difference worth 4 SP a level?
Let's have a look at what each starts with: 
Fighter: +1 attack, +2 save, one bonus feat, 2/N weapon feats, 5 armor feats (light, medium, heavy, shields, and tower shields), 2 SP/level, and d10 HP.
Ranger: +1 attack, +4 save, 3 feats/abilities, 2/N weapon feats, 3 armor feats (light, medium, shields), 6 SP/level, d8 HP.
So what does the fighter have in this?
Up:  +2 HP and 2 more armor feats.  
Down: 2 on saves, 4 SP/Level, and 2 feats/abilities, one of which is exclusively ranger, the other of which is ranger/druid.
Tied: BAB

This doesn't look too good, does it?  What about Paladin and Barbarian?  Well, the Paladin comes out a bit ahead, but not too much, and the barbarian starts off about equal, I'd say.  But what happens as you go up levels?  Well, Rangers and Paladins get spells, Rangers get an ability every level until 11th level, and barbarians get something every level.  Oh yeah; the Ranger and the Barbarian both have more skill points than the fighter does, and they all have a much more sensible skill list.
Hm...  Think the fact the fighter can chose his feats every time he gets them makes up for all that?  I don't.
Magius out.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 20, 2003)

Cyraneth said:
			
		

> And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?




In a campaign with a very strong Good vs. Evil theme, it could work.  Otherwise it is too big a step down in combat power IMO.


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 21, 2003)

Cyraneth said:
			
		

> I've noticed several messages about the lack of "cultural and thematic flavor" you can squeeze out of the fighter class. As for flavor, a fighter's all about fighting. His choices in weapons, armor, fighting style, and feats *IS* his flavor. If you want something cultural, pick a bard. If you want something "thematic," pick a sorcerer, barbarian, or a cleric with some exotic deity. A fighter's "flavor" lies elsewhere.




So basically, outside of combat, a Fighter has no flavor.  Right.  I agree with Humanophile about the skill selection Fighters should be granted.  My character is a noble Knight Commander type, and as such he needed to have Knowledge:  Nobility and Knowledge:  History.  Why are these skills not on the Fighters list?  They are almost perfect fits, and in no way unbalancing.



> Yet, if you do want unusual skills for a fighter, just pick 'em. You might not be able to get as many ranks in those skills as you'd like, but you got 'em. If you want lots of ranks and skills, go rogue instead. You can't have everything.




Actually, I can, which is the problem.  My character is better in a fight than he would have been if he had stayed pure Fighter, _and_ has a great deal more roleplaying ability as well.  Oh, and it is true what was said earlier in this thread, that is, you might as well not have certain skills unless you can maximize them.  



> And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?
> 
> - Cyraneth




Paladins do not exist in Midnight, and even if they did it does not fit the character concept.  I should not be forced to become a divine warrior if I want to create a Knight Commander.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 21, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> So basically, outside of combat, a Fighter has no flavor.  Right.  I agree with Humanophile about the skill selection Fighters should be granted.  My character is a noble Knight Commander type, and as such he needed to have Knowledge:  Nobility and Knowledge:  History.  Why are these skills not on the Fighters list?  They are almost perfect fits, and in no way unbalancing.



Picking "fighter" as your main class is basically the same as shooting yourself in the foot, if you care to have skills in things other than swinging weapons around. By itself, the fact that you get 2 SPs/lvl, base, isn't nearly as injurious as the fact that your skill choices, by core rules, suck. If you're interested in a more erudite fighter, someone with skills in something other than swinging a weapon around wildly, jumping, and climbing, well, you're SOL. It's ironic that the barbarian happens to be a more sophisticated warrior than the fighter is. Normally, the fighter is the one who is perceived as the "thinking" warrior, and the barbarian is the big dumb lug who swings an axe around, but in D&D, it's the other way around.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 21, 2003)

*re*

As I stated earlier, a good way to deal with skills for the core classes (specifically those with deficient skill points and skill selection) is to use the Expert Mechanic, where a player may choose say 3 to 5 skills as class skills. This would allow for the development the character concept and help a character enter a prestige class without having to multi-class. 

I think a change like this would go along way in making single-class characters like Fighter's more desirable. I know in our group no one likes to play single class characters because they are boring compared to prestige classes.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 21, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Ketjak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I never said or posted that multi-classing is a solution to balancing classes. I said, as you quoted, that multi-classing is the key to developing a character that fits a concept. There is a huge difference between the two.



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Balanced classes and "then" multi-classing is a solution.




So... balancing the classes and then multi-classing is a solution to balancing classes? That's recursive and doesn't make sense. Can you clarify your position?



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> And how is it, you know the boys made such balanced classes. Did they personally give you a formula that shows you they are? By all means share with it us. Please prove me in my opinion is wrong because I cant follow peeps with out challenging thier reasoning.




Er, I _believe_ the classes are fairly well-balanced because of the following reasons: 

- I play the game
- I know others who play the game
- no single character class can dominate the game, albeit that's more true in 3.5 than it was in 3.0
- I am a game designer, and I see the balance trade-offs these designers made.

No, I don't claim it's perfect, or that I am. I make mistakes of perception, and these designers made mistakes of design. Neither case invalidates the Fighter class's being a well-balanced class that can stand on its own, but it cannot be most of the concepts described in the Fighter class fluff descriptions or any literary character.

Those are either impossible to build or are multi-classed Fighter/somethings.



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> And lastly, yes classes have thier weakness in the general sesne of no class is "perfect" nor should it. The Fighter cant use armor in all enviorments, he isnt good at willfull magic, or vs traps, or skills. Hes good at one thing by a smidge compared to the Barbarian directly. Tell me "how" 2 other skill points per level off sets this class, becuase I dont see it.




I understand that you don't see it. From my perspective, that is the fundamental problem.  This is not an insult, I merely recognize where the core discrepancy is.

Saying the Fighter can't use armor in all environments is as useful as saying Wizards can't cast spells in all environments. The other categories of things the Fighter "isn't good at" are as relevant - that is, not at all. The Fighter is a career choice made by those people who want to master not just one form of combat, but all combat situations and, if he specializes, all situations in which he can use a chosen weapon.

This combat specialist is not a jack-of-all-trades. He's not a scout or wilderness survivalist, nor even a war historian. He's a professional weapon-wielder who is able to apply his ability with a weapon - or all weapons - effectively in a wide variety of situations. The Fighter class is very good at being that kind of character. Think of the Fighter as the "combat damage" specialist, since "combat specialist" is still a little vague.

BAB and raw feat counts and feat equivalents don't tell the whole story. Here's a quick "every five levels" snapshot, assuming all stats are high enough for each character to qualify for each feat as needed. For fun, the Fighter chose feats to match the Ranger's combat style.

By level 5, the human Ranger has Endurance over the human Fighter. The Fighter has all the same "combat style" feats as the Ranger, the same Weapon Focus, and has Dodge and does more damage (than Joe Commoner) to everyone with his chosen weapon; the Ranger does more damage (than Joe Commoner) to a restricted group of targets, but with any weapon he wields. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.

By level 10, the Fighter is hitting with his chosen weapon more often than the Ranger is with any weapon unless the Ranger is fighting a member of his restricted group, at which point it's equal damage - or the damage is greater, but for a very specialized group of opponents. If the Ranger chose ranged combat style, the fighter has all the same feats, is more accurate with his chosen weapon, and is most of the way down the path to Whirlwind Attack (he's got the entire Dodge tree), because he wants to do well in both melee and ranged combat. If the Ranger and fighter chose two-weapon style, the fighter also has Whirlwind Attack. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.

By level 15, the Ranger has mastered his combat style. The Fighter, in the meantime, has mastered the same combat style (earning the final feat one level later than the Ranger). The Ranger has either increased the number of targets to which he does extra damage or has made one group quite unhappy. The Fighter is doing more damage with his chosen weapon to all targets. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.

By level 20, the Ranger can Whirlwind Attack. The Fighter, in the meantime, has mastered the other ranger combat style, or gone up the Power Attack tree, or the Mounted Combat tree, _and_ has a general utility feat like Combat Reflexes, Blind-Fight, Improved Critical, Improved Shield Bash (especially for the TW Fighter), or Quick Draw. Both classes have used their universal feats to supplement their combat styles.

At any time, the Fighter may choose Endurance and either delay his Whirlwind Attack (not worth it, IMO) or delay his mastery of another combat style (probably not worth it). 

I haven't done an analysis of average damage. I am certain the Fighter does more damage, though I'm not sure about the damage comparison when one includes an animal companion. My guess is it's about equal.

The Fighter has +1 hit point average per level. His AC generally starts out better and generally maintains that edge, especially when magic and money start to compensate for the Ranger's Light Armor's higher Max DEX bonus.

The Ranger class is designed to be versatile and certainly makes a much better scout, while the Fighter class is designed to be really good at combat. The Fighter owns combat, and nothing else. But he's really, really good at it, even if his weapon of choice is taken away. The Ranger is pretty good at combat and has a lot of skills to rely on for overall versatility, but when it comes to being prepared for anything in combat he can't match the career Fighter.



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> This is all well and good, except for the fact that in this case, the skilled warrior is just as good as the combat specialist in most combat situations (and if you're going ranger, you'll probably be going with either the two-weapon tree or the ranged tree anyways), and he excels in stealth, detection, and survival, as well as a few other things.




Magius, see my analysis above. The skilled warrior is not as effective as the combat specialist in most combat situations. At higher levels, if the skilled warrior has channeled his favored enemy feature into one group of bad guys, he's doing more damage than the combat specialist _to that group_, but no better than the same to everyone else.

Certainly, the skilled warrior excels in these other areas. That's OK - the combat specialist is concerned about _combat_, not sneaking around.



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> IMO, this isn't a balanced state of affairs.




I recognize that. I see that as the fundamental source of disagreement between "Is balanced" and "is not balanced" folks. 



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Yes, the fighter gets an ungodly number of feats to play with, but you need to know how to place them, and most feats are combat oriented; those the fighter gets are almost exclusively so. In the end, we have two characters that are good in most combat situations; one that can do well with several different attacks, the other that can do well with dual wielding/ranged combat.




Two weapons _or_ ranged combat, not both. Or, more accurately, perhaps both - if the Ranger dumps all his feat choices into the second style. The Fighter can master both and has feats to spare to master a third, with some extra flair thrown in.

That's a very important difference.



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Is this difference worth 4 SP a level?




Hell yes. The Ranger can sneak around all he wants. Once he gets into combat with the Fighter, the Fighter picks a way to tan the Ranger's hide and gets down to it. If the Ranger chooses a style of combat, the Fighter will choose a way to counter it or beat the Ranger at his game. The 15th-level Ranger must choose the Fighter's race as his Favored Enemy three times to score more damage than the Fighter, assuming equivalent hit chances (not realistic, given the Fighter's Improved Weapon Focus and Armor Class effects like Combat Expertise) and combat styles.



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Let's have a look at what each starts with:
> Fighter: +1 attack, +2 save, one bonus feat, 2/N weapon feats, 5 armor feats (light, medium, heavy, shields, and tower shields), 2 SP/level, and d10 HP.
> Ranger: +1 attack, +4 save, 3 feats/abilities, 2/N weapon feats, 3 armor feats (light, medium, shields), 6 SP/level, d8 HP.
> So what does the fighter have in this?
> ...




This is a myopic look at the capabilities of both classes. In the first 5 levels, the Fighter and Ranger look similar. In the long haul the Fighter exceeds the Ranger in combat ability, favored enemy focus exception noted.



			
				Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> What about Paladin and Barbarian?  Well, the Paladin comes out a bit ahead, but not too much, and the barbarian starts off about equal, I'd say.  But what happens as you go up levels?  Well, Rangers and Paladins get spells, Rangers get an ability every level until 11th level, and barbarians get something every level.  Oh yeah; the Ranger and the Barbarian both have more skill points than the fighter does, and they all have a much more sensible skill list.
> Hm...  Think the fact the fighter can chose his feats every time he gets them makes up for all that?  I don't.
> Magius out.




The fact that the Fighter can master so many aspects of the fight makes up for all the other abilities. None of these combat classes matches the Fighter in overall combat mastery. I'll work out a Paladin and Barbarian comparison another time.

Humanophile's expanded skill list is very, very good. The skills added are not class-defining like detection and stealth skills are. Adding skill points per level is the real problem related to balance, whereas Humanophile adds flavor without changing balance significantly. Very nice!

FrankTheTrollman's comparison of the Fighter to any PrC combo is silly, almost pure... troll.  PrCs are designed to be more powerful than core classes, particularly in a narrow field of expertise. All of the feat pre-req's needed still yield a character that's about as good as a straight Fighter in most areas of combat and perhaps slightly more powerful in a few others, notably in skill points and selection range. They are, after all, Prestige Classes.

- Ket


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 21, 2003)

My point as far as mulit-classing is that a multi-classed fighter such as a mage/fighter, should not be a better wizard then an accual wizard. Nor should a Fighter/Barbarian be better than a pure Fighter. A pure Fighter from many of the arguements posted here say that the Fighter should be the best fighter. If thats the case then why doesnt that theory work? Ill tell you why:

Im glad you know game designing, cause I have a little knowledge of it too. And if you broke down the classes into a point system (which I did) they dont match up. The average class, should have 250 points. Lets see you do the math and see how each class breaks down. Let me tell you what your going to find: The Fighter class is the weakest class in a direct comparison to all classes (this doesnt mean its the only class needing some adjusting or the only class needing some tweaking for the better or worse either). Its also shown in its lack the "fun" factor in latter stages of the class. Almost all peeps agree with this, and say the solution is to multi-class. However, when multi-classing makes a better Fighter then the Fighter class is, something is wrong. 

Multi-classing should be made to make a role-playing/diverse character he/she wants to have such as a fighter/mage. If you want to be a good wizard, you dont multi-class into a Fighter, because that would make you a better wizard/fighter not a better fighter or wizard.

DA

P.S. incase you want me too, once I have this class point system typed up, Ill be more than happy to send it too you Ketjak, especially if you say you are a "game designer". Like me, I think you will be suprised.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 21, 2003)

> PrCs are designed to be more powerful than core classes, particularly in a narrow field of expertise. All of the feat pre-req's needed still yield a character that's about as good as a straight Fighter in most areas of combat and perhaps slightly more powerful in a few others, notably in skill points and selection range. They are, after all, Prestige Classes.




Were you not even reading? I made a character who was a better mounted archer/warrior than a Fighter could be.

I made a better Chain Fighter than a Fighter could be.

And not by a little margin - by a big one. The Dragoon was +4 to-hit with all weapons over the Fighter variant. That's not "narrow" - that's everything the Fighter is supposed to be good at.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2003)

So, does that mean the fighter is too weak or the prestige classes are too strong?


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 21, 2003)

Since I haven't heard a similar hew and cry about how Wizards are made unplayable by Wizard/Alienists - I would say that it means the Fighter is too weak.

The Wizard PrCs make the charcter better, yes, but they don't generally make the Wizard better at casting spells. You don't see them getting higher spell levels or save DCs (except for the 3rd edition FRCS Archmage, which I remind you has been severely nerfed).

Meanwhile, Fighters gain bonuses to hitting things via feats. Taking classes also gives you bonuses to hitting things - but the class features give you bigger bonuses. The weak things here are:

1> The fighter class.
2> The mid to late levels of all the other base warrior classes.

I haven't seen anything warrior related which was too strong. Not while Minor Image and Web are still 2nd level spells.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2003)

Well, there are a number of prestige classes people have complained about with spellcasters.  Basically, classes that give +1 spell level ability each level and still offer other bonuses can be significantly stronger then the base class.  That was one of the biggest complaints when Tome and Blood and Defenders of the Faith came out.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 21, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> My point as far as mulit-classing is that a multi-classed fighter such as a mage/fighter, should not be a better wizard then an accual wizard. Nor should a Fighter/Barbarian be better than a pure Fighter. A pure Fighter from many of the arguements posted here say that the Fighter should be the best fighter. If thats the case then why doesnt that theory work? Ill tell you why:
> 
> Im glad you know game designing, cause I have a little knowledge of it too. And if you broke down the classes into a point system (which I did) they dont match up. The average class, should have 250 points. Lets see you do the math and see how each class breaks down. Let me tell you what your going to find: The Fighter class is the weakest class in a direct comparison to all classes (this doesnt mean its the only class needing some adjusting or the only class needing some tweaking for the better or worse either). Its also shown in its lack the "fun" factor in latter stages of the class. Almost all peeps agree with this, and say the solution is to multi-class. However, when multi-classing makes a better Fighter then the Fighter class is, something is wrong.




Is your argument that the Fighter class sucks because it is not a better combat participant than the Ranger class, that it sucks because a multi-classed character is a better combat participant, or that the Fighter sucks for some other reason? Clarify that and we can discuss the issue a little more easily.



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Multi-classing should be made to make a role-playing/diverse character he/she wants to have such as a fighter/mage. If you want to be a good wizard, you dont multi-class into a Fighter, because that would make you a better wizard/fighter not a better fighter or wizard.




We seem to agree on that point: multi-classing should be used to bring a character more in line with a character concept. 



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> P.S. incase you want me too, once I have this class point system typed up, Ill be more than happy to send it too you Ketjak, especially if you say you are a "game designer". Like me, I think you will be suprised.




Excellent! Please post it! We've been waiting 3 years to see a system that works and I'm glad you finally came along. Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, et al at Wizards, several d20 game companies, and the entire d20 community have been unable to create one. Well, OK, there have been several, but they were apparently unsuitable to the task.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Were you not even reading? I made a character who was a better mounted archer/warrior than a Fighter could be.
> 
> I made a better Chain Fighter than a Fighter could be.
> 
> And not by a little margin - by a big one. The Dragoon was +4 to-hit with all weapons over the Fighter variant. That's not "narrow" - that's everything the Fighter is supposed to be good at.




Frank, I read it very carefully. I will restate my point that you quoted so my words are a little more clear: 

*Prestige classes are designed to be more powerful than a core class!*

By making a "dragoon" with 16 levels, 9 of which are PrCs, you made a character that is arguably better in combat than a Fighter. By diversifying your PrC choices and strategically multi-classing, you made a character that is arguably better in multiple areas of combat than a Fighter. To that I say congratulations, you've used the mechanical strength of PrCs! Though I don't lean toward that level of min/maxing in character development, I can appreciate it as art.

No one has argued that PrCs are less powerful than a core class, though. So about the argument...

The Fighter class is better at combat than the Ranger class. The Ranger class is better at using skills than the Fighter class. Occasionally, the Ranger class is better than the Fighter class when in combat with favored enemies the Ranger class player has chosen more than once. Cool, sounds like a nice balance, considering how central combat is to the game. Do you agree that the class is balanced in that regard?

Prestige class combos and multi-classing can probably produce superior combat participants than the straight Fighter. That's arguable, as while a level of BBN class adds rage to the Fighter class this argument has not considered the diversification factor of equipment - though the BBN/FTR can never get that feat back.

I haven't done a Barbarian class analysis yet. I'll try that tonight. The obvious combat bonus of the BBN class is a powerful one, to be sure.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 21, 2003)

> The Fighter class is better at combat than the Ranger class.




That's a pretty bold claim.

In 3 levels, the Ranger gets 2 combat feats - one of which is really good (Rapid Shot) and one of which is fairly good (3.5 Endurance). The Ranger also gets a Favored Enemy Bonus, and many skills which are directly useful in combat and is often more survivable as he trades 4 hit points for 2 points of reflex save. He otherwise has 2 normal feats, which can be spent on anything he wants (and are largely interchangeable for the Fighter's basic feats as the Ranger meets all the BAB limits the Fighter does.

In 3 levels the Fighter gets 2 combat feats - which are selectable off of a limited, but larger, list.

So in what way is the Fighter "better" at combat? Is it the Tower Shield proficiency? Or the part where he has a lower Reflex Save, no Listen and spot skill, and a lower reflex save?

Cause to me that sounds like kind of a wash in combat. The Fighter is going to have a much worse AC against poorly hidden foes, and has the same number of combat bonuses. In exchange, he can carry a larger, more expensive, harder to transport set of armor - which will give him an advantage in some circumstances and a disadvantage in others. That and he has 4 whole hit points.

So from a strictly combat standpoint - the Ranger is better on the attack and has 4 less hit points. In what way does that make the Fighter _better_ in Combat? Last time I checked, if people could take "Favored Enemy" or "Toughness" as a feat - people would line up to get the Favored Enemy bonus. And the ranger is strictly better as a scout, diplomat, and assassin.

How is that balanced?

-Frank


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 21, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Excellent! Please post it! We've been waiting 3 years to see a system that works and I'm glad you finally came along. Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, et al at Wizards, several d20 game companies, and the entire d20 community have been unable to create one. Well, OK, there have been several, but they were apparently unsuitable to the task.




The amazing thing is, you say you cant make a system guide line and you know why? Because any point system made is going to show unbalance! Mean while your telling me that the system, is balanced. Also Montecook doesnt totally agree because his fighters (from arcana unearthed) are alot more powerful than the PH.

Until proven otherwise, you cant say 100% that the system is not without its flaws. Telling me that all classes are balanced is bs without proof. Since you are so baffeled as to how to make a point system design for class make up simply start with this: feat=5 points, 250 points should equal out to an average class.

Also, while im thinking about it, were does it say presitge classes "should be more powerful then core classes"? If so that is stupid. They should enhance a core class, not replace them. Example: a knight prestige class of 10 levels should enhance (aka roleplaying wise more than anything), the Fighter class. Perhaps, a pure Fighter vs a fighter/Knight could be equally powerful in different ways but, a Knight presitge class should not make it more powerful then the core Fighter class. 

I guess ol' montecook and crap knew that and suggested in the DM's guide to use caution when using prestige classes!!!! Kits are some much more useful to enhancing characters then prestige classes are.

DA


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 21, 2003)

*Baffled*



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That's a pretty bold claim.
> 
> In 3 levels, the Ranger gets 2 combat feats - one of which is really good (Rapid Shot) and one of which is fairly good (3.5 Endurance). The Ranger also gets a Favored Enemy Bonus, and many skills which are directly useful in combat and is often more survivable as he trades 4 hit points for 2 points of reflex save. He otherwise has 2 normal feats, which can be spent on anything he wants (and are largely interchangeable for the Fighter's basic feats as the Ranger meets all the BAB limits the Fighter does.
> 
> ...




You're basing class balance and combat ability on the first three levels of either class' advancement? How does that contribute to either argument about relative class balance or one class being better at combat?


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 21, 2003)

Because most games start at first level?

Thus, there are more first level characters than third, more 4th than fifth, and so on. And of course, since you've already admitted that PrCs are better - 6th level Fighters and Rangers are _both_ underpowered, right?

So it only makes sense to base a comparison on an early level - not a late one.

I could compare at 2nd level - but a sencond level is half again as good relative to hise level as a 4th level one. In the long run, a Fighter gets 11 bonus feats in 20 levels - at 3rd level he's 2 for 3. That's still better than his overall average, but close enough for comparison.

-Frank


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 22, 2003)

Also because you have to start at somewhere when you take a class.  If it's not worth taking the first level, why should the fifth or sixth matter?  I can understand taking offence at the idea if you're always starting at level 5+, when it's worth looking at the big picture of the character all at once and not level by level, but that shouldn't be a standard occurance.
As for prestige classes, I feel that they should be more powerful in ONE SPECIFIC AREA.  The problem I see with most prestige classes is that they don't focus on one concept very well, and try to put out raw power.  Necromancer, Illusionist, Defender (high AC), and Archer, these are all valid prestige classes, IMO.  Also, IIRC, one of the designers, at one point, said that the reason the prestige classes were so good is because you had to give up a lot to get them.  I leave it for what it's worth.
Magius out.


----------



## dcollins (Sep 22, 2003)

God forbid I get involved with this one, but... yes, a number of point-evaluation schemes for base classes have been developed in the past few years. For example, here's one that's been made available for some time by "Shadowcraft Studios":

www.community3e.com/dn/class/class_d20cce.pdf

In this system's evaluation, Fighters are just barely below the mean: they are rated above Clerics, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards, equal to Barbarians. They are rated below Bards, Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Rogues. 

Of course this could be argued, but that brings me to my point. Someone asserting that the point-system they're still working on will definitively prove Fighters to be underpowered is suffering from a spot of egomania.


----------



## Magic Slim (Sep 22, 2003)

I tampered a bit with the fighter class (amongst others, see link in sig), and although I didn't give it more skill points, I gave it, at each level that it didn't receive a Bonus fighter feat, a "Combat Technique". The table for combat techniques is:


```
Combat techniques: Apart from feats, Fighters learn special combat
techniques to help them further in the field that they excel in: Combat.
At each level that the fighter learns a new technique, she can choose
from the list below. Each technique can only be learned once. 
A fighter's level + her Intelligence modifier indicate which technique
can be learned.

Fighter's Combat Techniques

Level
+INT
Mod	Technique		Effect
1	Instant mastery		4 ranks of a skill in which the character
				has no ranks

2	Toughness		+3 hit points

3 	Willpower		+2 bonus on Will saves

4 	Health			+2 bonus on Fortitude saves

5 	Agility			+2 bonus on Reflex saves

6 	Shield mastery		Ignore armor check penalty of shields
				(except tower shield)

7	Armor mastery		Armor check penalty or armors reduced
				by 3 (min 0)

8	Long life		Instead of dying at -10 hp, the fighter dies
				at -10- Con modifier hp.

9	Defense			+1 dodge bonus to AC

10 	Offense			+1 to attack rolls

12 	Leather skin		+1 natural armor bonus to AC

14 	Perseverance		Once per day, the fighter may re-roll once
				(whatever the reason), using the new roll.

16 	Thwart opponent		Once per day, the fighter may make his
				opponent re-roll once (whatever the
				reason), using the new roll.

18	Imprevious to pain	Once per day, the fighter may consider the
				damage of one melee attack (after
				damage is rolled) to be treated as
				subdual damage instead.

20 	Deathblow		Once per day, the fighter may consider an
				attack that has hit an automatic
				critical hit.
```

Slim


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 22, 2003)

That system isnt half bad, except for one major flaw: they charge 10 points for armor. Any class can get armor as a feat. So a fighters armor (total) should be 25, not 35. So he would be rated at 235, not 245. My system is very similiar, and some what based off of this one.

The other problem with this system is that, it does not judge magic weilding well. As show, a Mage is far more powerful then the system shows, as spells increase in power, and that is not accounted for. This system also does not not show 3.5 versions but if it did, for one, the Ranger would have way more points as his skills have increased to 6 per level.

DA


----------



## Humanophile (Sep 22, 2003)

Frank, I'll halfway bite your bait.  I'll happily grant that the mid-high level straight Fighter is in several ways "underpowered".  But aside from skill selection, I don't think that the fighter class _per se_ is anything unbalanced.  It's all about processing the info correctly.

Low-level Fighters shouldn't be compared point-to-point with Rangers.  Endurance, for example, is a nice feat, but half its benefit is thrown away on a Ranger (who can sleep in Medium armor, but who's built to wear ony Light), and the other half requires a quality DM.  Most games I've played in, both players and DM's tended to forget little things like harsh conditions or suboptimal battlegrounds.  Fighters, on the other hand, with their superior armor selection tend to have higher AC's than low-level Rangers, and climb their feat trees faster.  By the time Rangers have Rapid Shot, fighters have Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot, and Precise Shot.  Opening these options to low(er) level characters and allowing them to fill their "concept" earlier is a perk of the Fighter feat machine.  So I think your low level comparisons miss the point.

The problem with mid-high level fighters is twofold, though.  First, that habit most gamers have of missing annoying little details kicks in.  Players tend to fall into adoring one combat style, and DM's tend not to have their baddies exploit every dirty trick they can.  So the Fighter early on becomes great at his one chosen trick (a good thing, IMHO; Fighter levels let you zoom in on certain parts of your archetype early), and after that can't think of good uses for his feats.  He hacks things with his sword, why should he waste time and effort learning mounted combat feats?  (Hint:  The answer should be "because if he doesn't, a talented DM will tan his hide with a mounted knight".  But many DM's seem to content themselves with dungeons and foot soldiers.)

So this is where many players pick up a prestige class.  In many cases, if they didn't have the Fighter levels, they wouldn't meet the feat requirements, so early Fighter levels aren't exactly a waste.  And the prestige classed character would probably be hurt if the DM forced them to fight outside of their style; it's just that if the counterbalancing situation comes up rarely if ever, that's skewing the balance scales.  (Let me note that some thought does have to be given here; if a special ability is cool, but useful in a situation overlooked by most DM's, it's not really that much of a balance factor.)  But even then, when the prestige classed character wants to grab a few more feats, he picks up a few more levels of Feat Machine, AKA Fighter.

So I'll grant that a combination of common play styles and lack of high level focus makes pure high level fighters uncommon.  Creating some higher branches to feat trees may well help; people seem to love climbing them as quickly as possible.  Requiring a multitude of combat style skills will too, but sadly that's something that takes a lot of practice for a DM.  And in some ways, it's OK if Fighter is a PrC feeder class; if it does its job as Feat Machine well, I'd like to see a balanced alternative that doesn't step on any other archetype's toes or exaberate feat fatigue problems.  (I know AU has its own fighter class.  I don't have AU.  Would someone with that book and more experience playing veterans with flexible combat skills please cover for me here?)  If someone can cover those bases for me, I'd like to see it.  I just don't want to set any power creep precedents.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 22, 2003)

humanophile said:
			
		

> and the other half requires a quality DM. Most games I've played in, both players and DM's tended to forget little things like harsh conditions or suboptimal battlegrounds.




Earlier in this very same thread it was claimed that Fighters were not underpowered in a strict comparison to Barbarians _because_ of harsh conditions and sub optimal battlegrounds.

So which is it? Are Fighters directly underpowered when compared to Rangers, or to Babarians? You can't have neither - and therefore the class is strictly underpowered.

-Frank


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 22, 2003)

Slim: Could you please trim down that post of yours?  It's stretching the board, and that's really annoying.
Humanophile: I like where you're coming from on this, but I think there are a few too many people complaining about it to just say that there's no problem with it.  Heck, the main reason I play a fighter is to make exactly the kind of combat character I want.  Could he use a bit of a boost?  Yeah, but that can be taken care of with a lengthier list of feats (maybe make a full Dodge tree, or add in the Cleaving Charge/Trail of Blood feats from Spycraft).
Heck, let's go through some of our favourite rulebooks and figger out which trees to throw into the mix to catch people's eye.
Or not, it's up to you.
Magius out.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Could he use a bit of a boost?  Yeah, but that can be taken care of with a lengthier list of feats (maybe make a full Dodge tree, or add in the Cleaving Charge/Trail of Blood feats from Spycraft).




Ya, but does he work out well?  I concede some of their proof, but until I actually see a problem in my game, how can I truely believe the fighter is underpowered?  All this proof that it is or not is second hand, the only true proof is how it actually handles in the game.  So, I ask in your game with the fighter you are playing do you feel you are underpowered?


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 22, 2003)

Well, there's the crux of it.  I don't play in standard games, and I can link things together extremely well (one character was able to get up to I think 24 AC while wearing nothing), so I'm not the one to be asking.  When you have a DM that thinks that spraying undead with a watergun full of holy water is perfectly normal, you don't exactly get a good demographic of character power.
That said, no, I don't feel underpowered _per se_.  However, all of my characters (including my super-sniper who had a range increment of over a mile) were rather lacking in their variety of skills; almost all of them had some sort of craft, most had jump, a couple had some other skills, and one had diplomacy (basically because I said he needed it to fit the concept).  I'd love some of the feats from the other books (namely Charging Cleave and Trail of Blood, both of which let you move after cleaving - I want my fighter to WADE through the orcs, dimmit!  )  Plus, of course, if I had a wider variety of feats to chose from, then I feel I could more tightly focus my character (and I've made over a dozen completely different fighters in my time).
It also helps that I am a very lucky individual: one of my character's stats was 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 16 (perfectly legal - the DM watched me roll).  So, in short, no, I don't feel underpowered, but there are also things outside the class itself - my ability to slap together feats to fill out a concept, my luck with the die (yes, we always roll stats), etc.
*reminesces about his Winged Human warrior who could attack 4 enemies a turn at level 4*
Magius out.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 22, 2003)

From a DMing standpoint, I control the allocation of found treasure. From there I can make _any_ character the most or least powerful simply by handing out items which do or do not synnergize with the individual characters.

So I can hand out special magical gloves that allow a Monk to keep his Unarmed Damage and give a significant bonus on top of that - and make the Monk a powerful character. I can hand out the Axe of the Dwarven Lords, and make the Dwarven Fighter into a hardcore monstrosity.

I can do these things.

And I have to.

If the DM is purposefully giving more powerful items to one character than the rest of the party - the game _shouldn't_ be balanced, and it is. The fact that the game is balanced with one artifact weapon in the whole party in the hands of the party Fighter means that the game is unbalanced as deisgned - because all of the players are _supposed_ to have equivalent swag.

-Frank


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 22, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Because most games start at first level?
> 
> Thus, there are more first level characters than third, more 4th than fifth, and so on. And of course, since you've already admitted that PrCs are better - 6th level Fighters and Rangers are both underpowered, right?
> 
> ...




Ah, I think I see now. You assume most campaigns start at 1st level and progress from there. That's probably true - but I know of many personal campaigns that start higher - and there were campaigns that were in the high-teens within a week or two of the books being made available, so either XP was off the scale or they started at a higher level than 1.

It seems your problem with the Fighter class is more one of myopia, rather than actual play experience. I have experience with high-level Fighter class characters and they hold their own against the other classes. In particular, a 12th level Fighter great axe specialist routinely deals more damage than the party wizard. The wizard's advantages are:

- being able to hit scattered mobs more easily, but a well-positioned Great Cleave attack sequence can clear a room (and has!)
- being able to hit things by using force-effect spells
- having solutions for and counters to hostile magical effects

But the 11th level Wizard doesn't do 50+ points of damage each round, even with his cones of cold, fireballs, and so forth. 

Even low-level the Fighter class compares favorably to the Ranger class. See my 5th-level comparison between humans of those classes. Keep in mind both classes are using their first- and third-level feats to support their combat styles. 

In detail for ranged combat stylists, it's


```
FTR                      RGR
1 PB Shot, Rapid Shot,   | PB Shot, Weap Focus (any, likely bow)
  Weap Focus (any)       | Track, Favored Enemy 1
2 Precise Shot           | Rapid Shot
3 Dodge                  | Precise Shot, Endurance
4 Weap Spec (any)        | 
5                        | Favored Enemy 2
```

(Please forgive the formatting - I'm not good with UBB format commands, so I'll edit this if I figure out how to make the tables look better.)

So - if both classes choose the same weapon to Focus on, and Specialize in the case of the Fighter class, the Fighter class ranged combat stylist has the edge in number of combat feats (if only in Dodge). If Dodge isn't your style, choose a general-purpose combat feat, the base of another chain, or any feat you want since it's a 3rd level "universal" feat. 

(To be honest, I'm not sure if I'd focus/specialize in a ranged weapon were I the Fighter class player. The next 15 levels' worth of feats are going to be rich with melee combat goodness, and the overall effectiveness of melee combat is greater than ranged combat. Whatever - the Fighter class chooses whatever the Ranger class does, it's all good.)

In detail for two-weapon fighting stylists, it's


```
FTR                       RGR
1 Dodge, Combat          | Dodge, Weap Focus (any)
  Expertise, Weap Focus  | Track, Favored Enemy 1
2 Two-Weapon Fighting    | Two-Weapon Fighting
3 Two-Weapon Defense     | Two-Weapon Defense, Endurance
4 Weap Spec              | 
5                        | Favored Enemy 2
```

It's worth noting that the Fighter class can match the Ranger Class' two-weapon stylist more easily. I chose Combat Expertise because it's a nice defensive feat that's required for Whirlwind Attack, which I believe is worth the prerequisites. If you don't care for Whirlwind Attack and you think Two-Weapon defense is unnecessary, change those feats. Keep the 3rd-level feat the same for both classes and go wild picking a different combat feat for the Fighter class at first. 

The differences only grow more profound as the Fighter class gets higher in level. The Fighter class maintains a higher average damage output after fourth level, except if the Ranger class chooses the same favored enemy at fifth level. Then the Ranger class deals more average damage to that particular creature type, but the Fighter class is dealing more average damage overall. If the Ranger class splits his favored enemy bonus, the Fighter maintains the advantage overall and the Ranger merely ties against those two creature types. At 12th level, the Fighter class does even better in comparison, and the Ranger class has to double-up to match average damage output against those particular creatures, and has to wait to 15th to attain parity against another group - and the Ranger is then forever behind the curve in terms of damage output against everyone else.

Now, given the importance the D&D rules place on combat, superiority in combat _is_ the character balancing factor held against all the non-combat stuff the Ranger and others get... including extra skill points, Track, Endurance, and other features. Not that combat effects should be balanced by non-combat effects, but it seems to be a major part of your complaint about the Fighter class.

So - show me a way in which the Ranger class trumps the Fighter class in overall combat effectiveness. If you wish, I can extend the "feat choice" tables I included above. The Fighter class is certainly less glamorous than many classes, but it's not less effective at fulfilling its role as combat specialist.

Another point:



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> And of course, since you've already admitted that PrCs are better - 6th level Fighters and Rangers are both underpowered, right?




Not at all, Frank. The game designers intended for PrCs to be better than core classes at many aspects of combat. The Fighter and Ranger classes are as powerful as any core classes should be at 6th level - less powerful than Prestige Classes, albeit with perhaps more flexibility than PrCs offer (since PrCs channel character career down a single path, unless someone intentionally min/maxes PrC choices).

You phrase that like recognizing the designer's intent, as stated by the designers, is in some way a concession to your argument. It's not, to be clear.

dcollins:  

_edit: cleaned up some clumsy grammar at the end there - "at many aspects" moved around a little._


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 22, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I shouldn't _need_ to be more than averagly intelligent to play Pirate. In fact, I should be able to be a "stupid pirate" - and still have:
> 
> Profession Sailor
> Spot
> ...




It is doable.

1st level Fighter, Human, Intelligence of 8.

Profession: Sailor 2 ranks, Spot 1 rank, Swim 2 ranks, Climb 2 ranks.

There you go. It wasn't that hard to figure out.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 22, 2003)

Stormraven: Except for the fact that that's two points over.  Profession and Spot are both cross-class (so 6 points there), and Swim/Climb are class (4 more).  That's 10 ranks in the skills, and a human fighter starts with 2 - 1 + 1 SP/level, or straight up 2/level.  At first level, that's 2x4, or 8 skill points; two short of making the pirate.
Make one or even both of them class skills, and you've got yourself a character that could handle himself on the sea.  And that's that.
Magius out.


----------



## just__al (Sep 22, 2003)

Last I checked, D&D was played in groups that usually function as a team...

_comments are in red..._



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I am not talking about "roleplaying".
> 
> Non-combat utility can come in many forms:
> 
> ...


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Sep 22, 2003)

Um...  Are you saying that fighters are fine or that they aren't, just____al?  You seem to prove quite well that a fighter isn't needed at all outside of combat, which can be a good percentage of a campaign (even if it is just a dungeon - most of those have traps in them, too).  I like the fighter, but I really think that he should at least have a more flexible skill list (maybe letting the player chose 2-3 skills for class skills, to support any concept).
Well, at least there's one thing I'm consistently complaining about with this...
Magius out.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 22, 2003)

just__al said:
			
		

> Last I checked, D&D was played in groups that usually function as a team...
> _comments are in red..._



Without requoting the entirety of your commentation, I'd like to point out that you've now demanded far more from the rogue than he reasonably has skillpoints.

Your hypothetical party rogue has the following skills:
Gather Information
Hide
Move Silently
Appraise
Escape Artist
Spot
Search
Disable Device
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Use Rope
Craft

This rogue now demands 12 SPs/lvl. And this doesn't even include the some of the rest of the Rogue's core packages, which is generally implied, but was not specifically mentioned:
Listen
Open Lock

I'm not entirely sure how you're planning on getting all of these skillpoints, but I'm rather certain your rogue CAN'T do all of these things.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2003)

Rogues can easily do all of that.  One does not need to max out skills for them to be useful.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 22, 2003)

Rouges could use a small boost as well but then thats already been pointed out as well. Giving a fighter 4 skill points per level will not break or unbalance this class in anyway. Before giving further excuses why the Fighter isnt unbalanced, try it out in your campaign. 

Wizards suck at low levels but at higher levels they rule. I agree with this and it shouldnt be a comparison. Though if need be, spells can basically aloow a wizard to do anything.

Thats what Im running under my house rules, and none of the other characters are complaining in the slightest bit. The extra skill points do not add that big of a difference then one may think. The fighter now has one good skill besides horseman ship, which is accually nice to see for a change and the characters in all are much happy.

Happy peep=fun games, and that is the bottom line. So those thinking or questioning if it will unbalance the class no it wont, the proof is in the pudding.

DA


----------



## Curugul (Sep 22, 2003)

*...*



> Every class has a niche. You don't hear the wizards complaining that they can't attack 4 times a round with their longsword including a disarm, followed up with a cleave and a few trips thrown in for fun. You don't see the rogue complain that his damage output in combat dropped like a rock because he can get sneak-attack damage against undead.
> 
> Fighters are good at combat, that's what they do. If you want a little more non-combat utility play




You're arguing against yourself here.    A wizard isn't complaining because he just threw a chain lightning. Do you honestly disagree that a wizard has VERY respectable combat power, if he wants it?  

A rogue isn't going to complain about not out damaging the fighter THIS combat, since undead is involved.  Why?  Because he has a great deal of power OUTSIDE of combat. And he's likely handily doing near, or more damage than a fighter most other combats.

Let me flip your example.   You'd hear the rogue's complaining about only 8 skill points a level if every other class was given +3 skill points per level (Fighters at 5, Barbs at 7, ect).  Why?   Because suddenly, most class's either nearly equal, equal, or exceed the rogues key ability.  The rogue still has the ability to deal with magical traps, and sneak attack you say!  And hes still better at skills than most class's. Seem fair? 

THAT is the situation Fighters are in.   Essentially 90% of the class's in the game either equal, nearly equal, or EXCEED his combat power in any given combat.  Its based on the circumstances involved.   And combat is all the fighter has.

So either buff the fighters utility outside combat, or make him better at it.  But can you seriously look at the fighter class as it stands and think they're balanced?

Don't argue they're PLAYABLE.  Anythings Playable.  Are they balanced?  I honestly do not understand how anyone could think that.


Curugul


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2003)

Curugul said:
			
		

> Don't argue they're PLAYABLE.  Anythings Playable.  Are they balanced?  I honestly do not understand how anyone could think that.




They are playible, and balanced in my experience.  I've yet to have a single character who played a fighter complain that they were unbalanced.  In fact, in every game I've DMed and played in the fighters have always done very well.  Even in the epic level play, the fighter was able to use what the class provides and be effective and have fun.  

For me game experience is the final judge.  The game is meant to be played, not torn apart on message boards and argued about.  

So, could the fighter use some boosting?  Sure, give it four skill points a level and few more class skills.  Heck, trade out some class skills to fit whatever your vision of the character concept is.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 23, 2003)

> They are playible, and balanced in my experience.  I've yet to have a single character who played a fighter complain that they were unbalanced.  In fact, in every game I've DMed and played in the fighters have always done very well.  Even in the epic level play, the fighter was able to use what the class provides and be effective and have fun.




That’s a funny statement since most people who even consider the fighter balanced do agree that at later levels he is stale. You’re the only one who thinks the opposite.

Game is meant to be balanced, then played in my opinion, and its from “playing” that I noticed something isn’t right. Some of us choose to challenge the rules and ask why. You’re posting a hell of a lot for someone who plays instead of "arguing" as you say.

DA


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2003)

Just because I perfer to see how things actually work then debate them on message boards does by no means mean I won't participate in a debate.  It's not like we can all sit around the same gaming table and see how things work out.  Well, we can if everyone wants to come to Origins next year  

Edit: And how many people have truely gone Epic and used the epic rules?  I think people seem to be talking about what they think from reading the rules then actually playing these high level games.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 23, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> That’s a funny statement since most people who even consider the fighter balanced do agree that at later levels he is stale. You’re the only one who thinks the opposite.




No, he's not.



			
				The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Game is meant to be balanced, then played in my opinion, and its from “playing” that I noticed something isn’t right. Some of us choose to challenge the rules and ask why. You’re posting a hell of a lot for someone who plays instead of "arguing" as you say.
> 
> DA




What does 

"playing"

mean? Why the quotes? Have you tried the core (not house-ruled) Fighter class? For 20 levels, or even into the teens?

Humanophile has the best solution yet: those who think the class skills are restrictive should use his solution. The answer is not to increase skill points per level, it's to increase the breadth of the Fighter's class skills with non-critical skills. If that still doesn't fit the character concept you have in mind, try a Ranger or one of the other Fighter BAB classes.


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 23, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Without requoting the entirety of your commentation, I'd like to point out that you've now demanded far more from the rogue than he reasonably has skillpoints.
> 
> Your hypothetical party rogue has the following skills:
> Gather Information
> ...




A human rogue with int 16+, or any other race with int 18+ could max out all of these things..


----------



## hong (Sep 23, 2003)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> A human rogue with int 16+, or any other race with int 18+ could max out all of these things..



 Indeed, it is true that the current skill points by class are perfectly adequate for a 40 point buy game.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 23, 2003)

A rogue without maxxed Bluff skill?????


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 23, 2003)

Not to mention that skill of skills, Tumble.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 23, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> Indeed, it is true that the current skill points by class are perfectly adequate for a 40 point buy game.




Drama. 

Human Rogue (32 points, 16 14 14 12 12 10)
S 12  D 14  C 10  I 16  W 12  Ch 12

Elven Rogue (32 points, 18 14 12 10 10 10)
S 10  D 16  C 10  I 18  W 10  Ch 10

Some skills are useful at less than maximum values. Try:

(12 skill points/level, 48 at 1st)
.................1st..2nd..3rd..4th etc.
Appraise.........+2...+0...+1...+0
Craft............+2...+1...+0...+1
Disable Device...+4...+1...+1...+1
Escape Artist....+2...+0...+1...+0
Gather Info......+2...+1...+0...+1
Hide.............+4...+1...+1...+1
Listen...........+4...+1...+1...+1
Move Silently....+4...+1...+1...+1
Open Lock........+4...+1...+1...+1
Search...........+4...+1...+1...+1
Spot.............+4...+1...+1...+1
Sense Motive.....+2...+0...+1...+0
Sleight of Hand..+2...+1...+0...+1
Tumble...........+4...+1...+1...+1
Use Magic Device.+2...+0...+1...+0
Use Rope.........+2...+1...+0...+1

Add in stat bonuses as applicable.

There's no denying that this Rogue is all over the board. However, he can do it. The situation gets better as he rises in level as some skills reach a plateau in effectiveness.

The Rogue is the "skill specialist." The Ranger is the "skilled warrior." The Fighter is the "combat specialist." These classes work - and are balanced - as designed. The Fighter may not be flashy - but it's a well-balanced class. Humanophile's changes improve it without hurting balance.

Can we wrap this one now?


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 23, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Drama. The Rogue is the "skill specialist." The Ranger is the "skilled warrior." The Fighter is the "combat specialist." These classes work - and are balanced - as designed. The Fighter may not be flashy - but it's a well-balanced class. Humanophile's changes improve it without hurting balance.
> Can we wrap this one now?




No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.

DA


----------



## Unseelie (Sep 24, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.
> 
> DA




Okay, that seems to prove that people will never agree. _Now_ can we let it go?


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 24, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.
> 
> DA




DA, I _have_ shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class _better_ than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is _the same overall balance as_ the Ranger.

If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.

That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 24, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> DA, I _have_ shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class _better_ than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is _the same overall balance as_ the Ranger.
> 
> If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.
> 
> That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.




The argument from most here isn't that the fighter is tied with the ranger in a fight and worse out of a fight hence an imbalance.  The argument is the fighter barely is better in a fight and gets absolutley spanked outside of a fight, hence an imbalnce.  All arguments showing the edge the fighter has, have so far only shown at best  a marginal edge in a fight.  Yet the fighter contiues to get spanked outside of the fight.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 24, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> The argument from most here isn't that the fighter is tied with the ranger in a fight and worse out of a fight hence an imbalance.  The argument is the fighter barely is better in a fight and gets absolutley spanked outside of a fight, hence an imbalnce.  All arguments showing the edge the fighter has, have so far only shown at best  a marginal edge in a fight.  Yet the fighter contiues to get spanked outside of the fight.




It is a more straight forward comparison if we look at Barbarian.  

The Fighter is not better at fighting at the lowest few levels, quite the opposite IMO.  The Fighter really needs to spend feats on things like Weapon Specialization and Mobility to keep up with the Barbarian at low-middling levels.  

There is also no comparison when you start matching up skill points and class skills.

The much lauded combat superiority of the Fighter doesn't really show up until ~6th level, and the class is already fading at 10th.  Not much of a window of superiority.

I am not sure about the Ranger vs. Fighter.  He is not quite the archer without Weapon Specialization.  And TWF looks like a suboptimal style until you hit high levels.


----------



## green slime (Sep 24, 2003)

For goodness sake.

You are never, ever going to achieve a millimeter justice all-characters-equal in any game.

Most of this complaints revolves around the availability of a multitude of PrC which add nothing to the game, and are only there to provide answers to the wet dreams of munchkins everywhere.

We have one in my game, a dex-fighter player who likes to multiclass all the time. Spends more than half his time at home trying to min-max his characters (using ranger/barbarian/fighter/rogue/psychic warrior whoring). Then comes to the game and complains that he is getting outshined by the pure dwarven fighter. Sure sucks to be dribbling on the floor after a psionic blast.

Sure, he can kick the fighter's butt in a one-on-one (mostly through Spring Attack). But he is still a liability with a Will save equivalent to that of an ant. So in a team effort, he adds next to nothing. Meanwhile the Dwarf has taken Luck of Heroes and Iron Will, and has yet to fail a Will save.

As to all these PrC which add nothing but unreasonable powerups? Not in my game. I examine each and every one when the player asks, and, I have to say, most 3.0 fighter-PrCs provide far too much general power ups and not enough "specialization" for my taste. 

Swapping out skills is always an option. Several players have done so. Or just suck up the cross class cost. It isn't like Jump and Climb are necessary skills at high level play...

IMC, it is the multiclassed rabid dex-fighter which has contributed least to the game, with the paladin, rogue and fighter all contributing far more, and with more staying power. The clerics are relegated to emergency ambulance services, and the mage an efficient artillery observer, with a trick up every sleeve, and couple to spare in his trouser legs to boot.

But there is a lack of interesting feats for high level fighters to take. The dwarf fighter, with a low Int and Dex, is starting to notice that his options are now getting very restricted. I sincerely hope that the complete book of warriors will address this issue.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 24, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> DA, I _have_ shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class _better_ than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is _the same overall balance as_ the Ranger.
> 
> If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.
> 
> That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.




Heres a base Point system for you: (feats equaling 5 points a pop):

BAB is the same, as well as weapons.

Fighter gets: 11 feats plus 5 for his armor equals: 80 points. He his resticted to Fighter Feat only list (and has to meat the presequites to get the feats he wants which is alot easier said then done) but, he can choose WS & GWS & GWF if he takes WF. Note this all counts on ypou not losing your chosen weapon, otherwise your no better than the ol' Ranger in combat if ya lose your stupid sword. Perhaps, and in most cases, your worse then a Ranger if you use loose your chosen weapon.

Ranger gets: Combat style (worth 3 feats), Track, Wild Empathy, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Endurance, Hide in plain Sight, Light armor, Shields, Favored enemy (worth 3 feats atleast), Spells (worth 3 atleast), swift tracker, animal companion equals: 95 points.

So there we have it (and Im being way, way generous here to the Ranger) The ranger leads by 3 feats minimum and this doesnt even include the following:

Granted the Ranger only has 1D8 hit points, he also has 4 skill points per level, and 1 good save bonus over the fighter vs the fighters 1D10 hitpoints. 1D10 hit points does not equal this out or do I really need to break this down in points for you too.

Now you can argue that "edurance" isnt a big deal but I can argue yes it is, especially to a Fighter who wants to sleep in his armor because his class depends so much upon it. You can also argue that the "ranger" is a skilled warrior and needs those extra stuff. I agree the Ranger does but, I also think the Fighter shouldnt be so limited, and his class has more than enough room for skill point ajustment and a feat or two and not unbalancing the class.

By the way, the accual count to a Ranger vs a fighter in a  point system is Fighter 235, Ranger 285 and the average is suppossed to be 250. Now not ever class is going to match up or be 100% equal. However my point is, that the Fighter could use at minumum a skill point boost, and I 100% believe that there is room to do that without unblancing the classes. Infact, there plenty of room.

So in the end Ketjak, I have more than done my homework. The fighter is getting shafted to say the least.

DA


----------



## green slime (Sep 24, 2003)

The_DarkAngel, it is only an opinion that the fighter is worth 80 points and the Ranger worth 95 points. Point systems are subjective, not objective ways of measuring capabilities. They can be manipulated to prove what ever.

And if the average is 250, some character class is likely going to be worth less than the average, and another above the average. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about averages, we would be using 2e "skills and powers" or GURPS...

I really can't say that I feel that balance is a goal in and of itself. It is a game. You play a fighter because you want to, not because some nasty DM told you you had to fulfil a certain role in the party, inspite of you wanting to be a rogue/barbarian/ranger, or whatever.

Is it fun? Are you kicking monster-butt? Is that what you want to do? Good!


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Sep 24, 2003)

Yes I know everything is basically how you "see" it. Thats my major point. I dont "see" it. alsmost every DM has his or her own house rules because they dont see, eye to eye with the creators. However, that point system I just made, is very simple and it was a direct comparison to Ketjak's ideas.

Were as you may not see the value to balanced class, I do, atleast to some degree.

DA


----------



## green slime (Sep 24, 2003)

The_DarkAngel said:
			
		

> Were as you may not see the value to balanced class, I do, atleast to some degree.
> DA




Well, yes, I too see that some semblance of balance is desirable but we differ as to what degree. I fear that the degree for which you seek is too extreme. I do agree with many good points that have been put forth, but I feel they are far less important than what actually occurs in the game, to make a certain PC feel useful in different areas of play. 

So in all honesty, this debate should perhaps be in house rules. Or perhaps not. Whatever. I enjoy playing fighters, even with only two skill points. I also feel that the new 3.5 Ranger is somewhat over the top. I don't need a point system to tell me this. Still, I'd rather play a fighter.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 24, 2003)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> It is a more straight forward comparison if we look at Barbarian.
> 
> The Fighter is not better at fighting at the lowest few levels, quite the opposite IMO.  The Fighter really needs to spend feats on things like Weapon Specialization and Mobility to keep up with the Barbarian at low-middling levels.
> 
> ...



I don't agree, RC. I've seen several fighter builds in action, archers, polearm twinks, twohanded greatsword twinks, TWF twinks... and most of them killed their share of barbarians after level 2. At higher levels, the fighters usually PA the barbarians with their puny DR and smallish AC to death, causing more damage (slight exaggeration) even with one-handed weapons than the barbarian achieves with greatswords.. 

A fighter in an online group is built for versatility. At level 6, he can boost his AC (without magic enhancements) to 34 (IIRC), enough to waste the last level8 barbarian in a one on one duel after the rage was over (the barbarian hit once during his rage).

Even tripped he was barely hit. Even touch spells don't scare him. Show me a barbarian who can do that. And don't think his damage output is bad... though he really shines when you compare the damage he takes against the damage he causes.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 24, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> I don't agree, RC. I've seen several fighter builds in action, archers, polearm twinks, twohanded greatsword twinks, TWF twinks... and most of them killed their share of barbarians after level 2. At higher levels, the fighters usually PA the barbarians with their puny DR and smallish AC to death, causing more damage (slight exaggeration) even with one-handed weapons than the barbarian achieves with greatswords..
> 
> A fighter in an online group is built for versatility. At level 6, he can boost his AC (without magic enhancements) to 34 (IIRC), enough to waste the last level8 barbarian in a one on one duel after the rage was over (the barbarian hit once during his rage).




I will grant you that Fighters do well if you go for the archer or weird trip builds, things of that ilk.  But for more typical builds you need Weapon Focus & Weapon Specialization to keep up damagewise.  That shaves a lot off the main advantage of being a Fighter -- the extra feats.

The primary difference in AC is heavy armor.  IME heavy armor is a mixed blessing because being unable to retreat is can be a death sentence.  Perhaps I am biased because I have seen PCs die because they were too slow.  I would note that even fatigued, that Barbarian could have double moved faster than the fighter could Run when the fight went badly.  If the luck of the dice went against your Fighter he would be dead, dead, dead.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 24, 2003)

Agreed... though this mixed blessing usually (IMC) kept the fighter alive while the barbarians were down, dead or had retreated rounds ago 

Hah, wonderful D&D where the TWF twinks hold the position and the guys with the heavy weapons do the mobility show with hit and run...


----------



## takyris (Sep 25, 2003)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I will grant you that Fighters do well if you go for the archer or weird trip builds, things of that ilk.




And this right here could be the massive difference in perspective.

I don't consider a trip build to be weird.  Improved Trip is one of the coolest things to change in 3.5, and it's just insanely cool and good and wonderful.  When I think about building a mid-level-to-high-level fighter, I am not thinking about a hulking brute who just pummels things.  That's the barbarian.  If you want to fight with an untrained fury, GO WITH THE BARBARIAN.  With the fighter, you shouldn't be planning to make what I'm guessing you think of as "a normal build" -- that is, a dude with sword&board, a greatsword, or maybe two weapons.  The fighter can certainly do that, and sometimes it's great to do any or all of those things, but that shouldn't be your aim.

The fighter has the potential to be the bard of combat -- as one character, he can be a backup archer, backup tank, backup two-weapon guy, and backup special-trick-dude, *all in the same combat*.  He won't be as good as a ranger max'd for two-weapon or archery, or as good as a barbarian max'd for tanking, or as good as a rogue max'd for combat trickery, but he'll be able to helpfully fight alongside each.  And you'll have enough feats to either be that generalist AND specialize in an area that's important OR specialize in two different areas (and only have a good BAB for other types of combat) OR be a dedicated generalist who is REALLY REALLY HARD TO NULLIFY.

Examples:

Specialist in one area, generalist in others: Max out your achery feats, and ALSO take power attack and improved disarm to deal with low-AC bad guys and nasty-weapon bad guys in melee combat

Specialist in two areas: Max out archery feats and max out the Expertise chain, making you somebody who is nasty at range and can do tricky nullifying stuff in close, but who probably won't dish out a ton of damage or cleave through little guys quickly.

Generalist: Just get a feat or two from each chain.  Power Attack ain't bad on its own, Point Blank Shot and one other Archery feat, Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, and maybe Dodge and Mobility to make it a little easier to get through ranks.  You won't outshine anybody who specializes in any one combat style, but you'll never be completely S-outta-L in a fight, because your fighting style can flexibly apply in any sort of combat.

Anybody who says "There are no good feats after (BLAH)," ought to have played a barbarian instead.

And while the original comment sank without a trace, I STILL think that people playing fighters should consider the benefit of those extra feats, not just for what they give, but for what they leave room for.  My barbarians rarely have the feats free to take Iron Will or Lightning Reflexes, but the Fighter gets enough bonus feats that are fighting-specific that I can use his NORMAL feats on things I ordinarily would like to get but couldn't afford.  Improved Init, Save-Boosters, Skill Boosters, and so on.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 26, 2003)

> Anybody who says "There are no good feats after (BLAH)," ought to have played a barbarian instead.




True. You can keep taking feats that are good until you are epic level, even if you got a feat every level (which you do not). There are thousands of feats, claiming that you could somehow run out of good feats to take is absurd.

However there's a much bigger problem. The Desert Raider, the Pirate, the Crusader, and all the other "Fighter Variants" - are in fact different Core Classes. You can multiclass between them freely.

The first two levels of Fighter are literally and exactly twice as good as all of the rest of the levels. There's nothing to stop you from taking 2 levels of Pirate and two levels of Corsaire. The fact that doing so gives you an extra feat indicates that _either_:

1> The first two levels of Fighter are overpowered
or
2> The next two levels of Fighter are underpowered.

Unless someone can give me a really compelling reason why the first two levels of Fighter are not only balanced - but in fact *overpowered* - the rest of the class needs to give benefits twice as fast as it in fact does.

It gets even worse at Epic Levels, BTW. There is no benefit whatsoever to taking level 21 of Fighter over any other class. None. You don't even get more BAB than you would if you took a level of Wizard.

-Frank


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 26, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> *And this right here could be the massive difference in perspective.
> 
> 
> The fighter has the potential to be the bard of combat -- as one character, he can be a backup archer, backup tank, backup two-weapon guy, and backup special-trick-dude, all in the same combat.*





Wrong.  At the point where he has enough feats to do this, the Fighter would need to have magical gear allowing him to be effective with all of those styles.  Unless the DM is giving out truckloads of items and gold to the Fighter to help him out, he is still going to only be doing one thing well.



> *
> He won't be as good as a ranger max'd for two-weapon or archery, or as good as a barbarian max'd for tanking, or as good as a rogue max'd for combat trickery, but he'll be able to helpfully fight alongside each.*





First, the Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations.  All the classes you just admitted are *better* than a Fighter in various combat styles completely blow the Fighter away in social situations, survival situations, or stealth situations.  Furthermore, D&D is a game of specialization.  Generalization weakens a character, making them ineffecient compared to those who specialize.  The fact that you claim the Fighter needs to be generalized is merely proving the point that the class is underpowered.


----------



## takyris (Sep 26, 2003)

> Wrong. At the point where he has enough feats to do this, the Fighter would need to have magical gear allowing him to be effective with all of those styles. Unless the DM is giving out truckloads of items and gold to the Fighter to help him out, he is still going to only be doing one thing well.




I respectfully disagree.  I always considered two +2 weapons better than one +3 weapon, considering that I was spending approximately the same amount of money.  With 3.5's changes to DR, this is even more true.  I can understand if you personally want to be armed with one +4 weapon and nothing else, but please don't assume that your strategy is the only viable one.



> First, the Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations. All the classes you just admitted are better than a Fighter in various combat styles completely blow the Fighter away in social situations, survival situations, or stealth situations. Furthermore, D&D is a game of specialization. Generalization weakens a character, making them ineffecient compared to those who specialize. The fact that you claim the Fighter needs to be generalized is merely proving the point that the class is underpowered.




"Narrow combat situations" is an oxymoron in D&D.  If you've built yourself an extremely specialized fighter and he's doing well in every combat, then your DM is either stupid, unimaginative, or very very forgiving of the fact that you've specialized yourself into a niche.

As for what I admitted, I'd appreciate you not twisting my words.  What I said was that a member of one of those classes who specialized in a class-favored style (hit-and-run for rogues, tanking for barbarians, archery or two-weapon fighting for rangers) would outfight a *generalist* fighter using that same style.  A fighter specializing in one of those styles will do just as well, generally speaking, as his class-specialized counterpart.  We've seen enough arguments and counterarguments about the barbarian versus the fighter in tanking contests that it's obvious, to me at least, that they are close enough to be considered approximately equal.

So what I said was:

Generalist Fighter is more flexible than Specialist Ranger/Rogue/Barbarian, but not as good as the R/R/B in the area that the R/R/B specializes in.

Specialist Fighter is just as good as the R/R/B in that area.

As for your "they totally trounce the fighter in other areas" argument, I don't see at all how the Ranger beats the Fighter socially, the Barbarian beats the Fighter at stealth, or the Rogue beats the Fighter in survival situations.   Oh, wait, you want me to compare the Barbarian's Survival -- his biggest strong point -- to the Fighter's?  Well, um, duh.  Yes, the fighter also fails to turn undead or cast spells.  He is not as alert as the ranger or rogue, the TWO core classes that get spot.  Congratulations.

It seems like this argument is devolving into an endless series of repetitions of basic premises.  One side feels that the fighter is more powerful in combat, and is therefore balanced by being weakest out of combat -- and that people who want a fighting-person who is also gifted with social graces should multiclass.  The other side either denies that the fighter is more powerful in combat (and I'm happy to continue arguing against that one) or says that fighters are only a *little* more powerful in combat but are a *lot* less powerful out of it.

I'd say that whether or not that's still balanced probably depends on your campaign.  The designers obviously felt that combat was important enough that a minor combat advantage had to be balanced with a major out-of-combat disadvantage.

_For example_:

PC:A gets a class ability that gives a +2 to hit.
PC:B gets a class ability gives a +2 to diplomacy checks

After one year in the campaign, the numbers are as follows:

PC:A -- has made 1,000 to-hit rolls.  Benefit of +2000 over a year

PC:B has made 100 diplomacy checks. Benefit of +200 over a year

If that math is true, then from a pure "getting bonuses" standpoint, PC:A has gotten a lot more out of that class ability.  From a game standpoint, it's possible that he spent most of those rolls attacking unimportant stuff, while every time PC:B uses his diplomacy skill, it was for something vital to the plot -- but it's also possible that PC:B was improving his standard with the barmaids while PC:A was whacking BBEGs left and right.  We don't know.  That's a much more complex equation -- and I'm a former English Major. 

I chose those numbers because it's obvious, to me at least, that the designers of D&D assumed that the number of combat rolls would be HUGE relative to the number of non-combat rulls.  Many groups roleplay out-of-combat stuff more often than they roll for it, and you don't need to roll 8 Diplomacy checks for a single encounter -- it's an all-or-nothing on that first roll, with no retries available.  Based on how it weights out, the designers appear to have decided that given how many in-combat bonuses the fighter was getting, he should get *nothing* for out of combat.  The assumption was apparently that people who wanted out-of-combat bonuses would multiclass.

Now, I'm not saying that this is true in every campaign.  I'm saying that it's what the designers were using as their standard.  My evidence for this is the totally lame-ass skill points and skill selection that the fighter gets, as reported by all of you on the other side.    This is, from what I can tell, the best possible theory for why the designers *totally shafted* the fighter in everything that wasn't combat (assuming that "they are poop-heads" is a nonconstructive theory).

So, from that viewpoint, the question becomes, "Is your campaign balanced in that same way?"  How many combat rolls relative to non-combat rolls do you have over the course of, say, a year of gaming?  

(Note: "Time Spent" doesn't matter -- if you do three hours of roleplaying followed by one hour of combat, but you only roll the dice ten times during the first three hours and then roll the dice fifty times in the next hour of combat, your dice rolls are weighted heavily toward combat.)

If you're running dungeon hacks, or even combat-heavy adventuring that has roleplaying and mystery elements, it seems pretty clear that the number of combat rolls heavily outnumbers the number of non-combat rolls.  If that is true, then your fighter is getting a ton of bonuses on his rolls compared to what the poor bard is getting -- sure, he's got great ranks in social stuff, but does he get to use his Diplomacy and Sense Motive more often than the fighter gets to make an attacK?

I'm sure, for some campaigns, that the answer is "Yes".  I'm sure that there are some campaigns in which the ratio is *not* so heavily weighted toward combat.  In those campaigns, since the ratio no longer evens out -- the fighter's disadvantages now outweigh his advantages, since he's making fewer combat rolls relative to the number of other rolls out there -- the fighter is indeed weaker.  In which case: *Why play a fighter here*?  It's obviously not the right PC class for this campaign.  It's a great class for NPCs -- the grim and tactless guardsmen in the swashbuckling campaign, the grunting mercenaries in the dashing pirate campaign, and so forth -- and it should be left as it is, but it's no longer right for PCs.  Or you could change it, but then you should also consider giving the wizard more spells and changing their spell list to include more social spells, giving the rogue more social class abilities to make up for their lack of Sneak Attack usage, giving the Paladin something to make up for his lack of ability to use Smiting, and so forth.  The fighter is not the only class currently balanced by combat abilities.  It's just the most prominent one, and the one who suffers most spectacularly if you run a non-combat-oriented campaign.  Your choices are to overhaul the fighter and make tweaks to almost every other class that has Rogue attack progresison or better, or to simply declare the the fighter class is only good for multiclassing or NPCs in this campaign.

It would be *very* interesting, to me at least, to see wat the actual numbers are after a year.  Maybe next campaign I'll start something like that -- keeping track of how often everything is rolled.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 26, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> "Narrow combat situations" is an oxymoron in D&D.  If you've built yourself an extremely specialized fighter and he's doing well in every combat, then your DM is either stupid, unimaginative, or very very forgiving of the fact that you've specialized yourself into a niche.
> 
> I'd say that whether or not that's still balanced probably depends on your campaign.  The designers obviously felt that combat was important enough that a minor combat advantage had to be balanced with a major out-of-combat disadvantage.
> 
> ...





Wow. Great post.

I'd argue that the fighter isn't useless out of combat. Plenty of call for Swim, Climb, Ride, and other skill checks. Much more than for, say, Appraise.

But yeah, the fighter is built for... fighting. He depends on his party members for dealing with social, stealth, and most other noncombat obstacles. 

That's great. D&D is a party-based game, and designing interdependence on other classes is a Good Thing.

Give the Fighter more skill points and the appeal of all other non-spellcasting classes goes way down. That's a Bad Thing for a party-based game.

-z


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 27, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> As for your "they totally trounce the fighter in other areas" argument, I don't see at all how the Ranger beats the Fighter socially, the Barbarian beats the Fighter at stealth, or the Rogue beats the Fighter in survival situations.   Oh, wait, you want me to compare the Barbarian's Survival -- his biggest strong point -- to the Fighter's?  Well, um, duh.  Yes, the fighter also fails to turn undead or cast spells.  He is not as alert as the ranger or rogue, the TWO core classes that get spot.  Congratulations.
> .




I am impressed with your thoughtful and well thought out posts.  Forgive me for pouncing on this one point.  
 

Yes, the Ranger is likely to beat the Fighter socially, the Barbarian is likely to beat the Fighter at stealth, the Rogue is likely to beat the Rogue in survival situations.  IME having vastly more skill points coming your way translates into more flexibility in adjusting skills to the particular campaign _especially_ when it comes to cross class skills.

If your point is the Fighter is likely to be as good a basket weaver as any other party member, then I suppose I have to agree.  But that only applies to skills that do not actually get used.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2003)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If your point is the Fighter is likely to be as good a basket weaver as any other party member, then I suppose I have to agree.  But that only applies to skills that do not actually get used.




Well, the Fighters skills are much more useful then Basket weaving, and it is up to the DM and the PC alike to make use of the skills.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 27, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> takyris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your statement is as valid for Fighters as it is for Rangers or any other combat class. The levels at which Fighters have two or more combat styles either mastered or under development mandate the use of magic for all classes. For what it's worth, by tenth level the Fighter has all the combat feats/style of a Ranger-archer and is on his way to Whirlwind Attack. If the Ranger has chosen TWF path and the Fighter is emulating the Ranger, the Fighter has Whirlwind attack. Putting everything they have into it, Rangers get Whirlwind attack at 15th level.




			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> First, the Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations.  All the classes you just admitted are *better* than a Fighter in various combat styles completely blow the Fighter away in social situations, survival situations, or stealth situations.  Furthermore, D&D is a game of specialization.  Generalization weakens a character, making them ineffecient compared to those who specialize.  The fact that you claim the Fighter needs to be generalized is merely proving the point that the class is underpowered.




This is a factually incorrect statement, including Takyris' statement about Rangers being better than Fighters at their chosen path (except for one occasion at 11th level).  All respect is given to all participants in the following paragraphs!

First, the Ranger is not better than the Fighter at the combat style he chooses except at 11th level. The Fighter achieves superiority again at 12 th level, and his damage output never wavers. If the Fighter specialized in the same weapons as the Ranger, the Ranger is only barely better than the Fighter at - and _only_ at - 11th level. 

Second, each of those classes gets a narrow-band benefit pending the existence of certain conditions (raging, versus twice-favored enemy at 11th level, target is flanked and not immune to critical hits or sneak attacks). While those conditions exist, it is possible they're doing more damage than a Fighter. Groovy for them! When those conditions don't exist (_calm emotion_ spell or after rage, in any combat besides with a favored enemy, or against undead/constructs/oozes/uncanny dodgers), the Fighter continues tearing down the bad guys.

A benefit that provides a bonus in a narrow range of situations is worth less than a benefit that provides the same benefit across a wide range - or all - situations. To be equal, the narrow benefit should be greater than the wide benefit. Of all the narrow-benefit warrior types, the Barbarian is about equal and only the Fighter's diversity in technique makes the Barbarian his marginal, but arguable, inferior in combat.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> However there's a much bigger problem. The Desert Raider, the Pirate, the Crusader, and all the other "Fighter Variants" - are in fact different Core Classes. You can multiclass between them freely.




I don't recall seeing those in the PHB or another WotC prodct. I don't own them all, though - can you tell me where I can find them?



			
				The_Darkangel said:
			
		

> Ranger gets: Combat style (worth 3 feats), Track, Wild Empathy, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Endurance, Hide in plain Sight, Light armor, Shields, Favored enemy (worth 3 feats atleast), Spells (worth 3 atleast), swift tracker, animal companion equals: 95 points.




Favored enemy is not worth three feats. Though it provides +2 to five skills (normally worth 2.5 feats) and the equivalent of Weapon Specialization with all weapons (1 feat), these effects are only useful against one category or sub-category of opponents. The skill bonuses are at best worth half that value, and more likely less. The Weapon Specialization bonus benefit is canceled out by the restrictive nature of the ability, so it's probably 1 feat. A minor quibble.

Hide in Plain Sight is arguably the best of the other features. While it allows the Ranger to use Hide skill, he can only use it in restricted conditions ("natural terrain"). Still, it's quite useful.

Each of the other abilities the Ranger gets is _non-combat_, and is not worth the same as combat abilities considering the orientation of the core rules and in context with them. Individual campaigns may vary as Takyris described, and that's wonderful to see. In heavily political games, the Fighter is not as useful as the Rogue or Bard, or even the Cleric. _The class was not designed to be._

Fighters don't need skill points or more magic than any other class. They get combat feat versatility, making them the master at combat. They don't do as much damage as the Barbarian does when he's raging, which does not happen all the time. The Ranger must choose the same enemy two, then three, times to keep up with damage output, but he's out-fought by the Fighter against enemies of another type. The Rogue must be in position, probably behind enemy lines to use his ability.

The Fighter needs a weapon to use most of his abilities. That's it.



_[edit: fixed a spelling error]_


----------



## Curugul (Sep 27, 2003)

*# of encounters a day...*

I think this is a large part of the imbalance between the Fighter and all other class's who outshine him in combat:   Duration.    Yes, the paladin/sorceror/barbarian/what have you are better than the fighter in a combat, but they can't do it all day...  But how many games HAVE combat's one after another all day?

In my experience most games have 2-4 largish combat's, and thats it, in a given day.   While it works in a game like Icewind dale, its a PAIN to fight 50 small things, when you can just fight a smaller number of powerful foes, for the same gain.   

I'm curious how many games have lots of small encounters?   

Would you agree in a game with 3 big combat's a day, the fighter is eclipsed by nearly everyone (especially spellcasters / barbarains)?  


I think this is a pretty core part of whats wrong with the fighter: Their designed to go all day, but (almost) never do.


Curugul


----------



## Najo (Sep 27, 2003)

*Fighter skills*

Something I haven't seen anyone address regarding the fighter's skill set is this:

Becasue Fighters get the following class skills: climb, craft, handle animal, intimidate, jump, ride, and swim, and they only get 2 skill points per level, that they can only keep 2 class skills maxed or 1 cross class skill, and in doing so can not have any other skills.

Now, classes who want to remain competive in a skill should keep that skill's level either maxed out or at least near the high end. Way I see it, even the INT 10 fighter should be good at three or four of his skills. He spends all of this time being phyiscal, but his skills don't get to reflect that. 

Another thing to consider with the fighter, they need their STR, CON, and DEX all with good scores. They can not spare a good roll to INT. Wereas the wizard places his best score in INT, and then that synergy gives the wizard skill points. Likewise, the rogue has so many class skills and doesn't need a high STR or CON, that a high INT works very well for him.

Finally, what balances a fighter class in skills compared to other classes is that they have very few class  skills. Class skills are what is valuable because their maximum level is your level +3. Cross class skills can only be half that. So the fighter will always be last in line with skills no matter how many skill points he recieves. 

Giving the fighter 4 skill points allows them to:

a) Keep climb, jump, ride, swim maxed out (or any of the other skills)

b) Keep two of those class skills maxed, and have one cross class skill (such as listen or spot) maxed.

c) and you can easily create playable pirates, as the one listed earlier (aside from the skill points being wrong) should be good  at those skills, not just having a +1 in them. 

Using the level 1 human crow's nest pirate (INT 8) example with current PHB fighter: Climb +2, Profession - Sailor +1, Swim+2, Spot +1. 
Even though he has no other skills, and all of his training has gone to being a pirate, he is only half as good at his chosen career as other physical classes can be.   

But if the skills were 4 per level. Then you get this build at level one, which to me makes more sense: Climb +4, Profession - Sailor +2, Swim+4, Spot +2. 

I suppose you could argue that the pirate is better made from a rogue (which makes sense actaully), but still it proves a point - fighters with at least some variance to their concept (such as nobles or guards) are nearly impossible to build with 2 sps per level, and giving a fighter 4 sp per level doesn't affect their balance against other classes at all. All it does is makes the fighter more interesting to play.

Nate


----------



## pyk (Sep 27, 2003)

I think everyone is forgetting something in regards to class balance. And that is there is no balance between the core classes, and there should not be. Each class has it's role(s) to play, and the real balance comes when several classes get together. The party balance is what matters.

A fighter is good for what the class name is, fighting. And, given the current skill set, feats, abilities, etc. no other class is better at fighting than the fighter. Same with all other classes.

Anyway, the other thing is, I noticed someone saying that a fighter needs a good DEX. This is not true. A fighter with a high DEX limits his choices of armor. Full Plate armor, which is unarguably meant for the fighter class, allows a DEX bonus of one. Therefore, unless the fighter wants to make his high DEX useless, or stick to little or no armor, he can do quite well with a low DEX, which then allows a higher INT. Which is the opposite of other classes like Barb, Bard, Rog, etc.


----------



## youspoonybard (Sep 27, 2003)

I see it more as "A fighter with a low dex limits himself to 20' a round".

But, having Int 13 is more important than Dex 13 in my book, if you have to choose...


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 27, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.  I always considered two +2 weapons better than one +3 weapon, considering that I was spending approximately the same amount of money.  With 3.5's changes to DR, this is even more true.  I can understand if you personally want to be armed with one +4 weapon and nothing else, but please don't assume that your strategy is the only viable one.



[/b]

A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons.  You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.  





> *
> "Narrow combat situations" is an oxymoron in D&D.  If you've built yourself an extremely specialized fighter and he's doing well in every combat, then your DM is either stupid, unimaginative, or very very forgiving of the fact that you've specialized yourself into a niche.
> *





The Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations.  If the arena they are fighting in is at all different from a standard dungeon, they quickly become disadvantaged.  They lack any skills that would see them through combat situations over a bridge, in a forest, on icy ground, and so on.



> *
> As for what I admitted, I'd appreciate you not twisting my words.  What I said was that a member of one of those classes who specialized in a class-favored style (hit-and-run for rogues, tanking for barbarians, archery or two-weapon fighting for rangers) would outfight a generalist fighter using that same style.  A fighter specializing in one of those styles will do just as well, generally speaking, as his class-specialized counterpart.*





Actually, no, he would not.  Fighters do not have the hitpoints, Rage, or DR of the Barbarian.  Not to mention the faster speed.  Barbarians are always better tanks.  Fighters do not have Sneak Attack, Hide, Move Silently, or any detection skills.  The Rogue is always better at hit and run.  Rangers so completely outclass Fighters in the ranged combat area it is luaghable.  



> *
> We've seen enough arguments and counterarguments about the barbarian versus the fighter in tanking contests that it's obvious, to me at least, that they are close enough to be considered approximately equal.*





Not really.  



> *
> So what I said was:
> 
> Generalist Fighter is more flexible than Specialist Ranger/Rogue/Barbarian, but not as good as the R/R/B in the area that the R/R/B specializes in.
> *





Flexibility is fairly valueless in a party based game.  Remember the poll recently on the worst fifth party member?  Monks clearly won, and that is because while they are extremely flexible, with varied abilities, they lack any true specialization, making them weak.  



> *
> Specialist Fighter is just as good as the R/R/B in that area.
> *





Not really.



> *
> As for your "they totally trounce the fighter in other areas" argument, I don't see at all how the Ranger beats the Fighter socially, the Barbarian beats the Fighter at stealth, or the Rogue beats the Fighter in survival situations.   Oh, wait, you want me to compare the Barbarian's Survival -- his biggest strong point -- to the Fighter's?  Well, um, duh.  Yes, the fighter also fails to turn undead or cast spells.  He is not as alert as the ranger or rogue, the TWO core classes that get spot.  Congratulations.*





I would be fine with this, if it wasn't for the fact that Fighters not any better in combat than any of those classes.  The Warmain from AU has been mentioned previously.  Look at that class to see what the Fighter should have been.  



> *
> It seems like this argument is devolving into an endless series of repetitions of basic premises.  One side feels that the fighter is more powerful in combat, and is therefore balanced by being weakest out of combat -- and that people who want a fighting-person who is also gifted with social graces should multiclass.  The other side either denies that the fighter is more powerful in combat (and I'm happy to continue arguing against that one) or says that fighters are only a little more powerful in combat but are a lot less powerful out of it.*





Fine.  You want to prove this?  Create a Fighter, completely specialized in any area, and I will create a character from another class who can defeat him at least half the time.  



> *
> I'd say that whether or not that's still balanced probably depends on your campaign.  The designers obviously felt that combat was important enough that a minor combat advantage had to be balanced with a major out-of-combat disadvantage.*





Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes.  Your example proves nothing, by the way.  The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot.


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 27, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, the Fighters skills are much more useful then Basket weaving, and it is up to the DM and the PC alike to make use of the skills.




The Fighters skills more useful than Basket Weaving, you say?  How so?  Climb, Jump and Swim are pointless at higher levels.  They have no long term investment power.  Ride suffers from the same problem.  The only time you would ever bother with it is if you wanted to go into a mounted PrC, and the Paladin and Ranger are better suited for that anyway.  Craft is a joke.  All the Fighter has that might be somewhat useful is Intimidate, which he only gained in 3.5.  Basket Weaving would not be any worse than what is currently available for Fighters.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> The Fighters skills more useful than Basket Weaving, you say?  How so?  Climb, Jump and Swim are pointless at higher levels.  They have no long term investment power.  Ride suffers from the same problem.  The only time you would ever bother with it is if you wanted to go into a mounted PrC, and the Paladin and Ranger are better suited for that anyway.  Craft is a joke.  All the Fighter has that might be somewhat useful is Intimidate, which he only gained in 3.5.  Basket Weaving would not be any worse than what is currently available for Fighters.




Climb, Jump, and Swim are very useful at all levels.  You are assuming that the character will have access to magic that will make it useless, this is not always the case.  Ride is very useful as well, and not just for a mounted combat character.  Horses are the most common form of transportation, it's not like they have cars.  Craft can also be useful, it depends on the game.  DM's should be making situations were skills are useful at all levels, and players should be ready to embrace their skills to use them.  Just because DMs and PCs limit themselves to not using them, doesn't make the skills useless.


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 27, 2003)

This forum is called D&D rules, not House Rules, for a reason.  I am assuming standard magic as detailed in the DMG, not special case scenarios that vary from campaign to campaign.  By the book, parties will have access to magic and items that make all of those skills redundant or useless, thus they are not useful skills to have on the Fighter skill list.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2003)

Even with standarnd amounts of magic does not mean they will choose to have magic that makes their abilities worthless.  Do you get items that find traps, so the rogue doesn't need to search anymore?  You can have magic replace any skill, so why choose the few things the fighter can do?  The chooses are making the skills worthless, this doersn't have to be the case.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 27, 2003)

Crothian is soooo right.

LuYangShi: One +4 weapon is mathematically better than two +3 weapons if you can use it all the time.

A +3 melee weapon as well as a +3 ranged weapon are always better in my games than a single +4 weapon (except if it could do ranged and melee combat as well).

I see most so called balance problems in D&D as a direct derivative of the DMs style. Many people are used to a lot of big unes to battle, other campaigns rather have hordes of small enemies, wilderness encounters contra dungeoncrawling contra political intrigue... No class can shine everyone. Since I try to do everything in my campaigns, most players tend to versatility if they don't want to sit around 2 thirds of the time (which the specialists in most D&D games should do).

A fighter can't compete in political situations just because he lacks talking? I read too many stories about knights in shining platemail to believe this. Perhaps I am too nice as a DM and allow my players to resolve situations with ROLEPLAYING instead of rolling a dice.


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 27, 2003)

In higher level games, acces to *Flying* eliminates the need for almost all of the movement skills.  Unless your DM painstakingly crafts scenarios specifically to eliminate that option, said skills are worth exactly jack at higher levels.  

Darklone, the skills are there for a reason.  You might as well eliminate the social skills altogether if you can bypass them completely by roleplaying.  I don't care how good a description of an attack may be, if you roll a 1 you still don't hit.  The same goes for skills.  I do agree that Fighters should be able to act like Knights in shining armor, but by the D&D rules it's not going to happen.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 27, 2003)

Oh well... Low diplomacy might mean for the fighter that he lacks finesse of speech. That does not mean he can't do anything. It's an old problem how to use the skills, but I will never let skills trump roleplaying. A high skill value will influence my interpretation of the situation but not more.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 27, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Oh well... Low diplomacy might mean for the fighter that he lacks finesse of speech. That does not mean he can't do anything. It's an old problem how to use the skills, but I will never let skills trump roleplaying. A high skill value will influence my interpretation of the situation but not more.



That's personally how I see it, also: The roleplaying skills exist for the purpose of allowing a shy player to explore the concept, or to enhance the results of someone who CAN put up a convincing argument. Who would have an NPC reject a perfectly valid, highly appealing, and eloquently worded argument, merely because the fighter proposing it had no diplomacy ranks? If the player said that he said that, would you tell him that no, he didn't? Of course not. That's silly. Even non-diplomats have their moments of eloquence, particularly if they think really hard about it.


----------



## takyris (Sep 27, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> I don't care how good a description of an attack may be, if you roll a 1 you still don't hit.  The same goes for skills.




Since everyone else has already countered most of your arguments, or called you on the fact that your arguments boil down to "nuh-uh", let me just note that a 1 on a skill check is not always a failure. 

As for whatever point I had being rendered moot, you seem to be in the minority position there.  Many other people thought that it was at least worth discussing.  But hey, if it might have made you compromise or see another point of view, it wouldn't be as much fun, huh?

This is, minor note, what makes me occasionally ditch ENWorld altogether for a week or two.  As somebody who attempts to compromise and see other points of view, I inevitably feel as though I'm coming out as the loser in any debate -- because people here seem to think that you don't get XP unless you win without ever ceding a point.

I say, "Let's agree that the fighter is a bit better at fighting, and that he gets shafted, relatively speaking, on skills and non-combat class abilities.  Why is that?  Hey, here's a reason.  Maybe this is true for many campaigns.  Maybe it's not for yours."  Your response is, "No, the fighter isn't better at all, and no, DMing style has nothing to do with it, the fighter always sucks in every way, shape, and form, regardless of whether your DM throws different types of combats at you or not, regardless of whether your DM alternates between ranged encounters, crowd encounters, environmental-challenge encounters, and straight-up arena fights, the fighter always sucks."

Nice talking to you, LYS.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 27, 2003)

LuYangShih, you continue to ignore facts and base your argument on suppositions. 



			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons. You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.




This is not strictly true unless one assumes the character wielding two weapons has not taken the TWF feat. I'd much rather have a two-weapon wielding character with two +3 short swords than a one-weapon wielder with a single +4 short sword.

Test it using short swords. Assume each character has the same STR and BAB and cancel out all character abilities that provide the same bonuses. The character class does not matter, but assume it's high enough to allow for a +2 BAB for the purposes of using Power Attack. In your first test, assume the character wielding one weapon took Iron Will (or Alertness, or some other non-combat feat) instead of Power Attack. Do that because it's better for that character; Power Attack makes it even worse for the one-weapon wielder.

You'll find the following damage curves, unless our math is different. The one-weapon character has a +4 short sword, the two-weapon character has two +3 short swords. The damage is multiplied by two for the two-weapon wielder and he is calculated as having as -2 attack roll, as per TWF feat.

AC, %success, enh 1wf att%, act 1wf dam, enh twf att%, act enh twf dam, best choice
5, 0.8, 1, 7.5, 0.85, 11.05, TWF
6, 0.75, 0.95, 7.125, 0.8, 10.4, TWF
7, 0.7, 0.9, 6.75, 0.75, 9.75, TWF
8, 0.65, 0.85, 6.375, 0.7, 9.1, TWF
9, 0.6, 0.8, 6, 0.65, 8.45, TWF
10, 0.55, 0.75, 5.625, 0.6, 7.8, TWF
11, 0.5, 0.7, 5.25, 0.55, 7.15, TWF
12, 0.45, 0.65, 4.875, 0.5, 6.5, TWF
13, 0.4, 0.6, 4.5, 0.45, 5.85, TWF
14, 0.35, 0.55, 4.125, 0.4, 5.2, TWF
15, 0.3, 0.5, 3.75, 0.35, 4.55, TWF
16, 0.25, 0.45, 3.375, 0.3, 3.9, TWF
17, 0.2, 0.4, 3, 0.25, 3.25, TWF
*
18, 0.15, 0.35, 2.625, 0.2, 2.6, ONE
19, 0.1, 0.3, 2.25, 0.15, 1.95, ONE
20, 0.05, 0.25, 1.875, 0.1, 1.3, ONE
21, 0.05, 0.2, 1.5, 0.05, 0.65, ONE
22, 0.05, 0.15, 1.125, 0.05, 0.65, ONE
23, 0.05, 0.1, 0.75, 0.05, 0.65, ONE
*
24, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
25, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
26, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
27, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
28, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
29, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
30, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF

Or in a formatted table:


```
AC	one hit%|one dam|twf hit%|twf dam|best choice	
5	1	 7.5	 0.85	  11.05	  TWF
6	0.95	 7.125	 0.8	  10.4	  TWF
7	0.9	 6.75	 0.75	  9.75	  TWF
8	0.85	 6.375	 0.7	  9.1	  TWF
9	0.8	 6	 0.65	  8.45	  TWF
10	0.75	 5.625	 0.6	  7.8	  TWF
11	0.7	 5.25	 0.55	  7.15	  TWF
12	0.65	 4.875	 0.5	  6.5	  TWF
13	0.6	 4.5	 0.45	  5.85	  TWF
14	0.55 	 4.125	 0.4	  5.2	  TWF
15	0.5	 3.75	 0.35	  4.55	  TWF
16	0.45	 3.375	 0.3	  3.9	  TWF
17	0.4	 3	 0.25	  3.25	  TWF
[b]
18	0.35	 2.625	 0.2	  2.6	  ONE
19	0.3	 2.25	 0.15	  1.95	  ONE
20	0.25	 1.875	 0.1	  1.3	  ONE
21	0.2	 1.5	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
22	0.15	 1.125	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
23	0.1	 0.75	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
[/b]
24	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
25	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
26	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
27	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
28	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
29	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
30	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
```

With Power attack it's even worse for the one-weapon wielder. Assume the character with Power Attack throws +2 attack into +2 damage:

AC, pa enh, pa 1wf dam, enh twf att%, act enh twf dam, Best choice
5, 0.9, 8.55, 0.85, 11.05, TWF
6, 0.85, 8.075, 0.8, 10.4, TWF
7, 0.8, 7.6, 0.75, 9.75, TWF
8, 0.75, 7.125, 0.7, 9.1, TWF
9, 0.7, 6.65, 0.65, 8.45, TWF
10, 0.65, 6.175, 0.6, 7.8, TWF
11, 0.6, 5.7, 0.55, 7.15, TWF
12, 0.55, 5.225, 0.5, 6.5, TWF
13, 0.5, 4.75, 0.45, 5.85, TWF
14, 0.45, 4.275, 0.4, 5.2, TWF
15, 0.4, 3.8, 0.35, 4.55, TWF
16, 0.35, 3.325, 0.3, 3.9, TWF
17, 0.3, 2.85, 0.25, 3.25, TWF
18, 0.25, 2.375, 0.2, 2.6, TWF
19, 0.2, 1.9, 0.15, 1.95, TWF
*
20, 0.15, 1.425, 0.1, 1.3, PA1
21, 0.1, 0.95, 0.05, 0.65, PA1
*
22, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
23, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
24, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
25, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
26, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
27, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
28, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
29, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
30, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF

Or in a formatted table:


```
AC	pa hit%|pa dam|twf att%|twf dam|best choice
5	0.9	8.55	0.85	11.05	TWF
6	0.85	8.075	0.8	10.4	TWF
7	0.8	7.6	0.75	9.75	TWF
8	0.75	7.125	0.7	9.1	TWF
9	0.7	6.65	0.65	8.45	TWF
10	0.65	6.175	0.6	7.8	TWF
11	0.6	5.7	0.55	7.15	TWF
12	0.55	5.225	0.5	6.5	TWF
13	0.5	4.75	0.45	5.85	TWF
14	0.45	4.275	0.4	5.2	TWF
15	0.4	3.8	0.35	4.55	TWF
16	0.35	3.325	0.3	3.9	TWF
17	0.3	2.85	0.25	3.25	TWF
18	0.25	2.375	0.2	2.6	TWF
19	0.2	1.9	0.15	1.95	TWF
[b]
20	0.15	1.425	0.1	1.3	PA1
21	0.1	0.95	0.05	0.65	PA1
[/b]
22	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
23	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
24	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
25	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
26	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
27	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
28	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
29	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
30	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
```

If you increase the damage die (for large short swords), it gets worse for the one-weapon wielder by one AC. If you decrease the damage die (for small short swords) it gets better for the Power Attacker by one AC.

You can add your STR bonus and BAB to any AC in this chart to determine which ACs you "should" be hitting to maximize your benefit with a short sword. Of course, no one-weapon wielding character should use a short sword, but I couldn't let LuYangShih's statement stand, since it is inaccurate.



			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Takyris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is more accurate to say Barbarians are better _cannons_. The Fighter will almost always have a better AC. The Barbarian probably does more damage than the Fighter over a shorter period of time. At low levels, he can exceed the Fighter by using rage once or twice per day. The Fighter uses all of his abilities all the time.

Which is better? The DMG calls for an average encounter to use 25% of a party's resources, so any campaign which sees more than 1 encounter including a BBN1-3 and a FTR 1-3 will see the BBN at a minor disadvantage for all but the encounter in which he rages. If the party includes a BBN and FTR 4, the BBN enjoys a slimmer advantage (the Fighter just got Weapon Specialization) for two encounters.

Basically, if you have one or two encounters per day at low levels, play a Barbarian. This is especially true if you're playing a non-combat focused campaign. If you have more than that or are playing in a combat-centric game, you're probably better off being a Fighter.

The Ranger is not better than a Fighter of equivalent level at ranged combat or two-weapon fighting _except_ at 11th level or if the Ranger is facing a twice-favored enemy, thrice-favored after level 12. The Fighter keeps pace with combat feats.

By second level, both have Rapid Shot. In fact, the Fighter had it at 1st if he took it instead of Precise Shot. The Ranger can't take Precise Shot until 3rd level. Both have Weapon Focus.

By sixth level, the RGR and FTR have Manyshot. The RGR just got Dodge. The FTR also has Mobility and Weapon Specialization.

By 11th level, the RGR has Improved Precise Shot and Mobility. The FTR has Greater Weapon Focus, Spring Attack, and Combat Expertise.

By 12th level, the RGR has Spring Attack. The FTR has Whirlwind Attack and Greater Weapon Specialization. To keep pace with damage output against anyone the Ranger _must_ have chosen the same favored enemy twice. To exceed the damage output of the Fighter at all, the Ranger _must_ have chosen the same favored enemy three times.

While the Fighter is mastering ranged combat, he's also mastering melee combat. While personally I think it's better to put his Weapon Focus, GWF, Weapon Specialization and GWS into melee combat, he could put them into ranged combat, thereby owning the ranged combat space.

*cough*

Which character is better at ranged combat again? 

Finally, Rogues do not have staying power. The Rogue is not going to be able to deal with mobs rushing the spellcasters, and to use his special combat ability he _must_ have a partner. The type of partner doesn't really matter. If the party faces undead, or constructs, or anything else with an immunity to criticals, the rogue's ability is reduced.

In the meantime, look at that Fighter go!



			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes. Your example proves nothing, by the way. The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot.




That's a baseless statement unless you're using a different definition of "better" than, say, Merriam-Webster does.



			
				Webster's Dictionary said:
			
		

> 1. Having good qualities in a greater degree than another; as, a better man; a better physician; a better house; a better air.




The Fighter is all over combat. He has good qualities (combat abilities) in greater degree than anyone else.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> However there's a much bigger problem. The Desert Raider, the Pirate, the Crusader, and all the other "Fighter Variants" - are in fact different Core Classes. You can multiclass between them freely.




Frank, yesterday I asked for you to point these core classes out in the 3.5 core rulebooks. I looked again and didn't see them. Can you please help me find them?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> Frank, yesterday I asked for you to point these core classes out in the 3.5 core rulebooks. I looked again and didn't see them. Can you please help me find them?




I think they are from one of the Dragon Magazines.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 27, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think they are from one of the Dragon Magazines.




Thanks, Crothian. I don't have that (those) issue(s). I cannot compare them and they're not OGC, I imagine.

My guess is they're better in particular environments (kudos to them) or they were made by different designers. At best they're optional, not core (since they appear in a supplement and not a core rule book).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2003)

I don't know if they are OGL, but they very well could be.  Dragon has been making some things OGL.


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 27, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> That's personally how I see it, also: The roleplaying skills exist for the purpose of allowing a shy player to explore the concept, or to enhance the results of someone who CAN put up a convincing argument. Who would have an NPC reject a perfectly valid, highly appealing, and eloquently worded argument, merely because the fighter proposing it had no diplomacy ranks? If the player said that he said that, would you tell him that no, he didn't? Of course not. That's silly. Even non-diplomats have their moments of eloquence, particularly if they think really hard about it.




Yes, I would.  Just like I would tell the mage that no, he doesn't stab the dragon through the heart with his dagger, killing it instantly without ever picking up a die.

Just like I would tell the int 6 half-orc that no, he didn't just come up with that highly complicated plan.

I draw a very firm line between what comes from the player and what comes from the character.  If player charisma & skill overrides character charisma & skill then naturally charismatic people will dominate the game, while shy people will become mere spectators (I've seen it happen).  Also why stop there?  Why not throw out BAB, and generate each character's attack bonus based on a game of darts?

At the same time, I'm not saying roleplaying should have zero influence:  My own take on it is to apply a modifier to the roll based on circumstances.  For example I'd give a bonus to a bluff check if the player came up with a particularly convincing bluff, but even with the most convincing bluff, the character may screw it up by poor delivery (ie the roll must still be made).

Just like there are situations where the player exceeds the character, there will also be situations where the character exceeds the player.  If the character is very intelligent and/or skilled (for example) I might feed that player more information about what they see than others, since their character will naturally be considering all that they see.  For example I might describe a scene to a rogue in terms of opportunities to move past unseen (if they have some hide skill) or areas that might be trapped (if they have Search).  The fighter just sees a corridor.  The rogue notes that this corridor is tiled (while others were not)


----------



## pyk (Sep 27, 2003)

The thing I think is so funny about all this, is if one listens to all the posts on not only this board, but WotC's and others, one wonders why anyone plays this D&D anyway? At any particular time, there are posters all over about how each and every class is the worst, and completely unbalanced with any other class. If all the classes are so bad, why does anyone play this game?

For me, it's because I have the realization that the balance of the classes revolves around how they are played as a party. The party is the whole key.


----------



## Storminator (Sep 28, 2003)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> Finally, Rogues do not have staying power. The Rogue is not going to be able to deal with mobs rushing the spellcasters, and to use his special combat ability he _must_ have a partner. The type of partner doesn't really matter. If the party faces undead, or constructs, or anything else with an immunity to criticals, the rogue's ability is reduced.
> 
> <SNIP>




Whew! No way I can keep up with this thread!

I just wanted to chime in on this point. If the fighter can avoid sneak attacks (either thru some kind of magical concealment, or by standing in the corner, etc), I've found that a fighter is a pretty even fight for TWO equal level rogues. Without sneak attacks, rogues get butchered.

PS


----------



## Cyraneth (Sep 28, 2003)

Well, this is quite a thread, so let me add my last words to it:

It seems that fighters aren't as "fun" because they don't have enough skill points. Well, rogues are still fun, although they "don't have enough" magical skill and combat ability. The same goes for bards. And wizards and sorcerers lack any kind of toe-to-toe combat ability, but that's all fine. Just work with what you got. A fighter might not have as many skill points as a rogue. Well, that just means he can't max out as many skills. He can still get up to 12 skills (1st-level human fighter, Int 10), but he won't be as skilled as a more specialized fighter. It's exactly the same as the rogue. A 1st-level human rogue (Int 14) could pick up 44 or 11 skills, or anything in between, depending on what he's feeling like.

What I want to say is, few skill points merely means you won't be as good at that particular thing as other classes, but it's not like it's the end of the world. A fighter can still participate is courtly dialogue even though he doesn't have the Diplomacy skill. He can still help plan an infiltration, or even help execute it, even though he doesn't have Gather Information, Disguise, Bluff, Hide, or Forgery. Having or not having a skill isn't that important. It's finding a way that solves the problem at hand with the resources your party's got that is key. No need to worry 'cause your 1st-level noble warrior-knight "only" has 2 ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty). He happened to pay more attention to the fighting classes than the heraldry classes. Otherwise, he'd be a bard or some such.

- Cyraneth


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

crothian said:
			
		

> I think they are from one of the Dragon Magazines.




And from Sword and Fist, and the DMG. And of course, they stack - which is to say that the more "official" Fighter Variant classes get printed, the more times you can take the first two levels of the Fighter Class. There are currently more than 10 such variants printed.

So, if we accept that the first two levels of Fighter are not unbalanced - and all of your levels out to twenty _can_ be the first two levels of Fighter (which they can) - how can we possibly say that the levels _after_ the first two should give _less_ than the first two.

One feat per level is the _minimum_ acceptable Fighter - because you can just multiclass with _Fighter_ and do that anyway.

---

Now it is an entirely seperate problem that I simply completely reject the notion that Fighters are any better at Fighting than Rangers are - they don't get more feats at the crucial lower levels and have less combat skills and worse saves. A character with maxxed Spot is more likely to be able to act in the surprise round, a character with maxxed Move Silently is more likely to prevent opponents from acting in the surprise round. Add those together, and the Ranger's Skills will _often_ represent a shift of two whole rounds worth of actions. In a game where combats rarely last more than six rounds total - that's a huge hole that a Fighter is having to dig himslf out of. And as previously noted, the Fighter does not have more feats than the Ranger at low levels (and at higher levels, there are PrCs and Animal Companions and stuff making comparison extremely difficult).

So we look at someone who is _not_ better at "Fighting" and _is_ worse at other activities. That's not balanced. Heck, even at one feat per level, I'm not seeing a significant bulge of Fighters over Rangers in combat (especially if the Ranger gets a Favored Enemy which is common in his campaign). And the non-combat functionality differential is huge.

----

Now: as to the different number of rolls of Attack vs. Diplomacy - that's irrelevent. In a combat, you roll a bunch of attack rolls - but succeeding or failing at an individual attack doesn't make you win or lose the combat. You need to succeed many times on attack rolls before you make any meaningful difference.

OTOH, a Diplomacy roll is all-or-nothing. Success on that _one roll_ is a bigger deal. It makes you "win" the encounter. Failure makes you "lose". That's a big deal. Much bigger than a single attack roll. The net result of +1 to all of your attacks is thus about the same as +1 to all of your diplomacy rolls - more rolls with a smaller individual effect makes each +1 bonus statistically more similar - but doesn't actually make that bonus any statistically larger.

On a 1000 attack rolls, you are very likely to see about 50 additional hits with a +1 attack bonus. On 100 Diplomacy Rolls you are going to see a spread of between about 2 and about 10 additional successes with a +1 to Diplomacy checks. But hitting 50 extra times isn't a bigger deal than succeeding at 5 more Diplomacy checks.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

There are no core classes in Sword and fist, and the only core classes in the DMG are the NPC classes.  But taking two levels of 10 different classes is still seen as abuse of the system and not in the spirit of the rules.  But as always, it's individual style on if you'd allow that or not.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

They begin on page 53 of S&F. They are slight modifications of the Fighter - they have different skill lists and a slightly shorter list of bonus feats. Otherwise they are exactly identical to the Fighter. And since they are Core Classes - they can be multiclassed into freely. That's what "core class" _means_.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

They are alternate ways to use the fighter, I don't think they were designed to multi class into like you suggest.  It's still a fighter, just a different version of it.  Not a new core class.  

"You can customize your character without the necessiity of creating a new core class"


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Crothian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah! I see the source of your confusion. Thank you for finally pointing it out. I can understand your reluctance.

In Sword & Fist, Chapter 4, there are suggestions that help define the myriad possibilities inherent in the core Fighter class. You mistake the skill and feat lists there as _class_ feats and skills, instead of the suggestions they are. To quote the Sword & Fist chapter:

"In this chapter, we present several ways in which both players and DMs can take advantage of the rules of the game during play. The advice and additional rules herein expand and clarify many aspects of choices and their ramifications during the game.

"Being All You Can Be

"One of the great things about the Dungeons & Dragons game remains its versatility. Have you ever wished that there were more character classes, so that you can play exactly the type of fighter or monk you want? Maybe you want to play a fighter who earns his gold thorough piracy rather than dungeon looting, or a monk who raids desert caravans rather than hangs about the monastery. *You can customize your character, without the necessity of creating a new character class, through ability-score prioritization, and the careful selection of skills and feats.* Some of the roles discussed below share names or concepts with some of the prestige classes presented in chapter 2. The information and choices below offer another avenue of advancement, for those who just cannot wait for their character to qualify for the class in question."

I added the bold and italics to illustrate my next point.

Frank, those aren't new classes - they're examples of customization for flavor's sake. Your argument - that these are "better" Fighter variants than the Fighter - is now baseless, since you're basing it on _customization of the Fighter class itself!_ Obviously, one cannot claim the Fighter is limited by pointing to customized Fighters to point out its limitations.

Further argument based on that premise is just noise.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> So, if we accept that the first two levels of Fighter are not unbalanced - and all of your levels out to twenty can be the first two levels of Fighter (which they can) - how can we possibly say that the levels after the first two should give less than the first two.




That the Fighter is front-loaded slightly is no different than the Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, and Wizard being front loaded.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> One feat per level is the minimum acceptable Fighter - because you can just multiclass with Fighter and do that anyway.




You do not understand the multiclass rules. These are easy to miss, though fortunately this restriction is also in line with common sense. A character that already has levels in a class cannot "multiclass" into it again; the new level gets added to the old ones. Under "Adding a Second Class" on page 59 of the PHB 3.5:

"When a character with one class gains a level, he or she may choose to increase the level of his or her current class or pick up a new class at 1st level. (A character can't gain 1st level in the same class more than once, even if this would allow him to select different class features, such as a different set of domains for a cleric.)"



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Now it is an entirely seperate problem that I simply completely reject the notion that Fighters are any better at Fighting than Rangers are - they don't get more feats at the crucial lower levels and have less combat skills and worse saves.




You contradict yourself. Fighters get more _combat_ feats than anyone else. You have pointed this out, both in your citation of the versatility of the Fighter class in Sword & Fist and in your habitual use of the first two Fighter levels. Track is not a combat feat; Endurance is not a combat feat. They do not affect combat, and are therefore not combat feats. 

Please choose a position:

Fighters _do not_ get more combat feats than Rangers at lower levels OR
Fighter _do_ get more combat feats than Rangers at lower levels.

They're exclusive, which is why your statements are confusing.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> A character with maxxed Spot is more likely to be able to act in the surprise round, a character with maxxed Move Silently is more likely to prevent opponents from acting in the surprise round. Add those together, and the Ranger's Skills will often represent a shift of two whole rounds worth of actions. In a game where combats rarely last more than six rounds total - that's a huge hole that a Fighter is having to dig himslf out of.




It's not so large a hole as your hyperbole makes it out to be. A surprise round allows folks who are active in them to have ONE standard action. See pg. 137 of the PHB 3.5. If you're impatient, skip to the bold section that starts with "Surprise round." The restriction of actions during surprise rounds has been in place since 3.0.

The Fighter can make up that difference with ease over the course of a 3-round combat. Compare damage output.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> And as previously noted, the Fighter does not have more feats than the Ranger at low levels (and at higher levels, there are PrCs and Animal Companions and stuff making comparison extremely difficult).




Your argument is that the Fighter is underpowered and unbalanced and, therefore, sucks. Your own citations of versatile Fighter builds show the versatility of Fighters. Your own choice of the first two levels of Fighter in every build shows that they are not under-powered early on, at least. The focus of Fighters on combat makes up for the lack of non-combat abilities. They have more combat feats than Rangers, no matter how many times you ignore my builds or choose not to build any yourself. That's okay, because your citations show Fighters that are good at non-combat abilities "through ability-score prioritization, and the careful selection of skills and feats!" Perhaps Fighters are _over-_powered.

The facts are that a Ranger is no better than a Fighter at combat except under two circumstances, both of which are very narrow and are mitigated by additional feat selections the Fighter can make:

1 - at 11th level, the Ranger gets Improved Precise Shot or Greater Two Weapon Fighting. The Fighter must wait until 12th to get either of those, and in the meantime must console himself with using the mere Whirlwind Attack, Mounted Combat tree mastery, or a bevy of other feats which improve his mastery of combat.

2 - When the Fighter has only Weapon Specialization (+2 damage to all foes with a specific weapon) to keep him busy until GWS (+4 damage to all foes with the specific weapon) at 12th level, the Ranger can take a favored enemy twice again at 5th level (+4 damage against a single group of critters). If he does not, the Fighter does as much damage to the Ranger's favored enemy. The Ranger can keep ahead of the Fighter in damage by taking that favored enemy again at 10th, resulting in +6 damage to those guys. He will forever stay ahead of the Fighter against those critters in damage output per hit... except that he hits that favored enemy less than the Fighter because the Fighter took Greater Weapon Focus at 8th.

The Fighter uses his specialized weapon a great deal more than the Ranger faces his favored enemy, unless the campaign is very restricted in scope and that enemy is prevalent. In that case, you _might_ be better off taking a Ranger... but again, that's a campaign-specific problem, not a problem inherent in either class.

PrCs and Animal Companions _do_ make comparisons difficult. Fortunately, the Fighter's wide combat feat selection, high AC, and greater overall damage output allow the Fighter to match the damage output of the Ranger/pet combo... except auto-flanking. 



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> So we look at someone who is not better at "Fighting" and is worse at other activities. That's not balanced. Heck, even at one feat per level, I'm not seeing a significant bulge of Fighters over Rangers in combat (especially if the Ranger gets a Favored Enemy which is common in his campaign). And the non-combat functionality differential is huge.




Perhaps in your campaign. Your mileage may vary as others have said. If you fight nothing but goblins and have to argue for goblin-hunting rights, the Ranger might be better suited to succeed in that campaign. The core rules, however, present two very well-balanced classes in the Fighter and Ranger. Four, including the Barbarian and Paladin. They're all good at different activities. The Fighter is best at combat. The primary class ability (bonus combat feats) doesn't lie.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Now: as to the different number of rolls of Attack vs. Diplomacy - that's irrelevent. In a combat, you roll a bunch of attack rolls - but succeeding or failing at an individual attack doesn't make you win or lose the combat. You need to succeed many times on attack rolls before you make any meaningful difference.




Tell that to the Fighter greatsword specialist with Power Attack, or the raging Barbarian.  One hit makes a huge difference.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> OTOH, a Diplomacy roll is all-or-nothing. Success on that one roll is a bigger deal. It makes you "win" the encounter. Failure makes you "lose". That's a big deal. Much bigger than a single attack roll. The net result of +1 to all of your attacks is thus about the same as +1 to all of your diplomacy rolls - more rolls with a smaller individual effect makes each +1 bonus statistically more similar - but doesn't actually make that bonus any statistically larger.
> 
> On a 1000 attack rolls, you are very likely to see about 50 additional hits with a +1 attack bonus. On 100 Diplomacy Rolls you are going to see a spread of between about 2 and about 10 additional successes with a +1 to Diplomacy checks. But hitting 50 extra times isn't a bigger deal than succeeding at 5 more Diplomacy checks.




You use partial explanations of the same equation to try to strengthen your point. Both situations use the same die rolls and have the same probabilities of success. Assume CHA and STR are the same for both rollers. In that case, a +1 equals a +1 in terms of probability of success. You will see "between about 2 and about 10 successes" using Diplomacy as much as you will see "between about 20 and 100 additional hits."

I'd say hitting about 50 extra times at any damage per hit is as big a deal as 5 more Diplomacy checks! Even at low levels that's an average of 250 points of damage.  At high levels it's more like 1,500 points of damage.

Finally, your attempt to marginalize the effect of Greater Weapon Focus speaks to deliberate avoidance of recognition of the Fighter's superiority in combat.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

> Your own choice of the first two levels of Fighter in every build shows that they are not under-powered early on, at least.




Um... my point was that the levels of Fighter 3-20 were so bad that I could make a better Fighter by replacing those levels with something else. I wasn't doing a "Ranger" or a "Barbarian" - I was making a _Fighter_. Of course I took some Fight levels. That doesn't mean that Fighter is good, it means that my point was that 3rd level Fighter is so underpowered that you could make a better _fighter_ by not taking _fighter levels_.

That's like if you could make a better Wizard by taking Bard levels after level 2. It's that blatant, and your argument that the Fighter is not underpowered is at this point exhausting and hillarious.

-Frank


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Um... my point was that the levels of Fighter 3-20 were so bad that I could make a better Fighter by replacing those levels with something else. I wasn't doing a "Ranger" or a "Barbarian" - I was making a _Fighter_. Of course I took some Fight levels. That doesn't mean that Fighter is good, it means that my point was that 3rd level Fighter is so underpowered that you could make a better _fighter_ by not taking _fighter levels_.
> 
> That's like if you could make a better Wizard by taking Bard levels after level 2. It's that blatant, and your argument that the Fighter is not underpowered is at this point exhausting and hillarious.
> 
> -Frank




You're not making a _Fighter_. You're making a _wilderness warrior_ or some other multiclass character - and that character will still not dominate combat like a 20th level Fighter will. 

You said the Fighter sucked. We showed that the Fighter does not suck - and used your own arguments and cited data to prove it. Do you have another argument you'd like to make?


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

> You're not making a _Fighter_.




The hell I'm not. Fighters only have Feats and weapon proficiencies. That's _it_. If I can get that many feats and the weapon proficiencies, I am a Fighter. The fact that I can also have skills and class features on top of that means that there are some "Fighter" builds which are underpowered.

One of those builds is mixing in some Warrior Levels - or some other NPC class. Another is taking only "Fighter" levels and not taking other levels which give you additional abilities, saves, and skills on top of the feats.

If you can't understand that, we have nothing to talk about.

-Frank


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The hell I'm not. Fighters only have Feats and weapon proficiencies. That's _it_. If I can get that many feats and the weapon proficiencies, I am a Fighter. The fact that I can also have skills and class features on top of that means that there are some "Fighter" builds which are underpowered.
> 
> One of those builds is mixing in some Warrior Levels - or some other NPC class. Another is taking only "Fighter" levels and not taking other levels which give you additional abilities, saves, and skills on top of the feats.
> 
> ...




I thought it was rather clear, Frank. A Fighter class-based character is not the same as a character comprised only of Fighter class levels. You are saying it is. You cannot say "my character is a Fighter" then ask "how do you like my animal companion?"  

It's like saying "My character's a Fighter," then casting true strike.  Obviously, he's _not_ a Fighter... he's a magic-wielding warrior-type.

Or saying "I'm a Rogue," just before raging. He's not a rogue... he's a raging death shadow or something. 

There's a difference. You can see that, surely - you argue that the Fighter class is not as good as other classes, and advise multi-classing to make the best combat specialist. 

Do you see the difference or don't you? If you do, try to phrase an argument that holds water longer than one post. If you don't, let's work on illustrations until you do.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

> I thought it was rather clear, Frank. A Fighter class-based character is not the same as a character comprised only of Fighter class levels.




Then we obviously have nothing to talk about.

If you think that a list of classes makes your character concept - _no name-calling, please -Henry_. Your character concept is made or broken by the _abilities_ granted by those classes. If you have all the abilities you want - your character concept is good to go - if you have less than that you _are not_.

The Fighter has a pile of abilities which is smaller and otherwise identical to a more well thought-out list of classes. Therefore, you are more likely to be able to fulfill your character concept with the more convoluted class list.

We seem to be talking past each other - you seem to be under the strange delusion that a character concept might actually be "Level 7 Fighter" - which is dumb.

And it is really hard to not just insult you over it, honestly. Please, stop wasting my time.

-Frank


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Then we obviously have nothing to talk about.
> 
> If you think that a list of classes makes your character concept - you are an idiot. Your character concept is made or broken by the _abilities_ granted by those classes. If you have all the abilities you want - your character concept is good to go - if you have less than that you _are not_.
> 
> ...




Frank, _you_ cited the Fighter versatility examples in Sword & Fist as better "Fighters" than Fighters... and yet they illustrated my point exactly: that a Fighter can be what a player wants it to be! I already saw that... I can't help it if my imagination allowed me to see how to use feats, skills, and abilities to create those characters. 



			
				FrankTheTroll said:
			
		

> And it is really hard to not just insult you over it, honestly. Please, stop wasting my time.
> 
> -Frank




Of course, Frank. Insults are the refuge of those who have no argument.  It's okay; stop trying to paint a class as undesirable when it is only in the context of ignorance of fact (Fighter vs Ranger), comparisons to prestige classes (the "dragoon"), a desire to min-max with the best of the munchkins (having all the abilities you want), and a lack of imagination (no flexibility in the Fighter class for creating the character you want). Instead, try using facts (Fighter combat feats vs Ranger combat abilities), analyses (Fighter design and average damage vs Ranger design and average damage), and stick with the definitions of terms published already, rather than reinventing them to suit an otherwise dubious position (_Fighter_, not Fighter). 

Anyone else care to show how the Fighter sucks or is out of balance with other classes? Someone with a sound argument, that is.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

Right. So long as the argument involves no multiclassing, no prestige classing, no non-core material, and requires the use of Fighter levels exclusively, I am unable to create a build that is a better Fighter than the Fighter.

With that list of limitations, however, I am also unable to make a better arcane spellcaster than the Fighter and I am unable to build a better stealthy trickster than the Fighter. Clearly, your list of restrictions is overly broad.

We have been around this bush over and over again. I have shown that the Fighter is outperformed in all ways no matter what it is being asked to do. If the campaign involves lots of "non-standard" battlefields, the Ranger is _better_, if you have an elaborate fighting style the multiclassed character is _better_, and in a straightforward hitting fest the Barbarian is _better_.

There isn't anything left. We've been over this from every possible angle - the other warrior builds are able to outperform the Fighter on the battlefield and off. The only thing you have is a vague assertion that somehow people will get a warm and fuzzy feeling from writing "Fighter" on their character sheet. That's inane.

-Frank


----------



## Shader (Sep 28, 2003)

Okay, just to add my own two copper pieces, because, well why the hell not, I agree *partly* with the original post in this thread.

I would like to see a Fighter changed by giving them a few more class skills, *and* some extra skill points. Extra skills? Yeah, I personally believe that the Fighter has too narrow a range of skills. A Fighter shouldn't be considered purely a grunt. Give them a couple of talky skills, maybe something like Bluff or Sense Motive, maybe Diplomacy (for someone who aspires to be a military leader, for example), maybe even Search. I'd just like to see the Fighter have access to a few more skills, to take them out of the "Me warrior, me hit fings" bracket and into "I'm a warrior and I know my craft well" type of trade.

Just my two copper pieces worth.


----------



## poilbrun (Sep 28, 2003)

Having the Dragon in which the variant 3.5 fighters in it, I'd like to point that it's clearly stated that you cannot multiclass fighter with one of them, nor two of them.

As for the problem at hand, I belive the fighter is overall better in a fight than any other class. Sure, other class have nice features that mean they can outshine the fighter in other areas, sure there are some fights where they'll do better than the fighter, but over the course of a campaign ranging from 1st to 20th level, the fighter will be more effective than any other class.

I wouldn't give the fighter any extra skill point, unless I gave extra skill points to everyone (which I sometimes do when I DM smaller groups), and I wouldn't give them more class skills, even though I'd agree to other class skills, as in the variants from Dragon #310, balanced with the fact that the fighter feat list is reduced (to give an example, the fencer has Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Ride, and Tumble as class skills, but they can only use light armors and bucklers. Furthermore, their fighter feat list does not include the power attack - cleave chain. They also get special abilities which they can take in place of a bonus feat, starting at 4th level).


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 28, 2003)

On the Diplomacy rolls:

Sorry, you are ignoring the rules if you play it that way.  By putting roleplay above the mechanics of the game, a Dwarf with 6 Charisma can be just as convincing as the Half-Elf with an 18 Charisma.  I will no more give players who are shy and have trouble with words penalties in social situations than I will give players who are out of shape penalties in combat situations.  Nor will I give them bonuses based on those out of game factors.  


I would also say that characters with no diplomacy scores making great speeches is the antithesis of roleplaying.  Roleplaying is correctly portraying the attributes and characteristics of your PC, which includes how good they are with words.  


Ketjak:

I loved your little example.  It was so cute and pointless.  Try doing the math with a _two-handed_ weapon, mmmkay?  Thanks.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 28, 2003)

LYS: I didn't say nothing about characters making good speeches. I went more into the direction of a halforc at court who simply states the truth with enough power behind the argument by itself to be ignored. He does not need diplomacy to convince people, his reasoning might do it. Of course, the bard will get the halforc there by bribing the guards or whatever. 

I handle it like this: A player with high charisma and diplomacy has an easier time to achieve things, NPCs will respect him... but not always. 

Great speeches are different from not making speeches at all, stating your point (even shy and shaking) and leaving as quickly as possible. You might rather succeed by dipping your tongue in honey and wrapping your truth in silk, but I wouldn't forbid a character who stays in character to achieve anything that way.

That's where roleplaying trumps simple skilluse in my games.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

Darklone: That still sounds an awful lot like giving favored players bonuses to hit because it would be "dramatically appropriate" for them to hit at that time.

-Frank


----------



## Darklone (Sep 28, 2003)

My "favoured" players don't need bonuses to hit, they use tactics in combat and appropriate logic in battles. 

Btw: The last singleclass fighter I had here put his second best stat (16) in Intelligence... guess why. He did never have any problems with skills.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

Seems to me Darklone is using role playing in his game and not just using numbers.  I really wish we had more that would do that sort of thing.  Good Job!!


----------



## LuYangShih (Sep 28, 2003)

Why have the social skills present in that case?  Just because something is true does not mean it is going to convince other people of your argument.  I can show you many real world historical examples if you wish.  Reasoning would be Intelligence, which does not rule over social encounters.  A character with a low Charisma and low to no ranks in Diplomacy will be unable to put forth a convincing argument, just as a character with low Strength and no skill with a blade will be unable to hit the AC 30 monster.

By the way, how is it roleplaying to have the 6 Charisma Dwarf convince the king and his nobles of the validity of his cause?  Is that not the antithesis of roleplaying?  The 6 Charisma Dwarf would not have the personal magnetism or confidence to do such a thing.  Just as a 6 Intelligence Half-Orc is not going to come up with brilliant tactical plans, or beat the high Wizard in a game of chess.  If you want to allow your players to ignore certain skills and statistics because _they_ have personal magnetism or intelligence, why even have those skills or statistics present in the game in the first place?


----------



## Scion (Sep 28, 2003)

personally, I've had the experience that no one takes more than 4 levels of fighter, ever. Most just take other classes instead of even the first 4 actually even if they wanted to make a primary combat type. I think that the fighter needs more skill points, slightly better skill selection, and more feats. Fighter feats are already limited, give them more to try and make them better at what they are supposed to be good at.

Having more higher end feats is very good as well. Feat chains that require 6 or 7 feats are the fighters world, they are the only ones who can easily reach them. Say:
 Whirlwind, the next step = When useing whirlwind gain an extra attack against each target at -10. Prereq: whirlwind, endurance. 
Now, anyone could take it, but only the fighter could take it easily and have feats for other things.

If you make some feat chains only accessible to fighters and are very good then he wouldnt need the extra feats possibly, but as is he needs a lot of little somethings.

As for the social skills, I'd have to agree with LuYangShih, why do you even bother to write them down if you arent going to pay attention to them? I was in a group recently and this is one of the reasons I quit. If someone had a 30 charisma and 23 ranks in diplomacy they werent any better than the 1 charisma 0 diplomacy ranks character who's player could come up with incredible speeches. They said that it was based on 'good roleplaying' whether you had a good speech or not. I'd say that they werent roleplaying, THEY HAD NO SKILL! but this just didnt sink in. When I asked if my character could then lift 3 tons with my strength of 6 they said that was silly since no one could lift 3 tons.

Who is roleplaying better at that point?


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

> If you make some feat chains only accessible to fighters and are very good then he wouldnt need the extra feats possibly,




Although if you do that te class is no longer customizable at the high end - violating the entire supposed purpose of the Fighter class.

-Frank


----------



## Scion (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Although if you do that te class is no longer customizable at the high end - violating the entire supposed purpose of the Fighter class.
> 
> -Frank




Exactly, hence why I said they still need lots of little somethings, and even that might not be enough.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

Scion said:
			
		

> As for the social skills, I'd have to agree with LuYangShih, why do you even bother to write them down if you arent going to pay attention to them? I was in a group recently and this is one of the reasons I quit. If someone had a 30 charisma and 23 ranks in diplomacy they werent any better than the 1 charisma 0 diplomacy ranks character who's player could come up with incredible speeches. They said that it was based on 'good roleplaying' whether you had a good speech or not. I'd say that they werent roleplaying, THEY HAD NO SKILL! but this just didnt sink in. When I asked if my character could then lift 3 tons with my strength of 6 they said that was silly since no one could lift 3 tons.
> 
> Who is roleplaying better at that point?




There is a line between Role playing and allowing good ideas and having role playing overshadow the rules,  Just like the rules can overshadow the role playing.  There needs to be a balance.  The best way I've seen is when people have the role playing modify the roll.  If the player role playes it well, they get a small +2 or +4 bonus on the roll.  So, even if it is role played great, the character with no skill is still going to have a lousy skill roll.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Although if you do that te class is no longer customizable at the high end - violating the entire supposed purpose of the Fighter class.
> 
> -Frank




It is versatile at the high end, one just has to make those choices.  If the fighter has 6 different chains to choose from, he's still the only class that can go down any of the 6.  So, he becomes really good at one of these areas but still has the feats to be good at a few other combat styles.


----------



## Scion (Sep 28, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There is a line between Role playing and allowing good ideas and having role playing overshadow the rules,  Just like the rules can overshadow the role playing.  There needs to be a balance.  The best way I've seen is when people have the role playing modify the roll.  If the player role playes it well, they get a small +2 or +4 bonus on the roll.  So, even if it is role played great, the character with no skill is still going to have a lousy skill roll.




So if they have 0 ranks then role playing it well might be stumbling over themselves, saying the wrong words and then trying to shake the wrong hand. Thereby horribly offending the dignitary, where does the +2 come in again?

If they have inside info that could help them then that is a circumstance modifier. Which is already in the rules and easily accounted for.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 28, 2003)

> It is versatile at the high end, one just has to make those choices. If the fighter has 6 different chains to choose from, he's still the only class that can go down any of the 6. So, he becomes really good at one of these areas but still has the feats to be good at a few other combat styles.




There are thousands of feats. That's versatility. If you only get to choose from six feats because you are predicating game balance on a smaller number of more powerful feats - you have reduced customizability by aboout 99.4%. And that's not even counting the fact that these have prereqs, which force players to make their selection from path feats every level or fall behind - thereby reducing a 6th level character from 2000 choices of which 6 are chosen (about 8.8 quadrillion options to six).

For rather obvious reasons, I don't like that solution at all. You know the mantra - options, not limitations. If players have to take feats from a small collection of increased effectiveness options, that essentially is disqualifying all the thousands of feats which have here-to-fore been printed - and that means that quadrillions of options that are supposed to be viable are not - and that's bad.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

Scion said:
			
		

> So if they have 0 ranks then role playing it well might be stumbling over themselves, saying the wrong words and then trying to shake the wrong hand. Thereby horribly offending the dignitary, where does the +2 come in again?
> 
> If they have inside info that could help them then that is a circumstance modifier. Which is already in the rules and easily accounted for.




In the instance the +2 modifier wouldn't come in.  And yes, circumstance modifier are in the rules.  My suggestion wasn't meant to be a blanket rule over all situations, it was a suggestion that fit the circumstances being presented.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> There are thousands of feats. That's versatility. If you only get to choose from six feats because you are predicating game balance on a smaller number of more powerful feats - you have reduced customizability by aboout 99.4%. And that's not even counting the fact that these have prereqs, which force players to make their selection from path feats every level or fall behind - thereby reducing a 6th level character from 2000 choices of which 6 are chosen (about 8.8 quadrillion options to six).
> 
> For rather obvious reasons, I don't like that solution at all. You know the mantra - options, not limitations. If players have to take feats from a small collection of increased effectiveness options, that essentially is disqualifying all the thousands of feats which have here-to-fore been printed - and that means that quadrillions of options that are supposed to be viable are not - and that's bad.
> 
> -Frank




Well, many of the thousands of feats are crap.  And few of them are fighter feats.   Just becasue there are many, many options does not mean all the options are good.  And no one id forcing fighters to go down the feat chains, they can continue choicing their feats as they want.  By having the longer feat chains we are adding to the choices, not restricting them.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 28, 2003)

Thanks, Crothian... your explanation was a bit better than I would have been able to say. I don't nullify skills at all, I rather got a reputation for putting skills over magic.

But in the case of a king who's got a message from two dudes, one being a guy with Charisma 20 and Diplomacy +25, the other being a lowly soldier from his frontier who was the only survivor of a hostile attack... 

The diplomat tells him with honeyed words it was a little bandits raid, the soldier tells him with shaking knees in a barely audible voice it was the attack of another nation and brings a tabard bearing the Imperial Guards signs of that nation. 

Then I have a look at the kings stats. He's proven great wisdom over the years... is loved by his population and has a nice Sense Motive and Charisma value by himself.

In this case, I would expect a wise decision from the king. 

Simple case: The soldier produces proof of his words. The diplomat had only words. I wouldn't expect the king to rally his army and send it north... but he will for sure take the soldier seriously.

Skills are useful... very useful in my games. The best proof for this argument is that one of 8 chars in my group has only Int 10, the others all multiclassed into high skill classes or took very high Intelligence. But skills aren't everything and I'd be damned if I put some skill rolls higher than heroic actions or excellent roleplaying. It has an influence... but for me the roleplaying sets the borders for how much a skill roll can achieve, not the other way round.


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 29, 2003)

So the diplomat has a fairly large circumstance modifier to overcome with his story, made all the harder by the wise king's high sense motive.  If he's slick enough (ie rolls well enough) then he may well convince the king that perhaps the evidence doesn't mean what it appears to mean, or that the soldier in question is attempting to manipulate the king to start a war..


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 29, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In the instance the +2 modifier wouldn't come in.  And yes, circumstance modifier are in the rules.  My suggestion wasn't meant to be a blanket rule over all situations, it was a suggestion that fit the circumstances being presented.




Remember that the result of the bluff (for example) would not rely entirely on the delivery.  An uncharasmatic, but reasonably smart character might come up with a fairly plausible story for the bluff, leading to a circumstance bonus on the roll.  This would go some way to offset but in no way overrides the low charisma / lack of bluffing skill


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 29, 2003)

I tend to agree with Darklone on the matter.

The way I see it, using skillful play to overcome a low skill number on a character sheet is no different from using good tactics to overcome a low BAB and damage.

Yes, a character with absolutely no ranks can put together an argument as convincing as one from a +23 diplomacy character....who doesn't try. A diplomatic character who goes through the effort to put together an equally good argument will get an even better result.

It's no different from a low-level character being able to defeat a tough opponent if he puts together a cunning plan and executes it. It doesn't invalidate the higher level character's levels. The higher level character could have accomplished the same task, with little or no effort. He didn't have to apply himself to the battle. To him, a straight-forward "go and hit the enemy" worked perfectly fine.

It's like repairing an automobile: A person with a low repair automobile skill could repair the car....but he'd spend a great deal of time poring through manuals and reading documents on how to fix the damn thing. Of course, accomplishing this would be a learning experience(giving him XPs). A person with a high automobile repair skill simply looks at the car, instantly finds the problem, and fixes it with his eyes closed.

High skill ranks in doing something, is, essentially, a crutch. If you have a high skill in it, you don't have to try very hard to do it. It doesn't mean that somebody with a lower ranking couldn't accomplish the same task, if he went that extra mile. Of course, a highly skilled character who goes that extra mile himself can accomplish results that could only be described as magic by the less skilled.

And all of this is completely irrelevant to fighters, who like swords.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 29, 2003)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> So the diplomat has a fairly large circumstance modifier to overcome with his story, made all the harder by the wise king's high sense motive.  If he's slick enough (ie rolls well enough) then he may well convince the king that perhaps the evidence doesn't mean what it appears to mean, or that the soldier in question is attempting to manipulate the king to start a war..



Right. In this special case though, the fighter (going for paladin) had a righteous reputation of being crazily honest and the king knew that he (the fighter) acted to prevent a war more than one year ago. 

Being straightforward, simple and honest can mean more than having high Bluff and Diplomacy. As Bauglir said... good tactics on the side of the player in that regard don't give the diplomat any real possibilities in a direct confrontation.

Of coure, a real bad ass diplomat probably has some other cards left to play


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 29, 2003)

Even if the soldier was 'Derek the Truthful, he who never lies', still the situation IMO should not be resolved in his favour without ever rolling a dice.  The diplomat has many routes to go down to make a halfway convincing story, and all his charm to make it stick.  Perhaps the 'enemy soldiers' were some third party attempting to plant evidence to start a war?  Perhaps Derek has turned to evil?  (a harder bluff but not impossible) or perhaps (dum dum DUM) this isn't Derek at all, but someone posing as Derek in an attempt to start a war?

Remember that, with all the combat tactics in the world, the combatter is still slave to his attack bonus (+/- a small circumstance bonus - flanking etc) and abilities.  A mage cannot bypass a dragon's armour & DR just by coming up with a really nice way to stab it with his non-magical dagger, while the fighter is having trouble denting it.  In the same sense I would not allow a fighter to outperform a charisma based character in their field of expertise, just by coming up with a good story, particularly if the character in question is unlikely to have been smart enough to come up with that story in the first place.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 29, 2003)

Uhm, that char... Int 16 

"Stick to da facts!",  his dwarven teacher always told him.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 29, 2003)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Even if the soldier was 'Derek the Truthful, he who never lies', still the situation IMO should not be resolved in his favour without ever rolling a dice.  The diplomat has many routes to go down to make a halfway convincing story, and all his charm to make it stick.  Perhaps the 'enemy soldiers' were some third party attempting to plant evidence to start a war?  Perhaps Derek has turned to evil?  (a harder bluff but not impossible) or perhaps (dum dum DUM) this isn't Derek at all, but someone posing as Derek in an attempt to start a war?



Important NPCs are not automatons manipulated entirely by random numbers. You forget the fact that, in any situation, people are predisposed to believe certain things and favor certain patterns of behavior: Trying to convince somebody of something he already believes to be true is very, very trivial, and when somebody is telling you something that you already suspect is true, while somebody else is telling you something which contradicts that, you're already innately predisposed to believe the former, even if he did. All this can matter far more than how skilled a negotiator or debater either party is. Skills CAN be made entirely irrelevant under the right circumstances: When modifiers became stacked so high that the task has become impossible, a failure can be ruled on any attempt without even rolling: If even a 20 cannot grant you success, there's no reason to roll it at all, and the situation described definitely warranted heavy modifiers: Predisposition, reliable confirming witnesses with credible evidence, the works.

Furthermore, while the diplomat DOES have many routes to go down, none of the matters if he DOES NOT USE THEM. Perhaps he could have explored those options: On the other hand, perhaps he didn't feel it was worth the risk of being labelled as a snake, and chose not to push the matter too hard. As you said yourself, a hard, but not impossible bluff: Let us not forget that a failed bluff has highly negative consequences to one's credibility. Even if success was possible, it's quite possible that success in the short run would be detrimental to the diplomat's career in the long run, and a failed attempt disastrous.



> Remember that, with all the combat tactics in the world, the combatter is still slave to his attack bonus (+/- a small circumstance bonus - flanking etc) and abilities.  A mage cannot bypass a dragon's armour & DR just by coming up with a really nice way to stab it with his non-magical dagger, while the fighter is having trouble denting it.  In the same sense I would not allow a fighter to outperform a charisma based character in their field of expertise, just by coming up with a good story, particularly if the character in question is unlikely to have been smart enough to come up with that story in the first place.



You, sir, are clearly thinking in very hide-bound, one-track ways. A combatant is NOT necessarily a slave to his attack bonus: Attack bonus only matters if you, personally, are directly attacking an opponent: Plenty of tactics can be executed without this: For instance, the lobbing of grenade-like weapons makes your attack bonus far less important: To simply strike him at all requires merely a ranged touch, and even failing that, you'll still nail him in the splash radius. What effects occur depend on the specifics of what you're throwing. Other tactics are completely unrelated to attack bonus at all: Dropping the ceiling on your opponent is highly effective, can be done at even low levels in the right conditions, and being smashed under many tons of rock hurts. A lot. A mage with a nonmagical dagger cannot bypass a dragon's DR merely by thinking of how to stab it, but there's no reason why the mage has to do this: Plenty of other options may exist that you might not even have considered, due to your preference for thinking in the box. Combat is a complex affair which is more than simply combatants trading blows until one or the other is dead.

D&D is a complex game where, as in life, the larger numbers don't necessarily always win.


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 29, 2003)

Norfleet said:
			
		

> Important NPCs are not automatons manipulated entirely by random numbers. You forget the fact that, in any situation, people are predisposed to believe certain things and favor certain patterns of behavior: Trying to convince somebody of something he already believes to be true is very, very trivial, and when somebody is telling you something that you already suspect is true, while somebody else is telling you something which contradicts that, you're already innately predisposed to believe the former, even if he did. All this can matter far more than how skilled a negotiator or debater either party is. Skills CAN be made entirely irrelevant under the right circumstances: When modifiers became stacked so high that the task has become impossible, a failure can be ruled on any attempt without even rolling: If even a 20 cannot grant you success, there's no reason to roll it at all, and the situation described definitely warranted heavy modifiers: Predisposition, reliable confirming witnesses with credible evidence, the works.
> 
> Furthermore, while the diplomat DOES have many routes to go down, none of the matters if he DOES NOT USE THEM. Perhaps he could have explored those options: On the other hand, perhaps he didn't feel it was worth the risk of being labelled as a snake, and chose not to push the matter too hard. As you said yourself, a hard, but not impossible bluff: Let us not forget that a failed bluff has highly negative consequences to one's credibility. Even if success was possible, it's quite possible that success in the short run would be detrimental to the diplomat's career in the long run, and a failed attempt disastrous.



The modifiers are right there in the rules.  If the king wants to believe the soldier he takes a -5 on his sense motive vs the soldier.  Believing either story involves significant risk, so there's a +10 on both rolls.  The diplomat needs beat the warrior by only +5.  Add in say another +5 if the warrior has a reputation for truthfulness.  The diplomat needs beat the warrior by only +10 to convince the king.  A +10 bluff skill can be achieved right away at level 1, more reasonably from level 2 onwards.  Further, the King would not see through the bluff unless his sense motive exceeded the diplomat's unmodified bluff check, rather he would simply choose not to go along with it.  If you want to handle things differently then go right ahead, but this is how it's handled in D&D.


> You, sir, are clearly thinking in very hide-bound, one-track ways. A combatant is NOT necessarily a slave to his attack bonus: Attack bonus only matters if you, personally, are directly attacking an opponent: Plenty of tactics can be executed without this: For instance, the lobbing of grenade-like weapons makes your attack bonus far less important: To simply strike him at all requires merely a ranged touch, and even failing that, you'll still nail him in the splash radius. What effects occur depend on the specifics of what you're throwing. Other tactics are completely unrelated to attack bonus at all: Dropping the ceiling on your opponent is highly effective, can be done at even low levels in the right conditions, and being smashed under many tons of rock hurts. A lot. A mage with a nonmagical dagger cannot bypass a dragon's DR merely by thinking of how to stab it, but there's no reason why the mage has to do this: Plenty of other options may exist that you might not even have considered, due to your preference for thinking in the box. Combat is a complex affair which is more than simply combatants trading blows until one or the other is dead.
> 
> D&D is a complex game where, as in life, the larger numbers don't necessarily always win.



I'm interested to hear how you drop the ceiling on your opponent, presumably without being able to setup the combat arena, since you can't really assume that luxury.. (man that sounds way more sarcastic than I meant it - I really am interested )
Grenadelike weapons - certainly an option at the lowest levels, when all but the most hardcore bluffer won't outstrip the unskilled fighter by all that much, and fighter BAB is only 1 point ahead of other classes.  But the 1 point of splash damage these weapons do won't really cut it for long..

D&D is all about the numbers.  The numbers quantify what a character can and cannot do, and how well they can do it.  If this is not true then why do we even bother with character sheets at all?


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 30, 2003)

Going back to the beginning...



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> The Fighter's Skill Points are a slap in the face.
> 
> The Fighter's Skill List is a slap in the face too.




This is an opinion. Frank has demonstrated he will not change his opinion, even when confronted with fact and the support for his argument is removed. Enjoy your opinions, Frank.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> First of all, you notice how there are about a million semi-official "Fighter Variants" who all have slightly different skill lists? They are duelists, corsaires, and all kinds of crazy crap. And they all have different skill lists, and none of them are unbalanced.
> 
> These aren't printed on a cocktail napkin - these are suggested in Sword and Fist and Dragon Magazine. If you use all of them, a Fighter could potentially spend their skills on pretty much anything they want.
> 
> ...




Though Frank has never addressed his misunderstanding of these "rules," his citation of these classes proves the point that Fighters are as versatile as the rest of us claim them to be.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> Therefore, since we notice that as soon as you get high enough level for your class to be more important than your starting attributes, Fighters are underpowered - that it is probably a good idea to simply give them a lot of extra skills on their class list.




Again, I have demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Ranger at equivalent levels (except 11th and against specialized foes). Frank claims this is not true. OK!

I have not demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Barbarian. However, feat choices make the Fighter more versatile than the Barbarian, and of course the damage bonuses gained by rage don't last as long as the Fighter's bonuses. Because he's winded afterward for most of his career the Barbarian has to use rage only when it's important, whereas the Fighter can have a blast swinging/thrusting/shooting without penalties. And he's doing it on the ground _and_ mounted _or_ at range _or_ tripping _or_ power attacking _or_...



Sounds balanced. Please keep in mind I haven't performed a mathematical analysis.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> Remember: it's not any different to have a single class of "Fighter" that has access to all the class skills that a Desert Raider, a Pirate, a Duelist, a Bushi, and a Knight would want than to have a seperate class skill kit for each archetype. Except of course, that it's a lot easier to keep track of if there's only one big list than it is if everyone is trying to cherry pick from 12 small lists.




I just realized Frank says here that the Fighter should have a class skill list large enough to allow for all of those different character concepts. That's a remarkable ignorance of class balance and what makes classes distinct from one another.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> Speaking of jacking the woefully underprepared Fighter up to a level of normalcy - can anyone think of a really good reason why Fighters would only have 2 skill points?




Yes; the example is either a humanoid with an INT of 12 or a Human with an INT of 8 or 9.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> It's not just for stupid brutes, it's also for Generals, Cattle Raiders, Knights, and Zulu Shieldsmen. In order to make a lot of those archetypes work, you really are going to need 4 skills or more. Now, to an extent you can match that by getting an Int bonus - but if you start at 6 you can make your stupid brute character with an Int penalty.




A "stupid brute" with lots of skills? Heh heh heh heh. 

Also, it has been shown that with a decent INT bonus, intelligent skill selection, and non-bonus feat choices, the Fighter can be all of those things. In fact, the very citation Frank uses illustrates that point exactly.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> I shouldn't need to be more than averagly intelligent to play Pirate. In fact, I should be able to be a "stupid pirate" - and still have:
> 
> Profession Sailor
> Spot
> ...




Most sailors back in the day could not swim. Aside from that irrelevant historical fact, it _is_ possible to do all those things well enough to survive aboardship. One does not have to max out a skill for it to be useful, and all of those skills can be used untrained, except Profession ().



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> And if the base skill points are 4 instead of 2 we can do that. Otherwise we can't.




Incorrect, as demonstrated and as Frank cited.



			
				FrankTheTrollman said:
			
		

> Now above and beyond that, we still need some bonuses to make Fighter an attractive option past level 2, but that's a whole different problem that can't be solved with skill points at all.
> 
> -Frank




The relative attractiveness of Fighters above level 2 is opinion-based. As demonstrated, Frank's opinions will not change. Frank's participation in the argument using all of these points is silly; Frank is not using facts to support any argument that the Fighter is either underpowered in combat or is unbalanced in skills except by showing us multiclass builds or prestige class builds. No single class's relative balance or power or combat can be compared against a multiclass build; that's silly. It's like using the name "Fighter" to describe a multiclass character.

Let someone else willing to present facts and data argue this.



			
				LuYangShih said:
			
		

> takyris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My illustration of the point was based on your reply. I inferred from your post (my error) that you had performed a similar mathematical analysis. As posted, your point is incorrect. As you further clarified, your point is only partially correct. 

In this particular case, two characters with an 18 STR and one attack, BAB identical, automatically hitting a target:

two +3 short swords - 23.1 damage per round
one +4 greatsword - 22.7 damage per round

The 2-handed combatant's damage starts outstripping the two-weapon warrior when that all-important second attack comes into play. The TWF needs to spend another feat to keep the damage curve the same, while the 2-handed warrior is happy with his Power Attack (which only gets better against foes that he can hit automatically). 

LYS, you need to be more clear when you make points. I'll be happy to work with whatever information you present. If you complain about the taste of oranges by saying it's different from apples, though, you're doing no better than Frank.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 30, 2003)

> Again, I have demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Ranger at equivalent levels (except 11th and against specialized foes). Frank claims this is not true. OK!




No. You really did nothing of the sort. You just wrote up two incomplete characters with different fighting styles and equipment and announced that the Fighter was "better" without even spending all of the ranger's advantages. What, if anything, that was supposed to prove, is completely beyond me.



> Sounds balanced. Please keep in mind I haven't performed a mathematical analysis.




And I have. So when you hand wave and say that it "sounds balanced" you don't really have anything to stand on.

I've made low-level Ranger Builds that outperform the Fighter in _all ways_. I've made low-level Barbarian builds that outperform the Fighter in _all ways_. I've produced high level multiclassed characters which outperform the Fighter in _all ways_.

What more do you want? Blood?

All ways means _everything_. More feats, higher to-hit and damage bonuses, better saving throws, higher AC, more in-combat abilities and better utility outside of combat. Everything. And you still claim that your purposeful disregarding of several Ranger perks and deliberate underspending on equipment somehow make the characters "equal". It's like talking to a wall.

Of course, the worst part is that you are sort-of right. While the Fighter is underpowered compared to other Warrior classes (and even more so when compared to Rogues and Spellcasters) - in an _actual game_ it may in fact be balanced. Treasure dispersal is the sole propriety of the DM. If the DM gives out the Axe of the Dwarven Lords, the Dwarven Fighter in the party will be incredibly powerful. In fact, the player in question could be a Warrior or other NPC class - and _still_ be powerful.

Something has to be done to make the Fighter better in order to make it balanced - but it doesn't have to be done in the _rules_, it can be done seperately for each _campaign_. Thus, while your illustration of how an underequipped Ranger is outperformed in some ways by a superiorly outfitted Fighter was doubtless an attempt at the worst form of debating malarcky - it actually has some merit. The DM can simply equip the Fighter _character_ with better stuff than the rest of the party and the party will be balanced.

That they have to do so is, I think, a flaw in the system. Of course, if you _want_ all of your campaigns to be a Frodo-esque Artifact Hunt - then game balance virtually requires one of the characters to be underpowered so that they can hold the Artifact without upsetting the rest of the game. Still, if that's your argument - and I don't see what else it could be - then you should at least back off and admit that for those of us who want to disperse roughly equivalent swag to all of our player characters - the Fighter _needs_ a boost.

-Frank


----------



## FrankTrollman (Sep 30, 2003)

> In this particular case, two characters with an 18 STR and one attack, BAB identical, automatically hitting a target:
> 
> two +3 short swords - 23.1 damage per round
> one +4 greatsword - 22.7 damage per round




It's this kind of analysis that keeps us from respecting you.

One of the drawbacks of TWF is its lower chance of hitting. You get -2. If you disregard that fact you are going to scew the results.

For example, if your attack bonus is such that you hit on a 2+ with the greatsword, your average damage will be 21.565 per round. However, the short swords will only hit on a 4+, and the average damage per round will be 19.635. And that's a best case scenario. In the worst case scenario - where the -2 to-hit is proportionally larger - the Greatsworder will hit on a 18+ and be doing only 3.405 damage. The Shortsworder, will only be hitting on a natural 20 - and be doing 1.155 damage per round. And that's still glazing over the fact that the Greatsword does massively better on charges, surprise rounds, is more resistant to and better at disarming and sundering, and is more than twice as effective with attacks of opportunity.

So when you hand out mathematical analysis like that - where you flash some numbers on the screen which are purposefully deceptive - we can't take you seriously. If you can't do statistics with the big boys - don't get involved in a multipage statistical argument. While you've mastered the "condescension" portion of the argument style - your bluff disregard of easily provable mathematical facts is tiresome.

-Frank


----------



## green slime (Sep 30, 2003)

Frank, you have yet to show that your arguments are relevant for those playing 3.5 rules, without tacking on extraneous and extravagant rules from various splatbooks. Splatbooks which are and always have been prone to power uppage, and DM-nerfing, and less likely to be accepted.

Build a better fighter than the fighter class, using prevalent 3.5 rules. Without introducing books that gave us the mecurial sword, and armour of speed, and similar brainfarts.

IMO, a campaign can only benefit from more focus, where the DM limits the number of options available, whether it be humanoid races, weapons, or prestige classes. It provides for a more flavourful game, rather than a potpurri of all in existance.

Looking at the present 3.5 ruleset, there are only 4 (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) classes with full BAB progression, one *NPC* class (which by its very listing amongst NPC-classes, is not proposed as a PC class...), and 6 prestige classes (arcane archer, blackguard, duelist, dwarven defender, eldritch knight, and horizon walker). The Dragon Disciple should be included in the above due to its enormous Strength gain.

Sure the plain fighter may come across as somewhat bland, but somehow, I never seem to find a PrC which enables me to create the Warrior I want to play... That arcane archer may be a better shot with the bow, and the duelist... well, that just aint my style.

Now I'm sure the Complete Warriors Splatbook for Munchkins will provide more PrC when arrives, some of which will be what I consider too powerful. If you are going to accept all and any PrC with no reservation in your game, you are going to have problems of the kind you describe, and not just with the fighter class. The same applies to the Wizard and Cleric classes. There are Cleric PrC's which provide full spellcasting, full BAB, and two good saves (IIRC). Relying on the people who produce stuff to sell, to provide you with the balance and equality between party members within your particular campaign is expecting the impossible.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 30, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> No. You really did nothing of the sort. You just wrote up two incomplete characters with different fighting styles and equipment and announced that the Fighter was "better" without even spending all of the ranger's advantages. What, if anything, that was supposed to prove, is completely beyond me.




Incorrect. I did not include equipment; in fact, if I mentioned equipment at all it was to reference feats, but never anything specific - because it doesn't matter. With the same value of equipment, the Fighter class is superior to the Ranger class in combat. It's all about the _class_, not the equipment.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> And I have. So when you hand wave and say that it "sounds balanced" you don't really have anything to stand on.




Excellent. Post your mathematical analysis of the Barbarian class vs. the Fighter class. I haven't been shy about my math... why should you?



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I've made low-level Ranger Builds that outperform the Fighter in _all ways_. I've made low-level Barbarian builds that outperform the Fighter in _all ways_. I've produced high level multiclassed characters which outperform the Fighter in _all ways_.




There's that funny word again... "build." I'm not interested in builds. I'm interested in classes. Your initial statement is that the Fighter class is underpowered compared to others, including the Ranger class. Anyone can build multiclass characters that have advantages over a single class. Yay for you, Frank.

I have demonstrated how the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat - _without_ specifying equipment builds, because each should have the same value in equipment at each level - out to 12th level. If you cannot manage beyond that, I can list exact feat choices at exact levels showing how a Fighter emulating the Ranger's combat style _beats the Ranger_ at every step of character growth. Do you really need that level of detail, or are you just trolling?



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> All ways means _everything_. More feats, higher to-hit and damage bonuses, better saving throws, higher AC, more in-combat abilities and better utility outside of combat. Everything. And you still claim that your purposeful disregarding of several Ranger perks and deliberate underspending on equipment somehow make the characters "equal". It's like talking to a wall.




Show me where I shorted the Ranger on equipment. 



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Of course, the worst part is that you are sort-of right. While the Fighter is underpowered compared to other Warrior classes (and even more so when compared to Rogues and Spellcasters) - in an _actual game_ it may in fact be balanced. Treasure dispersal is the sole propriety of the DM. If the DM gives out the Axe of the Dwarven Lords, the Dwarven Fighter in the party will be incredibly powerful. In fact, the player in question could be a Warrior or other NPC class - and _still_ be powerful.




Just because you perceived a weakness in one of your group's characters and compensated for it with an _artifact_ does not mean every DM does, or needs to. That's silly, because it directly contradicts several board members' experiences as posted here. You'd think a universal weakness like you claim the Fighter class has would be noticed - and yet, of all the changes from 3.0 to 3.5, the Fighter class changed the least... why is that, Frank? Did no one see this so-called "inherent weakness" in the class before? Did no one complain? Or is it that the vast majority of players and DMs find the Fighter class to be a valuable part of the adventuring group?



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Something has to be done to make the Fighter better in order to make it balanced - but it doesn't have to be done in the _rules_, it can be done seperately for each _campaign_.




So now the Fighter class isn't imbalanced according to the rules?



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Thus, while your illustration of how an underequipped Ranger is outperformed in some ways by a superiorly outfitted Fighter was doubtless an attempt at the worst form of debating malarcky - it actually has some merit. The DM can simply equip the Fighter _character_ with better stuff than the rest of the party and the party will be balanced.




Again with the "underequipped" straw man. Show it.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That they have to do so is, I think, a flaw in the system.




"They" do not. You gave your Fighter an artifact. Other DMs do not. Most of them do not.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Of course, if you _want_ all of your campaigns to be a Frodo-esque Artifact Hunt - then game balance virtually requires one of the characters to be underpowered so that they can hold the Artifact without upsetting the rest of the game. Still, if that's your argument - and I don't see what else it could be - then you should at least back off and admit that for those of us who want to disperse roughly equivalent swag to all of our player characters - the Fighter _needs_ a boost.
> 
> -Frank




The Fighter needs no boost. When are you going to acknowledge that you misread Sword & Fist and that your "variant" Fighter classes are actually the Fighters we've been saying can be built using the _core_ Fighter class with no variations? I pointed that out at least three of your posts ago, as did Crothian, and you've replied to my posts containing that information. I've been illustrating my points; you've been ducking and shifting when yours are eliminated. That behavior was expected, though.


----------



## Darklone (Sep 30, 2003)

FrankyTrog, go ahead and build us some Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins at level 1, 5, 10 and 15 with normal money. We'll build fighters of the same levels and you can proudly demonstrate us how much your Whateverbuilds are worth.

Edit: and please... you said they will be better at the fighters schtick than the fighter... so don't bore us with high hide and move silently or bluff skills as long as you don't need them for battle.


----------



## Norfleet (Sep 30, 2003)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> I'm interested to hear how you drop the ceiling on your opponent, presumably without being able to setup the combat arena, since you can't really assume that luxury.. (man that sounds way more sarcastic than I meant it - I really am interested )
> Grenadelike weapons - certainly an option at the lowest levels, when all but the most hardcore bluffer won't outstrip the unskilled fighter by all that much, and fighter BAB is only 1 point ahead of other classes.  But the 1 point of splash damage these weapons do won't really cut it for long..
> 
> D&D is all about the numbers.  The numbers quantify what a character can and cannot do, and how well they can do it.  If this is not true then why do we even bother with character sheets at all?



Don't have to be able to setup the arena: That was simply an example of one thing that you COULD do, given a specific arena: Different arenas grant you different arena-based tactics. And while the listed grenade-like weapons do relatively poor damage, there are ways one can improvise more effective devices which may not be listed by name due to their inherently situational and improvised nature.

Ceilings can be dropped on opponents generally through the method of demolishing load-bearing structures which are responsible for the ceiling remaining as the ceiling. In more extreme cases, ceilings can be artificially created through magic. Knowledge skills like Architecture and Engineering, and Professions like Siege Engineer, Miner, and Lumberjack can provide characters with great opportunities to drop large pieces of the terrain on opponents.

On-topicwise, the fighter happens to be totally and utterly screwed in this department, getting neither Knowledge of the above, nor Profession of anything as class skills (despite the fact that options like these are very fightery: As a field veteran, I quickly picked up on the potential for this sort of knowledge myself), and their dire shortage of skillpoints without an astronomical Int more or less prevents any kind of sane cross-classing.

The numbers do NOT quantity all of what a character can and cannot do: The numbers merely quantity how well characters can do when their skills are applied in a direct manner which is covered by the standard rules. There is, however, nothing in the rules itself which state that characters must operate in only this manner, and that non-conventional manuevers cannot be attempted: This is a PnP RPG, not a video game. The limits of what you can attempt are limited only by your imagination. If the player swings his sword an orc, his BAB is a factor. If the player starts a landslide which buries the orcs under a few thousand tons of rubble, his BAB is not a factor: Of course, there are no specific rules for starting landslides, but to argue that, as a result, characters cannot start a landslide is absurd.

Think different: It'll either delight, or annoy the hell out of, your DM. As a DM, different thinking enables one to make a handful of kobolds deadly challenges for even midlevel parties. As a player, different thinking will likely provoke screams of anguish as you demolish what was supposed to be a challenging obstacle offhandedly, or be expected, particularly if your DM is like me: Characters who think in hide-bound, rigid ways quickly go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Bauglir (Sep 30, 2003)

> Of course, there are no specific rules for starting landslides, but to argue that, as a result, characters cannot start a landslide is absurd.




I strongly agree.  I feel strongly that anything should be possible, at least in theory.  On the other hand, without some applicable skill (Knowledge: Geography maybe, or perhaps Profession: Demolition) the character is going to have to just try something and see if it works.  In any case I would apply a dice roll and the character's abilities would come into play (chance of success would of course be higher with a sounder plan).  Off the top of my head if they were to start throwing rocks I might come up with an arbitrary AC to hit the right spot to start the avalanche.  To me it seems just as absurd to automatically succeed at anything non-trivial as it is to automatically fail


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 1, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> Frank, you have yet to show that your arguments are relevant for those playing 3.5 rules,




I've been using the 3.5 Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian in these examples - and using all of the 3.5 updates to previous books, where available. As of this time, Sword and Fist is still "official" and will continue to be the 3.5 source for everything in it which has not been reprinted.

That means that as of this time the Duelist has been nerfed to complete uselessness - but the Knight Protector and OotBI are still good to go in a 3.5 environment.

That's relevent to a 3.5 discussion, because it uses the 3.5 rules exclusively.


			
				dumass said:
			
		

> FrankyTrog, go ahead and build us some Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins at level 1, 5, 10 and 15 with normal money. We'll build fighters of the same levels and you can proudly demonstrate us how much your Whateverbuilds are worth.




I've got an even better idea: I've already _posted_ some builds. Hows about you put forward your builds _without_ equipment, then we can compare two characters fulfilling the same roll in a party with the same equipment.

Comparing characters with different equipment, especially at high level, is more a test of min/maxxing the equipment than the character. It is obviously fruitless to compare characters with different equipment. So here's the plan:

You put forth some characters with just class features, stats, hit points, saves, and skills. Then I'll do exactly the same - possibly cribbing off of one of the builds I already posted, and possibly making a new one if you decide to "mix it up" by taking a character into a radically different direction than the ones I've already posted. I can get more with a character with no more than 2 levels of Fighter than you can with a "fighter".

Guaranteed.



			
				ketjak said:
			
		

> There's that funny word again... "build." I'm not interested in builds. I'm interested in classes.




That's inane. A single classed character _is_ a "build". It's a build that looks like this:

Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter

And that's a build. The fact that it is an inferior build is exactly the problem that I am addressing. That levels should be inherently equivalent is a design goal which is mandated by the concept of open multiclassing. So if a single classed character is getting less at higher character levels than a multiclassed character is getting - that's a flaw in the system. It means that either you get too much for the low levels of classes or too little for the late levels. So if you admit that a multiclassed character is "better" than a single classed one - you've already admitted that the power imbalance I am complaining of is a reality.



			
				ketjak said:
			
		

> Anyone can build multiclass characters that have advantages over a single class.




And look... you just admitted that. Which means I'm right and we can all go home.

-Frank


----------



## Darklone (Oct 1, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> ... Hows about you put forward your builds _without_ equipment, then we can compare two characters fulfilling the same roll in a party with the same equipment.
> 
> Comparing characters with different equipment, especially at high level, is more a test of min/maxxing the equipment than the character. It is obviously fruitless to compare characters with different equipment. So here's the plan:



Ok, Frank, so we compare a Fighter with heavy armour with a rog/rgr/bbn/ftr mix in heavy armour, eh?

The possibility to use his stuff in heavy armour is an advantage of the fighter which is ignored by your rules.

You may be able to build specialists that are better at one thing the fighter can do, but be assured that someone here can build specialist fighters that can do it better. Most fighters will be good at several things that your build can't keep up with.

Edit: Thanks for telling us that you only keep up with this thread till you think you've been right


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 1, 2003)

> You may be able to build specialists that are better at one thing the fighter can do, but be assured that someone here can build specialist fighters that can do it better. Most fighters will be good at several things that your build can't keep up with.




That's a bold claim that you have yet to actually back up in any way.

I came out with two builds: one was a mounted/ranged/melee character and the other was a straight hitting machine. They _both_ had more relevent abilities than a single classed Fight _could_. One was focused in one area and the other was spread between several areas of expertise.

So let's see these supposed "specialists" or these characters "good at several things". I already showed one character who specialized, one who diversified. The 16th level "Fighter" would have less total abilities and would definitionally fulfill either the diversified or specialized roll worse. And that's not even counting the fact that both had a huge pile of skill points - many of which could be in combat skills like Spot - which in turn account for additional powerful combat abilities that the "Fighter" could not match.

So rather than hand waving - let's see you throw down.

Put up or shut up.

-Frank


----------



## Darklone (Oct 1, 2003)

Frank, the only builds I see in this thread use PrClasses. The others already told you, but if you keep claiming a coreclass is broken because you can do better with a prestige class.... then go trolling elsewhere and watch your tone.

If not: Wanna see a strong Fighter? Take Quintessential Fighter and use some nice fighting styles and optional rules there. In case you're one of the silly dudes who think it's balanced because WotC publishs it and everything else is crap (which is right concerning Quint Fighter balancewise)... then welcome to my personal ignore list.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 1, 2003)

I've lost track:
Frank - is your point that fighters are more underpowered (in-combat & out-of-combat) than all the other classes, or is your point that multiclass characters are stronger than single-class characters?

It seems like you kind of flipped your focus there in the middle....

If your point is the former, than there is discuss-able points there.
If your point is the latter, than only a fool would argue that single-class characters are as strong as multiclass characters. That says nothing about the fighter class in particular, though.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 1, 2003)

reapersauraus: It's both, actually - that's not a flip-flop, it's simply that both are true.

The reasons that a multiclassed character is _better_ than a single classed character are:

1> Saves add up in stupid ways for a multoiclassed character. This is a seperately solvable problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular class.

2> Warrior Core Classes get objectively less per level as they rise within their class, while Rogues and Spellcasters get objectively _more_ every level as they rise within their class. This is a problem with each of the warrior classes, and has to be solved on the end of the classes themselves.

A Wizard gets 2 (or more) new spells every level - cumulatively. Both known and castable. And the spells he gains at each level are at least as good as the ones gained at each previous level - and often better. A Fighter gets one new feat every level - which I could argue one way or another whether it is better or worse than two spells - but after a few levels the Fighter goes _down_ and starts getting only 1 feat every other level. That's simply no contest. 2 Spells is _obviously_ superior to _nothing_, which is what the Fighter is walking away with at 7th level.

So the warrior classes - _all_ of the warrior classes - need an infusion of butt kicking in the later levels so that they can compete with wizards of equal level - and for that matter so that they can compete with people who simply took two different Warrior Classes.

Now the Fighter needs it worse than the others. His osolescence with regards to level advancement happens at level _three_. Heck, Paladin levels don't hand out a dud until level _six_. Many games don't even go to seventh level - Paladins are _fine_ in those circumstances. Almost every game goes until level _3_, so almost everyone notices the underlined point that Fighters should bail out of their class as soon as it starts to suck.

---

The multiclassed Saving Throw problem is a real problem. But the lack of good mid-level support for the Warrior Classes is a problem as well. Wizards get something cool every single level, Fighter/Ranger/Barbarians get something cool every level - "Fighters" need something cool every single level as well - because they are supposed to be playable and balanced in a party with a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian and a Wizard in it.

For the saves, I suggest handing out static and stackable bonuses for every level where you have a good save and a different and smaller bonus for every level where you have a bad save. Say 3/4 and 1/2. That way, a Rogue/Fighter will have the same save total as a Rogue or a Fighter - instead of the crap we have now where he has more.

---

In addition to that, however, the Fighter's combat schtick is not especially superior to that of the Barbarian or Paladin - and is often about the same. But what the Fighter _does_ have - in addition to going obsolete early - is a very crappy non-combat ability in the form of class features or skills. A paladin has a very restricted skill list - but it's still better than a Fighter's and the Paladin has Detect Evil at will which is really cool. The Barbarian has all kinds of neat skills and the skill points to use them.

Even after you fixed the Fighter class features and save accumulation system so that from a combat perspective you were not losing out by taking more levels of Fighter instead of multiclassing - the fact remains that being a Fighter is still sacrificing your non-combat schtick for nothing. The Barbarian or Paladin are still matching you in combat and they are doing cool and useful things outside of combat that you can't match.

If the Fighter had 4 skill points and a bunch of skills that the Barbarian didn't have (such as Knowledge History and Sense Motive) - then the Fighter would have its own theme from a character standpoint. Right now it's just a Barbarian who traded 2/3 of his feats and half his skills and skill list in order to be able to spend those feats on a wider list. That's not balanced or flavorful.

-Frank


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 1, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> A Wizard gets 2 (or more) new spells every level - cumulatively. Both known and castable. And the spells he gains at each level are at least as good as the ones gained at each previous level - and often better. A Fighter gets one new feat every level - which I could argue one way or another whether it is better or worse than two spells - but after a few levels the Fighter goes _down_ and starts getting only 1 feat every other level. That's simply no contest. 2 Spells is _obviously_ superior to _nothing_, which is what the Fighter is walking away with at 7th level.




Although I agree with your analysis, I disagree with your conclusions.

It is true that spell casters start gaining slightly more each level at mid to higher levels.

However, the assumption you are making which is extremely invalid is that the spell casters will survive to those higher levels in order to accomplish that.


If NPCs (characters or creatures) are played stupidly by a DM, then sure, you can keep your Wizards in the back ranks and your Fighters in the front ranks and the Wizards will have a high survivability.

But, if you play your NPCs plausibly (i.e. in a manner which is conducive to success for them), then your spell casters will get attacked in combat nearly as often as your Fighters.

At low level, this means that they will die more often due to considerably lower AC and hit points.


So sure, spell casters get more powerful at higher levels, but it should be the somewhat uncommon spell caster who survives that long (unless your DM goes out of his way to protect them). Obviously, YMMV, but that is one of the issues with these types of discussions. People focus on numbers at certain levels without looking at the overall picture. IMO.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Oct 1, 2003)

'course, that does bring up an interesting point.  Most of the classes give you better and better things as you go up in level (ranger - TWF/Bow trees, Cleric/Sorc/Wiz spells, etc).  The fighter does not.  Indeed, if you go by straight up core rules (3.0 or 3.5, whichever), you could argue that the fighter has a diminishing return on his special ability.  If you're character's point is having the highest AC possible, then you're going to run out of feats to take pretty quickly (around level 8, IIRC), and you need to look at other sources to further develope the character concept.
This also goes for most other tight-knit fighter builds (greatsword duelist, hand to hand specialist, etc).  Let's just leave prestige classes out of the mix for the moment; I think we can all agree (or at least, agree to disagree) that they all are overly general for something that's supposed to be tightly focused.
Anyways, just throwing that in for what it's worth.  I still think fighters need a better skill list/more skill points (maybe), but that's beside this point.
Magius out.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 1, 2003)

The feat trees are in theory the high level abilites of the fighter.  Like the ranger, the fighter can take the twf and bow trees.


----------



## DrSpunj (Oct 1, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The feat trees are in theory the high level abilites of the fighter. Like the ranger, the fighter can take the twf and bow trees.



This has been an entertaining thread so far, and some good points have been made (as usual) all around. I've seen Crothian's point brought up in similar discussions, and it has some merit. No other core class offers the feat versatility that the Fighter enjoys.

However being able to complete 2 or more trees (each of which if taken straight through are easily achievable to any straight-classed Fighter by levels ~6-8, GWF & GWS notwithstanding) means the Fighter essentially gets access to 2+ mid level trees at higher levels.

To me that's like telling a Wizard or any other spellcaster, "Hey, good news! After getting a bunch of 4th spells, we're going to let you go back and gain access to a completely different set of spells of levels 0-4 instead of going on to get spells of 5th level or higher! Doesn't that sound great?"

I'm still not decided about what I'd like to see to fix that. Higher level feats would be an obvious start. With them I think Fighters would clearly dominate in combat (as I think everyone believes they should, setting aside for the moment individual opinions on whether they do now or not) and giving up the non-combat schtick would then be more tolerable/acceptable.

Just my 2 cps. Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Oct 1, 2003)

Yes, yes.  However, let's take for granted that the fighter has the ability to meet the prerequisites for the feats he needs.  The only thing keeping the fighter from finishing the feat tree at level 4 (for TWF) is the fact that he needs a BAB of +11.  Indeed, most of the feat trees that the fighter would be traversing can be done with between 4 and 8 feats (I think).
Unarmed tree: 5; Whirwind tree: 5; Bow tree: 7; Power Attack tree: 6; Weapon Focus tree: 4.
Assuming that all of the top-end feats of each of these trees is about the same power-wise, every time you finish a tree, the power of your next feat drops dramatically.  In the cases where the concept is extremely focused, then you only have one or two trees that you'll be traversing.  No reason to go into higher levels at all.
Of course, with a concept like "I want to be the best fighter", or something else the like, you're going to end up using most of the trees.  However, I don't like working off such a general concept, so I hardly ever run a fighter like that.
This all is, of course, for what it's worth.

Edit: Dr. Spunj: you beat me to the punch, and said what I'm saying so succinctly.  The simple solution, of course, would be to add more feats to the end to all of the trees.  Maybe make more feats that combine trees.  However, that seems a bit brute-force to me, so I'll leave it at that.

Magius out.


----------



## takyris (Oct 1, 2003)

Yo Doctor,

Let me alter your argument slightly. 

"Dear Arcane Spellcaster,

Thank you for your interest in developing new areas of magical talent.  You requested more information about options in the divine spellcasting arena, and we are pleased to tell you that divine spellcasting currently has many openings.  We understand that you are currently 9th level.  For your 10th character level, why not try cleric?  With spells like Cure Light Wounds and Bless at your fingertips, you'll be adding new depth to your arsenal when fighting demons, devils, and young dragons of all colors!

Sincerely,

Board of Classes"

"Dear Board of Classes,

I received your letter, in which you advised me to consider a level in Cleric.  However, this results in me diversifying and being really really weak.  I mean, a Cure Light Wounds doesn't help me much as a 10th level character.  Is there anything else we can do?

Yrs,

Ninth-level Arcane Spellcaster."

"Dear Spellcaster,

We understand the difficulty of your position.  However, the rules are in place for a reason, and you were well aware of the consequences of trying to be as versatile as you wish to become.  This kind of choice is really something you should have considered before.  You do have options as a Mystic Theurge, of course.

Best of luck,

Board of Clases"

"Dear Board of Classes,

This is completely unfair.  If I were a Fighter who wanted to make himself more versatile by adding levels of Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian, I would have no disadvantages whatsoever.  Please explain!"

"Dear Caster,

Well, the combat classes have always been overpowered."

There's nothing like roaming around on ENWorld and realizing that all the spellcasting classes are unfairly underpowered because they can't multiclass and stack their caster levels, while all the combat classes are underpowered because they don't get big incremental bumps like the casting classes get -- they just get that nice steady +1/level that just keeps stacking no matter which combat class they pick.

Man, *all* the classes are underpowered!  These WotC folks botched it big!


----------



## DrSpunj (Oct 1, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Yo Doctor,
> 
> Let me alter your argument slightly.
> 
> ...



Nice! 

The only thing I can add is that I see the analogy you've described slightly differently. A Fighter taking 2+ different feat trees to me is like a Wizard who was somehow allowed to Specialize in multiple schools. The first time through they focus on Evocation magic. After getting access to 4th level spells they are forced to go back and pick up something else, Abjuration maybe, instead of getting more powerful magic.

Are they more diversified with their magic? Absolutely, they'll likely have a appropriate spell for more situations, but they aren't gaining more powerful spells. Taking more Wizard levels to pick up Transmutation or any of the other schools gives you more options when you go to cast a spell, but none of them are more powerful.

That's what a Fighter feels like to me after about 6th level (assuming I specialized so far). I can diversify myself into another tree , but my next feat choice/tree isn't more powerful than where I'm starting from, instead I'm essentially starting over, essentially *forced* to multiclass as a BowFtr6/TwfFtr1 as silly as that sounds, and that's not an attractive choice to me most of the time.

A Wiz6 doesn't face that same automatic loss in power if he continues as a Wiz7, but it's a choice he *can* opt to make for versatility if he wants to multiclass with a level of some other class.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 1, 2003)

Okay simple build.  I’m not worrying too much about stats and skills.  The feats are the Fighter’s bread and butter.  I’m also not assuming human, so there will be no bonus feat.  For simplicities sake we are going to build someone damn good at the Bastard Sword.  I am also only using two books, PHB and Feats by AEG.  So, there very well may be better feats out there.

1 EWP Bastard Sword
1 Weapon Focus Bastard Sword
2 Combat Expertise
3 Power Attack
4 Weapon Specialization Bastard Sword
6 Frenzied Attack
6 Quick Draw
8 Greater Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical
10 Weapon Mastery Bastard Sword
12 Greater Weapon Specialization
12 Elite Weapon Master Bastard Sword
14 Improved Weapon Focus
15 Shield Focus
16 Shield Mastery
18 Shield Specialization
18 Cleave 
20 Great Cleave

Okay, with a Bastard word this guy gets and additional +4 to attack, base damage is d12 instead of d10, gets +4 damage, his crit range is 17-20/x3, can increase damage or AC (or both), gets +6 AC when using a shield, has the cleave thing going, quickdraw to get all attacks any round (I never liked the idea of people always holding their weapons out in all circumstances), and can gain an additional attack a round at his best bonus if he takes a -4 penalty to all attacks that round.  

That is without magic, with out prestige classes, using only two books, not taking in consideration of races or attributes.


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Oct 1, 2003)

Takyris: Whether you meant it or not, I think you cut right to the heart of the matter.  The reason we're having this discussion is that we feel that there's not a good enough reason _not_ to multiclass as a fighter, skill points aside. Some of us (like Frank the Troll) are saying that this is far higher than it should be (more something and more skills/SP), while others (like myself) are saying that it'd be nice if we got more for being a fighter, but the real issue is that the fighter doesn't have the skill list/points to build many of the fighter archetypes.
Just so we all know what we're actually arguing about.

edit: Crothian: Good example of one of the generalist builds I was talking about.  I agree that the fighter has no problem filling up the feat slots he gets.  The thing is, what if you have a tighter concept then you run out of feats faster.  Try the same thing with the "Highest AC" character, without adding anything outside of the concept, and you'll see what I mean.
BTB, I don't have the AEG Feats book yet, so I don't know what's in it.  It worth the buy?

Magius out.

PS: Excellent posts, by the way.


----------



## takyris (Oct 1, 2003)

Hey Magius,

Yup, that was what I was getting at.  We've got a lot of threads floating around about how spellcasters are totally shafted because if they multiclass, it doesn't go well.  Now we've got threads about how fighters are shafted because multiclassing makes them more powerful -- and that, by inference, they are therefore underpowered in their natural form.

If I had to pick one side or the other to believe, I'd go for the spellcasters.  I'd rather see spellcasting multiclassing improved (ie, made easier but not to the 2E "Sure, just as powerful in both classes as an ordinary person" level) than see the fighter gain a lot of powers that you only get if you go up to level 20.

Of course, I'm coming at this after awhile in a d20 Modern game, in which a character with nothing but one class is considered to be something of an over-focused specialist.  I LIKE the idea of multiclassing (provided you fix saves and BAB progression so that you don't end up with a +10 Base Will Save character with a BAB of +0).

At its heart, my argument is that I'm tired of people defining their characters by their classes.  There is not, and should not be, anything sacred about being a single-classed character, and I'd rather that people go with Fighter/Rogue mixes to get the wily old general -- or that they modify the fighter as the DMG suggests on a per-character basis, losing Climb and Swim and getting Diplomacy and Sense Motive -- rather than make the Fighter class into something it was not designed to be.

To take a class designed for nothing except fighting and then complain that it is lousy at social skills is like berating apple pie for being the worst quiche you ever tasted.

The argument that a barbarian or ranger will outfight a fighter of equal level and equipment is one that I'll leave for somebody else.  I personally have seen every class in the book performing well and badly, and I'm satisfied that the fighter does what he's supposed to do (fight in any style you want him to fight) as well or better than any other class in the game.  Competitive builds eventually degenerate into a rock-paper-scissors game.  Sure, your ranged guy can beat my tank, but my disarming/defensive master can beat your ranged guy, and my tank can beat that disarming/defensive master, and we've really not proved anything at all.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 1, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> 'course, that does bring up an interesting point.  Most of the classes give you better and better things as you go up in level (ranger - TWF/Bow trees, Cleric/Sorc/Wiz spells, etc).  The fighter does not.  Indeed, if you go by straight up core rules (3.0 or 3.5, whichever), you could argue that the fighter has a diminishing return on his special ability.  If you're character's point is having the highest AC possible, then you're going to run out of feats to take pretty quickly (around level 8, IIRC), and you need to look at other sources to further develope the character concept.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Magius out.




Actually, the highest possible AC guy maxes out at 1st level. Buy a tower shield, then use it for full cover, all the time. It's better than any high AC.

Of course you're useless. If you mean a guy with a high AC that's also effective in combat, you've just implied a second feat tree. So take them both at once, and delay your progression in your signature style by a level or two. No fighter worth a damn should limit himself to just one tree, ever.

It's much more effective to buy the low level feats in two trees, and you still get the high level feats before other characters. Whirlwind takes 5 feats, which means a fighter can get it at 4th level. No other base class can get it before 9th, and non-humans can't get it until 12th. So if the fighter spends a number of his low level feats on, for example the bow tree, he can still get Whirlwind at 8th, but also have PBS(1st level), Precise Shot(3rd level), and Rapid Shot(6th level). He's still better than all other classes at his schtick (Whirlwind), but he's also nearly as good as other classes at a second style. 

Then at 9th and 10th level he's still got good bow feats to go for, and can always add in WF and WS. He's still getting good value for his feats--his 4th and 5th feats in the archery tree are the top ones available to all other classes (except archery rangers)! And he could also start folding in a 3rd tree while the lower feats are valuable

PS


----------



## Crothian (Oct 1, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> edit: Crothian: Good example of one of the generalist builds I was talking about.  I agree that the fighter has no problem filling up the feat slots he gets.  The thing is, what if you have a tighter concept then you run out of feats faster.  Try the same thing with the "Highest AC" character, without adding anything outside of the concept, and you'll see what I mean.
> BTB, I don't have the AEG Feats book yet, so I don't know what's in it.  It worth the buy?




My opinion on feats:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/revi...active&reviewer=Crothian+non+PDF&product=Feat

Best AC.  Okay, I'm just going to list feats and see what I come up with.  Again I'm only using these two books.  

Combat Expertise
Dodge
Armor Focus (adds +1 to AC armor check penalty (ARP) is reduced by 1 when using either light, medium or heavy armor)
Armor Specialization (stacking +2 AC , ACP reduced by 2, one feat for each armor category as above)
Armor Mastery (Stacking +3 AC bonus, ACP reduced by an additional 3, as above)
Defensive Fighter (get +2 AC and suffer only -1 to attack for fighting defensively)
Devoted Defense (when taking the total defense option get +8 instead of +4 to AC)
Improved Dodge (dodge bonus increases to +3, applies to all opponents)
Lightning Reflexes (needed for Improved Dodge)
Improved Expertise (Allows expertise to go up to BAB)
Parry (get +1 AC dodge bonus)
Weapon Finesse (needed for Parry)
Shield Focus (+1 AC using shield, reduce ACP by 1)
Shiled Specialization (+2 stackible bonus to AC, reduce ACP by 2)
Shield Mastery (+3 AC bonus stackible, reduce ACP by 3)

That's 13 feats that only increase AC.  There are also three more feats that can be listed that help when you are unarmered; just in case you are cauht naked.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 1, 2003)

Frank - that last post of yours brought in everything but the kitchen sink, and therefore digressed the discussion.

I'll try to keep some focus here:
You compared the fighter to a Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin.
I'm no expert on the new Ranger, so I'll leave that to others.

However, it has been statistically proven (conclusively enough for me) in other threads, that a fighter will BEAT a Barbarian of equal level.
If memory serves, this was due to the Fighter's use of Expertise to outlast the Bbn's Rage, then chop him up when he's fatigued.
If anyone can search for it and post a link, it will prove to you Frank that the Ftr is better in combat than the Bbn. However, you mentioned the Bbn is better out-of-combat due to the 4 skillpoints and reasonable skills list.
In 3.5, the Bbn only has Listen and Survival more than the fighter.
I wouldn't call that dominating, though the 4 skillpoints is.

So now let's compare the Ftr and Paladin, shall we?
(you shouldn't have brought up the Paladin, Frank)
I happen to know for a fact that the Paladin is worse than the Ftr in combat. I could point it out, example after example, but all you have to do is look at what the Pal gets for offensive abilities, and they don't even come close to comparing to the Ftr's bonus feats.

So that leaves us with the Paladin's utter dominance in out-of-combat. 
Well, they only get 4 skills the Ftr doesn't (Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge, and Sense Motive), whereas the Ftr gets 3 skills the Pal doesn't (Intimidate, Jump & Swim).
We could go deep into it, but basically, due to the Paladin's absolute attribute-crunch, his only 'dump' stat is INT. Therefore, he will be lucky to get 2 skillpoints per level (8 INT and human), as opposed to the Ftr who very likely could have 4 skillpoints (12 INT and human). Since the Pal arguably doesn't have enough skill points to even remotely take advantage of the few class skills he has more than the Ftr, I'd have to say that since the Ftr can easily have twice as many skillpoints, than the skills comparison goes to the humble Ftr.

This leaves the Paladin's other non-combat abilities: Detect Evil and ... umm..  I guess that's it. Other than the pathetic spells he has, I don't see any non-combat bennies the Paladin is getting that aren't available to the Ftr.

So let's sum up:
The Ftr will have higher INT (if he wants) than the Pal, and therefore many more skillpoints. The Paladin doesn't have a significantly better skill list, and only has Detect Evil 'over' the Ftr in non-combat. The Ftr is better in combat than the Pal (we can discuss this more if you'd like).

So I have just presented a case that shows how the Paladin is even WORSE off than the Ftr in exactly the areas you have been discussing for lo this whole long thread.

If your points are:
a) that multiclassed characters are stronger than single-classed characters, then....
DUH.
b) that the Ftr is inordinantly weaker than all other classes, then...   I have just shown a case where the Paladin is even weaker.
Oh, I forgot to add in the incredibly-restrictive Code that the Paladin has, which effectively gives the Ftr a huge bonus to out-of-combat flexibility in comparison, due to the Ftr not having to be limited in the same ways.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 1, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Frank - that last post of yours brought in everything but the kitchen sink, and therefore digressed the discussion.
> 
> I'll try to keep some focus here:
> You compared the fighter to a Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin.
> ...




Small point but the only thing I ever saw proven that a fihgter could be specifically built in a way to beat a barbarian.  Not a big surprise, though that fighter gives up a ton on standard combat utility for this.  Those 5 points put into int so you can have expertise(a good feat) came from somewhere, the barbarian gets by with a 10 int thanks to no expertise since he rages and 4 skill points.  Those 3 extra points could mean another point of str or another couple points in con or whatever.  So while the fighter beats the barbarian in the death match the barbarian defeats more of the baddies that the group faces.

A lot of the builds here go on and on about the fighters versatility and guess what in a point buy its tough.  The dex based feats like the archery train require a decent dex, whirwind well you need a 13 int thanks to expertise, and you still need con and str. Sure played well they can still be tough, but probably not as tough in the overall scheme of things than a just really strong high con guy.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 1, 2003)

Yeah... go back and see the Rock Paper Scissors example.

I have seen more than one set-up where people made a Fighter specifically to beat _a_ Barbarian. Similarly, you can make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to beat _a_ Fighter. Neither proves anything.

The point is, that you can make a character with no more than 2 levels of Fighter who fills a straight Fighter's niche in the party _better_.

Just like my Cleric Archer is _better_ than a Fighter Archer - a Barbarian can be a better Greatswordsman, a Paladin can be a _better_ mounted lancer, and a Ranger can be a _better_ multi-purpose diverse situations combatant.

The Fighter can be outshined by _a_ build at anything he attempts to put his mind to. And therefore, he's underpowered. A character class, taken exclusively, should be better than any other combination of core classes at _something_ - and for the Fighter that just is not true.

BTW: The Paladin really shines in Defensive builds - having an extra +3 (or more) to all saves is a really big deal to a defensive charcater. Not everything is going to attempt attack rolls against you, and the Paladin has more over-all staying power than any Fighter build does.

----

As to Wizards and multiclassing - yes. Multiclassing for spellcasters sucks, and something should be done about that. That is for another topic, however. As things currently stand, however, our massively multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian, while he outshines the straight Fighter in all things - does not actually outshine a Wizard of equal character level in all combats.

A Wizard is always going to do better against huge numbers of weak opponents (area damage, and all that) - and often performs better against single powerful opponents (With Save or Die spells). So while the multiclassed spellcaster needs rules alterations to bring them up to speed with _single classed_ spellcasters - the single classed spellcasters wants for nothing in his ability to actually compete with multiclassed warriors.

-Frank


----------



## Bauglir (Oct 2, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> the single classed spellcasters wants for nothing in his ability to actually compete with multiclassed warriors.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> 1) Similarly, you can make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to beat _a_ Fighter.
> 
> 2) The point is, that you can make a character with no more than 2 levels of Fighter who fills a straight Fighter's niche in the party _better_.
> 
> ...



1) No, you can't make a Paladin to beat "a" fighter, unless you place a Paladin on his bonded mount, and the Ftr not on any mount.

2) No, your statement only holds true if the "role" you're requiring doesn't include lots of feats. With high-feat-requirement builds, lots of Ftr levels are NECESSARY.
I don't make high-feat builds, so I can't provide examples.

3) So Cleric spells are more powerful than a Ftr - that's no surprise, if you've read my posts, or many discussions here thru the years (seriously, we're on the same side here, thoroughly).
A Bbn's skill in using a Greatsword is just too easy to squash now, since his best benefit (Rage) is SO easily taken away by 3.5 no-save spells.
How can a Paladin be a better lancer than a Ftr? You must be including his mount in this thought (IOW, only above level 5). 
Mounted Fighting requires FEATS (and potentially Handle Animal and Ride, both of which are Ftr skills). 
Ftrs get feats.
Ergo, Ftr's make better Mounted Combatters (barring multiclassing).

Ranger, I'll leave alone.

4) Again, your *belief* is FLAWED (see below).
No matter how many times you say that a Ftr can't be the best at something (compared with other classes), doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
The sheer number of feats, and WS, make the Ftr best at combat effectiveness and flexibility. 
Very simple.

Now, there are 2 things I want to make clear:
a) I totally agree with you Frank that Ftrs are underpowered.
But I am on record as saying that ALL +1 BAB classes are severely underpowered compared to primary spellcasting classes.
I'm not saying the Ftr isn;t screwed: on the contrary, I'm saying he's screwed, and the Paladin is even more screwed.

b) Your contention that a straight-classed Ftr should be better than a multiclassed character is FLAWED.
Multiclassing is stronger than straight classing.
I have no proof for this, but I think it's obvious.
I CAN prove to you that a Ftr/Clr is stronger in combat than a Paladin - does that mean the Paladin class is "broken"?
Seriously, I'd like an answer to that.

edit: oh, yeah - Frank - nice dodge of my previous post.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 2, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Small point but the only thing I ever saw proven that a fihgter could be specifically built in a way to beat a barbarian.  Not a big surprise, though that fighter gives up a ton on standard combat utility for this.  Those 5 points put into int so you can have expertise(a good feat) came from somewhere, the barbarian gets by with a 10 int thanks to no expertise since he rages and 4 skill points.  Those 3 extra points could mean another point of str or another couple points in con or whatever.  So while the fighter beats the barbarian in the death match the barbarian defeats more of the baddies that the group faces.
> 
> A lot of the builds here go on and on about the fighters versatility and guess what in a point buy its tough.  The dex based feats like the archery train require a decent dex, whirwind well you need a 13 int thanks to expertise, and you still need con and str. Sure played well they can still be tough, but probably not as tough in the overall scheme of things than a just really strong high con guy.




All a fighter needs to beat a barbarian consistently is a tower shield. Use it for total cover until the rage ends, then destroy the fatigued barbarian. Usable at any time, without the cost of a single feat. 

In terms of utility to a party, I've seen far too many barbarians bleed to death when the rage ends (it isn't all of them, but its close) to believe they are superior to fighters.

PS


----------



## Magius del Cotto (Oct 2, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> b) Your contention that a straight-classed Ftr should be better than a multiclassed character is FLAWED.
> Multiclassing is stronger than straight classing.
> I have no proof for this, but I think it's obvious.
> I CAN prove to you that a Ftr/Clr is stronger in combat than a Paladin - does that mean the Paladin class is "broken"?
> Seriously, I'd like an answer to that.




Well, it is if the the Paladin is supposed to be a merging of the two.  Otherwise, why would you ever take the one when the two do the same thing better?
'Course, this is the sort of thing that's happening with fighters.  There are several fighter concepts that call for a certain range of skills, and the fighter's skill list doesn't satisfy them.  Say, a career merc would have Profession: Mercenary and Survival; a Knight Errant (and yes, this is the non-paladin version) would have diplomacy; a sailor would have Proffession: Sailor and Spot.  Et Cetera, Et Cetera.
A fighter should be able to be any of these things, and as it stands, he can be none of them.  Of course, if you simply expand his skill list, you end up allowing a fighter to be all of them, and I don't think that would be too wise either.
I think that giving the fighter two or three bonus class skills would go a long way toward getting things on track, but I can see how that could lead to interference with other classes...

Crothian: I stand corrected, then. It would seem to be possible to use almost all, if not all, the fighter feats no matter how narrow the concept is.  Now I really want to pick up that feats book.  And finish my Big Ol' Book O' Feats, but that's a matter for another time.

Magius out.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

Magius del Cotto said:
			
		

> Crothian: I stand corrected, then. It would seem to be possible to use almost all, if not all, the fighter feats no matter how narrow the concept is.  Now I really want to pick up that feats book.  And finish my Big Ol' Book O' Feats, but that's a matter for another time.
> 
> Magius out.




Mongoose also has a book of feats tHat I don't have.  However from what I've heard there is little cross over.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 2, 2003)

I think some of the core classes that are extraordinary viable for multiclassing (mainly the fighter) are deliberately weaker as single classes compared to other core classes (altho I don't really agree with this reasoning, that it should be like that).

The fighter is not underpowered, when you compare him to other non-spellcasting classes (real spellcasting classes).

Everything is underpowered, when you compare with those spellcasters. That's simply because there are just too many spells resembling class abilities, which effectively give you all the benefits the other character needs to take several levels in a certain class for. And, of course, since spells have a greater impact than most other abilities, with the reasoning, that they are limited-resource abilities mostly.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 2, 2003)

The argument is getting nowhere.  I have two problems with the Fighter.  One, is it is nearly impossible to build a character concept with the class that is interesting and effecient.  Two, there is rarely a reason to continue taking levels in the class once you hit mid to high levels.  I have yet to see anyone refute either of these two problems.


----------



## Inari (Oct 2, 2003)

Intesting discussion indeed. Personally, I'm on the opinion that fighters descerve only two points, akin to the cleric, paladin and the arcane spellcasters (wizard and sorcerer). I see no reason why the fighter should be more skillful than a wizard, who constantly learns through studying from heavy books (knowledge anyone?).

Further, I don't think you can compare the heroes to the core classes of the 3.x D&D. For example, Robin Hood definatelly is a ranger, although he has no connection with animals. Same goes that Gandalf was a wizard, but he was more fighter-ish, wielding that great sword of his with amazing skill. IMO I think you'd be better off comparing people also to AU's classes, as they seem more diverse in some meaning (I think Robin here would rather be Unfettered, and Gandalf more of a Magister (or even a Witch)).

However, back to the subject at hand, I'm DMing a group in the Rokugan setting, and I've got two fighter characters (weird thing is, there's not a single caster).

*nr.1* Jujune, Miiga. A Gajiin (foreigner) to Rokugan, Miiga is the most successful archer I've seen. I readily give players more and more class skills, but with his int of 9, he's still able to pull off some good skills. He took 5 straight fighter levels, but recently took one ranger level (because he already had Track, I gave him 4 more skill points instead of the class ability). He's though kicking serious ass when he's within 30ft of an opponent, dishing out +12/+7 1d8+4 x3 with his (non-magical, non-MW) Yumi (longbow).

*nr.2* Heichi, Jatosha. One of the last of the boar clan, Jatosha has traveled far beyond the dunes and slew a great general from the senpet empire not long ago. He's the literal great fighter of the group. With his weapon specilization, and +1 enchantment bonus, he's dishing out +12/+7 1d12+9 x3 with his "Deathspade" greataxe. He's got a bunch of useful skills, thanks to his 12 int, and human heritige. Amongst his skills include 9 ranks in Local (borderlands) and 9 ranks in nobility and royality. Not bad for a 2 skill point character.

My reason for posting these two characters (other than to show off my players) is to show that you don't always need to boost up the fighter skill points. It's fine as it is, unless you want to up ALL the classes by +2. It shouldn't really be a problem, but it's unfair if you're making the most combat oriented class suddenly as skillful as the rangers of old were. It just doesn't make sense (same as I think that the Bard shouldn't have so many skill points, but that's a discussion for some other time).


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 2, 2003)

The Wizard does have more class skills than the Fighter, and the high Intelligence required means he has many more points to spend.  Furthermore, the skills you listed your "great fighter" having are impossible to achieve with a standard Fighter until 15th level, and they would cost a total of 36 skillpoints.


----------



## Inari (Oct 2, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the skills you listed your "great fighter" having are impossible to achieve with a standard Fighter until 15th level, and they would cost a total of 36 skillpoints.





Hence, why I said I was so generous with class skills. I think they should vary a bit more. Thenagain, my DMing style is a lot more of an emphasis on role playing and flavour, meaning I often purposly against the rules when I DM.

Wizards most of the time have higher Int, meaning more class skills, but a better example would be the sorcerer who knows spells through studying him/herself greatly. I'm still on the opinion that sorcerers should have d6 hp and 4+int skills, but I know the game's balanced the way it is, and I'd just be doing no good if I were to change one class, and not the rest.

Anyways, like I said, the best way to go would be to give more class skills in general, and even give all of the classes two more skills per level. It shouldn't unbalance the game, although I'd start feeling bad for the human rogue with 18 in int... even just at first level, we're talking about 60 skill points... meaning 15 skills that could be maxed.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 2, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> The argument is getting nowhere.  I have two problems with the Fighter.  One, is it is nearly impossible to build a character concept with the class that is interesting and effecient.  Two, there is rarely a reason to continue taking levels in the class once you hit mid to high levels.  I have yet to see anyone refute either of these two problems.




Actually, both of those points were addressed, you chose to ignore that.

PS


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 2, 2003)

thanee said:
			
		

> Everything is underpowered, when you compare with those spellcasters. That's simply because there are just too many spells resembling class abilities, which effectively give you all the benefits the other character needs to take several levels in a certain class for. And, of course, since spells have a greater impact than most other abilities, with the reasoning, that they are limited-resource abilities mostly.




Actually, single classed spellcasters (except Druids) can generally be on a pretty even footing a mid-to-high levels with massively multiclassed and PrCed Warriors. Neither single classed warriors nor multiclassed spellcasters can especially keep up.

It is my contention that therefore single classed warriors and multiclassed spellcasters are _under powered_ - and need to be jacked up.

The really nice thing about jacking up them, is that it won't affect the power of the current leaders (multiclassed Warriors and single classed Spellcasters) _at all_. A Single Classed spellcaster doesn't benefit in any way from rules permitting easier multiclassing, and a Multiclassed warrior doesn't benefit from the later levels of Fighter and Paladin being better because he will never see them.

So I don't see the problem with attacking the power paradigm in this manner - it doesn't even affect the most powerful characters, and therefore would have to go a long way before it could possibly unbalance anything.

-Frank


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The really nice thing about jacking up them, is that it won't affect the power of the current leaders (multiclassed Warriors and single classed Spellcasters) _at all_. A Single Classed spellcaster doesn't benefit in any way from rules permitting easier multiclassing, and a Multiclassed warrior doesn't benefit from the later levels of Fighter and Paladin being better because he will never see them.
> 
> So I don't see the problem with attacking the power paradigm in this manner - it doesn't even affect the most powerful characters, and therefore would have to go a long way before it could possibly unbalance anything.



NOW you're talkin', Frank!

I see you added in the Paladin to your underpowered classes. Good man. I guess my words did make a difference, perhaps.

I have no doubt that single-classed fighter-types (Bbn, Ftr, Pal - I'll neglect Rgr for now, even though I'm pretty sure they should be included as well) are underpowered at higher levels.
The only question is, what exact changes should be made to the game to fix it?
I have proposed some suggested changed in House Rules, some serious, some more tongue-in-cheek, but I think the major thing that would help higher-level fighter-types would be substantial SR.
The fact that their entire strengths that they have battled years for, can be taken away with one simple spell (even low level ones), is a slap in the face to the heroic fantasy character ideal.

There is a simple logistical proof for the need for this change:
*BAB and fighter-type class abilities are linear, while spellcasting is geometric in its progression.*


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak?  Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 2, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak?  Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.




I assume that spell casters are (relative to same level fighters) weaker at low levels and can die easier.
I assume that fighters are more powerful at low levels and can survive easier.
I assume that fighters are weaker at higher levels and can die easier.
I assume that spell casters are more powerful at higher levels and can survive easier.

I assume this is balanced. For some reason, people think that it should instead be:

Spell casters are weaker at low levels and can die easier.
Fighters are more powerful at low levels and can survive easier.
High level fighters and spell casters should be at the same level of power and have the same level of survivability.

I do not hear anybody getting their panties in a bind over the fact that low level Wizards will typically have half or fewer hit points of a same level low level Fighter.

Why isn't THIS unbalanced?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not hear anybody getting their panties in a bind over the fact that low level Wizards will typically have half or fewer hit points of a same level low level Fighter.
> 
> Why isn't THIS unbalanced?




But wizards have about half the HPs of a fighter no matter what level they are.  And there's more to balance then just HPs.  

While the low level fighter might be better, that's only till about level 5 or so.  The wizard seems to be better for well more then half the levels going one through 20.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 2, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I see you added in the Paladin to your underpowered classes. Good man. I guess my words did make a difference, perhaps.




Paladin has always been on the list - just that it sucks at level 6 instead of sucking at level 3. That's a big difference in many games - although of course in the long run it's not.



			
				crothian said:
			
		

> So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak? Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.




Two reasons:

1> It is always easier on a gaming group to add power than it is to take it away. That is, if you give a character too much bonus it's not a big deal when you have to take it away. When you nerf someone too hard it just breeds hard feelings.

2> It is easier to modify the non-spellcasters than it is to modify the spellcasters. A warrior class has 20 levels which can have their abilities adjusted. The Spellcasters have hundreds - even thousands of spells available to them - each of which is available to be plugged in to a spellcaster at any relevent level.

So it's easier on the gaming group and on the designer to increase the power of the single classed warrior rather than decrease the power of the single classed spellcaster. Really, once the infinite power loops are all closed for the spellcasters and their buff-tastic crap goes away - I'll be happy.



> BAB and fighter-type class abilities are linear, while spellcasting is geometric in its progression.




That's not _entirely_ true. While it is true that a Wizard continues to get more spells and that his spells become more powerful - there is a whole seperate issue where his lower level spells _don't_. A wizard experiences spell obsolescence, and a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge never goes away.

What this leads to, is the wizard spending a higher and higher proportion of its spells on buffs - because the spells become useless for anything else. That's also a problem - but one that I don't think can be as easily solved as the current basic power inequality.

A Wizard keeps getting power at every level - but the rate of that growth is not itself expanding in any kind of regular fashion. However, when compared to warriors - whose rate of power growth _decreases_ - it certainly seems to.

-Frank


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

In 3.5, they spread out the Paladin's powewrs even WORSE.
In 3.0, the pally sucked at level 3 also (because who gives a rat's &* about Remove Disease, and unless he's using Divine Feats, his sucky Turn Undead is almost a non-benefit.
Notice I'm ignoring his spells - for good reason.
Other than Level 5's mount, there's nothing for a paladin in 3.0 after Smite.

The real brutal thing about balancing a paladin that I haven't mentioned is: A Paladin is almost required to be a single-class character to be any good, due to all his abilities being level dependant.
However, the real kick in the nuts is that unlike a mage, the Paladins abilities are strictly linear (you notice I'm ignoring his spells).
So a Paladin, unlike any other class in the game, is the one that has the most restrictive roleplaying flexibility, has among the least multi-class flexibility, yet doesn't gain exponential benefits at high paladin levels.

If I could dream of a Paladin tweak, it would be that Paladins would gain kick-ass abilities at higher levels (drop the stupid spellcasting that's triply-handicapped: slow progression, crappy spell-list, and half-caster level) that would compare with what mages get at high level.
Give them enough power at high level to actually cause the EVIL forces to quake in fear at his presence - make him a legendary figure, make him worthy of tales to be sung for centuries, give him the ability to shrug off the worst spells that Evil can throw at him.
Give his sword the ability to cut thru a ForceCage, for example.

Do some damn work to make this game heroic, for god's sake, WotC!


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

Oh, I almost forgot - 
The Paladin is the ONLY class in the game that does not currently have a viable prestige class.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 2, 2003)

Bards and Clerics don't have much either.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Oct 2, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> single classed warriors and multiclassed spellcasters are _under powered_.




Yep.

Altho at the highest levels (bordering on epic play) slightly multiclassed spellcasters (i.e. 1-3 levels of another class) are probably the most impressive. My Arcane Trickster and my (not Frank's ) Archer Rogue/Cleric are both quite powerful characters (the Cleric already at mid levels).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## S'mon (Oct 2, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> In 3.5, they spread out the Paladin's powewrs even WORSE.
> In 3.0, the pally sucked at level 3 also (because who gives a rat's &* about Remove Disease, and unless he's using Divine Feats, his sucky Turn Undead is almost a non-benefit.
> Notice I'm ignoring his spells - for good reason.
> Other than Level 5's mount, there's nothing for a paladin in 3.0 after Smite.
> ...




WARNING - House Rule thought ahead...

Rather than give Paladins spellcasting powers, maybe they should more appropriately get Spell Resistance from 4th level?  That seems to me to fit a lot better with the concept.  I'd suggest SR of half level + 10, so SR 12 at 4th level, SR 13 at 6th, up to SR 20 at 20th.  That would help prevent them being held, charmed etc by low-level enemy spellcasters.  It's probably a bit more powerful than their spellcasting powers, but Paladins need a bit of a boost anyway IMO.


----------



## green slime (Oct 2, 2003)

On comparing the fighter to the Barbarian, and the comment that Fighter's with 5 points (using point buy) in Int are somehow suffering... 

Barbarians need a higher Dex just to maintain their AC at a reasonable level, assuming that they want to keep their class abilities. So given this, those five extra point buys get eaten to achieve a Dex 16 vs Dex 13. (For instance)

The point is, that the very feat flexibility of the well-planned fighter enables him to handle the threat of a raging barbarian, or an Archer, or a multitude of other threats on the battlefield.

And while you may make a better Dex fighter by multiclassing with ranger and barbarian, I can't see you achieving a better Will save at the same time, nor the ability to create a better tank. IMX Dex fighters are very brittle. Absolutely brilliant when they get the opportunity, but oh so fragile.

I was very disappointed that they did not include the Divine feats in the revision. Such an obvious oversight.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> I was very disappointed that they did not include the Divine feats in the revision. Such an obvious oversight.



Hehe - that's a good one.
I'd love to see them too, but then WotC would have to spend an hour or so deciding what to do to fix them, yet make them playable.
Half of the Divine Feats are an absolute joke, and Divine Shield is arguably broken, and Divine Might is either overpowered or arguably underpowered, depending on how they want to flip the coin on the activation ruling.

S'mon - good out-of-the-box thinking, but that low of SR really isn't very helpful to a PC. The vast majority of play centers on threats that are of equal or greater level than the PC's, so an SR that low wouldn't come into play that often.

The more I think of how to tweak D&D to better it, the more I'm convinced that because WotC defined the base class (Ftr) to only get 1 feat every 2 levels, than any attempt at tweaking it will fail, due to anything interesting and fun being overpowered in comparison to the base Ftr class.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 2, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> S'mon - good out-of-the-box thinking, but that low of SR really isn't very helpful to a PC. The vast majority of play centers on threats that are of equal or greater level than the PC's, so an SR that low wouldn't come into play that often.
> 
> The more I think of how to tweak D&D to better it, the more I'm convinced that because WotC defined the base class (Ftr) to only get 1 feat every 2 levels, than any attempt at tweaking it will fail, due to anything interesting and fun being overpowered in comparison to the base Ftr class.




I tend to agree on your latter point - IMC I spend more effort powering up the Fighter than anything else - some stuff from Mongoose's Quintessential Fighter is good for this.

Re Paladin SR - IMC (lowish magic) many opponents are 2-4 levels below the PCs.  If you're right I can see a good case for giving the Paladin +1 SR/level, eg 6+1 SR/level (start at SR 10 at 4th level, go to SR 26) - that gives 25% chance of spell resistance vs foe of equal level, which sounds reasonable.


----------



## green slime (Oct 2, 2003)

Well, IMC we use the Divine Might and Divine Vigour as written, but with the caveat that Quicken Turning affects all activation of Divine feats.

Divine shield could be fixed quite easily, providing a bonus to AC, that also functions against touch attacks and incorporeal attacks. Haven't really thought about it too much, but it shouldn't be a problem to get it back into line; not exactly brain surgery this stuff.

Secondly, one of the main problems is the number and types of abilities that are handed out willy-nilly to prestige classes. Many prestige classes don't really require any real sacrifices to get in to, acerbating the problem.

However, I am quite strict with PrCs in our game. Anything outside the Core rule books is optional. Claiming that because WotC published some crap a$$ PrC in a supplement is no justification that it has to be included in anyones game. It isn't like they sit there with this amazing vision of how it all should be.

Just looking at their motivations for some of the rules changes from 3.0 to 3.5 makes one wonder what exactly they think they are up to. There aren't enough Dwarfs being played?????? What about half-elves or half-orcs???


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 2, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Actually, both of those points were addressed, you chose to ignore that.




Actually, no, those points were not addressed.  Virtually everyone agrees the Fighter needs more class skills and skillpoints, save for a few claiming the Fighters dominance in combat makes up for it.  What dominance in combat?

Second, no one really addressed the lack of a reason to continue in the Fighter class at higher levels.  Crothians example is nice, but the fact is it requires non core, non WoTC material.  *And* you can get nearly all of those feats, plus a truckload of skillpoints and other abilities by multiclassing.  Once again, the Fighter is lacking in both the roleplaying and powergaming departments because of these two issues.


PS

I would also agree Paladins get the shaft, as do Barbarians to a lesser extent.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 2, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Actually, no, those points were not addressed.  Virtually everyone agrees the Fighter needs more class skills and skillpoints, save for a few claiming the Fighters dominance in combat makes up for it.  What dominance in combat?
> 
> Second, no one really addressed the lack of a reason to continue in the Fighter class at higher levels.  Crothians example is nice, but the fact is it requires non core, non WoTC material.  *And* you can get nearly all of those feats, plus a truckload of skillpoints and other abilities by multiclassing.  Once again, the Fighter is lacking in both the roleplaying and powergaming departments because of these two issues.
> 
> ...




Actually yes, those points were addressed. Multiple paths were proposed to keep high level fighters viable, and builds were put together of your knight-errant example. 

PS


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> Second, no one really addressed the lack of a reason to continue in the Fighter class at higher levels.  Crothians example is nice, but the fact is it requires non core, non WoTC material.  *And* you can get nearly all of those feats, plus a truckload of skillpoints and other abilities by multiclassing.  Once again, the Fighter is lacking in both the roleplaying and powergaming departments because of these two issues.





First, who cares about core??  What does it matter who it is written by?  AEG does some damn good stuff, and I think it insulting to them and the other companies to look down and question their material because its not Wotc.  

And one can't get that many feats through multiclassing.  Even assuming you can find presitge classes that give a free feat, one still has to get the prerequites for that prestige class.


----------



## LuYangShih (Oct 2, 2003)

AEG has good material?  Please.  After I looked over a few feats from Swashbuckling Adventures, I became convinced that AEG is the last company I should ever buy material from.  Outside companies rarely have the standards WoTC does, and it really is a matter of preference whether or not you think it is worth it.  Most DMs are not going to allow non WoTC material, and those that do usually want to look over every rule you want to apply from such books.  And for good reason.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

double post


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> AEG has good material?  Please.  After I looked over a few feats from Swashbuckling Adventures, I became convinced that AEG is the last company I should ever buy material from.  Outside companies rarely have the standards WoTC does, and it really is a matter of preference whether or not you think it is worth it.  Most DMs are not going to allow non WoTC material, and those that do usually want to look over every rule you want to apply from such books.  And for good reason.




AEG has done some great books.  All companies, even Wizards, has put out some books that were not that good. And actually, most DMs have an open mind and do allow none wizards material.  Wizards is the reason this thread exists.  If Wizards was so good with their standards the Fighter would be seen to everyone as balanced.  Wizards however screwed that up, so we need to go to outside sources to fix it.


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Oct 2, 2003)

Damn, I can’t believe this thread is still going. Maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself next time, lol. Anyhow, this all comes down to individual house rules, and that’s the bottom line. As we can all see (I hope), people agree that fighters are getting shafted, others don’t. 

I don’t favor one class as opposed to the other but again I do believe fighters’ need a boost at higher levels (so does the rouge, sorcerer, and barbarian need class adjusting). I’ve found my own solution for my own games.

Regardless, I should point out that many people feel that the classes need some modifying be it fighter or otherwise. Even if only 25% of peeps felt that classes needed some type of modifying, that’s a lot of peeps. If so many people feel that way and adjust their game accordingly (house rules), then I would say some thing is not 100% right with the core classes, and thats my main point all along.

I'd be intrested in seeing what classes peeps thought needed adjusting and how and why. Perhaps I'll start another 11 page + topic again soon.

DA


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Oct 2, 2003)

Damn, I can’t believe this thread is still going. Maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself next time, lol. Anyhow, this all comes down to individual house rules, and that’s the bottom line. As we can all see (I hope), people agree that fighters are getting shafted, others don’t. 

I don’t favor one class as opposed to the other but again I do believe fighters’ need a boost at higher levels (so does the rouge, sorcerer, and barbarian need class adjusting). I’ve found my own solution for my own games.

Regardless, I should point out that many people feel that the classes need some modifying be it fighter or otherwise. Even if only 25% of peeps felt that classes needed some type of modifying, that’s a lot of peeps. If so many people feel that way and adjust their game accordingly (house rules), then I would say some thing is not 100% right with the core classes, and thats my main point all along.

I'd be intrested in seeing what classes peeps thought needed adjusting and how and why. Perhaps I'll start another 11 page + topic again soon.

DA


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 2, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> All companies, even Wizards, has put out some books that were not that good.




Agreed.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> And actually, most DMs have an open mind and do allow none wizards material.




Not in my experience and probably not in reality. Most DMs I have played with have allowed non-Wizards adventures, modules, creature books, etc.

But not non-Wizards books which mostly contain feats, spells, and PrCs.

4 million+ people bought the 3E version of the Players Handbook.

But I doubt Mongoose sold 50,000 copies of The Quintessential Fighter while WotC probably sold more than 500,000 copies of Sword & Fist.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> If Wizards was so good with their standards the Fighter would be seen to everyone as balanced.  Wizards however screwed that up, so we need to go to outside sources to fix it.




Balance is a very difficult thing to judge and everyone judges it differently.

I can make a case that Sorcerers are too powerful.

I can also make a case that Sorcerers are too weak.



Personally, I do not think Fighters are too wimpy at high level. I do think the clase is not versatile. But, some people either like that or are comfortable with that.

Others are not.

From my experience, however, Fighters do great at higher levels. It is all a matter of what the player wants out of the character. You want versatility? Do not pick a fighter. You want to kick butt in combat, even over many other combatant classes and PrCs, pick a fighter.

Sure, people can come up with spell/feat/PrC/magic items combos that are uber. But if your DM is on the ball with this type of stuff, a normal fighter can do just as good if not better in combat.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

KarinsDad - I just gotta say, it's nice seeing your posts again.
I respect your opinions, and I didn't see you on here for a long time.

In my perusal of D20 publishers, I really like the extra feats that are out there, and they are universally more creative than the (mostly) crappy feats WotC has put out.
Really, I think an unspoken problem with 3E is that WotC feats are just too weak, for the most part.
If they had more flexibility in USEFUL feat selections, than more people would value the Ftr's bonus feats.

But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.


----------



## Ketjak (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> That's a bold claim that you have yet to actually back up in any way.
> 
> I came out with two builds: one was a mounted/ranged/melee character and the other was a straight hitting machine. They _both_ had more relevent abilities than a single classed Fight _could_. One was focused in one area and the other was spread between several areas of expertise.
> 
> ...




Frank,

You still ignore that Crothian and I pointed out that you were citing straight-up Fighter class characters as examples of when describing what a Fighter _should_ be. So... are those still examples of what you want from a Fighter or are they suddenly unacceptable.

You also never addressed that the character concepts you illustrated use PRESTIGE classes. By definition, Prestige classes are better than a core class, usually in specific areas. By using FOUR different prestige classes with a total of 9 of 16 class levels, OF COURSE that character is going to be better at each of the things those PRESTIGE classes do!

You insist that those builds should somehow be equaled by the Fighter class. That is stupidity, plain and simple.

Your failur to acknolwedge those points speaks to either a psychotic break in which you don't recognize the bits of reality that don't appeal to you OR that you're deliberately avoiding recognition. Either one speaks to a bad problem, but the psychotic break is at least acceptable. When you acknowledge those two points I'll engage your arguments head-on. Until then, you're not actually arguing, you're whining.

Finally, your constant stream of insults is unacceptable. Defend your position without them, because it marks you as the biggest a-hole posting here. When you can engage in a debate without using insults, and when you can acknowledge when another person has a valid point, then you'll be the debater you would like to be.

Of course, if you respond the way I expect - with an insult, or not at all - then we know what you're really made of. Chalk it up to a nice troll and be done.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 3, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> KarinsDad - I just gotta say, it's nice seeing your posts again.




Thanks.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> In my perusal of D20 publishers, I really like the extra feats that are out there, and they are universally more creative than the (mostly) crappy feats WotC has put out.




I call this the bigger, better, badder syndrome.

To me, the #1 flaw of 3E was the introduction of feats. The reason is that:

1) They are rarely that balanced. Hence, there will be some that nearly everyone wants to take and others that will almost never get taken.

2) They reinforce the behavior of min/maxing.

3) They did not introduce most special abilities of some classes as "feats". So, there are skill, there are special abilities, there are feats. To get some abilities, you have to multiclass. To get others, you have to spend a feat. To get others, you have to purchase a skill. A nicer system would have been to make them all skills and just have different skills more or less difficult for different classes to acquire.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Really, I think an unspoken problem with 3E is that WotC feats are just too weak, for the most part.
> If they had more flexibility in USEFUL feat selections, than more people would value the Ftr's bonus feats.
> 
> But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
> THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.




Possibly.

I think, however, that when you have 74 feats in the core books, another 100 or so in other WotC products, and another 200+ in non-WotC products, it is just a matter of probability.

A player of a fighter gets to pick 2 to 13 feats in the lifetime of the character. Some of the feats in the core rules he already has and 18 of the core rules feats he cannot take unless he multiclasses. That leaves about 50 feats that are usable for him.

Those 50 compared with the 50 more he can use in the non-core WotC books and the 100 more he can use in the non-WotC books means that there are probably just as many feats outside of the WotC books that he can take as there are in third party products.

On top of that, WotC is (at least) attempting to balance their feats (they sometimes fail, but that is a different issue). I think most third party feats I have seen are slightly more uber, just in order to get people excited over their books (and hence, buy them).

Again, the bigger, better, badder syndrome.


So, my conclusion is not that there are not 13 good feats that a high level human fighter can pick out of the PHB. Rather, there are hundreds more intentionally designed "better ones" that the player can find elsewhere which lure him into thinking that the feats in the core rules are crappy. JMO.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 3, 2003)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, my conclusion is not that there are not 13 good feats that a high level human fighter can pick out of the PHB. Rather, there are hundreds more intentionally designed "better ones" that the player can find elsewhere which lure him into thinking that the feats in the core rules are crappy. JMO.



Whoa.
You've just opinioned yourself into a corner there, KD.  

So can I paraphrase your opinion to this: "The PHB feats are not underpowered."

In the context of this discussion (the Ftr being underpowered), you have just set yourself up to support the following statement:
*One fighter feat, 6 HP's and +1 more BAB is equal in power to 2 levels of spellcasting and familiar progression and 2/5ths of a metamagic feat.*

This is easily derived from comparing the class benefits of 2 levels of wizard vs 2 levels of Ftr.

I just simply don't think that the benefits are comparable, in even any slightest notion.

I can prove this by comparing an Eldritch Knight with a Wizard and a Ftr.
The EK loses +3 BAB compared to a Ftr, and loses 2 spellcasting levels to the wizard. Roughly, that's +3 BAB and 2 HP per level vs 2 spellcasting levels.
Therefore, WotC seems to be prove by their own 3.5 rules that spellcasting levels are worth significantly more than BAB and HP.

This leaves us with the only Ftr benefit of 1 feat per 2 levels.
I find it hard to believe that feats are stronger than spells.
I guess you could view feats as a kind of a Persistent, non-magical spell.
The only problem is, they pale so badly in comparison to even 1st level spells, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 3, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
> THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.




Hmm...I tend to agree.

It seems to me that the Fighter could use some bigger, badder feat chains that would really enhance the longterm value of gaining extra feats.  Instead WotC has given us PrCs with a sprinking of weird class abilities that are usually better than any PHB feat; that has quite the opposite effect.


----------



## takyris (Oct 3, 2003)

Yeah, 'cause when Weapon Focus wears off, your fighter is totally shafted.  And Quick Draw only works one time, and then he has to prepare it all over again -- and how the fighter has to choose beforehand whether or not he wants to attack with a greatsword three times, or with a greatsword once and a longsword and shield twice, or whether he wants to use expertise once and then use a longbow once and then maybe have a throwing axe that he can use one time for ranged attacks or melee attacks.

How do I know when I wake up in the morning whether I'm going to need to use my longbow or my greatsword?  Sometimes I prepare nothing but greatswords, and then it's more of a longbow day, and I'm like useless.

Sure, I can maybe get a few more swings of the axe per day, but only if I make myself unable to use bludgeoning weapons AT ALL.  What kind of a tradeoff is that?  

And don't even get me STARTED on that new minute/level duration for Power Attack.

The fighter is nerfed.  NERFED, I tell you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 3, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Whoa.
> You've just opinioned yourself into a corner there, KD.




Did I? Are you sure?



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> So can I paraphrase your opinion to this: "The PHB feats are not underpowered."




No, you can paraphrase it to the non-PHB feats are often overpowered.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> In the context of this discussion (the Ftr being underpowered), you have just set yourself up to support the following statement:
> *One fighter feat, 6 HP's and +1 more BAB is equal in power to 2 levels of spellcasting and familiar progression and 2/5ths of a metamagic feat.*
> 
> This is easily derived from comparing the class benefits of 2 levels of wizard vs 2 levels of Ftr.




The wizard basically gains 4 new spells and 3 to 4 (depending on stat modifier) spells he can cast per day. The fighter gains a feat.

Everything else is basically a wash.

So, is it worth it? Probably. The fighter can use that feat round after round after round, day after day after day. The wizard can use those spells 3 times per day.

The wizard gains versatility and power. The fighter gains reusability and power.

But, your entire analysis assumes that the wizard can actually survive to 20th level where his versatility and power overwhelm that of the 20th level fighter.

I think that is a poor assumption for most wizard characters. If they start out at first level, their chances of survival are worse than a fighters, especially at low level where a single shot can get them below zero hit points.

And, it is not just hit points. It is also AC. If the low level wizard boosts his AC with Mage Armor and/or Shield, sure, he has a similar AC to the fighter. But suddenly, he has one or two fewer spells, fewer hit points, and a weaker weapon attack.

Sure, the wizard has Scribe Scroll and can put his cash into scrolls to help him. But while he is doing that, the fighter is putting his cash into permanent magical items.

If the wizard finds more spells (beyond his 2 per level allotment) and adds them to his book, he is burning through 200 GP per spell level of his cash on that.

Hence, the fighter should typically have more money with which to purchase items (if that is allowed in the game). The wizard can get more advanced item creation feats, but that is using up his precious feats to lower the cost of items that he wants. Money versus feats.

All in all, I think the entire issue is mostly a wash. Each class has pros and cons. The fighter is more (or just as) powerful until about 7th level. So, his chances of surviving to get to that point are greater. The wizards chances before that point are less, but after that point are greater.

In my experience though, that's a wash. We tend to start our campaigns at low level (first through third) and have not had any last much beyond tenth (usually people move out of town or want to start their own or a different campaign or other life issues intrude). Hence, just at the point where the wizard (if he survives) is starting to hold his own or actually shine, the campaign ends.

So sure, if you do run high level campaigns, you are starting at the point were the wizard has enough spells to be versatile over several combats and can outshine the fighter.

But even at something like 15th level, that verstility and power does not prevent the wizard (or the fighter for that matter) from being killed from a single 50+ point dragon breath or a single swing of a fighters vorpal sword, or even a gray ooze dropping on his head.

If a DM plays his NPCs stupidly, sure you can have the wizards hide behind the front line of combatant types and be attacked less often. But, if the DM plays a plausible game (i.e. ones where the NPC characters and creatures play to the best of their abilities because that is how they survive), then wizards will get attacked by creatures nearly as often as fighers do. In those cases, it is the wizard who is "underpowered", even at higher levels. IMO.

Hence, it all balances out in the long run as long as the players are having fun.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> The wizard basically gains 4 new spells and 3 to 4 (depending on stat modifier) spells he can cast per day. The fighter gains a feat.




They're handing out negative stat modifiers for Wizards now?

Wizards are generally specialists - which means that since they get 3 or 4 spells in two levels of wizard before bonus spells - that they get 4 or 5 spells - and if they have a statistic bonus it rises to 5 or 6.

If you thought that feat was balanced against 3 spells per day - how do you feel about comparing it to the 6 new spells per day that a Wizard is getting at high level?

-Frank


----------



## Thanee (Oct 3, 2003)

I suppose there will be more generalist Wizards in 3.5 now (compared to 3.0), but that doesn't invalidate the point! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Curugul (Oct 3, 2003)

*Well, no, but*



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> I suppose there will be more generalist Wizards in 3.5 now (compared to 3.0), but that doesn't invalidate the point!




Sorcerors do. 

A *key* point, one i'd like to hear an answer from anybody on is:  Do you really have enough encounters, tough encounters, per day at mid to high levels that casters honestly run out of spells?   I've never seen it, as a Sorceror or a Druid. Perhaps this is unique to our campaigns.  Perhaps most people do have 6+ encounters a day, or encounter enough foes that fighters start to shine.  I rather doubt it, however.  



Curugul


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> They're handing out negative stat modifiers for Wizards now?
> 
> Wizards are generally specialists - which means that since they get 3 or 4 spells in two levels of wizard before bonus spells - that they get 4 or 5 spells - and if they have a statistic bonus it rises to 5 or 6.
> 
> If you thought that feat was balanced against 3 spells per day - how do you feel about comparing it to the 6 new spells per day that a Wizard is getting at high level?




First off, no wizard (without non-core feats or PrCs) can get 6 new spells per two levels at high level. The maximum is 5.

A specialist wizard can get 6 at low level, but not at high level.


Also, this type of philosophy leads to other "broken classes philosophies" every two levels:

Fighter, one feat, 6 hps, and +1 extra BAB (really, really broke)
Generalist Wizard, 3 or 4 more set spells per day (really broke)
Specialist Wizard, 5 or 6 more set spells per day (broke)
Sorcerer, 6 or 7 more non-set spells per day (not broke)

Where do you draw the line?


Each class fills a different niche. Attempting to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges. Similar, but different.

Everyone is whining about those poor high level fighters, any one of which can wipe out a village all on their own because the high level wizard can wipe out a town. Boo hoo.

Nobody is whining about those poor low level wizards, any one of which can be wiped out by a couple of villagers. Nobody is whining about those poor Wizards who have a worse chance to actually survive to mid to high level.


Although your analysis is basically correct, your conclusions are unfounded. There are too many variables to compare two such dissimilar character classes. Each has their day in the sun. Each has their pros and cons. Bottom line.


I think the real issue here is that there are so MANY cool/uber feats and PrCs in non-core WotC and non-WotC products that people deceive themselves into thinking that the ones in the core rules are "not cool".

Bigger, better, badder syndrome strikes yet again. Sigh.



			
				Curugul said:
			
		

> A *key* point, one i'd like to hear an answer from anybody on is: Do you really have enough encounters, tough encounters, per day at mid to high levels that casters honestly run out of spells?




No, but the counter question to this is: Do you really have enough encounters, tough encounters, per day at low levels that casters honestly run out of spells? 

The answer to this is yes in most campaigns. How often do you have situations where the combatant types are mostly uninjured or slightly injured, but the party camps for the night at 10 AM because the cleric is out of cure spells and/or the arcane spell caster is low or out of spells?

Nobody is stating that Wizards are not more powerful than Fighters at high level.

But, people are forgetting that Fighters are more powerful than Wizards at low level.

That is called balance.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 3, 2003)

Curugul said:
			
		

> Sorcerors do.
> 
> A *key* point, one i'd like to hear an answer from anybody on is:  Do you really have enough encounters, tough encounters, per day at mid to high levels that casters honestly run out of spells?   I've never seen it, as a Sorceror or a Druid. Perhaps this is unique to our campaigns.  Perhaps most people do have 6+ encounters a day, or encounter enough foes that fighters start to shine.  I rather doubt it, however.
> 
> ...




Run out? No. But I _have_ seen the case where the 16th level wizard was reduced to 1st level spells (and out of Magic Missiles at that!). That was 2 major fights. By major fights I mean 3 18th level NPCs followed by the BBEG, his duplicate, his CR 15 imp familiar, its duplicate, and a dozen or so dreadnaught barbarians. 

PS


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> First off, no wizard (without non-core feats or PrCs) can get 6 new spells per two levels at high level. The maximum is 5.




OK, let's have a 9th level Diviner (or some other specialist wizard, for whatever reason), with an intelligence of 22 (including his 2 stat raises and his headband of +4 intellect - so we are starting at a 16 Int):

At 10th level he picks up :

1 5th level spell
1 4th level spell

At 11th level he picks up:

1 6th level spell
1 6th level spell for specialization
1 6th level spell for Intelligence
1 3rd level spell

That's six spells. And it didn't require anything convoluted. If you do something around a level where you get a stat raise you can potentially get 7 spells in two levels. And yes, even a non-specialist can get his stat raise at 12th level and gain 6 spells in that time.

Do you have any other bold assertions that you want to make that can be disproved that easily?

-Frank


----------



## Thanee (Oct 3, 2003)

Curugul said:
			
		

> A *key* point, one i'd like to hear an answer from anybody on is:  Do you really have enough encounters, tough encounters, per day at mid to high levels that casters honestly run out of spells?




Maybe not run out of spells completely, but we regularily have to resort to less than optimum spells, because the best ones are used up already, or save better spells and use other ones, because it's still a lot to be expected.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 3, 2003)

KD - no, I'm not sure, but I think so.  

Let me paraphrase you again: "The PHB feats are of an adequate power level." Fair?

This is further enforced by your statement that you think 







> The wizard basically gains 4 new spells and 3 to 4 (depending on stat modifier) spells he can cast per day. The fighter gains a feat.
> Everything else is basically a wash.
> So, is it worth it? Probably. The fighter can use that feat round after round after round, day after day after day. The wizard can use those spells 3 times per day.
> The wizard gains versatility and power. The fighter gains reusability and power.



Well, I think it's been shown that the comparison is on average FIVE spells that are gained, vs ONE feat.
What skews the comparison even more is that each time the mage gains those 5 spells, they are geometrically more powerful. Of course, the Ftr's feat power stays almost the same, other than feat chains.

_House Rule idea!
Mages should have to learn spell-chains to get to their more powerful spells.
They shouldn't be able to dip right in and get Improved Invisibility (Greater Invis now?) unless they have spent the resources to learn multiple spells leading up to it (i.e. Silent Image, Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere)._

Back to KarinsDad - So no, I think it's fairly simple to conclude that 1 feat (especially a PHB FTR feat) is not worth 5 spells of increasing power and flexibility.

Can you argue that 1 feat IS worth those 5 spells? I'm interested in the counter-argument. Keep in mind that if your main reason is because spells are limited, and feats aren't, you have to take into account how often mages don't run out of spells in a day (which I'm positive is the VAST majority of the time), and also take into account that many of the best feats have even more limited uses per day than a mage's spells (Power Critical, Extra Smite and others are ONE time per day).

Now, on to your points about a mage being more likely to die at lower levels, and also being less powerful at low level.
It may look that way at first glance, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case.
Just because mage's have less HP, doesn't necessarily mean they die more often. Of course, the only proof of this would be to take an accurate census of players and DM's (which is too tough to do), but I doubt if mages actually die more often than any other class (if I had to guess which class dies the most from reading these boards for years, it would be the MONK).

There are reasons why the mages don't die.
* They WILL have higher DEX than most fighter-types, so they will more than likely go first in combat. 
* They more than likely are in a defended position, so they won't be killed in the 1st round.
* Everyone knows they are fragile, so everyone's actions are made with that in mind.
* Their Familiar is an extra 50% of HP's, just sitting there waiting if they want to use (many people forget this).
* From 1st level on, look at the spell list, and see the spells which could single-handedly or in combination make it so the mage survives, or will be more powerful than the Ftr-type.
I'll thrown out a few: Shield, Grease, Obscuring Mist, True Strike (able to hit targets the Ftr's can't, thereby saving the day), Charm Person, Hypnotism, Sleep, Magic Missile (again taking out opponents the Ftr's can't), Color Spray, Ray of Enfeeblement (reduces opponent's threat with NO SAVE), Enlarge Person (can change a whole battle, but probably used on Ftr), and of course Expeditious Retreat (mage can be saved with one spell).
That's just at 1st level!
2nd level has Alter Self and Scorching Ray, both of which are more powerful than any number of feats a Ftr gets.
And it gets worse from there....   

I hope this points out how your statements that a Wizard is more likely to die, and is less powerful at low level, are fallacious arguments.
But it's all opinion, and most opinions don't change regardless of persuasive arguments to the contrary, I just hope you can see the other side, KD.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 3, 2003)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Maybe not run out of spells completely, but we regularily have to resort to less than optimum spells, because the best ones are used up already, or save better spells and use other ones, because it's still a lot to be expected.



Some of the best combat feats are used up more often than spells (Power Critical, Smite Evil, Divine Might, etc).

Also, a FTR-type can easily be rendered ineffective simply by someone Disarming or Sundering his specialized weapon, in which case he has to resort to "less than optimum weapons", and probably becomes about as effective as a glorified Warrior-class.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 3, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> * Their Familiar is an extra 50% of HP's, just sitting there waiting if they want to use (many people forget this).




And how exactly would that help the wizard (i.e. how do they benefit from those hit points, it's not like the familiar can move them over to the wizard or anything)?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Storminator (Oct 3, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> I hope this points out how your statements that a Wizard is more likely to die, and is less powerful at low level, are fallacious arguments.
> But it's all opinion, and most opinions don't change regardless of persuasive arguments to the contrary, I just hope you can see the other side, KD.




It's been my experience that wizards die more often. Lots more often. 

I have a campaign where the wizard deaths are greater than all other classes combined.

All the way up to 3rd level you can be killed by an AoO, and your Concentration score isn't that high, so it'll come up. And a 4 hp orc can drop a 6th level wizard on a crit. 

And if you spend half your spells making yourself survive, you run out of spells much quicker.

PS


----------



## The_DarkAngel (Oct 3, 2003)

Some of you guys should consider judging a class from 1st through 20th level when considering a class is unbalanced or not. Wizards for example suck at lower levels but are mean as hell at high levels. There for yes I would consider that a fair trade off. In terms of breaking down classes into a point system, everything must be considered. 

In terms of my 3.5 campaign:

1) The bard and the ranger both recieve 4 skill points per level not 6.

2) The Sorcerer gains 1D6 hit Points.

3) The Barbarian gains the Endurance feat at 3rd level.

4) The Rouge gains special abilities at 7th level.

5) The fighter gains 2 core class skills at 1st, and at 11th, 15th, and 19th gains special combat abilites, keeping the class true to its name and making it on avg the best Fighting class as it should, as well as a reason to continue in the class in higher levels.

Again, not all of you may agree but apperently alot do. Most of these ideas are founded by Arcana Unearthed were even Montecook has bolstered the Fighter class considerably over the one listed in 3.5. without having to depend on prestige classes. The AU version of a fighter has 1D12 hitpoints, 2 more class skills, 12 total feats (1st thru 20th), crushing blow ability 2/Day, and his will saves are increased to +9 max at 20th level. I should also mention armor classes reach the 12 AC rating instead of 8AC in 3.5, giving a real meaning to armor. This my friends is a class much more physical then the 3.5 fighting class. 

DA


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> Some of you guys should consider judging a class from 1st through 20th level when considering a class is unbalanced or not.




I disagree. Class balance happens at every level, not at some mythical hybrid level of all the levels combined. Noone plays at "1st through 20th" - they play at first level, and _then_ at 2nd level, and so on.



> Wizards for example suck at lower levels but are mean as hell at high levels.




The part I'm not seeing is the part where supposedly they suck at low levels. At first level you get Sleep. It affects 4 enemies of your level, and if they fail a Will save they are helplss and out of the combat for 10 combat rounds. It's combat ending, and it's a single action that is extremely likely to succeed.

The Wizard can cast that twice a day before we get into stuff like school specialization and Int Bonus races/feats (such as Gray Elves or Spellcasting Prodigy). A Gray Elven Enchanter can squeeze off four multi-target save-or-dies in a day. In what way does that _ever_ "suck"?

Even, perhaps especially, at first level, the Wizard has an intense lead in offensive power over any other character class. I just can't agree with the argument that he in any way "sucks" at this point.

-Frank


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2003)

When the wizard looses initiative, gets attack, and falls below zero hitpoints on an average damage roll.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> OK, let's have a 9th level Diviner




Ok, so 9th level is now high level as opposed to mid level?  



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> Do you have any other bold assertions that you want to make that can be disproved that easily?




Disproved? Hmmm.

I was not including magic items in that statement.

So yes, with a magic item that boosts his Int, a maxxed out Int Wizard can get 6 spells every two levels at high level. Without such an item, no Wizard after 9th level gains any additional bonus spells with the sole exception of 16th level where they could conceivable get 2 extra bonus spells.

Just like with a magic item specifically designed for him, a Fighter can be more effective as well.

However, I thought this discussion was without magic items.

If I give a Fighter a Cube of Force and he puts it on the "keep out magic setting", he will in a one on one fight, kick the butt on nearly every Wizard out there. Once you pull in magic items, you open the Pandora's box of total nonsense with regard to comparisons.

If I give a Fighter 100,000 GP, he can hire a bunch of Wizards to go kick the opposing Wizards butt.

But, let's keep the comparisons to class versus class abilities and not the esoteric ones of class with one set of resources versus class with another set. Shall we?


----------



## Storminator (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> I disagree. Class balance happens at every level, not at some mythical hybrid level of all the levels combined. Noone plays at "1st through 20th" - they play at first level, and _then_ at 2nd level, and so on.




I agree with this, even tho the phenomenon is still there.



> The part I'm not seeing is the part where supposedly they suck at low levels. At first level you get Sleep. It affects 4 enemies of your level, and if they fail a Will save they are helplss and out of the combat for 10 combat rounds. It's combat ending, and it's a single action that is extremely likely to succeed.




It's a full round action to cast, which means it almost never gets off. Much to easy to disrupt, and for a 1st level wizard, that usually means you lose the spell because you're in negative hit points.



> The Wizard can cast that twice a day before we get into stuff like school specialization and Int Bonus races/feats (such as Gray Elves or Spellcasting Prodigy). A Gray Elven Enchanter can squeeze off four multi-target save-or-dies in a day. In what way does that _ever_ "suck"?




But that also means you can't do any of the other things a wizard is supposed to do for his party. And you can't have those up while you have Mage Armor and/or Shield up. So if we assume a more realistic PC, one with 3 1st level spells per day, you spend one of them on a defensive spell and one on a utility spell, which leaves you one save-or-die, which you hope and pray you get off. And if it succeeds, it's usually because you were standing behind ... a fighter. 



> Even, perhaps especially, at first level, the Wizard has an intense lead in offensive power over any other character class. I just can't agree with the argument that he in any way "sucks" at this point.
> 
> -Frank




PS


----------



## takyris (Oct 3, 2003)

Allow me to repeat in slightly plainer language: Feats don't get blown in the first battle.  With a very few exceptions, you can use 'em all day.  Over the course of the game, Quick Draw and Power Attack are better bets than Fireball.

If your wizard has ever run out of fireballs, has ever run into a creature that is immune to fireballs, or has been stuck with a bunch of fireballs prepared on a day when other spells would have been more useful, then the wizard is feeling the pinch of the other side.  The wizard gains focus at the expense of flexibility.

If we're talking about a sorcerer, then the issue is not preparation but overall flexibility.  If you're taking fireball, then you better hope your DM isn't planning a campaign based on evil marauding fire elementals -- or, for that matter, a campaign that focuses on monks and rogues that tumble into the midst of the party to attack.  If you can't hit them without hitting your friends, and if they have evasion, Fireball becomes a much weaker spell.

Power Attack, on the other hand, can be useful in almost any combat situation.  And the fighter is never under the onus of HAVING to use it -- because it's not like it's the only good third-level offensive spell he's got.  He can choose to use Expertise or Power Attack or Improved Trip or whatever at his leisure.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 3, 2003)

umm..  I can't believe this discussion has gotten to the point of absurdity where Power Attack and Quick Draw are being compared to Fireball.

Hmm..  let's see. Changing weapons as a free action, and a -4 to attack and +8 to damage (if it hits) to one target VS 9d6 damage to multiple targets.
Come on.

KD - I didn't catch your reply.  

Everyone - I just thought of the ACTUAL  comparison one should think about when comparing spellcaster levels and fighter levels.
If all other abilities are a wash, we're left with the questionable equation of 
2 spellcasting levels = 1 FTR feat  ??

Well, let's not be ephemeral - let's put a face on it.
I'll take the example of when a Wizard and Fighter goes from level 5 to 7.

The wizard gets 1 1st level spell, 1 2nd level, 1 3rd level and 1 4th level (if only 18 INT). This basically gives him access to a "feat" that allows him to : (each once per day)
1) Spend a standard action to get +20 to his next attack
2) "" to get +4 to STR for many minutes (+2 to attack and damage, at the minimum)
3) "" to get +2 to attack, saves, and skill checks for over an hour.
4) "" to go Invisible for 1 rnd/level.

And what does the Ftr get in comparison?
ONE FEAT.
Let's say he gets +1 to attack with ONE weapon, all the time.

Whoop de doo!


----------



## Thanee (Oct 3, 2003)

Don't forget hit points (over twice as much as the wizard), the better BAB and the initial advantage of martial weapon proficiencies and armor/shield proficiency.

Not saying, that fighters are better than wizards, they most certainly are not, but they do get a bit more than a feat every 2 levels.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 4, 2003)

Thanee - I agree, but KD said in a previous post that the other abilities were a wash, and I predicated that in my equation.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 4, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Thanee - I agree, but KD said in a previous post that the other abilities were a wash, and I predicated that in my equation.




Yes, that statement was misleading on my part (I was more focusing on special abilities between the classes).

In reality, I consider the +1 BAB per level to be a huge thing.

10th level Fighter
10th level Wizard

Wizard maxxed out Int to 18 at first level which costs 16 point buy points, so he probably has a 10 Str.

Fighter maxxed out Str to 18 at first level which costs 16 point buy points, so he probably (without items) has a 20 Str at 10th level (possibly not, but assuming both classes maxxed out).

Fighter is +15 to hit without magic, +16 to hit with Weapon Focus.

Wizard is +5 to hit.

AC 25 opponent. Wizard hits on a 20. Fighter hits on a 9. 5% of the time versus 60% of the time.

When you do the normal comparison, people write down:

"Fighters are +1 BAB every OTHER level compared to the Wizard."

Although literally true, this statement is totally misleading.

It does not point out that for any AC 18 to 25, the 10th level Fighter hits 55% more often, even without a magical weapon (typically more with one).

And, it gets more lopsided as you go into higher levels.

The point I am trying to make is, sure, a Wizard gets +1 BAB every two levels. But, the minor combat ability he had at low level is eventually lost completely. As the Wizard is gaining higher and higher level spells, his BAB becomes less and less of a factor in the game. At 1st level, a Wizard might use a weapon (probably a missile weapon) 50% of the time in battle. At 20th level, a Wizard with +10 to hit while the Fighter is +27 (still without any magic) to hit is a total joke, and hence the Wizard would use a weapon less than 1% of the time. In situations where the 20th level Fighter would be single swing hitting 95% of the time (for a lot more damage), the 20th level Wizard would be hitting 10% of the time (and usually 5%) and it is not worth his time to even consider it in the vast majority of circumstances.

Basically, his ability with a weapon is for all intents and purposes, worthless at higher levels.

Around mid level, having a BAB at all for a Wizard isn't worth much of anything. And yes, there is the occasional Wizard who makes his DEX and INT high so that he can use a missile weapon without casting a spell. His to hit is not a joke as quickly as his non-high DEX fellow Wizard, but it's still not much of an ability once he gets to mid-levels.


So, BAB for fighters is worth a lot lot more than BAB for wizards. Feats are worth a lot more. Hit points are worth a lot more. And, superior AC is worth a lot more. The simple comparisons like "fighters are +1 BAB more every other level" are totally misleading and do not really show the scope of how potent the variance really is.


----------



## Endur (Oct 4, 2003)

*19 Feats*

Level 20 Human Fighter gets 19 feats: 1 Human, 7 general, and 11 fighter.  

Here is one example of what you could spend those feats on, with just the PHB and a single combat style (and a single weapon).

Leadership, Iron Will, Skill Focus Ride,
Animal Affinity, Blindfighting, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Great Cleave, Greater Weapon Focus Lance, Greater Weapon Specialization Lance, Improved Critical Lance, Improved Initiative, Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, Weapon Focus Lance, Weapon Specialization Lance


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 4, 2003)

Blindfighting, combat reflexes, cleave, and great cleave are all more or less useless for a mounted combatant.  You're not the "sit in the middle of the enemies and attack a lot" kinda guy.  You're the "charge the BBEG and see how much damage I can do while riding by him" kinda guy.

Trample sucks.

Two skill feats suck... I know, they effectively give your mount +5 ac... but only for one attack a round.

That's 7 feats that pretty much suck.

I believe that means every feat from level 12 onward (besides greater weapon specialization) is crap.... which I believe is exactly what most people say about the fighter - above level 12, they suck.

-The Souljourner


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 4, 2003)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> I believe that means every feat from level 12 onward (besides greater weapon specialization) is crap.... which I believe is exactly what most people say about the fighter - above level 12, they suck.




That's the point though.

People say "hey, there are no uber feats left", so the fighter sucks at higher levels.

He does not suck. Give him ZERO feats from 12th level on and he still does not suck. He still deals death right and left to his foes.

Except for older dragons, there are few creatures in the various monster books that a high level (14+) fighter does not hit the vast majority of the time.

Granted, without magic armor, magic shields, and buff / protection spells from his spell casting allies, the fighter will be taking serious damage in return from powerful creatures, but that is part of the balance of the game.

Spell casters in the game assist in the defense of the combatant types. The combatant types either hold off and kill, or hold off until the spell casters can kill or assist to kill, the more powerful creatures.

It's a symbiosis and one which would not work except for the increased BAB and hit points of fighters, paladins, and rangers.

People are focusing on the feats as if the feats are the bread and butter of combatant type characters.

Feats definitely increase the potency of fighters and differentiate the fighter from other combatant classes like Paladins and Rangers, but they are not the mainstay of their effectiveness. BAB and hit points are the mainstay of their effectiveness.


Plus, it is very easy to get to 19 good feats for a fighter without using a single book other than the PHB.

1) Dodge
2) Mobility
3) Spring Attack (if the fighter has a 16 dex)
4) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (why use a martial weapon when you can use an exotic more damaging one)
5) Expertise
6) Improved Disarm
7) Improved Trip
8) Whirlwind Attack
9) Improved Critical
10) Improved Initiative
11) Point Blank Shot (why limit yourself to melee weapons? that's dumb)
12) Far Shot
13) Precise Shot (probably not needed, but useful when it is)
14) Rapid Shot
15) Shot on the Run
16) Power Attack
17) Cleave
18) Improved Bull Rush
19) Sunder
20) Great Cleave
21) Quick Draw (not as wonderful, but again, useful when it is needed)
22) Weapon Focus Melee Weapon
23) Weapon Focus Missile Weapon
24) Weapon Specialization Melee Weapon
25) Weapon Specialization Missile Weapon

Here are 25 feats from the core PHB which a fighter can choose from, depending on what he wants to do. Only 2 of them are really so so feats. The rest are solid.

This does not include the 20 or more other feats that are available and worthwhile to fighters in the various class books (e.g. the Dwarven Fighter in our group is planning on taking Monkey Grip so that he can use a medium sized weapon, just like a human, while retaining his darkvision, his Con bonus, etc.).


----------



## Thanee (Oct 4, 2003)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> (e.g. the Dwarven Fighter in our group is planning on taking Monkey Grip so that he can use a medium sized weapon, just like a human, while retaining his darkvision, his Con bonus, etc.).




Did I miss something there? Why does he need Monkey Grip to wield medium sized weapons?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Oct 4, 2003)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Blindfighting, combat reflexes, cleave, and great cleave are all more or less useless for a mounted combatant.  You're not the "sit in the middle of the enemies and attack a lot" kinda guy.  You're the "charge the BBEG and see how much damage I can do while riding by him" kinda guy.



Ehm.... Spirited Charge and Cleave sucks????? It's the best way to use it, you are mobile as hell and can choose from where you attack to have several enemies in reach. Without Cleave, one single attack for Mounted Warriors suck if the archers pick him as target.

And Barbarians with Greatcleave don't sit in the middle of enemies and attack a lot either. They charge into the middle of at least 6 guys with nearly full Power Attack, eat some AoOs on the way in and Cleave the hell out of them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 4, 2003)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Did I miss something there? Why does he need Monkey Grip to wield medium sized weapons?




Because 4 of the players are brand new to 3E DND, I haven't played the game in a year and a half, and I keep forgetting the @#$@#$ rules.  

Thanks for reminding me on that.

Boy, do I feel dumb.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 4, 2003)

Guess he will be glad to hear that! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Endur (Oct 4, 2003)

The feats you mention are marginal, but they still offer advantages.

Blindfighting is essential when fighting in fog, darkness, or against invisible opponents.  I don't know about your GM, but my GMs love Obscuring Mist and Invisible monsters.  And the typical human doesn't see too well in darkness.

Combat Reflexes is actually very nice in handling counter-charges.  Don't forget that a lance wielder has reach.  With combat reflexes, you get multiple AOO's in case several monsters charge you.

Cleave and Great Cleave are awesome feats for a Spirited Charge combatant.  You get 3x damage on the initial attack, and if that monster goes down, you also get 3x damage on the cleave strike (since cleave/great cleave says you get the same bonuses).

I agree that Animal Affinity and Skill Focus Ride just add to ride skill, but that is useful for more than just the mount ac under the mounted combat feat.  If your lance wielder is participating in a Knight's Tournament, the ride skill might help determine who wins the tournament.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Blindfighting, combat reflexes, cleave, and great cleave are all more or less useless for a mounted combatant.  You're not the "sit in the middle of the enemies and attack a lot" kinda guy.  You're the "charge the BBEG and see how much damage I can do while riding by him" kinda guy.
> 
> Trample sucks.
> 
> ...


----------

