The Only Reason Why The Fighter Is Unliked

5586 posts / 0 new
Last post
I think the only reason why everyone wants a "new" fighter class build or criticize the fighter class so much is because the class is hard, if not impossible to break. Take for example the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric and all the ways that those classes have been broken. If the Fighter class was easier to make game breakingly powerful then more people would like it (which if you ask me is sad).
:rolleye2: :whatsthis
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

Seconded.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

3rd

Fighter has legitimate design flaws. Accept it.
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

4thed
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

x5. (fine, you be 4 archerpwr)

Mucho on the design flaws. No reason to take it past level 4. Hardly any reason to take it past 1.
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

6thed[/bandwagon]
There are plenty of other classes that are very hard to break, and yet not unliked. Dread Necromancers are tough to break. Beguilers are tough to break without PrCing into Shadowcraft Mage. Heck, the Tome of Battle classes are tough to break too, if not impossible (except for one nasty Crusader trick), but they're very well liked.

Binders are likewise basically unbreakable (if you ignore that one internet vestige that grants summon monster), and so are Factotums. I've really never seen a broken Scout or Ranger, and yet no complaints against those.

So yeah, if "can't be broken" was the only thing making people dislike Fighters, then you'd see a swarm of threads against those classes too... which you won't.

JaronK
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

8th

Jaronk counts as 7th im sure.
Oh yeah, I forgot to call 7th!

JaronK
There are plenty of classes that are hard to make brokenly powerful that still get plenty of love: Rogue, warlock, ranger and scout all come to mind as classes that are reasonably well balanced, very difficult to make into anything broken and still get a good amount of love on these forums. The problems with fighters lie elsewhere.
Broken Fighter.

Let's go with the 'default' stat assignment elite array assumptions.


Feats:
1 Weapon Focus
2 Improved Initiative
3 Point Blank Shot
4 Weapon Specialization
6 Precise Shot
8 Power Attack
9 Cleave
10 Great Cleave
12 Dodge
14 Blind-Fight
16 Toughness
18 Toughness
20 Toughness

... Bam. Broken fighter. Broken into many bloody pieces.
Is that 10 consecutive posters agreeing that the OP is insane?
Wow, a consensus... That like never happens on these boards... Cool.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Is that 10 consecutive posters agreeing that the OP is insane?
Wow, a consensus... That like never happens on these boards... Cool.

Does this consensus qualify the need for a Flak Cannon? I have one, if that is the case.
*sniff*

This thread brings a tear to my eye. My Wizards board is all grown up...

*sniffle*

Also Flak Cannon sounds good. On secondary mode.
Is that 10 consecutive posters agreeing that the OP is insane?
Wow, a consensus... That like never happens on these boards... Cool.

'Twas a foregone conclusion, really.

I mean, duh.
'Twas a foregone conclusion, really.

I mean, duh.

Hey, I'm finally happy we all agree on something. Don't ruin it. ;)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Flak Cannon?

I suggest instead a railgun modified to be a flechette weapon.

And instead of flechettes, I suggest we use katanas made out of the densest ferrous material we can get our hands on.

Flak Cannon?

I suggest instead a railgun modified to be a flechette weapon.

And instead of flechettes, I suggest we use katanas made out of the densest ferrous material we can get our hands on.


I think I've seen a thread that started out like that once... or thrice...

U-238 Katana Flechette Railgun Cannons with Underslung Bacon/Fleshraker Grenade Launchers.
Flak Cannon?

I suggest instead a railgun modified to be a flechette weapon.

And instead of flechettes, I suggest we use katanas made out of the densest ferrous material we can get our hands on.


Hmmmm... Same principle as Flak, but with a meaner method of application... Number 1, make it so!
for yet another lets all bash the Fighter hoohah. The Fighter class is fine. If you don't like it, who gives a flying squirrel.
Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
for yet another lets all bash the Fighter hoohah. The Fighter class is fine. If you don't like it, who gives a flying squirrel.

The myriad other people that completely agree?

[edit] Your sig, paraphrased:

My Little Fighter Fallacy
A character class should be judged on its own merits to determine whether it's playable as a PC class. Just because another class is "worse" does not mean it should be played.

IMAGE(http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/railgun.jpg)
+
IMAGE(http://www.ut2.ru/images/game/weapons/weapons_flak_cannon_b.gif)



Hozzat?
Oh noes!

IMAGE(http://inthepicture.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/crime1.jpg)
Oh noes!

IMAGE(http://inthepicture.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/crime1.jpg)

I love that pic!
I think the only reason why everyone wants a "new" fighter class build or criticize the fighter class so much is because the class is hard, if not impossible to break. Take for example the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric and all the ways that those classes have been broken. If the Fighter class was easier to make game breakingly powerful then more people would like it (which if you ask me is sad).

Why, oh why, do people feel the intense need (and undeserved hubris) to make a whole new thread for what basically amounts to an uninformed opinion bump for another *first page* thread's topic?

Talk about sad... Yeesh.
for yet another lets all bash the Fighter hoohah. The Fighter class is fine. If you don't like it, who gives a flying squirrel.

Yep. The Fighter is fine.

So is the Barbarian, the Paladin, the CW Samurai, and the Truenamer. All perfect examples of class balance at its finest.

I bow down to WotC in its infinite wisdom, which surely a mere mortal such as myself could never conceive of questioning.
All i was saying was play classes the way they are.
All i was saying was play classes the way they are.

Oh ho, a commandment from on high. Thanks, Pope Leaflitter.

I will be sure to take your orders to heart.
Oh ho, a commandment from on high. Thanks, Pope Leaflitter.

I will be sure to take your orders to heart.

oh good glad to know. More people should be like you.
:rolleye2: :whatsthis

Quintupted.

Seriously, Leaflitter, couldn't you have found some other reason? I mean, really. Any other reason would have been better.
My reason has eight nine words: "Power Attack/Leap Attack/Improved Bull Rush/Shock Trooper"
Look, the fighter has a bunch of basic design flaws. It is not so weak that it cannot be played. In fact, it's more powerful than some classes. Also, design flaws!=weak or uber. Anyway, the CW samurai IS too weak to actually be played, since you can get the same exact flavor with fighter, and be better anyway. Other than that, I think that every PC class can be played. It has its merits, but major design flaws as well.
My problem with Fighter is the sheer amount of work it takes to make that thing respectable at combat. It's simplistic layout implies that it would be good for novices, but in reality, only truly skilled played can do anything noteworthy with it.

At the same time, Fighter has little out of combat uses. That would be okay, if Fighter came out of the box murdering people with ease. Sure with a bit of work, you can make some potent damage dealing, but... Barbarian & Warblade start off dishing out damage that makes the Fighter cry and are a helluva lot harder to mess up than Fighter.

Meanwhile, there are other guys in the PHB who, like Fighter, are also just okay at fighting, they are Monk & Ranger. However, those 2 at least have the benefit of out of combat uses, such as scouting & various skills(such as being able to Spot & Listen, which Fighter can't do, because apparently, they never would even think to teach that in Fighter School).

Fighter is supposed to be to warriors what Wizard is to casters. That is, a highly customizable, but extremely potent expert in his field(in Fighter's case, combat). Being difficult to build for effective combat & lacking out of combat uses(due to a lack of skill points & respectable class skill list), Fighter at his best is only a highly bland & monotonous dealer of death & at his worst, a pathetic little sissy.
Look, the fighter has a bunch of basic design flaws. It is not so weak that it cannot be played. In fact, it's more powerful than some classes. Also, design flaws!=weak or uber. Anyway, the CW samurai IS too weak to actually be played, since you can get the same exact flavor with fighter, and be better anyway. Other than that, I think that every PC class can be played. It has its merits, but major design flaws as well.

.....So choice is a design flaw?!

I'm with the OP, but you guys already knew that.


~woof
Choice isn't the flaw. All that stuff I said in my last point.

Plus...

High level class feature > character


Fighter's customizable, but it's like GURPS customization: Too easy to screw up & not that great even if you get it right. In combat Fighter's bland & uninteresting, but isn't the best warrior, while at the same time, Fighter is flat out useless by default outside of combat.
Choice is not, but poor layout of those choices is. Most the really potent fighter stuff comes from splat books. Sure you can make a deadly fighter if you really tweak it from only core material. You can also make a better... well anything else. It's not obvious what to take for a new player. Since all the class features are bonus feat there is no power flow to help guide choices. It can be very overwhelming. And when each new book adds a handful of feats and class options... well it's not really just a fighter anymore.

As they've expanded feat options there are a lot more paths open to the fighter, but building and playing one isn't as intuitive as it is for most other classes and if you took the same amount of tweaking you could, and would, break another class.
Choice isn't the flaw. All that stuff I said in my last point.

Plus...

High level class feature > character


Fighter's customizable, but it's like GURPS customization: Too easy to screw up & not that great even if you get it right. In combat Fighter's bland & uninteresting, but isn't the best warrior, while at the same time, Fighter is flat out useless by default outside of combat.

I could say the same of the barbarian, but people still think it's a great class because it cannot possibly be screwed up (unless you put a 6 on strength).

Lets just say I respectfully disagree with the oppositions' (your) opinion.
Quintupted.

Seriously, Leaflitter, couldn't you have found some other reason? I mean, really. Any other reason would have been better.
My reason has eight nine words swords: "Power Attack/Leap Attack/Improved Bull Rush/Shock Trooper"

Fixed for truthery.
I could say the same of the barbarian, but people still think it's a great class because it cannot possibly be screwed up (unless you put a 6 on strength).

Lets just say I respectfully disagree with the oppositions' (your) opinion.

Except you'd be wrong about barbarian if you said that. Barbarian can at least do some impromptu scouting and keep a party heading the right direction in the wilderness. Fighter can't even manage that.
I could say the same of the barbarian, but people still think it's a great class because it cannot possibly be screwed up (unless you put a 6 on strength).

Lets just say I respectfully disagree with the oppositions' (your) opinion.

There are three (okay, four) primary problems with the fighter class.

1.) Dead levels. The fighter is basically an NPC class with a few feats tacked on, and half of the levels give you NOTHING of worth. No class features, nothing. You get the worst possible skill points, 1 point of BAB (which, by the way, is generally what the Medium BAB people get), and you don't even get the best Hit Die in the game (c'mon, the fighter should get a d12, seriously). You're no better off in those levels than if you took an NPC class. That's just sad.

2.) Extremely difficult to build well. You have to know the system inside-and-out, and min-max out the wazoo to come close to what you can do with other martial-types with very little effort. Sure you can come up with combos that allow you to out-perform an unoptimized barbarian, but just barely, and if you put that level of optimization into nearly any other class, you'd end up with hulking hurler-type brokenage. There's absolutely no reason to take the fighter class if you want to be effective, other than as a dip, and you have to jump through flaming hoops to get there. Not good. Heck, even the druid's animal companion can out-perform the fighter, and it's only a "small" class feature.

3.) Virtually useless outside of combat. The druid, barbarian and ranger are capable of being stealthy, of tracking, and wilderness survival. The monk, rogue, and bard...well, they can do a LOT. The druid, cleric, wizard, and sorcerer can do insane things with their spell-slots, and have Knowledge skills they can use to best advantage. Even the paladin can be the party face. The fighter? He can hit things. That's it.

4.) Completely item dependent, moreso than any other class, period. Items are easily sunder-able, filched, and misplaced. Take away the cleric's armor, and see if he cares. Take away the barbarian's greataxe and he can still rage with a club. Take away the wizard's spellbook and he can...wait, it's in another dimension entirely. Take away the monk's...um...nevermind. Take away the fighter's primary, focused weapon, and he's toast. Half of his 'class features' are now useless because in order to be useful he had to pour his entire class progression into this single fighting style (otherwise he's pretty much a joke). In a campaign where the DM is stingy with loot or one where enjoys taking long-standing treasures away, and the fighter suffers the most.

There are others, but those are the main four, and they are crippling; signs of a badly designed class.

Discuss at your leisure.
There are three (okay, four) primary problems with the fighter class.

1.) Dead levels. The fighter is basically an NPC class with a few feats tacked on, and half of the levels give you NOTHING of worth. No class features, nothing. You get the worst possible skill points, 1 point of BAB (which, by the way, is generally what the Medium BAB people get), and you don't even get the best Hit Die in the game (c'mon, the fighter should get a d12, seriously). You're no better off in those levels than if you took an NPC class. That's just sad.

This is because the hand-holding classes offer spam inplace of choice.
Also, the sorcerer has the most dead levels, and yet this is not mentioned at all.
Additionally, medium BAB classes cannot do half the things a full-BAB class can. Those extra 5 points means the difference between one attack hitting AC 40, and three attacks hitting (or two with power attack).
As for HP, it offers the difference of 20 HP at level 20 - this is not a major advantage as the fighter can spend one of his feats to fill this gap without any detrimental loss of effectiveness due to feat choices. As for skills, you say the fighter has the worst skills, but what about the classes where you are practically forced to take certain skills in addition to having only 2+ int (like the cleric or the sorcerer)?

2.) Extremely difficult to build well. You have to know the system inside-and-out, and min-max out the wazoo to come close to what you can do with other martial-types with very little effort. Sure you can come up with combos that allow you to out-perform an unoptimized barbarian, but just barely, and if you put that level of optimization into nearly any other class, you'd end up with hulking hurler-type brokenage. There's absolutely no reason to take the fighter class if you want to be effective, other than as a dip, and you have to jump through flaming hoops to get there. Not good. Heck, even the druid's animal companion can out-perform the fighter, and it's only a "small" class feature.

7 feats gives you the ability to deal 100's of damage per round, every round - and those seven feats are often no-brainers anyways. It requires no effort to choose weapon focus and weapon specialization. Add in power attack and you are more effective in combat than the barbarian until said class gets 4+ rages per day. If you want a high AC as a barbarian, you have to use feats and variants to cover what the fighter is capable of with a simple equipment change. Also, I really suggest you learn how to play a fighter because the animal companion fallacy has been proven so very wrong many, many times in many, many threads.

3.) Virtually useless outside of combat. The druid, barbarian and ranger are capable of being stealthy, of tracking, and wilderness survival. The monk, rogue, and bard...well, they can do a LOT. The druid, cleric, wizard, and sorcerer can do insane things with their spell-slots, and have Knowledge skills they can use to best advantage. Even the paladin can be the party face. The fighter? He can hit things. That's it.

Three feats can cover any skill-set you choose to mimic, and does so with reasonable effectiveness. You're no bard or rogue, but you are more than adaquate at the skills you wish to be good at.

4.) Completely item dependent, moreso than any other class, period. Items are easily sunder-able, filched, and misplaced. Take away the cleric's armor, and see if he cares. Take away the barbarian's greataxe and he can still rage with a club. Take away the wizard's spellbook and he can...wait, it's in another dimension entirely. Take away the monk's...um...nevermind. Take away the fighter's primary, focused weapon, and he's toast. Half of his 'class features' are now useless because in order to be useful he had to pour his entire class progression into this single fighting style (otherwise he's pretty much a joke). In a campaign where the DM is stingy with loot or one where enjoys taking long-standing treasures away, and the fighter suffers the most.

The fighter is as item dependant as the wizard, cleric, and barbarian; again you show a complete and utter lack of knowledge about the game. The fighter requires a sword; the wizard a spellbook. The cleric needs spell components and a holy symbol, as well as gear. The barbarian is often defeated when you strip him of his weapon, or only shows weakness while gearless when he cannot rage (which is often at lower levels).

There are others, but those are the main four, and they are crippling; signs of a badly designed class.

Discuss at your leisure.

There will be no discussion here, only a one-sided rant/pow-wow on fighter-hate. If the fighter class was so awful, why is it often the lynch-pin for many of the best builds out there? Why is it that you can take 1 level or 20, and always find intersting and cool things to take?