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?
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.
Not to detract from the barbarian, but it is only good for two things; melee combat, and some wilderness stuff (specifically survival). The fighter can take a few skill feats and cover roles the barbarian can never do, like diplomacy, or sneaking, etc... Alternatively the fighter can take track and skill focus: survival and now he can cover all those things the barbarian is supposed to be better at, plus he can track. Not a big loss for the fighter to take two feats of his 18-19 (7-8 general) and do this. He can achieve the 15 required at first level, putting the barbarian's advantage to nil (infact, the barbarian needs a wisdom bonus to achieve a 15 at first, unlike the fighter, or he must spend a precious feat on a skill buff to do this).
It is not so weak that it cannot be played. In fact, it's more powerful than some classes.
You could also try to play a fuzzy, adorable, weak little kitten. That fact does not change the fact that fighters don't really work.
And design flaw is not a flaw with the character(As in, the class has some weaknesses, as they should), but a flaw with the design of such.
And to others:
1) With each sorcerer level, the DC of their spells goes up, as does their caster level for things such as dispelling and duration. Caster dead levels don't really exist. They still look FORWARD to leveling in those "dead" levels. Yay! My spells last another hour! :D
2) What skill feats are you talking about? What allows you to add diplomacy to a class skill? There is that Nobleborn feat I think...However, there is little preventing another class(Such as Wizard) taking it. Charm/Dominate can make negotiation much easier, anyway. And the classes who have those skills on their class list don't need to limit themselves to take the skills, either, they just take them.
3) The cleric and sorcerer typically have decent charisma, so they have a nice bonus to talky skills. The cleric can use domains to get access to new skills which also give MORE character options(spells), rather then limiting the character by taking away a class ability(Feat for the fighter). The cleric can use spells to emulate, eliminate the need for, or even just add a bonus to skills. The cleric can use spells in place of ability scores, so they can have a higher WIS, giving a bonus to spot, listen and sense motive, in addition to more spells to use. Fighters, if using Strength, only get a bonus to jump and swim checks, something that casters can avoid with a low level spell. Even Warlocks don't have to worry about those(Fly over obstacle).
4) The cleric shouldn't count as a 3/4 class, they can use a low level spell to become a full BAB class with a STR bonus. It's not uncommon to persist the spell, even.
5) How does a fighter get 15 survival at first level?
6) Link to the Animal companion fallacy, then.
7) If taking one level makes a class awesome, then CA is a good class, since it is a WIS dip for those who want to be chaotic rather then lawful. Swashbuckler is also a good three-level class. Monk is a great class, since Druids/Clerics can get their main casting stat to armor, and with a single feat from the complete series, Sorcerers can get their charisma to AC and a little extra bonus with a monk level. Barbarians also make use of a few fighter levels, so it must be okay.
Strangely, the numbers seem to indicate that animal companions are BETTER than fighters, even without considering the feats they can take or the weapons they can get or the spells that can be cast on them.
You could also try to play a fuzzy, adorable, weak little kitten. That fact does not change the fact that fighters don't really work.
And design flaw is not a flaw with the character(As in, the class has some weaknesses, as they should), but a flaw with the design of such.
And to others:
1) With each sorcerer level, the DC of their spells goes up, as does their caster level for things such as dispelling and duration. Caster dead levels don't really exist. They still look FORWARD to leveling in those "dead" levels. Yay! My spells last another hour! :D
2) What skill feats are you talking about? What allows you to add diplomacy to a class skill? There is that Nobleborn feat I think...However, there is little preventing another class(Such as Wizard) taking it. Charm/Dominate can make negotiation much easier, anyway. And the classes who have those skills on their class list don't need to limit themselves to take the skills, either, they just take them.
3) The cleric and sorcerer typically have decent charisma, so they have a nice bonus to talky skills. The cleric can use domains to get access to new skills which also give MORE character options(spells), rather then limiting the character by taking away a class ability(Feat for the fighter). The cleric can use spells to emulate, eliminate the need for, or even just add a bonus to skills. The cleric can use spells in place of ability scores, so they can have a higher WIS, giving a bonus to spot, listen and sense motive, in addition to more spells to use. Fighters, if using Strength, only get a bonus to jump and swim checks, something that casters can avoid with a low level spell. Even Warlocks don't have to worry about those(Fly over obstacle).
4) The cleric shouldn't count as a 3/4 class, they can use a low level spell to become a full BAB class with a STR bonus. It's not uncommon to persist the spell, even.
5) How does a fighter get 15 survival at first level?
6) Link to the Animal companion fallacy, then.
7) If taking one level makes a class awesome, then CA is a good class, since it is a WIS dip for those who want to be chaotic rather then lawful. Swashbuckler is also a good three-level class. Monk is a great class, since Druids/Clerics can get their main casting stat to armor, and with a single feat from the complete series, Sorcerers can get their charisma to AC and a little extra bonus with a monk level. Barbarians also make use of a few fighter levels, so it must be okay.
Martial Study for any White Raven maneuver gets Diplomacy as a class skill.
Strangely, the numbers seem to indicate that animal companions are BETTER than fighters, even without considering the feats they can take or the weapons they can get or the spells that can be cast on them.
I wouldn't exactly call that getting 'debunked.'
Remember, the Druid can also become a tank in a few levels, since the animal comes with a free druid. So you have a spell casting, adaptable tank with a smaller, mini-tank. The Big tank also gets 4 skill points and a better selection, rather then 2...And they can once again, skill dump melee stats and do fine in combat, getting more skills or spells.
The druid comes with a mechanic to get a new one, should Fluffy the mini-tank kick the bucket.
And am I the only one finding it ironic that in order to make Fighters useful outside of combat, you have to use the book made on the assumption that fighters just plain stink? Not to mention, that if that book is in play...Why not just make a Warblade? In order to get Marital Study, you HAVE to use ToB. And, you get a maneuver, so if the DM doesn't like the maneuvers, they won't be allowing the feat.
And again, a warlock could pick it up, use Beguiling Influence and shoot things all day long with a decent DC, and have a good diplomacy. But, the fighter doesn't have a good CHA score, not without sacrificing a vital stat(CON, INT, DEX, or STR), so basically, casters don't need to spend a feat, can dump other stats for an INT increase, and might have a good score in the relevant stat, and can cast spells to aid them. The best a fighter can do is a warlock dip for +6 to diplomacy, intimidate and bluff. The fighter can have it as a class skill, but can they use it?
I, too, find effusive fighter-hate puzzling. I agree that their flexibility makes them lack identity, and at really high levels, they don't keep pace with the amazing power of the spell casters. Nobody else completes those feat trees, certainly not at the beginning of 3e's 'sweet spot' of around 8th level. Besides, everyone who loves calculating their stratospheric super champions with prestige classes and optimized feats... do even a tenth of them have DMs that care to run campaigns for such super-characters? (And are these people even fun players to have at the table anyway? My guess is NO.) The other thing is that the fighter is a handy class for the non-hardcore player who isn't the crunchiest D&D nerd. Even the Wizards employees seem to have two or three of them in their gaming groups. In your 8th level game, you're still not doing too bad to have a PC with lots of hit points, power attack and great cleave, and big bonuses to hit and damage with a two-handed weapon... with a player that fully grasps how to play that straightforward slugger.
The Animal Companion rivals a fighter in efficiency and power when fully buffed, which generally takes 3-7 spells and more, some of which don't last more then one combat. Any gear shared with the AC detracts from the effectiveness of the Druid. This also leaves the AC extremely vulnerable to dispels and AM shells.
The Druid could be a tank, but is generally effective doing other things. His buff spells, in many instances, are better spent on someone who is actually good at fighting then on himself. He doesn't have the combat basics to actually own as a melee combatant...he's a just a pile of hp and dmg, maybe as good as a souped up warrior, and even that's doubtful, because he's a primary spellcaster first, and a melee second.
The math has been done and proven the Druid and AC only rival the fighter at the very highest levels of the game, with the most powerful spells upon them...and the fighter lacking them.
I really wish people would quit claiming that stuff.
===+Aelryinth
Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade
The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you
You could also try to play a fuzzy, adorable, weak little kitten. That fact does not change the fact that fighters don't really work.
And design flaw is not a flaw with the character(As in, the class has some weaknesses, as they should), but a flaw with the design of such.
And to others:
1) With each sorcerer level, the DC of their spells goes up, as does their caster level for things such as dispelling and duration. Caster dead levels don't really exist. They still look FORWARD to leveling in those "dead" levels. Yay! My spells last another hour! :D
Fighter gets BAB every level. If he has power attack, this adds to his damage every level as well, offering more effectiveness in his area of expertise, same as the sorcerer. Also, the sorcerer's save DC's do not go up every level. I suggest to read the PHB though to confirm this, as you are clearly misinformed.
2) What skill feats are you talking about? What allows you to add diplomacy to a class skill? There is that Nobleborn feat I think...However, there is little preventing another class(Such as Wizard) taking it. Charm/Dominate can make negotiation much easier, anyway. And the classes who have those skills on their class list don't need to limit themselves to take the skills, either, they just take them.
The feat is called educated. It offers all knowledge skills as class skills with a bonus to two of them. As for charm and Dominate; Wizard "you there, let me cast this spell on you!" Also, Charm does not work on undead or giants, dragons, outsiders, abberations, shapeshifters, or magical beasts. How will your wizard negociate with these until he can get Charm monster at 7th level?
3) The cleric and sorcerer typically have decent charisma, so they have a nice bonus to talky skills. The cleric can use domains to get access to new skills which also give MORE character options(spells), rather then limiting the character by taking away a class ability(Feat for the fighter). The cleric can use spells to emulate, eliminate the need for, or even just add a bonus to skills. The cleric can use spells in place of ability scores, so they can have a higher WIS, giving a bonus to spot, listen and sense motive, in addition to more spells to use. Fighters, if using Strength, only get a bonus to jump and swim checks, something that casters can avoid with a low level spell. Even Warlocks don't have to worry about those(Fly over obstacle).
You are posing a "casters are better than non-casters" arguement, which is not a fighter-specific problem. It is not the fighter's weakness that they do not have spells, because barbarians and rogues do not have spells either. You are also proposing that the cleric can do everything (rarely the case in practicum); how is that working for you in this group-based game?
4) The cleric shouldn't count as a 3/4 class, they can use a low level spell to become a full BAB class with a STR bonus. It's not uncommon to persist the spell, even.
I think you mean a mid-level spell. One that is dispellable. Even then, you're hard pressed to hit a great wyrm more than twice per round. Not a problem for the fighter, who can potencially hit said enemy with his last attack (rolling a 10).
5) How does a fighter get 15 survival at first level?
2.0 ranks in survival, and skill focus: survival. You can take ten on finding direction, which is consistantly 15. Are you sure you know how to play the game? Because that was seriously easy to figure out.
6) Link to the Animal companion fallacy, then.
Ask the CO boards of who will win in combat. Better yet, I offer that you show an animal companion that can kill 6 goblin archers 200 feet away before a fighter can. Or hows about an animal companion that can beat the fighter in combat and further the cause of role-playing by speaking to NPC's.
7) If taking one level makes a class awesome, then CA is a good class, since it is a WIS dip for those who want to be chaotic rather then lawful. Swashbuckler is also a good three-level class. Monk is a great class, since Druids/Clerics can get their main casting stat to armor, and with a single feat from the complete series, Sorcerers can get their charisma to AC and a little extra bonus with a monk level. Barbarians also make use of a few fighter levels, so it must be okay.
What class is "CA"? Also, I said lynch-pin; there are alot of powerful builds that can only be achieved with levels of fighter. You often can't use any other class for this.
If a fighter has 15 ranks in survival from taking ten, then a ranger, with 14 WIS, has a +2 bonus from Wisdom, 3 ranks, for a total of 6. They can then take 10 just as easily. Barbarian? 4 ranks. 14. Oh, boohoo, one missing. The fighter, however, has spent a feat and 4 skill points, while the barbarian has spent just 4 skill points. The fighter will have to spend ANOTHER feat to grab what the ranger has: Track. The barbarian however, can rage at least, while the fighter, having spent two feats, only has the one left and has spent all of his skill points.
And you expect to talk to some undead? "Yeah. We thought about eating your brains, but your diplomacy has told us that someone else might be more tasty. Ta!"
And I meant CA ninja, and adding INT to damage or WIS to armor can help a lot of builds. It doesn't mean that the class was great. It means that it's not worth taking beyond a certain level.
And my groups? We don't play fighters. We have warblades. No issues, games aren't being broken.
