This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: [D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?  (Read 2257 times)

hgjs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • h
  • Posts: 650
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« on: October 21, 2007, 02:51:49 AM »
Most people I know, and many people online, scorn the Fighter: "the cleric owns the early game, and the wizard owns the endgame."  The consensus seems to be that the Fighter is only good at very low levels, then sucks for the rest of the game.  Yet this hasn't been what I've seen in actual play.

In the last D&D game I played, we had a fairly standard group: a wizard, a cleric, a rogue, a fighter/barbarian, and some bard.  The level range we played was 5 to 10: supposedly when fighters start becoming marginalized.

Yet in most encounters, the fighter/barbarian ended up being the primary damage dealer.  The cleric was played as a battle-cleric (which is favored by the Wizards of the Coast optimization boards), buffing himself to the gills, but as it so happens a fully buffed fighter has far more damage output than a fully buffed cleric.  The fighter/barbarian had better Strength (given that we were using point buy), and with his Rage ability could put out ludicrous damage when he power-attacked with a greatsword.  With his superior number of feats, while the cleric used up all his feats on Divine Metamagic to be a halfway decent fighter, the fighter/barbarian was able to easily pick up things like Great Cleave which let him utterly dominate encounters against large numbers of weaker enemies.  And, of course, the time we were attacked by surprise and didn't have time to prepare beforehand, the fighter/barbarian blew the battle cleric out of the water.

So I don't agree at all with the idea that Fighters suck.  How does this compare to your experience?
 

JamesV

  • Revolutionary
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2007, 07:58:19 AM »
When you're just playing D&D, and you're not spending your off game time working on min/maxed progression, the fighter is still king of taking and giving consistenly good amounts of damage. Not as flashy as a fireball, maybe, but a good sword and the right feats make fighters undeniably dangerous.
Running: Dogs of WAR - Beer & Pretzels & Bullets
Planning to Run: Godbound or Stars Without Number
Playing: Star Wars D20 Rev.

A lack of moderation doesn't mean saying every asshole thing that pops into your head.

Thanatos02

  • Senior Scavanger
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2007, 10:30:23 AM »
A Fighter will always do plenty of damage. Even the people who claim that the Fighter is underpowered (including me, usually, though I also think the issue is overstated) will acknowledge that there are a lot of ways to play a Fighter that will build a dangerous PC to any monsters in a dungeon.

It's just that a lot of the things that make a Fighter dangerous are available to plenty of other classes, leaving the Fighter with less than others. A full BaB and d10 Hit Die goes pretty far, but they also get to wear any armor and use any weapon. That's good, but the Paladin gets the same stuff, a Ranger has a full BaB (and a d8 die) while the Barbarian has a full BaB and d12 die (but only gets Medium armor).

Other than that, most of the things a Fighter can do, other classes can do to - but better. The class has no unique special abilities except for a couple of boring Fighter only Feats that the character still has to buy. He gets 2+Int Mod. Skill Points, and nothing to spend them on anyhow. Despite wide open progression with Feats, those Feats, if chosen unwisely, will create a character that doesn't do much of anything because Feats vary so widely. The concept of a modular class that could be any kind of Fighter falls on its face pretty hard.

The things a Fighter can do that no other classes can do are pretty much relagated to end-Feat tree purchases and getting into Prestige Classes faster than any other class when it comes to Feat selection and reliable BaB. The things relagated to Feat selection pretty much suck up all the Fighter's Feats so that by the end levels, the class is pretty much a one-trick pony.

There are ways to get around these issues, but they're present. One constant issue is that the Fighter is often left with nothing to do when combat ends, and isn't any better at combat then most other classes after level 8-10. Just about every other class can contribute in some meaningful way, but a Fighter is pretty much relagated to using his Profession: Grunt check when they roll into town to pick up some extra silver as a body guard.
God in the Machine.

Here's my website. It's defunct, but there's gaming stuff on it. Much of it's missing. Sorry.
www.laserprosolutions.com/aether

I've got a blog. Do you read other people's blogs? I dunno. You can say hi if you want, though, I don't mind company. It's not all gaming, though; you run the risk of running into my RL shit.
http://www.xanga.com/thanatos02

obryn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2007, 11:27:32 AM »
I don't think a fighter's underpowered in core D&D...  Well, not much anyways.

If you use the feats from PHB2, they suddenly become pretty damn awesome.

-O
 

Bradford C. Walker

  • M.A.: Liberal Studies
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
    • http://bradfordcwalker.blogspot.com/
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PM »
Plug the gaping hole that is the Fighter's Will Save and you'll be fine.  As much fun as it is for a Cleric to self-buff and then go fight, you're usually better off buffing the Fighter instead and sticking to healing/decursing and crowd control.

beejazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 3190
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2007, 02:33:13 PM »
People talk a whole lot of shit about a bunch of classes. I've heard the same thing said about monks.

Fighters are far from underpowered. Also, if you're using more than just core stuff they and wizards are most prepped to abuse optional rules. Also, fighter is just one of the all-around coolest things to cross-class with (maybe second to rogue). Even single-classed and with core, fighters are badass.

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2007, 03:16:19 PM »
A lot of it depends on the situation and the comparative levels of min-maxing. For instance, in a campaign that never sees undead or constructs, a tumbling dual-wielding rogue is probably going to out-damage the fighter by a long shot. If that roguie is a min-maxed Invisible Blade and the fighter is a generic fighter whose feats are spread between melee and ranged combat the difference is even more pronounced.

But in a fairly standard campaign with equal min-maxing the fighter does pretty well. He can even compete well at high to epic levels if he has the right equipment.

Pseudoephedrine
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5927
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2007, 02:20:10 AM »
Most games aren't min-maxed on either side, and in those cases, otherwise marginal classes like fighters can do OK - in combat. Outside of combat, as T2 pointed out, fighters are pretty useless compared to other classes.

In games with strong tactical play, fighters are junky. They're one-trick ponies, blowing all their feats to become dungeoncrashers or chaingun trippers or shit like that. Divine Power + Righteous Might makes the cleric deal more damage and take more hits, while still having all of his cleric spells.

The fighter is the most gear-dependent / group-dependent class as well. Without the right gear, they're worse off than any other class in the game, mainly because they don't have many special abilities. Once again, in a game with a more casual style of play, this may not be an issue - the DM may always have his flying enemies land and close for melee combat, his villains may never sunder the PCs' gear, and wizards are always within charge distance - but in a game with strong tactical play, the fighter is simply too brittle and specialised a class to really be much good.

PH2, while containing some good feats, doesn't fix the underlying structural weakness of the fighter. In fact, it makes some of it more brutal. The best high level feats in it have tons of pre-reqs that lock a fighter in many levels beforehand, and often contain marginal or questionable selections, and offer minimal benefits. It also encourages the one-trick pony aspect, and doesn't really do anything to give fighters more non-combat options, or more gear-independent options.

Incidentally, the core fighter's strongest tactical option - two-handed sunder - is disastrous strategically because it reduces the treasure the party gets. That's how well thought-out the fighter is as a class.
Running
The Pernicious Light, or The Wreckers of Sword Island;
A Goblin's Progress, or Of Cannons and Canons;
An Oration on the Dignity of Tash, or On the Elves and Their Lies
All for S&W Complete
Playing: Dark Heresy, WFRP 2e

"Elves don't want you cutting down trees but they sell wood items, they don't care about the forests, they''re the fuckin' wood mafia." -Anonymous

Caesar Slaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2007, 07:29:13 AM »
If you are at all sensible in your feat selection and magic item loadout, I find that a single class fighter is very impressive well into the teens. I found I more often had to plan around the fighter in my last high level 3.5 game rather than the druid or the wizard in the party.

It does taper off at higher levels, but PHBII and some third party feats shores that up nicely.

That's not to say cleric isn't a bit too nasty with the right spell and feat abuses, but I the cleric is widely regarded to be the high watermark of character power in the core. Of course, Bo9S fans use the cleric as the "standard" setpoint when arguing that their overpowered book doesn't trounce all over the fighter (which it does.)
The Secret Volcano Base: my intermittently updated RPG blog.

Running: Pathfinder Scarred Lands, Mutants & Masterminds, Masks, Starfinder, Bulldogs!
Playing: Sigh. Nothing.
Planning: Some Cyberpunk thing, system TBD.

Caesar Slaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2007, 07:30:38 AM »
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine
Most games aren't min-maxed on either side, and in those cases, otherwise marginal classes like fighters can do OK - in combat. Outside of combat, as T2 pointed out, fighters are pretty useless compared to other classes.


This bugs me more than anything else about the fighter. To the point that I amp up skill ranks in my more story-oriented games.
The Secret Volcano Base: my intermittently updated RPG blog.

Running: Pathfinder Scarred Lands, Mutants & Masterminds, Masks, Starfinder, Bulldogs!
Playing: Sigh. Nothing.
Planning: Some Cyberpunk thing, system TBD.

Consonant Dude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2007, 07:40:11 AM »
The 3.x fighter is, IME, a fine character class. I say "IME" because it didn't take long for me after adopting the system to realize that a whole lot of people want to give definitive answers about 3.x that simply do not exist.

For each person who'll find the fighter underpowered, you'll find one who thinks he's fine. Just like you'll find people who think charisma is a dump stat and so on.

The truth is, the "underpowered" and "overpowered" aspects and features of 3.x are highly dependant on DMs and groups. How players behaves, how DMs build adventures, etc...

3.x fighters have been really impressive and reliable in my campaigns.

Trevelyan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 615
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2007, 07:48:30 AM »
The common online wisdom that holds full casters as the ultimate classes and dismisses the lowly fighter as horribly underpowered relies on several assumptions:

1) that the caster will always have exactly the right spell prepared for every occasion (not realistically possible even with divination spells)

2) that the caster can blow his wad on a single encounter and so not have to conserve spells (only true in games with no time pressure underlying the story)

3) that the aim of the game is to develop the most abusive min/maxed character possible and bitch slap the game into oblivion.

In those circumstances, full casters are nideed the bee's knees, the cat's whickers and several other favourable animal body parts.

In the average game played by a group of guys who get together once a week or so to roll dice and eat pizza the fighter is a perfectly reasonable class, if a little socially challenged.

The fighter still cries when he sees a Druid approaching with an animal companion, but so do all the other classes. Seriously, the Druid is like "buy a full caster and get a fighter free".
 

Thanatos02

  • Senior Scavanger
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
[D&D 3.x] Are Fighters really underpowered?
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2007, 11:04:01 AM »
There are a couple of easy plugs for a Fighter that don't really hurt your overall power level in the game, though. In my games, I've houseruled the Fighter as having 4+Int. Bonus Skill Points instead of 2, and granted the Fighter a few Skill "Packages" depending on the character concept. Some Knowledges, some social skills, or a Spot/Listen combo, for example. These are pretty much designed to give a Fighter a 'fighting chance' when it comes to out of combat situations.

Otherwise, if the game sees more Fighters, it might be nice to create some more Feats. After a certain point, even though the Fighter has accumulated a lot of Feats, most of them will be functionally useless. Dodge, for example, doesn't really do anything. Custom Feats should be a lot easier to make then custom Exalted Charms, which is why it surprises me that so many house-ruled Feats are so awful. (Of course, some are solid gold. Wizards.com is a grab-bag.)
God in the Machine.

Here's my website. It's defunct, but there's gaming stuff on it. Much of it's missing. Sorry.
www.laserprosolutions.com/aether

I've got a blog. Do you read other people's blogs? I dunno. You can say hi if you want, though, I don't mind company. It's not all gaming, though; you run the risk of running into my RL shit.
http://www.xanga.com/thanatos02