| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| SomeDude |
Posted - 14 May 2005 : 06:28:25
I started a new topic for this (taken from the favorite class pole) because I would like to keep it Fighter-specific.
Why is it that so many people (some of the better players I've seen) seem to favor the Fighter class? I hope it's not because most typical adventures end up with a "find the bag guy and kill them" overall theme. D&D (and FR especially) has so much more to offer than "how many different feat combinations can I take to better hack and slash?" Why not look at all the different spells a SOR/WIZ can learn every other level than the feats a FTR learns at the same rate?
I'm not trying to put down Fighter. Every balanced party should have good fighter-type class (FTR/BBN/RGR) to stay ballanced, but is this just most peoples favorite roll in a balanced party or what? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Antareana |
Posted - 16 Jun 2005 : 02:16:21
hm... I don't prefer any class... though I like lobbying for the rarely played Sorcerers and Bards.
Ok, rogues don't come easy to me, but they're Ok ;) |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 02:15:31
I think most of you may have overlooked one of the most enjoyable aspects of a fighter. They don't just pick up a sword and swing. In my current campaign we have two fighters, and neither of them uses heavy damage melee weapons.
One of them is an Elven Fighter who put all of his feats into bowmanship. He doesn't run headlong into battle like a bloodthirsty maniac, but stands back affar and picks his enemies off, one by one (although still causing heavy damage).
My character in this campaign is also a fighter. I don't even do heavy damage. Hell, it's subdual damage, and my strength is only 13. But I have an 18 dexterity and the weapon finess feat. I dual weild whips, and with the improved trip ability, I knock them down and my archer friend takes 'em out. Another advantage of my dexterity is, I can use light armors and maintain about the same AC as fighters in full plate. And with weapon finess, my AC raises alongside my attack bonus.
Fighters aren't restricted to the swinging of a sword. They can be diplomats (although best left to rouge and bard classes with their skills), bowmen, or even my personal favorite, dextrous combatants. I think this is why fighters are most people chosen class, they can excell in almost any area, and not be restricted by pesky spells per day ^_^ |
| LordEverhate |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 17:43:26
quote:
Originally posted by SomeDude
I started a new topic for this (taken from the favorite class pole) because I would like to keep it Fighter-specific.
Why is it that so many people (some of the better players I've seen) seem to favor the Fighter class? I hope it's not because most typical adventures end up with a "find the bag guy and kill them" overall theme. D&D (and FR especially) has so much more to offer than "how many different feat combinations can I take to better hack and slash?" Why not look at all the different spells a SOR/WIZ can learn every other level than the feats a FTR learns at the same rate?
I'm not trying to put down Fighter. Every balanced party should have good fighter-type class (FTR/BBN/RGR) to stay ballanced, but is this just most peoples favorite roll in a balanced party or what?
I prefer wizards myself, but since I usually end up playing two characters per adventure anyway, it really doesn't matter since I normally play a fighter and a spellcaster of some type. :) That's what happens when you don't have enough players. :P |
| Shadovar |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 10:07:13
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquil Silverdusk
Ok when fighters are good they can be really good.
But there are situations where another class -such as mage class-other than the fighter class is more preferable. |
| Tarquil Silverdusk |
Posted - 12 Jun 2005 : 21:03:23
Ok when fighters are good they can be really good. |
| Antareana |
Posted - 10 Jun 2005 : 02:08:44
Oh, I know a LOT of players who play that stupid sword-swingers, too. They are just.. hm... boring ;)
But a well-played fighter can be so much fun... Fighters can have so many different styles - archer, swift two-weapon user, shieldguardian, man-with-a-big-axe 
Oh and the stories, the stories... I love knights, I really really love them  and I loved that Samurai-esque bushido-bound Fighter I DMed for at my last con... so noble (oh dear, this woman has her soft spot ^^) |
| Tarquil Silverdusk |
Posted - 10 Jun 2005 : 00:43:59
I've never liked fighters, probably because in a lot of games I was in when I first started playing D&D fighters were either played as mindless swordswingers by idiots or forced into being ablative meatshields for mage characters (often both).
Give me a nice comabt orientated rogue or nifty ranger anyday.  |
| Lashan |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 20:16:02
As an utter side note, I generally don't like to play arcane casters. I find them rather boring. They usually end up having to take all combat oriented spells just to hold their own in a party.
Then again, I don't think I've ever played a 3E character above lvl 11. I just generally don't like high level play and most campaigns fizzle out before then. |
| Forge |
Posted - 02 Jun 2005 : 14:53:12
My 2 cp... Besides being a cornerstone facet of the "balanced" group, a fighter is perhaps the easiest to play, but one of the more challenging to play RIGHT.
Consider if you will, most players of arcanists generally trend toward the same base spell lists they used previously. (If it ain't broke...) The same applies to clerics and druids, if nothing else than because the healer role always requires them to regardless of domains and beliefs. While this is less true of other melee classes, there are some definite stereotypes that are played to when they are being worked up.
Fighters start out a blank slate, add feats, skills, armor and weapons and you have a whole world of choices.
Personally I still love wizards, but I can see the pure fighter as a great source of RP potential, if nothing else than because you HAVE to if you wish to get into the game. (Witty banter is purely optional tho.) |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 27 May 2005 : 08:49:18
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
Another way of looking at it is out of all the core classes, which will be (in roleplay aspects) the most likely to just get up and go travel the world, battling monsters for thrill/glory/gold etc...? Fighters! You could say Bards as well but they're more likely to city hop than adventure. A cleric is tied up in his church, a mage is locked up in his tower researching spells, a druid is pairing up with a ranger to defend the wilderness they have claimed as their home, a paladin is doing errands for the high level cleric of his faith, the monk is in his monastary trying to achieve perfection, the barbarian is protecting his tribe, and what right-minded rogue would risk his life adventuring when he can just pick his loot off the fighters too foolish to notice their coin purse disappear?
Well, I donīt agree. I think characters of ALL the classes are just as likely to go adventuring, for different reasons. When you create a character, you and your DM figure our together his background and motives, right?
Perhaps a bard wanders to collect new stories and songs, a cleric to spread the word of his faith, and a ranger or a druid might wish to visit far-off forests/other sites of nature ("To see Cormanthor before I die" ;) A barbarian might be curious about civilization, a monk might seek to "prove" his/her skills in practise and learn more about him/herself. A Paladin might very well go on errands, though I believe that not all of the paladins/clerics are tied to a particular temple.
While it may be true that most fighters or rogues might seek riches and glory (the first before latter ;), I have never seen a PC mage "locked up in his tower researching spells" 
In my experience, wizards are usually the "motive force" behind an adventuring party, trying to plunder as much lore and magic from those countless ruins and tombs as only possible 
Very good and true points, which is why I said those reasonings are stereotypical. Also, read a novel. Other than the heroes of the book, you tend to see more wandering mercenary bands composed of a handful of fighters than anything else.
Also, think to novels for the mage point-of-view. True, many mages travel to discover or for whatever reason, but not until they are at some level of power which would give them the confidence and ability to stand up against (and survive against for that matter) the challenges of the wild. A mageling is typically a retired mage's apprentice, learning magic until he is powerful enough to set out on his own (which in my opinion, really isn't level one ). There are very few novels I can think of that have an arcane caster that isn't of some power already. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 21:55:29
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Donnachie
Why fighter!? The great skill selection they have!
Well as we know the Fighter does not have many skills as class skills , the bonus feats help make up for this lack. However survivial is a mian reason to select this class at low levels. The arrow will take out most mages, many thieves and some clerics at first level if the fighter gets to strike first from a distance and in melee with sword or greatsword do even better.
As levels go up the magic tends to make being a Fighter less useful, because of skills as well as magic that can kill the Fighter even after getting to act first. |
| Thelonius |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 21:46:59
I think, that the most probably reason is that it is the most easy class to play, as is said a couple of threads above; for a begginer is really nasty to care about intelligence bonus and spells afecting some of the people in the area.
Indeed anybody likes being killed |
| Lord Donnachie |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 18:13:08
Why fighter!? The great skill selection they have! |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 13:18:47
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
Another way of looking at it is out of all the core classes, which will be (in roleplay aspects) the most likely to just get up and go travel the world, battling monsters for thrill/glory/gold etc...? Fighters! You could say Bards as well but they're more likely to city hop than adventure. A cleric is tied up in his church, a mage is locked up in his tower researching spells, a druid is pairing up with a ranger to defend the wilderness they have claimed as their home, a paladin is doing errands for the high level cleric of his faith, the monk is in his monastary trying to achieve perfection, the barbarian is protecting his tribe, and what right-minded rogue would risk his life adventuring when he can just pick his loot off the fighters too foolish to notice their coin purse disappear?
Well, I donīt agree. I think characters of ALL the classes are just as likely to go adventuring, for different reasons. When you create a character, you and your DM figure our together his background and motives, right?
Perhaps a bard wanders to collect new stories and songs, a cleric to spread the word of his faith, and a ranger or a druid might wish to visit far-off forests/other sites of nature ("To see Cormanthor before I die" ;) A barbarian might be curious about civilization, a monk might seek to "prove" his/her skills in practise and learn more about him/herself. A Paladin might very well go on errands, though I believe that not all of the paladins/clerics are tied to a particular temple.
While it may be true that most fighters or rogues might seek riches and glory (the first before latter ;), I have never seen a PC mage "locked up in his tower researching spells"
In my experience, wizards are usually the "motive force" behind an adventuring party, trying to plunder as much lore and magic from those countless ruins and tombs as only possible
|
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 12:54:01
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
Fighters are by far the easiest PC's to learn the game with. Even a barbarian is harder to get a hold of than a fighter.
I agree - the easiest way to learn the game is to start with a human fighter as your first character. However, the true challenge lies with cultural/racial issues. Unless a new player is very familiar with the atmosphere and "feel" of the Realms, it may prove to be a burden to try roleplaying a dwarf or an elf (even a fighter).
To me, as a DM, the greatest challenge lies with providing new players with enough knowledge and Realmslore that they really grasp the essential flavour of each race and culture in the Realms.
|
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 09:15:12
Fighters are by far the easiest PC's to learn the game with. Even a barbarian is harder to get a hold of than a fighter. With a stereotypical fighter, you pick your feats, and they're always available to be used, so it becomes a part of how your character does things. A barb is a fighter type, but when and how you use your limited rages is VERY important. Wasting them oft leaves you in sticky situations. Paladins and Rangers also have the feel of a fighter, but not nearly the freedom. Rangers are two-weap or bow, end of story. Pallys are free to use anything really, but without the feats to back them up, it's best to stick to 1h/shield or 2h weapon. Obviously some skill in mounted will be used because, as a class feature, you get a nasty-powerful steed to ride into battle. As far as the spellcasters go, spell selection is EVERYTHING!! If you don't pick and plan your spells carefully, things will, at some point, go wrong. That's a lot of weight on a newbie's shoulders. So fighter it is, and since you're learning the game as a fighter, the class will ALWAYS have a special place in your heart (I absoutly love mages and rogues, but the idea of a nicely built fighter is hard to turn down for me ).
Another way of looking at it is out of all the core classes, which will be (in roleplay aspects) the most likely to just get up and go travel the world, battling monsters for thrill/glory/gold etc...? Fighters! You could say Bards as well but they're more likely to city hop than adventure. A cleric is tied up in his church, a mage is locked up in his tower researching spells, a druid is pairing up with a ranger to defend the wilderness they have claimed as their home, a paladin is doing errands for the high level cleric of his faith, the monk is in his monastary trying to achieve perfection, the barbarian is protecting his tribe, and what right-minded rogue would risk his life adventuring when he can just pick his loot off the fighters too foolish to notice their coin purse disappear? All the above situations are very strongly stereotypical... but they're stereotypical because they're common. The fighter is the one who has the eastiest time cutting his ties to wherever he is, and roaming for whatever reason. |
| Urlithani |
Posted - 26 May 2005 : 03:31:12
Fighters are my favorite class for many of the same reasons.
One of the main reasons they are so important is that just about every non-epic monster I can think of can be defeated through force of arms.
A golem immune to spells? Beat it down.
Dragon's SR too high? Beat it down.
Another good reason is that a fighter is an "anchor" for all the other classes can depend on for their tactical setups. When the fighters rush headlong into the fray, the rogues, wizards, and other classes plan their attack depending on how the enemies react to the initial offensive. It's much easier to set up attack spells and sneak attacks when the fighter forces the enemy to challenge his advance. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 24 May 2005 : 20:53:23
It occurs to me . . . in the 3.5 world I should point out that I did not mean ONE character with all of those classes, but rather one character that sticks to one or a combination of those classes rather than classes that give them supernatural or magical abilities . . . |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 24 May 2005 : 20:52:03
I think in a way the fighter is the everyman and the touchstone character too. They may get over the top abilities eventually, but they never use magic or truly supernatural abilities. They are kind of a window to what the "average" person in the more fantastical realms would see, experiance, and feel.
I have always loved to have at least one human fighter/rogue/swashbuckler/scout in the party so that there always is a person that knows what its like for the "average" person, one that never really touches the supernatural even if they experience it their whole career. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 24 May 2005 : 20:41:48
I think it is very important to have a fighter in any party. Although
sometimes it feels that the role of the fighter in 3X edition is to "take the hits" on the front line 
It is true that spellcasters generally have a lot higher AC, better saving throws, and even a higher initiative bonus (at least wizards do - with proper spells). Still someone just has to "hold the line" - even for high-level parties (while wizards and clerics can cast those deadly spells that finish off the foes).
I admit that playing a "pure" fighter with no other classes may be frustrating at times - especially if you have a low will save bonus and you run screaming away at the sight of a dragon, for example.
I only wish that there would proper prestige classes for a neutral Waterdhavian nobleman fighter (who is specialized in greatsword) ... *sigh*
|
| costaran |
Posted - 24 May 2005 : 16:28:41
Battle, combat ground, armies, instruments of death, armors... Being in action, especially in melee, is always fun in a well prepared D&D game. You can test your abilities with the help of your weapon against the foes "phisically". A fighter with a variety of characteristics (from a vegabond to a king of a new found society) is a very attractive class for the players. Feats make him/her stronger in almost any combat ability (a hammer blow cracking your bone or a defender and an opportunist; even a sniper archer!) or make the fighter versatile on different ways. You can also keep the pace up with other players in roleplaying by using the non-combatant abilities such as charisma or intelligence. also it is easier (or sometimes harder preferably) to claim a weapon, an armor, and a shield than researching a spell so it is better to take a 5-foot step and make a full attack! |
| Lashan |
Posted - 20 May 2005 : 21:52:45
There is almost always something to do in each encounter for a fighter. In many combat situations, clerics, rogues, and even mages have to sit on the sideline every once in a while (or more often). Fighters always have something to do and are usually in the exciting part of the encounter. The wizard will have to spend three rounds to get into a spot where he can cast that one spell in a maximized way. The fighter is rushing in, 5ft stepping, and going for that flank. |
| Xysma |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 14:52:31
In my group, I'm the only one who ever plays a fighter (I'm also the only one who ever plays a human, but that's a different thread). The guys laugh at me and call me a "power-gamer" simply because I know how to make a fighter that can more than carry the whole group. Fighters are much more than just "meat shields." A sword swinging adventurer is the bread and butter of fantasy literature, it only makes sense that fighters would be a popular class. Just like Regdar acts as the "leader" of the iconic characters, fighters fall into that role well.
Every character should be much more than their feats and ability stats. I make all of my players write at least a page of history before I'll let them play a character. The character's history, where she came from, why he adventures, what motivates him, these are the important things in character creation, everything else is just mechanics. |
| Antareana |
Posted - 17 May 2005 : 02:15:40
Maybe because Fighters are THE archetypes of Heroes and Adventurers. Fighters are fun, Fighters are tough, Fighters do talk the way they want (and I've seen so many with a slightly macho-ish tone) and Fighters are cool ;) at least many people do think that way. Oh yes and Fighters are easy to play, even if you didn't choose the optimum feats.
But in my group I've recognized a whole different tendency: everyone wants to be the mage. especially in an evil group. Because they want to play THE mastermind, I think.
So in most cases the "everybody wants to play this-" class completely depends on the group and the style of the DM - even if I think Fighters and Mages are the most favored (because of the stories and legends around that classes) |
| Fletcher |
Posted - 16 May 2005 : 15:56:28
There is also the fact that when you go into a small town/village the fighter is who everyone looks at. He has the shiny armor and shiny sword. He tends to be the big guy on the big horse with the most scars. Depending on how your fighter looks and acts he also tends to be the scariest guy to townsfolk. And that can be fun too.
The wizard is some skinny/geeky, pasty guy with a book who dabbles in realms beyond their understanding.
The rogue tends to be watched carefully by all of the townsfolk for a variety of reasons. Protect their sons/daughters and goods.
The cleric is respected as a man of the cloth. But there is a distancing between villagers and someone who converses with the gods.
The ranger is a woodsman and a known entity.
Sorcs are similar to wizards in that they deal with energies that defy understanding.
The bard is the only person who can attract the same positive attention as the fighter. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 13:43:44
At lower levels, fighters tend to have more hit points than all other classes but barbarians, which can make players feel safer. At higher levels, fighters don't have to think about dozens of spells when going into combat.
And all those feats... yum. |
| Bendal |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 13:41:24
Part of the reason why fighters are so popular as characters is because they are simpler to play. See target; attack target. No need to decide which spell to use, how it would affect the target, or anyone else. Very straightforward and to the point (so to speak).
It's also a self reliance type of thing. If the party has only one or two upright characters left after a melee, and one of them is a fighter or fighter-type, then the party has a decent chance to get somewhere safe where everyone can heal.
Last night, in fact, my PC's fought two back to back melees with an orc raiding party that kept sending in reinforcements before they could heal up. When everything was done, only the wizard/cleric and a ranger were left standing out of six (fighter, druid, rogue, ranger, wizard/cleric, monk/sorceror), and the W/C had no spells left. After a few healing potions were drunk by the two fighters, they felt well enough to not retreat to a safer location. |
| SomeDude |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 03:52:51
Thank you for your opinions.
In our gaming group it seem like if we don't use part of a session to activly put together a balanced party we always seem to end up heavy on the melee end (A: "So what did you end up making for the game tonight?" B: "A human fighter" A: "Hey, me too!" C: "Not me, I made a dwarven fighter." etc...) I guess partly I was just curious if some of the most respected gamers I know but don't get a chance to play with (ie you people) seem to run into the same thing. I suppose I could have just asked that question in the first place, but now I don't have to bother with the follow up "Why is that?" question, and that's what I was going for anyway.
Thanks again. |
| Lina |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 03:10:39
A fighter is a good class to begin with because it's easier to survive during battles during the early stages and you don't have to use hit and run tactics that often. They are more favourable for beginners as it is simpler leveling up fighters.
For wizard and cleric classes, it is more difficult to start off with as you only have limited number of lower level spells and have to rely heavily on others to keep you alive during battles. |
| khorne |
Posted - 14 May 2005 : 21:29:30
I like monks above all others. |
|
|
