Author Topic: Why do fighters suck?  (Read 40931 times)

Offline xaotiq1

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • I don't always play D&D. But when I do, it's 3.X!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2012, 05:42:25 PM »
On the "fighters can do unarmed" thing... Remove the normal unarmed strike penalties, make it a martial weapon?

Maybe make a "Bash" attack based on unarmed damage, representing hitting someone with the edge or pommel of a weapon.

In that case, why not simply allow Fighters to do thinngs like deal non-lethal instead of lethal, etc in the PHB without taking any penalties for doing so. Heck, even letting them weild imporvised weapons with no penalty isn't any great shakes. The only issue I might have is letting them wield outsized weapons, at least the larger ones. Again though, letting them weild weapons one or even two size categories larger won't obviate the "overshadowed by casters" deal.
"Love doesn't share itself with the world. Love is suspicious, love is needy. Love is fearful, love is greedy. My friends, there is no great love without great jealousy!"  Bender Bending Rodriguez

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2012, 05:44:40 PM »
I mean, there is an imbalance in D&D between mundanes and magical, but I ask why do we care?  does it stop us from having a fun game to play?  The Fighters still serve a purpose in combat, because as much a god as the tier ones are, fighters can still do things to help the battle along. 
It's actually pretty challenging to build a Fighter that is competent at what you expect a Fighter to do, to wit, stabbing people in the face well. 

Actually, strike that, it's quite easy.  It just involve using Warblade. 


Its gonna be extremely difficult to try to balance a class that is rooted in reality, against one that breaks reality as a matter of course... and I'm not convinced that it would be realistic(as realistic as we can get in a fantasy world anyway)
No.  This is charopp mantra, but it's gotten way out of hand.  D&D is a game that is a lot about combat.  Being good at combat is both necessary and sufficient to being "balanced" -- which I will ever define as being competent at the thing you set out to do and that thing being cool and relevant to the game -- in D&D. 

My point is only that any imbalance between "mundanes" and supernatural/magical abilities is a contingent and not a necessary or inherent fact.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2012, 01:29:25 AM »
On the "fighters can do unarmed" thing... Remove the normal unarmed strike penalties, make it a martial weapon?

Maybe make a "Bash" attack based on unarmed damage, representing hitting someone with the edge or pommel of a weapon.
Theres an idea there.
Make all the special attack forms virtual 'martial weapons'. The Simple form provokes AoOs and fails if hit. The Martial form does not.
This means Improved <foo> is actually Improved, rather than 'Able to do it at all'.

TWF is actually a special case there. The penalties are just too heavy. Even the base -2/-2, lose 2H damage is enough to cripple a newbie fighter so that you wouldn't TWF unless you had something in mind. The MINUS EIGHT penalty is entirely absurd. The benefits are negligible(extra attack, just over half damage), and completely usurped by natural weapons.
What does TWF offer in real life? One or more extra attacks, an extra weapon to parry or deflect attacks, a means to reposition and generally screw up your opponent's posture. To make it line up, you'd probably need to change how weapons and extra attacks work.

And then theres Thrown weapons but thats its own mess.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline FlaminCows

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • Push that button. Doo eeet.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2012, 09:07:26 AM »
shouldn't the wizard, who has reality breaking spells at his disposal just be better?

I see this sort of thing often enough online, but it is nonsense. To wit: Warlock. Dragonfire Adept. Warmage. Hexblade. Healer. Soulknife. The goddamn Truenamer.

What do those classes have in common? All of them are supernatural, their abilities are not grounded in reality. Additionally, all of them are weak. Exceedingly so, such that even a Fighter is usually better, and a Warblade certainly is. No, being "not grounded in reality" does not equal power. In the words of Xykon,
(click to show/hide)
Breathing fire is impossible, healing wounds with a touch is impossible, creating a sword with your mind is impossible, but none of those things are powerful. Killing a large beast with a single blow is powerful, yet fully grounded in reality. The reason the Fighter is weak has nothing to do with the source of its power, and everything to do with design mistakes. The reason spells are so powerful has nothing to do with them being spells, and everything to do with design mistakes. Balance between supernatural and mundane characters is fully possible, as magic does only as much or as little as the writer allows. In fantasy stories, the fighter usually wins.

Offline Cyclone Joker

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Flamboyant Flamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2012, 09:25:01 AM »
Hey, Warlock 12 is busted, Warmage and DFA are totally balanced, and solid T4-ish, and absolutely, and the truenamer is busted at level 20, as is the Healer at level 17-ish, for the same reason. The only truly, utterly, and always garbage things you listed were the Hexblade and the Soulknife. Jus' sayin'.

Anyways, at any level, a fighter is in no way better than a Warlock, DFA, Warmage, or even a well-built Truenamer. Ever. Period.

Offline FlaminCows

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • Push that button. Doo eeet.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2012, 09:42:42 AM »
I disagree, but that's beside the point. The point is that being "grounded in reality" has nothing to do with power level in D&D classes.

Offline Cyclone Joker

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Flamboyant Flamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2012, 10:06:35 AM »
To be fair, there is a very strong correlation between magic and strength.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2012, 11:10:45 AM »
To be fair, there is a very strong correlation between magic and strength.
Yeah, that's fair.  But, nowhere near 100%.  I think what FlaminCows is pointing out is that there are tons of magical flotsam in the system, too.  We just usually don't think about it b/c everyone is busy playing Wizards and Clerics and so on.

To the extent it exists I think it's more due to WotC authors' magical fetishism or poor imagination or poor design philosophies than anything else. 

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2012, 11:50:55 AM »
shouldn't the wizard, who has reality breaking spells at his disposal just be better?

I see this sort of thing often enough online, but it is nonsense. To wit: Warlock. Dragonfire Adept. Warmage. Hexblade. Healer. Soulknife. The goddamn Truenamer.

What do those classes have in common? All of them are supernatural, their abilities are not grounded in reality. Additionally, all of them are weak. Exceedingly so, such that even a Fighter is usually better, and a Warblade certainly is. No, being "not grounded in reality" does not equal power. In the words of Xykon,
(click to show/hide)
Breathing fire is impossible, healing wounds with a touch is impossible, creating a sword with your mind is impossible, but none of those things are powerful. Killing a large beast with a single blow is powerful, yet fully grounded in reality. The reason the Fighter is weak has nothing to do with the source of its power, and everything to do with design mistakes. The reason spells are so powerful has nothing to do with them being spells, and everything to do with design mistakes. Balance between supernatural and mundane characters is fully possible, as magic does only as much or as little as the writer allows. In fantasy stories, the fighter usually wins.

Hmm, thats fair, but the classes you mention don't break the rules in the way that the tier 1's do. 

I think your getting confused by what I mean when I say, "reailty Breaking".  I'm not talking about breaking reality in the real world, sure the classes you mention do things that are impossible in the real world, I'm talking about breaking reality within the game world.  Whereas all of the classes you mention are actually still grounded in reality for most of thier careers, the tier ones have been breaking reality since level 1.   In many ways the classes you mention all modify things WITHIN the boundaries of the game world rules, the Truenamer can heal/harm with a word, the warlock can eldritch blast etc etc.  All pretty rote abilities that have very specific, exacting rules for amount of damage, range, etc. and all of them are all rooted in the game rules.  Some of the most powerful abilities of the classes you mention are the ones that actually break reality in powerful ways,
to use the warlock as an example, word of changing, path of shadow, etc etc. 

The classes you mention above become more powerful when they can start breaking reality, they are substandard classes only because it takes a comparatively long time to get those abilities.   It'd be tough to say that a standard fighter is really better than a higher level warlock with the right abilities.

I mean to say that the fighter doesn't get abilities that let it break the game rules on a daily basis - for whatever reason.  like I mentioned above with celerity, I think there are ways that you could justify giving the fighter some powerful rule breaking abilities but for some reason the designers decided that melee can't have nice things.  They just scratched the surface with the tome of battle, and I think more of that sort of thing could actually balance out melees, but since there's no new content, this is what we have.  Sucky fighters.


Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2012, 02:21:04 PM »
Huh?  How does Polymorph, Teleport, or Shadow Walk break the game world reality more than laser eyes?  I don't get it.

Darqueseid, you seem to be eliding between breaking the rules assumptions -- what most people refer to as "broken" -- and breaking "reality."  And, it's highly unclear what you mean by the latter.  Further, you'd be hard-pressed to find any such abilities that a Tier 1 character has at level 1. 

Are you trying to make the following comparison?  Look at Fireball.  It does what it says it does.  And, that might be good or bad, but it's readily discernible the extent of Fireball's power.  Contrast Fireball with Polymorph, though.  Polymorph's effects are tremendous, and it sort of shifts the mechanics paradigm into another level b/c it means that players get to go hunting through monster manuals.  Lots of unanticipated interactions, and so on. 

That being said, the "breaking the game's rules" heuristic isn't helpful at all.  Celerity and Synchronicity are badass b/c they break the action economy.  But, Polymorph, Solid Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, Shivering Touch ... and so on aren't.  Further, a great many feats pretty much have the structure of "you get to break the rules in this particular way" (e.g., Cleave, Combat Reflexes), and that doesn't explain why they are generally weaker than the above list of effects. 

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2012, 02:59:05 PM »
Fighters usually suck because only the last point of damage to kill a creature will actually change the fight dynamics.  Those fighters that suck less are the ones that can change things up with stuff that will quickly and reliably deny the opponents the ability or opportunity to do what they want, before becoming dead of course.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2012, 03:15:23 PM »
Huh?  How does Polymorph, Teleport, or Shadow Walk break the game world reality more than laser eyes?  I don't get it.

Darqueseid, you seem to be eliding between breaking the rules assumptions -- what most people refer to as "broken" -- and breaking "reality."  And, it's highly unclear what you mean by the latter.  Further, you'd be hard-pressed to find any such abilities that a Tier 1 character has at level 1. 

Are you trying to make the following comparison?  Look at Fireball.  It does what it says it does.  And, that might be good or bad, but it's readily discernible the extent of Fireball's power.  Contrast Fireball with Polymorph, though.  Polymorph's effects are tremendous, and it sort of shifts the mechanics paradigm into another level b/c it means that players get to go hunting through monster manuals.  Lots of unanticipated interactions, and so on. 

That being said, the "breaking the game's rules" heuristic isn't helpful at all.  Celerity and Synchronicity are badass b/c they break the action economy.  But, Polymorph, Solid Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, Shivering Touch ... and so on aren't.  Further, a great many feats pretty much have the structure of "you get to break the rules in this particular way" (e.g., Cleave, Combat Reflexes), and that doesn't explain why they are generally weaker than the above list of effects.

Think of it this way, fighter (at any level) is always going to be at the whims of the story.  he can't hit anything if the DM doesn't put a monster in front of him, he can't use his abilities if the story doesn't merit it.  Even the feats that he gets let him break the rules of combat etc, but they don't let him break reality-they have their own rules, they don't really give him any open-ended abilities.   

A wizard can really become the story.  He can break reality in such a way that the DM couldn't really kill him without heavy hand waving and being unrealistic about it (especially a conjurer with abrupt jaunt).   
But, Polymorph, Solid Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, Shivering Touch ... and so on aren't.

Are you saying they "aren't badass period" or are you saying that the above aren't badass because they don't break action economy?

Either way your sort of touching on what I was saying,
lets say a level 5 wizard with only blasting spells and no reality breaking abilities were put against a level 5 fighter in terms of balance. 
I would venture to say that the fighter doesn't totally suck placed against such a wizard.
Blasting spells are considered the suck for spellcasters, because again, these are abilities that are rooted in reality.  fireball does a rote amount of hp damage it doesn't cause lasting effects etc etc and it doesn't do enough damage when there are save or dies/sucks out there at the same or earlier levels.

The really "powerful" spells for spellcasters are the save or sucks/dies, buffs that are way too powerful (like polymorph) and things that break the action economy.   All of these spells alter reality in some way often in unexpected ways. 

a level one wizard can put multiple enemies to sleep, can summon other creatures to help him,   make creatures flee, etc etc etc...
these are things that change the combat in ways that a fighter just cant, strictly from a numbers point of view sleep can put 4 1hd creatures out of commission in one round, a level 1 fighter has little hope of killing more than one creature a round barring some extremely fortuitous circumstances.

don't get me wrong I think there should be feats and character options that would let the fighter do things that are on par with the wizard, I just think the designers didn't put that in.   There's no combination of feats that a fighter can get that would let him dimension door for example, or change into a demon..  his only means of attack is targeting one ablative defense on an enemy, HPS.  he never breaks out of that standard

Fighters usually suck because only the last point of damage to kill a creature will actually change the fight dynamics.  Those fighters that suck less are the ones that can change things up with stuff that will quickly and reliably deny the opponents the ability or opportunity to do what they want, before becoming dead of course.
Exactly what I'm getting at.  The fighter cannot generally change combat (reality) in a meaningful way until he deals that last hp of damage.   Whereas a wizard can change combat over 3x as effectively as the fighter can.  And that difference multiplier scales up exponentially as they level.

Offline FlaminCows

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • Push that button. Doo eeet.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2012, 04:36:43 PM »
Blasting spells are considered the suck for spellcasters, because again, these are abilities that are rooted in reality.  fireball does a rote amount of hp damage it doesn't cause lasting effects etc etc and it doesn't do enough damage when there are save or dies/sucks out there at the same or earlier levels.

Look, if that's what you're trying to say, then you need to stop using the term "rooted in reality". Save-or-dies are exactly as rooted in reality as fireballs, which is to say not at all. "Causing lasting effects" is perfectly rooted in reality; in real life every attack of any sort has lasting effects. You've used a very long-winded method to say what amounts to "hp damage doesn't do very much", which has exactly nothing to do with the entire "realistic vs unrealistic" comparison.

Fighters usually suck because only the last point of damage to kill a creature will actually change the fight dynamics.  Those fighters that suck less are the ones that can change things up with stuff that will quickly and reliably deny the opponents the ability or opportunity to do what they want, before becoming dead of course.
Exactly what I'm getting at.  The fighter cannot generally change combat (reality) in a meaningful way until he deals that last hp of damage.   Whereas a wizard can change combat over 3x as effectively as the fighter can.  And that difference multiplier scales up exponentially as they level.

This is exactly what I was getting at. Words mean things, and you should use them as such. When you use "fighters are rooted in reality" to mean "fighters cannot change combat in a meaningful way", you are using a phrase to say the exact opposite of what it really means.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 04:42:33 PM by FlaminCows »

Offline Prime32

  • Over-Underling
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2012, 04:44:53 PM »
I think this is the term you're looking for
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2012, 05:02:10 PM »
uhm, I don't think you get it, I guess I just can't explain it right...

Fighters are rooted in the IN-game reality. 

yes, of course fireballs and save or dies aren't real-world real. 

Fireballs and save or dies are completely different in terms of IN-game reality.  One does damage, the other is a binary save or done.  Some spells don't even need saves and your dead. 
That is totally different than a fire ball that is save and your hurt, when hurt doesn't really mean anything. 

its not JUST that hp damage doesn't do very much, its also that the fighter can't do very much but target hp.  Only the best built fighters incorporate battlefield control tactics to do this stuff, but its a huge effort to get there. 


Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2012, 05:13:49 PM »
I believe what some are trying to say is that fighters suffer because they don't usually have access to various abilities that do more than just deal damage, since they're based around a system pretty much only built to deal with hit point damage (that being "realistic" weapons and armor.)  And because that system is so lackluster, the fighter is too.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 05:16:28 PM by Jackinthegreen »

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2012, 05:29:09 PM »
its not JUST that hp damage doesn't do very much, its also that the fighter can't do very much but target hp.  Only the best built fighters incorporate battlefield control tactics to do this stuff, but its a huge effort to get there.
Yes, we can understand that.  It's an oft-commented issue that Fighter types, the Fighter himself especially, have limited options other than stabbing something till it dies.

It's just that the terminology you adopted to get there -- "reality breaking" -- has little relationship to the concept.

I, at least, feel like the point was cleared up.  So, cool.  I have lost what we were aiming at in this thread, though.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2012, 05:49:25 PM »
1e Fighter wasn't too bad.  The concept sat
in a completely different thought universe.
The legacy of it, just doesn't work with all the
goodies glommed onto the game over years.
Tier 1 v. Medieval Armor wearing dude = sucker.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2012, 06:36:18 PM »
A major part of why fighters suck in third edition as opposed to first edition isn't that they weakened fighters--it's that they massively strengthened spellcasters. 

Specifically, they took away most of the limitations spellcasters had compared to fighters.

In first edition, a fighter could have a CRAPLOAD more hit points than anyone else.  Not only did he have the largest hit die, everyone else was capped at a maximum of +2 per level for high Constitution.  Only fighters could get more, and in a game where you only got 9 or so total hit dice, having a d10 as opposed to a d6 actually mattered, and a +4 Con bonus was a HUGE advantage.

In third edition, ANYONE can get large numbers of hit points from Con--and, heck, a mage is likely to have a higher Con than the fighter, thanks to SAD versus MAD.  The extra point or two per level on average from the hit die quickly becomes insignificant. 

Another big boost to spellcasters was defensive casting (and specifically, trivially-easy defensive casting.)  In first and second edition, spellcasters casting in close-quarters combat were asking to get spanked.  If they were smart, they hid behind the fighters and made sure the enemies couldn't easily get at them before initiating a spell.  In third edition, casting in melee is a minor inconvenience--and not even that, once you factor in things like Celerity and magic items that negate AoOs.


Offline FlaminCows

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • Push that button. Doo eeet.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2012, 07:11:04 PM »
Very true, Caelic. Indeed it is often considered a wonder that the whole Concentration vs spell failure mechanic is even there, seeing how rarely it comes up in-game. Although, as Veekie pointed out, Fighters are weak compared to what they are supposed to represent as well.

Another interesting thing to note is that in 3e, you could see that the skill system was a re-imagining of the 2nd edition nonweapon proficiencies system. And yet, in 2e the Fighter is one of the most skilled classes while in 3e it has the least, with the change coming for no discernible reason whatsoever. A 6+int modifier Fighter class would have been a closer representation of the older class, and perhaps would have been more palatable back when the edition change came.