Why do fighters suck?

[Jackinthegreen]

Skill points in the toilet definitely contributes to a weaker fighter, as do generally bad class skills.  It's been repeated ad nauseum, but I'll say it again: Listen and Spot not being on the class skill list was an absolutely terrible idea.  Higher planes forbid there actually be a way to make a competent guard with the class!

[veekie]

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.

Lets not forget the other factors of magic. Spells were sped up, from where a spell might take a few rounds(or initiative steps) to finish, to where they finished instantly. Spells take more time to memorize(since its calculated on a per-spell basis), you'd be taking out a significant chunk of each day to reprep if you burned through a lot of them.

[Bozwevial]

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.

Lets not forget the other factors of magic. Spells were sped up, from where a spell might take a few rounds(or initiative steps) to finish, to where they finished instantly. Spells take more time to memorize(since its calculated on a per-spell basis), you'd be taking out a significant chunk of each day to reprep if you burned through a lot of them.

Spells also lost a lot of their potential drawbacks going between editions. Aging as a spell drawback was not exactly a good mechanic for prevention, but it's worth noting that Haste no longer ages the recipient by a few years, casting Wish doesn't leave the wizard bedridden for a few days, and Polymorph doesn't involve a system shock roll.

[Unbeliever]

^ none of which were, in practice, binding constraints in the least. 

[eternalshades]

honestly, the fighter gained the following weaknesses when they switched over from 2nd to 3rd.

1. lack of flexibility:  Even though the rules of called shots were vague, they allowed a fighter to switch strategies as needed.
The feat system forced the fighter to pick a style and optimize and you might be mediocre. 

Additionally, the closed system design took away a lot of wiggle room to do crazy stuff instead of debating with the dm.

It gets worse when you look at capstones. Whirlwind attack is very circumstantial and not worth the feat requirement.

2.  attacks:  in 2e fighters got their full attack allotment, whereas spellcasters had to more often then not stand around to cast spells.  In 3e it was reversed.

3.  Low saves:  In 2e, fighters had the best consistent good saves in the game.  This meant a fighter could bum rush a spellcaster and take his chances.  In 3e they only get one good save that is easy to work around.

4.  magic item creation:  This completely changed the dynamic.  If you look at the 2e magic items, you'll notice most of the equipment is for nonspellcasters.  Furthermore, magic item creation was a painful experience so you were at the mercy of the gm.

In 3e, magic item creation not only became available, it became easy.  Not only that, but only spellcasters could make magic items.  So naturally, they made the cheapest items they could to optimize.  As a result, the Magic items became askewed towards spellcasters.

5. concentration checks:  While there were exceptions, in 2e a single point of damage could disrupt a spell.  The concentration check allowed the wizard to shrug off a knife in the gut

so a fighter beside a wizard became less useful.

6.  Leadership:  They took one of the fighters ability in 2e (having minions) and made a single feat that anybody can take.

**************************

Even with the improvements of fighter in pathfinder by filling in dead levels, these problems are still there.

So I would change the following:

1. Full attacks, even when moving.
2. All Improved combat manoeuvres and a minor bonus every few levels. This allows the fighter to be creative, but not at the expense of combat ability.
3. A flat bonus to hit and damage with main weapon every few levels...which can be switched out to a different weapon each level.  This allows the fighter to switch his main weapon as new swag appears.  Heck, I've had arguments to allow this change each day.
4. Adding your level when striking spellcasters with concern to concentration checks.
5. one more good save.

[midnight_v]

Why does solo troll?

[ImperatorK]

Why does solo troll?

He's funny, so he can.

[zook1shoe]

Why does solo troll?

How so?

[Keldar]

Why does solo troll?

I'm going to stick with my answer.  He doesn't get a Familiar.

[veekie]

Stick to the topic guys. Its about Fighters, how they are supposed to work, and why they don't work.

[Cyclone Joker]

Fighters work great. They're an awesome class. There's just that bizarre typo, where the name is listed as "Warsword," or something weird like that. But, that's only about as weird as the monk getting x6 skill points at level 1. Bad editing, what else can be said?

[midnight_v]

Stick to the topic guys. Its about Fighters, how they are supposed to work, and why they don't work.

Really, cause its veeeerry much just solo flexing his substantial wittitude, but sure.

Here's my opinion and really I've taken this opinion from several sites, and people I've talked to but the place where I've seen it debated the MOST was THEGAMINGDEN, and the places where I found it to be most true was Wotcboards/Gitp/and In real life. . .

The Fighter sucks because they aren't allowed to be awesome.

The CONCEPT of a fighter in too many peoples minds, seems to be a regular human without inherent magical powers, who through human martial prowess, is supposed to kill Vampire Lords, Lich-kings, Ancient Dragons, Demon Princes, and Gods.

So I've witnessed a lot of argument that actually begin with "The fighter doesn't deserve..." and end with "...cool shit"

Part of it has to do with the fact that the "Fighter" is pretty much a D&D concept. I can't think of any fighters off hand that aren't in D&D. Most of the heros who we think of when we think of "fighters" are actually
Soldiers or Knights or (believe it or not) Rogues in some way shape or form.

The fighter sucks because the word itself has become synonymous with "Not magic" and/or "Not Awesome"
Here's an interesting phenomenon People deride the thought of the fighter, yet complain if you make it useful:

Give it a Maritial Power source of awesome?
Derided as: Wuxia, or worse and more insultingly: "Anime"
Give it Magic?
Its not a fighter, it's something called "A gish"
Give it superhuman powers via feats etc?
People complain its no longer human or (how is he doing this again)
Give it a set of skills, to include knowledges, and combat based on that?
People get pissed cause your "stepping on the rogue" violating role protection.
Give it a Mjolnir?
People bitch that its an artificer, but moreso, get insulted that what you're really playing is a sorcerer. I mean literally you take a sword and give it sorcerer levels, and let it take leadership for a cohort body to carry it around. Thats kinda the response I got when I suggested for making a class like that. The truth however is thats whats been basically/give or take with fighters and pity weapons for years and years.

Thus the fighter sucks.

Because people will not let it be good. 

There are benchmarks. There are same game tests.
None of those MATTER, until someone can determine a way that the CONCEPT of a fighter is allowed to meet them w/out complaint.

So yeah, Warblade for the win. (An anime fighter is allowed to meet challenges, even if hated by some, the concept of the anime fighter is ALLOWED to do cool shit)

[Dwarfi]

Hey there. My first char I ever played was a fighter and to be honest, it wasnt that great. The only reason it was fun was, because I was allowed to use a home brew fighter PrC for dwarfs, that basically brought him closer to a barbarian. Which we already had in the group.

Being able to only bash isnt my stile of play as it seems, it became rather boring and I wished to be able to do something more.
I checked multiple other classes and the more I read, the more I had the strange feeling that a fighter really has some kind of problems.

If you like bashing and want to do damage you better be a barbarian, defensive... well defensive can save your ass from time to time, but beeing a stone brick while the caster can shine... not so much fun.

So what else do we have: A knight, paladin ? The knight sucks in my oppinion although the RP factor is nice. Paladin ? Casting is always nice and you feel more important when playing one. ^^
Duskblade and half casters: Definately a lot of fun, those spells are pretty nasty, you are just a little more fragile than a fighter.

Tome of battle: Warblade/ Crusader: Hell yea ! After my players had to go up against a powerful crusader, they descibe ToB as the cheasers handbook.
Well, Warblade has great counters and the crusader is a tanks that can still do something. but both have their drawbacks.

What does a wizzard get on medium class levels ? Acid fog,  Disintegrate... and fireballs since SP Lv3 ? Yea, totally unfair. *sarcasm*
And we are not even talking about clerics, one of my current players has an ord. champion that can do at least as much damage as a fighter in melee, when casting he is way above that.

*** A fighter is downright boring compared to other classes. Except for the feats, why should I take a fighter ? The barb is stronger, has more HD and way more skill points.
Thanks to the feats, he has it a little easier to get some PrC. Usually fighter Lvs are used to gain some quick extra feats and nothing else.

[Southern Cross]

Those are all good points, Dwarfi.
My suggestions for improving the fighter are as follows:
(1) Use the Pathfinder optional Trait system, converting weak feats into Traits. Let the fighter have an unlimited amount of combat-related Traits, instead of the maximum of two Traits per category.
(2) Alternatively, upgrade the feat in question until it becomes worth taking. As they are now, Dodge and Weapon Focus only provide a +1 to AC or BAB. I suggest giving an additional +1 for every 4 levels the character has had the feat. With the following provisos: the character uses the higher bonus in the case of armor ( for the Dodge feat) and magical bonus (for the Weapon Focus feat).
(3) Invent new feats if necessary. In the case of Sword and Board fighters, I suggest a feat which lets them add the extra attack bonus from Weapon Focus to their armor class.
(4) Increase the fighters skill points to 4 per level, and add Perception and Survival as to the fighters list of class skills. (This assumes that you are using the Pathfinder skill system. If you are still using the old skill system, add Listen & Spot to the class skill list).

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

Fighters do have exclusive class features.

The Weapon Specialization line (Warblades get them too but, as said above, the Warblade is basically the Fighter ungimped so I'm leaving it out of this conversation.)

The problem is that the WS line of feats sucks. Making fighter only feats that don't suck would be one way to improve the class without changing its basic makeup.

Fighter specific Prcs that don't suck would also be good. One of the reasons Barbarian is a comparatively viable class is the large number of of Prcs that specifically build upon its class features in powerful ways.

[Libertad]

Why the Fighter sucks:

Crappy skill points and skill list: Want to play an inspiring warlord?  How about a perceptive, swift fighter who lives by his wits?  Want to be able to fight on a tightrope or tumble past opponents' attacks?  Sorry, but those ain't class skills!

Nothing significant, quantity =/= quality: Weapon Focus and Specialization feat trees just give +2 to hit and +4 to damage with just one weapon.  That's the only unique feature a Fighter gets!  Oh, and lots of bonus feats don't matter if most of them are lackluster.

Lack of utility: The Bard has skills and spells and buffs.  Rogue gets sneak attack and skills and some neat PrCs.  Spellcasters overall  get a toolbox of options (especially for prepared spellcasters).  Fighter gets none of this stuff.

Fighters can't have nice things: Some people prefer warriors with no supernatural power or "bound to realism/physics."  And sometimes these people will protest against giving warriors more options, such as Tome of Battle or the Monk getting viable options in Pathfinder.

Lack of combat options: Want to daze/sicken/ability drain an opponent?  How about an area of effect attack, or fly/teleport/burrow?  Sorry, spellcasters get all of this.  The Fighter doesn't get much except ability draining, which requires poison (very expensive).

But there's already some solutions: Warblade from Tome of Battle mitigates several of these problems (and these boards have some cool homebrewed schools), the Fighter from the Frank and K Tomes and Combat Feats really ups the power and versatility of martial characters (although their Fighter's too powerful for my tastes), and Ziegander/bkdubs123 has some neat fixes (I love the Battlelord).  Try pitching these ideas to your group the next 3rd Edition game, or as a solution to the resident player unsatisfied with the options for melee.

[Lord Slasher]

Oh No No No fighters don't suck.......... when your playing a gestalt game.

[SorO_Lost]

I'd like to say, whomever brought up 2nd. You're off in several ways.

Some misc points.
1. My DM is cool != rules discussion. Bragging about the lack of rules allowing you to do cool things means your more versatile as a 2nd edition character is to automatically assume you have a DM giving you whatever the hell you want. Anyone can wage a counterpoint against you using the same view point. Also, Fighters cannot use as many weapons as they could in 3rd.
2. Fighters had worse saves in 2nd. they capped their progression out at level 17 (earliest of all the groups) and are pretty much balanced in respect for the other classes. Like the Fighter will have a better save against poison/death, shapechange, and breath which are mostly all equal to Fort. The Wizard has better saves against magical items and spells, which in 3rd is THREE SAVES, not two. So if anyone had better saves in 2nd it would be with Wizard.
3. Magic Item creation is an NPCs job, also 2nd wasn't melee only items and 3rd gave versatile weapon enhancements to mundanes. In the crafting area, Fighters in 2nd is a step backwards.
4. Everyone but the wizard got followers as an automatic obtained ability from leveling, and everyone gained followers just because they wanted to build a house. It's not Fighter only and "Leadership" didn't ruin anything.

The only real point that favors Fighters in 2nd over Wizards is something you didn't even mention. XP.
It takes 3mil to hit level 20 as a Fighter vs 3.7mil as a Wizard.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

How about nonweapon proficiencies? Is it accurate to say that the 2+Int sp/lv of 3rd was a step backwards for the fighter in terms of power?

[FlaminCows]

Yep, its accurate, and was already mentioned.