Author Topic: Why do fighters suck?  (Read 40950 times)

Offline eternalshades

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #80 on: August 30, 2012, 01:32:56 PM »
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.

It was mostly a comment of an open system (which 2e was, where you had a consensus of rules  at the table and discussions between players and gm) in comparison to 3e (which is defined by being locked down unless you have an exception created by feat, spell or item).

Mostly apples and oranges, but it will hamper the fighter if it’s oranges suck in comparison to the spellcaster.


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.

I wanted to double check and found this

Code: [Select]
P/P/D R/S/W P/P BW S
Priest
Lvl 1: 10 14 13 16             15
Lvl 19+:         2          6               5               8         7

Rogue
Lvl 1: 13 14 12 16 15
Lvl 21+: 8 4 7 11          5

Warrior
Lvl 1: 14 16 15 17 17
Lvl 17+: 3 5 4 4 6

Wizard
Lvl 1: 14 11 13 15 12
Lvl 21+: 8 3 5 7 4

we're both right.

warriors both start with the worst saves and end up with some of the best.  They have the highest improvements in 2e.  Plus they get their improved saves sooner.

as a result, at mid levels on, my argument applies. 

Quote
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.

In 3e Item creation, while possible for other stuff, is usually cheaper, and more cost effective to do scrolls, and wands, then any other item.  Heck, the wizard starts with the scribe scroll feat.

While the spellcaster could make other magic items, it’s more cost effective to stay with a prepped spell that will be more likely to have a quick end to a combat scenerio.  Or worse a utility situation that overrides anything a nonspellcaster can do.


Quote
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.

Checking my old books, I’ll concede that most classes had a follower choice at mid levels.

But one trick I saw a little too often is a leadership feat taken by a wizard to have another spellcaster.

I’ll consider it moot though. 


Quote
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.

That is correct.  Part of the fighters advantage was a quick progression because they could get kills (and therefore xp) easy and had a relatively faster progress
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 01:46:13 PM by eternalshades »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #81 on: August 30, 2012, 04:10:54 PM »
It was mostly a comment of an open system (which 2e was, where you had a consensus of rules  at the table and discussions between players and gm) in comparison to 3e (which is defined by being locked down unless you have an exception created by feat, spell or item).
Ahh. Well, more rules can both penalize and give benefits. It's an equal argument about adding more or not until you get into which rule you're adding. For instance, more rules in a way protects the player from a bad DM call, but also better serves to help him form expectations.

In 3e Item creation, while possible for other stuff, is usually cheaper, and more cost effective to do scrolls, and wands, then any other item.  Heck, the wizard starts with the scribe scroll feat.

While the spellcaster could make other magic items, it’s more cost effective to stay with a prepped spell that will be more likely to have a quick end to a combat scenerio.  Or worse a utility situation that overrides anything a nonspellcaster can do.
And in 2nd, Wizards didn't need Scribe Scroll, he craft scrolls for free*, and give them to another wizard who can learn them for free.

*Well, 5% chance for a point of Con loss. So literately crafting one +1 con item is worth making 39 more items cost free. So maybe you wouldn't waste time crafting pointless items, you'd absolutely craft the most powerful items you could, for free.

But one trick I saw a little too often is a leadership feat taken by a wizard to have another spellcaster.

I’ll consider it moot though.
Well, the wide range of abuse presented. You could have a crappy Cohort not worth the Feat or have a 18th level Wizard, either choice is considered to be of the same value despite that being of no such thing.

The reason you seen Wizards take Wizard Cohorts comes back to if your a crappy mundane who's hireling is better than you, you should play as the hireling instead. So to have the full use of Leadership, you need to be better than your Cohort, Which is an StP Erudite since you're not penalized for picking the greatest combination you can think of.

That is correct.  Part of the fighters advantage was a quick progression because they could get kills (and therefore xp) easy and had a relatively faster progress
And the gap gets massively wider as you go.

But sadly, there is an aspect of the XP system that favors a spellcaster.  In an XP snapshots, you can pretty much trade out a single level of Wizard for several levels of anything else.

This is readily apparent in the Baldur's Gate games where your progression is capped by total XP. Like in that 375k required for a Wizard to go form level 19 to 20, he could have instead picked up nine levels of Fighter. The "catch" is while gaining those first 9 levels of Wizard you can't use your Fighter abilities, which isn't a huge deal. 2nd's numbers are smaller in every area except your ability scores which offer benefits exponentially. ~Like Dex 7~14 has the same exact bonuses, 15 improves one number but 16 changes all three, including that first number yet again. But that's a minor tangent about how 19 Int makes you a godsend among wizards and you should craft one of those uber +1 Int items as soon as possible for free more than anything else in case.


Offline Molochio

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm thinking...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #82 on: August 30, 2012, 05:52:47 PM »
Because they have to walk around hitting things with a sword in a world where people freeze time, fly, and shoot beams of heat?
Come... Submit... Obey... I am your friend and master. Your thoughts are like water to me.

Offline eternalshades

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2012, 05:53:26 PM »
I did a quick read of the old dmg 2e, and it looks like wizard's don't get scrolls till 9th, and clerics till 7th.

So wizard's don't start with scroll making till almost half way through their career.

plus to figure out a scroll, you need to consult a sage and figure out a particular ritual to make.

It's been a while, but if memory serves me correctly, sages cost an arm and a leg.

you right about the destined 19 intelligence, those pesky maximum # of spells per level and a % to learn spell is a balencing factor...that isn't in 3rd. ;)


Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #84 on: August 30, 2012, 05:55:32 PM »
Because they have to walk around hitting things with a sword in a world where people freeze time, fly, and shoot beams of heat?
A well build fighter can do that as well!
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2012, 07:50:43 PM »
Because they have to walk around hitting things with a sword in a world where people freeze time, fly, and shoot beams of heat?
A well build fighter can do that as well!
That is a lie.
Well built... hmm..

  If you're doing that then you are no longer a fighter. You might be some kind of Artificer something like a Gish.
   If thats the case, we should give the artificer the good bab and play that instead.
Okay maybe thats not a lie, but you've totally got to explain that one it reminds me of that line from the tome series

Quote
"What do I do? I stab things in the face. ...Fine, I'm a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Master of Black Fire/ Cloud Jumper."

How does a fighter shoot eyebeams, fly, and stop time?
Answer: He plays as a class/concept that is not "Man who gets thrives through strenght of arms"

To be fair though... fighters should become super humans at somepoint and get things like foil, and time stands still but you really have to attack the game not the class at that point.
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2012, 07:52:49 PM »
Because they have to walk around hitting things with a sword in a world where people freeze time, fly, and shoot beams of heat?
A well build fighter can do that as well!
That is a joke.

FTFY
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #87 on: August 30, 2012, 07:53:49 PM »
Because they have to walk around hitting things with a sword in a world where people freeze time, fly, and shoot beams of heat?
A well build fighter can do that as well!
That is a joke.


FTFY
:lol

 :clap

You got me bro. Damn :P
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2012, 08:32:12 PM »
What?  Fighters can get Boots of Temporal Acceleration, Wings of Flying, and Helms of Brilliance. 



So Commoners.

Offline Cyclone Joker

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Flamboyant Flamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2012, 09:17:51 PM »
A well-built fighter can fly, shoot lasers, and so on.

(H)Magical Training(Wizard casting)
(T)Eldritch Corruption
(F)Heighten
(F)Sanctum Spell
(1)Earth sense
(3)Earth Spell
(6)Practiced Spellcaster
(9)Extra Slot(Level 3)
(12)Extra Slot(Level 6)
(15)Extra Slot(Level 9)
(18)Extra Slot(Level 12, I guess?)

You're welcome.

Offline Vasja

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • I always edit posts just after posting.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #90 on: August 31, 2012, 09:25:28 AM »
I don't understand how this works. Practiced Spellcaster only works if you have a caster level - which that (fighter 20 I'm assuming) doesn't have. The extra slots don't do much past that - just give you higher-level slots to cast your 0-level spells from, which doesn't include flight.

Offline Cyclone Joker

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Flamboyant Flamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #91 on: August 31, 2012, 12:09:40 PM »
I don't understand how this works. Practiced Spellcaster only works if you have a caster level - which that (fighter 20 I'm assuming) doesn't have. The extra slots don't do much past that - just give you higher-level slots to cast your 0-level spells from, which doesn't include flight.
Wrong. Practiced spellcaster any such thing.

And, wrong again. You explicitly prepare and cast spells as a wizard, so, if you have extra slots, you can, in fact, prep from those at a higher level. But, if it makes you feel better, you can simply replace the 12th level slot with extra spell, and take pact insidious for extra spell.

Offline Vasja

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • I always edit posts just after posting.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #92 on: August 31, 2012, 12:30:12 PM »
I'm guessing you mean to say "Praticed Spellcaster doesn't say any such thing." If that's the case, I'd like to know how it applied. The feat reads "Choose a spellcasting class you possess ... Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4." Magical Training says "You are treated as a sorceror or wizard ... for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast." I don't understand how that means you possess a spellcasting class.

As far as using Extra Slot - I don't understand how you can cast from those slots. Magical training states "You can cast three 0-level arcane spells per day as either a sorceror or wizard." That's not full wizard casting with no slots. It's just those 3 spells.

Offline Molochio

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm thinking...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #93 on: August 31, 2012, 12:32:23 PM »
A fighter should be able to do everything needed in combat to be a highly effective contributer in any scenario, without having to depend on ITEMS, cross class gimmicks, or massive overhauls.

If I place a mage in a dim cave with no gear, beyond his spell book, he remains formidable.

If I place a rogue in a dim cave with no gear, beyond his dagger, he can evade and even remove some opposition.

If I place a cleric in a dim cave, well... you know.

However, if I place a fighter in a dim cave with nothing but a sword, he sucks.
This is an unfortunate truth owing to the fact that the fighter greatly lacks self sufficiency, I believe.
Come... Submit... Obey... I am your friend and master. Your thoughts are like water to me.

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #94 on: August 31, 2012, 02:07:03 PM »
  Close to the truth. The problem with that argument is that it allows too much variance for people to comeback and say "Nu-uh".
Just because a bear is something that a fighter can "CONCIEVABLY" just hit with a sword and kill. When you look at it from the perspective you're presenting you have to show things that they really CAN'T hit with a sword reasonably.
Most of it is "getting there" where ever there happens to be...
  Aside from that, there is an issue of the battle when it isn't against bears in caves.
Here's some perspective.
Take a bear. Make it stronger than any animal that has ever walked the earth.
Its as fast as a cheetah.
Except for when it wants to fly. Then it flys faster than any animal that has ever flown on earth.
Now give it the power to teleport long distances... And it can rain fire from the sky or just make fire appear all around you.
All that and just for kicks give it the rest of the phoenix powers form marvel, at least to some degree.
So it can move things with mental power. Hell, it can read you mind if you get close enough 100 feet or so.
Laslty its smarter than any human that has ever lived.
Its hungry, it hates you, and in a pinch it can summon some friends.
When you finally fight it you face it inside an active volcano.
We call this bear: A Balor.

See the probelm isn't that the fighter sucks comparted to his compatriots.

The main problem is that the fighter conceptually isn't allowed to fight:
An Angel king, in outer space.

If you can't fight A Seraph King, in his own enviorn you might not be equal, once people move beyond racist killings of they're neighbor humanoids. goblin raids etc.
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #95 on: August 31, 2012, 02:44:00 PM »
A well-built fighter can fly, shoot lasers, and so on.

(H)Magical Training(Wizard casting)
(T)Eldritch Corruption
(F)Heighten
(F)Sanctum Spell
(1)Earth sense
(3)Earth Spell
(6)Practiced Spellcaster
(9)Extra Slot(Level 3)
(12)Extra Slot(Level 6)
(15)Extra Slot(Level 9)
(18)Extra Slot(Level 12, I guess?)

You're welcome.

And how many DMs will allow this?


Keep TO where it belongs. Also, that build still only gets cantrips.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #96 on: August 31, 2012, 04:24:30 PM »
A fighter should be able to do everything needed in combat to be a highly effective contributer in any scenario, without having to depend on ITEMS, cross class gimmicks, or massive overhauls.
...
However, if I place a fighter in a dim cave with nothing but a sword, he sucks.
This is an unfortunate truth owing to the fact that the fighter greatly lacks self sufficiency, I believe.
I disagree with this.  Gear is a thing in D&D.  It is something that is assumed, it's a feature of the game.  Saying a Fighter sucks without gear is like saying a Rogue sucks without skill ranks or feats.  They are integral to the game.

Now, you can say that there are several common scenarios that Fighters need gear to deal with, i.e., that they are more gear dependent than other classes.  That's a criticism, I suppose, but not a stupendously dire one.  B/c all characters in D&D are pretty gear dependent in one way or another.

Midnight pretty much has it, I think when he says "fighters aren't good at fighting."  More precisely, we might say "it's fucking hard to build a Fighter that is good at fighting," but the two are pretty equivalent.

As an aside, in my experience I don't have the issues with fighteresque characters (any mundane, non ToB melee damage dealing character) that many people cite.  I have not seen such characters routinely stymied by teleport, flight, and so on.  Maybe it's b/c we build awesome fighters -- sufficient optimization cures most defects.  Maybe it's b/c of a troupe play -- a lot of the time the spellcasters set up the fighters to put enemies in the hurt locker through either buffs, debuffs, or battlefield control. 

I'm just saying that the Fighter, Monk, Barbarian archetypes that I see in level 10-15 play don't seem to have much trouble.  Like, I'm sure I can build a mundane melee guy who could wreck most greater demons (say something in the CR 13-15 category, I don't like exclusively looking at CR 19-21 for testing as there aren't a lot of options and most games aren't there).  I've done so.  Which, in no way means that the classes don't suck.  The builds for such archetypes tend to have little or none of those classes in it. 

Offline midnight_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • It is good and fitting to die for the dice...
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #97 on: August 31, 2012, 08:53:32 PM »
  Gear is a thing that is bad in the case that its really narrative breaking to go to have to stop at wal-mart periodically to trade your shit out.
  I ...
wait a sec.
Quote
As an aside, in my experience...
Any suffiecently advanced optimization is equal to playing a high tier class, then? Unbeliever, I learned here on the boards actually back on 339 boards that my experiance was kinda flawed. In my group I discovered optimization. Everyone inmy group for a while thought that fighters were "broken". The dm argued that that it was probbably wizards that smashed the game, just happened later in the campaign. Though NONE of the other people, incuding our groups other dm believed that.
 The biggest thing that I personally had to get over was the idea that "Bab MATTERS" if your going to melee. Even to this day I look and don't wanna drop a point, but I know better and bab isn't a measure of how skilled a fighter is anyway (thought it should be)

Maybe, there is a play style that REALLY makes a fighter shine. Thats well, thats awesome, but it isn't implicit and I can't give it "much" because there are very few situations in which a fighter would serve your party better than a second cleric filling the same roll.
 And believe me I LOVE the fighter class. Its one of the reasons I was able to buy into frank and K's system when I really looked at what they were selling even if the implementation could have used work.

Molochio's point, and my point above should be reiterated:
If the MAJOR contributions of my char come from my gear as opposed to my class choices...there might be a problem to lots of people.
And really its not just me that feels that way...

Quote
What?  Fighters can get Boots of Temporal Acceleration, Wings of Flying, and Helms of Brilliance. 



So Commoners.   
Yeah.
Thanks Keldar.
Its not that you can't do that. Understand.
Its not that you literally can't spend all your monies throught the game and buy superpowers like iron man at a certain level.

It's that a good number of us realize that whats being described there is far away from what they had in mind when they evisioned playing a fighter.
Quote
Saying a Fighter sucks without gear is like saying a Rogue sucks without skill ranks or feats.  They are integral to the game.
   
Maybe the "they are intergral to the game" part, but that thing about the rogue actually doesn't stand up to any comparative analysis...

...or maybe it does.... You took away class features of the rogue. The skill points thing, and everyone gets feats in some way shape or form. Even without those things. The rogue still might be able to sneak attack an opponent to death.

Here's the relation. As gear dependant as a fighter it. Magic Gear, should be written into the class. Not in the way that its written into the background of all classes but implicitly in the class.
Or not.
Or the fighters, need to find some other power source other than "Magic Swag"

Most of the other classes are using items to actuallly enhance what they're doing, spellcasting most notably. Where as the fighter, and other mundanes have to use them to do things they aren't designed to do.

The last level fighter should really be fighting a Balor in a lava filled volcano crater, but barring that in many peoples mind he should be stripping down to fight sea serpents Beowulf style.

The lack of beowulfing makes me and others pretty unhappy about it.

Again, my issue is more one of concept of the fighter: Tied to reality in a highly magical world...
Thats too big a discrpancy w/out some kind off mechanism as to why they become supers later.
"Disentegrate...gust of wind. Can we please get back to saving the world now?"

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #98 on: August 31, 2012, 11:45:08 PM »
Points of Clarification:  I'm going to reiterate that I'm talking about "mundane" fighters as an archetype, not the build Fighter 20 necessarily.  So, guys who hit things and don't cast many spells or use ToB or many spell-like abilities, etc.  Also, I want to be clear.  I'm not defending the Fighter class or many of 3E's design decisions in any way.  I'm just saying there's a bit of charopp orthodoxy that I have a steadily mounting body of anecdotal empirical evidence that contradicts it (see below*). 

Any suffiecently advanced optimization is equal to playing a high tier class, then?
Probably.  I don't like the tier system, but yeah, sufficient levels of optimization can probably paper over a lot of defects in class design.  That's not contentious, is it?  It struck me as sort of obvious. 

Maybe, there is a play style that REALLY makes a fighter shine. Thats well, thats awesome, but it isn't implicit and I can't give it "much" because there are very few situations in which a fighter would serve your party better than a second cleric filling the same roll.
This is the wrong metric.  And, you know it is (you said as much in a post above).  The question is whether a given build is viable/competent.  If not, then you'll end up in deep TO territory for every character.  Sure, that gish is pretty good, but in pretty much every situation a god wizard would be better.  Sure, that god wizard is pretty good, but you know Pun-Pun or the Nanobots or the Nasty Gentleman is almost always better ...


I think your point about gear choices being more important than class choices, and the quote from Keldar is wrong.  I cannot imagine building a Fighter type where that is the case, and if you look at any good build in any of the handbooks or the charopp favorites, it's not true either.  I also found it and the quote from Keldar frankly uncharitable and straw manning. 

The fact is that gear is an integral part of D&D characters, so being "gear dependent" isn't a flaw unique to Fighters.  It's the rule, not the exception. 

For example, this: 
You took away class features of the rogue. The skill points thing, and everyone gets feats in some way shape or form. Even without those things. The rogue still might be able to sneak attack an opponent to death.
Is not true.  The Rogue would likely have no way to consistently hide (much of that comes from gear) it wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn, and so on.  I'm sure we could build a Rogue that could still manage that sort of thing, maybe, but that's us building to a particular challenge rather than considering how a normal optimized Rogue works. 

Again, my issue is more one of concept of the fighter: Tied to reality in a highly magical world...
Thats too big a discrpancy w/out some kind off mechanism as to why they become supers later.
*You've made this point a number of times.  Here's the thing I was talking about in my earlier post.  I don't find the problem of fighting a seraph in space or whatever ever actually hampers a mundane Fighter type.  Let me take flight as an example.  Charopp wisdom is that this is one of the reasons it sucks to be a Fighter-type.  But, no one at my regular gaming tables has ever been stymied by flight.  I considered some possible explanations for why that was the case in my earlier post, to wit optimization (e.g., good ranged options, mobility options) or teamwork.  Just for reference, I'd peg my group at high practical optimization.  If you want to use the Tiers system, there's almost always a Tier 1 or Tier 2 in the party.  Representative builds include:
(click to show/hide)

Provided the Fighter is good at fighting, then that has seemed to work out quite well in my gaming experience.  And, I'm not an expert on Frank and K's Tome Series, but their Fighter can't fly or anything, can it?  It can, however, beat the hell out of things, even things with supernatural powers (which becomes pretty much everything after a while). 

That's really all I was saying in the above post.  In practice, I've found that a mundane Fighter-type can be a fun, viable concept, even in high level play (10-25).  And, that's despite good reasons -- e.g., poor class design, stupidity of the game designers -- that it shouldn't be. 

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Why do fighters suck?
« Reply #99 on: September 01, 2012, 12:17:11 AM »
The last level fighter should really be fighting a Balor in a lava filled volcano crater, but barring that in many peoples mind he should be stripping down to fight sea serpents Beowulf style.

The lack of beowulfing makes me and others pretty unhappy about it.
lol @Beowulf.

Beowulf didn't really display anything super human. What is portrayed, a general sense of style and badassery, is fluff. It's safe to say he sure the hell wasn't above level 5.

First Battle: Grendel is basically a Troll. Latterly described as troll-like to begin here and a real Troll is, drum roll please. CR 5.

Second Battle: He finds and uses a magical sword to win.

Third Battle: He gets help to fight a dragon and dies.

Never happened: He stripped naked and fought a sea monster.
It's a fictional rewrite of a fictional character in a swimming race with a fictional but very human friend in a fictional prequel made up and added to a fictional poem.


D&D Fighters already do this in spades. They fight mundane weak creatures at low levels and struggle to win, they buy out magical items to be useful, then they die easy enough and a Bard makes crap up to make them sound more heroic. You should be happy, by your own expectations.