D&D 3E/3.5 Why be a 3.5 fighter?

[grizzo]

Why would any body want to be core fighter when then are other combat focus classes who have better saves can do more damage and have more hit dice than a core fighter?
No book of nine swords characters.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

They're a pretty strong class at low levels, despite what teh internets says.
And they're superior to monks in general and bards in hack and slash games, so they're not quite the bottom of the barrel...

But yeah, overall a poor class and in core you'll quickly run out of good feats, just as the other classes are getting honest to goodness real class features better than feats anyway.

 

[the Jester]

Feats.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why would any body want to be core fighter when then are other combat focus classes who have better saves can do more damage and have more hit dice than a core fighter?

Mechanically: Sometimes, Ftr is the fastest way to qualify for certain PrCls or complete certain Feat chains.

Roleplay: because you want to play a fighter...which can be for a huge number of different reasons.

 

[pawsplay]

1. Actually, for fights that last more than four rounds, they do MORE damage than barbarian, and about the same as a warblade, depending on build.
2. If you want to play a non-magical, heavily armored character, 3.5 does not give you any other options.
3. Due to the number of combat feats, a fighter is peerless at fighting multiple opponents in melee. A melee cleric is more powerful, but less versatile and is vulnerable to being dispeled.
4. The ranger is really the only other class that can make a credible attempt, at low to mid levels, of having good melee and ranged options, both.
5. If you want to specialize in using one specific weapon with deep feat options, you almost always want at least either 2 or 4 levels of fighter.
6. Adding one level in rogue, sorcerer, or cleric can overcome almost all of the "I don't know what to do besides attack" complaints you could ever have. UMD or wand use can make a big difference, and wands do not suffer arcane spell failure. In a high ability score buy game, you may be able to build up UMD as a cross-class skill as a single-classed fighter, although in that case Skill focus makes sense as well.
7. Atlhough there are other credible options, overall they tend to be the best dip for Eldritch Knights and other F/MU types.
8. You don't ever really have to worry about running out of anything except hit points.

 

[Dandu]

2. If you want to play a non-magical, heavily armored character, 3.5 does not give you any other options.

Knight, PHB2. Marshall, Miniatures Handbook.

3. Due to the number of combat feats, a fighter is peerless at fighting multiple opponents in melee.

Why?

A melee cleric is more powerful, but less versatile and is vulnerable to being dispeled.

If someone's casting spells at the cleric, it's only fair that the fighter face spells as well, in which case... he does worse than the cleric.
I will agree that a cleric can't disarm, trip, and bull rush, but I'd argue that he doesn't need to.

6. Adding one level in rogue, sorcerer, or cleric can overcome almost all of the "I don't know what to do besides attack" complaints you could ever have. UMD or wand use can make a big difference, and wands do not suffer arcane spell failure. In a high ability score buy game, you may be able to build up UMD as a cross-class skill as a single-classed fighter, although in that case Skill focus makes sense as well.

Ah, the Giamoco method.

7. Atlhough there are other credible options, overall they tend to be the best dip for Eldritch Knights and other F/MU types.

Why?

8. You don't ever really have to worry about running out of anything except hit points.

And support from your teammates.

 

[pawsplay]

Knight, PHB2. Marshall, Miniatures Handbook.

We were talking core. The Knight is not too bad. The Marshall, however, is weak compared to the fighter.

Why?

Because you can assume Combat Reflexes, ways of generating multiple attacks, and/or very high to-hit bonuses, in conjunction with high defenses, and relatively high hit points. Add one or two feat chains to taste.

If someone's casting spells at the cleric, it's only fair that the fighter face spells as well, in which case... he does worse than the cleric.

Howso? Fighter is more likely to have Blind-Fight, to be able to escape from a grapple, to have multiple damage types through weapons... The Cleric has a better Will save.

I will agree that a cleric can't disarm, trip, and bull rush, but I'd argue that he doesn't need to.

"Need" is an obfustcating criterion. No one "needs" to do any particular thing. The point is that being able to do several things is likely to be helpful.

Why?

Martial weapon proficiency + bonus feat + heavy armor proficiency, all at 1st level, making it very friendly to many PrCs.

And support from your teammates.

No moreso than a rogue, and less than a paladin. Clerics and some wizards can make a claim at being efficient solos; it's not a typical situation, and it's not a fair benchmark. Obviously, comparing any class to one of the stronger classes in an area at which they excel is not going to look good.

Bottom line, though, a fighter doesn't "need" support unless they are fighting harpy sorcerers who cast Glitterdust in an open field without cover. They can melee, they can fight at a range, they can bust down doors, climb, and use misc. magical items.

 

[Dandu]

We were talking core.

And wouldn't you know it, I forgot about the paladin.

But were were we talking about core only, just incase I missed it? I recall the OP going along the lines of "Why would any body want to be core fighter when then are other combat focus classes who have better saves can do more damage and have more hit dice than a core fighter?"

Because you can assume Combat Reflexes, ways of generating multiple attacks, and/or very high to-hit bonuses, in conjunction with high defenses, and relatively high hit points. Add one or two feat chains to taste.

But you have not proven that this makes you peerless; you have to prove that the Fighters peers cannot match him in this regard.

Howso? Fighter is more likely to have Blind-Fight, to be able to escape from a grapple, to have multiple damage types through weapons... The Cleric has a better Will save.

How a fighter is worse off if someone casts spells at him? Last I checked, clerics can get through Solid Fog, Web, and Resilient Sphere with greater ease than a fighter since they have countermeasures. That will save also helps with... spells that target will saves, possibly?

"Need" is an obfustcating criterion. No one "needs" to do any particular thing. The point is that being able to do several things is likely to be helpful.

And the fighter is more able to do several things in combat than the cleric, correct?

Martial weapon proficiency + bonus feat + heavy armor proficiency, all at 1st level, making it very friendly to many PrCs.

Moreso than other martial classes, such as the Duskblade?

Bottom line, though, a fighter doesn't "need" support unless they are fighting harpy sorcerers who cast Glitterdust in an open field without cover.

Allips. Ankhegs. Howlers. Rust Monsters. Swarms. Dragons.

They can melee, they can fight at a range, they can bust down doors, climb, and use misc. magical items.

Yes, they can do that. What people seem to take issue with, however, is their efficacy.

 

[Fajita McJones]

Because Fighters are friggin' awesome and you have spellcasters in your party who know their job well enough to know that their job is buffing you up.

 

[Dandu]

Because Fighters are friggin' awesome

I believe it may help the OP if you elucidate on how fighters are "friggin' awesome".