To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

Quote from: The Butcher;835623And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

When I GM'd high level 3e, by about 16th level we were getting all-Wizard parties.

Quote from: Matt;835427I wouldn't know as I have played neither, but in any case I bet the correct answer is "The way I played fighters and my DM GMed fighters was rubbish..."

Don't blame a system for player/DM incompetence.

And you would have lost that bet;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;835616To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

What's the problem with DCC fighters in your opinion?

Quote from: The Butcher;835623And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

We fighter fans are resilient:D!

I think Pundit has no problem with fighters in DCC. Rather he is saying that DCC shows, via contrast, how badly fighters are handled in other D&D versions.

Quote from: S'mon;835576No, 3e Fighters were objectively terrible, as anyone who has actually played could tell you. Bad in combat, worthless skills, bad saves. In 3.5 they were just about ok up to 4th level.

Unfortunately and absolutely true. A fighter in a game with no mage or cleric or druid could probably do well, but I witnessed this first hand in campaigns where it was neither intended nor desired that the fighter be mitigated...it was just a poor class choice in 3rd edition.

Quote from: Arminius;835692I think Pundit has no problem with fighters in DCC. Rather he is saying that DCC shows, via contrast, how badly fighters are handled in other D&D versions.

I'd agree with that.
If that's the case, I've just misunderstood his point, while agreeing with what he actually means:).

Quote from: camazotz;835702Unfortunately and absolutely true. A fighter in a game with no mage or cleric or druid could probably do well, but I witnessed this first hand in campaigns where it was neither intended nor desired that the  fighter be mitigated...it was just a poor class choice in 3rd edition.

Seen the same, and I must add it wasn't the GM's fault, either;).

If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

If the game is as hard on characters as classic D&D then fighter becomes a more viable option.

Once the game turned into a vehicle for telling stories and all the characters were fairly assured of survival (at least by the expectations set in the rules) there was no longer a trade off between classes that had a flatter power curve such as fighter, and classes that started off very weak and less likely to survive but were really powerful at higher levels.

Over time, magic users got more and more powerful at lower levels while still maintaining their superpowers at higher levels. Eventually there was no longer a tradeoff to worry about. Experience points required became the same for all classes, more spell slots became available at lower levels, and the magic user was just as likely to survive as any other class. At that point, the drawbacks to being a magic user were largely gone while all of the advantages remained.

Add on the rules changes that made spell interruption difficult if not impossible because the world would come to a fucking end if someone had something they planned to do on their precious turn spoiled.

Under these circumstances, everyone playing a wizard makes perfect sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;835616To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

A, O, and BX fighters were pretty good. Their ability to be combat effective for the duration makes up for the wizards limited ammo, but auto-hitting high damage and/or area hitting spells.

I played the fragile magic user quite a bit and without the fighter types taking the brunt of the conflict then I was DOA usually very quickly even at higher levels. The appallingly bad AC combines with fragile HP was the main factor.

As for OSR stuff, the question might be. How many attacks a round are the fighters getting? That was one thing we adjusted in BX. Was to have the fighters start getting extra attacks alot earlier than level 15. But still capping at 4. +1 per 5 levels gained, so 2 at level 5, 3 at level 10, 4 at level 15.

One aspect which I never explored, but which I've seen mentioned, is magic items. Allegedly with a "typical" distribution of loot, fighters would maintain parity or better. Of course this leaves out what happens when you start having magic shops, or if the DM skews the amount or distribution of goodies.

Personally Brad's got an interesting angle. Not only for class balance but also demihumans, etc. That is, give social benefits/negatives. Only problem is enforcing them and not in a manner that makes the "socially disadvantaged" less fun. An obvious approach for fighters would be to give them a relative charisma bonus for the purpose of dealing with henchmen and hirelings.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;835795If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

AFAICT, the Encounter level system considers it a fair challenge if you expend some resources and maybe have to take a few decisions, but no PCs die. And you're expected to have most fights at the fair level challenge:).
Make of that what you wish;).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;835795If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

It doesn't require survival, if PCs don't start at 1st level. The usual 3e+ thing is the Fighters die (a lot) and the player gets to bring in a Wizard of similar level instead.

Quote from: S'mon;835835It doesn't require survival, if PCs don't start at 1st level. The usual 3e+ thing is the Fighters die (a lot) and the player gets to bring in a Wizard of similar level instead.

Oh yeah, if you can start at a higher level then the choice is even more of a no-brainer.

Quote from: Arminius;835813One aspect which I never explored, but which I've seen mentioned, is magic items. Allegedly with a "typical" distribution of loot, fighters would maintain parity or better. Of course this leaves out what happens when you start having magic shops, or if the DM skews the amount or distribution of goodies.

Or if you use treasure tables which have a decent chance to generate any kind of weapon with any type of bonuses.  I've heard the same allegations you mention and my understanding is that the reason behind is that, in early D&D editions, the substantial majority of magic weapons (including all the best ones) were swords, so only fighters could use them.  This indirectly prevented clerics from being as good as fighters in straight-up combat, since the fighter would have a +5 Defender sword, while a +2 mace is as good as the cleric could get.

The more recent trend of making +5 Vorpal Staves, because it's unfair if the fighter gets better magic weapons than the magic user, pretty much cuts that dynamic off at the knees.

Quote from: nDervish;835890The more recent trend of making +5 Vorpal Staves, because it's unfair if the fighter gets better magic weapons than the magic user, pretty much cuts that dynamic off at the knees.

What you call a "recent" trend also includes all classes being able to use all weapons:).
I think it's a good trend, personally. Why the cleric of a war god would be unable to use a sword would otherwise remain beyond me;).