What's the point of Fighters (instead of Paladins/Barbarians)?

mforww

I started a solo playthrough as an Inquisitor and, I've gotta tell ya, being immune to all of the nastiest spells is NICE. On top of that, my Paladin save throws are so high that I can resist almost everything thrown at me that I'm not already immune to.

So my question is, is the extra damage you get out of a Fighter worth losing all of the free immunities you get as a Paladin (or a Barbarian that uses their rage ability)? Personally I would say no.

Dee

The concept of game balance in D&D works like this:

Always bonuses > Sometimes bonuses > Rare bonuses

A bonus that you always get whenever you take an action, such as a bonus to attack and damage, goes "farther" than a bonus that you get when you're subject to a specific kind of effect, such as charm. So that +2 attack and damage with all attacks may seem small in comparison to "total immunity to fear", but remember that your fear immunity is only useful when you're encountering a fear effect, whereas that +2 bonus is used against every enemy you attack, every time you attack.

Incidentally, that's also why the ranger's Favored Enemy bonus (+4 THAC0) is so significant; it's only useful against a specific type of creature, so it has to be more potent than a comparable ability (Grand Mastery) for the fighter. (This is also why a specialist mage gets an extra spell per level per day; he has fewer spells to choose from, so he gets to cast them more often.)

Neither one is really "better", at least in terms of balancing the game. Personally I enjoy fighters more, but there's a lot to be said for Immunity to Level Drain--especially in BG2.

Alexisisinneed

Aosaw said:

The concept of game balance in D&D works like this:


Neither one is really "better", at least in terms of balancing the game. Personally I enjoy fighters more, but there's a lot to be said for Immunity to Level Drain--especially in BG2.

Oh yes that Immunity to level drain with the Undead Hunter is what allowed me solo run through all the vampires I encounter. My pc was like "Okay party just rest here for awhile I go on a murder spree. "

reedmilfam

But I do love my immunities when I have them. Especially fear/poison (Cavalier) because these are some of the worst!

mforww

Immunity to Level Drain is an Undead Hunter ability, and while it's good, I was mostly referring to the immunity to Hold and Charm spells that the Inquisitor gets, which is borderline OP in BG1. That, in addition to the naturally high saving rolls and the True Sight that Inquisitors get, means I can basically walk up to any mage in the game and kick their ass without having to worry about a thing. It's basically unstoppable.

lunar

Fighter is more versatile. You can get grand mastery in a weapon, and if human, dual into thief, mage or cleric for interesting combos. An Inquisitor is sure powerful on its own right, but will be forever the same set of abilities.

Southpaw

Paladin has his immunities, but a Fighter can multi-/dual-class, gets Grand Mastery in a weapon (more dmg and APR) and will pull more damage than any paladin ever tries. (Except a paladin wielding a Carsomyr, that can get OP)
Barbarian has more HP and rage, but Fighter gets again GM (more dmg and APR), better armor and can dual-/multi-class.
Barbarians and Paladins will never learn new tricks. There's always a drawback. All character classes are interesting, just depends on what you want to sacrifice.
By the way, on high enough levels, all your save checks will be as low as paladins.

lunar

Southpaw said:

By the way, on high enough levels, all your save checks will be as low as paladins.

Fighter saves start horrible, but are very good at top levels, but paladins will always have +2 innate bonus 'divine grace' on top of that. :-) Which is more useful than it sounds, resisting a Finger of Death (which has a -2 penalty to save) is vital as if you fail, you die. Paladins offset the -2 penalty of FoD with their innate bonus. Fighters need to rely on +2 rings of protection or death ward to reliably shrug off a Finger of Death.

Still, fighters are cool. Another small thing, fighters require less xp to level up and will be higher level given the same experience points, than rangers/paladins=better HP, THAC0, weapon proficiencies, HLAs.

FinneousPJ

Fighters are meant for multi/dual classing.

Aasimar069

Southpaw said:

Paladin has his immunities, but a Fighter can multi-/dual-class, gets Grand Mastery in a weapon (more dmg and APR) and will pull more damage than any paladin ever tries. (Except a paladin wielding a Carsomyr, that can get OP)
Barbarian has more HP and rage, but Fighter gets again GM (more dmg and APR), better armor and can dual-/multi-class.
Barbarians and Paladins will never learn new tricks. There's always a drawback. All character classes are interesting, just depends on what you want to sacrifice.
By the way, on high enough levels, all your save checks will be as low as paladins.

Paladins with Carsomyr are OP.

My main has for a long time been a paladin kitt (either Cavalier and Inquisitor).

Now Keldorn wields it (my main is Berserker/cleric dualled), and he's doing most of the kills (with the cloak of spell reflection and belt of 21 strength).

With BG2 best items, I had 85 magic resistance (I won't list all the items here).
If at the beginning of the game you do the drop your inventory trick, you can have more than 100 resist magic by keeping the Cloak of Balduran

Carsomyr + ring of gaxx + 15% resist magic from hell + amulet of magic resistance + cloak of Balduran
50 + 10 + 15 +25

I might also forget some items that would be giving me over than 100%

AHF

Bear in mind that the fighter kits offer some big advantages as well. The OP refers to the advantages from the Barbarian's rage but the Berzerker kit's rage is even better - including the great immunity to imprisonment in BG2/TOB. A straight kensai ends up with +13 damage/to-hit by the end of the TOB. These are real advantages that make them very competitive with the Inquisitor, Barbarian, etc. even before you factor in the dual classing possibilities.

mjs

in a word: grandmastery. also shorties can be fighters, which means you can get even better saving throws (up to +5) compared to a pally's +2

dawnlance

As for saving throws, we can choose dwarf, halfling, even gnome as a fighter (or one of fighters kits). I just created a dwarven Defender, with 19 cons his begining saving throws is even better than an inquistor with 18 cons. As we know, with the stat of cons increasing, the shorter races may get save bonus.

Eudaemonium

I don't think Shorties get saving bonuses past 18 CON, however (+5). As a Fighter, though, they do get HP.

TJ_Hooker

Southpaw said:

Barbarians and Paladins will never learn new tricks.

Well, paladins sort of learn new tricks, in the form of divine spellcasting (although not for inquisitors).

Southpaw said:

By the way, on high enough levels, all your save checks will be as low as paladins.

A paladin will always have +2 better saves than a fighter or ranger at the same level (neglecting shorty bonuses).

smeagolheart

TJ_Hooker said:

Southpaw said:

Barbarians and Paladins will never learn new tricks.

Well, paladins sort of learn new tricks, in the form of divine spellcasting (although not for inquisitors).

Southpaw said:

By the way, on high enough levels, all your save checks will be as low as paladins.

A paladin will always have +2 better saves than a fighter or ranger at the same level (neglecting shorty bonuses).

I prefer immunity to saving throws. There are plenty of items, spells, and abilities that grant immunity to something so you don't have to rely on chance.

Dexter

Not related to combat, but Paladins must be Lawful Good and that's another downside for me. While the game is oriented towards a hero type of character, i often enjoy the "jerk answers" that you are afraid to use if you play a paladin. Fighters have roleplaying freedom