Logic.

>player skill
>"I roll to attack"

>Character power is proportional to player skill
Found your problem

>>55353971
And wizards don't even have to roll.

>>55353834
>To succeed as a fighter requires immense player skill
Falls apart there. You can't succeed as a fighter unless your definition of success encompasses being forever useless

File: lgwoguq.jpg (29KB, 220x415px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x415px

>>55353834
>Fighter is the worst class in core 3.5

*blocks your path*

>>55353834
>Fighter player must therefore be the most skilled player at the table
This is where your post fails.

>>55353834
>To succeed as a fighter requires immense player skill
Not really no. A straight figher simply cannot get past a certain level cap. He has no reliable means of full attacking, even if he did he'd just be dealing damage every turn, and feats are no replacement for class features. Even an entire feat chain leads to a neat trick, but those tricks scale very badly where class features scale much better in general.

Even the Dungeoncrasher fighter runs out of useful shit by around level 8. Playing a good fighter doesn't require skill, it requires multiclassing and prestige classes. The only "skill" playing a fighter relies on is system mastery, and that's only because 99% of prestige classes are trap options.

The D&D 3,5 fighter requires resources spread across various setting books that have been determined to give some sort of mechanical advantage that is often superceded by some spell that a caster character can get anyways since most enemies will become immune to mundane damage and even some magical sources or have some ability to where getting close to them damages or harms you.

Most martial characters have no inherent ability to overcome this without help from the caster.

>>55353834
>To succeed as a fighter requires immense player skill

This is /tg/ logic. These are some of the people that DM and, therefore, are asked to adjudicate on rules.

This is why I am a forever-DM

>>55354104
>>55354037
>>55353971
I'm pretty sure, that by "player skill" he meant players social adaptivity,which is quite the highground over autistic munchkins, who have only one way dealing with problems and get into stupor every time things aren't going their way.
The problem is that no one stops socially adapted player to play as wizarcleric.He probably will, actually,considering that masochistic desire to play as a useless shit to fulfill you complexes (aka. overcompensate) and then call it "being an underdog" is the greatest sign of insecurity.

Even accepting your premise in full your argument is fallacious as while a skilled player may create a more powerful character, and creating a fighter requies skill, there is no promise that skill correlates with absolute power, only relative. If you assemble the same argument with an axe and a chainsaw you'll see the underlying problem: axes and fighters require skill to even court parity with chainsaws and casters, but skill by no means grantees superior results.

>>55354265
Even then, the fighter is straight up USELESS. You can be effective without being a munchkin and play characters that have limits but niches they're actually good at. Something like the ToB classers or a beguiler or something.

There's a huge spectrum between muchkin and dead weight. If the druid gets an animal companion that's more useful than you, you're dead weight. If the cleric is out of the box only barely weaker than you *without* spells, you're dead weight.

>>55354044
The monk is a great class for 2 level dips and prestige classing into Enlightened/Sacred Fist