PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] What's the point of the Fighter?



Skorj
2010-09-16, 07:16 PM
What's the point of the Fighter? Not a rhetorical question. A favorite passtime around here seems to be suggesting ways to balance classes in 3.5, but we seem to do a lot of jumping ahead to mechanics before we define the goals.

So, I want to ask a different sort of class-balance question: what would a tier 2 fighter look like? Assume we don’t want a gish, that we want to keep the “just physical attacks” flavor of the class, not a part-caster, or highly-mobile skill monkey. What combat role could the fighter fill; what situations could he be the best class for?

First let’s review what the top-tier classes can do in combat that makes them so useful: Strong offense: various save-or-lose spells, that can be optimized for high DCs and chosen to exploit the weak save of an opponent.
Highly mobile, with fly and teleport and the like.
Strong defense, with invisibility, blur, mirror image, and similar high-miss-chance spells.
Good battlefield control spells, allowing the opponents to be defeated in detail, or simple area denial.
Ability to summon, or transform into, creatures with strong melee power. The whole “transform into a bear that rides a bear while summoning bears” thing.
Powerful buffs, but that often works best if you buff the fighter, so that’s more of a tag-team thing and is actually one good role for a fighter.


So, if we were designing a new fighter class from scratch, what could we give it that keeps the spirit of the classic fighter: Strong offense through really high HP damage. Balancing HP damage vs save-or-lose is just a matter of math, and feats can extend this to multiple weaker targets as well as one strong opponent. Always useful, and situationally more or less useful than SoL.
Mobility is the classic fighter’s biggest weakness in 3.5, often rendering him useless unless kitted up with enough magic items where he uses the same tactics as the casters (which works, but loses the flavor). I think Iron Heart Surge is sort of the way to go here, since you can give the fighter some sort of immunity to mobility denial spells without changing the classic flavor, but that’s a partial fix at best.
Defense of a sort other than “hard to hit” seems appropriate here (high AC is perfect against mooks, but the Mages defenses against strong single opponents don’t seem right for a fighter). Tons of HP would be a good start, but what to do about SoLs targeting weak saves? Again, some sort of Iron Heart Surge-like ability to shrug off SoLs seems like the way to go. A fighter should takes the hits and keep coming; that seems key.
There are already decent battlefield control melee builds with trip and lockdown. Desperately in need of re-fluffing IMO (spending all combat tripping people just doesn’t seem right), but mechanically useful, and different from a casters battlefield control in tactics and flavor, so that’s good.
Finally, how to keep a fighter better at his role (whatever that turns out to be) than summoned or transformed creatures? I don’t know where to start on this one, but to be better than a bear that rides a bear while summoning bears, the fighter has to have something going for him beyond his HP damage offense!.


To be tier 2 or 3, you need both abilities that are strong in a variety of situations, and encounter-winning abilities. What sort of encounters should a fighter be able to win just by showing up, unless the DM gets very clever? I think if we had a good list of these, the rest of it would come together. The first is clearly “holding ground” – modern infantry may be outclassed in mobility and firepower by a variety of technological wonders, but it still can’t be beat for holding territory. This seems like the most natural strength of a low-mobility class.
Another that might work is “protecting the weak NPC”. Everyone hates escort missions, but if you give the fighter the ability to intercept attacks, he could be key to them. (Many defensive spells that can be cast on others give a miss chance, which isn’t great for defending a commoner against a ton of attacks, and other defensive buffs would work even better if cast on a fighter who was blocking).
Any better ideas in the playground?


If you can clearly define what you want a tier 2 fighter to look like, the mechanics of class balance can then be addressed, but is there a way to make him tier 2 without breaking the basic flavor of the class? What do you think?

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 07:31 PM
If you can clearly define what you want a tier 2 fighter to look like, the mechanics of class balance can then be addressed, but is there a way to make him tier 2 without breaking the basic flavor of the class? What do you think?

Tome of Battle does this. The classes from there (the crusader, swordsage and warblade) are all T3. The warblade is closest in form to a fighter flavorwise. If you wanted to make it T2 you could probably just do so by gestalting it with the fighter. There are a number of fighter fixes floating around that you may want to take a look at.

Thurbane
2010-09-16, 07:36 PM
...that time of week already? :smalltongue:

How about this: give the Fighter good BAB, all good saves, 8 skill points/level, all skills as class skills, bonus feat every level, bonus feats can be any feat, not just Fighter bonus feats.

...and people will still say that he's nerfed compared to casters.

Here's my 2 cents...if you really think fighter is unusable as is...don't use it? Or as many, many people have suggested, use the Warblade instead. Or the Pathfinder Fighter. Or the Trailblazer Fighter. Or Frank & Ks tome Fighter. Or any of the other dozens of Fighter homebrews.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-16, 07:38 PM
Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 07:39 PM
...that time of week already? :smalltongue:

I was surprised. I thought Thursday was monk day.

lsfreak
2010-09-16, 07:40 PM
Tome of Battle does this. The classes from there (the crusader, swordsage and warblade) are all T3. The warblade is closest in form to a fighter flavorwise. If you wanted to make it T2 you could probably just do so by gestalting it with the fighter. There are a number of fighter fixes floating around that you may want to take a look at.

Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 07:44 PM
Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

Well, the logic here for this gestalt working is that there are enough feats that you can pick that you can get stuff like short-range teleporting or close to it make no difference. In particular, you can use your extra feats to pick up some of the extra maneuvers and stances that are normally crusader or swordsage only that function as utility powers. Since the feats that give you extra maneuvers are often fighter bonus maneuvers this should work ok.

(Actually now that I think about this, there probably aren't enough to move it up to Tier 2 particularly because the feat that gives you an extra maneuver can only be taken 3 times which is going to severely limit how much you can do this.)

Thurbane
2010-09-16, 07:45 PM
Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?

SurlySeraph
2010-09-16, 07:45 PM
Let him choose his own class skills. Customization is his shtick, isn't it?

Thurbane
2010-09-16, 07:46 PM
Hmm, interesting...like how the Expert NPC class does it? Not a bad idea at all.

JKTrickster
2010-09-16, 07:47 PM
Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?

Skorj
2010-09-16, 07:47 PM
Gestalting with fighter probably isn't enough to make it T2; the difference between T2 and T3 is more than 'just a tier.' You'll need to throw in options like long and short-range teleport, flying, skill check boosters/abusers, charming-type things, divinations, area debuffing, pure utility abilities, etc. One of the hallmarks of T2, whether explicitly stated or not, is that many of their actions are trump cards - either the enemy has the single defense that negates it completely, or they flat-out lose. If it doesn't have the ability to turn into rocket tag at high levels, it's not T2.

I think the key here is to that the fighter should be the trump card for some encounter types not so much opponent types. Sure, some people run D&D just as a combat simulator with no real goal to the combats, but I don't think that's the common case. I can see a fighter winning a "hold this ground" or "protect this weakling" encounter just by showing up, if given the right mechanics. What other sort of encounters fit the classic fighter flavor?


Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?

I was struggling with how to say that, but I think you nailed it, thanks. :smallsmile: Particularly, D&D mechanics have made using a shield nearly pointless, but that sure seems like it should be a significant part of being a fighter. Or more to the point, defending others as well as yourself when the need arises.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 07:49 PM
Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?

Probably a Knowledge skill of his choice. This lets you simulate fighters who grew up in the woods, or who grew up in court, or who grew up defending mages.

Almost certainly give Tumble because it has direct combat benefits.

I'd like to give Hide and Move Silently since soldiers sometimes need to sneak, but people might feel that that's stepping too much on the rogue's toes.


Edit: Also note that there's also Jane's fighter fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108643) which does a decent job of making a fighter not stink but still doesn't by itself move up to T2.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-16, 07:53 PM
Well IMHO that should be the barbarian class. To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained. If you just want mindless violence, why wouldn't you choose barbarian instead?
Because you don't want to play mindless violence that gets angry for their power? You want to play Lobo, not Bruce Banner.

thompur
2010-09-16, 07:59 PM
I like the idea of 4 skill pts/ level, add 1 knowledge skill to his list, any 2 untrained, and, for every character, 4 free craft/profession sk pts at first level for character history building, so you don't have to waste regular points to give your character some depth.

holywhippet
2010-09-16, 08:03 PM
Keep in mind, the whole tier scheme is only relevant at high levels. A level 1 wizard is not awesomely powerful. If anything they are behind the fighter as they can only crank out a couple of spells wheras the fighter can dish out a lot more damage and surivive a lot longer due to HP, AC and attack bonuses.

If a campaign never goes past level 5 or so, then a fighter is still going to be a strong character for the entire campaign.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 08:12 PM
Keep in mind, the whole tier scheme is only relevant at high levels. A level 1 wizard is not awesomely powerful. If anything they are behind the fighter as they can only crank out a couple of spells wheras the fighter can dish out a lot more damage and surivive a lot longer due to HP, AC and attack bonuses.

If a campaign never goes past level 5 or so, then a fighter is still going to be a strong character for the entire campaign.

That's a good point. To use my earlier example of gestaling a warblade and a fighter, if one had a campaign that was going to stop before level 5, the wizard would look pathetic in comparison (although a druid would still hold their own).

Chambers
2010-09-16, 08:14 PM
I've done some of these things with my Heroic Edition Fighter. However, I think asking the question " What sort of encounters should a fighter be able to win just by showing up, unless the DM gets very clever?" is not the right question to ask. No offense intended.

It's my opinion that no class should be able to end an encounter just by showing up. I think Tier 3 is the optimal level for balance and fair play. If you look at the 3.75 classes that came out, I think nearly all of them are around Tier 3. It looks like it took WoTC a couple years to understand their system, but I think they finally got the point near the end.


I think the key here is to that the fighter should be the trump card for some encounter types not so much opponent types.

I think this is a different, and better, question. Instead of asking how does the fighter win by default, we're asking when does the fighter excel?

I think the fighter should excel in situations where there is weapon combat (either melee or ranged). That's pretty much all D&D combats...so I'm saying that the Fighter should excel in pretty much all D&D combats. He shouldn't win all combats by default, but he should be one of the best combatants.

He should have abilities that not only enhance his abilities to attack and deal damage, but have abilities that protect him from attacks and damage. Currently, spellcasters are the Fighters best class ability, in that the spellcasters buff spells do for the fighter what the fighter should be able to do for himself. Or herself.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-16, 08:26 PM
So, if we were designing a new fighter class from scratch, what could we give it t...

1. Open up tome of battle to Warblade.
2. Uncap sharpie.
3. Scribble "Fighter" over "Warblade"

Done.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 08:27 PM
1. Open up tome of battle to Warblade.
2. Uncap sharpie.
3. Scribble "Fighter" over "Warblade"

Done.

Well, and scribble out the silly fluff about warblades all being show-offs. But yeah, other than that...

Ravens_cry
2010-09-16, 08:31 PM
I disagree. If D&d were PvP by default, I can see how self buffing would essential, but it's really not. Also, too much self buffing would feel to non-mundane for a Fighter, in my opinion.

Tael
2010-09-16, 08:40 PM
The Warmarked is pretty much the only decent attempt to make a tier 2 fighter that I've seen. It does it pretty damn well too. The ToS team makes some good stuff.

Reluctance
2010-09-16, 08:42 PM
If we're asking about the original concept, you'd have to rework feats to make them better while you rework spells to make them less gamebreaking. Feats were a big thing back when 3e was being released, a class meant to make the most of that mechanic wasn't a bad idea, it's just that feat trees didn't grow high enough or synergize well enough. And that most of the really nifty feats went to casters.

If we're talking about the highly trained combatant who owns the battlefield, TOB works best. If you're homebrewing, steal liberally from knights and monks if you like.

And if you're trying to build some paragon of simplicity for people who just want to roll dice without too many complications, you can't make it good without scuttling the whole game. The whole charm to casters is that they have all sorts of nifty options. The guy who can teleport away or turn invisible will always have an edge over the guy who can only swing a sword. You'd have to include mythic level abilities to even begin balancing things. At which point, the class moves away from simplicity towards a big bag of options.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-16, 08:44 PM
Well, and scribble out the silly fluff about warblades all being show-offs. But yeah, other than that...

Tome of Battle has fluff?

Ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me they made a sequel to Highlander.

Thurbane
2010-09-16, 08:44 PM
So, basically, what do people consider the main shortcoming(s) of the Fighter (when compared to similar melee classes, like the Barbarian or Warblade)? The most common ones I see are:

Lack of unique class features (a lot of people do not consider bonus feats to be an actual, or largely worthwhile, class feature).
Lack of versatility in combat.
Lack of ability to contribute outside of combat (to be fair, this is common to most pure melee classes).
Directly related to this: lack of skills (both skill points, and a very limited skill list).

The questions you really need to ask in relation to your own games are:

Do these perceived/real shortcomings make the class undesiarble/unplayable in my games?
Do I want a from-the-ground rebuild of the Fighter to address these shortcomings?
Am I happy to simply drop the class in favor of another (like Warblade, or Barbarian)? (i.e. what's in a name).

RufusCorvus
2010-09-16, 08:45 PM
This is my suggestion. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Class#Fighter)

Zodiac
2010-09-16, 08:47 PM
Frank and K's Tome Fighter (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Fighter%2C_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29) is an example of a powerful fighter whose probably Tier 1.

EDIT: GAH! Ninja'd

RufusCorvus
2010-09-16, 08:50 PM
In this case, don't you think FIGHTER'D! is somewhat more appropriate?

Draz74
2010-09-16, 09:10 PM
"The point of the Fighter" is actually one of the biggest things I like about 4e. Yeah, a few of the 4e Fighter's powers are cheesy, but at least they still all feel nonmagical.

And 4e makes it clear: the point of the Fighter is to defend his teammates, and in addition to that goal (or in support of it), to be a good if not top-tier damage dealer.

The Fighter is one of the stronger classes in 4e ... and he looks good doing it. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Side note -- Most of the Warblade's abilities are very mundane and appropriate for a Fighter re-write, but not all. Lightning Throw is as wuxia as it gets. Iron Heart Surge is kind of magical, too, unless you houserule it to free just the Warblade from effects rather than "ending" the effects. Earthstrike Quake is kind of borderline. And then there's the issue of the Warblade picking up magical-feeling Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, or Devoted Spirit maneuvers with a feat, more easily than non-initiator classes can.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 09:33 PM
EDIT: Side note -- Most of the Warblade's abilities are very mundane and appropriate for a Fighter re-write, but not all. Lightning Throw is as wuxia as it gets. Iron Heart Surge is kind of magical, too, unless you houserule it to free just the Warblade from effects rather than "ending" the effects. Earthstrike Quake is kind of borderline. And then there's the issue of the Warblade picking up magical-feeling Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, or Devoted Spirit maneuvers with a feat, more easily than non-initiator classes can.

A lot of Shadow Hand and Devoted Spirit can be fluffed to minimize supernatual elements if you want to. (Desert Wind is definitely harder although you could do something involving setting your blade on fire if you really wanted to). Note also that warblades don't actually get those maneuvers more easily than non-initiators, they just get the high level ones more easily (since they have higher initiator level). And it is easy if one wants to make a fighter without them to just have a warblade without those disciplines.

If I were to criticize stuff in the ToB system, I'd focus on the fact that there's no-supernatural teleporting which just makes no sense. But it isn't hard to fluff a warblade as a fighter if you choose the right maneuvers. Just don't choose the more supernatural schools.

cupkeyk
2010-09-16, 09:41 PM
Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

This is true, some people play viscerally vis-a-vis cerebrally. Anything with micromanagement is not an option, they think computing power attack is a hassle. I have played with people like these and I print them power attack tables. They just like going arg and killing stuff. They are fun to play with and they are having fun. Why change that?

JoshuaZ
2010-09-16, 09:47 PM
Frank and K's Tome Fighter (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Fighter%2C_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29) is an example of a powerful fighter whose probably Tier 1.


Not T1. Strong, but lacking the flexibility of a T1 class. Being able to break the game is not the same thing as T1. Also being able to feel not useless in a game with T1 classes doesn't make you T1.


Tome of Battle has fluff?

Ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me they made a sequel to Highlander.

Well, they did make a TV show. But under no circumstances were any sequels ever made.

Edit:


This is true, some people play viscerally vis-a-vis cerebrally. Anything with micromanagement is not an option, they think computing power attack is a hassle. I have played with people like these and I print them power attack tables. They just like going arg and killing stuff. They are fun to play with and they are having fun. Why change that?

Well, some people want to play a class that has the flavor of a fighter but is still able to do well. Part of the problem is that the core fighter means that if you want to play a "I hit them, a lot" sort of character you simply won't be very impressive next to even moderately optimized spellcasters.

Thurbane
2010-09-16, 09:56 PM
Well, some people want to play a class that has the flavor of a fighter but is still able to do well. Part of the problem is that the core fighter means that if you want to play a "I hit them, a lot" sort of character you simply won't be very impressive next to even moderately optimized spellcasters.
To be fair to the Fighter, basically no pure melee class is very impressive compared to an optimized full caster...it's only a matter of degrees.

There are two very distinct arguments, AFAIC:

How does the Fighter compare to other "pure melee" type classes.
How do non-casters compare to casters.

Petrocorus
2010-09-16, 10:30 PM
I was struggling with how to say that, but I think you nailed it, thanks. :smallsmile: Particularly, D&D mechanics have made using a shield nearly pointless, but that sure seems like it should be a significant part of being a fighter.
It's really odd, since in real life, shield & sword or shield & spear were the most common weaponry for fighters. 2-handed sword were used only for specific goals, like counter-cavalry.


To me, the fighter should have been the one who went to Fighter College or something to that extent. They should be trained.
Exactly, they have an MBA, a Master in Battle Administration. They must be able to fit the roles of soldier, but also guard, bodyguard, sergeants, officer, generals, to fill the militia's rank, police stuff for some of them, etc.
The rules doesn't give them any kind of versatility except for weapons.


Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?
Spot & listen, hide, move silently, knowledge (strategy), knowledge (history), maybe search or survival and one or two chosen skills.

Soranar
2010-09-16, 11:08 PM
To me, fighters remain a class thats good for 2 things

be strong early in the game and get the most of magic items

prepare for a PrC

as such it's a fine class, fighter doesn't start becoming weak untill level 6+ (which is where you should be taking PrC levels)

it's also at that point that most tier one classes start breaking the game

wizards (and all other squishy caster types) are quite fragile and challenging to play early on
clerics (and favored souls and spirit shamans) aren't much more than healbots until that point (although with the right domains they can be as offensive as the fighter on top of casting spells)

druids are broken at any level (having too much fighting prowess, a pet fighter and spells)

but I agree with some of the criticisms :

x2 skillpoints makes no sense

that casters have limited skillpoints is normal: they're so busy learning their other class features they have little time for more mundane things (again Druids showoff their ridiculous class features here with x4, never mind the cloistered cleric)

I'd go for something akin to the rogue x8

as for the skill list this is the base (from SRD http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm)

Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str).

add :

appraise, balance, bluff, heal, listen, spot, tumble

finally pick between survival or gather information (depending on your background, one or the other would make sense)

Starbuck_II
2010-09-16, 11:15 PM
It's really odd, since in real life, shield & sword or shield & spear were the most common weaponry for fighters. 2-handed sword were used only for specific goals, like counter-cavalry.


What about the feared Lu Bu? He used a spear and no shield.

wayfare
2010-09-16, 11:19 PM
I always thought the class features belonging to the War Mind prestige class were an easy match for the fighter. Especialy if you change the +10d6 damage thing to "you can add this many d6 to your damage rolls each day."

As for mobility issues, I don't really see a problem with giving combat classes supernatural abilities to overcome magical opposition. Lets face it -- by level 5 a fighter is just as supernatural as a wizard in his own way. If you can hold a hand grenade in your fist, pull the pin, watch it explode, and only take a fraction of your health in damage, thats pretty darn inhuman.

cupkeyk
2010-09-16, 11:27 PM
Well, some people want to play a class that has the flavor of a fighter but is still able to do well. Part of the problem is that the core fighter means that if you want to play a "I hit them, a lot" sort of character you simply won't be very impressive next to even moderately optimized spellcasters.

Well then play something else, like a warblade. The fighter is mechanically the best option for the correct audience.

Xefas
2010-09-16, 11:59 PM
As has been pointed out, Fighter can keep up reasonably well at the first couple levels just by picking up a Greatsword and having decent strength. He is tough, with high hit points and high armor, which protect against the offense of low level creatures. He deals damage consistently capable of 1 or 2 shotting any low level creature. And, in the low levels, where limited resources like spells are very precious, they can deal this damage at-will, making them rather powerful. In addition, stuff like flight hasn't become ubiquitous yet, so it's a non-issue.

Fighter is a good choice for a game that runs level 1-5. He is a warrior whose entire schtick is beating things to death with a sharpened (or unsharpened) piece of metal, while being protected by heavy armor, and standing in the choke point and playing meat-grinder for hours. He is every man who decided, no matter how mundane he might be, he can make a difference and be a hero.

The problem is that, past level 5-6, the game isn't *for* the mundane everyman. The game is no longer about monsters that can just be beat to death with sharpened pieces of metal. It's no longer about mere armor being enough. It doesn't even really have choke points so much anymore. It's no longer about heroes - it's about superheroes.

This is the point where the mundane is supposed to fall short, its an area where the everyman fighter enters and must decide evolve or die, he can either become non-mundane or he can be useless and die.

For those who enjoy the more gritty mundane games, just stick to level 1-5ish. The game works fine at that point. It can tell the story you want to tell.

At level 7+, it's a different game. It's a game where the guy whose only schtick is murdering things with a sharpened metal stick is supposed to die and be useless. The world has evolved past him, and left only those who were smart enough to pick up some magic to keep them going.

At high levels (15-20), you're supposed to basically be a god now. Level 15-20 Fighters are not gods. It's surprising one could get this far to begin with.

Really, there's nothing to fix, because nothing is broken. Fighters are meant to be mundane. Mundane is not meant to be worth it past a certain level. At some point, to keep up, you'd need to add some blatantly non-mundane things. Make him tough enough to swim through lava and strong enough to cleave mountains or leap continents and you have the idea of a mid-level fighter. Make him tough enough to just grab that Finger of Death out of the air and chug it down like Powerthirst, and strong enough to cut through the fabric of the planes, and you have the god-fighter that is level 15-20.

It might actually be fun to brew such a thing...

Thurbane
2010-09-17, 12:09 AM
^^ While this is generally true, it is certainly not universal. It is really very dependant on the style of game the DM is running, the optimization level of the players (and the DM), to mention a couple of things.

It is worth noting that the WotC assumed optimzation level of the game is pretty far below the average group that actually optimizes. It assumes such things as blasting wizards and healbot clerics.

My main point - is that no two groups' campaigns will run exactly the same, and that the uselessness of mid-high level "mundane" characters is fairly variable between games.

Petrocorus
2010-09-17, 12:09 AM
What about the feared Lu Bu? He used a spear and no shield.

Well, i said "most common", not "only". Halberd were not rare.
But i must confess i was more thinking to western history than eastern one.

Xefas
2010-09-17, 12:13 AM
^^ While this is generally true, it is certainly not universal. It is really very dependant on the style of game the DM is running, the optimization level of the players (and the DM), to mention a couple of things.

It is worth noting that the WotC assumed optimzation level of the game is pretty far below the average group that actually optimizes. It assumes such things as blasting wizards and healbot clerics.

My main point - is that no two groups' campaigns will run exactly the same, and that the uselessness of high level "mundane" chaarcters is fairl variable between games.

Even blasting wizards and healbot clerics conform to this model.

Assuming a blasting wizard in a non-optimized party, at some point you'll still run into "My fighter can stab this guy and hurt him some." and "My blasting wizard can create a cloud of fiery death and incinerate that platoon of dudes instantly."

Assuming a healbot cleric in a non-optimized party, at some point you'll still run into "My fighter can stab this guy and hurt him some." and "I can bring the dead back to life."

Thurbane
2010-09-17, 12:25 AM
Well, speaking for myself and groups I've played with, I've been involved in some mid-level (8-14) games where mundanes weren't totally eclipsed by casters...due in no small part to the casters not being especially optimized. But also, the DM tailoring the game so that everyone could contribute, and the unspoken "gentlemans agreement" that casters did not abuse or overruse spells and tactics to make them omnipotent.

As I've said many times in similar threads, the power discrepancy between classes is a lot less of an issue in co-op, DM run games, as compared to PvP arena-style matches. It certainly doesn't disappear entirely, but IMHO it is far less of a problem.

Finally, the issue of casters eclipsing melee is certainly not exclusive to Fighters...which is really the focus of this thread. There is little arguing to power level of Fighter vs Wizard, or Druid. A much more fruitful debate is Fighter vs Barbarian, or Warblade.

Xefas
2010-09-17, 12:39 AM
Well, speaking for myself and groups I've played with, I've been involved in some mid-level (8-14) games where mundanes weren't totally eclipsed by casters...due in no small part to the casters not being especially optimized. But also, the DM tailoring the game so that everyone could contribute, and the unspoken "gentlemans agreement" that casters did not abuse or overruse spells and tactics to make them omnipotent.

As I've said many times in similar threads, the power discrepancy between classes is a lot less of an issue in co-op, DM run games, as compared to PvP arena-style matches. It certainly doesn't disappear entirely, but IMHO it is far less of a problem.

Finally, the issue of casters eclipsing melee is certainly not exclusive to Fighters...which is really the focus of this thread. There is little arguing to power level of Fighter vs Wizard, or Druid. A much more fruitful debate is Fighter vs Barbarian, or Warblade.

Oh, I'm not really talking about balance. I'm more talking about a setting reasonably extrapolated from the intention of the rules of the system.

Sure, a DM can heavily contrive instances in a level 14 game where everyone contributes equally just as well as an Author can contrive instances where Superman wouldn't just trivially solve all of Batman's problems instantly without breaking a sweat. It doesn't make it any less insulting for both characters. Batman is interesting because he fights mundane folk in badass ways. A Fighter is interesting because he fights mundane folk in badass ways. Once you take Batman/Fighter and put him in a situation where his mundane stuff works on Darkseid/Something Mildly Supernatural, you've invalidated what makes him badass.

The truth is that, in a setting in which Fighters never get anything beyond stabbing, they'd never make it to higher levels, and, indeed, aren't supposed to. Even a level 20 (i.e. supposed god) Fighter that runs across, say, a Nalfeshnee (a minor demon - what should be a nuisance) will just die.

Personally, I just play systems that don't have a huge gaping hole between "mechanics", "flavor", and "expectations of the system", so the DM doesn't have to spend his time distracting us from seeing the hole and can focus on other stuff. :smalltongue:

Math_Mage
2010-09-17, 01:16 AM
This is true, some people play viscerally vis-a-vis cerebrally. Anything with micromanagement is not an option, they think computing power attack is a hassle. I have played with people like these and I print them power attack tables. They just like going arg and killing stuff. They are fun to play with and they are having fun. Why change that?

...:smallconfused:

If someone doesn't need a Fighter fix, don't give them a Fighter fix. Does that mean that people looking for Fighter fixes shouldn't make any?

Schylerwalker
2010-09-17, 01:25 AM
What's the point of the fighter?

His sword/spear/quiver of arrows/morningstar/vorpal wounding spiked chain of speed. Duh. The fighter's point is he is POINTY! :smallbiggrin:

cupkeyk
2010-09-17, 01:25 AM
But there are "fighter fixes" except they're named something else like hexblade, warblade and duskblade.

JaronK
2010-09-17, 01:35 AM
To my mind, we should look at the description of the Fighter to know what it's supposed to be. It's talked about by the designers as being a good class for guards, veteran soldiers, and warlords. It's supposed to be tough as nails and understand the fundamentals of war, making a decent war time leader.

And to preserve the mechanical spirit of the Fighter, any Fighter revamp should be feat based in some way... otherwise we might as well just through the whole thing out and just use the Warblade (which is an acceptable option, but they're a little closer to "through skill we can win in war" while Fighter is more "ascended grunt").

Plus, while the Fighter obviously should specialize in combat, it would be much nicer if the Fighter wasn't virtually worthless outside of combat.

Every time I've worked out a Fighter fix, it's come out similar. Special abilities related to their bonus feats (like being able to swap a few feats around, much like the Chameleon, or being better with feats, like having Dodge give a +1 dodge bonus, with an additional +1 for every four Fighter levels you have). Skills that fit their designer assigned roles (Spot, Listen, Knowledge: History, Sense Motive). A few extra skill points (4+Int). Special abilities that make them a little better at military leadership (add your Fighter level to all knowledge checks to identify monsters or generate strategic advantages). Boosts to the fundamentals of combat (add 1/3 your Fighter level to Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, and Bull Rush checks). That basic thing. It works well, but it's T3, not T2. Then again, I don't like T2.

JaronK

Zen Master
2010-09-17, 01:42 AM
The point of the fighter, as far as I can figure, is this:

See, it all has to do with the design process. At one point, a group of men sat around a table and discussed the basics of the game. They agreed that they wanted each class to be highly customizable. To give players the feel that they are building something unique. And so not all druids/bards/wizards feel the same.

They then agree that what you use to custimize your character is feats. So far so good.

See - then they split up. One group makes classes - another makes feats.

And the group making the fighter class think to themselves 'well - the fighter should be able to do anything, and do it well. I'm thinking he should be the most customizable of all the classes. He'll get a f...ton of those feats, so he can really do anything - and do it well.'

Et voila ... a basically sound plan turns completely bunk because feats largely just aren't impressive enough to do the trick. And you have the fighter, who can do pretty much nothing, and be only mediocre at it, at best.

Of course I cannot promise that this was exactly what happened - I wasn't at that table. But I'm pretty sure that's close to accurate.

Math_Mage
2010-09-17, 02:53 AM
But there are "fighter fixes" except they're named something else like hexblade, warblade and duskblade.

...:smallconfused:

First of all, how is this a counterargument?

Second, what do people do if they want to play a fighter without a magic or pseudo-magic system, and without being seriously unbalanced in a group with some magic (assuming roughly equal optimization)? The posts quoted below offer some hints:



Here's my 2 cents...if you really think fighter is unusable as is...don't use it? Or as many, many people have suggested, use the Warblade instead. Or the Pathfinder Fighter. Or the Trailblazer Fighter. Or Frank & Ks tome Fighter. Or any of the other dozens of Fighter homebrews.



Every time I've worked out a Fighter fix, it's come out similar. Special abilities related to their bonus feats (like being able to swap a few feats around, much like the Chameleon, or being better with feats, like having Dodge give a +1 dodge bonus, with an additional +1 for every four Fighter levels you have). Skills that fit their designer assigned roles (Spot, Listen, Knowledge: History, Sense Motive). A few extra skill points (4+Int). Special abilities that make them a little better at military leadership (add your Fighter level to all knowledge checks to identify monsters or generate strategic advantages). Boosts to the fundamentals of combat (add 1/3 your Fighter level to Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, and Bull Rush checks). That basic thing. It works well, but it's T3, not T2. Then again, I don't like T2.

JaronK


This is my suggestion. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Class#Fighter)


Frank and K's Tome Fighter (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Fighter%2C_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29) is an example of a powerful fighter whose probably Tier 1.

EDIT: GAH! Ninja'd

...namely, make a Fighter fix. So, what exactly is the problem with this? I'll echo you: Why not change that?

Killer Angel
2010-09-17, 03:46 AM
Keep in mind, the whole tier scheme is only relevant at high levels. A level 1 wizard is not awesomely powerful. If anything they are behind the fighter as they can only crank out a couple of spells wheras the fighter can dish out a lot more damage and surivive a lot longer due to HP, AC and attack bonuses.


Well, the wiz. certainly doesn't need a defense, and isn't neither a character I like so much (my preferred is the ranger), but...
Yeah, at first level the wiz. isn't powerful, with only a couple of spells (plus other spells thanks to scrolls).
But the fighter will have only a dozen hp, and a not so high AC (no heavy armour with the low WBL). So no, the fighter certainly will not last longer, not at all.
At low levels, they need to cooperate.

cupkeyk
2010-09-17, 04:57 AM
Because the fighter has a point. If yer gonna homebrew anyway, you are building a new class for a different niche, instead of moving the fighter from one niche to another.

Math_Mage
2010-09-17, 05:18 AM
Because the fighter has a point. If yer gonna homebrew anyway, you are building a new class for a different niche, instead of moving the fighter from one niche to another.

Sorry, that argument's too vague for me. You could say the same thing about any class, no matter how powerful or weak, no matter how well or poorly designed. What is the difference between 'building a new class for a different niche' and 'moving the fighter from one niche to another'? What niche is the fighter fulfilling now, besides 'simple enough for people who have trouble calculating anything more complicated than a Power Attack', that is valuable enough to justify disparaging homebrewed alternatives? And you still haven't explained what it was you were trying to demonstrate by pointing to the existence of the warblade, hexblade, and duskblade, unless it be that even WotC figured out the fighter needs fixes.

cupkeyk
2010-09-17, 05:27 AM
Because I like short answers.

There is nothing wrong homebrewing a fighter alternative but isn't the topic what is the point of the fighter? We've established that.

Math_Mage
2010-09-17, 05:41 AM
Because I like short answers.

There is nothing wrong homebrewing a fighter alternative but isn't the topic what is the point of the fighter? We've established that.

The question, as stated in the OP, is how to determine and preserve the basic flavor of the fighter (the 'point' of the class) while upping the power level; what characteristics of the WotC-published Fighter class should carry over to any alternative version? If you missed that, you may need to return to post 1 and work from there.

Ricky S
2010-09-17, 06:23 AM
Some people don't want a thousand and one options. Some people like playing the character who does one thing, bash things with a big hunk of sharpened metal until it is destroyed.

My fighter likes shooting things full of pointy little sticks from his flexible piece of wood instead of bashing it repeatedly. It also saves the trouble of having to worry about movement.

holywhippet
2010-09-17, 06:41 AM
The point of the fighter, as far as I can figure, is this:

See, it all has to do with the design process. At one point, a group of men sat around a table and discussed the basics of the game. They agreed that they wanted each class to be highly customizable. To give players the feel that they are building something unique. And so not all druids/bards/wizards feel the same.

They then agree that what you use to custimize your character is feats. So far so good.

See - then they split up. One group makes classes - another makes feats.

And the group making the fighter class think to themselves 'well - the fighter should be able to do anything, and do it well. I'm thinking he should be the most customizable of all the classes. He'll get a f...ton of those feats, so he can really do anything - and do it well.'

Et voila ... a basically sound plan turns completely bunk because feats largely just aren't impressive enough to do the trick. And you have the fighter, who can do pretty much nothing, and be only mediocre at it, at best.

Of course I cannot promise that this was exactly what happened - I wasn't at that table. But I'm pretty sure that's close to accurate.

The thing is, the fighter is mediocre - but consistent. You can expect them to hit with a certain % of attacks on a given opponent and do an average of a certain amount of damage with each hit. Spellcasters will eventually eclipse what the fighter can do with most of their spells - but they have a limited number of spells they can cast. A level 20 wizard is a being to be feared, until they run out of spells (assuming they aren't packing scrolls/wands/etc.).

That is one of the fundamental theories behind D&D class design and has been for all editions prior to 4th ed. Spellcasters are powerful until they run out of spells or run out of useful spells. Generally it never comes to that though, most DMs don't run a war of attrition long enough to completely exhaust all of a spellcasters spell slots.

Also, don't forget what OotS pointed out when V ran into that mother dragon - an antimagic shell greatly weakens or makes useless a spellcaster if they are inside of it (or their enemy is). A fighter might be a bit weaker if they were relying on magical equipment, but for the most part they are still as effective as ever.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-17, 08:03 AM
My fighter likes shooting things full of pointy little sticks from his flexible piece of wood instead of bashing it repeatedly. It also saves the trouble of having to worry about movement.

And that is one of the reasons I don't personally advocate replacing the fighter with the warblade entirely; warblades do not archers make. (For a kick off, they need to learn how to use bows...)

In my own game paradigm, fighters are still useful even at higher levels. Partly this is due to them getting more feats (and a handful of extra benefits on some feats), but equally because of the type of adventure and opposition (mostly classed humanoids in my games).

In fact, it's surprising what you can crank out with a bow-fighter (or a even a shield fighter) at 20th level with nine extra feats. (Even more so since I recently added a "power attack" equivilent for bows).

My other trick is to give the casters something to worry about; either large numbers of enemies or even better, enemy casters (and often both!), who will a) always have Dispel Magic, almost without exception (because to not do so is just stupid when everyone knows what casters are like) and b) potentially the capability to throw whatever tricks the PCs casters have used right back at them. (And them I learn from them how they counter it!) Also, it's considered standard tactical modus operandi for any military group to prioritise targeting casters. ("The wizard dies first!") In any case, for out particular paradigm, it works adequately, allowing fighters to be still viable even higher up.

Gametime
2010-09-17, 10:31 AM
The thing is, the fighter is mediocre - but consistent. You can expect them to hit with a certain % of attacks on a given opponent and do an average of a certain amount of damage with each hit. Spellcasters will eventually eclipse what the fighter can do with most of their spells - but they have a limited number of spells they can cast. A level 20 wizard is a being to be feared, until they run out of spells (assuming they aren't packing scrolls/wands/etc.).

And a fighter has a limited number of hits he can withstand. The fighter is only resource-independent if the person he's fighting isn't fighting back. If that's the case, well, the wizard doesn't really need spells, does he?

Besides, level 20 wealth is so enormous, and crafting so easy, that any level 20 wizard without a boatload of scrolls is doing it wrong. Even assuming they do run out of spells - and they get a lot by level 20 - wizards have lots of wonderful ways to stay safe while resting.


Also, don't forget what OotS pointed out when V ran into that mother dragon - an antimagic shell greatly weakens or makes useless a spellcaster if they are inside of it (or their enemy is). A fighter might be a bit weaker if they were relying on magical equipment, but for the most part they are still as effective as ever.

Fighters actually lose a lot of effectiveness inside an antimagic field. Not as much as spellcasters, admittedly, but a lot of their damage and defense comes from magic items, not to mention almost all of their utility. The problem, as mentioned above, is getting the spellcaster into the field in the first place; you're unlikely to be able to fly to him, and until he's in the field he will be flying.

Dragons can manage that sort of thing because, well, dragon. Fighters have a much harder time of it.

Flickerdart
2010-09-17, 10:48 AM
My other trick is to give the casters something to worry about; either large numbers of enemies or even better, enemy casters (and often both!), who will a) always have Dispel Magic, almost without exception (because to not do so is just stupid when everyone knows what casters are like) and b) potentially the capability to throw whatever tricks the PCs casters have used right back at them. (And them I learn from them how they counter it!) Also, it's considered standard tactical modus operandi for any military group to prioritise targeting casters. ("The wizard dies first!") In any case, for out particular paradigm, it works adequately, allowing fighters to be still viable even higher up.
If your players haven't come up with psions running around in full plate and hiring robed commoners to pretend to cast stuff...then you can spring that trick on them first. :smallamused:

bokodasu
2010-09-17, 11:18 AM
Make him tough enough to just grab that Finger of Death out of the air and chug it down like Powerthirst...

I was really hoping this was going to be "grab that Finger of Death out of the air and pull it". 'Cause, you know, fighter humor.

Argentum74
2010-09-17, 12:24 PM
I'm in the camp that sees the crux of the problem as less about how the fighter needs to be improved, and more about the way in which casters progress in power vs. the way fighters do. Yes, a good DM should make every effort to provide a range of encounters or problems that give everyone a chance to shine, but the game does not make it easy to do that, except at mid-levels (say, 5-12). Personally, I'd be in favor of increasing caster power at low levels and nerfing it at high levels, to make it somewhat consistent with weapon-oriented class progression. That, and chuck the wizard class altogether in favor of sorcerer. Spellbooks would still be important for aquiring new spells, along the lines of the rare technique manuals you see in martial arts flicks.

And I agree wholeheartedly that fighters should have more skill points and a better range of class skills. Including some new skills oriented specifically around combat might work too, or limit the way certain skills can be used depending on class. Think about it... you use the Bluff skill when feinting in melee, but the same skill is used when trying to talk your way into someplace or out of trouble. I see no reason why fighters should not be able to take Bluff as a class skill for purposes of feinting only, whereas rogues could keep it as a class skill for both combat and roleplay purposes. Same with Sense Motive for the purpose of countering Feint or simply anticipating enemy actions.

Sleepingbear
2010-09-17, 12:42 PM
What is the point of the fighter?

I like to play fighters, even if they're a sub-optimal choice. The point of them to me, is to play a sword and board hero in full armor.

Part of the design of the fighter seems to be customization, with multiple feat choices rather than class features.

Things I've always pictured fighters having:
A sword made of so much awesome, it glows. It's not complete unless it has a name and a cool history as well.
Other magic weapons with favor attached (Excaliber wasn't the only weapon used by Arthur).
A castle filled with loyal soldiers and retainers.
A named mount with it's own personality.
Being brave and heroic. Able to overcome where lesser mortals fail.

Other memes that seem to be associated with fighters:
Training. Where the Barbarian is crass and brutal, the fighter seems more, well, educated.

With that in mind, there are a few things I think can be done to enhance the fighter. Using these options might not put you in the same league as the casters but might help the fighter continue to be relevant at higher levels and enhance both the flavor and role of the character.

I want my awesome sword!

Give the fighter (and only the fighter) the least, lesser and greater legacy item feats for free. And by free, I mean, no penalty tables at all. No experience point cost and no gold cost. Also let the player customize the weapon to suit their build. This will provide the character with more options as well as fill one of the famous fighter memes. Mechanically, this is similar to giving the Oriental Aventures Samurai a free pair of mwk weapons that they can invest XP or gold into it (I can't remember which and may be confusing it with Rokugan) to make it magical. And let's face it, despite their training, fighters are dependent on gear.

Ah, but training is also part of what makes a fighter what they are.

I'm a highly skilled warrior! With two skills!

Here are some options to consider.

In addition to existing class skills, add four to six more class skills of the players choice. You might also want to consider doubling or even tripling the number of skill ranks granted by the class. This satisfies the idea that the fighter is a highly trained fighter and makes them even more customizable.

But the fighter is all about martial training!

Yup, absolutely and there are some ways to help here. Consider giving the fighter the weapon focus->weapon supremacy tree for one weapon as bonus feats above and beyond what they already get, at the levels these become available.

In the Players Handbook II for 3.5, there were optional class features for fighters that replaced feats. They were Elusive attack, counter attack and over powering attack. Consider granting these for free. Rather than have them added at the suggested levels, perhaps use them to fill out some of the fighters other dead levels. If you're using the Legacy feats I suggested earlier, then I would suggest making Elusive attack available at 7th level, counter attack available at 13th level and overpowering attack available at 15th level.

Another thing you might want to do with these class features is allow them to stack. So that when a fighter of sufficient level is using elusive attack, he can also use counter attack and overpowering attack. This buffs the fighters AC and probably grants them two attacks (plus possible attacks of oppurtunity or bonus attacks from haste) at double damage.

Just before 4ed came out, there was an article on the WOTC site giving different core classes small mechanical benefits. I believe they gave the fighter the option to lower armor check penalties. Pathfinder definitely added this ability to their version of the fighter. It helps the fighter be more mobile by reducing climb and jump penalties. It might also give them a fighting chance against grease. Especially if used with the option of having more class skills and skill ranks.

Band of Merry Men!

Consider giving the fighter the leadership feat for free. Now, this isn't a chance to take a wizard as a free cohort. The cohort should be the generic warrior from Unearthed Arcana (or perhaps an unmodified fighter from the PhB). This is similar to what was done in the past editions of the game. All those followers should be NPC warriors with maybe an expert or two and a single adept.

Similarily, the cohort gained could be a love interest/SO/princess/prince/whatever floats your boat.

Another cohort granting free feat you may want to consider is Apprentice/Mentor. For the first four levels of his life, the fighter is a squire, member of the watch, Jr. Officer or similar to a superior NPC fighter who sends the fighter on mission with the rest of the adventurers to get some seasoning. Then, when the fighter is 5th level, they take on an apprentice/squire/side kick of their own. As above with leadership, I would suggest either a generic warrior from unearthed arcana or unmodified fighter from the PhB. When the NPC is done their training, the character gains a loyal cohort/little buddy.

While we're doling out free feats, consider also granting the fighter the landlord feat. In previous editions, they could gain lordship and land anyway. The stronghold they gain isn't going to give them advantages in combat (I swing my castle at him!), provides a place to keep both stuff and followers and gives the GM/DM a few possible plot arcs. Consider having the land and stronghold provide the character with enough gold to pay and equip the staff as well as followers at no cost to him and perhaps even provide a small amount of walking around money. Remember, gear is very important to fighters, this helps them maybe have a little more of it.

Consider granting this feat at around 13th level, to fill out a dead level.

Riding in on my mighty steed!

Maybe give the fighter a Dire horse or a legendary horse or some other mount with a template. Heck, a high level fighter might get a half celestial legendary horse as a mount. Maybe even a dragon, say around 19th level.

Dragon cohort can provide a fighter with quite a few additional options, actually. Flight, for one. Access to a dragon breath weapon every few rounds for another. Not to mention it compares rather favorably to such class features as animal companion.

I'm tough!

This one is simple, give the fighter D12 hp.

I'm brave!

Pathfinder had the right idea with this one. Consider granting the fighter a bonus against fear effects or perhaps will saves in general.

Combining "I'm tough!" with "I'm brave!", consider granting endurance and steadfast determination as free bonus feats someplace where the fighter doesn't currently have anything. Say 3rd and 9th respectively. Toughness and improved toughness are also good bonus free fighter feats that fit with their role.

Stop ignoring me!

Consider granting the fighter the ability to use intimidation as a free action to frighten enemies. It's a limited debuff that fits the flavor and won't work all the time. Using it in a similar manner as taunt is in Neverwinter Nights 2 would be a boon to the fighter.

Customize me!

or

Why is my dex based fighter good at fort saves?

Consider allowing the fighter to choose their high save. Incredibly brave fighters might have will instead of fort as their main save while dex based archers might be good at dex based saves.

If you have unearthed arcana, take a look at their generic classes. Consider letting fighters trade their bonus fighter feats for some of the options provided there.

Depending on your own preferences, these options provide fighters with new options and abilities that don't break the game and meet the flavor of most fighters. Use some, all or none to taste.

Boren
2010-09-17, 01:08 PM
Fighters as written are the infantry line that holds the enemy away from the artillery (the wizards etc). With the right feats they can take a heck of a beating and still pitch in that little extra bit of damage. That's the point of a fighter as written. Now if you want a class that's all of that and can still stay competitive with the wizard I personally like the The Kantian Paladin (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Kantian_Paladin_(3.5e_Class))
Strong battle capability enough options to hold there own in different environments (you never know when mind control magic might fly) a strong T3 (I think) combatant.

Random NPC
2010-09-17, 02:55 PM
Fix the fighter while making him awesome:

1) Give him weapon aptitude
2) Give him the level 1 OA samurai ability. Weapon aptitude works with this feature and make it Fighter level dependant.
3) Give him Psychic Warrior's psionics, substract the flashy ones but keep the good ones like Burst and stuff.

You have an awesome warrior, who has an awesome weapon and can specialize in any other weapon and still make it awesome. Also it has awesome physical powers

WhiteHarness
2010-09-17, 07:31 PM
I don't really think there's all that much wrong with the 3.x Fighter.

It's not that the class is underpowered--it's that so many other classes are grossly overpowered.

My fix wouldn't be to add something to the Fighter so much as it would be to take things away from the other classes who are outshining him, beating him at his own game, and treading on his turf. Wildshaped Druids wouldn't be so great at tanking or melee, wizards would have greatly reduced defenses and be vulnerable to a plain old sword no matter how many full caster levels they had, save or die spells would be banished forever, etc.

Leon
2010-09-17, 10:51 PM
Im fine with the Fighter as is.
Yes in a vaccum the class is not much to look at but once your fully buffed up and engaging the foe a fighter is a different matter.

Mind you im also of the mind that a Cleric is a Support class first and then a combat class once the group is buffed and ready to go as opposed to the often seen examples of solo paragons suggested on these boards.

D&D is a team game after all.

Aetolus
2010-09-19, 01:33 AM
The point of the fighter is to do what a warblade does: Deal and take melee damage, survive it, be thematically and mechanically flexible, and do all of this on par with other classes throughout a 20 level experience.

If only we had some sort of a warblade-like base class that we could just replace fighter with.

Zen Master
2010-09-19, 05:04 AM
The thing is, the fighter is mediocre - but consistent. You can expect them to hit with a certain % of attacks on a given opponent and do an average of a certain amount of damage with each hit. Spellcasters will eventually eclipse what the fighter can do with most of their spells - but they have a limited number of spells they can cast. A level 20 wizard is a being to be feared, until they run out of spells (assuming they aren't packing scrolls/wands/etc.).

That's nice - but it's not true.

I'm not saying that might have been the way it was supposed to be by someone at some point. The situation is much the same as for the fighter: A group of men around a table decided that's the way casters should be - glass cannon with a lot of bang but less staying power.

Then they split up, one made the class, another made scrolls and wands, and a third made creation rules and so on.

Bottom line: Casters can cast spells all day and all night long without stopping. The only way to limit this is by DM intervention.

Pika...
2010-09-19, 05:08 AM
What's the point?

Three answers I personally believe:
a)If all you care about is mechanics and/or optimization it should not even be in the book.
b) If you are more concerned with plot/fluff/roleplaying, it could be as fun as a fully tooled out Wizard.
c) Some people just like a beat-stick or tank. :smallsmile:

Reis Tahlen
2010-09-19, 08:59 AM
You want to beat the wizard?

MAKE A GOBLIN FIGHTER!!

The Goblin Fighter, it's the toughness of the fighter, but filled with goblin awesomeness.

It will break ANYTHING in his path!

'xcept a Goblin Wizard.

In that case, you're screwed.

Pika...
2010-09-19, 09:13 AM
You want to beat the wizard?

MAKE A GOBLIN FIGHTER!!

The Goblin Fighter, it's the toughness of the fighter, but filled with goblin awesomeness.

It will break ANYTHING in his path!

'xcept a Goblin Wizard.

In that case, you're screwed.


I see your Goblin Fighter with my Kobold fighter. :smallwink:

Jayabalard
2010-09-19, 09:22 AM
What's the point of the Fighter? Hitting things with their sword/axe/mace/whatever.

It's purpose in the game is to represent one the least innately magical people in the game. He might use magic (in the form of items) but he isn't himself magical.

Pika...
2010-09-19, 10:06 AM
Hitting things with their sword/axe/mace/whatever.

It's purpose in the game is to represent one the least innately magical people in the game. He might use magic (in the form of items) but he isn't himself magical.


Amen...

Anyone read fantasy books? You know, those heroes who are not Wizards or Sorcerers? The shimmering knight? The once soldier? The lowly servant who picked up a sword to save the princess who he secretly loved and she him?

Not everyone actually wants to play a magic user, or even someone with magical abilities. I am one of them. I like my Psions perhaps, but for more of an inner-searching type of character. I prefer a good Rogue, Scout, or Fighter over a magic user any day (Rogues possibly more than my Psions).

I also find it more challenging to play a character who can not just snap his fingers and get whatever he wants done. And to solve situations and/or encounters needing to use my cranium more makes the game ever more enjoyable to me. :smallbiggrin:

Nero24200
2010-09-19, 10:26 AM
The point of the fighter is simple. It's intended to fill the "Generic Warrior" role that cannot be covered by other classes. Want a warrior that isn't a raging berserker or holy knight? You go for fighter instead.

Whether or not it works as a class is another debate entirely. I personally do not like the fighter because I feel you could give it distinct class features without taking away the "Generic Warrior" feel. Bonus feats (or static bonuses in the case of PF's fighter) isn't enough for me.

In fact, my attempt* to "fix" the fighter even gets rid of the bonus feats, and it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine that just about every other fix tries to keep the feats as much as possible. I personally feel that feats are the worst possible class feature you can give out, and with that you can see why I dislike the fighter so much.

*With my attempt being called the Soldier for any interested, it's under my homebrew [/shamless plug].

Morph Bark
2010-09-19, 11:10 AM
The point of the fighter is simple. It's intended to fill the "Generic Warrior" role that cannot be covered by other classes. Want a warrior that isn't a raging berserker or holy knight? You go for fighter instead.

One could also actually use substituting the Fighter for the Generic Warrior from UA, since then you get some extra options that are better than many feats. In that case you could even consider giving a feat at every level even. It won't up the Fighter to Tier 2, sure, and likely not even Tier 3, but at least it won't be all the way down anymore.

Math_Mage
2010-09-19, 12:31 PM
Not everyone actually wants to play a magic user, or even someone with magical abilities. I am one of them. I like my Psions perhaps, but for more of an inner-searching type of character. I prefer a good Rogue, Scout, or Fighter over a magic user any day (Rogues possibly more than my Psions).

I hope you don't mind if I say that there's nothing about magic-using classes that's obstructive to soul-searching characters.


I also find it more challenging to play a character who can not just snap his fingers and get whatever he wants done. And to solve situations and/or encounters needing to use my cranium more makes the game ever more enjoyable to me. :smallbiggrin:

And the same here. What changes is the baseline problem-solving ability of the character--the potential for player ingenuity doesn't go away when you add spells.

Nero24200
2010-09-19, 01:31 PM
One could also actually use substituting the Fighter for the Generic Warrior from UA, since then you get some extra options that are better than many feats. In that case you could even consider giving a feat at every level even. It won't up the Fighter to Tier 2, sure, and likely not even Tier 3, but at least it won't be all the way down anymore.

Maybe, though I think even that has it's limits. Having said that extra feats can make the class more versatile at lower levels - in fact I beleive the fighter was actually considered Tier 4 on BG as long as the gameplay is within the lower levels.

truekender
2010-09-19, 02:20 PM
I think people forget the point of DnD.... role play.

It really doesn't matter how mechanically powerful you are if you are good at role playing and enjoy the game for roleplaying over twinking.

Morph Bark
2010-09-19, 02:24 PM
I think people forget the point of DnD.... role play.

It really doesn't matter how mechanically powerful you are if you are good at role playing

inb4stormwind

Just sayin'.


and enjoy the game for roleplaying over twinking.

This is a valid point though.

The point is to have fun. You don't have to roleplay talking encounters with NPCs. You don't have to roll dice. You don't have to solve puzzles or riddles. You don't have to. As long as you are having fun, you are following the point of the game.

But this was about the point of the Fighter, not the game. Right? :smallconfused:

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 02:25 PM
I think people forget the point of DnD.... role play.

This is a game where 98% of the rules are different ways to kick down a door to something's home, kill it, and take it's stuff... or haven't you been paying attention?

Math_Mage
2010-09-19, 05:28 PM
I think people forget the point of DnD.... role play.

It really doesn't matter how mechanically powerful you are if you are good at role playing and enjoy the game for roleplaying over twinking.

Not Stormwind, but still insulting. A loaded comparison between roleplaying and 'twinking', whatever that is--i.e., either you like roleplaying and disparage the mechanical aspect of D&D or you're not playing right.

EDIT: Oh, fascinating. Apparently, a 'twink' is a munchkin. So does being interested in class power levels in D&D make one a munchkin? :smallsigh:

Gametime
2010-09-19, 05:58 PM
Roleplaying is an important aspect of roleplaying games, but so is gaming. There's a reason both words are part of the name. Your character's mechanical statistics limit and inform what sort of roleplaying is plausible - and to prevent games from turning into Cops and Robbers - and your roleplaying motivates and instructs the decisions your character makes so that he or she is more than just a pile of numbers.

Although it is possible for one aspect of the game to overshadow the other, both aspects are enhanced when utilized harmoniously.

Thurbane
2010-09-19, 06:00 PM
EDIT: Oh, fascinating. Apparently, a 'twink' is a munchkin. So does being interested in class power levels in D&D make one a munchkin? :smallsigh:
No, but obsessing about character power level can hamper other aspects of the game. Not saying that's what anyone here is doing, but I have seen some people obsess about the tier system to the point where they won't play a particular class, even if it fits their character concept like a glove, because it's tier is too low.

No one wants to play a totally useless or hopelessly unerpowered character, obviously. But I do think a small percentage of people get so hung about about power levels and optimzation (both real optimization and TO) that it can harm their enjoyment of the game - especially if the rest of their group isn't as into optimizing as they are.

As many people have said here, the Fighter is a perfectly viable class in their games. Obviously, this is not going to be the case in everyone's game, however...

Tyndmyr
2010-09-19, 06:03 PM
What is the point of the fighter?


The point of the fighter is that they're dead easy to play and build. My very first character was a fighter. He wasn't amazingly awesome, but he got me started learning the game. Sure, you can start with any character, but if you just want to dive in fast, and not worry much about learning before playing, it's probably the easiest character to do so.

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 06:09 PM
The point of the fighter is that they're dead easy to play and build. My very first character was a fighter. He wasn't amazingly awesome, but he got me started learning the game. Sure, you can start with any character, but if you just want to dive in fast, and not worry much about learning before playing, it's probably the easiest character to do so.

I disagree. The character with which to do that is the "Barbarian".

dgnslyr
2010-09-19, 06:12 PM
I disagree. The character with which to do that is the "Barbarian".

Second that. No need to worry about choosing the right feats anymore.

Nero24200
2010-09-19, 06:12 PM
I think people forget the point of DnD.... role play.

It really doesn't matter how mechanically powerful you are if you are good at role playing and enjoy the game for roleplaying over twinking.

Like it or not D'n'D is a combat focused game. Have a good look at other RP games more focused on roleplaying than combat and you'll notice a significant difference. Even the skillmonkey classes (such as Bard and Rogue) have heavy combat bents (such as Sneak Attack and various bard songs such as Inspire Courage which are useless outside a combat scenario).

Besides, it's not always a case of "I want to make the best combat character ever!", it could also be a case of "I want my character to actually be useful in the party". Making an overpowering character and making a useful character are two different things.

nahmoss
2010-09-19, 06:21 PM
Fighter get to add their class level to damage rolls. Also add thier con modifier to their HD rolls. So a Fighter with 16 con is d13 (roll a d10 and a d3).

Tyndmyr
2010-09-19, 06:27 PM
Fighter get to add their class level to damage rolls.

In 3.5? No.


Also add thier con modifier to their HD rolls. So a Fighter with 16 con is d13 (roll a d10 and a d3).

Er...no.



As to the barbarian, sure. Barbarians are also easy to pick up. More than one class can work for the same general playstyle.

Math_Mage
2010-09-19, 07:19 PM
In 3.5? No.

Er...no.

I think those are deliberate homebrew, though poorly indicated.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-19, 07:29 PM
Ah. It does bring up the amusing possibility of a d1, though. This idea amuses me.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-19, 07:52 PM
Fighter get to add their class level to damage rolls. Also add thier con modifier to their HD rolls. So a Fighter with 16 con is d13 (roll a d10 and a d3).

Others have pointed out that this is not the case. I'm going to address a separate issue which is that this is bad notation. d13 means pick a random number between 1 and 13. There are easy ways to to this. For example, you can simulate a d100 from two d10s. Then you use your d100 and look at the remainder when divided by 13 (calling a result of 0 a 13)and if you get a result that is above 91 then you roll again. Note that under your notational system actual die can be easily confused with your strange die. For example, a d12 is a real die. But in your system is a d12 a d12 in standard notation or is it a d10 and a d2? Or maybe it is 3d4. Or maybe it is d8 + d4. Or maybe it is 2d6. Or maybe 6d2. Etc.

Thurbane
2010-09-19, 09:10 PM
I think I posted in the last Fighter thread, the Trailblazer fighter get's a couple of decent features -

Punishing Strike: +4 to hit on AoO, and bonus damage that starts at 1d6 and goes up to about 4d6.

Weapon Upgrades: pick a particular weapon type, and you can increase base damage dice, crit range (by 1), crit multiplier (by 1) and add features like reach, trip, disarm bonus to weapon that otherwise wouldn't have them.

...not super-mondo features, but quite nice...

AmberVael
2010-09-19, 09:25 PM
What's the point of the Fighter? Not a rhetorical question. A favorite passtime around here seems to be suggesting ways to balance classes in 3.5, but we seem to do a lot of jumping ahead to mechanics before we define the goals.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I answered this a long time ago, and I feel like my answer is still quite valid:
Purpose of the fighter. (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/FighterPurpose.png)

:smallwink:

Cainen
2010-09-19, 09:51 PM
There are two very distinct arguments, AFAIC:

How does the Fighter compare to other "pure melee" type classes.
How do non-casters compare to casters.


Honestly, the argument should be "How does the Fighter compare against monsters?" or "How does the Fighter fit into various permutations of the four-role party?", not anything else. The answer isn't very flattering.

Haarkla
2010-09-20, 05:13 AM
Actually, a serious question: if, as part of "fixing" the Fighter, you gave him 4 skill points/level, and expanded his skill list, what skills would you add? Spot & Listen seem like naturals, but what others would you add?
Balance and Tumble, he is the physical guy. Survival for tough outdoorsy types.

Heal, after all he is the one who will need it most, Knowledge (Nobility and royalty) for more aristocratic knight-type fighters, Knowledge (Architecture and engineering) for seige engineering, and Knowledge (Geography) for conquorer types (e.g. Alexander, Cortez).

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-20, 10:43 AM
Balance and Tumble, he is the physical guy. Survival for tough outdoorsy types.

Heal, after all he is the one who will need it most, Knowledge (Nobility and royalty) for more aristocratic knight-type fighters, Knowledge (Architecture and engineering) for seige engineering, and Knowledge (Geography) for conquorer types (e.g. Alexander, Cortez).

And, you know, Knowledge (History) for TACTICS and STRATEGY...