Does anybody else just LOVE playing fighters?

[Dr paradox]

Recently, I've just been loving playing fighters. and fighters specifically, mostly to make knight errant lawful good types, and for some reason, I favor playing Fighters for these characters more than any prestige class or alternate class built ESPECIALLY FOR knights and the like. I mean, In pathfinder, there's a class in the advanced players guide that is basically defined as a knight, with shield, and sword and mount. usually i just buy a hose and am done with it. Paladins are more or less the same deal: they're here to smite evil and chew bubblgum, ad guess which oe they're out of?

Yet, for some reason, I always balk at these classes, sliding back towards fighters. does anybody else have the same, or at least similar, feeling? does anybody have a working explanation, because I sure as hell can't think of one to give my friends.

[BillyBobJoe]

Fighters are simple and easy, therefore it is natural for some people to default to playing a fighter, even through its mechanical flaws.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It was probably a good idea that you skipped the Cavalier. It's not the most versatile class in existence. I prefer to play casters, initiators, or anything else with a lot of different effects to choose from, but that's just my playstyle.

[Sillycomic]

The best time I love playing fighters is right after I play a mid to high level caster.

I enjoy playing casters, but it does get rather tiring. The amount of spells and having to remember so many things, trying to find the right combination to pick based on what you think you'll be doing that day makes preparation something of a drag. And don't even get me started on leveling... goodness me. Level 13 to level 14 takes at least an hour.

And if I happen to get a big chunk of lewts, now I'm scowering even more books for wands, rods, scrolls, magical items and anything else that might be useful.

Yes, after all of that I want to play a fighter. I want a big stick and I want to be really really good at hitting things with that stick. I go up a level, I add 1 to a few things here and there and I'm done. I get a nice chunk of change, either my armor or my big stick gets improved.

So yes, that's usually when I decide to play the fighter.

[NikitaDarkstar]

What I like about fighters is that they're simple, yet versatile with the amount of feats they get so even if the basics is the same you can customize them quite a bit. Even if I've found that I have a taste for half-dragons and dual wielders, preferably in combination. (Nothing says "badass" quite as much as a half dragon dual wielding great swords.)

That said I'm trying to get out of my habit of either playing necromancer/fire themed casters of some sort or dual wielding rogue and/or fighters. ^^;

[DukeofDellot]

Honestly, Generic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior) has to be my favorite class... if for no other reason than to have a character that is completely dependent on gear to get things done.

I figure, if I need an ability, the GM will throw a scroll, weapon, or magical item to the party, or allow me to somehow acquire one.

[Engine]

You're not special.
You don't have world-breaking powers, you can't shatter the minds of others with just a gaze.
The gods themselves never answer to your prayers, in the end you're alone out there.
You are full of fear. You can smell it.
Yet you grab a sword, you pick a suit of armor. And go toe to toe with the fiercest and deadliest creatures a dangerous world could throw at you. It matters little why you do that.
Because you're a warrior. Death is your art. Be it that of your enemies...
Or yours.

Well, I play Fighters mostly for the fluff: yes, a Cleric could be a better Fighter than the Fighter herself, but it lacks the "epicness". Casting a spell, for me, is not badass as fighting relying just on your strength. Too bad that the Fighter is so weak.:smallfrown:

[VeliciaL]

I tried building a fighter in Neverwinter Nights recently (I'm stuck on a netbook for the time being, so I have to stick with older games) and I have to say I was kinda impressed. The number of feats they get makes them *very* versatile in how they can approach combat. Kinda surprised me, I'm used to spellcasters and always thought of fighters as one-trick "rawr I hit you!" wonders.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Note that NWN gameplay has some significant differences from tabletop D&D gameplay.

[Leon]

What I like about fighters is that they're simple, yet versatile with the amount of feats they get so even if the basics is the same you can customize them quite a bit.


This is the simple fact that makes a Fighter good - you can make it to suit your needs, to much is placed in the trust of having magic do it when sometimes all is needed is a good thwack with a big sword.

[Fhaolan]

Yeah, I like playing fighters, though I like to throw in a bit of rogue or bard in there because I like to play fighters with some skills.

[VeliciaL]

This is the simple fact that makes a Fighter good - you can make it to suit your needs, to much is placed in the trust of having magic do it when sometimes all is needed is a good thwack with a big sword.

To pull a quote from the Barbarian thread, "No antimagic field has ever stopped a leap attack charge with a greatclub." :P

I'll always prefer casters, but I do have a soft spot for the plucky fighter.

[Rogue Shadows]

Fighter?

Love it, basically for the reasons Engine said above.

[Crow]

Fighter played from level 1 to 25. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178400)

[Thyrian]

I'm a hardcore fan of fighters. At first they seemed the 'simple' class to play compared to spell casters. However the more I thought about it the more I realized how hard they are to play well. Especially at higher levels if you want them to stand a chance against a sorcerer you have to actually be quite clever in how you use them and successfully out maneuvering a sorcerer and beating him with raw strength and martial skill, satisfying as hell. Then again we play on Pathfinder and have a growing stack of house rules so I can see why they lose their appeal in higher level games, which is a shame :(

[Tengu_temp]

Most of my characters are fighters. Most games are heavy on combat and I enjoy being good at it - a noncombatant just twiddles his thumbs in such situations most of the time.

What, this thread is about the DND class? Well, it's not in the DND subforum...

[Cieyrin]

Fighter is a nice fall back if I don't otherwise have an idea of the kind of fighting guy I decide to play. The lack of skills kinda hurts (I'm addicted to skill points, I can't help it :smallsigh:) but that's what Thug Fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) is for. :smallbiggrin:

[Winds]

Fighters are fun. For all the guff they get for weak class features, they can do almost anything other classes do faster.

Ranger? No matter which track you pick, I can make a Fighter that does all of it faster than you get it as class features.

Druid? Sorry, but I've yet to meet a wildshape or companion that outperforms my beatstick.

Cleric? The only reason this one had an advantage was that he was built as a tank and mine was a medium armor/DEX type who did more damage than he could take. They both worshiped Torm (Forgotten Realms), so the RP there was lots of fun.


Of course, my group seems to me fairly low-op. Still, the Fighter is fun and more powerful than it usually gets credit for.

[Cieyrin]

Fighters are fun. For all the guff they get for weak class features, they can do almost anything other classes do faster.

Ranger? No matter which track you pick, I can make a Fighter that does all of it faster than you get it as class features.

Druid? Sorry, but I've yet to meet a wildshape or companion that outperforms my beatstick.

Cleric? The only reason this one had an advantage was that he was built as a tank and mine was a medium armor/DEX type who did more damage than he could take. They both worshiped Torm (Forgotten Realms), so the RP there was lots of fun.


Of course, my group seems to me fairly low-op. Still, the Fighter is fun and more powerful than it usually gets credit for.

Low-OP will certainly make a difference. In any case, Ranger is more skilly-beatstick combo than pure beatstick, so basing Ranger purely off of how fast it can kill things is forgetting half of what it's designed to do.

For druid, I'd say they haven't looked through the MM enough, they aren't taking Natural Spell or they don't use Summon Nature's Ally enough. Swarm of bears should be good enough for anybody.

Cleric takes a little while in Core to get going before they start giving meleers a run for their money. In the mid-levels, with Divine Power and Righteous Might available, they really hit their stride of being over-powering in all aspects.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, I love playing fighter type characters, but I rarely use the Fighter class beyond 2nd level (unless I'm going dungeoncrasher, in which case I stick around till 6). I just love the idea of going up against the bbeg and this exchange taking place
"What fool comes here unarmed, and unarmored to fight me?"
"One who can kill you with his bare hands, that's who"
*full-round attack claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/bite/bite/bite+improved grab on all of those*

[Dr paradox]

Most of my characters are fighters. Most games are heavy on combat and I enjoy being good at it - a noncombatant just twiddles his thumbs in such situations most of the time.

What, this thread is about the DND class? Well, it's not in the DND subforum...

erm, not to split hairs, but it wasn't just about the 3.0/3.5/3.75 class. it was for every eddition. mostly a flavor thing, I suppose.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes, I love playing fighter type characters, but I rarely use the Fighter class beyond 2nd level (unless I'm going dungeoncrasher, in which case I stick around till 6). I just love the idea of going up against the bbeg and this exchange taking place
"What fool comes here unarmed, and unarmored to fight me?"
"One who can kill you with his bare hands, that's who"
*full-round attack claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/claw/bite/bite/bite+improved grab on all of those*

So you multiclass Totemist?

[Flickerdart]

Ranger? No matter which track you pick, I can make a Fighter that does all of it faster than you get it as class features.
Spells. :smallwink:

[Dr.Epic]

Fighters are simple and easy, therefore it is natural for some people to default to playing a fighter, even through its mechanical flaws.

I think barbarian is easier. Fighters have a few build options. Barbarians, high str, decent con, take power attack and cleave and carry a big weapon. It practically builds itself.

But yeah, fighters and melee classes in general are fun.

[Ravens_cry]

I like the thematic versatility of a Fighter. No matter who you are or where you are from, there is probably someone who fights. By picking from a wide selection of feats, one Fighter can be something quite different from another Fighter yet still be the core of "I fight." Not "I fight angry," like a Barbarian. Not "I fight for my god" like a Cleric or "I fight for goodness and law" like a Paladin, or "I fight as a bear with a bear" like a Druid.
Just, "I fight."

[Hiro Protagonest]

I like the thematic versatility of a Fighter. No matter who you are or where you are from, there is probably someone who fights. By picking from a wide selection of feats, one Fighter can be something quite different from another Fighter yet still be the core of "I fight." Not "I fight angry," like a Barbarian. Not "I fight for my god" like a Cleric or "I fight for goodness and law" like a Paladin, or "I fight as a bear with a bear" like a Druid.
Just, "I fight."

Barbarians can also be "I happen to get an adrenaline rush when in battle".

Also, you just described the warblade perfectly. Ignore all the stupid fluff about them being gloryhounds.

[Ravens_cry]

Barbarians can also be "I happen to get an adrenaline rush when in battle".

OK.


Also, you just described the warblade perfectly. Ignore all the stupid fluff about them being gloryhounds.
Not everyone has Tome of Battle and, for better or for worse, not every DM allows it. Though of the Book of Nine Swords classes, yes, they fit the same theme best. They are indeed the "I fight" class of Martial Adepts.

[Cieyrin]

Also, you just described the warblade perfectly. Ignore all the stupid fluff about them being gloryhounds.

I've yet to meet a warblade PC who wasn't full of himself, so gloryhound seems quite fitting. As well, warblades and fighters can be fairly interchangeable in terms of how they fit in the folklore. I've seen many a Fighter/Warblade multiclass that works fairly well for itself that would be essentially indistinguishable from any other warrior type. On the other hand, warblade isn't quite as deceptively simple as fighter is.

[Lastgrasp]

I prefer a class with a bit more flavor. I have friend who loves playing fighter. Not because they are a great class but because he doesn't want to bothered with spells, rage powers, special class features. Just wants a sword and some feats. Roll dice, hit, roll dmg. Super simple and some people actually prefer that.

[Lycar]

You're not special.
You don't have world-breaking powers, you can't shatter the minds of others with just a gaze.
The gods themselves never answer to your prayers, in the end you're alone out there.
You are full of fear. You can smell it.
Yet you grab a sword, you pick a suit of armor. And go toe to toe with the fiercest and deadliest creatures a dangerous world could throw at you. It matters little why you do that.
Because you're a warrior. Death is your art. Be it that of your enemies...
Or yours.
QFT.

That. So very much that. Your character could be a pretty smart guy. But he didn't 'luck out' and got picked as a pupil by some wizard.

He could have a lot of wisdom. But he didn't become a man of the cloth.

He could be charming. But he just doesn't have the (lack of) moral fiber for a Rogue.

There are many things you could have been but aren't.

But there is one thing you are: The one who picked up the sword to fight the fights that need being fought. To fight for those who can't do it themselves.

Let the nobility have their Knights. Let the churches have their Paladins and Clerics. Let the magic types have their Wizards and Sorcerors and all their spells and magic bling.

In the end, you are a hero because you do what you do despite not having spells. Despite not being able to turn into a bear. Despite not being able to to do all those things others take for granted.

You do what you must do because someone needs to do it. And you are that someone.

That is all.

And if that isn't enough to save the world, well, then it was about time for the world to go.

[Flickerdart]

Except you're loaded down with more "magic bling" than most people ever see in their lives, just so the world-threatening menace wouldn't be able to ignore you outright. That suicidal idealism doesn't really fit all fighters, either...

Fightin's a good job, mate. It's challengin' work, outta doors. I guarantee you'll not go hungry - 'cause at the end of the day, long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead.

[Talya]

Ranger? No matter which track you pick, I can make a Fighter that does all of it faster than you get it as class features.

Minor nitpick: Your fighter will have to have dipped a single level multiclass to get greater twf at level 11. (Since you're emulating a ranger, I recommend a single level of ranger, for free tracking, at level 1 for the 16 extra skill points. For the skill-point-starved fighter, this is not a bad idea anyway.)

In the end, though, you're a dual weilding fighter with no source of bonus damage and only slightly more versatility than an actual ranger, who can out-track you, be sneaky, spot, listen, and cast spells.

Odds are you have a better Animal Companion as a fighter, though.

[Necroticplague]

So you multiclass Totemist?

Nope, I multiclass thayan gladiator and black blood cultist, and pick up rapidstrike and improved rapidstrike, with a dip in scaled horror for improved grab.

[vampire2948]

Fighter played from level 1 to 25. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178400)

Thank you for linking that. Was an excellent read.

[Midnight_v]

Thank you for linking that. Was an excellent read.

Dang. I wasn't gonna read that... but know that its recommened I gonna click the link. Sigh.

EDIT: READ IT! Worth the read. I read some of the responses the first few, reminded me of Angels summoner having his angels carry the bmx bandit across that massive jump. Over all though. Awesome. I suprised the monk didn't bring a new character in for epic. Sorry probably a long time ago for you. I'm inspired to share some of my own table top experiences. Bravo.

I was wonder too, do you mean fighter: the class. Or Fighter: The Archtype?
In anycase I love playing Melee's I don't know why I guess it just helps my immersion. Keeps me from feeling like I'm playing chess in someways, is the way I'd describe it.
Also, if you mean the fighter class. . . The one thing I like about 3.5 more than any other system is the customization you get. I kind feel like thats epitomized by the fighter (even though in function its NOT, I admit that), the more books and feats available the happier I am cause it really lets me get the brass tacs on how I want this guy to fight. Am I.... scary, brutal, Large, flying, mounted, ranged, learning magic, completly mundane, its just cool really. . .
Its what engine said too.
I'm just a man.
Not a god, or chosen by them, not a monster, or a wielder of some esoteric art. just a man... and at the end of the day if I win this battle it will be by my own hand, and my will alone. :smallwink:

[Bob the DM]

In prepping for my groups next game, I'm starting to really like warblades, but the fighter is still the apple of my eye. If you want to make one attack a round, and have a few extra abilities, take warblade. If you want to step up and swing your handheld death over and over until your opponent stops moving pick fighter. Plus, feats are awesome.

[big teej]

Recently, I've just been loving playing fighters. and fighters specifically, mostly to make knight errant lawful good types, and for some reason, I favor playing Fighters for these characters more than any prestige class or alternate class built ESPECIALLY FOR knights and the like. I mean, In pathfinder, there's a class in the advanced players guide that is basically defined as a knight, with shield, and sword and mount. usually i just buy a hose and am done with it. Paladins are more or less the same deal: they're here to smite evil and chew bubblgum, ad guess which oe they're out of?

Yet, for some reason, I always balk at these classes, sliding back towards fighters. does anybody else have the same, or at least similar, feeling? does anybody have a working explanation, because I sure as hell can't think of one to give my friends.

I prefer the Knight to the Fighter personally, but I echo the sentiment of loving the good ol beatstick immensly.

[Thurbane]

Nothing wrong with playing Fighters, and the op level my group plays at, they are completely viable as characters. I love the customization that the bonus feats open up, even if not all Fighter bonus feats are that great. It still allows you to build feat chains with your character, and leave your non-Fighter feats open for other things.

[Philistine]

In prepping for my groups next game, I'm starting to really like warblades, but the fighter is still the apple of my eye. If you want to make one attack a round, and have a few extra abilities, take warblade. If you want to step up and swing your handheld death over and over until your opponent stops moving pick fighter. Plus, feats are awesome.

The thing about that is, Warblades and Crusaders are perfectly capable of making Full Attacks. In fact, the Warblade is more capable of it than a core-only Fighter can ever be, thanks to Swift Action movement maneuvers from Tiger Claw, plus Full Attacking refreshes his maneuvers. The real difference is that initiators have other options when circumstances make Full Attacks impossible; and some of those options are strong enough to be worth doing even when a Full Attack is on the table. So a more accurate restatement of your conditonals would be: "If you want to be relevant even in a mobile fight, or if you want more options in addition to simply grinding foes' hit points down, or if you want to make yourself useful outside of combat, play Warblade. If you want to be a one-trick pony; if you want to have no ability to hit opponents in the NADs; if you want to be forced to choose between immobility and irrelevance in combat; if you want to bring nothing to the party outside of combat either; then yes, go ahead and play Fighter. But don't try to say you weren't warned.

[Vizzerdrix]

I dream of building a fighter with the Aberrant dragonmarks, and Aberrant feats someday... And Travel and knowledge devotions. Guess I'd need Educated as well. Ancestral Relic would go a long ways with this build too...


Oh! Almost forgot to throw in that Psionic feat that grants a power. Expansion is always handy!

[Wings of Peace]

I am unashamed to admit the Fighter is one of my favorite classes. Not because I think he's good or any other mechanical particular, I just enjoy the simplicity.

[Midnight_v]

I am unashamed to admit the Fighter is one of my favorite classes. Not because I think he's good or any other mechanical particular, I just enjoy the simplicity.

Not to be funny, but I enjoy the complexity... :smallwink:
Its one of the hardest classes to get right, but when you do?

It's spritual bliss.

[Psyren]

Eh, if I wanted lots of feats I'd be a Psywar. or Feat Soulknife.



Oh! Almost forgot to throw in that Psionic feat that grants a power. Expansion is always handy!

Requires Cha 11, increasing the fighter's MAD, unless he dips a manifesting class (in which case he requires 11 of their manifesting stat.)

[Cieyrin]

The thing about that is, Warblades and Crusaders are perfectly capable of making Full Attacks. In fact, the Warblade is more capable of it than a core-only Fighter can ever be, thanks to Swift Action movement maneuvers from Tiger Claw, plus Full Attacking refreshes his maneuvers. The real difference is that initiators have other options when circumstances make Full Attacks impossible; and some of those options are strong enough to be worth doing even when a Full Attack is on the table. So a more accurate restatement of your conditonals would be: "If you want to be relevant even in a mobile fight, or if you want more options in addition to simply grinding foes' hit points down, or if you want to make yourself useful outside of combat, play Warblade. If you want to be a one-trick pony; if you want to have no ability to hit opponents in the NADs; if you want to be forced to choose between immobility and irrelevance in combat; if you want to bring nothing to the party outside of combat either; then yes, go ahead and play Fighter. But don't try to say you weren't warned.

Y'know, you could always build an Archer Fighter with Travel Devotion, Full Attacks and moving into the position needed. Archery may not be that powerful next to THF and Ubercharging but you must admit you have the advantage of not being stymied by difficult terrain and having to rely on charges and pouncing.


Not to be funny, but I enjoy the complexity... :smallwink:
Its one of the hardest classes to get right, but when you do?

It's spritual bliss.

Indeed, it's one of the small joys of Fighter. :smallsmile:

[big teej]

Not to be funny, but I enjoy the complexity... :smallwink:
Its one of the hardest classes to get right, but when you do?

It's spritual bliss.

who was it that said it?



To play a Fighter, is to play The Game
To Play a Wizard, is to understand The Rules
To Understand The Rules, and to play a Fighter, is to Understand The Game.

[Lycar]

who was it that said it?
I guess that was me. :smallredface:

[Psyren]

To play a Warblade, is to kick The Game's ass

[Hiro Protagonest]

To play a Warblade, is to kick The Game's ass

Damn it, I just lost the game.

[Rogue Shadows]

To play a Warblade, is to kick The Game's ass

...ah...

...no, I won't drag that debate into this thread.

[Psyren]

Damn it, I just lost the game.

Here you go! (http://xkcd.com/391/)


...ah...

...no, I won't drag that debate into this thread.

About The Game? Don't worry, see above.

[Hiro Protagonest]

About The Game? Don't worry, see above.

About ToB. He's got this opinion that ToB is Vancian casting, and that spontaneous casters aren't, because you have to "prepare" maneuvers.

[Flickerdart]

About ToB. He's got this opinion that ToB is Vancian casting, and that spontaneous casters aren't, because you have to "prepare" maneuvers.
Ah yes, Sorcerer is my favourite Fighter too.

[Rogue Shadows]

About ToB. He's got this opinion that ToB is Vancian casting, and that spontaneous casters aren't, because you have to "prepare" maneuvers.

To be fair, I only have that opinion because it's true.

[Sir Homeslice]

To be fair, I only have that opinion because it's true.

No, it's utterly false. Last time I checked you weren't the Overking of What Vancian Is And Isn't.

[Taelas]

Love playing fighters.

[Kantolin]

I love fighters. ^_^ They're one of my favorite classes (Which are steadily increasing as I discover fun things like Psychic Warriors and Lurks).

My game is quite low-optimized, and that makes tactics like 'spending some feats on melee and some on ranged' viable/tolerable, allowing breadth of options (Just picking power attack is plenty, for example). I also pick a couple oddball things for my skills - fighters don't really use their skill points, so I like picking odd things like diplomacy or handle animal or speak language.

Either way, I definitely do enjoy fighters. I make no pretense that they're powerful classes or sommat, just that my group is unoptimized such that they're fine.

[Philistine]

Y'know, you could always build an Archer Fighter with Travel Devotion, Full Attacks and moving into the position needed. Archery may not be that powerful next to THF and Ubercharging but you must admit you have the advantage of not being stymied by difficult terrain and having to rely on charges and pouncing.


Archery entirely fails to capture the flavor of "step[ping] up and swing[ing] your handheld death over and over until your opponent stops moving" as specified in the post I was replying to. And Warblades already don't have to rely on charges and pouncing, even though they do have easier access to those things than do Fighters (and Warblades frequently get additional benefits - bonus damage or status effects, say - with those things, especially from mid-levels up).

That said... Just as there's nothing stopping Warblades from making Full Attacks, there's also nothing stopping them spending a feat on Travel Devotion, or from focusing on Archery. Longbow proficiency is only a feat (or race selection) away, after all, and a fair number of maneuvers don't key off of melee attacks.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I also pick a couple oddball things for my skills - fighters don't really use their skill points, so I like picking odd things like diplomacy or handle animal or speak language.

Handle animal is the best fighter class skill. It can be nearly as good as leadership, seeing as how you can train some pretty nasty animals.

[Kantolin]

Handle animal is the best fighter class skill. It can be nearly as good as leadership, seeing as how you can train some pretty nasty animals.

This is true, but I've never been able to do this in actual play.

Although playing a proper zookeeper could be fun, so I really should try it some day.

[Psyren]

About ToB. He's got this opinion that ToB is Vancian casting, and that spontaneous casters aren't, because you have to "prepare" maneuvers.

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

[Cieyrin]

This is true, but I've never been able to do this in actual play.

Although playing a proper zookeeper could be fun, so I really should try it some day.

Fighter/Beastmaster with all riding dog/wolf companions is a fine build to be a Master of Hounds. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Fighter/Beastmaster with all riding dog/wolf companions is a fine build to be a Master of Hounds. :smallwink:

Release the hounds! (http://www.wowpedia.org/Houndmaster_Loksey)

[Raimun]

I like to fight in close combat but Fighter just doesn't cut it, all things considered.

I do like spells too but don't get me wrong, they are not essential. What's essential for me (in a long campaign, at least) is versatility. That means being competent in- and outside of combat.

With heavy min/maxing, "even" a Fighter manages to be competent inside of combat. However, that leaves little to work with outside of combat.

I guess one easy fix for Fighters would be more skill points. I'm talking about 6 or 8 per level. That way they would have more options but still be badass normal. They could also use a few additional (and flavorful) skills to their skill list.

[Cieyrin]

I like to fight in close combat but Fighter just doesn't cut it, all things considered.

I do like spells too but don't get me wrong, they are not essential. What's essential for me (in a long campaign, at least) is versatility. That means being competent in- and outside of combat.

With heavy min/maxing, "even" a Fighter manages to be competent inside of combat. However, that leaves little to work with outside of combat.

I guess one easy fix for Fighters would be more skill points. I'm talking about 6 or 8 per level. That way they would have more options but still be badass normal. They could also use a few additional (and flavorful) skills to their skill list.

That's not really a fighter any more, what you're talking about is basically a Factotum. I agree that all classes should have 4+ skills (Barbarians get 4+, why are Fighters any less skilled?), but let's not splash skill monkey onto everything, as real skill monkeys should remain so. We get into Lightning Warrior territory if we start crushing toes that way.

[Raimun]

That's not really a fighter any more, what you're talking about is basically a Factotum.

And what would the problem with that be? :smallconfused:

Seriously though, Fighter with 8 skill points per level would still be a far cry from Factotum.

I'm not saying Fighters should get to pick any skills and get tons of class features like Factotums. I'm just saying they should get some more skills.

I don't mean super skills like UMD, Iaijutsu and autohypno, all knowledge skills (but some, flavorful ones) or all the Roguish skills (but again, just some of them). Just skills that would make them useful in a wide range of stuff related to war and fighting.

[Crow]

I like to fight in close combat but Fighter just doesn't cut it, all things considered.

I do like spells too but don't get me wrong, they are not essential. What's essential for me (in a long campaign, at least) is versatility. That means being competent in- and outside of combat.

With heavy min/maxing, "even" a Fighter manages to be competent inside of combat. However, that leaves little to work with outside of combat.

I guess one easy fix for Fighters would be more skill points. I'm talking about 6 or 8 per level. That way they would have more options but still be badass normal. They could also use a few additional (and flavorful) skills to their skill list.

I've found out-of-combat utility is best provided by the player behind the sheet, not the stuff actually on the sheet. The thing I've noticed in my group is that having a bunch of "non-combat" abilities sometimes actually limits the player playing the character out of combat, because if they don't have an ability for it, they assume they can't do it.

So for me, fighter works fine.

A few extra skills would of course be nice though.

[Seerow]

And what would the problem with that be? :smallconfused:

Seriously though, Fighter with 8 skill points per level would still be a far cry from Factotum.

I'm not saying Fighters should get to pick any skills and get tons of class features like Factotums. I'm just saying they should get some more skills.

I don't mean super skills like UMD, Iaijutsu and autohypno, all knowledge skills (but some, flavorful ones) or all the Roguish skills (but again, just some of them). Just skills that would make them useful in a wide range of stuff related to war and fighting.

Why not Iajatsu? If you're playing with it, I see no excuse for a Fighter not to have it. (That said I generally avoid playing with it, but whatever)

[Raimun]

Why not Iajatsu? If you're playing with it, I see no excuse for a Fighter not to have it. (That said I generally avoid playing with it, but whatever)

OK, out of those three, Iaijutsu would be reasonable.

[Raimun]

I've found out-of-combat utility is best provided by the player behind the sheet, not the stuff actually on the sheet. The thing I've noticed in my group is that having a bunch of "non-combat" abilities sometimes actually limits the player playing the character out of combat, because if they don't have an ability for it, they assume they can't do it.


Still, sometimes a DM might just put a high (but reasonable) DC to an improv plan (think Diehard) that should be well within the capabilities of action heroes you see in movies. A Fighter is (or should be) like one of those guys but with swords. Problem is, all he can do when not hitting things is Jump (for Leap attack) and perhaps Intimidate.

That's when you need skill points.

[Cieyrin]

Still, sometimes a DM might just put a high (but reasonable) DC to an improv plan (think Diehard) that should be well within the capabilities of action heroes you see in movies. A Fighter is (or should be) like one of those guys but with swords. Problem is, all he can do when not hitting things is Jump (for Leap attack) and perhaps Intimidate.

That's when you need skill points.

That's what I'm saying 4+ is good enough for that. Action Hero boils down to Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble, possibly with some points in Swim. Human Fighter with 4+ skills can cover that. 8+ would start cutting into martial ability, as Full BAB conks out at 6+ Skill points, that being the ranger, who suffers a HD drop to make up for it. Basically, if we can steal the Warblade skill list and tack it on the Fighter, we'd all be better for it.

[Rogue Shadows]

No, it's utterly false. Last time I checked you weren't the Overking of What Vancian Is And Isn't.

True, but this is why I provided an actual definition, and someone else was helpful enough to post a second defintion from a different website; both agreed with each other, both agreed that sorcerers are not quite (but they are close to) a Vancian system, while, say, Binders are very different, and maneuvers are identical.

So it's not so much that I'm the Overking of What Vancian Is and Isn't, so much as I'm a guy with two different encyclopedias telling me what Vancian is and isn't, and I'm just informing the Playground at large, and then using those definitions to determine what is and isn't Vancian.

That makes me a pedagogue. Still insufferable, but there's a difference between being annoying and being wrong.

[Psyren]

Is there a purpose to emphasizing similarities between Initiation and Vancian Casting anyway?

[Rogue Shadows]

Is there a purpose to emphasizing similarities between Initiation and Vancian Casting anyway?

For me, yes. I don't like that the maneuvers are Vancian in construction. That's the spellcaster's thing. Noncasters, I feel, should have had a different system supporting maneuvers.

So it's not that I don't think melee shouldn't get nice things, as much as I think they should have gotten nice things in a different way.

(actually I don't think they should have gotten nice things - I think they should have gotten awesome things)

[Merk]

I do love playing Fighters... provided they are Realms of Chaos' fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140278) or jiriku's fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194834).

[Divide by Zero]

For me, yes. I don't like that the maneuvers are Vancian in construction. That's the spellcaster's thing. Noncasters, I feel, should have had a different system supporting maneuvers.

So it's not that I don't think melee shouldn't get nice things, as much as I think they should have gotten nice things in a different way.

(actually I don't think they should have gotten nice things - I think they should have gotten awesome things)

So you'd rather introduce yet another entirely new subsystem instead of a variation on one that pretty much every single D&D player is familiar with?

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

[Rogue Shadows]

So you'd rather introduce yet another entirely new subsystem instead of a variation on one that pretty much every single D&D player is familiar with?

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

Technically there were already two entire preexisting subsystems that could have been used - skills and feats.

I'm feeling some variation on the Force Powers sytem from Star Wars Revised. Preferably drawing from something other than HP, though. Or further exploration of the potential of Iaijutsu focus (though the skill should probably be renamed if'n that be the case)

If that was truly untennable, though, then yes - I'd rather another new subsystem, or a variation on a preexisting one that wasn't the Vancian system.

[Psyren]

Technically there were already two entire preexisting subsystems that could have been used - skills and feats.

Both of which carry an opportunity cost (the other feats and skills you could have taken). Meanwhile every other class gets their benefits just through their class, and can take whatever feats and skills they feel like.

And making the system feat-based causes a new problem - any class can take them. So if you base the martial maneuver system solely on feats and skills, suddenly you have Rogues and Druids outfighting the Fighter - again - and nothing is solved.


If that was truly untennable, though, then yes - I'd rather another new subsystem, or a variation on a preexisting one that wasn't the Vancian system.

Do you have an actual reason this would be better, besides simply "I want them to be different?"

Different does not automatically mean better. A submarine made out of bread is different.

[Rogue Shadows]

Both of which carry an opportunity cost (the other feats and skills you could have taken). Meanwhile every other class gets their benefits just through their class, and can take whatever feats and skills they feel like.

The problem, at least with fighters, is that "class feature" and "character option" are blurred. The bonus feats are the class features.

As for the skills, it's largely a good point...except that have you ever heard of a Bard that doesn't have ranks in Perform? There is precedent right in Core.

Of course, Fighters need more skill points anyway, so as long as you're doing this...


And making the system feat-based causes a new problem - any class can take them.

You ever hear of a prerequisite?


So if you base the martial maneuver system solely on feats and skills, suddenly you have Rogues and Druids outfighting the Fighter - again - and nothing is solved.

Except that the fighter gets more feats faster. Druid craps out at 8 (if human), rogues at up to...11, I think? 12? Assuming they don't take any other special ability?

And this is over 20 levels. A Fighter can have 8 feats by level 8, and caps out at 19 by level 20. So say for the sake of argument that each maneuver feat chain was four feats deep and had no other prerequisites other than having the previous feat in the chain. A Fighter could complete two entire maneuver feat chains in the time it took a druid to complete one, and could have four completed chains (and one nearly-completed chain) in the time a druid could gain 2.

Make the feat chains worthwhile, (i.e., they scale) and add in prohibitive prerequisites for casters ("BAB +12," or better yet "Fighter level 12") and structure them so that a fighter could be working on two or three at time, and it seems like a problem that could fix itself.

But anyway, that's just one thought.


Different does not automatically mean better. A submarine made out of bread is different.

But it doesn't automatically mean worse, either. There was a time when a computer that used silicon microchips was different. Yet the original Super Mario for the original Nintendo system had more processing power than two thermonic valve computers.

Besides, in this case, it's not about better/worse as much as, to me, giving noncasters a Vancian system is fundamentally Wizards of the Coast throwing up their hands and admitting that Vancian systems win forever at everything, and the only way to compete with a Vancian system is to use a Vancian system.

Which wouldn't be so bad, if not for the fact that in the past, nine point nine times in ten a "Vancian system" and "magic system" have been practically synonymous in D&D; so in other words, "magic wins forever at everything and the only way to compete with magic is to use a magic system that we have simply refluffed to not be magic."

[Cieyrin]

Vancian nonmagic systems are bad

My paraphrase above is what I generally gathered from you. The solution you provided ain't exactly great, either, as you preclude fighters and other martial types from actually picking up other feats, like ones in the existing material, without adversely affecting their power in the system. That, to me, just smacks of bad design.

And what, praytell, is wrong with a system where you expend resources to generate effects? It's not perfect but it works fairly well. That's what all the systems in the game boil down to to differing degrees (Core magic: expend spell slots to generate magic, Psionics: expend power points to generate psionics, Initiation: expend maneuvers to generate martial ass-kicking, Mysteries: Expend slots to generate Shadow magic) with some systems being a bit more perpetual (Incarnum, Binding, Invocations).

While its fascinating to expound on the virtues and failings of initiation, this isn't the thread for this, so if we could turn this thread back on track, it'd be much appreciated, mm'kays? It sounds like you have a thread where you're already talking about this, so put such talk there. If you want to put your money where your mouth is and generate a system you feel is superior to Initiation, there's a subforum for that: Homebrew Design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15). :smallsmile:

[Rogue Shadows]

My paraphrase above is what I generally gathered from you. The solution you provided ain't exactly great, either, as you preclude fighters and other martial types from actually picking up other feats, like ones in the existing material, without adversely affecting their power in the system. That, to me, just smacks of bad design.

Maybe. It's a work in progress.


And what, praytell, is wrong with a system where you expend resources to generate effects? It's not perfect but it works fairly well. That's what all the systems in the game boil down to to differing degrees (Core magic: expend spell slots to generate magic, Psionics: expend power points to generate psionics, Initiation: expend maneuvers to generate martial ass-kicking, Mysteries: Expend slots to generate Shadow magic) with some systems being a bit more perpetual (Incarnum, Binding, Invocations).

You forgot feats and skills (two subsystems like any other) are essentially at-will, or at least at-will-whenever-the-situation-comes-up, at least.

There is nothing innately wrong with it, true. The problem I have with maneuvers is that they are completely Vancian in construction.

Otherwise, I agree that this isn't the thread for this; so I'll drop it; except to point out that I've already posted several ideas in Homebrew concerning other areas (slower druid progression; changed Cleric spellcasting; moving some spells to different schools; etc).

[Hiro Protagonest]

You forgot feats and skills (two subsystems like any other) are essentially at-will, or at least at-will-whenever-the-situation-comes-up, at least.

Yep. Because it's totally realistic to use the same move over and over and over. Oh sure, you can fluff it different, but ToB doesn't even need refluffing. And Vancian is per day. I don't care that those two words which can easily be missed aren't in the description, they're per day. Per. Day.

Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world.

Yeah, the word usually is in there. So? D&D follows the "per day" so it's not spellcasting in D&D terms. You could, with an emphasis on the word "usually" argue it's Vancian, but it's not spellcasting, because it's not following the D&D spellcasting conventions. Warlocks, binders, and incarnum users aren't spellcasters either.

[Rogue Shadows]

snip

I've been asked to drop it in this thread, so I said I will; however if you're that desperate for the conversation to continue, then I'll be responding to you via PM.

[Psyren]

The problem, at least with fighters, is that "class feature" and "character option" are blurred. The bonus feats are the class features.

In other words, they get the exact same "class features" other classes do; they just get more of them.


As for the skills, it's largely a good point...except that have you ever heard of a Bard that doesn't have ranks in Perform? There is precedent right in Core.

Bards have a class feature whose effects depend on their Perform ranks. Fighters do not.


You ever hear of a prerequisite?

The fighter has no class features to base a class-specific prereq on.
You can try to kludge something that depends on X fighter levels, but that still causes the current problem where people dip just enough fighter to do what they want to do before moving on to their "real class."

Or you make it require a prohibitively high number of fighter levels - which then begs the question "why not just give it to fighters of X level as a class feature?" If it's such a good feat chain they're all going to take it.


Except that the fighter gets more feats faster. Druid craps out at 8 (if human), rogues at up to...11, I think? 12? Assuming they don't take any other special ability?

You're forgetting that Druids, Rogues and Bards don't need "more feats faster." Because, again, they get actual class features. A druid with 3 maneuvers is still more powerful than a fighter with 10.

[Flickerdart]

Bards have a class feature. Fighters do not.
Fixed it for you.

[Psyren]

Fixed it for you.

I could have been more concise there yeah :smalltongue:

[Divide by Zero]

Besides, in this case, it's not about better/worse as much as, to me, giving noncasters a Vancian system is fundamentally Wizards of the Coast throwing up their hands and admitting that Vancian systems win forever at everything, and the only way to compete with a Vancian system is to use a Vancian system.

Which wouldn't be so bad, if not for the fact that in the past, nine point nine times in ten a "Vancian system" and "magic system" have been practically synonymous in D&D; so in other words, "magic wins forever at everything and the only way to compete with magic is to use a magic system that we have simply refluffed to not be magic."

Regardless of whether you consider the superiority of magic to be good or bad, the fact remains that it exists. Nothing will make it not exist short of completely redesigning fundamental parts of the system, and since that obviously wasn't going to happen, why not go with what works? The fact that they both use the same system doesn't make them both magic any more than the fact that fighters and wizards both use the same system for saves, HD, etc. makes them the same class.

[Rogue Shadows]

I don't think it's entirely fair for a person to be asked to drop a discussion in a thread were it would be off-topic, for that person to agree to drop the discussion; and then to have four people (I'm including Swiftmongoose) try and continue the discussion afterwards.

*sigh*

I'm at work now but I'll get to each of you via PM later.

[Psyren]

I'm at work now but I'll get to each of you via PM later.

You can PM me if you want, but I'll still quote and reply to you here. We're discussing Fighters so it's on-topic.

[TOZ]

There are other people reading the conversation as well, that could not were it taken to PMs.

I am curious how prerequisites are the cure to druids and rogues getting the feats too. Make it a +16 BAB feat, and it hardly ever comes into play. Make it require 4 levels of fighter, and the rogue just multiclasses enough to get the feat. There is no prerequisites you can use that will keep it the purview of the fighter that will make more sense than 'make it a class feature'.

[LordBlades]

I've found out-of-combat utility is best provided by the player behind the sheet, not the stuff actually on the sheet. The thing I've noticed in my group is that having a bunch of "non-combat" abilities sometimes actually limits the player playing the character out of combat, because if they don't have an ability for it, they assume they can't do it.


Many DM's(including mine) don't handwave the rules for non-combat stuff (like social skills and stuff). Regardless of how good your roleplay/idea is, if one or more skills are applicable in a certain situation, the degree to which you succeed will be determined by the result of your skill checks. In such games, lack of non-combat skills kinda hurts.




And this is over 20 levels. A Fighter can have 8 feats by level 8, and caps out at 19 by level 20. So say for the sake of argument that each maneuver feat chain was four feats deep and had no other prerequisites other than having the previous feat in the chain. A Fighter could complete two entire maneuver feat chains in the time it took a druid to complete one, and could have four completed chains (and one nearly-completed chain) in the time a druid could gain 2.



Why I think a feat based fighter 'fix' is impossible: let's use your example (a 4 feat chain for maneuvers or whatever fix one might envision). A fighter has 4 feats by level 3 (has completed 1 feat chain), 8 by level 8(has completed 2), 12 by level 12(has completed 3 etc.).

The question is, for what level are these new fighter tricks adequate? if they're lvl 3 adequate tricks you have a 8th level fighter with 2 tricks that are appropriate for level 3 or 12th level fighter with 3(underpowered). If they're level 8 or 12 appropriate, then you can have a 3rd level fighter (2nd level if human) with a level 8 or 12 appropriate trick (overpowered).

[Orsen]

The best time I love playing fighters is right after I play a mid to high level caster.
My group just "finished" an Eberron campaign where the party was A Psion (Shaper), A Druid/Wizard/Mystic Theurge/Geomancer, An Artificer, A Bard/Lyric Thaumaturge, and a Daring Outlaw (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188150).
The next campaign we started has a party of a Swordsage, a Wildshape Ranger, a Psychic Warrior, and two Remixed Fighters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194834), one also a frenzied berserker.
I love melee classes and every since finding this homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10523436&postcount=110), have been finding my parties to be far more balanced and fun for everyone, especially the people who's favourite thing to do is hit stuff.

[Rogue Shadows]

You can PM me if you want, but I'll still quote and reply to you here. We're discussing Fighters so it's on-topic.

There are other people reading the conversation as well, that could not were it taken to PMs.

*sigh* Fine....


In other words, they get the exact same "class features" other classes do; they just get more of them.

That's a bingo!

...

...that is how you say it, yes? That's a bingo?


Bards have a class feature whose effects depend on their Perform ranks. Fighters do not.

What if there were feats focused on [Renamed Iaijutsu Focus]?

In any event; the feats were just an idea. Having said that I'm not opposed to adding more to the Fighter; I liked with Pathfinder did with it, for example.

I just don't want to touch the feats.


The fighter has no class features to base a class-specific prereq on.

"Fighter level 10."


You can try to kludge something that depends on X fighter levels, but that still causes the current problem where people dip just enough fighter to do what they want to do before moving on to their "real class."

"Fighter level 10" is quite a dip...


Or you make it require a prohibitively high number of fighter levels - which then begs the question "why not just give it to fighters of X level as a class feature?" If it's such a good feat chain they're all going to take it.

Create many good feat chains, though, and you return to the original intent of the class. I'm a big fan of a "step back" approach to design; that is, look at what something is intended to be first, then add in features later.

The Fighter is intended to be the most customizeable class in the game. It doesn't lack class features; it has eleven levels of class features that can be decided on by the player - sort of a precurser to the talent/feat/talent/feat system of d20 Modern. In fact, approaching the creation of Fighter-only feats from that perspective is probably key to the redesign.

The problem is those class features are no good as-is; the actual chasis of the Fighter itself is not bad at all, however.

So why not just make them class features? In a way, you are. But by making them feats you open them up to be taken by other classes provided they meet the prerequisites - by this, I mean prestige classes with abilities that read "Levels in this PrC count as being a Fighter of half your class level." The Fighter equivalent of "+1 spell level of existing class."


You're forgetting that Druids, Rogues and Bards don't need "more feats faster." Because, again, they get actual class features. A druid with 3 maneuvers is still more powerful than a fighter with 10.

As I've said before and I'll no doubt have to say again, the problems with 3.5 run deep. Yes, a druid with 3 maneuvers is still more powerful than a Fighter with 10. Then again, a druid with no maneuvers is still more powerful than a Warblade with...however many Warblades cap out at having readied (7, I think? 11 if you count stances?)

So it seems to me that the problem there is with the druid. Any Fighter fix must by necessity be coupled with a fix of the spell system as well, unless that Fighter fix involves giving them nine levels of arcane spells, functionally turning them into a gestalt fighter/wizard.


Regardless of whether you consider the superiority of magic to be good or bad, the fact remains that it exists. Nothing will make it not exist short of completely redesigning fundamental parts of the system, and since that obviously wasn't going to happen, why not go with what works?

Because even if I play a warblade, the druid can still shapeshift into a bear and ride his bear companion while summoning bears and his bear companion summons more bears an both are wearing bearskin armor.

I bolded the important part because it's what I want, and it's what I'm doing, and it's what I don't understand why more people don't work to do themselves. ToB didn't fix anything; it gave us more Tier 3 classes, which is nice, but the fundamental problem with 3.5 wasn't that melee was weak, it was how God-damned powerful Druid and Wizard and Cleric and Sorcerer (and like) were.

Also "I am the Moon" abuse, but that's a seperate problem.


The fact that they both use the same system doesn't make them both magic

Let me stop you there. If I've confused you, I'm sorry and that's a mea culpa because I'm still used to saying "Vancian magic" when I should be saying "Vancian system."

Whether or not ToB has magic maneuvers isn't the issue; the issue is the method of construction for the maneuver system itself.


The question is, for what level are these new fighter tricks adequate? if they're lvl 3 adequate tricks you have a 8th level fighter with 2 tricks that are appropriate for level 3 or 12th level fighter with 3(underpowered). If they're level 8 or 12 appropriate, then you can have a 3rd level fighter (2nd level if human) with a level 8 or 12 appropriate trick (overpowered).

I did recommend that they should scale in power.

Hmm...

These are just thoughts as to how such feats would work and are not meant to represent my thoughts as to what makes a feat good or bad.

Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization would be the "gate" to many of the more powerful Fighter feats, and form the first two links of multiple feat chains.

Weapon Focus
Prerequisite: base attack bonus +1
Benefit: Choose a weapon type (longsword, quarterstaff, etc). You get a +1 bonus to attack rolls with the chosen weapon type. This increases to +2 when your BAB is +6, +3 when it is +11, and +4 when it is +16.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a different weapon type each time you do.

Weapon Specialization
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, Weapon Focus, Fighter level 4th
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus to damage rolls with the weapon type you specialized in with Weapon Focus. This bonus to damage increases by +2 for every 4 levels you have in Fighter (to a maximum of +10 at 20th level).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, once for each Weapon Focus you have. You can only Specialize in a weapon type you have Focused on.

Mobile Combatant
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Fighter level 6th
Benefit: You can move up to 10 feet (2 squares) before or after making a full attack as a free action, provided you are attacking with a weapon you have Weapon Specialization with. This movement increases to 20 feet (4 squares) at 12th level and 30 feet (6 squares) at 18th level. You may never move further than your current land speed, however. If you make this movement, you can't make a 5-foot step in the same turn.
Normal: You normally can only take a 5-foot step before or after making a full attack.

Boundless Movement
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Fighter level 10th
Benefit: A number of squares of movement equal to one-quarter your Fighter level can be in any direction, including straight up. You do not fly; rather, you simply gain the extraordinary ability to move unimpeded across many surfaces (or across no surface at all) without having to make Jump checks. At the end of your movement, if you are not on solid ground, you fall as normal (and take fall damage as normal).
Normal: A character without a fly speed must normally make jump checks to move through the air.

Focus + Specialization + Mobile Combatant + Boundless Movement = Full Attack a target's head (2 attacks) with a +2 bonus to each attack (+10% more likely to hit) and a +4 bonus to damage for each successful hit.

Anyway, like I said the above aren't intended to be good or bad, simply showcase how I see these feats working.

And if you're taking 10 levels of Fighter (or even 7), you're not really dipping anymore; you're swimming.

Note that these are only 4 feats. A 10th level Fighter has 10 feats, or 11 if human. Even assuming that the Fighter is working on another chain that doesn't use Weapon Focus as the start of the link, the Fighter could finish this chain, another chain, and have a third nearly completed, theoretically.

Since this chain is based on damage and movement, let's say the second chain is called the "Magebane" chain and is focused on buffing Will saves and granting SR. The third chain could be, I dunno, Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave.

[Psyren]

I liked with Pathfinder did with it, for example.

And what on earth would that be? The only difference between the two are more feats for the PF Fighter, then a smattering of combat feats that require "Fighter X." The PF Fighter is still nowhere near T3, and isn't even T4 yet.


"Fighter level 10."/"Fighter level 10" is quite a dip...

Which leads to the problem of the Fighter sucking for 10 levels until he's finally able to take the feat chain that may turn things around for him. Meanwhile, Warblades? Don't.

So you make a lower-level feat chain that makes them better, right? Except that either (a) it won't be good enough to fix anything, or (b) it will be good enough - and then you have the rogues and bards and monks and what have you dipping for THAT feat before moving on to their class features.

So no, feats are not the answer.


The Fighter is intended to be the most customizeable class in the game. It doesn't lack class features; it has eleven levels of class features that can be decided on by the player - sort of a precurser to the talent/feat/talent/feat system of d20 Modern. In fact, approaching the creation of Fighter-only feats from that perspective is probably key to the redesign.

Even assuming you're right about this, you haven't addressed the problem of how to "gate" these feats so that they're fighter exclusive. Make the level req too high, and fighters are hosed throughout low-mid levels; make the req too low, and fighters become a dip class again, just like they are now, and nothing has changed.


As I've said before and I'll no doubt have to say again, the problems with 3.5 run deep. Yes, a druid with 3 maneuvers is still more powerful than a Fighter with 10. Then again, a druid with no maneuvers is still more powerful than a Warblade with...however many Warblades cap out at having readied (7, I think? 11 if you count stances?)

There's a very good reason for that; The Druid's class features (there's that phrase again) are better than those of the Warblade.

I'm not arguing that Druids aren't too strong (they are.) But because their strength comes from actual class features, this gives you a lever to adjust/tweak their power without having to spin new feats from whole cloth. This avoids the weakness of feats that they are accessible to all.

For example, you can scale down or even remove their animal companion; trade their Wild Shape out for something else; even delay their spell progression to Bard or Ranger if you're really in a low-power campaign. And you can do all this without touching or designing a single feat.

[Rogue Shadows]

And what on earth would that be? The only difference between the two are more feats for the PF Fighter, then a smattering of combat feats that require "Fighter X." The PF Fighter is still nowhere near T3, and isn't even T4 yet.

I meant that I don't mind that Pathfinder added in more class features, removing the nine dead levels. Whether or not they're good, that's another problem entirely; the point remains that you can give more stuff to Fighter, without taing stuff from fighter, and without making making it no longer a Fighter.


Which leads to the problem of the Fighter sucking for 10 levels until he's finally able to take the feat chain that may turn things around for him. Meanwhile, Warblades? Don't.

*Complete* the feat chain, not work on one. And the feat chains would have to be constructed in such a way as to ensure constant benefits. It's really not that hard...fundamentally it basically becomes an attempt to design class features and apply them to the fighter chasis.


So you make a lower-level feat chain that makes them better, right? Except that either (a) it won't be good enough to fix anything, or (b) it will be good enough - and then you have the rogues and bards and monks and what have you dipping for THAT feat before moving on to their class features.

So no, feats are not the answer.

I disagree. Emphatically.


Even assuming you're right about this, you haven't addressed the problem of how to "gate" these feats so that they're fighter exclusive. Make the level req too high, and fighters are hosed throughout low-mid levels; make the req too low, and fighters become a dip class again, just like they are now, and nothing has changed.

Well, there's the option of making them good at low levels and scale based on Fighter levels, as I provided. The incentive to take more Fighter levels is thereby provided by the increasing returns of playing a Fighter.

Couple this with the Pathfinder version of Fighter (or some other version) that adds in more class features in addition to feats, and you're looking good.

Hmm. Also you could borrow an idea from Shadowcasting and give additional benefits based on how many Fighter feats you acquire...hmm...

(I'm working on a full redesign of 3.5 right now, so this argument is actually being quite helpful in getting the brain working, since I was about to launch into the feats section).


There's a very good reason for that; The Druid's class features (there's that phrase again) are better than those of the Warblade.

I'm not arguing that Druids aren't too strong (they are.) But because their strength comes from actual class features, this gives you a lever to adjust/tweak their power without having to spin new feats from whole cloth. This avoids the weakness of feats that they are accessible to all.

Their strength comes from spells, actually. Take away a druid's spellcasting and they drop down to weak Tier-3 at best.


For example, you can scale down or even remove their animal companion; trade their Wild Shape out for something else; even delay their spell progression to Bard or Ranger if you're really in a low-power campaign. And you can do all this without touching or designing a single feat.

Of course you can. The druid is more powerful than intended so the solution is to take stuff away.

The Fighter is less powerful than intended so the solution is to create stuff.

This...seems elementary, actually.

Yes...maneuvers do this. But I do not like Vancian systems for noncasters, and would rather work with an existing system (feats), or design a new one from scratch.

[Psyren]

The Fighter is less powerful than intended so the solution is to create stuff.

This...seems elementary, actually.

It is! Which is why there's a whole book where WotC did exactly that.

I'm not disagreeing with the solution, I'm disagreeing with your method (make a bunch of feats and hamfistedly try to hold them out of reach for everyone but pure fighters.)


Yes...maneuvers do this. But I do not like Vancian systems for noncasters, and would rather work with an existing system (feats), or design a new one from scratch.

If that's what you want to do, go for it. But it seems like you want to waste energy reinventing the wheel because of a feeling or preconception of Tome of Battle rather than any concrete issue/shortcoming with its mechanics.

[Rogue Shadows]

If that's what you want to do, go for it. But it seems like you want to waste energy reinventing the wheel because of a feeling or preconception of Tome of Battle rather than any concrete issue/shortcoming with its mechanics.

I don't think I've ever said there was anything mechanically wrong with it...