Fighter -- What should he have?

[dextercorvia]

Inspired by the Fighter Hate thread, I'm just wondering what class abilities a generic trained warrior class should have.

Some common thoughts are more skill points and a better list. What else do you think a class that should have to be able to portray anything from a Gladiator to a General?

Edit: I am aware of the Warblade, and I like it. However, I'm wondering about what the Fighter could have been earlier in 3.5.

[Vhaidara]

The tweaks to Fighter here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275054-A-LOT-of-minor-class-tweaks) are a good start that my group uses.

[Friv]

Inspired by the Fighter Hate thread, I'm just wondering what class abilities a generic trained warrior class should have.

Some common thoughts are more skill points and a better list. What else do you think a class that should have to be able to portray anything from a Gladiator to a General?

As a general rule, the fighter should be a pretty versatile fighting class. Generically, I think that means:

*) The ability to use several combat styles equally well
*) Being very difficult to kill
*) Access to combat powers that are unique and versatile (feats should cover this, but most of them need upgrades)
*) Extraordinary social skills based around being a very dangerous person

[Humble Master]

Many people are probably going to say this but: look at Tome of Battle, the Book of Nine Swords.

Aside from that though, a Fighter should have:
A variety of methods of attack, not just the standard attack action or full-attack.
Abilities that make mental stats worthwhile (get rid of the Big Stupid Fighter thing.
Ways to make non Two-Handed Fighting viable.
Class features.

[squiggit]

My preference is definitely for this (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) fighter remake

[dextercorvia]

I should have mentioned that I like the Warblade, but I'm not looking for a full class. I'm wondering what the Fighter should be able to do.

[eggynack]

I should have mentioned that I like the Warblade, but I'm not looking for a full class. I'm wondering what the Fighter should be able to do.
I'm not entirely sure what that means. Fighters should be able to do that stuff *points at warblade*. They should have scaling abilities, with any kind of out of combat applicability, more skill points, and a better skill list. Just subtract the fighter from the warblade, and there ya go.

[Honest Tiefling]

Better skills, sheesh. Can't imagine why everything not nailed down or obtained with the use of a crowbar hasn't gotten stolen if fighters/warriors are guardsmen. Also not liking the idea that the dude who has to study for decades to unravel the secrets of magic can dabble in being a naturalist or an linguist, but fighters can barely figure out more then climbing and swimming. Increase skill points to 4 per level. Maybe an option to add two skills to your class based on a theme, such as guardsman (Spot/Sense Motive), thug (Bluff/Intimidate), leader (Diplomacy/Knowledge (nobility) and so forth.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Inspired by the Fighter Hate thread, I'm just wondering what class abilities a generic trained warrior class should have.

Interesting that you use that specific choice of words, because I think the generic trained warrior class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) is sort of the way to go here. Being able to choose your good save and your skill set, and broadening the list of available options as bonus feats, are both very helpful, as is being able to buy certain class features as feats. Adding more skill points to *this* chassis would certainly be a big step up (as well as, perhaps, the usual array of fighter alternative class features as options).

[Dienekes]

Alright. Let's look at the basic fighter class. Ignoring skills for right now, which they already have one of the worst skill lists and the worst skill points anyway, the fighter class is 11 abilities long. That's it. 11 abilities spread over 20 levels, and these abilities have to suit your fighter for every encounter, every event that occurs at any time during your campaign. Compare that to wizards who get 40+ whatever they can buy. Now personally, I think that's too many abilities and one of the reasons why wizards are so imbalanced at high levels.

Let's look at the Warblade, ignoring retraining and skills, they get something like 30 abilities over the course of 20 levels. Now we're getting somewhere. 30 nice, strong abilities.

Now notice, for both Warblades and Wizards these abilities are mostly not unique features to them. Theoretically, a bunch of non-unique but good abilities can work fine as class features. But those abilities need to be good. So if you want a good fighter, I'd suggest first off, buffing up those feats. The majority of fighter feat chains are scaled to be obtained around levels 6-8. After that, he's just getting more level 6-8 level abilities. When a wizard is learning to cast Mordenkkenan's Totally Metal Death Lazer of Awesome a fighter is learning to trip people really effectively. It's a great trick at level 6, not so great at level 20. So you have to scale up not just the amount of feats he has, not just the strength of feats, but make more that designed to be gained at higher levels.

For more ideas, I would suggest looking at warriors of myth, fiction, and history seeing what they could do and implementing that into a class. Combat, is fast, graceful, and deadly. People can try to make instant killing blows. Hamstring opponents. Or a fighter can be a noble leader, respected for his honor, or feared for his prowess. He can equally ride a horse, wield a lance, or a sword, or a shield. He moves quickly in armor, ignores the pain and weakness as he fights on. His mind is sharp, and he ignores the temptations and illusions of his foes. Or he can be a commander who rallies his allies or creates battle plans whose tactics grant him victory. That's a taste of what a fighter should be able to do.

[bekeleven]

Interesting that you use that specific choice of words, because I think the generic trained warrior class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) is sort of the way to go here. Being able to choose your good save and your skill set, and broadening the list of available options as bonus feats, are both very helpful, as is being able to buy certain class features as feats. Adding more skill points to *this* chassis would certainly be a big step up (as well as, perhaps, the usual array of fighter alternative class features as options).

I'll do you one better. My Professional (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332829-The-Professional-Generic-Mundane-Base-Class-3-5) is a generic replacement for the Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue that supports all 3 playstyles and brings them up to about tier 3.

[dextercorvia]

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Fighters should be able to do that stuff *points at warblade*. They should have scaling abilities, with any kind of out of combat applicability, more skill points, and a better skill list. Just subtract the fighter from the warblade, and there ya go.

What I mean is, fill in the blank

A Fighter should be able to ______

Some suggestions:

serve as a guard that actually guards things -- be able to spot level appropriate threats.

hit things with a **** and make them dead.

lead troops with tactical ability/knowledge

move easily around a battlefield, minimizing risk to himself

draw aggro

etc.

Which of these or other abilities should a fighter be expected to have?

[Rakaydos]

A Warrior (one of several flavors), a Scholar of War (Int and Wis skills), and a Leader of Men. (teamwork abilities, Charisma skills, quadratic cohort system)

[HunterOfJello]

The Fighter should be the front row melee character of the party who is an expert in melee combat. He should be able to do the following:

1. Do noticable and meaningful melee damage whether using a 2hander or Sword&Board
2. Have multiple combat maneuvers that he learns over time and becomes effective in
3. He should be durable and difficult to kill even for characters throwing around fireballs
4. He should have high AC while using full plate and possibly a shield (it's sad when a fighter ends up having one of the lowest ACs in the party)
5. He should have a background and increasing expertise in combat tactics and strategy. He should be able to command other men and be able to take on a wide variety of enemies effectively.
6. He should be a master of multiple weapons and not just one single weapon style. If he choses to focus on one single weapon exclusively, then he may do so, but that should not be the norm.
7. He should have a decent list of skills and more skill points than 2+int. He is a person who is trained in combat, not a screwup who just wanders around learning things as he goes (i'm looking at you, sorcerer).



~~~

An effective Fighter can be made in 3.5 using tons of ACFs, a plethora of items (mundane and magical), skill tricks, teamwork benefits, and other things but it takes a lot of work just to make a Fighter as effective at being a front line melee character as they should be able to be by default.

[Sir Chuckles]

What I mean is, fill in the blank

A Fighter should be able to ______

Some suggestions:

serve as a guard that actually guards things -- be able to spot level appropriate threats.

hit things with a **** and make them dead.

lead troops with tactical ability/knowledge

move easily around a battlefield, minimizing risk to himself

draw aggro

etc.

Which of these or other abilities should a fighter be expected to have?

Out of those you listed, the ability to choose at least three or four of those, plus the lists that Humble and Jello put earlier.

The top three problems with Fighter are (in my opinion related to my playstyle):

Lack of creativity. At level 1 you take a step and hit the thing, hit the things shins, or try to hit the thing's weapon out of thing's hand. At level 20, you take a step and hit the thing four times, cry because it's too big to trip, or cry because it has claws and not swords. There are other options, but they become far less viable far more quickly, and your options are severally reduced and/or penalized with you want to pick up a bow or crossbow instead of an extra big arse sharp thing. The ability to say "I chuck my hammer at the stalagmite." are incredibly subjective and, more often than not, the DM or module did not specifically write in "The stalagmite in square G17 is weak and can fall when a blunt object this thrown at it."

Lack of options. Now some scoff at this notion, stating "bonus feats up the wazoo!". At the theoretical level 0, yes, you do have a large amount of options. Get to level one, and your first two feats are now locked in. Are they Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Focus? Well, if you plan on hitting level 6+, you're now all but obligated to continue that line, or some other line that used those feats are prerequisites. Your entire combat style and career is decided in your first few feats. Yes yes, Druid with Augmented Summoning is almost the same thing, but he could still become a Karate Bear Summoner, or a Stealthy Desmodu Bat Summoner with an Frostfell theme, where as you, the supposed "Master at Arms", are still locked into the same pair of weapons and the same "hit with weapons" routine.

Lack of scaling. This one is fairly obvious. +1 to hit, great at level 1. Maybe even useful at level 5. Not going to matter at level 10. "But it opens up to +2 to damage, and another +1 to hit! And Weapon Mastery!" An Adept could have given you all the relevant bonuses at level 5.

[HammeredWharf]

I made a Fighter fix a while ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327872-A-competent-Fighter) and decided to use the following guidelines:

1. Bonus feats are a privilege, not a penalty and not real class features. Weapon Specialization sucks and doesn't work as a gimmick.
2. The fighter is a simple, core-only class.
3. The fighter is a highly trained, professional soldier. Her abilities should reflect that.
4. The fighter is a capable leader. She should be able to distinguish friend from foe (via Knowledge: Nobility), attend strategy meetings (via Knowledge: Geography) and know the details of many historical battles (via Knowledge: History).
5. The fighter is a guard. She should have Spot and Listen as class skills.
6. Unlike the Barbarian, the Fighter is a smart soldier, with a variety of special attacks at her disposal. She should benefit from Intelligence
7. The fighter is a class, so there should be something interesting and/or unique about her.
8. Finally, the fighter shouldn't stumble around the battlefield, getting AoO:d constantly.

[Eldan]

Quite simply, I don't think we need a "fighter" class. I think it's a relic from older editions and unlike some other legacies that work fine, it doesn't. It belongs into a game with a handful of classes. When you have 1 spellcasting class, 1 fighting class and 1 skilled class and the rules aren't as detailed as they are in third edition, it works fine. But these days? It's not necessary.

There's barely any characters in fiction that "just fight". They have noble rank, divine blood, leadership, sharp senses, stealth and a thousand other things beyond just the ability to wield a weapon really well. So having classes for nobles, demigods, commanders, rangers, rogues and barbarians just seems to work better.

Also, and I know this is personal preference, I just don't find the concept all that interesting. "What are your powers, mighty heroes?" "I bend the universe to my will!" "I could steal even the treasures of the gods!" "I am the avatar of my god, the true Lord of this planet!" "I'm very good with a sword!" Meh.

[Gwendol]

Access to all feats in a feat tree from taking the first in the line. Curmudgeon proposed a fix and it's simple and elegant enough.

[Vhaidara]

Quite simply, I don't think we need a "fighter" class. I think it's a relic from older editions and unlike some other legacies that work fine, it doesn't. It belongs into a game with a handful of classes. When you have 1 spellcasting class, 1 fighting class and 1 skilled class and the rules aren't as detailed as they are in third edition, it works fine. But these days? It's not necessary.

Actually, I feel this might explain Fighter. It would exist as a dip class for someone whose primary job is NOT fighting, to represent them gaining the ability to fight. People who's actual job is to fight are better off in another class that is more specialized in fighting.

[Eldan]

Actually, I feel this might explain Fighter. It would exist as a dip class for someone whose primary job is NOT fighting, to represent them gaining the ability to fight. People who's actual job is to fight are better off in another class that is more specialized in fighting.

Then make it a, say, 5 level class. Like a paragon class or a prestige class with no requirements. It's not a concept for a full class.

[ngilop]

the sole ability I think every fighter should have access to is full attacks as a standard action and early in the fighter's career.

other than that take a look at what heroes of yore were capable of doing

a high level fighter should be capable of duplicating the same things Heracles, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Lu Bu, indrajit and all those guys could do.

other than that I think the 'fighter focused feats' should scale i.e Weapon focus should at certain intervals give a fighter an additional +1 same with weapon specialization.

[Eldan]

the sole ability I think every fighter should have access to is full attacks as a standard action and early in the fighter's career.

other than that take a look at what heroes of yore were capable of doing

a high level fighter should be capable of duplicating the same things Heracles, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Lu Bu, indrajit and all those guys could do.

other than that I think the 'fighter focused feats' should scale i.e Weapon focus should at certain intervals give a fighter an additional +1 same with weapon specialization.

The thing is, I don't see those guys as fulfilling the "fighter fluff", as little as there is. They aren't mundane and just good with weapons (maybe Lu Bu, I don't really know him). A lot of them are demigods (or 2/3-gods, in Gilgamesh's case).

[ngilop]

The thing is, I don't see those guys as fulfilling the "fighter fluff", as little as there is. They aren't mundane and just good with weapons (maybe Lu Bu, I don't really know him). A lot of them are demigods (or 2/3-gods, in Gilgamesh's case).

We just happen to see the Fighter in completely opposite views then. I feel the mythological hero IS a fighter, its just WOTC was completely stupid and mucked it up so bad they destroyed everything the fighter ever was and instead gave everything to he use to have to every other class in the game.

add some insult to injury THEN WOTC proceeded to make 5-ish classes that are basically 'the fighter only better' and most of those they could have just slapped on the fighter at the start.

I will never see the fighter as just the big strong dumb guy that face tanks everything and just rolls a d20 for attacks as a player all game long.

but then again take the fighter, marshal, crusader, warblade, swashbuckler, and knight fluff and that how I see what the 'true' fighter's fluff should be.. only more... epic and I mean epic as in 'the epic of gilgamesh' epic. not D&D epicwhere its like regular D&D only more of the 'casters auto win screw you guys im going home'

[Morty]

What the fighter should have is a functional system of non-magical combat that doesn't need to have things bolted on top in order to work, and that isn't rendered obsolete by a few well-selected spells.

[Eldan]

I will never see the fighter as just the big strong dumb guy that face tanks everything and just rolls a d20 for attacks as a player all game long.


Thing is... that's what the core book says they are. And what I think should be retired from the game.

By all means, if you want "mythological demigod" as your concept for your "fighter" go right ahead. I don't necessarily think "fighter" is the best name for the concept, but at least it is a concept a character can be built around.

However, Paladin, Ranger, Swashbuckler, Rogue, Marshal, Crusader, Knight and so on are all also valid concepts. And I think they all work better as different classes. You can give them more diverse mechanics and abilities that way and I think that's a good direction to go in.

And I've said it often, but I think it bears repeating: I don't thin kthe totally mundane guy has a place in the same me, much less adventuring group, as the wizard who casually rearranges the cosmos. It's two entirely different levels. So, the wizard can go adventuring with Gilgamesh and Cu Chulainn. The mundane fighter can go adventuring with Rincewind or the local village shaman who is quite good at mundane healing and knowledge and knows how to recognize magical creatures and curses and ward them off.

[Fouredged Sword]

I am a big fan of giving every class a meaningful use of all his or her stats, with class features that back this up.

Currently a fighter has uses for 3 of his stats. I think there needs be to a ton of class features added in support of an int, wis, and cha focused fighter. I would add in marshal, swashbuckler, and ranger class features.

In fact, a Quadstalt character of Fighter, Swashbuckler, Ranger (no spells or animal companion), and Marshal would be fairly interesting. Charisma based auras, Wisdom based skills, a use for int in combat... I could see that hitting tier 3.

[Larkas]

Alright. Let's look at the basic fighter class. Ignoring skills for right now, which they already have one of the worst skill lists and the worst skill points anyway, the fighter class is 11 abilities long. That's it. 11 abilities spread over 20 levels, and these abilities have to suit your fighter for every encounter, every event that occurs at any time during your campaign. Compare that to wizards who get 40+ whatever they can buy. Now personally, I think that's too many abilities and one of the reasons why wizards are so imbalanced at high levels.

Let's look at the Warblade, ignoring retraining and skills, they get something like 30 abilities over the course of 20 levels. Now we're getting somewhere. 30 nice, strong abilities.

Now notice, for both Warblades and Wizards these abilities are mostly not unique features to them. Theoretically, a bunch of non-unique but good abilities can work fine as class features. But those abilities need to be good. So if you want a good fighter, I'd suggest first off, buffing up those feats. The majority of fighter feat chains are scaled to be obtained around levels 6-8. After that, he's just getting more level 6-8 level abilities. When a wizard is learning to cast Mordenkkenan's Totally Metal Death Lazer of Awesome a fighter is learning to trip people really effectively. It's a great trick at level 6, not so great at level 20. So you have to scale up not just the amount of feats he has, not just the strength of feats, but make more that designed to be gained at higher levels.

For more ideas, I would suggest looking at warriors of myth, fiction, and history seeing what they could do and implementing that into a class. Combat, is fast, graceful, and deadly. People can try to make instant killing blows. Hamstring opponents. Or a fighter can be a noble leader, respected for his honor, or feared for his prowess. He can equally ride a horse, wield a lance, or a sword, or a shield. He moves quickly in armor, ignores the pain and weakness as he fights on. His mind is sharp, and he ignores the temptations and illusions of his foes. Or he can be a commander who rallies his allies or creates battle plans whose tactics grant him victory. That's a taste of what a fighter should be able to do.

There's much wisdom in these words.


Access to all feats in a feat tree from taking the first in the line. Curmudgeon proposed a fix and it's simple and elegant enough.

And I usually do this. It's not perfect, but it helps.

[Trasilor]

Then make it a, say, 5 level class. Like a paragon class or a prestige class with no requirements. It's not a concept for a full class.

This has become true by default. Experienced players realize that the class is fundamentally flawed. Reading through builds, people use the fighter to get a couple of feats to qualify for prestige class. With that in mind, a 5 -6 level, no entry requirement class works quite well.

The 'fighter' would be able to fill all the necessary roles of your standing army / city guard. Think about each unit. They each require a specific set of feats to make them effective in combat. The feat tree capstone would represent a 'fighter' attaining the highest level of accomplishment within their chosen weapon type. Their full attack bonus represents the intense training. The only difference I would do is to give them spot and listen as class skills (I would also give them good REF saves), and call it a day

Fact remains, their only class feature are feats (albeit some are fighter only feats, but still a feat nonetheless). Feats are not class features - they are built-in exceptions to the rules. Class features should be scale-able, level appropriate abilities.

IMO, to 'fix' a fighter is pointless. Classes already exist which fit with whatever archetype you looking to generate.

[Trasilor]

Then make it a, say, 5 level class. Like a paragon class or a prestige class with no requirements. It's not a concept for a full class.

This has become true by default. Experienced players realize that the class is fundamentally flawed. Reading through builds, people use the fighter to get a couple of feats to qualify for prestige class. With that in mind, a 5 -6 level, no entry requirement class works quite well.

The 'fighter' would be able to fill all the necessary roles of your standing army / city guard. Think about each unit. They each require a specific set of feats to make them effective in combat. The feat tree capstone would represent a 'fighter' attaining the highest level of accomplishment within their chosen weapon type. Their full attack bonus represents the intense training. The only difference I would do is to give them spot and listen as class skills (I would also give them good REF saves), and call it a day

Fact remains, their only class feature are feats (albeit some are fighter only feats, but still a feat nonetheless). Feats are not class features - they are built-in exceptions to the rules. Class features should be scale-able, level appropriate abilities.

IMO, to 'fix' a fighter is pointless. Classes already exist which fit with whatever archetype you looking to generate.

[dextercorvia]

IMO, to 'fix' a fighter is pointless. Classes already exist which fit with whatever archetype you looking to generate.

I think people misunderstand. I'm not trying to fix the fighter. I'm asking what he should be able to do. My intention is to build my ultimate Fighting Man character based on the recommendations.

So, while I like Curmudgeon's Fighter fix, I don't think the superior warrior needs 87 bonus feats. He might need the ability to do combat effectively using a variety of styles, but I'm not hung up here on HOW that should be approached.

[Chronos]

The design of the Fighter as it is right now is exactly as it should be: The Fighter's schtick is that he can learn many different combat styles from an extremely wide variety of options, and bonus feats work just fine for representing that. The problem with the fighter is not the class itself, but just that so many feats suck. So the solution is not to change the fighter, but to make new and better feats. You think he should do more damage? Then make feats that let him do more damage. You think he should have out-of-combat utility? Then make feats that give it to him. You think he should have abilities that scale? Then make feats that scale. Once you've got about 50 feat choices (or more: No need to stop there) that are each about as good as two levels worth of class features, the fighter is fixed.

[OldTrees1]

The design of the Fighter as it is right now is exactly as it should be: The Fighter's schtick is that he can learn many different combat styles from an extremely wide variety of options, and bonus feats work just fine for representing that. The problem with the fighter is not the class itself, but just that so many feats suck. So the solution is not to change the fighter, but to make new and better feats. You think he should do more damage? Then make feats that let him do more damage. You think he should have out-of-combat utility? Then make feats that give it to him. You think he should have abilities that scale? Then make feats that scale. Once you've got about 50 feat choices (or more: No need to stop there) that are each about as good as two levels worth of class features, the fighter is fixed.

^This
1) Since Ftr gets 11 feats over 20 levels, feats should have been made worth 2 levels of class features(like they sometimes are for casters). WotC failed on providing this support.
2) Since Ftr only gets feats as class features (and yes they are class features) then there should have been feats for anything and everything that a fighter might want as a class feature. Since warriors(concept not the class) are not defined solely by combat, Fighter(the class) should have had non combat feats on their bonus feat list.

[ben-zayb]

The Fighter Manifesto (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?149854-The-Fighter-Manifesto-Now-with-Surveys!): can't believe nobody suggested this yet

The Fighter Paradox (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?218686-The-Problem-With-Combatants-(The-Fighter-Paradox)): another good read related to the fighter "role"

[Dienekes]

I still think only 11 abilities over 20 levels is too few to make a fun class. Maybe an effective one if those abilities are Wish, or Polymorph, though I have trouble seeing mundane feats reaching that level of utility, though I will admit it's theoretically possible.

I would also suggest at least bumping up the skills a bit. That list and those numbers are just pathetic.

[Eldan]

I think people misunderstand. I'm not trying to fix the fighter. I'm asking what he should be able to do. My intention is to build my ultimate Fighting Man character based on the recommendations.

And my counter question is: why is "fighting man" a class? "Spellcaster" isn't a class in third edition. "Skillmonkey" isn't a class in third edition. We have sorcerers, wizards, clerics, archivists, binders, warlocks, psions. We have rogues, factota, rangers, scouts. Why can't we have a class for the noble battlefield commander, the demigod, the berserker, the pure and blessed crusader and all the other archetypes of myth? Squeezing them all into one class seems to lead to not only terribly generic fluff, but also a class that has difficulty achieving all that mechanically. Just imagine if you had to write a class that covered the cleric, wizard, binder, warlock and totemist in one, mechanically.

[dextercorvia]

And my counter question is: why is "fighting man" a class?

Not class -- character.

[Eldan]

Oh, I can do that too.

Why is "fighting man" a character? What fluff are you using that would need a generic fighter class to work instead of a specialized one? I've never seen a single character that had no defining traits other than "is pretty good with a sword", mechanically or in the fluff. Especially not at high levels.

[Seerow]

Basically, if you insist on having a generic "Fighter" class, it shouldn't be a Fighter at all. It should also eat the Rogue and other skill-monkeys as well. If you want a single class that is going to compete on the level of a Wizard, you can't afford to be playing with only half the deck of what a mundane character can do. You need to be able to cover all the bases. That means in addition to being a skilled warrior, you also need to be extremely skilled outside of combat. You should have options both in and out of combat that are unique and impossible to replicate by magic. You're basically looking at a Warblade/Factotum gestalt, with more tricks and interesting stuff then thrown on top.



The other alternative is you abandon the generic classes concept as a whole. No "Fighter", no "Wizard". If you pick a class, it has a narrower niche than that. But even there, most of your Fighting classes are going to look a lot closer to some sort of Barbarian/Rogue gestalt than they will to a Fighter. And the Fighter in of itself can't exist as a full base class. It simply doesn't fit conceptually within the system to have a guy who is only good at hitting people with weapons and nothing else.

[dextercorvia]

Oh, I can do that too.

Why is "fighting man" a character? What fluff are you using that would need a generic fighter class to work instead of a specialized one? I've never seen a single character that had no defining traits other than "is pretty good with a sword", mechanically or in the fluff. Especially not at high levels.

:smallsmile:

That is the point of this thread. I am asking what fluff/what role/what abilities a character should have to be considered a Warrior/Fighter/whatever you want to call it.

[Trasilor]

:smallsmile:

That is the point of this thread. I am asking what fluff/what role/what abilities a character should have to be considered a Warrior/Fighter/whatever you want to call it.

This is simply an opinion thread then?

What should a fighting-man be able to do?

A bit broad, don't you think? I guess that is the problem with 3.5 Fighter. It was the catch-all class. Poorly thought out class which begs the question if the game designers were just lazy when it came to the Fighter - personally, I think the they hate the Fighter.

This Giantitp fix discusses much of what a fighting-man should be able to do. The Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)

Without some reference point, 'what a fighting-man should be' is just too broad to give a reasonable or succinct answer to.

[drew2u]

personal concept:
I've always envisioned the Fighter to be an endurance class. Where other classes rely on per-day or conditional abilities (smite, spells, sneak attack, rage, ki, etc), the fighter should be able to be the last man standing who can still make full use of his abilities. Let the fighter gain endurance for free, let the fighter be able to sleep in full-plate and not be so bogged down by heavy loads. From that, the "fighter" can do its usual specialization of combat style through all of his bonus feats as normal.

partial-fix suggestion:
With that said, buffing the Fighter's bonus feats (possibly granting special abilities only if a character is a "Fighter" of a certain level, other classes would get more mundane abilities with the same feat) in addition to - if we're going to compare a fighter to a wizard - nerfing spells so the power discrepancy isn't as much.


Of course this doesn't address everything that should be fixed about the fighter, it's at least a manageable step in what I think is the right direction for the class.


The Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)
The Talent Pool of Dice in this fix just seems really wonky to me; like somebody took a Diablo or WoW ability with a cool-down period and did a direct-translation-port to 3.x rules. It feel cumbersome to keep track of a continual-refill feature in a game built around the fluidity of in-game time, but that's just me.

[Chronos]

Having 11 feats doesn't mean having 11 abilities. Consider the tactical feats, for instance, most of which grant three different abilities. And besides which, if those 11 abilities are good enough, is it a problem that they're so few? Some players like simplicity of options.

Which is another benefit to the fighter's modular design. If you want to just have a handful of powerful abilities, you can do that by picking one set of feats, and if you want a more diverse array of flexible abilities, you can do that with a different set of feats. Provided, again, that the feats exist.

[Seerow]

Having 11 feats doesn't mean having 11 abilities. Consider the tactical feats, for instance, most of which grant three different abilities. And besides which, if those 11 abilities are good enough, is it a problem that they're so few? Some players like simplicity of options.

On the other hand, consider the extreme number of feats that don't grant an ability at all, but instead just a minor bonus to something you had already. Also almost every tactical feat has at least 2 prerequisite feats which are of the "get nothing interesting" variety, making it a wash at best. Nevermind how useless a lot of the tactical feat maneuvers are. There's a couple rare gems (Shock Trooper and Combat Brute) that provide 3 different abilities that you could want to use (Though even there, most builds take them just for one of the three), but the vast majority provide pretty awful benefits, or if you're lucky a single useful ability and a couple so situational that you don't care.

[Chronos]

So you just don't take the feats that don't give you something you want, and you make new tactical feats that don't have feat tax prerequisites. I was just using them to illustrate that a feat can, in principle, grant multiple abilities.

[Seerow]

So you just don't take the feats that don't give you something you want, and you make new tactical feats that don't have feat tax prerequisites. I was just using them to illustrate that a feat can, in principle, grant multiple abilities.

But if you're going to go writing all new feats, wouldn't you be better served instead writing a class that doesn't need feats to do his thing?

[ngilop]

please read over Zeigander's thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It.

it is more indepth and detailed. but it basically repeats what I have been saying in this thread.

[Ssalarn]

On the other hand, consider the extreme number of feats that don't grant an ability at all, but instead just a minor bonus to something you had already. Also almost every tactical feat has at least 2 prerequisite feats which are of the "get nothing interesting" variety, making it a wash at best. Nevermind how useless a lot of the tactical feat maneuvers are. There's a couple rare gems (Shock Trooper and Combat Brute) that provide 3 different abilities that you could want to use (Though even there, most builds take them just for one of the three), but the vast majority provide pretty awful benefits, or if you're lucky a single useful ability and a couple so situational that you don't care.


Word yo. I talked about this a bit over on the Paizo forums, but if you took a Fighter, laid him side-by-side with almost any other class, assigned a point value to their abilities, and then compared the resultant scores, you'd see that he's getting shafted pretty spectacularly. The Fighter laid side by side with the ranger for example:

The Fighter has 5 more feats than a Ranger gets. If we say that Favored Enemy is the rough equivalent of Weapon Training, and Favored Terrain is the rough equivalent of Armor Training, then Improved Quarry and Master Hunter basically equate to Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery. The Ranger's extra good save is equivalent to the Fighter's superior armor proficiency, and I'd say that Bravery has roughly the same value as 5 additional class skills (that's +15 in total to relevant skills vs. the +5 to saves vs. fear. I'm willing to call that a fair trade, even if I have my own opinion about which is really better.)

That leaves us with a situation where the Fighter's 5 extra feats are weighted equally to: Track, Wild Empathy, Hunter's Bond, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, Quarry, Camouflage, Improved Evasion, Hide in Plain Sight, 4 additional skill points per level, and 4 levels of spellcasting.

Show me 5 feats a Fighter can take that are equal in power to that package. Show me five feats that are worth-

A scaling bonus up to +10 to Survival checks

A special type of Diplomacy that works on animals and automatically gets a point invested every level without costing you resources.

An animal companion or the ability to share his Favored Enemy bonus with the entire party.

The ability to bypass difficult terrain and avoid damage due to natural hazards.

The ability to cut penalties for Tracking at full speed (that's an effective +5 - +10 on your checks in addition to the +1-+10 from the Track ability, effectively a free +20 to a very relevant class skill).

The ability to completely negate damage when you succeed on a Reflex save that would otherwise deal 1/2.

The ability to add a +2 insight bonus to your attack rolls and auto-succeed on critical hits against a specified opponent (at level 11 no less).

The ability to use Stealth without benefit of cover or concealment.

The ability to take only 1/2 damage against attacks that allow a Reflex save even if he fails the save. Note that this would be equivalent to the Fighter having an ability that allowed him to just make most Reflex saves automatically.

The ability to hide even while someone is watching you. That's like pseudo-invisibility with no round limitation.

4 additional fully fleshed abilities to interact with the world outside of combat, ranging from treating wounds to activating magic items as though you were a wizard.

The ability to do any of the numerous things you can do with spells, including: creating areas of entangling terrain, boosting your weapons by an entire size category, summoning creatures or spirits to fight for you, healing wounds, walking on water, teleporting from tree to tree, etc.

There are no 5 combat or Fighter specific feats that equal all of that, and you can do the same thing with pretty much every other class. Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, and we're not even getting to the 3/4 classes, they all have way more stuff to play with than the Fighter whose theoretical potential cannot possibly equate to what every other class gets instead.

[OldTrees1]

But if you're going to go writing all new feats, wouldn't you be better served instead writing a class that doesn't need feats to do his thing?

I would be inclined to say no.
If you were going to have a collection of ability granting feats and have a class that picked abilities from a collection of ability granting things, why not use one collection rather than two?

Furthermore, buffing martial feats so that they are closer in power/utility/scale to caster feats will help all martial characters, not just fighter. (although it will help fighter at a ~18/7 ratio)

[Morty]

To elaborate on my earlier post, apart from not having any actual class features, the fighter class is screwed over by the fact that the basis for its existence, conventional combat using weapons, is so deeply dysfunctional in the game and consistently upstaged by magic, sometimes as early as on level 7, and definitely above level 10. There's also the issue that was mentioned, namely that it's a class revolving around combat in a game where everyone is supposed to equally contribute to combat.

[Ssalarn]

To elaborate on my earlier post, apart from not having any actual class features, the fighter class is screwed over by the fact that the basis for its existence, conventional combat using weapons, is so deeply dysfunctional in the game and consistently upstaged by magic, sometimes as early as on level 7, and definitely above level 10. There's also the issue that was mentioned, namely that it's a class revolving around combat in a game where everyone is supposed to equally contribute to combat.

Its also got zero stat consolidation. Even the core Monk can potentially drop a stat or two by utilizing his Wisdom based abilities (and the archetypes expand that tremendously). Paladin gets amazing stat consolidation, Barbarian gets features that allow him to ignore some stats, pretty much every class but the Fighter and Rogue get features to help narrow the stats necessary to do what they do. The Fighter, meanwhile, has class features that actually make him more MAD (Armor Training requires you to keep pumping DEX to actually take advantage of it, poor saves and the joke that is Bravery mean you have to boost WIS, no skipping prereqs for bonus feats means you need Int for Combat Maneuvers, not to mention skills....).

It's also pretty close to the only class in the game that has no way to interact with the magic that's going on all around it. I don't just mean spellcasting or anything like that; Rogue's can disarm magical traps, have great UMD, and can take talents that give them other options. Barbarians can rend magic apart, Monks have their ki abilities, Cavaliers have various options depending on their order and gain abilities that also do things one would normally expect spells to accomplish (buffing, etc.), and then there's all the various quarter casters.... Only the Fighter is expected to exist in a magic-filled world without any way to interact with it at all. They should have options for shrugging off spells, busting through magical effects with brute force, etc.

[Lans]

other than that I think the 'fighter focused feats' should scale i.e Weapon focus should at certain intervals give a fighter an additional +1 same with weapon specialization.

I disagree with this with weapon focus, as it leads to number inflation. I'd rather give it a reroll x/times per encounter or reduce iterative penalties or some thing like that

[Chronos]

Quoth Morty:

There's also the issue that was mentioned, namely that it's a class revolving around combat in a game where everyone is supposed to equally contribute to combat.
Which is a flawed assumption to begin with: Different classes shouldn't be contributing equally to combat. If you let go of that assumption, then it becomes acceptable for the fighter to be specialized in combat, the rogue to be specialized out of combat, and for the wizard to be a mix of both (though obviously wizards still need to be nerfed, to not be better than the specialists).

[Seerow]

Which is a flawed assumption to begin with: Different classes shouldn't be contributing equally to combat. If you let go of that assumption, then it becomes acceptable for the fighter to be specialized in combat, the rogue to be specialized out of combat, and for the wizard to be a mix of both (though obviously wizards still need to be nerfed, to not be better than the specialists).

The flaw here is assuming people will be okay with the Rogue having more to do out of combat than a Wizard, or with anyone being okay sitting around useless in combat while the Fighter kills stuff.

[dextercorvia]

The flaw here is assuming people will be okay with the Rogue having more to do out of combat than a Wizard, or with anyone being okay sitting around useless in combat while the Fighter kills stuff.

Yeah, DnD at its beginning was a combat game. It is still a vital part of the game. For me, everyone needs to be able to contribute during combat. I actually like the way 4e handled this (at least at first -- haven't followed it in years). With the different roles, some were better at mopping up minions, some with handling the main attraction.

[Eldan]

Which is a flawed assumption to begin with: Different classes shouldn't be contributing equally to combat. If you let go of that assumption, then it becomes acceptable for the fighter to be specialized in combat, the rogue to be specialized out of combat, and for the wizard to be a mix of both (though obviously wizards still need to be nerfed, to not be better than the specialists).

I'd go for wizard out of combat, rogue both, actually, but of course opinions vary. Give the wizard ritual casting and the rogue sneak-attack like combat tricks, done.

And old D&D wasn't necessarily a combat game either. It was a dungeon exploration/looting game. You got XP for money made in your adventures. Combat was very lethal. Ergo, getting to the treasure while never meeting the monsters was a fantastic course of action.

[dextercorvia]

And old D&D wasn't necessarily a combat game either. It was a dungeon exploration/looting game. You got XP for money made in your adventures. Combat was very lethal. Ergo, getting to the treasure while never meeting the monsters was a fantastic course of action.

I was going even farther back than that.

[Morty]

It's also pretty close to the only class in the game that has no way to interact with the magic that's going on all around it. I don't just mean spellcasting or anything like that; Rogue's can disarm magical traps, have great UMD, and can take talents that give them other options. Barbarians can rend magic apart, Monks have their ki abilities, Cavaliers have various options depending on their order and gain abilities that also do things one would normally expect spells to accomplish (buffing, etc.), and then there's all the various quarter casters.... Only the Fighter is expected to exist in a magic-filled world without any way to interact with it at all. They should have options for shrugging off spells, busting through magical effects with brute force, etc.

Which brings us to yet another systemic flaw, namely that interaction between magic and non-magic is usually a one-way street. Magic affects things, but beyond the low levels, can be only affected through other magic, or very specific abilities.

All in all, in addition to being weak in itself, the Fighter class just gets hit harder by 3e's glaring flaws than most.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd go for wizard out of combat, rogue both, actually, but of course opinions vary. Give the wizard ritual casting and the rogue sneak-attack like combat tricks, done.

And old D&D wasn't necessarily a combat game either. It was a dungeon exploration/looting game. You got XP for money made in your adventures. Combat was very lethal. Ergo, getting to the treasure while never meeting the monsters was a fantastic course of action.
Wizard would be a lot neater if they focused on ritual casting stuff. Something that they have to use an entire encounter's worth of time to build up to (i.e., the rest of the party has to keep people off of the wizard, while the wizard holes up somewhere safe), or else something that's much easier to pull off out of combat.