theory machine. . what if fighters only got multi attacks?

[CyberThread]

Where wOuld you put fighters in the tier list if they had only been the ones to get multiple attack swings.

[TheIronGolem]

I don't think it changes at all, because I don't feel that exclusivity is a good factor in determining tier rating. It is for this reason that, for example, I am skeptical of the popular opinion that Pathfinder drops the Rogue to Tier 5.

[JusticeZero]

Ditto, Rogues were already T5. Just because you can't get past certain puzzles without the Shepherd in your party doesn't mean that the character who is "I can't fight, or wear armor, or contribute meaningfully in any way other than by being escorted to the place where for some reason you can't open the gate in the six inch tall fence without herding a sheep" is a good party member. In the case of the Rogue, it was "Me and the Fighter are basically just the incompetent kid brother, but you need me to find the traps and secret doors that exist solely to provide me with a purpose". Pathfinder takes away the special exclusive rogue gates.

[Seppo87]

Where wOuld you put fighters in the tier list if they had only been the ones to get multiple attack swings.
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise"
Tier4

[Vhaidara]

"Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise"
Tier4

But are they really that good at the one thing? Iteratives are pretty bad, since your accuracy keeps decreasing.

It would drop other full BAB classes down a Tier (not counting ToB, since they can use maneuvers instead of full attack). Duskblade would have been untouched, but they lose full attack channel, which is a blow in their ability to keep up.

[Aegis013]

Seems like it would do more to hurt Gishes and other full attackers than help fighter.
Though it would eliminate the almost ubiquitous desire to attain pounce for melee characters. Spirit Lion Totem Barb would be pretty lousy in this change.

[ElenionAncalima]

I have to agree that this wouldn't help the fighter, so much as it would hurt every other full BAB class. Overall this would just widen the gap between the spellcasters and the non-spellcasters.

[With a box]

one thing I sure is casters are just laugh at it.

[Jeraa]

Where wOuld you put fighters in the tier list if they had only been the ones to get multiple attack swings.

As others have said, making fighters the only one to have multiple attacks hurts all other full BAB classes. If the reason was to help put fighters, instead gives them a class feature that lessens and eventually removes the penalty on iterative attacks. So the fighter eventually has a BAB of +20/+20/+20/+20, or something. Having many attacks is pointless when half of them can't hit anyway.

That doesn't hurt the other full BAB classes, and makes the fighter better at his job.

As for your actual question, you aren't changing anything at all about the fighter. His tier won't change either. Every other full BAB classes might, however.

[Blink Knight]

No change. Fighters still lack a reliable means of getting those full attacks and even if/when they do they aren't good enough.

Net effect on game: Don't melee, don't use bows, etc.

Even full attacks as a standard action alone aren't good enough, they do help a lot though.

[awa]

i don't think you specified what a multi attack is so it might affect druid and would definitely weaken totemist if this includes multiple attacks from natural attacks in addition to iterative.

If it does affect nat attacks, i think the fighter actually moves up a tier to tier 4 not because you made the fighter better but because you made every one else worse. There more then one way to be the best.

[With a box]

What if fighters got 1.5BAB? up to 6 attacks (30/25/20/15/10/5)

[awa]

i suspect that would put them solidly in in tier 4 but no matter how good they get at fighting they still will be tier 4. They might be broken rendering the game unfun but they will still be tier 4

[ArqArturo]

What if fighters, via class features (not feats), could obtain maneuvers and such from ToB? Essentially, I'm asking if a Fighter fix could be done for they to be more capable.

[Aegis013]

i suspect that would put them solidly in in tier 4 but no matter how good they get at fighting they still will be tier 4. They might be broken rendering the game unfun but they will still be tier 4

Until we start adding AC's for aspects of Physics. So the fighter needs to hit an AC 30 and do at least 15 damage and that allows him to bully gravity into letting him fly at a 30ft speed with perfect maneuverability for a short while, or similar.

Ie - attack good enough to get spell effects by bullying reality into doing it for you.

[Vhaidara]

Until we start adding AC's for aspects of Physics. So the fighter needs to hit an AC 30 and do at least 15 damage and that allows him to bully gravity into letting him fly at a 30ft speed with perfect maneuverability for a short while, or similar.

Ie - attack good enough to get spell effects by bullying reality into doing it for you.

But flying is about missing the ground, not hitting it.

[With a box]

But flying is about missing the ground, not hitting it.

No. You bitting the law of universe to obey you

[Aegis013]

But flying is about missing the ground, not hitting it.

Just gotta get so distracted by that suitcase you lost a dozen years ago on that one trip to that one place just before you're going to hit the ground. I mean, what is it doing way out in this other part of space anyway?

[firebrandtoluc]

How much versatility could a fighter achieve if he automatically got ALL of the fighter feats he qualifies for and could then spend all if his character feats on versatility?

[jiriku]

This change would not improve fighters one bit, thus their place in the tier system would not change. However, it would weaken other classes, so other classes that depend on making iterative attacks might slip a tier.

[Blink Knight]

How much versatility could a fighter achieve if he automatically got ALL of the fighter feats he qualifies for and could then spend all if his character feats on versatility?

Not much. Most feats fall right in the category of "things you should really just do". That and even with every ability available you have:

Things countered by a high AC.
Things countered by a high attack bonus.
Things countered by high Strength and size.

As enemies, particularly monsters gain all of those naturally, and you already had all of those attack forms net result: no change.

[gooddragon1]

Full BAB to attacks: +20/+20/+20/+20
Can make them as a standard action or while charging.
Scaling bonuses on attack rolls against targets with natural armor.
Scaling bonuses on damage rolls against targets with damage reduction.

You hit, multiple times, and you deal damage.

[CommandTortoise]

Seems like it would do more to hurt Gishes and other full attackers than help fighter.
Though it would eliminate the almost ubiquitous desire to attain pounce for melee characters. Spirit Lion Totem Barb would be pretty lousy in this change.

Well, taking a level of Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian probably would still improve a Fighter build. I know the tier system rates classes, not builds, but Pounce would still be as desired on Fighters.

[Urpriest]

In order for this to increase the Fighter's tier, it would have to be coupled with decreased monster hp across the board.

Basically, the classes that are in Tier 4 thanks to their full attacks are there because their full attacks are good enough to remove threats from the board, and hence solve specific types of encounters. If the Fighter was the only class that got a full attack, that would just reduce other classes' Tiers...unless merely having a full attack was sufficient to solve encounters, which it would be if monster hp was heavily reduced.

[Crazysaneman]

In order to increase the fighter's tier, you have to increase the fighter's usefulness OVERALL. While the proposed change increases their usefulness in combat, virtually every class has uses OUTSIDE combat, and that is what ultimately raises and lowers tiers. That being said, I disagree with the tier system ENTIRELY. A class is only as good as the person playing it. Every class is a T6 class unless played any better. A fighter can be a solid tier 5, possibly tier 4 class if you only give them UMD, invest points in it, and play smart. There is literally a wand or staff for ANYTHING.

I have played fighters that outshone everyone else in the game, and annihilated the end boss of a campaign in the first turn of combat. Going first. As a fighter. With no buff time. GGWP. Granted the campaign use the rule of cool, but still.

[Aegis013]

Well, taking a level of Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian probably would still improve a Fighter build. I know the tier system rates classes, not builds, but Pounce would still be as desired on Fighters.

Sure, it would improve a Fighter. The silly part is it wouldn't improve a Barbarian or other melee, thus changing the almost ubiquitous desire to a corner case use, effectively eliminating it's ubiquity.

[MirddinEmris]

Sure, it would improve a Fighter. The silly part is it wouldn't improve a Barbarian or other melee, thus changing the almost ubiquitous desire to a corner case use, effectively eliminating it's ubiquity.

Lion Totem + Whirlwind Frenzy. Also it can be used with natural attacks (though they may be also defined as "multi attacks" as there is no such term in the game)

[MirddinEmris]

The main problem with this is that Fighter is T5 and to make it better you will need to ACTUALLY make it better, not to gimp other classes (especially mundane melee). Fighter can already do the damage, making htem do more damage will not help their case.

[Madara]

In order to increase the fighter's tier, you have to increase the fighter's usefulness OVERALL. While the proposed change increases their usefulness in combat, virtually every class has uses OUTSIDE combat, and that is what ultimately raises and lowers tiers. That being said, I disagree with the tier system ENTIRELY. A class is only as good as the person playing it. Every class is a T6 class unless played any better. A fighter can be a solid tier 5, possibly tier 4 class if you only give them UMD, invest points in it, and play smart. There is literally a wand or staff for ANYTHING.

I have played fighters that outshone everyone else in the game, and annihilated the end boss of a campaign in the first turn of combat. Going first. As a fighter. With no buff time. GGWP. Granted the campaign use the rule of cool, but still.

The tier system specifically was created to judge potential, not raw power. He even says in his post that it doesn't account for player skill, so you're not really disagreeing with it..

As for the fighter, even if you buff its damage or combat ability, its usefulness depends on the ratio of combat to non-combat encounters.

[Vhaidara]

possibly tier 4 class if you only give them UMD, invest points in it, and play smart. There is literally a wand or staff for ANYTHING.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Fighter though. A Commoner can do this just as well as a Fighter. Better, actually, because the Commoner has Profession as a class skill, so they can make a living while buying their wands and staves.

At least you didn't try to argue past T4. IIRC, someone once claimed Monk was T2 because they could UMD stuff.

[Thanatosia]

As has been said, it would change nothing about a fighters tier, it would just knock all other melee down a tier maybe.

That aside, I think the Tier system is really impractical because it makes a lot of assumptions about campaigns. in most campaigns i've played in, Fighters and barbarians actually tend to hog the glory with casters more on the periphery. Most of the gameplay is combat, and the melee really shine in the combat. A caster can occaisonally end a fight before it even starts, but then we just go onto the next fight, where most of the actual gameplay revolves around the fighters/barbs/etc. Sometimes the party needs to get from point A to point B, and the wizard gets to be the one to cast the teleport spell to make it happen, but it doesn't feel like the wizard is suddenly hogging the spotlight and making everyone else obsolete.

Now I understand that there are shennanigans that casters can engage in, esp in high Op campaigns where they can totally sideline the melee and make them irrelivent. I've yet to actually play in such a campaign.