PDA

View Full Version : Making the Fighter Playable Again



AngelAndrius
2007-05-16, 04:36 PM
As more and more supplements come on the scene, it becomes more and more impossible to play a fighter and feel on the same level as the rest of the party. Some examples I'm using for this argument are:
1) Feat Rogue- d6 hp, so what??? skills and evasion and trap sense AND feats....
2) Warblade (Book of Nine Swords) d12 hp, full bab, awesome maneuvers...
3) Monk- evasion, diamond everything, flurry of blows, speed etc...

So I decided to try to add classa bilities to the fighter in order to make it appetizing once again (I haven't checked other threads, but I feel very original :smalltongue: )
Anyways, here goes

1-Brawn over Brains
2
3
4
5
6-Disciplined Training
7
8
9
10-Battle mastery
11
12-Improved Disciplined Training
13
14
15
16
17
18- Greater Disciplined Training
19
20-Imroved Battle Mastery

Brawn over Brains: Whenever a fighter would gain an ability score increase due to leveling, she recieves an additional +1 to that ability score so long as the ability score increased was Str. Dex. or Con. and all her levels are fighter. You do not lose the benefits of this supplement when you take a different class level, you only cease to accrue the benefits.

Disciplined Training: A fighter of 6th level recieves a +2 competence bonus on all Str. and Dex. skills and ability score checks. This bonus increases to +4 at 12th level and +6 at 18th level.

Battle Mastery: A fighter of 10th level and higher weilding a weapon may damage opponents using the damage from that weapon's next highest size category without penalty. For example, a fighter using a medium longsword (d8) would deal that weapons Large size damage (2d6). At 20th level, a fighter uses 2 size categories higher than the weapon itself (3d6).

Keep the same BaB, the same feat progression, the same d10 HP, the same skill points, and the same saves.

Consider a future revision for class skills. I am definitely adding listen, but not spot (a warrior must be perfectly focussed on the enemy at hand, one blink and you might find a blade nesting in your side.

EDIT

Updated Class Skill list:

The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str), and Tumble (Dex).

Tumble may be a stretch, but i see it as a choice between armor and that, but that option for fighter should exist.

Welp, I hope this helps to balance the fighter.

I would love some feedback!!!

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Shas aia Toriia
2007-05-16, 04:41 PM
That's good. I might play one, except that I prefer clerics and druids for some reason (as a support, not power-gaming).

But, you forgot a one thing.

dominate person

melchizedek
2007-05-16, 04:54 PM
I really dislike the idea of the Brawn over Brains ability. It forces every level to be in fighter, which prevents taking prestige classes or multiclassing to create a more unique character. I thing it makes more sense to have it depend on fighter levels. Something more like this:

Brawn over Brains:
At fourth, eighth, twelfth, sixteenth, and twentieth levels, the fighter can add +1 to his Strength, Dexterity or Constitution ability scores.

Also, this doesn't seem to resolve most of the problems that people express with fighters. The fighter becomes a little bit better at the things he already does, but the major issues with the fighter are speed/maneuverability and the inability to do anything except hit things. This makes fighters slightly better at hitting things, but it doesn't solve any of their major problems.

AngelAndrius
2007-05-16, 04:58 PM
That's good. I might play one, except that I prefer clerics and druids for some reason (as a support, not power-gaming).

But, you forgot a one thing.

dominate person


Ahhh sarcasm lol. Yeah I know, but dominate person has been SOOO done before, y'know? So last fall.

But anyways, I personally believe that this puts fighters on equal footing with monks feat rogues and warblades and, heavens forbid! perhaps some casters, like your meduim armor wearing clerics.

As for the forced fighter levels, i realize it's limiting, but I'm tired of fighter being treated like a 6 level expressway to a prestige class. I wanted to reard fighters who stick with the program.

Jarchh
2007-05-16, 04:59 PM
Some nice changes.. but I dont see the point in tweaking fighter much.. sure they're underpowered.. but I've never liked choosing a class for metagame reasons, I like the feel of fighters and the archetypes it lets you play. And with a couple of good PrC, you can almost even it out.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-16, 05:34 PM
We have this great thing called the homebrew forum. You may want to ask a mod to move this there.

:smallwink:

Corolinth
2007-05-16, 06:04 PM
Tome of Battle strikes me as an attempt to "make the fighter playable again." The writers could have adapted those rules to the existing fighter class (and they did offer methods by which that could be done), but it's usually easier to just make a new class when you develop new mechanics.

The easiest way to make the fighter playable again is to just give your players the finger and railroad them to the classes presented in the Player's Handbook. If you're going to use martial classes from the Tome of Battle, they should replace the fighter entirely; sort of like how clerics, druids, wizards, bards, and paladins have been removed completely from Oriental Adventures. Not all rules supplements are appropriate for every campaign.

As for the feat rogue, the balance there is clearly evident. There is one major balance factor that people love to ignore when they talk about how poorly balanced the fighter is: d10 hit die. We'll spare the balance comparison between the fighter and barbarian or paladin for the moment. I'm running Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (among other things). Their rogue isn't a feat rogue (which, I would point out, is a variant rule), but assuming he were... He would lose his sneak attack dice, which is what makes up the bulk of the disparity in his ability to deal damage in combat. He would gain three feats. Any martial or exotic weapon he wants to wield requires him to purchase the proficiency individually (as opposed to a fighter that gets all martials for free). He only wears light armor (which is okay, his dex is 19). The biggest kicker is his 39 hit points (level 5 tiefling, con of 14). The party's earth genasi fighter (same level and level adjustment) has 66 hit points. The gap will only grow as time wears on. The fighter, with a dex of 7, has an AC that's three points higher. If the rogue were using the variant where he traded his sneak attack for fighter bonus feats, he still wouldn't come anywhere close to the fighter in terms of combat prowess (his BAB is two points lower as well). Frankly, it's not worth losing sneak attack.

Likewise at any given level, the monk won't have quite as many hit points, his AC won't be quite as high, nor will his total attack bonus. He also won't hit quite as hard on average, or else he won't have some of the fancy and tasty weapon special abilities that a fighter might have.

LotharBot
2007-05-16, 06:07 PM
Just scribble out "warblade" and write "fighter" at the top of the page. Then you'll have a nice, balanced, playable fighter.

kpenguin
2007-05-16, 06:12 PM
Playable? I consider the current fighter to be the most able melee combatant in core barring CoDzilla or Polymorph cheese. This grows with each supplemental because of the huge intake of feats. What the fighter needs is something outside combat usefulness and we have playability

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-16, 06:41 PM
Why would you want to put fighters on an equal footing with monks? You DID say you wanted to improve the fighter class, right?

Orzel
2007-05-16, 06:56 PM
Feat rogue and monks. Playable?

The problem with the fighter is that it is either outdone in combat by a spellcaster with 6+ buffs on him or the fighter has to do something other than swing a weapon, climb a tree, or bust a down down.

So the 2 options is to make fighter better than a caster with a ton of buff on him
or
give fighters something to do when "move 30' and attack" doesn't work in a fight,

Quietus
2007-05-16, 11:11 PM
Feat rogue and monks. Playable?

The problem with the fighter is that it is either outdone in combat by a spellcaster with 6+ buffs on him or the fighter has to do something other than swing a weapon, climb a tree, or bust a down down.

So the 2 options is to make fighter better than a caster with a ton of buff on him
or
give fighters something to do when "move 30' and attack" doesn't work in a fight,

Trip. Disarm. Grapple. Bull rush.

All options when "move 30' and attack" isn't working.

Orzel
2007-05-17, 03:25 AM
Trip. Disarm. Grapple. Bull rush.

All options when "move 30' and attack" isn't working.

Until you hit level 6 or 7 and 1/3 enemies are bigger than you and 1/6 can't be attacked with melee weapons without help.

JaronK
2007-05-17, 03:47 AM
Seriously, WotC already did this wonderfully, they just renamed it the Warblade.

And no, Feat Rogue is not an effective melee fighter. d6 HD, 3/4BAB, and light armour does not cut it. Monks can't do it either... they can survive, but they can't hurt anything.

Warblade, however, is exactly what the Fighter should have been all this time.

JaronK

Neon Knight
2007-05-17, 06:05 AM
I don't feel the Warblade is a fighter replacement; he doesn't even get Heavy Armor Proficiency for goodness sake!

Morty
2007-05-17, 06:24 AM
Yeah, Warblade is by no means Fighter replacement. He doesn't get heavy armor- granted, fighters don't always use heavy armor, but often they do- and ranged weapon proficiency. Not to mention that you'd have to change fluff, restrain yourself from many manuevers etc.
Besides, fighter isn't "unplayable". Unless you play at high levels, fighter is perfectly playable, even if he's weaker than, say, cleric.

Marius
2007-05-17, 07:02 AM
I don't feel the Warblade is a fighter replacement; he doesn't even get Heavy Armor Proficiency for goodness sake!

You only need one level dip to have all those proficiencies.

Matthew
2007-05-17, 07:31 AM
One Level dip does not a Fighter make...

Anyway, the Fighter is already as playable as any other Core Non Spell Casting Class (and mosty Non Core) and he's fine until level 6 or so, which is when Spell Casters really begin to get access to the big guns. It's not the Fighter's problem, it's the Spell Casters. Even if you replaced him with War Blade and granted War Blade access to all the stuff Fighters get and they don't, it still wouldn't be on an equal footing with Spell Casters.

Hell, you could give the Fighter the best parts of every Core Non Spell Casting Class going (I'm including Paladins and Rangers here as well) and many Non Core and he still wouldn't be able to summon Demons out of his ass... (by which I mean he would still be comparatively weak when measured against a Full Spell Caster).

(You know, even if Fighters had infinite Hit Points at High Levels, Spell casters could still defeat them...)

Charity
2007-05-17, 08:34 AM
One Level dip does not a Fighter make...
It does to most folk... well 2 levels :smallwink:


(You know, even if Fighters had infinite Hit Points at High Levels, Spell casters will still defeat them...)

Fixed that for you me old mukker.

Why does everyone obsess over the fighter, there are plenty of other non caster classes that don't measure up, I guess fighter is just the most obvious.

ToB is pretty good for subbing out the most suction intensive classes (monk/fighter/paladin) it's not a bad fix, to be fair nothing is going to match up to the full spell casters.

he still wouldn't be able to summon Demons out of his ass arse...

Are you English? Eh?

Morty
2007-05-17, 08:38 AM
ToB is pretty good for subbing out the most suction intensive classes (monk/fighter/paladin) it's not a bad fix, to be fair nothing is going to match up to the full spell casters.

That is really problem with spellcasters, not non-casters. But yeah, people here seem to be obsessed about fighter. What about rangers, barbarians and paladins? They aren't much stronger than fighters, and you can't replace barbarians and rangers using ToB.

Theodoxus
2007-05-17, 09:23 AM
That's what I said in the last thread about fighters sucking. Magic is so overpoweringly powerful that with it around, and as ancient and prevelant as it is, there's no way anyone would of thought of making a sword, or club - unless they had no penchant to cast magic; but it would certainly not have evolved into something so grand as maneuvers and Nine Swords and such.

If a wizard learned that a group of people were attempting to form an army with various pointy sticks, he'd swoop in and lay waste to them before they even started marching.

I'll say it again, High Magic is equivalent to Modern Tech, only it was around long before our modern military weaponry. Who'd consider swinging a stick at someone holding a M16 pointed at them?

To put it another way, if a high tech society, say something along the lines of Star Trek Spacefaring Race sends a colony to a new world inhabited by proto-sapiens, and essentially uplifts them into sentience - the indigenous peoples wouldn't utilize simple and martial implements as weapons, but rather as tools (knives for eating, etc.) They would quickly adopt the high tech standards of their neighbors, using 'advanced' weapons for war.

Because magic has been around since the beginning of time in most campaign worlds, people would utilize it in a similar manner, bypassing the cruder implements for something far more reliable - the ability to kill/main/hinder with a word.

Thus, melee classes will always be subpar to magic because magic is so far superior. Is there a way to correct it? Not completely - low magic campaigns, high magic campaigns where most of the power is stored in items that can be used by anyone, etc. For the most part though, melee will never be on par, and those who like to play must simply face the fact that a full caster will be flashier, more deadly and generally have more respect.

Knight In Armor
2007-05-17, 11:46 PM
I'm currently playing a fighter in my campaign, and I don't really see them as under powered. (Maybe because we house rule so that we get feats every other level instead of every third. Yay for feats every level. :smallbiggrin: ) Even if they are, I have a lot of fun playing mine, because there's a lot fo fun RP and interaction in our campaign.

Spellcasters are all fine and dandy, until they run out of spells. Or get dragged into melee by a couple heavy hitters. Without the fighters around, how do Wizards and other spell casting types make sure they don't get ganked by A horde of monsters who will be flanking them, surrounding them and doing their level best to tear them down? Without us fighters, spellcaster got no one to watch their backs.

Used to play a cleric, had a lot of fun. Now playing my fighter, still having a lot of fun. Underpowered, overpowered? I'm the guy with the PC. As long as you're having fun it shouldn't matter how over or underpowered a class is. Just play the game, have fun. :)

Fax Celestis
2007-05-17, 11:52 PM
That's what I said in the last thread about fighters sucking. Magic is so overpoweringly powerful that with it around, and as ancient and prevelant as it is, there's no way anyone would of thought of making a sword, or club - unless they had no penchant to cast magic; but it would certainly not have evolved into something so grand as maneuvers and Nine Swords and such.

Er, why not?

DLyon
2007-05-18, 12:07 AM
'Ello chaps.

In my considered opinion, fighters are still quite playable. Magic is all well and good...until you realize you've cast your last spell and the angry looking dragon isn't going to just lie down and die.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 12:14 AM
'Ello chaps.

In my considered opinion, fighters are still quite playable. Magic is all well and good...until you realize you've cast your last spell and the angry looking dragon isn't going to just lie down and die.

If that ever happens, you're wizarding wrong.

DLyon
2007-05-18, 12:30 AM
If that ever happens, you're wizarding wrong.

Still a possibility.

The thing is, Wizards need fighters to stop the enemy melee troops from getting at them.

Miles Invictus
2007-05-18, 12:33 AM
The fighter will run out of hit points before the wizard will run out of spells.

Regarding melee hordes...Overland Flight. It lasts for hours, and grants you a fly speed of 40. Not enough room to hover above it? Not a problem, you can still run away from it.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 12:39 AM
The thing is, Wizards need fighters to stop the enemy melee troops from getting at them.

Pray tell--how, exactly, would a fighter manage to actually do this?

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-18, 12:59 AM
You only need one level dip to have all those proficiencies.
Those who use the word "dip" when referring to multiclassing should have their characters shot on sight until such time as they bother to at least pretend they aren't blatantly powergaming.

Anyway, I've recently been considering this fighter rebuild (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/fighter) done by Otto the Bugbear on the WotC board. A lot of his work rubs me the wrong way, but some of the class rewrites look pretty decent.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 01:00 AM
Those who use the word "dip" when referring to multiclassing should have their characters shot on sight until such time as they bother to at least pretend they aren't blatantly powergaming.

Ah... what? "Dip" is the accepted terminology for a few levels of a class. There is nothing wrong with "dipping". It does not even guarantee a power increase; the joys of Druid 20 are well-known. "Dipping" a class is no more powergaming than choosing one's feats wisely is.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-18, 01:08 AM
Er, why not?
Well, I can see where he's coming from. He's asking why anyone would bother developing weapon techniques when they could just learn to cast spells and be done with it. It doesn't make for very fun fantasy, but he's got a point.
Ah... what? "Dip" is the accepted terminology for a few levels of a class. There is nothing wrong with "dipping". It does not even guarantee a power increase; the joys of Druid 20 are well-known. "Dipping" a class is no more powergaming than choosing one's feats wisely is.
What do you mean what? One dips into a class to get the mechanically good features and then leaves it. Anyone who's ever played a sorcerer who went paladin for all of two levels just for divine grace knows what I'm talking about. If there was an actual reason beyond how best to break the game, then it wouldn't be just dipping class features.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 01:23 AM
What do you mean what? One dips into a class to get the mechanically good features and then leaves it. Anyone who's ever played a sorcerer who went paladin for all of two levels just for divine grace knows what I'm talking about. If there was an actual reason beyond how best to break the game, then it wouldn't be just dipping class features.
It is a "dip" regardless of the reason. If I have two Expert levels for "roleplaying purposes", it is an Expert dip.

How is taking levels of a class for good features any different from selecting effective feats, or grade-A spells? What makes it such a horrible thing to do?

Charity
2007-05-18, 02:16 AM
I have encountered this idea from RL friends, I think it stems from the idea that the class defines the character, an idea to which I don't subscribe.

I'm sure that it originates in 1st edition, (where multi classing was indeed the route to power as it goes) where you are one class, and as that one class you are identical to all others of that class.

I feel the core classes should be pretty much fluff free though I must confess to being a bit leary of folk dipping into several prestige classes, those are a bit more fluff defined in my eyes.
I should support that statement in some way but to be honest it's just one of those gut reaction things, difficult to define why I think that, just that I do.

Anyway we will be back onto the old Stormwind fallacy chestnut if we're not careful, and then I will have to sit in the corner and cry... do you want that? do you?

Back on topicish
ToB woooooo!

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-18, 02:25 AM
The reason people say Polymorph is overpowered not necessarily because of the spell itself, but because it is limitless, and becomes that much better every time a new monster is released.

Therefore, shouldn't fighter work in the same way?

That being said, Fighter will never be on the same level as a core Wizard, a Warblade, or a duskblade, even with fixes. Trying to play catch up with fighter fixes is a losing battle; for each new feature or ability that makes a fighter on par with an average wizard, as long as wizards and warblades can optimize, an optimized wiz/war will still be far too big a gap to bridge. The solution is nerfing power classes, not power creep.

My opinion of the fighter is that it can work in a lower power or level campaign, or as part of a character concept that is feat heavy. Love the fighter, because he loves you.

Matthew
2007-05-18, 06:24 AM
Aw, man. My witty response got swallowed when the boards went offline...

It does to most folk... well 2 levels :smallwink:
Nah, you see for a War Blade to replace the Fighter it shouldn't have to 'dip' into that Base Class, if you see what I mean...

Fixed that for you me old mukker.
Hah, yeah I was in two minds there, but some people still play Spell Casters that focus on Fire Balls and the like, or so I hear.

Why does everyone obsess over the fighter, there are plenty of other non caster classes that don't measure up, I guess fighter is just the most obvious.
Too true, it's noticable that of the the eleven Core Base Classes, seven of them are well balanced against one another, whilst four totally kick ass after Level X. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Druid. It's fairly obvious where the problem lies, it's not really the other Classes.

ToB is pretty good for subbing out the most suction intensive classes (monk/fighter/paladin) it's not a bad fix, to be fair nothing is going to match up to the full spell casters.
Well, I wouldn't have singled them out from the other seven as particularly useless.

Are you English? Eh?
Yeah, but for some reason I prefer ass over arse. Just an aesthetic preference.

Charity
2007-05-18, 06:37 AM
Nah, you see for a War Blade to replace the Fighter it shouldn't have to 'dip' into that Base Class, if you see what I mean...
Well if it to truely replace fighter, it should be a 2 level dip class itself. Sorry I do really understand your meaning, it is fairly straight forward to just give them heavy armour prof, I don't really know why they didn't... I guess they didn't want to completely and utterly sideline fighters...not that the fighter is even on the subs bench if we're all honest.


Hah, yeah I was in two minds there, but some people still play Spell Casters that focus on Fire Balls and the like, or so I hear.
Say it isn't so *cries*


Too true, it's noticable that of the the eleven Core Base Classes, seven of them are well balanced against one another, whilst four totally kick ass after Level X. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Druid. It's fairly obvious where the problem lies, it's not really the other Classes.
Yeah I would be inclined to agree, though folk don't seem to like bringing out the nerf bat on these serial offenders.


Well, I wouldn't have singled them out from the other seven as particularly useless.
Well the others tend to fare better, either because they get some limited spell love, or UMD and become pseudo-casters, though I should really have included Barbarians.


Yeah, but for some reason I prefer ass over arse. Just an aesthetic preference.

Ah assarse aesthetics *dreamy look*

Marius
2007-05-18, 06:50 AM
Those who use the word "dip" when referring to multiclassing should have their characters shot on sight until such time as they bother to at least pretend they aren't blatantly powergaming.


But that's the point, people don't want to play a straight fighter because it's weak after the first levels. So they play warblades that are way more powerful, some say that they don't fit as a fighter replacement because they can't use heavy armor or ranged weapons so I told them a simple way to play a warblade that could fit their image of a fighter. And now I got called "powergamer" for it. But you're wrong, you don't have to be "blatantly powergaming" to make a dip in another class, I don't even think that a straight warblade is going to be better with a fighter dip. Of course it's going to be better than a straight fighter but that was what people want, a stronger fighter.

Morty
2007-05-18, 07:03 AM
The reason people say Polymorph is overpowered not necessarily because of the spell itself, but because it is limitless, and becomes that much better every time a new monster is released.

Therefore, shouldn't fighter work in the same way?

That being said, Fighter will never be on the same level as a core Wizard, a Warblade, or a duskblade, even with fixes. Trying to play catch up with fighter fixes is a losing battle; for each new feature or ability that makes a fighter on par with an average wizard, as long as wizards and warblades can optimize, an optimized wiz/war will still be far too big a gap to bridge. The solution is nerfing power classes, not power creep.

My opinion of the fighter is that it can work in a lower power or level campaign, or as part of a character concept that is feat heavy. Love the fighter, because he loves you.

Trying to catch up fighter with fixes is a lost battle, yes. But that's because wizards/clerics etc. are poorly written, and that seriously isn't fighter's fault.


Hah, yeah I was in two minds there, but some people still play Spell Casters that focus on Fire Balls and the like, or so I hear.

And what's wrong with fireball-happy wizards now? They don't pwn everything hard enough? I'd rather play wizard focusing on fireballs than on battlefield control. I am playing debuff/buff-focused wizard now, but I use damage fairly often, and I never use battlefield control. So, Charity, I guess it is so.

Matthew
2007-05-18, 07:23 AM
Mort: Never said there was anything wrong with it, just that such Spell Casters would have a hard time defeating Fighters with infinite Hit Points (i.e. the reason I wrote can, rather than will).

Marius: No, you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that War Blade doesn't fit my image of a Fighter. I was saying it isn't a straight Fighter replacement.

Charity
2007-05-18, 07:38 AM
Trying to catch up fighter with fixes is a lost battle, yes. But that's because wizards/clerics etc. are poorly written, and that seriously isn't fighter's fault.
Nobodys blaming them for their failure to match up to the casters, and I think the ToB does do a pretty good job.



And what's wrong with fireball-happy wizards now? They don't pwn everything hard enough? I'd rather play wizard focusing on fireballs than on battlefield control. I am playing debuff/buff-focused wizard now, but I use damage fairly often, and I never use battlefield control. So, Charity, I guess it is so.

Sarkazm i ironia jest co JA był napadający wobec osiągnąć

Morty
2007-05-18, 07:42 AM
Nobodys blaming them for their failure to match up to the casters, and I think the ToB does do a pretty good job.

It does. But seriously, you can make fighter equal with wizard without ToB and in high magic setting. Not that ToB's approach is bad.


Sarkazm i ironia jest co JA był napadający wobec osiągnąć

Err... alright, I get it, that was irony, but what you've written doesn't make any sense.

Charity
2007-05-18, 08:06 AM
It does. But seriously, you can make fighter equal with wizard without ToB and in high magic setting. Not that ToB's approach is bad. .

I cannot agree with you here, though I won't get drawn into a wizard verses fighter debate, regardless of how on topic it is as this has been comprehensively debated and bores the heck out of me if I'm honest.


Err... alright, I get it, that was irony, but what you've written doesn't make any sense.
Sorry dodgy online translator, I am no linguist... I can barely make myself understood in English.

Rock Roller
2007-05-18, 08:20 AM
I'm not sure that the Fighter is "unplayable." I measure the playability (and value) of something by how often it gets used in a game. In the campaigns I play in, someone almost always plays a fighter. Occasionally a Barbarian, Paladin or splat-class fighter variant is chosen, but we still come back to the fighter quite often. As long as people still play fighters, I can't call them "unplayable." However, I can count the number of straight bards I've seen on one hand.

Charity
2007-05-18, 08:24 AM
I can count the number of straight bards I've seen on one hand.

Well you know how these thespian types are.:smallwink:

kpenguin
2007-05-18, 08:30 AM
The fighter just needs applications outside of combat. It already is pretty formidible at low levels in combat and it just needs to have something to do while in town instead of starting bar fights.

Try fixing the real unplayable classes. Like monk. Or *shivers* soulknife?

Charity
2007-05-18, 09:38 AM
The fighter just needs applications outside of combat. It already is pretty formidible at low levels in combat and it just needs to have something to do while in town instead of starting bar fights.
He needs adaptability, defence against magic, mobility, and a capstone ability.


Try fixing the real unplayable classes. Like monk. Or *shivers* soulknife? The rather nifty Swordsage is the ToB's monk fix, as for soulknife Meh, what are they for? There are already so many prestige classes it makes a mockery of the class system anyhow, remind me why we need another ill defined base class?

Knight In Armor
2007-05-18, 09:42 AM
I dunno, I think my fighter is pretty decent. Currently we're at 11th level, and he does something around 1d10+8 with each hit (one handed bastard sword, three attacks per round. And even more with bull's strength, bless, prayer, and other buffs from the paladin and cleric in our party), and has a crazy to hit bonus (can't fnd sheet right now). He's good for capping mooks, which we do a lot of in my game. :D


He needs adaptability, defence against magic, mobility, and a capstone ability.

Defence against magic? Buffs and magic items. Mobility? get a horse or the spring attack feat tree. :P

I think fighters are fairly adaptable with the feat system and what not. But like I said, it really all boils down to having fun with what you're playing.

the_tick_rules
2007-05-18, 10:03 AM
i always thought give him a special ability for armor that replicates what PHB II feats give to sheilds, the ability to apply his shield bonus to touch attacks. he takes those feats and include armor and nearly an touch attack will fail. plus give him some defenses against magic. but i like what ya did.

Matthew
2007-05-18, 10:23 AM
I dunno, I think my fighter is pretty decent. Currently we're at 11th level, and he does something around 1d10+8 with each hit (one handed bastard sword, three attacks per round. And even more with bull's strength, bless, prayer, and other buffs from the paladin and cleric in our party), and has a crazy to hit bonus (can't fnd sheet right now). He's good for capping mooks, which we do a lot of in my game. :D

Ah, it's obvious you haven't been around here long... Seriously, though, that's a perfectly normal way to play a Fighter, but what you are missing is that Wizards, Cerics, Sorcerers and Druids are each, on average, more powerful than the Fighter at Level 11. Maybe not in your group, that's true, but they are potentially *very* powerful.


Defence against magic? Buffs and magic items. Mobility? get a horse or the spring attack feat tree. :P

Heh, these 'solutions' are not enough. Spring Attack in particular sucks.


I think fighters are fairly adaptable with the feat system and what not. But like I said, it really all boils down to having fun with what you're playing.
All very true.

Knight In Armor
2007-05-18, 10:32 AM
Ah, it's obvious you haven't been around here long... Seriously, though, that's a perfectly normal way to play a Fighter, but what you are missing is that Wizards, Cerics, Sorcerers and Druids are each, on average, more powerful than the Fighter at Level 11. Maybe not in your group, that's true, but they are potentially *very* powerful.

Oh, I know. I'm not arguing that spell casters are less powerful or that fighters are more powerful. Just saying that I think fighters are plenty playable. For some reason in none of our games we've never had a dedicated spell caster except for a cleric, who usually buffs, heals and uses something like flame strike before wading in with the rest of the party. Our current party has a fighter, paladin, cleric and bard.

The bard player has applied his few spells in some really innovative ways. For instance, he used Glibness, Alter Self, Tongues, and Confusion to Bluff his way through an entire army of kuo-toa. It was amazing, mostly because no one else at the table was expecting him to do something like it. Plus, it was really funny. :smallbiggrin:


Heh, these 'solutions' are not enough. Spring Attack in particular sucks.

Yeah, it does. Oh well. Mounted combat is great, though. Especially if the game is based around the concept of "knights in shining armor."

Indon
2007-05-18, 10:32 AM
I think fighters are fairly adaptable with the feat system and what not. But like I said, it really all boils down to having fun with what you're playing.

Fairly, but I feel many feats could stand to be improved significantly.

The concept of a fighter learning a series of talents/abilities and that being _what he is_ is excellent; implementation, however, is generally not very good because feats are themselves rather limited, both in power and in scope.

Knight In Armor
2007-05-18, 10:37 AM
Fairly, but I feel many feats could stand to be improved significantly.

The concept of a fighter learning a series of talents/abilities and that being _what he is_ is excellent; implementation, however, is generally not very good because feats are themselves rather limited, both in power and in scope.

I agree. In order to combat that, my group gives out feats every other level instead of every third, which signifgantly increases the scope and effectiveness of a Fighter, since they're getting feats every level.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 11:29 AM
Well, I can see where he's coming from. He's asking why anyone would bother developing weapon techniques when they could just learn to cast spells and be done with it. It doesn't make for very fun fantasy, but he's got a point.

The ToB book even says, "Blade Magic". Why is ot so difficult to imagine that some wizard, somewhere, decided one day that he really liked weaponry and decided to augment his combat prowess through magical ability?

Morty
2007-05-18, 02:02 PM
Or, you know, magic is designed intelligently and isn't very good for combat, and is also generally hard, unreliable and many find it not rewarding enough? Hard to achieve in D&D, but it solves "why isn't everyone a wizard" problem.

Indon
2007-05-18, 03:04 PM
I agree. In order to combat that, my group gives out feats every other level instead of every third, which signifgantly increases the scope and effectiveness of a Fighter, since they're getting feats every level.

Instead, I'd probably go the harder route and have feats scale with level; consolidating the TWF tree into a single feat is a common change.

I'd also do things like change Iron Will to making your Will save qualify as "Good" regardless of your class levels, and generally other changes that scale with either class levels, BAB, or fighter class levels.

Feats should be comparable to mid-to-strong class features, I feel.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-18, 03:05 PM
Trying to catch up fighter with fixes is a lost battle, yes. But that's because wizards/clerics etc. are poorly written, and that seriously isn't fighter's fault.
Exactly my point, I don't have a problem with the fighter's design, I think it's a flexible, reasonable class.

What's needed is a serious change in the magic system, but this is one of the major problems with WotC Design; People expect the wizard to be really powerful, and to have a certain number of extremely powerful spells to use, just like they expect clerics to turn undead and barbarians to rage. D&D is afraid to mess with its canon, even if it is seriously flawed.

Therefore, whenever WotC tries to fix it, they either don't do it, they do it by introducing some new "melee" class like Warblade or Duskblade that just ratchet the power level that much higher.

Once parties are Wizard, Warblade, Duskblade, Cleric, Druid, every encounter will be over in a minute and the DM will be left pulling his hair because a CR 10 monster was beaten by a 5th level party in 2 rounds.

What's needed is a variant system, and it should start with the following tweaks:
-Having really powerful spells that you can only cast a limited number of times per day is not a balance; it just forces the party to revolve around your schedule, (I'm out of fireballs, it's time to rest (at 3 P.M.)) or it just leads to encounters either being way too easy or way too hard. Encounters should be fluid.

-Spell Levels are problematic, when Magic Missle gets better by level and new spells are gained, it puts too much pressure for higher level spells to have breaking effects like Finger of Death.

-Spells should never make other classes' class features obsolete, like spells such as Knock do.

-Spell Resistance should apply to every spell; that's the reason it's there!

-Spells should require some kind of (actually difficult) check to cast; a fighter has to roll an attack to try and hit, why should a wizard just get to toss a fireball, choose a radius, and go straight to damage?

-Magic should not allow a character to negate the limitations imposed on his class; Poor AC shouldn't just get negated by Shield and Mage Armor, and d4 hit die doesn't count for much when you have contingent Dimension Door slapped on.

-Save or Die, Save or Stone, and Save or Suck need to be taken out of D&D's vocabulary. They never enhance a game they are in, and they make high level encounters an endless game of "Who'll get the Nat 1?"

These are just the beginning of changes that should be made to a new, better magic system.

Morty
2007-05-18, 03:34 PM
-Spells should require some kind of (actually difficult) check to cast; a fighter has to roll an attack to try and hit, why should a wizard just get to toss a fireball, choose a radius, and go straight to damage?


I agree with the rest, but that change would be problematic: fighter can swing or shoot all day util his arms fall off, but wizard has his spells prepared, and losing spell due to bad roll would be frustrating. There's a reason Warlock's Eldrith Blast and invocations are weak, you know.

Back on topic: yeah, fighter is playable class, but he could use some class features. You can't make a class using only bonus feats, or you end up with something noone will take more than 10 levels of. Feats are fine, though some of them could scale with levels.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-18, 03:38 PM
I agree with the rest, but that change would be problematic: fighter can swing or shoot all day util his arms fall off, but wizard has his spells prepared, and losing spell due to bad roll would be frustrating. There's a reason Warlock's Eldrith Blast and invocations are weak, you know.
Part of the fix would be that wizards have unlimited uses of weaker magical effects. But even then, Wizards above 5th level almost never "run out of spells", they just demand that the party rope trick and give him a chance to recover.

Generally, I dislike the idea of limited spells as a balance, because it polarizes encounters between "blast blast done," and "I'm out of spells, hang back and toss sling bullets for 1d3-1."

AngelAndrius
2007-05-18, 04:15 PM
I whole heartedly agree with some of you that DnD has hugely overpowered magic to the point it is like "modern tech" and that WoTC are too damn scared/lazy to fix that. Welp, that's my problem too, in order to balance a fighter, I believe that the entire magic system would have to be redone, including tossing out the wizard class as is completely. Not having that kind of energy, I just decided to help the fighter itself.

I chose the fighter because she is iconic for the gap between melee and magic and that a startling difference is made clear by level 5-6.

I think part of the solution is in the ideas of schools of magic. I think classes like dread necromancer and beguiler are great classes, they have some neat tricks and just the right amount of magic.

I believe that every wizard should be forced to specialize in such a way. I would give the wizrd class now access to no more than 4 schools of magic. And probabaly gain knowledge of the schools of magic in level progresssion. That would take away their "win" button capability for nearly every situation. In order to compensate for some of this, I think some class features should be added, but I haven't thought of any right now. I would drop wizard specialization down to sacrificing one school of magic, two if you use the variant from the complete mage.

As for other caster classes, especially looking at the cleric, i dunno, give me some time to think :tongue:

But anyway, to give this thread a suuuuper nudge, what about the class features I came up with for the fighter? Should I make it a house rule yet?

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-18, 07:34 PM
I think part of the solution is in the ideas of schools of magic. I think classes like dread necromancer and beguiler are great classes, they have some neat tricks and just the right amount of magic.

I believe that every wizard should be forced to specialize in such a way. I would give the wizrd class now access to no more than 4 schools of magic. And probabaly gain knowledge of the schools of magic in level progresssion. That would take away their "win" button capability for nearly every situation. In order to compensate for some of this, I think some class features should be added, but I haven't thought of any right now. I would drop wizard specialization down to sacrificing one school of magic, two if you use the variant from the complete mage.
Unfortunately, as much as this does create more balance, it only takes a few ludicrously powerful spells to break a caster. Just Necromancy and Transmutation would give you Finger of Death, Lightning Leap, and Polymorph. You don't need that many spells.

This isn't saying these aren't good ideas within the system as given, but trying to balance the wizard without overhauling the magic system is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 08:52 PM
PS: Here's my variant fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2607236#post2607236)

AngelAndrius
2007-05-19, 12:43 PM
Updated Class Skill list:

The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str), and Tumble (Dex).

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 01:05 PM
That's what I said in the last thread about fighters sucking. Magic is so overpoweringly powerful that with it around, and as ancient and prevelant as it is, there's no way anyone would of thought of making a sword, or club - unless they had no penchant to cast magic; but it would certainly not have evolved into something so grand as maneuvers and Nine Swords and such.

If a wizard learned that a group of people were attempting to form an army with various pointy sticks, he'd swoop in and lay waste to them before they even started marching.

I'll say it again, High Magic is equivalent to Modern Tech, only it was around long before our modern military weaponry. Who'd consider swinging a stick at someone holding a M16 pointed at them?

To put it another way, if a high tech society, say something along the lines of Star Trek Spacefaring Race sends a colony to a new world inhabited by proto-sapiens, and essentially uplifts them into sentience - the indigenous peoples wouldn't utilize simple and martial implements as weapons, but rather as tools (knives for eating, etc.) They would quickly adopt the high tech standards of their neighbors, using 'advanced' weapons for war.

Because magic has been around since the beginning of time in most campaign worlds, people would utilize it in a similar manner, bypassing the cruder implements for something far more reliable - the ability to kill/main/hinder with a word.

Thus, melee classes will always be subpar to magic because magic is so far superior. Is there a way to correct it? Not completely - low magic campaigns, high magic campaigns where most of the power is stored in items that can be used by anyone, etc. For the most part though, melee will never be on par, and those who like to play must simply face the fact that a full caster will be flashier, more deadly and generally have more respect.

Nonsense.

1. Magic requires high spellcasting stats and most people don't go about 11 in any stat.

2. Low level magic users can be killed so easily.

Magic users are a small minority. A large enough army could wipe them out or at least drive them into their rope tricks for eternity.

Indon
2007-05-19, 01:21 PM
PS: Here's my variant fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2607236#post2607236)

I think this is a good fix. It doesn't change that feats are weak, but having more feats somewhat alleviates being centered around feats. The auras strike me as kind of strange for an unflavored combatant, but the Marshal is very fighterish anyway, so I can definitely let that slide.

What I particularly like is that you gave them Leadership back, but I'm probably just nostalgic for the AD&D Fighter.

AngelAndrius
2007-05-19, 01:44 PM
I think this is a good fix. It doesn't change that feats are weak, but having more feats somewhat alleviates being centered around feats. The auras strike me as kind of strange for an unflavored combatant, but the Marshal is very fighterish anyway, so I can definitely let that slide.

What I particularly like is that you gave them Leadership back, but I'm probably just nostalgic for the AD&D Fighter.

I have my issues with that version of fighter and I presented my case in Fax's thread. So I'm not going to go back into it now but I find Fax's version of fighter not inclusive of all fighter has to offer in the realm of RP.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 02:12 PM
Nonsense.

1. Magic requires high spellcasting stats and most people don't go about 11 in any stat.

2. Low level magic users can be killed so easily.

Magic users are a small minority. A large enough army could wipe them out or at least drive them into their rope tricks for eternity.

But they're really not that rare. Players can select them just as easily as any other class, and almost all towns have some available form of spellcasting (according to the DMG at least).
He makes a good point, if your opponent has the Bomb, you don't fight him with conventional weapons. Also, once magic makes near-impossible tasks possible, there isn't much point to using longswords. At the very least, Magic should make it possible to generate more powerful weapons (Wands that function as guns, burning swords as commonplace, swords of pure force, near anything you could think of)

Unfortunately, the game's economy doesn't really make sense, as the players' wealth by level doesn't really mesh with any reasonably in game economics.

Amujala
2007-05-21, 12:05 AM
I love fighters,

I really don't think there needs to be any such change to the class. I agree that it is underpowered, more than a little superfluous and generally kind of cliched. I will also propose that it is our responsibility as PC's to make classes, in a word, good.

I fighter need not just hit things. If you have ever read the "Combat" section the original PHB, there is a whole list of interesting combat maneuvers and possible actions outside of move 30', attack. The fighter as a class has the ability to do ALL of those cool things better than anyone else. Improved grapple, Improved Trip, Disarm, Sunder. All of the things can disable an armed opponent nearly as well as some higher level spells. Most people reserve themselves to feats that simply improve damage, attack bonus or the like. But that's not why we have fighters, that's why we have barbarians.

Fighters are protectors, defending the magi or rogues from horribly painful things with 7 arms. They do this regardless of alignment or social status or beliefs unlike druids clerics or paladins.

Fighters can dish out the damage as well as they take it. While other classes are running around buffing the fighter gets the fight moving. Though he does not do this as well as a barbarian or high level monk for example he can do other things as well.

Fighters make bad-ass archers. You give a fighter a comp. longbow (for example), the right feats and a decent dex score and he is superior to a ranger in that category.

But that aside, the fighter stinks, really I agree. You get to 16th level and you find yourself saying "are there anymore books kicking around here, I need to take another feat". And otherwise they are kind of like a one-trick pony that's horribly vulnerable to magical assault (low ref and will, ouch).

It is for this reason that I always do my best to encourage and support fighters and because as a caster, I just like having them around. There is a void in any campaign that doesn't have a fighter in it and I think we should thank them for filling it.

"Krogbar! You may not be very powerful, you may not pretty. You can't use magic or heal at all and you make a lot of noise when you walk. You talk in your sleep and you smell funny and remember that time you lost your stuff, you were useless until we found it for you. You aren't too bright and you sure as hell aren't good with people and.....wait, I was going somewhere with that....anyway. We just wanted you to know that , well, we love you man and we hope to keep you around for years to come. TO KROGBAR!"

-Gavin, Gnome wizard and the whole party toasting Krogbar, human fighter after an adventure.

That was a quote from an old campaign I was in, an emotional moment actually, and I believe it reinforces the point.

Aquillion
2007-05-21, 01:41 AM
Don't forget that players aren't typical people in the game world by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming number of people in the D&D world are below level 5 and have stats at or around 10... given that, it's not hard to see why fighters continue to exist thematically. High-level wizards are rare, and when they exist they usually care more about studying magic than anything else.

Some of the best warriors in a small kingdom could easily be level 4 with stats in the 13-15 range. A wizard with those parameters just isn't going to cut it. On top of that, becoming a wizard requires a lot more... you need to be able to read (not a given for non-PCs), you need access to spells and, generally, someone to teach you... just about anyone can qualify to be a fighter or warrior, but if you don't have a PC's magic ability to almost always assume access to training for basic classes, becoming a wizard is much, much harder.

Matthew
2007-05-31, 05:06 PM
Well, Level and Class demography differ from campaign to campaign. Default Greyhawk style D&D always struck me as fairly high powered, but I think it can probably support either interpretation (personally, I prefer lower powered settings - I even prefer low powered versions of The Forgotten Realms...)

I'm not sure I view Fighters as 'protectors' either. All the same, I don't think this Fighter fix is really going to change anything. The Fighter remains a very playable Class, but making it more powerful and competative with Full Casters past Level 5 is a tall order. Any more ideas?