What if I told you that WotC forgot to transfer a Fighter class feature? [Archive]

GreyBlack

2016-03-27, 06:42 PM

As has been commented on by many people, the fighter is generally looked on as a weak class. As it is, the class is wholly unremarkable and is generally not very good at any one thing, even when specialized towards it. However, what if I told you that, in printing 3.0, Wizards of the Coast forgot what fighters were supposed to do?

In 3.0 on, fighters are supposed to be the unmatched martial masters. They have proficiency in all martial and simple weapons, are proficient with all armors, shields up to and including tower shields, and the like. In fact, fighters even have whole feat chains devoted to their martial prowess. However, as has been noted many times before to the point that i shall not belabor it. The problems are fairly well-documented, especially including the lack of any viable class features, weak chain feats, and the like.

However, what if I told you that, in transferring from 2e to 3.0, the Fighter lost a unique class ability?

In the 2e Player's Handbook, at 9th level, the fighter specifically becomes a Lord, attracting men-at-arms and an elite bodyguard. Essentially, the Fighter becomes a regional governor or lord, complete with a land grant, and has a legitimate claim to the land. In 3.0 terms, they gain Leadership as a class ability!

As such, I would like to hypothesize that, to fix the fighter, we need to go back to its roots and give it the ability to lord it over people; become a General or Lord of sorts that can command others while also being able to fight effectively. The fighter lost its identity in the transfer from 2e to 3.0, so we should return to that former glory. Any opinions?

digiman619

2016-03-27, 06:51 PM

And Illusionist used to be a separate class, and Bard was essentially the first prestige class. Lots of things change from edition to edition, and if this really was a mistake, they'd have fixed it in the 3.5 re-release. Besides, even getting Leadership as a bonus feat wouldn't really help, anyway.

Knaight

2016-03-27, 06:52 PM

Necroticplague

2016-03-27, 06:54 PM

I don't see why a logical progression of "fighter" is inherently "leader". Given how they have very little use for INT (beyond the annoying tax for Combat Expertise, which is in turn a tax for an annoying amount of things), no use whatsoever for CHA, and only need WIS for their save, I'm not sure looking at them as inherently being leadership material makes sense. Don't see why me practicing with my weapons constantly should inevitably end up with me leading an army. I AM an army, I don't need one following me! Seems more like something for a PRC than a base class.

Power-wise, it's more annoying than useful. Having a bunch of followers is a lot of paperwork, and I F***ing hate bookeeping *insert invocation of Grod's Law*. A leadership-type ability is only as strong as the followers you get. If the followers aren't very strong, it isn't a strong ability. Given the amount of herd-hitting attacks in the game, they're possibly more of a liability.

And anyway, having others that can help you doesn't say anything about whether you're good or not. Just like how the fact a wizard can buff a fighter into practical godhood as-is doesn't make the fighter any less crap, because the same can be said of literally any subject.

It also doesn't help the fact the fighter has no UNIQUE abilities. Everybody can take feats. This would just be another feat-equivalent, since anyone can take Leadership.

Also, again, casters do this better. Thrallherds have Leadership beaten in terms of power (assuming you count psionicist as caster, because they are for most intents and purposes).

Deophaun

2016-03-27, 07:08 PM

Eloel

2016-03-27, 07:11 PM

@Deophaun

I think the ability comes online too late. By then, Wizards have been wrecking face for 2 whole spell levels.

Bobby Baratheon

2016-03-27, 07:12 PM

Just gestalt fighter with marshal.

Deophaun

2016-03-27, 07:13 PM

You're right. I was just sticking to 2e progression.

Eldariel

2016-03-27, 07:14 PM

Fighter lost a lot of stuff. Specialization got much worse, they lost their bonus HP and bonus strength, their saves got a lot worse, they can't get magic immunity anymore, they're rather poor at war, strategy and using/acquiring henchmen even with Leadership, etc. It's a small wonder they're so eminently uninspiring in 3.5. If you just wanted to return their toys to them (putting them at "getting outscaled by Wizards but at least being a dangerous warrior"), it's pretty simple. Just:
- Let them attack fully at standard action.
- Give them Con x 2 in bonus HP for every Warrior-level.
- Give them all good saves.
- Give them selective Spell Resistance 10+Lvl, gaining Magic Immunity at 17 (Spell Resistance is way worse than in AD&D so while they don't have to pay anything for it here, this is probably fine).
- Make Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization give greater bonuses, probably just roll in the various feats derived off them. Greater Weapon Spec could just be Weapon Supremacy, Greater Weapon Focus could include an extra attack and Weapon Specialization could carry the Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery bonuses.
- Give them 4+Int (or if you're me, 10+Int) skill points off a far wider list including Diplomacy, Knowledges, Spot/Listen/Sense Motive.
- Give them a level-based bonus to the Leadership score as well as any Strategy rolls and battlefield leadership.
- Let them reduce/ignore max dex bonus on armors with levels, as well as armor-based movement restrictions.
- Give them some way to intercept movement without needing a reach weapon/AoO - immediate action to block an enemy's movement or something.
- Add their level or something to Tumble/Defensive Casting DCs near them and allow them to interrupt casting even if enemy takes some dumb 5' step away without a reach weapon.

Then repeat the process for all warrior classes (Ranger, Barbarian, and might as well include Pally/Monk too). Now, aside from the fact that damage in general is way weaker in 3.5 in general than in older editions (since everything has tons more HP but damage is the same) they'd be pretty close to where they were in AD&D. Of course, they still couldn't do much more than they can right now but they'd at least be some good at being brawly frontliners out-of-the-box, hard to affect and able to throw down with most things.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that casters got way stronger in 3e so the difference would still be vastly greater than it used to be (and it was already pretty big). If anything, all this just showcases just how hard warriors got shafted in 3e. You could give them a page worth of silly buffs and they'd be almost as good as they used to be but everyone else still got much, much better comparatively.

GreyBlack

2016-03-27, 07:28 PM

A few things.
1) The revelatory attitude here is unwarranted; that they used to get followers automatically was well known, as is it being just part of a general endgame that was dropped with a change of focus in 3e.
2) There's a lot of other stuff that the fighter lost that is probably more relevant - for instance, they used to just have rock solid saves in general, now their will is less than impressive.

I'm more concerned at the fact that I feel that Fighter became far too generalized in the transfer between generations, leading to the current problems (up to 5e!) of fighters not really having a clear sense of identity in their class. As is, they're just sort of a 2 level class, where adding a mechanic that allowed them to buff their followers/gain followers would give the class greater flavor and reason to take beyond, "Can hit stuff good."

I don't see why a logical progression of "fighter" is inherently "leader". Given how they have very little use for INT (beyond the annoying tax for Combat Expertise, which is in turn a tax for an annoying amount of things), no use whatsoever for CHA, and only need WIS for their save, I'm not sure looking at them as inherently being leadership material makes sense. Don't see why me practicing with my weapons constantly should inevitably end up with me leading an army. I AM an army, I don't need one following me! Seems more like something for a PRC than a base class.

Power-wise, it's more annoying than useful. Having a bunch of followers is a lot of paperwork, and I F***ing hate bookeeping *insert invocation of Grod's Law*. A leadership-type ability is only as strong as the followers you get. If the followers aren't very strong, it isn't a strong ability. Given the amount of herd-hitting attacks in the game, they're possibly more of a liability.

And anyway, having others that can help you doesn't say anything about whether you're good or not. Just like how the fact a wizard can buff a fighter into practical godhood as-is doesn't make the fighter any less crap, because the same can be said of literally any subject.

It also doesn't help the fact the fighter has no UNIQUE abilities. Everybody can take feats. This would just be another feat-equivalent, since anyone can take Leadership.

Also, again, casters do this better. Thrallherds have Leadership beaten in terms of power (assuming you count psionicist as caster, because they are for most intents and purposes).

The logic is actually quite simple: Think of the great fighters of myth. Beowulf, Achilles, Odysseus (okay, he might be a bit more Rogue, but still!), Hannibal.... these are all excellent warriors in their own right, but excel because of their ability to command the troops. Remember, not all characters start off with an 18 strength. As such, I'd argue it's not so much that you're adding fiddly book-keeping so much as adding in class features that buff your allies a la the bard or marshal.

And of course casters will do it better. Casters will ALWAYS do it better. I'm more concerned about the lack of identity the fighter class has in game terms. Turning the fighter from Box-o'-feats into "Commander in chief" would give the fighter a far more interesting role both on the battlefield and off. I think gestalting the fighter with the marshal is halfway there, or even (from PF) doing VMC Bard with fighter, but something along those lines, I feel, would help the fighter out immensely.

Or, if you're concerned because Thrallherd is stronger in terms of Leadership progression... why not simply create a Fighter Leadership progression, then? Ramp the Fighter progression up so their leadership is better than the Leadership feat/Thrallherd leadership?

HunterOfJello

2016-03-27, 07:35 PM

Capping the strength score for all classes except for Fighter would have led to the Fighter being used far more often with optimized builds. (This is what I assumed you were referring to before I read your post.)

Nifft

2016-03-27, 07:40 PM

However, what if I told you that, in transferring from 2e to 3.0, the Fighter lost a unique class ability?

I'd tell you that you're missing out on the real Fighter from 1e / OD&D, when saving throws and AC mattered and the Fighter had the best of each.

Paladins in 1e had a limited number of magic items -- the rest were required to be tithed, and that was in the core rules.

Fighters had faster leveling (per unit XP), which meant faster attack bonus progression, more HD (and thus faster immunity to HD-targeting spell effects), and better saves.

So, yeah, stuff's been lost.

2e was a dumbed-down 1e, which traded the non-linear attack look-up tables for a purely linear THAC0, and traded specific weapon-vs-armor-type tables for AC adjustments by slashing/piercing/bludgeoning.

3e was a fully re-worked version which neglected the earlier Fighter's strengths.

4e was the edition that made Fighters awesome again.

5e Fighters seem pretty good so far (but I need to play more of them).

Thurbane

2016-03-27, 07:41 PM

Expanded skill list, 4 skill points/level
"Fighter's edge": a scaling bonus on combat maneuvers (trip, bull rush etc.), and Will saves
Ability to Identify magic arms and armor using a special Appraise check modified by BAB
Ability to full attack on a charge without needing feats or other classes features
Gradually reducing penalty from -4 to 0 on using Exotic Weapons you don't have proficiency with, and also on improvised weapons (including javelins in melee)

It won't put Fighter on a par with any casting class, but it will make them better at their "niche"...

Necroticplague

2016-03-27, 08:01 PM

The logic is actually quite simple: Think of the great fighters of myth. Beowulf, Achilles, Odysseus (okay, he might be a bit more Rogue, but still!), Hannibal.... these are all excellent warriors in their own right, but excel because of their ability to command the troops. Remember, not all characters start off with an 18 strength. As such, I'd argue it's not so much that you're adding fiddly book-keeping so much as adding in class features that buff your allies a la the bard or marshal.

And of course casters will do it better. Casters will ALWAYS do it better. I'm more concerned about the lack of identity the fighter class has in game terms. Turning the fighter from Box-o'-feats into "Commander in chief" would give the fighter a far more interesting role both on the battlefield and off. I think gestalting the fighter with the marshal is halfway there, or even (from PF) doing VMC Bard with fighter, but something along those lines, I feel, would help the fighter out immensely.
No classes have identities. That's the point of classes. They're mechanical bundles of abilities you use to make a character. I don't see why it makes sense to inherently bundle the 'really good with a weapon' and the 'leader of men' abilities into one category. There are quiet a many characters for whom it is perfectly sensible to have one without the other. If you're going for emulating a very specific archetype (like you appear to be supporting), that's the role of a PRC, not a base class. In this case I could easily imagine a 'warlord' class that combines features of Marshal and Fighter.

ericgrau

2016-03-27, 08:11 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2016-03-27, 08:16 PM

Did you really think that no one, in the last 15 years, had noticed that? Really?

As others upthread have said, anyone changing over from 2e to 3e almost certainly noticed this immediately and it ultimamtely doesn't make a huge difference.

In any case, it was clearly intentional. They made leading forces into a mechanic available to all classes in the leadership feat. They expanded upon this option in Heroes of Battle and the Stronghold Builder's guidebook and a few other places.

You can still lead your armies and you can still have your castles but you're no longer tied to being a fighter to do it. It's a pretty strong option if you're inclined to working those options to their fullest extent. Unfortunately, fighter's still not the best option for that angle. Marshal into legendary leader, legendary tactician, warmaster, etc. does a better job than fighter into any of the same.

Coidzor

2016-03-27, 08:18 PM

Leadership and Landlord as bonus feats at 7th and 9th level, while nice, doesn't really address the underlying problems of the class in the 3.X milieu.

T.G. Oskar

2016-03-27, 08:26 PM

Expanded skill list, 4 skill points/level
"Fighter's edge": a scaling bonus on combat maneuvers (trip, bull rush etc.) Strength checks, and Will saves
Ability to Identify magic arms and armor using a special Appraise check modified by BAB
Ability to full attack on a charge as a standard action without needing feats or other classes features
Gradually reducing penalty from -4 to 0 on using Exotic Weapons you don't have proficiency with, and also on improvised weapons (including javelins in melee)

It won't put Fighter on a par with any casting class, but it will make them better at their "niche"...

Fixed.

...Alright, joking, joking, but it's a pretty good start. Strength checks is because breaking doors, busting open locks and escaping from Webs should be something boosted as much as bull-rushing or tripping; it also makes it somewhat easier, and useful even to Fighters that ignore Strength. Likewise, this is something they forgot to bring on between 2e and 3e, which actually fits the OP's reason to post.

Barring the "kill 1 mook per class level" special bonus, originally making an attack often involved a much slower attack progression (1 attack -> 3 attacks per 2 levels -> 2 attacks -> 5 attacks per 2 levels with specialization -> 3-4 attacks with specific builds -> dart throwers) and with no reduction on subsequent attacks, something that murdered Fighter combat progression of yore. This was part of combat progression, and it was exclusive to Fighter-related classes (that is, Rangers and Paladins; 1e Monks had a similar progression, and Thieves were forced to hit once and specifically on the target's back to get their bonus damage), and a victim of early-game nerfing. Leadership was a cool thing, but as mentioned, the focus of the game became less "rule a country/aspire to retire" and more "get on really high adventures", hence why everything was streamliined (BAB progression, save progression, XP progression). That was a major improvement on the game, but early-game lines of thought gave the impression Fighters would be unbalanced compared to spellcasters, as the latter had limited spell slots, and the caster level mechanic made casters in a way even more powerful. Removing the cap on monster/player HD also did the number, as it inflated HPs to levels where 2e blasting spells could never catch up anymore, and removing the fiddly save bonus/penalty from spells (for example, a 6th level spell could allow the target a +2 bonus on the save or a -2 penalty, based on the effect, so its actual DC by post-2e terms was varied) greatly boosted casters. Again - removing Leadership benefits (i.e. turning Fighters into Lords) is the least of the things, and if you really want that to happen, the DM could easily give it as a bonus feat sans cohort (which is what makes Leadership broken anyways in 3e). Taking some of what made Fighters viable in 2e and porting them better would make fighting classes more interesting, but that would be a system change, not just a Fighter change. Limiting it to Fighters only could be counter-productive, particularly because of the "variant dual-classing" method of multiclassing in 3e.

5e kinda recovered that with allowing Extra Attacks as part of the Attack action, but streamlined things even further (split the saves again and made them based on ability score, then unified everything behind a "proficiency bonus" and then locked access behind skill, save and weapon proficiencies), so YMMV regarding that, but at least it gives mechanics to the Fighter that aren't available in any other version of D&D, giving it its own identity (they make pretty good masters of fighting based on the choice of Martial Archetype). Note that it reclaims the 1e/2e way of issuing multiple attacks, something that 3e (and in particular 4e, which had no multiple attacks unless the power allowed it, and they were VERY few and far in between) doesn't.

So yeah, if you were to tell me that WotC forgot to transfer a "Fighter" class feature and that was the way they handled extra attacks, I'd ask for citations and submit it as something. The "Lord" thing? That's what the Leadership feat is all around, so they didn't forget about that (and how Wizards got their towers, and Clerics got their congregations, and Thieves/Assassins got their builds, and Druids/Monks couldn't advance further unless they killed/defeated the current title-holder, which also gave them followers).

ericgrau

2016-03-27, 08:30 PM

Fixed.

...Alright, joking, joking, but it's a pretty good start. Strength checks is because breaking doors, busting open locks and escaping from Webs should be something boosted as much as bull-rushing or tripping; it also makes it somewhat easier, and useful even to Fighters that ignore Strength. Likewise, this is something they forgot to bring on between 2e and 3e, which actually fits the OP's reason to post.
True, martial classes in general have a lot of "hidden class features" via the 58 mechanics that are all strength checks or str + BAB checks. Many of which are in the DMG instead of the PHB. Quite annoying.

Bronk

2016-03-27, 10:03 PM

Sadly, I don't think that WotC forgot to add anything to the fighter class, although I agree that the fighter would need an entire set of additional characters to make up for it's lackings.

What they did do was not only take away the mercenaries and guards (generally more warrior types) and the stronghold of the fighter, but they also took away the additional followers from the Ranger, the mix of followers for the Thief, the Druid followers of powerful Druids, and the discount to the Cleric's stronghold. They made pretty much the same changes across the board.

Paladins just got their mount and bards got nothing, so that didn't change.

Most people I've encountered consider the Tome of Battle classes to be the warrior type fixes.

LTwerewolf

2016-03-27, 10:58 PM

My fix for the fighter? I turned it into 8 different classes. Fighter is way too generalized and has nothing at all to it. "The guy that fights" is literally every class in the game.

Hal0Badger

2016-03-27, 11:03 PM

OldTrees1

2016-03-27, 11:21 PM

Do you really need full attack standard action? Or other rocket-tag abilities?

What I find lacking is not damage, it is combat options to be honest, or lack of skills. Meaningful and different "Fighter Bonus Feats", rather than things like weapon focus or ridiculous feat chains.

But dealing a number or a large number of damage, IMO, does not change the problem with fighters: one dimensional class.

"I attack."
Full Attack as a standard action opens up the ability to expend "attack actions" for mix-and-match combat options. Thus while a Wizard will cast 1-2 spells per round, the fighter will get to use a few different combat options. You still need to add those combat options but full attack as a standard action is useful to the design process.

After all, if a Warblade can to only a couple (1-2) combat tricks per round, a Fighter should be doing at least a few (3-5) combat tricks per round.

Hal0Badger

2016-03-27, 11:30 PM

Full Attack as a standard action opens up the ability to expend "attack actions" for mix-and-match combat options. Thus while a Wizard will cast 1-2 spells per round, the fighter will get to use a few different combat options. You still need to add those combat options but full attack as a standard action is useful to the design process.

After all, if a Warblade can to only a couple (1-2) combat tricks per round, a Fighter should be doing at least a few (3-5) combat tricks per round.

If this is the intent, I totally agree with you. But to my experience, after a point, "I attack and deal damage" simply out-weights other options. Only special combat action I have seen consistently is trip, and that's because of the "extra attack", followed by bull-rush, because of dungeon crasher.

The times I have allowed full attack as standard action as a DM, only thing I got is a bigger damage number. The pattern of "I move and attack" did not change at all unfortunately.

OldTrees1

2016-03-27, 11:56 PM

If this is the intent, I totally agree with you. But to my experience, after a point, "I attack and deal damage" simply out-weights other options. Only special combat action I have seen consistently is trip, and that's because of the "extra attack", followed by bull-rush, because of dungeon crasher.

The times I have allowed full attack as standard action as a DM, only thing I got is a bigger damage number. The pattern of "I move and attack" did not change at all unfortunately.

To be clear, you need to add those new options. You are correct that currently only Trip and Bullrush are used.

Also, your table's power level might be in the way. If you only see Trip and Knockback chosen for their DPS, then I expect your Fighters are specializing in one hit kills. Dead is dead so you would expect the "I attack/cast and deal death/no save just lose" to trump all other more interesting options if you allow it.

T.G. Oskar

2016-03-28, 12:51 AM

Do you really need full attack standard action? Or other rocket-tag abilities?

How is allowing the Fighter (and indeed, all classes with full BAB) all of their attacks as a standard action "rocket tag"? Is it only because they can make multiple attacks per round, which have a decreasing chance of success and are mostly meant to let those same classes keep up with damage? Meanwhile, casters keep their "rocket tag" abilities because once they unleash one spell, they've pretty much finished the battle.

I presume you also imply nerfing spellcasting ability, but while that happens, might as well allow martial characters full attacks as standard actions. That's one "nice thing" they can have.

What I find lacking is not damage, it is combat options to be honest, or lack of skills. Meaningful and different "Fighter Bonus Feats", rather than things like weapon focus or ridiculous feat chains.

But dealing a number or a large number of damage, IMO, does not change the problem with fighters: one dimensional class.

"I attack."

How about boosting their Strength checks? Strength checks are used for the combat maneuvers that tend to work (Bull Rush, Trip) and even outside of battle, and as I mentioned, as a very specific but still relevant defense (against Web, which is a low-level spell that can neuter an opponent). Does that keep it one-dimensional, because it resolves everything via brute force, when Strength is the ability score that is both overrated and underrated at the same time? Overrated because people think of it as "only worth for dealing damage", underrated because it does more than that, and at the eyes of WotC, overvalued because races with Strength bonuses and not-ridiculous penalties didn't emerge until later on.

There are feats that provide some flexibility to that "I attack" routine, though. Weapon Style feats are some, but they often require many feats, and you've already stated your loathing towards feat chains; Brutal Strike and Intimidating Strike are pretty short in terms of feat chains and provide rider effects to attacks, but it keeps them "one-dimensional". I mean, even Warblades and Crusaders still do the "I attack" thing, except their maneuvers are often the kind of "deal damage, have something happen as well", which is a rider effect, which you can find if you dig enough. Only the Swordsage does something beyond "I deal damage", but those abilities are often explicitly supernatural - that said, I totally dig that a Fighter eventually does supernatural things. I mean, having it hurl a boulder for an AoE as a full-round action or something should definitely count as doing more than "I attack", and it's perfectly extraordinary and at-will, and doesn't require maneuvers (only a lot of Strength, and maybe treating yourself as one size higher). That is the whole thing behind Hulking Hurler, after all.

IMO, allowing the Fighter to boost its Strength checks for non-combat things opens up some of that diversity the class lacks, but apparently a group of people in every forum thinks that Fighters need more combat capabilities. IMO, ACFs like Dungeon Crasher and Zhentarim Fighter are moves in the right direction, because they provide alternative class features that open up possibilities in and out of combat. Zhentarim Fighter, specifically, opens up fast and easy demoralization, which is something you can do that aids allies (and could even aid yourself) in the long run. Sure, in the end, it boils down to "I attack", but at least it can be "I move, demoralize my opponent, which gets to cower for 1 round because I am really that scary, then I make my first attack in order to sicken him, then switch my second attack to make him fall, then make the rest of my attacks while the enemy is down." Still "I attack", but that's a bunch of stuff you can do.

That is reasonable. People sometimes like easy or challenging set-ups like that. They could certainly be made easier to many people, but people like that challenge. The Warblade exists and is perfectly viable if you want a "Fighter with cool tricks", and can exist with the Fighter who spent most of its feats on other cool stuff, but does the same trick over and over again. Giving the Fighter (and all full BAB characters, which include the Warblade and the Crusader) access to full attacks as standard actions just aids everyone all around at doing what they do best.

Otherwise, why bother with making a martial character, which at the end has everything it does boil down to "I (move and) attack"?

Kurald Galain

2016-03-28, 04:35 AM

However, what if I told you that, in transferring from 2e to 3.0, the Fighter lost a unique class ability?

In the 2e Player's Handbook, at 9th level, the fighter specifically becomes a Lord, attracting men-at-arms and an elite bodyguard. Essentially, the Fighter becomes a regional governor or lord, complete with a land grant, and has a legitimate claim to the land. In 3.0 terms, they gain Leadership as a class ability!

What if I told you that this ability was not unique, and that while fighters got a stronghold and men-at-arms, clerics got a temple and acolytes, while wizards got a tower and apprentices, and even druids got a bunch of animals to follow them around?

In 2E, almost every class got followers; it's right there in the PHB/DMG.

Khedrac

2016-03-28, 04:42 AM

They had one really nifty ability in 1st Ed that was usually missed by players of 1st ED AD&D!
They could make as many attacks per round as their level against 1 hit die (or less) creatures.

Admittedly at high levels this is of no relevance, but it is remarkably useful at 2nd or 3rd level...

Simply put, 3rd Ed and 3.5 are a different game to AD&D - so comparing features is nearly meaningless.

Starbuck_II

2016-03-28, 10:30 AM

What if I told you that this ability was not unique, and that while fighters got a stronghold and men-at-arms, clerics got a temple and acolytes, while wizards got a tower and apprentices, and even druids got a bunch of animals to follow them around?

In 2E, almost every class got followers; it's right there in the PHB/DMG.

Rangers just got bears to follow them without having any direct control, but they will appear and attack when he calls. "My Bears to me!"

atemu1234

2016-03-28, 10:48 AM

Level
BAB
Saves
Special

Fort
Ref
Will

1st
+1
+2
+0
+0
Bonus Feat

2nd
+2
+3
+0
+0
Bonus Feat

3rd
+3
+3
+1
+1

4th
+4
+4
+1
+1
Bonus Feat

5th
+5
+4
+1
+1

6th
+6/+1
+5
+2
+2
Bonus Feat

7th
+7/+2
+5
+2
+2

8th
+8/+3
+6
+2
+2
Bonus Feat

9th
+9/+4
+6
+3
+3
Make Another Character and Pick a Real Class This Time

I actually once basically told a player this; let him reroll as a Warblade. It worked better, obviously.

Fighter lost a lot of stuff. Specialization got much worse, they lost their bonus HP and bonus strength, their saves got a lot worse, they can't get magic immunity anymore, they're rather poor at war, strategy and using/acquiring henchmen even with Leadership, etc. It's a small wonder they're so eminently uninspiring in 3.5. If you just wanted to return their toys to them (putting them at "getting outscaled by Wizards but at least being a dangerous warrior"), it's pretty simple. Just:
- Let them attack fully at standard action.
- Give them Con x 2 in bonus HP for every Warrior-level.
- Give them all good saves.
- Give them selective Spell Resistance 10+Lvl, gaining Magic Immunity at 17 (Spell Resistance is way worse than in AD&D so while they don't have to pay anything for it here, this is probably fine).
- Make Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization give greater bonuses, probably just roll in the various feats derived off them. Greater Weapon Spec could just be Weapon Supremacy, Greater Weapon Focus could include an extra attack and Weapon Specialization could carry the Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery bonuses.
- Give them 4+Int (or if you're me, 10+Int) skill points off a far wider list including Diplomacy, Knowledges, Spot/Listen/Sense Motive.
- Give them a level-based bonus to the Leadership score as well as any Strategy rolls and battlefield leadership.
- Let them reduce/ignore max dex bonus on armors with levels, as well as armor-based movement restrictions.
- Give them some way to intercept movement without needing a reach weapon/AoO - immediate action to block an enemy's movement or something.
- Add their level or something to Tumble/Defensive Casting DCs near them and allow them to interrupt casting even if enemy takes some dumb 5' step away without a reach weapon.

Then repeat the process for all warrior classes (Ranger, Barbarian, and might as well include Pally/Monk too). Now, aside from the fact that damage in general is way weaker in 3.5 in general than in older editions (since everything has tons more HP but damage is the same) they'd be pretty close to where they were in AD&D. Of course, they still couldn't do much more than they can right now but they'd at least be some good at being brawly frontliners out-of-the-box, hard to affect and able to throw down with most things.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that casters got way stronger in 3e so the difference would still be vastly greater than it used to be (and it was already pretty big). If anything, all this just showcases just how hard warriors got shafted in 3e. You could give them a page worth of silly buffs and they'd be almost as good as they used to be but everyone else still got much, much better comparatively.

I'd have just made Weapon Focus/Specialization class features and have it apply to any weapon. Works better. Maybe 1/2 Class level to Damage and 1/4 class level to hit? Have the damage function like Power Attack, with two-handed weapons dealing more damage, and allow the Focus to qualify as BAB for Power Attack?

zergling.exe

2016-03-28, 02:57 PM

Have the damage function like Power Attack, with two-handed weapons dealing more damage,

I would say 'no' to this. Also remove Power Attack giving different benefits to different types of weapons/how many hands are used, just to get some variety and make one-handed and two-weapon fighting more viable.

Hal0Badger

2016-03-28, 05:40 PM

How is allowing the Fighter (and indeed, all classes with full BAB) all of their attacks as a standard action "rocket tag"? Is it only because they can make multiple attacks per round, which have a decreasing chance of success and are mostly meant to let those same classes keep up with damage? Meanwhile, casters keep their "rocket tag" abilities because once they unleash one spell, they've pretty much finished the battle.

I presume you also imply nerfing spellcasting ability, but while that happens, might as well allow martial characters full attacks as standard actions. That's one "nice thing" they can have.

I am not concerned about iterative attacks, but extra attacks from sources like haste, whirling frenzy etc. Well not concerned actually, but my experience with full attack action as standart only lead to more attack rolls+damage rolls, the routine of "I move and attack" did not change.

To clarify though, with "I move and attack" I do not include any special actions(trip, bullrush) or effects(weapon style feats). A simple attack roll, with power attack, and damage only.

I agree with you don't worry, more options, ways to buff strength check related abilities, like breaking, tripping etc, more special combat maneuvers (especially against larger creatures than you) or better uses of the current maneuvers, all of them are welcomed.

But the only "Full attack as standard action" solution, without those, does not make a fix in my experience.

T.G. Oskar

2016-03-28, 06:52 PM

I am not concerned about iterative attacks, but extra attacks from sources like haste, whirling frenzy etc. Well not concerned actually, but my experience with full attack action as standart only lead to more attack rolls+damage rolls, the routine of "I move and attack" did not change.

To clarify though, with "I move and attack" I do not include any special actions(trip, bullrush) or effects(weapon style feats). A simple attack roll, with power attack, and damage only.

I agree with you don't worry, more options, ways to buff strength check related abilities, like breaking, tripping etc, more special combat maneuvers (especially against larger creatures than you) or better uses of the current maneuvers, all of them are welcomed.

But the only "Full attack as standard action" solution, without those, does not make a fix in my experience.

To take a cue from 5e - all "extra" attacks allowed to the 5e characters other than those gained by class levels (and Multiattack, which is a monster ability) require spending their Bonus Action (i.e. their Swift Action in 3e terms), thus requiring a little extra time expenditure.

You could keep the "Full Attack" action as a full-round action, and any extra attacks from other means (say, Haste, or Whirling Frenzy) could only be allowed under those circumstances. There's very few feats that really break the mold (Slashing Flurry from PHB II explicitly allows one extra attack, but at a hefty penalty; Snap Kick can only be done once per action, so you'd get only one extra attack per Attack/Full Attack action), so it'd work nicely. The only caveat might be Two-Weapon Fighting, as despite the penalty, the extra attacks are tied to the Full Attack action, so it'd unbalance TWF even more - you could, though, allow Imp. Two-Weapon Proficiency to allow one attack with the off-hand on an Attack action, and Double Slice (the feat that'd normally allow it) make it so that it allows every other attack you gain via the feats. Then again, you could nix ITWF and GTWF and just allow TWF users to get one extra attack with each iterative they get.

IMO, the Attack action should allow you all your iteratives at the current penalty rates (0/-5/-10/-15), whereas the Full Attack action, as it requires more of your concentration, partially or completely ignore such penalties. You either get to move to an extent and then make all your attacks at diminishing returns, or stay in place and get more accuracy: a fair trade. That also aids the Monk a LOT, since you're granting them mobility without requiring them to jump through hoops, though that would only work if they get a modification to Flurry of Blows. Any extra attack or any action that requires/enables a Full Attack still requires the Full Attack action, but at least it enables martial characters to get all their attacks. Since all you need is a melee attack to enable some maneuvers (disarm, grapple, sunder, trip), you could then mix and match.

I'm also a supporter of backporting Dirty Trick from PF; it's a cool strategy that allows you to impose other minor penalties (entangle, blind, even stun). That way, you can sacrifice one attack for a move that can cripple your opponent. Sure, it requires Int 13 (that is something they didn't change up until PF Unchained when they allowed a variant option that, as part of its perks, enabled you to ignore Int 13 to get Combat Expertise and the Improved [Maneuver] feats, and then later through normal feats also replace Int with Dex), but it opens up a lot of possibilities. Drag and Reposition, on the other hand...aren't so great, and favor reach more than anything else. With Dirty Trick, Disarm doing something else (c'mon, a small penalty to attack rolls against enemies holding no weapons isn't much of a stretch), Sunder (as PF, where you can damage equipment to a point it doesn't work, but once repaired, it regains its traits) and Trip, you can give all martial characters a wide variety of options. Maybe also having Combat Expertise provide boons to S&B and one-handers (I see Combat Expertise as the enabling feat for the fencing line, with Imp. Disarm and Imp. Trip being extensions of that, but you don't get any difference from tripping with one hand and tripping with a reach weapon which is superior), and have Agile Shield Fighting add more shield bashes to the routine.

Eldariel

2016-03-28, 08:04 PM

I'd have just made Weapon Focus/Specialization class features and have it apply to any weapon. Works better. Maybe 1/2 Class level to Damage and 1/4 class level to hit? Have the damage function like Power Attack, with two-handed weapons dealing more damage, and allow the Focus to qualify as BAB for Power Attack?

For example. That's perfectly viable and there are hundreds of ways to give the Fighter some numbers; my point was mostly trying to pinpoint where they lost numbers compared to the past. It's of course important to realize that I posit they got shafted in three ways:
- They lost a lot of abilities and numbers.
- The things they do became less valuable. Combat allows just walking past people, and enemy needs to stand still to allow full attack (thus it's easy to ensure a bogstandard level 20 Warrior never ever gets to use his iteratives). Even threatened enemies can cast spells safely with a simple roll. HP inflation throughout the system lead to similar amounts of damage becoming comparatively much worse.
- Most others got better instead. This probably doesn't need much extrapolation: everyone basically got the old fighter abilities, casters generally have more spells and spells are better, etc.

But the only "Full attack as standard action" solution, without those, does not make a fix in my experience.

You cannot really fix the system reasonably without allowing full attacks more freely. Full attack as a concept is terrible and probably shouldn't exist. The existence of move actions and casters being able to fight with standard actions makes even a featless, abilityless, reductionist exchange of abilities really caster-favored. Caster moves away, takes AoO, casts a full spell at no penalties. Warrior moves and attacks once. Rince and repeat. Caster, without using stuff like Tumble (let alone actual spells), can negate 2/4 of a level 20 Warrior's attacks (more if he's Hasted or whatever) with a simple move action while still maintaining their full casting capability while being threatened in melee every turn. Essentially, Warrior loses 50%+ of their stuff to game rules and there's nothing the system does for them; it's up to the warrior/monster to pick up a way to move and full attack.

Hell, this manifests even more absurdly in warrior vs. warrior situations: between two identical reductionist (to showcase the barebones of the issues in the system) high level warriors/monsters ends up in a loss for whomever starts the fight. Warrior 1 moves and attacks once. Warrior 2 full attacks. After that they exchange full attacks starting with Warrior 1, but Warrior 2 got the first full attack in. Chances of full attack dealing enough more than the single attack that Warrior 2 is likely to win are rather high. Thus, paradoxically, winning the initiative and acting fast on high levels loses (but before iteratives, initiative gives you an attack's worth of advantage and is likely to win).

This is just...dumb. And it's all solely and completely the fault of full attack. The mechanic is an insult to sensible melee combat and to any semblance of even simple internal system balance. The fact that warriors go from "standard action" on 1-5 to "need full-round" on 6-20 while casters are "standard action" from 1-20 is somehow sad. It's supposed to be the more powerful spells that take a longer time. But nope, all standard actions. The whole mechanic needs to go and it needs to go bad. Not some halfhearted "give bonuses for standing still and fighting", just burn the very idea of "melee full attack" in hellfire, revive its husks in an unbody, unname it and cast its nonexistence into the void.

Quertus

2016-03-28, 11:40 PM

To be clear, you need to add those new options. You are correct that currently only Trip and Bullrush are used.

Also, your table's power level might be in the way. If you only see Trip and Knockback chosen for their DPS, then I expect your Fighters are specializing in one hit kills. Dead is dead so you would expect the "I attack/cast and deal death/no save just lose" to trump all other more interesting options if you allow it.

As the proud player of many sub optimal characters, including my signature tactically inept wizard, I still have to ask, why would anyone use obviously sub optimal combat maneuvers?

You cannot really fix the system reasonably without allowing full attacks more freely. Full attack as a concept is terrible and probably shouldn't exist. The existence of move actions and casters being able to fight with standard actions makes even a featless, abilityless, reductionist exchange of abilities really caster-favored. Caster moves away, takes AoO, casts a full spell at no penalties. Warrior moves and attacks once. Rince and repeat. Caster, without using stuff like Tumble (let alone actual spells), can negate 2/4 of a level 20 Warrior's attacks (more if he's Hasted or whatever) with a simple move action while still maintaining their full casting capability while being threatened in melee every turn. Essentially, Warrior loses 50%+ of their stuff to game rules and there's nothing the system does for them; it's up to the warrior/monster to pick up a way to move and full attack.

Hell, this manifests even more absurdly in warrior vs. warrior situations: between two identical reductionist (to showcase the barebones of the issues in the system) high level warriors/monsters ends up in a loss for whomever starts the fight. Warrior 1 moves and attacks once. Warrior 2 full attacks. After that they exchange full attacks starting with Warrior 1, but Warrior 2 got the first full attack in. Chances of full attack dealing enough more than the single attack that Warrior 2 is likely to win are rather high. Thus, paradoxically, winning the initiative and acting fast on high levels loses (but before iteratives, initiative gives you an attack's worth of advantage and is likely to win).

This is just...dumb. And it's all solely and completely the fault of full attack. The mechanic is an insult to sensible melee combat and to any semblance of even simple internal system balance. The fact that warriors go from "standard action" on 1-5 to "need full-round" on 6-20 while casters are "standard action" from 1-20 is somehow sad. It's supposed to be the more powerful spells that take a longer time. But nope, all standard actions. The whole mechanic needs to go and it needs to go bad. Not some halfhearted "give bonuses for standing still and fighting", just burn the very idea of "melee full attack" in hellfire, revive its husks in an unbody, unname it and cast its nonexistence into the void.

In earlier editions, once the caster had taken damage, they could no longer cast spells that round. So provoking an AoO to step away was a bad horrible suicidal plan.

However, the full attack fighter duel was still an issue. Which is why most fighters in this scenario would shoot arrows at each other rather than waste their turn closing to melee. Duh! :smallwink: These shaky fighters with their single weapon of choice these days just don't understand how real fighters did it back in the day. If you want to talk about taking things away from the fighter, start by comparing your modern single weapon fighter to the walking arsenal of yore.

OldTrees1

2016-03-29, 12:03 AM

As the proud player of many sub optimal characters, including my signature tactically inept wizard, I still have to ask, why would anyone use obviously sub optimal combat maneuvers?

Um. Huh?

Are you asking, if Fighters are allowed high enough DPS that thier foes only last 1 round each, then why would the Fighter use anything other than DPS? If that is your question, then I refer you back to that 2nd paragraph of mine you quoted where I pointed out that a high enough power level eliminates all combat options beyond deal death/no save just lose. So if the players are selecting those combat manuever feats merely for DPS, then the table's power level is probably too high for interesting combat.

Or are you asking, why would Fighters use the existing suboptimal combat maneuvers(such as grapple)? If that is your question, then I refer you back to that 1st paragraph of mine you quoted where I pointed out that you need to add (more) viable combat maneuvers.

Or did you have a real question that I failed to parse?

Oroul

2016-03-29, 12:54 PM

Oroul

2016-03-29, 01:54 PM

- Let them attack fully at standard action.
I agree. Somewhat. Would make little sense to give some PCs this candy and not monsters. Maybe a trade-off? HP represents a level of exhaustion. At level 6 / 11 / 16, they get to spend 5 / 10 / 15 hit points to do all their attacks.

- Give them Con x 2 in bonus HP for every Warrior-level.
I agree. Somewhat. Again. I would get rid of Hit Dice completely. Or I would give everyone 1d4 + Con Modifier + Flat Amount based on the normal hit dice. Rogues (d6) would get d4+2+Con. Fighters d4+6+Con. Barbarians d4+8+Con.

- Give them all good saves.
The problem is deeper than that. Having at least 1 weaker save makes sense. The problem is that at level 1, a weaker save means 10% difference on a d20. At level 20, it's 30%. Would the "bad saves" stick to a difference of 2 all the way, along with stat buffs, feats and items that bolster saves, the Fighter will be able to keep up. I would also give the choice to the fighter whether Reflex or Will is his second good save.

- Give them selective Spell Resistance 10+Lvl, gaining Magic Immunity at 17 (Spell Resistance is way worse than in AD&D so while they don't have to pay anything for it here, this is probably fine).
Once again, it makes for a poor/lazy narrative. Before making a spell's saving throw, the Fighter may spend Spell Level x 2 hp. If he succeeds, he is unaffected. This way, it'll require some grit instead of just "going Quagmire". "I built up an immunity."

- Make Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization give greater bonuses, probably just roll in the various feats derived off them. Greater Weapon Spec could just be Weapon Supremacy, Greater Weapon Focus could include an extra attack and Weapon Specialization could carry the Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery bonuses.
I agree 100%.

- Give them 4+Int (or if you're me, 10+Int) skill points off a far wider list including Diplomacy, Knowledges, Spot/Listen/Sense Motive.
I agree 100%. I go 4+ in Pathfinder, and the list is shortened there.

- Give them a level-based bonus to the Leadership score as well as any Strategy rolls and battlefield leadership.
I would actually give 2 or 3 choices. Some people don't want to be the leader of men. Some campaigns won't see the use of a catapult. Maybe give a decent bonus when using "squad" tactics? Something along "The fighter and any ally following the fighter's instruction and acting after the fighter but before any foe gains a +2 bonus on any skill roll, attack roll or concentration check. On an attack roll, it also applies on damage. This applies on readied actions. At each X levels, this bonus increase by 2.". This would also add to the flavor of an army commander asking his soldier to ready, aim and fire.

- Let them reduce/ignore max dex bonus on armors with levels, as well as armor-based movement restrictions.
This is the most undervalued ability they gave the fighter in Pathfinder. I love it. 100% agreed upon.

- Give them some way to intercept movement without needing a reach weapon/AoO - immediate action to block an enemy's movement or something.
Oooh, so we've got a commander, and this one will be a bodyguard! I'm loving it!

- Add their level or something to Tumble/Defensive Casting DCs near them and allow them to interrupt casting even if enemy takes some dumb 5' step away without a reach weapon.
100% agreed. Again, for the later, I would suggest a trade-off, such as taking the Fighter's ability to make a 5 foot-step in his own turn. But for the two firsts, 100% agreed upon.

Then repeat the process for all warrior classes (Ranger, Barbarian, and might as well include Pally/Monk too).
Now you've got me thinking... The save thing / trade hp for bonuses mechanics can be applied to those just as well. Why not have the barbarian gain bonuses to attack and damage when someone successfully tumble past them, for exemple? Hurt the barbarian's pride and feel the consequences. Maybe his rage then build up and doesn't come down? He also needs powerful perception bonuses when enraged, gaining abilities like scent that helps him deal with concealed targets, as well as huge gains in mobility, and reduced falling damage, so he can act as reckless as such a character would. Finally, his blows could shatter magic itself shave off rounds of buffs / summons. (Lvl /2, rounded down, minimum 1) of w/e increment the spell is using with each blow.

Bam! Lost 2 hours of Mage Armor.

The Ranger's problem is obvious enough: their bonuses are condition-based. Best case scenario I've seen, his favored enemy applied on 25% of the monsters. At the very least, every ranger gain PF's skirmisher alternate class feature for free. They get to choose which tricks they want just like a rogue with his talents. Then the favored enemy thing becomes flexible. A "5 minutes studying" thing, or, of course, if he tracks a target, it becomes his favored enemy. Combined with some special uses for the stealth skill, this would make a fun character to play.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that casters got way stronger in 3e so the difference would still be vastly greater than it used to be (and it was already pretty big). If anything, all this just showcases just how hard warriors got shafted in 3e. You could give them a page worth of silly buffs and they'd be almost as good as they used to be but everyone else still got much, much better comparatively.
Agreed again. You need to be able to fill your role. If it is to lock down enemy casters and/or protect the glass cannons, be it. But give me the tools to do so.